Also, Buber is awesome. I read it in undergrad and did not understand most of it… but what I did understand was awesome

Lastly, we miss you! I’m sure you will do great at your CPE.

Sure Borg affirms the traditional creeds as expressions of a later tradition that developed around Jesus. But he is essentially saying through this book that the creedal formulations is not the real Jesus. He does not internalize the creeds as a true expression of who God is and what God has done through Jesus. Earlier interpreters (i.e the creeds) have. I think there is a big difference between saying “that’s what I believe” and “I affirm that this is what Christians have developed through the centuries to describe Jesus.”

On your last point. I agree that it is difficult to establish historical events and the like. That is why I get nervous when writers such as Borg (and also Crossan) make statements like, “this was the development of a later tradition in the text.” Because it is so hard to date and there are both sides of the issue I can’t see how such statements can be made with certainty. I guess I am more mad at Crossan for doing it than Borg. Borg, in my opinion, gives better justification. I also realize that the task of history is to wrestle with such issues.

Thanks for bringing these points up.

Also, a lot depends on one’s definition of “orthodox Christianity.” Borg, for example, affirms the traditional Christian creeds as being valid expressions of faith for Christians in the first few centuries of the common era. Unless I’m misreading him, I think he would say that just like we attempt to understand scripture by placing it in its cultural and historical context and, to the greatest extent possible, examine it through the eyes of its original audience, so too should we examine the creeds in their own context.

One last point, establishing the historicity of an event can be difficult 20 or 200 years after the fact, not to mention 2000 years later. Not to suggest anything ridiculous (i.e. that all historical claims are equally valid) but just to observe that attempting to do so is an extremely complex process, and one can often find compelling arguments on both sides of an issue.

Do you like Walter Wink? He draws on him quite a bit in a couple of chapters.