"A second factor affecting the historical judgment about whether a story is memory or metaphor involves our sense of the limits of the spectacular, of what is possible. That is, are there some things that never happen? Our sense of the limits of the possible is a "metahistorical" factor, one that is not historical itself but that affects our historical judgment. To illustrate with a postbiblical story, St. Denis was a Christian in Paris beheaded by the Romans during a persecution in the middle of the third century. After his execution, St. Denis picked up his severed head and walked several miles to his church where he sang the Mass. Would any amount of evidence convince us that this happened? Or would most of us say, "Oh, I don't think things like that ever happen?" My point is that all of us have some sense of the limits of the possible, even though we might disagree about what those limits are.
To apply this to the gospels, does it ever happen that somebody can feed five thousand people with five loaves and two fish? Does it ever happen that somebody can walk on the sea? Does it ever happen that somebody can change a large quantity of water into wine? If I became convinced that things like this sometimes happen, I could entertain the possibility that Jesus did things like this.
But if not, then as a historian I cannot conclude that Jesus did--unless I assume that Jesus had supernatural powers unlike any other human being. But to make this assumption would be to assume that Jesus is not human like the rest of us, which is contrary to the central Christian claim that Jesus is a figure of history was fully human. And if one were to say, "Ah, but Jesus was also fully divine, and that's why he could do things like this," one might respond that a human who has unique divine powers is not human like the rest of us. Moreover, if Jesus could do things like this because he was divine, why didn't he do a greater number of spectacular deeds? There certainly was human need.
Thus I treat the most spectacular stories in the gospels as metaphorical narratives and not as memory. ...I conclude by emphasizing once again that metaphorical narratives can be powerfully truthful, even though not literally factual."
Borg did not mention in this passage (although he does elsewhere) that Jesus rising from the dead should also be considered as a spectacular deed and therefore metaphorical and not historical. My point in quoting this passage at length is that Borg is orthodox in his views. Christian orthodoxy does not affirm that Jesus literally rose from the dead. To do so, denies his humanity which is a central tenet of our creeds. Continuing to claim that these supernatural miracles (including Jesus rising from the dead) are historical is superstition, not orthodox faith.
The fundamentalist movement started in reaction to higher criticism. Fundamentalism is an attempt to move us back to a pre-modern world. While fundamentalism likes to claim the label orthodoxy it is simply not the case. It is the claim that non-historical stories are historical. To claim that Jesus rose from the dead is no different than claiming that God literally created the world in six days, that Moses split the sea, that Noah gathered all animals of Earth on his ark two by two, and that during Joshua's battle the sun stood still.
The church and its clergy need to be clear. Fundamentalism is a heresy, a distortion. The way ahead for orthodox Christian faith is to be clear on how we read the Bible and understand the person and work of Jesus. We do our people no favors when we don't help them deal with this and instead trot out apologists for superstition.
Here is another quote along these lines from James Tabor in his book, The Jesus Dynasty:
"Historians are bound by their discipline to work within the parameters of a scientific view of reality. Women do not get pregnant without a male--ever. So Jesus had a human father, whether we can identify him or not. Dead bodies don't rise--not if one is clinically dead--as Jesus surely was after Roman crucifixion and three days in a tomb." pp. 233-234
The Talpiot Tomb documentary is a teaching moment. If we do our work well we will help our congregations appreciate, affirm, and live the Resurrection as a theological, metaphorical truth-- and let Jesus's body rest in peace.
Again, whether this tomb did contain the final remains of Jesus is to be seen. Whether it did or didn't will be based on historical and scientific parameters not superstitious ones.
I've been reading a book that is 10-or-so years old, "Honest to Jesus", by Robert Funk. He makes an extremely interesting point that the doctrine of a physical resurrection (as opposed to the idea that people had visionary experiences of an exalted Jesus) emerged for political reasons as much as, if not more than, political ones. It was important to have a physical resurrection because only those who allegedly saw this take place were able to establish themselves as part of an inner circle of authority, which they could then pass on via apostolic succession. This created brokered, rather than unbrokered, access to God--and of course the brokers were the ones in hierarchies of power within the church--and it was especially important to make this point as Gnosticism arose and served as a threat to the power structure.
ReplyDeleteThere is a quote in that book that I should dig up where he says something prescient that relates to the alleged finding of Jesus's bones. But he does make the point that it shouldn't matter to Christians whether Jesus was physically resurrected. I believe that it didn't matter to Paul, since I think the evidence is clear that he did not believe that Jesus was physically resurrected. But then, he was one of those people who saw Jesus in a vision and thus in his own way served as a threat to the idea that witnesses his physical resurrection serves as the transmitters of power.
Honest to Jesus is one of my favorites. It was a church member who introduced me to it. Great book. I should read it again.
ReplyDeleteThe Jesus Seminar is now working on the apostleship tradition. Notice how Paul in his letters is always trying to claim that he is an apostle, even though he wasn't with the historical Jesus. He always seems to be fighting to defend his title. Why did the gospel writers have lists of apostles anyway? Control? Perhaps.
No women are listed as apostles in the gospels although it would seem Mary Magdalene would qualify. Paul claims that women are apostles (Junia).
I am looking forward to where the Jesus Seminar goes with this...
"The church and its clergy need to be clear. Fundamentalism is a heresy, a distortion"
ReplyDeleteI think thats great. Fundamentalists spend plenty of time telling everyone else that they are heretical. Turn the tables.
Fundamentalism is a heresy? Orthodox faith never claimed a bodily resurrection?
ReplyDeleteDo you say this out of ignorance or insolence?
* John underscores Jesus' resurrection in a body with physical form in two post passion narratives;
* a panoply of confessions from the Bible;
* Irenaeus confesses a bodily resurrection and ascension in the 160s;
* the Apostles Creed places Jesus' passion and resurrection in history by lumping it with Pilate's reign - then insisting on a resurrection of the body / flesh / carnis / sarkos
* Calvin, in the Consensus Tigurinus says that the ascended body of Christ is physical and thus locally removed from the sacramental elements
* the Scots Confession puts it as strongly as it can by sayin he was resurrected and ascended in "the selfsame body which was born of the virgin, was crucified, dead, and buried, and which did rise again" (which is what the rest claim or assume, but is here set forth explicitly).
Tell you what, John. How about you put me on trial at the June presbytery for being a fundamentalist. In turn, I'll ask you to defend your position on the physical resurrection of Jesus. You can even go after me first.
It'll be great! (You did enjoy Gawain and the Greene Knight, didn't you?)
Got a rise out of Chris.
ReplyDeleteSir Gawain and the Greene Knight certainly is the time period for your theology...
That's not fair, John.
ReplyDeleteThe Westminster Confession wasn't written until three centuries later. At least give me some credit for being early modern. After all, I hold more closely to the 1789 American revision than the original 1648/49 ratification that took place across the drink.
So, are you gonna call Rich to set up the trial or not?
Yes, but John, getting a rise out of your self-appointed inquisitor in residence is not exactly a difficult task to accomplish. :)
ReplyDeleteInquisitor? I haven't accused him of heresy once. The only time I've even used the word was in describing how a particular theological maneuver would reiterate the Marcionite heresy.
ReplyDeleteHeretics are so deemed by proper ecclesiastical authorities. The most I could say is that I suspect his views are heretical, or that he's saying things that sound exactly like heresies.
That's why I'd be happy to defend my orthodoxy before a properly authoritative court of our church as long as he would be bold enough to do the same.
However, since John was not particularly forthcoming about his views in his faith statement, I sincerely doubt that he would be willing to vindicate his views so publicly.
You are taking me too literally, not surprisingly for a fundamentalist I suppose. I think you've made your purpose for leaving comments in John's blog quite clear in previous entries. Your intended role is hardly so benign as a matter of engaging in friendly discussion with John; you seem to have appointed yourself as one whose job it is to criticize or to correct his "errors". It is this in this self-appointed capacity as the constant criticizer and corrector that I find rather amusing and predictable. It is therefore hardly surprising that one of John's postings "gets a rise" out of you. That is as predictable as the sun rising in the morning.
ReplyDeleteWhich is to say, in John's case, I think he can expect a sort of Spanish inquisition. And if you want further clarification on what that refers to, I believe you can find the corresponding Monty Python sketch on YouTube.
Mystical,
ReplyDeleteI tried early on to engage in rational discourse with John because he claimed to want a rational faith. When that broke down consistently - normally through the intellectual canard of postmodernism - I realized that he didn't have serious problems with understanding. Rather, the problem lay in the will.
You may think it arrogant for me to post on this blog - setting myself up as judge, jury, and executioner in your view. What I think is the height of arrogance is how John and his ilk (Spong, Borg, Westar, etc.) set themselves over and above the faith of historic Christianity, then have the gall to pretend as though their disbelief should in no way garner ridicule (especially among those who make their living outside of the academy).
There are people who read this blog that do have questions. I write for them. Many others who read it are already convinced of the spurious nature of Christian claims and thus read this blog to join in John's ridicule of the benighted fundamentalists that are holding Christianity back from becoming scientific hindubuddhistianity. Of course, you can slam those fundies all you want and never hear a charge of mean-spiritedness. But ask John why he says he's a good Presbyterian when he not only believes but endorses and teaches beliefs antitheitical to the vows of office he took, and suddenly you're painted as a disfunctional personality trying to make up for some childhood inadequacy.
If I had a comfy chair, I'd make you sit in it!
The internal politics of the Presbyterian Church are none of my business, since I am not a Presbyterian. And I have no problem with honest disagreement in the comments of a blog, but I find it more fruitful and rewarding if it is in the spirit of dialog, rather than that of missionary zeal.
ReplyDeleteBut it is also true that we are all guests here in John's blog, and he doesn't have to respond to anything any one of us says, nor does he have to consent to be "engaged" in a discussion just because someone insists or demands it. It is amazing how often people who write comments in others' blogs assume that they are participating in a message board discussion forum, and additionally claim the right to insist on responses to what they write. Some blog authors may encourage that attitude, but others do not, and it is probably not a good idea to assume that every blogger views their blog as a public message board.
The notion that it is somehow "arrogant" for someone to hold and express differing ideas speaks for itself. I wonder if John hangs out in other people's blogs and leaves comments attacking what the blogger has to say. Then again, maybe John is more tolerant of diversity of opinion than his detractors are. (Big surprise there.)
As for the self-appointed responsibility (or is that God-appointed?) of using John's blog as a means of saving those great unwashed and unwitting visitors who might drop by from being influenced by what he says, all I can say is, it must be a terrible onus to carry on one's shoulders. Being ever vigilant to rescue the world from dangerous ideas that might float other people's way--seems like that would hardly leave much time for leading an ordinary life.
misty,
ReplyDeleteIt's almost as heavy a burden as demythologizing christianity for the brainless fundies, unable to wrest themselves from a preCopernican worldview.
Not everyone who has an opinion, even a strongly felt one, is on a proselytizing mission to rescue the world. I think that those who are on just such a mission themselves may sometimes have a difficult concept grasping that not everyone approaches these issues in the same way that they do.
ReplyDelete