Continuing our summary/review of Tom Wright and Marcus Borg's discussion... This book, by the way, won the "Best General Interest Book of 1999" award from the Association of Theological Booksellers.

Tom Wright, the more conservative scholar, says of the Gospel records 'This is close to what happened'. Marcus Borg: 'It got embellished along the way.'

The essence of their differences has to do with historiography (the principles, theories, or methodology of scholarly historical research) and presuppositions. Historiography asks: 'What really happened - then and since?' Presuppositions have to do with the biases (everyone has them!) we bring to the discussion. Like: 'Since the Enlightenment can we simply accept ancient miracle stories as supernatural events, or is there some other explanation?'

To anticipate one of my major concerns: what would a bishop living in Durham, England or a scholar who is 'Distinguished Professor of Religion and Culture in the Philosophy Department at Oregon State University' know about how traditional cultures - especially in this case Ancient Near Eastern cultures - transmit oral history and traditions? Have they spent any time in/with traditional cultures to find out? I have other concerns, but that's my principal one.

Marcus Borg says 'two statements about the nature of the gospels are crucial for grasping the historical task: (1) They are a developing tradition. (2)

They are a mixture of history remembered and history metaphorized' (p. 4). We'll revisit these ideas later.

Borg discusses Jesus as 'Jewish mystic and Christian messiah' under five headings: Jesus as spirit person, healer, wisdom teacher, social prophet, and movement initiator. Because he does not believe the 'pre-Easter Jesus' thought of himself as the messiah, Borg's preoccupation with Jesus is mainly in nonmessianic categories.

Borg writes that In the earliest gospel, Mark, there is only one occasion when Jesus-as-messiah comes up: in the famous interchange between Jesus and his disciples as Caesarea Philippi (Mark 6:45-52). Jesus asked 'Who do you say that I am?' Peter reported what others had been saying, 'You are the messiah'. What follows is enigmatic: Jesus neither accepted nor rejected Peter's affirmation, but instead sternly told them not to tell anyone else.

Matthew adds a second christological affirmation: 'the son of the living God.' Then Matthew has Jesus commending Peter and explicitly affirming Jesus' own special status: 'Blessed are you Simon... for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven' (Matthew 16:16-17). Borg's comment: 'In my judgment, historical caution requires that we be skeptical that any of this goes back to Jesus' (p. 57).

More tomorrow...

Shalom!

Rowland Croucher