The meaning of Jesus (3)

Borg and Wright begin by debating how and how much we can know about Jesus. Their arguments focus on what sources we can use and the way in which it is legitimate to use them. This debate is foundational to discussion about Jesus. Decisions made here either open up or close off sections of the New Testament as canonically received and radically alter what can confidently be said about Jesus historically. Borg and Wright make different decisions and the differing amounts of New Testament data drawn on, as a result, affect the Jesus portraits they paint. One significant difference in their respective portraits is that of Jesus’ self-understanding.

Wright suggests that the different types of knowledge of Jesus gained through history and faith, need to be brought together. In the historical field, his argument is that as much material as possible should be brought into play without preconception. From examination of this material a hypothesis is developed. This is tested against the criteria “of getting in the data, doing so with appropriate simplicity, and shedding light on other areas of research”. In relation to Jesus’ self-understanding, Wright’s hypothesis is that Jesus’ beliefs were those of a first-century Jew i.e. he was “committed to the coming kingdom of Israel’s god”. However, Jesus differed from most first-century Jews in believing that the kingdom of Israel’s God was “coming in and through his own work”. Examining all of Jesus’ implicit and explicit statements, stories and acts in the context of first-century Israel leads to this hypothesis.

If the hypothesis stands up historically, then it also needs to be tested against the knowledge that comes by faith. Wright believes that, as Christians, we are in a continuing relationship with the person of Jesus. The test is then, to what extent does the person that emerges from the hypothesis accord with the person known through faith.

Wright supports this approach on the basis that:

• it protects against undue distortion of the hypothesis by personal preconceptions. The inclusion of all the available data introduces more puzzles or alternative theories into the process. The difficulty of developing a hypothesis that genuinely addresses these issues is likely to ensure that easy conclusions on the basis of preconceptions are not made. Developing a hypothesis that includes all the evidence also means that problems cannot be solved in advance by bracketing out data on the basis of pre-determined assumptions;
• it applies the method of hypothesis and verification that is considered valid within scientific research; and
• bringing the two fields of knowledge together counters the split world of Enlightenment thought in a way that is consistent with the unity of Biblical thought.

Borg cannot accept this position. He argues that Wright is “setting aside two hundred years of scholarly work on the sources” in arguing for the inclusion of all the data, and risking the incorporation of data that is not evidence. He claims to be worried by Wright’s use of faith knowledge but also argues that truth cannot be reduced to factuality and views modernity as narrow for holding this to be the case.

Borg views many of the Gospel stories as history metaphorised. That is, these stories are not historically factual reports but, as metaphors, they tell do us what Jesus is like, and this information is true. Therefore, it is not essential for the gospel stories to be grounded in particular historical events for them to be true. Nor is it essential whether or not Jesus thought he was the Messiah. For Borg, in his context of higher education and cross-cultural studies, this understanding of the gospel materials represents an intellectually credible approach to which his audience can relate. Borg argues that the “older tradition of Christianity has ceased to be compelling for millions of people … They find that if they must take the Bible literally, they cannot take it at all”.

Borg argues that the Gospels require us to read them in this way. They are part of a developing tradition about Jesus within the early church and contain early and late material, which can be identified and separated. Early material gets us closer to the historically factual words and actions of Jesus. Early materials found in more than one source are more reliable still. Using this core of reliable materials, a hypothesis can be built against which the remaining material can be sifted. Later material or material from one source can only be considered as historically factual if it fits the hypothesis. All other material must be viewed as history metaphorised.

Wright argues against this approach in two main ways. First, it doesn’t work. There is no unanimity among scholars about which material is reliable. Proponents of this approach produce very different portraits precisely because they do not agree which material is to be included in the controlling hypothesis. Second, the approach makes assumptions about the outcome of the investigation before considering any of the evidence. The assumption is made that much of the material is later than Jesus’ lifetime and an unnecessary methodology (which doesn’t work) created to identify and extract these materials from the equation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johnny Cash - Personal Jesus.