Marcus Borg frustrates me. There are various reasons for this, but here is a major one. Let's begin with a quote from the man, himself:
"There are four options for thinking about the relationship between Jesus’ own self-awareness and his messianic status.
1. Jesus thought he was the messiah, and he was right.
2. Jesus thought he was the messiah, and he was wrong.
3. Jesus didn’t think he was the messiah, and therefore he wasn’t the messiah.
4. Whether or not Jesus thought he was the messiah, he is the messiah."
Borg writes this in a book titled "The Meaning of Jesus". In it, Borg and N.T. Wright (two Oxford educated theologians who represent the liberal and conservative sides in the Historical Jesus debate) explain their opposing viewpoints when it comes to who Jesus was, and is, and claimed to be. Looking at Borg's list of 4, Wright would be #1 and Borg #4. Anyone who knows me won't be surprised that I am also a #1. And while I don't agree with numbers 2 and 3, I find them to be reasonable, if incorrect. #4, on the other hand, seems like a plot synopsis for Monty Python's "The Life of Brian". The #4 take is that, because enough people claimed Jesus was the Messiah and were shaped by that claim, Jesus was the Messiah in spite of the fact that he...wasn't.
9 comments:
I haven't read the book, but how does Borg define Messiah? What does Borg believe Christ saves us from?
it's certainly more complex than this (it took them an entire book to parse out), but the reader's digest version is that Borg feels that we imbued a man named Jesus with a meaning that we needed him to have and, therefore, he had it. He is the world's most powerful metaphor, in a sense. The Word became flesh and the flesh became metaphor and the metaphor became our reason for living. I just don't buy it. It ultimately means that humans created a helpful myth in order to live by. The made a Messiah out of Brian and, as such, Brian became Messiah. So, we'd have been just as well off worshipping Aslan and meeting in wardrobes for worship.
Maybe I'll check out the book. I'm familiar with some of Wright's works, but not Borg's. I find Borg's position a bit untenable as well given that Christ didn't meet the criteria for what the 1st century Jews had in mind for a Messiah.
Borg doesn't mean that Christ fit the Hebrew fit for Messiah, but that he became what Christians needed him to be and therefore was Messiah. Basically, we made a god in the image we needed him to be and that's ok.
But the first Christians, including the apostles, were Jewish, so why teach Jesus as Messiah when he didn't fulfill the Jews' vision of a Messiah?
Why do we, or why does he? I'm confused by your question.
i've heard arguments for both 1 and 4 in church. i'm with you - i cannot fathom how he would simply exist as the messiah, following the God-ordained plan of his life, without having some clue. i'll have to get my hands on this book; it sounds troubling and challenging in all the right ways. and hey - you can't go wrong with wright.
I meant why would the first Christians, who were Jews, preach Jesus as Messiah when he didn't fit the long-held vision of what the Messiah would be?
Who cares about #2, and #3? If he is not the Messiah we are all wasting our time anyway. That just leaves #1, and #4. #4 is clearly wrong (Matt 16: 16-17), so we are quickly left with #1.
Sometimes those brilliantly smart guys in the ivory towers are just over thinking it.
Post a Comment