I’ll tip my hand right now and say, I love this book. I will also say that, without the background that many of you have in the reading you have done (or are doing) for seminary, I come to it as a relative innocent. This might be a good thing! I look forward to reading your comments and discussion.
Borg and Crossan’s “parabolic reading” initially was a bit of a surprise to me, but a welcome one. Remember that I come from the Big Red State at the Bottom, and was raised by Biblical literalists. But it works for me, at this place in my spiritual life. A comment from a reader at Amazon.com said, “Read it only if you are willing to challenge the prevailing images of the birth of Jesus!! You will never look at a nativity scene in the same way.” Conversely, a comment from reviewer Paul Maier in Christianity Today says, “Borg and Crossan are proposing a third way to interpret the Nativity accounts. They do not treat the passages as historical — as conservatives do — or objects of scorn — as critics of Christianity do…” He goes on to say that “the line between ‘parable’ and ‘myth’ is too faint for faith.”
Not for my faith!
This book, to me, is transcendently beautiful and makes so much sense. I was dazzled, truly, as I read it, by the skillful fitting-together of the Moses and Jesus stories. I kept seeing, in my mind’s eye, a huge and sparkling scaffold sort of structure…the overlay of Jesus’ coming on the Moses beginning, the fulfillment of prophecy.
For those of you who may not have read/finished the book, I include a review/summary below.
Questions:
Many readers have commented that the book is repetitious. Did you find this? If so, did it trouble you?
Did the book challenge your theology? Are you offended? Even if you do not agree with the idea of the birth narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke as “stories” or “parables,” do you appreciate the rest of the scholarship?
Is this book a good read for the beginning of Advent, or not? Does it provide sermon material for any of you? Which parts?
Feel free to make your own comments and take the discussion wherever it leads.
********
From a review by Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat at Spirituality and Practice:
“This sprightly volume is a companion to The Last Week in which Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan presented a day-by-day account of Jesus' entry into Jerusalem and his execution and resurrection. Here they explore the beginning of Jesus' life. The authors speak of the two books as providing bookends that frame the Gospel stories of his public activity, mission, and message.
We are used to thinking about the Christmas Story in terms of Jesus in the manger surrounded by Mary, the animals, the shepherds, and the three kings. Borg and Crossan offer a "parabolic reading" of the infancy narratives which they see as a valid alternative to viewing them as fact or fable. The accounts of Jesus' birth given in Matthew and Luke are very different yet share a common goal of presenting the Gospel story in miniature.
Borg and Crossan explore the genealogies, the visitation by the angels, and the birth in Bethlehem. What is being emphasized here is the messianic role of Jesus: Matthew sees him as the New Moses and Luke views him as a contrast to Caesar Augustus. The last section of the book is the best with its theological treatment of light, fulfillment, and joy. Borg and Crossan condemn the selfishness and the lust for power that characterized the Roman Empire, which saw itself as a light shining in the darkness. The infancy narratives side with the poor and the powerless, those who yearn for peace and surrender themselves to God. Borg and Crossan want us to ponder the anti-imperialist thrust of the birth stories.”
Borg and Crossan’s “parabolic reading” initially was a bit of a surprise to me, but a welcome one. Remember that I come from the Big Red State at the Bottom, and was raised by Biblical literalists. But it works for me, at this place in my spiritual life. A comment from a reader at Amazon.com said, “Read it only if you are willing to challenge the prevailing images of the birth of Jesus!! You will never look at a nativity scene in the same way.” Conversely, a comment from reviewer Paul Maier in Christianity Today says, “Borg and Crossan are proposing a third way to interpret the Nativity accounts. They do not treat the passages as historical — as conservatives do — or objects of scorn — as critics of Christianity do…” He goes on to say that “the line between ‘parable’ and ‘myth’ is too faint for faith.”
Not for my faith!
This book, to me, is transcendently beautiful and makes so much sense. I was dazzled, truly, as I read it, by the skillful fitting-together of the Moses and Jesus stories. I kept seeing, in my mind’s eye, a huge and sparkling scaffold sort of structure…the overlay of Jesus’ coming on the Moses beginning, the fulfillment of prophecy.
For those of you who may not have read/finished the book, I include a review/summary below.
Questions:
Many readers have commented that the book is repetitious. Did you find this? If so, did it trouble you?
Did the book challenge your theology? Are you offended? Even if you do not agree with the idea of the birth narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke as “stories” or “parables,” do you appreciate the rest of the scholarship?
Is this book a good read for the beginning of Advent, or not? Does it provide sermon material for any of you? Which parts?
Feel free to make your own comments and take the discussion wherever it leads.
********
From a review by Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat at Spirituality and Practice:
“This sprightly volume is a companion to The Last Week in which Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan presented a day-by-day account of Jesus' entry into Jerusalem and his execution and resurrection. Here they explore the beginning of Jesus' life. The authors speak of the two books as providing bookends that frame the Gospel stories of his public activity, mission, and message.
We are used to thinking about the Christmas Story in terms of Jesus in the manger surrounded by Mary, the animals, the shepherds, and the three kings. Borg and Crossan offer a "parabolic reading" of the infancy narratives which they see as a valid alternative to viewing them as fact or fable. The accounts of Jesus' birth given in Matthew and Luke are very different yet share a common goal of presenting the Gospel story in miniature.
Borg and Crossan explore the genealogies, the visitation by the angels, and the birth in Bethlehem. What is being emphasized here is the messianic role of Jesus: Matthew sees him as the New Moses and Luke views him as a contrast to Caesar Augustus. The last section of the book is the best with its theological treatment of light, fulfillment, and joy. Borg and Crossan condemn the selfishness and the lust for power that characterized the Roman Empire, which saw itself as a light shining in the darkness. The infancy narratives side with the poor and the powerless, those who yearn for peace and surrender themselves to God. Borg and Crossan want us to ponder the anti-imperialist thrust of the birth stories.”
ps: My dog Josie also loved this book: she ate one corner of it. :P
ps2: I spelt "Jesus'" properly in the title of the post. Because, I know what's right. So there.
I haven't quite finished the book, but probably will do so by the end of the day. The ideas in it were not so new to me, having read other books by Borg and Crossan, and even got to hear Crossan speak once. They express very well my thoughts since I returned to the Christian faith about 35 years ago. Also, I have never been involved in a Biblically literal church and so the idea that some things were not historically accurate was not shocking to me. I feel for people who are raised that way, it seems to me they are set up for losing their faith altogether if it's challenged in some incontrovertible way.
ReplyDeleteI'll address the questions a bit later after I finish the book! Thanks for choosing this one, although I have no sermons to write, it's good to have some foundational material for the ones I'll be hearing.
I started the book too but didn't get very far. Too much work. Thank you for hosting this Mary Beth.
ReplyDeleteI really want to read this but I haven't had the time or energy to read ANYTHING for a while now. I'm finally taking a day off today but am reading a princess (fluff) book. I plan to pick this up next week, though....hoping to see some good conversation here to guide my own reading! Thanks, MB, for hosting in a hectic time.
ReplyDeleteI'm about two-thirds of the way through the book and I love it. Like Auntie Knickers, it's not entirely surprising to me, but it is good reading.
ReplyDeleteI liked the way the authors have layered the Jesus story over the Moses story as well.
I haven't found any part of the book offensive, but I didn't expect to be offended - I've never been a biblical literalist. It honestly doesn't matter to me whether or not the virgin birth was "real" or not.
Jesus is still Jesus regardless.
Off to get supper - more later....
So, I haven't quite finished -- I'm on Ch. 7 -- but here goes with the questions.
ReplyDeleteI did find it a bit repetitious in spots, and not exactly repetitious but hammering home the points a little too hard for me. Also although I liked the paralleling of Jesus and Moses, nevertheless it sort of reminded me of the stuff that was going around after the Kennedy assassination -- you know, two vps named Johnson, Kennedy's secretary was named Lincoln and vice versa, and I'm sure there was more woo-woo stuff like that. But that's just me I guess.
I wasn't offended by anything, but because Mavis in Oz and others remind us now and then, I want to say "wait a minute!" each time they talk about the winter solstice and so on. True, that's the world the Bible was written in and Christianity began in, but we now have as many or (I think) more Christians in the Southern Hemisphere than in the Northern.
I don't have to write sermons (thank goodness!) so that part is not germane to me. Oddly enough, in my old church we had not much preaching during Advent. First Sunday was communion, so there was a "homily" instead of a "real" (20-minute) sermon, especially if we did Hanging the Greens at the same time (a youth activity with them reading). Then there was the Lessons and Carols service which only got a "Meditation" (even shorter than a homily) and the children's Christmas Pageant was pretty much the sermon for that day. So we might have one full-length sermon in Advent. But I suppose others do it differently.
Now I can't remember the fourth question. Maybe I'll come back late tonight, but now I have to watch a video with my spouse. (Foyle's War) Thanks again, Mary Beth, for hosting this. I'm glad to have got the book and will probably pass it on to my younger (non-seminary-educated)daughter after I finish it.
Mary Beth,
ReplyDeleteThank you for reviewing this book! What I find interesting is that those who have commented so far seem to be accepting of the authors' viewpoints.
Yet Borg and Crossan were founding members of the much maligned "Jesus Seminar." Oooooh.
We have come a long way.
If you liked the First Christmas you will also like Robert Miller's Born Divine: The Births of Jesus and Other Sons of God.
I guess the connections made to pre-Enlightenment winter solstice, pagan-type thinking just didn't effect me that much. I sort of take that for granted, given the whole Zoro-Astrian priest theory around the "Three Kings" thing. It was a different time, with different thinking. I don't have a lot of difficulty imagining that.
ReplyDeletePage 126 sort of makes my point from an earlier comment:
"Whether taken literally or metaphorically, a divine conception was their way of asserting an individual's transcendental character and extraordinary gifts to the human world."
In my experience (or maybe it's just my extended family!) what gets people hung up on is the whole "did Mary ever have sex before Jesus' birth, or not?" question.
Borg and Crossan seem to answer "Does it really matter?"
Or perhaps I'm interpreting that differently than others.
I'll add my thanks as well Mary Beth. It's a busy time for this, but I'm enjoying the book quite a bit.
I am glad your grammar was correct! Jesus's - groan!
ReplyDeleteI didn't buy this book. Money is too tight right now, but I'm watching the discussion with interest.
The way I see it the Bible is a narrative text - true stories :)
and John,
ReplyDeleteyes I - for one at least - would read Crossan and Borg with a lot of caution. I think they do have some good things to say - but their basis premise seems to that we cannot trust the Bible.
We might argue well does the virgin birth matter? yes and no. It's part of our creed. So if we accept it to be false surely we need to remove that from our creed. If we remove that (and the resurrection which is what their other book suggests) then I do wonder if they worship the same triniune God as I do.
'nuff said
stumbled across this today and thought to share it
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUQcCvX2MKk&eurl=http://www.johncooper.blogspot.com/&feature=player_embedded
Sorry not to get back to this yesterday, folks; I was in the throes of interviewing (for an Admin Asst for myself, not the other way around!)
ReplyDeleteThanks for the good comments, everyone; I hope they'll continue!
STF, just a note - some RG's are non-creedal. So the Virgin Birth might not be a deal-breaker for them. My sound on home computer is not working so I can't listen to your clip here...will do so later & be back!
Non-creedal over here, so no need to defend the Virgin Birth. If we believe in a God of power and complexity, why do we simplify Jesus to such an extent? And why overlay the conception of a child with notions of sin?
ReplyDeleteBut I am from the progressive wing of the "party," so please feel free to take me with a grain of caution. :-)
thanks MB. I take what you say about the virgin birth :) but if I understand the authors (read elsewhere not in this book) they also question the resurrection.
ReplyDeleteWhile perhaps not all of us are credal (is that the right way to say it) ... I do wonder what then are the non-negotiables of our faith. What is it that glues us together :)
is it belief in a triune God? or what :)
I love your enthusiasm for the book - I love to be challenged too :) - and hope you get to listen to the utube thing - it's very funny (well I thought so :)
blessings xx
oh and Songbird love you anyway :) can't read yourblog nowadays your site is incompatible with mine (or you've blocked me somehow) but you're still in my thoughts and I keep trying just in case :)
Lorna, the questions you ask are what keeps me coming back to RevGals! As the header says: "An Open Table set for a diverse group of people -- women pursuing or discerning a Christian vocation -- and their friends -- all are welcome!"
ReplyDeleteI'm okay with the fact that we don't all believe the same things. We are working to accomplish Christ's mission in the world. That's my bottom line.
I happen to believe in the Virgin Birth, because I believe God can do anything God wants to do. :) I have a more "willing suspension of disbelief" than many, I suppose.
Lorna, I don't know what you're talking about. As far as I know anyone can read my blog. Why would I want to block anyone from reading it?
ReplyDeleteTypepad is a pain where leaving comments is concerned, and I have had other people tell me they have trouble commenting there. Is that what you mean? Sometimes you have to key in random letters, but if you make a comment, print publish and then close the window too quickly, you may not see that you needed to do it. I have run into this on other blogs. If you close the window without doing the verification piece, your comment will not show up.
Here is the address, perhaps you have it wrong: http://revsongbird.typepad.com/
We might argue well does the virgin birth matter? yes and no. It's part of our creed. So if we accept it to be false surely we need to remove that from our creed.
ReplyDeleteI am not against that, although I doubt it will happen. Actually, I see no reason to remove things from historical creeds. That is how our ancestors believed--and some in the present as well. It is all part of our inheritance.
Borg and Crossan are very helpful when they touch on questions of history, metaphor, and faith. Another fine little book that talks on those issues is the new one by James McGrath, The Burial of Jesus.
If we remove that (and the resurrection which is what their other book suggests) then I do wonder if they worship the same triune God as I do.
From your perspective, they may not. From their perspective, they wouldn't say they worship a different God. It is the same God and we interpret and approach faith in different ways.
It isn't a matter of removing the resurrection as it is a matter of interpretation.
I think Borg and Crossan are great for study groups. I did a group with the Borg/NT Wright book they did together. That was cool, because we could read another view and not be quite so threatened. There was room for both.
They were "OK" with me or whoever regardless which one they found more persuasive. : )
Some of that is the issue. People want to be OK with their minister. That is kind of odd, I know, but sometimes we have to give people permission for them to challenge some things they thought were core beliefs and to think differently than their minister.
No matter where their journey takes them, their minister will honor them!
Other clergy ever run into that?
John, I (non-creedal) read the Borg/Wright book or one of them anyway, with a study group, and I was surprised to find myself liking Wright better -- I guess I'm with Mary Beth there.
ReplyDeleteBut here's what came to me last night -- the real, perhaps one could even say, revolutionary difference (no pun intended) of Borg and Crossan's thesis, especially Crossan I think, is their emphasis on putting Jesus over against the Empire -- whatever that might be in one's time and place. As they put it, "peace through victory" vs. "Peace through justice." And this also appears to me to leave out not only the emphasis on personal salvation (as in "going to heaven") but the personal relationship some people of deep faith have with Jesus Christ. This is not a conservative/liberal split necessarily (faithwise anyway!, or even evangelical/mainline. Even the concept of sin is different -- Borg/Crossan seem to focus much more on institutional/national sin (racism, not taking care of the poor, other injustice) than on any kind of individual sin.So what about that? I think this focus can affect not just what our churches do but what kind of ministers we want or need. My congregation (I'm a layperson) is doing the interim thing right now, trying to figure out what are the most important qualities to look for in our next SP. At bottom it seems to me it's really more about what it would be like to have God's Kingdom on earth rather than whether something did or did not "really happen" 2000 years ago. I'd be interested to know what others, Revs and Not-Revs, think!
I agree with Mary Beth that Jesus is the common thread that binds us together as community. How each of us knows Jesus, our Creator and the Holy Spirit is as unique as each of us are as individuals.
ReplyDeleteThe United Church of Canada is not necessarily a "credal" church. In what we call "A New Creed" (Note: NOT "The" New Creed - we collectively accept that over time there will be others, just as the Apostle's Creed replaced the earlier Nicene Creed.)
Anyway, here it is:
"We are not alone,
we live in God's world.
We believe in God:
who has created and is creating,
who has come in Jesus,
the Word made flesh,
to reconcile and make new,
who works in us and others
by the Spirit.
We trust in God.
We are called to be the Church:
to celebrate God's presence,
to live with respect in Creation,
to love and serve others,
to seek justice and resist evil,
to proclaim Jesus, crucified and risen,
our judge and our hope.
In life, in death, in life beyond death,
God is with us.
We are not alone.
Thanks be to God."
No virgin birth in there. For me personally, the virgin birth is not necessary in order for Jesus to be Jesus.
I agree Songbird, that the underlying message as I understood it in my teen years was that any child born because his/her parents had normal healthy sexual relations was a child born in sin. It never made any sense to me, still doesn't.
Which of course, has changed baptism over time. In the UCCan, we name and claim that we are ALL born in a state of love, not sin. Therefore baptism becomes not a washing away of sin, but of dying to one life and becoming reborn to another ... of movement from the darkness of the world into the Light of Christ. It becomes a sacrament of naming and knowing oneself as a child of the Light.
Thanks again MB!
I guess I should add that the reason we are not a "credal" church is that not every church uses this creed during every worship - it is not a requirement.
ReplyDeleteAlso, one does not have to profess belief in every part of it in order to be baptized or confirmed.
...is their emphasis on putting Jesus over against the Empire -- whatever that might be in one's time and place. As they put it, "peace through victory" vs. "Peace through justice."
ReplyDeleteYes! Borg said that in his classes regardless how we understand the historicity of resurrection, the question is what does it mean and particularly what does it mean to follow the risen Christ in a context of empire-building.
And that is the same for the incarnation as well.
One line from Crossan changed my thinking a while ago. The scandal is not that Jesus is Son of God. Many characters in that time (including the emperor--peace through victory) claimed that title.
The scandal is that Jesus (peace through justice) is Son of God.
Now, what does that mean for us?
Well said John - thanks!
ReplyDelete"Son of God" - well, I have some congregation members who would tell you that Jesus is the Son of God (capital S) while the rest of us are sons and daughters (small case) of God and that would be enough for them. I have other members who have such a low Christology that the term itself gives them the willies.
Personally, I'm okay with the Mystery of it all. Yes, for me Jesus is indeed the Son of God. How did he come to be? Why at that particular time in history?
The details are less important than the revelations/teachings of Jesus in scripture and the continued story that carries on through each of us.
Just as I cannot and will not ever understand what really happens at the communion table and font, I also will have to leave some of the Jesus story to the Great Mystery that will not be revealed on this side of glory.
Oh SB - it was tongue in cheek. Sorry for any offence. Of course you haven't blocked me but I do have the address right
ReplyDeletehttp://revsongbird.typepad.com/songbird_365/2008/08/you-give-me-fervor.html#comments
works
but this http://revsongbird.typepad.com/ doesn't
go figure!
and I can't use main ...it just whizzes round and round until page load error comes up.
I had similar probs with MB and Sally but they got sorted. Your's just doesn't like me. It's a shame and I love what you write. You have a lot of talent -and while I don't always agree theologically you do make me think and I love that.
John, I like your approach in this "I did a group with the Borg/NT Wright book they did together. That was cool, because we could read another view and not be quite so threatened. There was room for both." ... but have to say that my point was there's no point in reciting the creed if we don't believe it. That's all.
Auntie K. love that creed :)
you also wrote "I agree Songbird, that the underlying message as I understood it in my teen years was that any child born because his/her parents had normal healthy sexual relations was a child born in sin. It never made any sense to me, still doesn't."
but isn'tthe virgin birth not about that at all -but rather to show the paternity of Jesus was NOT Joseph :) at least that's one way of looking at it:)
For the record I'm not as much interested in the historical Jesus as the Resurrected Jesus. And that's where I run into problems with some of Crossan and Borg's deconstruction. I think it's really important to be disciples in the here and now too-
but wasn't quite sure what you (john) meant by the distinction
The scandal is not that Jesus is Son of God. Many characters in that time (including the emperor--peace through victory) claimed that title.The scandal is that Jesus (peace through justice) is Son of God.
thanks for the discussion folks. :)
Sue - I am swooning over that creed. I LOVE it.
ReplyDeleteHow would I ever know about such cool things without you folks!?
oh and this fits very well too
ReplyDeletehttp://asbojesus.wordpress.com/2008/11/21/594/
night everyone ...
'Nite stf - actually, the creed that was posted is from the United Church of Canada - I posted it, as well as the other quote you mentioned in your earlier post.
ReplyDeleteHey See Through,
ReplyDeleteGood thoughts.
I think what Crossan meant is that we tend to think the miracle is that a man (Jesus) is divine.
Whereas in its original context, that wasn't much of a miracle as lots of people especially emperors claimed divinity. Emperors were given this title (Son of God) because of their great military conquests and victories.
Here comes the Gospel of Mark saying that Jesus, a nobody, is the Son of God. No military conquests, no roads built. Just a peasant. How does he deserve this title?
Thus the scandal. The gospel writers and the early church saw in him true divinity, revealed through peace by way of non-violent love leading to justice.
The question is where is your God?
The one who crucifies or the one crucified?
sorry Sue ...(read too fast and forgot who said what. My bad!)
ReplyDeleteit's a lovely creed and I'm glad you shared it.
interesting thoughts John. not sure if you final questions were rhetorical or not.
oh and Sue :)
ReplyDeleteyou write "No virgin birth in there. For me personally, the virgin birth is not necessary in order for Jesus to be Jesus. "
I agree. (though as MB writes I have no problem believing it either)
But my question then (if we are willing to dismiss the Bible's statement that Mary was a virgin) remains : what are the tenets of our faith?
John states "It isn't a matter of removing the resurrection as it is a matter of interpretation. "
What interpretation?
Either we accept the incarnation and the resurrection or we reject them. The danger (as I see it) in Crossan and Borg's premises is that we can make the incarnation and the resurrection something else ...
Do we - or do we not -worship the incarnate and risen Jesus? ... do we worship "the Word made flesh,
to reconcile and make new" and "proclaim Jesus, crucified and risen,
our judge and our hope." (as the creed in Canada states)or not?
I know this book isn't about the resurrection - it's about the First Christmas - but IMHO we need to view the incarnation (God made man) in the light of the atonement too. They go hand in hand. Surely?
Hmmm.....perhaps it is the word "tenets" that I'm struggling to understand. stf, are you referring to the "non-negotiables" of the faith? The requirements for the rites of the denomination? I guess I'm just puzzled there, because we really don't have any in our denomination.
ReplyDeleteI have at least a half-dozen Unitarians who are our best adherents. They believe in the uniqueness of Jesus as a human being and seek to (and do) live out his teachings without the need to ascribe to a belief they can't live with - such as the bodily resurrection.
I'm cool with their presence in our midst because they constantly raise the most important questions for all of us: What do we believe?
I tend to have a much higher Christology than my unitarian friends (obviously), but I also believe in the humanity of Jesus. I believe that he had all the same qualities and quirks that we all do. I believe that he laughed and told bad jokes and that after a long day, fell asleep before his head hit the ground he was sleeping on. Most of the time, he probably didn't smell very good, and spent quite a bit of time feeling hungry.
I believe that WE incarnate Jesus when we recognize him in the marginalized and hurting people around us. When we stop doing that, and focus on putting up hurdles that people must spiritually leap in order to be "in" - then we stop being his best hope for us.
I don't believe in a bodily resurrection. Yes, I believe that the disciples saw Jesus after his resurrection from the dead. No, I don't believe he was the same as he had been before the cross.
The incarnation, at least as I see it, happens in each of us every day.
Thanks to everyone for this thoughtful discussion!
ReplyDeleteSee Through,
ReplyDeleteThanks for keeping me (us?) honest!
The question is where is your God?
The one who crucifies or the one crucified?
...interesting thoughts John. not sure if you final questions were rhetorical or not.
No so much rhetorical as reflective on our experience of following Christ today, the decisions we make, how we understand God acting in the world...in short where do we stand in regards to living in a country that is seen by much of the world as an Empire and through its rhetoric and use of symbols is a "Christian" empire.
This is the unsettling scandal of the gospel that I think Borg and Crossan are inviting us to consider in our context.
In what sense do we as Americans and Christians follow the crucified one or follow Empire's directive in crucifying others?
Hence, where is your God?
Is God tortured in Guantanamo for the good of the Empire or is God the Empire doing the torturing?
That is but one illustration.
Borg and Crossan challenge us not to focus so much on ontological beliefs about divinity and humanity as to matters of where we see Christ (God) in our world today.
And they do that by taking us behind the gospel texts to look at the historical, social, and political situation when the gospels were written and in the time of Jesus.