The Last Week, by Marcus Borg & John Dominic Crossan

The Last Week, by Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan
Narrated by John Pruden

The Last Week brings to light the historical meaning (as Borg and Crossan see it) of the last week of Jesus as told in the Gospel of Mark. This book was very interesting, though lacked the power of The First Christmas, which I reviewed previously. The main reason for this difference is that The First Christmas told the story of Christmas by comparing all the Gospel stories, as opposed to focusing on just one. Borg and Crossan chose to focus on Mark because he’s the only one to have described the entire week in detail. However it made for a much less interesting, and more repetitive, book. Another difference was that in The First Christmas, Borg and Crossan focused a lot on why they thought some passages were parable rather than literal, and why others should be taken literally. The Last Week focused a lot less on this subject, and spent the bulk of the book simply interpreting the historical background of Mark’s Gospel for our modern times. This, of course, is a very interesting subject, but the lack of that added myth vs. literal aspect made for a much less meaty book.

All in all, I’d say each of these books has its own merits, and which you read would depend on what you’re looking for. Borg and Crossan are knowledgeable and well-researched historical Jesus scholars. So if you take the Bible quite literally and are looking to understand the historical background of the Passion of Jesus, The Last Week is the book for you. However, if you find the little “inconsistencies” of the Gospels interesting, then The First Christmas is the book for you. If you are at all interested in the subject, I would recommend one or the other (or both) of these books.

The First Christmas, by Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan

The First Christmas: What the Gospels really Teach About Jesus’ Birth
by Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan
Narrated by John Pruden

In this fascinating little book, Borg and Crossan explore the historical meaning behind the birth-of-Jesus story. They first point out the factual differences between Matthew’s and Luke’s versions of the birth story. Then they explain how, after the Enlightenment, many people want everything to be either literally true or false. Many Christians are in denial of the “factual inconsistencies” in the Bible, and the ones who are aware of the inconsistencies often feel a little uncomfortable and don’t know quite what to think about them. Borg and Crossan point out that the stories are meant to be parables. They were not meant to be taken as literal truth. They explore a deeper truth within the limits of historical culture.

Borg and Crossan study (practically line-by-line at times) each birth story separately, explaining the cultural, literary, or mythological meaning of the Biblical text. For instance, in his story of the Magi and Herod, Matthew was bringing to mind parallels to the Moses story in his Gospel. Like Pharaoh, Herod wanted to kill all the baby boys because he’d heard that one was born who would overthrow him. As with the parents of Moses, Jesus’ parents had divine inspiration to have a child despite great obstacles – in the case of Moses’ parents, they had to have faith that their son wouldn’t die; in the case of Joseph, he had to have faith that Mary was yet a virgin. Against all odds, both boys survived and became great leaders. Such parallels to the Moses story would help justify to first century Christians the divinely-inspired leadership of Jesus.

I really enjoyed learning about the cultural reasons for the choices Matthew and Luke made while writing their gospels. At times, I felt the book didn’t translate well to audio, though, because the authors went into great detail in their lists of gospel references (for instance, every reference of to Jesus as “light,” and what the word “light” meant in that sense). The lists didn’t translate well to audio since they were something I would normally either skim over or use as a Bible study guide. Neither could be done in an audiobook. Regardless, I’m glad I had the chance to listen to this book, and I hope to read their first book The Last Week. I’ll save that one for Easter, though.

Did Jesus believe the end of the world was nigh?

Week 2 of Practicing Tolerance in a Religious Society was a lot of work for me, mostly because it was essay week. The assignment was to read and compare Jesus’ prophecy of the destruction of the Temple in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. In these very similar passages, Jesus prophesied the destruction of the Temple, war, and many false prophets coming in his name. We were supposed to describe how these passages helped the early Christians make sense of the world around them, keeping in mind that the New Testament was written a half-century or more after Jesus’ death (i.e. around the time of the Temple’s destruction in 70CE).

This was a difficult topic for me because I’m still struggling a lot with the difference between the spiritual Jesus that I was brought up to worship as God, and the historical Jesus who was most likely an apocalyptic preacher. (Though I have decided to keep these two versions of Jesus separate in my mind, for now.) I took the time to read The Eschatology of Jesus, by Dale C. Allison.

The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, Volume 1

Chapter 8: The Eschatology of Jesus, by Dale C. Allison

Allison’s essay addresses the controversy of whether or not the historical Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet – a phenomenon which was common at the time of Jesus. The reason this question is so controversial, despite the strong apocalyptic message of Jesus’ speeches, is because it would suggest 1) that Jesus was just one among many apocalyptic prophets and 2) that Jesus was wrong, since the end of the world proved not to be so nigh, after all.

Allison surveys current arguments for and against Jesus’ eschatology. He then demonstrates that the New Testament has undeniable eschatological imagery and phrasing. He points out that although it’s possible that the authors of the New Testament had eschatological leanings when Jesus did not, there’s no reason to believe that they mistakenly, or intentionally, changed Jesus’ message; therefore, it is very likely that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher.

As I thought about my assignment, however, I pondered the possibility that perhaps the authors wrote the passages about the destruction of the Temple after the fact, and then attributed the words to Jesus in order to help make sense of the tragic destruction of Jerusalem by Rome. Did Jesus really foresee the destruction of the Temple? Or were the authors of the Gospels trying to provide spiritual guidance to their people during a time of great turmoil?

In the end, I decided that, since this prophecy isn’t the only eschatological speech Jesus made, he was very likely an apocalyptic preacher – regardless of whether he believed the end of the world was nigh. I plan to read some more on this subject before fully making up my mind, though.

What does everyone else think? Was Jesus an apocalyptic preacher? Did he believe the end of the world was coming in the near future? Were certain passages of the Gospels written by people who retroactively attributed a prophecy of the Temple’s destruction to Jesus?

Jesus, the Middle Eastern Storyteller, by Gary M. Burge

Jesus, the Middle Eastern Storyteller, by Gary M. Burge

Genre: Ancient History / Bible Studies

Reason for reading: This year, I’m studying Jesus and the New Testament. This book was loaned to me by Elizabeth, a friend from work. It was given to her by a friend because the author was her professor.

Synopsis: In this short book, Burge guides the reader to interpret Jesus as a storyteller – a teacher who uses allegory and hyperbole to make important points within his own social context. The book is filled with beautiful pictures and several examples of Jesus’ use of hyperbole to teach an important point. Burge provides historical and cultural insight into what Jesus may have been talking about when telling his parables.

My thoughts: I was surprised at how fun this book was. Although it’s quite short, and half of it was pictures, it made me look at Jesus from a interesting new perspective. Of course, I already knew that Jesus used parables and hyperbole to make points, but it was really interesting to read Burge’s cultural analysis of those parables.

The story I found most enlightening was Burge’s interpretation of the fig tree incident. For those of you who don’t recall, the story is related in Mark 11:12-14, 11:20-25; and in Matthew 21:18-22. In my unromantic version, Jesus is hungry, and he sees a fig tree by the road. It’s not fig season, so the tree isn’t bearing any fruit. Jesus curses the poor tree and it withers. I’ve always disliked that story. Despite my cousin Steve’s insistence that fig trees don’t have feelings, and I shouldn’t take the story so literally, I always felt sorry for the tree. Why’d Jesus curse a tree just because it wasn’t bearing fruit in the off-season? (And, yes, Mark clearly states that it wasn’t the season for figs.)

Burge pointed out that the fig tree represented the Jewish state and religion. Throughout the New Testament Jesus repeatedly pointed out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, who made a public spectacle of themselves fasting, praying, and giving alms; but who did not keep the spirit of religion in their hearts. They prayed for the approval of the people, not for the approval of God. Thus, they were not “bearing fruit.”

Of course, I realize that this insight about the fig tree and the Pharisees is not uniquely Burge’s – in fact I found some interesting articles on the subject after reading Burge’s book (here’s a good one). What’s important is that Jesus, the Middle Eastern Storyteller introduced me to some interesting interpretations that I could look into in more detail later. In that way, this book was a valuable resource for me.

How do we know about Jesus?

As I pointed out in my New Years Resolutions, this year I have decided to explore my relationship with Jesus. Who is Jesus, and what does he mean to me? This has always been a sticky question that I avoided. My first book in my quest is: The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, by Marcus Borg and N. T. Wright. Borg is a liberal Jesus historian and Wright a conservative one. The book is a set of essays which outlines an ongoing discussion that these two friends have continued for years.

In the introduction, they list three target audiences: first, they hope that this book will be of interest to Christians and non-Christians alike.

“We both believe strongly that what we say about Jesus and the Christian life belongs, not in a private world, inaccessible and incomprehensible except ‘from faith to faith,’ but in the public world of historical and cross-cultural study, in the contemporary world as well as the church.”

Second, they hope that this book will provide new insight into a debate that has become gridlocked among Christians – liberal vs. conservatives.

Third, they hope that their book will speak to people who want to better understand how different visions of Jesus translate into Christian life. This, I suppose, is why I bought the book originally – though the academic arguments will probably be of more interest to me. 🙂

In their first section, they ask the question: How do we know about Jesus? In their separate essays, Borg and Wright point out the difficulties of deciphering the historical data about Jesus. They agree that everybody’s interpretation of history is viewed through the lens of their own perception or worldview. Borg describes four lenses through which he views Jesus:

Gospels are history remembered as well as history metaphorized
Jesus was a Jewish figure teaching and acting within Judaism
Jesus’ legacy was developed by the community of early Christians
Jesus’ legacy was developed by a variety of modern forms of Christianity, as well as other religions.

Borg and Wright agree that modern secular culture, which believes that the universe can be studied, understood, and described by natural laws, can be used as a weapon against faith. Borg says that it is easy to lose sight of the divine Jesus when you have a strongly secular worldview. Wright points out that with a secular worldview, you are focused on data and theories. Both scientists and historians ask the questions:

Does the theory make sense of the available data? Does it have the appropriate simplicity? Does it shed lights on other areas of research?

History differs from science in that there are no agreed-on criteria for what counts as “making sense” and “simplicity.” Therefore, it is very hard to for Jesus historians to come up with any consensus.

Both Wright and Borg focus on the difficulty of working out the historical evidence of Jesus and the gospels. Borg thinks it is necessary to see and appreciate both the historical Jesus and the spiritual one, lest you lose sight of Jesus altogether. These two entities are not the same – the first is an actual man who was once alive, the second is a concept that has influenced spirituality for thousands of years.

“When we emphasize his divinity at the expense of his humanity, we lose track of the utterly remarkable human being that he was.”

On the other hand, Borg believes that if you emphasize only historical fact and what Jesus meant in his own time to his own people, you lose sight of how strongly his message has influenced today’s culture, and what he means to us today.

In contrast, Wright says that he doesn’t think the early Christians made a distinction between the historical Jesus and the divine Jesus, so why should he? He feels that these “two versions” of Jesus are one and the same, and that whenever he reads literature about the historical Jesus, it reinforces his faith in the spiritual Jesus.

Personally, I’m inclined to agree with Borg on this subject. I think that he nailed my problem directly on the head: all my life I’ve tried to combine the historical Jesus and the divine Jesus into one entity. Thus, my faith and my secular worldview were battling for prominence in my perception of Jesus, and I lost sight of Him altogether. If I can separate the two entities in my head, I will be able to appreciate both the wisdom of the historical man and the divine love of the Christ Jesus.

Doubt

Jonah and the “great fish” on the South doorway of Dom Saint Peter
Image source: Wikipedia

I’m sure most of my readers are familiar with the story of Jonah. God told Jonah to go to Nineveh to prophesy against their wickedness. But Jonah didn’t want to go to Nineveh. He was afraid to prophesy in a foreign land full of wicked people who hated Hebrews. Plus, he didn’t want God to show mercy to his enemies. So he ran. But he couldn’t escape God, who in His Great Wisdom made a whale swallow Jonah until Jonah was able to see the error of his ways and continue more willingly on God’s path.

I’ve been thinking a lot about Jonah recently. So I was surprised when a coworker jokingly compared ringing at the registers of our bookstore as her “Nineveh.” She added “but if God told me to go to Nineveh, I would go.” I half jokingly answered “then perhaps you haven’t found your Nineveh yet.” (She looked a bit taken aback. Perhaps I should have kept my mouth shut.)

I think we all have a personal Nineveh (even those of us who are agnostic or atheist). Some of us have more Nineveh than others. Recently, I have found a Nineveh. It’s a personal issue, and I don’t think the details matter for this post…but the basic idea is this: I have a series of choices that I feel God has encouraged me to make. I don’t like those choices, because I’m very much afraid of getting hurt. After much prayer, I decided to go ahead and have faith and make the plunge. It backfired in my face, I got hurt, I hurt someone else, and it all seems to be spiraling downhill from here.

I am faced with two interpretations: I can assume that I foolishly mislead myself with wrong expectations; or I can have faith that God led me down this path, that He had a reason to do so, and that some good will come of it.

Neither interpretation is inherently wrong as a Christian. Lots of people mislead themselves into thinking they’re doing what God wants them to do when they’re really doing what they want to do. Easy mistake to make. And with this interpretation, I can safely backpedal out of the situation I’ve created and abandon the path that I’d foolishly chosen. (Yeah, it leaves a mess behind, but …. woops! my bad!) Unfortunately, losing faith in myself isn’t too healthy. If I choose this interpretation, then I need to believe that I don’t really know when God is calling me and when He’s not. Because I was pretty darn certain He was calling. And if that wasn’t God calling me, then I’m probably a little crazy and certainly can never have faith in my interpretation of God’s call again. So it seems like a good choice, as long as I’m ok with losing faith in myself and in God.

The second interpretation is more scary. It means I have to continue on the path I’d chosen, having faith that I was, indeed, hearing God’s call, and that if He got me into this mess, something good must come of it.

I haven’t yet chosen which of these interpretations to make, and am fluctuating a lot lately. But my instinct tells me that as a Christian I ought to believe that God was calling me, and that he’s still calling me to follow that path. The path to Nineveh. Where I really, really, really don’t want to go.

And while I wallow in self-doubt, as well as religious doubt, let’s not forget that Jesus asked God to take away the burden of His chosen path: “Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.” (Mark 14:36 NIV, see also Luke 22:42). Let’s not forget one of Jesus’ last statements on the cross: “My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?” (Mathew 27:46 and Mark 15:34. He was quoting Psalm 22.).

Jesus, that miraculous man who is loved by millions of people even 2000 years after his death, also had a path he didn’t want to follow. He also had his moments of doubt. Doubt is human. None of us should ever forget this fact when we are struggling with our own doubts. We need to always remember that we are human. That doubt is natural.

Always accept that you are human – that even Jesus doubted – and forgive yourself for your weaknesses. That is the best way to restore your faith.

The Bronze Bow, by Elizabeth George Speare

2012 Book 98: The Bronze Bow, by Elizabeth George Speare (6/30/2012)

Reason for Reading: I’m participating in the Middle Eastern literature theme read, and this book fits the theme because it takes place in Israel; however, I’m not sure they’re really interested in children’s literature, so this was really for my own edification.

My Review 5/5 stars

Daniel has been living for years as a member of a band of Zealots who wish to free the Israelis from Roman oppression. When he meets a preacher named Jesus, he realizes that perhaps his path of violence and thievery isn’t quite as logical as he’d thought it was. This is a fun book for kids, with adventure, interesting moral lessons, and new friendships. Although Jesus is a character in the book, he is only a minor one–the book is mainly historical fiction, and I think the lessons Daniel learns (violence, thievery, and hatred don’t accomplish anything good) are appropriate for kids of all religions or lack thereof. This is a must-read.

A controversial side-note: This book has been banned from many public school library on the following charges: 1) It’s too Christian, 2) It promotes bigotry against Jews, and 3) It suggests that Christianity is “right” and Judaism is “wrong.” I thought I’d address these issues.

1)Too Christian: Kids are intelligent, we need to have more faith in them. They are not going to convert to Christianity just because they read one Christian fiction book. This book isn’t even Christian fiction, though it does get close. Kids will be better people in the end if they are introduced to all world religions, as well as many different cultural ways of looking at the world…it will make them LESS racist and more empathetic towards people with different beliefs.

2) Hostile towards Jews: I’m not sure how? I’ve read a few arguments on this subject, and the people who claim that it promotes bigotry or that it is hostile towards Jews don’t provide examples. Or, when they do provide examples, they quote the book out of context to such extremes that it seems purposeful. But I’m going to assume that SOMEONE (who is actually honest) must have been insulted by this book at some point? I see only two reasons why that would be.

First, the characters in the book are mostly Zealots who are angry about the oppressive Roman regime. It could be perceived as portraying Jews as angry or racist. However, the book did a good job of showing that this anger is rightfully aimed at an oppressive regime. People under oppressive regimes get angry. That’s a fact. So this book is both sociologically and historically accurate when it portrays some of its characters this way. Furthermore, the book is very sympathetic towards the characters and is rather more hostile towards Romans than Jews.

Second, there was a very short (maybe 3 sentence) passage in which it said that the priests from the synagogue were angry at Jesus and might try to get him killed. I understand that this pokes at the let’s-blame-the-Jews-for-the-death-of-Jesus wound that is still open and festering among some Jewish people (and some Christians???). I’m truly sorry about this open festering wound, but the passage in The Bronze Bow was very short and there’s no way it will encourage kids to blame currently living Jews for the death of Jesus.

I grew up hearing these stories for my entire life, and I never realized this was an open, festering wound until I was 23 and talking to a rather onerous Israeli friend who (for reason still unknown to me) was trying to start an argument. He said to me: “You should hate me because, after all, I’m Jewish and we killed Jesus.” I was completely floored by this comment because the idea of blaming the Jews for Jesus’ death was foreign to me. I answered “But the Romans killed Jesus.” I had a Catholic education, heard all the stories from the Bible and still never considered the idea that Jewish people alive today could be blamed for the death of Jesus. It seemed preposterous. As far as I was concerned, Jesus was killed by Romans for political reasons that I didn’t quite understand. Though I know now that this is not just an issue with my Israeli friend…I came across the same idea in the book The Faith Club.

I think that books like this with very short passages that reference well-known stories out of the New Testament aren’t going to encourage kids to be bigoted. It’s bigoted parents, teachers, and role models that will encourage kids to be bigots, not The Bronze Bow.

3) Christianity is right, Judaism is wrong: Well, it DOES imply that Christianity is right. That doesn’t mean that it implies Judaism is wrong. It never says that anywhere. There are scenes when the kids break rules, like washing hands before eating…but if kids breaking rules proves that they’re right to do so, then the Harry Potter books imply that kids are “right” and schools are “wrong.”