Marcus J. Borg (1942–2015)

In this book, Borg goes through a number of key Christian concepts and explains what they mean from a perspective that is not the heaven-and-hell Christianity that is so common today (especially in the US). The approach he takes to reading is to create a historical-metaphorical understanding of these key concepts. It's important to understand what this does and does not entail. This approach does not entail applying modern ideas or morals on top of Christian ideas. It does not entail show more watering down the Bible or reading it selectively.

Rather, what it entails is two-fold: first, Borg takes a historical perspective on these concepts. He asks the question, "What did these words mean in and for the ancient communities that used them? What did they mean for their 'then'?" and from this, he asks "Given what their words meant for their then, what might their meaning be for our now?" Key in this method of understanding the Bible is that what something means for "their then" need not be the same thing it means to "our now". However, we should not project the understanding of "our now" onto "their then".

Second, it is a metaphorical understanding. This is the fairly straightforward idea that much -- probably most -- of the language of the Bible was meant to be read metaphorically, not literally. Biblical literalism -- and the idea that most texts should be taken as bare factual "newspaper" writing -- is a modern invention which can interfere with our ability to read older texts such as the Bible.

From this foundation, Borg discusses many different concepts. He uses an almost formulaic 1 chapter per 1-2 concept organization. My one criticism of the book is that there are some obvious thematic elements throughout which Borg pulls together occasionally (including at the end) but which could be woven more strongly into a biblically sound progressive Christianity.

Instead of going through the many concepts discussed, I'll focus on that theme. The common theme throughout is that the language of the Bible, both Old Testament and New points toward societal transformation, not individual salvation. However one conceives of God, the message of the Christian language is that God's vision is for a world where there are distributional justice and peace.

If you're used to a heaven-and-hell Christianity, this may sound like a stretch. For example, didn't Jesus die for our sins? How is that not about individual salvation and the afterlife? One of the things that pleasantly surprised me about this book is that Borg was able to make the argument that the broad message of biblical Christianity and many of the specifics that seem to point toward individual salvation are all focused on societal concerns. While it's true that his job was made easier because he sees the Bible as the record of the one tradition's understanding of God rather than as a literal divine revelation, he still takes the Bible as the foundation of his definitions.

This book is an engaging read for anyone, Christian or not, who cares about the monopoly that literalistic Christianity has over moral discourse in the US. show less

This book is a breath of fresh air and shows how the Bible can be read productively and with great spiritual insight, without being bound in the straight-jacket of literalism. There are many portions of the Bible which are obviously not intended to be taken literally, even though many Christians insist on doing so. Borg's primary premise is that the Bible was written by humans, not by God, in the direct sense that many Christians assume. This does not mean that the some parts of the Bible show more are therefore "correct" and others are not, but rather that the Bible must be read differently. Also, recognizing that some events are fully embedded in the cultures at the time the stories were written, means not that God was different then, but that people of those times saw God differently. I highly recommend Borg's "historical-metaphorical" approach to reading the Bible. show less

Two of my favorite scholars, Marcus Borg and N. T. Wright, debate the meaning of Jesus. One is decidedly more conservative, but both are thoughtful and well-studied. And, raising hope for the future of Christianity, I would venture a guess that they are best friends despite their differences.

Wright believes the gospels are what they are “because their authors thought the events they were recording—all of them, not just some—actually happened.” This may sound self-evident to show more conservative Christians, but it is not the way Borg sees it. Two terms he uses to describe gospel writing are “metaphor historicized,” and its complement, “history metaphorized.” Borg just can’t jump on board with a literal reading of the gospels; he describes this outdated way of reading the Bible with five adjectives: literalistic, doctrinal, moralistic, exclusivistic, and afterlife oriented. This view, he says, has ceased to work for a large number of people, who find that if they must take the Bible literally, they cannot take it at all.

According to Borg, the “single most important difference” between these two scholars is their opinion about whether or not Jesus saw himself as the messiah. Wright says yes, Jesus understood his role as central to the salvation of the Jewish nation and, by extension, the world. Borg says no, Jesus’ role as messiah grew after his death and resurrection, as the understanding of his followers evolved.

In my opinion, the single most important difference in the thinking of these two scholars is not Jesus’ self-understanding, but the manner of his resurrection. Wright says Jesus rose in body, and showed himself physically to his disciples. Never mind that this new body could somehow walk through walls and disappear at will. “Resurrection,” to a Jew, meant a physical rising in body. Wright argues that only an event of this magnitude could have triggered the devotion and dedication of the Jesus movement that continued on after his death. In contrast, Borg seems unconcerned with the empty tomb, and interprets the resurrection in a more spiritual manner. I’m oversimplifying his position, but Borg sees Jesus being “raised to God’s right hand” as simply meaning Jesus has captured the position of Lord in the lives in his disciples. He is “raised up” by his followers after his death.

As I said, these are two of my favorite Jesus scholars. I believe Borg and Wright encapsulate liberal and conservative Christianity at their basic levels, and studying the two in tandem helps us appreciate the arguments of both sides. Great book! show less

Another excellent book in Crossan and Borg's ongoing project of providing a carefully grounded historical basis for a revival of social justice theology and politics at the heart of Christianity. Here they make dangerous again the familiar (and almost completely fictional) stories of Christ’s birth that have been largely drained of social and political significance by organized Christianity. They clearly and concisely analyze the historical construction of the Nativity stories found in show more Mathew and Luke in the now forgotten context of anti-imperial Judeo-Christian politics of first century B.C.E.. While they are careful as always to point out where the paucity of evidence forces them to speculate and interpret, Crossan and Borg do not shy away from the theological and political implications of their work for contemporary Christians struggling with new, more powerful and more dominant forms of empire. show less