Resurrection: What Really Happened?
The book isn't an "easy read" and I'm grateful for the way class members have soldiered through the chapters. We've had some good conversations Sunday mornings on:
- How do we know what we know about Jesus? (March 4th)
- What is the meaning of Jesus Death? (March 11th)
This coming week (March 18th) we're going to tackle what I consider to be the the most challenging and controversial topic discussed in the book: the Resurrection. Borg and Wright are really very far apart on this one. Their differences are largely the result of the very different methods they use in examining the New Testament.
I'll take a shot at summing up their differences by using an analogy. Imagine Borg and Wright are judges presiding over a court case, i.e., "What happened Easter Sunday?" They each hear the case in separate courtrooms and each has his own set of rules to determine what sort of evidence is admissible in his court.
Borg, it seems to me, would rule most "faith statements" inadmissible as evidence for the Resurrection. "Faith Statements," in Borg's language, are "history metaphorized" and "prophecy metaphorized." According to Borg, material like this tells us a lot about what early Christians believed about Jesus, but little about what actually happened to him. As I read Borg, it seems to me he considers much of the Passion Narrative to be comprised of "faith statements." This leads him to "throw out" most of what Matthew, Mark, Luke and John tell us happened on the first Easter Sunday. Its not that Borg says he's certain it didn't happen, but that you can't make a case for a literally meaning of Resurrection out of the testimony of the gospels.
My question to Borg is, so what evidence do you consider "admissible?"
Wright's approach is very different in two ways.
- First, he looks at the gospel accounts of Jesus' resurrection as historically reliable. While admitting the gospel writers certainly embellished a bit to suit their particular needs, Wright believes the story the gospel writers tell reflects what was seen and heard.
- The second claim made by Wright is that what you can know "by faith" can count as evidence as much as more conventional forms of historical evidence. The experience of the Risen Christ by the early church is admissible evidence in Wright' s "court" and book!
My question to Wright is, why is the jury still out on the Resurrection if the gospel testimony is so credible? From the beginning, people have raised doubts.
What are your questions?
1 Comments:
Having not read the book and only heard some bits and pieces, my question to Borg is essentially the same as yours: if you deem any evidence that supports the supernatural as "inadmissible", then how can you ever hope to honestly talk about God? If I went to a AA meeting and said, "Well, I want to learn about what you've all been through, but before we go any further I want to say that I don't believe alcohol can really do any harm. Now, let's hear some of your stories.", I wouldn't be making any sense. You can't make decisions about what sort of evidence you'll accept before you look at it.
I think that in the case of the Resurrection (and, by extension, the rest of the Gospels), as with any historical work, you've got to look at the whole picture. Do the Gospel writers emphasize different themes, events, and cultures? Absolutely, there's no denying that. But what reason to they have to lie or stretch the truth about the Resurrection? It would have made no sense and certainly no dent in the culture of the area or the world if they had claimed that Christ had risen from the dead when the citizens of Jerusalem could have clearly pointed to the tomb and said, "No, he didn't, he's still in there stiff as a post." Instead, these men spent the rest of their lives traveling around telling people about Christ's resurrection. They were imprisoned and killed because of the message they spread.
...and this, I guess, is my answer to your question about Wright. The admissible evidence is the fact that the church existed in the first place, and spread so far and so wide that in just thirty years, there were enough Christians in Rome to be scapegoated and persecuted. The admissible evidence is the fact that these men had everything to lose and nothing to gain, and yet they could not keep their mouths shut. (Acts 4:1-20) These alone, of course, cannot prove the Resurrection. Nothing can prove the Resurrection. But, they do lend a lot more evidence for the Resurrection than simply denying it happened because you don't believe in the supernatural. Why is the jury still out? Because, I believe, there are some people out there who do not want to believe in the supernatural, and will look beyond any evidence that supports otherwise.
P.S.
If I were writing my own story and not aiming for the complete truth, I think I would've made myself seem much less dopey and scared than the disciples chose to make themselves look. Locking themselves in the upper room because they were scared? Fleeing Jerusalem and heading to Emmaus? Not me! I'd write myself a nice part about being brave, walking the streets of Jerusalem unafraid.
Post a Comment
<< Home