Surprised By Hope
Chapter 4: The Strange Story of Easter
What this chapter is about: In this chapter N.T. Wright lays out an argument that the resurrection did indeed happen and that proof of this come from careful historical study as well as from the “strange Easter stories” themselves. Ultimately, however, evidence like this is not enough if faith, hope and love are missing from the equation.
STORIES WITHOUT PRECEDENT
Why the gospel Easter stories are early and accurate, not late inventions. Four reasons:
1. The strange silence of the Bible in these stories.
a. There is little if no scriptural allusions (from the OT, for example) to help explain or clarify what the disciples witnessed Easter morning. This is strange in that everything else leading up to Easter each gospel writer takes great pains to show how this action of Jesus “fulfills scripture” in some way or another. Yes this is not the case with resurrection.
b. This goes to show that these stories, even if written down at a later date, are reciting very early oral stories – stories set firmly in the memory of the storytellers before they had time for biblical reflection.
2. The strange presence of women as the principal witnesses.
a. Women in this day and age were not credible witnesses in any court. Yet, women are the key witnesses in all four gospel accounts.
b. If these stories were late developments, this “error” would and could have been easily dropped from the written accounts to make the story more credible and less embarrassing. But here they are. Nobody would have made them up.
3. The strange portrait of the risen Jesus himself.
a. Had this been an invention of the gospel writers mulling over scripture (the Old Testament) trying to write a story of a “resurrection” to convey the “inner subjective illumination” that they now felt, they had the book of Daniel to turn to which describes resurrection as “shining like a star,” or the accounts we see in the Transfiguration.
b. Yet all of the writers of the gospels say this risen Jesus is nothing like that but indeed has a body, albeit a transformed body. It is clearly physical but can equally pass through locked doors, come and go as pleases and can disappear into God’s space, that is, “heaven.” This type of story is without precedent – no biblical texts predict that resurrection will involve this type of body.
4. The strange fact that they never mention the future Christian hope.
a. Later on, especially in Paul’s writings, you cannot escape the fact that the resurrection of Jesus is linked with our future hope of being raised in the same way. Yet the stories in the gospels say not a word about that. Had they been late inventions, around Paul’s day, then surely we would find this future hope linked with Jesus’ resurrection.
b. Rather, the stories in the gospel are very this-worldly. To quote Wright, resurrection in the gospels meant: Jesus is raised, so he is the Messiah, and therefore he is the world’s true Lord; Jesus is raised, so God’s new creation has begun – and we, his followers, have a job to do! Jesus is raised, so we must act as his heralds, announcing his lordship to the entire world, making his kingdom come on earth as in heaven! (pg. 56).
Based on the above reasons it is obvious that these stories are very early and not created at a later date by someone trying to make Jesus into a Messiah or someone trying to explain some inner religious experience. Rather, “something like this is what happened, even though it was hard to describe at the time and remains mind-boggling thereafter.” (57).
Three small scale arguments that show, historically, that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead:
1. Jewish tombs, especially those of martyrs, were venerated and often became shrines. No evidence of this with Jesus’ grave.
2. The early church’s emphasis on the first day of the week as their special day is very hard to explain unless something striking really did happen then.
3. The disciples are hardly likely to go out and suffer and die for a beliefe that wasn’t firmly anchored in fact.
To Recap:
- The word “resurrection” in Jesus’ day and age meant that someone who was thoroughly dead and buried has been thoroughly raised to new life.
- People in the 1st century had other words to describe a spiritual experience or the sighting of ghosts or spirits. Resurrection, however, was something no one had ever done before or something anyone thought would happen until everyone was resurrected on the last day.
- A mere “spiritual” resurrection did not worry Caesars or emperors. Who fears a mere vision or spiritual experience? What really worried Rome was when they felt their greatest weapon, death, has been defeated. How do you claim Caesar is Lord when people are saying someone defeated death and is therefore Lord of all?
- Resurrection, therefore, is not a private matter but it impinges upon the public world. Belief in resurrection demands that a person changes their worldview – namely, where has the world been and where is it heading? Who is in charge?
Wright says that claim advanced by the Christians is of such magnitude that it requires a reshaping of our worldview. He writes, “Jesus of Nazareth ushers in not simply a new religious possibility, not simply a new ethic or a new way of salvation, but a new creation.” Resurrection “is not an absurd event within the old world but the symbol and starting point of the new world.”
Faith, Hope and Love
History and science can take us only so far into this new worldview of new creation that God is inaugurating with the resurrection of Jesus. One might simply choose to shrug it off and say, “Well, all of this may be true, but I prefer to believe that dead people don’t rise, because I’ve never seen it happen.”
1. Thomas wouldn’t believe till he saw and touched the risen Christ. Thomas begins with doubt, as seen in the Easter Oratorio (written by Tom Wright).
The sea is too deep
The heaven’s too high
I cannot swim
I cannot fly;
I must stay here
I must stay here
Here where I know
How I can know
Here where I know
What I can know
Jesus then appears and invites Thomas to see and touch. Suddenly, the new, giddying possibility appears before him:
The sea has parted. Pharaoh’s hosts—
Despair, and doubt, and fear, and pride –
No longer frighten us. We must
Cross over to the other side.
The heaven bows down. With wounded hands
Our exiled God, our Lord of shame
Before us, living, breathing, stands;
The Word is near, and calls our name.
New knowing for the doubting mind,
New seeing out of blindness grows;
New trusting may the skeptic find
New hope through that which faith now knows.
This faith that Thomas now realizes is rooted in a reality that is before him. It is recognition of what God is doing within history and is putting all things back to rights at last, starting with Jesus. It is why Thomas declares, “My Lord, and my God.”
2. Paul teaches us about hope. Linking resurrection with our future hope, he reminds us that, “Hope, for the Christian, is not wishful thinking or mere blind optimism. It is a mode of knowing, a mode within which new things are possible, options are not shut down, new creation can happen.” (pg. 72). More on this later.
3. Peter teaches us the necessity of love.
a. In John 21, we find Peter. He has chosen to live within the normal world, where the tyrants win in the end, where death has the last say. But now, with Easter, Jesus calls Peter to live in a new world. Peter is called to a new kind of love when Jesus asks him 3 times, “do you love me?” This is the remaking a human being after disloyalty and disaster. This reshaping of the new creation by Jesus is one that invites us into a relationship of love, a love that transforms us from the inside out and demands that we go and do the same.
Faith, hope and love are what get us beyond mere historical or scientific argument about resurrection and propel us into a world where the possibilities are limitless. We begin to see what resurrection truly means and why it requires a new way of seeing the world.
To those who insist on denying that resurrection really has happened, Wright has these concluding remarks as well as this concluding challenge for us all:
Who, after all, was it who didn’t want the dead to be raised? Not simply the intellectually timid or the rationalists. It was, and is, those in power, the social and intellectual tyrants and bullies; the Caesars who would be threatened by a Lord of the world who had defeated the tyrant’s last weapon, death itself; the Herods who would be horrified at the postmortem validation of the true King of the Jews. And this is the point where believing in the resurrection of Jesus suddenly ceases to be a matter of inquiring about an odd event in the first century and becomes a matter of rediscovering hope in the twenty-first century. Hope is what you get when you suddenly realize that a different worldview is possible, a worldview in which the rich, the powerful, and the unscrupulous do not after all have the last word. The same worldview shift that is demanded by the resurrection of Jesus is the shift that will enable us to transform the world. (page 75).
Filed under: Surprised by Hope | Tagged: books, easter, N.T. Wright, resurrection
Nice explication there Chad. Off the subject, the youth pastor here at our church told me of a peculiar conversation he had with some laity from our church today. It was in regards to the [modern?] notion of “backsliding.” To what extent, if any, can a “true” Christian backslide? I wanted to get your thoughts on this very pastoral albeit theological issue. Since the english word “backslide” is not in any reputable translation of Scripture I am aware of, and since proof texts are out of the question when sound reason is to be had, I, off the top of my head, used two disciples with diametric ends as my beginning (viz., Peter and Judas Iscariot).
Again, I was going of the top of my head here. However, you point out in your summary above: “But now, with Easter, Jesus calls Peter to live in a new world. Peter is called to a new kind of love when Jesus asks him 3 times, “do you love me?” This is the remaking a human being after disloyalty and disaster. This reshaping of the new creation by Jesus is one that invites us into a relationship of love, a love that transforms us from the inside out and demands that we go and do the same.”
My subtle point was this: Peter, though not yet named “Christian” was a veritable Christ-follower. Without predestination hyperbole and psycho-babble, I believe the same would be said of Judas Iscariot. Both “fell away”, “denied”, “betrayed” Christ (you can exegete the subtle differences in each). One was restored. One was not. Does this biblical witness shed any light upon the present day understanding of what it means for a Christian’s ability to backslide?
The common ideas (so the youth pastor informed me) were being espoused: “backsliding” can’t be found in the Bible; Backsliding is a doctrine made up by the Southern Baptists (oh crap!!!); You can’t backslide because that proves you’ve never committed to Christ in the first place (this is intellectually dishonest and downright illogical in that the very premise of backsliding must necessarily presume something from which one has had the opportunity to backslide from); various other interesting mythological were also expressed, I jut can’t remember all of them, but I’m sure they were no less weird. Anyway, I ‘d love to get your thoughts on, not only the idea of backsliding, but more importantly the use of Peter and Judas as the preeminent sliders-back.
Isaac,
You need to write to me more – your clever ability to turn a phrase has always amused me and made me laugh (not to mention…think!)
I’m reminded of Dale Coulter’s (you remember him, I’m sure) analogy about backsliding. He talked about how someone learns to play basketball and becomes very good at it. They practice everyday to hone their skills. Suppose one day he stopped practicing? He may go play in a game the next day and there would’t be any noticeable difference. What if he didn’t practice for a whole week? Still, if he had been devoting his life to basketball he might still be a great player on the court. What if he just stopped practicing all together for months at a time? Might his performance on the court start to waver? Certainly.
This analogy is helpful in pointing out, one, the fallacy behind the notion of backsliding that it happens in an instant. I do not wake up this morning and suddenly lose my salvation where as I had it last night. I do not walk around in fear thinking “did I lose it?” because of one missed practice. It is also helpful in pointing out that I need to be conscious of my game. Just like with anything in life, sports or spirituality, I can become lazy, sluggish and inattentive.
Theologically or biblically speaking, I find the argument that the term “back-sliding” doesn’t appear in the Bible a desperate grab for some validity. Neither does the word “trinity.” Yet, like Trinity, I find the notion or capability to backslide impossible to miss through all of scripture. Why all the exhortations to persist, be strong, remain faithful, finish the race, pursue righteousness, resist evil, stand firm, encourage each other, pray without ceasing, and so on and so on.
What are your thoughts on these passages from Hebrews?
2:1 Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away.
3:12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God.
3:13 but exhort one another daily….lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
- Why exhort each other? To avoid missing practice to such a degree that we become terrible basketball players. We grow hardened.
4:11 Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience.
- be diligent? Why? So I don’t slide back, perhaps?
6:4-6 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit…if they fall away to renew them again to repentance….
Note that he does not say that it is impossible to NOT fall away, but rather, it is impossible to bring them back if they DO fall away. I think the author is using hyperbole here when he says it is impossible to renew someone to repentance who falls away. However, the point seems to be very clear that people can and do fall away from the faith. The difficult task of bringing someone back to repentance ought to make us as a community of faith all the more dilgent in encouraging each other to press on towards the goal. It is also why the same author here exhorts his readers to not forsake gathering together as some people are in the habit of doing. Why?
I wrote more than I wanted so early in the morning and with only 2 cups of coffee thus far
I need to chew on the Peter and Judas stories. What are your thoughts on the above?
How’s the baby in the oven? We leave this Saturday for Ethiopia!
peace.
I’m returning to this review late and rereading your posts about this book. You’ve done a great job of summarizing the book. My questions about Wright’s arguments have been rekindled since his Colbert Report appearance the other day.
In your understanding of Wright’s opinions, why does he try to make the argument that a resurrection was a “different” idea?
The idea of a resurrected leader/god is so common in all the competing mythologies that any talk of Jesus being God would have been laughable without a resurrection story. There simply had to be a resurrection event added to the Jesus story. I agree with Paul that without this element of the story, Jesus’ story would have failed. It would have looked weak compared with any one of a number of pagan and Jewish myths.
I also fail to see how the resurrection story could in any way be a “shift” in worldview? Wright himself explains that a view of some kind of resurrection would be “normal” for these people, even if the nature of the resurrection would be in question. It seems more like a belief in Jesus’ resurrection is NOT a call to believe something you wouldn’t have thought is possible. Instead, it is a call to believe THIS person (Jesus) was resurrected and therefore his story has equal if not more weight as the competing myths that usually had the same type of event.
Peace
Hi Mike,
As always, thanks for your insightful comments and questions.
I saw Wright on Colbert as well – thought he did OK (Colbert always comes off looking far better than any of his guests, IMO).
I don’t have much time now but hope to have more tomorrow – we are in the middle of a move. But I am interested to know why you think resurrection was a common or typical storyline in competing mythologies. Wright argues the exact opposite, so apparently we have competing sources of information here. I tend to agree with Wright. I haven’t seen any evidence of a physical resurrection myth in anything from Homer to ancient Judaism. Shades? Sure. Talk of “shining like a star”? Sure. I’d like to hear your thoughts on that – I may be missing something.
On the rest, I promise to respond more fully asap.
peace,
Chad
Virgin birth, resurrection, and even ascension to heaven was common in Greek mythology…
http://altreligion.about.com/library/texts/bl_resurrectionmyth5.htm
here is one from Egyptian mythology…
http://www.egyptianmyths.net/osiris.htm
I’m not sure how Tom Wright can just write this off. Resurrection was a common them to mythology. I think it would have been odd for Christianity to develop without a resurrection myth (or a virgin birth story and an ascension story).
Mike,
Thanks for the links to those articles. I just had time to read them over and will comment on them by tomorrow. I want to look into Wright’s larger work, The Resurrection of the Son of God, a 700+ page work, to see if he mentions either one of these sources. I read it 2 years ago and remember he devotes a few hundred pages to ancient myths circulating in Jesus’ day and I believe those are some of them.
I will get back to you.
peace,
Chad
Mike,
Sorry for the longer than anticipated delay in getting back to you. I wanted to do some research and see what Wright had to say himself about this – as it turns out, he has quite a bit to say.
To save me the time from typing it all in, please refer: http://books.google.com/books?id=-Zh4Yf2YvxMC&pg=PA80&vq=osiris&dq=n.t.+wright&source=gbs_search_s&cad=5&sig=ACfU3U16OQYETItENjo1Pj9shDWdZkD47Q#PPA80,M1
… which is a segment of Wright’s more scholarly book on resurrection. Page 80-82, in particular, deal directly with the Osiris and Isis cults and other Greek/Egyptian myths.
At the heart of this is what Wright argues are two different definitions of the word “resurrection.” Basically, the followers of the cults of Osiris and others were using resurrection as a metaphor to match the seasons of seed and harvest. No one in that day would have thought that any of this means a literal bodily resurrection for a diety or that it was a promise for all of us one day.
If you get a chance to check out that link I would love to hear your thoughts on it. You seem to be pretty well versed in ancient mythology.
peace,
Chad
Thanks for the link. I’ve heard Wright summarize these points in a lecture, but the detailed text is nice to read.
“Basically, the followers of the cults of Osiris and others were using resurrection as a metaphor to match the seasons of seed and harvest.”
Couldn’t we say the same about the Jesus resurrection? It was a metaphor for rebirth and his acceptance by God. God’s “yes” to Caesar’s “No”. A story crafted to reinforce what Jesus taught (you must be born again). I don’t think it is sound logic to look across the expansive list of myths in all cultures and try to claim “well, we actually believe our myths because they are not really myths, but your stories are ‘just myths’ and nobody really ever believed them. Nah nah nah boo boo”. Either myths are to be read literally or not. I don’t think Wright can pick and choose. It smacks of religious bigotry.
“No one in that day would have thought that any of this means a literal bodily resurrection for a deity or that it was a promise for all of us one day”
The best argument that 1st century Jews did in fact believe in a physical resurrection is by examining their burial practices. People who don’t believe in the possibility of resurrection do not take the care to bury and then rebury the bones in a preparation for their literal return to life. These ideas were adopted from their ancient pagan roots. Even as far back as ancient Egypt people were preparing and preserving bodies for another life. In the absence of the Egyptian wealth and time to properly embalm bodies, the Jews adapted the practice by recovering the bones (a year later) and placing them in burial boxes. It was common for these Jews to speak of a general resurrection that would happen at some point. Even the crucifixion story contains the idea that this resurrection was started and the day were rising all over the city.
These people not only thought physical resurrection was possible, they actually expected it to happen to them all. The trick was to convince them that it had started with Jesus. Wright actually makes these same point elsewhere.
Wright says many good things, but this point is so bizarre and illogical. I can’t figure out why he goes there except maybe because he starts there and tries to work everything else around that presumption. He never seems to critique the resurrection. He examines it, but doesn’t allow for the most obvious option (that it to is a mythical but profoundly truth-filled story). He ends up with a very one-sided analysis.
Mike,
Yes, the Jews did believe in a general resurrection of the dead for ALL people – the day when God will establish his eternal rule. What they did not believe, however, is that it would happen to one person in advance of that day, as it did with Jesus. You are right, Wright does discuss this in this book and elsewhere.
More difficult to navigate, perhaps, is your argument about picking and choosing metaphors – a valid one, I think. Allow me to make just a few sweeping, general observations of why I think Wright is not practicing religious bigotry…
1. In comparing some of these stories (the ANE myths or Homer or Egyptian writings) they feel different to me. The ancient stories of gods “resurrecting” do not have the same bodily feel the Gospels have. They seem to want to emphasize a either the power of the gods they venerate or the fickleness of the sun/moon and harvest cycles or something else. The Gospels emphasize a launching of something totally new – God’s Kingdom, and a hope and promise for all of creation to look forward to.
2. The Gospels go out of their way to make explicit the fact that this resurrection is a physical, very real, phenomenon. One in which even the disciples do not and cannot comprehend fully. If this were a repition of other myths and stories everyone already knew and was accustomed with, why the confusion? Why the disbelief? Why do they run to the tomb to examine it? Why not just say, when Mary announces Jesus is alive, “of course he is! All of us know that if Jesus is really divine he is “alive” and that we will one day do the same!” Instead, they are incredulous. They race to the tomb. They record it is empty. They record many physical sightings. None of this sort of stuff is present in the other “myths,” at least not that I have seen.
3. As Wright also notes, there were no shortage in Jesus’ day and prior (and after) of would-be Messiahs. Several would step up claiming to be the long hoped for Messiah. And they were all killed. Their followers did not then assume that their Messiah was “resurrected” because to the Jewish mindset to be killed by Rome was the antithesis of a claim to be Messiah. IOW, the TRUE Messiah will NOT be conquered by Rome but will in fact conquer Rome and establish Israel once again. This explains why we find the disciples so distraught after Good Friday – they have followed who they thought was the Messiah for 3 years and now, like everyone else who claimed to be the one, he was dead. It was now time to either give up the fight or go find another Messiah.
4. Finally, I am left feeling quite empty and without hope with a simple metaphor that suppossedly declares God’s YES to Caesar’s NO. I don’t understand how this provides much hope for any of us. If this be the case, than God didnt really say NO to Caesar at all for Christ, the second person of the Trinity, is still dead. Caesar won. Sure, we can say or pretend that there is some mystical, spiritual resurrection but on what grounds? Scripture? How can we claim scripture is giving us any real truth on this subject when we dismiss it’s direct claims that this was not a mere metaphor but really happened and was worth the death of all Jesus’ disciples. Why choose this metaphor over the hundreds of other metaphors that exist? Why not follow Osiris? I would argue the reason is because in Jesus we have flesh and blood put on all the metaphors we humans have been only hinting and guessing at for thousands of years. Finally, what we could only imagine became what we could hardly begin to believe.
Your thoughts?
grace and peace,
Chad
chad,
“What they did not believe, however, is that it would happen to one person in advance of that day, as it did with Jesus”
I’m not sure it is fair to draw this as any kind of evidence for what they believed. Basically, what I hear Wright suggesting is that because these stories go into a bit more detail about the resurrection event, then these stories must be facts as opposed to other myths that are less detailed. I think if we compare the NT stories of resurrection with other Jewish midrash narratives about OT stories, we see that it was very common for people around that time and place to expand a story (or myth) with more detailed stories. Take for example the many midrash texts about Adam and Eve, Noah, Moses, etc. There is even a midrash story that tells us more details about how Moses brought the 10 commandments down off the mountain and when the tablets (the living words of God) saw the golden calf, the text itself flew off the stone tablets and they fell to the ground. This is a classic case of a Jewish poet expanding an existing story with more detail to reinforce the meaning that God’s word was vital and it could not stand in the presence of idolotry. The resurrection narratives in each instance sound very much like this kind of creative expansion of a preexisting legend/myth/narrative.
“The Gospels emphasize a launching of something totally new – God’s Kingdom, and a hope and promise for all of creation to look forward to”
Well, this isn’t new to the Gospels. It is a foundational Jewish story. So, the NT authors seem to retell the foundational story of a coming messiah through the life of Jesus using typical poetic (even liturgical) techniques complete with an explanation of how that might work in spite (or because of) of his death.
Why not just say, when Mary announces Jesus is alive, “of course he is!
That is exactly what the earliest story says. The earliest manuscripts of Mark end with the empty tomb in Mark 16:8. Later manuscripts needed additional scenes added once the idea of synthesizing the gospels into one picture was birthed and the gospel became beliefs about Jesus instead of belief in Jesus.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=16&version=31
As for messianic ideas… I do not think a messiah is a single person. It is a repeating concept. Moses was the messiah, Johsua was the messiah, Jesus was the messiah. As many times as Israel can get itself in a jam, it will need a new messiah. A person claims messiah-ship, it doesn’t just happen. It is not some kind of Matrix Keanu Reeves version of being the “chosen one”. There were lots of would be messiahs. It is possible that the Jesus story is the culmination of many messiahs during the same period of the 1st century. The point for us is that this character in the story becomes the messiah through the act of sacrificial death and God’s acceptance of his life (his resurrection). The important new testament idea of messiah is actually that WE become the messiah as we become the body of Christ (the arms, legs, eyes, of the resurrected Jesus). We incarnate Christ’s values as Jesus incarnated God’s values. So messiah-ship and resurrection are not one time events in history. It is an ongoing concept that we all must participate in. Actually, this is not far from what Wright suggests.
Why follow Jesus and not Osiris or other myths?
Because we as Christians have faith that the truths in Jesus’ story will work. I don’t know the other myths well enough to be certain, but I don’t see the same value in those stories. I don’t see the kind of ethic of sacrifice and non-violent protest in those stories. I’m a christian, because I chose these stories (the stories of Jesus) as my own defining transformational stories.
As for truth… I don’t think the point of these stories is about historical truths anymore than Genesis 1 and 2 is about how the world was literally created. The truths of these stories are found in their deeper meanings about life not the historicity of the details.
I don’t understand how this provides much hope for any of us.
Well, not if the only value you look for from your religion is found in an afterlife. However, if you are looking for participation in making God’s will a reality on Earth, then I suspect we may get more production from a story that requires our efforts as opposed to only our hope that God will miraculously do it for us. I wouldn’t negate the views of others that look for the miraculous ending, but it just doesn’t motivate me. My observation suggests there is a common connection between those with a miraculous ending to their story and a heavy dose of inaction here and now.
Can you tell me how a more literal belief has motivated you personally? I think most theology can be boiled down to understanding how our interpretation motivates us. In my view, motivation is the primary need for religious stories.
Thanks again for the dialog and your well written analysis of NT Wright. It’s been helpful. I always look forward to your thoughts.
Well, this isn’t new to the Gospels. It is a foundational Jewish story.
I’m not so sure. Wright points out that the foundational Jewish story is different from what we get in the gospels. The NT writers had resources to draw from to speak of resurrection , most notably being Daniel 7 and “shining like a star” type descriptions. Yes, there is the general resurrection of the dead for all the world but nothing in the Jewish story to prepare them for the physical resurrection of one person in advance of all that. And if it were merely spiritual then they had the language in Daniel by which to describe it. Yet, the gospels do not describe Jesus as a mere spirit or some shining star but a physical being who took up space, talked, walked and ate and was touched. This is quite new, it would seem.
The earliest manuscripts of Mark…
Some, but not all. Yes, there are a few early manuscripts that end with vs. 8 but there are also some, just as early, that go through vs. 20. In either event, it is not a hill I would be willing to die on. The early church vested authority in the four gospels because they believed it to tell the full story well. By that time there were plenty of people who would be able to say, “no, it happened this way” or at least to get the women out of there as key witnesses. Yet it appears that too many people knew the real story and it gets codified as it is.
As for messianic ideas… I do not think a messiah is a single person. It is a repeating concept.
This is an interesting concept and one I need to chew on a bit.
As for truth… I don’t think the point of these stories is about historical truths anymore than Genesis 1 and 2 is about how the world was literally created. The truths of these stories are found in their deeper meanings about life not the historicity of the details.
I agree that Gen. 1&2 are myths. But I do not read the gospels in the same way. I think that to do so overlooks the differences in genre and the time periods they were written and the purpose for which they were written. I think each case/example needs to be handled on its own grounds and to make sweeping generalizations isn’t all that fair. For instance, Luke begins his account by telling his audience that he decided, “after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you…” (Lk 1:3). This should not lead us to insist that everything Luke writes is literal or historical fact but it is to say that it is literature that should be read on different grounds than,say, Gen. 1-11. And for the record, I too am not all too familiar with the ancient myths but I have never seen one begin in the way Luke begins his gospel. This goes back to the earthy “feel” I desribed about them in my last post that I find missing in Osiris or Isis or other myths.
My observation suggests there is a common connection between those with a miraculous ending to their story and a heavy dose of inaction here and now.
I couldn’t agree more. To Wright’s credit he acknowledges this fact and sets out to give a more robust view of resurrection that propels us to action and mission. The 3rd and final section of the book is all about the church’s mission in light of resurrection and we will be getting to that in 2 weeks (I’m leaving for the beach (yes!!) Sunday and will not be teaching this week).
Can you tell me how a more literal belief has motivated you personally?
Well first, I confess that I am woefully unmotivated at times, regardless of my beliefs. But let me first answer you in the negative –
I find that a story that is merely metaphor or spiritual is decidedly unmotivational for me (at least in the case of resurrection) because when you boil it all down it simply means that God did not defeat sin and death but Caesar won. Yes, we can add our own subjective feelings and desires to the story and claim that Jesus was the Messiah but what does that mean if in the end Rome killed our Messiah? Yes, we can say in our hearts that he was “resurrected” but as you say, these stories are no different from every other mystery religion or pagan cult. All the well-wishes and imagery we as humans can add to make the story something that will re-motivate us after the one we had followed was nailed to a cross is just and only that – imagery and stories. They are purely subjective and have no objective reality.
On the other hand, I am highly motivated (at times) because I know that in Christ God said a resounding NO to death and sin and the powers that would carve up this world and a resounding YES to life and liberty in him. I can know that we have what Paul called the “first fruits” in Jesus and that what God did for Jesus God will do for me and the entire cosmos (that is, redeem, heal, restore, resurrect). I can live out my faith with the firm belief that God really does act in history and has acted in this special way through God’s Son and that evil and death and sin will not get the last word.
I can see how metaphores can get us to think in this way as well, but in the end you are still left with a dead body in a tomb. God did not really act objectively within the world but our motivation comes from the subjective desires and impulses of a community that was devastated. In the end, one can simply claim “well that is just a story that works for you but this is the story that works for me.” We begin walking up Borg’s mountain with many paths all leading to the same place and everything is relative.
Those are just some thoughts. What about you? How does NOT believing in a physical resurrection motivate you? What is it that you ultimately trust in?
I too appreciate this dialog and respect your thoughts. Thanks for sharing with me.
peace.
Mike, let me also ask: What do you make of the very early stance of the church against those who would deny a physical resurrection opting for just a spiritual or metaphorical one? Even in the NT we see that happening with writers making it a point to say that we have seen and touched this Jesus and that God raised him from the dead and we are witnesses to his being among us. The early church did not say with those who said it was merely spiritual that they are correct and that this was the real meaning of the gospels. Why? If everyone in that day believed in resurrections like Osiris myths than why would there be any backlash to those who would claim it is just like Osiris?
thanks.
“What do you make of the very early stance of the church against those who would deny a physical resurrection opting for just a spiritual or metaphorical one”
I think that is an important bit of historical evidence! It shows that there was NOT a consensus about the events or the meanings of the stories. If not, there wouldn’t be a discussion about the issue and an overt attempt to squash out competing views. They wouldn’t need the creeds if there wasn’t a reason to drive it home through layers of dogma (manipulate people). The conclusion I draw for this evidence is that Christianity did not start with a single proposition on resurrection. It started with varying ideas about how Jesus’ death could be reconciled (and varying versions of the stories). Later, a more dogmatic Christianity decided to consolidate and stamp out competing thoughts. You can see this in the canonized gospels. Just compare the last (John) to the first (Mark). You can see how John’s ideas are more doctrinal as they’ve had a few more decades to develop the story and attempt to consolidate the faith. When we add in some gnostic texts like Thomas that may predate John, that distinction becomes even more clear.
I think you might reconsider putting the words “just” or “merely” in front of other descriptions. I could just as easily argue against thinking of the story as “just” a physical resurrection. A metaphorical reading of the story is MORE than literal. If this act was just a single moment in history then it is only true once. On the other hand, if it is a powerful life changing myth, then it is about the possibility of resurrections happening in lives forever. It is true millions of times over in millions of lives. So I don’t want to lessen the story of Jesus’ resurrection by claiming it was merely a physical event.
I’m not sure what you mean by “If everyone in that day believed in resurrections like Osiris myths…”
Maybe you are confusing the idea that people believed any resurrection was possible with the idea that people believed this resurrection happened to Jesus. By discussing these other myths, I don’t mean to say everyone “believed in” every other myth. I mean to say, they knew about the myths. I also mean to say that 1st century people would have likely thought some kind of resurrection was a “possibility”. Don’t you even today seem to be saying that you think it is a possibility? Even today after all the world view changes of modernity, a majority of people in the U.S. still think it is a possibility. I have to imagine that 1st century people would have had at a minimum the same level of acceptance of supernatural events. If we look in that area of the world today, the numbers are much higher even now.
In my opinion, Wright makes a mistake when he tries to make a general statement that 1st century people would have easily made a distinction between myth and history. I think their environment was ripe for the development of a myth becoming a literal belief. Another example would be to look at 3rd world nations today (including the bible belt in the US). The less information people have about science the more likely they are to assign supernatural explanations to events and the more likely they are to blur the lines between stories and history.
Again, I like much of what Wright has to say, and I love that he probably helps draw thousands of Evangelicals to a more justice-minded approach to faith. However, I prefer the logic of his friend and sparing partner Marcus Borg on this issue.
I also hear in your last idea (and deeply in Wright’s logic) the notion that there was a “backlash” against Christians for their belief in Jesus’ resurrection. I don’t see any evidence of this. I don’t think they were persecuted for their beliefs in supernatural events (either this specific one or in general). By believing Jesus rose, I think what they mean to imply is that they believed Jesus was the messiah and there would be some kind of revolt against both Rome and the Temple. They were not in harms way because of their metaphysical beliefs. They were in harms way because following Jesus put them at odds with the power systems in place in Jerusalem and Rome. If their beliefs had just been a shift in metaphysics or just a belief in this one miracle, then I think they would have been fine. They already lived in a pluralistic society with various cults and superstitions.
This conversation would work be easier over a couple of cold beers!
I think that is an important bit of historical evidence!
Hmm. That is certainly one way to tell the story, I suppose. But why must the form we have canonized be characterized as the “dogmatic” one needed to “stamp out competing thoughts”? Why, if everyone in that day and age knew that this wasn’t a literal resurrection but a metaphor, and that such a view was common among other religions and was known by most of the ancient world, why would the version we have in our hands today win the day?
It could just as easily be said that the first Christians proclaimed a physical resurrection but as time when on syncretism took hold and those other, very popular and well-known myths began to seep in and claim it was merely metaphore causing the eye-witnesses to finally get the story on paper.
I guess I am having trouble reconciling your earlier comment that these are stories you have chosen to trust in and build your life around while at the same time you seem to be saying that these stories are not true, were constructed and done so to stamp out other stories that told painted a radically different picture. How do you reconcile the two?
If this act was just a single moment in history then it is only true once. On the other hand, if it is a powerful life changing myth, then it is about the possibility of resurrections happening in lives forever.
Can’t it be both? I would argue that it is both, and I think Wright would say the same. The reality of it happening in a single moment in history speaks to the objective reality of God actually MOVING in history and acting upon it and declaring that death and sin are now more. Death is defeated not because some ancient mystics dreamed up a great metaphor to declare it as such but because a real person was raised from the dead 2000 years ago, thus providing hope for all the world that the same will happen for us- physically.
Furthermore, there is the underlying spiritual reality of this truth that allows resurrection to happen every day in our lives because the same power that raised Christ from the dead is working within us today.
I agree with you that it is not likely that 1st century people would easily make the distinction between myth and history. However, I do think they can make the distinction between writing what appears to be an honest attempt at describing something historical over and against writing that is mythical, non-literal. For instance, even in Luke I think his audience could discern that something like the ascension is just beyond our understanding and rather than taking it literal knew something happened, that Jesus who was at the moment present is no longer and that he didn’t exactly get beamed up into the clouds. However, I think they also could tell where Luke is very serious and would take it as fact that Jesus ate with them and they touched his body and that he was physically present and the tomb was empty and so forth. Those, for me, do not ring mystical.
They were not in harms way because of their metaphysical beliefs
Interesting. See, I would have said the same about your angle. Rome knew all about mystery religions and stories of resurrection (spiritual) and what not. In that sense, Jesus’ story is not unlike the rest of them. To say he “spiritually” rose from the dead wouldn’t shake the world, would it? If so, why? Don’t we have others doing the same? Rather, what shook Rome up was that now you had people declaring Jesus is Lord because he was raised from the dead, and therefore Caesar is not. This is what got Rome upset and got Paul killed. Talk of a spiritual resurrection would not have made Caesar’s radar.
This conversation would work be easier over a couple of cold beers!
This, my friend, is something we can both agree on! What is your flavor? I have been on an Amberbock kick as of late.
peace,
Chad
A pint of Guinness is my choice! There is something theological about Guinness (but that is another topic).
But why must the form we have canonized be characterized as the “dogmatic” one needed to “stamp out competing thoughts”?
John’s Gospel seems clearly to be an example of stamping out earlier things its author saw as misconceptions. John is a theological statement. It is not a simple historical telling of facts. Neither is Mark, but each cycle of stories grows in theological assertions from one to the next. I’m sure Tom Wright would agree. I’d recommend Elaine Pagels “Beyond Belief”. She makes the case that John’s narrative is a direct response to the gospel of Thomas (and the Thomas community of believers). This is why John’s gospel adds the “doubting thomas” story to his narrative. She cites many more examples. John’s author also takes some shots at Peter including a scene with Peter’s denial of Jesus and a twisting of the order in which disciple is first on the empty tomb from the synoptic versions (no coincidence that John has his character out run Peter in his version). The point is that as the tradition grows, people make stronger and stronger cases that their own strain of the faith (and patriarchal apostle) is the best one while others are “doubters” or even traitors. We still do that today in all our denominational wars!
How do I reconcile devoting my life to a story that I firmly assert is fiction (or myths based on loose history)?
Well, this is where Postmodern thinking comes into play. Unlike modern thinkers, I’d prefer to look for truth beneath the facts and figures. I realize that narratives are wonderful carriers of truth (maybe better than dry historical details). This is an interesting thread because I’m having a dialog (debate) with an atheist and he has EXACTLY the same problem with this idea that I think you do. He can’t see that the truths of a story may be beneath the facts not IN the facts. He keeps calling the stories “false” just because they didn’t happen. In my view, these are the two twin evil step children of modernity, literalistic fundamentalism and literalistic atheism. They both mistakenly assume the value of a story lies in its ability to be historically factual. One side defends the facts because they fear without them they would be useless. The other side touts the stories fictional status as proof that they are useless. These are two sides of the coin of modernity. Progressive post-modern faith moves past this problem and has no issue with faith in a fictional story because we value stories. Myth is not a dirty word in post-modernity as it wasn’t in pre-modernity either. Modernity can’t get its head around artistic expressions of truth that go beyond dry facts.
So, I do think these stories are “true”, but I don’t think their truth has anything to do with if any of them literally happened. I firmly believe in the power of these stories to change lives. I’m devoted to that transformation and look to the story of Jesus as the primary inspiration for that change. I do not care if it happened or if there even was a historical Jesus (though I do think there was).
…what shook Rome up was that now you had people declaring Jesus is Lord because he was raised from the dead…
hmmm. I don’t think we need the clause “because he was raised from the dead”. That was not what shook up Rome. Do you really think Rome cared about that? They crucified thousands of people with or without a religion or a particular metaphysical belief. Declaring Jesus (or anyone else) was Lord would be enough to do the trick. I do not think you can imply that any Christian died because of the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. In fact, I think the idea of Jesus’ rising from the dead was solidified after they were already being persecuted for claiming Jesus was Lord.
Did the resurrection scene help the story spread? Absolutely! I suspect that is one reason it was added and then developed in more detain with each iteration. Could the Jesus story survive without it in a world where every other God had a resurrection story? Probably not. I’m glad it is in there, otherwise we might not have the story today.
Mike,
I’ll get back on this tomorrow. Until then….cheers *clink*
The point is that as the tradition grows, people make stronger and stronger cases that their own strain of the faith
I have not read much of Pagel’s stuff but what I have read or heard smacks of gnosticism, or a desire to steer people towards it. Your point here, however, can be taken a number of ways historically. Even if Pagel’s is right then one can just as easily say that John’s gospel came about to refute the heresies that were circulating and the reason it is canonized over something like Thomas’ gospel is because by this time the story was too entrenched and well known and Christians knew that Thomas’ spin on things was false.
He can’t see that the truths of a story may be beneath the facts not IN the facts. He keeps calling the stories “false” just because they didn’t happen.
I think you know me well enough by now (maybe not) to know I am very comfortable with myth and it’s usage in scripture. If you haven’t seen it yet there is a post here titled In the Beginning where I argue for a non-literal primeval history that has far deeper truths undergirding the stories told.
But seeing the truth behind a story or facts is not to say that the story itself did not happen. We do not need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I do not find value in the story simply because I see it as factual (I find great value in Gen 1-2 while not seeing it as factual) nor do I see myself as hung up in modernity. I happen to believe the resurrection actually happened because I believe the evidence points to that, I believe the stories I have put my faith in to claim that, and because I believe that God has acted decisively in history in this seminal event that gives hope to the world, then and now. Are there layers of meanings that can be gleaned from this and other stories? Sure! But we should not be so quick to dismiss them as unfactual just because they do not square up with our sensibilities. The Diests like Jefferson evicerated scripture, taking out everything supernatural leaving us with an impotent God that is subject to our whims and fancies. I think we have to be careful to not put ourselves above the very texts that I believe God has chosen to reveal himself through – such would make us lord over the Lord we desire to follow, ya know?
I’m devoted to that transformation and look to the story of Jesus as the primary inspiration for that change.
I think, in the end, this is what it amounts to and what we are called to proclaim. I wonder if you can help me understand how your position is consistent for yourself? I think that if I believed as you do I might have a psychotic split
I say that in jest. But you seem to allow and even be comfortable with synchrestism, are you not? I can’t see the consistency in claiming trust and belief in the stories of Jesus while at the same time describing those very stories as attempts to stamp out competing stories (which to me sounds almost disparaging of them, or hinting at something sinister behind the scenes) and then allowing those competing stories to influence how you interpret the very stories you say you have faith in. How does that work?
I think one side-effect of the liberalism of the past 200 years is our contempt of judgment or anyone claiming anyone is wrong. But this doesn’t square with how we live our lives. Wright makes the point that we DO judge and we desire judgment. We judge the pedophile as wrong. We call war and genocide and sex crimes and child abuse and addictions as wrong. The truth is that not everything is right. There are some stories about us that, likewise, are wrong. You and I do not follow the Osiris stories or Homer because we have concluded, rightly (I hope), that those stories are not real. And part of what makes them unreal is that they did not really happen and are attempts by humans to grasp at the realities of life. The stories we have in scripture are stories that both you and I have chosen to give authority and place our faith in. They are the stories that define us. In so doing, we make the statement (overtly or not) that other stories are if not wrong, do not accurately convey the truth that is within these. So even if we want to say that John’s gospel is an attempt to stamp out Thomas’ gospel we are still left with this fact, as unsettling as it may be: Someone or somebodies thought that John’s story was more true than Thomas’ story. Someone or somebody thought that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were right and that the other competing stories floating around in the day were wrong.
As for Rome being upset or not over a resurrected Lord…
Wright makes the point that that Israel had no shortage of would-be Messiahs. As I said before, they were all killed. When they were killed you either gave up your dreams of overthrowing Rome or you went and found a new Messiah. I see nothing in the NT that even hints to Jesus being a culmination of all these dead Messiah figures. Furthermore, if resurrection did not really happen but Jesus is still dead and what his story gave to the disciples is an idea of spiritual resurrection than this is nothing new in that day. Everyone believed in spirits. No one is threatened by a spirit, certainly not Caesar.
Let me put it this way: Within the ongoing cycle of people claiming to be Messiah and Rome snuffing them out, what would be the impetus to propel this ragamuffin band of disciples to suddenly declare that Caesare is NOT Lord but Jesus is? A “feeling”, as Borg would claim? I don’t buy that. We all know feelings are fickle and do not garner lasting devotion (marriage, for instance). The feelings, no matter how strong, cannot supplant the fact and reality that Rome killed your leader and he is dead in a tomb or devoured by dogs. If, as postmoderns, we do not want to allow just the facts of the story to dictate what is truth than we have to at least admit that the facts of this story make Rome the winner, not God.
Whatever light you can shed on this would be helpful
peace,
Chad
Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I’m so sick of people who can’t discuss these issues without making personal attacks and getting emotional. It is refreshing to have challenging conversations that are respectful. This electronic impersonal medium can seem so “matter of fact” and final. It tends to convey more certitude than is intended by either party. This is really a pleasure and like Wright and Borg, I don’t see theological disagreement as a barrier to friendship.
I have not read much of Pagel’s stuff but what I have read or heard smacks of gnosticism, or a desire to steer people towards it
Pagels, Ehrman, or the other well known scholars who’ve looked into gnostic texts have not made a case to “steer people towards it”. I’ve read many of their books and I just haven’t seen it anywhere. It would be silly considering they don’t “agree” with gnostic texts any more than they do with canonized texts. I think that is why their analysis is so good. More traditional Christian scholars have come at the study of gnostic texts with a chip on their shoulder. For example, in your comments you apply right off the bat that they are “heretical”. So you’ve started from a position that one set of texts is “right” and others are “heretical”. Granted, that is the traditional orthodox view, but I think we have to step outside of that bias in order to get a clear look. We can always step back in, but you have to recognize when we’ve moved from scholarship to emotional assertions.
The value of gnostic texts is not to try and hold them up as competition for truth. They are not “more true” than any other texts. The value of having these texts is that that give us a better picture of the early years and the various ideas. These scholars do not in any way push the ideas in the gnostic texts as superior. Before we had these texts, the consensus among scholars was that the early movement was more cohesive. They have clearly taught us something valuable.
I completely agree that the followers of John’s strain of Christianity believed their ideas to be orthodox and also saw other views as heretical. However, all that proves is that there were various competing ideas. It reinforces Pagels analysis of John and Thomas. I also concede that John’s ideas won the popular opinion. Of course, it took Constantine to enforce that decision. I am not advocating an adoption of a gnostic version either. I’m simply saying that all versions tells us more about the author’s community than anything else. None of them are historically accurate representations of the facts. They are all mythical in nature even when the myths are pointed at historical people, places, and events. Even if you accept a historical resurrection you would need to recognize the level of “bias” in its telling in each text. There is more than history loaded into those stories. They uses mythical language to tell the truth.
So how do I square my view that the texts have a bit of hidden agenda with my devotion to the stories?
I don’t see it as a corruption of the data or a “lie”. These texts do what all narratives do when they retell history for mass consumption (entertainment, liturgy, etc). It is history remembered and set to a liturgical medium. Again, I don’t have a problem because I dropped the modern assumption that in order to follow a story’s ideas, I would need to have an apologetic proof that all the events were historically correct. You already do this too even if you don’t realize it. You’ve selected certain elements to accept as mythical, but you’ve also accepted a later doctrinal stance that certain scenes in the liturgical play must be historical. I hear you suggest that you are “very comfortable with myth”, but I also hear you suggesting that if the story was a myth then you couldn’t follow its truths. How is that “comfort with myth”? That sounds more like the standard modern epistemology that only accepts truth from facts. Can we follow a myth? That is the question for postmodern Christianity. Can we look past our modern inclination to focus on “did it happen” and move to the point of living out the truths found in these stories. As more and more elements in the story are proven to be myth, can we follow the story or will we take the Thomas Jefferson approach of modernity that cannot reconcile fidelity to a myth. Fundamentalism is a big problem (and we both agree), but Jefferson represents the flip side of the modern worldveiw. He had to slice up the story. He couldn’t wrap his modern brain around the idea of looking for truth inside the myth so he sliced what he felt were mythical elements out of the story and didn’t bother to look beneath those scenes for truth. He threw the baby out with the bath water (to use your analogy).
I’m not advocating Jefferson’s approach. I love the mythical elements. Once we get them labeled correctly and stop trying to apply modernist apologetics that ignores part of the data we can really see the truth inside those mythical scenes. Those mythical scenes symbolically reinforce the rest of the story. I don’t want a sliced up gospel. I want the whole story (myth and all). Jesus’ march to Jerusalem to face the infestation of Pagan occupation would incomplete if Mark’s gospel had not begun the journey with a mythical allegorical scene where Jesus confronts the “unclean spirits” casts them out of the man (the temple) and drives the pigs (which always represents pagans) into the their watery death. This foreshadows the very acts Mark has Jesus conduct in the temple at the end of the journey. That is not an accident. Jesus’ illuminating speeches just don’t carry the same weight without the mythical stories of causing the blind to see. His life-giving parables wouldn’t move me in the same way without the mythical symbolic stories about bringing life to the dead. Paul’s call to die to self and become a new creature is not the same without a gospel scene of death, resurrection and new life. Jefferson was wrong! Let’s keep every scene of these mythical gospel plays (narratives) that bring life to the teachings of Paul’s earlier writings.
“Furthermore, if resurrection did not really happen but Jesus is still dead and what his story gave to the disciples is an idea of spiritual resurrection than this is nothing new in that day. Everyone believed in spirits. No one is threatened by a spirit, certainly not Caesar.”
Again, I’m not sure this logic can hold up. If a story must be factually true for people to follow it centuries later and if people will not give their lives for a myth, then do you do with Islam? Doesn’t your argument prove that the Koran was divinely given to Muhammad? Wouldn’t that scene in the Koran have to be factually accurate for people to kill to protect that sacred text a thousand years later? Why does that sacred text have so many MORE literalistic followers today? I think this logic is flawed. Would people REALLY die for a story about the miraculous ascension of Muhammad to heaven if it wasn’t factually true? Of course they would. They do it every day.
As for Caesar… If the real threat that concerned Caesar was a resurrected body, then why did he kills tens of thousands of people who didn’t teach about a resurrected body? Rome crucified without prejudice for religious views.
“If, as postmoderns, we do not want to allow just the facts of the story to dictate what is truth than we have to at least admit that the facts of this story make Rome the winner, not God.”
Well, yes if we let the facts of the story dictate the value of the story, then Rome wins. But, I’m not asking to look at the facts. I’m asking to look at the symbolic truths of the myth. I’m suggesting we embrace the whole myth. We have to realize that the authors didn’t end with Casar’s win. They finished the story with the symbolic scene that shows God wins because God will not allow a physical death of one person (or thousands) to stop the power of this movement to transform lives and create a new order of life on Earth.
This is the whole point of our post-modern deconstruction of the modern mistakes. Neither Jerry Falwell or Thomas Jefferson (both sides of the modern coin) had it right. The key to moving past that modern divide is to begin to realize we follow a set of myths, but that is so much better than following a systematic theological, historical and scientific textbook. So my question to you is, why wouldn’t you be comfortable following a myth? Are you like Jefferson who must cut out anything that isn’t factual or like Falwell who must fight for the mythical scenes to be interpreted as facts? I’m not sure what it is you think a postmodern understanding is. Maybe you can help me understand your slant on that idea.
Cheers!
It is refreshing to have challenging conversations that are respectful.
Amen to that, brother.
Just to be clear, I was using the word “heretical” from a historical perspective. I have been called a heretic enough times by evangelicals that I do not use that term loosely, if at all (see my post, The Watering Down of Heretic, for example).
As for postmodern thinking I draw much of my ideas from Stanley Grenz (r.i.p) and McLaren. While I like much of pomo philosophy and what it gives us to break free from the one to one corrolation of truth that modernity has entrenched us with I do not buy into it all. I think pomo phil as articulated through a Christian worldview is very powerful. It is in that sense, however, that I am very comfortable with myth as profound truths but that is not to say facts do not exist (at the risk of stating the obvious). Just because I uphold myth as a powerful teaching tool does not mean I think everything that is true must be myth or that all stories are myths. The trick comes in differentiating the two and in this particular case I see more evidence that the resurrection was a real, historical, physical work of God than not.
Let’s cut to the chase, shall we? Why don’t you believe it actually happened? Is it because we know dead people don’t rise from the dead or is it because you think that to believe that entirely misses the point and is not the thrust of the gospel stories? Or some other reason?
I think this logic is flawed. Would people REALLY die for a story about the miraculous ascension of Muhammad to heaven if it wasn’t factually true? Of course they would. They do it every day.
This stopped me in my tracks and I thank you for challenging me on this. I will have to think this one through.
I am leaving Sunday for the beach and taking a stack of books with me. As I have said I am not well read on some of the scholarly sources you seem to like (I have, however, read critiques of Pagels, Ehrman, and so forth but have never read their works). Is there a book you’d recommend that would flesh what you are saying out some more? I may have time to fit it in my reading this coming week.
Gotta run for now…thanks for the chat.
peace
I know you’ve mentioned Marcus Borg, but I was curious if you’ve read any of his books. Two of my favorites are:
“The Heart of Christianity” is a must read for any progressive Christian. Read that if you haven’t read anything else by Borg.
“Reading the Bible Again For the first time” opened the bible up for me. I literally fell in love with the bible again for the first time in my adult life after reading it.
Elaine Pagels – “Beyond Belief” is a great source on the Thomas v. John texts.
I’ll respond to a couple of your questions tomorrow when I have more time. Thanks again for the conversation. I’ve always enjoyed you blog.
I have read “Heart of Christianity” by Borg. I will look into the other two you mention and see if I can’t pick them up before I leave town Sunday.
Ditto on the conversation!
grace and peace.
“The trick comes in differentiating the two…”
I guess that is where I see so many people hung up in modernism. I don’t think ancient people saw this as a trick. They didn’t have this scientific type of mindset that felt a need to differentiate between myth and facts. The same must be true, I hope, in post-modernity, if we hope to shake the modern hangover. Why differentiate? Why insist on certitude in particular elements when to be honest, those elements sound just like the “mythical” element of other stories? At the same time, we can’t loose the ground we made in modernity. We can’t go back to a complete dependence on superstitions. POSTmodern means “modern plus” not “modern minus”. We need science plus meaning, not meaning minus reason.
“Let’s cut to the chase, shall we? Why don’t you believe it actually happened? Is it because we know dead people don’t rise from the dead or is it because you think that to believe that entirely misses the point and is not the thrust of the gospel stories? Or some other reason?”
A) Part of that is correct. I use the word “faith” not “believe”. Belief implies certitude in something without evidence. To claim certainty in facts of this story (or their absence) entirely misses the point and is not the thrust of the gospel. I’m currently having a discussion with an atheist about this and I outlined my understanding of faith in a post last week. If you have time you may want to read it and also notice how his problems with my faith are the same as yours. He is the flip side of modernity’s insistence on claims of certainty (belief).
http://www.faithprogression.com/2008/07/why-have-faith.html
B) I can’t see it as a coincidence that many other hero myths have these same elements (miraculous birth, miracle healings, resurrection, ascension to the right hand of Zeus/God).
C) When we study the stories without a bias toward a supernatural belief, it seems obvious that the story grows with each retelling. The first stories are simply sayings of Jesus, the next set are more liturgical with a few miracles and even added a miraculous birth story, and the last is highly symbolic and adds all the theological claims that are needed to fill in the gaps in the story including the essential mythical elements needed to tie in all these competing religious views and give Jesus the status he deserves as equal to and even above all other known myths. If John’s gospel is an intentional attempt to solidify a fractured Christian doctrine about Jesus once and for all, (I think most scholars agree on this) then doesn’t it also make sense that this text would also solidify some of the differing legends that must have been circling the communities about his life, death, and the nature of his current condition?
D) The physicality of this resurrection is needed because Jesus had to have an ascension (to match up with other myths and Jewish traditions like Elijah). So if he had to ascend then Paul and others needed to assume a more physical resurrection so that he could ascend. It is a natural assumption if they start with Jesus and need to end with ascension. It becomes very obvious to me that the gospel writers are writing their narratives with the Torah open in front of them. The gospels take great care to set the accounts of Jesus into the Jewish tradition. They take care to set the events into the Jewish calendar. They also make sure to use literary allegory to tie Jesus to Jewish heros. For examlple, the story of Caesar’s decree to kill the first born is clearly an attempt to tie Jesus to Moses. Jesus is the new Moses for these people. It makes sense that they would write this scene into his story. Jesus was to become the new Elijah and they claimed that his prophecies were in the same line of powerful Jewish prophets. So it makes sense that he would have an ascension story (like Elijah) and a transfiguration with both key Jewish figures. I can’t ignore that this must be an attempt to wrap these figures from Jewish mythology around Jesus’ legend.
E) It is the most “probable” option. The famous CS Lewis options liar, lunatic, or son of god are the least probable options. This is why I really hate Lewis’ argument (which sounds a lot like Wright’s). He just left out the most obvious solution from his list of options. The most probable option is that Jesus simply didn’t say or do those things and they were added as the story was written decades later as his followers were wrestling with the meaning of his life. Not attempts to lie, but honest attempts to explain how they felt and how they experienced Jesus’ mission impacting their lives in a real way.
Why is this the most probable? Because that is exactly what we all assume happened in every other sacred text (except for our own). Again, we go back to the Koran stories about Muhammad. Why do we have such and easy time suggesting those are legends that took hold and later became believable to the point of dying and killing for them? Why can’t we see the Jesus legend in the same light. Isn’t that the most probable option? Even if you don’t accept this idea, I think it is honest to recognize it is more “probable” than a physical resurrection. We CAN reproduce a legend. In fact we do it all the time from Paul Bunyan to the Bogey-man to George Washington chopping down a cherry tree. Some of those grow, some don’t. Some become international world changing myths. We see it every time somebody makes a Hollywood movie about a real live historical character. They NEVER stick to only the facts and only the actual dialog of the historical characters. Now add to our case the fact that there were no TV’s or recording devices and nobody taking notes on paper. On the other hand we CAN’T reproduce a physical resurrection. We have 2 options to consider and mine is reproducible and very common, while the other option is neither reproducible or common. So my verdict is that at a minimum we must say that this is the most “probable” solution.
F) You’ve stated that you see evidence for the event. After reading Wright’s ideas, I can’t really see evidence. Most of his argument does boil down to the idea that the event must have been literal or else the ideas of Jesus would not have caught on. I don’t see this as evidence. There are too many examples that discredit Wright’s evidence.
G) I admit that modernity influences my conclusion, but it is not a pre-determined bias. That is what postmodern means. We include modernity in our worldview but move on beyond it be reconciling modern science with ancient myth. I would say that the more we understand about biology and about the universe the less I’m likely to assume this is even “possible”. I’m not sure what to do with a brain that has been brain dead that long. I can’t see how it could survive, so at a minimum I think I have to say I’m agnostic about this and heavily skeptical. I’m not sure what good it could do to say I am “certain” this happened, yet I don’t even know what it is that happened that day. I’m more comfortable saying that I’m agnostic about the event, but willing to give my life for the meaning even if it only happened in a story.
F) I like the outcome of not having beliefs about these stories as facts. I feel I’m much more able to focus on the meanings. This is fuzzy logic. It doesn’t prove the case one way or the other. Its a personal reason that I’ve only discovered after I came to my conclusion. It could be used as an argument in favor of my conclusion, but it can’t be confused with the evidence for or any of the options. I like that it helps me come to a generous orthodoxy. I like that it helps me generate a pluralistic cooperation with other faiths. I like that it moves me from a state of religious competition to a state of religious cooperation and respect for other traditions. It removes all notions of having the “one and only correct myths and traditions”. I think this is extremely valuable and would be hard to really embrace if in the back of my mind I had the notion that my own sacred story is “the only myth this isn’t really a myth”. I’m not sure I could really give the proper respect to other religions if I had to assume my image of God is real and theirs is not.
I think it makes more sense to let science rule the areas of science and let religion rule in the area of meaning. I think it is harmful when either of those two camps infringe on the other. Our best science (including the science of textual criticism) is leaning heavily (if not conclusively) toward “no physical resurrection”. I’ll accept that for now. I see no reason not to. In fact, as I’ve stated, I have more faith without that belief because faith demands following in the absence of certainty.
I’m interested in your reactions and I hope you have a great time at the beach. Let me know what you think. I’m also interested in how to have this discussion. Regardless of your own conclusions, I think there is a huge need for dialog between people like us. More than trying to move people one way or the other, I’m curious to learn how this dialog could work on a larger scale.
Cheers! Enjoy your vacation!
Why differentiate? Why insist on certitude in particular elements when to be honest, those elements sound just like the “mythical” element of other stories?
I guess because the way the stories are told and presented call for us to differenciate. At the risk of sounding like a clanging gong, the gospel stories do not have the feel of myth when it comes to the story of resurrection.
Do we not have an obligation to take each account on its own accord and not make broad generalizations? At what point do we allow ourselves to state with any certainty that something in history actually happened as it was described? Is ALL of history a myth? Of course not.
I am reminded of science fiction stories that told tales of walking on the moon long before Armstrong ever did or even thought about it. Imagine a group of people 2000 years from now debating whether this ancient people called Americans ever moon-walked. In gathering all the historical evidence they find these stories about people walking on the moon that they determine are myths (quite literally, in this case). Because they know there were many mythic stories surrounding moonwalking they look at Armstrong and determine that he too is a mythic tale. Of course they would be wrong, right? Sure, some of the tales were myth but we might say they were hints and guesses at what is ultimate reality. We might say the same for followers of Islam or any other world religion – they are putting their faith in what has been revealed to them presently – they have truth, even if only partially (for now). One day, all will know and confess that Christ is Lord, but until then, as Paul says, we see through a glass dimly and miss the mark more often than not.
Now, we might argue that we have better evidence for Armstrong, such as TV and Radio broadcasts. I know someone who insisted until the day he died in the mid 70’s that the whole thing was a hoax, engineered by the government to prove they were doing something (I couldn’t make that up!) But even more pertinent, we can argue that the genre of literature and the way people kept historical records in Jesus’ day is far different and more advanced (and more keen to details) than other people’s in other times. Josephus and Tacitus are but two examples of people setting out to give accurate accounts of their history. And lets not forget Luke begins his account declaring that he has gathered evidence and taken care to give an accurate account. It is for all these reasons that I see a need to differenciate when the evidence seems to demand it.
I have to run for now but wanted to get some cursory thoughts down. We are packing for our trip tomorrow and I have to get ready for services tomorrow. I would love to hear your critique of the above view (I know you have one!) I will return to the rest of your post when I have more time to give it the attention it deserves.
Hey, I picked up Borg’s Seeing Jesus Again for the First Time and will read it at the beach. Looking forward to it.
grace and peace….and cheers!
Chad
Chad,
“I guess because the way the stories are told and presented call for us to differentiate. At the risk of sounding like a clanging gong, the gospel stories do not have the feel of myth when it comes to the story of resurrection. “
That is interesting, because the way I see these stories told is exactly why I see them as more myth than history. They feel exactly like a myth (a play, a movie, or a novel). The reason I have more certainty about other aspects of history is because those events are told as historical records not as a narrative. There are other writings contemporary with the gospels and even much earlier that convey history without a narrative approach. Paul’s letters are not narratives so we know that narrative was not an exclusive choice for truth telling. They didn’t have to chose this form. If these gospels were really meant to convey historical facts, it seems odd they would have chosen such a poetic symbolic form. However, if they meant to convey deeper meanings about Jesus to be used as liturgical readings in their worship, then they picked the right method for the task. It also seems they did a good job of setting the events into the existing liturgical calendar making sure that Christians had reasons to celebrate and disclose meaning through the existing Jewish (and pagan) celebrations.
The same is true with the book of Acts. We can see how Paul’s accounts of his historical events are sometimes different when someone later put them into a narrative form in Acts. If the only record we had of the first moon walk was a narrative or liturgical sacred play, then I’d be suspicious about its details too. When a book has dialog in it, with scene setup, character development, and allegorical elements then the author is not working in the same genre of writing as a historical text book. I don’t know of any such mythical narrative stories about Neil Armstrong. Maybe if the only story we had about the moon landing was filled with religious symbolism and was written by religious leaders then it might be questioned in 2000 years.
So for me, it IS the form of these texts that leads me down this path. I don’t stop there. I think we can do them more justice by realizing how they were also shaped into doctrinal statements. These are books filled with scenes that are carefully shaped for liturgy and doctrine. If these were 4 history books then they wouldn’t differ so much. They wouldn’t present such different images of the same historical person if their intent was merely to convey history in an accurate way.
“Do we not have an obligation to take each account on its own accord and not make broad generalizations?”
Well, we have an obligation to take each account and evaluate it independently for what it is. I’m sure we agree that we can’t confuse the various types of literature in our library of texts just because somebody decided to slap them into one volume and make it sacred. But in order to be true to our task of exegesis, we can’t just take anything on its face value. That would be doing it a disservice. We have to make note of how the texts were used and it seems pretty clear that the Gospels at a minimum became liturgical plays. It makes pretty good sense that they were written for exactly that reason. They are still used for that purpose today. It makes more sense when we compare them and watch their progression from one to the next and see what each round of editing did to shape the story.
I’m looking forward to hearing your impression of Borg’s book on Jesus. He wrote a better updated version a couple of years ago with much more detail, but the core message is the same. He says this stuff so clearly and much better than I ever could.
have a great trip!
Mike,
Just wanted to drop a line here to say I haven’t forgotten about our chat. Just got back a few days ago and am catching up on some stuff here and at the homefront.
I listened to a lecture by Richard Hays, NT prof here at Duke Divinity, and he made some good points about why the resurrection ought to be thought of literally over mataphorically. I want to go back and listen again and perhaps share some of those insights to hear what you have to say on them. If you wish to listen to it yourself I downloaded it for free at Itunes. I believe the title was “Leading the World on the Road of Reconciliation: The Conversion of the Imagination.” It’s worth the listen
Hope your summer is going well. Cheers!