Knowing Jesus and Newsweek

Motivated again by Newsweek’s Christmas Story, I decided to read the discussion (it’s not really a debate) between Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright about the Jesus of history.

As with so many of those Jesus Seminar scholars, Borg’s statements are not at all clear even when they seem to be: “[the historical] Jesus is dead and gone—a claim that does not deny Easter but simply recognizes that the ‘protoplasmic’ Jesus isn’t around anymore’” But the post-Easter Jesus is around, that is, “what Jesus became after his death. More fully, … the Jesus of Christian tradition and experience.” What he of course means by this is not that Jesus the historical person really became anything; the post-Easter Jesus is a character in a work, or works, of fiction. But by labeling fiction as metaphor, and claiming that metaphors are true because they are meaningful, he tries to assert the “truth” of Easter, and the possibility of “seeing Jesus.”

By contrast, Wright is the model of clarity. His description of the “hermeneutic of paranoia” embraced in New Testament studies almost refutes, by itself, Jon Meacham’s nonsense in that Newsweek article.

I’d love to post Wright’s entire chapter, “Knowing Jesus,” but this would violate copyright laws. However, I can’t resist quoting excerpts from four paragraphs defining what it is to know Jesus by faith.

… It has been inherent in Christianity from the beginning that the believer “knows Christ”; Jesus, as the good shepherd, knows his own sheep, and his own know him. This is regularly described in terms borrowed from ordinary personal relationships: believers are aware of Jesus’ presence, his love, his guidance, his rebuke, and even perhaps his laughter. They are aware of being in touch with a personality that is recognizable, distinct, frequently puzzling and unpredictable, always loving and lovable, powerful and empowering, loyal and calling forth loyalty …

… It is not just “belief.” It is natural to say “I believe it’s raining” when indoors with the curtains shut, but it would be odd to say it, except in irony, standing on a hillside in a downpour. For many Christians much of the time, knowing Jesus is more like the latter: being drenched in his love and the challenge of his call, not merely imagining we hear him like raindrops on a distant windowpane. (For many, of course, the latter is the norm; hinting, promising, inviting.)

… When we “know” a person (as opposed to, say, knowing the height of the Eiffel Tower), we imply some kind of relationship, some mutual understanding. We are used to each other; we can anticipate how the other will react; we accurately assess their wishes, hopes, and fears …

When someone claims to “know” Jesus of Nazareth in this sense, they are making a claim about other things as well: the existence of a nonspatiotemporal world; the existence of Jesus within that world; the possibility of presently alive human beings having access to that world, and of this being actually true in their case. They are claiming, more particularly, to know one person in particular, a distinctive and recognizable person, within that world, and that this person is identified as Jesus. This knowledge is what many people, myself included, are referring to when we say we know Jesus “by faith.”

From N.T. Wright’s chapter, “Knowing Jesus: Faith and History,” (pp. 24,25) in Marcus J. Borg and N.T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, (New York, HarperCollins, 2000)

Against Meacham’s assumption that history and faith are completely at odds, Wright asserts that this way of knowing Jesus is reinforced by history, “history comes to the help of faith. The Jesus I know in prayer, in the sacraments … is the Jesus I meet in historical evidence—including the New Testament … as I read it with my historical consciousness fully operative … History, then, prevents faith from becoming fantasy. Faith prevents history from becoming pure antiquarianism.” (p. 26)

(Note: Meacham claims to be summarizing a scholarly debate. However, at first I simply couldn’t find more than one side. His article is much like a presidential debate where the microphone for one of the candidates is turned off every time it’s his turn to speak and then the only candidate who’s heard is pronounced the winner.

I finally realized that Meacham probably thinks he did represent both sides of the debate. The two sides are not, as I would expect, critical historical scholars who conclude that the gospel narratives are reliable vs. those who conclude that they are not; but critical, historical scholars who assert meaning in the Jesus stories despite their lack of foundation in history vs. simple believers who know nothing about history and don’t care to. He either is not aware of scholars like Wright, or he doesn’t like them. Either way it’s lousy journalism.)