The Meaning of Jesus by Marcus J. Borg

The Meaning of Jesus Reviews

• 
  Bill

  The late Marcus J. Borg was a liberal Lutheran New Testament scholar and theologian. N. T. Wright, former Anglican Bishop of Durham, is a more conservative New Testament scholar and theologian. Friends for many years, in spite of significant differences in theology, they published this book together in 1999, each writing his own chapter on eight topics:
  
  How do we know about Jesus?
  What did Jesus do and teach?
  The death of Jesus
  God raised Jesus from the dead
  Was Jesus God?
  The birth of Jesus
  He will come again in glory
  Jesus and the Christian life
  
  The two respectfully present their beliefs and the many differences between them in their first seven chapters, most notably, perhaps, Borg's belief that the meaning of Christ doesn't depend on whether much of what the New Testament says about Jesus actually happened, in contrast to Wright's belief that these accounts are mostly historically accurate and are central to Christianity.
  
  It's interesting that, although they arrive from such different paths through their study of Jesus's life in the New Testament, their final chapters on how to live a Christian life turn out to be remarkably similar.
  
  Covering such a broad range of topics from two different perspectives in a relatively brief book resulted in what seemed like fairly frequent assertions of belief with either no supporting argument, or a reference to another publication, but I thought it a minor issue.
  
  Each author provided me with food for thought and I found their mutual respect and shared intellectual curiosity refreshing and inspiring.
• 
  Lee Harmon

  Two of my favorite scholars, Marcus Borg and N. T. Wright, debate the meaning of Jesus. One is decidedly more conservative, but both are thoughtful and well-studied. And, raising hope for the future of Christianity, I would venture a guess that they are best friends despite their differences.
  
  Wright believes the gospels are what they are “because their authors thought the events they were recording—all of them, not just some—actually happened.” This may sound self-evident to conservative Christians, but it is not the way Borg sees it. Two terms he uses to describe gospel writing are “metaphor historicized,” and its complement, “history metaphorized.” Borg just can’t jump on board with a literal reading of the gospels; he describes this outdated way of reading the Bible with five adjectives: literalistic, doctrinal, moralistic, exclusivistic, and afterlife oriented. This view, he says, has ceased to work for a large number of people, who find that if they must take the Bible literally, they cannot take it at all.
  
  According to Borg, the “single most important difference” between these two scholars is their opinion about whether or not Jesus saw himself as the messiah. Wright says yes, Jesus understood his role as central to the salvation of the Jewish nation and, by extension, the world. Borg says no, Jesus’ role as messiah grew after his death and resurrection, as the understanding of his followers evolved.
  
  In my opinion, the single most important difference in the thinking of these two scholars is not Jesus’ self-understanding, but the manner of his resurrection. Wright says Jesus rose in body, and showed himself physically to his disciples. Never mind that this new body could somehow walk through walls and disappear at will. “Resurrection,” to a Jew, meant a physical rising in body. Wright argues that only an event of this magnitude could have triggered the devotion and dedication of the Jesus movement that continued on after his death. In contrast, Borg seems unconcerned with the empty tomb, and interprets the resurrection in a more spiritual manner. I’m oversimplifying his position, but Borg sees Jesus being “raised to God’s right hand” as simply meaning Jesus has captured the position of Lord in the lives in his disciples. He is “raised up” by his followers after his death.
  
  As I said, these are two of my favorite Jesus scholars. I believe Borg and Wright encapsulate liberal and conservative Christianity at their basic levels, and studying the two in tandem helps us appreciate the arguments of both sides. Great book!
• 
  Jim

  From the copy of the book I have, this is what the title states on the front:
  
  

  The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions: The Leading Liberal and Conservative Jesus Scholars Present the Heart of the Historical Jesus Debate

  
  
  Yeah; it’s a bit long. N.T. Wright presents a more conservative viewpoint of the historical Jesus; Marcus J. Borg’s view is a bit more liberal.
  
  At first, I got into the debate. But then it started to get pointless. Even when they disagree, they seem to agree. So often it seems like semantics. And there seem to be so many logical problems, it starts to get annoying.
  
  Borg has his share. He’s constantly referring to a “majority of mainline scholars” who agree with what he says, but never gives any evidence. He suggests that Mark was written first, containing the most accurate stories of Jesus, but then reverses himself and uses some passages in Mark to prove that other passages in Mark aren’t true. And he suggests that Jesus was a healer, states that this was some sort of paranormal ability, but that His healings weren’t miracles. Huh?
  
  But Wright has his problems, too. One that stands out is the idea that the eyewitness testimonies of Jesus after his resurrection contradicting each offer some sort of proof that the eyewitnesses were real. (The fact that they don’t match proves that they are true?)
  
  It seems like some of the arguments are so bad that even when I agree with the conclusions, I want to throw out the assertions.
  
  Plus they continually refer to their own work – it’s as if they can’t explain their points without going back to their entire body of work. But doesn’t that make them poor scholars if they can’t?
  
  Everything Borg argues seems to be dependent on the fact that Jesus was basically two different people before and after he died (a pre- and post-Easter Jesus). Before he died, he didn’t know he was the Messiah; but became the Messiah at His death.
  
  According to Wright, Jesus knew he was God and the Messiah while he lived.
  
  So far, pretty much all of their arguments rest on these assertions. (Maybe that’s an oversimplification, but for the purposes of a blog post, I think it’s fair.)
  
  And I’ve gotten to the point in this debate where I’ve said, “Who cares?”
  
  And maybe this is good. Before reading this book, if someone suggested that there could still be a body in the tomb of Jesus and still keep their faith, I wouldn’t have thought it made sense. (Borg suggests this stating that he thinks that the resurrection was different from a bodily resurrection.) But now – I’m almost done with a lot of this discussion. Whether Jesus knew he was the Messiah when he was on earth or the exact nature of the resurrection of Jesus – I don’t really care because it doesn’t impact my faith.
  
  But maybe the discussion is good – because I think it’s helping me see clearer the meaning of Jesus…even if (or especially if) all this arguing over semantics is pointless.
  
  But the arguments aside, there were some really good things in the book - and they really ended up bering areas where Marcus Borg agreed with N.T. Wright.
  
  Part of this is the process of discussion, of argument. I think I remember Rob Bell referring to it as "wrestling with the text". Part of the point is to talk about the Word, discuss it, think about, agree and disagree about it. Towards the beginning of the book Wright talks about how in the real world, things:
  
  
  

  ...meet, merge, fuse, question each other, uncouple again, swirl around each other, undergird and undermine each other, examine each others' foundations and set about demolishing or reconstructing them, appearing at one moment inseparable and at the next in an embarrassingly public family squabble.

  
  
  
  I think this is part of the whole process we miss when we try to force everyone to agree with us.
  
  But both authors also have some really good things to say about how we should live our lives.
  
  I love how Wright talks about the Kingdom of God,
  
  
  

  Jesus challenged his contemporaries to abandon the attitudes and practices toward one another which went with the xenophobic nationalism, especially the oppression of the poor by the rich (a constant strand in much of his teaching)...He was welcoming of sinners into fellowship with himself precisely as part of his kingdom announcement; he was declaring that his welcome constituted them as members of the kingdom...Jesus was offering forgiveness to all and sundry, out there on the street, without requiring that they go through the normal channels. That was his real offense.

  
  
  
  Jesus welcomed everyone - you didn't need to be perfect and white and clean to enter into His (God's) Kingdom.
  
  While I had major issues with Borg's treatment of the birth stories, he does use it as a wonderful metaphor that I really liked. (His issues range from bad to worse in this area. He claims that Luke shows the genealogy of Jesus going through the prophet Nathan; which is only true if you believe that David's son Nathan and the prophet Nathan were the same man - but I can't find anything in the text to support that. And then, completely forgetting about Okham's Razor, he writes, "How does one account for the common emphasis upon Bethlehem? One possibility, of course is that Jesus was really born in Bethlehem...What then is left historically from these stories? ...He was probably born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem." Wait...what?)
  
  But back to the metaphor - Borg ends his section on the birth stories of Jesus with this, referring to the Christian mystic Meister Eckhart:
  
  
  

  Eckhart spoke of the virgin birth as something that happens within us. That is, the story of the virgin birth is the story of Christ being born within us through the union of the Spirit of God with our flesh. Ultimately, the story of Jesus' birth is not just about the past but about the internal birth in the present.

  
  
  
  That's just beautiful.
  
  And Borg finishes up the book bringing the Kingdom of God full circle:
  
  
  

  A vision of the Christian life that takes Jesus seriously awakens not only compassion but also a passion for justice. Like those who stood in the Jewish prophetic tradition before him, Jesus knew that the desperation of peasant life flowed from systematic injustice. Destitution and degradation, in his world and ours, are neither natural nor inevitable but are the product of domination systems created and maintained by the rich and powerful to serve their own interests. Such structures are neither ordained by God nor mandated by scarcity.

  
  
  
  That's worth talking about.
  
  (Well - not just talking about...doing something about...you know what I mean.)
• 
  Tania

  I am not a theologian, and as such, I can't review or evaluate this book on that level. I am a Christian who was raised in the Anglican Church, and I've always been fascinated by questions of Biblical inerrancy. I approached this book as someone who clearly believes in Jesus as Son of God and Saviour, yet who is open to different ways of approaching the Bible.
  
  Borg and Wright both make well written, clear arguments to explain their views around Christ both as a spiritual and historical figure. The authors addressed all the key questions about Jesus, and they didn't try to force the reader into accepting one point of view or the other; the book seemed to be meant to get people thinking and exploring these issues. Any book that can take such complex matters and create a book that is not dry or textbook-like should be applauded.
  
  I thought the scholarship on both sides was sound, although both relied a bit more on their own previous works than I would have liked. A bibliography/list of works cited to go along with the notes would have been more appropriate. I thought the layout was a bit annoying - I'd have preferred a dialogue set up for each question, so that I could read the authors' differing views side by side, and it would've been easier to be clear on where they agreed and disagreed. As it was, I found myself going back and forth to see what each was saying on a particular subject.
  
  This book may present a challenge to readers who have made up their minds about Jesus' identity either way. As someone who does have faith, I found it a good exercise to read something that asked me to set aside my beliefs, question, and be open to new possibilities/interpretations. I actually found that in some ways my faith was strengthened because Borg was able to give me a way to look at the things in the Bible I find contradictory that doesn't require me to completely abandon the Bible.
  
  This book can be complex in parts, and it does assume a certain level of knowledge on the part of the readers' behalf. I don't know that it's a great book for a beginner. Anyone who is interested in the historical Jesus, regardless of what you believe about him, will find this book interesting, if challenging at times. I highly recommend it.
  
  
• 
  David

  This is a good book for those who desire to compare two different ways of understanding Jesus, Christianity and the Bible. The cover states that the two authors are the leading "conservative" and the leading "liberal" scholar in the historical Jesus debate. Perhaps true, though it would not be difficult to find scholars much more conservative than Wright and much more liberal than Borg.
  
  I am a huge fan of NT Wright so it was not surprising that I found myself agreeing with much of what he wrote, and even anticipating what he was going to write since his chapters often echo other books. This was my first reading of Borg, so I tried to give him a fair shake.
  
  Overall I found NT Wright to be much more convincing and consistent. Borg affirms that he emphasizes Jesus' context in ancient Judaism (p. 8) but does not seem to follow through on this. For example, Borg identifies Jesus as a Jewish mystic, a healer and exorcist, one who taught wisdom beyond convention, a social prophet, a movement initiator, even a messenger of the kingdom of God (ch. 4). The question is, which Wright asks (p. 49) - if a first century Jew was all of these things, at a time when many Jews claimed to be Messiah, can we imagine that Jesus and those around him did not wonder if he was the Messiah? The answer is clear - if Jesus was doing all those things, he had to at least wonder if he was the Messiah. Given all that Borg says, it makes no sense to deny Jesus thought he was the Messiah.
  
  This contextual problem continues in the discussion of the cross. Borg admits that the idea of one's death having an atoning affect for others was present in the Jewish culture of Jesus' day and that it was very possible for a first-century Jew to think this. Yet he cannot affirm Jesus thought his death meant anything (p. 81). On the next page he writes that Jesus' death did not take him by surprise. Again, there seems to be a consistency issue. Wright takes Jesus in his first century context more consistently, while Borg admits he does not want Jesus to have seen his death to have any significance (p. 82). In the final chapter Borg takes Wright to task for Wright argues that faith has a large part to play in the historical discussion. Maybe Borg should take his own advice, for his faith that Jesus did not see himself as Messiah seems to influence how he interprets the history.
  
  There were other points where Borg does not appear consistent. He says that it was against Jewish law to have a trial at night and it is impossible to imagine the Sanhedrin convening the night before Passover, which is one reason he sees the story made up (88). Yet I wonder why the early Christians, especially a community of mostly Jewish-Christians, would make up something that they probably knew was practically impossible. Borg says that resurrection is not a resumption of previous existence (which Wright and Christian orthodoxy would agree with), it is an entry into a new kind of existence (131). But Wright shows in his chapter on resurrection (and his magnificent book The Resurrection of the Son of God) that this new kind of existence is a bodily new life, a life after life after death. Would the theology of resurrection which Borg gives, that Jesus continues to live somewhere and his disciples experienced him, give reason for them to overthrow all Jewish belief in only a future resurrection to say Jesus is arisen in the present? Again there is a disconnect here.
  
  Another place where Borg fails to be consistent with the context, and perhaps to let his own faith shine through, is when he notes that if Jesus thought of himself as God we could question his mental health (p. 146). He says that he does not think people like Jesus have an exalted perception of themselves. The only problem is, if Jesus truly was God in the flesh in some way, it is no longer a delusion. And Wright shows that there were first century categories for a Jewish prophet (messiah) to see himself as God's representative, even believing his appearance in Jerusalem was the divine visit so many Jews were waiting for.
  
  I should give Borg credit for his chapters were thought provoking and I do agree with him on other things, for example his description of the meaning of the cross and easter: rejection and vindication of Jesus, revelation of the way, revelation of the love of God, sacrifice for sin. Whatever the cross and resurrection means, it includes at least these things. I also appreciated Borg's critique of the idea that God is out there somewhere and he occasionally comes here to perform a miracle or something. The truth is that God is always here and always interacting with creation, not just sometimes in miracles. Borg argues that God is always "right here" and "more than right here". Wright agrees with Borg on that statement.
  
  
  The chapter on the virgin birth was helpful, especially because I had never read Wright on this topic before. He brings up some good points. For example, no one had ever seen Isaiah 7:14 (the virgin shall conceive) as a messianic text so the argument that Matthew made it all up to fit that text makes no sense (besides the fact, if that were the case, why doesn't Luke quote that text?). Also, he notes that there are no pre-Christian Jewish traditions that the messiah would be born of a virgin. The only parallels were to pagan stories. The stories in Matthew and Luke are very Jewish so it begs the question, why would the writers borrow from pagans, especially with the risk of offending their Jewish audience and, as Wright says, "making Jesus out to be a pagan demigod" (176). Wright also cautions us not to make more of the birth stories than the Scripture does: they are not there to prove Jesus is sinless or to prove that Jesus was divine.
  
  What I found most interesting in Borg's treatment of this topic is that after illustrating the numerous differences in Matthew and Luke's stories he seems to reject Jesus' birth in Bethlehem (in favor of Nazareth) because they agree on it (181-2). Because Bethlehem was home to King David and because Micah 1:2 promises the future Messiah will born there is enough reason to reject it as made up. But this seems to be taking suspicion to great lengths and simply ignoring the other possibility: Jesus really was born in Bethlehem which is why both gospels have him there.
  
  The final chapter is a great conclusion as both spend time summarizing where they have differed most and then illustrating what their theology of Jesus means for Christian life. In many ways, they end up in similar places. This reflects that though very different, they are not worlds apart. I certainly find Wright's case more compelling and consistent, and I found my first reading of Borg interesting though I disagree with many of his points.
  
  I highly recommend this book for pastors or students who seek to understand differing views on Jesus in the academy.
  
  
• 
  Trevor

  Reading the Meaning of Jesus is like sitting at Centre Court in Wimbledon seeing two tennis greats volleying with all their might! Enjoyable and exciting reading, as you wait to see how the other author will return the serve!
  
  There are 8 parts in the book, with two chapters per part. Borg plays for the more progressive (or liberal) side, while Wright represents the more conservative side, but both are devout Christians. The good thing is that there is no hostility between them as they argue their points with respect, humour and clarity.
  
  In part one Borg serves, and Wright returns, the Bible: Metaphorical vs Historical?
  In part two, the historical Jesus: Jewish Messiah or Jewish Mystic?
  In part three, the question is the Death of Christ: political martyr, or something more?
  In part four, the Resurrection: was it the actual same body of the historical Jesus, or some kind of Visionary experience?
  In part five, was Jesus God?: What was the defining moment - his Birth or his Resurrection?
  In part six, the Virgin Birth: A Metaphor about great things, or a Literal event?
  In part seven, the Return of Christ: a Failed expectation or an Alternative interpretation?
  In part eight, the Christian Life: a Life of Love vs a Life of Love?
  
  Throughout the book, I would find myself agreeing with one author, only to be challenged by a view I had never considered! Wright and Borg are both very good writers, but Borg is a bit more readable while Wright can be slightly 'wordy'. However, you will find that both of them have very good arguments for their case.
  
  Some reviewers have said "Don't bother with Wright", or "Forget Borg, he's wrong". I would suggest that you don't support one or the other just because they agree with your views, but look at the arguments objectively.
  
  I can honestly say, that my interpretation of the meaning of Jesus has been affected by the arguments presented in this book - an apt title for such an impactful book. The good thing, is that in the end, both authors believe that the purpose of being a Christian is to love others, and bring social justice to this world. And that is one thing we can all agree on!
• 
  Rae

  Basic questions about Christianity are examined...was Jesus born of a virgin? Did he know he was the Messiah? Was he God? Did he die to redeem mankind? The amazing thing to me is that any Christian scholar who professes to believe in Christ (Borg) would ever dare to ask these questions in the first place. The Jesus Seminar is, to me, a classic example of the "wolves" spoken of in the New Testament. They profess to be believers but use their "knowledge" to undermine people's faith in Christ. They feel more comfortable believing that he did not really perform miracles or rise from the dead. I believe they are dangerous scholars whose works are being sold as mainstream authoritative voices of Christianity.
• 
  Ben De Bono

  The Meaning of Jesus is a fascinating debate between two of the big names in contemporary theology. Coming into this book, I've read a great deal of N.T. Wright but nothing previously about Marcus Borg. Both men are excellent writers and thinkers who agree that Jesus is hugely important both historically and presently. When it comes to details, however, they disagree on virtually every issue.
  
  As a conservative evangelical I naturally agreed with Wright throughout the book. I expected that to be the case from the get go. What I didn't expect was that Borg's argument's would be consistently weak throughout the book. That's not to say he doesn't make several compelling points. He does and is clearly a very intelligent theologian. However, throughout his writings he routinely fails to approach Jesus through the context of Second Temple Judaism. Given that seeing the New Testament in its original context is perhaps the strongest point in Wright's work, Borg comes off quite weak in sections where context is highly relevant. What's fascinating about this to me is that Wright's basic critique of Borg is almost identical to his basic critique of Piper in the justification debate. Borg and Piper couldn't differ more in their conclusions but both men have failed to properly put Scripture in its context, a choice that, in my view, has led them far from an accurate reading of Scripture.
  
  The one thing I wish would have been different in the format of the book is that it would have been nice to see Borg and Wright directly reply to each other's chapters. They both work some of that into their own chapters, but direct responses would have made the book that much more valuable. Even with that caveat, this is a highly engaging read. No matter which side of the debate you come down on, you're guaranteed to learn a lot!
• 
  Tylor Lovins

  This is Marcus Borg and N. T. Wright's exchange via book. It is useful if you want to understand where many Evangelical Americans see the historical Jesus debate stands right now. I think, mostly, this book misses the point, however, in light of Bultmann's stuff on the meaning of faith. I would recommend Bultmann's Kerygma and Myth instead of this if one, in my opinion, wants to really understand the issues of the historical Jesus in a way that involves honesty without intellectual suicide. Although N. T. Wright's work as a historian is useful for biblical hermeneutics, I don't think it can, as he seems to think, be the foundation for all biblical hermeneutics as such. I agree with Schleiermacher at this point: theology is a function of use by the church, it is nothing in and of itself. I think this is the real import between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith: the church is not interested in the man, they are interested in the Christ. Whereas the former is a historical entity, the latter is a religious entity and an icon of religious devotion. The latter, too, is what we find in the gospels. Of course, Marcus Borg discusses this view quite a bit in this book, I don't think that his philosophical position is very useful. He seems to miss the point, in light of Wittgenstein, of what it means to engage with religious language. I say this because Borg does not take himself to be giving over a religious account of the historical Jesus but wants to make philosophical arguments at certain points (especially on the distinction between resuscitation and resurrection--where, properly understood, this is a biological argument). Anyway, I would not recommend this book.
• 
  Chauncey Lattimer

  The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, co-authored by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright is an excellent read for the student of N.T. interpretation/hermeneutics. By design, the book provides the reader with two quite different approaches (one is more traditional, the other more revisionist) to eight very important topics in ‘Jesus’ studies. Each of the essays provided by N.T. Wright utilized both scriptural and historical background information in a very logical presentation of his thesis. Borg, on the other hand, built his responses from hypothetical sources (such as ‘Q’), caricatures of early Christian communities (developed from the ‘two-source’, layered understanding of the development of the Gospels), and ‘I feel…’ or ‘I believe…” statements. I must admit, I wearied of hearing Borg speak referentially to ‘most scholars’ or ‘a majority of mainline scholars.’ All in all, I would recommend the book to any serious student of the history of New Testament history, theology, and interpretation..
• 
  Mason Wren

  I found this book to be very helpful. It's two authors, Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright, each cast their vision of Jesus and what his life and work mean in light of first century Jewish perspectives and historical Jesus scholarship. I see true things in the visions of Jesus from both of these wise scholars, and there is a lot of common ground with different ways of expression. The beauty of this book for me is being able to see the unwritten underlying core in which both of these visions of the meaning of Jesus find their source, as I read how each scholar provides his understanding of this core. This book has greatly helped me more deeply and accurately understand the meaning of Jesus. However, this is definitely a more brief survey, and I look forward to digging into these author's other works as well.
• 
  Glen Grunau

  In their Introduction, Borg and Wright make an important observation: “There is, after all, no such thing as objectivity in scholarship. Anyone who supposes that by setting scholarship within a modern secular university, or some other carefully sanitized, nonreligious setting, they thereby guard such work against the influence of presuppositions that can seriously skew the results should, we suggest, think again.”
  
  This amounts to a confession by both that their contrasting views of Jesus are subjectively biased by nature of their own presuppositions. I think it is this admission that allows these men to share in one book such diverse views with conviction yet without judging or condemning the other. They state this intention in their introduction: “It might be that one of us is closer to the truth in some areas, and the other in others; and that by our dialogue we may see more clearly things that the other has grasped more accurately. We are both prepared for that eventuality. Where we do agree, however, is on the following point. Debate about Jesus has recently been acrimonious, with a good deal of name-calling and angry polemic in both public and private discourse. We hope in this book to demonstrate that this is not the only way of doing things.”
  
  And in this I believe that they succeed admirably . . . and model for us all how to debate matters of religion. After all, God does not need to be defended. More likely than not, when we become defensive of our religious views, it is our egos we are defending. And this never allows for free and respectful debate. It also does not allow our views of God to be challenged, to be revised, to grow more fully into truth.
  
  My views are more closely represented by Wright, who holds to a more traditional view of Jesus. So my comments to follow will largely be in reference to the important contribution that Borg makes in this book. While I happen to disagree with much of how Borg views Jesus, I have a great deal of respect for the honesty with which he states his presuppositions. Borg admits freely in his opening chapter how heavily his religious views were affected by his acceptance of the modern worldview – which essentially sees the universe as a closed system of cause and effect, operating in accord with natural laws. Borg recognizes that this worldview “raises serious doubts about anything that cannot be accommodated within its framework, including common religious phenomena such as prayer, visions, mystical experiences, extraordinary events, and unusual healings” (p. 10).
  
  Borg states his belief that the “modern” worldview is on the way out and may soon be obsolete (indeed post-modernism has in this generation largely supplanted the modern worldview – for which conservative Christians should be grateful rather than fearful because of how this has opened up the door wide for the average person to again take matters of religion and spirituality seriously). He describes how he began to question the modern worldview in his 30s and ultimately discard it for a worldview which made it possible for him “once again to take God seriously. I am convinced that the sacred is real. I see reality as far more mysterious than the modern worldview (or any worldview) affirms” (p. 11).
  
  But it seems to me that Borg may not have moved as far from his earlier held modernist worldview as might first appear. He later identifies the central aspect of his new worldview which appears to shape much of his view of Jesus. He admits that he does not “accept a supernatural interventionist model of God and God’s relation to the world. The model creates more problems than it solves” (p. 66). Yet does this supposition not lie at the core of a modernist worldview? In dismissing such a model of God, he rejects a literal interpretation of Jesus’ miracles and other supernatural phenomenon in the Bible and also appears to reduce the strength of the supernatural transcendence (although he appears to give lip-service to it) of God by emphasizing his immanence (which admittedly fundamental Christians have under-emphasized).
  
  This is where I part company with Borg, as I place myself somewhat comfortably in a post-modern worldview which allows for a “supernatural interventionist model” of God. But I have to confess that some of the scepticism that Borg expresses in certain literal interpretations of scripture give voice to some of my own doubts. Within a fundamentalist evangelical worldview, there has been too little tolerance for an open expression of such doubts – if for no other reason than because of the wrath and judgement that such doubts raise. After all, history has proven in the past that such doubts (that the earth is flat) in literal interpretations of scripture actually lead us into truth.
  
  In this book, Borg enriched my appreciation for truth expressed in metaphor. Although he chooses to “metaphorize” some events in scripture that Wright (and I as well) choose to interpret literally, he successfully highlights how metaphor can so deeply enrich and expand truth from its pure literal context, i.e. Jesus as the “light of the world.”
  
  Perhaps the most significant contribution that Borg makes is in offering an interpretation of the life of Jesus that makes Jesus accessible to those who cannot for various reasons accept and tolerate the Jesus of conservative theology. I do not struggle with this because I believe that Jesus is larger than our particular beliefs in him. Is it possible to be a true “believer” in Christ without accepting some of what I have come to view as “essential truths” about Jesus, i.e. the virgin birth? Borg offers this possibility. And before rejecting this possibility, I choose to defer in conclusion to Brian McLaren:
  
  "Before I knew Marcus Borg and Dom Crossan personally, I had little good to say about them or the Jesus Seminar. I shared the caricatured view that most of my Evangelical associates shared. But I wish you could experience what I have - first, in listening to and teaching with them, hearing their passionate engagement with the Scriptures, and experiencing their gracious friendship whether or not we were in agreement on everything. I remember the first time Marcus and I stood at the front of a church after a panel discussion, with a long line of people wanting to speak to each of us. Because Marcus' line was much longer than mine, I got to eavesdrop a bit on what people were saying to him. Person after person said, "If it weren't for your books, I wouldn't be a Christian today," or "I became a Christian after reading one of your books." This struck me, partly because I hear the same thing about my work, and partly because it suggested to me that (insert wink here) Marcus may actually be an evangelist of a certain kind, helping people find and keep faith in Christ.
  Not only that, but I had a change of heart when I read Marcus and Dom's book The Last Week. I was struck by their deep engagement with the Scriptures. In that book (and others since), they embody - imperfectly, but that's a given for all of us, right? – what you might call a post-critical engagement with the biblical text. I grew up with a pre-critical approach as a fundamentalist/Evangelical; we by and large were functional dictation-theorists, holding a view of the Bible that was largely Quranic. I was taught to fear and reject wholesale a critical approach to the Bible as "liberal" and "heretical" and otherwise awful. That's what a lot of us assumed the Jesus Seminar was about, and nothing more. But my sense is, that wherever Marcus and Dom were in the Jesus Seminar days, they, like all of us, are on a journey, and in recent years I sense they have moved beyond the modernist assumptions of liberalism to something larger and deeper, a second naivete if you will (to reference Ricouer and others). (In my upcoming book, I'll describe this second naivete as "stage four).
  Please understand – this isn't a blanket endorsement or non-endorsement of everything and anything Marcus (or anyone else) says. He has never asked me to make such an endorsement, nor have I asked others for such an endorsement. We're all seeking to serve God and neighbor and enemy in the Spirit of Christ, offering our best, knowing that it is always partial at best (from his website blog “Criticism, viewed from the East”)."
• 
  James

  The Meaning of Jesus is an intriguing tête-à-tête between two friends with very different Christian worldviews. N.T. Wright is the Bishop of Durham who takes up the standard of orthodox Christianity and Marcus Borg is, to put it mildly, a very liberal Lutheran. Both argue well, and Borg is most fascinating when he lays out his methodology in analyzing and interpreting the written documents we have on Jesus (He focuses on the Gospel of Mark because it is the oldest of the written traditions, he discusses briefly the theoretical document called Q and it’s importance to Jesus’ analysis, and he explains double attestation in the synoptic Gospels and how that is his guiding light when discerning what historically happened). Otherwise most of Borg’s arguments for his non-traditional view of Jesus were unconvincing. One of the foundational points that Wright makes is that all historians bring their preconceived notions of Christ to the table and that no historical analysis is uncontaminated by it. This sounds flimsy at first, but when we see Borg disregard Jesus whenever He speaks about Himself in a Messianic way and when he dismisses all miraculous accounts of Jesus as actually occurring, even if they fit his criteria of his methodology, we see Wright’s point proved correct. (Borg claims that the Road to Emmaus was not an eyewitness account but a metaphorical perspective of Jesus and he disbelieves the Resurrection….well he would say it doesn’t matter if Resurrection actually happened, but what really matters is the metaphor of Jesus living on in our hearts after His death. Wright was at his best in the chapter where he defended the Resurrection).
  
  I have to say I understand, at least a little more now, why N.T. Wright is kind of a big deal. Wright uses the historical perspective to argue an orthodox Christian view of Jesus and defends his belief in Jesus of Nazareth as the Jewish Messiah who we can believe in because it is historically credible and logically compelling (and he takes the non-traditional historical perspective to task!). One of his gems was a point he made regarding scholars dismissing Jesus as just another “messiah” in a long line of men claiming to be the Messiah of Israel, especially since all these “messiahs” had followers proclaiming their leader’s messiah-hood as well. Wright brilliantly argues that 1) This gives us reason to believe that Jesus would have thought of himself as a Messianic figure, so the language and title of Christ for Jesus of Nazareth were not late additions tacked on by Christian revisionists further on in history and 2) The “messiahs” of Jesus’ time were all killed for trying to rebel against Rome and when these “messiahs” were killed, their movement abruptly died as well. He brilliantly contends that first-century Jewish nationalists (Simon the zealot, one of Jesus’ twelve disciples, one of these rebel/freedom-fighters) were not going to waste their time with a dead messiah. The Messiah is the guy who is going to make everything right and reestablish Israel. Wright explains to us that when a messianic leader died another one would quickly take his place so that the revolution would not lose momentum. First-century Jews needed their leader to lead the way in overthrowing the ruling Roman government. In Wright’s words, “Life was too short and too hard” to pretend that their messiah was going to come and save them once he was dead. Yet, as Wright points out, we see in the “Jesus-messiah-movement” that His followers were proclaiming Him Messiah and King even after He died an especially embarrassing and scandalous death. In fact the movement prospered and grew until it became the dominant religion in that part of the world! Wright ends his point by saying that this Messiah doesn’t even slightly resemble the other “messiahs” of His time.
  
  Unfortunately, I believe Wright is too generous when he calls his friend Borg a Christian. Borg has departed from the tenets of Christianity so much so that I wonder why he even bothers calling himself a follower of Jesus. He thinks all religions have equal say as to who God is and that Jesus is part of that pantheon of beliefs. He calls Jesus a “Jewish Mystic, a social prophet, a spirit teacher”…almost every title except Messiah and God (and when he calls Him God, he has to qualify it in a bizarre way). Borg believes the Christian religion’s definition of Christ should be some sort of rambling miasma of panentheist theology, where we are all like Jesus…to some extent. His view of “spirituality” is inconsistent with itself in that he believes a relationship to God is paramount, but he reduces Scripture with Christ in it as purely metaphoric in that it solely affects the person’s sensibilities. How can one have a relationship with the Divine if all spirituality is, is just a bunch of metaphors affecting the human being’s emotions? Scripture is reduced to pretty poetry and Jesus is just a symbol for what we can become by our own doing.
  
  If you are interested in reading two heavy weights battle it out using historical perspective I suggest that you read this book.
  
• 
  Charles Moody

  This book is constructed as an alternating-chapter debate between two scholars. Their central topic is distinguishing those items in the Gospels and in Christian belief that can actually be traced to the life of the historical Jesus from those items that were creations of the early Christian church in the decades after Jesus’s death. This is anything but a dry and sterile debate; it leads them to disagree on topics that are seemingly critical and potentially explosive. For example, did Jesus actually see himself as the messiah, ask his followers to believe in him as the messiah, and speak of his own approaching death as central to his mission? Marcus Borg argues that it is most likely that none of these elements of the Gospels are truly “history remembered,” reporting the words and teachings of Jesus, but rather were later creations, testimony by early Christians as to what they had come to believe. N.T. Wright defends a more traditional reading of the Gospels, concluding that Jesus did say these things. Did the disciples and others actually encounter a bodily resurrected Jesus in the weeks after his death? Wright believes so and explains why; Borg believes that these Gospel stories should be seen more as metaphors whose truth and power do not depend on their being literally factual.
  
  Part of what was so appealing to me about this book was the respectful manner in which they conducted their debate. They showed respect both for each other’s beliefs and, by their measured conclusions and acknowledgment of uncertainty, for their topic. Some readers might be uncomfortable in having these matters of deep faith addressed as topics of historical inquiry, but if you are looking for that, I think you will find this lively intellectual exchange a very worthwhile read. For general readers like me without extensive background in New Testament scholarship, it provides an accessible but not simple introduction to these academic debates. Both authors write from a Christian perspective, but they expressly make it one of their purposes to appeal to non-Christian readers and place these debates about the historical Jesus within the public world of historical and cross-cultural study.
  
• 
  Matt

  Two Jesus scholars present their sometimes similar, more often conflicting accounts about Christ. Wright presents a classical "orthodox" view of historical Jesus, and Borg presents a liberal, view. I came to the book wondering why liberal scholars like Borg still bother to believe in Jesus at all (he does believe that Jesus existed and was crucified, but discounts a lot of the gospels as either a metaphor that has morphed into a historical meaning it was never intended to convey or made up accounts to support the movement of the early church). While I found Borg at times made interesting points, the supposition girding his views ("It's a metaphor people!"), relies on dubious logic. He believes Jesus did not have a messianic vocation or divine understanding of himself because . . . get this . . . it would have been crazy to talk that way (I kid you not). Since Jesus wasn't crazy, he couldn't have used all this messiah talk in the gospels. It follows that any text that puts this crazy talk in Jesus mouth, could have never actually happened. I find this view requires more faith than believing Jesus might have actually said something like what was recorded in the gospels. I'm reminded of the passage about having a form of godliness but denying its power. I appreciated the critique Borg gave of Wright's position and the very loving tone of both men. All and all it was an interesting book, that made me think about my underlying assumptions about Jesus (the scholarly tone weighs it down at time - overly wordy and repetitive in that professorial way). I definitely want to read Wright's book on the historical Jesus after reading this.
• 
  Peter Sullivan

  Well I finally finished it! haha! It only took me almost all year. This is not a super tough read, but it is written by two theologians so it's not a super light read either. I love to constantly have my notions about faith shaken up, to really ask myself why I believe what I believe. I am first and foremost a Christ follower, and I have tried very hard not to be roped in by the culture and dogma of the church but by what Jesus said and did. This book is a great read for someone who wants to be challenged in that way. It is written by Marcus Borg who is quite a liberal theologian and NT Wright who comes from a much more conservative perspective. (Though some might say, not conservative enough!) There is enough of a contrast though to really make you think about your position, no matter where you are on the spectrum. I found myself agreeing more with Wright, but Borg had some really great points that helped me enhance my view on Jesus. Each chapter is another topic. Then both the authors explain their position on it. Some of these topics include: The Death Of Jesus, How Do We Know About Jesus, Was Jesus God? and many others. Don't be daunted by how long it took me to read it. It had a lot more to do with the crazy events of this year than how hard it was to read it.
• 
  Robert Clay

  A worthwhile look at several of the major, foundational topics about who Jesus was and what His significance is, from the perspectives of two good friends who have significantly different views. Each topic (e.g. His teachings, His death, His resurrection, His divinity, His second coming, etc.) is addressed first by one author, then the other.
  
  Though I generally agree more with Wright, I was surprised by the extent to which I could respect Borg's views. For example, prior to reading the book, I would have found it difficult, if not impossible, to believe that one could seriously doubt the bodily resurrection of Jesus and still sincerely consider himself a Christian. Though I disagree with Borg on numerous points, he is definitely not out to destroy the relevance and power of the Christian faith (a charge often leveled against the Jesus Seminar, of which both authors are contributors), but is, rather, an honest and seeking member of that diverse faith which can embrace men such as Borg and Wright. I've no doubt that the real experience of the Jesus studied with such serious scholarship in this book is the reason the authors, despite their differences, are able to maintain such a loving attitude of respect for each other. That is a lesson many in the church today could well learn.
• 
  Adam

  When I reviewed "Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time," I lamented that the book didn't delve deeply enough into Borg's views of the historical Jesus. This book does a far better job of that, and as a bonus contrasts Borg's views with those of N.T. Wright.
  
  Although the book is framed as a debate between these two scholars, it isn't a "debate" in the vein of Chesterton-Shaw, approaching diametrically opposed viewpoints. Borg and Wright agree on far more than they disagree on. In broadest terms, they are both avowed Christians who believe Jesus was a real historical figure. Where they differ is their view of just what that historical figure did. Borg takes the view that many of the acts of Jesus recorded in the synoptic gospels are metaphorical, while Wright is more apt to accept them as factual events.
  
  For Christian readers, there is great value in considering both points of view, and in contrasting them with their own beliefs. I find both men's arguments to be door-opening to faith.
  
  Non-Christians also might find the scholarly approach of the two men interesting, and may be shocked to learn that biblical literalism is NOT a universally held belief in Christian circles. (Some Christians may be shocked to learn this, too.)
  
  Ideally, this is a book to be studied in a group (preferably a group holding diverse beliefs), and debated.
• 
  Art

  I am both confounded and very happy that these two very different theologians co-authored this book about Jesus. They go to great lengths to find common ground and to treat each others writing respectfully. In the preface they say it is because they are friends. That's just so wonderful. But they do not avoid their major differences, and this makes the book a lively (but friendly) debate.
  Tom Wright brilliantly describes a faith in the resurrected messiah Jesus that is historically grounded and that brings Christianity into direct confrontational love with every facet of today's world. Marcus Borg describes a beautiful childhood faith that he doubts later as an adult, making very complicated theological hoops to jump through in order to accommodate his doubts and still retain a semblance of belief in Jesus or God.
  The cover of this book shows a section of the face of Jesus lifted up from the rest of a portrait of Jesus. I couldn't decide whether the face was being lifted away from his portrait or if it was being set into place to complete the portrait. The cover appropriately displays the tension in the authors' debate over Jesus' historicity.
  But ultimately the victor of their debate is Jesus. As He is Victor over all and will be Victor over all.
  
• 
  kelly

  This is a fascinating debate about the historical Jesus between renowned liberal and conservative scholars Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright, respectively (both of whom also happen to be close friends).
  
  The book presents one essay by each of them in response to a question or topic ("How do we know about Jesus?", "The Death of Jesus", "Was Jesus God?", etc.)
  At the heart of the matter is their disagreement about whether the truth of a gospel story is dependent on it being grounded in a particular historical event. That is, Wright believes that "the truth of the Christian gospels depends on the basic factuality of their reports about Jesus," whereas Borg believes there is "metaphorical truth in the gospel narratives which does not depend upon it also reporting a specific historical event."
  
  Interestingly enough, in spite of their disagreement about how much is historical and how much *needs* to be historical, their descriptions of what the Christian life looks like are perfectly aligned.
• 
  Marvin Gumba

  My Thoughts On The Authors
  
  1. Marcus Borg
  a. I enjoyed reading Marcus Borg
  b. Marcus' writing is very clean, concise, and easy to follow unlike Wright.
  c. I appreciate the challenging that Borg brings to the table.
  
  1. N.T. Wright
  a. Wright unfortunately lost me most of the time. This wasn't because of my inability to understand the reading level. Every time the chapter would transition from Borg to Wright, I hoped that Wright would ease off of his fetish with creating sentences that resemble run-on's. (One of his hobbies could be crafting sentences with no less than 50 words.)
  b. Unfortunately, his passion did not translate to me as the reader the way he probably intended.
  
  My Thoughts On the Book Overall
  
  1. I believe they did a pretty good job at being able to ping pong their thoughts on the topics they chose to discuss.
  2. I enjoyed the parts where they would share points of views that were new to me.
  3.
  
  
  What I Learned Or Took Away From The Book
  
  1. My favorite discussion and debate so far is the one about the second coming.
• 
  Joel Wentz

  A fantastic book, written passionately by two friends with opposing viewpoints. This hits all the "hot topics" within the Jesus debate: how do we know the gospels are reliable? Was Jesus really born of a virgin? Was the resurrection really physical, or just a spiritual metaphor? After responding to each other, with solid historical scholarship, both Borg and Wright supply a chapter at the end of the book on living the Christian life. This last section, in my opinion, is worth more than the rest of the book combined (although I immensely enjoyed the earlier chapters as well). I have read a lot of Wright, and his section in this final chapter on politics is one of the most moving and exciting pieces of writing I've seen from him. In general, I cannot recommend this book highly enough. It felt like a strong breath of fresh air: two immensely respected historians, both who love Jesus and seek to follow him in their lives, disagreeing with a friendly, respectful tone as they write about topics that are of the utmost importance. Get this book and read it immediately!
• 
  Carolyn Lind

  After reading three books by N.T. Wright and three books written by Marcus J. Borg, it was interesting to read the one they did together. It helped define the differences between these two Bible scholars, as with alternating chapters they shared very different perspectives. I recommend this book for persons who have read and enjoyed other books by these two fine authors. Wouldn't it be wonderful if all Christians could follow their example and remain friends even when their viewpoints of scripture are as different as those of N.T.Wright and Marcus J. Borg!
  
  
  "...being christian is not about believing, but about a relationship with the God who is sacramentally mediated to us through the Christian tradition in a comprehensive sense of the word: the Bible, the gospels, Jesus himself, and the worship and practices of our life together in Christian community."-Marcus Borg
• 
  Rudy Dyck

  This is an excellent book between two Christian heavyweights. Tom is conversvative while Marcus is very liberal. An excellent read to get the viewpoints on both sides of the equation.
  
  The book tackles some strong topics - topics traditional Christians may not have even considered worth debating. They debate whether the virgin birth story was real, whether there was an empty tomb and how important a full resurection is, the composition of the new testament (Q theory, dates of writing, etc), etc. There is a lot of good information in here and you better have an open mind if you are willing to read it.
  
  I think Borg is the better writer although I dislike how he stuffs so much info in the footnotes. Too much especially since some of it is very interesting and should be in the book for all to see imo.
• 
  Joey

  I wish I had read more about the historical Jesus earlier in my life. If I had, I would better understand Jesus' mission and message. Although Wright and Borg have very different understandings for the implications of the historical Jesus and are willing to or unwilling to accept debatable aspects of Jesus life, I still come out of the reading with a greater respect for Jesus' mission and message. I consider this book to be another read that is helping me to deconstruct the evangelical and fundamentalist understanding of Jesus that I've grown up with in order to keep what holds true to His original message and discard anything that does not resonate with the historical, linguistic, cultural, and spiritual aspects in which Jesus participated.
  
  
• 
  Justin Wiggins

  This book changed my life, and was an epic theological read, and has given me much to think about, pray about, and by Grace, to live out in my life.