★★★★★

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 Borg just can’t jump on board with a literal reading of the gospels; he describes this outdated way of reading the Bible with five adjectives: literalistic, doctrinal, moralistic, exclusivistic, and afterlife oriented.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!

And it came to pass about eight days after these sayings, [Jesus] took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray. And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistening. And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem. (KJV)

//Here’s a puzzle for you. There’s one word I want to emphasize in today’s verses. It’s the word “decease.” Jesus spoke of his “decease,” which he should “accomplish” at Jerusalem.

Sounds logical—that’s where Jesus went to die on the cross—but most current versions of the Bible translate this word differently. Most read “departure,” not “decease.” The King James version, and a couple others, naturally assume that Jesus’ “departure” means his death, since that’s what they see being “accomplished” in Jerusalem. So they translate the word into “decease.”

The New Living Translation actually contains the correct translation … by realizing that the word needs no translating at all. The original Greek word is exodos, translated “exodus,” which does indeed mean “departure” … but which is also pregnant with meaning. We, today, equate the word exodus  with Israel’s escape from Egypt, when Moses led God’s people to the promised land … and you can be sure that today’s verses’ original reference to the exodus would have been recognized just as plainly by first-century readers. Jesus planned to accomplish an exodus in Jerusalem, just like the one in Egypt.

So, apparently, the reference to Moses in this passage is not coincidental. Many Jews expected the coming Messiah figure to be patterned after Moses, and many anticipated some sort of second exodus. So, in this verse, as Jesus plans his trip to Jerusalem with Moses, he appears to be not leaving his disciples, but leading them to a new land! But that begs the obvious question: Where is he leading them?

★★★★★

I have a confession to make. I accepted this book for review thinking it might be good for a few laughs. Get a guy through the church doors? What are you gonna do, turn it into a sports bar?

I was wrong about David’s book. Oh, I laughed alright—a lot!—but all the time I was chuckling, I was nodding. David has nailed it.

Funny thing is, speaking as a guy, we don’t know why we hate church. We just know it’s uncomfortable. The awkwardness has to be explained to us … and when it is, we finally nod knowingly.

David probably thinks his book is for pastors. No, it’s for couples. Ladies, if you want your guy sitting next to you in the pew, read this. Then find a new church together. One where the pastor has read the book, too.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

//Today’s post isn’t meant to instruct or entertain, but to pose a question. I’m not a scholar of current-day religion, so help me out, here. In my observation, baptism is a step that nearly all Christians agree is important, but few agree entirely on its meaning. Perhaps its meaning is meant to be obscure, something personal between the initiate and God. I remember my own baptism as a teenager with a bit of confusion. It seemed to be mostly an initiation into the church, a way for the church to accept me into its ranks, and it had something to do with asking me to cut my hair, which had apparently grown too long for a nice Christian boy. Odd, the things I remember.

So why do we baptize? Can we draw some idea of this ritual’s meaning from the New Testament? John the Baptist portrayed baptism as a necessary repentance. Paul saw baptism as a reenactment of the death and resurrection of Christ. The book of Acts associates it with the remission of sins. John’s Gospel seems to consider it an antiquated picture of spiritual rebirth, and takes pains to point out that Jesus never performed any water baptisms; the new baptism of the Kingdom would be by fire and Spirit, not water.

How about if we dig deeper, going back to pre-Christian scripture? How about Isaiah 4:4, referring to seven sinful women: The Lord will wash away the filth of the women of Zion; he will cleanse the bloodstains from Jerusalem by a spirit of judgment and a spirit of fire. Or Ezekiel 36:25-26: I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. In both these cases, “baptism” is a cleansing performed by God alone, with spirit.

We can find parallels to Christian baptism in the practices of the Essenes, and in the rebirth ceremonies of mystery cults, but it is its Christian interpretation that eludes me. I’d be curious to hear your opinion.

★★★★★

Gilgamesh is the story of a legendary Mesopotamian king who embarks on a quest for immortality. The Gilgamesh Epic has two primary claims to fame: (1) it may be the oldest surviving written story on earth, and (2) it contains a passage eerily similar to the story of Noah and the Ark. A man builds a big boat, saving his family and lots of animals from a monstrous flood. Like Noah, the flood survivor in Gilgamesh sends out birds (a dove, then a swallow, then a raven) from his “ark” after the rain stops to see if there is dry land anywhere. Like Noah, after exiting the ark he offers a sacrifice to the gods.

Ferry’s interpretation is not really an interpretation; it is a retelling based on other scholars’ translations. It’s a poetic rendition meant to artistically recreate the flavor of the original cuneiform, but in English. The preface calls Ferry’s work “verbal art.” He does take liberties here and there, most times because all of our copies of the Gilgamesh story are fragmentary, even after piecing them together. Yet, he makes a strong effort to be respectful of the best scholarly translations, thus remaining as true to the original as “feasible” (his word).

I haven’t studied any other translations so I can’t vouch for the authenticity of Ferry’s version, but I certainly enjoyed reading it!