Conflict, Holiness, and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus

by Marcus J. Borg

Originally published in 1984, this extraordinary work has until now been available only in an expensive library edition. The present edition has been completely updated and redesigned, and includes an extended new introduction by Marcus Borg that relates the book's central arguments to subsequent Jesus scholarship. A foreword by N. T. Wright characterizes the book as one of the foundational works in the "third quest" for the historical Jesus. In the book, Marcus Borg argues that conflict between a politics of holiness and a politics of compassion, and their implications for Israel, resides at the center of Jesus' activity and teaching. He emphasizes several features that have since become central to Jesus the importance of Jesus' inclusive meal practice, a non-apocalyptic paradigm for understanding Jesus, and Jesus as a social prophet and boundary-breaker. Marcus J. Borg is Hundere Distinguished Professor of Religion and Culture in the Philosophy Department at Oregon State University. He is the author of nine books, including Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship, also published by Trinity Press.

Genres: Religion, Theology, New Testament, Christianity, History, Faith

336 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1971

About the author

Borg was born into a Lutheran family of Swedish and Norwegian descent, the youngest of four children. He grew up in the 1940s in North Dakota and attended Concordia College, Moorhead, a small liberal arts school in Moorhead, Minnesota. While at Moorhead he was a columnist for the school paper and held forth as a conservative. After a close reading of the Book of Amos and its overt message of social equality he immediately began writing with an increasingly liberal stance and was eventually invited to discontinue writing his articles due to his new-found liberalism. He did graduate work at Union Theological Seminary and obtained masters and DPhil degrees at Oxford under G. B. Caird. Anglican bishop N.T. Wright had studied under the same professor and many years later Borg and Wright were to share in co-authoring The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, an amicable study in contrast. Following a period of religious questioning in his mid-thirties, and numinous experiences similar to those described by Rudolf Otto, Borg became active in the Episcopal Church, in which his wife, the Reverend Canon Marianne Wells-Borg, serves as a priest and directs a spiritual development program at the Trinity Episcopal Cathedral, Portland, Oregon. On May 31, 2009, Borg was installed as the first canon theologian at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral.

Marcus J. Borg is Canon Theologian at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral in Portland, OR. Internationally known in both academic and church circles as a biblical and Jesus scholar, he was Hundere Chair of Religion and Culture in the Philosophy Department at Oregon State University until his retirement in 2007.

Described by The New York Times as "a leading figure in his generation of Jesus scholars," he has appeared on NBC's "Today Show" and “Dateline,” PBS's "Newshour," ABC’s “Evening News” and “Prime Time” with Peter Jennings, NPR’s “Fresh Air” with Terry Gross, and several National Geographic programs. A Fellow of the Jesus Seminar, he has been national chair of the Historical Jesus Section of the Society of Biblical Literature and co-chair of its International New Testament Program Committee, and is past president of the Anglican Association of Biblical Scholars. His work has been translated into eleven languages: German, Dutch, Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Indonesian, Italian, Spanish, Portugese, Russian, and French. His doctor's degree is from Oxford University, and he has lectured widely overseas (England, Scotland, Austria, Germany, Belgium, Hungary, Israel and South Africa) and in North America, including the Chautauqua and Smithsonian Institutions.

Reviews

[BJ Richardson · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are a few things I will always dislike about any liberal theologian's work on the gospels. Let's get them out of the way first...

1) The unquestioning acceptance of "the gospel of Q" Whenever someone is referring to this fictional "Q" what they are really saying is, "The things Matthew and Luke have in common that are not found in Mark". It makes much more sense to say Mark was written first. Matthew used Mark as a framework when he wrote his collection of the sayings of Jesus. Luke used both Matthew and Mark as well as other eyewitness accounts in writing his account.

2) The late dating of the gospels There are two real reasons why they hold to this dating despite the evidence to the contrary. First, they cannot accept the fact that Jesus' predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem came true. Obviously, they would say, this was history written in as prophesy. Also, in laying claim to a later date, they can get around the fact that contemporaries who actually knew of Jesus would not have accepted the gospels as they stand if they were not true.

3) The incredibly high level of scrutiny the gospels are subjected to They will debate fact vs fiction back and forth over every single word Jesus supposedly said or action he supposedly did. Their choice to accept something as truly coming from Jesus or being a fictional creation of the early church community has little to do with history or truth and more to do with whether or not this little snippet fits into the ideological framework of the Jesus they are envisioning. Even though they are demonstrably far less reliable, these same scholars will often accept whole cloth the works of Plutarch, Polybius, Josephus, etc while denying the truth of large segments of the gospels. Hypocrisy at its finest.

4) The ignoring or denial of anything to do with the miraculous. At their best, some scholars will acknowledge that Jesus probably did perform some miracles and then completely ignore the significance of that fact while focusing in on his words. At the worst, they will outright deny the possibility of the miraculous. Trying to creating a picture of Jesus while doing this is like trying to put together a puzzle while insisting that any piece that has the color yellow must stay in the box. Good luck with that.

Marcus Borg is not surprisingly guilty of all four of these errors, but within that framework, this is an excellent work. When the first edition of Conflict was written (in '71) it was groundbreaking and has completely changed the direction of the discussion of Jesus within his social framework. One of my favorite works on Jesus (God and Empire) probably would never have been written if Borg had not paved the way.

How can the people of Israel fulfill their divine mandate while they are under the subjugation of Rome? Borg says that Jesus and the Pharisees had two very different ways to answer this and that most of the opposition that arose between the two groups centers on these conflict between these two answers. As Borg says, "Instead of a quest based on holiness, Jesus advocated a hermeneutic based on the conviction that God's primary attribute for emulation was compassion." Ultimately, it is love rather than holiness that should motivate everything we do.

There is definitely a lot of food for thought in Borg's look at these opposing views as shown through the gospels. If nothing else, it helps us move beyond our overly simplistic villainization of the Pharisees found in most church sermons today. I would recommend this book to anyone who would like to go deeper into the historical and political context of the teachings of Jesus.

[Gage Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

DNF, only needed a big chunk of it for class. Interesting info on Pharisees and Essenes but that’s the cool needle in a boring haystack lol

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A REVISION OF HIS INFLUENTIAL THESIS BY A CO-FOUNDER OF THE “JESUS SEMINAR”

Author Marcus J. Borg wrote in the Introduction to the 1988 edition of this book (which was originally published in 1984): “Several of [this book’s] central claims were part of my doctoral thesis… my central claims included the following: First, I made a sustained argument for rejecting apocalyptic eschatology as the foundational context for interpreting the teaching and activity of Jesus. Second… I argued that conflict between Jesus and some of his Jewish contemporaries … over ‘the shape’ of Israel provides a more comprehensive context for interpreting Jesus’ words and deeds. By ‘the shape’ of Israel, I meant Israel’s social-political structure, cultural dynamics, and historical direction: in short, ‘politics’ in the broad sense of the word. Third, much of my thesis made a case for the centrality of Jesus’ inclusive meal practice… To put my central argument very compactly: conflict about politics… and not apocalyptic eschatology, provides a more comprehensive context for interpreting the traditions about Jesus.” (Pg. 1-2)

He continues, “[This book’s] sustained challenge to apocalyptic eschatology as the primary context for interpreting the teaching and activity of the historical Jesus has fared well… The consensus about an apocalyptic framework still seemed strong when I revised my thesis in the early 1980s… Now that has changed. The consensus has been replaced by a strong division of opinion within the discipline… The consensus AS A CONSENSUS is gone.” (Pg. 3)

He states in the Introduction, “In the history of comprehensive reconstructions of the mission and teaching of Jesus, the… understanding of Jesus’ ministry was articulated within the framework of his expectation of the imminent irruption of the transcendent Kingdom of God… [But] this construction also left its debris. In the ensuing edifice no place could be found for the traditions about Jesus which reflect a concern with the institutions of Judaism, which manifest conflict with his contemporaries about the shape and destiny of Israel, and which indicate an awareness of the religio-political threat to Israel by Rome… This study … is another contribution to the quest for a more comprehensive historical reconstruction of the ministry of Jesus than that provided by the eschatological context. The context within which this study places the teaching of Jesus is conflict: the conflict between Rome and Israel as the setting within which conflict occurred between Jesus and his contemporaries concerning the structures and purpose of Israel.” (Pg. 19-20)

He observes, “Jesus appeared in history as a ‘holy man,’ or ‘Spirit person,’ to use the term I prefer. He was one of a number of Jewish … ‘Spirit persons,’ roughly contemporary with him. ‘Holy’ is … being used … as a designation for the numinous, and awe-inspiring Mystery, the sacred ‘other’ which is known in primal religious ‘experience.’ A … ‘Spirit person,’ is one who is in touch with this power… Jesus was known for his intimate communion with ‘the holy,’ or ‘the sacred,’ through such means as meditative prayer and fasting. Because of that communion, he… was able to mediate the power of the sacred into this world in the form of miracles, especially healings and exorcisms… [But Jesus] also differed from contemporary Jewish Spirit persons in several important ways… he proclaimed the Kingdom of God and saw himself as mediator of its presence… he, unlike other Jewish Spirit persons contemporary with him, founded a renewal movement. The renewal movement initiated by Jesus found itself in conflict with other renewal movements… Most of these conflicts were with the Pharisees.” (Pg. 88-89)

He states, “Jesus did not simply accept the central role of table fellowship, but used it as a weapon. From the fact that his teaching shows an awareness of the centrality of the meal, it is clear that his action was deliberately provocative.” (Pg. 97) Later, he summarizes, “Jesus’ practice of table fellowship and his teaching concerning issues related to table fellowship contravened the understanding of Israel as a holy, separated community. In this context, table fellowship … was a political act of national significance: to advocate and practice a different form of table fellowship was to protest against the present structures of Israel.” (Pg. 134)

He notes, “Yet even while challenging the religo-cultural program of the Pharisees, he showed himself to be like the Pharisees in a crucial respect. He too was concerned with the purpose of the people of God in the world, with their collective historical life and the structures thereof. For he did not challenge Pharisaism in the name of a religious individualism separated from a historical community, but in the name of a different paradigm for and vison of the people of God.” (Pg. 153)

He points out, “if Jesus did not prophesy about Jerusalem, then who was the insightful prophet in that generation who was responsible both for this concern and this use of the Hebrew Bible?... Quite probably the Jesus movement and perhaps the evangelist reworked the language of the threats, but without an initial impulse from Jesus, it is difficult to account for their presence in the primitive tradition.” (Pg. 203)

After quoting several seemingly “apocalyptic” sayings of Jesus, he states, “there is no hint of imminence in these passages. It is not said or implied that this generation would live until the last judgment… All that is stated is that Jesus expected a final judgment in which decisions taken by that generation in response to a particular crisis would be seen to have not only historical but eternal consequences… the threat was not directed primarily to individuals who faced judgment as individuals, but to ‘this generation’… as a collectivity.” (Pg. 222-223) He adds, “the exegetical base for affirming that Jesus proclaimed the eschaton to be near is very narrow.” (Pg. 225)

He says, “like the classical prophets of the Hebrew Bible, Jesus sought to divert his people from a course which was leading to catastrophe. Apparently knowing that the likely outcome would be his death, he went to Jerusalem, during the season of Passover, there to make one final dramatic appeal to his people at the center of their corporate life.” (Pg. 247)

He argues, “the phrase ‘Kingdom of God’ is a SYMBOL in the teaching of Jesus, not a concept. That is, the phrase points to something beyond itself … it is shorthand for a myth, not an idea…apocalyptic thought in the late postexilic period introduced a modification into the mainstream formulation of the myth… apocalyptic writings generally heightened the distinction between the two realms into an antithesis… Thus the phrase ‘Kingdom of God’ was a symbol not only for the other realm, but also for the destiny of this realm.” (Pg. 258-260) He concludes, “Jesus used the phrase ‘Kingdom of God’ within the framework of what we might call an eschatological mysticism---a mysticism which used language associated with the end of the world… The Kingdom of God as the experience of God accounts for Jesus’ teaching concerning the way of transformation and the course for Israel.” (Pg. 269)

This influential book will be “must reading” for those seriously studying the “Historical Jesus.”

[Amelia and John · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have read several books and articles to try to understand Jesus's politics more. But with each text I would set down, I felt that I would leave with more questions and confusion than when I began. This was not the case for Borg's excellent piece of scholarly work.

Borg is a historical-critical scholar, who, in my impression, harbors great reverence for Jesus. He makes certain contributions to New Testament studies that I had not considered or seen beforehand.

Typical of scholars, Borg begins by situating Jesus in His historical context. At the time, there were the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and "people of the land." There was also the Roman occupation. Because most 1st century Jews saw their land as holy, the Roman empire's occupation of Palestine was an infringement on the land's holiness. God's laws given in the Torah had always presumed that Israel would be ruling itself. Rome's rule went against this presumption.

Rome's insults and injuries to the Jewish people in Judea would incite civil disobedience, direct action, and even violence and insurrection. The people of the land, though they were largely unobservant of the Torah (given the double taxation system of Torah and Roman tax, most people simply could not afford to be observant), highly valued the Torah and the Temple as core pillars to religio-political life. When an emperor would parade around his divinity, or when a prelate would put up a statue in the Temple, the people would revolt.

The Sadducees, though they are often over-simplified as collaborators with the Roman authorities, were viewed with wariness by Roman authorities. The Essenes, though most of them retreated to the wilderness to await their time to take over the Temple cult from the Sadducees, also inhabited some urban centers to develop their own distinctive way of practicing their faith.

The Pharisees, Jesus's main interlocutors throughout the canonical Gospels, were not as powerful as the Sadducees, but they were still a significant sect at the time. Their focus was not on the Temple cult, but rather on obedience to the Law.

Underlying all of these groups' approach to religious life was the "quest for holiness" that Borg writes about. If Israel would make itself holy through the cultus or strict obedience, God would finally deliver Israel from her oppressors. For the Pharisees, holiness looked especially like separation--separation from unobservant Jews and from pagan Gentiles, especially the Romans.

This is where Jesus's political views steps in. Rather than seeing holiness as the main paradigm for Israelite politics, He saw compassion as the main paradigm. Whereas the Pharisees wanted to abstain from associating with those they saw as compromised, Jesus became a friend of sinners, eating with tax collectors and prostitutes. But even more than this, Jesus resisted the revolutionary disposition which saw the Romans as the ultimate enemies of Israel.

This focus on compassion did not negate holiness. Instead, Jesus invited the Jewish people to reimagine holiness. Instead of separating from the unclean, holiness became something pervasive. It could overcome sin and uncleanness and transform hearts.

There is much more that could be written, but for that you'd have to read the book!

[Ross · Rating 4 out of 5]

Borg is first and foremost a member of that sometimes vaunted, sometimes despised, but always pertinent group of Christological scholars called the "Historical Jesus Crowd."
While I value their commitment to really getting at the verifiable truth of who Jesus of Nazareth verifiably was, and what he most likely actually said and taught, I caution the lay reader to not approach this as doctrine. Instead this is an academic account of the historical contexts and interpretation of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, that helps us to better understand the core philosophies that have germinated into the theology we have today.

I do have some minor qualms with the presentation of the Pharisees as a monolithic sect at odds with the followers of Jesus. There are some modern Rabbi's and Jewish scholars who assert that the Pharisees were as divers in opinion as any collection of academic philosophers of the time. There is also, in Borg's depiction of the conflict between the Pharisees and Jesus, the seeds of a way of thought that (while I don't accuse Borg himself of holding these views) has led to supersessionism and anti-semitism in Christian theology and doctrine.

Overall though, as much as there is to criticize there is also a lot for the discerning reader to learn from this text.

[CJ · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this book. The writer can be verbose, but my goodness the content is gold. I am so grateful for the thoroughness of footnotes and references. The references listed in this book alone has added so many other worthy tomes to my "currently reading" and "must read" list. I learned a great deal about the cultural climate that was previously unknown to me and was then able to easily verify everything I read. Solid scholarship, excellent writing.

[Jeffrey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Borg's work is refreshingly simple: eschatology (as typically defined as the end of time) is not the most fruitful context to place Jesus, rather Politics and Purity struggles are; and second, minimalist views of Jesus based on the criteria of dissimilarity are not helpful. Borg does a fine job discussing in brief the culture of Jesus' day and the differing "renewal" movements attempting to maintain Jewish Identity with the occupation of Rome. His dialogue of conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees is interesting (especially after reading E.P. Sanders work). In the end, his view of Jesus in the last chapter is jarring as it seems to come out of left field and is controversial. A good read.

[Chanita]

An illuminating perspective on Jesus in the social context of his day (and) an important contribution to an important ongoing debate." (from Themelios) "Belongs to the forefront of recent study on the politics of Jesus. Remarkably free from religious bias, this superb historical analysis combines thorough familiarity with the scholarly literature and an unusually lucid expository style...A must for research libraries, the book will have as primary audience seminary students, graduate students, and research specialists. (from Choice)
(adapted from Amazon)

[Zach Christensen · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is no longer in print! If you can find, it read it, because the chances of finding it are slim!