The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions (Plus)

Unlike many readers of this book, I was left with the feeling that the commonalities were more prevalent than the differences between the two authors, and the two visions were very much the same vision through different lenses.Both Borg and Wright are well respected scholars and authors, and have a substantial body of work to support their approaches to Christianity and Jesus. The discussion covers the "usual" landscape for such works - ranging from the virgin birth, the second coming, the meaning of the crucifixion, the resurrection and what it means to be a Christian today. Borg has a much less "literal" and more "metaphorical" approach to the Gospels and epistles, while Wright takes a more mainstream, but balanced, approach.Both authors have respect for each other, which comes across in the very subtle and respectful - almost soft - counterpoints each makes in their section of the narrative. The writing is generally easy to follow and doesn't use a bunch of scholarly or theological language to obscure or confuse the reader.So why isn't this on my recommended list? The two main reasons are:* That the read is a bit dry - the lack of true debate, the genteel approach, the absence of any groundbreaking thought while in a point-counterpoint format reminds me of a prizefight by two tired boxers. Famous pugilists, and you want to watch, but their hearts aren't into it.* Looking at the content objectively, it covers the current topics in theology and theological debate very superficially, and without significant passion or significant scholarly insight. Each topic discussed could be a book on its own - and yet the authors try and squeeze a lot in, and don't seem to do any topic justice - either from a scholarly or opinionated/passion point of view.So, if you are just getting into this type of debate and study, this might be an OK starter - except it certainly isn't a page turner.

Seven of ten Americans today would likely describe themselves as Christians, although they would disagree widely on just what that statement means, historically, today, and after death. Current Christian theologians are much closer to consensus at a very general level, (and that consensus would hold some surprises for many of the laity), but differ sharply on their answers to deeper, more precisely framed questions that are at the core of the faith.This book presents a very respectful and articulate debate between two of the most accessible theologians writing today. Each pair of chapters contains their answers, and reasons behind them, to an explicit and clearly stated question. In short, we have two careful scholars -- both intelligent, well educated, strongly Christian, and completely devoted to their subject - who have agreed to disagree. Reading their arguments will show you what current Christian theologians consider to be important unresolved issues of their faith and come to your own conclusion as to which answer you believe.I am not a theologian, competent to judge the match, but I confess to giving the victory to Borg - either because I instinctively find his answers more satisfying, or because he seems the more pursuasive writer. But who "won" the debate is not really important. What counts is that the reader is treated to a rare view of two sides of the theological topics of current interest, presented in exceptionally clear, down-to-earth language that uses the highly specialized vocabulary of theology only when absolutely necessary. Whether you consider yourself a Christian or not, reading the book would give you a richer appreciation of the faith.

Marcus Borg is a Catholic priest and N.T. Wright is an Episcopal priest. These 2 churches have a common history (as do all Christian churches) for a long time. In the time of Henry VIII, the split came and the 2 churches have had many differences. Borg & Wright are both good writers and have written many good books on their own. In this book they try to emphasize the things they have in common regarding Christian beliefs. They are not afraid to mention differences but try to explain principles that should be present for all who believe in the Christian religion. I recommend all books by the 2 authors, though I do not belong to either of their denominations, though I am a Christian. This is a very good discussion commonalities and differences in beliefs and a good read. RAG

Having read a significant number of books by each author, I found this cooperative effort to be quite interesting as it compares and contrasts the authors' perspectives on modern views of the New Testament and the life of Jesus. If you have never read anything about modern biblical scholarship, this book might be a difficult starting point. If you have read other modern biblical scholars, you might be surprised by this book. I think you'll find that both are faith-filled authors and have much in common, but come to different conclusions about key events in the Gospel. Obviously, both Borg and Wright draw a great deal on their other books, so if you've read them both you'll find a lot of repetitive themes. The format works well, and the introductory material provided interesting insights.

Very well written book by two authoritative and well respected theologians who discuss their different views on a number of christian subject in a way that is very respectful and accepting of the others point of view. The book has developed out of years of friendly debate between the two authors who are long-term friends. It does show the breadth of theology that can be held within the episcopalian / anglican church. The clearest exposition of the divergent views held in tension within the church that I have read. Well worth the read - especially for those wishing to clarify and maybe expand their faith system.

I read this book a little while ago and read it straight the way through. It blew the top off my mind, opening up similarities of liberal and conservative views on the historical Jesus and what that means for us today, but also presenting differences in a clear and respectful way, not bashing each other for their difference in beliefs, but engaging in their differences.Over the last couple of weeks I have been engaging with different chapters in this work as I research and do background reading for my course (I am studying a degree in Biblical studies and Theology) and this time, making notes as I work through both N. T. Wright's and M. Borg's views, ideas and beliefs on different aspects of the Jesus narrative and its value for today.Both scholars have exceptional arguments, personally I prefer the place N.T Wright comes from, engaging with a first century Jewish or Greco-Roman mind-set to try and workout what the texts would have meant to them, as they heard them being read for the first time and trying to see why (Paul for instance) wrote what he wrote and the place he came from through his epistles.Though the approach M. Borg takes is fascinating, he is also, in my opinion a better writer and his arguments more fluid and tight, though this does not mean I agree with his metaphorical approach to anything physically unlikely or hard to reason.Both scholars present their arguments well and clearly come from a place of mutual respect and friendship when voicing their views within this work! A must read for anyone interested in gleaning an understanding and foundation to the historical Jesus debate and a great platform to work from in continuing studies in this field thereafter.

I was recommended this book as a good way of comparing the views of two extremes of Christianity. In fact, bot hsuthors seem to me to be quite midle-of-the-road. I often found myself agreeing with both of them! I’m also foundi t hard at times to remember which of them is supposed to be the more liberal of the two! Both seem to adopt a scholarly approach to the subject, based on the methods of historical research and textual criticism. The differences between them appear insignificant. I’m certainly not going to lose any sleep over whether the fact that some incidents appear in Luke and Matthew, but not in Mark, can be better explained by Matthew and Luke both having drawn on a common (now lost) source, Q, or by supposing that Luke had access to Matthew’s Gospel when he was writing his own!

This is an excellent and enlightening book. Marcus Borg and Tom Wright give a wonderful example of how to debate without ducking divisive issues and yet maintaining mutual respect and, indeed, evident Christian love.Previous reviewers have remarked on Borg's exceptional readability and clarity of argument, and I agree that he scores very highly. He is, however, faced with much the easier task in communication. Following the self-limitation of science to the repeatable and measurable, he takes it as axiomatic throughout that physical miracles do not happen - with the exception of healing. This he does allow, on the basis of anecdotal evidence regarding the powers of mystics and ecstatics in many cultures. Much follows smoothly and logically unexceptionably from these assumptions: Jesus must have been a mystic of exceptional powers, so Borg can accept that healing was an integral part of His ministry; Gospel stories describing other miraculous events must be inventions of the early church; enrichments added for good metaphorical reasons, no doubt, but certainly not to be taken literally; so Borg must use theories about the stages in development of the gospel stories to determine what is to be taken as literal history and what is metaphorical; this leads on to judgements as to which sources are to be trusted as to what Jesus himself actually might have said; hence, so far as the pre-Easter Jesus is concerned, we are left with a `stripped-down' version of the gospel accounts to be taken as literal truth, the rest being deeply meaningful expressions of the early church's Spirit-guided reflections in the light of their subsequent spiritual experiences.BUT logical deductions are unlikely to be any more reliable than the axioms from which one begins...!Tom Wright's approach is much more complex. He takes the gospels as a whole, as sources to be investigated without adding a prior filter. He takes seriously the testimony of Israel to its life with Yahweh in the Old Testament; he has studied deeply the Jewish world views at the time of the Second Temple, and seeks to show that the Jesus of the gospel accounts represents the completion and fulfilment of God's salvific plan, through Israel, for mankind: the inauguration of the long-promised Kingdom of God `on earth as it is in heaven'. He also concludes that `the gospels are what they are precisely because their authors thought the events they were recording--all of them, not just some--actually happened'.To make his case with the care and detail it requires took some 2000 pages in his magisterial 3-volume series: `Christian Origins and the Question of God'. He makes a pretty good job of encapsulating his material for the purposes of this debate, but it could not possibly read as smoothly as Borg's contributions.All-in-all the book is a most valuable introduction to two widely-differing schools of thought, from two deeply-devoted Christian men, and I highly commend it.

I find the compare and contrast method adopted by Borg and Wright very interesting. It helps that they are good friends who do not waste time on fruitless bickering - they stick to the title and do it well.

Arrived promptly. A splendid book, merging two slightly conflicting standpoints, but all presented in the best possible taste.