A Critical Response to Erick Nelson’s The “Metaphorical Gospel” Theory
by Mark Allan Powell
about the author: Mark Allan Powell is Professor of New Testament Studies at Trinity Lutheran
Seminary in Columbus, Ohio and is the author of sixteen books on theological themes, including
those addressed in Nelson’s manuscript. His volume Jesus as a Figure in History
(Westminster/John Knox, 1998) is currently the most widely used textbook in the United States for
introducing students to the topic of historical Jesus studies. Powell is also chair of the Society of
Biblical Literature’s “Historical Jesus Section,” the forum where the scholars discussed in Nelson’s
manuscript meet to discuss each other’s work.
GENERAL COMMENTS REGARDING NELSON’S The“Metaphorical Gospel” Theory
I came across Erick Nelson’s manuscript inadvertently while surfing the web, read it and initiated
correspondence with Nelson. I offer this critique to him to do with as he wishes.
First, let me say that The MG Theory is an impressive work of scholarship that holds up to the standards of
the guild. It is not the sort of piece that one expects to find posted on the web by “an amateur” who is
unknown to those of us who are working in this field. Nelson does, of course, have some advanced
theological training, but he is engaging PhD’s who devote themselves full-time to this sort of work, and
who have done so for decades. Nevertheless, Nelson demonstrates that he understands the issues; he also
exercises sound judgment, showing a commitment to critical thinking and to fair representation of his
ideological opponents. Most important--and most impressive, to me--he makes at least one original
contribution to the field: his sustained critique of Spong’s proposed scheme of “literalization” is of a caliber
with what would usually be presented at one of our scholarly forums. Other scholars have noted that the
scheme is a “weak point” in Spong’s argument and Spong himself has admitted that it isn’t fully developed,
but Nelson appears to be the first to rebut the argument for such a scheme conclusively.
I should also say from the outset that I am in general agreement with most of what Nelson says, and I say
that as a professional scholar who comes at these matters with different associations than those that might
inform or motivate Nelson in his work. Unlike Nelson, I know the scholars under discussion personally
(Borg, Crossan, Spong). I count them as my friends and as colleagues who have made significant
contributions to the advancement of knowledge. I have never met Erick Nelson and, so, if anything, my
prejudices incline toward defending those whom he criticizes. But I have to say that he is generally accurate
in his description of what those scholars think and he is generally perceptive (and correct) in pointing out
certain fallacies in their arguments. As an “insider” I have tended to offer the same critiques of Borg,
Crossan, and Spong that Nelson makes from without--so, by the way, have other scholars in our guild,
including Ben Witherington, N. T. Wright, and John Meier (none of whom agree with each other, however).
I am somewhat concerned that there may be a baby in the bathwater Nelson seems disposed to toss out.
There are metaphorical elements to the Gospel witness and these should not be de-valued as somehow
less-true than the historical elements. Jesus certainly would not have thought so. In his own teaching, Jesus
might have recalled historical events and used these to make certain points about God--in fact he does do so
occasionally (Matt. 12:3-4). But the great majority of the time, Jesus used metaphorical tales (parables) to
teach people about God. Thus, Jesus affirms the value of metaphor--even fiction--for conveying divine
truth. The Bible sometimes uses metaphorical stories to convey spiritual messages--on this point I am in
agreement with Borg, Crossan, and Spong, and indeed with most modern theologians and Bible scholars.
The question still remains as to which stories are metaphorical--and how this is to be determined. Most
Bible scholars, for example, think that the story of Jonah being swallowed by the big fish (in the Old
Testament) is a metaphorical, even fictional tale–not because God could not make such a thing happen but
because certain stylistic features of the story indicate that the author intended it as a parabolic folk tale
rather than as a historical account. But Borg, Crossan, and Spong hold to a far more extreme view–they
think that virtually all of the stories in the Gospels involving miraculous acts (including the Virgin Birth
and the Resurrection of Jesus) are “metaphorical.” I certainly do not agree with that, nor do most scholars.
Before moving on to discussion of the matter, however, I think it is important to stress (for Christian
readers) that Borg, Crossan, and Spong all regard themselves as Christians who are in a dynamic
relationship with the living Lord Jesus Christ. They do not view themselves as “attacking the faith.” It is
important to explain their arguments in a way that Christians can understand how they can think this: how
can they deny the historicity of so many important biblical stories and still worship Christ, confess the
creeds, and claim that they “believe the Bible”?
Is Everything in the Gospels Historical?
Let us begin with a consideration of this basic question. First, we will review some background on how the
Gospels were produced, and then consider the specific ways that non-historical material might have been
introduced. This is what forms the basis for “the Metaphorical Gospel” that Nelson critiques.
How the Gospels were produced: There are two relevant points on which biblical scholarship is
pretty much unanimous.
1) All four Gospels were written a generation after the life of Jesus and were based in part on “oral
tradition,” i.e., on memories that were passed on from one person to another. There is a lot of argument and
debate as to exactly when and how this happened. The majority of scholars think that all four Gospels were
written after 70 A.D., forty years beyond Easter when most eyewitnesses to the events would be dead. Some
scholars place some or all of the Gospels ten to twenty years earlier and believe that eyewitnesses (even
Jesus’ own disciples) were involved in writing them. But no one thinks that the Gospels were written by
Jesus’ followers in the first year or two after Easter. There was definitely a period of “oral tradition” during
which things had to be remembered and passed on (see Luke 1:2).
2) All four of the Gospel writers shaped their material to be relevant to the particular audience for
whom they were writing. One can see this simply by comparing accounts of the same event as told in
different Gospels. There are almost always little differences--the sort of things that don’t really amount to
much but probably reflect revision of material for a particular audience. Sometimes they are only noticeable
in the original Greek. Take, for example, the story of Jesus sending his disciples out as missionaries in
Galilee: in Mark 6:8 he tells them to take no “copper” in their belts; in Matthew 10:9 he tells them to take
no “copper, silver, or gold” in their belts.” Most scholars think that the author of Matthew’s Gospel added
the words “silver and gold” to what Jesus originally said. In Palestine, Jewish peasants did not have silver or
gold coins, so Jesus did not have to tell his disciples to leave their silver or gold at home. But Matthew is
writing in an urban environment outside of Palestine where indeed most people used silver and gold coins,
not copper ones. If this is true (and there are hundreds of such examples), then Matthew has not changed the
meaning of Jesus’ words, but he has changed the words themselves. Apparently, Matthew was not primarily
concerned with being literally accurate with regard to the details of what Jesus said (or did?) but rather was
concerned with conveying the figurative or metaphorical sense of what Jesus wanted to convey (in this
instance, “don’t trust in your money”).
Now, it is certainly a long way from affirming these two points to agreeing with Borg, Crossan, or
Spong’s conceptions of metaphorical elements in the Bible. Virtually all modern biblical scholars would
affirm these two points in some way, shape, or form, though the great majority would not take things to the
extreme represented by these three scholars. I do not personally think it is possible to deny these two points
totally without painting oneself into a corner of stubborn anti-intellectualism. We must grant Borg,
Crossan, and Spong this much–but perhaps not much more.
Ways in which non-historical material might come into the Gospels: If we grant that the Gospel
writers had to rely on oral traditions (preserved through memory) and that they sometimes exercised literary
license in shaping their narratives, then there seem to be at least four ways in which non-historical material
might come to be incorporated into their Gospels. The last three of these form the essential basis for the
work of the three scholars whom Nelson discusses. The first lies in the background for the work of all three.
1) Mythology: Rudolf Bultmann proposed in the 1940's that the New Testament Gospels
sometimes make use of “mythological language.” His views remain controversial but many modern
scholars accept the basic premise--the real debate (again) concerns when and where such language is used.
I find it helpful to note that Christians still use what Bultmann called “mythological language” today. For
instance, when Christians confess in the Apostles Creed that Christ is “seated at the right hand of the
Father”--or when an evangelical Christians says “Jesus lives in my heart.” They are using language that is
not literally accurate from a scientific perspective (“mythological” is not so much the opposite of “literal”
as it is the opposite of “scientific”). If astronauts go into space they will not find Jesus sitting there, or if a
doctor cuts open a heart, she will not find a little Jesus inside of it. But what language in the NT is
mythological? Bultmann thought that pretty much everything that defies scientific explanation (including
all of the miracles and the resurrection of Jesus) should be classed as “mythological.” By calling such
material “mythological,” furthermore, he meant to infer that the events did not actually happen in history
(thus, “mythological” also becomes the opposite of “historical”). Today, most scholars would grant that
certain stories in the New Testament may be mythological--the prime example is the temptation of Jesus by
Satan recorded in Matthew 4:1-11. If someone had been there with a camcorder, what would they have been
able to capture on film? Many--not all--scholars assume that the events reported in Matthew 4:1-11 took
place in Jesus’ mind, such that a camcorder would only show Jesus meditating and praying–the story of
Jesus conversing with the devil and the two of them traveling to the pinnacle of the temple, etc. offers a
“mythological description” of Jesus’ internal struggle with tempting thoughts. Of course, not everyone
agrees. But be that as it may, most scholars would be reticent to describe the miracle accounts as
“myths”--even scholars who think the miracles did not actually occur. The stories could be exaggerations or
outright falsehoods, but (unlike the temptation account) the miracles are reported in the same style and with
the same language as other historical events. It seems obvious to most scholars (contra Bultmann) that the
biblical writers were not simply trying to convey “existential truths” (Bultmann’s favorite term) but wanted
us to believe that these events literally happened.
2. Midrash. This is primary for BISHOP JAMES SHELBY SPONG’s work. There is no doubt that
“midrash” existed--and still exists today. The Jewish term “midrash” refers to fictional “expansions” on
stories--sort of like “urban legends” that get passed on by word of mouth. Let’s start with a few examples
from the modern day: a) the magi who come to visit Jesus in Matthew 2 are often identified as kings (as in
the hymn “We Three Kings of Orient Are,”though the Bible itself never identifies them as royal figures;
likewise, in popular legends (midrash), they even have names (Caspar, Melchior, Balthasar) and one of
them is a black man–but none of this is in the Bible; b) Mary Magdalene is often identified as a converted
prostitute, although the Bible never says this, nor does it even indicate that she had led a sinful life or been
regarded as an outcast; some people even readily identify her as the “woman taken in adultery” in John 8 or
as the woman who anoints Jesus’ feet in Luke 7–this does not come from the Bible, but from popular
expansions on it (midrash). No one is ever quite sure where these ideas come from, but they do become
popular knowledge, such that some people find it difficult to separate what is historical fact from what is
fictional midrash. We also know that the same thing happened in the early days because we have all sorts of
fanciful legends about Jesus and his followers from the second century-- for example, stories about things
Jesus did as a child. So, the possibility arises--if the Gospels were not written until 30-50 years after Easter,
couldn’t elements of midrash already have come into the tales before they were written down? Obviously,
they could have? But did they? There are scholars who have devoted their entire careers to studying
midrash--how it develops, how long it takes, what its identifying characteristics are. This is not the place to
go into a detailed report, but the general view of scholars of all persuasions (liberal, moderate,
conservative) is that the amount of midrash in the written Gospels is slight. Some midrash-friendly scholars
think that the stories of Jesus’ birth in Matthew and Luke may be midrash–in other words, they question the
basic historicity of the virgin birth and think the whole shepherds/angels/ manger story in Luke (or magi
story in Matthew) is fictional. Some scholars also think certain elements of some miracle stories (e.g., the
demon-possessed pigs running into the water to drown) might owe to midrash. Such views may be
troubling to conservative Christians. But what is most important for the current argument is to note that
virtually no scholar of any persuasion thinks that the miracle stories as such or the resurrection accounts as
such are midrash through and through. Spong is simply not on secure ground here. He relies primarily on
the work of a British scholar named M. D. Goulder, who is way out of the mainstream in terms of critical
consensus. Virtually no one who studies midrash (not even Goulder) would use the category the way that
Spong does--to dismiss the intended historicity of the bulk of the narrative material preserved in the
Gospels.
3. Confusion of the “Jesus of History” & “Christ of Faith”. This is primary for MARCUS BORG’s
work. Again, there is no doubt that Christians believed Jesus was still alive after Easter and that they
continued to quote him as speaking to them. Some people still do that today. Thus, it could have happened
that quotations of things that the Spirit of Jesus “said” to some of his followers after Easter got mixed up
with things that the physical Jesus said to his followers before Easter. Let’s imagine that there was some
church where Gentile and Jewish believers were questioning whether they should continue to keep the
dietary laws of the Old Testament. While they were praying about the matter, one of them was filled with
the Spirit and delivered a prophecy: “Jesus says, ‘ What goes into the mouth does not defile, but what comes
out of the mouth’ etc.” The whole community accepted that this was wise, and they remembered how Jesus
had spoken to them that day and “declared all foods clean.” Ten years later, on the other side of the empire,
Mark is writing a Gospel and he is talking to all the Christians he can find and collecting memories of things
that Jesus said. Someone tells him about this one (now found in Mark 7) but by now (having passed from
one person to another) it is not told as a story of Jesus speaking through a prophet to a church--now it has
become a story about Jesus and his disciples in Galilee. Obviously things like this could have happened, but
did they? Scholars are pretty divided--many scholars point out that in an oral culture (when most people
were illiterate and before the invention of printing) people tended to have very good memories and they
worked very hard at remembering things correctly–we have evidence of oral traditions being passed on
virtually unchanged for hundreds of years; wouldn’t Jesus’ followers have been able to remember what
their master actually said for a single generation? Furthermore, the Apostle Paul is the only Christian from
this period (between Easter and the writing of the Gospels) from whom we have written material–an he is
always very careful to distinguish between what he thinks the Lord has told him (when he says he has “the
mind of the Lord”) and when he is quoting something that Jesus himself actually said on earth (see 1 Cor.
7:12, 25, 40). If Paul is any example (and he is actually our only example), then Christians simply were not
sloppy about such things. Still, some scholars do grant that some of the sayings attributed to Jesus in the
Gospels might actually be postdated from after Easter (Matthew 18:15-18 is often cited as an example,
since the “church” as such did not exist during the lifetime of Jesus). But, very few scholars would explain
the miracle stories and resurrection accounts as experiences of the later church being read back into the
lifetime of Jesus--to claim that would definitely be an extreme view.
4. Prophecy Historicized. This is primary for JOHN DOMINIC CROSSAN’s work. Most
Christians are aware that Jesus does many things in the New Testament that fulfill prophecies of the Old
Testament. Skeptical scholars suggest that, in some instances, the Gospel writers are creating facts about
Jesus in order to have him fulfill the prophecies. Thus, they invented the story of the virgin birth because
Isaiah 7:14 speaks of a virgin bearing a son, and they decided to say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem
because Micah 5:2 indicates the Messiah will be born there. While a number of scholars may allow that
such influences come into play here or there, John Dominic Crossan thinks that much (most?) of the Gospel
accounts of Jesus came about this way--including everything in his last week of life. According to Crossan,
all the Gospel writers knew about that last week was that Jesus got grabbed by the Romans and crucified
(possibly, according to Crossan, he was just caught up in a mob of Jewish rabble that got crucified for being
in the wrong place at the wrong time. The Gospel writers, Crossan thinks, made up the rest--the stories
about Jesus’ trial before Pilate, about the release of Barabbas, about Simon of Cyrene, the thief on the cross,
the centurion’s confession, the burial in a garden, and of course the resurrection--the Gospel writers made it
all up out of nothing to show that Jesus had fulfilled a bunch of Old Testament prophecies. There is perhaps
no way to disprove this allegation, but it makes liars out of all four Gospel authors, as well as Paul and many
other early Christians. The sensible question is whether so many people who otherwise seem so fiercely
devoted to integrity and honesty can really be thought to have conspired together to perpetrate such a hoax?
Back then, no one was getting rich off the gospel. In fact, the great majority of those who passed on these
stories suffered horrible deaths--and yet under the most terrible torture not a single one said, “Wait! I give!
We made it all up!” People do not usually die for something that they know to be a lie. Whatever else they
may be, the Gospels do not appear to be the products of con-artists. Notably, very few non-Christian
scholars (Jews, Moslems, atheists) give much credence to this view: even if they do not believe the Gospels
record what is historically true, they will grant that the Gospel writers themselves thought the content was
true.
In conclusion, I should note that, for most New Testament scholars, the admission that the Gospel
writers shaped their narratives to make particular points in no way implies a lack of appreciation for
historical fact. Borg, Crossan, and Spong are all three, in my mind, too quick to assume that if a story
illustrates an inspiring message that the Gospel author wished to convey, then the story may have been so
“shaped” (through mythology, midrash, superimposition of “Christ of faith,” or prophecy historicized) as to
lack credible historical content. Surely, this is an extreme conclusion. Yes, there are stories that convey
metaphorical meaning without any literal referent in history--fables, fairy tales, jokes. But every skilled
orator knows that it is possible to relate accounts of historical events in ways that convey an inspiring
metaphorical point. I’m not all that skilled, and I know how to do it. If I want to give a speech on persistence
built around the theme “Success Comes to Those Who Refuse to Give Up,” I might illustrate my talk with
the fictional story of “the little engine who could” (the train that kept saying “I think I can, I think I can”
until it made it up the hill). Or, I might relate the historical account of the sea captain John Paul Jones who,
when offered terms of surrender, replied, “I have not yet begun to fight.” The same metaphorical point is
being made in either case–but in the latter instance the story used to illustrate that point is indeed a historical
account of something that actually happened.
It is ludicrous to assume that merely because a story serves a rhetorical function or makes an inspiring point,
it cannot possibly be historical. Thus, the fact that many stories in the New Testament have metaphorical
meaning has nothing to do with the question of whether or not they are historically accurate. What most
New Testament scholars think is that the Gospel writers chose from a large number of stories about Jesus
the ones that appear to have metaphorical meaning beyond the confines of their original context. They did
not report “The Day Jesus Got a Haircut” because, even though it happened, there was no timeless or
inspiring message to be found there. But they did report “The Day Jesus Stilled a Storm,” not just because
stilling a storm is a pretty cool thing to do, but because the story seemed like a paradigm of the ways in
which faith in Christ could still metaphorical storms in people’s lives. In short, the Gospel writers but not
like modern biographers who try to tell us everything they can about their subject (no one of the Gospels
even describes what Jesus looked like). They may very well have chosen to tell only the stories with
metaphorical potential, but that is a far, far cry from inventing stories that are purely metaphorical (with no
basis in history).
SPECIFIC RESPONSES KEYED TO NELSON’S MANUSCRIPT
Basically, these are comments that I would write in the margins (sometimes overflowing on to the back of
the page) if Nelson were my student and handed in this manuscript as a paper in one of my classes.
Metaphorical Gospel Theory--Abstract (introductory comments)
You contrast “metaphorical” with “factual”--e.g., in the first set of bulleted comments (and again on
Definition of Metaphorical Gospel Theory). I am not sure that this is the most helpful language. When the
Bible says “God is spirit” (John 4:24), it offers a statement that is literally true because God is literally a
spirit (i.e., not flesh and blood, not matter). When the Bible says “God is a rock” (e.g., Psalm 18:2; 92:15),
it offers a statement that is metaphorically true because God is not a literal stone. But it seems to me that
both statements are facts about God. Both statements make claims that could be shown to be either true or
false. I would argue that both statements are accurate, thus factually true.
Likewise, the point expressed in the parable of Matthew 13:44 is factually true if the kingdom of heaven
really is like a treasure that is worth sacrificing all one has to obtain; it is factually false if the kingdom of
heaven is not like such a treasure. But in either case, it is not literally true or false. Thus, if some scholars
claim that the raising of Lazarus is a metaphorical tale that conveys the truth that lives can be transformed
by faith, they still might regard this (metaphorical) truth as factual--if, indeed, lives can be so transformed.
This may seem like a quibble over linguistics--and perhaps it is. But I suspect that Borg, Crossan, and
Spong would all resist the antithesis between “factual” and “metaphorical.” It seems to imply that what is
expressed through metaphor belongs to a lesser realm of truth than what is certain and ascertainable. But
Christians regard the claims that “God is steadfast” (= God is a rock) and that “faith transforms lives” as
facts that are certain and ascertainable. That these facts are stated through metaphor is only a rhetorical,
stylistic variance that has nothing to do with the quality of the claims themselves.
Metaphorical Gospel Theory Abstract (Internal Evidence)
Your last bulleted point in this section states that “Jesus and the Christ are exactly the same,” referencing, I
think, 1 John 4:2-3. The matter is also taken up elsewhere--in one section of Definition of “Metaphorical
Gospel Theory”. I believe it is possible to go too far in denying the distinction, which I think is pragmatic
and grounded in scripture. In Matthew 26:11, Jesus tells his disciples, “You will not always have me with
you” (cf. Matt. 9:5), but then in
Matthew 28:20 he tells them, “I will be with you always.” Christians have never taken these statements as
contradictions, for they recognize that although Jesus may be with them in some respects, he is not still with
them in the same way that he was once was with his disciples--in a way that he could be seen with the eyes,
heard with the ears, and touched with the hands (1 John 1:1). Likewise, he is not still “with us” in the same
way that he will be when he returns. Thus, it is natural and scriptural to speak about the man Jesus who lived
in Galilee in somewhat different language than is used for the pre-existent and ever-abiding figure who sits
at the right hand of God in glory or dwells in the hearts of the faithful. The problems come when the
distinction grows large, such that there is a complete disassociation of the two concepts–when the “Jesus of
history” and “the Christ of faith” are dis-associated and treated as completely separate realities. I agree with
you that Borg, Crossan, Spong, and many other modern scholars are guilty of such a divide.
My Purposes for this Article
I want to emphasize here what is generally true everywhere--your writing is exceptionally clear and
graciously free of polemic. You do an excellent job in this section of delineating your topic. It is important
that you admit that other views could hypothetically be advanced, which you do not here seek to address.
You only wish to indicate that one, particular construal is untenable. In the course of what follows, you do
accomplish that goal--mainly by exposing the literalization theory of Spong as untenable.
My Purposes for this Article--Background
You state that certain (but not all) New Testament scholars have held to the view “that the Gospel writers
‘freely created’ many of the sayings and activities attributed to Jesus.” A couple of comments. If you
change the word “created” to “adapted” than the number of scholars holding that view would be large. The
majority of New Testament scholars think that the Gospel writers freely adapted sayings and stories in ways
that did not alter their essential meaning. But the view that the Gospel writers completely made up stories
about things that never happened at all is held by only a minority of scholars. Probably the best known
scholar to hold to such a view is Burton Mack--who has taught at Claremont Graduate School, where I
know you took some classes. His influence might be felt more heavily there than elsewhere.
Definition of Metaphorical Gospel Theory
At the very beginning of this section, you quote an anecdote from Spong’s book in which Bishop Spong
ends up presenting two options for what type of literature the Gospels might be: a) “something like a
television documentary or researched biography” or b) a type of “interpretive narrative” that was “in vogue
in the Jewish world when the Gospels were written.” I appreciate your comments regarding this quote, and
want to add my own observations to them.
First, we should recognize that Spong poses a false alternative by implying that the Gospels must be either
“a” or “b” above. There would be dozens of additional possibilities. By suggesting only two possibilities he
seems to imply that anyone who does not think that the Gospels are like “researched biographies” will have
to agree with him that they are “interpretive narratives.” In fact, the great majority of New Testament
scholars would not place the Gospels in either of Spong’s two categories. I don’t know any modern Bible
scholar who thinks the Gospels are like a researched biography. But very, very, few would think that they
are like some sort of “interpretive narrative that was in vogue at the time.” Most scholars think that the
Gospels represent a distinctive (even unique) genre of literature unlike anything that had ever been
produced. This is a topic on which much research has been done: the genre of the Gospels. One standard
work is What Is a Gospel: The Genre of the Canonical Gospels by Charles H. Talbert (Fortress Press,
1977). Another is The New Testament in its Literary Environment by David Aune (Westminster Press,
1987).
Definition of Metaphorical Gospel Theory: Modern New Testament Criticism and Seminaries
In your third paragraph under this section, you quote Marcus Borg as saying that “seminary students are
told that Jesus simply never claimed to be more than a mere man, that many of the Gospel stories simply
never happened, that many of Jesus’ sayings were never said by him, and that his body certainly never came
back to life on Easter.” Borg himself would agree with those four points and I’m sure he tells his
(university) students these things.
I want to add some important caveats about seminary education, however, and I hope that I do not come off
as too defensive in doing so (being a seminary professor myself). The theological professors who I know do
not present these points as “assured results” or even as “commonly accepted scholarship.” Any professor
who did so (and, unfortunately, there probably are some who do) would be regarded as irresponsible by his
or her peers. The issue, rather, is to present such points as “matters of debate,” and to challenge students to
engage in theological discourse regarding them.
Two examples: 1) I do not personally agree with any of the four points, but I regularly present all four of
them to my students as views that are held by some highly respected scholars (like Borg) who also identify
themselves as Christians. I want my students to consider whether such views could possibly be correct, and
how it is that a professing Christian can hold them. 2) Marcus Borg holds all four views to be correct and
I’m sure he argues for them, but I know for a fact that he also tells his students that there are highly
respected scholars who disagree with him (in fact, he uses one of my books as a required text, just as I use
one of his). The point in every case is for people in an academic program to engage a diversity of opinion
and to formulate responses to it.
In your next paragraph, you say, “If students are not prepared to challenge these pronouncements . . .” and
then you give three unattractive options that seem to be the only courses left open to them. But, of course,
the fourth option is that they can and should challenge the pronouncements. In my experience, most
theological education programs do not discourage students from challenging the views of the textbook or of
the professor. Indeed, they encourage such debate.
There is, of course, a world of difference between a professor requiring students to understand a particular
argument and requiring students to agree with that position. To my thinking, it is completely appropriate for
a professor to expect theology students to be able to articulate why some prominent theologians believe
such things as the items on Borg’s list. It would be irresponsible for the professor to require students to
subscribe to those views, or to fail to inform the students of arguments that have been raised contrary to the
position the professor favors.
Definition of Metaphorical Gospel Theory--The Question
In the third paragraph under this section, you raise this rhetorical question: “Do the authors (i.e. modern
scholars) slide almost unconsciously from the statement, ‘I think that there are metaphorical truths in the
material’ to the very different proposition, ‘The original authors and their audiences believed the material to
be ‘metaphorically true’?”
I think you should insert the word only in that last phrase (“believed the material to be only ‘metaphorically
true’”). This seems like a quibble, but it has profound significance, which I take up in some of my other
comments. Basically, I think there is little doubt that the original authors of the Gospels and their original
audiences did believe the material to be “metaphorically true.” They remembered and told stories about
Jesus that had come to embody timeless, symbolic truth for them (changing water into wine =
transformation of a human life, etc.). I think that Spong and others can show both that there are
metaphorical truths in the material and that these were recognized by the original authors and audiences.
But that is not the point. The decisive point, rather, is whether recognition of metaphorical truth (then or
now) negates historical facticity.
There is no controversy among scholars as to whether the stories were intended from the beginning to
convey metaphorical truth. Everyone grants this. The debated point is whether they only do this. Were the
stories regarded as fictional, non-historical accounts that convey metaphorical truth? Or as more-or-less
accurate accounts of actual events that were remembered and recorded precisely for the metaphorical value
that enabled them to retain relevance?
Definition of Metaphorical Gospel Theory--Five Basic Options
You do a good job of laying out options here. Personally, in Option One I would change the word
“factually” to “historically” and I would change “spiritually” to “metaphorically”: Thus-The NT writers believed that these stories and claims were historically (as well as metaphorically)
true, and they were correct.
This, then, would be the position that I hold--and it is the position that I think most New Testament scholars
who identify themselves as Christians would hold.
Here, at least, you avoid the trap of Spong’s sneaky dichotomy, recognizing that “metaphorical” and
“historical” (or “factual”) are not mutually exclusive options.
Definition of Metaphorical Gospel Theory--Meaning of “Metaphorical” and “Factual”
I have objected elsewhere to how you use these terms, but here it really comes to a head.
I don’t think you help your own argument by defining a “metaphorically true” event as one that “never took
place as described, but there is still an important point to the story.”
You give away too much by seemingly granting Spong a point that he wants to establish. To make his case,
he needs to assert that stories told for their metaphorical value are intrinsically non-historical or
untrustworthy. Sometimes, you seem to grant him this, and then attempt to mount a defense of the biblical
narratives on his terms. But you don’t need to grant him this much. I think you should expose the fallacy of
this reasoning at precisely this (early) point--his argument is illogical and objectively falsifiable, as there
are notable examples to the contrary. The film Woodstock is in fact a documentary that portrays an
historical event with literal accuracy, yet it was hailed at the time of its release as “a metaphor for ‘60s
idealism” and continues to be regarded as such today by persons who have no interest in the rock festival
itself. Dozens of books about the defense of the Alamo have been written (with varying degrees of historical
accuracy), all of which treat the event as a metaphor for sacrificial courage with implications far beyond the
event’s literal significance for Texas history. In fact an historically accurate documentary of what
happened at the Alamo recently became one of the most popular films of the year in Japan, treasured by
people who presumably don’t give a fig about how Texas gained its independence from Mexico. The mere
fact that a narrative imbues an event with metaphorical meaning has nothing to do with the question of
whether that event actually occurred or with how accurately it is being described.
Definition of the Metaphorical Gospel Theory--Regarding Resurrection
also Internal Evidence: Paul and the Deity of Christ
For many people, this is the most important point. Ultimately, if it turns out that Spong etc. are right and
Jesus didn’t really transform water into wine (that this is just a metaphorical tale), so what? But if Jesus did
not really rise from the dead--if that is just a metaphorical tale--then indeed our faith would be in vain. Or so
most Christians think.
Because this is so important to so many people, I want to offer some fairly extensive remarks. Also, I do not
think you represent the argument put forward by Borg, Crossan, and Spong with quite the nuance that they
would want. You get it about 80-90% correct, but it is a difficult argument to understand, that I will now try
to describe.
First, a DISCLAIMER. I do not personally subscribe to this view. I think the argument is wrong. I believe
that Jesus did physically rise from dead, that his body got up and walked out of the tomb on Easter morning.
But I am going to try to describe the contrary view as convincingly as I can--in order to be fair to those who
hold this position. It is significant that a number of Christian theologians hold this view and do not consider
it contrary to biblical faith.
Borg, Crossan, and Spong do not deny the resurrection of Jesus. There have, of course, been people
throughout history who claimed the resurrection story was simply a lie, that Jesus is dead and gone, and
that’s the end of it. Borg, Crossan, and Spong do not think this.
Borg’s view at least (and I think Crossan’s) is also different from that of Rudolf Bultmann. Bultmann
denied the physical resurrection of Jesus as a historical event but continued to regard himself as a Christian
because, he said, “Jesus continues to live in the preaching of the Church.” He was the first prominent
theologian to argue that the resurrection story was “a myth,” intended to convey metaphorical truth only.
(Spong often seems to follow Bultmann but his view may in fact have more in common with that of Borg
and others who are a step closer to orthodoxy)
The newer development (Borg and others) is a view that agrees with Bultmann that the “empty tomb
stories” are metaphorical tales, but also insists (unlike Bultmann) that Jesus really did rise from the dead
and continues to live today in a real (though spiritual) sense--not just in some symbolic way (e.g., through
the ongoing influence of his ideas). Bottom line: they do believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ, while
granting that somewhere over in Palestine, there is a skeleton of Jesus. How can this be?
Most New Testament scholars make a distinction between “the resurrection of the body”
and the “resuscitation of a corpse.” With regard to Jesus, it is possible (though not necessary) to affirm the
former as literal and historical, while still regarding the latter as only metaphorical.
The argument, in a nutshell, is based on the writings of Paul (which pre-date the Gospels). Paul, so it is said,
does not believe that God is going to resuscitate our dead corpses at the end of time--like zombies out of
some “living dead” movie. Rather, Paul believes that God will raise us up on the last day with new, spiritual
bodies. Thus, it does not matter what happens to our corpses--whether they get cremated or eaten by worms.
Resurrection is like creation -- in fact it is called a “new creation” -- God gives us new bodies, made from
scratch.
It is against this background that Paul supposedly understands the resurrection of Jesus. Paul knows that
people have been raised from the dead before (Elijah raised a widow’s son)--but all that happened in those
instances was that a dead corpse was brought back to life. The person was simply restored to his (or her)
original life, not given the new life that comes when God creates new spiritual bodies for us. Of course,
those people eventually died again. But when Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus, Paul realized
that God had done something new and unprecedented. God had not just resuscitated the corpse of Jesus and
restored him to his original life. The Jesus Paul beheld had a new, spiritual body, leading Paul to conclude
that Christ was the “first fruits” of those who would be raised from the dead, proof positive that we--like
Christ--would have eternal life. According to this argument, it would not have bothered Paul in the least if
the crucified corpse of Jesus was still rotting in a tomb somewhere.
Here is what seems to be support for this argument: Paul talks often in his letters about the resurrection of
Jesus, but he never once mentions the empty tomb. Paul knew Peter and the other disciples of Jesus
well--surely they would have told him about the empty tomb, if what is reported in the Gospels really
happened. But Paul doesn’t seem to know these stories. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul lists all of the resurrection
appearances that serve as proof of the resurrection of Jesus. He is trying to garner as much evidence as he
can to prove that Jesus is risen. He mentions some of the stories that we have in the Gospels: stories about
Jesus appearing to his disciples, perhaps in the “upper room” or out by the Sea of Galilee or on the mountain
where he gives the Great Commission. But what he does not mention is any story of Jesus appearing to
people at the tomb. Why not?
The proposed answer is this: Paul wrote twenty to thirty years before the Gospels. At that time, there were
no stories about Jesus body getting up and walking out of the tomb–there were no stories about how women
came to the tomb to anoint Jesus’ body, found the tomb empty and then met Jesus himself in the garden
outside the tomb. Jesus’ own disciples–who Paul knew–did not tell Paul those stories because, in fact,
nothing like that ever happened. All that really happened is the risen Jesus appeared to his disciples just like
he did to Paul on the Damascus road–in a new, spiritual body. Thus, they like Paul, knew that Jesus was
risen without caring about what had happened to the corpse in the tomb (if there was one). In fact, the
corpse of Jesus was probably still in the tomb--or rotting away somewhere–but none of Jesus’ original
disciples or Paul cared about that. They believed that God had raised Jesus from the dead with a new
spiritual body–which is much more important than God simply bringing the dead body of Jesus back to life
(as God did with Lazarus and Jairus’ daughter, and others). The stories about the empty tomb and the
physical body of Jesus coming back to life got made up later by people who were using mythology to
express a metaphorical truth.
I think this argument is wrong, but I believe it makes more sense than you allow. I can see how a reasonable
person might be convinced that this is right--and yet still be a Christian. Indeed there is no reason why one
cannot believe this argument and still believe in Jesus Christ as their “personal Lord and Savior” or as “the
Lord of the Church.” One can believe all of the above and still have a dynamic relationship with Jesus
Christ as a living, risen Lord (as Borg, Crossan, and Spong all claim they do).
This may not be the time to express why I think the argument is wrong, but I’ll drop a few hints. A principal
reason is that careful examination of the “empty tomb stories” reveals that they are not myths but historical
reports. The original authors clearly intended to report what they believe to have happened in history. They
do so with details (names of persons and places) that would still have been verifiable at the time they wrote.
Also, no opponent of Christianity (Jewish or Roman) ever denied these stories--in fact, they agreed that the
tomb of Jesus had been found empty on the third day and merely alleged that this was because the disciples
had stolen his body. Furthermore, all of the empty tomb appearances are made to women: to three women in
one instance (Matthew) and to Mary Magdalene alone in another (John). Since the testimony of women in
that day was not regarded as credible (cf. Luke 24:11), it is unthinkable that anyone would invent a story
about an empty tomb appearance with women as the only witnesses. In that day, women were not even
allowed to give testimony in a court of law--even if they were eyewitnesses to a crime--because the
testimony of women was never regarded as reliable. If, then, the author of Matthew’s Gospel wanted to
make up a story about the physical body of Jesus coming out of the tomb and appearing to people, why
would he have the only people who saw this be women? Why not make up a story with more reliable
witnesses? Indeed, this probably explains why Paul does not refer to the empty tomb stories. In 1
Corinthians 15, when he lists witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection, he lists only male witnesses, because he
assumes that they are the only ones whose testimony will count for his readers.
Beyond this, let me say that in your section “Paul and the Deity of Christ” (under Internal Evidence) you
also raise salient points against the theory described above. You quote Philippians 3:21 and other passages
to indicate that, for Paul, “the resurrection body clearly has a continuity with the mortal body, but has taken
on different characteristics.” I think you and others are right in believing that (contra Borg, et. al.) Paul
would have found it very difficult to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead if, in fact, his corpse was still
extant somewhere.
Definition of the Metaphorical Gospel Theory--Overall
Excellent! Here, I think you get it exactly right!
The distinction is not that one view argues for literal meaning and another view argues for metaphorical
meaning. The distinction is that one view denies literal reference while the other affirms both literal and
metaphorical meanings.
Definition of The Metaphorical Gospel Theory--Conclusion
I am a little disturbed by these final paragraphs because they seem to suggest that scholars who use the
phrases you cite belong to the same camp as Spong, who is simply more upfront than most in saying what
he really thinks. This is not my observation or experience. It seems to me that very few modern New
Testament scholars would agree with Spong’s contention that the Gospel writers intended their narratives to
be understood as non-literal, non-historical stories. But almost all NT scholars believe that the Gospel
writers “crafted their narrative to fill the needs of the Church” (“crafted” does not mean “invented whole
cloth”; rather, the writers selected stories that they thought would be helpful to the Church and related these
in ways that underscored their most useful points). I think everyone would grant that the Gospel authors
were attentive to the “life situation that provided context for the writings”--this is evident by noticing how
Matthew’s Gospel is more concerned with matters of interest to Jewish believers than is the Gospel of
Mark. The “creative invention of stories and sayings” is more controversial, but scholars who think the
Gospel authors might have invented some stories or sayings do not necessarily (or usually) take this to the
extremes evident in Borg, Crossan, or Spong. As for the assertion that the Gospel authors were writing
“from faith to faith,” this usually means that they wrote as believers for believers. They do not simply
record facts as disinterested third-parties, and they rarely try to substantiate the accuracy of what they report
(Luke is sometimes the exception). For example, even when reporting a somewhat fantastic healing
miracle, they do not usually tell us the name of the person healed--much less the names of two or three
descendants or eyewitnesses who would be willing to confirm the account. No, they just proclaim the joyful
good news, assuming that their readers--who know full well what Christ can do--will believe it and glorify
God. It seems self-evident to me that the Gospel authors write “from faith to faith” but I do not think this
means that the Gospel writers did not mean for what they report to be taken literally.
Review of Three Scholars Who Affirm the Metaphorical Gospel Theory
These are good summaries that are fair to the scholars involved. Grouping them together as people who
hold to a single theory is a bit of a stretch, but you explain the differences between them in your text. What
they have in common is that all three deny the historicity of certain biblical narratives while affirming that
those narratives continue to have metaphorical value for faith and theology. In my introductory GENERAL
COMMENTS I indicate the three different ways that these scholars think non-historical material came into
the Gospels: through midrash (Spong), through superimposition of the Christ of faith on the Jesus of history
(Borg), or through “prophecy historicized” (Crossan). Within the guild of New Testament scholarship,
Spong’s proposal holds the least credence, and Borg’s the most.
You are also right to note that of these three scholars Spong is the only one who wants to argue that the
original Jewish readers would have understood the stories as metaphorical in a way that later, Gentile
readers did not comprehend. This argument has not found acceptance among New Testament scholars,
though it has perhaps never been refuted any better than by you in your subsequent sections of this
manuscript (Internal Evidence/External Evidence).
With regard to both Borg and Crossan, you indicate that these scholars have “offered no account of the
supposed literalization of the Gospels” but indicate that their views logically entail “a transition from
metaphorical interpretation to factual, and requires some explanation.”
Basically, Borg (and I suspect Crossan) thinks that in the first century people did not make the clear
delineation between “literal” and “metaphorical” that we make today. I think Borg’s view would be that the
Gospel writers just passed on stories about Jesus that they thought were inspiring and meaningful without
worrying about which stories or which aspects of a story were “historical.” Historically accurate elements
mixed with imaginative ones and no one seemed to know or care which were which. The issue then
becomes not “when did people began to take the stories literally” but “when did the literal facticity of the
stories become theologically significant.”
I don’t think he sees it as a chronological process but as different mindsets. Thus, it is easy for you to show
that the Church fathers and other Christians assumed the stories to report historically accurate accounts.
What Borg would question is did they (in large, consensus numbers) take the essential meaning of the
stories as being that “this happened.” With regard to the resurrection of Jesus, he would agree, yes. With
regard to walking on water or turning water into wine, he would say, “no--the Christian position has seldom
been that mere reportage is the essential meaning of the narrative.”
For my part, I think it is instructive to compare the Gospels with accounts written by Roman historians like
Josephus or Tacitus or Herodotus. On the one hand, these historians do not hesitate to fill in gaps with their
best guess as to what probably happened--and it is true that they do not always tell us at which points they
have sure evidence and at which points they are just guessing. There were no footnotes in those days. But,
on the other hand, first-century people did know the difference between telling the truth and lying--anyone
who just made up stories about things that didn’t happen at all would have been branded a liar.
The Theory Creates a Chaotic Condition in NT Studies
I think this is the weakest part of your manuscript for several reasons that I will just state without belaboring
the points. This also seems to be an “excursus”--it could be removed without affecting the quality of your
arguments anywhere else.
1. The situation of NT studies (even as you describe it) is no more chaotic than at any other time in
post-Enlightenment scholarship--there have always been wildly divergent ideas being presented by motley
individuals.
2. You do nothing to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between propagation of the MG theory and
the supposedly chaotic state of NT studies. Logically, as you know, you cannot simply describe two
phenomena and assert that one caused the other. It could have been the other way around (perhaps chaos in
NT studies led to the propagation of the MG theory). Or, maybe, both the development of the MG theory
and the supposedly chaotic status of NT studies are unrelated developments caused by other factor(s).
3. Chaos in biblical studies is not necessarily a bad thing, as you seem to assume. It often comes as an
inevitable result of revival or reform. The single greatest period of chaos in theological studies in Christian
history was brought on by the Protestant Reformation--but I take that as no proof that the Reformation was
misguided.
4. The list of images for Jesus that you put forward as evidence of the “chaotic condition in NT studies”
does not really demonstrate this. First, several of the images (Allegro’s, Schonfeld’s, Van Daniken’s, and
the various “guru” proponents) are constructs of persons who are not New Testament scholars. They are not
the products of scholars who buy into any variety of the MG theory, but in fact are the work of popularists
whose ideas would be challenged by the work of scholars (including those who buy into some variety of the
MG theory). Some of the other images you list (e.g., Crossan, Smith, and the political reformer models) are
not contradictory or mutually exclusive. The fact is, in modern studies of Jesus by New Testament scholars,
there are two primary schools of thought, one hearkening back to Albert Schweitzer and the other to
William Wrede. Pretty much everyone in the field fits into one of those two camps, with only minor
disagreements separating them into sub-groups. That is not really chaos.
.
Internal Evidence
I have no detailed comments to offer here.
You do a fine job of showing that Luke and the other Gospel writers certainly intended their books to be
read as historically accurate accounts. This dispels, at least, Spong’s contention that the Gospels were
intended to be read only as metaphorical tales and only later came to be misunderstood by uninformed
literalists.
Internal Evidence: The Argument from Alleged Contradictions
I think you protest too much here and try to establish more than can reasonably be asserted. It is obvious to
all biblical scholars that the Gospels do differ in the details of what they report. Whether one calls such
differences “contradictions” often becomes a matter of semantics. The Crossan example you use is not
actually a very good one. How about: in Matthew 8:5-13 a centurion comes to Jesus with a request; in Luke
7:1-10, the centurion sends elders (v. 3), then friends (v. 6) to Jesus but never comes himself. Or the two
different accounts of Judas’ death in Matthew and in Acts. Fundamentalists do all sorts of gymnastics to
show that these are not really contradictions, but the ironic thing is that no one except for fundamentalists
has ever thought that they might be. Most Christians (globally and historically) have always taken such
differences as nuances of interpretation that bring out slightly different points. I think Crossan is right in
saying that the differences result from an emphasis on what each author thinks the spiritual message of the
story might be. He is also probably right in saying that the author and readers (then and now) were often
more interested in the getting the spiritual message across than in conveying historically accurate details. It
is possible, however, to grant all that and still maintain (as do most scholars) that the stories are basically
and essentially accurate. In other words, the story of the centurion requesting that Jesus heal his slave is a
historical narrative (not just a metaphorical one). It really did happen: a centurion asked Jesus to heal his
slave from a distance, Jesus did so “with a word” and praised the centurion for his great faith. We can not
know for certain whether the centurion actually came to Jesus himself or whether he only communicated
with Jesus through emissaries but lack of absolute clarity on that minor detail hardly suggests that the whole
story must be fictional (in fact it suggests exactly the opposite--we seem to have two different accounts of
the same event).
Internal Evidence: Argument from Theory Intersection
A sound argument throughout. Spong’s own arguments do not lead logically to the conclusions that he
draws--or at least they do not necessarily lead to those conclusions. The analogy to The Little Flower of St.
Francis (under “The Arrangement of the Gospels”) is especially telling.
External Evidence: The Church Leaders of this Period
This is probably the strongest part of the manuscript, which is strong almost everywhere. You show,
beyond any reasonable doubt, that Christians in the early years after the Gospels were written did not in fact
read those Gospels as non-historical narratives that had only metaphorical meanings. I have little to add to
Charles White’s endorsement of your work here. My personal specialty is the Gospel of Matthew and, for
ten years, I chaired an international colloquium of Matthean scholars. The dominant view is that Matthew
was written in Antioch, in the very church where both Peter and Paul had once served (cf. Gal. 2) and in
which Ignatius of Antioch was bishop one generation later. Thus, as you note, we have almost a clear line of
Christian testimony for three generations after Jesus in that church: 1) Peter, who knew Jesus personally; 2)
the author of Matthew’s Gospel, who wrote one generation later; 3) Ignatius, who wrote two generations
later than Peter (one generation later than the author of Matthew). It seems possible that the author of
Matthew’s Gospel knew Peter personally, and it seems very likely (as you indicate) that Ignatius knew the
author of Matthew’s Gospel personally. Over these three generations, at least, there is no “literalization”;
Ignatius clearly believes that the stories Matthew reported are literally, historically correct. Like Peter, he
died a rather horrible death because he believed this.
I think I can speak for the guild of biblical scholars in saying that on this point the vast majority of scholars
would say you are absolutely right: It is virtually certain that Christians from the original readers on have
understood the Gospel stories as accounts that claim to report actual historical events.
Spong--The Literalization Process
Again--good solid work. Spong has no answer to the question of how and when the supposed “literalization
process” occurred and he has never produced a single shred of evidence to support the contention that there
was a pre-literalization period when the Gospels were not understood as historical narratives.
As you note, with some humility, your work ultimately focuses only (or at least primarily) on discrediting
this one aspect of the MG theory. Hypothetically, at least, various scenarios would be possible (that the
Gospel writers were liars or that they had been deluded into believing what was simply not true). Your goal
has been to expose the fallacy of a theory which holds that the Gospel writers intended their works to be
read in a non-historical way and that the works were in fact understood in such a way for a pristine period of
time before misinterpretation set in. Thanks in large measure to your work, that notion can now be
discarded by all reputable scholars as an untenable thesis with no supporting evidence--and quite a bit of
conflicting data.