However, I have observed that very often (not always) when authors emphasize that a story from the Bible signifies more than its literal factuality they also quietly want to affirm that it is less than literally factual.
Rather than assume that they have this ulterior motive, why not assume that they don't -- or at least, as Borg declares, he doesn't care. He states (I'm paraphrase, because I don't want to look it up): If you believe that it is literally factual, fine. Tell me what it means. If you believe that it is not historically factual, fine. Tell me what it means. If you waver between believing it must be historically accurate and it might not be historically factual, fine. Tell me what it means.
A less explosive example is the story of Jonah. Does one have to believe that Jonah was swallowed by a big fish for the story to have meaning? I don't think so. Frankly, I don't care what someone believes about the big fish, or how Jonah was able to compose a poem (ch. 2) while surviving in the fish's belly, or how Jonah was able to learn the language of the Ninevites, or all the miraculous events in this story. I think that the message of the little story is so powerful, that all those details pale by comparison. Why center on a big fish, when there's the much more important message of God's inclusive grace.
Meanwhile a false dicotomy is set up that dares people to choose between affirming that a story is rich with parabolic truth and therefore questions of factuality are irrelevant or that the meaning of the story is exhausted by questions of fact.
I think that it is a false dichotomy, except that sometimes there can be such an emphasis on the historical facts, that one never gets to the meaning of a passage. For example, those who will argue about the necessity of believing Jonah was really swallowed by a big fish. I talked to one lady who argued for a literal understanding of that, but when I asked her about what was in the rest of the book, she admitted that she couldn't ever remember reading it. Thus a dicotomy can arise between what I believe and argue
about the Bible vs. what is actually written
in the Bible.
One of the things I apprecate about Borg's book is that it includes a lot of Bible study. It isn't just a treatise about scriptures, but provides examples after examples of exegesis to support his points.
Did the Bible, did the Gospel writers (whoever you figure they were) present the resurrection as a story illustrating a point or as historic event?
The question Borg raises is whether or not the Gospel writers intended meanings beyond the historical and factual when they remembered and wrote their accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection. I think they did. Just to give one example, look at the words of the centurion in the synoptics when Jesus dies. Each are slightly different. Each emphasizes a message of the writer.
Mark 15:39: When the centurion, who was standing right in front of him, saw the way he breathed his last, he said, "Truly this man [
anthropos] was the Son of God!"
Mt 27:54: Now the centurion, and those who were with him keeping guard over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things that were happening, became very frightened and said, "Truly this was the Son of God!"
Lk 23:47: Now when the centurion saw what had happened, he began praising God, saying, "Certainly this man was innocent."
Mark has an emphasis on the humanness of Jesus, some argue that one of his messages is that Jesus is not a "divine man" like in Greek and Roman myths, thus the use of
anthropos in the Centurion's confession (lacking in the others); and the absence of anything spectacular about the death, unlike what Matthew presents.
Luke adds "praising God" and changes the confession to one of innocence.
I think that in the remembrances of each of these writers, the historically and factually, the centurion saw and responded exactly as they reported it -- and in ways that fit emphases that are found throughout their story of Jesus.
This also becomes a question of Law and Gospel. One of the basic distinctions between Law and Gospel is that Law is what we do and Gospel is what God has done for us. If we affirm that the story of the Resurrection has great meaning and inspiritation for how we are to view life and live life while denying that the factuality of the empty tomb and the reality that death for Jesus was reversed we end up with Jesus as an example and inspiration for our lives.
Borg, at least in this book (the only one I've read) does not deny the resurrection nor its power. He is certain, for instance, that Paul's life was radically changed by his encounter with the resurrected, living Jesus. He argues that such transformations continue to happen because Jesus is living. He does not argue, as Crossan does, that the body was left on the cross and eaten by birds and dogs -- which is what usually happened to crucified bodies.
He does argued, based on the reports in Acts and Paul's own testimony, that a belief in a physical resurrection -- that the risen Jesus had a body just like ours -- is not necessary nor scriptural.
Perhaps we need to join Jesus in bucking authority, concern for the poor, liberating the oppressed, affirming the worth of women or whatever the current fad that adopts Jesus as poster child. In a word, it ends up as Law. To be Gospel it needs to deal with the factual reality of what God has done. Otherwise it is simply philosophy. (Not that I'm knocking philosophy, I have a masters in it and would hate to think all that work wasted.)
Borg does have an emphasis on
following beyond just believing
in Jesus (or worse, believing
that Jesus did certain things) and having a passion for the things Jesus had a passion about, which could include the things you mentioned. One one hand, I would argue that Law is still the Word of God. One of its purposes is to make this a better world for all humanity. Borg argues that Jesus' preaching about the Kingdom of God was meant for this place. God is already king in heaven. It's earth that's messed up. Borg writes about the Kingdom of
God: It's not just about politics, but is the way the world would be if God were king, and the kings and domination systems of this world were not. It is God's dream, God's passion, God's will, God's promise, God's intention for the earth, God's utopia -- the blessed place, the ideal state of affairs." (p. 252)
The questions then are: Do we sit around waiting for God to take over as king? Is it our responsibility to bring in God's kingdom? He argues for
participating in the coming kingdom. "Indeed, the choice between 'God does it' or 'we do it' is a misleading and inappropriate dichotomy. In St. Augustine's magnificent aphorism, 'God without us will not; and we without God cannot.'" (p. 260)
Jesus is more than a model; but we are also called to follow in Jesus' way of participating in God's will and passion for the earth.
I am interested not only in what stories of the Resurrection can inspire me to do, but also in what is going to happen to me when I die, and whether it is worth risking as well as basing my life on it.
Does it matter to you if your resurrected life is a physical one or a spiritual one? At least for me, the knowledge of spending eternity in the presence of God in an existence that is so much better than the one here, is enough. The details of that resurrected life I'll leave up to God. I'll just claim the promise that Jesus was the first fruit and we all get to follow.