Jesus’ Meaning

Mere-O friend Rick Radcliffe recently wrote one of the most thorough and detailed explications and critiques of Marcus Borg’s Christology (as elucidated in The Meaning of Jesus that I’ve read.

Of course, Dr. Borg’s apparent view is that the gospels cannot credibly record any supernatural explanations for events. For example, the virgin birth does not comport with the modern understanding of procreation, so therefore, it must have been a mere “metaphor” or a subsequent creation or gloss administered by exuberant followers. Then, to save the faith somehow, Dr. Borg resorts to creating a “Christ of faith” to explain the matters that he has explained away beforehand. Again, this inconsistent approach leaves one with nothing, except perhaps an experiential faith that operates on a psychological level for the benefits of its followers.

Borg (and his ilk) counts as fringe NT scholarship whose views are often heralded by the major weekly publications every Christmas and Easter. Radcliffe’s critiques are straight to the point, decisive, and worth knowing by heart.

Also, he’s been hanging out with Justice Scalia recently.

Justice Scalia reported that Democratic strategist and fundraiser James Carville (ostensibly in error) sent him a fundraising letter during the last election cycle with the envelope emblazoned with the words, “Can you imagine a Chief Justice Scalia?”

Oops.