Support the Café
Search our site

Reading the New Testament chronologically

Reading the New Testament chronologically

Marcus Borg talks to Candace Chellow-Hodge at Religion Dispatches about reading the New Testament chronologically and what this approach teaches us about the early Church and about being a Christian.

Marcus Borg: In the New Testament, among the things we learn by reading it in chronological order is, in a sense, the obvious: mainly that there were vibrant Christian communities. I call them ‘Christ communities’ since there was not a separate religion called ‘Christianity’ in the first century. There were vibrant Christ communities spread out around the Mediterranean world before any of the documents were written, so the documents give us glimpses, or windows, into what those Christ communities were like.

And they make clear that the New Testament as a whole, including the gospels, are the product of those communities, written to those communities, and in many cases written within those communities. So, we learn that it’s not that the gospels created early Christianity but early Christianity produces the gospels as well as the other documents.

The book of Revelation, which of course comes at the end of the familiar New Testament, is almost in the middle—number 14 of 27 documents. When the book of Revelation comes at the end of the New Testament, it makes the whole of the New Testament sound as if we’re still looking forward to the second coming of Jesus and what is popularly called ‘the end of the world.’ When the book of Revelation appears more or less in the middle, we see it, hear it and understand it as a document produced in a particular time and place that tells us about what that Christ community, and the author, John of Patmos, thought would happen soon, in their time—rather than it being ‘Oh, this is still about the future from our point in time.’

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

13 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
tobias haller

Bro David, I don’t think I’m being ungracious in finding fault with Dr Borg. I have to admit I am not a fan of his work, but I don’t think my criticism is by any means unkind to him or unjust. I think in the present instance he is stating the obvious but finding it necessary to dress it up in new terminology.

I also have scholarly disagreement with a number of the theses upon which he has based much of his work (including that done in the Jesus Seminar). I don’t think stating those disagreements is by any means ungracious — and I am far less negative than many of his critics.

And I wouldn’t blame yourself too much for failing to provide more context. I’ve seen enough of the good Dr.’s work to understand where he’s coming from. It’s just that I disagree with the need for that particular journey.

David Allen

I felt that I couldn’t quote the whole portion leading up to why he chose Christ-community, so obviously I failed in letting you know his full rationale.

BTW who is this and what have you done with Tobias? The Father Haller with whom I am familiar most at his own blogsite is so much more gracious and magnanimous!

Bro David

tobias haller

I guess the problem then is that Borg has a curious notion of what “church” means — if it can not be intimate, sharing, caring, small, etc. That is not a defensible position.

These are the very communities that Paul addresses by “ekklesia.” It would have been just as clear, and less trendy, to simply use that word, in romanized type if need be to distinguish. Making up a terminology no one ever used to try to make a point few would contest in itself seems rather pointless. After all, it is the text of Acts itself (late as it might be) that describes in detail just how small, intimate, and supportive these “churches” were.

David Allen

“Paul’s communities were not only small, but deeply committed and intentional. To become part of one was a serious undertaking. Jesus had been condemned and executed by Rome. Joining this movement meant risk— to call Jesus “Lord” and “Son of God” meant that the emperor was neither of these things. It meant becoming countercultural, rejecting the values of dominant culture and living in accord with another vision of how things should be. Paul referred to them as communities whose identity was “in Christ” and as “the body of Christ.” They were “a new creation” in the midst of “this world” that subverted “this world.”

The small size of these communities meant that they were intimate. Their members knew and were committed to taking care of each other. Paul’s frequent use of the language of “brothers and sisters” is not just affectionate; it is “new family” imagery. People who became part of one of his communities took on the same responsibilities for each other that blood brothers and sisters had. In the first-century urban context in which many had lost their blood families because of migration and high mortality rates, this was a powerful image of community. It also meant that these were “share” communities: if you were part of this community, you would eat.

For the above reasons, I will not use the word “church” to refer to early Christian communities. Instead, I will use “Christ-communities” to refer to these small, committed, intentional, and intimate groups. Over time, what we call “churches” would emerge; but that time was not yet.”

Borg, Marcus J. (2012-08-28). Evolution of the Word: The New Testament in the Order the Books Were Written. HarperOne. Kindle Edition.

tobias haller

Well, it still seems “trendy” to me. One could use the Greek for “assembly,” “ekklesia” or as we would say, “church” — clearly attested in Revelation which he dates rather early, and used in the earliest Pauline corpus. I guess I just don’t get the point of his “special” terminology for a phenomenon he alleges to have existed, but for which there was no name at the time.

And if the interview doesn’t represent him well, he needs to learn better interview style!

Facebooktwitterrss
Support the Café
Past Posts
2020_012
2020_013_B
2020_013_A
2020_011

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café