Peter Kirby

This thread is opened up for comments on the "Recommended Reading," including books to add, change of book descriptions, and other ideas.

Please take a look at the current form of the "Recommended Reading" before you post. Recently we have added several books on the Old Testament, the Apocrypha, and the Quran.

I look forward to your comments.

best,
Peter Kirby

SLD

I'd be interested in finding a good book on the historical rise of Christianity from its roots through about 500 AD. A book that goes through some of the writings of the early church leaders, goes through what we know about persecution of early christians and how it ultimately spread from obscure origins to take over the Roman Empire in the early 4th and 5th centuries. Not a book on the bible, or interpreting christianity, but on how it spread and it's battles with Rome and other religions. If you know of one, please let me know. I did find one on the rise of Christianity from about 200 AD to 1000 AD, but I really wanted one that went back further than that, and that talked more about the early church leaders and what they wrote.

SLD

Peter Kirby

A book that may fit this description is MacMullen's Christianizing the Roman Empire. Note that I have not read it. You can see some sample pages online.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

I just want to comment on Koester's History and Literature of Early Christianity. I brought it with me to the beach this week and read it twice back to back. That is BY FAR the best introduction that I have read. No other book covers all the issues so well, and opens up so many interesting ways of looking at things, or suggests so many possibilities.

Vorkosigan

RED DAVE

I'm by no means a scholar, but I recommend a reading of some of the non-Judeo/Christian sacred books for comparison and context. Here's an excerpt from the Popul Voh that's online. It isn't complete, but it gives the flavor of a completely different, yet hauntingly familiar spirituality.

The Popul Voh

RED DAVE

Vinnie

Did you receive Ancient Christian Gospels yet? It was outstanding. I actually have volume one of Koester's History and Literature of Early Christianity on the way from Amazon along with Kloppenborg's The Formation of Q, Ron Cameron's The Other Gospels and in about ten minutes, the three Thomas books Kirby recommended in another thread I started. I find Thomas / Q overlaps to be a fascinating area of study.

Vinine

blackthorne

I think Marcus Borg's "Reading the Bible Again for the First Time" should be added to the "Popular Overviews" section. Borg's historical-metaphorical method is actually quite insightful.

Vorkosigan

I just started it. I brought it with me too (along with [i]Birth of hte Messiah, and both vols of Death of the Messiah), saving it thinking it would be the better of the two books. I'm not so sure now. I just started it.

Yes, I found Koester's discussion of Thomas/Q overlaps great. I need to re-read Bernard Muller's site, and then the online book by Stephan Davies....

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

I reviwed that work here:

http://www.geocities.com/ilgwamh/borg.html

The Review

The first chapter of Borg's work lays down his framework. He distinguishes between natural and conscious literalism and points out that we need new lenses for viewing the Bible. "The older way of seeing and reading the Bible . . . has made the bible incredible and irrelevant for vast numbers of people." Borg highlights four factors contributing to why the older way of viewing the Bible has ceased to be persuasive: (1) religious pluralism, (2) historical and cultural relativity, (3) modernity, and finally (4) postmodernity.

After laying down the framework and pointing out the need for new lenses in the first chapter, in Borg's own words, the second chapter of his book seeks to "describe a way of seeing the relationship between the Bible and God." Borg focuses on four topics in the 2nd chapter: the Bible as (1) a human response to God, (2) as sacred scripture, (3) as a sacrament to the sacred, and (4) finally as the Word of God.

In chapter 3 Borg moves from ways of seeing the bible to "the more specific topic of reading the Bible." He develops a method which he calls a "historical-metaphorical approach." Borg sees the Bible as a combination of "history remembered" and "metaphorical narratives" (which includes "history metaphorized"). Borg also outlines and provides an example of viewing the Bible through the lenses of post-critical naivete in chapter 3. Post-critical naivete is being able to hear the stories as true even if one knows the primary elements of the story are not historical (to Borg 'metaphor is poetry plus, not science minus'). Borg cites the Infancy Narratives of Jesus as an example.

After laying down his framework and methods in the first three chapters, Borg goes on to apply his method to the biblical books in the next 7 chapters. He explores what it means to read the Bible as a combination of history and metaphor starting with reading the creation stories again and ending with reading Revelation again. In Borg's own words, we see "what it means to read the Bible as a true story (and as a collection of true stories) about the divine-human relationship." In the process we are provided with a mini-commentary on the Bible.

Fundamentalists and the more conservative Christians might not appreciate Borg's work because he does not accept the Bible as being directly from God and his notion of what constitutes a Christian is not concerned with the dynamics of believing or not believing. You will not see any "six-day creation" or "do you believe in the trinity" litmus tests from Borg. For Borg, to be a Christian "is not about believing in the Bible or about believing in Christianity. Rather, it is about a deepening relationship with the God to whom the Bible points, lived within the Christian tradition as a sacrament to the sacred." I suspect the reaction to Borg's work is different in the liberal camp and rightly so. Many liberals share his view that certain stories in the bible are not historical and Borg accurately notes in the first chapter that liberal Christians are often better at stating what they do not believe rather than what they do believe. Many who cannot accept the Bible as an infallible and inerrant divine revelation or as coming from God herself, have trouble defining the Bible and understanding its exact nature and relationship to the Christian life. This book helps alleviate a common difficulty by laying down a framework for viewing the Bible that respects it as a source of Christian authority even if it views it as only a human work. Borg helps provide a positive liberal framework for viewing the Bible and for that, I am indebted to him.

Ther is also an excerpt on my page above:

Vinine

Vinnie

Brown's Death of the Messiah is based largely upon the independence of John and Mark. If this view is incorrect then a very substantial portion of this work becomes irrelevant. If he is correct then the work needs to be taken seriously.

Brown raises interesting points in defense of his position throughtout on why John is independent but Crossan has stated in Boc that Brown muddied the waters himself by bringing up the issue of indirect dependence by say the gospel of Peter. Crossan actually thinks only parts of John were dependent. This is a complex and very divided issue in scholarship today. Koester thinks Mark, John and GPeter independently attest ot an ancient passion narrative. Crossan has his Cross Gospel and so forth.

And Vork, how do you read so fast? I wish I could do that

Vinine