Here is a link to a radio interview with liberal Christian scholar John Dominic Crossan. His reading of the Christmas stories is very meaningful to me. He sees the birth narratives of Jesus as intentionally-written parables. However, he says that arguing about the historicity of the accounts is simply a way of evading their respective meanings in the same way that arguing whether a man really stopped and helped a Samaritan misses the point, that all of us should help our neighbors.
Happy Holidays!!
As in so many cases of interpretation, the apple looks different depending on how you slice it. Crossan wants to soften the Bible by declaring that the true does not matter, just that the intended message is a parable. He suggests that even Jesus’ birth story may just be a parable about the current political situation in the year 50 or so.
But then Crossan steps on his tail. He wants to be selective about what is parable and what is true. He’s happy to write a book about the interpretations of Jesus’ birth but also declares in this radio interview, that “of course Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph existed, so did Bethlehem, so did Nazareth, so did Harrod …” What is he declaring with “of course”? That everyone “knows” what is true and what is parable? A fair amount of work has been done suggesting that there never was a Jesus. Let’s not split scholarly hairs here. Either the Bible is true or the Bible is fiction designed to help people of the times deal with life.
Dan
But your argument is just what Crossan wants to avoid. If there never was a Jesus, the parables are just as true as they ever were, the birth narratives included. In Matthew, the wisdom of the East (Magi) conflicts with the power of the West. In Luke, God comes to the humble rather than the powerful. These parables still have meaning.
Now, I’ll say, in my opinion, that the Jesus stories are probably based on the life of someone who was executed in the first century. Otherwise, it’s very difficult to understand why historical persons like Peter were mentioned in the accounts. Mary and Joseph existed because this person had parents, though no one can know whether those were their names. And there’s no doubt that Bethelehem, Nazareth, and Herod existed. We have extra-Biblical historical attestations to them. In fact, we still know where Nazareth and Bethlehem are.
You’re dealing with modernist-era definitions of ‘true.’ A parable like the Good Samaritan was never meant to be what I call newspaper-true. Some guy never walked down the road and helped a bloodied-up guy. People who heard the story the first time knew that. But the point is that we’re all supposed to help our neighbors, even people with whom we disagree religiously. Whether there was ever a guy who stopped and helped is of no consequence.
Yes, I do agree. I just thought that his assertions in the first third of his interview were inconsistent with his whole premise that good storytelling can serve a greater good. Your “toning down” of the newspaper-true (to some) parts of the Bible are much more consistent with his whole premise.
My other point was that he used several “of courses” in his list that are still verifiable along with several that are not. That is good persuasive technique but kind of slippery.
Happy Reflective Events
Dan