Tom:

I do read pretty much most of what Crossan and Borg write (Liberalmentalist is not my term nor would I use it). These two authors cover new topics and passages, though their emphases are often the same. They write exceddingly clearly and are very good representativesof the pointof view they hold, so they are very worthy of careful attention (not to mention how many people read them and find their approach attractive).The issue is not only reading the material but interacting with it. The issue is also not only how I process their material (or ay given person) but appreciating the impact their writing has for others and thus engaging the perspective they represent. Some of your friends and neighbors are reading them, so the time and preparation to know what Borg and Crossan argue and why is worth it for the sake of conversations that may well result.

For example, I have read The First Christmas (their latest), but have yet to blog it. Their take is that this material is purely theological and metaphorical, not historical. They note numerous issues in the infancy materials that have been long discussed (most I treated in my Luke commentary written over ten years ago). So the question is do I simply repeat what I said then (for example, I had long excurses going through the issue of the genealogies and the census). Let me note two examples now.

There is much discussion of the census in Luke 2 and if Luke got its timing wrong. That is a legitimate question to raise given what our outside sources say. All the five points they go through argue that Luke got it wrong, I went through each of these points one at a time in my excursus on the issue when I wrote my commentary (interacting with the source they cite presenting the arguments for problems, with my claiming it ain't necessarily so and citing historical rationale). We know Augustus went to great troiuble throughout the Empire to organize the Empire and required many censuses for tax purposes (so the claim of an empire wide census is accurate in terms of all the work Augustus did in this regard to move in this direction, if one recognizes that the point being made is that he did launch an effort to organize tax collection across the Empire). The part tied to direct Roman rule over Israel was not well received in Judea as Josephus notes. Josephus dates this to AD 6, too late for Jesus' birth. This timing question is where the key discussion on the census lies. Part of the issue is how long would such an effort take to organize and to whose name was it ultimately attached (the one who finally completed it versus when it was started?), not to mention if the text in Luke should be read the way it is often translated (other plausible options have been made). Another issue is if local custom in doing the census might have been respected, in which case registering in the family's region might have taken place. But a second factor and issue Crossan and Brog raise make matters even more complicated and raise additional elements into the mix.

They argue that for Matthew, Joseph and Marty are from Judea, while in Luke they are from Nazareth, with the suggestion that neither source really knows where they are from and that the only motivation for both is to get Jesus to be born in Bethlehem to fulfill prophecy (with no actual knowledge of that fact or real historical intent in that regard). Never mind that we have little real evidence that earlier readers (supposedly familiar with ancient writing and litertary practices) actually read these texts as lacking historical intent about Jesus' birthplace,

Now on whether Nazareth or Bethlehem was home, they make much of the dream that sends them back up to the north for arguing in Matthew's view the original home of the couple is in the south. All of us know these sources are selective in what they give us. Did the couple, knowing the divine role of the child, decide or intend to move to the south until the dream directed them back to their earlier home? If so, two things result (this kind of possibility is no different in kind then the kinds of reflection Crossan and Borg give to these narratives but it does take us in a different direction). So the couple registers where they were planning to go and live (back to their ancestral home- perhaps a simple reference to Judea versus Galilee?) until the dream directed them back up to the north. Both accounts then simply read the events from distinct geographical orientations (just as the accounts take the perspectives of Joseph and Mary respectively). Each of these perspectives are legitimate parts of what the source materials give us.

Now some might object that I have "harmonized" the accounts, but, in fact, what I have done is to work with sources we all know give us only part of the total picture. If Crossan and Borg can put one set of combinations together to argue for an understanding of the whole, then why cannot someone else argue the material belongs in a different, plausible combination. In other words, harmonization is not the issue, for BOTH options are doing that.

In fact, none of what Crossan and Borg supposedly show disproves a Bethlehem birth, something both Matthew and Luke affirm, yet a historical Bethlehem birth is what Crossan and Borg ultimately question.

Here it is the extent of the denial to argue there are no historical concerns in both Matthew and Luke that is important to see. Some do argue (I don't) that Luke has problems in the details but the locale of the birth is correct.That is yet another approach and it also would show that Luke and Matthew intend history to a greater degree than the choices Borg and Crossan give us suggest. In other words, Borg and Crossan run to theology and metaphor too quickly as the only alternative and do not even consider other kinds of approaches as options. One can have theology, metaphor and history as well. To force a choice is to commit the logical fallacy of the excluded middle.

My response has been longer than intended but I hope the general point comes through. Engagement at the level of specfiic arguments are important for some of us to work through and for more of us to be familiar with. In addition, there could well be more than the two kinds of options Borg and Crossan often raise for these issues. All our sources are selective enough in what they cover that differences do not always equate to errors (and even if some see errors in some of the details, that conclusion does not lead one to be required to reject the sources in their entirety or in the more important points of what they claim, especially on points where they agree. It need not change the fundamental genre of the material). Pointing such things out (in terms of both details and method) is a part of careful engagement. To be aware of these complexities is something to be done not only for our own understanding and ability to engage, but for the sake of others who may have legitimate kinds of questions about what they see and hear in the public square because of works such as those by Crossan and Borg.

dlb