Borg/Crossan Pilgrimage to Turkey
2-16 May 2010

Introduction: A reported conversation between John Dominic Crossan and a Muslim university colleague:

‘The main difference between Christianity and Islam is that you make a divine claim for your founder, Jesus, whereas we do not.’

‘No, that is not right. The main difference between our two religions is that Jesus was born inside the Roman Empire and Mohammed was not.’

Gathering: 41 pilgrims and 4 leaders gathered at the Korumar hotel in Kusadasi, a Turkish seaside resort town, on Monday evening 3^rd May to begin a pilgrimage of learning, focused on a number of archaeological sites, relevant to the New Testament period. (I, incidentally, arrived at this destination independently. The rest had come in a group. Mistakenly expecting to meet me at Izmir airport, I was initially known as the ‘lost Australian’!) The group was predominantly American, with 4 Canadians and 2 Australians, myself and a Catholic brother from Melbourne, named Harry. I discovered, somewhat to my surprise, that the group consisted largely of retired couples. I was neither retired not there as part of a couple.

View from Kusadasi, looking to the Greek Island of Samos

Process: We stayed for most of the tour at Kusadasi and then travelled by bus via Bursa to Istanbul for the last 4 days. Each day typically involved a bus trip to an archaeological site, with expert commentary provided on site by Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan and a Turkish professor of Archaeology, named Haluk. We usually arrived back at our hotel around 2.30 pm, with the afternoon free. In the evening, Marcus & Dom each gave a 30 minute lecture, with opportunity for what they called ‘Q & A’ before the evening meal. The program was not too demanding, with sufficient space for reflection and independent exploration of the local area. Worship was woven into the formal program in the morning and evening.

Marcus Borg (on left) and John Dominic Crossan at Aphrodisias

‘Big ideas’: Being led by Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan, the tour was predictably premised on the understanding that relevant history is both discoverable and critical in comprehending the New Testament, particularly Pauline, corpus. It would not be an exaggeration to characterize their view in this way: without such historical context the message of Jesus is necessarily distorted and fanciful. I am familiar with the scholarship of Borg and Crossan and yet I was still provoked and enriched by their input and approach.

In particular, their research promulgates the claim that ‘Roman imperial theology’ is an essential backdrop for comprehending the Pauline teaching about Jesus. (It is an important point to note here that Roman/ Greek religion is not labeled as ‘mythology’ but rather as ‘theology’. I was taken by this insight. Labeling it as ‘mythology’ suggests that it was, at best, a historical curiosity whereas it was a dynamic, ideological and spiritual view of life and the world, which formed the thinking of literally millions of people and underpinned the genius and resilience of the Roman Empire.)

Historical background to Roman imperial theology: At the naval battle of Actium in 31 BC, which took place off the Greek coast, Octavian defeated the forces of Mark Antony and Cleopatra and effectively ended the Roman Civil War, which had undermined the Roman world for some time. This action eventually paved the way for Octavian to become ‘Augustus’, emperor of a new Roman polity, the Roman Empire. Octavian’s victories also brought peace to the Roman world, a tangible and much-welcomed peace. Subsequently, Augustus was accorded many honours and titles, including ‘Lord’, ‘Son of God’ (Augustus was declared a God by the Roman Senate) ‘Saviour’, ‘Redeemer’, ‘bringer of good news of peace’ (from an inscription, originally found at Priene, a ruin we visited, ‘the birthday of the most divine Caesar… the day which we might justly set on par with the beginning of everything… in that he restored order when everything was disintegrating and falling into chaos and gave a new look to the whole world…’) Subsequently an imperial cult grew in the Roman Empire and was pervasive in the eastern part of the empire, Paul’s territory. This was woven into the Roman imperial program, which claimed that through piety (i.e. appropriate observance of religious ritual), and therefore with the help of the gods, victory would be achieved in battle (by the likes of Augustus) and that this would lead to peace. (To put this in another way: the ‘barbarians’ would be subdued and civilized by Roman conquest.) It was an effective and efficient program and led to a long period of tranquility in the Roman Empire. Such understandings were particularly evident in imagery and carving displayed at the extraordinary archaeological site of Aphrodisias, which we visited.

While there were frontier wars, the Mediterranean world remained at peace for more than two centuries after Augustus. And Rome had a standing army of 28 legions, about 170,000 men, under the command of Augustus to maintain the peace.

At Ephesus, an inscription which speaks of Augustus as ‘Divi F(ilius)’, Son of God

Titles ascribed to Jesus by Paul It is striking, within this particular historical context, to recognise that many of the titles ascribed to Jesus by Paul were first ascribed to Augustus and subsequently claimed by future Roman emperors. Borg and Crossan claim that Paul’s description of Jesus was both derivative and technically treasonous. There could only be one Lord in the empire. Further, Borg and Crossan suggest that the tension between Caesar and Jesus was exacerbated by a fundamental difference in program. Caesar’s program, as mentioned above, was peace through victory and military might, whereas the Jesus program was peace through justice and non-violence. These were irreconcilable programs and claims and required a fundamental decision, ‘Who is Lord? Caesar or Jesus?’ (cf. 1 Cor 12: 3, “no one can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit”, a saying which takes on more political overtones when situated within this historical framework.) It was striking to visit ruins at Priene and Ephesus and there to read inscriptions, in Greek and Latin, proclaiming Augustus as ‘divi filius’ (Son of God), ‘Sebaste’ (the One above all to be worshipped) and to register that these inscriptions predated Jesus and certainly the writings about Jesus. What was also striking was the way in which these 2 fundamentally separate realms of religion and politics, at least to a modern mind, were so closely interwoven.

In this perspective, Paul’s understanding of Jesus is bold, remarkable, dangerous and representative of a fundamental paradigm shift. How could a peasant from Galilee, crucified by Rome, compete with the splendors and power of Rome and its emperor? Paul claimed that Jesus not only competed with but trumped Rome.

Enduring questions: I acknowledge that I find this framework attractive, if not compelling. Firstly, it thoroughly incarnates Jesus and theological claims made about him in the politico-religious realities of his time. Secondly it offers an hermeneutical framework for translating the claims of and about Jesus from the world constructed by the Roman Empire to the world constructed by the somewhat less visible ‘empires’ of this day.

1. However, is it too big a claim to suggest that the Jesus program could sensibly compete with the Augustan program? (Augustus controlled 28 legions; Jesus had trouble with the twelve disciples!) Also, is this framework an adequate and appropriate frame for comprehending the significance of Jesus? (I acknowledge in generating this particular question that Paul’s work is a work of translating Jesus into the Gentile context. Jesus, himself, did not address the Gentile world, at least not adequately.) Perhaps Borg & Crossan are exaggerating Paul’s scope.

While the links with Roman imperial theology are certainly worthy of reflection, it is hard to prove that they were the substance of Paul’s claims about Jesus. This comment is pertinent, especially because Crossan & Borg believe that the relevant history is recoverable and that we, living 2000 years later, can confidently comprehend it. I wonder if Borg & Crossan are overstating their case, both in content and methodologically.

2. It is a grave irony that Paul’s co-opting and subverting of imperial language and thought ultimately led to an imperial church, following the conversion of the emperor Constantine, some three centuries later. Perhaps, Paul’s language was appropriate for a small movement that ran counter to empire but when that movement became a dominant social and religious force, a power to be reckoned with in society, that language and thought form became highly problematic, if not misguided. (To see Jesus of Nazareth presented in glorious mosaics in the Aya Sofya, in Istanbul, in the garb and custom of a Byzantine emperor was for me a profoundly visceral and disturbing experience.) The Christian faith and tradition had little to fall back on in terms of a corrective for an entirely new context. Could Paul therefore have adopted another language form, or at least the possibility of recognising a ‘use by’ date for the form he chose? (I am conscious that this question flows from a 2,000 year span of history of Christianity; specifically, if Paul expected the imminent end of the era why build in a use by date? However, I believe my question is pertinent.) 

An ‘imperial’ baby Jesus receiving gifts from the emperors Justinian and Constantine; a beautiful and disturbing mosaic in the Aya Sofya, Istanbul

3. A pilgrimage? This tour to Turkey was styled as a pilgrimage. At the introductory session, and in the welcoming letter sent before the tour began, the word pilgrimage was used often and dwelt upon. (From the welcoming letter: ‘Augustine says, “all things are cured by walking”. Perhaps this journey is a walking cure of sorts for all of us. It will certainly change us, as life does.’ Actually this trip did change me but it wasn’t because of the formal program per se.) The way the tour proceeded, however, spoke to me not of a ‘pilgrimage’ but of a ‘study tour’. We were given a large amount of information each day at each site, which I found stimulating, fascinating and a little overwhelming. And it was much more in the nature of data and fact than an invitation to reflection, and to journey. (Certainly, a good proportion of it, from Borg & Crossan, was theologically pertinent. However, the task of the pilgrim/ student was to absorb the data and seek extra information and clarification if needed because of perceived gaps in the student’s knowledge.)

I acknowledge that I had anticipated an adult education model that encouraged open-ended questions and shared reflection. Speaking for myself, it was not easy to be a pilgrim when all the questions that naturally arose and were voiced publically had definitive and conclusive answers.

Inscription at the stadium at Miletus, reserving a seat of honour for ‘Jews and God-fearers’

Other themes: Two other themes of the tour should be mentioned. The first concerns the ‘God-fearers’, that is, pagans who aligned themselves with the teachings of Judaism, particularly its monotheistic and ethical stance, while not becoming Jews, although they did participate in synagogue life. We were shown a number of inscriptions, particularly at Aphrodisias and Miletus, referencing this group. Dom Crossan’s view is that Paul’s mission was directed at such God-fearers. He approached them with the message about Jesus and that they then constituted the early Gentile Christian community, thus antagonizing the synagogue community on whose territory he was poaching.

The second theme to note concerns Borg and Crossan’s analysis of the Pauline corpus into three strata; the original radical Paul, the conservative Paul and the reactionary Paul. Of course, in this analysis, the latter two were not actually written by Paul but by others seeking to connect his teaching and vision with changing circumstances, specifically with a growing compromise by the early Jesus movement with the prevailing Roman/ Greek culture. This analysis makes good sense of the unsettling variety of views found within Paul concerning the role of women, marriage, the status of slaves…However, this analysis is also a disturbing reflection, for me, of how easily an originating and radical vision is compromised. (These views on Paul are fully outlined in Borg & Crossan’s book, ‘The First Paul.’)

Conclusion: While I have raised some questions and critiques, I found the tour a very positive and memorable experience. I was able, personally, to pursue the pilgrim model, both in informal conversation with others and in my own reflections (tho’ not formally). I have returned to Australia, invigorated and with a number of open-ended questions, alive and compelling! The community of pilgrims on the tour was a source of good humour and companionship, and at times, deep reflection. Also, Turkey is an extraordinarily rich country, in the sense of history, contemporary culture and people. I plan to return.

- Michael Barnes, 16.6.’10