Some comments related to the book: Liberating The
Gospels.
Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes
By John Shelby Spong
ISBN 0-06-067534-9
This book presents a very interesting thesis. To me Mr. Spong makes a
reasoned case that the New Testament makes sense if it is looked at
through Jewish eyes. Even I used to think it was strange that in Sunday
school we didn't study more Judaism, as a background to Christianity.
Spong presents many ideas that are new to me. For instance:
(1) The book of Mark was composed according to the Sabbath Day
sequences, only that it covered half the year.
(2) The book of Matthew was twice the size of Mark so that the
whole year of Sabbaths were included. Matthew depended on
the Torah, Mark and the Pauline writers.
(3) The book of Luke parallels Genesis and the rest of the so called
"Books of Moses", especially Deuteronomy.
A few more lesser ideas:
- Mary and Joseph are never mentioned in Paul's epistles (the earliest
books of the Bible, written 2, 3, and 4 decades after Jesus lived).
- Paul's epistles do not consider Jesus birth as unusual (Not virgin birth).
- Mark, the first Gospel written (35 to 70 years after Jesus lived) does
not mention Joseph.
This book is a "must read" for anyone interested in the origins of the Bible.
Mr. Spong's next book should be interesting for it's refreshing originality.
It is: Why Christianity Must Change or Die : A
Bishop Speaks to
Believers in Exile by John
Shelby Spong
Some rambling critical reflections as I read the book:
-- If much of what Jesus was purported to say and do is mythical,
how does one know what he actually said, that he actually called people
into wholeness, etc. He may not have promoted these at all -- who is to say!
There is really nothing said of Jesus anywhere other than in the New Testament
(AND the New Testament isn't that large!). If you take a lot of it away as
mythical, what is left? Nothing much!
-- The danger of fundamentalism still exists.
Most people will read something literally. There is no way most people are
willing to somehow translate the meaning of a narrative or commandment, etc.
in a more complex way.
-- Paralleling or basing the writings of the New Testament on the
Old Testament does not make it anymore "true" or "authentic",
especially if the Old Testament isn't necessarily "true and authentic."
-- One good thing the New Testament did was put an end to animal
sacrifices of the Old Testament. This was some progress.
-- The book presence a fascinating description of how theology develops
after a person dies and that person is deified. In this case, Jesus.
-- Mr. Spong does not clarify actual reality, except the reality of myth making.
-- "Legends and myths point to reality" would suggest that the legends and
myths
of the Bible are ones among many others, in many other religions, past and present.
It was when these legends and myths were disbelieved that real progress in
understanding reality began -- the beginning of science -- the only reliable
source of knowledge.
-- I am suspicious when someone says that "no words can define" a given
reality on
which I am supposed to base my belief system. The system Mr. Spong is presenting
is something words do define (he wrote a book to define it) otherwise it would be
impossible to understand this other reality he is trying to explain. We can only
understand it by some literal meaning of the Bible. There is still a literalism
here,
just of a more complex nature. Using Spong's method of understanding the Bible
allows for all kinds of interpretations of various passages. As in traditional
literalism,
this is interpreting verses in the bible to justify any belief system you choose.
Spong mentions words rise out of the human experience and can escape that limitation
only by human imagination. I disagree. All human imagination is also based on
human experience. There is nothing you can imagine that does not involve one
or more of the following: space, time, energy/matter and numbers - the reality framework
that science works with. Talking of things beyond this framework is meaningless
and leads only to confusion. Even sensible talk about God can only be in this
framework. To know God; that God must be in space-time and consist of energy/matter.
-- Most people need intense experiences. They find these in various ways.
I think it is genetic. For some this need is greater than for others.
But an intense experience, especially one that happened a long, long time ago
does not mean it is God related just because people or a book such as the
Bible says so.
Followers of other religious leaders also experience what they say is a deep
and intense God experience through their leader. This seems to happen a lot.
-- p. 332. "Being one's most real self is a God Quality" does not require any
supernatural person. Believer in a God of the Universe does not need,
nor require an intermediary such as Jesus.
-- p. 306 I don't agree with "The realization born at Easter that Jesus was
and is
a new revelation of God", is the cause of the breakdown of barriers of
religion,
race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation." The breakdown of these
barriers
started with the rejection of Christianity, bit by bit, (Jesus and Easter included)
and the enlightenment of the 1700's. It was the infidels that dared to think
beyond Jesus. Over time, you find the Churches slowly followed the Infidel's
thinking. All great changes in Science, social ethics, and Government have been
instigated by unbelievers, not believers, and eventually were accepted by the
Churches.
Jesus may have been an infidel for his time, but he is "primitive" from
our time
perspective. By the way, the Muslims are where Christianity was in the time
before the scientific enlightenment era. I think Islam is in trouble because infidels
are not given equal status in their society.
If, as Spong indicates, that social progress was caused by the power of Jesus
then it happened not by Mr. Spong's understanding of Jesus, but by the old
traditional Christian understanding of Jesus over the centuries, because
there was no Spong to provide his concept of Jesus to Christians.
So, he is making a case for the literal view of Jesus, which is what
he is trying to discredit.
-- p. 15 I think Spong's prediction of the imminent collapse of the Catholic
Theology
is unfortunately too optimistic. Most people are too emotionally tied to the
religion
of their upbringing to give up their religion because of reason or evidence.
I find people are much more emotional than reasonable when it comes to
belief systems. I would suggest, because of this that the Catholic Church and
it's theology will exist for centuries to come. However there are a significant,
but small minority of people that do listen to reason and evidence.
I admit, Spong's is a refreshing and a more wholesome approach to the Bible
than I have ever seen, but in the end I don't think it will save Christianity
as a noble belief system.