Here the whole thrust is to say that the Gospels are Jewish books(Im not sure actually it is quite certain that there may not be Greek language originals, though this would be not so undermining of his point) and so Midrashic and so not historically accurate and so the students do not need to think much of what is there actually happened...
Greek vs. Aramaic -- most of the arguments either way depend on linguistic minutia... my own thoughts are that Jesus spoke in Aramaic and so at least the things that he said must have been translated into Greek at some point. The accounts of events seem to have been originally written in Greek.
Anyway there was obviously some Hellenistic cultural blurring in Jewish society between the time of the Old Testament and time of the New Testament -- but it seems to me that this in itself would not have significantly reduced the Jewish character of the Gospels. It simply means that a Hellenistic element has to be accounted for as well.
Spong naturally focuses on arguments that support his strongly figurative/mythological view of the Gospels. As you say though there is a distinct vividness to the Gospels in some places that makes it very hard to imagine it was constructed mythologically. For example there is a scene in Mark's Gospel where Jesus heals a blind man, mixing his spit with mud and rubbing this on the man's eyes, and the man's sight returning in stages... To argue that this is myth, one has to account for the appearance of such detail.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: history+ York and Robinson
Date: 2003-08-19 08:03 am (UTC)say that the Gospels are Jewish books(Im not sure
actually it is quite certain that there may not
be Greek language originals, though this would be
not so undermining of his point) and so Midrashic
and so not historically accurate and so the
students do not need to think much of what is there
actually happened...
Greek vs. Aramaic -- most of the arguments either way depend on linguistic minutia... my own thoughts are that Jesus spoke in Aramaic and so at least the things that he said must have been translated into Greek at some point. The accounts of events seem to have been originally written in Greek.
Anyway there was obviously some Hellenistic cultural blurring in Jewish society between the time of the Old Testament and time of the New Testament -- but it seems to me that this in itself would not have significantly reduced the Jewish character of the Gospels. It simply means that a Hellenistic element has to be accounted for as well.
Spong naturally focuses on arguments that support his strongly figurative/mythological view of the Gospels. As you say though there is a distinct vividness to the Gospels in some places that makes it very hard to imagine it was constructed mythologically. For example there is a scene in Mark's Gospel where Jesus heals a blind man, mixing his spit with mud and rubbing this on the man's eyes, and the man's sight returning in stages... To argue that this is myth, one has to account for the appearance of such detail.