I agree with seraphimsigrist that Spong's estimation is quite an oversimplification. One thing that it tends to overlook is the matter of timeframe. Midrashim in the rabbinical tradition were usually looking far into history, usually hundreds of years. However, the Gospel accounts were relatively recent in comparison, with a greater accessibility to events than just their meaning in the consciousness of the people.
But Spong is also right, the Gospels are very Jewish books. I wrote a paper about a very related topic. My contention was that the nativity accounts were reconstructions that were more concerned with putting Jesus within the Jewish tradition of deliverance - Moses and Isaiah specifically - than historical accounts. In essence, they were little different from John's introductory exposition which establishes Jesus in a cosmological context. The details of the nativity were likely largely unknown to them, so they reconstructed it from the events that had historically marked the coming of one who would deliver the Jewish people. They were likely built around real events, but it was establishing the context of deliverance of the Jewsih people that was the real point of telling the nativity stories in Mt and Lk. I think this also explains the 12-30 gap.
However, at the same time, many events, especially those from Jesus' public ministry, were more literal accounts. As you pointed out, the detail given in many of the episodes in Jesus' ministry is vivid and uncommon of Midrashim-like explanations and extended metaphors. I often come to this when discussing with scriptural literalists - as I am quite certain you do as well - that if you want to understand scripture, you have to understand it as literature. Divinely inspired or not, literature is the vehicle.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: history+ York and Robinson
Date: 2003-08-19 10:05 am (UTC)I agree with
But Spong is also right, the Gospels are very Jewish books. I wrote a paper about a very related topic. My contention was that the nativity accounts were reconstructions that were more concerned with putting Jesus within the Jewish tradition of deliverance - Moses and Isaiah specifically - than historical accounts. In essence, they were little different from John's introductory exposition which establishes Jesus in a cosmological context. The details of the nativity were likely largely unknown to them, so they reconstructed it from the events that had historically marked the coming of one who would deliver the Jewish people. They were likely built around real events, but it was establishing the context of deliverance of the Jewsih people that was the real point of telling the nativity stories in Mt and Lk. I think this also explains the 12-30 gap.
However, at the same time, many events, especially those from Jesus' public ministry, were more literal accounts. As you pointed out, the detail given in many of the episodes in Jesus' ministry is vivid and uncommon of Midrashim-like explanations and extended metaphors. I often come to this when discussing with scriptural literalists - as I am quite certain you do as well - that if you want to understand scripture, you have to understand it as literature. Divinely inspired or not, literature is the vehicle.