sophiaserpentia (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sophiaserpentia) wrote2003-08-19 08:36 am
sophiaserpentia) wrote2003-08-19 08:36 am
An excerpt from Spong on the Gospels.
In a deep and significant way, we are now able to see that all of the Gospels are Jewish books, profoundly Jewish books. Recognizing this, we begin to face the realization that we will never understand the Gospels until we learn how to read them as Jewish books. They are written, to a greater or lesser degree, in the midrashic style of the Jewish sacred storyteller, a style that most of us do not begin even now to comprehend. This style is not concerned with historic accuracy. It is concerned with meaning and understanding.
The Jewish writers of antiquity interpreted God's presence to be with Joshua after the death of Moses by repeating the parting of the waters (Josh. 3). At the Red Sea that was the sign that God was with Moses (Ex. 14). When Joshua was said to have parted the waters of the Jordan River, it was not recounted as a literal event of history; rather it was the midrashic attempt to related Joshua to Moses and thus demonstrate the presence of God with his successor. The same pattern operated later when both Elijah (2 Ki. 2:8) and Elisha (2 Kings 2:14) were said to have parted the waters of the Jordan River and to have walked across on dry land. When the story of Jesus' baptism was told, the gospel writers asserted that Jesus parted not the Jordan River, but the heavens. ... The heavens, according to the Jewish creation story, were nothing but the firmament that separated the waters above from the waters below (Gen. 1:6-8). To portray Jesus as spliting the heavenly waters was a Jewish way of suggesting that the holy God encountered in Jesus went even beyond the God presence that had been met in Moses, Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha. That is the way the midrashic principle worked.
Stories about heroes of the Jewish past were heightened and retold again and again about heroes of the present moment, not because those same events actually occurred, but because the reality of God revealed in those moments was like the reality of God known in the past.
We are not reading history when we read the Gospels. We are listening to the experience of the Jewish people, processing in a Jewish way what they believed was a new experience with the God of Israel. Jews filtered every new experience through the corporate remembered history of their people, as that history had been recorded in the Hebrew scriptures of the past.
If we are to recover the power present in the scriptures for our time, then this clue to their original meaning must be recovered and understood. Ascribing to the Gospels historic accuracy in the style of later historians, or demanding that the narratives of the Gospels be taken literally, or trying to recreate the historical context surrounding each specific event narrated in the Gospels -- these are the methods of people who do not realize that they are reading a Jewish book.
From Rev. John Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes, pp. 36-37
The Jewish writers of antiquity interpreted God's presence to be with Joshua after the death of Moses by repeating the parting of the waters (Josh. 3). At the Red Sea that was the sign that God was with Moses (Ex. 14). When Joshua was said to have parted the waters of the Jordan River, it was not recounted as a literal event of history; rather it was the midrashic attempt to related Joshua to Moses and thus demonstrate the presence of God with his successor. The same pattern operated later when both Elijah (2 Ki. 2:8) and Elisha (2 Kings 2:14) were said to have parted the waters of the Jordan River and to have walked across on dry land. When the story of Jesus' baptism was told, the gospel writers asserted that Jesus parted not the Jordan River, but the heavens. ... The heavens, according to the Jewish creation story, were nothing but the firmament that separated the waters above from the waters below (Gen. 1:6-8). To portray Jesus as spliting the heavenly waters was a Jewish way of suggesting that the holy God encountered in Jesus went even beyond the God presence that had been met in Moses, Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha. That is the way the midrashic principle worked.
Stories about heroes of the Jewish past were heightened and retold again and again about heroes of the present moment, not because those same events actually occurred, but because the reality of God revealed in those moments was like the reality of God known in the past.
We are not reading history when we read the Gospels. We are listening to the experience of the Jewish people, processing in a Jewish way what they believed was a new experience with the God of Israel. Jews filtered every new experience through the corporate remembered history of their people, as that history had been recorded in the Hebrew scriptures of the past.
If we are to recover the power present in the scriptures for our time, then this clue to their original meaning must be recovered and understood. Ascribing to the Gospels historic accuracy in the style of later historians, or demanding that the narratives of the Gospels be taken literally, or trying to recreate the historical context surrounding each specific event narrated in the Gospels -- these are the methods of people who do not realize that they are reading a Jewish book.
From Rev. John Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes, pp. 36-37
Re: history+ York and Robinson
Austin... my goodness, you have missed a few posts, haven't you? I've been back from Austin for over a month now, it was a very good vacation but there are no prospects at this moment for my moving there or leaving New Orleans.
This will probably be in two or more parts, as I collect my thoughts and reply to everything you've posted.
my problem with him is that he is therefore
always writing as an ideologue, reducing complex
questions to simple answers on the side he wishes
to stress
I too have noticed this tendency throughout what I have read of Spong's work in general -- although I think that his tendency to make himself a "lightning rod" might be more problematic in the long run.
The difficulty I think when writing about these topics in general is that all such writings should come with an explicit caveat, that "no one book is going to present the one and final answer" to these questions. One reason the Gospels have been so enduring is the fact of their multidimensional mystery, and a "monolithic" declaration -- for example, that they reflect an entirely midrashic (or mythological, if you will) viewpoint -- is bound to overlook many deeper aspects of the mystery therein.
But this is the difficulty one must face if one is to say anything of substance about the Gospels at all.
If things must indeed be "said" about that which is inherently mysterious -- which is another question for another post...