An excerpt from Spong on the Gospels.

[sophiaserpentia]

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

Comments

Re: history+ York and Robinson

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: history+ York and Robinson

[badsede.livejournal.com]

This seems the best place for my thoughts.

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.

Re: history+ York and Robinson

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Midrashim in the rabbinical tradition were usually looking far into history, usually hundreds of years.

Interesting point. The only counter I can think to offer is that the first century AD was a time of considerable insight, social upheaval, and spiritual discovery. Clearly something powerful happened then, because it echoes to this day.

Actually the main purpose of Spong's book was to present for a lay audience the arguments of a group of scholars led by one Michael Goulder, that the Gospels were structured so that they would match the weekly Torah readings and certain observances of the Jewish liturgical year. (The Passion narrative meant to line up with Passover, etc. etc.)

The point about midrashim is rather minor, overall, but it would have taken too much space to post any meaningful excerpt from the main argument of the book.

I know Spong is writing for the interested lay audience, but he does tend to oversimplify a bit more than many other authors in the field.

Thank you for sharing that information about the paper you wrote. That is a fascinating perspective on the nativity, and I can see right away what you mean. The Gospels do more than tell the story of Jesus (otherwise a single gospel would have sufficed): they frame Jesus in the context of his society, and they define the context of the Christian teachings as well.

Thank you for your thoughts!