|
Review Summary: My new understanding of what it means to be a Christian |
Date: 2000-01-31 |
|
| |
|
Details: As a child, I was taught that being a Christian meant that a person had accepted Jesus as his Savior. I was also taught that this meant that all non-Christian believing persons were going to Hell. This was something that I couldn't embrace and I turned against as I grew to adulthood. Bishop Spong's books have opened my mind and allowed me to look at what being a Christian really means. Being a Christian doesn't hinge on believing that Mary was a virgin or that Jesus was resurrected. It is based on how you live your life. This book brought tears to my eyes because it affirmed my right to question the things I was told to accept without question. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Refreshing and insightful |
Date: 2003-03-30 |
|
|
| |
Details: If you have read the other reviews, you already know that Bishop Spong quckly sets aside the literal "Christmas Story" and the "Virgin Birth" in this book. Much more intersting to me, however, was his careful tracing of the crafting of what we know today as the "Christmas Story" in the order the various references were written, starting with Paul (I didn't realize his account was written earlier than the gospels).
The core of this book is Bishop Spong's combination of the few clues in the Bible with the intellectual and political currents of the day in the early church, and how they effected the moulding of the traditions we know today as the "Christmas Story" and the "Virgin Birth".
When he has finished his interesting analysis, he then adds a final chapter to discuss how he feels the developing concept of the "purity of Mary" has influenced the state of women in the centuries since, to the present day. While this is somewhat disconnected from the rest of the book, it builds on the lessons of the previous chapters, and opens up the possibility of dialog on the subject.
There is no question that this book has and will offend many Christians, but for those who are intellectually curious and like to think "out of the box", this book is a treat. |
| |
|
Review Summary: A rational look at the Incarnation |
Date: 2000-12-20 |
|
|
| |
|
Details: Much of the time I feel that I am exactly the kind of person that Christians love to hate, in that I find it very hard to disconnect my brain and accept uncritically things that are clearly at variance with reality. It was therefore a huge relief to find a theologian (and a Bishop!) who espoused the same doubts as myself, and who didn't see anything wrong with rationalism, or even being an intellectual. If Christianity is to survive it needs more people like Bishop Spong. The book brings a reasoned, historical and thoughtful approach to bear on the issue of the Incarnation and comes to an interesting conclusion that salvages much of the mystery and majesty of Christ, while ditching the myth. It will be challenging reading for traditionalists, but they should not find their faith damaged. If anything their faith should be deepened by the removal of mythological crutches. For doubters the book should be a revelation, and make Christianity look rather more attractive. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Scholarly, Provocative, and Informative |
Date: 2006-08-07 |
|
|
| |
Details: John Shelby Spong's 1992 book is subtitled "A Bishop rethinks the birth of Jesus" and in it he hopes to concentrate exclusively on the birth of Jesus. Needless to say the good bishop manages to devote only about 50% of the book to the issue of Jesus' birth, but don't let that detract from the value of the book. Spong's discussion of the gospels in general and the resurrection in particular only add to the value of the book.
The book is divided into 5 basic parts. Chapters 1 and 2 are general in nature and discuss biblical scholarship. Chapters 3 to 5 discuss the Pauline and pre Gospel traditions. Chapters 6 to 10 are devoted to Matthew and Luke. Chapter 11 deals with Mark and John, and the remaining chapters discuss the two Marys. The notes are limited, as is the bibliography.
Throughout the book Spong continues to hammer his point that the gospels are neither history nor biography, and must be understood within their theological and symbolic contexts. Spong is right in this regard, although his own context is relatively narrow and he rarely discusses the broader issues (e.g., the astronomical background to much of the gospel texts, the influence of mystery religions, the roman/jewish interface, etc.). He can rarely be faulted for what he does say, although one might have wished that he perused some areas in more detail.
The section on Matthew covers several issues:
- On the four (sinful, foreign) women, Spong believes that "irregular sexual activity initiated by the action of the Spirit [that] enabled the promise of Israel to move forward" is what unites these women's stories and links them to Mary.
- He believes that Matthew's midrash tradition of prophesy was mistaken by later Christians to be literalized.
- The story of the star and the magi is thoroughly researched by Spong, who identifies the Old Testament as well as contemporary events that contributed to these passages.
Luke's section begins with an excellent discussion about who "Luke" was and presents sound arguments for the fact that the same writers did not pen Luke and Acts. It's a minority position, but one I subscribe to as well. He also points out that Luke's gospel is presented in the format of a play, and other authors have theorized that Luke's gospel was drawn from a pre-existing early Christian play. Spong then proceeds to block out the gospel in play form, and this is an amazing exercise that is truly instructive.
Some of the interesting elements from Spong's discussion of Luke include:
- John the Baptist's father's name is Zechariah, the name of the next to last of the minor prophets in the Old Testament. Zechariah preceded Malaci (the messanger), possibly a clue to the naming. John's mother's name, Elizabeth, is only found in the Old Testament in Aaron's wife (Aaron was the brother of Moses), and Aaron's sister's name was Mary. Hence Elizabeth and Mary were related and their children would have been cousins. Intriguing stuff!
- Spong raises the interesting question of why Mary says "I have no husband " (Luke 1:34) when in fact, by Jewish law and customs, as a betrothed woman Joseph was her husband.
In his brief section on Mark and John, and in his discussion of the likelihood that Jesus and Mary were married, Spong continues his ability to critically examine the gospel texts. Some of the interesting findings here are:
- Angels appeared and Mary said she was crying because "they have taken away my Lord..." These words were spoken before anyone knew that Jesus had risen, and hence he was still merely a dead prophet, not the risen Lord. Yet Mary called him "lord", a term commonly used by first Century Jewish women to speak about their husbands.
- When the gardener appears, Mary claims the body ("I will take him away"), an act only the nearest of kin could perform.
- Mary addresses Jesus as "Rabboni" (an affectionate term) and then tries to embrace him. Jesus cautions: "Do not touch me..." Yet in First Century Jewish society, only a wife (or mother) was permitted to touch a man.
The final two chapters discuss Mary Magdalene and the continuing image of Jesus' mother Mary. Although not directly involved in the birth issues, both these chapters are excellent supplements.
This is not a perfect book. Spong makes several errors. For example:
- He claims in Luke 3 that "John the Baptist was engaged in a conversation with his Jewish detractors on the meaning of one's origins (p. 126)" when in fact the comments are made to the people he is baptizing, not his distractors.
- He claims Luke's authorship when in fact, many parts of the Gopspel of Luke are simply copies from other people's works (e.g., Josephus, Judges, 1 Samuel, etc).
- He makes the common error of concluding that Mark 3:20 refers to Jesus' relatives wanting to seize him and thinking he is mad (the original reference is to the disciples, not the family).
- He claims that Jesus reference in the Gospel of John to the adulteress (8:10) and his mother by the same name "woman" (2:4, 9:26) is significant. However, Jesus also addresses the Samaritan by the well as "woman" (4:21), a fact not mentioned by Sprong, which substantially lessens the significance of the usage he identifies.
These errors are few and far in between. Bottom line, this is a provocative, informative, scholarly account of Jesus' birth, and probably the best single source on the subject available. It will appeal to beginning students as well as the most advanced scholars.
|
| |
|
Review Summary: Fascinating... and it leans on Ray Brown |
Date: 1999-09-13 |
|
|
| |
Details: I enjoyed this book; was disappointed it did not go further in depth, but still, found much to ponder on. Coming from a Catholic background, though, I have never taken anything in the Bible completely literally so was not put off by the idea that certain things in the Bible may be just there to tell a story to a certain audience (and, I might add, a 1st-century audience, at that!)
It's ironic that the reviewer below says Raymond Brown's THE BIRTH OF THE MESSIAH is the one to read, as Spong highly credits just that very book in helping him come to his conclusions. He says, "in many ways this volume leans heavily on Ray Brown's insights" and "the very thoughts I seek to popularize in this book [have their roots] in Raymond Brown['s book]". |
| |
|
out of 20 Reviews
