|
Review Summary: Superb Analysis of the Gospels |
Date: 2007-12-08 |
|
| |
Details: If anything in the New Testament is reliable historically, it is only by accident. Virtually every word, phrase, and verse comes from midrash (Jewish for "recycling old stories") from the Old Testament, was adapted from mythology, or was fabricated to prove a theological point. Retired Episcopalean Bishop Spong presents data along these lines about as well as I've ever seen, along with ideas I have not read before. My question to him is the same question I had after I finished three other of his books - that is "how are you going to make a religion out of this?"
This time he answers the question. Although he doesn't believe in a physical resurrection of Jesus, he believes in a spiritual resurrection that can be accomplished as a life event in anyone. He spends better than a hundred pages on this and talks as well as any PR man I've ever heard - but to me, he's grasping for "sky hooks." He is unwilling to let go of the spirituality that has been his life's work, even though his extensive study has convinced him it is mythology.
|
| |
|
Review Summary: Is Spong's book a myth or reality? |
Date: 2007-10-12 |
|
| |
Details: John Shelby Spong asks the question, "Can something be real, yet not occur in history? This of course is in reference to the resurrection of Jesus. The answer is a resounding, no. He believes this is a possibility that every Christian should inquire about. He adds that the experience is real, but should not be taken literally. Why does Spong make such a strong assertion? Where does he obtain his information? Will the evidence be credible?
Spong believes that the origin and destiny of Jesus was derived countless times from every religious system. He gives one example of the Egyptian god, Osiris as a parallel to what happened to Jesus. However, when carefully examining his claim, we have excellent reasons to believe and know this cannot be the case. Osiris was killed by his brother and chopped up into fourteen pieces, which were scattered throughout Egypt. Concerning Osiris' apparent resurrection, the goddess, Isis, found only thirteen pieces and put him back together. Secondly, it is extremely questionable as to whether or not anyone saw Osiris. Third, he was given the status of the god of the underworld. Fourth, Osiris is not even the hero of the story, Isis or his son Horus was given this title.
In no form whatsoever can the story of Osiris be considered a parallel to Jesus. First, Jesus (his full body) appeared to as many as five-hundred people after his resurrection. Second, Jesus was given authority over heaven and earth, not the underworld as Osiris. Third, Jesus is the hero of the story where people worship him as their Lord and their God. Fourth, the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus far surpasses any evidence that other religions claim. Therefore it is easy to see that the resurrection of Jesus cannot be considered a parallel to other ancient religions or mythologies.
In chapter 19, Spong asks, "But what actually happened?" Spong believes that Jesus being crucified on the cross is a historical fact, but no one actually knows how he died. If this is the case, then how does Spong know Jesus was crucified? Where is the data he uses to promote this idea? Spong surprisingly offers none. There are an ample amount of resources, both Christian and non-Christian to historically show the death of Christ as an indisputable fact. Non-Christian sources include Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, Mara Bar-Serapion, and the Jewish Talmud.
From a medical standpoint, it is much more difficult to assume that Jesus didn't die on the cross, than to logically conclude crucifixion as the cause of his death. After Jesus had 5"-7" nails driven through his hands and feet, and then being raised on the cross, he would have to push up on his feet in order to breathe. Most crucifixion victims would eventually become exhausted and would lose the energy to push them up for the precious oxygen. Fluid would build up around the heart and the lungs therefore Jesus would have died from asphyxiation.
Spong attempts to avoid Jesus' death by cruxifixion on page 241 of his book that everyone close to Jesus would have fled, therefore they wouldn't have known what happened (How does Spong know the disciples fled, yet question the disciples didn't know? No data is provided). However, John 19:34 states that blood and water came from Jesus when his side was pierced by the Roman soldier (Roman soldiers made sure their victims were dead, or they would be put to death). Only an eyewitness account could confirm what happened given the limited medical knowledge of the ancient world. Probably the most amazing statement concerning the death of Jesus comes from a non-Christian source. The Journal of the American Medical Association said, "Clearly the weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted and supports the traditional view that the spear, thrust between his right rib, probably perforated no only the right lung, but also the pericardium of the heart and thereby ensured his death. Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appears to be at odds with Modern Medical Knowledge" (March 21, 1986, 1463).
The evidence clearly shows that Jesus was killed by crucifixion, but did he rise from the dead? Spong says on page 228 that if there was a tomb, it was not empty. This begs the question once again, how does he know? Once again no evidence is provided. The Jewish authorities wanted to demolish Christianity. Wherever Jesus was buried, all they had to do was to produce the body to show there was no resurrection. The new religion would have ceased to exist. Instead they had to invent stories in order to hopefully explain away the resurrection.
Unbelievers such as James and Paul were transformed upon the visits of the resurrected Christ. Critical scholars of the Jesus' resurrection claim the improbability of that the early church would have included such unbelief from one of their leaders such as James. Concerning Paul, Jesus Seminar critic, Roy Hoover says that Paul's testimony is the earliest and most historically reliable evidence for the resurrection.
The rest of the disciples went from being cowards, to boldly and confidently proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus Christ and salvation for the world. Spong even admits this, but he asks the question on page 27, "Why?" Thus, by identifying tremendous support for what he hopes to refute! Eleven of the twelve disciples died horrendous deaths for their beliefs. They were in the position to have first hand knowledge as to whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. It is commonly known that many will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know is false.
In conclusion, Spong offers no real historical evidence of his theory. I'm afraid all he can offer is "Spong-speculation."
|
| |
|
Review Summary: Essential Reading |
Date: 2007-01-03 |
|
| |
Details: John Shelby Spong is an Episcopal Bishop and the author of several books, among them Born of a Woman, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, and This Hebrew Lord. In the current book Spong examines the most minute details about the Resurrection in an attempt to re-visit the "Easter" story that is at the core of Christianity. Spong's unique contribution to this analysis is his deep familiarity with Hebrew literature and the midrash tradition, the lens through which the all Jewish people of the first century interpreted the gospels.
Part One (Chapters 1-3) is a 40+ page introduction to the study of the gospels, the use of words, and the midrash method. Part Two (Chapters 4-9) is a detailed study of each of the gospels as well as the epistles of Paul. Part Three examines some of the major images present in the Resurrection story (e.g., the suffering servant, the son of man. In Part Four (Chapters 14-18) Spong provides his own interpretation of what the gospels really say, and in Part Five he provides us with an idea of what the resurrection story means to him on a personal level.
This book is a monumental work of scholarship and it will completely revise your idea about biblical research as well as the story of the resurrection. Literalists beware, this is not the book for you. But anyone with an open mind who has ever questioned the inconsistencies in the gospel accounts (e.g., did Jesus appear to the disciples in Galilee or in Jerusalem? Did one, two,three or more women go to the tomb?) or wondered about the strange and impossible to explain issues (e.g., cursing the fig tree, the cowardly disciple who becomes the Rock upon which the church is founded) will find this book a true eye opener.
The book is well written, but the notes are sketchy and far too few. There is an extensive bibliography and a detailed index of topics. The book will appeal to beginning students as well as the most advanced scholars.
Bottom line - there is no more engaging or provocative book on the resurrection. This book belongs in everyone's library. |
| |
|
Review Summary: VISION OR PHYSICAL RESURRECTION |
Date: 2006-09-25 |
|
|
| |
Details: According to John Shelby Spong, Jesus did not literally rise from the dead. Jesus was crucified, died, and was thrown in a common grave. Some time after Jesus' crucifixion, an event occurred that created the Christian movement. The heart of the Christian message is that the "crucified one lives." This alleged truth arose in Peter spontaneously. The moment that convinced the Apostles of this truth occurred in Galilee and Simon was the primary person in whom this truth first dawned. To call that idea (hereafter the resurrection vision) that allegedly popped into the mind of Peter a "truth" is quite a surprise. Spong tells us Peter saw "a realm of God from within which Jesus appeared to Simon. Was it real? Yes...Was it objective? Spong does not think that Peter's vision was objective. Spong's thesis is subject to serious epistemological challenge. Peter did not observe any objective event upon which to conclude that Jesus (the crucified one) was alive. There was no corresponding factual basis upon which Peter could believe that Jesus was alive. On this view, Peter had no justified true belief. Spong's thesis is a subjective and speculative house of cards that cannot stand.
Following Peter' resurrection vision, the need arose to reinterpret the life of Jesus Christ as a faith story. According to Spong this was done by the method of midrash.
Although he acknowledges midrash as a method for interpreting scripture, Spong brings new meaning the conception midrash by positing it as a method by which Scripture writers affirmed events and transcendent experiences into symbolic forms with no concern for linear time or literal events. Spong blames the western mind for insisting that the details of the Gospels were actual, historical events. Early in its history, the Church lost touch with its midrashic origins and claimed too much through literalizing scripture. With the dawn of the enlightenment, Spong suggests that the literal reading of Scripture was proven to be fantasy. Today, evangelical and fundamentalist elements of the Christian church, Catholic and Protestant, cling to the fading possibility of a literal truth being present in the details of their faith story. However, we need not fear, Spong's methodology will restore the original meaning of the midrashic message.
Applying his methodology, we cannot be, in the least bit, certain of the historicity of the Old or the New Testaments. Spong applies his midrashic method to show that whatever events the disciples experienced were set forth in the Gospels as non literal myths or legends. Specifically, since he places the location of Peter's resurrection vision in Galilee, it follows that the entire burial tradition must all be dismissed as not factual, including the female visitors who discovered the empty tomb. Jesus' appearances that purport to be the physical manifestations of the dead body that somehow was enabled to be revivified and to walk out of a tomb are also myths and legends. After disposing of the resurrection narratives as legend, Spong then embarks upon what he calls his speculative reconstruction of the events surrounding the resurrection while admitting that no one "can finally do anything other than speculate!"
Spong's concept of vision is not unique. For Spong, Jesus appeared to Simon from the realm of God. What Peter saw was not objective and yet it was real. Both subjective and objective visions have been refuted by scholars. The objective vision includes the experience of some literal minimal light phenomen with a corresponding mission. Spong speaks of a species of subjective vision also called hallucination. Gary Habermas offers an excellent treatment and refutation of the subjective and objective visions of resurrection. (see, Geivett, R. Douglas, Habermas Gary R. In Defense of Miracles, Downers Grove: Illinois, InterVarsity Press, 1997, pages 262-267) Hallucinations are private events that are not contagious to the masses and are not likely to inspire dying for one's vision. Spong's version of the vision transfer from Peter to the Apostles is ludicrous at best: "He tried to open their eyes. His tortured mind poured out his words in torrents...until light dawned in James, John, and Andrew." (p. 257) Spong wants us to believe that the Apostles faced the threat of certain death on the basis of a subjective vision. However, the New Testament reveals that the early church faced both threats and death for testifying to a literal resurrection.
In stark contrast, the Apostle Paul made the claim of the historical fact of Jesus' resurrection in no uncertain terms. He presented the fact of the resurrection as the litmus test of the Christian faith. The resurrection is the primary basis for Christian faith. Paul stated in no uncertain terms in 1 Cor 15:14-17 that if Christ was not raised, preaching and faith in the bodily resurrection is useless making professing Christians false witnesses for making such declarations. By positing the resurrection to be a legendary invention, he removes the basis upon which Christianity stands: salvation from sin through faith in a literal resurrection of Jesus Christ. Spong's postmodern approach might score high marks in a university literature class, however, rejecting the miracle of the resurrection with this midrashic method would score him low marks with theologians, historians, and philosophers who support the veracity of the New Testament.
|
| |
|
Review Summary: Verdict: Reality Reduced to Myth |
Date: 2006-09-12 |
|
|
| |
Details: Spong inhabits a worldview in which rationality and religion are remotely distant cousins. Through postmodern eyes, Spong sets the mythological stage upon which resurrection should be viewed. For the intellectual, the demise of objective reality and certain historical knowledge are well accepted premises secondary to limitations of language and culture. To Spong, only the "ignorant," those who are left behind in the dungeon of "premodern ignorance," seek pragmatic understanding of actual historical events, or apply literal interpretation to past reality. Only a "weak," "pitiable," and "frantically insecure" Christianity believes in the historical, physical resurrection of Jesus. To Spong, literalizing the stories of Scripture and particularly the resurrection of Christ, only serves to destroy faith (i.e., Spong's kind of faith). In this provocative book, Spong reaches beyond linear time and space to achieve a transcendent, symbolic truth of resurrection, comprehended as a subjective, experiential reality incorporating Jesus' as the ultimate "mythic hero."
Despite his avowed disclaimer against use of literal interpretation of Scripture, he vainly attempts to literally undermine and replace the persons, places, times and events of Easter. Spong grossly prooftexts and misuses scripture throughout the book. He conveniently ignores historic and textual evidences toward early creedal development, pre-Gospel manuscripts, well-established oral tradition, and the presence of contemporaneous sympathetic and non-sympathetic witnesses, while using liberal, late scriptural dating to justify his alternative perspectives. Spong commits the fallacy of special pleading.
Instead of a Jerusalem-based physical resurrection of Jesus on the third day, Spong espouses an actual, initial post-resurrection "experience" by Peter in Galilee. After wrestling with the finality of Jesus' death for approximately six months, Peter suddenly envisioned that life's purpose is to give love and life to others, just as man Christ had done throughout his life and death. Indeed, it is not Jesus' resurrection that was critical, but Peter's "resurrection."
For Spong, Peter personifies the true beginning of Easter and springboard of Christian faith, accomplished through his own self-reflection and realization. Historic conversions from Judiasm to Christianity, as initiated by Peter and spread to the masses, as well as subsequent martyrdom further confirmed the experience of a spiritual resurrection. Such transformation and sacrifice were merely manifestations of a new spiritual outlook on life as inspired by Christ, but were not caused by the literal viewing of a physically resurrected Christ. Offering no evidence himself, Spong feebly attempts to dispose of any physical evidence by placing Christ's body in a common grave with criminals, left unidentifiable. He then ambiguously resurrects the `spirit' of Jesus' life to be both transcendently and immanently discovered later.
And, despite his dogmatic assertion against knowledge of objective reality, he not only proclaims with confident, self-refuting certainty that Jesus actually died in Jerusalem, but that bodily resurrection of Christ, and any literal interpretation of the events surrounding such is a grossly mistaken idea. This begs the question as to how he has accessible, authoritative knowledge, the very thing he seeks to dismiss. His dichotomous views prevail throughout.
One positive insight to be gleaned in these pages is Spong's desire and commission to live life unselfishly, guided by the amazing loving, sacrificial example of Jesus Christ.
This book is true to its postmodern roots, a decided effort directed toward deconstruction of orthodox Christianity and reconstruction of Spong's own brand of mythology. He separates faith and rational thought, yet appeals to logic to substantiate his own religious knowledge. This is indeed `Spong's story,' a creative legend of his own with the blurring of fact and fiction to avoid direct implications of an empty tomb, to avoid the possibility of the supernatural, to avoid his unanswered questions toward life after death, and to futilely escape any arrogant positioning associated with knowledge. Spong's spiritual, linguistic and historical reconstructionism rejects critical historical analysis, whether scriptural, philosophical, cultural or secular.
In his own words, this book promotes Spong's "re-creation," his "speculative interpretation" of resurrection; and, the reader should judiciously approach this book as an inconsistent and self-refuting fiction lacking validity or authority.
|
| |
|
out of 37 Reviews
