(14 votes, average: 4.93 out of 5)
Loading...I’m with a group of travelers just now who are interested in critical approaches to the Bible (not views that are criticizing per se, but views that approach the Bible using historical methods — “Biblical Criticism”). One of them – as usually happens – has asked me about the very popular writings of John Shelby Spong, who was an unusual figure in numerous ways, most famously because he was both highly skeptical about the reliability of the New Testament AND a long-time bishop in the Episcopal church. How does that work?
Well, work it did. He had a deservedly huge following.
Years ago I posted comments on a book he wrote near the end of his career on the Gospel of John, which takes an even more skeptical view of its reliability than I do. But I realized I should first set the context for those of you who don’t know who he was by re-posting my “Memorium” for him written soon after he died. So here is that first, then my summary/discussion of his book.
******************************
I was very sorry to learn last month that John Shelby Spong died (Sept. 12, 2021; age 90). Many of you know who he was; for those who don’t: he was
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Although I cannot now find it, I am sure I read on the blog a statement by you to the effect that the Christian religion is founded on the belief in Jesus’ sacrificial death for sins and his resurrection from the dead. Am I right in thinking that this is what you would see as the basic Christian belief? Thanks
I’m not saying it’s the right belief, but I’m saying that over the centuries that is at the core of what Christians have believed.
Thank you for this! I was not aware of Bishop Spong. I will seek out his writings!!!
Reading your reflection on John Shelby Spong resonated with me because I’ve been thinking about something similar.
I sometimes wonder if I would still call myself a Christian if Christianity were understood more like Buddhism is by many modern people—as a tradition centered on the teachings of a remarkable human being rather than on supernatural claims.
What led me away from Christianity was the realization that I could no longer honestly affirm claims such as the virgin birth, miracles, bodily resurrection, heaven, hell, or biblical inerrancy. Yet I never stopped admiring many of the ethical teachings attributed to Jesus. The Beatitudes still speak to me. Compassion, humility, forgiveness, peacemaking, and caring for the marginalized remain values I try to live by.
What I appreciate about Spong is his willingness to ask whether those values can survive without requiring modern people to abandon reason or scholarship. Too often, we’re told there are only two options: accept traditional doctrines or reject Christianity entirely.
For me, the label matters less than the values. If Jesus was a human teacher pointing people toward those ideals, I still find much to admire in him.
All the chapel bells were ringing
In the little valley town
And the song that they were singing
Was for John Shelby Spong
I’m a cradle Episcopalian. When I chose to study the NT as history, it never occurred to me that it would threaten my faith. And it didn’t. But I can distinguish the theological from the historical. Many cannot. Here’s my example of why it’s important: N.T. (Tom) Wright is a retired Anglican bishop, and an authority on Paul. He frequently gives talks here in America, and many can viewed on YouTube. One he gave at a well-known Christian college, in which he told the students that, no, grandma is not in heaven, she like all the faithful have to wait until the end of time and the return of Jesus and the resurrection of the body. He cited Paul (who was very clear about it). There was an audible gasp. If Paul wrote it, why the audience reaction? I read obituaries. Sure, the obituaries of famous people that appear in the NYT, but also not so famous local people down here in the South. Almost every obituary down here starts with the statement that the departed is now in heaven with Jesus. Between scripture and belief, many down here choose belief even if it conflicts with scripture.
Yeah, I’d say Tom is wrong about that. Both 2 Corinthians 5 and Philippians 1 show that Paul changed his mind and believed that at death believers will be “with Christ” while waiting for the resurrection.
What do you think led Paul to change his mind?
I think he realized he might die before the end came, and coulnd’t imagine not being with Christ for a period.
Another explanation is the presence of a pseudepigraphal [false] Paul. There were multiple [false] Pauls. The “Q” Community produced its own [false] Pauls. Another group emerged in the city of Corinth, Greece. A third forger wrote the latter chapters of the Book of Romans but retained the original closing. Best regards.
I met him one time in the 90’s and read a few of his books. I didn’t always agree with his answers but liked the questions he asked.
My wife and daughter visited an Episcopal church a few times when we first moved to NJ 26 years ago. One man we were talking to after the service said, “I don’t think I would still be in church if not for Jack Spong.” I will never forget that.
I suspect that many of us who approach the Bible critically wonder at times whether we really belong in a church. Bishop Spong was one of the people who convinced me that I did.
Never heard of JSS, I agree more people like him are needed. Off topic: what are your thoughts on the “biographical” material in John that is also in the synoptics. Over a period of several days, I did a study of this and found that if we think of the gospels as having a beginning, middle, and end then John and the synoptics have a substantial amount of material in common in their beginning and end sections but the middle in John is totally different (except for the feeding of the five thousand and walking on water stuff).
I’d like your help in what to make of this. It’s hard to decide of John had any of the synoptics on hand or John had some other document(s) with that material. John doesn’t seem to know that (1) the mother of Jesus was named Mary, Jesus had parables, Jesus did exorcisms, the Q/moral/apocalyptic material of Jesus, etc. All this seems to suggest John didn’t have any of the synoptics on hand. Maybe there was some other kind of basic biographical document that has been lost to history that the author of John’s gospel used? Please help.
It’s a debated issue. My view is that John did not know the Synoptics; that was the standard view when I was in grad school. But the scholarly pendulum is now swinging and most Johannine scholars think he did know them.
If he did *not* then his attestation of similar narative events would provide independent attestation that they heappened.
I know this is not primarily a place to display what I know or to develop theology, but reading about John Spong reminded me, in a rather different theological context, of Josef Lukl Hromádka.
What seems common to both is their refusal to imprison religion inside a protected world of illusion. Each, in his own way, tried to ask how Christian faith could meet the real world honestly. Hromádka, for example, did not simply reject the socialist order of his time from the outside. He tried to find points of contact between Christianity and that historical reality, even writing a book with a title like The Gospel for Atheists.
I am especially drawn to his conviction that Christianity must not flee from history. Even with atheists or communists, Christians should enter into dialogue and look for the possibility that God may somehow be at work there. That resonates deeply with my own desire to do good to all people, not only to those who already share my beliefs.
Another interesting note about Spong was that he drifted into accepting Unitarian Universalism in his later years. He was certainly unafraid to speak against taking much of anything in the bible literally and, if a reader had enough curiosity (and open-mindedness) to try to read his books to understand how he got to those views, his arguments were quite strong. Spong did travel to the Vatican and research some of the less accessible books there, but instead of getting into deep scholarly textual criticism and deep translation issues, he stayed with reinforcing his own conceptual theories of why Matthew and John, specifically, were writing the specific stories that they wrote. In the Matthew case, Spong strong believed that Matthew was expanded and ordered in such a manner so as to both complete and more directly align with the Jewish calendar and the major festivals. If you only want to read one of his books, I would recommend ‘Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy’ as the best Spong example. Another good Spong book that was not mentioned above is ‘The Fourth Gospel: Tales of a Jewish Mystic’
This is a moving tribute, especially the final note about regretting not getting to know him better.
Spong is an interesting case for the relation between critical scholarship and faith. He took the difficult historical questions seriously, and he stayed within the Christian community anyway.
That make him not an easy ally for traditional Christians, and his reconstruction raises plenty of questions of its own. Still, it shows that critical scholarship by itself doesn’t force one destination. One person leaves, another stays, even if in a radically revised form.
Which brings back a question I keep returning to: what kind of faith, if any, can rightly survive the challenge?
One that does not see and infallible Bible as the very heart and soul of the faith, but as a helpful religous guide to thinking about ultimate questoins.
I like the word guide. A guide goes somewhere, and it knows the way.
ChristIanity has always been a theistic religion. It seemed to me
the last time I was reading Spong yrs ago he was trying to turn Christianity into some kind of non theistic religion, into something it never was. Am I right or wrong?
I really don’t know!
I was thrilled to read your “In Memoriam” for Bishop Spong. On April 15, 2026 I was the first recipient of the Bishop John Shelby Spong Award presented by the Center for Progressive Christianity.
Whoa! Congratulations.
After reading this recent post and the comments, I find myself to be a rationalist/objectivist about the scientific and historical reliability of the Bible. You wrote that Spong’s historical studies led him to realize that the Bible cannot be interpreted as the literal, historical truth.
The book I thought would be interesting was Why Christianity Must Change or Die, 454 ratings averaging 4.5 stars (90% are 4 stars or better).
These two books do not say why the Bible cannot be interpreted as the literal, historical truth the way my book Historical Accuracy does. He does not speak of 1) Sumerology and what it claims about the origins of our species, 2) the Amana Letters and the dating of Labayu and how that wrecks the dating of the biblical King Saul and the biblical King David, he does not speak of reasons why Jesus cannot be a Logos-Creator with God.
In Why Christianity Must Change, he speaks of why Jesus is not a rescuer by way of atonement.
What were two of his strongest arguments that the Bible could not be interpreted as historical truth?
Thank you, Dr. Ehrman,
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy [of the Bible]
I don’t think he has any particular arguments against the literal truth of the Bible that stand out from those of other scholars. There are lots of contradictions, events that we know from other sources didn’t happen, and complete implausibilities (not just miracles, but stars leading wisemen in a straight line, etc.)
Hello, Steve. Congratulations on your book, Historical Accuracy. I will review it at my earliest opportunity. Obviously, you are aware of the writings of Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel. In my opinion, a pre-Gnostic cult wrote the Gospel of Matthew, influenced the Gospel of Luke, wrote the Book of Revelation, and produced partial and whole pseudepigraphal forgeries in the letters of Paul, Peter, and Jude. The impact of this cult obscures the historical accuracy of Jesus of Nazareth and the social phenomena that surrounded him. This cult is indicative of the social phenomena. This cult might be the first Gnostic group. Already secretive by nature, this group did not scatter after the stoning of Stephen. The stoning of Stephen reinforced their secretive nature. 300,000+ people in Jerusalem did or did not experience the midday darkness that Tertullian asserted was recorded in the archives in Rome. A significant number did or did not walk inside the empty tomb that allegedly contained the corpse of Jesus. The city of Jerusalem received its Messiah only days earlier. As Paul told Agrippa years later, this was not done in a corner. ACTS 26:26
Thank you for the reply and congratulations on my book–now, if I can write a second edition!
Thanks for planning on reviewing it. I look forward to your review. Let me know when it is posted so we can discuss more. Yes, I know the writings of Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel, yet, I’ve concluded significant portions of the prophecies of Jesus did not come true.
Hello, Steefen. Amazon book review said that you propose that Paul invented Jesus. Will the “real” Jesus please stand up. I propose that a pre-Gnostic group in Jerusalem wrote the Gospel of Matthew and influenced the content of the Gospel of Luke. This group created the myth of Jesus. Meanwhile, Suetonius, Tacitus, Tertullian, and Josephus write about a “Chrestus”.
Josephus does not write about Chrestus.
You propose a pre-Gnostic group in Jerusalem wrote the Gospel of Matthew but you provide no citation.
https://www.instagram.com/reels/DZTBcw8p26E/
My book is way more than Paul.
Hello, Steefen. Thanks for the Instagram link. Your book is way more than Paul, I agree. I agree that the religion was “Romanized”. Have a good day.
Based on this definition of fundamentalism is the Catholic Church, “The Whore of Babylon” or an outlier fundamentalist sect?
I’d say neither. The “Whore of Babylon” was the Roman empire and its emperor.
Bishop Spong’s writings led me to you, Bart & the BSA. I have enjoyed both yours & his writings & scholarship. Thank you!
Out of the many, which book of his do you recommend? Thank you.
What I usually success is that you look up the books (say on Amazon) and see the desriptions and go with the one that most strikes your fancy. It totally depends on what subjects you’re most interested in.
Interesting. Just as you thought that you were crazy, someone crazier comes along. When they gather the heretics and blasphemers, do you choose to stand next to John Spong? Compared to Spong, you might be orthodox. But, next to Spong, someone might assume that you are acquainted with him. When trapped in a cave with Josephus and the Roman soldiers are outside, where do you stand so that you can surrender with Josephus? Things happen in caves. Moses talked to GOD in a cave. David hid from Saul in a cave. Prophets hid from Jezebel in a cave. When in a cave with Josephus, don’t stand next to him. When beaming down on a planet with Captain Kirk, wear the same color of tunic as Captain Kirk, Spock, and Dr. McCoy. The person with the contrasting tunic will not survive. Imagine being in the jail cell with the Apostle Paul for two years in Ceasarea. They tried to kill him in order to silence him. They are still trying to silence him.