(8 votes, average: 4.63 out of 5)
Loading...I am pleased to present this interesting guest post to Platinum members to fellow Platinum Joel Scheller. Joel has taken on one of the most important issues that we can ask of the New Testament: Are the Gospels meant to be read historically? Or, as John Shelby Spong argued, are they meant to be symbolic and liturgical expositions of the significance of Jesus?
If you have comments and questions for Joel, let us hear from you!
***************************
After Dr Ehrman wrote a tribute article regarding the late Anglican Bishop, John Shelby Spong, I began reading this man’s books, and became enamored with many, but not all, of his assertions. His book “Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy” really struck a chord with me because of Spong’s explanation regarding the difference in what we actually know about the historical Jesus from what we read in the Gospels. As fellow blog member, Dan Kohanski, so recently and aptly explained in his guest blog “What We KNOW About Jesus”, our actual knowledge of Jesus’ life and ministry is scant.
Many people assume that the information in the Gospels is a factual account of Jesus’ life, teachings, and ministry, yet anyone who seriously studies them would no doubt encounter, as the majority of academic scholars know, the fantastical and non-sensical accounts that challenge each in its own right. Furthermore, a comparison of each of them to the others has such contractions disclosed as to clearly deconstruct the notion that they represent the “Inerrant Word of God”, except for those that cling to irrationality through “faith”, in the same way one would be willing to confess that deepest darkness is light.
Spong asserts that what we call the “Synoptic” Gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) were never intended to depict a historical account of Jesus, but a liturgical one instead. His explanations are compelling.
First, let us consider the undisputed letters of Paul. They are the earliest writings we have that talk about Jesus, and they are written, not to tell a story, but speak about matters related to the Christian faith. We believe that Paul became a Christian shortly after the Resurrection event, probably no more than six years thereafter. We believe that he learned an abundance regarding Jesus’ life from the earliest followers of Jesus. Yet, let’s consider what Paul never mentions; things today that are considered to be staples of the historical Jesus; things that, if one doubted literally occurred, could result in expulsion from one’s church family:
- Jesus’ miraculous birth is never mentioned.
- Jesus’ mother, Mary is never named.
- Joseph, Mary’ husband is never mentioned.
- Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem is never mentioned.
- John the Baptist is never mentioned.
- Jesus’ baptism is never mentioned.
- Jesus’ miraculous healing of people is never mentioned.
- Jesus turning water into wine, walking on water, calming storms, feeding thousands of people with food that would only be enough for one person’s lunch, causing a net-breaking catch of fish to occur where moments before the water was barren, and any other miracle Jesus is said to have performed before the crucifixion, is never mentioned.
- 99% of Jesus’ sayings in the Gospel are never mentioned.
- With the exception of Peter, none of the other disciples in the Gospels are ever mentioned by name.
- The Jewish religious leaders handing Jesus over to Pilate is never mentioned.
- The women of Jesus’ disciples, even Mary Magdalene, are never mentioned.
- The empty tomb is never mentioned.
- Jesus first appearing in resurrection form to a woman, or group of women is never mentioned.
- Jesus’ resurrection being in human bodily form, is never mentioned.
- Jesus ascending to heaven in human bodily form is ever mentioned.
Twenty some-odd years after Paul’s first letter in the New Testament, the Synoptic Gospels begin to appear. Narratives, from which believers today form unshakable beliefs about what Jesus actually did and said. Would not Paul have had these “facts” if they were actually factual? Would not Paul have had ample opportunity to use many of these accounts in his letters, as he uses lessons from the Old Testament accounts, to bolster his points?
And what do we have before Paul? Twenty some-odd years of silence. Yet, we know that Jesus was being talked about constantly in that timeframe. What would have been a consistent setting for such talk? As the earliest followers of Jesus were Jewish, Spong asserts that the synagogue would have been the constant. But just as Christian worship has a liturgical form today, so did the worship that occurred in the synagogue. Each week, long readings from the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament, would be read; the goal was to get through the entire Torah each year, with a midrashic focus on the Jewish holidays; meaning that lessons at the synagogue near a holiday would focus on the meaning of the holiday. Midrash was the Jewish practice of rekindling their sacred stories in new forms.
Spong asserts that the Gospels represent a growing Christian tradition of using the pattern of synagogue worship to establish a liturgy for worship of Jesus throughout the year, with stories being designed to relate Jesus to the Jewish year and holidays. According to Spong, Mark did this with stories about Jesus that spanned the Jewish year from Rosh Hoshana, the beginning of the Jewish year, to Passover ( or from beginning of October to April). Matthew (and later, Luke), wanted to build a full year’s worth of Jesus liturgy, and did so by expanding on Mark. Thus, stories were born about Jesus that compared him to the sacred events and people from Israel’s esteemed past. Stories that ultimately trumped the originals, making Jesus the fulfillment of the scriptures. The listeners were Jewish, with a distinct understanding of how such stories should be heard; not historically, but symbolically…liturgically.
However, Christianity didn’t remain Jewish. In the second century, the future of Christianity rested in the hands of non-Jewish believers. Believers who read the Gospels based on their own understandings, as we do today. The beauty of symbolism receded as the security of certainty prevailed.
And here we are…
Your summary in the final paragraph is compelling. Here’s my question: If the ‘future of Christianity rested in the hands of non-Jewish believers’ and those ‘ Believers…read the Gospels based on their own understandings’…as Gentiles, how were their understandings different than those of most Jews of that time?
That’s a good question. When I read something I perceive as a history, then I tend to think that the writer was making a concerted effort to be historically accurate. I think that when Gentiles read the Gospels outside of a Jewish context(i.e., without folks that could explain how midrash worked), they perceived it as history instead of allegory.
How does Acts fit into this scheme? Does your reconstruction require that Acts was not written by a companion of Paul? Do you see the genre of Acts as being different from the genre of Luke? Do you see Acts as disinterested in historical accuracy?
If the gospel stories post-date Paul, as you seem to be claiming, how did it come to be that the personal names in the gospels match those found in Palestine at the time, and in the right ratios? See Bauckham’s “Jesus and the eyewitnesses”. Or do you think the stories arose in Palestine?
I tend to think that Acts is likely more historical than the Gospels, though I do believe there are clear indications of the same liturgical/midrashic principle at work (Pentecost for example). I doubt Acts was written by a companion of Paul, but I could be wrong. I don’t thinkActs is sloppy with church history – too many correlations with Paul’s letters for me. I also think your assertion regarding Titus and Timothy being one in the same strengthens the view that Acts is pretty historical. I don’t know what to say about the point you’re trying to make about names and ratios. Maybe if I read Bauckham I would get it. I do think there is a strong possibility many stories of the gospels arose out of Palestine or very near (if you don’t consider Antioch in Palestine).
Paul wrote the summary of the Last Supper in 1 Corinthians in (+/-) AD c. 55. Paul says he is reminding them of something he preached to them years earlier. We don’t know exactly when that was but really it is not outlandish to say Paul is first preaching this to them w/i 15ish years of the event. (right? I don’t think that is too controversial).
This is a great example of where I think Spongian theory breaks down, at least for me.
Paul never mentioning, say Joseph or the Temple ‘riot’, is sooo significant that we need to extrapolate that he didn’t know Jesus from, say Adam, BUT the stuff about Jesus being handed over and quoting the Lords Supper word for word like an 1980’s big haired televangelist? insignificant and must be glossed over. (because Paul’s letters were unknown to all the synoptic writers, save perhaps Luke, right Spong?)
Another? The Baptist (almost certainly) and James (probably) end up in Josephus as … allegorical anti-Roman stories? Josephus is taking Xtan stories and undermining them? Reclaiming their Jewishness? Kind of a Hunter Josephus Thompson?
Not a big fan of the reasoning.
A minor point, but Paul also mentioned John once. The larger point is that Paul emphatically declared his gospel to have been revealed to him directly, not of human origin. So anything anyone told him about Jesus’s words or deeds “added nothing.” In parallel, others were remembering and adapting stories about Jesus. Spong’s claim that Mark strung his stories to fit a Jewish calendar makes sense, in that he crammed over two years of action (according to the fourth gospel) into a few months, and especially the last week. But Mark seems to be composed to be delivered as a (lengthy) sermon in one setting – almost as a giant run-on sentence. It can make you laugh (at the disciples). There’s a dramatic plot twist at Peter’s confession and the transfiguration. Tension builds from the triumphal entry to the arrest. The unrealistic timeline of the trial and crucifixion makes good drama. He describes the fear Jesus’s followers felt. I just don’t think you get these emotional effects from a once-a-week reading of a pericope or two. Perhaps Mark’s gospel came to be used that way, but I don’t think it was composed that way. Your opinion. Joel?
I’m not really sure, but I think the probability that Matthew is an expansion of Mark correlates to Spong’s point that Mark wasn’t a full year liturgy while Matthew was.
Joel,
That was an excellent overview of the book. I have a number of Spong’s books and he makes careful but strong cases for the symbolic importance in the NT gospels. His book on John’s gospel (Tales of a Jewish Mystic) is also excellent. I do believe that Matthew’s gospel was an expansion on Mark’s for the key purpose of covering a full liturgical year, while also closely echoing the Jewish symbolic timelines and linkages to the OT. The symbolism is very profound once Spong brings them to light and explains the working of the timelines. I have become as anti-literal as possible now in reading the bible and it has been very freeing. Spong’s writings have made it clear on how much damage is done to Christianity today by trying to read the bible as literally as possible.
I think this layout you present of how the gospels were created is also used as evidence for the nonexistence of Jesus himself, too. That the invention of characters and stories in scripture was common in Jewish culture historically. I myself am ill equipped to judge, so I’m with you on enjoying the symbolic nature of the texts. I treasure the ideas they gift to us.
Thank you for this. Having grown up fundamentalist (Southern Baptist), I have had and still have a lot to unlearn. For all of my reading (some, but not a lot), it has never occurred to me that Paul’s letters were written before the Gospels. I’m sure this is because of the chronological order of the books in the New Testament. Mind blown! Your list is remarkable. Again thanks.
Romans 13:8-13 “Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, Love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.”
is best understood as a response to the challenge presented to orthodox thinking in Matthew’s written account of Jesus’s life. Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.”
I think that this is a highly interesting question “Would not Paul have had these “facts” if they were actually factual? Would not Paul have had ample opportunity to use many of these accounts in his letters, as he uses lessons from the Old Testament accounts, to bolster his points?”
I think a person could equally argue “Wouldn’t Paul have heard these stories, if they were circulating around congregations?” He apparently visited quite a few with broad geographic diversity. Leaving the “fact” concept aside. So it seems to me that there are at least two possibilities. First that Paul’s congregations were different from the those where the Gospel stories originated. Given timing, perhaps different in space and/or time.
The second, perhaps more interesting to consider, is that Paul had, in fact, heard these stories, but did he consider them not true, or possibly true, but not useful in his version of Christianity (this is perhaps the most interesting to consider)?
I haven’t read Spong, but it does seem to me that you aren’t completely “enamored” with his tying Christian rituals to the Jewish year. Passover, yes, of course, as Easter, and there’s Pentecost (Shavuot) in Acts. But I don’t see how Rosh Hashanah fits at all into Christian thinking. I also think Spong may be somewhat anachronistic in his portrayal of the synagogue; prior to the destruction, the synagogue was a place where the community gathered for many reasons, sometimes including worship (though at that time the Torah was as likely to be read in a 3-year cycle), but it was never seen as a replacement for the Temple as long as the Temple was standing.
Another thought: Paul never wrote much about Jesus’s life because he was mainly interested in getting people to believe in Jesus’s death and resurrection. We don’t know what else he wrote, or what he may have told his communities when he was visiting them in person. His known letters, except for Romans, all address specific questions and issues, not about Jesus’s life. But: in Gal. 4:4 Paul mentions Jesus’s birth – and doesn’t say it was virgin birth. (H/t to Bart)
RE: Rosh Hashanah, Spong references the association of Elijah with the announcement theme and thus uses John the Baptist as the mirror for announcing Jesus. With Matthew, in Matthew 9:34-11:1, he lists the second teaching segment from Jesus that he uses to covers the Sabbaths between Shavout and Rosh Hashanah. The first segment related to the 24 hour Shavout vigil. The second relates to the coming of Rosh Hashanah (preparing the 12 disciples, with their signs and miracles). Then in the third teaching segment he recalls John the Baptist (and directly tying him to the Elijah role) in the announcing the revealing of Jesus. Not the strongest parallel, but it does not seem to clash at all with the Jewish themes.
Thankyou Joel for this interrogation of the biblical record, mainly via simple observation, questions & reasoning – methods often not encouraged (or actively despised) by the Faithful.
Despite now being agnostic I still have a soft spot for CS Lewis & especially for The Screwtape Letters. I am reminded around Letter #23 that the gospels were not written to make Christians but to edify Christians already made. It goes on that until then there was but a single theological doctrine (Redemption) based on a single historical fact (Resurrection – although that’s debatable). The timing of the first & then later canonical gospels is interesting also since by then (min 35yr after actual occurrences) there would have been very few left of the adult witnesses to the actual dialogue & events written about to either confirm or deny their veracity. So the stories stand.
And while remembering CS Lewis I also will praise his “Screwtape Proposes a Toast” for its wide-ranging commentary on so many individual, societal, political & religious pitfalls. And very entertaining if you can get the audio recording by John Cleese (who also recorded The Screwtape Letters)!!
I love the Screwtape Letters but I didn’t know about the recording. I’m definitely going to check it out. Thank you!
And PS. to y’all in USA – enjoy your New Year’s Eve! 🙂 And relax. To paraphrase Charles Schultz / Peanuts – don’t worry about the world ending today (or any time soon), it’s already tomorrow (& 2022) (here) in Australia.
I think that Spong makes enough sense that this liturgical calendar theory is worth pursuing. The theory drives the seeker back to the Jewish writings to find the meaning of the synoptic gospels. Especially in that Jesus being the fulfillment of the law, one is pushed to go to the law to find out just what is being fulfilled. In the synagogues, the law is read and the prophets and the writings. Spong is actually pursuing the theory developed by M.D. Goulder (who actually became an atheist), whose work is tedious and difficult (but thorough!)
Isn’t saying, “These books are to be interpreted symbolically instead of historically” the same as saying, “These books are not true?”
To take a secular example, if I said, “With a wave of his hand, George Washington turned a battalion of British soldiers into swine, who promptly ran away from the battlefield,” would you think to yourself, that is just a symbolic way of saying George Washington was a great general, or would you rather think to yourself that I’m full of sh*t?
Forget KJV, NIV, or whatever your favorite translation of the Bible happens to be. If I am to believe you, all 3 synoptic gospels could be translated into one sentence: “Jesus was cool and you should worship him.” It’s still not true (because it is a statement of opinion rather than one of fact), but at least it cuts through the cr*p and gets straight to the point.
I am very skeptical of Spong’s work. The ideas of the gospels as midrash strikes me as odd. I tend to favor the hypothesis that the synoptics and John are Greco-Roman biographies. I think that Richard Burridge made a good case for this in his book *What Are the Gospels?*. In his book *Jesus of Nazareth* the late NT scholar Maurice Casey endorsed Burridge’s book. An acquaintance of mine, Matthew Ferguson, is planning to complete his dissertation where he argues for a biographical genre of the gospels but differs significantly from Burridge in some aspects. I am looking forward to comparing the works of both Burridge and Ferguson to see if I can come to a definite conclusion as to who has the better case.
I’m assuming that in the line
> The Jewish religious leaders handing Jesus over to Pilot is ever mentioned.
and two others, there is a typo, and that “never” was meant?
I very much enjoyed your post. The bulletized list of the staggering number of things that Paul does not mention in his letters took me by surprise. It was helpful to see them listed out.
I have greatly enjoyed Spong’s lectures on YouTube. Also, read 2 of his books: Sins of Scripture and Biblical Literalism.
As a scholar, do you agree with Spong’s assertion that within the Jewish tradition of midrash, Jewish people traditionally did not believe their biblical stories to be historically and/or literally true? (e.g. They knew that Jonah in the belly of the whale is a literary device to get Jonah from point A to point B).
Some scholars have critiqued his scholarship as amateurish. Just want to know if you think his premise is sound. Hard to be a biblical literalist without turning one’s brain into a pretzel. I just know little of the Jewish traditions in regard to the Bible.
No, I”m afraid I don’t agree wth him about that. When ancient Christian authors talk about these narratives they often give clear indications that they believed they actually happened..