Scan barcode
mstine's review against another edition
5.0
This may be the most fascinating book discussing the Christian faith and tradition that I have ever read. I've never been more convinced that the Christian faith in its purest form is essentially Jewish, and to understand and respect Judaism is the only way to understand Jesus.
pattydsf's review against another edition
3.0
“To read the gospels properly, I now believe, requires a knowledge of Jewish culture, Jewish symbols, Jewish icons and the tradition of Jewish storytelling. It requires an understanding of what the Jews call ‘midrash.’ Only those people who were completely unaware of these things could ever have come to think that the gospels were meant to be read literally.” p. 22 Added 12/16/19 original review 5/15/13
I lived in New Jersey for the first 18 years of my life and have continued to visit family and friends in the garden state. Some of my friends are Episcopalian and Spong was their bishop for more than 20 years. His theology is very liberal and he managed to offend most of the Episcopalians that I knew in NJ. Spong also has connections in Richmond, VA which is near my home. So I have been hearing about him for decades. I had never read anything by him, so the opportunity to read a free ebook seemed well worth my time.
Spong is an excellent writer and a good scholar as far as I can tell. He very carefully lays out his thesis at the beginning of this book and then attempts to prove it by going through the Gospel of Matthew chapter by chapter. I had no trouble following Spong’s ideas and I have a good understanding of what he is proposing. Basically, Spong is suggesting that we cannot comprehend this gospel without understanding Judaism.
Throughout this book, Spong claims to be proposing radial ideas which will turn Christianity on its head. He says he has found ideas that no one else has ever thought of. Spong says that Christianity needs another reformation so that this religion can go back to its roots.
I agree with the last statement. Something will need to happen in Christianity or it will soon be a dead religion. However, I struggled with Spong’s claim that he has found totally new ideas. I spent much of this book feeling like I had heard some of this thesis before.
I am not a Biblical scholar. I read regularly in Christian theology and I have taken a few classes. However, I can’t argue with Spong. I don’t have the knowledge he has. I just think that there is little new under the sun. Once this book comes out, I will talk to some of my friends who are Jewish or Hebrew Bible scholars or maybe just better read in this area than I am. I would like to know a bit of background to Spong’s thesis.
If you are interested in Christian theology, the Jewish roots of Christianity or just learning more about the Gospel of Matthew, you should pick this up when it is published. Spong is compelling and could help you see Christianity through a different lens.
Thank you to Edelweiss and Harper-Collins for allowing me to read this ebook before the book is published.
I lived in New Jersey for the first 18 years of my life and have continued to visit family and friends in the garden state. Some of my friends are Episcopalian and Spong was their bishop for more than 20 years. His theology is very liberal and he managed to offend most of the Episcopalians that I knew in NJ. Spong also has connections in Richmond, VA which is near my home. So I have been hearing about him for decades. I had never read anything by him, so the opportunity to read a free ebook seemed well worth my time.
Spong is an excellent writer and a good scholar as far as I can tell. He very carefully lays out his thesis at the beginning of this book and then attempts to prove it by going through the Gospel of Matthew chapter by chapter. I had no trouble following Spong’s ideas and I have a good understanding of what he is proposing. Basically, Spong is suggesting that we cannot comprehend this gospel without understanding Judaism.
Throughout this book, Spong claims to be proposing radial ideas which will turn Christianity on its head. He says he has found ideas that no one else has ever thought of. Spong says that Christianity needs another reformation so that this religion can go back to its roots.
I agree with the last statement. Something will need to happen in Christianity or it will soon be a dead religion. However, I struggled with Spong’s claim that he has found totally new ideas. I spent much of this book feeling like I had heard some of this thesis before.
I am not a Biblical scholar. I read regularly in Christian theology and I have taken a few classes. However, I can’t argue with Spong. I don’t have the knowledge he has. I just think that there is little new under the sun. Once this book comes out, I will talk to some of my friends who are Jewish or Hebrew Bible scholars or maybe just better read in this area than I am. I would like to know a bit of background to Spong’s thesis.
If you are interested in Christian theology, the Jewish roots of Christianity or just learning more about the Gospel of Matthew, you should pick this up when it is published. Spong is compelling and could help you see Christianity through a different lens.
Thank you to Edelweiss and Harper-Collins for allowing me to read this ebook before the book is published.
drbobcornwall's review against another edition
2.0
The quest for the historical Jesus has tended to devolve into an act of looking into a well and seeing one's own reflection. That was Albert Schweitzer's analysis more than a century ago and it still remains true to this day. The way in which this reflection is cast will change, but not necessarily the truth involved. Christians like a Jesus who is in sync with their vision of reality. John Spong is no different than the rest of us.
In this book the former Episcopal bishop of Newark, NJ seeks to demonstrate that biblical literalism is a Gentile heresy. I find it ironic that a person who has been called a heretic by his opponents seeks to turn the tables on them. Of course, I've long found it ironic that Spong has gleefully flouted his own denomination, even as he embraces his status as bishop.
In this book, which I found to be at points sad and at others simply out of step with current scholarship, Spong seeks to take down biblical literalism. Of course, the concept of biblical literalism is a bit ambiguous. Are we talking about reading the bible in its plain sense or are we talking about a wooden literalism that assumes that every statement must be historically accurate? In recent years it has been fashionable to say that one takes the Bible "seriously but not literally." Such a blanket statement suggests that there is nothing of historical value to be found in the Bible. Everything becomes a metaphor. Few go that far, though at points it does appear that Spong goes in that direction.
I'll admit that I've never been a fan of Spong. This book did nothing to convince me otherwise. I have no desire to separate him from the Christian community, but I do find his attitude toward those with whom he is at odds to be disappointing. Many of us seek to read the Bible in a critical but appreciative manner. We struggle with texts that espouse violence and oppression, at the same time many of us have found the Scriptures to be a place where we encounter a word from God. Thus, to say of those who speak of the Bible as the Word of God as being "illiterate" or to suggest that the use of the phrase "Word of God" in worship in reference to the Bible as perpetuating "religious ignorance and religious prejudice" is unnecessary. I'm not sure how biblical literalism is a product of a Gentile reading of the Scripture. In other words, we didn't start off well.
So let me address the central point of the book. Spong wants to undo what he believes to be an unwarranted and even dangerous atonement theology. It is true that the idea of atonement is a subject of deep debate in the present era (and really always has been). Nonetheless, the cross remains central to the Christian faith. The question is -- what role does it play? In order to undo the harm he believes is perpetrated by an atonement theology that denies human worth, he wants to recast our reading of the Gospels.
Those who have studied the Gospels likely know that they emerged late in the second half of the first century, decades after the death of Jesus. The only New Testament texts that predate the Gospels are the letters of Paul, which say very little about Jesus' earthly life. The cross and resurrection are central, though there is little narrative given to these two key points. It is true as well that there is divergence in the Gospel narratives that must be accounted for. Scholars have been busy seeking to explain the points of agreement and disagreement.
In this book, Spong offers his take on the origins and message of the Gospel of Matthew. In doing so he seeks to popularize the theory offered in the 1970s by the British biblical scholar Michael Goulder that the Gospels are liturgical texts. Goulder suggested that while Mark is the earliest Gospel, he rejected the idea of the existence of a sayings source (Q) that was later used by Matthew and Luke. Spong takes up Goulder's view and suggests that we should reject Q and assume that Matthew was written in the context of the synagogue liturgy. He then suggests that Luke took Matthew and revised it for a different synagogue context. Spong suggests that this allows us to read the Gospels through Jewish eyes.
The problem as I see it is that we simply don't know much about how synagogues of the first century structured their gatherings, and Spong does little to prove his point. He goes to great lengths to lay out his vision, but unless I'm blind I don't see his point. Nonetheless. he imposes this supposed Jewish liturgy on the Gospel and explains the Jesus story in its context. Jesus then becomes mostly a reconfiguring of Old Testament figures, especially Moses. While it's clear that Matthew did use Old Testament stories to help tell the Jesus story, and we don't know which texts reflect the Jesus of history and the Jesus of Matthew's imagination, to say that the whole Jesus story is simply a reflection of Jewish liturgical work seems to push things too far. Besides, I'm not clear why Jesus would even be part of the synagogue story. Where is this synagogue and why would they tell the Jesus story? That question never gets answered. In essence, Spong did nothing to convince me that the long rejected Goulder thesis should be resurrected.
Even if Q is hypothetical it remains the best explanation for the similarities. In addition, Spong's rather creative retelling of the story seems to not take into consideration the role of oral tradition. We are not an oral society and so we find it difficult to give credence to the oral passing on of stories. We think in terms of "playing telephone." But oral societies take great care in passing on the stories from one generation to another. Thus, we need to be more attentive to those differences. So yes, we do need to read the Jesus story through Jewish eyes. Jesus was a Jew. His earliest followers were Jews. I'm just not sure John Spong is the best guide. He has lengthy bibliography at the back of the book but he shows little engagement with any of these resources, most of which support the current theories of transmission.
I know he'll get lots of attention. And that's okay. The tent is broad. The Episcopal Church for that matter has always had different wings. Before Spong there was James Pike. I just think there are better places to go if one wishes to find a balanced picture of the Gospels. It would appear that Spong is just not my cup of tea!
In this book the former Episcopal bishop of Newark, NJ seeks to demonstrate that biblical literalism is a Gentile heresy. I find it ironic that a person who has been called a heretic by his opponents seeks to turn the tables on them. Of course, I've long found it ironic that Spong has gleefully flouted his own denomination, even as he embraces his status as bishop.
In this book, which I found to be at points sad and at others simply out of step with current scholarship, Spong seeks to take down biblical literalism. Of course, the concept of biblical literalism is a bit ambiguous. Are we talking about reading the bible in its plain sense or are we talking about a wooden literalism that assumes that every statement must be historically accurate? In recent years it has been fashionable to say that one takes the Bible "seriously but not literally." Such a blanket statement suggests that there is nothing of historical value to be found in the Bible. Everything becomes a metaphor. Few go that far, though at points it does appear that Spong goes in that direction.
I'll admit that I've never been a fan of Spong. This book did nothing to convince me otherwise. I have no desire to separate him from the Christian community, but I do find his attitude toward those with whom he is at odds to be disappointing. Many of us seek to read the Bible in a critical but appreciative manner. We struggle with texts that espouse violence and oppression, at the same time many of us have found the Scriptures to be a place where we encounter a word from God. Thus, to say of those who speak of the Bible as the Word of God as being "illiterate" or to suggest that the use of the phrase "Word of God" in worship in reference to the Bible as perpetuating "religious ignorance and religious prejudice" is unnecessary. I'm not sure how biblical literalism is a product of a Gentile reading of the Scripture. In other words, we didn't start off well.
So let me address the central point of the book. Spong wants to undo what he believes to be an unwarranted and even dangerous atonement theology. It is true that the idea of atonement is a subject of deep debate in the present era (and really always has been). Nonetheless, the cross remains central to the Christian faith. The question is -- what role does it play? In order to undo the harm he believes is perpetrated by an atonement theology that denies human worth, he wants to recast our reading of the Gospels.
Those who have studied the Gospels likely know that they emerged late in the second half of the first century, decades after the death of Jesus. The only New Testament texts that predate the Gospels are the letters of Paul, which say very little about Jesus' earthly life. The cross and resurrection are central, though there is little narrative given to these two key points. It is true as well that there is divergence in the Gospel narratives that must be accounted for. Scholars have been busy seeking to explain the points of agreement and disagreement.
In this book, Spong offers his take on the origins and message of the Gospel of Matthew. In doing so he seeks to popularize the theory offered in the 1970s by the British biblical scholar Michael Goulder that the Gospels are liturgical texts. Goulder suggested that while Mark is the earliest Gospel, he rejected the idea of the existence of a sayings source (Q) that was later used by Matthew and Luke. Spong takes up Goulder's view and suggests that we should reject Q and assume that Matthew was written in the context of the synagogue liturgy. He then suggests that Luke took Matthew and revised it for a different synagogue context. Spong suggests that this allows us to read the Gospels through Jewish eyes.
The problem as I see it is that we simply don't know much about how synagogues of the first century structured their gatherings, and Spong does little to prove his point. He goes to great lengths to lay out his vision, but unless I'm blind I don't see his point. Nonetheless. he imposes this supposed Jewish liturgy on the Gospel and explains the Jesus story in its context. Jesus then becomes mostly a reconfiguring of Old Testament figures, especially Moses. While it's clear that Matthew did use Old Testament stories to help tell the Jesus story, and we don't know which texts reflect the Jesus of history and the Jesus of Matthew's imagination, to say that the whole Jesus story is simply a reflection of Jewish liturgical work seems to push things too far. Besides, I'm not clear why Jesus would even be part of the synagogue story. Where is this synagogue and why would they tell the Jesus story? That question never gets answered. In essence, Spong did nothing to convince me that the long rejected Goulder thesis should be resurrected.
Even if Q is hypothetical it remains the best explanation for the similarities. In addition, Spong's rather creative retelling of the story seems to not take into consideration the role of oral tradition. We are not an oral society and so we find it difficult to give credence to the oral passing on of stories. We think in terms of "playing telephone." But oral societies take great care in passing on the stories from one generation to another. Thus, we need to be more attentive to those differences. So yes, we do need to read the Jesus story through Jewish eyes. Jesus was a Jew. His earliest followers were Jews. I'm just not sure John Spong is the best guide. He has lengthy bibliography at the back of the book but he shows little engagement with any of these resources, most of which support the current theories of transmission.
I know he'll get lots of attention. And that's okay. The tent is broad. The Episcopal Church for that matter has always had different wings. Before Spong there was James Pike. I just think there are better places to go if one wishes to find a balanced picture of the Gospels. It would appear that Spong is just not my cup of tea!
alisarae's review against another edition
5.0
The thesis of this book is that the gospel of Matthew was not meant to be read literally, but it was composed as a liturgical companion piece to be used alongside scripture readings in Jewish synagogues throughout the year. Matthew is arranged and adapted to provide Jesus stories and teachings for Jewish holidays.
I loved this book. Some of the author’s arguments are stronger than others, can’t deny that. But overall it made a ton of sense to me and brought a fresh perspective to the gospels that I have never heard in 3 decades of weekly church participation, conferences, and bible studies. So there’s that. I would love to recommend this book to every Christian, but some people would just be so offended by the material that it would do more harm than good. Anyways, it was wonderful and eye-opening to read this during Lent. I need to let my brain rest and absorb now.
Btw, this book is not meant to stay in the ivory towers. It is written for the christian layperson to read and understand. It is very down to earth and easy to follow.
I loved this book. Some of the author’s arguments are stronger than others, can’t deny that. But overall it made a ton of sense to me and brought a fresh perspective to the gospels that I have never heard in 3 decades of weekly church participation, conferences, and bible studies. So there’s that. I would love to recommend this book to every Christian, but some people would just be so offended by the material that it would do more harm than good. Anyways, it was wonderful and eye-opening to read this during Lent. I need to let my brain rest and absorb now.
Btw, this book is not meant to stay in the ivory towers. It is written for the christian layperson to read and understand. It is very down to earth and easy to follow.
homebodywitch's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
4.0
This is my second John Shelby Spong book and once again I really enjoyed it. As a former Christian I still find value in reading the scholarship of people trying to reform the church from the inside. I found the correlations between Matthew's gospel and the Jewish liturgical calendar fascinating. I wish he'd delved deeper into how Jews themselves interpret the Old Testament and what they (generally) believe about their own history if we aren't meant to take the New Testament literally. He tends to stop a bit short of where I really want more information but I still really enjoy his work.
jdparker9's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
2.75
This is the book you get when you combine legitimately insightful readings of the usage of the OT in Matthew with a dogged insistence that it cannot have actually happened. It’s hard to know quite what to make of this book. Spong has some very interesting and promising reads on OT themes in Matthew. However, he’s so skeptical of anything transcendent that he denudes the book of any real power besides blasé humanism. Richard Hays’ work on the same topic and in metalepsis in particular is much more promising, but I will look back through this from time to time.
thenschultz's review against another edition
3.0
Spong is a problematic writer. While not a scholar he enjoys taking leaps without any data to back up his claims. While he poses a quite interesting thesis he fails, in the end, to back up his claims. What was most interesting in this book what Spong's digging into the OT to see its reflection in Matthew. I can accept Spong's theory on not literalizing portions of Matthew but in the end his theory that none of the writings were ever meant to be taken as truthful rings hollow. He brings in no evidence of how synagogue's utilized the oral tradition in relation to Jesus - he simply makes assertions. For my mind the author would need to do far more to prove his thesis. That said, there is much of value in here - particularly his qualms and concerns with theories of atonement which needs to be addressed with Christian subcultures. Much good in this book but a thesis that is ultimately in need of support and serious scholarship.
pattydsf's review
3.0
“To read the gospels properly, I now believe, requires a knowledge of Jewish culture, Jewish symbols, Jewish icons and the tradition of Jewish storytelling. It requires an understanding of what the Jews call ‘midrash.’ Only those people who were completely unaware of these things could ever have come to think that the gospels were meant to be read literally.” p. 22 Added 12/16/19 original review 5/15/13
I lived in New Jersey for the first 18 years of my life and have continued to visit family and friends in the garden state. Some of my friends are Episcopalian and Spong was their bishop for more than 20 years. His theology is very liberal and he managed to offend most of the Episcopalians that I knew in NJ. Spong also has connections in Richmond, VA which is near my home. So I have been hearing about him for decades. I had never read anything by him, so the opportunity to read a free ebook seemed well worth my time.
Spong is an excellent writer and a good scholar as far as I can tell. He very carefully lays out his thesis at the beginning of this book and then attempts to prove it by going through the Gospel of Matthew chapter by chapter. I had no trouble following Spong’s ideas and I have a good understanding of what he is proposing. Basically, Spong is suggesting that we cannot comprehend this gospel without understanding Judaism.
Throughout this book, Spong claims to be proposing radial ideas which will turn Christianity on its head. He says he has found ideas that no one else has ever thought of. Spong says that Christianity needs another reformation so that this religion can go back to its roots.
I agree with the last statement. Something will need to happen in Christianity or it will soon be a dead religion. However, I struggled with Spong’s claim that he has found totally new ideas. I spent much of this book feeling like I had heard some of this thesis before.
I am not a Biblical scholar. I read regularly in Christian theology and I have taken a few classes. However, I can’t argue with Spong. I don’t have the knowledge he has. I just think that there is little new under the sun. Once this book comes out, I will talk to some of my friends who are Jewish or Hebrew Bible scholars or maybe just better read in this area than I am. I would like to know a bit of background to Spong’s thesis.
If you are interested in Christian theology, the Jewish roots of Christianity or just learning more about the Gospel of Matthew, you should pick this up when it is published. Spong is compelling and could help you see Christianity through a different lens.
Thank you to Edelweiss and Harper-Collins for allowing me to read this ebook before the book is published.
I lived in New Jersey for the first 18 years of my life and have continued to visit family and friends in the garden state. Some of my friends are Episcopalian and Spong was their bishop for more than 20 years. His theology is very liberal and he managed to offend most of the Episcopalians that I knew in NJ. Spong also has connections in Richmond, VA which is near my home. So I have been hearing about him for decades. I had never read anything by him, so the opportunity to read a free ebook seemed well worth my time.
Spong is an excellent writer and a good scholar as far as I can tell. He very carefully lays out his thesis at the beginning of this book and then attempts to prove it by going through the Gospel of Matthew chapter by chapter. I had no trouble following Spong’s ideas and I have a good understanding of what he is proposing. Basically, Spong is suggesting that we cannot comprehend this gospel without understanding Judaism.
Throughout this book, Spong claims to be proposing radial ideas which will turn Christianity on its head. He says he has found ideas that no one else has ever thought of. Spong says that Christianity needs another reformation so that this religion can go back to its roots.
I agree with the last statement. Something will need to happen in Christianity or it will soon be a dead religion. However, I struggled with Spong’s claim that he has found totally new ideas. I spent much of this book feeling like I had heard some of this thesis before.
I am not a Biblical scholar. I read regularly in Christian theology and I have taken a few classes. However, I can’t argue with Spong. I don’t have the knowledge he has. I just think that there is little new under the sun. Once this book comes out, I will talk to some of my friends who are Jewish or Hebrew Bible scholars or maybe just better read in this area than I am. I would like to know a bit of background to Spong’s thesis.
If you are interested in Christian theology, the Jewish roots of Christianity or just learning more about the Gospel of Matthew, you should pick this up when it is published. Spong is compelling and could help you see Christianity through a different lens.
Thank you to Edelweiss and Harper-Collins for allowing me to read this ebook before the book is published.
maebinnig's review
1.0
"If you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you don't like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself." -St. Augustine of Hippo
Bishop Spong, bless his heart, has a big problem with the Bible. Well, that's fair; lots of people do. But most people who feel this way just own up to it, rather than grappling for implausible alternate interpretations that make the Bible into something with which they can get on board.
This is the my third Spong book, and it brings very little new material to the table. The essential points of each book boil down to:
- It's absurd and foolish to believe that the events described in the Bible actually happened;
- Since it's obviously all made up, why might it have been made up?
- Speculation about why it might have been made up;
- Weird professions of love and enthusiasm for all this made-up nonsense.
He talks about the connection between Passover and the crucifixion of Jesus as if it’s some kind of revelation rather than the former being a long-established prophetic symbol of the latter. He moves seamlessly from study to speculation without distinguishing between the two. He starts, over and over, from the premise that the Bible cannot be literally true--because obviously!--and then proceeds to his conclusions from there.
It's okay to disagree with the Bible. It's even okay to disagree with the Bible and still think that parts of it are nice, or that you can still learn things from it. Either position would have been better than this mess.
(I received this book for free through a Goodreads giveaway.)
Bishop Spong, bless his heart, has a big problem with the Bible. Well, that's fair; lots of people do. But most people who feel this way just own up to it, rather than grappling for implausible alternate interpretations that make the Bible into something with which they can get on board.
This is the my third Spong book, and it brings very little new material to the table. The essential points of each book boil down to:
- It's absurd and foolish to believe that the events described in the Bible actually happened;
- Since it's obviously all made up, why might it have been made up?
- Speculation about why it might have been made up;
- Weird professions of love and enthusiasm for all this made-up nonsense.
He talks about the connection between Passover and the crucifixion of Jesus as if it’s some kind of revelation rather than the former being a long-established prophetic symbol of the latter. He moves seamlessly from study to speculation without distinguishing between the two. He starts, over and over, from the premise that the Bible cannot be literally true--because obviously!--and then proceeds to his conclusions from there.
It's okay to disagree with the Bible. It's even okay to disagree with the Bible and still think that parts of it are nice, or that you can still learn things from it. Either position would have been better than this mess.
(I received this book for free through a Goodreads giveaway.)
More...