Mageth

Can you relate Spong's explanation in a few words?

Me, a few words? I'll give you a short and a long version. Enjoy.

Spong has some different explanations for different ones of the discrepancies, IIRC. In general, Spong believes that the Gospels are not to be taken as literal, linear historical accounts, but must be recognized for the midrashed "traditions" or faith documents that they are.

But, IIRC, a general, rough outline of his hypothesis goes something along the lines of:

Summary: the Gospels are traditions that were recorded, and the Gospel writers used midrash to various degrees to convey their interpretation of Jesus as the Messiah in understandable ways and to tie Jesus and the events (real or imagined) of his life into Jewish tradition. As the various Gospels were written, the authors added, modified, or deleted elements to support particular beliefs about Jesus or even to support or denigrate particular ones of his followers.

(I get this last bit as much from Crossan in Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (another good read relevant to the subject) than from Spong, but I think he'd agree with that).

After the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, events conspired to Hellenize Christianity, and the midrashed "traditions" or legends began to be interpreted as literal, linear histories.

The long version:

1) Jesus gained followers over a period, mostly in Galilee, teaching and performing "miracles" (not uncommon at all for someone in that time).

2) Jesus was crucified when he went to Jerusalem, probably at passover. His followers abandoned him and dispersed back to their homes to try to pick up their lives.

3) Some time later, probably about six months, Peter had some sort of epiphany or dream experience of Jesus. This, perhaps, occurred on the shore of Galilee, and may be related to some of the many events portrayed in the Gospels that happened there, e.g. those that have Jesus "appearing" mysteriously, directing the fisherman on where to catch fish, etc.

4) Perhaps some others (Andrew, John, etc) then had similar experiences upon hearing of Peter's experience.

5) Peter and others then returned to Jerusalem, probably during the Festival of Booths in the Fall to proclaim the "risen" (but not bodily resurrected) Jesus - that Jesus had been taken up into Heaven by God. Thus, six months after the crucifixion was when the "risen Jesus" was realized and proclaimed (in its nascent form - the idea of Jesus being physically resurrected had still not developed). Jesus was a Messiah, a Christ, but not seen as divine yet.

This, BTW, explains some of the imagery in the later-developed accounts of the week leading up to Jesus' crucifixion, e.g. the palm leaves at Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem (the triumphal entry being a metaphor for Peter et al bringing the news of the "risen Jesus" to Jerusalem). Palm leaves were used during the Festival of Booths. Spong describes several other links between the Festival of Booths and the eight or so critical days portrayed at the end of the Gospels.

6) In the earliest NT writings, Paul etc. first proclaimed a "risen" Jesus and not a physically resurrected Jesus, consistent with the "epiphany" explanation. Jesus, at the time, was not seen as "divine", but as a man, a messiah, exalted by God into heavenly glory (a concept not foreign to Jewish tradition, of course).

7) The Gospel writers, writing after Paul, used Midrash to embellish the Jesus tradition they received, tying Jesus tradition into Jewish tradition, and adding in many of the "miraculous" accounts in Jesus' life (which, along with the details of the crucifixion/resurrection, are strangely absent from the earlier writings).

8) In doing so, they introduced the physical resurrection of Jesus and the details surrounding it (as well as pre-crucifixion details) to convey the "crucified and risen Jesus" in a way that could be understood. In addition, many other events (e.g. the birth narratives) were introduced through midrash or just pure invention to convey in understandable ways the "meaning" of Jesus, and to tie Jesus the Messiah into Jewish tradition and holy texts.

They also, and this is an important point in Spong's book, conflated the crucifixion event at passover with the "resurrection" event at the Festival of Booths.

9) Earlier Gospel writers have Jesus directing his followers to return to Galilee and wait for him, which is consistent with the hypothesis that the "risen Jesus" was first realized in Galilee, not Jerusalem.

10) Later Gospel writers move the "Easter" events totally into Jerusalem, as the Church was asserting its authority there (a political move more than a theological move, IMO).

11) Many stories in the Gospels placed before the Crucifixion should really be read as having happened after the "resurrection", which really happened six months after the Crucifixion. (As if things weren't confusing enough). You can see evidence of this in some of the "Jesus and the Fishermen" stories, which have parallels both before and after the Resurrection in the Gospels. IOW, the Gospels should not be taken as linear accounts of the "non-literal" life of Jesus as portrayed in therein. The Gospels are not intended to be literal, linear histories.

12) As each Gospel was written and based on earlier traditions or Gospels, various elements were modified to match the changing views of the Jesus tradition that was growing and morphing (related to 10).

13) The destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 CE caused a sea change in the nascent church, as the Christians were more or less forced into going to the Gentiles and thus hellenizing their beliefs (though this process had started prior to 70, though with some resistance, as indicated by Paul's writings). Prior to that event, most Jews accepted Christianity as another valid sect of Judaism. After that event, Jews retreated into a more "fundamental" Judaism that rejected such sects.

One result of the "Hellenization" was the literalization of the resurrection and other accounts (e.g. the birth narratives) that were "midrashed" into the Gospels by the writers. The Church, after the fall of Jerusalem and the dispersion into the Hellenistic, Gentile world, quickly lost its understanding of the process that developed the traditions as Jewish faith documents in the first place, and quite rapidly started taking the accounts (e.g., the resurrection) literally.

------------------------------------

I think that is a more or less correct summary of Spong's hypothesis in Resurrection, but I possibly left out one or two important points or may even have slightly misrepresented one or two of his points due to my own misinterpretation of what he is saying. It's also possible that a bit more of Crossan may have crossed over ( ) as I read the two books back-to-back.

-------------------------------------

I mentioned above Crossan's Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. A very short summary of one of his key hypotheses, if not his key point: The resurrection accounts in the various gospels, and many of the other stories, are as much if not more so "political" as they are theological; they represent attempts to establish apostolic authority for some individuals or groups (e.g., Peter, or the Twelve) or to denigrate apostolic authority of others (e.g., Thomas, in John).

Bernard Muller

Thank you Mageth for the many words of your reply on my request. I know more now about Spong.
Best regards, Bernard