Resurrection: Myth or Reality?

Resurrection: Myth or Reality?

3.6 10
by John Shelby Spong
     
 

View All Available Formats & Editions

Using approaches from the Hebrew interpretive tradition to discern the actual events surrounging Jesus' death, Bishop Spong questions the hitorical validity of literal narrative concerned the Ressurection. He asserts that the resurrection story was born in an experience that opened the disciples' eyes to the reality of God and the meaning of Jesus of Nazareth.

Overview

Using approaches from the Hebrew interpretive tradition to discern the actual events surrounging Jesus' death, Bishop Spong questions the hitorical validity of literal narrative concerned the Ressurection. He asserts that the resurrection story was born in an experience that opened the disciples' eyes to the reality of God and the meaning of Jesus of Nazareth. Spong traces the Christian origins of anti-Semitism to the Church's fabrication of the ultimate Jewish scapegoat, Judas Iscariot. He affirms the inclusiveness of the Christian message and emphasizes the necessity of mutual integrity and respect among Christians and Jews.

Editorial Reviews

San Francisco Chronicle
“A gripping detective story. . . . [a] marvelously engrossing book.”

Product Details

ISBN-13:
9780060674298
Publisher:
HarperCollins Publishers
Publication date:
03/28/1995
Edition description:
Reprint
Pages:
352
Sales rank:
356,535
Product dimensions:
5.31(w) x 8.00(h) x 0.88(d)

Read an Excerpt

Chapter One

The Method Called Midrash

When I was doing my theological training in the 1950s, the word midrash was not heard with any frequency. If employed at all, it referred to a running commentary on the Hebrew Scriptures done by the rabbis throughout history. This commentary was voluminous, and the manuscripts that contained it would fill libraries. Commentaries by the rabbis thought to be the greatest would be particularly noteworthy, we were told, and would be studied in more detail and referred to more frequently by contemporary Jewish teachers in a continuing effort to illumine their sacred sources. Midrash was not presented as a method by which the Bible was written and not, hence, as a method by which the Bible was to be understood. So it was that midrash was deemed not terribly important to the study of the Christian Scriptures.

I am amazed today at this blindness in those who taught me Scripture. I no longer accept the proposition that anyone can understand the Bible, and most especially the New Testament, without understanding the method of midrash.

Has Christian Scholarship Been Rooted In Anti-Semitism?

When I begin to explore why Christian scholars failed to see the midrash method of the Jewish tradition as the very style in which the Gospels were written, I run headfirst into both the official and the unofficial anti-Semitism that has engulfed the church from the latter years of the first century of the Christian era until this very moment. This anti-Semitism reached its crescendo in the middle of the twentieth century in the Holocaust inGermany, but it found a significant expression in this same period of history in the United States and Great Britain, the leading nations of, this so-called Christian West.

These three major Western political powers, Germany, the United States, and Great Britain, were centers of the most important and influential Christian scholarship. These three nations produced the vast majority of the world's theologians and the experts in biblical studies. Unconscious of its Western anti-Semitism, however, Christian scholarship developed with little openness to the primary midrashic outlines of the Christian story or to the basic midrashic content of the Christian Gospels. The original Jewish roots of the Christian tradition were simply not acknowledged. Seldom was it said with any sense of pride that every writer in the New Testament, with the possible exception of Luke, was Jewish. Seldom was the context of the Jewish world or the thinking processes of the Jewish mind given more than a cursory tip of the hat when scholars sought to explicate Christian texts.

When scholars pored over the Christian Scriptures, the language they worked with was Greek, not Hebrew. When they studied the biblical roots of Christian theology, they inevitably looked through the lens of Greek philosophy, which had shaped Christianity's creeds, and primarily through that lens did they begin to illumine the New Testament. Even when they read the Old Testament they almost always used a Greek translation rather than the Hebrew original.

Of course they could not ignore the New Testament's references to Jewish prophecy, thought to be fulfilled in the story of the Jesus of history. But, beginning at least with Polycarp and Justin Martyr in the second century, the typical Christian understanding of this tradition was that the Jewish prophets had simply predicted concrete events in the life of the messiah who was to come, and Jesus had fulfilled these predictions in an almost literal way as a sign of his divine origin. "The Jews," a term spoken with undertones of derision in Christian circles, had failed, so the argument went, to understand their own messiah, and God had consequently created a new Israel, called the Christian church, to take the place of the old Israel, which had been composed only of Jews.

The people of the first covenant, it was asserted, were given their chance, and they had failed. The promise now was to be given to the people of the second covenant. By naming the parts of the Bible the Old Testament and the New Testament, Christians incorporated this prejudice into the very title of the sacred Scriptures. The Bible of the Jews was the Old Testament, now replaced by the Bible of the Christians, which was the New Testament. The twelve tribes of Israel were superseded by the twelve apostles. Jesus had fulfilled all the law and the prophets, and this validated his messianic claim. It was a neat and complete system, and in the triumphal confidence of these conclusions, Christianity began its life as the unchallenged dominant religion of the Western world.

Christianity's rationale for its overt anti-Semitism was to blame the Jews themselves as the cause — even for Christian hostility. It was a classic example of blaming the victim. The Jews had, after all, rejected the Christ. What could a people expect from God (in whose name Christians assumed that they both spoke and acted) when they had rejected God's own Son and their own messiah? The Jews were quoted in the Gospel narratives as even willingly accepting this blame: "His [Jesus'] blood be upon us and upon our children" (Matt. 27:25). These words were destined to echo through the centuries as justification for one wretched deed after another.

In spite of eyes blinded by prejudice, the close connection between Jesus and the Hebrew Scriptures could not be limited only to those texts that obviously referred to the fulfillment in Jesus of prophetic expectations. There were other Gospel stories whose parallels in Hebrew Scripture were too conspicuous to be overlooked. The story of King Herod trying to remove God's promised deliverer by killing all the Jewish male babies in Bethlehem simply had too many echoes of the pharaoh ordering the death of all the Jewish male babies in Egypt in his attempt not only to rid his realm of his "Jewish problem" but also to destroy in his infancy God's divinely promised deliverer, Moses.

Resurrection copyright © by John Shelby Spong. Reprinted by permission of HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. All Rights reserved. Available now wherever books are sold.

Meet the Author

John Shelby Spong, the Episcopal Bishop of Newark before his retirement in 2000, has been a visiting lecturer at Harvard and at more than 500 other universities all over the world. His books, which have sold well over a million copies, include Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy; The Fourth Gospel: Tales of a Jewish Mystic; Re-Claiming the Bible for a Non-Religious World; Eternal Life: A New Vision; Jesus for the Non-Religious, The Sins of Scripture, Resurrection: Myth or Reality?; Why Christianity Must Change or Die; and his autobiography, Here I Stand. He writes a weekly column on the web that reaches thousands of people all over the world. To join his online audience, go to www.JohnShelbySpong.com. He lives with his wife, Christine, in New Jersey.

Customer Reviews

Average Review:

Write a Review

and post it to your social network

     

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See all customer reviews >

Resurrection: Myth or Reality? 3.6 out of 5 based on 0 ratings. 10 reviews.
The_seekerTR More than 1 year ago
Spong has done the leg work. He shows his familiarity with Christian Scriptures, at least the canonical ones, and the psychology, sociology,theology, and politics of the creation of Christianity. He asks hard questions of the texts and uses common sense in drawing information and conclusions therein and thereby. As a student of scripture and Christianity, I find Spong to be a wonderful and powerful reference. He supports his contentions by referencing chapter and verse(s) in the scripture. There's not one of his books that I have not benefited from.
Blackfriar More than 1 year ago
Exceptionally well written and researched. Only a reader with an open mind to new thoughts and willing to examine in a rational manner the basis of Bible beliefs will truly appreciate the depths of Spong's endeavor. Kudos to Bishop Spong for having the courage to pen a work that will no doubt face a flood of criticism from those that choose to follow with out understanding what their chosen faith is based upon. As a Catholic Prelate, I might not subscribe to all his conclusions, however I believe we should all feel free to question those matters we accept without reservation and authoritive investigation.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Name: Would you mind looking up, say, two centimeters? <br> Moons: 26 <br> Rank: Warrior, hopefully med-cat. <br> Appearance: A dark brown pelt with black stripes that curiously, just barely, look like the shapes wings of birds. The tip of his tail is jet black. <br> Personality: Humorous, a but sensitive and jumpy. Is honest and respectful. <br> Gender: &male <br> Other: Just ask! <br> RPer: &fnof&curren&#1071&#9378&epsilon &#20300
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
(My paragraph doesnt work.) Name: Lightningstripe. Gender: tom. Rank:warrior(maybe deputy.) Appearance: a yellowish golden pelt, with a black jagged stipe on both sides of his body. Mood: joking, fierce, usaully happy, short temperd. Kin: mother: Fallenleaf, father: rapidstar , brother: fireslash.(all dead.) Other: just ask!!! I dont bite!!! Unless your shadowclan... ;)
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
&starf Amberstar II &starf <br> Age &starf 33 Moons <br> Gender &starf &female <br> Rank &starf Leader <br> Lives &starf <br> First Life: Trust from Gingerleaf <br> Second Life: Strength from Freespirit <br> Third Life: Understanding from Roseblossom <br> Fourth Life: Love from Falconheart <br> Fifth Life: Rememberance from Forgotten <br> Sixth Life: Dedication from Gingerfoot <br> Seventh Life: Swiftness from Swiftclash <br> Eighth Life: Boundless Energy from Peachpaw <br> Ninth Life: Loyalty from Amberstar I <br> Appearance &starf A large, light golden tabby with bright, proud amber eyes, a long plume-like tail, and white paws. <br> Other &starf She has been a loner for a while, a part of a reincarnation of the other Amberstar. She was once known as Ambra but saw ThunderClan falling. <br> Kin &starf Roseblossom {Mother}; Ravinestar {Father}; Owlfur {Aunt}; Swiftclash {Uncle}; Ashface {Uncle}; Gingerleaf {Grandmother}; Falconheart {Grandfather}; Stormcloud {Great Uncle}; Iceshard {Great Aunt}; Firebloom {Great Aunt}; Peachpaw {Great Aunt}; Hopepaw {Great Aunt}; Jayfeather {Great Aunt}; Radiantpelt {Great Aunt}; Oakstar {Great Uncle}; Freespirit {Great Great Grandmother}; Stormsurge {Great Great Grandfather}; Articstar {Great Great Grandfather}; Flamewind {Great Great Grandmother}; Sagekit {Great Great Aunt}; Hooleflare {Great Great Uncle}; Flaresmoke {Great Great Uncle}; she is distantly related to Amberstar I. <p> &starf Risingstreak &starf <br> Age &starf 78 Moons <br> Gender &starf &female <br> Rank &starf Elder <br> Appearance &starf A large golden tabby with a plume-like tail and dark amber eyes. <br> Other &starf She was once a leader, so she still has two lives left. <br> Kin &starf Amberstar I {Sister}; Gingerfoot {Mother}; father unknown; Cloudtail {Great Grandfather}; Brightheart {Great Grandmother} <p> RPer &starf NRM &#22767
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Reserved
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Guest More than 1 year ago
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. 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.
Guest More than 1 year ago
His scholarship is weak, which is not unusual for him, and he really hasn't begun to get into the Jewish traditions¿.. Which, even if he had, would not make him cutting edge or daring. Not really worth the time.