Oh… where to begin, where to begin???
OK – first off, Spong has a rather negative view of ‘religion’. Yes, when one hears about religion in the media, it’s likely a negative report. However, does it follow that this is all that religion is? Let’s try a thought experiment: when I see Obama on TV news, he’s always making a speech or visiting a constituency. Does that mean that the total scope of who Obama is, or what he does, is simply caught up in giving speeches? Of course not! If I thought I knew Obama, based on what he does in front of the cameras, I’d be missing a whole lot of what it is that he is, and what he believes, and what he does!
On the Scriptural front, Spong advocates for a “late Gospel” development: he claims that Gospels don’t appear until 70 years after Jesus (i.e., 100 A.D. or later). That’s pretty dated theology; contemporary scholars are more willing to consider earlier dates for the synoptic Gospels (although John was likely written around 100-110 A.D.). In addition, he seemingly discounts (without comment) the notion of some Scripture scholars of an original Aramaic (or Hebrew) version of Matthew (and maybe Mark, too). Note that I’m not making the claim that all Gospels were originally in Aramaic (i.e., the Peshitta N.T.). Also, note that some scholars maintain that Aramaicisms were indeed present, but dealt with, in an (originally Greek) N.T. One last point: pay careful attention to Spong’s discussion about the number of the apostles – he says that this is “40 to 70 years after” Christ. In other words, at that point, even he admits (in a rather quiet way) that the Gospels may have originated around 70 A.D. …! Then again, when talking about the resurrection, he dates the synoptics in a timeframe earlier than 100 A.D. !
As far as Mary goes, Spong makes a tired argument: since Mary isn’t the focus of the Gospels, there’s no reason to believe that she was important to early Christians. (As a counter-example, one might look to the fact that she’s mentioned as present at the foot of the cross and at Pentecost.)
With respect to the ‘virgin birth controversy’, Spong holds for a Hebrew O.T., discounting the Septuagint as a “bad translation”. Given that Jesus was a Galilean Jew, it naturally follows that his Scriptures were Greek, not Hebrew. Does it not bother Spong that the passage in Isaiah that he says is “poorly translated” is the passage that Christ would have read? Nevertheless, Spong suggests that the original Hebrew ‘almah’ means ‘woman’; in fact, it means ‘maiden’ or ‘young woman’. Now, unless you were positing that your savior was born of a “fallen woman” (wink wink nudge nudge), then the notion of a ‘maiden’ would implicitly refer to a woman who was a virgin! So, his point is somewhat unsatisfactory. Does the LXX change ‘maiden’ to ‘virgin’? Yes. Does it do damage to the notion that ‘almah’ connotes? No.
Spong also discusses Justin Martyr’s ‘Dialogue with Trypho’, dismissing it as originating in a period of time in which Christianity had great power. Really? In the second century A.D., the Christian Church was ‘powerful’? C’mon… at that point, it was still clawing for official recognition from the Roman Empire! I mean, his name wouldn’t be Justin Martyr if the Church was as ‘powerful’ as Spong would have us believe!
Well, about 15 minutes of Spong was about all I could handle, and I started nodding off. I hope the points I’ve raised will be helpful in your digestion of Spongian Christianity!
