Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy: A Journey into a New Christianity Through the Doorway of Matthew's Gospel – Recovering Jewish Scripture Through Progressive Theology

by John Shelby Spong

A global and pioneering leader of progressive Christianity and the bestselling author of Why Christianity Must Change or Die and Eternal Life explains why a literal reading of the Gospels is actually heretical, and how this mistaken notion only entered the church once Gentiles had pushed out all the Jewish followers of Jesus.

A man who has consciously and deliberately walked the path of Christ, John Shelby Spong has lived his entire life inside the Christian Church. In this profound and considered work, he offers a radical new way to look at the gospels today as he shows just how deeply Jewish the Christian Gospels are and how much they reflect the Jewish scriptures, history, and patterns of worship. Pulling back the layers of a long-standing Gentile ignorance, he reveals how the church’s literal reading of the Bible is so far removed from these original Jewish authors’ intent that it is an act of heresy.

Using the Gospel of Matthew as a guide, Spong explores the Bible’s literary and liturgical roots—its grounding in Jewish culture, symbols, icons, and storytelling tradition—to explain how the events of Jesus’ life, including the virgin birth, the miracles, the details of the passion story, and the resurrection and ascension, would have been understood by both the Jewish authors of the various gospels and by the Jewish audiences for which they were originally written. Spong makes clear that it was only after the church became fully Gentile that readers of the Gospels took these stories to be factual, distorting their original meaning.

In Biblical A Gentile Heresy, Spong illuminates the gospels as never before and provides a better blueprint for the future than where the church’s leaden and heretical reading of the story of Jesus has led us—one that allows the faithful to live inside the Christian story in the modern world.

Genres: Religion, Nonfiction, Christianity, Spirituality, Theology, History, Judaism

416 pages, Kindle Edition

First published March 15, 2016

About the author

John Shelby Spong was the Episcopal bishop of Newark before his retirement in 2000. As a leading spokesperson for an open, scholarly, and progressive Christianity, Bishop Spong has taught at Harvard and at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California. He has also lectured at universities, conference centers, and churches in North America, Europe, Asia, and the South Pacific. His books include: A New Christianity for a New World, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, Resurrection: Myth or Reality? Why Christianity Must Change or Die, and his autobiography, Here I Stand.

Reviews

[Nick Imrie · Rating 3 out of 5]

The central thesis of this book is very interesting: the gospel of Matthew is not written as a literal, chronological account of the life of Jesus. Instead, it's intended as a liturgical text for the early Jewish followers of Christ. Now, I know very little about Christianity and less about Judaism, so this was highly educational for me, and I'm in no position to judge how accurate it is.

Apparently, the 1st century Jews worshipped by getting together each Sabbath to read a part of the Torah. Over the course of the year they would read the whole thing, with each section being read at the appropriate time of year or festival.

Supposedly, Matthew wrote his gospel to do the same for Jesus, allowing his followers to read the gospel over the course of the year, with various stories about Jesus corresponding to a story from the Torah with shared themes and characters. Jesus corresponds with Moses, and many of Jesus's actions echo the actions of Moses: as Moses parted the waters of the Red Sea, so Jesus parted the waters of heaven at his baptism. At the celebration of Shavuot the Jews would be reading about Moses receiving the law from God at Mount Sinai; Matthew gives us the corresponding story of the Sermon on the Mount. For Sukkoth, the harvest festival, Matthew helpfully gives us a series of grain-themed parables. Then at Hanukkah, the celebration of the return of the light of true worship to the temple, we have Jesus transfiguration where the light of God is bestowed on Jesus. The story of the last day of Jesus's life is helpfully broken down into 3 hour sections to match the vigil of Passover.

So far, this is very interesting. Where Spong lost me was in his assertion that the important point is this: the story of Christ was never meant to be taken as a historical truth. Any Jew listening to this story would see all the obvious parallels between the characters and events of the gospel and the characters and events of the Torah and realise that it's all so much symbolism and 'interpretive portrait painting'. They never would have interpreted these parallels as fulfilment of prophecy - it was all much too neat and too overt.

Now, you'd think that I'd be right on board with this. As an atheist, I do doubt many of the supernatural claims of Christianity. But Spong's tone is so arrogant and hectoring - he's obviously right; anyone who disagrees is obviously ignorant and superstitious - that I found myself, surprisingly, arguing against him in my mind. It's very odd to read a bishop of an established church sneering at traditional Christianity as if he were a New Atheist.

Spong seems to assume there are only two ways to read the Bible: either you think it's all personally dictated by God, literally and historically perfectly accurate and true, including all the parts that contradict each other and the poetry, or you believe that it's all so much myth and metaphor and obviously intended to be interpreted as such.

Isn't it possible to read other ways? Can't it be the case that Matthew believed the story of Christ was literally true, and also arranged it to be liturgically useful?

What I really wanted was more historical sources on how the 1st century Jews worshipped and believed. At one point Spong talks about the stories of the Old Testament as if they were also mostly myth or exaggeration: for example, making clear that he thinks Moses probably didn't exist, and obviously didn't part the Red Sea. The Hebrews probably just crossed a marshy swamp while travelling light where heavily armoured troops couldn't follow. But is this what the early Jews believed? Didn't they think their histories were true? I can sort of imagine a people who knew their own myths to be fictional would also be happy to incorporate a fictional Messiah - but if they thought their own stories were true, wouldn't they want a true Messiah? If you assume that every supernatural part of the gospel is obviously a fictional parallel with Jewish myth then what's left? What's worth worshipping in Jesus if there are no miracles, no resurrection, if he was just some failed revolutionary? Why worship some guy as the new embodied temple if all he ever did was a few parables and a gruesome death? Spong repeatedly says that one can still be a Christian with this interpretation, but he doesn't say how or why! Maybe it's in one of his other books?

This wasn't the only place where I felt like Spong wasn't being a responsible historian. In an early discussion of dating the death of Jesus, and the subsequent writings about him, he makes the point that Jesus probably died sometime between 28 - 32 AD, but the earliest writing we have is Paul's letter I Thessalonians in 51 AD:

We then have to face the fact that, at the very least, there is absolute silence for twenty-one years. This means that a whole generation stands between the Jesus of history and the first mention of his name or of any detail of his life that appears in any document that we possess today.

When Mark writes, approximately forty-two years, or two full generations, have passed since the crucifixion. This is one of the reasons we know that we are not dealing with eyewitness accounts in the gospels [...] We now need to embrace the fact that it was not until Mark wrote that many of the most familiar aspects of the Jesus story are heard for the first time.

The Christian story did not drop fully from heaven fully written. It grew and developed year by year over a period of forty-two to seventy years.

Twenty years - despite being a generation - is not a huge gap of time. Even forty-two years is not so long. I hope if I sit down to write my memoir in my sixties or seventies it won't be summarily dismissed as mere fantasy because thirty or forty years have passed since the events of my thirties!

Spong seems to assume that if the earliest surviving gospel is from forty years after Jesus's death, then everything in it must've been made up at that time. If it wasn't written down immediately, and if that writing didn't survive, then it didn't happen (Spong dismisses out of hand the theory of Q, an earlier writer than was used as a source by later gospels which didn't survive).
This assumption is most frustrating when it comes to Paul's letters. Since Paul was writing before the gospels, Spong assumes if it isn't in Paul then it didn't happen. Paul didn't mention a virgin birth? Then obviously he'd either never heard of it or didn't believe it. Paul didn't mention Judas by name? Then obviously he's a fictional character. But isn't it the case that Paul was writing to established churches who already knew the story of Christ? Why would he waste precious letter space repeating, 'As you know Bob, the basic tenets of our faith are...'?

Spong offers his own assessment as the only possible correct answer when even I, an ignorant atheist, can see other possibilities. For example, he says Matthew must've added the the words Jesus cried out on the cross: 'Eli, Eli, lema sabachtani?' from Psalm 22. It cannot possibly be accurate history because the disciples had all fled and the women were watching from afar so there was no-one present to hear and record them. But the soldiers were there - couldn't they have told someone? The bystanders who offered him vinegar on a sponge? The centurion? None of these are necessarily 'hostile sources', especially the centurion.

There are places where he had my sympathy. For example, we have two different genealogies for Jesus, and both were probably made up. I can see that this could be true, since making up genealogies is a time-honoured tradition - think of all the Kings and Emperors who claim a god as an ancestor. But then he takes it too far again - why does Matthew's genealogy include four women, in defiance of patrilineal tradition? Because each of these women was sexually compromised: Tamar (incest), Rahab (prostitute), Ruth (seducer), Bathsheba (adulteress), and since Jesus was obviously a bastard it was important to highlight that as no impediment to holiness. How do we know Jesus was a bastard? Well, Joseph is obviously made-up, there are just too many parallels to the Joseph of the multi-coloured coat for him to be real.

So what's the point of all this? Why is Spong so determined that traditional Christianity is an embarrassing mistake spanning two millennia? Why does he want to persuade Christians that they should abandon all the mysteries of their faith? As far as I can tell he has two reasons.
First:

People are today walking away from Christianity in droves because it seems so out of touch with the world in which they live. [...] I hope [my readers] will be able to live inside the Christian story without denying the tenets of the world in which they are also citizens. I hope they will no longer have to twist their minds into a first-century pretzel in order to walk the Christian path.

In this age of science and reason, it's impossible to believe in the supernatural events described in the gospel. Either Christianity gives up the supernatural, or it dies. I agree with him inasmuch as I don't believe in anything supernatural. I seriously doubt whether jettisoning all the core beliefs of Christianity will allow it to survive in any meaningful form. The historical Jesus, not the Son of God, shorn of miracles, suffering, redemption, just isn't that interesting.

Second:

The idea that our sins are the cause of the death of Jesus is nothing other than a gigantic guilt trip, and it constitutes barbaric theology. [...] Atonement theology was born in Gentile ignorance of Jewish worship traditions. It was fed over the centuries by literalizing biblical narratives in ways that Jewish worshippers, who knew about storytelling, would never have understood. I say it again: Biblical literalism is nothing less than a Gentile heresy. Its results are now revealed in the fact that Christianity has been transformed into a religion of victimization. For centuries we have practiced our faith by building up ourselves as winners, survivors, the holders of ultimate truth, while we have denigrated the humanity of others. This is the source of evil.

The evil that Spong blames on Christianity is not limited to: anti-semitism, crusaders killing as many infidels as possible, the divine right of kings, slavery, segregation, apartheid, misogyny, homophobia, child abuse, ideological killing, militant Islam, thirst for oil, the American civil war, bombing black churches, white supremacy, the Republican party, prejudice, hate, oppression, the trial of Galileo, attacks on Darwin, intelligent design, and anti-vaxx.

Some of these things are due to Christianity, some are human universals, some are nothing to do with Christianity. Most are very complicated issues with multiple causes. It's very odd to see an Episcopal bishop blame absolutely every evil on Christianity as if he were Christopher Hitchens. It's not at all clear to me that abandoning the supernatural elements of the Christian faith will do anything to mitigate say, child abuse, or the thirst for oil.

It's even stranger to see him treat 'Christian' as interchangeable with 'white'. I must admit I am annoyed by this kind of progressive racism: just as the white supremacist thinks every good thing caused by white people, so the white progressive thinks every bad thing caused by white people. In both cases, white people are the only ones who matter, everyone else is just a pawn or a victim. People of colour do have agency, you know.

I don't want to belabour that point, though. Spong's rants are a small part of the book, the better part of it is a very interesting and detailed investigation of the gospel of Matthew. His writing is clear and strikes an excellent balance between scholarly and conversational. I read the whole thing as an exciting narrative, and it's not often that I can say a book about the Bible is entertaining and educational.

[Robert D. Cornwall · Rating 2 out of 5]

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!

[Bob Buice · Rating 3 out of 5]

Once again John Shelby Spong startles the fundamentalists and educates the intelligent with his latest and - I think - best book yet. In Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy: A Journey into a New Christianity Through the Doorway of Matthew's Gospel, Bishop Spong uses the Gospel According to St. Matthew as an example of how the Christian canon relates to the Jewish calendar - each section of the gospel to a month of the Jewish year. To name a few - Shavout relates to the Sermon on Mount (Matthew 5, 6, 7), which Bishop Spong says was modelled from Psalm 119 –Yom Kippur to the destruction of the temple in 70 CE - Hanukkah to the light of God that was switched from the Temple to Jesus himself. Jesus replaced the temple - Passover to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

Bishop Spong also relates the Christian canonical writings to the Hebrew scriptures. In Hebrew scripture, JOSEPH, whose father was JACOB, interpreted DREAMS for the Pharoah, and SAVED HIS FAMILY from starvation by taking them to EGYPT. The Matthian Joseph, whose father was JACOB, received a message from God in a DREAM, and SAVED HIS FAMILY from Herod I by taking them to EGYPT (In Matthew only, the Lukan Joseph never went to Egypt). Herod I’s killing of children under two years strongly resembles the story of Moses and the pharaoh. From the cross the Matthian Jesus cries, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”. These exact words that appear in Psalm 22: 4. There are numerous events in the Christian canon that appear to be taken from Hebrew scripture.

Bishop Spong makes a strong case that the Christian canon was taken from Hebrew scripture, was never meant to be taken literally, and must be read through “Jewish eyes” for its symbolism to be properly interpreted. Christians have lost the meaning over the centuries by demanding that the Christian scriptures be interpreted literally – hence the heresy. The Christian canon does not represent “historical truth”, but it might represent a “profound truth”, if Christians can break the bonds of literalism.

However, one does not have to agree with Bishop Spong’s theses in order to appreciate this highly enlightening writing. His knowledge of the scriptures is impressive and his ability to explain his points makes this book and enjoyable learning process.

I read "Biblical Literalism" very slowly and took quite a few notes. I thoroughly enjoyed the book.

[Patty · Rating 3 out of 5]

“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.

[Eric · Rating 5 out of 5]

Almost he persuades me to be a (Spong) Christian. After going through a crisis of faith years ago I came to a place of non-belief in religion. It was something I thought and studied long and hard about, not a glib or uninformed conclusion. I had plenty of frustration and anger at how I feel like I'd been manipulated (although I don't think intentionally, for the most part). But this vision of Christianity is something I feel like I could appreciate. It takes the good and leaves the not-so-good behind.

The basic premise is that to an ancient Jewish audience it's obvious in the book of Matthew that the writing was myth and liturgy, not literal history. Spong claims it's when the gentiles took over and couldn't see the many ways Matthew was relating his book to a liturgical calendar that they decided to interpret it all literally.

He has some good points. Is he 100% right? I have absolutely no idea. I'm not a biblical scholar. This kind of hermenuetics is fascinating to me but I only know what I read by popularizers such as Spong. I get the sense that he's making a case. It seems like it may not be 100% critical thinking, but more of a lawyerly working towards a goal. But, here's the thing, I fully support his goal. I think the world would be a much, much better place if believers could embrace his version of Christianity. I don't know if he's right that the decline of religion is due to the fantastical and unbelievable and hypocritical nature of what it's become. It's plausible. But I know that, for me, those are the issues, and that scripture can always be reinterpreted to match the needs of the day. I wish the church I loved could embrace this type of theological progressivism. Heck, I wish there were any Christian churches that were as humanist as Spong. I mean, I'm sure they exist. But it's not on every corner and I've been to half a dozen churches in my area searching for something like this, without luck.

Having said all of that, there's a part of me that wonders if removing the literalness of the myths would also remove the thing that causes the dedication, the devotion. It seems plausible to me. Atheist churches never have the devotion of true believers. But he also highlights the opposite case, where I find myself, that the (paraphrasing his words) heart can never worship that which the mind cannot accept.

In short, I wish that every right-wing, conservative church member could read a book like this and really ponder the message. The survival of their religion might depend on it, and embracing it would make the world a better, more humane place.

[Cathryn Conroy · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book COULD do a lot of things to its readers. It could make you angry. It could make you throw something. It could make you change your views about religion. It could make you question everything you hold dear. Or it could make you say, "FINALLY!"

This book WILL do one thing: It will make you think.

Written by the Right Rev. John Shelby Spong, retired bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Newark, the book is an audacious, daring and a quite courageous examination of Matthew's Gospel to show how the story of Jesus is grounded in and shaped by the Hebrew scriptures and the Jewish penchant for meaningful storytelling--BUT not based on historical facts. The virgin birth never happened. Joseph is a fictional character. Jesus's miracles are symbols, not real. Instead, all these stories that are the basic tenets of Christianity are meant to be interpreted for a deeper meaning--a meaning we can only understand by first understanding the Torah. It's a fascinating--and disturbing--argument.

Spong's thesis is grounded in the fact that Matthew was written 55 years after Jesus's death for an audience of first-century Christians, most of whom were Jewish. He says that Matthew was not recording facts and historical events but rather "interpreting through the lens of synagogue worship the power of the Jesus experience." He then proceeds to analyze Matthew with a "Jesus story" for every Sabbath of the Jewish liturgical year. And that Jewish audience would have recognized the stories for what they were--that is, stories that likened Jesus to the great stories of what we Christians call the Old Testament--not as literal truth. For example, John the Baptist=Elijah, the Crucifixion=Passover, Shavuot=the Sermon on the Mount, which was modeled after Psalm 119; Sukkoth (Festival of the Booths)=Palm Sunday; Dedication-Hanukkah (Festival of Lights)=The Transfiguration.

Reading every word of the Bible literally, which is still embraced today by fundamentalist Christians, began with the second-century Christians who had no knowledge of the Jewish liturgical year. Bishop Spong says these Christians misunderstood the Gospels, assuming the stories to be literal history written by eyewitnesses. And that error has continued over the centuries to today. Most important, he contends that unless we stop reading the Bible literally, Christianity will die. Why? It's just too hard for too many people to believe all these supernatural events actually took place.

Bishop Spong makes some mind-boggling assertions--as in, "them's fightin' words!":
--The Lord's Prayer is a creation of the church and was never said by Jesus.
--Jesus believed he was following his Father's will when he endured the pain of his Passion and death, which is the ultimate in child abuse.
--The Passion is not historical truth. Instead, it was written as the liturgy for a 24-hour vigil--and meant to be interpreted, not read literally.
--Reading the Bible literally has transformed Christianity into a religion of victimization. We build ourselves as "winners" only because we denigrate others.

So what do I think? I don't buy into everything Bishop Spong asserts, but I will say he has forever changed the way I will read and interpret the Gospel stories. (We Episcopalians are big on interpreting the Bible and not reading it literally, so I came to this book with a more open mind than some readers might have.) This book has been prodigiously researched and is very well-written. His arguments are cogent and clearly explained--even if I disagree with some of them. I'm giving it 5 stars because of the quality of the research and writing--not because I embrace all of his views and arguments.

P.S. Bishop Spong's views do not represent the Episcopal church as a whole; however, that is the wonder of the Episcopal church: We are all encouraged to think and have our own opinions. As Robin Williams said in his classic "Top 10 Reasons to Be an Episcopalian," "You don't have to check your brains at the door."

[Tonya · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author of this book was actually labeled a heretic -you know, like, recently. So know that going in. This is not a book for anyone who does not have a firm grasp on his/her faith or a strong knowledge of the Bible. I enjoyed the author's argument and its explanations and I agree with many of the author's ultimate "truths" about God. In the end, however, I had to reject all of his conclusions because to do otherwise would reduce Christ to a literary fiction created by anonymous writers in order to explain their own convictions. Spong argues for a new kind of Christianity - and its one without Christ. While I've never been a believer that the stories in the Bible literally happened as they are written - clearly (to me) there is a lot of symbolism and myth - I cannot agree with Spong that everything that is known about the life of Christ is a wholly created fiction. If, however, you believe that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament, as I do, then Spong's meticulous work in tying these prophesies to the life of Christ is glorious - even if his conclusions ultimately go the other way.

[John Martindale · Rating 2 out of 5]

Spong draws on scholarship that mentions how certain Jesus stories, their ordering and content, relates to the Jewish liturgy and festivals. (I don't know enough about any of this to comment on this part) I got the impression that in light of the Torah reading and the season, Spong is suggesting a Jesus follower at certain synagogue would preach a message, creating stories about Jesus in light of Hebrew scripture.
So in connection with the liturgy having to do with Joseph dreamer of dreams, who went down to Egypt to save Israel, Matthew crafted a tale about Joseph supposed husband of Mary, going down to Egypt, resulting in salvation for Israel. Then as we have in Genesis, Pharaoh massacring the children, so now we have Herod who massacres the children. Later as Moses parted the sea, the heavens (the waters above) part at Jesus' baptism, then Jesus goes into the wilderness and experiences the same testings as Moses, after this he gives his sermon on the mount similar to Moses, and we have John the Baptist, who happens to be presented as if he is Elijah, etc... all of these things and many more to follow are said to line up with the Jewish liturgy.

I found much of this to be pretty interesting, it seems clear early on Christianity was a Jewish movement, and Matthew especially draw parallels of from the Hebrew story and connects it with Jesus. I see how N.T Wright has likely drawn from a lot of the same scholarship, of course, reaching different conclusions.

As the title makes clear, Spong's conclusion is that the original Jewish audience, knowing the Hebrew stories, obviously wouldn't have taken any of the Jesus stories literally, the parallels were too overt. The early followers of Jesus didn't know anything about what Jesus said or did, and they also knew not to take anything said about Jesus literally. They immediately knew anything Jesus was said to have said, he didn't say, and anything he was said to do, he didn't do. It was later on that the Gentiles, who not knowing custom of Jewish myth-making, took the stories about Jesus literally. For Spong all of this isn't a possibility, it is instead FACT, he is absolutely certain the original hearers of Matthew wouldn't have taken any of it as history.
But I'd suggest one more reasonably could suggest the possibility that Matthew draw from an actual historical oral tradition, and found parallels with the Hebrew tradition, then crafted a tale showing Jesus to be the climax of the Jewish story. Even if Matthew is doing a very loose retelling and liberally adding details to make theological points, even if Matthew is doing what we'd now call “historical fiction”, it is still could be somewhat based upon history. This just seems far more plausible than what Spong forcefully asserts again and again.

The main thing I didn't care for is that Spong cannot write very long without going into another side tirade against fundamentalist, writing how Christianity will die if we all don't take his non-literal approach. Spong is a bit of a fundamentalist himself, just of a different mold, he just as dogmatic, hyper-certain and absolute in his conclusions which are rooted upon non-provable and rather shaky reality assumptions.

Spong's assumes miracles do not happen, cannot happen and never have happened. So of course Jesus never worked a miracle, nor was raised from the dead.
He assumes God (or I guess I should say Being itself) has not and could not do anything in our world or speak to anyone.
If there is any parallel of Jesus' life with Israel's past, it was made up. (but for one case)
If Jesus said anything that might have been relevant to the church later, Jesus couldn't have said it, it was made up by the church later on.
The kingdom of God refers to church, Jesus couldn't have said anything about the church, therefore, everything Jesus said about the Kingdom of God, every kingdom of God parable, the Lord's prayer, etc... definitely were not spoken by Jesus.
Anything Paul didn't explicit state about Jesus in the few letters we have of his, he didn't believe or didn't know about. With Paul lack of evidence is also absolute proof of absence.
Spong seems to assume there is no traditions or oral traditions, gospels writers knew nothing but the sources sitting in front of them. They also are assumed to have absolutely no interest in the historical Jesus whatsoever.

Somehow this Jesus of whom nothing of which he did, or said was remembered or ever recorded, just some bastard (Spong does attribute that much to history) was crucified like 1000s of other criminals, somehow was so inspiring that the gospel writers completely made up whole-cloth a bunch of myths to show how amazing Jesus is.
I find it simply incredible that people could be so inspired by someone, and to have started a movement right after his death, and not have retained a single memory of anything Jesus said or did. For all intent and purposes, Spong might as well be a Jesus' mythicist, I guess Spong considers himself a strong Christian, because these ancient Christian myth-makers did write some things that are rather inclusive and universal, that has helped him to champion gay rights. He has so much contempt for the Christian liturgy in the Epistle church, it does amaze me that he is a Bishop.
But yeah, how did some failed revolutionary inspire all this myth-making? Eventually Spong shares some history, if I recall right, I suppose, some Jews, after the fall of Jerusalem, wanted to rub some salt in the wounds. They were like see, this failed messiah of whom absolutely nothing known, who did nothing of significance, and of whom the Romans crucified and of is still good and dead and will never exist again. Well, yeah, this person actually was the Messiah, and he is the temple, and yeah... you screwed up killing him, He is the true Moses, and John the Baptist was Elijah, and oh... yeah, Mary was a loose woman, but hey... Tamar, Ruth, Rahab and Bashemba...

Now I must say Spong was better than other biblical critics in matters of consistency, since he discounts the historicity of almost everything, he engages in less Procrustean scholarship—the incredibly ease with which liberal's pick and chose, arranging the puzzle pieces to fit can be infuriating. With Spong I did notice in one case, when it favored his thesis, Spong takes as LITERAL HISTORY (Oh my gosh, Spong is a Gentile heretic!!) that the disciples left Jesus once betrayed, even though the text was said this was to “fulfill scripture” that when the shepherd was struck, the sheep would be scattered. So every other example that is drawn from the Old Testament is obvious myth, but this example, since it supports his minimalist stance, is history. So yes a bit of Scholarship of convenience.

So much of the conjectures are build upon the claim of a late dating of Mark. I find this premise weak, It is based upon the dogmatic claim that since Mark talks about the destruction of the temple, it HAD TO be written after the fall of Jerusalem, all of facts be damned, end of conversation, no other evidence needs to be considered, the debate is over.... But even from a naturalistic perspective, this conclusion doesn't necessarily follow! In Jesus' own tradition, he had Jeremiah who proclaimed the destruction of the Temple, and considering the revolutionary tendencies of the Jews against Rome at that time, it would take a prophet to predict this! I could have freaking predicted it. Yet simply because of this anti-supernatural bias, assuming the supernatural is being suggested when it isn't, they confidently give it a late date, then dating everything else later, and the mountains of arguments that are all based upon this extremely weak premise are staggering. Ugg... the group think out there among liberal theologians and many weak assumptions irk me.

[Greg · Rating 5 out of 5]

As one who has read quite a few of Bishop Spong’s fine work, I believe this sustained analysis of Matthew’s gospel is one of his clearest and most persuasive works.

While I am not in agreement with everything he says, he has convinced me that the narrative order of the Synoptic gospels was intentionally arranged so that their content appropriately “echoed” the scheduled readings of the Jewish liturgical year. He believes that Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts are longer than Mark’s because his gospel was too short to run through the entire liturgical cycle and, hence, they added additional material to cover the rest of the year.

We non-Jews, Spong says, have long failed to understand the intended argument of the gospels because we are no longer Jesus-following Jews as were all the gospel writers, whoever they actually were [in his book on John’s gospel (The Fourth Gospel: Tales of a Jewish Mystic) he mentions that scholars now believe there were at least two different contributors to John’s account].

This organizational scheme not only explains the arrangement of the material in the gospels, but also gives clues as to the interpretation Jewish audiences would have given to that material, as it constantly refers to important figures and events central to Jewish history as presented in the Hebrew Bible. Some examples of this are Jesus depicted as both a teacher like Moses as well as a prophet like Elijah, his walking on the water recalling God’s subjection of the waters “above the heavens” in the creation of the world, and recurring images of him that echoed the “suffering servant” passages from the Book of Isaiah.

He also shows several examples of how a simple portion of Mark’s gospel became elaborated upon in the later writings of Matthew and Luke. Some examples include the personage, words, and fate of John the Baptizer, the Transfiguration, the passion narrative itself, and the resurrection accounts (of which the latter Mark has absolutely none). He repeatedly says that this reflects a clear growth of myth and legend while completely discounting the possibility that these later gospels included additional material resulting from people wanting to know more about key events or personages in Jesus’ life.

I have other reservations about this book similar to those I had after reading his study of John’s gospel:
1) He seems a little too willing to dismiss several figures in the gospels not as historical figures but, rather, as persons created to represent types of persons or behaviors, such as the “faithful servant,” those “receptive to the word of God and/or Jesus,” and the refusal of “arrogant” or “stiff-necked people” to hear or follow; and,
2) He dismisses a great deal of material – some of the best-known parables, for instance, and even the authenticity of “the Lord’s prayer” – as, essentially, invented for the purposes of fitting the narrative flow.

As I have noted elsewhere, I found Timothy Luke Johnson’s discussion (in his Teaching Company course on “Jesus and the Gospels) informative and convincing regarding how pre-literate societies retained memory of significant persons, events, and words, and of how they were transmitted. Thus, I am inclined to give greater credence to the core memories of Jesus’ teachings, parables, and encounters with others as being central to the gospel accounts than Bishop Spong.

Clearly the gospels were written as a form of proclamation, just as were Paul’s letters, but such is not synonymous with fiction or myth.

I also know that in story-telling it is quite common to have various versions of the same central story circulating. Moreover, skilled story-tellers throughout history have adopted certain techniques to help ensure that their tales are more notable as well as more easily remembered. Does this mean that what is preserved in the gospels may have some embellishment? I would be surprised if this were not so. But embellishment is not the same as falsehood or myth. The germ, the kernel, remains. Speaking for myself, I find that the “person” of Jesus comes through remarkably clearly and consistently in the Synoptic gospels (John’s is a whole other kind of animal).

This said, I do share Spong’s conclusions (which are not, I believe, those of a vast majority of biblical scholars), regarding the “virgin birth” of Jesus, the different portrayals of the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ birth (including our beloved Christmas images of “angels in the sky” and “shepherds in the field”) as inventive concoctions of Matthew and Luke. And his questioning of the accuracy of the account of Jesus’ death, including his reputed “last words” on the cross, does raise some interesting questions about just who could have witnessed and heard these things, since all the gospel accounts are clear about how his male followers had all taken to their heels and that the faithful women “watched from afar.”

But while I share his bemusement over the very different resurrection accounts (about which he also includes Paul’s brief references to just who witnessed Jesus’ appearances), and share his conviction that whatever happened the resurrection was not a kind of resuscitation of a dead human body, I am not inclined to conclude that these are some form of “made-up” myth, either.

Whatever happened to Jesus that Sunday morning, it was something so unexpected, so absolutely beyond what anyone had ever experienced before, that those who “saw” Jesus struggled to not only understand, but to express in words, what they experienced. (Imagine, for example, that you had never heard of nuclear weapons. If you then witnessed a nuclear explosion – from a great distance, obviously – how would you explain what you had seen? Would “you” and “I” give similar descriptions, or would they differ in some ways?)

Lastly, and how I wish Bishop Spong would have addressed this question, if one goes along with all of the good bishop’s arguments and conclusions, then I believe this central question remains: If many of the characters, words, and events in the gospels are either myth or intended memory jogs to remind Jewish audiences of key moments of their past, then what remains that is authentic? Is anything left that could tell us about that Jesus who so clearly was a very unforgettable person? And, if so, where and what is that?

If these words in any way move you to acquire a copy of this remarkable book, then, good, for it really is an immersive plunge into great information and intelligent speculation.

At the conclusion of John’s gospel, we find the rueful observation that “there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.” [John 21:25]

The same might well be said of the books written about Jesus: who he was, what he said, what he meant, etc. Fascinating!

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent work on the texts, but I disagree with Spong's conclusions. Some are excellent, many are not. To reject all the historicity of Jesus to the degree in which he does, discounting all miracles, atonement, healing, etc. is taking things much too far. Matthew's use of typology does not necessarily mean much of his work is rooted in history. But I must say, I appreciate the evidence the author brings to us concerning Matthew's approach to the construction of his text and for this reason I give this 4 stars.

[Erin · Rating 3 out of 5]

3 very conflicted stars. Let's break it down.

5 stars for the concept buried within here: Namely, that the Gospels (in particular, Matthew and to a similar degree Mark) were written not for biography or posterity but for liturgical use by the early Christians within a Jewish synagogical setting. That's killer! Yes!

But 1 star for how it's packaged: This is not a book primarily about biblical literalism, or even how Gentiles ruined everything. It's primarily a commentary on Matthew's origins and proper interpretation within the context of the Jewish synagogue. But that's far less sexy and wouldn't sell, so "Biblical literalism" it is! Ugh.

Apart from that heinous misdirect, there are some other issues. Some minor-- I found several incorrect citations and simple editing mistakes (see p. 340, which contains one of each!)-- and some more major. His flow is twitchy and inconsistent. There are unmarked side tangents right in the middle of clear lists. But worst of all: He assumes you're on board with him when he hasn't exactly given enough information to convince you. And this is coming from a reader (me) who is inclined to agree and be very on board! But, for example, I found the entirety of chapter 22 unconvincing. Boo hoo.

But since I've been such a hardnose, I'll include something I did find convincing, and potential transformative: His treatment of "the unforgiveable sin"-- chapter 18. Very nice.

3 stars. Whew. What a ride.

[Micke Goteman · Rating 5 out of 5]

This must be the best book I have ever read about the Bible. Whether or not you find yourself agreeing with Spong's scholarship methods or his conclusions, this book does a fantastic job addressing topics and specifics that every person with an ambition to take the Bible seriously needs to wrestle with.

Personally I find the author's process and conclusions to be very valuable and helpful. Rarely do I feel that one single book has this much to teach me in a single reading. This book has helped me look at a lot of things about the Bible in a context where they make significantly more sense. It also helped me to further unpack what a think is a more helpful and open way to understand these authors of the biblical books in a way that does justice to their intentions and background.

If you come from a more conservative Christian background and you have never before read books that looks at biblical texts in a critical manner, then significant parts of this book is likely going to make you uncomfortable. I may recommend Rob Bell's 'What is the Bible' as a more "kind" introduction before picking this one up. But do it, it will be worth the effort!

[Jennifer Jones · Rating 4 out of 5]

A lot of this felt pretty repetitive from Spong’s book The Fourth Gospel (which I LOVED!). I find his explanation that the gospel stories were written to serve as liturgical readings very compelling. Spong’s approach to Christianity always gives me hope that I can remain a Christian and still think critically. I hope his vision of a new Christianity one day comes to pass.

[Becky · Rating 3 out of 5]

The three stars are because this book was interesting. I've never read a book like this before. The author's premise is that the Gospel of Matthew was written with Jewish symbolism and allegories that are well known to Jewish people for the communication of the story of Jesus purely for a Jewish audience. The Gospel, according to the author, follows a cycle of Jewish holidays and observances, Passover, Sukkot, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and Hanukkah. He lines up the stories of Matthew's Gospel with these holidays. Anyone who is not Jewish, or very familiar with Jewish customs and holidays would miss the symbolism and messaging Matthew was using to tell the story of Jesus. The Gospel was never meant to be read literally, and, according to the author, very few (if any?) of the stories actually happened. It wasn't meant to be read that way.

So, some of this was interesting to think about. For instance, in talking about Joseph, husband of Mary, there was discussion that compared him to Joseph, son of Jacob, in particular, that they both were very influenced by dreams. Also interesting, Barabbas, who was saved from execution by Pontius Pilate on Good Friday, and Jesus killed instead; if you look at his name, Barabbas, it means "son of the father". Is Barabbas a symbol then? Did he exist? So some of this was very interesting to think about.

The author, very clearly, thinks all of this means most of the Gospel of Matthew did not really happen including some very key events that could shake one's faith. True, he is a Biblical scholar, a Christian Biblical scholar, but he writes as though he knows for sure. But, you know who knows for sure? No one living now. The author is far too smug and confident. How can one be so confident about what happened over 2000 years ago?

It makes me think of what I've learned over the last few years, specifically: Who writes history? What is their viewpoint? What is their goal in their writing? It is important to consider those questions when reading modern day news, a history book, or the Bible (which probably should not be read as a history book, though a firm knowledge of those historical periods is probably very helpful).

In all, I am glad I read this. It is important to think about what I read, the stories I know and have been told. I am not saying I don't think the Bible, or the Gospels, or the stories are not important. But I believe in the Universal Christ and so I am not going to worry if it all lines up exactly at this moment, so that I, a simple woman, can understand. I know that when I am out, in nature, and I wonder about the color of the stone in the mountains, that is God calling to me to understand and ponder them, and when I see an octopus video of the animal changing colors and textures and using camouflage, I know God wants me to ponder them, and when I look up at the stars and I long for what is unknown, and large, and amazing, I know the Universal Christ is calling me.

So, interesting book, lots of fun/unsettling things to think about. But I can't stay up at night worrying about this.

[Alisa · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Ben Schnell · Rating 2 out of 5]

Spong argues that the gospel writers would never imagine readers would take his stories, including Jesus’ miracles as literal fact. His basis for this is that he argues that the gospels were written as liturgy to be read in the synagogue. This I do agree with (the gospels as liturgy) because books were prohibitively expensive for individuals to own so they would only get to interact with them in corporate settings. This doesn’t naturally follow to me that the writers didn’t actually believe the literal truth of what they were writing just because it was arranged liturgically. To Spong those ideas are obviously mutually exclusive (liturgy and literal). Spong starts with the idea that the miracles could not be real and works back from there. Christians start from the opposite assumption. As for me, I’m pretty skeptical that there can be any objective conclusion on the question this far out from the events in question. One either chooses to believe out of faith or they don’t, and that’s fine with me.

[Nathan · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.

[Helaine · Rating 4 out of 5]

John Spong's thesis is that the gospel of Matthew was originally written with the liturgical year of the synagogue as the organizing principle and that the Christian gospels are deeply Jewish and "reflect the Jewish scriptures, Jewish history and Jewish patterns of worship." When the congregations of the Jesus movement changed from predominately Jewish to predominately Gentiles, the culture, symbols and tradition of storytelling of the Jews was lost and the gospels came to be read literally. Spong is not the only biblical scholar who has reached this conclusion, but Spong's book is a wonderful resource and an attention holding study for the layman. In the book's preface, Spong indicates that this is probably his last book since he is now 85 years old. I would hope not.

[Dana Murphy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I won Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy: A Journey into a New Christianity Through the Doorway of Matthew's Gospel in a Goodreads giveaway in exchange for my opinion. Having been raised in a Conservative Jewish family, but now a Messianic Jew, I was very interested in this book. There is a lot of technical aspects that someone who isn't familiar with the Jewish faith at all might become a bit lost. But I thoroughly enjoyed reading it and learned quite a bit. And am looking forward to reading more by John Shelby Spong. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read this book and being introduced to his writing.

[Frances J. Holm · Rating 5 out of 5]

A breath of fresh air!

Even as a Pastor for 25 years, there were common understandings of the scriptures with which I struggled, like the Atonement. Wish I had read this book years ago! It makes so much more sense now. I've always preached about God's scandalously, lavish Love for ALL of creation, and had a member of the congregation ask when I was going to get a little hell-fire and brimstone in my sermons. I said probably never. I just didn't have it in me. It's nice to know I wasn't totally off the mark.

[Dick Harding · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thought this was a remarkable book. To think of the gospel as a story of Christ told through the lens of the Jewish year makes perfect sense after having read the book. I find Mr Spong to be a continuing remarkable force in the Christian world to those who would look beyond literalism. I think the book will serve a purpose if nothing else to start conversations from a different point of view regarding the bible.

[Rod · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ah, the great Spong does it again. I thoroughly enjoyed the insights into Matthew's gospel that come with viewing it as structured around Jewish liturgy rather than literal history. And I simply love the way Spong popularizes Biblical study to make it matter. He was one of the original inspirations for me to become a minister (with his thematically-linked book, Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism). May he continue to write!

[Mike Luoma · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you like Spong, you'll enjoy this new examination of the Gospel of Matthew matched up with the Jewish Liturgical calendar. The idea is not new from Spong, but is more fully developed here than ever before. Looking at Matthew through Jewish eyes a la Spong does bring out some interesting aspect of the Gospel not always evident.

[Matt Stine · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Steve Watson · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'll start with what I appreciate about Bishop Spong's book on Jewish influences in the book of Matthew. Through some work in historical criticism, through examining how Matthew orders his material, and through familiarity with Jewish liturgical patterns, Spong suggests that the gospel of Matthew is organized around the Jewish liturgical year. It's a compelling and interesting possibility.

Here's a loose outline of Spong's reading:
--A genealogy that grounds the story in Jewish life and history, introducing the theme of moving beyond that story
--The introduction of characters based on the patriarch of the Northern Kingdom (Joseph), the great prophet Elijah (John the Baptist), and Moses (Jesus).
--For Pentecost/Shauvot, we have the Sermon on the the Mount, followed by material for the following sabbaths.
--For Rosh Hashannah, we have John the Baptist and the proclamation of the Kingdom in Matthew 11, followed by Yom Kippur related teaching on unforgivable sin and Sukkoth-themed grain passages such as the parable of the sower in Ch. 13.
--There's other material - including the two miraculous feedings that describe Jesus as more than enough for the 12 tribes of the Jewish world and the 7 great nations of Gentile history as Jews knew it -- for the sabbaths up until Dedication (Hanukkah), when Jesus is "lit up" like a candle at the transfiguration.
--Moving toward the crucifixion, Matthew structures the passion narrative a 24-hour Passover vigil, organized around eight three-hour watches.

It's not all Spong's scholarship by any means, but it's a more thorough outline of Matthew as a year of liturgical readings and material for Messianic Jewish liturgy than I have ever seen. Quite intriguing, really!

The challenge I had with this book, though, is a significant one. Spong is confident that his reading of Matthew is correct, and says so often. It's high modernist epistemology, almost no humility, even though many of his conclusions are outside the mainstream of both historical and contemporary scholarship.

Beyond this, Spong insists that the source material Matthew is working with is largely fiction. He acknowledges a historical Jesus who taught and who died by crucifixion at the hands of the Romans, but little else. His reasoning largely falls into two categories.
1) Because Matthew organizes the stories for a Jewish liturgical calendar, and because there is so much resonance with Old Testament characters and language and symbols and themes, Matthew must have invented all the details. Well, it's a slightly more detailed argument. Spong would say Matthew borrowed Mark's invented details, organized around a half year Jewish liturgy, and substantially added to them, before Luke borrowed from Matthew. Spong also denies the existence of a Q source for the non-Markan material that Matthew and Luke share in common, because it doesn't fit his hypothesis of Matthew as creative writer, and because it would date some material significantly earlier. There's a pattern here of Spong including ideas that fit his theory and discarding those that don't. There's also no discussion of loads of other understandings of how Matthew - later in the first century - could be working with written source material (Mark and Q) along with extensive oral tradition.
2) The other reason Spong denies the existence of accurate, historical source material for the life of Jesus is that Paul - writing in the 50s and 60s - doesn't include much detail from the life of Jesus. Then Mark - writing in the 60s or early 70s (Spong insists on the latter without comment) - doesn't include a great deal of material that Matthew has. Generally, the later you get in the New Testament, the more divine and detailed is the writing about the life of Jesus. Because not all of this is in Paul, Spong insists Paul couldn't have known about it. Again, there are so many other lines of thinking that could justify this, including the limitations of Paul's purposes and space in his letters. But Spong isn't interested in theories other than his own. And he appears to have a significant axe to grind against any real correspondence between the gospels accounts of the life of Jesus, and the actual life of Jesus on earth, lived 35-60 years before the gospels were written.

Had Spong presented his theories and his analysis of the texts acknowledging that this is one way of seeing Matthew, I would have given the book a four-star review. It's interesting biblical analysis, really. But his dogmatic insistence that the gospels lack any real historical value, and are only imaginative storytelling, is manipulative and strident.

[Y.S. Stephen · Rating 1 out of 5]

A Book Reviewer's Struggles:
I struggled to write a book review for this book - almost gave up writing it all together. Let’s just say I had mixed feelings after getting to around page 50 of the book. On one hand, I recognise the problems to which the author is proposing solutions. On the other hand, I am suspicious of his intentions and wonder if he really thought things through – the implications of what he suggests and proposes on the Church. In the end, I concluded that the author knows the cost, but does not care.

Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy postulates difficult answers to difficult problems. The book states that the reason why Christianity is in a mess is because the Gentiles took control of it and squeezed whatever Jewishness it ever had out of it. The book goes on to say that without the Jewish flavour and discernment, a lot of things in the Bible are therefore taken literally, causing present-day Christians to misunderstand the Bible. The author writes:

“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 called “midrash”. Only those people who were completely aware of these things could ever have come to think that the gospels were meant to be read literally.”


The book asserts that Paul the Apostle gave gentiles a free rein in the early church and this contributed to the dominance of gentile perspective on most of the interpretation of the Old Testament... as well as the New Testament. As a result, the author believes Christianity is plunging straight ahead into irrelevance as seen by the recent culture wars in the western world, where humanists and liberals are on top of Christians.

The New Testament Fiction:
In addition, Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy claims that many of the stories in the New Testament never happened as Jewish writers generally fictionalise to make a point – spiritual or moral. He says the book of Matthew falls into this category. The author claims events like the virgin birth and Sermon on the Mount were nothing but tales spun by Matthew to justify Jesus’ stance as the Messiah - a fact any Jewish person will be quick to spot, the author insists. He writes:

“It was this same Gentile ignorance, I will argue, that created in the minds of Christians over the centuries the necessity of defending the literalness of such events in the life of Jesus as the virgin birth, the miracles, the details of the passion narrative, the understanding of resurrection as physical resuscitation and the cosmic ascension as an act that actually took place in both time and space.”


Literalism=Fanaticism?:
While it is true that the church has serious problems and that literalist-based scripture interpretation sometimes have huge downsides in some quarters, I do not subscribe to the author’s solution. I also do not believe biblical literalism is equivalent to fundamentalism. There are many fanatics in this world that are far away from being literalists. More importantly the implications of treating the Bible as a book of make-believe tales opens up the question – how will the Church serve as a guiding light if all it does is shifts her position in accordance to prevailing social practices.

Assuming (let’s say the author is right) the Bible is to be treated as nothing but a set of moral stories to be learned from rather than taken in literarily, the present church structure is not strong enough to flourish on that belief-system. After all, you need a community-based Church where the sense of family is strong to discuss and hash out spiritual issues in order to form sound doctrines.

Conclusion:
Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy puts the cart before the horse. No. It dismantles the cart and lets the horse loose. Literalist interpretation of the Bible might be a problem, but being Jewish or putting on Jewish lens is not going to fix it. And if we look at the revivals of time past and the way the Church has grown, I daresay that the root of its problems is not from some age-old gentile believers.

More importantly, this book smacks of elitism. I do not believe that you have to be a Jew or learn Jewish stuff to fully understand the scriptures. Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy might be a book with good intentions (though I highly doubt it), but it would have been better if it had never been published.

Many thanks to Harper One for review copy.

[David · Rating 2 out of 5]

I had never heard of Spong before reading this book. So, I had neither a positive or negative opinion of his work. However, the tone of this book is so arrogant, condescending, and unintelligent that it was extremely difficult to push through it in an effort to glean the good parts. His logic and reason is deeply flawed as he makes many leaps and assumptions that are simply unsupportable. The thesis of the book does not hold up to any examination. The secondary theme is very insightful and compelling.

The primary thesis is that taking the Gospel of Matthew literally is a heresy of the Gentiles. The secondary theme is that the Gospels were written in Jewish liturgical form. The secondary theme is what drove me to finish this book. It makes the gospel story so much more compelling and reconciles the issues that many see with contradiction between the synoptic gospels. The idea that the story of Jesus was structured in a way to coincide with the reading of the Torah and larger Tanakh makes the events described even more rich in meaning. However, the notion that this somehow negates historicity and a literal reading results in heresy is not at all supported beyond his opinion. If he were to title the book "I don't want to believe in a literal reading of Matthew," then the book would make much more sense while reading. Spong fails to understand that his assertions in the book regarding liturgy are completely reconcilable with historicity, even if he doesn't want to believe it for himself.

I've read and side with many of the more liberal Christian authors. Generally, the author's work makes me interested in learning more about his/her ministry and who they are as people. This book made me think the author was probably a jerk, who is very closed minded (I'm sure he's a nice guy in person). As a student of theology, I pray that my attitude always remains humble toward my brothers and sisters in Christ.

[John · Rating 2 out of 5]

The overarching theory behind this book from John Shelby Spong is an interesting one, and it seems plausible. It is that the gospel of Mathew was arranged as to fit into the liturgical year of the Jews. It makes sense because Christianity was born in a Jewish area and it was an early Jewish movement as well as they share the same scripture. Spong however, sees this idea as something new, but do not consider it reflected in early sources like Papias who wrote "Mark, who had been Peter's interpreter, wrote down carefully, but not in order, all that he remembered of the Lord's sayings and doings." that hints another ordering of Mark, maybe to fit the Jewish year narrative that Spong argues Matthew continued. Spong is also very faulty at times, for instance - he seems unaware that Josephus is the one who connects the name Salome with the John the Baptist story. By this logic, as he many times uses with Paul - because it is not mentioned, he did not know. But with Paul, Spong goes longer - he goes to "it did not happen" as well. Spong is also one to date the gospels very late, as to add to the time from when the Jesus story allegedly happened so that he can more easily say that they did not. But, by his own age, writing at 92, we have to assume that he does not remember much from his childhood and even early adulthood. But I'm sure he does, making his time argument a very weak one. Spong tends to go much further than the main theory, he has a mission to prove that it's all liturgical, that the Old Testament has this great power of influence that shapes every story of Jesus and render them all allegorical and not meant to be taken literally. I think he fails. He is too bold and assertive on stuff that is just too much and too far away from the mainstream view of history.

[Cameron St.Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

Though I enjoyed the book, most of the assertions are made without getting into an issue that would seem to be of great importance to the entire book. What exactly were the Jewish liturgical practices at the time the Gospel accounts were being written? How do we know what they were? The problem is that this point is taken as a well known fact without ever providing evidence that we know for certain that the readings used then are the readings that are put forth in the book. This might seem a minor point overall, but the problem is that the entire theory hinges upon a comparison to the weekly liturgy of the synagogue. There's never anything concrete provided to say that we actually know the full weekly readings anymore than we know who wrote the early Gospel accounts.

Because of that, it ends up making many of the assertions feel like leaps instead of the logical outcome. The book also rails against the Q hypothesis while never actually explaining why it isn't a solid hypothesis. Mostly because Spong seems to think only the 4 Gospel accounts existed. It seems like it never crossed the author's mind that the was an account earlier than Mark that has been lost to time, or that there might have been multiple accounts that were collected, as the author of Luke asserts in his own account. Because of a reliance on Matthew being completely based on Mark only, it often feels like the things that have to be presupposed are rather great in number just to reach the beginning of understanding the overall claims of the book.

It's an interesting theory, but it seems to work only if everything lines up just right with too many guess involved to be taken as more than interesting.

[Jeffrey Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author's radical review of the gospel of Matthew is instructive, and demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the Bible and of Christian history. He is truly a bit radical for my taste, and the text often wanders into sermon-like territory of priestly declamatory statements of belief -- he clearly remains Christian, but one who would be welcome as a Unitarian or Universalist. Again, he is careful to distinguish between faith, belief, and objective historical fact. His main premise is an attack against fundamentalism and biblical literalism, a fairly easy target which he thoroughly debunks on both objective and subjective grounds. But I was most intrigued by his careful attention to the likely hypothesis that the chapters of Matthew correspond sequentially to weekly stories told in the synagogue as part of the annual Torah-reading cycle. It has made me want to participate in further study of that hypothesis. Unfortunately, his main effort, as noted in the subtitle, is all too depressing -- to realize that the line between faith and delusion is very thin; the fundamentalists must be brought down to earth, come back to reality.