* I posted this here and not in the Book Club because I failed to find a way to open a new topic there. Do'h for me.

This book is a history. It emphasises two things about the gospels in general that have been the result of research and study by Spong and his predecessors.

First is that the gospels are first and foremost, Jewish books, originally written by First Century Jews for Jews who still believed in the Mosaic Law but had needs for a guide for worship as a new sect within the synagogue. These very earliest christians were not as persecuted as modern christians like to believe. They were orginally welcomed to the Temple as a Jewish sect, not a Jewish heresy. This tolerance was certainly strained and eventually compromised after the destruction of the Temple in 70 and as the Gentiles led by Paul's teaching took over the new faith entirely.
In any case the gospels were written as lectionary books to be read for weekly worship following the Jewish temple tradition of reading the Pentateuch during an annual liturgical calendar celebrating the festivals and feasts of the year. In all three gospels the themes of every chapter and verse can be found in the corresponding books of the Pentateuch in the strict order of the temple worship.

Second, the christian church, during an epoch of increasing anti-semitism and political ascension, misappropriated, miscontrued and misinterpreted these liturgical guides as factual eye-witnessed, biographical histories; thus the teachings of the christian church based on the gospels are in fact grounded in fiction and not actual events. And so it follows that the prophecies of Jesus from the Old Testament were clearly and purposely written into the gospels with full knowledge of their origins and not as the divinely inspired words of ignorant writers. The Jewish origins of the gospels were forgotten and dispelled within a few generations by the new church and even today many christians are still somewhat surprised when faced with this obvious truth.

Bishop Shelby Spong, an American Episcopalian minister, has spent his career advocating for a revision of the christian faith primarily by removing the archaic bronze age mythologies of miracles and the supernatural that defy modern understanding and credulity. However he still adheres to the resurrection of Jesus which is to be expected as it remains the central tenet of western Pauline christianity.

Despite this glaring example of cognitive disonance Spong has still written a very interesting history that explains all those annoying differences and contradictions between the so called 'synoptic' gospels.

Just briefly....after Arakish's style (pbuh) :)

The gospel authors were writing at different times and different places, for different Jewish audiences with different needs. The one common feature, not surprisingly, is the resurrection, despite the variations of each telling. (Mark doesnt really cover it at all in the original and only obliquely refers to it and avoids the ascension altogether, possibly because very early followers did not believe Jesus was anything but a man, favoured by their god by his natural holiness, all this being pre-trinity days.

Mark wrote for a Hellenised Jewish congregation, still closely associated with the land and agriculture but his gospel only covered the six months leading up to the crucifiction. Possibly because as faithful temple worshippers the needs for the rest of the year was already covered by the Pentateuch readings. It is suggested that in all the gospels, following Mark's lead, the pre-crucifiction journey to Jerusalem, includes much of the instruction of Jesus' disciples, and it this was utilised to teach new converts how to follow the Way prior to their baptism before the Passover/Resurrection when they could participate in the Paschal Lamb/Last Supper communion.

Matthew, considered to be a Hellenised scribe or rabbi from his intimate knowledge of Jewish worship and had his own congregation, expanded Mark's gospel to cover the entire year and re-wrote relevant material from the Pentateuch to cover the liturgical needs of his community.

Luke, borrowing largely from Mark and Matthew in revised order and importance, wrote for more urbanised and cosmopolitan congregations who had lesser needs or interests in the strict Mosaic teachings; he avoids Numbers and much of Leviticus and with the loss this material, filled much of his gospel with relevant if re-edited Old Testament tracts and totally original material of his own.

Spong provides direct evidence using the Jewish annual liturgy, the Old Testament and the New. The references between the gospels and the old testament include many word for word adaptions and clearly reworked story lines. Spong goes so far as to doubt the surmised existence of a Q document suggesting all original writings were simply madeup to provde copy.

Spong also explains the basis of many old beliefs such as why mocking the holy spirit was the unforgivable sin, having to do with the claimed paternity of Jesus which offended conservative Jews and amused the coarser heathen Gentiles as you might imagine.

The sermon on the mount, early in Matthew, corresponding again to liturgical needs, has long been offered by christians to be proof of the originality and genius of Jesus's teaching. But it turns out to be merely a re-writing of Psalm 119, something I never saw covered in planned bible studies. The sermon mirrors the giving of the commandments and laws to Moses on Mount Sinai, further suggesting that Jesus was the long-awaited prophet, as prophesied by Moses in Exodus, which would have been a great comfort for early christian Jews.

Spong briefly provides evidence that Acts and the Gospel of John were also written using the Jewish liturgy as a template. He also covers side issues including the inconsistencies of other gospel characters like Judas, mother Mary and the similarities between father Joseph and Joseph of Arimathea.

Possibly the most telling aspect of the fiction of the gospels, following Mark, is the sheer impossibility of Jesus' arrest, trial and execution and the previously unheard of ceremony of choosing between a murderer and a heretic by the Romans (who really would have executed both for the mere convenience of it) during the most important sacred and revered Jewish religious festival, the Passover. This festival celebrates the selection of the children of Israel (aka Jacob aka Israel, the father of the twelve tribes) and the beginning of the Jewish state. To have dealt with Jesus over this time would have contravened the laws of the Sanhedrin. It would have been like trying a criminal, in camera, in a kangaroo court, over the Advent period, and executing him on Christmas Day. It just would not have been acceptable or condoned. Spong argues that no matter how much of a threat Jesus is depicted as being to the Sanhedrin, it was a legal and spiritual impossibility to have dealt with him in the manner christians beleive.
Which all leads to the conclusion that the crucifiction and resurrection were fictions affixed to the Passover, not for historical reasons, but for purely liturgical ones. What could have been more logical than to affix the most important christian event to the most important Jewish event for the purpose of parallel worship? The concoction even provided the serendipitous comparisons between the blood of the sacrificed paschal lamb daubed on the wooden lintels of the Hebrew doors to the blood of Jesus coursing down the wooden cross.

The book covers much more and in greater detail. I expect that it would interest many ex-christians as it does provide a different aspect to the interpretation of the New Testament as a whole and not just the gospels. I spent a lot of time reading guided bible studies as a young man and cant recall openly considering that the gospels were plainly Jewish. I think I might cause something of stir when the next door knocking evangelist turns up.