8/10/2019 Critique of John Spong

1/19

,Rescul 'g

fhe

., ,. f r . .

Fu.tI. '

, , , , ~ , , , ,

A .

.p

.k. .

. t

'; , .

, .

, :

8cr p . .

'ay '

JohrlShelby

Spong.

HarperSanFrandsco

San

FrancisCo 1991.

Rev

iew

,

By

, 'Rev. Clinton

chisholm

Rev.

Chisholm, MA., is a

'visiting lecturer in

Philosophy

' at

University

of

he

West

lndies'

Mona)

; and a part- '

time

lecturer atthi

Caribbean Graduate

'School

of

Theology ( C G S T ) ~

Retired Anglican Bishop John Sheltiy

Spong ofN ew Jersey, .USA, is

unquestionably a very good

communicator, in speech and in writing.

His 1991bOOk,Rescuing the Bible

From

Fundamentalism,

A Bishop Rethinks the

Meaning

of

Scripture

1

(later RBFF)

became a national best seller and

adequately.conveys imPortant aspects

of

h i s o u t I ~ k o n t h e Bible. ,

T h ~ ~ g h 1 i ~ p r o v i d e s h e l p f u l

tidbits for

the

a m a ~

1 J I ~ d

raises questions that can

prompt

a

more' mature approach to the

Bible, ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ J J O n g raciical views on

t h e J 3 i ~ ~

ate.

b8sed .0n.

V

ery

q u e s t i o ~ b l e

,

p ~ e s u p p ~ s ~ t i o n s ,

~ e l l a t a b l e vremisses,

w e a k a r g w n e n t a t i o n ,

i I l d e ~

grasp of

the o ~ i ~ i n a l l a n ~ g e ( ) ~ t h e J3ible and

e x p r e s ~ e d ... n language that lacks

'epistemological content and clarity. '

The burden

of

this p8peris-tojustify

these cliargesthat are being levelled at

S p o n g ~ through an analysis ofRBFF. ,

We begin with one

of

Spong's major

presuppositions-

the late dating

of

the

Pentateuch especially, as well as other

sections of the Old Testament. This

presupposition 'is articulated and utilized

in h ~ p t e r s four and five ofRBFf.

2

While .making the second of

tWo

points concerning Abraham, . Spong

informs, 'without troubling himself

.

to

document his claims,

... biblical scholarship todaysCems to

.

.

'

.

' .-

.

I

The

book, published

by

HarperSanFrancisco,

New York

has 249 pages ofteld IUId a mere 3 pages of

notes.

z Chapter 4 'The Formation of he Sacred Canon',

37SS;

chapter S, 'Prophets, Psalms, Proverbs and

Protest', S776.

97

8/10/2019 Critique of John Spong

2/19

.l.fJ/iQi,holm;Rescuing the Bible frqmFuntiamentalism; Review .

,indicate that the earliest continuous writtenlllaterial contained in wflat.

VC

.

caU

,the Old Testanient .is no earlier than the tenth centuryB.C.E. 11iis does'not . . .

pl;Ccludethe presence in thesecontinuoUli n8J lltjves

of

mate.

rial

,thatJ

ll

i 8 0 l a ~

fOnns

is .l1luchearii.Cl":Jfthis date is right,

~ b ~ e ~ s t e ~

in solely

w ~ r d - o f

mouth narration for some ,eight hundred

to

nine hundred years before stories

about

him

achieved written form. For

e i g h ~

hundred

.

.

nille

h u n c i ~

yeani,the

only

t h i n ~ s llQyone

knewaboutAbrahamwerepassed,on

a r o y n d ~ l I D p . J i r e l J

from generation to generation. Who, knowing this, 'is w,iUingtc) suppprt tile '.

claim of inerrancyfor anine-hundred-year-old oral ttadition?1' (40)

Later,

he.reiterates

thepoint

of.dating "the earliest

written Old

Testament

material" and gives

an

approximate date of960 B.C :E ld\er King David's

death,and

proceeds t o s a y ~

.

f

his .

s

true,then even the e8capadesofMoSes

and

the

wOrds

of he Torah, the' , .

Jewish law, did not achieve written 'fonn until at leaSt

three

hundred years after

the 'death ofMoses, TheTorahas presented in the first five 'books of the Bible

, could

thUS

hardly be material thatlMoses received 'directly

frOm God

'at Mount.

Sinai.

Yet

this Hebrew tradition .still feeds a lively ChristianfundamentaIism. "

(40-41,) , .' . ,

;

; , ' . '

;

. In these two.

quotations

,

we

fmd

'a

mOOure of he careful language of-a '

scholar .

and the

.unfortunate choice

of

words, the

ethos

of

logical . easoning '

marred

by

logical .

l u n ~ e , r s

.

...ost

'fundamental

is the

error .

of

buildfug 'a

case

on very

shaky,

i f

notcompletelydemolished

presuPpositi9nS and

premisses.

..

Cautiously andcommeJldably, Spong s a y s o f t i ~ lOthcennuy

:

documentation d8te proposed by

tile

sOur

8/10/2019 Critique of John Spong

3/19

,,:/ -.

. 1_ -, - , .

. JYNE2003

~ d d.'8t b i b ~ ~ ~ h o ~ p aubat time. a l e c t

1 h e e & l l i e ~

c O D : t i I a ~ u s ~ t t e n

i n a t e r i a l ~ (firSt quote) or "the

~ l i e s t wnt1en Old .

I ~ c m t m ~ (second

quote) .at a P p t o X i m a , I Y 9 6 o

B ~ . E .

Why

d i d ~ ~ ~ 8 h o l c l

vi.ew theDand

why,

based

on

his

receritlectiuein Jamaica

3

,Jloeshe

stil{'subicribe to

this

view?

< . \

. \i: . . '. . .i

...

' :> ;i. . .

.

'

. .

.

..

Spong is still committed

tp

the p r e s u p p o s i t i g ~

O f t h e

19

th

centuiy .

school

oC thougbtcalledthe ~ - W e 1 l h a U S e n d ~ ~ ~ t t u Y

h y p o t h e s i s

O r the COui-

doCument

theory oCunderStaDding

the

P ~ 1 a . e ~ h ; ~ p o n g

explains:

, " ' , I

" - " , ' -,

_

,

, _

. _ ....

, ,,: 'v .

"

,'

, ,

..

', .

That theory

brought

into'biblicalscoolushipthcfiuDiliaraynibols DU

(y):E.

D,'

P. Thcse symbols

stand

f o r t h c ~ . , . . . . t c s t r a n d l J ( ) l ) i ~ l i c a 1 ~ t i o n ( Y a h w i s t ,

E1ohist, Dcutcronomic, and

Priestly), cachwitbitsownascnda that later camc

,to '

be

mcrgcd.into onc continuous biblical .natr'Ilti c.AltJioughthis

theory

is

constantly

.

beins m o d ~ f i c d

. t. .. . ontinucsto.

be

,

atJirmcd a1mostincontrovcrtibly

i " i l l b ~ sweep.

(43) . ''' ' ; :. ... .

.,

.:

. .

-. ';

_ . " ,; :. ,

, ' - , : -

;-.

.

_ Co

, "

;,,

" - - - -

,.

How did '

c h o l a r s c o m e u p ~ i t h t h l S J E i ) ~ f 6 j b m ( ) 1 l

ftomreading

the

Pentateucb?

.

J

and E .

strands

can

be

identified'the)rargue' byDalDes.

Cor

God;

the'Jehovist,

writing

.960.;920 B.C.E.; usesY

\ v ~ ~ \ V h i 1 ~ t h e

.Elohist writing

about

850 B.C.E.,

uSes

Elohiin.

The

bocJk ofI>euten,llOmy

is the

e

sse

nti81D

material,

penned in 620

B.C.E.; '

wbile t h e P r i ~ l l i l l l e ~ d a t i n g t o

the early

6

th

C e l l ~

B . C

~ . , i s

~ l t h e

l D a t e r i a l t h a t s e e ~ t o ~ v e a n ~ i ~ n t p r c : s t i g e

to

I s r a e l : s ~ t i o ~ l i k e

t 1 i e g i y i n g ( ) f ~

law a i ~ i n a i

a D . d

t h ~ ~ o n BGCOunts

( 4 3 - 5 S ) ~

.;

'

8/10/2019 Critique of John Spong

4/19

i}

CIaiaIJoImj

Repin,th'Bibfllrom untlqmentqlWnj

'

IkYirir

..

i .

Butif,these

' a r l y s c h o l a r s

c ~ ~ d

~ e x c u s e d f o r a I te ,datmg9f the

...

~ I t a t e u c ~ m ~ b e c a u s ~ ofa

lack

of

,information '

t

8/10/2019 Critique of John Spong

5/19

' CJET '

JJJNE2003

One

couldg() on

to

menti,on details of strangc:and datc:d c,stoms, intimacy

with Egyptian geography. archaismsin language that would be puzzles

i

passed on only by centuries-oldoral tradition I

A

few

examples should

be

sufficient and

we

quote Horn and Kenneth

K i t c h e ~

fairly

fully

, ,

, ',

, '

Hornsa)'s';

; .. I e t u s turn

to

some c:oncrctcexamples ofillumiiuw0n and 'verification

of

he

Old .Jestamentby archaeol9gical diS'1Overies. First, in the ,patriarchal sto,ries

~

f i ~ ~ v e r a l s t r a ~ e l l . C C O u n t s of

a

barren

.

wife who asked

her

husband l?' roduce

a child

tor her by

,

her

' maidserVant ,' Sariah

did

this,

and

. ater also Jac:ob's

two

wives,

Racllel and Leah.

Today

we know

that this practice

was

not

unusUal

,, dunng thepam8rch8I'

agc

:, The lawS 'of that period

as

well aiancient mamage

, . '

,

contractsmentionit.i;

n

no

other

period

besides

thepalriarchai age

d

wejind

, this

str nge

custom [emphasis added). (Horn

1968,

14)

. , -

,

Horn, after m e n t i o ~ g s,c:veralother.strange b i b l i c a l c ~ s t o m s that , md

supPQrt

.in

t h e N u z i . t a t > l ~ t s

~ ) n ~ l ~ ~ c : ~ t h ~ .. ~ ~ ~ e v i ~ l l C C : S ~ o l V s clearly that

these narratives were' written

s o o ~ a f t c : r

the eventsdescrlbed.had occurred,

when these strange customs'either still existed or had not'yeft>een forgotten

(Homl968,'14). ; . '.

..

' ' , , ' , , , ,

'Kenneth

lGtcheta

(1966,

2S

concurs,

.

-

.,

-

:

. .:. -

; -

;;-,,'

,

-:

,

- ' - ,-

Through the m p a ~ t o f

the

n c i e D t O r i e D ~ upon

the ()ld Testament

,

aDd

upon Old

Tes

,tament.studies a.

ne\\,

tension

is being

set up while,an older one is being

'

edUCed ' .ForthcCOlDparativematerial.

from

tile n C i e r l f N e a t E i s t i s t e n ~ i n g to

i

agree with the extant strUcfurc

of

the

id

Testament d o C ~ ~ a s a c t u a l l y

transmitted

to

us,

rather thimwith',thereconstructions

o f n i n c t e e n t J l . . ~ t u r y

Old

,

TCjltament

..

h o l a r s h i p - - o r w i t h

its twentieth

..

century. proI()ngation and

,developments to the ~ t

day

; , , ,

.

The ,valid and lose .parallels to social customs

of

the Patriarchs.come

,from documents :of tIicnincteenthto fi'&enth ccntUriesB.C. a g r c e i n g ~ t h an

c a r l y s c c : o n d m i l l ~ u m

origin

t h i ~ m a t e r i a I i D OCnesis). andnoi

'

from

ASS}'l O-Babylonian

datao(

thotcnth, o sixthcenturics B.C: (possible p e r i ~ of

the '

supposed

' r .

i