Bishop Spong's work has been widely criticized from both liberal and conservative Bible scholars as reading too much into the gospels, and also for expanding the definition of what constitutes a midrash.
It is quite evident to me that the gospels are presenting Jesus as an actual historical figure. Matthew and Luke contain extensive genealogies. Luke claimed that his purpose was to write an accurate account of Jesus in Luke 1:1-4, and in Acts 1:1-3 he stated that there were "proofs" that Jesus was alive. All of the gospels placed historical, if sometimes contradictory, markers throughout the narratives. John 20:30 claimed that Jesus performed many other miracles that were witnessed by the disciples but not written down, a statement that doesn't make any sense if taken allegorically.
The midrashes I have read (admittedly limited) take a different literary form than the gospels. They seem much more expository in nature rather than narrative.
This is not to say that the gospel writers were making up totally fresh stories. It is clear that they connected OT passages with Jesus, in both typological and predictive senses. Examples of typological patterns would be Matthew 12:38-41 and Luke 17:20-37. On the other hand, Matthew also claims fulfillment of predictive prophecies, even if the OT authors didn't intend them to be predictive prophecies, as evidenced by his use of "to fulfill" or similar phrases.
Respectfully,
Franciscan Monkey
It is quite evident to me that the gospels are presenting Jesus as an actual historical figure. Matthew and Luke contain extensive genealogies. Luke claimed that his purpose was to write an accurate account of Jesus in Luke 1:1-4, and in Acts 1:1-3 he stated that there were "proofs" that Jesus was alive. All of the gospels placed historical, if sometimes contradictory, markers throughout the narratives. John 20:30 claimed that Jesus performed many other miracles that were witnessed by the disciples but not written down, a statement that doesn't make any sense if taken allegorically.
The midrashes I have read (admittedly limited) take a different literary form than the gospels. They seem much more expository in nature rather than narrative.
This is not to say that the gospel writers were making up totally fresh stories. It is clear that they connected OT passages with Jesus, in both typological and predictive senses. Examples of typological patterns would be Matthew 12:38-41 and Luke 17:20-37. On the other hand, Matthew also claims fulfillment of predictive prophecies, even if the OT authors didn't intend them to be predictive prophecies, as evidenced by his use of "to fulfill" or similar phrases.
Respectfully,
Franciscan Monkey
