|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: Epistles and Gospels
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
I get the sense that you and I would be in broad agreement that (1) the Gospels draw on subjectively remembered and retold oral hearsay circulating among Jesus's admirers, few if any of whom had direct first-hand knowledge of the actual events they were describing,
I would say that the Epistles and the Gospels both draw upon the repeatedly re-told stories about Jesus. There would be some variation from place to place as to which stories they knew, accidents of who had visited them and which stories they knew. In the earliest days of the Church (the first 30 years or so) there would have been several hundred people with direct first-hand knowledge, principally the Apostles but lots of others as well. I imagine that these would have been busy people, moving regularly from place to place telling their stories. Whenever any of these direct witnesses entered a new place, the church would have gathered and demanded that they tell their stories, and they would stay there constantly repeating them for probably months retelling the same stories. That act of constantly repeating the stories would quite quickly result in very little variation in their telling - although different people telling the same story would tell it differently. It's when it gets to the point of mostly being retold by someone else that variations can creep in.
I've heard it suggested that Mark is basically the preaching material of Peter, the stories that he told again and again as he travelled around the young churches, rapidly written down when he was martyred. I don't know how much that is true, but it makes sense to make a written record of these eye-witness accounts when the eye-witnesses start to die off. In the same vein, it's possible Luke started off with the material Paul used when telling churches about Jesus - although in his case these were second-hand accounts.
My original thesis was that the Epistles were written with an assumption that there was a reasonably common core body of stories about Jesus, and that these were well enough known that these didn't need to be repeated when building upon that to correct misunderstandings about what they meant.
quote:
and (2) are each written from the subjective, even if earnest and well-intentioned, perspective of their respective authors; but nevertheless, (3) despite flaws in their historicity, the Gospels also represent the most reliable surviving witness to the life and teachings of Jesus, and (4) through the centuries have consistently offered to Christians an authoritative composite portrait of the "Christ of faith".
Yes, more or less. I would say that the Gospels were written as an authoritative record of the stories of Jesus that were the most important to the churches that the authors were most closely part of (so, by tradition, Mark was written in Rome and his Gospel contains the stories that the community in Rome valued most highly). So, the subjectivity in selecting stories, and the particular variations that had crept in, reflect the early church communities more than the particular views of the individuals who actually put them to paper.
And, yes, these are the best we have in knowing the "Jesus of history", but are actually not great because their purpose is to present the "Christ of Faith". They aren't even close to biography in the sense we would understand that term.
Going back to my original point, though, I would also say that the Epistles also present the Christ of Faith, even though they contain very little that would be statements of what Jesus said and did. In addressing the issues and struggles of the early church the Epistles also have an influence on how the Church understood the person and work of Christ, and influenced the formation of the "Christ of Faith" that the Gospels subsequently portray.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
They aren't even close to biography in the sense we would understand that term.
I understand, though I may be wrong, that they are like other "biographies" of the period in form and nature.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Going back to my original point, though, I would also say that the Epistles also present the Christ of Faith, even though they contain very little that would be statements of what Jesus said and did. In addressing the issues and struggles of the early church the Epistles also have an influence on how the Church understood the person and work of Christ, and influenced the formation of the "Christ of Faith" that the Gospels subsequently portray.
I very much agree. However, at an earlier point in this discussion the burning question seemed to be whether the (earlier Pauline) Epistles or the (later) Gospels presented a more accurate picture of Jesus. The argument was made (I forget now by whom) that the Gospels were more accurate than the Epistles even though they were written later, because they included "red-letter" quotes and other direct facts about his life. My demurral was not about the relative value of the Epistles versus the Gospels, nor the validity of a "red-letter" hermeneutic per se, but only to take note of the widespread doubt among modern scriptural scholars that the Gospels should be supposed to reflect a concern among the earliest Christians for historical accuracy.
Turning from the canonical Gospels to the Pauline Epistles, the Epistles are quite scanty in biographical/historical information about Jesus during his lifetime. They are somewhat more informative in their theological interpretation of Jesus, but as a whole they are more concerned with the proper present and future conduct of Paul's churches and their members than with the retrospective facts of Jesus's ministry. In contrast, presenting a useful retrospective of Jesus -- whether historical or legendary, objective or subjective, literal or figurative -- is the sole concern of the Gospels.
Although I think the Epistles and Gospels can and should be read harmoniously rather than contradictorily, and although I also think the Gospels have serious flaws if evaluated purely for their historical accuracy, I do not think a "red-letter" hermeneutic that emphasizes the (reported) words of Jesus over the (often circumstantially specific) advice of Paul to his churches is necessarily invalid.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
It is a matter of unquestioned historical fact that it took 400 years or so for the early Christians to reach an orthodox consensus as to what they believed about Jesus
This is wrong, I'm afraid. There never has been an orthodox consensus, and there never will be. Which is what makes SoF just Such Fun.
quote:
The idea that during the earliest decades there existed only a single, commonly accepted, uniform oral tradition that was preserved by institutional and social conventions against corruption or innovation is simply counterfactual. If that were true, there could never have arisen such a diverse variety of views, nor fully-developed orthodox theological concepts such as the Trinity and substitutionary atonement, nor the need to spend so much energy the first four centuries developing and implementing standard ideas of orthodoxy and heresy. ...The canon (including the four canonical gospels) is the safeguarded product of a fourth-century consensus of belief, not a first-century collection of well-preserved facts.
But theology continued to develop over the first four centuries. It's a non-sequitur to say that therefore couldn't have been very well preserved oral/written tradition in the early days. Content and interpretation are different.
quote:
My anthropology/folklore professor friends...
The Gospels are a completely different genre to folklore, and the sorts of things studied in anthropology, hence conclusions from anthropology/folklore research are unreliable here. As Baptist Trainfan points out, the starting point is the Greek bios, although there is far more to them than that. In addition, studies on folklore need several generations; the period from events to final version of Gospel is about 50 years, with the fixing of parts likely to have come earlier, with or without Q.
quote:
The sort of institutional and social safeguards you speak of did eventually arise, though.
They were there from the start. I imagine Peter and other Twelve-leaders would have taken a pretty dim view of people making things up. Any creativity would have arrived later on. Even then, there were eye-witnesses around for much of the period, and people who had talked to eyewitnesses until into C2.
Remember that we have a range of tools to enable us to firm up on reliability (multiple attestation of form; and of source; criterion of embarrassment...) and help us spot the creativity.
quote:
Speaking of which, I in turn also still want to know which studies (if any) show that illiterate societies routinely transmit oral information more accurately than we do today.
Jan Vansina's "Oral Tradition as History" is the seminal work here.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Jan Vansina's "Oral Tradition as History" is the seminal work here.
As I said before, these kinds of anthropological studies concern cultures with ancient, fixed oral traditions to protect, and strong social and institutional structures with the specific purpose of protecting them. Memories, even eyewitness testimonies, can change from one telling to the next, from one eyewitness to the next, and from one audience to the next; they are mutable and can easily become inaccurate without safeguards to prevent changes in the retelling. This is just as true in pre-literate cultures as in literate ones. Yet the kinds of social and mnemonic practices that prevent (for example) the African griots Vansina studied from misremembering the names and order of tribal ancestors were simply not present in the earliest Christian churches.
The Jerusalem church, whose leaders and members might have been closest to Jesus and have possessed the most and clearest direct memories of him, had little lasting influence on the emerging growth and traditions of Christianity. Paul did more to nurture the rapid growth of early churches than any of the Twelve, but neither he nor the members of his far-flung Greek churches had ever even met Jesus personally or heard him teach firsthand; all their knowledge of Jesus's life and teaching was much more akin to secondhand hearsay or gossip than to the kind of firmly fixed and strictly guarded oral traditions that Vansina studied.
If there were any valid analogy to be drawn between Vansina's work on accurately preserved African oral traditions and early Christianity, the Christian traditions would have to have been preserved in Aramaic, not Greek, because Aramaic was the authentic language of Jesus and all of his followers during his lifetime. Greek-language gospels simply cannot represent the kind of unchanged oral "tradition" that anthropologists speak of, because the translation into Greek would itself have been safeguarded against; yet nothing whatsoever that was gathered into the New Testament canon (gospels or otherwise) is written in Aramaic.
[ 06. September 2016, 11:52: Message edited by: fausto ]
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I think we're probably missing the point if we try to compare the oral transmission of the stories about Jesus with pre-literate societies employing specially constructed methods of maintaining the exact details of tribal history and ancestry. Those methods exist because the exact detail of ancestry and tribal history was very important.
The question then is, were the exact details of the stories of Jesus considered important enough to warrant such measures being employed? I think the fact that, with the exception of a few words and phrases, these are written down in Greek (and, would have circulated in Greek, outside of Judea and Samaria at least) would suggest that actually the precise words used by Jesus were not important, otherwise the stories would have been in Aramaic and learning Aramaic would be one of the first things converts would have needed to do. And, that ambivalence to knowing precisely the exact words of Jesus continues to this day - why else do we translate the Gospels into English, French, Swahili etc ? Because the stories carry meaning without needing to be the exact words of Jesus.
Most of the recorded teaching of Jesus, in the Synoptics at least, was in the form of parables. One of the features of parables is that they are relatively easy to remember, in outline at least. We can all recite the Good Samaritan or the Prodigal Son fairly accurately - we may make some small mistakes and change things around a bit, but the essential elements of the story remain. And, because the story doesn't depend on the precise words used, the parables translate easily across languages.
The same tends to happen with stories of what Jesus did. The essential parts of the story of the man lowered through the roof would be the same even if in the retelling of it someone changed the town this happened in, or otherwise slightly altered the story.
Remembering stories is relatively straight forward when they are simply repeated a lot, especially for the person telling the story. Actors remember scripts, even quite extensive speeches, with a relativley small number of rehearsals. Think of stand-up comedians who string together an act consisting of lots of different funny stories and anecdotes, one-line gags etc. The particular combination of stories may well vary with each performance, the good comedians will interact with the audience and launch into a story in response to something said by the audience - and they don't go "I know a funny story about that, now, how does it go again?" They'll have told the story so many times that they can repeat it with barely a moments thought, and do so practically identically to every other time thay've told the story.
Sometimes to make sense a story needs some cultural context. And, it's interesting to note how there are times when the Gospel writers insert that context. Aside comments about the washing of cups and the like, or the relative distance between places. Those must have been included in the oral retelling of those stories before the Gospels were written, otherwise they wouldn't have made sense.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think we're probably missing the point if we try to compare the oral transmission of the stories about Jesus with pre-literate societies employing specially constructed methods of maintaining the exact details of tribal history and ancestry. Those methods exist because the exact detail of ancestry and tribal history was very important.
Again, I agree with you.
The most important meaning of the Gospels is in the overall portrait they paint of Jesus as he came to be remembered within a few decades after his death, not in the precise historical accuracy of their specific details. However, it was argued earlier that the Gospels must be historically accurate because illiterate societies preserve oral tradition more accurately than literate societies, and that it is this historical accuracy which gives them their presumptive reliability. It is this essentially anthropological argument that I am trying to refute.
The traditional position of the Church has always been that the canonical Gospels are reliable because the Holy Spirit guided their composition, not because the earliest Christians possessed any especial cultural adeptness at protecting orally transmitted information against the natural propensity for alteration across time and distance.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Of course I believe that the Holy Spirit guided the transmission and collation of the Scriptures. But this didn't happen "by magic" (and I'm not suggesting that you think it did). God used human means - such as the specific ways in which precious material were passed down through generations - to do this. I still disagree with your "essentially anthropological" point of view, I'm afraid.
[ 06. September 2016, 16:10: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
Here is the original assertion, emphasized in italics, that I have been objecting to:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As an evangelical, I've got a high view of inspiration, which I think also fits with a scholarly understanding of the transmission of oral traditions in preliterate societies, so I'm going to say the gospel writers got it right. So, while chronologically they were written later than the epistles, if they are the authentic words and acts of Jesus they are "closer" to the Christ-event.
Note that Cliffdweller is justifying her "red-letter" hermeneutic both on the notion that preliterate societies are especially adept at preserving oral traditions, and on the notion that the Gospels are spiritually "inspired" in an especially reliable way.
The only thing I am objecting to is the premise that in the earliest churches there was an oral tradition fixed enough and mature enough, as well as social and mnemonic stuctures that were effective enough and widely enough practiced, that the means of preserving oral traditions that cultural anthropologists have observed in preliterate societies would have successfully safeguarded memories of Jesus that were being passed down through word-of-mouth against exaggeration, embellishment, or revision.
The premise I am objecting to is an essentially anthropological rather than theological argument, but it is not my argument, it is cliffdweller's. Throughout this discussion I have not objected to her theological justification that the Gospels are reliable because they are inspired. In fact, I would probably state that part of her argument more strongly than she does by relying on a "lower" but I think broader concept of inspiration, and say that the inspiration of the authors renders the Gospel texts reliable as religious authority for faith formation and belief, even though it did not protect their sources from developing factual inaccuracies, and even though such inaccuracies render them less reliable as objective history. If and to the extent that the reputation of Jesus among his followers underwent an evolution in the first few decades after his death -- as seems probable to me -- I think that evolution too can be presumed to have occurred under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the benefit of future Christians.
[ 06. September 2016, 19:24: Message edited by: fausto ]
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
As I said before, these kinds of anthropological studies...
<snip>
...Yet the kinds of social and mnemonic practices that prevent (for example) the African griots Vansina studied from misremembering the names and order of tribal ancestors were simply not present in the earliest Christian churches.
There's a bit more to Vansina's analysis than that. He draws a clear distinction between 'historical tales', which almost need change; and 'historical accounts', especially those with a small time span, which do not tend to change much.
Furthermore, he distinguishes between oral tradition (beyond living memory) and oral history (witnesses still around).
The NT accounts belong to the 'historical accounts' category, and in Mark's case, oral history. If Luke and Matthew miss that category it's not by much, and most of John may be eyewitness recollection.
Furthermore, Vansina showed that short 'slogans'- such as Jesus sayings- get memorised word for word and are very stable.
quote:
The Jerusalem church, whose leaders and members might have been closest to Jesus and have possessed the most and clearest direct memories of him, had little lasting influence on the emerging growth and traditions of Christianity... secondhand hearsay or gossip...
There was plenty of interaction between the Jerusalem church and the satellite churches. Peter's visit to get told off by Paul (Gal 2), the collection for the Jerusalem church, and the Council of Jerusalem all evidence a thriving interaction between the Jerusalem based witness/leaders and their Mediterranean children.
quote:
If there were any valid analogy to be drawn between Vansina's work on accurately preserved African oral traditions and early Christianity...
<snip>
...yet nothing whatsoever that was gathered into the New Testament canon (gospels or otherwise) is written in Aramaic.
You seem to be arguing against ipsissima verba, which would require a strong doctrine of inspiration, with ipsissima vox. Without a Jesus-cam, we're not going to get the exact words, but that doesn't mean that memories of things such as events, sayings and parables aren't memorised well. Not to mention the 'set in stone' effect of any written sources made along the way.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
The orthodox written canon did not begin to coalesce until the late 2nd century and did not take its final form until the 4th. The Gospels are not necessarily accurate factual biographies of Jesus, but they are an accurate witness of the mature 4th century Church as to which of the late 1st century (and subsequent) beliefs about Jesus were deemed to be most consistent with 4th century consensus theology.
I wanted to go back to this which I have been pondering. To quote Martin Hengel quote:
The decisive boundary-markers for the canon have already been erected by Irenaeus by 180, for around this time a con- sensus already exists from Gaul, through Rome and Carthage, over to Alexandria. The Baur school erred in its dating of the New Testament writings, and Lightfoot, Harnack, and others set this right. On the whole, we have no extracanonical writings that are older than the essential New Testament ones.
That is, both gospels and epistles were not only in existence, but were regarded as established texts by that time, and there are no significant competing Christian texts of the same antiquity.
Further, the evidence is that there was very little change in the substance of the texts between Irenaus and the 4th century.
So, the consensus of the 4th century church was in fact, notwithstanding the intervening ferment, an acceptance of the same documents in the same form which were largely accepted by the 2nd Century church as having been already established by then.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
Here is the original assertion, emphasized in italics, that I have been objecting to:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As an evangelical, I've got a high view of inspiration, which I think also fits with a scholarly understanding of the transmission of oral traditions in preliterate societies, so I'm going to say the gospel writers got it right. So, while chronologically they were written later than the epistles, if they are the authentic words and acts of Jesus they are "closer" to the Christ-event.
Note that Cliffdweller is justifying her "red-letter" hermeneutic both on the notion that preliterate societies are especially adept at preserving oral traditions, and on the notion that the Gospels are spiritually "inspired" in an especially reliable way.
The only thing I am objecting to is the premise that in the earliest churches there was an oral tradition fixed enough and mature enough, as well as social and mnemonic stuctures that were effective enough and widely enough practiced, that the means of preserving oral traditions that cultural anthropologists have observed in preliterate societies would have successfully safeguarded memories of Jesus that were being passed down through word-of-mouth against exaggeration, embellishment, or revision.
I would probably have similar reservations. I know many of my fellow evangelicals would take it as a matter of doctrine that the Gospels record the actual words of Jesus, and His actual deeds, as faithful, objective historical records. I am not convinced - the very fact that the Gospels record the words of Jesus in Greek rather than Aramaic is definitive proof that they do not record the actual words of Jesus. If the actual words of Jesus were considered as vitally important to the Church in the first few years after the Resurrection then they probably could have developed the mnemonic structures, or other methods of preserving oral traditions, or found a scribe to write them down - and, they'd have done so in Aramaic. As you note, there is no evidence that they did that, and even if they did the Church later abandoned them in favour of a translation of the stories into Greek. I can only conclude that retaining an objective, historically accurate record of what Jesus said and did was not a priority for the early Church, certainly not to the extent that many modern evangelicals would seem to assume that it was.
Nevertheless, the Gospels are still the best record we have of what Jesus said and did. Therefore for a "red letter" approach, which favours the actual teaching of Jesus above that of His followers and the earlier prophets, they are the only place to turn.
quote:
I would probably state that part of her argument more strongly than she does by relying on a "lower" but I think broader concept of inspiration, and say that the inspiration of the authors renders the Gospel texts reliable as religious authority for faith formation and belief, even though it did not protect their sources from developing factual inaccuracies, and even though such inaccuracies render them less reliable as objective history.
To echo what I've just said, I don't think "objective history" was the intent of the authors of the Gospels, nor indeed the early Church as it retold the stories of Jesus. The intent is much more to present the Christ of Faith, as understood by the communities that the authors of the Gospels belonged to.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Nevertheless, the Gospels are still the best record we have of what Jesus said and did. Therefore for a "red letter" approach, which favours the actual teaching of Jesus above that of His followers and the earlier prophets, they are the only place to turn.
quote:
I would probably state that part of her argument more strongly than she does by relying on a "lower" but I think broader concept of inspiration, and say that the inspiration of the authors renders the Gospel texts reliable as religious authority for faith formation and belief, even though it did not protect their sources from developing factual inaccuracies, and even though such inaccuracies render them less reliable as objective history.
To echo what I've just said, I don't think "objective history" was the intent of the authors of the Gospels, nor indeed the early Church as it retold the stories of Jesus. The intent is much more to present the Christ of Faith, as understood by the communities that the authors of the Gospels belonged to.
I love it when I can take the time to talk through differing perspectives with someone else and we find ourselves arriving in the same place.
To me, even though the Gospels do not present a correct and/or complete historical biography of Jesus, more importantly, they nevertheless present an interpretive portrait of him which represents the culmination of the spiritual journey of the people whose epic story the Bible narrates, which is morally and spiritually reliable -- and which in turn offers a valid interpretive lens through which to try to understand and harmonize other difficult or seemingly contradictory passages of scripture.
[ 07. September 2016, 13:45: Message edited by: fausto ]
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Further, the evidence is that there was very little change in the substance of the texts between Irenaus and the 4th century.
So, the consensus of the 4th century church was in fact, notwithstanding the intervening ferment, an acceptance of the same documents in the same form which were largely accepted by the 2nd Century church as having been already established by then.
True enough, the consensus was already coalescing by the end of the second century, even though it did not become permanently fixed until the fourth. (Or the 16th, if you date it from the Council of Trent.)
But then again, George Washington died in 1799, and when I was growing up in the mid-20th century, only 150 years later, it was already received as "gospel truth" in the oral tradition surrounding American heroes that as a child he admitted chopping down his father's cherry tree, and that as a young man he threw a silver dollar across the mile-wide Potomac River.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
But then again, George Washington died in 1799, and when I was growing up in the mid-20th century, only 150 years later, it was already received as "gospel truth" in the oral tradition surrounding American heroes that as a child he admitted chopping down his father's cherry tree, and that as a young man he threw a silver dollar across the mile-wide Potomac River.
No. Many people knew that the cherry tree story was made up by Parson Weems in the first half of the nineteenth century.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
But then again, George Washington died in 1799, and when I was growing up in the mid-20th century, only 150 years later, it was already received as "gospel truth" in the oral tradition surrounding American heroes that as a child he admitted chopping down his father's cherry tree, and that as a young man he threw a silver dollar across the mile-wide Potomac River.
No. Many people knew that the cherry tree story was made up by Parson Weems in the first half of the nineteenth century.
Moo
Exactly so, but you seem to be missing the point. The cherry tree anecdote was invented and told by a clergyman as a morality tale. Likewise, the silver-dollar story originated in an unverified report by Washington's great-nephew George Washington Parke Custis that he once saw Washington skip a flat piece of slate about the size of a silver dollar (not an actual silver dollar, which were not yet being minted at the time), across the 250-foot-wide Rappahannock (not the mile-wide Potomac). Yet despite reasons to know otherwise, the inventions and embellishments nevertheless came to be accepted and retold among Washington's willingly credulous admirers as if they were true. Such demonstrable inventions and embellishments found their way into the "canon" of Washingtonian oral tradition precisely because his admirers wanted to believe them: they fit the desired profile of Washington as hero even though they weren't factually correct.
Cognitive psychologists call this phenomenon "confirmation bias", and there's no reason to suppose that Jesus's admirers were any less susceptible to it nor any more protected against it than Washington's were.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
To me, even though the Gospels do not present a correct and/or complete historical biography of Jesus, more importantly, they nevertheless present an interpretive portrait of him which represents the culmination of the spiritual journey of the people whose epic story the Bible narrates, which is morally and spiritually reliable....
What exactly does that mean in plain English? (and no, "culmination of the spiratual journey of the people whose epic story the Bible narrates" is not plain English. "Narrates" for a narrative rather than a person writing a narrative isn't even standard English.
[ 08. September 2016, 00:30: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
To me, even though the Gospels do not present a correct and/or complete historical biography of Jesus, more importantly, they nevertheless present an interpretive portrait of him which represents the culmination of the spiritual journey of the people whose epic story the Bible narrates, which is morally and spiritually reliable....
What exactly does that mean in plain English? (and no, "culmination of the spiratual journey of the people whose epic story the Bible narrates" is not plain English. "Narrates" for a narrative rather than a person writing a narrative isn't even standard English.
I was responding to Alan with that comment. However, if you had been sincere enough in your curiosity to ask without hostility or condescension, I might have been interested enough to try to elaborate for you. Judging from the contemptuous way you framed your question, though, I don't think it would be a fruitful conversation.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Ah, I forgot to check in as our little tangent found it's way here, until I saw the evidence dripping around the netherworld. Don't have much to add to what's been said, but just to clarify my pov, fwiw:
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think we're probably missing the point if we try to compare the oral transmission of the stories about Jesus with pre-literate societies employing specially constructed methods of maintaining the exact details of tribal history and ancestry. Those methods exist because the exact detail of ancestry and tribal history was very important.
Again, I agree with you.
The most important meaning of the Gospels is in the overall portrait they paint of Jesus as he came to be remembered within a few decades after his death, not in the precise historical accuracy of their specific details. However, it was argued earlier that the Gospels must be historically accurate because illiterate societies preserve oral tradition more accurately than literate societies, and that it is this historical accuracy which gives them their presumptive reliability. It is this essentially anthropological argument that I am trying to refute.
The traditional position of the Church has always been that the canonical Gospels are reliable because the Holy Spirit guided their composition, not because the earliest Christians possessed any especial cultural adeptness at protecting orally transmitted information against the natural propensity for alteration across time and distance.
On the purgatorial thread, I think I was the one making the argument you're describing. But I wouldn't dispute what either you or Alan are saying about the oral tradition of the gospels. For me, the "red letter hermeneutic" lies simply in it's "closeness" to the Christ event. That could be seen as the epistles because they're closer in time, or the gospels because they are more explicitly about the Christ event.
I would agree that the gospels are not written to be simple history books-- a gospel is a particular genre with a particular rhetorical purpose. But I do believe the gospel writers were attempting to be accurate in their portrayal of Jesus. As Alan said, it's not the particulars that are significant, it's the picture-- the image of Jesus that is conveyed. What he stood for, what was important to him, what can we learn of his heart and his life-- and what it reveals to us of God.
The revelation of God is not limited to the gospels, the epistles, or even the NT. But I do find the "red letter hermeneutic" helpful in aligning any particular passage or text or interpretation (be it OT or NT) with the whole of Scripture. Not as a rigid rubric but more as an overall guiding principle-- that the ultimate revelation is not words on a page, even sacred words, but Christ himself.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
You initially quote cliffdweller and her evangelical high view of inspiration. I have a post-evangelical low view, which is of course higher ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I think "high view" and "low view" are misleading.
To me a "high view" of Scripture does not equate to a literalist or inerrantist view, but to the respect one accords to the texts that have come down to us regardless of how one interprets them.
I hang out with some people who are much more theologically liberal than my evangelical brethren who take the content of the Scriptures much more seriously than the former, even if they come to different conclusions.
Not least, by not making blanket statements such as "Paul was WRONG" or "it's ALL got to go"
I concede that some purportedly "high view" evangelicals are as dismissive the other way, though.
fwiw, I am happy for my evangelical pov to be considered a "high view" of inspiration, but would hope that it's clear that I do not hold a literalist or inerrantist view. And perhaps even more hopeful that I don't come across as dismissive of those with other perspectives. **cliffie looks quizzically at her buddy fausto for the answer on that one...**
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
feel free to slide on past as I make up for lost time (well, not lost, week well spent in conference...)
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The written texts exist and they inform the oral transmission of a story; they tend to prevent it from changing as much as it probably would if no written texts existed. And yet the written texts themselves are likely to be descended from oral texts, and they are themselves intended for oral performance, and they may suffer corruption/cross pollination from oral sources.
Purely oral societies have certain safeguards such as formulas they use repeatedly in the same situation (e.g. Homer's "wine dark sea"). They also tend to have better trained memories. Literate societies also have safeguards such as the Jewish strictures on how one copies the Torah. The early church is likely to have had safeguards on the stories from both sources, being an in-between craft-literate society with deep Jewish roots. I really would not assume the text altered very much.
I disagree that the earliest Christians enjoyed such protections. The early church was comprised entirely of converts -- and more pagans than Jews, thanks to Paul, who couldn't help bringing vestiges of their old pagan religious ways of thinking into their new faith -- almost all of whom who had no direct personal contact with or knowledge of Jesus during his lifetime. The biographical information about him was being passed around entirely by word of mouth, in piecemeal fashion, and had not yet become fixed, much less collected and written down (the Gospels represent the earliest surviving result of the efforts to construct a written record), and the church communities that were being established were too new and immature to have developed the kind of formal mnemonic structures and practices that protect against alteration of critically important orally communicated information. The purpose of Paul's epistles was to provide guidance on the most challenging issues for the governance and operation of these newly planted churches, so the absence of any such instruction in the epistles about the transmission of biographical information about Jesus is further evidence that no such protections existed.
Moreover, the existence of non-canonical literature such as the "New Testament Apocrypha" and the Nag Hammadi library clearly demonstrate that that many contrasting -- and often contradictory -- stories and legends and theologies were circulating among the early Christians at the same time as the canonical Gospels. The non-canonical documents draw from the same oral source traditions as the canonical ones, but they demonstrate how diverse rather than consistent those traditions in fact were.
This argument seems to have been more apt if Lamb were arguing that the early church fit the "preliterate" category. But that's not what she's arguing. I found her argument for the hybrid literary scribal-culture (can't remember her exact term) compelling, and to fit well with the text as we now see it.
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
What makes you believe that there were no formal social structures in the early church for the preservation of revered cultural histories? People who had been present when Jesus taught or healed would have told their fellow Christians about it. These stories would immediately have become especially revered cultural histories.
No offense, but that's nonsense. It is a matter of unquestioned historical fact that it took 400 years or so for the early Christians to reach an orthodox consensus as to what they believed about Jesus, to canonize an orthodox collection of writings consistent with their beliefs, and to purge all the contradictory beliefs and writings (and believers) that had sprung up in the meantime. During that time not only the canonical Gospels were set to paper out of the emerging oral (proto-)tradition, but also dozens of others, many of which were starkly contradictory in narrative, in theology, or both. We know what many of those contradictory beliefs and writings were, because they survive to this -- a few as actively held dissenting beliefs (such as Arianism, modalism, universalism, Gnosticism, and Pelagianism), even more in the documented historical record. We know who many of the heterodox believers were, and that they had been members and often leaders in the Church in good standing up until the point when they were eventually anathemized.
The idea that during the earliest decades there existed only a single, commonly accepted, uniform oral tradition that was preserved by institutional and social conventions against corruption or innovation is simply counterfactual. If that were true, there could never have arisen such a diverse variety of views, nor fully-developed orthodox theological concepts such as the Trinity and substitutionary atonement, nor the need to spend so much energy the first four centuries developing and implementing standard ideas of orthodoxy and heresy.
I think the problem here is your mixing two very different things.
I would agree that the systematic theology and particularly the Christology of the orthodox church took several centuries to evolve, during which time there were diverse opinions and perspectives that emerged, debate, and (shamefully) also repressed sometimes in very un-Christlike ways.
But I think you are overstating the diversity when it comes to the canon. Yes, the canon was not officially formed for several centuries, and yes, there were alternate writings. But there also was an emerging consensus around the particular books that would become the NT, and the oral and written traditions from which they emerged. Indeed, it is striking how much consensus we do find fairly early on precisely because the early church was so diverse both culturally and theologically (yes, some books were always more marginal than others, but overall, remarkable agreement).
It's possible to overstate both the consensus and unanimity and to overstate the divergence and contradictions. I think in attempting to dispute the first error (which I'm not sure anyone was really saying) you have fallen into the 2nd error.
My 2 cents.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
fwiw, I am happy for my evangelical pov to be considered a "high view" of inspiration, but would hope that it's clear that I do not hold a literalist or inerrantist view. And perhaps even more hopeful that I don't come across as dismissive of those with other perspectives. **cliffie looks quizzically at her buddy fausto for the answer on that one...**
Cliffie, you are the very picture of respect rather than dismissiveness of contrasting perspectives.
And once again, I don't think the Gospels paint a misleading portrait of Jesus; it's just that I don't think the anthropological model of how oral traditions are preserved in preliterate societies describes very well what was probably going on among the earliest Christians as they struggled to keep his memory alive and relevant. I too love the composite portrait of Jesus that the canonical Gospels offer, and I do think it is an appropriate lens through which to read other scriptures.
I also think, however, that their validity rests on their self-evident spiritual and moral power rather than on the earliest Christians' concern for historical veracity. It seem likely to me that some of the gospel stories are as far from biographical fact as the stories of Washington and the cherry tree or the silver dollar. Yet as spiritual truths they are reliable anyway, because they preserve the witness of the earliest Christians as to what he meant and how he should be understood.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But I think you are overstating the diversity when it comes to the canon. Yes, the canon was not officially formed for several centuries, and yes, there were alternate writings. But there also was an emerging consensus around the particular books that would become the NT, and the oral and written traditions from which they emerged. Indeed, it is striking how much consensus we do find fairly early on precisely because the early church was so diverse both culturally and theologically (yes, some books were always more marginal than others, but overall, remarkable agreement).
This seems like a very odd thing to state so confidently. An alternative narrative of the development of the canon suggests that certain influential collectors ultimately had a big impact on the proto-orthodox in later generations. Indeed, from what we can tell the heretic Marcion was the only early leader who had a NT booklist which is approaching the one we accept today. Almost everyone else we know of included or excluded books, including notoriously the (bloody ridiculous, grrr) Shepherd of Hermes.
So, I think it is a reasonable position to refute what you've said here and to say that the reason it looks like there was early consensus is because we tend to telescope backwards from our accepted canon and focus on those books which appeared on various early lists and say "ah ha! look, consensus", ignoring all the differences.
quote:
It's possible to overstate both the consensus and unanimity and to overstate the divergence and contradictions. I think in attempting to dispute the first error (which I'm not sure anyone was really saying) you have fallen into the 2nd error.
My 2 cents.
I honestly believe this is about perception mixed in with a big dollop of preciousness about our accepted NT canon. A simple reality may be that there were a whole load of "Christianities" floating around in the first centuries which used a wide variety of books. In later years a proto-orthodox "party" was able to take control of the thinking of the whole movement at which point the written history of divergent Christian histories was burned or buried. This certainly seems to be why the Nag Hammadi collection was preserved.
Whether this theory is true or whether - as you claim above - there was consensus early on and all the other books were always left-field wacky fictions promoted by weirdos is impossible to tell from this distance. It certainly isn't just a case of "falling into error", it is a matter of belief and opinion as to the best explanation of the available facts.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
To me, even though the Gospels do not present a correct and/or complete historical biography of Jesus, more importantly, they nevertheless present an interpretive portrait of him which represents the culmination of the spiritual journey of the people whose epic story the Bible narrates,
I see what you're trying to say. I think I would express it slightly differently, but we're probably quite close in our positions.
So, yes to "the Gospels do not present a correct and/or complete historical biography of Jesus". And, a definite yes to the "more importantly", because I don't think that a complete and correct historical biography of Jesus is the intent of the Gospels, and by definition that intent has to be more important.
Where I think I would express things differently is the "they nevertheless present an interpretive portrait of him which represents the culmination of the spiritual journey of the people whose epic story the Bible narrates". The Gospels certainly present and interpretive portrait of Jesus, one that is the interpretation of the Christian communities that the different Gospel authors are part of. Where I would part company with you is that those communities do not, themselves, form part of the Biblical narrative - in some cases we have a very brief description of their foundation in Acts, or some letters addressing issues they were facing, all of which relate to points in their history decades before the Gospels are written. Second, I wouldn't say the Gospels represent the culmination of their journey, the Gospels are written at a particular point in that journey when it became important to commit the oral history they had to writing to prevent embellishment of the stories they had, and to produce an authoritive record of which stories they considered to be important - and, by exclusion, those they considered either unimportant or inauthentic. The histories of those early Christian communities continued after the Gospels were written, the spiritual journey of the Church is still ongoing and has yet to reach a culmination.
quote:
which is morally and spiritually reliable -- and which in turn offers a valid interpretive lens through which to try to understand and harmonize other difficult or seemingly contradictory passages of scripture.
Again, I would agree entirely that the Gospels we have are a reliable record of what the Church believed to be true (morally and spiritually) at the point when the last of the eye witnesses of the events of Jesus were reaching the end of their lives. And, therefore, is a valuable and valid lens to view the rest of Scripture, and subsequent developments of doctrine and practice.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But I think you are overstating the diversity when it comes to the canon. Yes, the canon was not officially formed for several centuries, and yes, there were alternate writings. But there also was an emerging consensus around the particular books that would become the NT, and the oral and written traditions from which they emerged. Indeed, it is striking how much consensus we do find fairly early on precisely because the early church was so diverse both culturally and theologically (yes, some books were always more marginal than others, but overall, remarkable agreement).
I may be wrong (and at this precise moment don't have access to my books to check), but I think that if we limit ourselves to the Gospels, rather than the entire NT canon, then that consensus on which of the various Gospels in circulation were considered authoritative happened even earlier than for the Epistles (and Revelation which took a very long time to be universally recognised as canonical - if it actually is universally recognised even today).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I may be wrong (and at this precise moment don't have access to my books to check), but I think that if we limit ourselves to the Gospels, rather than the entire NT canon, then that consensus on which of the various Gospels in circulation were considered authoritative happened even earlier than for the Epistles (and Revelation which took a very long time to be universally recognised as canonical - if it actually is universally recognised even today).
Mm. I don't think that's really true either.
Marcion (around 150 AD) accepted Luke, rejected Matthew and John
Valentinus - another heretic - (around same time) accepted 4 gospels but also a bunch of other crap
Justin Martyr (around 160) saw the 4 canonical gospels as authoritive
Irenaeus (around 200) said there could only be 4 gospels, but then seems to think Hermas is scripture.
Clement (around 220) saw that four gospels as authoritative but also liked a lot of other crappy pseudonymous gospels
And there is still a lot of flux all the way through to Didymus (around 400) who accepted the gospels but also the Gospel of Barnabas, Hermas, etc.
Here is a helpful table.
To me this just shows that there was considerable disagreement on the canon right up until post AD 400.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But I think you are overstating the diversity when it comes to the canon. Yes, the canon was not officially formed for several centuries, and yes, there were alternate writings. But there also was an emerging consensus around the particular books that would become the NT, and the oral and written traditions from which they emerged. Indeed, it is striking how much consensus we do find fairly early on precisely because the early church was so diverse both culturally and theologically (yes, some books were always more marginal than others, but overall, remarkable agreement).
This seems like a very odd thing to state so confidently. An alternative narrative of the development of the canon suggests that certain influential collectors ultimately had a big impact on the proto-orthodox in later generations. Indeed, from what we can tell the heretic Marcion was the only early leader who had a NT booklist which is approaching the one we accept today. Almost everyone else we know of included or excluded books, including notoriously the (bloody ridiculous, grrr) Shepherd of Hermes.
So, I think it is a reasonable position to refute what you've said here and to say that the reason it looks like there was early consensus is because we tend to telescope backwards from our accepted canon and focus on those books which appeared on various early lists and say "ah ha! look, consensus", ignoring all the differences.
quote:
It's possible to overstate both the consensus and unanimity and to overstate the divergence and contradictions. I think in attempting to dispute the first error (which I'm not sure anyone was really saying) you have fallen into the 2nd error.
My 2 cents.
I honestly believe this is about perception mixed in with a big dollop of preciousness about our accepted NT canon. A simple reality may be that there were a whole load of "Christianities" floating around in the first centuries which used a wide variety of books. In later years a proto-orthodox "party" was able to take control of the thinking of the whole movement at which point the written history of divergent Christian histories was burned or buried. This certainly seems to be why the Nag Hammadi collection was preserved.
Whether this theory is true or whether - as you claim above - there was consensus early on and all the other books were always left-field wacky fictions promoted by weirdos is impossible to tell from this distance. It certainly isn't just a case of "falling into error", it is a matter of belief and opinion as to the best explanation of the available facts.
Except for the speculation about how the heterodox written material disappeared, I agree with everything mr cheesy says here. But we do know that it took the orthodox party several centuries to successfully suppress all the heterodox positions that it deemed heretical. The fact that they deemed it necessary and worked so hard and so long to do it speaks loudly to just how prevalent and enduring these alternative positions were. We don't know how much of their written material didn't survive, but we do know that there was a lot of it and that it was suppressed somehow.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But I think you are overstating the diversity when it comes to the canon. Yes, the canon was not officially formed for several centuries, and yes, there were alternate writings. But there also was an emerging consensus around the particular books that would become the NT, and the oral and written traditions from which they emerged. Indeed, it is striking how much consensus we do find fairly early on precisely because the early church was so diverse both culturally and theologically (yes, some books were always more marginal than others, but overall, remarkable agreement).
This seems like a very odd thing to state so confidently. An alternative narrative of the development of the canon suggests that certain influential collectors ultimately had a big impact on the proto-orthodox in later generations. Indeed, from what we can tell the heretic Marcion was the only early leader who had a NT booklist which is approaching the one we accept today. Almost everyone else we know of included or excluded books, including notoriously the (bloody ridiculous, grrr) Shepherd of Hermes.
So, I think it is a reasonable position to refute what you've said here and to say that the reason it looks like there was early consensus is because we tend to telescope backwards from our accepted canon and focus on those books which appeared on various early lists and say "ah ha! look, consensus", ignoring all the differences.
quote:
It's possible to overstate both the consensus and unanimity and to overstate the divergence and contradictions. I think in attempting to dispute the first error (which I'm not sure anyone was really saying) you have fallen into the 2nd error.
My 2 cents.
I honestly believe this is about perception mixed in with a big dollop of preciousness about our accepted NT canon. A simple reality may be that there were a whole load of "Christianities" floating around in the first centuries which used a wide variety of books. In later years a proto-orthodox "party" was able to take control of the thinking of the whole movement at which point the written history of divergent Christian histories was burned or buried. This certainly seems to be why the Nag Hammadi collection was preserved.
Whether this theory is true or whether - as you claim above - there was consensus early on and all the other books were always left-field wacky fictions promoted by weirdos is impossible to tell from this distance. It certainly isn't just a case of "falling into error", it is a matter of belief and opinion as to the best explanation of the available facts.
You make a fair argument to my more evangelical pov. The one thing I would want to clarify is that I have not suggested, nor would I, that the alternate writings are "left-field wacky fictions promoted by weirdos". Some of them might be, but mostly they are simply "alternate writings." Writings (gospels, epistles, etc) that fall short of whatever criteria the loose-but-(arguably) growing consensus of the early church saw as "authoritative." There's a whole range of significance that the lies on the spectrum between "inspired by God" and "left-field wacky fictions promoted by weirdos".
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
Except for the speculation about how the heterodox written material disappeared, I agree with everything mr cheesy says here. But we do know that it took the orthodox party several centuries to successfully suppress all the heterodox positions that it deemed heretical. The fact that they deemed it necessary and worked so hard and so long to do it speaks loudly to just how prevalent and enduring these alternative positions were. We don't know how much of their written material didn't survive, but we do know that there was a lot of it and that it was suppressed somehow.
I think this is the nub-- how and why precisely did the alternate writings disappear? We certainly see harsh and coercive force used to suppress alternate theologies post-Nicea, the question is, how much of this occurred earlier-- when the church was not the large, institutional force it came to be, when it was a persecuted minority rather than part of (for better or worse) the institutional norm?
An alternate way to look at the loss of alternate writings would simply be that they are a victim of what happened to virtually all writings from the ancient era. The NT is exception in part simply because we DO have so many documents from the ancient era. This doesn't happen for very many ancient documents, simply because preserving documents from that era took considerable effort/resources-- something like what we see with the monks where an entire institution is devoting resources to supporting someone who's entire job is simply to preserve a copy. The alternate writings simply weren't deemed worthy to any sizeable group to devote that degree of resources to. Again, not because they were necessarily "left-field wacky fictions promoted by weirdos" but simply because they weren't sacred Scripture.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Where I think I would express things differently is the "they nevertheless present an interpretive portrait of him which represents the culmination of the spiritual journey of the people whose epic story the Bible narrates". The Gospels certainly present and interpretive portrait of Jesus, one that is the interpretation of the Christian communities that the different Gospel authors are part of. Where I would part company with you is that those communities do not, themselves, form part of the Biblical narrative - in some cases we have a very brief description of their foundation in Acts, or some letters addressing issues they were facing, all of which relate to points in their history decades before the Gospels are written. Second, I wouldn't say the Gospels represent the culmination of their journey, the Gospels are written at a particular point in that journey when it became important to commit the oral history they had to writing to prevent embellishment of the stories they had, and to produce an authoritive record of which stories they considered to be important - and, by exclusion, those they considered either unimportant or inauthentic. The histories of those early Christian communities continued after the Gospels were written, the spiritual journey of the Church is still ongoing and has yet to reach a culmination.
Fair enough.
The Holy Spirit did not leave the world, and inspiration did not cease, with the closing of the received canon. John even portrays Jesus himself as telling his disciples just before the passion, "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth" (John 16:12-13). (The United Church of Christ here in the US is currently using the slogan, "God is still speaking," with a comma rather than a period just to emphasize the point.)
Nevertheless, although the New Testament material continues after Jesus's passion into the early years of the Church, I think you would agree that Jesus and his atonement are the central message of the New Testament. They, not the emergence of the early Church, are the culmination of all that came before. He is the climax; what comes afterward is denouement. And I think you would agree that everything in the NT that comes after Jesus (as well as everything in Christianity since) attempts to comprehend and apply him, not to exceed him.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
An alternate way to look at the loss of alternate writings would simply be that they are a victim of what happened to virtually all writings from the ancient era. The NT is exception in part simply because we DO have so many documents from the ancient era. This doesn't happen for very many ancient documents, simply because preserving documents from that era took considerable effort/resources-- something like what we see with the monks where an entire institution is devoting resources to supporting someone who's entire job is simply to preserve a copy.
One of the greatest tragedies in human history was the destruction of the Alexandria library. I imagine it contained a rich collection of religious writing, from a rich variety of traditions. How much more would we know today, not only about ancient religions but also about how many other fields?
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Here is a helpful table.
To me this just shows that there was considerable disagreement on the canon right up until post AD 400.
Interesting. Presented in this way, what I see is how much of an outlier Marcion is.
What is also clear to me is how strongly all four canonical Gospels are attested. Likewise most of the canonical Epistles and Revelation.
And, for the most part, those less strongly attested are simply not mentioned rather than disputed or contradicted. Pace Didymus the blind, none of them are called false/heretical/heterodox, and the attribution to Didymus of the opinion that II and III John are false/heretical/heterodox is based on the fact that he refers to 1 John as 'The Epistle of John', so Metzger… quote:
... the fact that when quoting I John Didymus refers to it as the Epistle of John and not the First Epistle of John must mean that he did not accept the canonical status of II and III John.
which seems to be a very strong opinion to found on limited evidence.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
An alternate way to look at the loss of alternate writings would simply be that they are a victim of what happened to virtually all writings from the ancient era. The NT is exception in part simply because we DO have so many documents from the ancient era. This doesn't happen for very many ancient documents, simply because preserving documents from that era took considerable effort/resources-- something like what we see with the monks where an entire institution is devoting resources to supporting someone who's entire job is simply to preserve a copy. The alternate writings simply weren't deemed worthy to any sizeable group to devote that degree of resources to. Again, not because they were necessarily "left-field wacky fictions promoted by weirdos" but simply because they weren't sacred Scripture.
Yes, very much so. I doubt there was much active destruction went on. Just works not deemed valuable were not copied/retained.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, not because they were necessarily "left-field wacky fictions promoted by weirdos" but simply because they weren't sacred Scripture.
Of course "scripture" just means sacred writings, so it isn't a given that those in the early centuries understood the term differently to the way we'd use it now.
And many of people we know of did regard rubbish like the Shepherd of Hermes and the obviously fictionalised writings such as the Acts of Paul and Thecla on the same level as those books which made it into the NT we know and love.
This idea that there was a division between "scripture" and "other writing" is largely bogus.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Of course "scripture" just means sacred writings, so it isn't a given that those in the early centuries understood the term differently to the way we'd use it now.
Sorry, I meant it isn't a given that the term "scripture" was used as we do now. Hopefully I've not added confusion on that point!
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Of course "scripture" just means sacred writings, so it isn't a given that those in the early centuries understood the term differently to the way we'd use it now.
Sorry, I meant it isn't a given that the term "scripture" was used as we do now. Hopefully I've not added confusion on that point!
Yes, I would agree that the terms are imprecise and vary from era to era, denomination/tradition to denomination/tradition, and person to person.
But the point remains: a rather sizable community felt strongly enough about the 27 books of the NT to devote considerable resources to insure that they were preserved. We don't know what they thought/felt/believed about the alternate writings-- whether they thought them "pretty good", "silly rubbish" or "out right heresy." But we do know that they didn't choose to devote the same level of resources to preserving those documents that they did to the canonical writings. Whether you want to call that difference "Scripture" or "authoritative" or something else, the fact remains, that difference in use of resources is the most likely explanation for the discrepancy in the preservation of these ancient documents.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes, I would agree that the terms are imprecise and vary from era to era, denomination/tradition to denomination/tradition, and person to person.
But the point remains: a rather sizable community felt strongly enough about the 27 books of the NT to devote considerable resources to insure that they were preserved. We don't know what they thought/felt/believed about the alternate writings-- whether they thought them "pretty good", "silly rubbish" or "out right heresy." But we do know that they didn't choose to devote the same level of resources to preserving those documents that they did to the canonical writings. Whether you want to call that difference "Scripture" or "authoritative" or something else, the fact remains, that difference in use of resources is the most likely explanation for the discrepancy in the preservation of these ancient documents.
I'm not sure what you are getting at here. The facts appear to be that there were a range of writings available in the first few centuries AD and that early influential people we know of had a range of opinions regarding the writings which were worth keeping. And, presumably, these are a smaller selection of the writings that were in circulation before Marcion (apparently) set the tone with the idea of codifying them into a useful library.
If we're agreeing that there was a gradual erosion of the available books into the canon over 400+ years, then I'd agree that this seems to fit the evidence - but then this seems to be in full contrast to the idea that there was early agreement and consensus as to what was quote unquote "scripture".
And I just don't follow your logic given that the Shepherd of Hermes seems to have such a lot of support by so many for such a long time. At some point there must have been a decision that Hermes was a load of crap (which I'd totally support, it is) and that all the other authorities in previous generations - who let's not forget we're lauding as being able to use divine inspiration to keep the "correct" canon - dropped the ball in that instance. If we're not saying that, then I can't see what basis we're using to keep Hermes out of our (evangelical) NTs.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
They ALL privately think that Eutychus.
"Do not judge another man's sevant..." Or is that one of the bits of Paul that's got to go? ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
quote:
The truth of the Incarnation is inviolate. Everything else is Iron Age reaction.
I'm sorry, I still don't get this ring-fencing of the Incarnation from any form of criticism, deconstruction, or reinterpretation.
Bugger, sorry E, missed this. Strike me down if I do judge another man's servant (subconsciously holds breath in superstitious dread!). I heard that bell ring in my head, loud and clear, nearly twenty years ago when engaging contra LGBT inclusion.
I welcome all criticism, deconstruction, or reinterpretation of the Incarnation. If anyone's got anything new to say, great. I'm not aware of any argument I'm not aware of.
No Incarnation, no meaning, no eternal life.
I'm half way there already! I find the Jesus story utterly compelling and can easily apply it to give meaning to my life EXCEPT, accentuated acutely recently in the face of death, I find the idea if resurrection to a meta-reality utterly unbelievable.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
That's part of the Incarnation.
The still, then (by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Junia, James, Peter, Jude, Jesus) and now, held sacred texts that the epistles begin to transcend mark the end of the Iron Age. So their thinking is embedded there. As it still is for most Christians to one degree or another.
I still don't understand how you can be so sure that the Pauline epistles require deconstruction such that they are incontrovertibly and henceforth "wrong" for all subsequent time - AND be convinced that the Incarnation and the narratives of it are, albeit deconstructible, never going to be "wrong".
Unless it is by having the same kind of belief in supernatural preservation of integrity for the Gospels that more conservative Christians would also extend to the rest of the NT, Paul included.
And this! I came back to the thread to fully contextualize the mouse-fausto Hell thread, I should have come back more frequently.
Again, no Incarnation, no nothing. The eternal, infinite multiverse, is un-thought, meaningless and death is the end.
Jesus is the only proposition of an alternative. So it doesn't matter how bad the gospels are, how inadequate, flawed, contradictory and weird and how fraught and culturally constrained and weird the epistles are.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
That's part of the Incarnation.
The still, then (by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Junia, James, Peter, Jude, Jesus) and now, held sacred texts that the epistles begin to transcend mark the end of the Iron Age. So their thinking is embedded there. As it still is for most Christians to one degree or another.
I still don't understand how you can be so sure that the Pauline epistles require deconstruction such that they are incontrovertibly and henceforth "wrong" for all subsequent time - AND be convinced that the Incarnation and the narratives of it are, albeit deconstructible, never going to be "wrong".
Unless it is by having the same kind of belief in supernatural preservation of integrity for the Gospels that more conservative Christians would also extend to the rest of the NT, Paul included.
And this! I came back to the thread to fully contextualize the mouse-fausto Hell thread, I should have come back more frequently.
Again, no Incarnation, no nothing. The eternal, infinite multiverse, is un-thought, meaningless and death is the end.
Jesus is the only available alternative. So it doesn't matter how bad the gospels are, how inadequate, flawed, contradictory and weird and how fraught and culturally constrained and weird the epistles are.
No belief in magic is necessary. Belief in the Incarnation is.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If we're agreeing that there was a gradual erosion of the available books into the canon over 400+ years, then I'd agree that this seems to fit the evidence - but then this seems to be in full contrast to the idea that there was early agreement and consensus as to what was quote unquote "scripture".
I'm not sure that we will all agree that it's quite that straightforward. I think there is a growing quantity of writing about or inspired by Jesus any time from 50CE until mid to late 2nd century. After that there is a winnowing process or an erosion of what was counted as canonical scripture.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And I just don't follow your logic given that the Shepherd of Hermes seems to have such a lot of support by so many for such a long time…
This handy table, linked to above, shows four authorities citing Hermas with approval, five querying/disputing it, and the remaining seven not mentioning it at all. It clearly had some currency, but "such a lot of support be so many for such long time" seems to me to overstate things a bit.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
This handy table, linked to above, shows four authorities citing Hermas with approval, five querying/disputing it, and the remaining seven not mentioning it at all. It clearly had some currency, but "such a lot of support be so many for such long time" seems to me to overstate things a bit.
Well again, given how many authorities that've found from the 4th century endorsing the inclusion of Hermas (apols for my continued typo) then I think either (a) those authorities were wrong on Hermas and therefore should not be considered within the "consensus" on the NT canon or (b) they were right on Hermas and therefore it should still be in the canon.
To me this is a much bigger issue than looking across the spread of authorities in that table and saying "bah, only 4 considered Hermas to be in the canon, therefore that's not very important", when there are a good number of later (4th century) writers who did include it. And that's not even getting into the inclusion of other non-canonical books like the Epistle of Barnabus.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
I see what you mean, but I wouldn't choose to take each 'authority' and ask does the canon suggested by this authority match that suggested by another.
There are two reasons for this. The first is that in general we are looking at whether a writer cites part of a given text as being canonical, since very few of them actually produced canon lists. So it is a matter of going through their writings to see what they or do or don't cite about from or say about a particular work.
Secondly, my own choice would be to take the canon on a book by book basis, and say of each book, "Is there a widespread consensus that this belongs?" So, on that basis, the four canonical gospels are in, and shepherd of Hermas is out. All that said, if you eliminate the authorities who do approve of Hermas it makes little or no difference to the resulting shape of the 'consensus canon'.
You say quote:
Well again, given how many authorities that've found from the 4th century endorsing the inclusion of Hermas…
The book you link to says quote:
In the fourth century there are still indications that some Christian circles regarded the Shepherd of Hermas as an authoritative Christian text.
It then goes on to list the four that I've already referred to and adds Origen, and the writer of Adversus aleatores and the writer of the Codex Claramontus plus Jerome and Rufinus who "Consider it valuable and useful to read, even in churches". I don't think the last statement makes it look as though Rufinus and Jerome put it into the same category as 'scripture'. AFAICT only three of these are fourth century, and even if they all were, my feeling about 'how many authorities' there are for including Hermas is that there are not many.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Yes, I would agree that the terms are imprecise and vary from era to era, denomination/tradition to denomination/tradition, and person to person.
But the point remains: a rather sizable community felt strongly enough about the 27 books of the NT to devote considerable resources to insure that they were preserved. We don't know what they thought/felt/believed about the alternate writings-- whether they thought them "pretty good", "silly rubbish" or "out right heresy." But we do know that they didn't choose to devote the same level of resources to preserving those documents that they did to the canonical writings. Whether you want to call that difference "Scripture" or "authoritative" or something else, the fact remains, that difference in use of resources is the most likely explanation for the discrepancy in the preservation of these ancient documents.
I'm not sure what you are getting at here. The facts appear to be that there were a range of writings available in the first few centuries AD and that early influential people we know of had a range of opinions regarding the writings which were worth keeping. And, presumably, these are a smaller selection of the writings that were in circulation before Marcion (apparently) set the tone with the idea of codifying them into a useful library.
If we're agreeing that there was a gradual erosion of the available books into the canon over 400+ years, then I'd agree that this seems to fit the evidence - but then this seems to be in full contrast to the idea that there was early agreement and consensus as to what was quote unquote "scripture".
And I just don't follow your logic given that the Shepherd of Hermes seems to have such a lot of support by so many for such a long time. At some point there must have been a decision that Hermes was a load of crap (which I'd totally support, it is) and that all the other authorities in previous generations - who let's not forget we're lauding as being able to use divine inspiration to keep the "correct" canon - dropped the ball in that instance. If we're not saying that, then I can't see what basis we're using to keep Hermes out of our (evangelical) NTs.
I don't see our positions (if I'm reading you correctly) as all that far apart-- really more a difference in tone or emphasis. Obviously, the canon is something that evolved, any consensus grew gradually over several centuries. So whether it is an "early consensus" depends on what you mean by both those words-- what is "early" (1st c? 2nd c? 3rd?) and what is "consensus"? (identical canons? similar canons?). It's definitely not cut-and-dried, there are outliers like S of H that had quite a bit of support but ultimately didn't end up in the canon, and others like Rev. that were clearly iffy for a long time but ultimately did.
My point is, that while we can't know all of the factors that went into what did/did not make the cut, I do think it's reasonable to see a sort of natural evolutionary aspect to this: that rather than a concerted conspiracy "against" certain writings, it's more that there was a growing appreciation "for" other (ultimately canonical) writings. And that without the resources of a community dedicated to preserving the alternative writings, they naturally were lost to history, as the vast majority of documents from the ancient era were.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So there is no Aramaic equivalent for 'born again'?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So there is no Aramaic equivalent for 'born again'?
I have been criticized for unclear writing, so let me try to answer as carefully and precisely as I can, and hopefully clear up any other previous consternation I may have provoked in previous comments.
Here is scriptural scholar Bart Ehrman's contention:
There is indeed an Aramaic equivalent for 'again'. There is, however, no Aramaic equivalent for the Greek anothen, which can mean either 'again' or 'from above'. The Greek text of John reports Jesus as using the Greek word anothen, which puzzles Nicodemus and prompts him to ask how someone can be born again, and Jesus then clarifies that he meant born 'of the Spirit' (which is similar in meaning to 'from above'), rather than born twice as Nicodemus misapprehended.
In reality, says Ehrman, this confusion could only have arisen between Greek speakers, not between Aramaic speakers, because there is no word in Aramaic with the dual meaning of both 'again' and 'from above'. An Aramaic speaker would presumably have chosen the Aramaic word or expression that unambiguously meant either 'again' or 'from above' or 'of the Spirit', depending on which meaning he intended to convey. He would not have spoken one but meant something else.
Since Nicodemus and Jesus were presumably both native Aramaic speakers, speaking alone to each other in private, it is likely that John's retelling of this incident in Greek is not historically accurate. This is only one example out of many that can be drawn from each of the four Gospels suggesting that neither the Gospels as written nor their oral sources within the early Christian communities reflected especial concern for preserving an accurate, factual, historical record. Rather, they were more concerned with remembering and portraying Jesus in a particular light.
Now, that is Ehrman's specific analysis of John 3:7 and its significance, but as he also says, it is only one example of many; so if you find this one unpersuasive, there are plenty of others which lead to the same conclusion about the weakness of the Gospels' historicity. As someone here (I think it was Alan) previously observed, the mere fact that the Gospels were written in Greek rather than Aramaic demonstrates that strict historicity was not an especially high priority to the authors.
My own further contention concerns the assertion that "studies have shown" that illiterate or semi-literate cultures are especially concerned with preserving historical accuracy in their oral traditions, so that as the early Christian community told and retold stories about Jesus before they were eventually written down, the stories would presumably have been remembered and retold accurately. To the contrary, I don't think there is much evidence that the necessary conditions for accurate preservation of oral history that anthropologists have found in illiterate societies were present in the early Church. I think there are instead good reasons (including but not limited to Ehrman's scholarship) to presume otherwise.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Popping up again from my sickbed (ha)--
The trouble with your argument is that native speakers of a language who also happen to be bilingual can and DO throw in phrases, sentences, or complete paragraphs in the other language. I've witnessed this on many occasions over the past 30 years with Vietnamese and others can testify to their own experiences. What I mean is, the conversations starts off in Vietnamese; one speaker breaks into English halfway through a sentence--or even a word, God forbid!* and continues on in English (with or without the other speaker following) until some chance circumstance, or a natural break in the conversation, and then they both return to Vietnamese.
This is very common, and is probably where a lot of pidgins and creoles get started.
* "Forty-chin" is the example that sticks in my mind--an overexcited child said that in my hearing (= 49). But her elders do the same thing all the time.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
All I see and all Nicodemus would have heard, is born again. What's the problem?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
fausto, I don't think I misunderstood your exposition of Ehrman's case. But I do disagree with his reading. In neither case does Jesus' conversation require that he is using the 'from above' meaning of anothen. Nor is a confusion between 'from above' and 'again' necessary to account for Nicodemus's confusion. The whole conversation makes perfect sense if anothen is taken to be understood by both participants in the conversation as meaning 'again'. On what textual grounds does Ehrman make a case for the different possible meanings of anothen being a significant factor in the conversation?
[Cross-posted with Martin60 who seems to be making the same point, but more succinctly]
[ 11. September 2016, 14:37: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
One problem with Ehrman's argument is that he takes Nicodemus' confusion to be caused by the meaning of a word, and not by the simple fact that Jesus said, in whatever language, something amazing and impossible.
Also that he equates "of the Spirit" with "from above." I should like to see his justification for that, if he has any.
Jesus goes on to say "of water and the Spirit" which has not unreasonably been taken to refer to two births. In which case the second one would be "again."
Ehrman is manufacturing a difficulty where none exists, by insisting on (his own) unnecessary assumptions. If his own assumptions are wrong, then the difficulty goes away. Thus the conversation needs to focus not on his line of reasoning, which is okay as far as it goes or at any rate doesn't need further explication, but on justifying his assumptions.
[ 11. September 2016, 14:49: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
One problem with Ehrman's argument is that he takes Nicodemus' confusion to be caused by the meaning of a word, and not by the simple fact that Jesus said, in whatever language, something amazing and impossible.
Or just plain nonsensical.
I don't think it stretches credulity at all to think that the evangelist, writing in Greek, used Greek to maximum benefit for story-telling purposes. And I agree completely with what others have said about the Gospels not being biography or history in the sense we're used to.
But reading the story as story, it seems clear to me that, as mousethief said, Nicodemus's confusion is due to the concept itself, not to a misunderstanding over the words used. It may well be the case that the encounter didn't happen exactly as recorded, but I don't think the Aramaic vs. Greek issue proves that one way or the other.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
