Attn: harmonizers

[kaufmannphillips]

Jason wrote:
Chronology aside, it seems like the language issue could prove important. According to some, Matthew had written his gospel in Hebrew and what we study is likely a Greek translation of the text. Likewise, if Jesus spoke/taught in his native Aramaic tongue (as with the witnesses interviewed) and these were all translated into the common Greek, you'd expect to see a lot of variance in periperal details. This would likely include variances in chronology.

Language is an essential issue, yes, so a responsible student of early Christianity will study Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Literary remains from the period indicate that all three languages were potentially relevant.

With the canonical gospels, we are for the most part dealing with Greek portrayals of statements that may have been made in other languages. As such, it can be appropriate to attempt linguistic excavation – that is, attempting to identify a more original form of various statements, in one or more languages. This is touchy work, because a particular statement may never have had a more original form in another language; or then again, it may have migrated through one or more languages (and even back and forth amongst languages) before attaining its current form.

Naturally, linguistic transfers can afford drastic migration of meaning. My Master’s thesis looked at vastly differing Greek formulae for the Eucharist in the NT and the Didache, and discussed how a more original form could have been construed with an Aramaic sense to yield the former, and with a Hebrew sense to yield the latter. And of course, many migrations of meaning could hinge upon varying construals of semantic range or of grammar as found in a more original language.

So I can thank you for noting another vector for distortion in the Greek gospels. It would be rather optimistic to imagine that such variances would be limited only to peripheral details. And though linguistic excavation may uncover the mechanism by which we arrive at some variants in the Greek texts, the Greek end-product ultimately stands for itself, being accurate and/or inaccurate.

Jason wrote:
Since there are exact parallels in some passages among the Synoptics it would appear that those came from a common source, which was probably Greek since no further translating would have been needed.

Even in this scenario, the cannibalizing version may redact what they borrow in light of a more original form that they have encountered, in Greek or in another language. Simple charts of the Documentary Hypothesis may be a bit tidier than what actually transpired in the crafting of these documents. For example, Matthew may have used Greek Mark as a source, but then finessed some of the material based upon gospel traditions in Hebrew or Aramaic, which Mark may or may not have drawn upon in the first place.

(Ancient references to a Hebrew [and/or Aramaic?] Matthew may derive from a proto-gospel in that language, which was later melded with Greek Mark to yield Greek Matthew. Alternately, these references may derive from a translation of Greek Matthew into Hebrew [and/or Aramaic?]. This translation may have undergone further redaction on its own.

If you are interested in this sort of topic, one interesting tangent might be the Shem Tob & du Tillet texts for a Hebrew Matthew. George Howard has published an affordable edition of the Shem Tob text, with extensive discussion. It is available for review at Google Books.)

Jason wrote:
An example of the "language issue" might be seen in an illustration. Let's say a murder took place in Mexico which was witnessed by three Americans, only one of which knew any Spanish. Likewise, one of the Americans had a limited vocabulary and another was a prized linguist. A few police officials wrote down their reports, translating the eye witness stories into Spanish for the Police Chief to look at. In this scenerio, it would be hard to believe that the Mexican reports would appear synoptic in detail.

Your scenario raises issues of competence and coherence. It hinges not only upon the abilities of the American witnesses, but also upon those of the various police officers who generated the reports. And if it is “hard to believe” that the reports would agree in detail, it is also questionable whether the reports would be fully and equally reliable.

The situation becomes more aggravated when one moves from relatively simple questions of “who stabbed who” to philosophical and theological communications. Let us tweak our scenario to imagine that we are having a blasphemy trial in the UK, with Pakistani witnesses. What weight would a jury assign to our respective witnesses? Let us imagine the defendant to have been speaking Pashto when he made his controversial statements. How comfortable will the jury be with parsing the witnesses’ various accounts, as carried over into English? Or then again, let us imagine the defendant to have been speaking English!

Of course, with the gospels we are dealing with writers who were not eyewitnesses to some (or all) of the matters which they discuss. What will our jury do with testimony from somebody who neither witnessed the controversial comments, nor even could understand a recounting of them in their original language? Here we have a tenuous game of telephone, courtesy of BabelCorp.

Jason wrote:
This explanation would not be favored by someone holding the "Book that fell from Heaven" view, but most reasonable Christians know better.

Would you care to estimate that as a percentage of Christians?

But then again – if the holy spirit surmounted linguistic barriers for a harvest of three thousand at Pentecost, would it not be remarkable for it to have withheld from overcoming such obstacles for witnesses that would reach millions upon millions of people?

[Jason]

So I can thank you for noting another vector for distortion in the Greek gospels. It would be rather optimistic to imagine that such variances would be limited only to peripheral details. And though linguistic excavation may uncover the mechanism by which we arrive at some variants in the Greek texts, the Greek end-product ultimately stands for itself, being accurate and/or inaccurate.

When I speak of variances in peripheral details, it's similar to what James Cameron said about the lack of agreement in the statements made by survivors of the Titanic. Did the ship hit an iceberg and sink? Yeah. Did it stand vertical for an hour? Maybe. Did it break in half? Maybe. Where was the captain when the impact occured? Depends who you ask.

Would you care to estimate that as a percentage of Christians?

I don't care to quantify my sarcasm, no.

But then again – if the holy spirit surmounted linguistic barriers for a harvest of three thousand at Pentecost, would it not be remarkable for it to have withheld from overcoming such obstacles for witnesses that would reach millions upon millions of people?

Where in the gospel accounts do we read of the Holy Spirit giving details to the four authors about what had happened? We are told only that the twelve would be reminded of the things Jesus said but even that allows for variance in chronology and word choice. I can make the same statement five different ways without changing its meaning. You assume here a "magic book" worldview for the sake of argument but the early counsels were not contending for the Holy Spirit's inspiration of the four books, only their truthfulness. My own (minority) opinion is that vaiance in peripheral detail is actually a good thing. If the early church had wanted to maintain a myth-story, they could've no doubt made sure the variances were eliminated. The fact that they remain (even throughout the strong armed reign of the RCC) shows at least a level of respect for the original witness testimonies.

[kaufmannphillips]

kaufmannphillips wrote:
It would be rather optimistic to imagine that such variances would be limited only to peripheral details. And though linguistic excavation may uncover the mechanism by which we arrive at some variants in the Greek texts, the Greek end-product ultimately stands for itself, being accurate and/or inaccurate.

Jason wrote:
When I speak of variances in peripheral details, it's similar to what James Cameron said about the lack of agreement in the statements made by survivors of the Titanic. Did the ship hit an iceberg and sink? Yeah. Did it stand vertical for an hour? Maybe. Did it break in half? Maybe. Where was the captain when the impact occured? Depends who you ask.

This appears to indulge a wide tolerance when it comes to “peripheral details.” If we were to parallel your example from the Titanic, then we might gather that once there was a Jewish guy who got crucified, and let the rest hang in the breeze!

The further questions are far from peripheral issues. If one were a naval engineer or a White Star Line manager or an insurance auditor in 1912, one would be interested in many details of what happened that April night. And a decent historian of the subject is going to seek greater definition than merely “the ship hit an iceberg and [sank].” One could hardly script a children’s book with that meager of data! (That is, without making stuff up, as some storytellers blithely do.)

When it comes to the life and ministry of Jesus, we may acknowledge that millions of people make life-changing choices based upon matters of detail. Can you marry a divorcee or not? Can you retaliate in kind or not? Can you swear an oath of allegiance or not? Such questions are rather less than peripheral to real persons living real lives. And this behooves a fine level of accuracy.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
But then again – if the holy spirit surmounted linguistic barriers for a harvest of three thousand at Pentecost, would it not be remarkable for it to have withheld from overcoming such obstacles for witnesses that would reach millions upon millions of people?

Jason wrote:
Where in the gospel accounts do we read of the Holy Spirit giving details to the four authors about what had happened? We are told only that the twelve would be reminded of the things Jesus said but even that allows for variance in chronology and word choice. I can make the same statement five different ways without changing its meaning. You assume here a "magic book" worldview for the sake of argument but the early counsels were not contending for the Holy Spirit's inspiration of the four books, only their truthfulness.

(a) A truthfulness that does not extend to accuracy in detail? So, a “somewhat truthful”ness?

(b) I challenge you to “make the same statement five different ways without changing its meaning[.”

(c) We are engaging here the matter of inspiration in the production of the gospels. This is no small matter! One’s answer to the question of the holy spirit’s involvement in their production will have a significant impact on one’s understanding of their quality and character.

In considering this, it is not gratuitous to compare the belief that the holy spirit miraculously and mightily enabled the witness at Pentecost – arguably a foundational witness for the development of the church – with the situation for these other foundational witnesses.

Jason wrote:
My own (minority) opinion is that vaiance in peripheral detail is actually a good thing. If the early church had wanted to maintain a myth-story, they could've no doubt made sure the variances were eliminated. The fact that they remain (even throughout the strong armed reign of the RCC) shows at least a level of respect for the original witness testimonies.

(a) If the church wanted to maintain a myth-story, they might not have chosen to smooth out the variances between different versions of their myth. When pieces of literature become piously esteemed, they can be forgiven much (rightly and/or wrongly).

(b) Whether a source is respected or not, one should pay close attention to its details. You may or may not be familiar with the story of Susanna, seeing as it is not in the Protestant version of Daniel. It is found in Catholic and Orthodox bibles, though.

There was a man living in Babylon whose name was Joakim. He married the daughter of Hilkiah, named Susanna, a very beautiful woman and one who feared the Lord. Her parents were righteous, and had trained their daughter according to the law of Moses. Joakim was very rich, and had a fine garden adjoining his house; the Jews used to come to him because he was the most honored of them all.

That year two elders from the people were appointed as judges. Concerning them the Lord had said: ‘Wickedness came forth from Babylon, from elders who were judges, who were supposed to govern the people.’ These men were frequently at Joakim’s house, and all who had a case to be tried came to them there.

When the people left at noon, Susanna would go into her husband’s garden to walk. Every day the two elders used to see her, going in and walking about, and they began to lust for her. They suppressed their consciences and turned away their eyes from looking to Heaven or remembering their duty to administer justice. Both were overwhelmed with passion for her, but they did not tell each other of their distress, for they were ashamed to disclose their lustful desire to seduce her. Day after day they watched eagerly to see her.

One day they said to each other, ‘Let us go home, for it is time for lunch.’ So they both left and parted from each other. But turning back, they met again; and when each pressed the other for the reason, they confessed their lust. Then together they arranged for a time when they could find her alone.

Once, while they were watching for an opportune day, she went in as before with only two maids, and wished to bathe in the garden, for it was a hot day. No one was there except the two elders, who had hidden themselves and were watching her. She said to her maids, ‘Bring me olive oil and ointments, and shut the garden doors so that I can bathe.’ They did as she told them: they shut the doors of the garden and went out by the side doors to bring what they had been commanded; they did not see the elders, because they were hiding.

When the maids had gone out, the two elders got up and ran to her. They said, ‘Look, the garden doors are shut, and no one can see us. We are burning with desire for you; so give your consent, and lie with us. If you refuse, we will testify against you that a young man was with you, and this was why you sent your maids away.’

Susanna groaned and said, ‘I am completely trapped. For if I do this, it will mean death for me; if I do not, I cannot escape your hands. I choose not to do it; I will fall into your hands, rather than sin in the sight of the Lord.’

Then Susanna cried out with a loud voice, and the two elders shouted against her. And one of them ran and opened the garden doors. When the people in the house heard the shouting in the garden, they rushed in at the side door to see what had happened to her. And when the elders told their story, the servants felt very much ashamed, for nothing like this had ever been said about Susanna.

The next day, when the people gathered at the house of her husband Joakim, the two elders came, full of their wicked plot to have Susanna put to death. In the presence of the people they said, ‘Send for Susanna daughter of Hilkiah, the wife of Joakim.’ So they sent for her. And she came with her parents, her children, and all her relatives.

Now Susanna was a woman of great refinement and beautiful in appearance. As she was veiled, the scoundrels ordered her to be unveiled, so that they might feast their eyes on her beauty. Those who were with her and all who saw her were weeping.

Then the two elders stood up before the people and laid their hands on her head. Through her tears she looked up towards Heaven, for her heart trusted in the Lord. The elders said, ‘While we were walking in the garden alone, this woman came in with two maids, shut the garden doors, and dismissed the maids. Then a young man, who was hiding there, came to her and lay with her. We were in a corner of the garden, and when we saw this wickedness we ran to them. Although we saw them embracing, we could not hold the man, because he was stronger than we are, and he opened the doors and got away. We did, however, seize this woman and asked who the young man was, but she would not tell us. These things we testify.’

Because they were elders of the people and judges, the assembly believed them and condemned her to death.

Then Susanna cried out with a loud voice, and said, ‘O eternal God, you know what is secret and are aware of all things before they come to be; you know that these men have given false evidence against me. And now I am to die, though I have done none of the wicked things that they have charged against me!’

The Lord heard her cry. Just as she was being led off to execution, God stirred up the holy spirit of a young lad named Daniel, and he shouted with a loud voice, ‘I want no part in shedding this woman’s blood!’

All the people turned to him and asked, ‘What is this you are saying?’ Taking his stand among them he said, ‘Are you such fools, O Israelites, as to condemn a daughter of Israel without examination and without learning the facts? Return to court, for these men have given false evidence against her.’

So all the people hurried back. And the rest of the elders said to him, ‘Come, sit among us and inform us, for God has given you the standing of an elder.’ Daniel said to them, ‘Separate them far from each other, and I will examine them.’

When they were separated from each other, he summoned one of them and said to him, ‘You old relic of wicked days, your sins have now come home, which you have committed in the past, pronouncing unjust judgments, condemning the innocent and acquitting the guilty, though the Lord said, “You shall not put an innocent and righteous person to death.” Now then, if you really saw this woman, tell me this: Under what tree did you see them being intimate with each other?’ He answered, ‘Under a mastic tree.’ And Daniel said, ‘Very well! This lie has cost you your head, for the angel of God has received the sentence from God and will immediately cut you in two.’

Then, putting him to one side, he ordered them to bring the other. And he said to him, ‘You offspring of Canaan and not of Judah, beauty has beguiled you and lust has perverted your heart. This is how you have been treating the daughters of Israel, and they were intimate with you through fear; but a daughter of Judah would not tolerate your wickedness. Now then, tell me: Under what tree did you catch them being intimate with each other?’ He answered, ‘Under an evergreen oak.’ Daniel said to him, ‘Very well! This lie has cost you also your head, for the angel of God is waiting with his sword to split you in two, so as to destroy you both.’

Then the whole assembly raised a great shout and blessed God, who saves those who hope in him. And they took action against the two elders, because out of their own mouths Daniel had convicted them of bearing false witness; they did to them as they had wickedly planned to do to their neighbour. Acting in accordance with the law of Moses, they put them to death. Thus innocent blood was spared that day.

Hilkiah and his wife praised God for their daughter Susanna, and so did her husband Joakim and all her relatives, because she was found innocent of a shameful deed. And from that day onwards Daniel had a great reputation among the people.

As one can see, sometimes details matter.

[steve]

(b) I challenge you to “make the same statement five different ways without changing its meaning[.”

I am surprised that you think this a difficult thing. A simple example would be the following five statements (they could be multiplied):

—Jesus died on a cross and rose again on the third day thereafter.
—The Messiah was Cricified and rose back to life on the third day following.
—Three days after His crucifixion, Jesus came to life again.
—Jesus was nailed to a cross and died on Friday, but, Sunday morning, was seen alive again.
—Despite being taken from the cross as a corpse on Friday, Jesus was seen alive and well on Sunday.

(c) We are engaging here the matter of inspiration in the production of the gospels. This is no small matter! One’s answer to the question of the holy spirit’s involvement in their production will have a significant impact on one’s understanding of their quality and character.

You are beating a dead horse here. You would do better to take this dispute up with Fundamentalists. Jason is not, as near as I can tell, arguing for the inspiration of the four gospels. Nor do I.

In considering this, it is not gratuitous to compare the belief that the holy spirit miraculously and mightily enabled the witness at Pentecost – arguably a foundational witness for the development of the church – with the situation for these other foundational witnesses.

That the apostles were emboldened by the Holy Spirit on Pentecost is agreed upon by all evangelicals. This is not parallel in any particular with the historiographic methods used by the writers of the gospels. Historical documents can be essentially reliable without having been produced by divine inspiration.

[kaufmannphillips]

Hi, Steve,

I don’t mind your responding here to my conversation with Jason.

I also made a sizable posting on Sunday, directly responding to comments you had made. So I haven’t entirely neglected my line of conversation with you.

kaufmannphillips wrote (responding to Jason):
I challenge you to “make the same statement five different ways without changing its meaning.”

steve wrote:
I am surprised that you think this a difficult thing. A simple example would be the following five statements (they could be multiplied):

{A}—Jesus died on a cross and rose again on the third day thereafter.
{B}—The Messiah was Cricified and rose back to life on the third day following.
{C}—Three days after His crucifixion, Jesus came to life again.
{D}—Jesus was nailed to a cross and died on Friday, but, Sunday morning, was seen alive again.
{E}—Despite being taken from the cross as a corpse on Friday, Jesus was seen alive and well on Sunday. {alphabetical notation added}

Thank you for the example:

(1) We will take statement {A} as the initial baseline for comparison.

(2) Statement {B} differs from {A} in a number of aspects. The phrase “The Messiah” affords an alternative meaning to {A}, inasmuch as it does not explicitly identify a particular person, and could be construed as referring to some other messianic claimant. But if the phrase is to be construed as denoting Jesus, then it adds meaning by claiming messiahship for Jesus, which is something that {A} does not do.

{B} also adds meaning by indicating that the subject was crucified. {A} merely indicates that the subject “died on a cross,” which could have transpired in a way other than crucifixion – say, if the subject had suffered a coronary and fallen upon an X-shape.

Yet, {B} provides less meaning, inasmuch as it does not explicate that the subject died in the process of crucifixion. Accordingly, {B} does not explicitly mention when or where the subject expired, or the interval between that death and the subject’s rising back to life.

{B} also adds meaning by indicating that the subject “rose back to life.” {A} merely indicates that the subject rose again, which could have been in some non-living state (e.g., revenant, spectre, draugr, zombie).

(3) Like {B}, {C} differs from {A} when it comes to explicating crucifixion, timing of death, restoration to life, and timing between death and revival. And like {A}, {C} differs from {B} by not claiming messiahship for Jesus.

{C} also provides less meaning than {A} and {B}, by not mentioning that the subject “rose.” {C} could afford a reading where the subject returns to life, but is immobilized in a prone or supine position.

(4) {D} provides less meaning than {A} by not explicitly mentioning that Jesus died on a cross. {D} also provides less meaning than {B} or {C} by not mentioning that the subject was crucified; the subject could have been nailed to an X-shape in some other fashion than crucifixion. But {D} adds meaning to {A}, {B}, and {C} by indicating that Jesus was nailed to a cross-shape.

Like {C}, {D} provides less meaning than {A} and {B} by not mentioning that the subject “rose.”

{D} adds meaning to {A}, {B}, and {C} by explicating that the subject died on a Friday, and by explicating that there was a remarkable counterpoint to this status on Sunday morning. {D} also adds meaning to {A} thereby, insofar as it notes this counterpoint as evident on two days after the subject’s death. Accordingly, {D} provides less meaning by not indicating a remarkable counterpoint on the third day thereafter.

{D} affords an alternate meaning to {B} and {C} by not declaring the subject’s restoration to life, saying only that the subject was “seen alive.” Many things have been seen without actually being so. {D} also adds meaning thereby to {A}, {B}, and {C}, which did not mention that the subject was seen after death.

(5) Like {D}, {E} provides less meaning than {A} by not explicitly mentioning that Jesus died on a cross, inasmuch as Jesus could have fully expired here before his corpse first encountered the cross that it was “taken from.” Like {A} and {D}, {E} provides less meaning than {B} and {C} by not explicitly mentioning that the subject was crucified, inasmuch as the corpse could have been proximal to the mentioned cross-shape in some other fashion.

{E} provides less meaning than {A} and {D} in that it does not explicate the interval between Jesus’ decease and the counterpoint to this status.

{E} shares other facets in common with {D}, as contrasted with {A}, {B}, and {C} – which I may spare rehearsal at this time. But {E} adds meaning to {D} by mentioning that Jesus was seen not only alive, but well. Then again, {E} provides less meaning than {D} by not mentioning that Jesus was seen in the morning on Sunday.

Now, without claiming to have exhausted the possibilities here, perhaps this is enough to demonstrate that the difficulty of “mak[ing] the same statement five different ways without changing its meaning.”

kaufmannphillips wrote:
We are engaging here the matter of inspiration in the production of the gospels. This is no small matter! One’s answer to the question of the holy spirit’s involvement in their production will have a significant impact on one’s understanding of their quality and character.

steve wrote:
You are beating a dead horse here. You would do better to take this dispute up with Fundamentalists. Jason is not, as near as I can tell, arguing for the inspiration of the four gospels. Nor do I.

Which horse do you think I’m beating? My comment, in context, was challenging a perspective that the gospels are not inspired.

I tendered further questions to you about your thoughts on this sort of topic, in my post on Sunday. I would be quite interested in your response to those inquiries.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
In considering this, it is not gratuitous to compare the belief that the holy spirit miraculously and mightily enabled the witness at Pentecost – arguably a foundational witness for the development of the church – with the situation for these other foundational witnesses.

steve wrote:
That the apostles were emboldened by the Holy Spirit on Pentecost is agreed upon by all evangelicals. This is not parallel in any particular with the historiographic methods used by the writers of the gospels. Historical documents can be essentially reliable without having been produced by divine inspiration.

The account is not merely that the apostles were “emboldened,” but that their witness was miraculously empowered - arguably yielding a result that was foundational to the development of the church. How much more so might one expect the holy spirit to empower the biblical foundation for the church?

As for the gospels and their historiography, I engaged that as well in Sunday’s post. But it’s nice to see your maneuver here. When challenged on matters of historiography, you plead your gospels into a different genre. But when they are challenged as inspired documents, you plead them back into the province of historiography.

[steve]

Emmet,

I didn't see your post of last Sunday until now.

A child who asks one question of its parent may follow-up with a "Why?" question with respect to the answer given. When that "Why?" question is then answered, another "Why?" may be raised concerning that answer. In fact, for every answer given, a child (perhaps feeling generally ignored, and wanting to keep the parent endlessly engaged) may follow-up with another "Why?"—and so on infinitely. There is no answer (however adequate) for which another "Why?" cannot be asked. Similarly, I feel that dialogue with you has no natural end. You apparently have infinite leisure to ask further "Why?" questions, even when you have been answered. I do not have equal leisure to answer them all, even if I knew all the answers.

I seriously doubt that we could know any historical information with certainty, were we to subject all testimony to the same gratuitous skepticism as that with which you approach the documents under discussion here. I have given you responses that I regard as honest and reasonable. If they do not satisfy you, I am sure that I cannot help you, and you may do your own research for the answers you seek. In the course of this research, I recommend reading (among other things) Richard Bauckham's "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony."

[Jason]

Hey, Emmet! I don't mind continuting our discussion but I want to point you to a video which, I think, illustrates Steve's point pretty well. This is the "clean" version of Louis C.K. talking about the infinate nature of "why." Starts about 3 minutes into his bit...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fdc28bZ90G4

[kaufmannphillips]

steve wrote:
A child who asks one question of its parent may follow-up with a "Why?" question with respect to the answer given. When that "Why?" question is then answered, another "Why?" may be raised concerning that answer. In fact, for every answer given, a child (perhaps feeling generally ignored, and wanting to keep the parent endlessly engaged) may follow-up with another "Why?"—and so on infinitely. There is no answer (however adequate) for which another "Why?" cannot be asked. Similarly, I feel that dialogue with you has no natural end. You apparently have infinite leisure to ask further "Why?" questions, even when you have been answered. I do not have equal leisure to answer them all, even if I knew all the answers.

As you may remember, Steve, I work with children. And don’t I know they can be annoying – especially when I would prefer to be doing “grown-up” things. In fact, while I was preparing my response to your post, I was interrupted by a child who wanted me to make a paper airplane for him. I don’t know how many of those things I have made this past week. But responding to this child is my job – and my privilege.

It is also my job and privilege to engage matters of truth, as it is yours. So it is somewhat inappropriate to characterize these conversations as “leisure.”

{I may or may not have more time for leisure than you do. My workday starts around 6:00-6:30am on weekdays, and my after-school job ends between 6:00-8:00pm most weeknights. A few times a week, I may get more than a half-hour’s contiguous break in the midst of the day, exclusive of commute time. Then again, I keep sabbath, which removes about 24 hours a week from productive activity (including working on these posts), but allows me to get a lot of sleep and to enjoy casual entertainment. When I have opportunity for leisure at other times, I do like to play Texas Hold’Em and dice games on Facebook.

But what does this matter? Are either of us to be excused from engaging matters of truth because we’re short on time for “leisure”?}

Now, it is true that children concatenate their “Why”s. Children naturally find one question leading to another. Adults, however, frequently desire pat answers and closure. They often have grown unaccustomed to the exercise of learning and grappling toward a better understanding of the world. To wrestle with “why”s can threaten their pride, and can disturb their sense of security in their own understandings. Children are not so uneasy about their ignorance; for them, it is a chronic challenge.

Then again, sometimes children are less ignorant than their elders; it is the proverbial child who notes the emperor’s lack of clothes. In this sort of situation, an adult can attempt to play a “grown-up” card and shut down or shunt aside the child's inquiry, or the adult can wrestle with the matter and pursue a worthy answer.

Now, with one exception, my queries in last Sunday’s post were focused on merely two subjects. One might suspect that you are not so weary of questions as you are loath to field these particular inquiries.

On one hand, I was challenging your appeal to genre as a means of exculpation for your gospel witnesses. I wager this to be a pseudo-scholarly maneuver – casually invoked, but not seriously substantiated. And this maneuver can hardly be considered a “reasonable” response if it cannot sustain reasoned inquiry.

On the other hand, I was pursuing your current stance on the character of biblical texts. This is a truly fascinating line of discussion. I could understand, though, why you might shrink from delving into this arena. A reasonable extension of your stance on the gospels would mean that you would not claim large swaths of the bible to be inspired. How, then, would the bible be engaged as authoritative for faith and practice? If you were to appeal to tradition on this score, then according to your previous rhetoric you “might as well be Roman Catholic.”

I can understand why you might not want to field these lines of inquiry, Steve. The first is potentially embarrassing, if the emperor indeed has no clothes; and the second could open quite the can of worms for you. But if it’s truly just a matter of leisure time, then I will not complain about a leisurely wait until you eventually have the time to engage them. I can be very patient.

steve wrote:
I seriously doubt that we could know any historical information with certainty, were we to subject all testimony to the same gratuitous skepticism as that with which you approach the documents under discussion here. I have given you responses that I regard as honest and reasonable. If they do not satisfy you, I am sure that I cannot help you, and you may do your own research for the answers you seek.

(a) As you may remember, my undergraduate work was in history. Many who do not work in a sausage factory will prefer to think little about the production values behind their ballpark treat; and many will spare thought about its nutritive value. Many will be unreceptive to being advised of such unpalatable realities – particularly in mid-bite. But one may be advised that there is a great deal of “historical information” that is not actually “know[n …] with certainty.”

(b) I am not here to just fish for answers, keeping what I like and letting the rest go free. After all, Steve, it is not only children who can be dogged with questions. Sometimes inspectors are dogged with questions, attempting to gauge the worthiness of a structure. Sometimes investigators are dogged with questions, attempting to uncover the truth behind a mystery. Sometimes therapists are dogged with questions, attempting to push their client toward a breakthrough. And sometimes professors are dogged with questions, attempting to further the work of learning – for their students, for their colleagues, for themselves, and for others who depend upon the engagement of wisdom.

[Jason]

This appears to indulge a wide tolerance when it comes to “peripheral details.” If we were to parallel your example from the Titanic, then we might gather that once there was a Jewish guy who got crucified, and let the rest hang in the breeze!

Actually, based upon the agreeable accounts, we’d have to conclude that a Jewish guy got crucified unjustly and was later seen alive following his death. Then, according to the agreeable accounts, this Jewish guy’s followers began a ministry of alleged miracles and were later put to death themselves. My sources for this information include the three synoptic accounts, John, Papias, Clemente, Paul’s collected writings, the Didache (corroborates resurrection of Christ) and Mara bar Sarapion (who implied the wrongful death of Jesus). If you want sources which corroborate the severe, and early, persecution of the followers we have three more, non-Christian sources for that.

When it comes to peripheral details, we do have a good deal of corroboration on some very important details. Where the accounts (specifically the synoptic) disagree with one another we are left with some choices:

1) One account is mistaken
2) Both accounts are mistaken
3) The accounts can be reconciled easily
4) The accounts can be reconciled with great effort
5) Some detail was lost in translation (language issue)
6) Manuscript copyist made an error

I don’t take peripheral details lightly, but neither do I automatically assume that conflicting reports on details mean all the reports are unworthy of being trusted or used to determine what happened.

When it comes to the life and ministry of Jesus, we may acknowledge that millions of people make life-changing choices based upon matters of detail. Can you marry a divorcee or not? Can you retaliate in kind or not? Can you swear an oath of allegiance or not? Such questions are rather less than peripheral to real persons living real lives. And this behooves a fine level of accuracy.

That’s an excellent point and if you’ve heard Steve lecture on those issues you’ll find an almost irritating level of respect given to detail. It seems like the issues you mentioned here are contentious for the same reasons people are contentious about anything. However, I take a slightly unpopular view on this subject and would perhaps even differ with Steve here. Greg Boyd has changed some of my views on how the Bible uses and mandates “rules” of behaviour. However, that would lead the discussion far away from our main point and since you are not dealing with a fundamentalist, you might not be entirely satisfied with my answer were it given.

(c) We are engaging here the matter of inspiration in the production of the gospels. This is no small matter! One’s answer to the question of the holy spirit’s involvement in their production will have a significant impact on one’s understanding of their quality and character.

Not really. I have an entirely different view of inspiration than does the average fundamentalist but we both feel obligated to follow the teachings of Christ. I just think those teachings are simple and others feel like a PhD is required to carry them out.

In considering this, it is not gratuitous to compare the belief that the holy spirit miraculously and mightily enabled the witness at Pentecost – arguably a foundational witness for the development of the church – with the situation for these other foundational witnesses.

Could I ask for more lucidity here? I don’t follow your train of thought in making this comparison. Sorry for my dullness.

If the church wanted to maintain a myth-story, they might not have chosen to smooth out the variances between different versions of their myth. When pieces of literature become piously esteemed, they can be forgiven much (rightly and/or wrongly).

That is very naive, sir. I expected you to take this point as a given. Perhaps it was this particular response that led Steve to question your questioning.

Whether a source is respected or not, one should pay close attention to its details. You may or may not be familiar with the story of Susanna, seeing as it is not in the Protestant version of Daniel. It is found in Catholic and Orthodox bibles, though.

I was not familiar with the story of Susanna so thanks for posting it. The witnesses who wrongly accused the young woman of God were of poor character and they were not examined at first. I’m afraid your parallel (if you were intending to draw one) breaks down here because the gospel accounts were examined from earliest times.

[kaufmannphillips]

Hi, Jason,

Thanks for your reply.

Jason wrote:
When I speak of variances in peripheral details, it's similar to what James Cameron said about the lack of agreement in the statements made by survivors of the Titanic. Did the ship hit an iceberg and sink? Yeah. Did it stand vertical for an hour? Maybe. Did it break in half? Maybe. Where was the captain when the impact occured? Depends who you ask.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
This appears to indulge a wide tolerance when it comes to “peripheral details.” If we were to parallel your example from the Titanic, then we might gather that once there was a Jewish guy who got crucified, and let the rest hang in the breeze!

Jason wrote:
Actually, based upon the agreeable accounts, we’d have to conclude that a Jewish guy got crucified unjustly and was later seen alive following his death. Then, according to the agreeable accounts, this Jewish guy’s followers began a ministry of alleged miracles and were later put to death themselves. My sources for this information include the three synoptic accounts, John, Papias, Clemente, Paul’s collected writings, the Didache (corroborates resurrection of Christ) and Mara bar Sarapion (who implied the wrongful death of Jesus). If you want sources which corroborate the severe, and early, persecution of the followers we have three more, non-Christian sources for that.

(a) We do not have to conclude that the Jewish guy was crucified “unjustly.” All of the sources that you list are Christian, and thus partisan to the Jewish guy (except for bar Serapion, discussed below). Partisans may not be trustworthy to provide a fully accurate portrayal.

Even from the canonical accounts, it would seem that the Jewish guy’s behavior was incendiary. Given the political context of the times, capital punishment may have been appropriate. We hardly have all the facts to the situation, and we do not have a reliable statement of the other side’s perspective (Jewish and/or Roman). Does it seem responsible to “conclude” without having heard both sides to the story?

(b) Thank you for providing your sources here. Sourcework is an essential component to careful investigation.

As indicated above, it appears that Mara bar Serapion was not Christian. However, this source has been dated broadly, from post-73 CE up to the third century. It is not clear that bar Serapion had any personal knowledge of Jesus or of the events surrounding his death. His passing reference to the execution of a “wise king” may be based upon hearsay, and that quite possibly derived from Christians. So this source seems a slender reed for making a historical argument about Jesus’ death.

Turning to Papias, our remnants from this source are rather limited. For what it is worth, Eusebius characterizes him as a “man of exceedingly small intelligence.” Now, perhaps this is just a matter of misplaced elitism on Eusebius’ part, due to theological differences. We may note that no copies of Papias’ five-volume work, Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord, have survived to the present – possibly because the church was unimpressed with the work and/or its writer.

Eusebius does point out that “Papias himself, in the preface of his work, makes it clear that he himself neither heard nor saw in person any of the holy apostles. Instead, he declares that he received the matters of faith from those known to them. As he says: ‘...[W]henever someone arrived who had been a companion of one of the elders, I would carefully inquire after their words – what Andrew or Peter had said, or what Philip or what Thomas had said, or James or John or Matthew or any of the other disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I did not suppose that what came out of books would benefit me as much as that which came from a living and abiding voice’.” This sets Papian material as third-hand witness at best, by the time we get it at the hands of somebody else.

(c) I would be interested if you could elaborate on your references in a couple of cases. On one hand, you indicate that “this Jewish guy’s followers began a ministry of alleged miracles and were later put to death themselves.” Which followers are you thinking of here, and based upon which of your sources?

On another hand – I am quite fond of the Didache, as you may be aware. Where, exactly, does it “corroborate [the] resurrection of Christ”?

Jason wrote:
When it comes to peripheral details, we do have a good deal of corroboration on some very important details. Where the accounts (specifically the synoptic) disagree with one another we are left with some choices:

1) One account is mistaken
2) Both accounts are mistaken
3) The accounts can be reconciled easily
4) The accounts can be reconciled with great effort
5) Some detail was lost in translation (language issue)
6) Manuscript copyist made an error

I don’t take peripheral details lightly, but neither do I automatically assume that conflicting reports on details mean all the reports are unworthy of being trusted or used to determine what happened.

Your taxonomy is incomplete:

(7) Alienation from linguistic, cultural, and/or historical context has obscured the sense
(8) One or more parties in the chain of transmission (e.g., copyist, editor) have purposefully altered data
(9) One account has purposefully altered data
(10) Both accounts have purposefully altered data

When variance appears to be purposeful, this should raise a flag for the examiner. Of course, even untrustworthy sources can be useful, when handled carefully. But part of careful handling is factoring in the nature of a source – whether it be liable to error, prone to obscurity, cavalier with data, or contrived to the point of misdirection or falsification.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
When it comes to the life and ministry of Jesus, we may acknowledge that millions of people make life-changing choices based upon matters of detail. Can you marry a divorcee or not? Can you retaliate in kind or not? Can you swear an oath of allegiance or not? Such questions are rather less than peripheral to real persons living real lives. And this behooves a fine level of accuracy.

Jason wrote:
That’s an excellent point and if you’ve heard Steve lecture on those issues you’ll find an almost irritating level of respect given to detail.

And this is not only the case with Steve, of course. The bible is gone over again and again with fine-toothed combs.

At this point we may broach a basic matter of inquiry: if one is using an instrument that is only accurate to a factor of x, then what use is it to attempt work below that threshold? If we have only a microscope that affords definition down to fifty microns, then what use is there for us to attempt to identify internal features in a patient’s red blood cells?

Accordingly, at what point shall we identify the threshold of reliability for a gospel? And how may we train the devout so that they can properly mind this threshold?

Jason wrote:
However, I take a slightly unpopular view on this subject and would perhaps even differ with Steve here. Greg Boyd has changed some of my views on how the Bible uses and mandates “rules” of behaviour. However, that would lead the discussion far away from our main point and since you are not dealing with a fundamentalist, you might not be entirely satisfied with my answer were it given.

(a) Whether certain concepts are taken as “rules” or not, accuracy in the source text still matters. Likewise, even if the issue at hand is not considered to be a contentious one in our milieu, accuracy still matters. That is, if one is concerned for authentic cohesion to the Jesus who lived and taught and led.

(b) What difference does it make if I am “satisfied” or not? I am neither your client nor your supervisor. Your responsibility is not to satisfy me – though you are responsible for tendering satisfactory answers to Someone else (cf. 2 Timothy 2:15).

The discussion of “rules” is worthwhile. To avoid diversion here, perhaps it might receive its own thread?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
We are engaging here the matter of inspiration in the production of the gospels. This is no small matter! One’s answer to the question of the holy spirit’s involvement in their production will have a significant impact on one’s understanding of their quality and character.

Jason wrote:
Not really. I have an entirely different view of inspiration than does the average fundamentalist but we both feel obligated to follow the teachings of Christ. I just think those teachings are simple and others feel like a PhD is required to carry them out.

(a) Few (if any) things are simple. People desire simplicity for the sake of ease, but the universe is not beholden to oblige.

(b) If one holds the position that the holy spirit fully guaranteed the production of the gospels, then one will consider their initial quality and character to be impeccable. If one does not consider the holy spirit to have been involved to such an extent, then one may consider their inherent susceptibility to error.

For a thoughtful person, their position on the matter of inspiration will affect their subsequent challenges in engaging the gospels: the fundamentalist will be beholden to resolve instances where the gospels appear to be less than impeccably inspired; the non-fundamentalist will be beholden to evaluate the gospels carefully to avoid stumbling through potential errors in these documents.

And there is another practical difference: though you and a fundamentalist may “both feel obligated to follow the teachings of Christ,” you can brush aside a problematic detail in the text, if it seems appropriate to discount it; your counterpart has less liberty in this respect.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
In considering this, it is not gratuitous to compare the belief that the holy spirit miraculously and mightily enabled the witness at Pentecost – arguably a foundational witness for the development of the church – with the situation for these other foundational witnesses.

Jason worte:
Could I ask for more lucidity here? I don’t follow your train of thought in making this comparison.

If one were to take the canonical materials as trustworthy, one might gather that God acted extraordinarily and mightily to facilitate the foundation of the church. One case of this would be the linguistic event at Pentecost, where the holy spirit is said to produce a miraculous and impressive witness. The church then obtains a prompt and sizable constituency, and potentially some who hear the miraculous witness – whether converted or not – may spread talk about it far and away. Arguably, this would be a foundational piece in the development of the church. One can imagine how it might expedite and undergird the growth of the church and the spread of the gospel.

And so, if God were acting extraordinarily to produce this witness – endowing the church with a few thousand constituents on a single day, and spreading news about Christ through the ancient known world – mightn’t God act extraordinarily in the production of witnesses that would touch millions of lives across twenty centuries, and across the globe? If God were acting extraordinarily to yield this seminal foundation for the early church – mightn’t God act extraordinarily in producing witnesses that have been seminal and foundational through the church’s long existence? Does God manage the small foundation, but outsource the colossal one?

Jason wrote:
If the early church had wanted to maintain a myth-story, they could've no doubt made sure the variances were eliminated. The fact that they remain (even throughout the strong armed reign of the RCC) shows at least a level of respect for the original witness testimonies.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
If the church wanted to maintain a myth-story, they might not have chosen to smooth out the variances between different versions of their myth. When pieces of literature become piously esteemed, they can be forgiven much (rightly and/or wrongly).

Jason wrote:
That is very naive, sir. I expected you to take this point as a given. Perhaps it was this particular response that led Steve to question your questioning.

Alas – if only I had paid more attention to the ways humans think and interpret; if only I had spent years studying people’s pious activities; if only I hadn’t frittered away my time collecting glass figurines and honing mad skills at MarioKart! Then I might not be so naive.

Then I might be able to observe that people frequently decline to relinquish or tinker with their classic texts, even in the face of clear need for improvements – thus the persistent adherence to the KJV in some quarters, and the dearth of modernized-language editions of Shakespeare in high school classrooms. Rather than revising or replacing a text, people often will employ other strategies to cope with its real or imagined shortcomings: external smoothing through apologetics and/or harmonization; allegorization; appeal to mystery; and even flat denial.

Or perhaps I might be able to reference classic myth-stories of our time – how people do not scruple to revise Braveheart and Gladiator so as to fix their historical inaccuracies, nor do they dare to edit Gone With the Wind for distasteful bits. Various incarnations of Batman and James Bond rest on fans’ shelves, side-by-side, with little concern for smoothing out inconsistent continuity. Or perhaps more germane, Zeffirelli’s Jesus of Nazareth sits next to the Jesus movie and Gibson’s Passion of the Christ – none of which are regarded as needing harmonization by the pious viewer. These are classic and effective tellings of the sacred story, and imperfections are largely forgiven.

Alas – my naiveté keeps me from living up to your expectations. And I fear this will not be the last time that I will fail to take one or another of your points as a given.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Whether a source is respected or not, one should pay close attention to its details. You may or may not be familiar with the story of Susanna, seeing as it is not in the Protestant version of Daniel. It is found in Catholic and Orthodox bibles, though.

Jason wrote:
I was not familiar with the story of Susanna so thanks for posting it. The witnesses who wrongly accused the young woman of God were of poor character and they were not examined at first. I’m afraid your parallel (if you were intending to draw one) breaks down here because the gospel accounts were examined from earliest times.

I drew the point that “sometimes details matter.”

But if I were to draw a parallel, it could be through posturing a defense for the elders in this story:

Dear brethren, why do we entertain such a gratuitous challenge to the evidence before us today? Why do we allow the cavils of an upstart to call into question the character of our elders, who have given us no reason to doubt them?

These elders would have so much to lose by giving false testimony – their place in society, and their personal honor and the reputation of their houses, and indeed their very lives! But this arrogant upstart means to throw out the witness of such men, claiming their lives and destroying their reputations, on the basis of a mere peripheral detail.

Might not our elders have been so astonished by the main spectacle of their discovery, that they failed to take precise botanical notes? After all, our elders agree in the main points of their witness. Should we disregard that witness for a minor matter of detail?

Who knows – their difference in testimony might hinge upon a simple angle of perspective. Such differences can occur between well-intentioned, basically competent witnesses.

But this arrogant upstart means to throw out the witness of such men, claiming their lives and destroying their reputations, on the basis of a mere peripheral detail.