Mark Twain made famous the old quip, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” The point of the idiom is that even such supposedly “brute facts” as statistics can be interpreted to have multiple meanings.
Numbers Don’t Lie: Historiography and Modernity
Many people bemoan the study of history. After all, history is simply rote memorization of names and dates—or so goes the story. This is the popular view of the discipline: historians examine texts and artifacts, and reconstruct the events of the past as they took place. “Just reporting the facts,” as it were.
This is the understanding of historiography as inherited by the Enlightenment. Leopold von Ranke was a German historian who is credited as a pioneer in applying the scientific method to historical inquiry. Ranke’s ultimate goal was to report “true” history; totally neutral, free from bias, and completely “objective.” This legacy—and the residual ripples of Modernity—is still seen as the popular mentality to this day.
Eye of the Beholder: Post-Modernity and Interpretation
However, there is another famous old quip: “History is written by the victors.”
Post-Modern philosopher Jacques Derrida made the (in)famous critique that there is in fact no such thing as “objective” observation.
In his philosophical studies of language, Derrida observed that no communication is direct and straightforward, but rather is mediated through language and subject to interpretation. James K.A. Smith offers a concrete example: if I shout “Duck!” in a golf course, it means something radically different than if I shout “Duck!” in a field while you’re holding a shotgun (pg.52, “Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism?“).
But moreover, in the same way that language is subject to interpretation, Derrida proposed that everything in human experience is subject to interpretation—whether we are aware of it or not. There are no “brute facts,” but only “interpretations”; some more valid than others. 
For example, the four-pronged piece of metal that we interpret as an eating utensil and call a “fork,” Ariel in The Little Mermaid interprets as a “dinglehopper”—an instrument for combing one’s hair (Smith, pg.40). Through each of our individual pasts, experiences, and more, we are conditioned to interpret certain “brute facts” in particular ways. Absolutely everything, then, is subject to interpretation.
This same subjectivity to observation and interpretation is carried over into historiography. Contrary to Ranke’s project, there is indeed no “true” history that is not subject to interpretation. Everybody has a perspective—our own conditioned “lenses” with which we view the world. A Protestant will deliver a completely different account of church history, for example, than a Roman Catholic will.
Old Habits Die Hard: Pre-Modern Historiography and The Bible
What, then, about history that pre-dates Ranke and the historiography of Modernity?
Old Testament scholar Pete Enns highlights the example of the “Mesha Inscription” (pg.36, “Inspiration & Incarnation”). This is an ancient inscription that was found, dating to around 830 BCE. Mesha was the king of Moab, and a contemporary of king Omri of Israel. The inscription reads:
Omri was the king of Israel,
and he oppressed Moab for many days,
for Kemosh was angry with his land.
And his son succeeded him,
and he said…he too…
“I will oppress Moab!”
In my days did he say [so].But I looked down on him and on his house,
and Israel has gone to ruin, yes, it has gone to ruin for ever!
And Omri had taken possession of the whole land of Medeba,
and he lived there (in) his days and half the days of his son, forty years,
but Kemosh [resto]red it in my days.
Mesha appears to be gloating over deeds and interactions with Omri and Israel.
The Old Testament also records Mesha as having been a contemporary of Omri, and offers a different take on the relationship between the two parties:
Now Mesha king of Moab was a sheep breeder, and he had to deliver to the king of Israel 100,000 lambs and the wool of 100,000 rams. But when Ahab died, the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel. (2 Kings 3:4-5).
These texts each represent diametrically opposite perspectives of interpretation on similar events. Mesha says that Israel “oppressed” Moab, and goes so far to say that “Israel has gone to ruin for ever.” Israel, on the other side of the coin, records that Mesha quit paying tribute and rebelled. Regardless of whether they are describing the same events, each text represents a particular interpretation of the relationship between the nations.
Rubber Meets the Road: Implications and Application
Jesus called the Old Testament the “word of God” (Mk 7:13)—doesn’t this mean that the Bible’s perspective should report the “objective,” true history? Yes and no. “Yes,” the Bible does report truth, but “no,” it does not report this truth “objectively,” without also being subject to interpretation.
Christians maintain that the Bible, although it is one of God’s conduits of communication, was written by human authors. As such, these human authors were bound in the same way that any other person would be—and that includes the necessity of interpretation when recording historical events.
When we read the Bible in the 21st-century, we are bringing all of our presuppositions to the table. We assume that the Bible is a “book,” or at least that each of the “books” contained within are “books”—when in fact they are often texts that had been composed and redacted over a long tradition. 
(Not to mention that different groups of Christians define the “Bible” with different groups of authoritative “books”!) We assume that a “history” text is the “naked events” as they happened, rather than an interpretive narrative. All of these assumptions and a host more lie at hand as we approach the Bible. In order to do the Bible justice for what it is trying to communicate, we must be aware of these presuppositions and let the Bible operate on its own terms, and not impose our own ideas onto the text.
If archeology challenges our understanding of certain texts, Christians need not immediately assume a defensive posture—perhaps we need to reinterpret our understanding of the historiography of a text. If biological and geological science challenge our reading of Genesis 1+, perhaps we are assuming a 21st-century historiography that was not intended for the text.
Finally, the Bible actually is, in fact, “biased”—and that’s okay. The gospels are records of historical events, but also filtered through theological interpretation of the events unfolding of the incarnate Son of God. John explicitly states that “these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God” (20:31). The Bible records an interpretation—God’s interpretation—of the unfolding plan of redemption for the cosmos.
History is indeed written by the victors. And the ultimate victor is the Christus Victor: Jesus Christ.
†
Hey Aaron, excellent prose (as always), and very fun reading !
As a non-Biblical scholar, I have a few questions.
a) here, is it thought that Jesus speaking of all of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh = Torah, Nevi’im + Ketuvim) or just one of its components. (Note, I try not to use the term “Old Testament” since it is very loaded.) Or is he referring to something more abstract.
b) The greek of Mark 7:13 translates: λόγος θεός “Word of God”. Matthew 15:6 uses “logos theos” also. But in Luke and John, “logos theos” means something different, I think – See Luke 3:2, Luke 8:11. I think in these passages, it seems more mystical and less about a canonized writings. Am I wrong?
Why does this matter? Well, it seems to be a key passage in your view of scripture. Please correct me if I am wrong.
You give very sophisticated (and what I view as accurate) caveats around the natural vulnerabilities of the human written booklets in the canonized text called “the bible”. Yet you then say, “The Bible does report truth” and you are basing that, in this post, on Mark reporting that Jesus to have use “logos theos” to point to his support of the Hebrew Bible to be a reliable measure of truth. I know Paul does, I am just curious if Jesus took it the same.
Are these your Gospel supports for “The Bible” reporting Truth? In light of all your rightly cautioned caveats, we can see how hard it would be to get agreement on what that “truth” is. Is it “one truth”, a “bunch of truths”. But those aren’t my main points. I am really just curious about the “logos theos” translation and meaning in Mark and if you have any support for the use of scripture as truth revealing in the Gospels. Indeed Jesus was born in a Jewish family and of course was Jewish in some way — scholars (even Christian scholars) are not in agreement of what sort of way he was Jewish, but we could be certain that what ever way it was, he would use scripture in his persuasion techniques.
Your post would be very challenging to many Christians who have been raised in a tradition which looks at the scriptures as literal, and even those that are taught that the scriptures have some minor translations errors would be upset by your wider cautions. And so for me, an ex-believer, your last sentences are odd. They sound like you saying, “ooops, I was a bit unorthodox there, and I want everyone reading this to still trust me, so I will say say real orthodox stuff to show that I am still in the club.” So you say something very different from the tone of the rest of your post:
It felt like you needed to say that because many of your readers know that your view of scripture can indeed take people away from this confession.
Finally, I think even Atheists would agree with your emphasis that
For certainly John’s gospel was written to persuade us of this. In light of the caveats of your post, it should make us question John’s human input into that. Thus, it seems an odd quote. But then I am biased — and as you rightly point out, we are all biased.
I like the point Smith also makes, that just because something isn’t objective, doesn’t mean it can’t be true. I think Jesus recognises the importance of interpretation when he asks Peter, ‘Who do you say I am?’ (Matthew 16:15). There has to be some kind of personal interaction with who Jesus it. You can choose to read with the text or you can read against it, but either way you’re making a choice based on your own interpretation of what it means. To pretend we are capable of objectively deciding on its meaning is short-sighted, in my view.
[...] As a tribute to Twain (and as a clever excuse to squeeze profanity into a blog title!), I named the article, “Lies, Damned Lies, and Hermeneutics: A Postmodern Take on Biblical Historiography.” [...]
Sabio -
I know Aaron will comment later, but I thought I might throw in some thoughts.
Yes, you are correct. ‘Word of God’ (logos theos) can refer to varying things. It can refer to Scripture (at least from the Gospel standpoint it would be in reference to the OT/Tanak). This is seen in places like Mark 7:13 and possibly John 10:35.
But logos theos can also be used in reference to the word of God as coming in a spoken form, i.e. a homily (Luke 5:1). And it can be in reference to a mystical sense/inward communication of God (Luke 3:2, possibly Luke 8:21).
But the Greek word graphe is used very often in reference to the Scripture (again, OT/Tanak from a Gospel writers perspective). But we would also see that the NT is now part of that Scripture whole, standing as the great interpreter of the OT and testifier to Christ. And it is possible that such passages as 2 Peter 3:15-16 begin to hint at the formulation of some authoritative writings.
Still, another Greek word to consider in the NT that is in reference to the ‘word of God’ is rhema. I don’t have the Greek before me right now, but it is possible that Hebrews 4:12 is a place where rhema is used.
Why did you have to take a perfectly valid point about the importance of interpretation, and then ruin it by appealing to postmodernism?
We have thousands of years worth of authority; both scriptural and secular, on which to base an argument about the importance of perspective and interpretation. I could outline a watertight case from the Old Testament alone.
Conversely, Derrida’s “contribution” to the analysis of writing was not a simple endorsement of perspective and interpretation. This would be a gross misinterpretation of what Derrida stood for (and even Derrida agrees that gross misinterpretation is possible
). That is not what postmodernism and deconstructionism is about, at all.
And finally, I note that the major secular universities do not teach Derrida anymore; that was already dying off by the time I finished at university. Are they teaching him in seminary now? Just curious, because it seems I only read about Derrida on theology blogs anymore.
Josh,
FYI, Derrida is still taught in continental-leaning departments in the UK and Europe. Your comment in this regard seems a strange generalisation / exaggeration, given that new editions and translations of his works are coming out all the time. You’re right that he’s no longer the ‘latest thing’ in continental philosophy (now guys like Badiou & Zizek, probably), and opinion is divided as to his usefulness (cf. the debacle surrounding his ‘honorary’ Cambridge PhD), but that divide in opinion tends to run along the same continental/analytic lines as much else in academic philosophy. Given most US philosophy departments tend toward analytic, I would suggest (though this is a guess) that any broad declining interest in Derrida is due more to their antagonism toward continental philosophy than anything else. If you have other information re. the US then I’m open to hearing it. But your generalisation certainly doesn’t hold in Europe.
I’ll leave Aaron to field the rest of your thoughts…
Thanks for commenting.
[Edit: also, you might find a discussion going on underneath this post helpful in getting an idea of the continental/analytic divide].
Hi everyone,
Sorry for my absence, but thanks for the comments! I have a handful of pressing items at the moment, so any questions directed to myself in particular, I will get to ASAP. In the meantime, definitely don’t wait up for me! =D
@Simon — You may be right about the difference between European and American schools; that would make sense. I lived through the tail end of it here, and vividly remember the whole muddle, and the surrounding passionate affair with Chomsky, Semiotics, postmodernism, and the like. It pervaded everything 15 years ago.
FWIW, I actually defended Derrida the other day against inaccurate criticism, and I still find some of his ideas useful. But he’s definitely been on the downswing here for some time, and is generally ridiculed by people I know now.
And I have to apologize for my abrupt and rather incredulous tone in the comment. I always considered Derrida to be the Godfather of modern relativism, and a sophist to boot. Relativism and sophistry are wonderful tools for a young man making his way in the world, but not at all useful for understanding Christianity, IMO.
Joshua, yes. I think lots of these sorts of figures have some very useful ideas, particularly in correcting the errors of high modernity. I haven’t been able to connect with Derrida’s work as I have with others with similarly radical critiques, such as Nietzsche or Foucault or, my current muse, Adorno, but it would seem he needs the same critical engagement as do these guys, from a Christian perspective. It is telling, I think, that interest in the quintessential Derridean theologian, John Caputo, has very much declined of late, in favour of more constructive and critical, and more orthodox, engagements from people such as Jamie Smith (mentioned in the post) or Bruce Ellis Benson. That is a good thing, I think (even if Peter Rollins seems to popularizing Derridean thinking again, somewhat anachronistically, for the pop Christian market).
Best.
Scott, Thank you for pointing out the Greek word graphe for “Scripture” (written thing). I looked up Rhema – seems to be translated lots of ways, one being “sayings” or literally spoken words. Probably much scripture was chanted or read-out loud and it could fall in that category.
Concerning “grapeh”, Consider: Mark 12:24 (and its synoptic borrowing at Mat 22:29)
I think I am accurate in saying that many non-Christian Biblical scholars feel that most quotes of the form “that the scripture [graphe] should be fulfilled” are retrophecy. I made up that word but maybe it should be a word — by it I mean, creating the story to try to match Tanakh writings. This is obviously what Matthew did to sell it to Jews and he even made mistakes in places.
But indeed, Jesus being a Jewish teacher would have valued the Tanakh highly. The question is, do you think he realized people who use it to mean the writings of Paul and the 4 guys who edited his story in the Gospels that got left in the canon?
My experience with every religion is that, unsurprisingly, they believe the equivalent of 2nd Timothy 3:16 (which has “graphe” in it) for their own faith. Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable * (πασα γραφη θεοπνευστος κα ωφελιμος) . But are we really to just continue the tradition of all old religions and trust them because they tell us to?
Here is my question to you:
If the Councils who decided which books to burn and which to encourage as orthodox had used Aaron’s insights on scriptures, do you feel the same set of writings would have been included in the Christian NT?
I HIGHLY doubt it, of course, but I’d love to hear the rational for your decision.
I think this is the fear of fundamentalists — they get it. They understand that Aaron’s view of scripture undercuts much of the authority they seek in their lives. It strikes me as ironic that liberal Christians (my favorite sort, btw) don’t understand how this non-classic view of scripture actually undermines the normal authority of scripture.
But I know there are tons of books of in-house stuff on this — I am adding nothing new to your in-house discussion. But thanks for letting me think out loud.
Sabio, I’ll dive in with a couple points. First, Aaron’s position outlined above is not a liberal one. Theological liberalism has to do with making scientific reason a higher authority than scripture; hence the use of science etc. to demythologize scripture. Ever since Barth, however, theological liberalism has been on the decline mostly because of its philosophical presuppositions, which are so deeply modern as to be almost ridiculous. A whole host of theological schools have grown up since Barth which are neither fundamentalist / conservative, nor liberal in the proper sense. These include neo-orthodoxy, post-liberalism, narrative theology, and Radical Orthodoxy, in addition to various Catholic and Dutch Reformed schools that were never strictly conservative nor liberal in the first place. As for myself, I am certainly not fundamentalist, but I am viciously anti-liberal. For me, both actually come from the same stock.
Reading your point above, Sabio, I still feel, as I did in our earlier discussion, that you feel the only option outside of a strict fundamentalist literalism is a retreat into theological liberalism. I don’t see this at all. The fact is that both of those options are flawed because they over-dichotomize the issues at hand, and are reactionary against each other. In my opinion, from what I’ve read, the church fathers had a more rounded and flexible view of Scripture than both these positions, which neither undermined it’s authority (though your right, it is a different kind of authority than fundy’s “want”), nor retreats into a thoroughgoing literalism. Such a well-rounded view was possible because the early church, despite what some say, really did have quite an open view of ‘orthodoxy’, limited to what is said expressly in the creeds regarding the nature of God and Christ and the character of Christ’s life on earth, and leaving other issues undecided or open. Augustine is a perfect case in point, here, as he was quite flexible on his interpretation of, say, Genesis for instance, which he read allegorically, but also very firm when it came to Christ’s actual nature or the Trinity. What the fundy’s describe as ‘orthodox’ is much more narrow than the early church, and is often limited to a particular denominational theology.
You have to understand also, that the early church father’s didn’t see Scripture as the only authority as do fundamentalists and many Protestants today (for many it is a ‘paper Pope’), and this is probably why they took so long to decide on the canon in the first place. Tradition played a big role – the body of teaching passed down from the apostles. Protestantism is quite unique in church history, and its modernity shows here, in that most it places no real (or official) importance on church tradition, because it fears becoming too Catholic. To me this seems overly reactionary.
For me, and I think Aaron would agree, when it comes to Scripture we would argue that there is a certain flexibility on interpretation, but not a complete flexibility. We do have a body of teaching passed down throughout church history – about Christ, God, the Resurrection etc. – which we can call ‘orthodox’, and anything outside of that is simply not a ‘Christian’ belief. But there is much room within those orthodox boundaries for difference of interpretation and freedom of thought***; as Chesterton said, “these [orthodox beliefs] may be walls, but they are the walls of a playground”. A theologian from Univ. of Manchester, Graham Ward, also communicates this view on orthodoxy well:
I understand this won’t ‘convince’ you, as such, but it may help you better understand where some of us are coming from, or at least me.
All the best.
***[EDIT] This doesn’t mean I’m indifferent to people’s interpretations; I definitely think some are better than others (I’m actually very opinionated in some areas, which may not surprise you), I just don’t think one’s view on eschatology or the Flood, for instance, is definitive of ‘orthodoxy’, and so don’t think such differences should challenge Christian unity (as perhaps the Protestant denominations have, at times, let them).
Simon
Thank you for the clarification on “Liberal” theology — I wasn’t clear on that. Your explanation was helpful. I do understand the authority of tradition issue and indeed see how one could add nuance to a non-literal, non-fundamentalist view while not going extremely liberal (in your “science first” sense).
I just placed a comment on James McGrath’s site — is he, in your definitions, more of a liberal theologian unlike yourself?
BTW – side note, I don’t know if there are present day followers of Barth, but they find your comment of his theology being “so deeply modern as to be almost ridiculous.” as bit emotional and lacking content (though that may have been your intent. For as you said, “… I am viciously anti-liberal.” I would caution you on such rhetoric — though it may be persuasive and self-congratualatory to those in your camp, I don’t think it aids in dialogue. You rightly chastised me before for my tone, which I have tried to improve — so this is not said self-righteously but as a mutual pat on the back.
I’d be curious, when you have time, in a short bulleted manner (there is a challenge for you ! smile) for a list of those liberal points you are viciously attacking as ridiculous.
Thank you again for educating me — it helps.
Simon,
Seeing your edit reminded me of the constant question I have.
If you use “Church Tradition” as your source for sorting fact from fiction/allegory/illustration/… in your Christian scriptures, we should have a list or an annotated bible to tell us which passages to take literally and which to take as allegory or which to take as simply culturally constrained and OK to ignore etc…. But, of course, there is no such annotated bible (right?). For even using Church Tradition as a balance in interpretation, different theologians make many different spins — they do not agree.
Or are you saying that the creeds are authoritative — and then, it seems the whole conversation of liberal versus conservative must revolve around creeds.
I confess, these questions must sound naive, but as you know, I am not a theologian or religious professional but a somewhat informed lay person who is curious (OK, and maybe a bit cantankerous
).
Sabio, from a cursory glance around McGrath’s site, and at his books, I couldn’t tell. Easy way to tell is whether someone believes in Jesus’ bodily resurrection.
I didn’t mean Barth was ‘so modern as to be almost ridiculous’ – I meant that in regard to liberal theology. Barth was a neo-orthodox theologian who did more than anyone else in the 20th Century to undermine liberal theology, and restore some intellectual credibility to Christian orthodoxy. He has many followers today. In a sense all of the newer orthodox movements I listed above are deeply indebted to him, even if they critique aspects of his work. There is an excellent TIME article on Barth’s life HERE from 1962; the cover is HERE.
I take your mild rebuke in good spirit. To be honest, I find it as hard to discuss theology with old-fashioned liberals as old-fashioned fundamentalists. I genuinely think they are both from the same stock; they have the same modern view of reason (this is why fundys are obsessed with chopping up and rationalising Scripture), they just have different final authorities – science and the Bible respectively – but both see their authority as utterly incapable of any kind of error whatsoever. They share, also, a tendency to be simultaneously aggressive and defensive when it comes to their beliefs in the face of criticism.
I’ll start mulling over you challenge re. liberal theology. My main problem would be what one might call liberal theology’s ‘false humility’ [EDIT: by which I mean it surrenders itself to science and other forms of secular discourse under the guise of intellectual humility, but then is utterly unflinching in its attacks on forms of orthodox theology. To me liberal theologians are like Richard Dawkins but without the courage to turn wholesale to atheism. Whatever they have left of their theology is, to me, lacking in much substance, and so rather pointless. My attitude is if you want to be a Christian, be an orthodox Christian, if not, call yourself something else]. But I’ll save that for now.
Re. your last point, yes, those are valid points. It is this complexity which makes it hard, and will continually frustrate our very human desire for absolute certainty. I think the church has a set of teaching that can be described as orthodox, including stuff on Jesus’ nature, God in Trinity, Christ’s death and resurrection and ascension, and the hope in his return as Judge. The Apostle’s Creed would be the most minimal and foundational of these statements, and for me that is definitive of orthodoxy. Even then, however, some unitarians would wish to interpret that creed in a non-Trinitarian way. I would disagree with that interpretation and appeal then also to the Nicene creed (and the Bible, obviously) for confirmation of God’s triune nature.
But even these are just sketchy thoughts. There will never be any definitive system or code, and no easy answers. Which I’m actually glad about – though an explanation as to why would take more than a blog comment and probably a face-to-face conversation over a pint. As it is, I’ll just quote St. Francis, who encapsulates a little bit of what I mean:
Sabio -
As the old adage goes: beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Thus, you would see Matthew as ‘creating the story to try to match Tanakh writings’? I’m ok with that, as long as we qualify the word. I wouldn’t use that word in a way to say Matthew was kind of falsely writing something for some fundamentalist agenda (I can’t think of a good way to say what I am trying to say).
Obviously I would see Matthew as having a revelation of who Christ is, both by interaction with Christ for some 3+ years and through God-direction. He saw things being fulfilled and done right before his eyes that he had read about and learned about for decades. What a surprising shock. But, that is the Christian perspective, or even conservative Christian perspective.
Of course he was writing to Jews, but again I think it unhelpful to imply that he ‘crafted’ a story if we mean he did it in a deceptive way. I don’t think you are meaning that he was trying to deceive. Of course he had an ‘agenda’, which Aaron points out in the article, but of course we would see the ‘agenda’ as directed by God. And I’m not sure of what ‘mistakes’ Matthew made, as you suggest. But I guess that would take a long time to spell out.
Maybe this question is worth pondering: If the Councils who decided which books to burn and which to encourage as orthodox had used Aaron’s insights on scriptures, do you feel the same set of writings would have been included in the Christian NT? But knowing they used other criteria (written by apostle or associate of one, in line with the general teaching of Scripture, etc), it is only speculation.
You said: I’d love to hear the rational for your decision.
What rationale?
On the ‘normal authority of Scripture’: There is somewhat of a tension to say what gets ‘final authority’ for a Christian. In the end, it should be Christ (though most Christians would automatically say the Bible). But the Bible is not the fourth member of the Quadrinity. There is only the Trinity, and Christ is the great revelation of God (John 14:9). So, in the end, I live and give my life for Christ, not the book. Yet, the Scriptures so faithfully testify to Him and the revelation of His message for humanity. So, being His infallible and trustworthy Word, I do see it as a, or the, measuring stick for our faith. Still, I have to consider that also in regards to 2000 years of the body of Christ and the wise fathers through the centuries, and especially being in relationship with the current body of Christ so I don’t go all weird. But you probably know all this stuff about us conservatives.
Hey Scott,
I think most Biblical scholars today believe that the chap who wrote “The Gospel of Matthew” did not hang with Jesus at all. I think they see him as a Greek speaker/writer and that the original was not written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Though many Christians, like yourself, are still under the impression that it is the testimony of a intimate disciple of Jesus. Anyone got numbers on that?
But, more interestingly, if it is true that a source of your beliefs about Jesus did not come from such a close colleague of Jesus, would it affect your beliefs?
Scott,
Here is where I get confused. You want the writer of Matthew to be human and able to make all the human mistakes listed by Aaron, but still you want him “directed by God” in the sense that you don’t want him actually susceptible to using literary tools of persuasion that bend truth — a common practice at that time and, I believe, in this document. To them, the truth of the details was not of prime importance, but the persuasion was. But your phrase “directed by God” should not allow this. When God directs, does he remove free will. I know this is an common discussion of how your god directs people without controlling them but it does come up here.
Scott,
You wrote that your source of authority is Jesus and the Bible is secondary. Then the reason you say you accept the scripture is because:
Do you not hear the circularity in all this?
There is only one way out of the circularity — that you have a REAL relationship with Jesus in the normal sense of the word and that you have conversations with him, he tells you history, stories, jokes, parables and maybe even shares a drink with you. Otherwise, you have no knowledge to check the validity of scripture on.
Am I mistaken?
Sabio -
I think most Biblical scholars today believe that the chap who wrote “The Gospel of Matthew” did not hang with Jesus at all.
I don’t have the numbers with me, but I suppose the use of the word ‘most’ is a bit of an ‘appeal to belief’. I would argue vice versa from your statement, if you are ok with that. Still, I don’t have the numbers. But such a statement doesn’t really do much for me (though I know my statements don’t do much for you).
And, no, it wouldn’t effect me if the person who wrote Matthew’s gospel had not really hung out with Jesus. Luke didn’t, and I am happy with his testimony.
Here is where I get confused. You want the writer of Matthew to be human and able to make all the human mistakes listed by Aaron, but still you want him “directed by God” in the sense that you don’t want him actually susceptible to using literary tools of persuasion that bend truth — a common practice at that time and, I believe, in this document.
In the end, Sabio, I am fine to use the same semantics as you (agenda, bend the truth, etc), but we are going to have differing ideas and intent behind those semantics. In the end, I believe there is no deception, and that these writers are reliable and trustworthy.
To them, the truth of the details was not of prime importance, but the persuasion was.
I think other texts seem to point that details were important – Luke 1:1-4; 1 John 1:1. Now, again, this is no legalistic thing where one has to fulfil the standards of modern empirical scientific evidence. But detail seemed to matter. Mark is a short gospel, but I am amazed at some of the descriptive adjectives used which we might call ‘fluff’. Therefore, I believe details were important.
With regards to the last comment, I know why you see my statement as circular. But we also have 2000 years of billions of followers of Christ to help undergird our testimony. In the early days before an NT canon was formed, they had the kerygma (teaching) and oral traditions handed down. Now I know the mind begins to say that, ‘Couldn’t they have gotten some of the tradition wrong, messed up here and there?’ Sure, they could of, and I am ok if they did. But I am also aware that they were much better at handing down things orally since that was a, if not the, major method of passing along things. But the ultimate central focus of Scripture, 2000 years of the church, the stories and teaching of all believers is Christ. I know I sound too simple and maybe even gullible, but there is too much going to make me think this is all a scam, made-up, a lie, overly fabricated, etc. There is too much that, even though this might sound foolish to someone outside our faith, undergirds our faith. I couldn’t make this up in my wildest imagination.
Scott
You laid out our differences well.
One comment about your last paragraph: To didn’t counter my claim of circularity but instead, it seemed like you said, “OK so circularity is an issue, but I also value my faith because it is old and lots of people believe it.”
Many other religions could put forward those exact same arguments?
I don’t think you want “number of believers”, “age of the belief” and “circularity” to be in your evidence basket. But I may be wrong.
Ooops, one more thing: Would you agree that you and Simon hold significantly different views of Scripture? Wait, that won’t work, you will not want them to be “significant” because you want to both be Christians. Hmmmm, not sure how to phrase it.
Sabio, given that I know Scott personally, I don’t think our views, when we actually discuss them, are all that different. We do tend to come at them from very different angles, and probably what Scott sees as most important, I see as less important, and vice-versa. This means I am more flexible on things that he wouldn’t be flexible on and, again, vice versa. (That is a gentle way of putting it, as we do have differences, but yeah…).
Re. this comment: Wait, that won’t work, you will not want them to be “significant” because you want to both be Christians.
This made me laugh, but I can escape it by saying one’s view of Scripture is not definitive of orthodoxy. We could have very different views of Scripture and both be “Christians” cf. Catholics and, say, conservative evangelicals.
@ Simon — you laughter is fun.
It keeps us talking.
Laughter seems to be part of our shared theology ! Now that is a good idea for a post, “Shared Theologies with Atheists”.
Speaking of shared theologies, dude, that was a low blow quoting St. Francis. You know I have a weakness for mystics. I love the quote from St. Francis — it is excellent. But your comment gave me an idea for a post that I’d love if you and Scott took. Check out my recent post and take the poll at the end of my post: “Trading Jesus for God”.
Sabio, yeah, I find the St. Francis quote helpful. I learnt it from a Christian genetic scientist who I took an ethics class with at college. He was a cool guy; quoted Joni Mitchell a lot. The whole thing is HERE.
I checked out the post: tough question, and couldn’t come up with an answer tonight, so will try again tomorrow.
Now I am curious !
Simon said,
But I am doubting the St. Francis wrote that at all. I have searched about 15 of his writings and can’t find it. All the sites I visit don’t know its origin. It sounds modern. May it was written by a Franciscan monk or maybe a lay person imitating a monk.
Is this how the Bible evolved too? (I just had to add that ! Smile)
It’s known as the [a] Franciscan blessing, so likely could of come from anyone in the Franciscan order, yes. I should probably have said that, rather than attributing it specifically to St. Francis. My bad.
@ Scott
You asked about Matthew’s misuse of OT to squeeze Jesus into the prophecies. Because you asked, and keeping with the post theme, here are some examples:
Fabricated Prophecies
Matt 2:23 Jesus lived in Nazareth. Nothing about Nazareth in Tanakh.
Matt 27:9-10 Jeremiah prophecy about 30 pieces of silver. NAB states well — this is puzzling , there is no such text in Jeremiah.
John 2:13-22 “Zeal for your House Will Consume me” Psalm 69:9. But Psalm is not a prophecy and the speaker was a sinner (see verse 5)
Misapplications
Matt 2:14-15 “Out of Egypt did I call my son” Hosea 11:1. But this passage about Israel.
Matt 1:21-23 “Behold, the virgin ..” Isaiah 7:14 Changed pronoun “she” to “they” so we could explain why “Jesus” was not named “Immanuel” by his mother. Heck, he is not called “Immanuel” anywhere. Not to mention, the word is not Virgin but “Young Woman”, is the normal translation. (ha-almah). Even Paul believes in was just a “woman” (gyne), not a virgin.
Heck, the Isaiah passage about the Messiah
Matt 27: 6 alludes to Zachariah 13:6 “Wounds on Hands” — but the passage is about a FALSE prophet — not the Messiah. Psalm 22:16 is also a favorite of apologetics but the Jewish translation says “like a lion my hands and feet [mauled].” But no Gospel writer quotes this anyway.
Math 27:55 Matt has friends standing far off from the cross because they afraid to get in trouble. But John’s gospel has Mary “beside the cross” — so close they talk. Psalm 38:3-4 is about a terrible sinner (Jesus was sinless). Psalm 38:11 thus weird to pull out — Gospel writer’s were desperate to prove that Jesus was the messiah and so the twist and distort Tanakh passages.
Sabio -
Unfortunately, for you to use the phrases ‘fabricated prophecies’ and ‘misapplications’ seems to only be your ‘narrow’ view of the prophecies. There are many theologians and scholars who would label them as ‘fulfilled prophecies’ and ‘correct applications’. Of course I, and most Christians, are going to have explanations for the verses you have questioned, which is an attempt to present why they are not fabricated or misapplied. You might see them as unreasonable explanations, but of course we see them as very reasonable. So can I give you my ‘narrow’ view as well.
Matt 2:23 – And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled: “He shall be called a Nazarene.”
The part that is being fulfilled is that he would be called a Nazarene, not that he lived in Nazareth. Also, Matthew’s gospel uses the plural by referring to prophetS. So Matthew is not quoting one particular prophet or statement, but probably referring to a larger understanding from the prophets.
Now, what is that larger understanding concerning the Messiah? Theologians tend to note 2 reasonable possibilities: 1) That, as Nazareth was considered a despised town of Jesus’ day (see John 1:46 and 7:52; with regards to 7:52 Nazareth was in Galilee, and Jews say the Gentile area of Galilee as despised), so the Messiah would also be despised, and this is attested throughout the prophets. 2) Nazarene could be connected to the Hebrew word neser (English is ‘branch’) that is found in Isaiah 11:1, and that is definitely a passage speaking of the Messiah. Some would also try and connect Nazarene with Nazarite, but there probably is no connection.
Matt 27:9-10 (the greater context to consider is vs7-10). Most see this as Matthew pulling in from two different prophets. He is referring to both Jeremiah 19:1-13 and Zechariah 11:11-13. The specific wording comes more from Zechariah, but the words of Jeremiah in 19:1-13 (esp. vs11) talks about burying people in a strange place (Topheth) because there will be no where else to bury them. The context also refers to the buying of a potter’s flask.
So when we turn to Matt 27:7-10, we read about using the money to buy a potter’s field, which was a place to bury strangers. So we see a connection between Jer 19:11 and Matt 27:7. And as these things happened, Matthew saw it as a fulfilling prophecy and specifically tying in 2 prophetic oracles. Matthew probably credited Jeremiah more because he was the more prominent prophet, since the whole account/prophecy of Jeremiah is the longest of the prophets.
John 2:13-22 – The psalms are very prophetic (and I could say Scripture in general has a ‘prophetic tone’). Read Ps 22:1 and think Jesus – very prophetic. Actually, many theologians have always considered Ps 69 as messianic and prophetic. Ps 69 was written by David and, at the time, David was the messiah. Messiah means ‘anointed one’ and David was God’s anointed one as king. Thus, what happened in his life typified what would happen in the life of THE messiah. So it is very easy how John saw Jesus’ zeal for the temple (that should of been his Father’s house) was a fulfilment of Ps 69:9. David was a type of Christ.
As for the ‘misapplications’:
Matt 2:14-15 quoting Hosea 11:1.
Yes, Hosea 11:1 was about Israel, but Jesus was the great fulfiller of Israel.
1) Israel was God’s son, as a whole people (Hos 11:1). Jesus was God’s Son (Matt 2:14-15; Rom 1:1-4).
2) Israel was God’s firstborn (Ex 4:22-23). Jesus was God’s firstborn (Col 1:15).
3) Israel was God’s vine (Ps 80:8; Jer 2:21). Jesus was the true vine (John 15:1-5)
4) Israel failed the wilderness temptation (Deut 8:2). Jesus was faithful to his wilderness temptation (Luke 4:1-14).
5) Israel had been disciplined in the wilderness (Deut 8:5). Jesus had endured the discipline of God (Heb 12:2-6).
6) Ultimately, Jesus receives the promises of Abraham that had been for Israel (see Gal 3:16).
So, Jesus was the great fulfiller of Israel, and therefore Matthew could apply Hosea’s words to Jesus.
Matt 1:21-23. I would suppose you are reading a lot of your own presuppositions into this text, and that you have never read a Christian scholar’s thoughts on these. But maybe you have.
Of course Jesus was never called Immanuel. But that proves nothing. I would see Immanuel as a ‘sign-post’ prophetic name about Christ, not his actual name. His name – Jesus – was greatly prophetic enough, meaning ‘Yahweh saves’. But Immanuel was a prophetic statement over his life saying that God would be with his people, which he was in the form of the divine Son. Even the initial fulfilment of the prophecy in Isaiah 8, the son born called Maher-shalal-hash-baz was probably never called Immanuel. The birth of him was a sign to Judah that God was with them. Maher-shalal-hash-baz was his name. Immanuel was a prophetic name-statement about him. Same with Christ.
The Greek word parthenos (virgin) corresponds to the Hebrew term ‘almah. The Hebrew word ‘almah (‘virgin’ or ‘maiden’) generally denotes a young woman not yet married, i.e., she would be a virgin (e.g., Gen 24:43; Ex 2:8; Ps 68:25). It’s likely that ‘almah could refer to a young maiden (and this young maiden possibly not being a virgin) or to an actual virgin young maiden. With regards to Christ, I guess you can guess which one we would see it referring to, which is how the Greek word parthenos is being used.
Matt 27:6 – I think you might have copied down the wrong reference.
Matt 27:55 – I am not sure what you are specifically asking.
Sabio -
Can I make a few observations:
1) These passages you question seem to be either smokescreens or that you are possibly playing with me. To answer a few (or many) questions about particular passages is fine, but that is not usually the big deal with most. Most people can at least understand the attempt at reasonable explanations for such passages, as I have attempted to do for you. But I am not sure going through your many verse by verse questions is useful for you. Maybe you are only trying to undercut my faith. I am not sure. None of this is accusatory, but simple questions I ask you. And, if you are simply trying to undercut my faith and show the ‘loopholes’, then that is why I would say you are playing with me. All this seems like most every other agnostic or atheist I have come in contact with. As one sage said, ‘There is nothing new under the sun.’ I hope you aren’t playing with me and I hope you would be authentic enough to not throw up smokescreens. These little verse are not the big problem for you.
2) Your comment above with all the questions about NT passages seems to take the OT for its word, meaning that your questions about the NT passages seem to present that you believe the OT text is reliable. Why? Because you are questioning the NT text against the OT text. It’s the NT you seem to have a problem with, not the OT, at least in the way you have argued things. Go back and read your thoughts.
Now, I know you are going to come back and say you believe neither. But I think these arguments are, again, probably not the real problem, so maybe a waste of your’s and my time. Hence, they seem like smokescreens. And it’s a bit unhelpful to pit the NT against the OT (or however we would phrase that), since I am going to seem them as intricately connected and two major parts of the whole.
And, if for some reason you did accept the OT reliability but not the NT reliability, I would simply ask how in the world these NT writers could have ever fabricated such? I mean, we are talking amazing masterminds to come up with this stuff so intricately woven together.
I’m not going to throw at you deep philosophical arguments. I am a theologian, not a philosopher. I will walk with you through the text if you want, share answers where I might have considered things, though not everything. But I don’t know if you really want this out of me, since answering your textual questions will probably not sway you one way or the other. I’d simply say it’s whether or not a person really wants to be put to death and then come into resurrection. Sounds good, but it will hurt beyond what you can imagine. I definitely didn’t want it for 17 and a half years. The room where such a death did finally take place, there are probably still stains of tears on the floor. I know, I am appealing to emotion. But what I am really doing is questioning whether all these things are your real questions.
absolutely great stuff. Consider yourself added to our blogroll.
Scott,
I don’t know if you have read anything on my site — it does not sound like you have. You probably would not have to ask all these questions of me. I am pretty open.
I am a former Christian. So apparently I have also “been put to death and then come into resurrection” like you. You were deeply affected by your conversion. I will not do the conversion-competition thing with you. But then many years later, I de-converted. That is who is talking to you.
I am not “toying with you” or using “smokescreens”, I am discussing.
Interesting that you said, “you are trying to undercut my faith”.
Boy, it sounds so devilish when you say it that way. Now, I guess I could imagine in a like way that you too are trying to “undercut my faith”. Why is your faith so special? But I think such terminology is a bit harsh, manipulative and self-indulgent. I am sure you are trying to challenge my assumptions or my patterns of thought. Isn’t that what dialogue is for?
I told you my view of your scripture, you countered, I countered — that is not toying. I was not asking for your exegesis, I was not looking for your wise council on each passage to show how it could be explained to be consistent with your faith. You decided to do that. I just wanted to show you that I was not just saying my opinions of Matthew without examples. That simple.
I feel Aaron, Simon and you have very different spiritualities. Yet we are all discussing on these pages. (well Aaron is on a bit of a leave !) It is difficult for me, a non-believer (albeit ex-believer) to try to have a coherent conversation jumping between your various styles, theologies and emotional needs. So really, I am the handicapped guy here.
But I am assuming blogs are for dialogue (especially when we stay on topic). I was just adding a little from another perspective. Because I am an ex-believer and because I also feel free to criticize certain kind of atheist thinking, I though my comments might be enjoyed.
I started this post with a question to Aaron and you jumped to answer for him. IMHO, you tend to be a bit preachy and evangelical and I do confess, I respond to such rhetoric by counter challenging — I don’t enjoy righteous preaching. Remember, I am an ex-smoker. I have witnessed to lots and lots of folks in my past. I graduated from Wheaton College (a Christian College). I am not a naive listener. My blog makes that clear.
It would be interesting to do a post on “house rules for Atheist – Believer dialogues: Style & purpose.”
You sound like a very kind guy. Be well. I do not mean to frustrate you.
Sabio-
I have visited your blog, and I think I was able to read one article, but maybe not. I really don’t think you are playing with me, and your comment confirmed such, but I just wanted to make sure.
I guess I was a bit presumptuous in my last comments. I thought you were bringing up controversial Scripture passages, so I thought I would show that there are reasonable explanations for such questions. But I now realise you were not asking for such. And, I do realise I jumped ahead of Aaron. Again, maybe I was a bit presumptuous. I really just wanted to be a part of the conversation, though I my thoughts are not so philosophically structured but rather theologically structured.
The beast of blogs (and all internet/email discussion) is that we cannot tell one another’s tone in their typed words. I guess I failed here. I really don’t want to be the righteous preacher type. So hopefully we can interact more in the future – through this blog, your blog, etc.
Thanks
I spent a bit of time on Matthew’s use of scripture several years ago. Some of that might prove helpful in case anyone is still reading this. I don’t think the best fruits of contemporary scholarship support the conclusion that he misinterpreted or misused the Hebrew Bible.
On the question of Matthean authorship, I think the majority of non-evangelical scholars don’t think the compiler of the gospel knew Jesus, but most evangelical scholars do. Most biblical scholars who write commentaries are evangelicals, but the reverse is almost certainly true of the number of scholars who publish articles and non-commentary books on the Bible. I happen to think the best historical arguments favor authorship by Matthew the very disciple of Jesus, just because our only information from close to the time tells us that, and scholars who reject his authorship usually give no credence to our best evidence. But someone could accept even full inerrancy without accepting Matthean authorship of scripture. I believe that’s Craig Keener’s view (although maybe his view falls slightly short of inerrancy; I’m not sure).
Man, I’m bummed I was so busy during the discussion on this thread. There’s so much material to wade through at this point, I’m not sure where to begin!
These references provide a radical (meaning going to the root) deconstruction of all the usual Christian propaganda.
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/EWB/EWB_pp436-459.html#jesusandteaching
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/jesusandme.html
http://www.dabase.org/proofch6.htm
Plus this reference provides a radfical deconstruction of what is usually called religion.
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-religion.aspx