As with everything else pertaining to religion, the short answer is: it depends on who you ask. Fake news is defined this way: “Fake news in a neologism [new expression] often used to refer to fabricated news. This type of news, found in traditional news, social media, or fake news websites, has no basis in fact but is presented as being factually accurate.”1 The word “fact” I define as an actual occurrence or information having objective reality.
Someone may object that it is unfair to compare the Bible to “fake news,” since it is an ancient document and “fake news” is a contemporary expression. Nevertheless, biblical scholars do make distinctions, for example, between factual information (ideas grounded in historical event) and nonfactual information (ideas not grounded in historical event). Here is why it may be appropriate to ask this question about the Bible: the gospels parade themselves as “good news” (translation of euaggelion), so it does not seem inappropriate to inquire about the factual character of that “news.” Luke, for example, claimed that he was going to set the record straight and present an “orderly” account to ensure that Theophilus would “know the truth” (Luke 1:3-4). Hence Luke seems to claim that his good news is “factual data.” Yet Luke uses mythological language and legends in telling his version of the story of Jesus.
The birth narrative in Luke clearly uses mythological language (1:26-38; 2:1-20)—specifically the following verses: 1:26, 32-33, 35; 2:9-11, 13-14. Myths, although they may inform us about human existence, are essentially stories about gods that people have celebrated and still celebrate in recitation and ritual but such stories have nothing to do with objective reality other than that the ideas about the gods are celebrated in ritual. Plato, for example, regarded what he described as “myths” to be fictional stories about the gods.2
Scholars in general describe the story of Jesus in the temple at age twelve (Luke 2:41-52) as a legend. Legends are stories about holy people and religious heroes told “for the purpose of inspiration, instruction and religious edification.”3 While a legend may be historically based (as in this case it is told about a historical person), the details of the narrative belong to hagiography (idealizing or idolizing biography).4 For other hagiographic tales of Jesus’ childhood at ages five, six, eight, and twelve see The Infancy Gospel of Thomas.
Some scholars, however, describe this Lukan story about Jesus as a pronouncement story rather than a legend5 since the category “legend” is problematic—the term suggests fraudulent and pious fantasy. In short the designation “legend” suggests that such stories are not historical accounts.
What do you think? Should the early Christian gospels be described as comprised in part of “fake news” rather than “good news”? The Jesus Seminar published a report in 1998 that found that only 16% of the 176 events they studied in the early gospel literature probably occurred, and the story of Jesus in the temple was not among the 16%.6
Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University
1Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news#Definition
2C. Hedrick, Wry Guy Blog, “The Sibyl’s Wish,” June 26, 2016.
3K. Nickle, Synoptic Gospels (2001), 28.
4C. Hedrick, Wry Guy Blog, “Are there Legends in the Bible,” August 1, 2016.
5See J. Fitzmyer, Gospel According to Luke I-IX (1970), 134-39.
6R. Funk and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus. The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus (1998), 1, 524.
17 comments:
Hi Charlie,
For a fuller discussion, I would suggest adding another phrase to the mix: "inaccurate news". Fake news is meant to be untruthful. Good news is meant to be truthful, but is subject to individual differences. And inaccurate news is intended to be truthful but falls short due to a wide variety of limitations. I would say that the Bible is some type of combination of Good news and inaccurate news.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Good Morning Gene,
I think your analysis is accurate. I am pondering and will get back to you.
Charlie
Hi Gene,
The difficulty with what you say is that we never know anyone's intent. When people say or write something, we only know what they say or write. The speaker/writer's intent is never available to us even when they tell us. So it seems to me we should speak objectively about the kind of language used in the Bible rather than falling into the error of speaking about a writer's intent, which is never available to us. That said, it should also be recognized that certain forms of language in the Bible seem deliberately designed to mislead readers. For example, allegorical language seems to mask what is going on in the writing and seems deliberately written to frustrate a reader's understanding (whether that is the writer's intent or not). For example, read Revelation chapter 17 and you will see what I am trying to say.
And if the prevailing theory of the stories Jesus told is correct, it turns out that parables are deliberately coded language purposely designed to frustrate a reader's understanding what the parable is talking about. That is to say, the majority of NT scholars regard the stories of Jesus as a form of indirect language--that is, they are actually allegory, simile, similitude, or metaphor (compare Mark chapter 4). In other words the stories do NOT mean what they clearly say, but they carry some other unspoken message. That is not my view of the language of parables, however. I take the stories at face value the language means what it says. But if my colleagues are correct it is evident that the language of the Bible in part deliberately masks and misleads in that it says one thing but is taken to mean something other than what it says.
In other words in these situations I mention above it sends out a false message.
What do you think?
Cordially,
Charlie
Good afternoon Charlie,
I haven't purchased your book "Unlocking the Secrets of the Gospel of Thomas" yet, but I do look forward to buying and reading it in the near future.
1) Isn't the Gospel of Thomas considered to be a "gnostic" gospel?
2) Speaking of allegory, doesn't the use of allegory "gnostic?" If not, what are the prevailing characteristics of the gnostic gospels? And gnostic people in general? Are they still around today?
3) I see fake news and propaganda as basically one and the same thing. They are used to advance a narrative. For some reason, lots of people believed that Jesus himself was a very important figure whose narrative had to be kept alive at all costs through the use of propagandized stories and legends. Why do you think Jesus was so important to so many people that they in some cases fabricated records of what he spoke?
4) Are the Jesus sayings in Luke 9:50 and Mark 9:38-41 "He who is not against me is for me" considered by the Jesus Seminar to be included in the 16% of what Jesus may have actually said? Do you think that Jesus contradicted himself by saying in Matthew 12:26-30 "He who is not with me is against me." These contradictions (if contradictions they be) contribute to the "fake news" aspect of the gospel stories and people have a difficult time reconciling confusing statements like that.
Many thanks as always, Elizabeth
Hi Charlie,
If I call the Dentist's office and make a 2PM appointment for Friday, and then I tell you I've done that and plan to leave at 1:30 to get there on time, are you to conclude that my intent is not clear. I would say that my intent is clear at the highest level of clarity. I think when one speaks of intent there must be an awareness of levels of probability depending on the type of communication. To make the statement that one cannot know another's intent, in my view, is extremely misleading. There would seem to be no reason to have a conversation or to read something if there can be no understanding of intent. In other words, without an understanding of intent at some level, there is no humanity, no level of mutual understanding.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg,Pa.
Good Morning Gene,
I understand "intent" to be a mental attitude. It is "the state of mind with which an act is done." A statement of intent is not the intent itself. A stated intent could be a lie or a mask for some underlying reason and the person who makes the statement of intent may not even understand him/herself the reasons for the action s/he took. While I can easily understand a stated intent, I have no way of knowing what is actually going on in the mind of another. There is not a one-to-one correlation between intent and stated intent.
Cordially,
Charlie
Cordially,
Charlie
Good Morning Elizabeth,
1. Some consider it to be gnostic. I do not and gave my reasons in the book.
2.Allegory is not unique to gnostic texts but was widespread throughout the ancient world and is also used in the Bible. I cannot answer the second question easily with a short reply, but perhaps their general quality is that they take a world-denying stance. There is a gnostic church in Los Angeles, CA.
3. I don't know the answer to your question. Basically they found Jesus to be an idea and found it easy to port their own views onto him. That process is still going on today.
4. Luke 9:50 is not included among things that Jesus probably said; neither is Mark 9:38-41. Matt 12:27-29 is among the sayings that Jesus probably said according to the Jesus Seminar but Matt 12:26-30 is not.
Cordially,
Charlie
Hi Charlie,
You seem unwilling to recognize gradations of one's knowledge of intent. When you say, 'I have no way of knowing what is actually going on in the mind of another,' you're saying that their statements don't reveal anything about them. But that seems to me to be untrue; something is always revealed in a range from 1% to 99% even though there is not a 'one to one correlation between intent and stated intent.'
The gospel writers clearly say that Jesus' intent was to go to Jerusalem, and when reading the Jesus story it makes perfect sense to believe that to be true at some level of accuracy. The writers are picking up on words and/or an attitude carried along in the tradition. Some might rate this probability at a 2% chance, others might rate it at 95%, but I say it might even fall under common sense to say that Jesus revealed something of his intent regarding Jerusalem to his followers.
Sometimes, to my ear, your statements sound like philosophical solipsism (PS), which I recall debating in freshman Introduction to philosophy. As I'm sure your aware, PS is the theory that one's own self is the only reality, the only thing that can be known and verified. My thought would be that one's own self remains hidden without some degree of revelation of intent from an other. I think that Martin Buber's communication masterpiece, I and Thou, speaks to these issues.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Good afternoon Gene,
Thanks for pushing back on this subject.
First paragraph: Like everyone else I do make guesses as to the degree of correlation between intent and stated intent, if I suspect there might be something awry in a person's statement of intent. For sometimes one has good reason to suspect that another's stated intent is simply a lie or an unrealistic expectation.
Second paragraph: Your first sentence is a problem for me. The gospel writers lived a generation or more after Jesus and ascribed intentions to Jesus even though they could not possibly have known what his intent was. The gospel writers had never met the man in person, and I must assume they ascribed intentions to him on the basis of their faith and achieving a literary plot, rather than on the basis of personal knowledge and observation. I would hesitate to grant any credence to the reliability of the tradition where intent and even stated intent is concerned.
Last sentence of the second paragraph: Possibly Jesus did make statements to his associates as to his intent, but the gospel writers were not present to hear the statements. And even if they were, one would still have to overcome the difference between intent and stated intent.
Third paragraph: I am well aware that there is a reality out there and know that when I die it will continue. That said, I also know that I must be honest with myself about how I know things and must be honest to myself and others as to what I can know,
By the way you may be interested in reading (if you have not already done so) Albert Schweitzer's The Psychiatric Study of Jesus (1913). How reliable would you consider a psychiatric study of someone based on traditional reports of others who had never met him?
Cordially,
Charlie
Thank you Gene and Charlie for this interesting discussion.
1) So are you saying Charlie that it is impossible for me to convince you or anyone else of my intent? Since I can't show you what is going on in my mind?
2) Is it your understanding that the gospel writers gathered their material from oral accounts?
3) Why is "intent" an important thing to discuss even one can never be 100% certain of another's person's intent? If you can never truly know what my intent is- why would I take the trouble to even communicate it to you?
My conclusion from this discussion is that no amount of convincing would really satisfy another person that they truly know my intent since they can't see inside my mind.
Thank you both, Elizabeth
PS: If you have any answers to these questions, Gene, please feel free to respond as well.
Hi Charlie and Elizabeth,
I've decided to ask some questions as a change to the methodological approach in our discussion of intent. What do you think?
1. Do I intend to seek truth?
2. Do I intend to be fair in my inquiries and responses?
3. Do I intend to be respectful of other group participants?
4. Do I intend to be true to myself by giving honest responses?
5. Do I intend to recognize when my emotions might interfere with objectivity?
6. Do I intend to search for ways that the intentions of an historical/mythical figure like Jesus might become clearer?
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Hi Gene,
I gather you are suggesting that readers should answer these questions with respect to themselves rather than with respect to you. I started to do that and then discovered hidden problems with the question. For example, question #1: People see truth differently. there is no one view of truth. So the question must be is it my intention to seek truth as I understand it? My answer would be yes and no. It depends on the situation. In my classes when I was teaching I would raise a question for discussion. And then play the "devil's advocate" with student responses taking one side of the debate then another. My goal, or my intent, was not to answer the question (which I really did not care about) but to sharpen student critical thinking skills.
I will address one more of your questions. Question #4: which I would rephrase as follows: Do I intend to give honest responses and not dissemble, that is, to speak with integrity? My answer would be: Yes and no. There are questions that are put to me in my professional capacity and in answering those I will not dissemble but provide data that I know. If I do not know the answer I will say so. There are other questions put to me in certain social contexts in which I will lie in my response. For example: to the question, "how goes it today Charlie?" Even though I may be hurting severely from arthritis (which I do have)--I will say something like "Fine!" Or "Tolerable, thank you kindly!" Or if a woman asks me "how do you like my new hairdo?" And I happen to think it is something short of unbecoming, I will nevertheless answer "It looks great!"
I pass by question #6, because I think you know how I would answer it.
I invite some of the rest of readers of the blog to answer some of the other questions.
Cordially,
Charlie
Hi Charlie,
Sorry to be so unclear!
I should have started each item: "From what you know about me from my writings on this blog, do you think that I intend to....."
I wanted whoever responded to make a judgment about how they see me with regard to each of those six circumstances, on the basis that we are talking about ability to know intent in another.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Hi Elizabeth,
#1: I would simply take your statement about your intention at face value, and would not concern myself with it further unless their seed to be a disconnect somewhere. Then I would begin wondering what your real intent may have been.
#2: Yes, and they made up some things and some of them used written sources.
#3: The second question in three: Here is one reason: In some cases people feel the need to explain themselves when they feel their intentions have been misunderstood.
We do not usually state our intent. We just say and do things, and then later in thinking over our actions or comments, we feel a need to explain ourselves, because others may wonder about our statements or actions.
Cordially,
Charlie
Hi Gene,
Sorry that I did not guess what you intended with your questions. I reply to all six of your questions in a positive was: you come across to me as seeking truth, being fair, respectful, honest, objective, and seeking for clarity in the character of Jesus. However that said I have no way of knowing your intent except to say that I assume you are a man of good will who has the best of intentions.
Cordially,
Charlie
Good morning Charlie,
I'm feeling very positive about the above dialogue, now, since it is apparent that there is an exception to having no way of knowing the intent of another; that exception is assuming that the intender is a person of good will. I'm going to assume that the gospel writers were persons of good will, which brings us back to whether or not they intended to share good news.
Persons of good will intend to share good news, albeit inaccurate due to a variety of limitations.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
I completely agree with both Gene and Charlie... I agree with Charlie in having a positive reply to all six of his questions and that
Gene comes across as seeking truth, being fair, respectful, honest and objective, and seeking clarity in the character of Jesus. (which, by the way, so am I!)
I also agree with Gene in his assumption (which I share) that the gospel writers were persons of good will intending to share "good news," albeit inaccurate due to a variety of limitations.
That was very well said- by both parties. Elizabeth
Post a Comment