Inadvertently, I stumbled across an interesting question while researching the words "gospel" (or "good news"; in Greek, euaggelion) and "preach the gospel" (or "proclaim good news"; in Greek, euaggelizō). The words do not appear that many times in the New Testament and virtually all the time they are used without any description of the content of the word. There is only one passage I know where the content of the word "gospel" is explained:
Now I would remind you, brethren, of the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold it fast—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. (1 Corinthians 15:1-5)
This is the content of the gospel Paul preached and is the only explanation of gospel, of which I am aware, in the earliest texts of the early Christian movement. Nevertheless, it should not be read as the meaning of the word gospel in all early texts. It is specifically Paul's gospel (Rom 16:25; Gal 1:11). It was not the only gospel being preached in the earliest period, as Paul makes quite clear (Gal 1:6-9; 2 Cor 11:4-6, 13-14). What should we think about the content of the gospel being preached in the communities represented by the Deutero-Pauline Epistles (Ephesians, Colossians), the Pastoral Letters (1, 2 Timothy, and Titus), and the rest of the New Testament?
Paul's gospel is mythical in content, meaning at the very least it deals with stories about Gods and supernatural persons.* In Paul's description above the only historical event that can be verified is that Jesus died. Another item (that he was buried) could have been verified had one been present at the time. The rest of the statement evokes a kind of "salvation history" (Heilsgeschichte), which some theologians postulate as "an account of God's saving acts in human history"; these acts of God, however, can only be seen through the eyes of faith; they are not verifiable as historical events.
In the rest of the New Testament and certain later texts one finds hints that others are quite likely preaching a gospel different from what Paul preached. For example, Mark 1:14 has Jesus preaching the gospel of God and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel" (1:15; 1 Clem 14:23). If this latter statement is the content of what Jesus preached, the founder of what later became the Christian movement preached a gospel different from what Paul preached. Luke describes Paul preaching a gospel about the grace of God, something that Paul did not mentioned as part of his gospel (1 Cor 15:1-5). The writer in Colossians preaches a gospel about hope (1:5-6; 1:23), something else that Paul does not mention in 1 Cor 15:1-5. The gospel preached by the author of the Didache contained specific instructions about ethical behavior, prayers, and almsgiving, which Paul does not include in his explanation of the content of the gospel in 1 Cor 5:1-5. One cannot assume that Paul's statement of the content of what was being preached is what all writers of the New Testament would affirm.
What do you consider "good news"? Personally, I like to think of the gospel as the life-changing grace of a benevolent God, who gives freely to all (Matt 5:45). Such a gospel is what brings hope in the face of the absolute certainty of death.
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University
*Myth as defined in the Oxford English Dictionary is "a purely fictitious narrative usually involving supernatural persons, actions, or events, and embodying some popular ideas concerning natural or historical phenomena. It is properly distinguished from allegory and legend, which imply a nucleus of fact."
Charlie,
ReplyDeleteWhen I read “gospel” I see a message I would classify as “propaganda” (of a divinely chosen ruler reversing the destiny of his people, saving them from doom & despair, creating a unmatched “age” of peace for his nation and stuff like that). “Good news” to me is the propagandic myth speaking of a new age from the mediation of the human & divine. Probably never happened, probably never will, but it plays to the hopes of the populace. I see it as a rough equivalent of an ancient political ad.
There are quite a few examples from antiquity, but a more recent illustration that incorporates this, I think, from the early 17th c. is the first paragraph of the dedication found in the King James Version of the Bible.... It begins, “Great and manifold were the blessings, most dread Sovereign, which Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, bestowed upon us the people of England, when first he sent Your Majesty’s Royal Person to rule and reign over us.” The paragraph continues to speak of the “darkness” that had come over the country, how he had “dispelled” the mists of uncertainty and how he had brought “peace and tranquility at home and abroad.” This was the “gospel,” the good message of the divine choice of James as king.
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Good Morning Dennis,
DeleteI agree that gospel is propaganda. Your citing of the King James Bible is a good illustration.
Charlie
Charlie and Dennis,
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that propaganda is a relatively meaningless word. All statements are meant to influence the perceiver in a manner deemed favorable by the speaker/writer, including all things written at this site. Key question - what is the content?
Gene Stecher
Chambersurg, PA
DeleteGene,
Propaganda, speaking of the written word, is a form of information explicitly chosen & shared to promote a specific idea (doctrine, practice, product, person, etc.). This is a type of persuasive writing which is concerned with indoctrination, not merely influence. There is even a variety of devices used in propagandic writings which I taught in elementary and middle school, which can also be found in the N. Testament writings. Informational (expository) writing is primarily written to inform, to explain, and has an added responsibility of presenting factual information. There is also the narrative, primarily used to tell a story and descriptive writing, primarily meant to give an impression. While the author always has his or her point-of-view, and no particular form is “pure,” one is taught, both in reading and writing, to differentiate between the forms. (Indeed, the writing assessments in schools requires such discrimination.) “Gospel,” as used in the New Testament (and the Priene inscription) is used (seems to me) to promote the authors’ indoctrination of the hearer/reader, therefore I discriminate between the primary focus of it and other forms of writings.
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Gene, you spoke of content. That is important. Here are three propaganda techniques & examples from the New Testament:
DeleteAffiliation: 1st Corinthians 15 used the propagandic technique of affiliation, in which the author associated the “appearance” of Christ to important figures and to 500 people (“most of whom are still alive”) to prove his point (that Christ was announced as having been raised). Acts of the Apostles also used this technique in the early chapters to show how willing the masses in Palestine “took to” the message. (See 2.41 – 47, three thousand and more added, 4.4 added 5000, 5.14 added “great numbers,” etc.) . The author’s purpose was to show how the masses were added and how it was superseding Judaism, thus irritating the priests. (It was the most popular vehicle on the road.)
Testimonials: The gospels used the propagandic technique of “testimonials” in the narratives of the women testifying he had risen and/or the disciples congregating with the risen Jesus. One reads Paul’s testimony of his “vision” of the risen Christ. The healings, exorcisms, and natural wonder stories are within the realm of the “testimonial” of the author. (Commercials with people speaking about how this or that medicine has helped their diseases or discomforts are modern examples.)
Endorsements: The Paulines say Jesus Christ “endorsed” Paul. Two of the gospels were claimed to be from disciples, as well The seven general letters, Hebrews, the Pastorals, Deutero-Paulines, and Revelation. Pilate and Herod Antipas, traditional “antagonists” in Jewish literature, give endorsements of Jesus’s innocence in Luke 23.13-16, as does John’s Pilate (18.38b). Gamaliel came close to an endorsement in Acts 5. (One can watch celebrities hawking everything from vinyl flooring to life insurance policies these days.)
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Good Sunday Morning Dennis,
DeleteI have always heard the word propaganda as a negative term when applied to any information release. And heard the word gospel as "dead-on truth." By your definition most any information release is, or apparently is, propaganda. Can you give us some examples where an information release in either neutral in intent (if it were positive it would become propaganda). And how can we tell the difference between propaganda (if propaganda is negative in your vocabulary) and neutral information release (is there any such thing do you suppose)? Am I wrong that most people think of propaganda negatively? Or do most people think of all information releases as neutral in intent?
Too many questions; sorry about that.
Cordially,
Charlie
Propaganda intrinsically is neither true nor false, negative nor positive. It is a Latin word that, best I can figure, relates to “propagation.” (The etymological example in my dictionary presented, “congregatio de propaganda fide, or congregation for propagation of the faith.”) As a word, “propaganda,” despite the words of Bob Dylan, does not necessarily mean “phony,” merely that it is a way to inculcate a group of carefully selected information and opinions framed as facts into another. It is a method for “propagating” one’s view through indoctrination. That is its primary purpose. The examples of writings I gave have different primary purposes – to inform, entertain, describe or persuade. As I also said, propaganda is a form of persuasive writing.
DeleteTo indoctrinate, propaganda relies on techniques like those above and others, some subtler, to present information that bolsters the bluster or shapes it in a way that furthers one’s viewpoint in a certain direction. (Teaching students to recognize and differentiate fact from opinion – informational from persuasive, for instance, begins being taught in the elementary grades and continues hopefully through one’s life. I have argued for a quarter of a century that the visual media – TV in particular – should be a part of this literacy.)
Those propagandic techniques I gave above rely on association with others already indoctrinated. When
I use the word “indoctrinate” I see three variables: It is systematic, it occurs over time (or tends to perseverate), and the doctrine is uncritical. Propaganda is found in other ways than those listed, too. One finds the author of Matthew spending an inordinate time trying to show the good message of Jesus was predicted in the Jewish scriptures. The author of Galatians used disjuncture, specific language and denigration of both his opponents and audience to say his gospel was the only one that should be heard.
An example of propaganda that can be positive is the social function of public education. One of its major functions is to socialize students into the dominant culture. Schools and teachers, through curriculum as well as rules and examples, inculcate the routines and expectations of the dominant culture of the society every day. That is indoctrination of propaganda that attempts to hold the society together.
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Charlie, an information release considered neutral as you put it means the speaker or author presents his findings without demanding they be viewed as absolute truth. Propaganda is someone telling you "This is 100% true no matter what you believe about it. You can't question it." Neutral information does not impose "the truth" on anyone. They present facts gathered and allow the recipient to ask questions and check source material for supporting documentation.
DeleteIf you're looking for a source of information that is 100% true, you'll never find it because there will always be alternative viewpoints. Neutral sources allow for those alternative viewpoints to exist and for you to find out for yourself if what they are presenting is factual. Propagandists don't- they insist you believe them no matter what. Elizabeth
Hi Dennis and Elizabeth,
DeleteDennis your second example: the social function of public education, is not neutral although it may be positive from your perspective. A neutral release of information should be the news--to inform the public what is happening in whatever forum without an agenda. But is it really neutral? From my perspective what little I have observed of Fox it is not and neither is MSNBC. They all seem to come at the news from a given agenda. Still Elizabeth's comment that a neutral release of information allows the audience to make up their own minds does seem to separate propaganda from other forms of information release.
What do you think?
The Achilles heel to Elizabeth's observation is that truth is always told from one's personal perspective--it is truth as I know it to be.
Cordially,
Charlie
Everyone has a bias. Not everyone would spread propaganda. I think I pointed out differences between forms of writing and propaganda above. Propaganda uses a toolbox of techniques that go beyond persuasive & informational writing. The best book I have read that shows the use of propaganda is “Catholicism & the Roots of Nazism,” by Derek Hastings. This prof traces anti-Semitism in post-WWI Germany and shows the complicity of Catholic publicists and propagandists in the early days of the Nazi movement (before the aftermath of the Beerhall Putsch, when they were “forsaken”).
DeleteI watched Fox once. Nasty script writing, sneering script reading. Didn't go back. MSNBC is a bit too conservative, but they have decent writers and readers. (I've only watched two with any interest. One is a former Republican operative, the other a former Republican legislator. I generally prefer the newspaper. Print media gives one time to reflect and check sources. With TV, one can only react... Makes spreading propaganda simpler.
Re: School socialization
I didn't say it was negative, neutral or positive, Charlie but that "it can be positive." It is positive to society in that it helps instill values that support the structures and values of society, “socialization,” most which are not in the curriculum or texts (that is called “hidden curriculum,” an interesting subject on its own). At the same time, however, it can produce cultural discontinuities if it contradicts in a way that devalues the home culture. Many times, this has a negative outcome. It, however, is an example propaganda, whether positive, negative or neutral, overt or “hidden.” Its purpose is to indoctrinate.
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
There's no such thing as a neutral perspective of this so called "truth" everyone is dying to get their hands on.... Can you name an unbiased source of information? All information reported to the public is slanted and biased. People who can't think for themselves and form their own analytical opinion are troubled by it. I'm not. I can look at both sides with ease and clarity. Elizabeth
ReplyDeleteIs the following an example of propaganda?
ReplyDeleteAfter years of attending Christian worship services, a certain person notices that he has no memory of ever hearing
a sermon about Jesus' teaching on loving enemies, and never much of anything about the humanity of Jesus.
In reaction, this peron self-publishes a book on the attitudes of the human Jesus and distributes 150 copies to professors, pastors, friends, etc., and asked them to share with others. The book was also advertised many places on the internet, including overseas as far away as Australia.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa
Gene: Sharing one's personal thoughts, observations, and perspective of the truth is not propaganda. Only if you are trying to impose that perspective onto others and (force them to agree with it) does it become propaganda, which is clearly not the case with your book.
DeleteCharlie: People who can't think for themselves are constantly looking for a "neutral objective authoritative source" for the dispensing of all public information used to "inform the public." I am not one of those people. I am fully capable of dissenting fact from fiction- and I don't need to be told what the "truth" is. I can figure that out for myself because I'm not a robot waiting for marching orders from some authority on high.
Gene,
ReplyDeleteInasmuch as it promulgates propagation of one specific version of Jesus for the purpose of indoctrination of the "general populace" and "Christian laity," it fits this descriptor. (But that also is a purpose of a variety of writings in the New Testament, so it's in good company.)
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Hi Dennis,
DeleteAs per the Methodology section, t!he intention (however successful, or not) of the author was to add to rather than substitute for or delete from theories and behaviors associated with secular, Christian, and scholarly groups.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Gene,
DeleteI just have a different perception of the word "propaganda" than some. I don't see it as inherently good or bad. The USA war propaganda in WWII, for instance, is an example of propaganda that I consider positive, helping us win the war. When I write satire, it is propaganda meant to show only the foibles of the group or people I wish to satirize in order to propagate a different understanding... a change for the better.
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Charlie,
ReplyDeleteBack to the pleasurable task, I was looking at the attestation of “euangelion” at the Perseus webpage, which gives occurrences of ancient Greek words. It seems that euangelion was not commonly used before the first century, though it appeared as early as Homer, and afterward it seems to have become a “Christian term.” What it became was primarily under the influence of proto-Christian and Christian writers. (Outside of Christianity, it is cited it seems the widest in Plutarch, late 1st, early 2nd c., in fourteen writings, as far as I can see.) That is probably one of several reasons the word seems to have different connotations in different Christian writings. (In 1 Tim.1.11 and 1 Thess. 1 & 2 it relates to sound teaching, in 2 Thess. and1 Peter it is something to be obeyed, in 1 Cor. to the resurrection, in Mark & Matt the coming of the kingdom. It’s not found in John and only as a proclamation (a verb) in Luke. 1 Peter is the only place it is found in the general epistles.)
Most of the fiction I read was written over 100 years ago. Of interest to me (other than the story) is the subtle way the language has changed. Most noticeable in spellings, I can also see it in sentence structure and in differences in definitions or nuances of words. I don’t know whether that relates as much to Greek, per se, but it seems like some of the words, as they entered the Christian arena, were adapted to Christianity, like the Greek words for “gospel,” “martyr,” “faith,” “heresy,” “parousia,” & “salvation/savior.” (Pervo & Doughty brought that to my attention.) I am just speculating based on analogy, but this seems reasonable to me.
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.