Transcendent Truth and the Early Christian Gospels

In my last essay I suggested that the Gospel of John described what appeared to be an abstract transcendent spiritual reality¹ to which the author of John referred with the phrase "the Spirit of Truth."² If "Truth" in this phrase is an abstract principle, it is an idea that the author shared with the ancient Greek philosopher Plato. It would not be unusual that the author of John was influenced by Platonic thought because Platonism is described as "the single greatest outside intellectual influence on Christianity in its formative stages."³

Basic to Platonic thought is Plato's theory of Forms (or Ideas, or Ideals). This theory argues that virtues or concepts that we know, such as love, truth, beauty, or goodness are only shadows of an archetype (original pattern) existing in an invisible transcendent world. Our ability to recognize that something in our physical world resembles the archetype is due to "an innate recollection of knowledge of the divine Forms acquired by the immortal soul before it 'fell' from its celestial origin toward the world of sensible delights and became incarnated into a physical body."⁴ Hence, the concept "truth" in our visible world of change is merely a shadow that mimics the archetype, which is an eternal abstract Truth.⁵

According to the Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle,⁶ the truth or falsity of a representation in our visible world is determined by how our representations relate to the things we are describing— that is, by whether or not it is an accurate description.⁷

            The Gospel of John may share Plato's idea of an abstract metaphysical Truth in how it describes Truth.⁸ In John Truth is integral to the invisible world of the divine Father and is associated with the divine Father in the Judeo-Christian tradition (Isa 65:16; John 1:14, 3:33, 4:23-24, 8:26, 14:16-17, 17:17; 2 John 3; Rom 3:7), as is love (1 John 2:15; 3:1; 4:7-8; 4:16 ) and light (1 John 1:5). Truth "proceeds from" the Father, who is Spirit (John 4:24), by means of Spirit, which John terms the Spirit of Truth (John 15:26). In other words both Truth and the Spirit of Truth are native to the invisible world and are not indigenous to the visible world that we know (John 14:16-17). The Spirit (i.e., of Truth), who comes from the divine Father, knows complete Truth (John 16:13, 14:26), rather than the partial mundane truths we know in the visible world of change where truths change over time and with each individual.⁹

            The synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) reflect no knowledge of a transcendent Truth or even a Spirit of Truth. They do describe a metaphysical/supernatural Spirit associated with the divine world (e.g., Mark 1:10, 3:29; Matt 3:16, 10:20; Luke 10:21, 11:13), but they do not describe this Holy Spirit or Spirit of the Father as the Spirit of Truth, a designation that is only found in Johnnine literature. In the synoptic gospels "truth (alētheia)" is used only in prepositional phrases (e.g. "in truth," Matt 22:16) having a meaning of something like "of a truth" or "truly" (Matt 22:16; Mark 12:14, 12:32; Luke 4:25, 20:21, 22:59). It appears once in Mark as a noun (5:33) to describe a woman telling her "whole truth." Does it matter that the synoptic gospels reflect no knowledge of what appears to be an abstract Truth or its Spirit that proceeds from the Father? Does it matter that the author of John's Gospel may well have been influenced by Platonic thinking? How does it seem to you?

Charles W. Hedrick

Professor Emeritus

Missouri State University

¹"Truth" in the phrase "the Spirit of Truth" is the abstract principle by which all specific instances of supposed truth are to be measured.

²Hedrick, "Truth is an Idea," Wry Thoughts about Religion, Jan 31, 2020: http://blog.charleshedrick.com/2020/01/truth-is-idea.html

³John M. Dillon, "Platonism" in The Anchor Bible Dictionary 5:381.

⁴John Turner, "Plato, Platonism" in The New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible 4:546.

⁵https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

⁶https://resources.saylor.org/wwwresources/archived/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/PHIL201-1.3.3.pdf

⁷https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_theory_of_truth

⁸Hedrick, "Truth is an Idea."

⁹A later writer claimed that his community shared the knowledge of the Spirit of Truth that comes from the Father. This writer claimed to sort out truth from error on the basis of those who disagreed with the writer's ideas (1 John 4:6); those who disagreed do not know the Spirit of Truth.

Truth is an Idea

Truth in the abstract I will define as “a transcendent metaphysical or spiritual reality.” That there is such an overarching “principle,” however, is specifically denied by the poet Wallace Stevens. He put it this way: “There is no such thing as the truth.”¹ Nevertheless, contrary to Stevens we persist in thinking that there is an ideal truth of which our mundane truths (if true) are an integral part. But once again Stevens challenges our thinking; to quote Stevens once more: “There are many truths,/ But they are not parts of a truth.”²

Truth, as we are familiar with it, is an idea rather than an abstract transcendent principle; yet it is not merely an idea. Truth is more than a mental image or mental formulation of something seen or known, or imagined. The Truth is a mental formulation driven by the force or conviction that a particular ideation of truth is right in all circumstances.

Truth is not exclusively singular (i.e., the Truth) but manifold (i.e., independent truths), for many hold in mind ideas they claim are true, yet they often contradict the “true” ideas of others. For example, part of Baptist truth is that the act of baptism is merely a symbol (Rom 6:1-4) and not essential for salvation. Catholic truth, however, holds that baptism is a sacrament, one of the seven means of conferring the grace of God,³ and hence is essential for salvation. In other words these two contradictory truths (Baptist and Catholic) are not part of a single metaphysical truth. There are only contradictory mundane truths that are held as ideations in different minds. In this competition between two contemporary giants of religion, we are left with the disturbing question: “What is the truth about baptism?”

Some of these mundane truths we hold in mind are deceitful or downright lies, like the ideal political truth “that all men are created equal.”⁴ This statement in the U. S. Constitution is sexist (“all men”) and a religious confession to boot (i.e., “created” implies a creator), but, most important, it is simply untrue; for people (much less all men) are not born equal either in native abilities, social status, or physical prowess. Some truths that people live by can qualify as being “evil,” like the truth of racial superiority and its handmaid anti-Semitism.⁵ Racial superiority was the driving force of the Nazi party (National Socialism) in Germany in the 1930s, a truth that produced extermination camps across Europe in World War II.⁶

            If, on the other hand, there is an abstract transcendent or spiritual reality called Truth, it is not what people live by. We live by our mundane ideas about what we think is the transcendent or spiritual principle (if such there be), since we are always once removed from apprehending the transcendent principle. If there were an abstract transcendent Truth, it would still enter our minds only as an idea about some particular mundane truth. For example, lying is bad (but soldiers lie to deceive the enemy and receive medals for doing so); being kind to one another is good (but kindness in time of war is chargeable as giving aid and comfort to the enemy). Usually we learn ideas about what is true from others and we invest those inherited ideas with authority over our lives.

            The author of John portrays Jesus as describing what I take to be an example of transcendent truth, called “the spirit of truth” (John 14:16-17; 15:26; 16:13; 18:37; see also 1 John 4:6; 5:7) of which Jesus’ claim to be “the truth” (John 14:6; 1:17) is one part. But the evangelist leaves his readers with this issue unresolved. During the exchange between Jesus and Pilate (John 18:33-38), Jesus claims to have come into the world to bear witness to the truth (18:37). The evangelist, however, allows Pilate the final unanswered word in the dialogue. “What is truth?” (18:38), Pilate asks. Jesus has no answer. Pilate’s probative question continues to echo in readers’ minds to the end of the Gospel—it turns out to be the final word about “truth” in the gospel.⁷ Is this a deliberate literary strategy of the author? Is there a transcendent or metaphysical Truth of which all our mundane “truths” are a part, or is truth, like beauty, only what one thinks it is? How does it seem to you?

Charles W. Hedrick

Professor Emeritus

Missouri State University

¹“On the Road Home” in The Collected Poems of Wallace Stevens (Knopf, 1961), 203.

²Stevens, Collected Poems, 203.

³Catholics see baptism in this way: “Through baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God”: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm

⁴From a “Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America in General Congress Assembled July 4, 1776” of the U. S. Constitution.

⁵https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism#20th_century; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany

⁶https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_camp

⁷John 19:35 and 21:24-25 use the adjective “true” and in literary form are narrative asides that may belong to a later editing of John. See Charles W. Hedrick, “Authorial Presence and Narrator in John: Commentary and Story” in Goehring, Hedrick, Sanders, and Betts, Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1990), 74-93.

Do the early Christian Gospels contain Fake News?

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.

The Bible and the “Laws” of Physics

There are many narratives in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and the New Testament, which demand a willing suspension of disbelief on the part of a twenty-first century person. Educated persons would admit that certain narratives reflect physical impossibilities, and hence they clash with the way things usually work in the world.  For example, in the cycle of stories about the acts of Elisha in Second Kings (chapters 2-13) one finds, among other stories of the same sort, the story of an iron axe head that floated after falling into the Jordan River (6:1-7). Elisha, described as "the man of God," reputedly caused the axe head to rise to the surface by tossing a stick into the water. The claim in the narrative that the axe head floated violates the buoyancy principle of Archimedes of Syracuse (third century BCE) that states: an object will float if it is equal to or less than the amount of water it displaces (that is why aircraft carriers float). The weight of an iron axe head is not equal to or less than the weight of the water it displaces and hence it will not float. And common sense tells us that a stick tossed into the water would have no influence on what is essentially a law of physics.¹ In order to think that the narrative describes something that actually happened, readers must suspend disbelief.

Another narrative requiring a suspension of disbelief is the tradition of Joshua causing the sun to stand still in the sky to allow the Israelites to slay all their enemies, the Amorites, at Gibeon (Josh 10:6-14).

And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. There has been no day like it before or since (Josh 10:13-14, RSV).

The belief that the sun rises in the east, moves across the sky, and sets in the west, is an ancient superstition, shared by the biblical writers.² This belief was proven incorrect only in the sixteenth century CE.³ Until that time it was believed that the sun and the planets circled the earth, which held a position in the center of the solar system. In other words they believed that the earth did not move, but today it is common knowledge that the earth moves in an elliptical movement around the sun.

The New Testament also has narratives defying reason, logic, and explanation as an actual historical event. For example, Jesus is represented as feeding five thousand people with five loaves and two fish; the account appears in all four canonical gospels (Mark 6:32-44; Matt 14:13-21; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-15). In the narrative everyone eats their fill and twelve baskets of food fragments are left over. The story depicts two logical impossibilities. While five loaves and two fish can each be divided into amounts tiny enough to pass out to five thousand people, it is physically impossible that every person would be satiated from eating the tiny amount that they would have received (Mark 6:42; Matt 14:20; Luke 9:17; John 6:12) or that there would be twelve baskets full of fragments left over after the feeding (Mark 6:43; Matt 14:20; Luke 9:17; 6:13).⁴

Narratives like these, which require a suspension of disbelief by most of us, are nevertheless accepted as a normal part of reality by the deeply pious; they have a high degree of confidence in the Bible and simply dismiss the idea that the event could not have happened by asserting: the Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it—as if the story about how we came by the Bible⁵ has no impact on the relative value of its ideas. Others offer a slightly more sophisticated theory to explain away some of the problems: God is in control of the universe; therefore God can do whatever God chooses in the universe. This latter statement disregards how the universe is thought to work in secular society; those who live by this statement are simply changing "reality" to correspond to their religious faith. A third way of handling problems  in biblical narratives requiring a suspension of disbelief rejects the "laws" of physics by arguing the universe is not a closed system but rather an open system. Hence in the view of those who believe in miracles physical "laws" are only general rules that are sometimes suspended leaving open the possibility that miracles can occur.

Was Archimedes wrong and Jesus really did walk on the water?

Charles W. Hedrick

Professor Emeritus

Missouri State University

¹The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica, "Archimedes' Principle": https://www.britannica.com/science/Archimedes-principle

²For example, Gen 15:12; Exod 17:12; Jdg 14:18; 2 Chron 18:34; Matt 5:45; Mark 16:2; Eph 4:26.

³George Abell, Exploration of the Universe, 34-53.

⁴Compare similar stories about Elijah and Elisha in 1 Kgs 17: 8-16 (the jar of meal and the cruse of oil) and 2 Kgs 4:1-7 (the jar of oil). Each story contrasts limited amounts at the beginning and the abundant residue at the end exceeding that with which the story began.

⁵The Bible is a product of modern biblical scholarship. See the two brief descriptions of the science of textual criticism, which is basic to all critical approaches to the Bible: Fuller, "Text Criticism, OT," NIDB, 531-34; Holmes, "Text Criticism, NT" NIDB, 529-31.

We Live By Fiction as Much as by Truth

As a general rule we have little difficulty living by the fictions we invent.  Fictions are things "made up."  We recognize that they are not actually true, but we act "as if" they were.  The difficulty, however, is that some fictions harden into myths.

               For example, we sometimes fudge the truth by creating conscious fictions about ourselves to put things in a better light rather than the harsh light of actuality, and think of them as only slight "exaggerations."  Often we end up believing our own fictions, and even include them in our personal resumes.  Thus have we consciously imposed a fictional pattern on our personal reality, which becomes a datum in our personal story.  Over time some forget that it was once only a fiction.

               Society also creates fictions to live by.  In the recent court case of Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby et al. Justice Alito cited the dictionary as part of the justification for regarding corporations as "persons," when they concluded corporations can have religious beliefs.  Corporations are fictional legal entities that can conduct business, acquire property, and sue or be sued, etc.  As legal entities they serve as shields for Boards of Directors. Even the most naïve among us, however, know that legal entities are not persons, for the first dictionary definition of person is "human being."  Corporations, do not have physical bodies and hence can neither make love, nor perform other human bodily functions.  They cannot think, feel, worship, or pray.  Therefore corporations cannot have "personal" religious beliefs as people do, even though the members of the Board of Directors of a corporation doubtless do have religious scruples.  Nevertheless the fiction that corporations are "persons" is now the law which governs our entire society.  The Supreme Court simply forgot that only Mother Nature can make a person.  What mischief this legal fiction will lead to in the future remains to be seen.

               Even scholars create fictions.  A good example is the collection of literary material shared by Matthew and Luke but is not found in Mark.  The source for this literary material is believed to be a hypothetical (fictional) gospel source, which is called Q (i.e., Quelle, i.e., Source).  Most New Testament scholars subscribe to the fiction that this collection of material comes from an actual written text that is no longer extant.  Degrees have been awarded, careers established, and money made on Q articles, commentaries, and theologies—forgetting, it seems, that Q is only a convenient fiction for explaining gospel relationships.

               Even church folk create religious fictions, forgetting in time that they are only fictions.  In a brief essay in the Springfield News-Leader on July 6, 2014 Rev. Cliff Rawley argued that Scripture "if used correctly" is a "proven resource of positive transformation…a guide to a peaceful life."  Rawley recognizes, however, that the Bible contains both positive and negative ideas, and used incorrectly it can be exploited for purposes detrimental and destructive to society.  He recites a litany of many who have misused the Bible for destructive ends.  But if the Bible is subject to exploitation by those who use it incorrectly, whence comes the idea that the Bible is an infallible guide?  The answer is that the infallibility of the Bible is a church fiction that has become doctrinal truth.  If the Bible can be misused by anyone who chooses to do so, it cannot be "infallible," since it has an inherent potential for misuse.

               Here is an example of a religious fiction turning into a myth.  Pausanias (2nd century A. D.), a Greek traveler and geographer, wrote a description of Greece, noting religious customs and traditions.  He described the beginning of the Hero cult of Theagenes of Thasos.  Theagenes was actually a famous athlete, a boxer, wrestler, and runner in fifth century B. C. Greece, who won awards in the Olympic Games in 480 and 476 B. C. It was rumored that he was actually the son of the divine Herakles, rather than the priest Timosthenes.  By the second century B. C., however, Theagenes was credited with curing diseases, and receiving divine honors as a God at cult centers in different parts of Greece (Pausanias, Description of Greece, Book VI [Elis II]. 11.1-9).  The fiction that great achievers in life have an affinity with the Gods, in time became the myth that the Divine Theagenes cures diseases and deserves to be worshipped.

What are your thoughts?

 

Charles W. Hedrick

Professor Emeritus

Missouri State University

 

Frank Kermode, The Sense of an Ending. Studies in the Theory of Fiction (Oxford: University Press, 1967), 39.

 

Hans Vahinger, The Philosophy of "As If": A System of the Theoretical, Practical and Religious Fictions of Mankind (C. K. Ogden trans; New York: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1925).

GIVING UP THE TRUTH

Truth is: the ideas by which each of us decides to govern our lives. Hence truth is multiple.  I think of truth as comprised of Big Truths and little truths.  A Big Truth is the primary, or organizing, principle around which we organize our lives.  Little truths can be moral, ethical, or practical, but little truths are not the consuming passion of one's life; under the right circumstances little truths can easily be modified.  Particularly the little truths make it possible for us to live comfortably in community.  The Big Truths, however, divide us.

 

            Everyone does not hold the same Big Truth, and hence they often disrupt life in community.  The Big Truths are usually moral and ethical in the extreme and can be classed in the following categories: political, religious, economic, cultural, social, racial, etc.  Some examples of Big Truths are: that big government is bad for the economy—which leads in the extreme to sequestration and government shut down; or that there is only one true religion, which leads in the extreme to prejudice, persecution of minority religions, and pogroms; or that racial minorities are lesser human beings than persons in the dominant group, which leads in the extreme to economic exploitation of minorities, persecution, and pogroms.

 

Little truths have not escalated (and may not) into an all consuming Big Truth.  And to some extent they are negotiable depending on the circumstances.  For example, consider the little truth "honesty is the best policy": if you run a red light, you will be fined (but only if you get caught); or if you plagiarize the work of another, it will damage your reputation (but only if you get caught).  The little truth "when in Rome, do as the Romans do," if disregarded in London (where they drive on the left-hand side of the road) will result in an accident for Americans who disregard it (but not if they are lucky).  The moral truth "human life is precious" if interpreted against under Roe versus Wade, which is thought by most Americans to best consider the rights of all citizens, can result in harm to the fetus (but only if you choose that option).  All little truths and their applications are subject to change and modification; Big Truths are not so easily modified.

 

The Big Truth of whatever variety inevitably brings every other truth under the driving force of the belief that my Big Truth is absolutely True, and that person who has found this absolute Truth will judge all other truths, Big and little, in its light.  Some of those current cultural Big Truths in today's society are, for example: abortion is murder; marriage is between one man and one woman; homosexuality is a sin; sexual acts are only for the reproduction of the species.  Big Truth-finders are unable to appreciate the circumstances and truths of others who don't share their Big Truth.

 

            The poet, Wallace Stevens, expresses the idea of giving up the truth and discovering the diversity of the world like this:

 

It was when I said,

 

"There is no such thing as the truth,"

 

That the grapes seemed fatter.

 

The fox ran out of his hole.

 

You . . . You said,

 

"There are many truths,

 

But they are not parts of a truth."

 

Then the tree, at night, began to change . . . . ("On the Road Home")

 

In short, we hold different truths in varying degrees!  But holders of a Big Truth will dismiss the value of every other truth if it conflicts with the prime insight that their Big Truth is absolutely true—hence the only way to find the diversity of truth is by giving up the Big Truth.  Big Truth-finders are myopic and cannot see the manifold nature of truth.

 

It does happen, however, that from time to time people give up their Big Truths.  Paul, the apostle of Christ, for example, gave up the Big Truth of Judaism only to replace it with the Big Truth of the Christ.  But, on the other hand, some also give up the Big Truth of Christianity for other truths.  Demas, the close companion of Paul (Philemon 24), is accused by a later writer of deserting Paul, "because he loved the present world" (2 Timothy 4:10).  The distinguished New Testament historian, Robert W. Funk, who held a Bachelor of Divinity and a Masters degree from the Disciples of Christ Butler University and its affiliated Christian Seminary gave up the Big Truth of the Christ for the practical truths of historical and literary criticism; and later founded the Jesus Seminar.

 

There is no one single Truth, no matter how Big, that can accommodate all truths by which people live.  The truth is we decide what truth is.

 

Charles W. Hedrick

Professor Emeritus

Missouri State University