Ask a Theologian

[Plotinus]

To be honest I don't see what's wrong with his answer - I think he's quite right. He's not avoiding the question, he's explaining it. You can't just say that the Gospels are propaganda because they were written with an agenda - that's to pack a huge amount of assumptions and implications into a few words. It is anachronistic to apply modern terminology and assumptions to ancient texts and events, and you do need to explain what you mean carefully, and if anyone were to ask me the question you asked him I'd probably say much the same (although my spelling's better, naturally!). You can't conclude that a refusal to give a straight "yes" or "no" answer is unbearable vagueness - perhaps the question is so over-simplistic that only a complex answer can address it. Your question has something of the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" about it.

Now when you asked about the waffliness of modern theologians I thought you meant the dogmatic variety, and I'd stand by that. But I don't think this is true of historical theology, any more than it is true of other forms of "history of ideas" (to use a horrible phrase) or indeed history in general.

By the way, I'm not sure why you think the Gospels were written centuries apart. The earliest Gospel was probably Mark, which was probably written in the late 60s of the first century (or maybe the early 70s), and the latest was probably John, probably written in the mid-90s of the first century. So in fact, from the earliest to latest was probably only about thirty years. But I don't see why the date of the Gospels is relevant to their genre, which seems to be implied by your claim that because they were not written at the time of the events they describe, they must be "propaganda". Finally, of course, it's not obvious at all that the Gospels were written to spread the faith, because that assumes that they were intended to be read by non-Christians; I think it much more likely that they were written for internal consumption, as it were.

Also, there's no such place as "Oxbridge"!

 

[Sidhe]

He speaks like that all the time and whilst to you it might make light reading, to me it's just impenetrable waffle. Thanks for the translation though. The guys problem is he doesn't know how to tailor his responses to his audiences.

Yeah four pages later he still hadn't forgiven me for using the term propaganda which didn't exist in the 1st century AD, I had explained I just mean it in that modern sense not that it applied in that context. And to be frank I still think it is propaganda, but that's meet for another thread. All I wanted was an explanation of what the hell he was talking about in English, not theobabble. I never got it, he just kept getting more and more impenetrable and vague and arm wavey, it was like talking to fog, eventually he just ended up criticising my learning claiming it was hard to explain to a laymen, at which point I gave up.

 

[Plotinus]

Well I'll have to take your word for it; the bit you quoted seemed perfectly clear to me. I'm not sure how it could be rephrased to be more comprehensible or which bits you think are "theobabble". Also, surely if you accept his point that propaganda as we know it did not exist in the first century, then you must realise that it can never be accurate to call anything from the first century "propaganda", irrespective of whether they would have called it that or not. You can't just use terms like that of ancient texts and expect simple yes-or-no responses.

 

[Sidhe]

Well I'll have to take your word for it; the bit you quoted seemed perfectly clear to me. I'm not sure how it could be rephrased to be more comprehensible or which bits you think are "theobabble". Also, surely if you accept his point that propaganda as we know it did not exist in the first century, then you must realise that it can never be accurate to call anything from the first century "propaganda", irrespective of whether they would have called it that or not. You can't just use terms like that of ancient texts and expect simple yes-or-no responses.

All of it, I can't understand what he's driving at at all. It's just blah...

4 pages of this without any reference links or sense and I just gave up. Eye of the beholder obviously, I just haven't got a clue what he's driving at or trying to say at all, and I never figured it out. Although your translation helps. The trouble is if I have to run a translation program every time I want to talk to someone it's a waste of my personal time talking to them. I don't speak theologian, can you dumb it down a shade?

And its not just him he was the icing on the cake, the tip of the iceberg. Don't think my question was specifically and only about this guy, it was about talking to theologians in general and the way they go about discussing the subject in my experience.

It's an idea though, I should really put up a thread about this subject here, see what people think. Because I got nowhere with a couple of theologians on another site at all, and we mutually agreed to close the thread as no one was getting anywhere, it was like sitting in a room full of foreign students, none of which speak the same languages, and trying to discuss the finer points of quantum chromo dynamics.

By the way it wasn't the discussion that was a problem or even that I might be totally wrong about propaganda, it was the annoyance of not being able to have a discussion because of language issues, when all three of the participants speak fluent English. Very frustrating.

 

[Plotinus]

He's not speaking theologian. This is theologian:

When we pronounce the name of Jesus Christ, we are not speaking of an idea. The name Jesus Christ is not the transparent shell, through which we glimpse something higher - no room for Platonism here! What is involved is this actual name and this title; this person is involved. Not any chance person, not a "chance reality in history" in Lessing's sense. The "chance fact of history" is just the eternal truth of reason! Nor does this name Jesus Christ indicate a result of human history. It was invariably a human discovery, when the effort was made to show that the whole of human history was bound to have its culminating point in Jesus Christ. Not for one moment was it possible to say that of the history of Israel, not to mention world-history. Of course in retrospect we may and must say that here history is fulfilled. But fulfilled in a truth which, looked a from the standpoint of all historical results, is completely novel and offensive! To the Greeks foolishness, to the Jews a stumbling-block. So in the name of Jesus Christ we have not to do with the result of a postulate of man, with the product of a human need, with the figure of a redeemer and saviour to be explained and derived from man's guilt. Even the fact that he is a sinner cannot be known from man himself. It is rather the result of knowing Jesus Christ; in His light we see the light and in this light our own darkness. Everything that deserves to be called knowledge in the Christian sense lives from the knowledge of Jesus Christ.

What your theologian friend was speaking was just normal English, to be quite honest!

 

[Sidhe]

He's not speaking theologian. This is theologian:



What your theologian friend was speaking was just normal English, to be quite honest!

My arse.

Anyway like I say EOB, do you think a thread about "propaganda" would have legs?

 

[scy12]

Using modern expressions for ancient phenomena is not necessarily anachronism unless your expression is wrongly used on that context.

The word Propaganda fits great with ancient politics as well . For example the exaggeration of the Greeks and the Persian historians of the achievements of their compatriots in battle is propaganda. According to some most of politics is Propaganda. I am uncertain if Propaganda is the right word to use for Religion.

Though several of the instances where Propaganda is used could be used regarding Religion. The Gospels claim to be the truth, shows political opinion regarding the jews and the Romans behaviors and offers to be the part of salvation. All for forwarding and agenda and that is spreading the religion. One could say almost all of Rhetoric , Religion and Politics is Propaganda as it attempts to convince it's viewer into it's correctness and it may use wrong claims.

One could claim that the point of Propaganda is to make exaggerations to support a cause and since those who written the Gospels didn't have that intention.


As for the other Theologian i would like to quote his points i don't think his answer is not understandable or moronic.

It's worth noting (again) that the genre of 'propaganda' really is anachronistic to the Gospel texts in the proper sense of the term. Some would agree, but say that although a direct parallel does not exist, the gospels do share certain propagandistic (is that a word? lol) qualities that are broadly analogous with contemporary propaganda material.

However, this point is too broad so as to be negligible. The critic would at that point be forced to say which 'analoguous qualities' are distinct to the gospels and to propaganda literature, that could not also be applied to vast swathes of other literature. Remember - having an agenda (as we ALL do) and seeking to promulgate it does NOT constitute an eye for 'propaganda'. Only the most captious, phenomenologically ignorant and immature of souls would say that worship songs or hymns, for example, are 'propagandistic', or that Christmas cards are, or that poetry is propaganda. Etc.

To prove that a point or an expression is anachronistic you must prove that is wrong in the context it is used. People often claim that a modern word used for ancient situations is anachronistic but that position doesn't make sense.


The fact that those Propaganda qualities are found in other literature does not in any way invalidate any claim around Propaganda.

If we neglect the Propaganda that exists in any literature because of it's broadness then we are making a bad dealing of the understanding such literature. IF this phenomenon is so broad as you claim , highlighting the areas in literature where the claims are Propaganda becomes even more less negligible.

Only the most captious, phenomenologically ignorant and immature of souls would say that worship songs or hymns, for example, are 'propagandistic', or that Christmas cards are, or that poetry is propaganda. Etc.

It is good that you mention poetry as not being Propaganda according to a not ignorant person . The problem here is that History has recorded , Political organizations States and several groups have used Poetry to express their position . Worldwide the people that belonged to the communist parties where free to only Pro communists poems that conveyed messages that established that their system or leader where the best in comparison to their's enemy.

The political exaggeration , lies that is used in Politic rhetoric to forward an agenda is named Propaganda. And a way to convey political messages are poems. So infact Poems can be used for Propaganda.

If you think otherwise that doesn't mean that poetry is isn't Propaganda only that you find Propaganda is acceptable .

And just become a phenomenon is broad then that doesn't imply it doesn't exist or it is unrecognizable.

One has to be literarily honest and also, in order to make a genuine point, establish and justify your assumptions in order for that to work. Not the least of which being, even if they WERE propaganda, why is that necessarily a bad thing? Not all propaganda is/was done by the Nazis or Communists for example. Is there such a thing as 'positive propaganda'? E.g. Is Bambi Propaganda? (Beyond Disney's racist tendencies, that is.) If so, is that really 'BAD'? It may be simplistic, but it's not morally perverse to promote love or goodness or a particular message of salvation.

This is a valid idea but as i didn't claim that it was bad propaganda i don't won't to address this right now. It is better that you come with peace with this statement (that it may be good or bad propaganda) rather than making easily infallible claims such as poetry not being Propaganda. To continue this further i am not saying that all poetry is propaganda , simple because poetry is just a way of expression of Literature it isn't necessarily a genre. And as certain Literature can be propaganda so can poetry.
claiming poetry as an example of not Propaganda doesn't make matters any better.

But again, all this is giving too much benefit of the doubt. I maintain that 'propaganda' is an anachronistic genre to apply to the Gospels, and misses their point - and most of all, fails to grasp that the Gospels were written to perpetuate belief, not (in the evangelistic sense) necessarily to inspire it. They were written by the Church and for the Church, and VERY VERY VERY arguably were NOT written to 'maintain the status quo' and 'keep people in line'.

Answer - See my original post before quoting this guy on how Religion may or may not be propaganda.

I echo the comments of several NT scholars - if they were 'edited for content', then you would expect VERY different texts to what you already get. A lot of stuff really isn't that.... pretty, theologically or politically.

Just because some things are ugly theologically and politically that doesn't mean that the content was not "Edited" or was not making political , (theo)logical exaggeration's.

 

[Sidhe]

Is there any reason to believe the disciples Matthew, Mark, Luke and John actually wrote the Gospels, and later versions were copies? Or in other words that the actual source documents of the Gospels were themselves, not some odd Q text or x text or whatever?

 

[Fifty]

Well, you've clearly read a lot more Frege than I have, although you could have achieved this by reading any Frege. But I would dispute the claim that careful analysis of fairly small problems - as opposed to wildly ambitious system-building - is a modern innovation. In fact it's a very medieval way of going about things. I said something about quodlibets earlier so I can refer you back to that - basically, the standard way of philosophising in the later Middle Ages was to focus on very small technical questions and try to resolve them exhaustively, looking at every possible opinion and adjudicating between them. Most of the medieval philosophical works consist of "questions" such as this, and some of them are extremely narrow and technical in scope; Scotus' various works are probably the best example of this kind of thing. When people wanted to write something more systematic they did it by sticking lots of questions together. This is the format of Aquinas' Summa theologiae, for example. Now in early modern philosophy this approach tended to be lost, and people did go more for the "great big system" sort of thing, the prime examples being, perhaps, Descartes' Principles of philosophy and Spinoza's Ethics - although, perhaps ironically, these works tried to use more scholastic methods of reasoning, if not of scope, than was fashionable at the time.

I'd say that the key difference between modern analytic philosophy (which is what you're talking about - bear in mind that continental philosophy still goes in for the "great big system" approach - see people like Habermas and so on) and medieval philosophy is more the kinds of questions being considered, or at least the style in which they are considered. For example, the medievals were very interested in epistemology, but it is very hard to find many points of contact between their discussions of it and modern ones because they were couched in such different terms (intelligible species and the like, which are quite unintelligible by modern standards). They were very interested in philosophy of language, perhaps just as much as modern philosophers, but the questions they were asking about it were different; they were interested in what gives sentences meaning, but they didn't spend much time wondering what meaning actually is, for example.

It's also worth mentioning that the piecemeal approach of modern analytic philosophy is also closely associated with the system of publication in journals. Modern scientific journals were only invented in the seventeenth century and didn't really take off until the late nineteenth century. Before then, most philosophers did most of their important work either in letters - which functioned pretty much like threads just like this one, allowing people to have big discussions but which did not help with systematic or detailed formulation of their positions - or in books, which obviously encouraged the "big system" approach. It's hard to set out a big system in a journal article (although some people have tried!). So compare, for example, Russell's article "On denoting", which you mentioned, to the Principia mathematica - they're both analytic but the latter is closer to being a "system"; at least, it attempts to create a pretty ambitious explanation of an entire body of knowledge. So the same philosopher might be more piecemeal in articles and more overarching in a book. And today, as I'm sure you know, the pressure upon academics to publish more and more, and to do so at the highest level of accreditation, means that articles are seen as ever more important and books as ever less so: if you write articles then (a) you have a greater number of publications, because they're shorter, and (b) people regard them as more prestigious, because everyone knows how difficult it is to publish an article, whereas books are not so hard to publish. Which I suppose is true, since I myself have published six books to date but only three articles. Enterprising PhD students today plan their theses as a series of articles, so they can get a whole bunch of publications with no extra work, and some PhD courses now have even abandoned the traditional thesis and have students write a few articles instead. So quite apart from whatever purely philosophical developments there may be, the very nature of academia itself, and the ever more difficult struggle for jobs means that philosophy is being done in a more and more piecemeal fashion. That's true now in a way that it certainly wasn't in Russell's day.

Interesting! Well, I never knew about that late medieval stuff, most of my historical reading has been in the early moderns (Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Hume, Berkeley, Locke, now taking a Kant course).

In what ways do you think medieval methodology was better than current analytic philosophy?

 

[Plotinus]

Is there any reason to believe the disciples Matthew, Mark, Luke and John actually wrote the Gospels, and later versions were copies? Or in other words that the actual source documents of the Gospels were themselves, not some odd Q text or x text or whatever?

As far as I know there's no particular reason to suppose that the traditional attributions are correct. Those attributions are late (mid-second century at the earliest) and at least some of them fly in the face of the evidence: for example, if Matthew's Gospel was written by Matthew (an eye-witness) and Mark's Gospel was written by Mark (not an eye-witness), why did Matthew base much of his account upon Mark's?

The Gospels are based upon mostly oral traditions. It's possible that some of those traditions were written down into texts before the Gospels - for example, the Passion narrative in Mark's Gospel shows greater unity than the rest of it, suggesting that perhaps the author of Mark had access to a written Passion narrative. Also, John's Gospel has gone through various versions and certainly incorporates earlier written material, such as the "Signs Gospel". But most of this stuff was originally oral, so you shouldn't get too hung upon "source documents".

Interesting! Well, I never knew about that late medieval stuff, most of my historical reading has been in the early moderns (Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Hume, Berkeley, Locke, now taking a Kant course).

In what ways do you think medieval methodology was better than current analytic philosophy?

Now that I'm not sure of. The medievals wrote in a very structured and formulaic way, using syllogisms explicitly, which is very helpful when it comes to analysing their arguments. It is always clear whether an argument is valid or not. They will say things like: "You say that all Xs are Y, and that a is X, and therefore a is Y. This syllogism is valid, and the major is true, but the minor is false. I prove it like this. No Zs are Xs. But a is a Z. Therefore a is not X. The conclusion that a is Y is therefore unproven." and so on. If you think a scholastic author goes wrong, it's always clear where it's happened. Of course it makes them fiercesomely offputting to read, but there's not much one can do about that. Aquinas is probably the most accessible of them, which might say more about the others than it does about him.

 

[Sidhe]

Great are there any documents found closer to Christs life that mention the players in the NT, or wasn't it considered de riggeur to write anything down then, AAMOI? I know the dead sea scrolls come from around that time or before, but do any of them mention say x from the Bible?

 

[Plotinus]

The Dead Sea Scrolls are Jewish and contain nothing that is clearly Christian; some people think they contain references to Christian things and perhaps even Jesus but really that's just speculation.

Bear in mind that the first Christians thought the world was about to end any day, so they weren't much interested in writing things down for posterity. The earliest Christian writings we know of are Paul's letters, but they don't say much about Jesus' life. Exceptions are 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, on the Last Supper, and 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, on the Resurrection. There are also other sections on Paul which seem to parallel Jesus' teachings in the Gospels without making any explicit reference to them, such as 1 Thessalonian 4:13-17, on the eschaton, and Romans 12, on ethics. Paul seems not enormously interested in the details of Jesus' life, which may also be representative of the first generation of Christians, or at least some of them, and that would also explain a lack of texts on the subject from that generation.

Of the various texts that purport to record Jesus' sayings and deeds, the canonical Gospels are certainly both the earliest and the most reliable, with the possible exception of John. Note, by the way, that earlier does not necessarily mean more reliable (eg, where Mark and Matthew disagree, you can't assume that Mark is right and Matthew wrong simply because Mark was earlier - perhaps Matthew knew something Mark didn't).

 

[Sidhe]

I see, any idea why the Church schizmed over the issue of the Rock? Ie some thought it was Peter and we have plenty of reference to that, although others thought the minister for the Christian Church was James, Ie the Eastern Orthodox Church who have him as their first Pope. I always find this part hard to decipher, as there's a lot of conflicting opinions raging on who's right and who's wrong, and it's hard to determine who is more right other than in scriptural terms not surprisingly, shame nothing but oral tradition exists from James ministry I suppose. Gives me a head ache.

 

[Plotinus]

The Catholic and Orthodox churches don't disagree over the identity of the first Pope. I've never even heard any claim before that the Orthodox think James was the first Pope; tradition has always held that James was the first bishop of Jerusalem just as Peter was the first bishop of Rome.

The Catholic and Orthodox churches broke apart over a number of issues. These included the question of the authority of the Pope (was he in charge of the whole church or just a first among equals, like a Speaker of the House except for bishops?); the question of the Filioque (does the Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son, or from just the Father alone?) and the question of the azymites (should the bread used in the Eucharist be leavened or unleavened?). And these disagreements, in turn, came about to some extent from cultural differences, such as the fact that they spoke different languages and increasingly had distinct histories and concerns.

 

[Sidhe]

Ah OK I meant church leader, the first leader of the Greek Orthodox Church is James, I used the term to denote that. Not Papalcy if you see what I mean.

So political reasons more than divisive theology? That's how I understood it too, but people seem a little bit unknowledgeable generally so you get nowhere. For example if I say first church leader, Peter not the Rock, they automatically get defensive and then I'm left with nothing. Last time I said that I put up a chronology of Eastern Orthodox leaders and that was about as far as I got. Came to the right place.

I can see how that's devisive but I don't think the Greek Orthodox would agree that Peter was the Rock on which Christianity should be built. Classical humour joke: he's not a rock he's a person.

 

[holy king]

why did "jacobvs" get translated into "james" and not "jacob" ?

 

[RalofTyr]

Why has God allowed evil in this world?

 

[Sidhe]

Why has God allowed evil in this world?

Because of free will. Which of course mankind doesn't have anyway but that's a whole 'nother omnisicent/predeterminism thread.

 

[Plotinus]

Ah OK I meant church leader, the first leader of the Greek Orthodox Church is James, I used the term to denote that. Not Papalcy if you see what I mean.

No, James was not the "first leader" of the Greek Orthodox Church! Where are you getting these ideas? As I said, both churches hold that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and James was the first bishop of Jerusalem. At that time, neither bishop was the "leader" of the whole church. In the west, people increasingly came to believe that the bishop of Rome had authority over all other bishops, but those in the east rejected this view. This was partly because in the west there was only one patriarch - the bishop of Rome - while in the east there were three - the bishops of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem (to begin with) - so naturally they evolved a more communal model of church leadership. From late antiquity until the present day, the effective "leader" of the Orthodox Church is the patriarch of Constantinople (Istanbul), who has the title "ecumenical patriarch", but he is not analogous to the Pope. The fact that the Orthodox Church looks to the ecumencial patriarch while the Catholic Church looks to the Pope has got nothing to do with disagreements over Peter and James. In fact the Orthodox Church accepts that the bishop of Rome should be the first among equals of the bishops, but it believes that as matters stand he is in schism, which is why the ecumenical patriarch is the de facto first among equals. Were the two churches to become united, the Orthodox would probably regard the Pope as they currently regard the ecumenical patriarch, at least in theory.

So political reasons more than divisive theology? That's how I understood it too, but people seem a little bit unknowledgeable generally so you get nowhere.

No, I didn't say political reasons, I said cultural ones, which underlay the divisive theology.

why did "jacobvs" get translated into "james" and not "jacob" ?

Sometimes it does; "Jacobus" is the Latin form of "James", which is why the followers of James II were called Jacobites. I don't know why this is.

Why has God allowed evil in this world?

We've already discussed lots of possible answers to that at enormous length in this thread, I think. Briefly, the main responses that Christians have come up with include:

(1) The world is better with evil in it, because suffering produces moral character and that's the most important thing.
(2) Evil is an unfortunate but necessary consequence of free will, which is so valuable that the world is better with it, even given the evil consequences.

 

[Sidhe]

No, James was not the "first leader" of the Greek Orthodox Church! Where are you getting these ideas? As I said, both churches hold that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and James was the first bishop of Jerusalem. At that time, neither bishop was the "leader" of the whole church. In the west, people increasingly came to believe that the bishop of Rome had authority over all other bishops, but those in the east rejected this view. This was partly because in the west there was only one patriarch - the bishop of Rome - while in the east there were three - the bishops of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem (to begin with) - so naturally they evolved a more communal model of church leadership. From late antiquity until the present day, the effective "leader" of the Orthodox Church is the patriarch of Constantinople (Istanbul), who has the title "ecumenical patriarch", but he is not analogous to the Pope. The fact that the Orthodox Church looks to the ecumencial patriarch while the Catholic Church looks to the Pope has got nothing to do with disagreements over Peter and James. In fact the Orthodox Church accepts that the bishop of Rome should be the first among equals of the bishops, but it believes that as matters stand he is in schism, which is why the ecumenical patriarch is the de facto first among equals. Were the two churches to become united, the Orthodox would probably regard the Pope as they currently regard the ecumenical patriarch, at least in theory.

OK whatever, I'm just saying that in Orthodox chronology the leadership of the pope is not mentioned. But obviously this is so controversial you had to write a paragraph telling me things I already know. If you say that James wasn't the first de facto authority of the Orthodox church I accept that, not like I'm going to argue about it I don't give a toss personally who leads either of them. As for the fact that you don't believe James has anything to do with the argument over who should have authority I'd say that was also something I don't agree with you on, but that's out of the remit of this thread. I think that's the most likely argument that would have lead in part to a schism, the fact that Peter is the rock, and the fact that the Orthodox believe "James" or the Bishop of Jerusalem of who James was the first, should have equal authority? That's what I'm driving at, but since it looks like I'm about to collide at high speed with you over this I'll leave it.

No, I didn't say political reasons, I said cultural ones, which underlay the divisive theology.

That is politics? So church politics has nothing to do with theology or cultural division, that's like saying the war between Iraq and Iran had nothing to do with politics created by (cultural division/theology) and thus nothing to do with politics? Ok that's controversial but it's a view you are welcome to.

Politics mean interaction between people of authority or states, it doesn't define itself as precisely as you seem to be using the word, but then that's a misunderstanding I think, but what I mean by politics and what you mean by politics appear to be two different things. I presume you would be happy to say an ecumenical councils decision would be church politics? That's what I mean by politics.