I said I would have something to say about documents and questions. I enjoy history. I especially enjoy original documents- those written by participants or direct observers. Secondary and tertiary histories are of much less interest to me.
Examples from the Civil war are easy to understand. Gettysburg, about which I have done much reading and exploring, is typical. The battlefield reports of the various commanders are all collected in 'The Official Records of the War of the Rebellion', published in 1878. The reports were all written within a week or so of the battle. Such reports have the advantage of preserving the most direct and vivid recollections of an event, at the expense of also preserving the situational and observational biases of the writer. A less biased original source is the Bachelder Map, a topographic map made of the battlefield within a couple of years of the fighting. It preserves the distribution of trees, rough ground and fields without the distortions of later growth and cuttings.
Secondary sources are written by collating original material. This is done with regimental histories and historical societies when they publish the collected letters and other documents of a particular unit. There is commonly some editorial condensation or reconciliation of various details and viewpoints.
Tertiary sources are condensed histories written by examining original sources and then writing a narrative from them. Well known Civil War examples include Bruce Catton's history, and more recently, Shelby Foote's. The West Point Atlas of American Wars is another such tertiary source. Although of exceptionally high quality, it introduces all kinds of judgments about the position and movement of units, along with opinions about the wisdom of such movements.
There is a loss of detail in the progression from primary to tertiary source, but not always a loss of accuracy. Distance from an event, and the opportunity to read all sides of a story, sometimes make it possible to make out what happened more accurately than reading one side's version, or the version as seen from only one spot.
The most dangerous aspect of tertiary sources is the injection not of synthetic analysis but of opinion and point of view. The author who believes the southern states fought a glorious war and were overwhelmed by greater numbers led by fools will certainly not be able to give a quality tertiary history. It is much more valuable to review and synthesize disparate sources to get a broader view of events than it is to narrow the view by picking items based on their conformity to predetermined opinion.
What, then, about Christian documents? The New Testament represents a complex mix of primary and secondary material, and is unquestionable written with a strong opinion, namely that Jesus is the son of God. How can we approach the Bible analytically but not cynically?
First, it is essential to abandon viewing the Bible as the inerrant word of God. Analysis is not possible when a conclusion has already been made. The converse, however, is that the basic acceptability of The New Testament as a historical document must also be acknowledged. To simply dismiss the entire work as a fiction or gross ancient distortion is no better a basis for analysis than claiming it is inerrant.
The style context of the document must be understood as well. I have written about this previously. The Roman and Greek claims about individuals' births and backgrounds must be considered in viewing the New Testament, as should stories about great Jews such as Moses, Joshua and Elijah.
Several other points are important. We do not know the actual date of any of the NT documents except for an approximation of the dates of Paul's letters. These are the earliest documents of the NT. The dates and order of the gospels are unknown. There is a presumption, based on textual analysis, that Mark was written first, but we do not know for certain. The tone and content of John are quite different, suggesting a later writing and a wholly different tradition as its basis, but all of this is historical detective work and speculation.
The authors of the gospels are unknown. Their attribution comes from the early church fathers. There is no 'signed copy'. The text of Paul's letters also suggests Paul as the certain author of only 7 of the letters attributed to him. Others' notably Timothy, a source of much Christian behavioral dogma, is not only written differently but conflicts with other letters felt to be as certainly genuine as such things can be. An important issue in this regard is that many letters attributed to Paul circulated in the first century. Paul makes some reference to these forgeries. Some may not have been so much forgeries as the equivalent, in an age before xeroxes, printing presses and radios, of mass communication of Paul's ideas written by another but signed with Paul's name.
There are many other early Christian documents. The NT, then, is in part primary/secondary material, but is also tertiary, in that it is assembled by later editors with a particular point of view. It is not synthetic analysis; rather, it is selective citation of texts in support of an already formed conclusion. This too should prompt critical reading and questioning.
The NT intends to convince the reader of the divinity of Jesus. This very intent makes it essential, from an intellectual view, to examine other sources. Sadly, many of these sources, such as the writings of Gnostic believers, were destroyed by the proto-Orthodox as heretical. We thus have only one point of view in the matter. There are many other documents yet available. Some are fragmentary, and others have obvious overlays. Nonetheless they reflect the number and variety of stories and ideas circulating about Jesus. It is important to read them to understand the place of the NT. Reading them also reinforces the quality of the editorial judgments made in assembling the NT, even if they reflect an already made conclusion.
There is a telling equivalent from Gettysburg. On the second day, Wright's brigade of Anderson's division advanced around 6- 6:30. In his report, Wright makes a variety of remarkably bombastic claims, and is, from other sources, established as a writer quite willing to promote himself. He claimed to have advanced to the Union center, and even penetrated it, in the vicinity of the famous clump of trees. This information was used by Lee, and later used by others, as evidence that the Union center could be reached and broken, the basis of Pickett's Charge the next day.
There are several problems with his report, and it is a famous subject of controversy for those geeky enough (me) to care about a controversy about a report. Most importantly, we have the reports of all the brigade commanders on the Union side, and not one indicates an advance or penetration in that part of the field. In contrast, Barkesdale's advance to Plum Run is reported not only by him but by the Union troops opposing him.
My point in all this babbling is simply that I feel it is essential to examine the NT critically, in an attempt to understand rather than to accept on dogma and received wisdom the opinion of others. This is not to say I do not accept and revere much of this material. I do. I have always challenged accepted belief and asked why it must or should be so.
The NT documents make a case that is difficult to support and hard to believe at an intellectual level. Receiving God in the form of Jesus is compelling and very comforting. It is an image that remains with me forever. Perhaps it makes me a heretic to ask if it is true, and to not require that it be literally true.
After all the intellectual gymnastics, I remain about as unsure as I was when I started, but even more reverent of God. Whatever Jesus' nature he is, if not literally God, an image of God in fleshly form, a fleshly avatar of God if you like. I continue to feel his divinity is not an essential issue in worshipping God. He does seem to me to be a powerful example of the presence of God within Man, and of what living in a spiritual way would look like. Like the gnostics, I am more interested in trying to emulate Jesus' behavior and values than I am in venerating him as God.
Ted
Examples from the Civil war are easy to understand. Gettysburg, about which I have done much reading and exploring, is typical. The battlefield reports of the various commanders are all collected in 'The Official Records of the War of the Rebellion', published in 1878. The reports were all written within a week or so of the battle. Such reports have the advantage of preserving the most direct and vivid recollections of an event, at the expense of also preserving the situational and observational biases of the writer. A less biased original source is the Bachelder Map, a topographic map made of the battlefield within a couple of years of the fighting. It preserves the distribution of trees, rough ground and fields without the distortions of later growth and cuttings.
Secondary sources are written by collating original material. This is done with regimental histories and historical societies when they publish the collected letters and other documents of a particular unit. There is commonly some editorial condensation or reconciliation of various details and viewpoints.
Tertiary sources are condensed histories written by examining original sources and then writing a narrative from them. Well known Civil War examples include Bruce Catton's history, and more recently, Shelby Foote's. The West Point Atlas of American Wars is another such tertiary source. Although of exceptionally high quality, it introduces all kinds of judgments about the position and movement of units, along with opinions about the wisdom of such movements.
There is a loss of detail in the progression from primary to tertiary source, but not always a loss of accuracy. Distance from an event, and the opportunity to read all sides of a story, sometimes make it possible to make out what happened more accurately than reading one side's version, or the version as seen from only one spot.
The most dangerous aspect of tertiary sources is the injection not of synthetic analysis but of opinion and point of view. The author who believes the southern states fought a glorious war and were overwhelmed by greater numbers led by fools will certainly not be able to give a quality tertiary history. It is much more valuable to review and synthesize disparate sources to get a broader view of events than it is to narrow the view by picking items based on their conformity to predetermined opinion.
What, then, about Christian documents? The New Testament represents a complex mix of primary and secondary material, and is unquestionable written with a strong opinion, namely that Jesus is the son of God. How can we approach the Bible analytically but not cynically?
First, it is essential to abandon viewing the Bible as the inerrant word of God. Analysis is not possible when a conclusion has already been made. The converse, however, is that the basic acceptability of The New Testament as a historical document must also be acknowledged. To simply dismiss the entire work as a fiction or gross ancient distortion is no better a basis for analysis than claiming it is inerrant.
The style context of the document must be understood as well. I have written about this previously. The Roman and Greek claims about individuals' births and backgrounds must be considered in viewing the New Testament, as should stories about great Jews such as Moses, Joshua and Elijah.
Several other points are important. We do not know the actual date of any of the NT documents except for an approximation of the dates of Paul's letters. These are the earliest documents of the NT. The dates and order of the gospels are unknown. There is a presumption, based on textual analysis, that Mark was written first, but we do not know for certain. The tone and content of John are quite different, suggesting a later writing and a wholly different tradition as its basis, but all of this is historical detective work and speculation.
The authors of the gospels are unknown. Their attribution comes from the early church fathers. There is no 'signed copy'. The text of Paul's letters also suggests Paul as the certain author of only 7 of the letters attributed to him. Others' notably Timothy, a source of much Christian behavioral dogma, is not only written differently but conflicts with other letters felt to be as certainly genuine as such things can be. An important issue in this regard is that many letters attributed to Paul circulated in the first century. Paul makes some reference to these forgeries. Some may not have been so much forgeries as the equivalent, in an age before xeroxes, printing presses and radios, of mass communication of Paul's ideas written by another but signed with Paul's name.
There are many other early Christian documents. The NT, then, is in part primary/secondary material, but is also tertiary, in that it is assembled by later editors with a particular point of view. It is not synthetic analysis; rather, it is selective citation of texts in support of an already formed conclusion. This too should prompt critical reading and questioning.
The NT intends to convince the reader of the divinity of Jesus. This very intent makes it essential, from an intellectual view, to examine other sources. Sadly, many of these sources, such as the writings of Gnostic believers, were destroyed by the proto-Orthodox as heretical. We thus have only one point of view in the matter. There are many other documents yet available. Some are fragmentary, and others have obvious overlays. Nonetheless they reflect the number and variety of stories and ideas circulating about Jesus. It is important to read them to understand the place of the NT. Reading them also reinforces the quality of the editorial judgments made in assembling the NT, even if they reflect an already made conclusion.
There is a telling equivalent from Gettysburg. On the second day, Wright's brigade of Anderson's division advanced around 6- 6:30. In his report, Wright makes a variety of remarkably bombastic claims, and is, from other sources, established as a writer quite willing to promote himself. He claimed to have advanced to the Union center, and even penetrated it, in the vicinity of the famous clump of trees. This information was used by Lee, and later used by others, as evidence that the Union center could be reached and broken, the basis of Pickett's Charge the next day.
There are several problems with his report, and it is a famous subject of controversy for those geeky enough (me) to care about a controversy about a report. Most importantly, we have the reports of all the brigade commanders on the Union side, and not one indicates an advance or penetration in that part of the field. In contrast, Barkesdale's advance to Plum Run is reported not only by him but by the Union troops opposing him.
My point in all this babbling is simply that I feel it is essential to examine the NT critically, in an attempt to understand rather than to accept on dogma and received wisdom the opinion of others. This is not to say I do not accept and revere much of this material. I do. I have always challenged accepted belief and asked why it must or should be so.
The NT documents make a case that is difficult to support and hard to believe at an intellectual level. Receiving God in the form of Jesus is compelling and very comforting. It is an image that remains with me forever. Perhaps it makes me a heretic to ask if it is true, and to not require that it be literally true.
After all the intellectual gymnastics, I remain about as unsure as I was when I started, but even more reverent of God. Whatever Jesus' nature he is, if not literally God, an image of God in fleshly form, a fleshly avatar of God if you like. I continue to feel his divinity is not an essential issue in worshipping God. He does seem to me to be a powerful example of the presence of God within Man, and of what living in a spiritual way would look like. Like the gnostics, I am more interested in trying to emulate Jesus' behavior and values than I am in venerating him as God.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment