When I consider the possibility of retrojections this does not imply that I think all events have now become part of that and all has become interpretation. Im a bit puzzled how this follows logically.

I understand to some extent the difficulty of separating facts from interpretations however I find it very unsatisfying to hear you say: “Therefore I accept the events as they come to us through these writings.” Is it really this black and white? You simply ‘have to’ accept everything because in the case one questions a certain part or passage, this ‘should’ lead to questioning the whole?

I have the idea that Im not completely following you so would like to ask you to reformulate what you mean.

Your last quote, reality being theologically framed, also puzzles me, what do you mean with this?

Lastly: what do you do with the differences that are apparent in the NT? Or as James put it: the developing trajectories of interpretations?

To James:

Tnx for your comment. Im not really familiar with the recent research you are referring to but I recall reading some things on your blog on oral tradition.

I would agree that the criticism aired by Geert is legitimate but would still consider works like the one Im reading at the moment by James Dunn (Unity and Diversity in the NT) to be of absolute necessity in coming closer to the original church, diversified as it may have been.

Although I must admit that the more I read about it the more I get the idea that this quest is somewhat impossible, at least when pursued with the intent of living out or believing what they believed, because there were many differences and developing trajectories of interpretations. Obviously there is a strand of unity going through the text as well, but sadly this eclipses the diversity as much of ‘our’ focus is conformation to the ‘early church’.

Dunn quotes E. Käsemann which I thought summed it up quite well:

”the New Testament canon does not, as such, constitute the foundation of the unity of the Church. On the contrary, as such…, it provides the basis for the multiplicity of the confessions.” [1]

Still I do realise that at the end of the day, ‘the flock’ needs a unified direction for it to be kept together and maybe its precisely the focus of the reformation, Sola Scriptura, that makes exegesis feel uncomfortable to ‘us’ [coming from] Protestants [backgrounds] whereas in Catholicism its often regarded as only one of the many voices informing ‘the faith’.

Blessings to both of you,

Daniel
———————————————–
[1] James D.G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 2006), p.132

On the one hand, there has been some legitimate criticism of the older attempt to treat facts as easily separable from interpretation. In particular, recent research on subjects like psychology of memory, oral tradition and history all suggest that we do indeed interpret events, and thus all history is biased. We remember from a sermon or a conference paper that which resonates with our own interests or concerns at some level. A Gospel includes only some of many things Jesus did. All recollection and recording involves “distortion”, and so when it comes to matters of history, we should get away from the idea that distortion and selectivity are simply negative hindrances to historical study, rather than inevitable components of this human activity.

On the other hand, we clearly see developing trajectories of interpretation and reinterpretation among the New Testament authors themselves. And so it is not enough to simply state that facts and their interpretation are inseparable and then accept the claims made by the early interpreters whose writings are in the NT. We must look for both underlying originating events, and later settings and contexts, that can allow us to make sense of the trajectories that resulted.

I don’t know if this is at all helpful, but I suspect that any dialogue that ensues will let me know!

In your first reply you said that the NT writers “are prone to interpret events according to their theological beliefs”. In your second answer you go a step further and say that the events themselves “can be interpretations or in some cases even retrojections”. In the first reply you suppose a relation between an event and its interpretation. In the second, however, interpretation has become the all and everything, for if there is no event then everything is interpretation.

This line of your second reply comes even more to the fore when you address my suggestion that the events themselves might be ‘biased’. Your answer to this suggestion is: “As for the events themselves being ‘biased’; how would you know about the events were it not for their writings? I mean let’s say that for example the walking on the water or something else was a retrojective device; then it doesn’t make any sense to talk about the event itself, because the event itself is interpretation or in this case retrojection”.

I would say that the logical consequence of the line of thought set out here is that the whole NT is interpretation of something that we will never know, an unknown X that is for ever out of sight for us, because, as you say, “how could you know about the events were it not for their writings?”. But, if that is the case, then I would respond that the whole question whether a certain event (e.g. Jesus walking on the water) really happened or perhaps was a retrojective device, is senseless. For its possible answer is methodologically blocked by your own overriding consideration that all we know about the events is by the writings.

My own line of thought in this question is nearly the opposite of yours. To me the fact that we cannot know about the events themselves except through the writings of the NT has a very serious and positive meaning. I already said in my first reaction that I find the distinction between fact and interpretation very problematic, and that I’m of the opinion that we don’t have facts except by interpretation. To me fact and interpretation are an indivisible unity that we should not attempt to break asunder. Whereas you seem to say that because we have the ‘facts’ about the person of Jesus only by means of the interpretations found in the NT writings we can say nothing about the facts themselves — because these facts may themselves be interpretations or retrojections — I would say instead that we only truly know the facts about Jesus’ person precisely because of their interpretations found in the NT writings.

Therefore I cannot accept your basic assumption — an assumption you never formulated but that shines through all have said thus far — that on the one side of the NT world there is something like ‘factual reality’ (i.e. what really happened, or possibly not happened) and on the other hand there are ‘interpretations’ or ‘retrojections’ of these events (or non-events). I find this an unfruitful dichotomy, because, as you yourself said “how could you know about the events if not by their writings?”. Therefore I accept the events as they come to us through these writings.

In my mind critical attempts, so-called, that try to distinguish between ‘what really happened’ and its ‘theological interpretation’ are highly subjective. First, because the criterion that should decide whether a certain aspect of an event belongs to its ‘reality in itself’ (whatever that means!) or to its ‘theological interpretation’ is a highly subjective affair. In fact this criterion is always derived from the mood or spirit of the age that pervades the mind of the researchers. Second, because — on my assumption that fact and interpretation cannot be separated — such a critical attempt is senseless. It falsifies the factual world because it first separates the fact from its theological content and meaning and then later on interprets the fact according to a theological meaning outwardly imposed or retrojected on it.

To me this critical methodology is infected by a secular type of thinking that is anachronistically applied to the NT writings and that wants to separate ‘reality in itself’ from its ‘theological impact’. Divine revelation supposes, however, that reality itself is theologically framed.

Shalom,
Geert
Geert

What I mean with their theological lenses is the following: the authors of the NT believed that Jesus was the Messiah, and it is with this belief that they ‘read’ the events. In some cases this is more evident than others, as I pointed out before in Mark this is less obvious than in John where it seems that he portrays the exalted Jesus back into the narrative. Again it can very well be the case that John never meant to give a historical account but intended as some have put forth to be a meditation on the teachings and life of Jesus through a series of discourses but do we take this into account?

You said:

“if we can discover these theological perspectives, and discern between them, then these perspectives themselves become part of the events studied by us, and they can no longer be a purely subjective matter.”

But the point Im trying to make is just that those events can be interpretations or in some cases even retrojections which in most cases would stem from the desire to make all messianic passages applicable to him. Examples of this could be: the location of Jesus birth in Bethlehem, the Virgin birth, the 30 pieces of silver, the entry on an ass into Jerusalem etc.

E.P. Sanders for example comments on the disciples plucking grain on the Sabbath that most probably this too was retrojection, basing himself on the anomalies in the story and speculating that most probably the movement faced questions of Sabbath law and as such the author inserted an event to answer and perhaps settle the course to be taken.[1]

Note that Im not saying these are all definitely retrojections, Im only pointing out that things like these are hardly taken into account when reading the NT.

Dunn says it more clearly than I:

“[…]where firm Jesus-tradition was meagre or lacking there may have been more scope for those early Christian apologists who thought it important to present Jesus as the one who fulfilled OT expectation completely, at every point in his life, from birth to resurrection.” [2]

I don’t really get how you get from the interpretation of events by the authors of the NT to the saying of the Sages that “Torah is the interpretation of the Torah”, but maybe you could elaborate.

As for the events themselves being ‘biased’; how would you know about the events were it not for their writings? I mean lets say that for example the walking on the water or something else was a retrojective device then it doesn’t make any sense to talk about the event itself, because the event itself is interpretation or in this case retrojection.

As for your last question; Im not arguing that an unbiased reading is possible, Im well aware that nearly all reading of any document is not done isolated but viewed through the readers horizon. This does not however negate my assertion that the authors of the NT had a very clear motive in writing and as such could (!) have inserted things to bolster their case.

Blessings,

Daniel

————————————————————
[1] E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus(London: Penguin Books, 1993), p.214
[2] James D.G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 2006), p.109

From the examples you give in your answer, you conclude “that we can see a certain inclination on the part of the authors [of the NT writings] to read the events through their own theological lenses”. And, while you acknowledge this, you ask the question: “how does this play a role in your reading of the text? Does it play a role at all or is their interpretation by necessity the correct one? Is it possible that Mark and Matthew, or John saw the events in a different light?

I would like to ask here what should be understood by “their own theological lenses?” If these lenses are really “their own” and only theirs, then of course only the authors can see anything through these lenses, and their vision would thus be a subjective reality that is only theirs. But if we can discover these theological perspectives, and discern between them, then these perspectives themselves become part of the events studied by us, and they can no longer be a purely subjective matter.

A further step would be to acknowledge that the diversity of the perspectives found in the NT shows the richness of the events which occasioned or necessitated these perspectives. In other words, the events themselves are only completed by these interpreting perspectives. This sounds similar to the old adage of the Sages: Torah is the interpretation of the Torah.

Does that mean that each interpretation is itself part of the divine revelation, or at least that each interpretation is correct? No, not at all, but it implies that revelation cannot happen without a process of interpretation and that interpretation belongs to its structure.

In your post you try to explain your concept of bias by referring to a subjective motive: “Clearly, they [the NT writers] have a motive in writing these documents, consider the Gospel of John: “but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name”.

Could it not be, I would suggest, that the events reported by John were themselves also ‘biased’? Could it not be that not only the writing of the events was done with the motive mentioned above in mind, but that the events themselves happened with this same motive, “so that you may believe…and have life in his name”? If the events described themselves happened because of this motive, then where is the subjective ‘bias’ — as you conceive it — of the writer?

In your answer you say “when I say ‘biased’, I mean that they [the NT writers] are inclined towards a certain reading of the events”. This saying presupposes that an unbiased reading of the events is also possible. What would you understand by it?

Briefly, when I say biased, I mean they are inclined towards a certain reading of the events.

In other words, they are prone to interpret events confirming their theological beliefs. Most of the writings are post-Easter and as such reflect this understanding. Now obviously the NT writers are not the only ones subject to what could be called ‘confirmation bias’ but the reason I single them out, is because it is often assumed they are not.

When comparing the Gospels among each other its like theres an uneasiness with these accounts (for examples see my previous posts here, here and here) which comes out with greatest force in John, where Jesus is aware of everything and above every situation: when asking for bread, it is immediately added by the author that he already knew the answer and is only testing the disciple’s reaction, when picking disciples its pointed out that he already knew who would betray him, when praying for Lazarus to be raised, Jesus says he already knows he will be answered but just asks this because of the people around him, when arrested the disciples don’t flee at once but he arranges that they are let go by the authorities, and at the cross instead of the cry of despair we reading Mark, he is ‘in control’ giving his beloved disciple instructions, “knowing that all was finished” and says “it is finished”.

Its with these and other examples in Scripture that we can see a certain inclination on the part of the authors to read the events through their own theological lenses.

And this is ok, I mean I would agree with the problems of distinguishing between facts and interpretation yet my question to you would be: how does this play a role in your reading of the text? Does it play a role at all or is their interpretation by necessity the correct one? Is it possible that Mark and Matthew, or John saw the events in a different light?

As for letting the reader decide for themselves, obviously they weren’t shoving things down the readers throat, yet I think it would be only fair to acknowledge that they are out to strengthen the communities and if possible attract new people to the faith, a cursory look at Matthew’s use of texts from the Tanach reveals this tendency to ‘prove’ this to the reader I would say. Again you might say, how about other writers, granted, but its precisely the NT that its often assumed by its believers, to be free of this.

Blessings,

Daniel

I have a question: What exactly do you mean when you say that the NT authors are biased? You add to this that they don’t have the intention to present the facts and let the reader decide himself what to do with it. Again my question is what you mean by this.

First, to my knowledge the NT writers don’t force anyone to believe what they say. They present a message that can be accepted or rejected. On the level of accepting or rejecting it seems to me that the NT writers let the reader decide by himself. Nobody else can decide for him.

Second, on a more sophisticated level you seem to assume here behind your distinction between “facts” and “bias” the modern but very problematic distinction between fact and interpretation. But my question is here: what should it mean if the NT presented for example the “fact” of the resurrection and let the reader decide how it should be interpreted? Would this fact — or, for that matter, any other “fact” of the NT — really be presented as it truly is if its interpretation was left out? I don’t think so. The interpretation, I would say, belongs to the fact itself. The fact is to be interpreted. Grasping the facts means grasping the right way to interpret the facts.

If our religion is true and if there is a Creator-God, then there is no neutral domain of mere “facts” at all. If there is a Creator, all reality is “biased” and bearing a “message”.

In case the NT were written in a style of “neutrality journalism” to mention an option, “only presenting the facts”, I think it would not give the mere facts but a typical and superficial interpretation. The misleading thing would be that this interpretation would seem to be “neutral”. But would it “in fact” not be very biased, leaving out all things that cannot be grasped by a mediocrite mind?