Whining about compositional devices happens because people have never bothered to write a history of something before. Once you do you realize how impractical it would be to get everything literally correct (esp with limited scroll length!). It's the same with textual critics who exaggerate corruption of the manuscripts over time because they were hand copied. People need to spend time hand copying and you realize you don't "corrupt" the entire text when you hand copy. You also don't get it 100% perfect. I've copied giant greek portions of the New Testament Greek by hand to be able to feel what its like. Critics should actually do the things they're critiquing to see what it's actually like.
Yo, this whole conversation is because Mike says the Bible is hyperbolic sometimes? Kind of figured it was obvious. I didn't realize that was a point of confusion.
The literalists are often overly dogmatic, despite the obvious metaphorical language we encounter all over the Scriptures. Some things are literal, sure; but there is much that is symbolic, or representative, or hyperbolic, or parabolic (e.g. Jesus' parables). Is a baptism by fire a literal fire? Of course not. Is the speck in one's eye a literal speck? Of course not. Does denying oneself, picking up one's cross, and following Jesus mean that I must actually carry a literal cross wherever I go? Of course not.
As DavidinMiami says, to which I can attest--having come from a fundamentalist upbringing, many well-intending Christians are overly attached to some idealistic (at least their view of what is ideal) interpretations of scripture. They like to think that, because it ultimately is God's message to us, it cannot be conveyed in a way that a normal human conveys things. Along the same lines, they typically leave out the confluency of scripture. They like to think of scriptures along the lines of a dictation from God, as Muslims view the Quran, which leaves no room for the human authors of scripture to write as they would, but they can't fathom anything like a Molinist view inspiration. What's worse, as David also points out, they don't even realize that they don't interpret many things as literally as they demand certain other things be interpreted. One of my own family members told me that the only acceptable way for something to be written in the Bible in a way that's meant to be interpreted non-literally is if the author explicitly points out that it is not to be taken literally; however, as DavidinMiami shows, they take all sorts of things non-literally that aren't mentioned by the author as intended to be taken non-literally.
No. Nobody is actually complaining about ordinary compositional devices that are used the same way we ordinarily speak ourselves. Instead, people are complaining about fact changing compositional devices, like the claim that John lied about the temple cleansing's date, but it's somehow okay, because he was making an extremely obscure theological point. Or the claim that Jesus didn't literally say "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?", but instead, John completely invented those words and used as an excuse for lying that Jesus had literally said "I thirst". I can't see how anybody could possibly get "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" out of "I thirst". The two have literally nothing in common. Ordinary compositional devices like obvious hyperbole are not the issue. Saying that "all Jerusalem went to John to be baptized" is obvious hyperbole, and nobody is confused about it. What literally happened is a large number of people came to John to be baptized, many of them from Jerusalem. Similarly, metaphors like "pick up your cross" and "a log in your eye" are clearly and unambiguously not meant to be taken literally.
@@ancalagonyt *"No. Nobody is actually complaining about ordinary compositional devices that are used the same way we ordinarily speak ourselves. Instead, people are complaining about fact changing compositional devices, like the claim that John lied about the temple cleansing's date, but it's somehow okay, because he was making an extremely obscure theological point."* If that was a normal means of telling about people, and isn't actually lying because they weren't trying to deceive anybody but--instead--were merely rearranging events in order to tell the story the way that it suited their purpose the best, then why would we label it as lying (implying that it is not honest and ought to be done differently). This is what Licona is trying to point out. Such things aren't lying, they are writing styles. They aren't trying to deceive people; instead, they are using compositional devices in order to best tell the story of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (depending on their goals, audiences, etc.). *"Or the claim that Jesus didn't literally say "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?", but instead, John completely invented those words and used as an excuse for lying that Jesus had literally said "I thirst"."* Again, you use a loaded term. You said that this is a "claim". Why think that, though? As people have rightly pointed out in conversations about inerrancy, saying something is not the same as claiming it. It depends on what they intended to convey in saying that thing. If they are trying to make some point, and you get stuck on the details used in making that point, then you are the one in the wrong, not them (unless you show that they are trying to deceive (i.e., to "lie") or trying to make a "claim" without having to support it. There's no reason to think that either of these is true. This is just a modern, enlightened way of looking at literature, as if all non-fiction has to conform to our ideas. *"I can't see how anybody could possibly get "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" out of "I thirst". The two have literally nothing in common."* What does anybody "getting" that out of it matter? You are looking at it as if the author had to think that such is what was actually said in order to have written it truthfully; however, if the author's intent was not to convey the individual facts surrounding such events and to--instead--convey (at least with some of what is written) deeper spiritual or moral truths, then why think this? *"Similarly, metaphors like "pick up your cross" and "a log in your eye" are clearly and unambiguously not meant to be taken literally."* The fact that others are more clearly meant to be taken as non-literal doesn't mean that there aren't some that are less clear that were also meant to be taken as non-literal. Also, it's quite possible they didn't even give thought to whether someone might take them literally. It might not have even entered their mind since it was such a common way of writing in those times. So, I would argue that it doesn't even have to be intended to be taken non-literally. They just weren't worried with trying to convey history on a fact by fact basis; instead, they were concerned with showing that Jesus is the Suffering Servant who provides the only way to the Father, his atoning death and resurrection.
People who get offended by this stuff need to sit down and write a book on the history of their own life. When you do this you realize its only practical to use compositional devices. Also I did a parody of "My Sharona" with your name at the end of my video Entitled "Holy Koolaid Debunked by 92 year old Granny." It's the last couple seconds of my video on the outro. Hope you enjoy.
@@MikeLiconaOfficial UA-cam thinks its spam whenever I post the link. I sent the link through the "contact me" link on your risen Jesus website. Hopefully that works. It's not worth a bunch of time trying to find it if it doesn't work. It's just a few seconds at the end of the video, but worth a laugh if you can find it.
Humans are so funny. When we are familiar with a literary device, it does not present a problem because we get it; we know what the author is doing. But when we are Not familiar with a certain device, then it can’t be possibly true that that the author ever used it. A 1st century reader would automatically get it, and all of this would not be a big deal to them. This is so simple. But it is to be expected. Look at the mess we have made for 2 thousand years of prophetic literature. But anyways, I digress.
I don't get the backlash against Licona. A perspective that is essentially harmonious with another perspective really CAN differ structurally or philosophically. Its aim or purpose may differ. Perhaps it will emphasize one aspect/facet of what is being presented over another; perhaps it will highlight an event by expanding it, or diminishing it, and so on. One landscape depicted by two artists will result in two interpretations; the landscape remains invariable. No matter how much time I devote to studying those paintings, I must be aware that there is an original, authentic reality that inspired the paintings, which means that my analysis and devotion to the paintings will not be comprehensive. We dwell in a temporal sphere, not a celestial one; there are limitations we inevitably encounter here, even amid our Biblical strudies. "But when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away." (1 Corinthians 13:10)
I'm not sure that an author can "change facts". I think this wording is inherently problematic. I would say that a writer can use language to make different points. If at the Billy Graham convention, there were many people there. I can illustrate this point by saying something like "the entire world was in the stadium." I am not changing facts. I am simply describing my own experience and feeling of being in the stadium with a large crowd. This was my impression of the experience. If you use the language 'x author changes facts,' this leads to problems. This seems to be a necessary condition for some author manipulating the reader or lying. I think if you correct this misnomer then people could accept the idea that ancient writers used compositional devices to get points accross. I agree with Tim that we use these today. I may say that someone was taller than a tree to indicate that someone was really tall. After seeing such a tall person, one might agree that the person was tall and accept the point that I was making, only that the person was really tall. I think that when we tell stories an honest retelling will be consistent with the way events actually unfolded or would be perceived by someone who had also witnessed the events. This intuition seems to be undermined by such an expression as 'x changed the facts.' But to see how your wording 'x changes the facts' can be misleading. Suppose someone said that while compositional devices were used in antiquity that they were not used in the way you argue for and that you had changed the facts to make a point. This is the situation I find when people reject your approach. They almost always read you as saying that the gospel writers intentionally misrepresented information. I think the problem, as I've said above, is the phrase 'change facts', especially since what are facts about the past do not change.
Except that Licona *is* saying that the gospel authors changed facts, in the sense that they knowingly state information that is contrary to fact. For instance, he says that Matthew deliberately said that the Centurion came to Jesus personally even though Matthew knew that he sent servants instead. He also thinks that John invented the "I Thirst" saying and that this is supposed to be a "paraphrase" of "My God why have you forsaken me?". These aren't metaphors or common idioms or figures of speech.
counter idea. Mark made stuff up and then the other writers disagreed with him. (Note, I don't think John Mark wrote it. I'm just using the title for convenience)
Whining about compositional devices happens because people have never bothered to write a history of something before. Once you do you realize how impractical it would be to get everything literally correct (esp with limited scroll length!). It's the same with textual critics who exaggerate corruption of the manuscripts over time because they were hand copied. People need to spend time hand copying and you realize you don't "corrupt" the entire text when you hand copy. You also don't get it 100% perfect. I've copied giant greek portions of the New Testament Greek by hand to be able to feel what its like. Critics should actually do the things they're critiquing to see what it's actually like.
Yo, this whole conversation is because Mike says the Bible is hyperbolic sometimes? Kind of figured it was obvious. I didn't realize that was a point of confusion.
The literalists are often overly dogmatic, despite the obvious metaphorical language we encounter all over the Scriptures. Some things are literal, sure; but there is much that is symbolic, or representative, or hyperbolic, or parabolic (e.g. Jesus' parables). Is a baptism by fire a literal fire? Of course not. Is the speck in one's eye a literal speck? Of course not. Does denying oneself, picking up one's cross, and following Jesus mean that I must actually carry a literal cross wherever I go? Of course not.
As DavidinMiami says, to which I can attest--having come from a fundamentalist upbringing, many well-intending Christians are overly attached to some idealistic (at least their view of what is ideal) interpretations of scripture. They like to think that, because it ultimately is God's message to us, it cannot be conveyed in a way that a normal human conveys things. Along the same lines, they typically leave out the confluency of scripture. They like to think of scriptures along the lines of a dictation from God, as Muslims view the Quran, which leaves no room for the human authors of scripture to write as they would, but they can't fathom anything like a Molinist view inspiration.
What's worse, as David also points out, they don't even realize that they don't interpret many things as literally as they demand certain other things be interpreted. One of my own family members told me that the only acceptable way for something to be written in the Bible in a way that's meant to be interpreted non-literally is if the author explicitly points out that it is not to be taken literally; however, as DavidinMiami shows, they take all sorts of things non-literally that aren't mentioned by the author as intended to be taken non-literally.
No. Nobody is actually complaining about ordinary compositional devices that are used the same way we ordinarily speak ourselves.
Instead, people are complaining about fact changing compositional devices, like the claim that John lied about the temple cleansing's date, but it's somehow okay, because he was making an extremely obscure theological point. Or the claim that Jesus didn't literally say "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?", but instead, John completely invented those words and used as an excuse for lying that Jesus had literally said "I thirst".
I can't see how anybody could possibly get "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" out of "I thirst". The two have literally nothing in common.
Ordinary compositional devices like obvious hyperbole are not the issue. Saying that "all Jerusalem went to John to be baptized" is obvious hyperbole, and nobody is confused about it. What literally happened is a large number of people came to John to be baptized, many of them from Jerusalem. Similarly, metaphors like "pick up your cross" and "a log in your eye" are clearly and unambiguously not meant to be taken literally.
@@ancalagonyt *"No. Nobody is actually complaining about ordinary compositional devices that are used the same way we ordinarily speak ourselves. Instead, people are complaining about fact changing compositional devices, like the claim that John lied about the temple cleansing's date, but it's somehow okay, because he was making an extremely obscure theological point."*
If that was a normal means of telling about people, and isn't actually lying because they weren't trying to deceive anybody but--instead--were merely rearranging events in order to tell the story the way that it suited their purpose the best, then why would we label it as lying (implying that it is not honest and ought to be done differently). This is what Licona is trying to point out. Such things aren't lying, they are writing styles. They aren't trying to deceive people; instead, they are using compositional devices in order to best tell the story of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (depending on their goals, audiences, etc.).
*"Or the claim that Jesus didn't literally say "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?", but instead, John completely invented those words and used as an excuse for lying that Jesus had literally said "I thirst"."*
Again, you use a loaded term. You said that this is a "claim". Why think that, though? As people have rightly pointed out in conversations about inerrancy, saying something is not the same as claiming it. It depends on what they intended to convey in saying that thing. If they are trying to make some point, and you get stuck on the details used in making that point, then you are the one in the wrong, not them (unless you show that they are trying to deceive (i.e., to "lie") or trying to make a "claim" without having to support it. There's no reason to think that either of these is true. This is just a modern, enlightened way of looking at literature, as if all non-fiction has to conform to our ideas.
*"I can't see how anybody could possibly get "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" out of "I thirst". The two have literally nothing in common."*
What does anybody "getting" that out of it matter? You are looking at it as if the author had to think that such is what was actually said in order to have written it truthfully; however, if the author's intent was not to convey the individual facts surrounding such events and to--instead--convey (at least with some of what is written) deeper spiritual or moral truths, then why think this?
*"Similarly, metaphors like "pick up your cross" and "a log in your eye" are clearly and unambiguously not meant to be taken literally."*
The fact that others are more clearly meant to be taken as non-literal doesn't mean that there aren't some that are less clear that were also meant to be taken as non-literal. Also, it's quite possible they didn't even give thought to whether someone might take them literally. It might not have even entered their mind since it was such a common way of writing in those times. So, I would argue that it doesn't even have to be intended to be taken non-literally. They just weren't worried with trying to convey history on a fact by fact basis; instead, they were concerned with showing that Jesus is the Suffering Servant who provides the only way to the Father, his atoning death and resurrection.
People who get offended by this stuff need to sit down and write a book on the history of their own life. When you do this you realize its only practical to use compositional devices. Also I did a parody of "My Sharona" with your name at the end of my video Entitled "Holy Koolaid Debunked by 92 year old Granny." It's the last couple seconds of my video on the outro. Hope you enjoy.
Would love to hear it. Please provide a link.
@@MikeLiconaOfficial UA-cam thinks its spam whenever I post the link. I sent the link through the "contact me" link on your risen Jesus website. Hopefully that works. It's not worth a bunch of time trying to find it if it doesn't work. It's just a few seconds at the end of the video, but worth a laugh if you can find it.
Humans are so funny. When we are familiar with a literary device, it does not present a problem because we get it; we know what the author is doing. But when we are Not familiar with a certain device, then it can’t be possibly true that that the author ever used it. A 1st century reader would automatically get it, and all of this would not be a big deal to them. This is so simple. But it is to be expected. Look at the mess we have made for 2 thousand years of prophetic literature. But anyways, I digress.
Well said!
I don't get the backlash against Licona. A perspective that is essentially harmonious with another perspective really CAN differ structurally or philosophically. Its aim or purpose may differ. Perhaps it will emphasize one aspect/facet of what is being presented over another; perhaps it will highlight an event by expanding it, or diminishing it, and so on. One landscape depicted by two artists will result in two interpretations; the landscape remains invariable. No matter how much time I devote to studying those paintings, I must be aware that there is an original, authentic reality that inspired the paintings, which means that my analysis and devotion to the paintings will not be comprehensive. We dwell in a temporal sphere, not a celestial one; there are limitations we inevitably encounter here, even amid our Biblical strudies. "But when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away." (1 Corinthians 13:10)
I'm not sure that an author can "change facts". I think this wording is inherently problematic. I would say that a writer can use language to make different points. If at the Billy Graham convention, there were many people there. I can illustrate this point by saying something like "the entire world was in the stadium." I am not changing facts. I am simply describing my own experience and feeling of being in the stadium with a large crowd. This was my impression of the experience. If you use the language 'x author changes facts,' this leads to problems. This seems to be a necessary condition for some author manipulating the reader or lying. I think if you correct this misnomer then people could accept the idea that ancient writers used compositional devices to get points accross. I agree with Tim that we use these today. I may say that someone was taller than a tree to indicate that someone was really tall. After seeing such a tall person, one might agree that the person was tall and accept the point that I was making, only that the person was really tall. I think that when we tell stories an honest retelling will be consistent with the way events actually unfolded or would be perceived by someone who had also witnessed the events. This intuition seems to be undermined by such an expression as 'x changed the facts.'
But to see how your wording 'x changes the facts' can be misleading. Suppose someone said that while compositional devices were used in antiquity that they were not used in the way you argue for and that you had changed the facts to make a point. This is the situation I find when people reject your approach. They almost always read you as saying that the gospel writers intentionally misrepresented information. I think the problem, as I've said above, is the phrase 'change facts', especially since what are facts about the past do not change.
Except that Licona *is* saying that the gospel authors changed facts, in the sense that they knowingly state information that is contrary to fact. For instance, he says that Matthew deliberately said that the Centurion came to Jesus personally even though Matthew knew that he sent servants instead. He also thinks that John invented the "I Thirst" saying and that this is supposed to be a "paraphrase" of "My God why have you forsaken me?". These aren't metaphors or common idioms or figures of speech.
So, the gospel writers lied? Hmm....
counter idea. Mark made stuff up and then the other writers disagreed with him. (Note, I don't think John Mark wrote it. I'm just using the title for convenience)