My Book’s Most Controversial Issue: What Critics Are Saying w/

[@christiangadfly24]

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.

[@roycevanblaricome634]

Good video and it highlights the problem that SO MANY have. They place on Mike an accusation that he believes something he's never said and, in fact, has repeatedly said otherwise. Mike, to my knowledge, has NEVER said that the Gospel writers recorded/wrote "discrepancies result from deliberate redactions by the Gospel authors. In other words, they argue that the Gospel writers intentionally described events in ways that contradict what they believed happened". That's a complete misrepresentation of what Mike has and he's explained that in detail wrt the "computational devices". I think I can add something to the question as to why some are finding this so vehemently objectionable and where the umpth, the force, of their objection comes from. Because I had and still do have some concerns with the book and Mike's claim. I'm still working my way thru the book but I think I have a better understanding now. The concerns and objections come from a place where Mike's claims can be construed as casting doubt on the validity of Scripture, whether it is the Word of God, and most of all whether it is trustworthy. It can be seen as an "attack" on the Word of God and an attack on God's Word is n attack on God Himself. I think the problem comes in what Mike says and what others hear him to say. For example, wrt Mark and John baptizing, Mike says "and that changes the facts". But does it really? I don't think so. The "fact" is that people went out to John to be baptized. Not the number of people that went out. So it's really not changing the facts but just telling the same fact in a different way. If that makes sense. I've got to look at the passages on Jesus' baptism more closely but I still think that Mike is making assumptions that can't be confirmed. Such as "so Matthew is using Mark's gospel". That's not necessarily true. And it's those assumptions, which may or may not be true, that are causing some problems with others.

[@newtonfinn164]

What is intuitive to Dr. Licona, that the gospels contain not only hyperbole but also editorial glosses and spin, Is a small but significant step toward the broader and deeper intuition that the bible, in its entirety, is a very human book about divine things. The failure of Christians to accept and embrace this larger intuition, buttressed by many decades of biblical scholarship, and to make intellectual room for it within a less brittle, more expansive form of faith, is underscored with every new deconstruction video in the torrent of the young becoming the none.

[@williamlincoln866]

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.

[@davidmusicmaker]

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.

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

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.

[@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. 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.

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

@@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.

[@ancalagonyt]

@@Real_LiamOBryan Making stuff up was not a "common way of writing in those times". And if it were, it would be devastating for any factual claims based on the gospels, because they would cease to be reliable historical documents, and become mostly made up fan-fic. Even if you thought some claims might be true, you could never tell which ones. We are not at all discussing writing styles. Style has nothing to do with it. The gospel authors in fact were very concerned with conveying facts about history. But if you really think that they didn't care about facts and the gospels are unhistorical and unreliable, it would be more honest to just say so. Don't hide behind weasel words and "literary devices", when what you mean is that the gospel authors said false things about facts in ways that were totally indistinguishable from any true things they may or may not have said. Your claimed distinction between telling the story of Jesus and telling the truth is not a real distinction. They believed in Jesus because of things he said and did; because of historical events to which they were witnesses. Telling the truth about events which they saw and heard is the story of Jesus the suffering servant who is the only way to the Father. They don't need to make a choice, because the two are the same thing. "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". Yes. It was. They were writing history, not fan-fic. Deep truths can be conveyed by discussing factual events. And when you want to convey deep truths non-literally, it's really easy to use a metaphor or a parable.

[@andrewwilliamson450]

It is obvious that Mark is speaking in hyperbolic language. The problem is, as far as I see it, it is so much less obvious in some of the other 'literary device' uses- the use of hyperbole is one thing, the addition of fictional events (Matt 27.52) is clearly another. This appears to me be a kind of false equivication. Where exactly does it end. I could say 'I'm not sure if Jesus really spoke in the upper room the night before his crucifixion - John just made this up to emphasize the contrast between the love he had for his own and the hatred of the world' In fact, very little is sacred... that is fine if only the 'minimal facts' matter to you. And it sure puts a hole in peoples confidence in scripture - not something to think lightly or dismissively about. The Lord Jesus speaking about the Old Testament never undermined peoples appreciation of it - rather he said that every 'jot and tittle' of the ancient hebrew would be fulfilled. Worth thinking about. If you want to do due diligence on this subject you might want to look at both sides.

[@boogerie]

Talk about "straining at the gnat"

[@davidmusicmaker]

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)

[@christiangadfly24]

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]

Would love to hear it. Please provide a link.

[@christiangadfly24]

@@MikeLiconaOfficial KZbin 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.

[@chrisbarrett4637]

Superlatives overwhelms, intuitive, simple, I don't why. Let us hear the arguments. Hyperbolic speech ...

[@ThoughtDecoder]

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.

[@Truthseeker4815]

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.

[@ricardomora1794]

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.

[@oztheberean]

Well said!

[@andrewtannenbaum1]

John is a spoiler. End of the controversy.

[@richp860]

There’s a whole a lot more going on with his scholarship than mere paraphrase and hyperbole, LOL. Mike is simply a dishonest human being who has been fired from positions for that same dishonesty.

[@theuncarvedblock6565]

So, the gospel writers lied? Hmm....

[@theuncarvedblock6565]

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)

[@MrSeedi76]

The only problem is that it's been proven time and again that the gospels are ancient biographies and follow their conventions. So, no, he didn't "make stuff up".

[@Anonymous247n]

I sort of agree with you, but i think the authors of the gospels had only one thing in mind, and it was not telling the truth: they aimed to efficiently control people. Tell them a story that's somewhat believable, one that makes just enough sense, a story that agrees somewhat with traditions and other texts and what others wrote, but they were fallible people. NONE of them received ANY KIND OF DIVINE INSPIRATION - but they tried their best to create texts that would unite (and of course, control) their people. ...it is becoming harder and harder to argue for any sort of divine inspiration for creating the bible, in my opinion. OR ANY OTHER RELIGIOUS TEXT, let's be clear on that :) Religions were created by people - by ancient priests, who tried to explain some natural and cosmic phenomena, who were trying to make sense of some even older stories from their culture's tradition, by priests who PRETENDED to know everything, because they had to because they claimed to be divinely inspired... so they were making things up! :) Simple as that, occam's razor gives us the right clues, and the rest is discovered by looking deeper into any religious text out there.

[@MrSeedi76]

Nice story but the gospels couldn't really be used to "control people". Quite the opposite if you actually look at the history.

[@mickeylax9975]

Wow what an uncharitable way to paint an entire group of people. You sick.

[@Anonymous247n]

​@@mickeylax9975 Why should i be charitable? As i said, it was all about controlling people, making up ways to order them around.

[@zorot3876]

​@@Anonymous247nSo you think many of the apostles took execution rather than just denounce a lie?

[@Anonymous247n]

@@zorot3876 I think those stories were made up or in the best case, embellished, to make the apostles into "heroes", like any good story. It was supposed to attract people to this new cause after all.