This is important. How many times have we said be Bereans and research yourself and do not trust something just because you read it on the Internet?
This is important. How many times have we said be Bereans and research yourself and do not trust something just because you read it on the Internet?
1. Just because the reporter wrote it doesn’t mean it was true. (Might have had motives for making it up.)
2. Just because the bishop denied it doesn’t mean he didn’t say it. (Might have been pressured from above due to international attention.)
3. Just because the reporter retracted doesn’t mean it wasn’t said (might have been pressured from above.)
So the question is: why did the reporter write the original quote? ‘Mistake’ does not seem credible.
I love it — this whole episode nicely illustrates the universal human tendency to distort stories in the retelling, and supports a prudent skepticism about the extraordinary hearsay claims made in the New Testament.
The apology says: “While I apologize for the mistake and to state that the report was not written in bad faith I wish to express my commitment to the evangelization of the gospel through this medium.” Reading between the lines, I would bet that the apologizer, Emeka Ogenyi, unconsciously “remembered” Bishop Orama’s remarks the way he wanted to remember them, and then retold those remarks the way he thought Bishop Orama should have made them. This is not at all uncommon; I’ve been guilty of it myself at times, and I suspect most of you have too.
That’s why we’ve had a hearsay rule, in one form or another, going all the way back to the Pentateuch: Because consciously or unconsciously, people tend to “spin” their retelling of what they hear, to fit into a narrative that makes sense to them. We’re especially prone to doing so if we have an agenda to advance (or an ax to grind, or a score to settle), as appears to have been the case with Emeka Ogenyi.
And that’s why we can’t be particularly confident that the first-century retellers of the Jesus story didn’t unconsciously “spin” the story in similar ways. (Paul’s warnings about false gospels strongly suggests that precisely that sort of thing did occur, and indeed Paul’s own gospel itself seems to reflect his “spin” on the story.)
This episode also illustrates something else: that geography prevents us from being confident that errors in retelling the Jesus story would have been corrected by still-living eyewitnesses. Sure, Emeka Ogenyi’s putative misquotation was eventually corrected. But even with the instantaneous worldwide communication of the Internet, the correction took over a week. The early church was geographically far-flung: there was no Internet, no telephone, no significant means of communication of any kind except by someone physically traveling from Point A to Point B to carry the message. If an itinerant evangelist had made the same kind of mistake in retelling the Jesus story that Emeka Ogenyi made in retelling Bishop Orama’s remarks, who knows how long it would be — if ever — until the mistake was corrected.
Sidney, why did News Week print photo shopped photos on it’s cover about Lebanon? Why did the press report the lies of the Marine Sgt Jimmy Massey? Why did it take the New York times so long to get on to Jason Blair? Why did the New York times edit the last testament made by Cpl. Jeff Starr? If you have a clue please let us know!
When this story first broke, TitusOneNine seemed quite confident of its authenticity. Has Kendall ever retracted or apologized for that position? Seems to me the “Reasserter” blogs have nothing on Father Jake. Why should he alone be scourged? At least David Virtue didn’t fall for this hoax, but if he had swallowed it in solitude, just imagine the gloating and howls of indignation!
I suppose these comments will follow every tangent available. I strongly suggest that posters go back to Dr Harmon’s original story and read his very precise statement. He was right in what he did and has nothing to be ashamed of. I’d suggest that if posters don’t wish to shame themselves, they speak carefully.
Following DonGander’s excellent advice:
Kendall wrote:
I was very disgusted, upset and saddened to read the statement of Bishop Isaac Orama as quoted by the News Agency of Nigeria in a UPI story who, (if he is quoted accurately, and [b] I am assuming that he is) [/b] said that persons involved in same sex behavior “are insane, satanic and are not fit to live.”
I find it interesting that the reporter claims the misquote was from a separate interview with +Orama as opposed to his synodical speach, as Tunde+ claimed in his denial. Maybe they should get their stories straight.
Regardless, however, good to hear confirmation from the reporter that +Orama didn’t say the hateful words previously attributed to him. So, then, what did he say in this interview that was misquoted? Odd that that isn’t in this retraction, no?
I confess that this “retraction” is a bit confusing. Who is retracting the story? The news service or a reporter? Retractions should properly come from the news service the published/posted/broadcast the false story. However this coupled with the denial issued by +Orama clearly casts heavy doubt on the veracity of the original story.
Lawrence:
I can give you that much – Mr. Harmon assumed that the words were quoted accurately and many of us had our doubts. But that is not the issue. Kendall says, “These words are to be utterly repudiated by all of us..” The words are to be condemned. They still need to be. That is all Kendall pursued.
I would tweak Mr. Harmon, myself, over his believing anything much that comes out of mainstream media but for the purpose of addressing a quote, but one needs to address it as fact or be guilty of the same thing that the errant reporter did if one is wrong.
You and I can prejudice ourselves with regard to anything posted here but do you really want Dr. Harmon to do so?
So, if you think that Mr Harmon should regularly assume error in articles and statements, then you can persist in your associating some kind of guilt upon him, but if he should assume that people and reports are truthful until proven otherwise, then he did the right thing.
[b]Sidney:[/b]
Please think about what you are writing…
[blockquote]
1. Just because the wrote it doesn’t mean it was true. (Might have had motives for making it up.)
2. Just because the bishop denied it doesn’t mean he didn’t say it. (Might have been pressured from above due to international attention.)
3. Just because the reporter retracted doesn’t mean it wasn’t said (might have been pressured from above.)
So the question is: why did the reporter write the original quote? ‘Mistake’ does not seem credible. [/blockquote]
1. Just because Sidney it doesn’t mean it was true. (Might have had motives for making it up.)
2. Just because the Sidney denied it doesn’t mean he didn’t say it. (Might have been pressured from above due to international attention.)
3. Just because Sidney retracted doesn’t mean it wasn’t said (might have been pressured from above.)
So the question is: why did the Sidney write the original quote? ‘Mistake’ does not seem credible.
The point being – this could be said of anyone about anything at any time at any place…
Titus 1:15 15 [i]Everything is pure to those whose hearts are pure. But nothing is pure to those who are corrupt and unbelieving, because their minds and consciences are corrupted. [/i]
#4
I am no apologist for Kendall, but you need to give him credit for reporting information that he found, even though he did not like it. I am grateful to find information here I do not find from sources that I am ‘friendlier’ to.
#7, you’re a bit jaded, don’t you think?
I find it amusing that DC uses this to prattle that you can’t believe anything at all.
The real question, now that this has been shown to be a complete fabrication, is who was behind putting it together? These things don’t just “happen.” I suspect there is a much bigger story lurking here that hasn’t come out into the open yet.
Br. Michael [#13] writes: “I find it amusing that DC uses this to prattle that you can’t believe anything at all.”
Br. Michael, I find it even more amusing that you persist (1) in putting words in people’s mouths, and (2) in the fallacy of the false dichotomy: “If it’s not A, then it must be Z, and Z is unacceptable, therefore . . . .”
Have we learned something from this incident?
Bishop Orama said, “Every person must Declare for God’s kingdom: The first and most important step is to declare for the kingdom of God. Every person must declare to whom he belongs. ”
Amen to that!
now that this has been shown to be a complete fabrication
Jim
My family recently came into some property. It’s called the Brooklyn Bridge. I’d be willing to sell it to you if you’re interested.
DC, I don’t put words in your mouth. You condemn yourself.
DC. Are you unaware that there are a number of Gospel accounts? It is not down to just one witness what Jesus said. The Scriptures were written in the lives of those who remembered them.
I don’t think you are taking serously the historical situation in which the Apostles wrote.
DC, you need to get out of that 20th century paradigm, Dude! So, like, yesterday, man! Step out into the real world and modern scholarship.
[url=http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802831621/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-9052262-3604812?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189734481&sr=8-1]book link[/url]
Remember, crying when your paradigm crashes and burns is alright.
Keep a stiff upper lip, though, as long as you can (or neck, perhaps?).
—-
[i]A reminder from the elves: Long links screw up the comment formatting. Please either learn how to make a link as we’ve now done above, or go to tinyurl.com and use that service to make a shorter link that you can then post in the comments. Thanks[/i]
A remarkably important book from Dr. Bauckham, #20.
Wow, #20, thanks for putting me on to this book!
JtheP’s question – Where did all come from and why? Whose handiwork is this? is the right question to ask. It is certainlytrue that one cannot tell for sure who is apologizing.
As to the disortions of memory in the mater of the historical Jesus: They probably exist although we will never know. But I think the suggestion of the scholar cited months ago who maintained that there was no mysterious Q but rather the gospels represent the retelling of oral history, and I am mcu more likely to believe in the accuracy of the oral history because oral histories were so common, esp. in crucial matters like geneologies, where the accuracy was of the highest importance. Because we make so little use of our memories now, we forget how vital accurate memorization once was. And in this case, a religious case, accuracy in retelling would be even more important; there would be enormous social pressure against iinterpolation and making up a “news release.” LM
Have you never heard the expression, “Lies like an eyewitness”?
It’s true that oral cultures can transmit stories with remarkable fidelity; but that only translates to “accuracy” if the original story was accurate in the first place. And there have been studies and studies that show that people are shockingly bad at accurately describing events they just witnessed themselves minutes ago — much less if they have to do it some years after the fact.
So when it comes to the gospels, you have two basic choices: either you assume that supernatural forces acted to make the accounts miraculously accurate despite all the failings of human witnesses (and of course many of you do assume that) — or you assume that the gospels are most likely accurate enough, in the main, at least as much as any other historical document, but that many details are certain to be wrong.
#21; agreed – I read most of it over the summer – a very detailed book that calls for close attention to appreciate it properly. It looks at the evidence of Papias, the traditional authorship claims for the Gospels, and most importantly, gives a detailed analysis of who saw, said or did what in the Gospels. I think Bauckham could have been more positive about Matthean authorship, but overall the book tears apart the whole Bultmann and epigoni (incl. ‘Jesus seminar’) school and puts us back in the first generation circle of the very people around Jesus, not least his disciples and their assistants.
Not surprisingly, I find Bauckham’s arguments highly convincing. The real mythographers are those who constructed their castles in the air, imagining that the NT faith somehow emerged 30-40 years after the Crucifixion and out of a vacuum.
‘Liberal’ theology is spurious and intellectually dishonest.
Br. Michael [#18], Christopher Hathaway [#19], and dwstroudmd [#20], the New Testament documents are rife with examples demonstrating that, in important respects, either the authors didn’t know what they were talking about, or they fabricated their narratives. Neither possibility is a felicitous one for the traditionalist view. (See here for a summary of some of these examples.)
dwstroudmd [#20] and Kendall [#21], thanks for the link to the Bauckham book. I haven’t read it and so obviously can’t respond to it. But judging from one detailed reviewer’s detailed summary at the Amazon.com site (“Another Home Run for Bauckham,” January 10, 2007), including a reproduction of the table of contents, it appears that Bauckham may well fall into the usual fallacy of “first, assume we have a can opener.” I’ll be especially interested in his chapters 10 (models of oral tradition) and 13 (eyewitness testimony).
Ross [#24]: well put.
We see here an illustration of (what I suspect is) the root cause of The Current Disputes, namely the vastly different ways in which “reasserters” and “reappraisers” approach the search for truth. I’ve read of people who, when confronted with things like dinosaur fossils and carbon-14 dating, insist that God must have planted this evidence in order to test our faith in the literal truth of the Bible’s creation accounts. These folks won’t concede that, just maybe, they might be wrong, and they’re utterly unwilling to reexamine their views. That’s how many “reasserters” come across in their insistence on the authority of Scripture (it’s also how some “reappraisers” come across in their insistence on their, shall we say, creative interpretations of Scripture). It’s difficult to engage in constructive dialog with folks like that.
Please give me information about the Bauckham book. This is clearly something I need to read.
As to “lies like an eyewitness” I submit we are dealing with an issue different from the report of one who saw a car accident. The gospels are not eyewitness accounts, after all, the are summaries and selections that a substantial number – perhaps a very large number indeed – of eyewitnesses have reported. It is reasonable but not demonstrable that the original compilers, if I may call them that, choose for memorization the commonest elements in their flow of information.Time here has already sifted material, but not so much time that careless errors, superimposed tradition and practice, manipulation for some cause, will have destroyed the credibility of “the text.” What is crucial is that I, in the church at Antioch, who remember Paul and who knew people how had seen Christ, wish to preserve what I know with certainty to be essential. We, the congregation, actually discuss this and we settle on the vital truth, for everything is at stake as far as we are concerned. I tell this to a friend in Ephesus, who then tells me (a) his undersanding of the same matter and (b) then tells Matthew, who has already heard these same narratives from a dozen or a hundred. The narratives turn out to be much alike, regardless of source, so the gospels show this congruence.
Are there errors of omission? Probably, but I hesitate to suggest there are errors of commission, andit is these latter we most worry about, for the errors of omission do not falsify essentials.
Nevertheless, it remains the case that the narratives are remarkably similar in their essential elements. To throw out the whole for the failure in fine detail is to throw out the baby with the holy water. We will never know For Sure, but we should conclude that lying in this matter, so vital to those who preserved the information, is improbable because the fabulist would soon be checked in his fables by those who cared greatly that such fables be refused credence.
At last, I must ask, “Shall I refuse to believe in the Civil War, when its essentials are found so like,even by diverse and hostile report, though the details are often misrepresented? I have letter from two uncles who fought then. Shall I discredit them because they were eyewitnesses? And if I choose to write a book, will I not do well to gather all the letters from all the eyewitnesses and then tell my story? So I should; and we have the four gospels doing precisely the same. Larry
Larry Morse [#27], the original post about the putative misquotation of Bishop Orama gives us an example of someone who seems unconsciously to have “spun” an account to fit his (her?) preconception of what the story should have been. We all tend to do that, and there’s no reason to think people were any different in first-century Palestine. That’s one of the chief reasons it’s prudent to be open-minded about the reliability of the stories recounted in the New Testament. People who deny this aren’t facing the facts.
This takes the prize! A commenter over at TA said that the fact that people like Kendall Harmon condemned the words attributed to Orama without waiting for verification meant that Kendall thought it was possible that Orama could have said such a thing and that in and of itself shows how hateful and prejudiced the traditionalists are. So, it doesn’t matter what Orama actually said. The fact that some traditionalist thought it was possible that he might have said these words is what is the terrible thing. I think we need to step back and see just how difficult it is for folks like the above-mentioned commenter to navigate reality.
This is all so poorly done that even the email address listed in the apology is no good. Perhaps it is just a typo.
DC. I think you have missed my point. While I suppose it is true that people in allplaces will alter a story for their own benefit, the narratives concerning Christ are in quite a different category; they belong in the same category as tribal geneologies. One dare not “spin” these because so much depended on their accuracy. The fabulist would be in real danger for such manipulation. MOreover, more than one would know much of the geneology even if they did not know it all. Falsification would therefore be difficult because there would always be people who are “keepers of the keys” officilally or, as often as not, unofficially.
The narratives that came to MMLandJ are remarkably alike. If they came from different sources, and if it is true for the bearers of these narratives that the narrative is sacred and the manipulator of the Truthhas done grace evil, then the strong simularities are suggestive that the bearers of the narrative were carrying a truth sacred to them, like the bearers of geneologies. Their greatest efforts would be to be accurate, not to alter from either carelessness or agenda.
Remember Fahrenheit 451 and the memory keepers? Their sole purpose was to memorize with the greatest possible accuracy the text they had been assigned, for the real texts had been burned.
How much energy would they put into accuracy and how likely are they to “spin” the text? Their job is to remember for all mankind what is being destroyed. It is a sacred task. So it was for the narrators who brought the narratives to the gospels. CAn you not grasp the terrible responsibility of bearing a sacred text in your head? Larry
Larry Morse [#32] writes:
Larry, I’d want to see a good deal of supporting evidence before accepting these premises; they’re not at all self-evident. In fact, the two very different genealogies of Jesus that we see in the Synoptic Gospels seem to provide a counter-example.
Larry also writes:
This presupposes the existence of regular communication, which would have been geographically problematic in the far-flung early church. It also presupposes that audiences would have been receptive to correction from the “keeper of the keys,” which is a bold assumption in view of the evident divisions between the Judaizing church and the Pauline / Hellenist church.
Larry writes:
The lacunae and inconsistencies in the NT documents seem to provide counterexamples to your postulates here. And the evidence of potential bias on the part of the authors gives us still more reason to be prudently skeptical.
Larry writes:
You need to explain why you believe the early church would put so much energy into memorization and oral transmission of sacred texts. We have no reason to think the early church was illiterate; Jewish history alone argues convincingly to the contrary, as do the NT documents themselves. If the early church had regarded particular texts as being on a par with other Jewish sacred writings, we have every reason to think it would have preserved those texts in writing, not left them to the vagaries of human memory and oral retelling. Evidently the early church did not do so — which suggests that the “sacred” character of the texts might well have been, not the thinking of the earliest church, but a later development.
Larry, when you say (in #27):
I think it’s possible that by distinguising “similar[ity] in their essential elements” from “failure in fine detail,” you may be conceding D.C.’s and my basic point: that it’s possible that the Gospels are factually wrong in some places. We’re just quibbling about what constitutes a “fine detail” versus an “essential element.”
But many reasserters would not go even as far as you: they would vigorously deny that the Gospels could be wrong in any detail, no matter how minor.
How about a specific example… what would you make of the “Matthean doubling” question? Consider Mark 5:1-13 and Matthew 8:28-34… in Mark, Jesus casts a demon out of a man into a herd of pigs. In Matthew, Jesus casts demons out of two men into a herd of pigs. Aside from the number of actors, the stories are quite similar. (Another, albeit less striking, example is Mark 8:22-26 [Jesus heals a blind man] and Matthew 20:29-34 [Jesus heals two blind men.])
A strong reasserter would, I think, argue that these must be completely separate incidents that happened during Jesus’ ministry, and that Mark has happened to choose one to write down, and Matthew happened to choose the other; any resemblance is, as the movie disclaimers say, purely coincidental. But if you admit the possibility that the Gospels might sometimes be wrong in detail, then then is seems plausible to consider that mabye the reason these stories are so similar is that they are, in fact, the same story — but that Matthew, or whomever Matthew got the story from, chose to double the numbers for some reason.
What would you say?
DC, you might try reading the book in #20. Watch out for those paradigm changes, though! Remember, U-turns are allowed.