Memory

Posted on by

Where did stories about Jesus originate?

3. Memory and the Oral Tradition, part 1

I’m writing this on Cape Cod in Massachusetts. I lived and worked here for a year almost 40 years ago and have returned to visit a few old haunts and stay with a friend, Carol, from back in those days. So much is how I remember it, some has changed and some I can’t remember at all.

Carol and I have met only once in the intervening years, 20 years ago, but we have kept in touch through letters and emails. We’ve been reminiscing a lot this week, telling stories from the time we worked together in the ‘80s, stories we’ve each told many times before. It’s been interesting to discover how much our memories of the same events differ.

We don’t always remember who else was present on a given occasion (were there 4 there or 6? Was K with us or was it V?); who said what; what they actually said and what order events occurred in (was that before this, or vice versa?)

This is before we add in the refinements we’ve each made to the stories over the years; the gaps in our memories we’ve filled in to allow the story to flow; the (different) parts we’ve omitted because they interrupt that flow or now seem irrelevant; the tidying up and restructuring of the tale to make it pithier; the refining of half-remembered dialogue to make it punchier and funnier; the changes in vocabulary (cheeky for fresh, pushchair for stroller)… and so on.

And all of this from eye-witnesses, Carol and me, who were both present and involved when the events in question took place almost 40 years later (which coincidentally is the time between the supposed events of Jesus life and Mark’s gospel.)

On occasion, I’ve heard someone else repeat one of my stories, and infuriatingly they never get it right. They change it to tell it their way; I want to say, and sometimes do, ‘that’s not how it happened. That’s not what she said.’ But that’s the trouble when stories are passed on. They’re out of the control of those who originated them. They take on a life of their own. They become unverifiable, even by their originators. They are changed further when still others take them over. And others and still others, like a giant, out-of-control game of Chinese whispers. In this way, stories evolve and are far beyond anyone’s control – beyond my control in terms of my Massachusetts memories. I couldn’t fact-check them even if I wanted to.

I’ll get to the point – though you can see it coming, can’t you – next time.

44 thoughts on “Memory”

  1. When a tale is made from whole cloth and you know there is no paper trail to follow that might reveal embarassing truths then you can pretty much write what the hell you like.
    And that, more or less is what the writer of the first gospel did. And the others “piled on” as the saying goes.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

    • I have heard that so many times it almost sounds true. But it is one of those things that is not true. The accounts of the words and deeds of Jesus were known by the disciples who followed him, and that was not just the twelve. They were part of the earliest gospel from the time of Pentecost, just 50 days after Jesus’ death and resurrection. They were repeated many times by many people until they were finally written down fifty years later. Neil’s inference that these writers could not have remembered is just wonky.

      I remember poems and passages from books I read more than fifty years ago. I remember songs I heard as a teenager. I remember passages of the Bible in the KJV which I haven’t read for over fifty years. And I do so without trying. You accomplish the same prodigious feats of memory. And you think the disciples were incapable of that?

      Like

      Reply ↓

      • don:
        The accounts of the words and deeds of Jesus were known by the disciples who followed him, and that was not just the twelve. They were part of the earliest gospel from the time of Pentecost, just 50 days after Jesus’ death and resurrection. They were repeated many times by many people until they were finally written down fifty years later. Neil’s inference that these writers could not have remembered is just wonky.

        How do you know any of that, Don? Oh, yeah. That’s what your book says. How do we know the book is true? Because the disciples wouldn’t lie. How do we know the disciples didn’t lie? Because the book says so.

        Circular reasoning is the worst reasoning, Don. The very worst. It’s exactly what we’ve come to expect from you.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Kos: How do we know the book is true?

        There are multiple reasons. 1) It makes sense on many levels and speaks to our personal experience and fundamental need. 2) It is good. The design for life we find in the book results in a very good society. 3) It is a network of interlocking and multiple witnesses on many different levels resulting in a single unified story with a theme that coherently unites all the pieces. 4) It works. People who embrace God and his prescription for our need are changed for the good.

        BTW I am wondering if you have decided why the ‘authentic’ Pauline letters are considered authentic whereas others are not. I think that was the question I left with you last time we conversed.

        Like

      • To prove the Bible is True™, Don sez:

        Don: 1) It makes sense on many levels and speaks to our personal experience and fundamental need.

        This is true, to some degree, of every story ever told. Every campfire story, ghost story, short story, novella, novel, movie, and television show meets this description.

        Now, indoctrinate people from cradle to gave that their religion’s book has special meaning about Life, the Universe and Everything, and people will find special meaning in it whether that meaning is there or not. Christians get special meaning from the Bible, Muslims from the Quran, Mormons from the Book of Mormon.

        Every culture takes special meaning from their stories. That’s why we make up stories.

        Point number 1 applies to every book and every tradition. Therefore, it provides no special evidence for your book.

        Point number 1 fails.

        Don: 2) It is good. The design for life we find in the book results in a very good society.

        Every culture around the world has found a way to foster society. Those that don’t, don’t survive.

        As to Christian society being a “very good society.” I don’t see it. Western society didn’t really start progressing until the Enlightenment. The prime example is slavery. While Christians are quick to take credit for ending it, slavery flourished under Christian rule. It was only with the Enlightenment that anti-slavery movements started to gain traction and victories.

        The same is true with rights for minority ethnicities, women, and LGBTQ individuals. Christianity had thousands of years to treat people with basic respect. And failed. It was only when Christianity lost control of governments that these people’s rights began to be recognized and extended.

        Even now the more Christian Than Thou™ are trying to claw back the rights that took so long to win for these people.

        Sorry, Don. Christianity doesn’t create a very good society. But it does excel at taking and clinging to power.

        Point number 2 fails.

        Don: 3) It is a network of interlocking and multiple witnesses on many different levels resulting in a single unified story with a theme that coherently unites all the pieces.

        First, any anthology will do the same. Especially one that has been heavily edited multiple times to force cohesion.

        Second, I would say the book fails at the single most important question it poses. How is salvation to be had? Faith? Baptism? Obedience? Pre-destination? Is it a gift given freely to all?

        The book suggests all of these but fails to be clear on the matter. Christians – all with the text in hand and the Holy Spirit witnessing to the truth – have arrived at different answers. And these good Christians have fought wars with other good Christians over these issues. Killing millions of their fellow believers.

        I get it, Don. You have an understanding of what the Bible says. To you it’s clear. The Spirit tells you that you’ve got it right. But the schisms and wars show the book isn’t clear and the Holy Spirit is of no help whatever.

        Point number 3 fails.

        Don: 4) It works. People who embrace God and his prescription for our need are changed for the good.

        Sometimes. And others burn crosses in black folks’ yards or drag gay kids to their deaths behind their pickup trucks or just con the elderly out of their savings as “tithing.”

        Every religion out there has successes. Every religion has failures. Christianity doesn’t stand out as being especially good. Like I’ve said, our greatest accomplishments in science, medicine, government, and society came as a result of the Enlightenment, not Christianity.

        Sorry, Don. Point number 4 also fails. You’re 0 for 4.

        Liked by 2 people

      • I can tell you from my own experience – you probably have the same – that something important and something which is talked about regularly is not easily forgotten. I can te3ll you that research into the ability of oral cultures tells us that they have a greater ability than we do to remember accurately, even over generations. That was the issue. And at that point Neil is wrong. Ironically, it is very likely his own experience debunks his point.

        Like

      • I refer you to Ehrman’s Jesus Before the Gospels where he discusses the research that consistently shows the limitations and failure of oral traditions in both historical and contemporary societies. I really should have guessed you’d know better than him and the research he cites.

        Related, here is what he says on his blog:
        ‘…As anyone knows who has been subject to oral traditions – this would include all of us – the stories told about a person can change absolutely overnight! It happens all the time. What happens, then, to stories in circulation for 40 or 50 years, in different countries, told in different languages, among people who never laid an eye on an eyewitness or on anyone else who had? My sense is that the stories get changed, often a lot; and many of the stories simply get made up. It’s just the way it happens And it can be shown to have happened with the Gospels, since the same story is often told in very different ways. Every historian will tell you: evidence matters!’

        ‘All of us’ apart from you, know this to be true in our own experience, as I illustrated in my post. Evidently, you know better.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Silly, Neil. If reality conflicts with Don’s presuppositions, Don’s presuppositions win. Always.

        That’s how he keeps the cognitive dissonance at bay. Praise Jesus!

        Like

      • Experience is subjective.
        Again , you have failed to provide evidence for any of the claims you make.
        Produce a single piece if evidence for even one of your claims regarding Jesus or his disciples and we can examine it/ them.

        Over to you, Don

        Liked by 1 person

  2. I can remember some of the poems and passages from the books I read more than fifty years ago. Some of the soliloquies from Shakespeare I remember quite well, And I didn’t even try to memorize. I’ll bet you remember passages that were significant to you too. So, in your next, why not explain how that can happen?

    Like

    Reply ↓

    • You think memorising a few published lines is the same as remembering, verbatim, conversations from 40 years ago? The internal evidence that the gospels were not based on such prodigious recall is overwhelming. I’ll get to it.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply ↓

      • I think it was even easier. They were rehearsing these things regularly. They were creating hymns and statements of their faith. They were retelling the stories. I simply recall once in a while the lines of a favorite poem. Yes, I think they could remember very well.

        Like

      • And they didn’t alter, refine, misremember, embellish, add to or change in any way the words and accounts? The stories didn’t develop a life of their own as more people heard them and passed then on?

        We have evidence in the gospels themselves that this is precisely what happened. All of which is the point of my post.

        You really have no idea about how story-telling and transmission work. You believe what you want to believe regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Really, Nan?

        I am of course waiting for Koseighty’s weighty pronouncement on how we know that ‘some’ of Paul’s writings were authentic, but if he is able to justify that ‘assumption’ I think we can find support for all I have said in those ‘authentic’ letters. If not, we can certainly find justification in the writings of the early church fathers and support in the non-canonical texts of the first and early second century. Contrary to what you seem to think and Neil and others imply, there is really a lot of evidence for a very early oral transmission of the gospel good news and the narrative of Jesus’ life. In any event the discussion will be interesting.

        You might be interested in my analysis of the text of Mark and the discovery of the different contributors to that Gospel using just their voices which we hear in the text and the information we get from first and second century writers.
        https://biblicalmusing.blogspot.com/2022/09/voice-in-gospels.html

        Like

      • If I may respond to the second part of your essay: nope, not interested at all.

        As for the first, there is scholarly consensus that only seven letters are definitively attributable to Paul. Instead of harassing Kos, Google it or read a book and you’ll discover why. I’d recommend Ehrman’s Forged, but as you’ve already dismissed Ehrman, I doubt you’ll bother.

        In summary: ‘The forged Pauline letters are all different from these seven in writing style, theology, and presupposed historical situation. And so they probably are not by Paul.’ Ehrman at https://ehrmanblog.org/the-accuracy-of-pauls-letter-to-the-galatians/

        Liked by 2 people

      • No, Don, I’m definitely NOT interested in reading your propaganda.

        The simple fact is this. There is only ONE source of information you and others use to live a certain way of life … and its contents have proven over the centuries to be extremely debatable.

        Speaking for myself, having been there, done that, and then spending several years investigating and researching the FACTS about Christianity, there is simply nothing that you or any other believer can offer that will change my mind.

        One last thing … have you ever read “The Crucible of Christianity”?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Spoken by someone who has not read the book – or the webpage?

        There have been a number of researchers who have investigated the phenomena of incredible (by our measure) feats of memory.by people in oral cultures. The one common ‘fact’ is that oral cultures are able to remember very accurately over a long period of time. That runs counter to Ehrman’s and the popular opinion to the contrary. Sorry, Bart.

        A second such research project is more to the point of the culture of the first century. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250134912_History_in_an_Oral_Culture

        This is research on memory on a modern oral culture but one quite close to the Jewish culture in the first century. There are several interesting observations about how history is preserved in such a culture, and they are visible in the New Testament.

        For example, the early Christians had a significant memory practice in the Lord’s Supper. They also used hymns and creeds (several of which we see in Paul’s letters) to remember. Even the narrative we see in the Gospels was a memory device. We remember stories better than raw history. But the disciples were not unusual. Jewish boys who did not read but who were educated in synagogue schools were often able to recite the entire Torah. That would include the disciples.

        So, what seems to those of us who can’t remember where we left our keys was not an uncommon ability in the first century,

        Like

      • Your link doesn’t work for me. As we’ll see, it’s immaterial whether there was an accurate oral tradition. The point of my posts is to consider the possible sources of stories about Jesus and to eliminate those that are implausible.

        Liked by 1 person

      • By what measure are they implausible?

        In a one-dimensional world that is wholly natural they are implausible. I come from a different beginning point. I think that reality is multi-dimensional. So, I am more interested in consistency and coherence of the larger story.

        Like

      • What are you talking about? One dimensional world? None of us live in such a world. Your ‘multidimensional world’, synonymous as it is with cloud-cuckoo land, is redolent with devils, demons, angels, spirits and a pantheon of gods who are somehow the same god. Stop asserting that this fantasy is in some way superior to the real world most sane people inhabit.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Don: In a one-dimensional world that is wholly natural they are implausible.

        We live in a four dimensional world, Don. All of us. And everything in all four is wholly natural. I’ve repeated asked you and others to demonstrate this supernatural you keep banging on about. Neither you nor others have even tried beyond useless assertions and ridiculous arguments.

        It would be irrational to accept your supernatural claims unless and until they have been demonstrated.

        Don: I am more interested in consistency and coherence of the larger story.

        Don, every good story is consistent and coherent. And every devotee of every religion thinks theirs is the one that makes the most sense.

        You’ve done nothing but assert your case, offered no evidence.

        I think there’s exactly the same amount of reason to think Jesus ascended to heaven unaided as there is that Muhammed did so on a magical horse creature thingy.

        Like

      • Kos: You’ve done nothing but assert your case, offered no evidence.

        Don: Yes. in this post, I have simply asserted my case. But I have argued them in other places.

        However, speaking of assertions, you have yet to explain why you accept some of Paul’s writings as authentic while rejecting others. Have you had time to think about that yet?

        When you explain that, I will provide evidence and reason for the assertions I made.

        Like

      • Don: However, speaking of assertions, you have yet to explain why you accept some of Paul’s writings as authentic while rejecting others. Have you had time to think about that yet?

        Rest assured, Don, I haven’t given it a second thought. I will probably return to this when I have some time.

        If you can’t wait, you could try googling some of the key phrases from my comments. “Authentic letters of Paul” come to mind.

        If googling is too much of a strain, you could just ask your omniscient friend. What’s the point of having a superhero bestie if you can’t take advantage of their superpowers from time to time?

        Don: When you explain that, I will provide evidence and reason for the assertions I made.

        Yes, Don. This is exactly how respectful scholarship is done – withholding your sources and thoughts until your demands are met.

        No wonder you are held in such high regard.

        Liked by 1 person

      • J.B. Phillips after he spent the time necessary to translate the New Testament wrote another little book. It is titled The Ring of Truth.

        The more I read the New Testament – and that is over sixty years – and especially as I learned Greek and have included the Greek text in my reading, the more I appreciate Phillips’ observation. I know that that is not what a critical scholars would be satisfied with. But that along with the various methods of critical analysis satisfies me as to their authenticity.

        The reason I asked was because you were so sure but have no actual reasons for your certainty. That makes me wonder if you have no idea why some books are considered authentic without evidence if you have any actual evidence or reasoning to place the books of questionable authenticity in that category. I personally have not found any of the evidence persuasive. It depends largely on the language, style, and vocabulary used and requires some knowledge of Greek to weigh, and there are too many assumptions by the critical scholars who find them not authentic to satisfy me.

        Like

      • Don: J.B. Phillips . . . wrote another little book. It is titled The Ring of Truth.

        Well cover me in butter and call me Biscuit! If J.B. Phillips thinks it’s true, I’m sold! That should be your opening comment with every new non-Christian you meet, Don.

        Evangelists everywhere should run advertising campaigns: “Christianity. Rings True to J.B. Phillips.” I’ll notify Big Atheism that it’s over, close up shop, and accept the lord.

        Once again, Don, you grasp the weakest of straws as ‘evidence’ for your beliefs. Islam “rings true” to billions of Muslims, . . . and, well we could list all the beliefs in all the world that “ring true” to believers everywhere.

        This is why I continually ask for OBJECTIVE evidence of your beliefs. Something no theist has ever been able to provide because religion is completely subjective – there are no objective gods out there to show. Just the tingly feels you get when you think of God torturing your enemies forever. Such love! What justice! Quelle mercy!

        I’ll ask again, Don. Got anything objective?

        Don: The reason I asked was because you were so sure but have no actual reasons for your certainty.

        And we return to your reading comprehension or complete lack thereof. I cited consensus and experts. I never once stated my own opinion. Your continued demand that I defend an opinion I never expressed continues to baffle and bemuse.

        If you ever come up with something objective, testable, repeatable, reliable, I’m all ears. “Rings true to me” is right up there with “My favorite color is blue.”

        Like

      • Kos: I cited consensus and experts. I never once stated my own opinion.

        You actually did not cite experts. (If I missed it, please tell me again; I would like to follow up on their reasons and evidence.) Now, your own opinion… You cited consensus for what? Was that consensus your opinion as well.

        I appreciate your difficulty, however. I could not find ‘reasons’ either. I did find ‘consensus’, but what does that actually mean? btw that consensus is one of the few times I have found consensus among scholars of both the conservative and critical variety. Yet, no actual reasons.

        My reason is primarily consistency with the evolving situation in the churches as seen in Acts and with the historical background of the churches addressed in the letters. (One of those would be the recent return of the Jews to Rome after their expulsion by the emperor. That created a situation in the church which is addressed in Romans and pegs the date for Romans that is easily within the period of time in which Paul was preaching around the Mediterranean. Though you may have no reason to believe Paul did anything like that.

        Beyond that considering the other ‘authentic’ letters together, they are united by similar themes that are were, according to other sources, common during the mid-first century.

        They were also attested to by post-apostolic writers by their quotation in those later writings.

        They were also early recognized by Christian writers and included in early canons of accepted writings.

        Maybe that will help you. But…Most of those reasons will not work for you because you consider Acts fictional or written far too late to be of any value in comparing the letters of Paul to Acts. It is more likely, according to that late dating of Acts, for Acts to reflect the letters rather than the letters reflecting Acts. So, you have a problem, Kos, is justifying your position.

        Like

      • Don’t be troubled, Don, by the fact Acts and the genuine Pauline letters don’t marry at all. If the church of the second century believed they did, that’s good enough because obviously the church had no vested interest or, as you would no doubt put it, ax to grind. It was completely impartial in every way.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Without Acts how do you locate Paul in history? How does anyone, much less a consensus of scholars, make the claim that any of the letters we attribute to a man named Paul in the mid-first century are actually Paul’s writing? How do we know in any sense of the word that the letters are the writings of any real man named Paul? Yes, references in the ‘authentic’ letters to places and local conditions give the letters an aura of authenticity, a kind of verisimilitude, but that is hardly sufficient. As you would say, any good historical novel does the same.

        If I were to play the skeptic for a moment, the letters are a fact. The churches of which they speak are facts. But attributing the letters to a real man named Paul when they are lifted from the matrix history, which includes Acts, would be very hard. Considering issues which Paul (?) addresses in the letters to be facts is equally difficult. And I think that is what Kos is discovering. In fact, for any skeptic including critical scholars it is hard. Kos ‘believes’ Paul was real and the letters are authentic, but on what basis?

        Kos is determined to demand objective evidence before considering something a fact but he is willing to accept a pretty nebulous ‘consensus’ at this point. And he doesn’t seem to think it important enough to get to the bottom of it. I am puzzled.

        I think of the New Testament as part of history and set firmly in the matrix of history that is confirmed, as well as any history can be, to be fact. For that reason if for no other, the letters of Paul are authentic.

        Like

      • ‘How do we locate Paul in history?’ The same way we ‘locate’ Shakespeare in history. We, or rather historians, look at what he wrote and what was written about him by contemporaries. This is called primary evidence. Historians then compare these with other, secondary sources, for example documents written after the subject has died. Where these conflict with primary sources, historians then consider whether the primary source or the secondary source is the more reliable. Where the secondary source demonstrates legendary or fantastical accretions, it is usually ruled out as the more reliable source of information about its subject. Acts falls into this category.

        Again though, I don’t find anybody here arguing that Paul was not a real person. His genuine letters are sufficient evidence that he was. Other material that conflicts with what he records there about himself and his beliefs does not mean he can’t be located in history. It means others were making stuff up and passing it off as being about and from him. Shakespeare had the same problem: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_Shakespeare_forgeries

        Like

      • Very good.

        Neil: His genuine letters are sufficient evidence that he was.

        Don: I agree. But since you have no idea how to determine any letters are genuine, it seems a little iffy for you.

        Neil: We, or rather historians, look at what he wrote and what was written about him by contemporaries.

        Don: And who are those? Maybe Peter in 2 Peter, right?

        Neil: Historians then compare these with other, secondary sources, for example documents written after the subject has died.

        Don: Okay. Acts would fall into that category.

        Neil: Where these conflict with primary sources

        Don: And where are those conflicts in Acts? Oh, yes, ” legendary or fantastical accretions.” Okay, historians do not believe in miracles. Christians do, of course, though not without a critical eye. Miracles for the sake of miracles are usually looked at with a critical eye. But where are those in Acts?

        The trouble with your reasoning is that rejecting miracles outright and letting that poison everything else is unreasonable. I doubt that careful historians do that. Since we know that Paul was a real man from his letters, it would seem reasonable for a historian to look at Acts as a secondary source. Even when there are hints of the ‘legendary’, there may well be historical fact. Look at the legend of King Arthur. These is obviously legend, but was there a real man and something in the legends that give us clues to the real king? (The legend of King Arthur is, of course, more legend than fact. Historians are not even sure there was a real man. There are no primary sources, and the secondary sources are far removed from Arthur’s time. Not so with Acts.) So, if you eliminate the miracles in Acts, you still have the portrait of a real man who matches the man we see in the ‘authentic’ letters. Eliminating Acts out of hand doesn’t seem like something a careful historian would do.

        Like

      • No, Acts doesn’t match the man in the letters. His theology, Christology and soteriology are all different. The accounts of his dealings with the pillars of the church are different. His itinerary is different.

        The same happens with the genuine letters and the fakes: the fakes contradict elements of the real letters. Their view of women’s role in the church is different. The style. grammar and vocabulary are different. This is how scholars distinguish between the real Paul’s writing and the fakes. How they know that Acts is largely fictional. It isn’t only because Acts includes angels and miracles, though that certainly tells us we’re dealing with religious fantasy.

        You’ll dispute all of this, I’ve no doubt. You believe what you want to believe, despite the internal evidence, despite scholarly consensus, despite the cognitive dissonance it necessitates. But please stop trying to convince us that the irrationality at the heart of your beliefs is true. It isn’t.

        Liked by 1 person

      • This pretty much sums up not only YOUR belief, but others as well … “My reason is primarily consistency with the evolving situation in the churches as seen in Acts …”

        IOW, to put it in the simplest terms, you believe what’s written in a 2,000 plus year old book that has no viable evidence that any of it actually happened but it sounds good so … why not?

        Liked by 1 person

      • So why not? There is no “viable evidence” to the contrary and a lot of evidence that it is accurate in as far as it can be checked with other sources. You may have seen just this week that there is scientific evidence for the Bible’s report of the attack by the Assyrians on Jerusalem and the exact date in 701 B.C. There is verifiable evidence for King Hezekiah in the same time period and for the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in about 600 B.C. and the later release of the Jews to return to their land and rebuilt their temple in the history of Cyrus the Great on the Cyrus cylinder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_Cylinder There is evidence for Israel in the land of Canaan on the Merneptah Stele dated by archaeologists to 1200 B.C.

        There is also plenty of evidence confirmed in other sources for the people and events we find described in the gospels and in Acts. Do you doubt Herod or his cruelty in the time period of Jesus’ birth or the arrogance of Pilate, who ruled as governor of Judea at the time of Jesus? I doubt you do.

        And there are many, many others. The existence of a group of people in the middle first century who believed in Jesus as the Messiah is uncontested historically. Jesus, simply put, fits in the matrix of history, and there is no evidence to the contrary. So, why choose doubt over the viable historical evidence? It cannot be because there is none.

        Like

      • Every once in a while, I get a deep hunger to get in my car, drive over the Cascades to the high desert, find a dirt road that leads to nowhere, stop and get out and touch a rock. To touch a rock that hasn’t been touched by human hands, hasn’t been moved from its place, hasn’t been used by some pioneer farmer to construct a foundation for his house or even scratched on by some long ago Indian to picture the animals he hunted. Every once in a while, I get hungry for unfiltered brute reality.

        There is little of that in our world right now. We can’t trust photographs, for they are easily photoshopped or converted to HDR with fantastic colors that are not really there. We can’t trust the video we are fed, for they too can be deep fakes. We can’t trust politicians who spin reality for their own purposes. We can’t trust historians who routinely paint new pictures of the past and run rough shod over the pictures painted by the historians who preceded them, sometimes over the recollections of those who lived the event. We can trust only the rock. Only that rock is real.

        That is what J.B. Phillips was talking about when he spoke of the ring of truth. Like the rock, he sensed a rocklike reality in the text he labored over. He sensed no deception there. He found no reworking to make the text say something it did not say. It was brute reality. It had the ring of truth.

        That was the perception of a man well acquainted with rocks. And that is my perception as well. We both can give reasons why we perceive the text to be brute reality, but “objective, testable, repeatable, reliable, to your satisfaction probably not. You have been too often fooled by deep fakes to trust anything. And I can appreciate that. It is why I need every once in a while to touch a rock.

        Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.