TransDialectic Forum

TransDialectic Forum Transformation by Dialectic -- Learning together through more skillful conversation.<br> <a href="http://transdialectic.wordpress.com/">TransDialectic Blog</a> ~~~~~ <a href="http://transdialectic.vodspot.tv/">TransDialectic Video Collection</a> http://www.agrihack.com/Forum/index.phpMon, 21 May 2012 03:33:11 -0400 Phorum 5.2.10 http://www.agrihack.com/Forum/read.php?3,153,153#msg-153 So Goes the Logos (10 replies)http://www.agrihack.com/Forum/read.php?3,153,153#msg-153This is a tiny research project I did in 2005. Some may find it useful or have thoughtful responses to it.

So Goes the “Logos”:
Entropy in Biblical Translation

Remember the telephone game? The first player receives the original message. That player verbally relays the message to the next player and so on until the last player has heard it. Together, the players compare the final message to the original. The less the final message resembles the original one, the more fun it is (“Telephone (Game)”). In communication theory, message degradation, or entropy, is ubiquitous in the transfer of all types of information. The relay of religious information presents an especially interesting case of message decay. Contrary to widespread assertions of biblical inerrancy, the history of one critical word, “logos”, shows by example that the Bible has not been immune to entropy during its transmission and translation.

The inerrancy of the Christian Bible scripture is a foregone conclusion for many of the millions who strive to live by it. They consider the Bible to be the written words of God (Young 113). With little or no personal investigation the belief is that the translators and copyists of scripture were as inspired as the original authors and that no intent has been obscured (Ryrie). Surely, we should be more discerning, since we have the means.

Communication theory has systematized and objectified our understanding of how we send messages to each other. We can now see how the process works and what its weaknesses are (Griffin 50-53).

Figure 1. Adler and Elmhorst, “Communication Model”, Communicating at Work, 2002: 9.

According to Adler and Elmhorst, and referring to Figure 1, this is how it works: when we have a thought and intend to share it we encode the thought into a message and send the message to the receiver via some medium or channel, like speech or writing. The receiver then acquires and decodes the message and then is hopefully able to consider the received thought. This sounds easy, but usually there are impediments in this process (8). Two primary problems in communication are noise and context. Noise can derive from regular auditory racket, or from physiological distractions such as deafness, sickness, or fatigue. The other source of noise is psychological. As Adler says, this type of noise includes “egotism, defensiveness, hostility, preoccupation, fear . . . and more” (9).

Adler continues to explain that the four contexts that impact communication quality are “physical, social, chronological, and cultural”. The physical context is simply picking the best place to share something. Social context involves assessing the relationship between the people who are communicating. It also has to do with ascertaining who else is listening to the communication and what effect their presence may have. The chronological context deals with the influence of time and can include issues such as picking the right time to say something and the effect of time lapse between steps in the communication process. Finally, cultural context encompasses differences in ethnicity, nationality, age, sex, and more (10).

In the transmission of religious information, it is understandable that psychological noise along with chronological and cultural contexts can have far greater influence than other factors may. It is historically clear that there was strong psychological noise among Jews, Greeks, and Romans in the early centuries of the current era. This factor is integral with the cultural context for the initial encoding of the New Testament message. At that time, more Jews spoke Greek than Hebrew, yet they jealously sought the continuance of their cultural uniqueness. The Romans had conquered the Greeks, but they revered the Greek culture and generally protected it. The chronological context includes the cultural and historical timing of when New Testament scriptures were initially encoded and subsequently re-encoded in translations.

One of the New Testament scriptures is The Gospel of John. It was, however, a latecomer relative to the other three gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke in the common cannons, and it stands apart from them in several ways. One unique characteristic is the prologue’s singular contribution to Christology, the study of the nature of Jesus. This part of John’s Gospel repeatedly uses and emphatically introduces the Greek term, “logos”, into Christian literature. William Beardslee asserts that the “Johannine prologue is the only fully explicit statement of the theme of incarnation in the New Testament” (463). Far from the powerful import of using the term “logos” to encode such spiritually critical information as Beardslee assesses it, subsequent translations transmit a degraded message.

Granted, a single distorted word may not usually compromise a larger message. This particular word, “logos”, however, is central to Christology. Traditions have been built around understandings of this word and its translations. It is important to note that such traditions predate Jesus by nearly 600 years. In the mid-6th century B.C.E., Pythagoras may have been the first to encode meaning into the term “logos”. He used the word to speak of mediation, proportion, ratio, and harmony (Guthrie 25). His usage held both material and transcendent applications.

Heraclitus, later in the 6th century B.C.E., often used the word “logos”. I have substituted the translation with the original Greek “logos” in the following fragment of his prose:

Although this [logos] holds forever, men ever fail to comprehend, both before hearing it and once they have heard. Although all things come to pass according to this [logos], men are like the untried when they try such words. . . . (Kahn 29)

Almost 600 years later this usage resonates in the first verses of John’s Gospel. The first five verses follow with the English translation retaining the term “logos” where applicable directly or by antecedent:

In the beginning was the [logos], and the [logos] was with God, and the [logos] was God. The [logos] was in the beginning with God. All things were made by [logos]; and without [logos] was not any thing made that was made. In [logos] was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. (Holy Bible, John 1:1-5)

This connection may startle someone not already aware of it, but it begs the question why the author of John’s Gospel chose to use the term “logos” to encode his message. David Fideler offers insight into the longstanding significance of “logos” to the Greeks. He explains how it is rich with meaning, simultaneously denoting “Order or pattern” , “Ratio or proportion”, “Oratio, a discourse, articulation or account”, “Reason, both in the sense of rationality and in the sense of articulation of the cause of something”, “Principle or cause”, and a “principle of mediation and harmony between extremes” (38). In these rich, complex, multi-faceted yet related meanings lay clues to John’s encoding strategy.

John needed to encode his gospel message in such a way that it could withstand the psychological noise in the channel and speak clearly in the multi-cultural context of his day. The very young church was mainly Hebrew, Greek, and Roman. In matters of philosophy and religion, the Greeks had the Romans’ ear, so the writer’s primary cultural context required encoding his message in a way that would be readily decoded with appropriate meaning for Hebrews, Hellenistic Jews, and Greeks, uniting them in a common vision. “Logos” appealed to the legalism of Judaism because of its connotation as spoken or written directive. The term simultaneously appealed to the Greeks as it derives from their own philosophic heritage. It was a hugely successful cultural connector through linguistics (Beardslee 463). Unfortunately, it did not last long.

During the 2nd century C.E., the gospels and other Greek scriptures were translated into Latin to serve the still-expanding Roman Empire. In John’s Gospel the Greek “logos” was translated into the Latin term “verbum”, which simply means “word”. It can hardly be denied that somewhere in the decoding and re-encoding process of translation entropy was at work. Centuries later, no correction was made when the scriptures were translated from Latin into English. At that time “verbum” became “word”, a two step departure from “logos” and the intent of John’s Gospel (Fideler 38). This departure is so huge in fact, that according to E. R. Goodenough, anyone studying the religion and cosmology of the Greeks “must first of all wipe that meaning [“Word”] from his mind and use the untranslated term “logos” as he would use a new term in chemistry” (qtd in Fideler 38). The impact of this entropy is far reaching. Because “word” has a very limited definition in English, the typical reader is easily confused and tends to adopt the belief that the words of scripture are in some way God. This contributes to the belief in scriptural inerrancy and comprises a vicious circle of entropic messaging. It is sadly ironic that “logos” also denotes “intention”, “meaning” and “purpose”. However, the degeneration of the word “logos” is only one of numerous examples of translational entropy.

The oldest Greek texts containing scripture use no punctuation and are either all upper case or all lower case. There is no capitalization of proper nouns or deific pronouns. Such changes are constructs of the translators' discretion. What does this indicate regarding message fidelity? Spiritual seekers investigating the Bible’s English translations have no immediate symbolic access to the intended meaning. This should be sufficient to encourage critical discernment and extra-biblical investigation.

Meaning and intent can be easily lost in transmission between different cultures and languages, and across centuries. As in the telephone game, a message, even a critical one, can come to bear little resemblance to the original intent. The loss of “logos” demonstrates this. These assessments involving communication theory do not challenge the inspiration, motivation, or intention that prompted encoding the original scriptures. They do, however, alert us to the challenge we face if we want to discover those intentions via degraded messages. Perhaps we should instead turn to the same perennial source of inspiration as did the original authors. Perhaps that is their very message that has suffered the entropy of centuries.

Works Cited

"Telephone (Game)." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Available: [en.wikipedia.org]. 10/3/2005.

Adler, Ronald B., and Jeanne M. Elmhorst. Communicating at Work: Principles and Practices for Business and the Professions. 7th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2002.

Beardsley, William A. ““logos”.” Oxford Companion to the Bible. Ed. Metzger, B.M., and Michael D. Coogan. New York: Oxford UP, 1993.

Fideler, David R. Jesus Christ, Sun of God: Ancient Cosmology and Early Christian Symbolism. 1 ed. Wheaton, IL: Quest, 1993.

Griffin, Emory A. A First Look at Communication Theory. 3rd Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997.

Guthrie, Kenneth Sylvan. Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library, The: An Anthology of Ancient Writings Which Relate to Pythagoras and Pythagorean Philosophy / Compiled and Translated By Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie With Additional Translations By Thomas Taylor and Arthur Fairbanks, Jr. Trans. Guthrie, K.S. Grand Rapids: Phanes, 1987.

Holy Bible: King James Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972

Kahn, Charles H. Art and Thought of Heraclitus, The: An Edition of the Fragments With Translation and Commentary. Trans. Kahn, C.H. New York: Cambridge UP, 1979.

Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology. CD-ROM Wheaton, IL: Victor Books., Oct. 13, 2005.

Young, Edward J. Thy Word Is Truth: Some Thoughts on the Biblical Doctrine of Inspiration. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957.]]> Wayne The DialogsThu, 08 Oct 2009 15:48:28 -0400 http://www.agrihack.com/Forum/read.php?3,146,146#msg-146 Progression of God? (2 replies)http://www.agrihack.com/Forum/read.php?3,146,146#msg-146
I want to understand your view of the progression of what we call Creator-God. Do you believe that at one time He was not personality, but rather energies that evolved or developed, and mankind is doing this also?

Do you believe that we can attain to god-ness? Do we all unite again into one spirit-being or do we maintain our individual spirits, forever?

Unless we actually have divine revelation there would be no call for casting down our own imagination in favor of an ancient script. Your views have a metaphysical element that seems quite different from orthodox Christianity and from what I can tell, include a blend of Hindu/New Age, Darwinian evolution, and Old Earth Creationism with some Humanistic Materialism thrown in. I am having a difficult time comprehending your view of God. Clearly, you do not take the Biblical text to be literal - but metaphorical, and while filled with truths, not applicable to our lives today - except in the beautiful principles we may find inside its covers - which we can pick and choose based on our culture and needs for the time.

This would mean there is no absolute truth or morality that is applicable across the ages. Who could say that our evolution to personality and morality is a step up or a step down?]]> Janie The DialogsWed, 08 Jun 2011 04:45:35 -0400 http://www.agrihack.com/Forum/read.php?3,111,111#msg-111 Papyrus Manuscripts (23 replies)http://www.agrihack.com/Forum/read.php?3,111,111#msg-111
This is a chart showing the dates and contents of the various papyri.

[en.wikipedia.org]

It may be surprising to note some of the early dates! There is an almost complete Gospel of John dating from around 200AD, and a collection of Paul's epistles that date from the same time.

That means a gap of only 120 years or so from the originals. I have seen some photo copies and transcriptions of those manuscripts and it is amazing to see the quality of the documents.]]> SteveC The DialogsTue, 29 Sep 2009 12:49:11 -0400 http://www.agrihack.com/Forum/read.php?3,79,79#msg-79 Wayne 7/12/09 - Thoughts on Evolution, Christianity, Science (43 replies)http://www.agrihack.com/Forum/read.php?3,79,79#msg-79Gospel of Evolution' - ABC News
Source: abcnews.go.com [www.facebook.com]
Father Beck talks to evangelical preacher [Mike Dowd] about his belief in evolution.

This dialog began in Facebook as Status Comments and Notes and is now outlined here.
The "Author" column says "Wayne" to-date for all posts because Wayne transferred all the posts, therefore the authors' names are included in the message title for clarity. Subsequent posts by the actual authors will show their names the Author column. From that point on, the message titles can be more descriptive if you like.

Also, every author can edit their own posts, YAY. But this means that only Wayne can edit the posts to-date which he will gladly do at the direction of the authors.]]> Wayne The DialogsSun, 30 Aug 2009 12:43:02 -0400 http://www.agrihack.com/Forum/read.php?3,66,66#msg-66 Considering the Nature of Truth (13 replies)http://www.agrihack.com/Forum/read.php?3,66,66#msg-66What Is Truth?
Source: www.youtube.com
JP Moreland, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University speaks on the topic of postmodernism and the Emergent Church at the first Life of the Mind Conference in the summer of 2007. ...
July 3 at 11:14am ·

I really respect this definition of "truth" as a matching relationship between thought and reality. Note, it's not a match between my thought and your thought, or between your thought and any printed or published thought, or between your thought and majority (or minority) thought, or between your thought and traditional thought. Reality is the key element of the relationship. It also means that reality alone is not truth. And no thought is truth until it stands in matching relationship to reality. This is beautiful to me. What can we learn from this?

This dialog began in Facebook as Status Comments and is now outlined here.
The "Author" column says "Wayne" to-date for all posts because Wayne transferred all the posts, therefore the authors' names are included in the message title for clarity. Subsequent posts by the actual authors will show their names the Author column. From that point on, the message titles can be more descriptive if you like.

Also, every author can edit their own posts, YAY. But this means that only Wayne can edit the posts to-date which he will gladly do at the direction of the authors.]]> Wayne The DialogsSat, 08 Aug 2009 20:50:48 -0400 http://www.agrihack.com/Forum/read.php?1,34,34#msg-34 Personal Introductions, Comments, and Ideas (1 reply)http://www.agrihack.com/Forum/read.php?1,34,34#msg-34Please consider replying to this post with a little blurb about yourself to help personalize your presence and participation. Other Comments and Ideas are welcome here, too. This is kind of a catchall spot.]]> Wayne IntroductionSat, 08 Aug 2009 21:37:05 -0400 http://www.agrihack.com/Forum/read.php?1,33,33#msg-33 Proposals for Debate (2 replies)http://www.agrihack.com/Forum/read.php?1,33,33#msg-33
You can also propose an assertion to be defended and contested.

Be careful about proposing an assertion that you don't really want to be contested, or that really isn't accessible for either defense or contest.]]> Wayne IntroductionSat, 08 Aug 2009 21:52:28 -0400 http://www.agrihack.com/Forum/read.php?3,5,5#msg-5 World View Update (29 replies)http://www.agrihack.com/Forum/read.php?3,5,5#msg-5Had Your dose of Mama Lately? on 2/23/09.

Steve's initial response led to a somewhat lengthy discussion (not completed). I'll post the first few 'blog reply" posts in the body of this one forum post in order to convey the impetus of the dialog. Then I'll try to enter the back-and-forth of the dialog in separate posts. We'll see if this helps with organizing the dialog.

Steve 2/26/09:

I listened to Karen Armstrong, she’s very well spoken and has a good sense of humor too. It reminded me of all of the many times in the Bible where belief, faith, and trust are spoken of, and how they are always or almost always spoken of in terms of the heart. As in the famous verse in Proverbs, “trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not to your own understanding.” Or the great salvation verse in Romans 10 where it says that when someone believes in their heart that God has raised Jesus from the dead he will be saved. That truly is more than intellectual assent. Seems like God always starts in the heart and works outward. That’s why I think having a soft heart is a good thing because it makes us like good earth in which the seed of the word of God can go deep and have a prosperous future in our lives and experience.

Wayne 2/26/09:

Beautiful, Steve! Thanks for sharing. I think you really caught the core beauty of Karen’s posture toward people and their religious cultures. She understands the interiority of shared cultural stories, and while recognizing the global limitations of provincial mythologies, she embraces their history, commonalities, and the universal human needs that they support. She refrains from comparisons and emphasizes love and mutual care. Very soft-heartedly.

Steve 2/27/09:

I like that, and I think many people do as well because they are actually stressed out over the ethnic hostility that we hear and read about all the time. And that hostility, far from diminishing, seems to be mounting up to some kind of climax, especially in the Middle east; that looks like ground zero!

Now this is where I start to get some firm footing on how to deal with those controversies and it really is like an escape hatch from the comparative religion thing. If I can accept that the Jews were chosen by God to receive his written oracles then I am free to take another step down the path to knowing God as he has chosen to be revealed to man. That’s not to exalt the Jew because in reading the Bible we see that none of their faults were overlooked or glossed over, it’s just that God chose them for a particular purpose and it is his right as God to do that. So for me it’s kinda a humbling thing, I may not want it to be that way, but I have to accept God’s thinking over my own because he has a purpose in these things that predate me and even all of creation.

But if I can get past the comparative thing so that I don’t have to give writings like the Koran the same authority as the Bible it really gives me traction. Then I can see what is written about the Logos of God, the living word of God that was from the beginning and through whom everything was created. I can see that this person called the Son of God came into the world to reveal God in a way that was unknown to man in the times before but was sent at the exact right time to make the one sacrifice for the sins of the world, the sacrifice that is the only way that God has chosen to reconcile man to himself.

Now this may be controversial and even thought to be hateful and exclusive to many in the pop culture world, but in my case, I’m really so far down the pathway that I can’t turn back, and even if I could I wouldn’t want to because of the truth that I have seen in Jesus. Even more I read that he is coming back and is going to be the answer to all of the conflicts in the world in ways that we cannot even imagine now. I look forward to that, but at the same time seeing that it could get darker before the dawn! We have got to hang in there!

Wayne 2/27/09:

Eloquently expressed, Steve! This is precisely how I once thought. It is the current western Christian tradition in a nutshell.
While I don’t currently think this way, I recognize the beauty in it. From my encounters, I think that folks who are thinking along the lines of Karen, no longer attribute “divine authority” per se to any ancient literature. I personally now see all such texts: The Bible, The Koran, The Bhagavad Gita (sp), and so many others as snapshots of human consciousness with varying longitudinal reflection and widely varying historicity. I see all literature as being distinctly of human origin and reflecting a nearly full spectrum of the evolution of human consciousness, from the most base to the most sublime. Though I don’t cite it here for authority I think this is what is meant when the Bible says (roughly) “All scripture is valuable for instruction and training in godliness.” I had typically construed this as an exhortation to adhere to the Bible. But “scripture” = Gr.”graphos” which means simply “writing”. And, of course, the original writers of the New Testament content, at least, did not foresee the inclusion of their writing (including the statement above) in a limited canon.
For some years, I’ve been holding the term “spirit” in my left hand, and the term “consciousness” in my right. It had previously dawned on me that they referred to the same internal reality, so for a long time I tested cross-substitutions of the terms in a wide variety of writings. I’m comfortable now in proposing the equivalence for your consideration. We can discuss it.

Steve 2/27/09:

We probably should discuss this, we have an obligation to have some back and forth on the topic. I didn’t realize that you changed your thinking in that way.

Two thoughts on the issue at hand. The first would be the test of fulfilled prophecy. The Bible has very, very many fulfilled prophecies regarding Jesus Christ, from his birthplace, his life and ministry and even the exact time when he would appear in the world, to the year. This has to distinguish the Hebrew scriptures from all others as the word of God.

With the Timothy scripture you quoted in the last post, Paul also says that they were holy scriptures that Timothy had known from his youth. If you put both of those together Paul had to have been speaking about the Hebrew scriptures because they were the only ones regarded by him from his background as holy scriptures. To give that more context he says in Romans that the oracles of God were committed to the Jew. That’s apostolic teaching that is foundational to Christianity. I don’t really see Paul teaching two opposing doctrines, do you?

What do you think?

Wayne 2/27/09:

I totally agree about the mutual accountability and need for dialog. Seriously, that’s what this site was envisioned for.
All of the dialog so far on various posts has been heartfelt, easygoing, delightfully engaging, and mutually encouraging. It’s easy to do that when there are no conflicting perspectives arising. But frankly, I have been hoping that someone well-spoken and even-tempered like you might come along and engage me (not that the discussion is limited to just you and me) in a discussion where divergent views are explored.
I strongly believe that examples need to be provided for folks to witness such amiable discourse where there may be fundamental disagreement. I am willing to be part of such an observed dialog. I would be delighted if you would be also. I promise to respect your views and listen and respond carefully. I will seek to emphasize what I see and why it works for me, and how I came to see it, rather than seeking to change your mind. Since I think you hold views which I once held and I may hold views which you may not have considered, I will willingly submit to questions you may pose in order to provide a balancing asymmetry. Please tap me if I falter in any of these regards. This is important to me - more important perhaps than my own perspectives.

First off, I do realize that we’ve had almost no dialog for several years, and that my previous post will necessarily be a bit of a surprise. That can’t be helped now, but I hope that our friendship and our good posture toward each other will facilitate your discovering anything you want to find out in this regard. Of course, I am well within your sphere of influence and I hold no illusions as to having ‘arrived’ at some static immutable perspective. In fact, I believe that any views held aloof above critical review and adjustment constitute idolatry, as in “lean not on your own understanding”.

Next, I currently have more of what I think is well-founded respect for the Bible than I have ever had. Having read it through several times and studied it so often, and enjoyed such excellent fellowship in its shadow, I expect I will continue to make reference to it rather often, out of respect, even in controversy. Never-the-less I do not regard the Bible as the word of God as God is traditionally regarded as a separate supreme divine entity. Nor do I regard it as even remotely infallible. I do regard it as predominately mythological with a smattering of historicity, but this does not diminish its value. I see the Egyptian origins of most of the mythology and that still doesn’t undermine its value to me. This value retention, however, is largely due to an emergence of new values in me.

I needed to share this early on, so that we don’t right off hit a memetic log jam of vetting ancient literature with its own content, or vetting our perspectives too narrowly through any literature, ancient or modern, single source or multiple.

I also have to admit right off that my views are a synthesis of all that I have received, perceived, and conceived in my whole life so far, so there are no easy literary sources to point to, though I have found various media, including literature, including the Bible, that taken, shaken, and shared may help to clarify some areas. I sense no need to verify one’s ‘vista’ (world view and assessment of what’s important) via documentation anyway. It’s not like a state that will look us right in the eye and not acknowledge our existence unless we can produce our birth certificate. Never-the-less, I will do my utmost to find clarifying materials as needed. I’ve spent a lot of time looking for good language for these things.

So, I really haven’t shared anything yet, but I’ll await your go-ahead to begin to outline what I see as “the big picture”. And I relish the opportunity that your posting has produced. Thanks, Steve!!

So that's how the dialog began.]]> Wayne The DialogsMon, 31 Aug 2009 10:16:47 -0400 http://www.agrihack.com/Forum/read.php?1,4,4#msg-4 Debate Guidelines (no replies)http://www.agrihack.com/Forum/read.php?1,4,4#msg-4Guidelines for More Fruitful Debate

Agree upon debate topics in advance.

Check out: Online Debate]]> Wayne IntroductionTue, 07 Apr 2009 23:53:41 -0400 http://www.agrihack.com/Forum/read.php?1,3,3#msg-3 Dialog v. Debate (1 reply)http://www.agrihack.com/Forum/read.php?1,3,3#msg-3
Sometimes folks avoid deep dialog for fear that any differences will lead to “vain wrangling” or useless debate. Sometimes folks mostly want to “wrangle” or debate rather than enjoy a dialog. Since I am far more interested in dialog than debate here, I thought I would post a helpful link here: Socratic Seminar. I have included a brief snip from that site below. Please check out that resource.

“What is the difference between dialogue and debate?

Dialogue is characterized by:

I want to excel at this and draw folks into the joy of transformative conversation.]]> Wayne IntroductionSat, 08 Aug 2009 21:38:40 -0400