A couple days ago I shared few articles with a Facebook group to which I belong. We were discussing textual criticism, the preservation and collection of ancient texts, and subsequent English translations, so I posted these two articles written by Daniel Wallace recently: “Fifteen Myths about Bible Translation” and “Five More Myths about Bible Translations and the Transmission of the Text”. One of the subjects addressed by Wallace is “Red Letter Editions” of the New Testament. I said that I preferred that printers avoid the red font because I think it misleads people. The words of Jesus in the Gospels are the words of the Evangelist. The other article I decided to share was Helen K. Bond’s recent contribution to The Bible and Interpretation: “Ten Things I Learnt about Jesus by Writing a Book about him”. This one was relevant because she writes that she has become “…increasingly convinced that the search for authentic words of Jesus is a waste of time.” I think I agree to a large extent. We have Jesus’ words as interpreted and shared by the Evangelists. Our efforts to get behind the words of the Evangelists may provide us with some interesting theories concerning Jesus’ words in an Aramaic context, but even then I am cautious about such findings.
One person asked how this jives with the words of John 14:26: “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.” [1] The theological claim of this text is important to many Christians who hold a high view of Scripture to one degree or another. I thought my response there may be worth sharing here as well. I wrote the following in response:
We must rethink our understanding of how the Spirit reminded Jesus’ disciples of his words. Did the Spirit remind them of Jesus’ words verbatim or did the Spirit remind them of the gist of Jesus’ words? I would argue that Jesus’ message is preserved, while his exact words are not something about which we should worry.
In part, students of human memory are aware that we interpret everything we remember. If our memories were raw data alone we’d overload. Every thing we “remember” is important because we have categorized and interpreted it, framing it a certain way, giving it meaning (think about important events in your own life). This is why scholars differentiate between the ipsissima verba and ipsissima vox of Jesus. The “verba” being the “words” Jesus used, the “vox” being the “voice” or “message” of these words. If you compare the Synoptic Gospels you will see that some of the same events are described differently. If we seek the exact “verba” we’re in trouble. If we seek the “vox” we know that what is important is the gist of Jesus’ message.
Also, Jesus likely taught the same lessons and prayed the same prayers in a variety of different context in places all over Galilee and Judea. Each time he did this there was likely a slight twist, a contextualization if you will. Imagine a traveling evangelist saying the same thing exactly the same way in every pulpit. Unlikely, unless s/he is reading from a written document, verbatim, with no variance or exposition. Jesus didn’t read from a document, so we can presume he didn’t always say the same thing the same way twice. So when we see differences between the Synoptics, or the even great difference between the Synoptics and the Gospel of John, we do ourselves a great service by remembering that the Spirit gave us Jesus’ words as interpreted by the Evangelists who wrote the Gospels. There is nothing wrong with this. Jesus didn’t live in a world with recording equipment, but rather a world where he was making disciples, and part of making disciples is making sure that the disciples took ownership of his message, which is what the Gospels display.
For those who find John 14:26 to be an authoritative statement regarding the work of the Spirit in empowering the Evangelists to record the words of Jesus I don’t think we have to close our eyes to the differences between the Gospels, especially the Synoptics and the Gospel of John. Jesus’ words verbatim shouldn’t be our goal. Jesus’ message relayed and interpreted in what we need to seek when reading the Gospels.
[1] New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update, Jn 14:26 (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995).
the archives near Emmaus 
Good thoughts here, Brian. A couple of mine, in basic agreement re. disciples retaining the gist of Jesus’ words; in most cases (except for short phrases probably, like “let the dead bury the dead”, etc.) not the exact words.
1. We almost certainly don’t have any direct disciple writing any Gospel; and I don’t know anyone making the case that Luke, either a companion of Paul or a later author, was one… so at LEAST that Gospel something other than direct memory.
2. Recently completed studies of memory have shown (apparently pretty clearly and with scientific validation) that the more times we “remember” or mentally revisit a past event, conversation, etc. the more we distort the memory. Ironically, “they” say, the more accurate memories are the ones (likely less momentous) NOT brought up to consciousness for an extended period, or at least not frequently. Sorry, I can’t site journal, etc., for the source…. I heard it twice (increasing the chance for good memory of it?) on a Nat’l Public Radio program, perhaps All Things Considered, but I sure don’t remember 🙂 . If correct, this principle has implications for the idea that different “lines” or “traditions” of even apostolic (direct disciple) memory of Jesus would likely exist, and without anyone necessarily purposely distorting anything.
And of course, the fact that all the “Evangelists” had evangelistic/polemical/apologetic purposes is very germane to just what the Gospels contain.
Howard
Agreed, something like “let the dead bury the dead” may have been a relatively short, pithy quote to memorize word-for-word. Even then, if spoken in Aramaic, readers of our Greek texts should panic about whether or not we have the “exact” words of Jesus. Those are already “lost in translation” if you will.
I have read and heard the same thing concerning memories that we revisit frequently. Every time we mention it, the conversation that ensues, and the context within which the memory is revisited is added to the memory itself. The Gospels wrap memories of Jesus in narrative structures made available from the Old Testament. More likely than not, as people recounted the stories of Jesus, they attached them to the OT, and the line between past event and interpretive framework faded away forever. The Gospels give us the interpreted event. All efforts to go back and untangle the layers may be an exercise in futility!
I am not as confident that none of the Evangelists where eyewitnesses. I think Bauckham’s work makes me hesitant to deny either eyewitnesses or close dependency on eyewitnesses. Now no one claims Mark or Luke as disciples, so no worries there. Matthew and John on the other hand are affiliated with their Gospels quite early. Matthew seems problematic because of his reliance on Mark, but there is a lot to consider, especially since we do not know how Matthew evolved and whether there was a proto-Matthew (Aramaic?) that merged with data from Mark. Likewise, as odd as John’s Gospel may be for historical studies, folk like Bauckham and Paul Anderson have argued for the author’s strong familiarity with elements that would validate some sort of eyewitness elements.
Thanks for the additional thoughts, Brian. I like your application of neurological/psychological “memory theory” (or whatever they are calling it) to the development of either oral tradition or written narratives about Jesus’ life and teachings.
As to “eyewitness” testimony, I know, in very general terms, that Bauckham and perhaps others treat testimony as an important and specialized “thing”, or process. So that takes the “eyewitness” aspect a step further out (if we envision concentric circles) and may harmonize with what you are saying… I confess to not having read Bauckham’s major work on that (or other things by him). I did peruse it a couple years or so ago, and didn’t spot much that seemed that new or important, tho I could see he went into depth and detail. On the other hand, I’d heard him speak on the Apocryphal NT at Westminster Sem. in CA (just 1-2 miles from me) and felt on that he fell to over-simplifications and seemingly biased categories and conclusions, and this was a seminary-only “chapel” audience (other than my “crashing” it), albeit an MA and MDiv audience, not a PhD one. (I wish they had PhD programs there… would make their already interesting and decent library probably into a first-class theological one… They DO house a fair number of critical and “liberal” volumes on various subjects, but I note that they are virtually never checked out…. I certainly wouldn’t call the school academically or intellectually “free” and I know at least one former student [from another country] who couldn’t abide that, though most seem to be fine with it, little I can tell… I go there to research and read, not talk.) But I digress…. badly!
My main point would be this: I’m not sure I see any real importance to either having “eyewitness” or direct-disciple reports (or “testimony”) as told directly to one or more Gospel writers, or not having it. I’m 99+% convinced we do not, on a highly informed basis relative to all but NT scholars, BUT If I became convinced we DO, I can’t see that it would probably change my understanding of Jesus much or of the earliest Jesus-followers after his death, and their relationship to incoming converts and the new theological interpretations and “admission standards” of Paul and those in his general tradition. Key in all that is my pretty-settled conclusion that the “Jerusalem Church” (misnomer to me) believed in Jesus-as-messiah, raised to God’s right hand and SOON to return to set up the Kingdom of God, but still ONLY human, specially called and empowered. (And they were importantly wrong on at least the in-their-lifetimes-return part of that, as was Paul… i.e., their understanding of God’s action and intention in relation to that central motif of peace and freedom via God’s intervention, which apparently did come via Jesus along with other sources, was overly ethno-chronocentric, and NOT the full and proper vision of God’s Kingdom)
Now, I don’t mean to say that was necessarily Jesus’ fault… possibly, but I’ve not been able to yet figure THAT part out. Happy to hear your further thoughts!
While interpretive I do think eyewitnesses would provide something slightly more substantial than four Gospels that seem utterly disconnected from those who knew Jesus. This doesn’t remove the interpretive element one iota. Even eyewitnesses interpret events!
There does seem to be an apocalyptic anticipation in early Christianity. I am quite sure that there were a variety of view on Jesus’ person as well, even among disciples. I am hesitant to frame it as if only a small fraction connected Jesus’ identity to divinity. The Pauline community seems to have some concept of Jesus being divine, ala Phil 2. and language connecting Jesus to the Spirit. The Johannine community understood him as divine as the Logos of God. The Synoptic communities frame Jesus as doing the deeds predicted of YHWH (from entering Zion to calming storms), and his unique role as Spirit-giver is something that needs to be rethought in my estimation when we speak of Jesus’ connection to the divine identity (YHWH is the one who was to pour out the eschatological Spirit, so why is Messiah his agent?) among other things (e.g., Rowe’s work on the use of kurios in Luke-Acts).
I agree… “something …more substantial…” or somehow connecting what was said to the theological/social-interest-and-affiliation point being made by a given Gospel. And I think you’re right that seeing Jesus as somehow divine did seem to start early, and perhaps apart from Paul. But of course, that doesn’t make it ontologically real nor does it indicate Jesus taught it or even implied it. Evidence in Acts, various places, but esp. early ch’s., seems to indicate that the Jerusalem believers grew and were mostly NOT persecuted or driven out (except the Stephen faction?), especially not James, John and Peter, because they did not upend Judaism’s strict monotheism. Rather, their Messiah, Jesus, remained to them what the Heb. Scr.’s predicted: a special, anointed and empowered MAN or “son of Man/son of God”. God vindicated him by raising him, which also did not indicate divinity. I’ve gotten afield with this, but it IS all connected.
It seems like the Book of Acts contains some memory of the early Jerusalem Christians being somewhat persecuted. Stephen, yes, but Peter and John are brought before the authorities as well according to the same narrative. It doesn’t seem that these arrest we related to ideas surrounding Jesus as divine, but rather Jesus as resurrected, though the authority of his “name” is curious.
Good points on Acts, reasons for persecution or at least harassment (mostly the latter, it seems), other than Stephen. Maccoby (and probably many others, I can’t name names at the moment) in “The Mythmaker” shows pretty convincingly that Stephen’s assassination (not fair trial/execution) was no doubt for political more than theological reasons, leading probably to the driving out of his “faction” which threatened the Roman collaborators among High Priests and Saduccees mainly. The fact that the rest of observant Jewish followers of Jesus in Jeru. were scattered by 70, at the latest (if not fled earlier, per the Pella legend), left the field open both for Pauline/Johanine theology re. deity, etc., AND for Luke to be able to spin stories a LOT, as long as he worked within the broad frame of a few widely-known and important events, such as Stephen, the Peter/John incident you named, etc. E.g., he could really work his “coming of the H.S.” theme and how Peter supposedly “got it” re. admission of Gentiles based on that, without need of circumcision or dietary observance.
And a bit more broadly, and vitally, Luke could create the necessary bridge between Jesus and the Jeru. group on one hand and Paul on the other by smoothing out what in Paul appears much more like irreconcilable, highly emotive differences of vision and theology. This Paul HAD to try to be reconciled with (or his self-assuredness compelled him toward), holding the less authoritative position in the broader movement, and being harassed by “people from James”, etc. (I guess that phrase didn’t involve him directly in the instance he cited, but dynamic was the same.)
I don’t know that I am as comfortable dividing “political” from “religious” as some other historians. I know in our worldview these are different categories, but for many people in this world, and for the ancients, this would be a false dichotomy. Stephen’s religious views would have had political implications, as would have Peter’s, John’, Paul’s, and the other disciples. If we are going to say Stephen’s “politics” lead to his death I don’t see how we can say that his “theology” did not, not in first century Judea.
If James was able to protect from of the Jerusalem Christians by emphasizing for fidelity to the Law than people like Stephen or the Pauline churches this is because there was some agreement between Rome and the Jews that even if Rome despised the Jew’s religion it was approved to exist, in a particular context, in a particular expression. When the theology/politics changed in the late 60s, and some Jews with theological/political views that excluded compatibility with Roman occupation arose in strength, the War wasn’t because of politics alone.
As to Luke “spinning stories” I think this is built on a negative posture toward him s a presupposition. I am far more cautious when it comes to getting into Luke’s mind and writing him off as a spinster because of the dating of his writings. There is too much we do not know. And I think folk like Craig Keener have done a lot of work showing that Luke was a quality historian. Before I claim to know what Luke was doing I want to investigate those who take him seriously as a historian too. It is popular to try to deconstruct him because his work because a “Gospel”, but there is more to be said for his faithful research than what your comment allows.
‘Verba’ and ‘vox’ used in this way, are apparently theological concepts … It’s reasonable to argue Jesus’ vox has been preserved, but not His verba’ (at least not precisely).
Would you hold vox to be a concept somewhat equivalent to ‘authorial intent’?
I agree completely with your initial point: the two seem clearly to have been intimately intertwined, maybe as much for the Romans as for the Jews… with some fair latitude among Jews though probably not as much as among the rest of the diverse Roman leadership and subjects. And, yes Judaism was not only “approved” but I gather given some extra room or latitude because its ancient roots were respected, etc. At the same time, stirrings in Jerusalem were kept under close watch and control (until around 66, the rebellion which actually began in Galilee and WENT to Jeru. I believe).
Apparently Josephus (with hints in the NT also) documents how resistance/rebellion was gradually building from before Jesus’ death on up to 66-70, so that theology/politics mix we’ve ID’d was probably also in constant flux, and the Roman response a dynamic thing as well. There were NOT simple “camps” like all priests, all Sadduccees (or Sanhedrin), all Pharisees, all Zealots, Essenes, etc. (and there we already have the 4 major groups Jo. identifies, each having factions or variants.)
As to Luke and his veracity, his genre and approach, etc. I haven’t been a deep student of that, admittedly. But I don’t think it takes that to reach some general, relatively confident (even if not totally solidified) conclusions. I WOULD be interested in you summarizing work by someone of depth and at least attempted lack of bias like perhaps Keener; or in knowing of such summaries (in that I know I wouldn’t take my little available time to read him much directly, nor even the people I tend to agree with)…. And BTW, I WAS priorly in the camp of taking Luke as trustworthy and “historical” on everything in both Acts and his Gospel. So I don’t know that I need to own to a “pre” supposition re. his approach.
I feel I now have a fairly-well-informed supposition (not “pre”), moving from a presupposition to openness/neutrality and finally a new supposition which, of course, leans toward some data points more than others, but not in a blind or absolute way… I also would like to know better HOW to determine where Luke’s info is sound or at least reporting the best he could discover, and what he subconsciously or consciously “spun.” I think a “tendenz criticism” of him, which I consider a valid general approach, if not overdone, makes his intention and then his spin fairly clear in its large strokes.
Since I have not spent time in Keener’s work I cannot summarize it for you, but I have heard him talk at AAR/SBL, and I have seen a lot of commentary on his work that can likely be accessed by googling his name and “Book of Acts” since he has released the first volume of what appears to be a mammoth commentary.
It is compatible to hold presuppositions that direct us a certain way after holding presuppositions that directed us the other way. When it comes to Luke, I try to take each portion of his work on a point-by-point basis. I have seen many evangelical types who moves away from this view, read someone like J.D. Crossan, and suddenly a wildly critical perspective of the Gospels is accepted without critique. So, if you are reading literature that you find gives you a confidence to declare the value and trustworthiness of someone like Luke make sure it isn’t just from the opposite perspective of those with which you use to associate. The truth is likely somewhere toward the middle.
I probably failed to explain myself adequately, because I agree with at least most of what you’re saying, Brian, as I understand it and THINK you mean it. But maybe we are using “presupposition” in slightly different ways. I was referring to an unexamined or assumed (maybe with minimal critique) supposition upon which further arguments are based. So, to me, if one reverses a particular presupposition (or even a well-constructed supposition) because one has now examined it (further) and found it to be in error or without real substance, the new one can be, and ideally IS, a suitably adjusted supposition and not a reactionary presupposition on the other “side”.
At least in my own case, a number of crucial and inter-linked presuppositions (or somewhat supported presuppositions) I only changed after re-examining a whole lot of data and “trying out” alternate systems to make sense of the data. I do happen to believe, on some basis, that a good percentage of “critical” scholars, some of them agnostics or atheists on over to ones like Crossan who are definitely still “people of faith” have followed a similar process, and continue to do so. For a number of years, and still now to a degree, I actually sought out the counter-arguments of “traditional” or orthodox scholars to those of the likes of Crossan (who I do think is too speculative on certain matters, like many, sometimes without acknowledging it). While occasionally they may have brought correctives, I continually find their arguments and supporting data to be mostly “more of the same” that I generally find inadequate and part of a complex “house of cards.”
I mean “presupposition” simplistically as the preconceived ideas and posture to which we approach a text. I know presuppositions are fluid, but I have found in my own studies, and I have seen in the studies of others, what might be described as pendulum swings. Some who begin super “conservative” swing way “liberal”, and vice versa, but often do not continue to bring the same critical mindset to their new paradigm. As an example I think there is much weakness in the reconstructions of The Jesus Seminar (beginning with their methodology to say the least) and popular scholars like Crossan and Borg, but there are a lot of people who read them, find them an alterative voice to more conservative thinkers, and then never go back to ask if the work of these scholars is worth reexamining (it is because everyone’s work is worth reexamining).
I probably haven’t had the observation opportunities you have as to many scholar’s swings, often to extremes, as you mention. Unfortunately, I guess that is what we would expect as the norm, tho there are exceptions (of which I think I am one, of course 🙂 ) in which a carefully-analyzing person retains an openness and some of the valid aspects of one paradigm while mainly working from the other, and continually re-checking the many datapoints and conclusions, as I’ve tried to do.
I think there is some wisdom and insight re. what you say in the work of a controversial but ground-breaking psychiatrist of mid-20th century, William Sargent, in his “Battle for the Mind”, a work mainly around brainwashing and conversion research. I think the core of his work and theory has been confirmed, but at any rate, a germane point to our discussion is this: There is a tendency for a person who may be subconsciously drawn toward or is surrounded by a belief system (via friends, associates, prison managers–work was re. POWs initially–etc.) to put much energy into resistance UNTIL coming to some breaking or break-through point (not always coerced by any means). THEN they suddenly reverse and embrace fully what had been so fully resisted. Paul actually may be a classic case of this kind of “conversion”, altho he went on to be very creative after the basic switch.
I’m not sure supposedly detached or analytic scholars are much different psychologically than others, and probably do make the wide swings you speak of, tho perhaps they eventually moderate in many cases. I haven’t read a lot of Borg, but in his “Reading the Bible Again for the First Time”, it seems he is a case of pretty careful retention of what he considers still valid and helpful from his upbringing (moderate conservative/liberal Lutheranism) and from traditional (more “conservative”) scholarship, yet sees the Bible’s contents in a largely non-traditional (less literalist) way.
One more issue re. paradigms and where students/scholars tend to fall:
Can you give me a relatively public case (i.e., not invading privacy matters) of a published scholar or two who moved (in their adult years, say after age 25 or so) from being “critical” or clearly “liberal” students/scholars to significantly more conservative? I have more than passing curiosity in this kind of process, as I am increasingly specializing in developmental theory, and looking at interlinking “lines” or types of development, particularly cognitive with “spiritual” (which needs defining of course). I have either not known of such cases (other than C.S. Lewis, perhaps, but he doesn’t quite fit the criteria I have in mind), or have (shame on my lack of objectivity!) ignored or forgotten about them. I’m happy to either be reminded or better informed.
At this time I can’t think of anyone who moved from one clear cut label toward another. I’m not sure that I know where one ends completely and the other begins.
If you are more the rule than the exception among scholars, Brian, then I’m encouraged. (I’m counting you as “scholar” prior to, or without ever getting a PhD, as I will do with others who show similar knowledge and familiarity with a given field as to what you do). I say encouraged because a good percentage, if not a strong majority of at least the scholars who create relatively “popular” work mainly for informed lay people, seem to fall fairly clearly into one “camp” or the other…. Those being traditionalists who accept at least the major outlines of the Church’s (proto-orthodox to RC/Orthodox to Protestant) concept of Christian origins, for example, and those who have one or another “theory” or understanding that differs significantly, for example. But my impressions or limited data point may be out of date or were never right, perhaps. However, others more “in the loop” than I have remarked often about the same thing.
The “camps” idea I think is a pretty widely accepted understanding of a “dividing line” between paradigms. There are not just 2 of them, of course, BUT if you make the distinction over a couple (or 3-4?) points of evidence (or lack of it) for supernatural intervention in the course of human affairs via “punishment” (or other coercion), miracles, “special” revelation, etc. THEN you can designate that one camp. The other, conversely, would be those who deny the existence of THAT KIND of God or divine intervention in such a direct and/or coercive manner.
Some of the latter would be agnostics or atheists. However, others would be where I think Borg and probably Crossan are, and where I’m fairly informed about leading Process theologians like Cobb and Griffin being (from knowing them a little in person and having read/heard a lot from them). In the case of these two (who are not NT scholars by specialization), and probably most or all identified “process” people, they stake out a ground essentially “between” traditional theists and pantheists (who may be closely likened to atheists, as some Buddhists would admit)…. That ground is “panENtheism”, as you may know.
This happens to be where I stand, after becoming satisfied it is the best way of understanding/describing the mystery and awesomeness that is God (that is currently much known about, anyway). Now, I suppose this constitutes a presupposition of sorts I bring to reading Scripture, the apocrypha or early Fathers, etc., but it is the most open, flexible presupposition or slice of a broader paradigm that I can conceive of which still allows me to make sense of the “faith” process, and of the full range of empirical data and spiritual phenomena I see in all aspects of life (and several academic disciplines I pay attention to and study areas such as the “paranormal”).
I understand why people use various labels. It gives one a sense of coherence. It allows us to find thinkers who are similar to other thinkers. On various issues, e.g., one’s doctrine of Scripture, I don’t mind suggesting where this or that scholar falls along the scale from “inerrant Word of God” to “problematic collection of various early Israelite, Jewish, and Christian writings”, but when it comes to saying Scholar A is a “liberal” (in all things) and Scholar B is a conservative (in all things) that is where it becomes difficult for me. For example, you’ve mentioned Marcus Borg’s journey as a scholar and a believer. Borg may be “liberal” when it comes to things like the physicality of the resurrection, but he does have a metaphysical worldview where Jesus is present in some sense, alive in some sense, but it isn’t quite how “orthodox” Christianity describes it. When I consider that Borg has these views, while I don’t agree with them, it is hard to outright denounce he has some actively engage spirituality and investment in the Jesus tradition. So all-in-all is Borg a “liberal”? In contrast with some, sure, but in contrast with others he may be seen as a bit “conservative” because he retains so much talk about spirituality.
I’m not very familiar with process theologians. I have a few friends who embrace “Open Theology”, which is a child of process theology, but I haven’t spent much time on the subject.
Oh, and thank you for the kind word considering my scholarship! I hope to earn my doctoral degree in the near future, but it is nice to be respected at this leg of the journey too.
Thanks for the further remarks…. good points! As you imply, labels are inevitable and somewhat helpful while also problematic in separating people, setting up unnecessary antagonisms, etc. And nobody — scholar, scientist, or whomever, works from a point of complete disinterest (or “neutrality” as to working theories)… otherwise they’d have no interest to study and a tough time setting some focus, etc.
The term you used, “worldview”, is an important one, though overused and often poorly understood. But we all have one and it influences, whether consciously or not. People like Borg, and I’d like to think most biblical scholars, tho I’m not sure, seem to try to make theirs consistent and as inclusive of phenomena and data as possible…. For one more quick “pitch”, I think when one does that, one is forced onto that ground between traditional supernaturalism and the pure naturalism that dominates science and much of the media or “public square”. These represent the two competing, often warring broad worldviews of Western culture, and most people, scholars or not, get pushed into aligning with one or the other… very unfortunate and not very productive. (The main “middle ground” position of which I know is some form of “process thought”, either Whiteheadean — Process Theology ala Chicago and Claremont — or Teilhard de Chardin’s form.)
FWIW, I came across this recently: http://brandanrobertson.com/blog1/2012/12/27/the-spectrum-of-protestantism-in-2013-part-1.html
It seems somewhat relevant to our discussion here.
I hadn’t thought of process theology as a middle ground between the two worldviews you mention. I will have to think on this more. It seems like there are many who are trying to get beyond the passe to discuss where we might find middle ground.