Dr. Jacobs. I, at times, when I'm working a case, or in court for trial, have trouble articulating what I want to say because there is so much information to present that I focus too often on the details (accidents), which Is my job. But the details are the important part of the case I'm presenting. As an Investigator, I'm usually am pretty good with the evidence, and in making my case for the jury, it is the job for the Prosecutor to summarize that evidence in a cohesive whole so that the jury can make a decision. The details matter. The details are there, you just have to look. You have once again summarized this succinctly and now the jury has to decide. Do we take into account the Fathers and Tradition or not. Those who do not will continue to advance the problem you discussed. Thank you for this. The jury is out. I pray for humility in discussions like these, in the hope that we can end with a verdict that is good for all and faithful to those who came before us.
Are you saying only those closest in time could know the real Christianity? It seems to me that the real contention in the debate between the two was based on that assumption.
He seems to be saying that if your personal interpretation is antithetical to what people who spoke the language, who knew the players, and lived in the culture, then it would be wise to defer to their understanding rather than your own conceptions. He's not saying that they're the only ones who could know true Christianity, but that we have a problem where millions of people are interpreting scripture in a way that is directly opposed to the people with much closer proximity (thus, understanding).
I think the concern for arrogance or anachronism is legitimate and worth affirming. At the same time the principle still assumes a static understanding of revelation. That somehow that meaning is locked in the past, and our job is merely to replicate the original context. That’s a historical, not a theological, model of truth.
Christianity’s central claim is precisely that something happened in history that transcends the limits of that culture. The Incarnation and Resurrection are not just historical events to be interpreted; they’re revelatory events that reconstitute what history and interpretation even are.
The disciples themselves didn't understand who Christ was until he revealed it to them. Being in proximity to the historical Jesus won't lead you to a clearer understanding of Jesus. So, yes, language and culture matter—but they don’t contain revelation. Revelation is not captured by first-century categories; it transfigures them.
If the only trustworthy interpreters are those with cultural proximity, then truth becomes chronological—the closer you are to the event, the truer your knowledge.
But that means revelation decays over time, which contradicts Christianity’s own self-understanding. The truth is both hidden and manifest; it’s genuinely revealed in history but inexhaustible by it. Each age stands within the same unveiling, not outside it.
Ironically, this argument mirrors the historical-critical method it wants to reject.
Both say: “Meaning depends on reconstructing the historical context.” The difference is only which context they privilege—modern historians or ancient Fathers. But both treat revelation as a finite historical object rather than as an infinite life disclosed through history.
The danger isn’t being distant in history; it’s being distant in communion. I look forward to the author's comments.
I don't want to speak for Dr. Jacobs, who surely has greater insight than I, but I've had the benefit of listening to the episode this post transcribes and while this first part covers this particular problem of ignoring preserved tradition vs showing preference to your own interpretations, I'm guessing part 2 will address your static/dynamic concern by showing how the Orthodox understanding is fundamentally about participatory communion in divine life rather than mere historical reconstruction alone.
Dr. Jacobs. I, at times, when I'm working a case, or in court for trial, have trouble articulating what I want to say because there is so much information to present that I focus too often on the details (accidents), which Is my job. But the details are the important part of the case I'm presenting. As an Investigator, I'm usually am pretty good with the evidence, and in making my case for the jury, it is the job for the Prosecutor to summarize that evidence in a cohesive whole so that the jury can make a decision. The details matter. The details are there, you just have to look. You have once again summarized this succinctly and now the jury has to decide. Do we take into account the Fathers and Tradition or not. Those who do not will continue to advance the problem you discussed. Thank you for this. The jury is out. I pray for humility in discussions like these, in the hope that we can end with a verdict that is good for all and faithful to those who came before us.
Are you saying only those closest in time could know the real Christianity? It seems to me that the real contention in the debate between the two was based on that assumption.
He seems to be saying that if your personal interpretation is antithetical to what people who spoke the language, who knew the players, and lived in the culture, then it would be wise to defer to their understanding rather than your own conceptions. He's not saying that they're the only ones who could know true Christianity, but that we have a problem where millions of people are interpreting scripture in a way that is directly opposed to the people with much closer proximity (thus, understanding).
I think the concern for arrogance or anachronism is legitimate and worth affirming. At the same time the principle still assumes a static understanding of revelation. That somehow that meaning is locked in the past, and our job is merely to replicate the original context. That’s a historical, not a theological, model of truth.
Christianity’s central claim is precisely that something happened in history that transcends the limits of that culture. The Incarnation and Resurrection are not just historical events to be interpreted; they’re revelatory events that reconstitute what history and interpretation even are.
The disciples themselves didn't understand who Christ was until he revealed it to them. Being in proximity to the historical Jesus won't lead you to a clearer understanding of Jesus. So, yes, language and culture matter—but they don’t contain revelation. Revelation is not captured by first-century categories; it transfigures them.
If the only trustworthy interpreters are those with cultural proximity, then truth becomes chronological—the closer you are to the event, the truer your knowledge.
But that means revelation decays over time, which contradicts Christianity’s own self-understanding. The truth is both hidden and manifest; it’s genuinely revealed in history but inexhaustible by it. Each age stands within the same unveiling, not outside it.
Ironically, this argument mirrors the historical-critical method it wants to reject.
Both say: “Meaning depends on reconstructing the historical context.” The difference is only which context they privilege—modern historians or ancient Fathers. But both treat revelation as a finite historical object rather than as an infinite life disclosed through history.
The danger isn’t being distant in history; it’s being distant in communion. I look forward to the author's comments.
I don't want to speak for Dr. Jacobs, who surely has greater insight than I, but I've had the benefit of listening to the episode this post transcribes and while this first part covers this particular problem of ignoring preserved tradition vs showing preference to your own interpretations, I'm guessing part 2 will address your static/dynamic concern by showing how the Orthodox understanding is fundamentally about participatory communion in divine life rather than mere historical reconstruction alone.