Ohio echo - release the unredacted Mueller Report

Echo opinion published in the Cincinnati Enquirer - learning how to read from the source material.

Americans paid for the Mueller Report. We want to read an un-redacted copy of it for the purpose of understanding the full context behind the very concerning information about the horrible and unlawful communications within the Donald Trump administration.

OHIO- As a student at Garrett Biblical Institute (a Methodist seminary) in the early 1960s, I was taught to be aware and beware of "proof texting."

Students were to avoid using proof texting in our own writing and preaching and to recognize proof texting in others, writing and preaching. Proof texting is the practice of extracting words, phrases, sentences and paragraphs from Bible passages so that they appear to support a message point that agrees with a belief one holds. By taking any content out of its context, you can "prove" the Bible supports whatever your belief bias might be.

It appears to me that our Attorney General William Barr has either not learned to "be aware," or is aware of what he has been doing in his commenting on special counsel Robert Mueller’s report. Americans must beware of how Barr is apparently proof texting the report for apparent political purposes. 

In fact, the proof will be in the context.

A while ago our church members chose to study (in small groups) a book by a prominent preacher. When I began to read the material in the book, I not only found extensive proof texting, but also something I call "version shopping." 

Version shopping, to me, is when someone shops around various translations of the Bible to find just the right wording for proof texting that has quotes which more exactly fit the point the the author wants to make.

Don’t get me wrong, I did not find the points the author wanted to make were in significant disagreement with my own belief sets. It was the methods used to support those points that troubled me.

In my opinion, our attorney general appears to be preparing to do some "version shopping" with the special counsel’s report. 

Barr has already given the appearance of proof texting by drawing conclusions about the "bottom line" of the report from pieces of statements he has quoted from the document. 

It appears to me that by releasing a redacted version of the Mueller report, Barr can further "shop" for more support for the conclusions he wants to establish.

As an undergraduate at the University of Cincinnati, I studied classical Greek. I do not consider myself a linguist, but I have found those Greek studies to be very helpful while using my references to look at the underlying New Testament and Old Testament (Septuagint) Greek language. When reading a New Testament passage in various translations, knowing the Greek origins, helps me to better understand the New Testament authors' intent and identify which translations are better for understanding.

It also helps to recognize when translators are promoting a particular belief set. I have to rely on scholars of Hebrew for getting at the underlying Old Testament language. 

But my interest in biblical archaeology also helps with insights into the cultures using the languages.

The only way Congress and those of us in the public will know whether the attorney general’s conclusions are really supported by the information in the Mueller report is when we can read for ourselves the context of that information and what the original version says. I understand some information may need to be redacted from a version provided for public disclosure, but congressional committees with authority to see all the content should have the un-redacted original version and all supporting documentation.

Their ability to provide proper and constitutionally prescribed oversight requires it. Congress has to know the "underlying language" of the report to know how to interpret its meaning.

James F. Daiker lives in Monfort Heights and is a retired special education professional.