Juxtaposition and Bible understanding

by Narkissos 13 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Narkissos

  The "genealogy" thread made me think about the following:

  One of the big problems in reading the Bible comes from its practice of simply juxtaposing different stories apparently relating to the same "events": the two creation accounts in the first pages of Genesis, the Flood narratives (although there is some redactional weaving there), Samuel-Kings // Chronicles, and of course the four Gospels.

  Our theoretic (=> spatially-structured) mind tends to put the stories side by side (synopsis) to compare them: whether we use the comparison to criticise or to harmonise, we actually build a third (or fourth, or fifth) story of "what really happened" (even if it is close to nothing) and then look back to see how the alternate narratives developed from it.

  I don't mean that this approach is wrong (we can't help it anyway), but I would suggest it does make us miss something, which we cannot get without some ability and willingness to forget (actually, pretend to) what we already know when we enter another story.

  And that works not only from one book to another, but also within the same book. We cannot really get into Genesis 2:4bff without "forgetting" Genesis 1:1--2:4a, etc. Yes, they are different traditions, but they were juxtaposed without any sort of (chrono)logical connection, constraining the reader to forget the first one as s/he gets into the second one.

  Another example (actually I started from this one) is the nativity stories. Luke begins with an enormous miracle making Jesus "Son of God" right from the start; but then he has us forget it to get into the childhood stories, where "his father and his mother" do not understand how come their child is different! And he has us forget it again to get into the revelation of Jesus as Son of God at baptism, at the transfiguration, and so on.

  All of this makes sense in the ancient practice of community reading, when you came to the synagogue or church to hear one short story (parasha or pericope) and then think about it (or not) and let it fade before hearing another story the next saturday/sunday. There was no problem (or less) about different stories making a similar point (which point did not belong to history). The Bible texts were never designed to be read "from cover to cover". But they are.
• 

  LittleToe

  This is one reason that (when asked) I suggest reading something like the Gospel of John, from a completely fresh translation like "The Message". It's especially helpful if it's read like a novel, trying to set aside preconceptions, and just trying to identify with the main characters.

  ExJWs often have great difficulty understanding why the Christian world views Jesus the way they do. A simple reading, such as I have just suggested, helps fill in some gaps.

  Like you, I would emphasise the word "try", because it's an effort in it's own right (given the way our minds generally work, in a literate age).
• 

  Golf

  Experience has taught me to be patient and NOT to come to any quick conclusions about stories. I put many hear-say stories on a shelf and then let time do its thing, it has payed off. I have mentioned before that the Bible has been tampered with. Is there any other book more controversial than the Bible? Why is it controversial, why do people go out of their way to disprove it?
  
  If people believe its fiction why make a make a big fuss about it? How many movies and TV shows do we watch that are fictitious? Why do we continue to view these fictitious shows?
  
  How is it they say 90% of what we worry about never happens and yet we still worry, why? Which human or organizations has ALL the answers to life? Let me ask a simple question, what man UNDERTANDS a women?
  
  Guest77
• 

  Leolaia

  You make some nice points. I hadn't thought of the synagogue reading element before, which makes some sense. What do you think of internal thematic organization in some of the gospels, particularly the series of "lost" parables in Luke? Was the author trying to invite comparison between thematically similar and originally independent parables? Surely these also circulated independently before Luke's redaction.
• 

  AlanF

  Very interesting points, Narkissos.

  You said:

  : The Bible texts were never designed to be read "from cover to cover".

  I had never thought of that, but it makes perfect sense.

  Golf said:

  : Is there any other book more controversial than the Bible?

  I can't think of any.

  : Why is it controversial, why do people go out of their way to disprove it?

  Because a great many people believe it to be God's message to mankind. Belief in it, and use of it to justify all manner of horrific behavior, has caused untold grief to millions of people. Those who have been hurt understandably want to disprove it. And of course, naturally skeptical people will always try to disprove extraordinary beliefs and claims.

  : If people believe its fiction why make a make a big fuss about it?

  Hitler's Mein Kampf was largely fiction. Why make a big fuss about it?

  : How many movies and TV shows do we watch that are fictitious? Why do we continue to view these fictitious shows?

  Because everyone knows they're fiction and largely for entertainment. But when people start believing such fiction and molding their lives around it, and it hurts others, many are going to take these false beliefs seriously.

  AlanF
• 

  Narkissos

  Leolaia,

  Grouping by kind is obvious in the Gospels (e.g. Mark 4 //). In the case of Luke 15, the three analogous "lost" parables also seem to offer a meaningful order (1/100, 1/10, 1/2); they would easily make one reading unit, especially if the "lost son" parable ended up in v. 24 (similar ending as v. 6f, 9f) and the next part about the elder brother is a later addition (cf. the successive conclusions reframing the following parable in 16:9ff).
• 

  Golf

  AlanF, I appreciate your comments. My position is simple, I allow others to express their view be it right or wrong. I'm not here to convert anyone nor to correct their viewpoint. I'm interested in knowing opinions. As I said, I put ideas on a shelf and let time do the answering for me.
  
  Your answers seem to indicate that people's behavior can 'only' be attributed to the Bible. My questions are, how many people have actually read the Bible. If they have read the Bible, do they believe it? My view is simple, be it true or not, its a history of a family (bad as they were) and their relationship with their maker. Are there lessons to be learned? If not, then why read the Bible. Why waste your time when your energy's can be put to better use? For example, if you don't like me or you despise me, now, why would I waste my time and energy trying to convince you that I'm a reasonable person, why, when your mind is made up?
  
  The majority of the people in my community NEVER read the Bible, nor believe in the Bible. So, we can't use the Bible as the medium for causing pain and sorrow to themselves.
  
  As to fiction, how many people live in a world of fantasy? Why are soap opera's so popular? It would be interesting if they took a poll asking which is more influential, the Bible or soap opera, and why your answer.
  
  Thinking out loud.
  
  Golf
• 

  euripides

  Narkissos,

  You make a point frequently understood in ancient mythology: that there are sometimes divergent alternative versions of stories which the listener/reader is expected to hold in place without a problem: consider the Library of Apollodorus, where often it will be written, "so-and-so said this happened, but another wrote that this happened (to Achilles, Helen, Heracles, etc.)" Which version is correct? How can they be placed adjacent to each other and still all held as credible? Apparently the Talmudic commentaries entertained the same device: where there were stories with hiatus or seemingly incomprehensible details, additional possibilities were supplied by way of explanation. We recently considered the one about altering the ultimate destiny of Jephthah's daughter, and it was Rabbi Chimchi c. 1200 CE who proposed that it was temple duty and not sacirifce which was her end. I recall reading the story that in fact Abraham did sacrifice Isaac, but that he was immediately resurrected, or, alternately, that the name of the sheep sacrificed was in fact Isaac.

  The proposed idea behind the maintenance of competing stories in the text notwithstanding apparent divergence and purported contradiction emphasizes the primacy of the text, that no part of the sacred account be lost, even if they, taken alongside each other, don't seem to agree. Joshua 1-12 seems to suggest a complete takeover of the land, but Joshua 13 has Yahweh rattling off all the places which remain to be conquered. Evidently these come from competing traditions of the infiltration of Canaan (which is all fiction, I agree) but it remains that both versions stand in the text right next to each other.

  One of the strange things that happens to so many when reading the Biblical texts is that critical analysis goes right out the door, as if its wrong to challenge the text to make sense and be coherent. Accuracy probably wasn't the biggest deal in the world (but it is sure is to WT ironically, now isn't it?) in ancient times, so much as interactive responses to multivalent approaches.

  Euripides
• 

  LittleToe

  Golf:You make a valid point about soaps. I once banned them in our house because they were causing my wife to get depressed. I could tell with absolute certainty when she'd been watching them for a few weeks.

  The short Winter days, spent in Field Ministry in the wind and rain, had a similar effect.

  Given that the JWs only really read a small percentage of texts, I agree that you've got to question the premise that the bible is at fault for their cult. However, as has been said many times before, you can make pretty much any book say any thing.

  I wonder if Charles Dickens had this much trouble...
  ...oops - "Lady Chatterlee's Lover"...

  (now there's a juxta-position, for ya )
• 

  Golf

  Thanks Litte Toe. Yeah, them soaps can do some serious damage to relationships. As to playing different tunes on a Bible, it's been done with songs, what's new?
  
  
  Golf