Some half-baked thoughts and vignettes sort of inspired by or related to David Lose's Making Sense of Scripture, which I've been reading of late. Just want to get them down before I lose track of what I was thinking.
First, something I learned, an answer to a pondering I had a while back, about why the Chronicler sanitized the Isrealite history: the Chronicler was from the southern kingdom of Judah - David was a homeboy, and the sordid exploits of he and his house were embarrassing, so they tried to clean it up a bit. Those who wrote the Samuels and Kings were from the northern kingdom of Israel, so it was no skin off their nose to emphasize the dysfunction of David's house.
Second, another thing I probably knew once but had forgotten and was reminded of: the Jewish scriptural canon was still being formed in the days of Jesus, and the prophets were among the scrolls that were not yet definitively settled upon as to whether or not they were scripture. To me, this makes Jesus' choice of Isaiah as the text for his inaugural sermon (as recorded in the Gospel of Luke) all the more interesting - to go, not to what was commonly agreed upon as the Word of God, but to something that was known but edgy and rather marginal in its status - kind of a bold move, adds another layer of meaning as to what Jesus' ministry would be about (and I think it's equally interesting, and still holds true, if you want to just credit Luke with the selection, instead of Jesus, since not every Gospel witnesses to this sermon).
Third, I was in MN this past week for some continuing education, and was pleasantly surprised to find a special exhibit on the Dead Sea Scrolls at the Science Museum, so this also became part of my week's plans. It looked like an exhibit that's been touring the country, but the MN installment was altered because of a local scholar who disagrees with the conclusions as originally presented in the exhibit. The jist of the debate: many scholars believe the Dead Sea Scrolls are the product of the Essene community at nearby Qumran. However, other scholars believe it would be impossible for the Qumran community to produce such a vast number of scrolls, instead they contend that when it became evident that Israel would be sacked by the Romans in 70 CE, priests, scribes, and scholars in Jerusalem collected all the scrolls they could find and hid them safely away in the desert.
In any case, because of this local scholar's vociferous opposition to the exhibit's original presentation, this particular installment presents both sides - which I think makes the exhibit overall even stronger. Especially in these days when so many people of all persuasions want to put a lock on Truth, I think it's healthy for the public to go to an exhibit - at a science museum, no less (where things are normally presented with such factual certainty) and be met with two different interpretations, both thoroughly argued based on the "factual" evidence at hand, and be asked to consider the matter for themselves instead of being told what to think. I love that in the middle of the exhibit they have a "read more about it" area with a bunch of books on the subject and comfy chairs in which to sit and read them (and the day I was there, a number of people were doing exactly that). I think it's fantastic that the whole exhibit begins with a clay pot in a glass case that asks "What is the meaning of this?" and goes on to explain that on it's own, it doesn't mean much of anything, it requires a context to achieve meaning, and while science can tell us more about that context and what the thing itself is (when it was made, what it was made of, etc), faith and culture are ultimately what infuse the thing with meaning for us today. Just struck a lot of resonant chords with what Dr. Lose contends, that the Bible on its own, on a shelf, doesn't mean much at all, but it's the context (both original and modern) and what it does in our lives that gives it meaning and authority.
Before I move on to 4, just a couple of logistical notes in case anyone reading this is considering going to the exhibit: you should absolutely go (for the exhibit itself AND because the last part of the exhibit - perhaps also a special Minnesota addendum? - are gorgeous pages from the St. John's Illuminated Bible), but be aware it will take you a while to get through it. I read pretty much everything and listened to and watched almost everything and it took me 2.25 hours to get through it all. Other friends who went had spent 2.5 hours before they had to leave for their Omnitheater tickets, and they hadn't quite seen everything. And, other word to the wise - it's a little pricey because you have to pay for admission to both the special exhibit and the museum as a whole (Omnitheater is optional, though that's not immediately evident - if you don't want to see the film, which is not on the scrolls but on Arabia in general, be sure to tell them that, or the price will be even higher). So, since you've paid for the privilege, and as long as you're right there, don't forget to run up and down the musical steps a few times! They are the best part of the whole museum! :)
Ok, finally, fourth: today flying back to PA, I wasn't seated next to the raging extrovert, but there were two seated behind me, and of course, I couldn't help but overhear parts of their conversation. At one point they were discussing books and movies, and this guy started describing the movie Seven Pounds, which happens to be a favorite of mine. The thing was - he was butchering the plot. At first he was just adding inaccurate details (like Will Smith's character being a doctor, when he's an aeronautics engineer; or that he and his wife had children, which they did not), but I thought maybe he just has a bad memory for details like that. But then as I heard him describe further, I realized he completely misunderstood significant parts of the movie. I was tempted to turn around and correct him, but I didn't want to be the annoying know-it-all stranger interrupting their conversation. So instead I just made a note of it on the back of my boarding pass and decided to blog about it here. :)
Now, I will admit Seven Pounds is a bit confusing, especially in the beginning - it's kind of cryptic and poetically rendered, not unlike the Gospel of John. But based on his description, this guy seriously didn't get a good chunk of what was going on, even after watching the whole thing. And that just got me thinking even more about meaning-making and interpretation and truth/Truth, and I felt like it kind of resonated with Dr. Lose's discussion in chapter 3 about event, significance, and medium. As in, watching the movie was the event, and now on the plane he was using the medium of speech to relay the significance. But to my mind, he had the significance all messed up because he hadn't fully understood the event. Which begs a number of questions, including: how fully did the Gospel writers, say, understand the event of Christ? And how fully do we understand the event of God/Christ/the Bible in our lives? And how can anybody, any institution, any ideology, try to put a lock on Truth given that we may have misunderstood the event of Christ (in his own day and/or in ours) as thoroughly as this guy misunderstood the plot of Seven Pounds? All of which is not to say that we should never make any truth claims because we can never be absolutely certain of their truth. Instead, I think we just need to realize that any truth claims we do make are a matter of confession.
That's enough for tonight. Thanks for anybody who's still with me - can't say I didn't warn you these were half-baked. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment