my life 2007

Diana,

I’ve noticed that about Shakespeare, too - it’s pretty much incomprehensible to a “civilian,” but a good actor can make it very clear. And fun.

As for why Jesus sounds so stiff in the Bible, I can offer two possibilities:

1) The New Testament wasn’t written by professional authors. It was written by fishermen, a doctor, and various other lower- and middle-class people. And a murderous misogynist (if you take my Wiccan friend’s assessment of Paul). If you believe that God’s Holy Spirit ultimately wrote it, then the emphasis is on the message, not the people.

2) There may have been a good deal lost in translation. I can’t say for sure, I don’t read Greek.

I wonder if the common portrayal of Jesus might come from the church’s lack of a sense of humor for many centuries. A heresy conviction was really hard to appeal, so actors portraying Him had to pretty much stick to the part as written.

Dave

P.S. New bike - picture at my blog. D.

A Triumph! Sweeeeeet! Size, year, etc., please. :)

My problems with portrayals of Jesus onscreen are two-fold: first, even professional actors can’t seem to make him sound real; and second, I tend to think of NT stories as something that either happened or didn’t.

Caveat: I was raised fundamentalist, and while I see the advantages of less literal interpretations of the Bible over time, I can’t reconcile the idea that God would provide a non-literal guide, as the room for interpretation is far too broad (ask any literature teacher). At the same time, I can’t accept the notion that any God who has given man an ultimatum would provide an inaccurate guide (one that was somewhat true but not entirely and/or one that had some lost in translation). Many people don’t have problems with this, but for me, it simply doesn’t compute.

My questions about portrayals of Jesus arise from the notion that IF the stories are the truth, and things happened just the way they are written down, then at the very least, actors should be able to deliver the lines as though they were something a person would actually say. If the stories are true, the non-professionalism of the authors is irrelevant, I think. (Also, aren’t the authors of the books of the bible anonymous?)

If we insist the stories are true, then why is it so difficult for any actor to pull of a convincing portrayal of what he said and did? Do believers get that embarrassed implausibility twinge when they watch these shows or movies? I’ve had them all my life.

d

Diana,

The bike is a 2006 Triumph America, 800cc engine, 5 speed transmission (which takes some getting used to - the old Suzuki had 6) I had the windscreen, sissy bar, and cargo options added on in case I can convince a friend to ride with me. I wasn’t going to get the panniers until I saw they had fabric ones available. I’m not into fringed leather like the Harley folks.

The ’07s are available now but the color I wanted (black & red) would have to be ordered, and I like the silver enough that it was acceptable. It’s also about $800 cheaper, and I get a free helmet in the deal. (Grin) Originally I wanted a Triumph Bonneville because it’s more of the old street bike style with a high straight seat like my Suz. But those Bonnie seats are hard. Comfort won out over tradition that time.

I know the struggles you have with the literal vs. figurative interpretation of Scripture. I have them too, frankly. I take it as literal as far as I can, but there eventually comes a time when I have to say, “Okay, this must be an illustration.” Yes, it’s a variant interpretation, but so far I haven’t found a situation where it affects the performace of my faith. I guess I’ll find out if I was right eventually.

Some of the books of the Bible have unknown authors, but some authors identify themselves. The Epistles written by Paul all start with his identification, as do James, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation. Scholars have put forth theories on the authorship of most of the rest of the books; some have a good deal of evidence to support them, others are still under debate.

I agree with you that it should be possible for actors to re-enact events from the Bible in a more natural way, but I can’t offer a reason why they don’t. Except for fear of persecution.

“Embarrassed” is a good way to describe how some believers (including me) feel when they watch a Bible story where a Jesus with blue eyes that won’t quite focus spouts platitudes. I’ve heard several preachers complain about that, too. The real Jesus was a full blood Jew and would have had dark hair, dark eyes, olive skin, and would have been strong as an ox. (He was a carpenter, and they didn’t use forklifts or nailguns back then.) He probably also would have laughed a lot.

I still haven’t seen Passion of the Christ yet. Maybe I should give it a look.

Dave

I understand the problem you both have with this. I don’t usually watch any movie that has anything to do with the bible, because (1) I want to be able to interpret it through my own careful study (and this is probably the only book I really study carefully, and the older I get , the more carefully I study), and (2) I am not really sure that even Carlton Heston could have portrayed Jesus properly. Or any other actor I have seen. They seem to treat the bible differently than any other play or book.

As for as helping to understand what is literal and what is figurative, There is a book, which I currently have borrowed from Shannon, called simply “Hermeneutics". It si written by D.R. Dungan. Believe me, both of you, this book helps to clarify a lot of questions. Enjoyed this entry more than most, along with your thought provoking comments, Dave.

Dave,

Ah yes. You caught me. Paul we’re fairly sure of, I think. As to who wrote Revelation, that would be…John whom? :) It was the “fishermen, a doctor” comment that elicited my hasty generalization, as I suspect you refer to the gospels, which come to us anonymously.

I agree with one reason we don’t see anyone portraying Jesus believably: people seem to have a strange notion of how Jesus behaved. They seem to have a strong Hollywood notion of how “holy” behaves, and thus the onscreen Jesus becomes a zombie. The fear of persecution idea is interesting, Dave. Do you think that still applies?

Hermeneutics appears to be available online (published 1888, so it’s public domain).

I’ll check it out. :)

d

I will look at the book more carefully as time allows, but I’ll note this: the author says hermeneutics is the science of interpretation. Well…not exactly. It’s a theory of interpretation. What a difference one word makes.

I’ve skimmed through the first three or four chapters and I find myself wondering if all the rules (and reasons, and accusations) Dungan lays out couldn’t be just as readily applied to the “proper” interpretation of the Koran (or any other religious text of your choice).

Food for thought.

d

Diana,

Good point about John. The identity of Revelation’s author isn’t as certain as I thought it was. Tradition attributes it to John the Apostle, but scholarship has other ideas it seems. Mea culpa. Peter was the fisherman I was thinking of, and Luke the doctor.

I don’t know if fear of persecution might still be affecting actors’ portrayals of Jesus. I wouldn’t expect it to be a problem for someone who wanted to make a realistic performance with laughter and tears. But here’s a thought - maybe somebody doesn’t WANT Jesus to be seen that way, as a real person.

Okay, when my conspiracy theorist personality comes out it’s time to go to bed. Sorry to wack out on you like that.

Mr. B: Thank you. By the way, I know you’re already proud of Diana, but you should know that she encourages me to study Scripture more than most preachers do. She doesn’t put up with sloppy thinking.

Dave

Thanks, Dave. :) You don’t put up with sloppy thinking, either, I’ve noticed. It’s good to have someone calling you on slop, isn’t it? Keeps you sharp.

That’s my theory, anyway.

I remember you talking about going back to school a few months ago. I know many things have passed between then and now, but I’m wondering now if you’re still tossing the idea around.

d

Daddy,

While I appreciate that your point was about how the Bible should be interpreted, I need to say something just to get it out of my craw.

The COC is fond of using the term “hermeneutics” as though their method of interpretation is consistent with any given respected scholarly approach (an assertion Dungan makes outright) to the interpretation of literature. At the very least, this is misinformed; at most, it’s misleading. No COC hermeneutics would fall into the “scholarly” category, as part of their approach entails a requirement that the text be perceived as divine and non-contradictory, etc. It would be much more honest to label such an approach as “The COC Hermeneutic.” Provided, that is, that the COC person forwarding the system of interpretation understands that what he advocates is not “hermeneutics” period, but rather the COC-approved system of interpretation.

So…if faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, but I have to have faith to understand the word of God…is there a problem?

d

Dave, I have always been proud of my daughter. She demands a lot of herself, and requires it of her friends, whether they realize it or not.

PD, I realize that this is just one set of hermeneutics rules. But a set of rules that make no distinction between, say , a figure of speech (the bible is full of these) and a statement concerning reality, simply fails, whether it deals with scripture or Herman Melville. I have glanced at many of those, and found them woefully inadequate to me. I do not claim that this book is the end all, neither do I claim you must have faith in God to use a good set of rules to understand what the bible says. If Dungan says that, and I don’t remember off hand, I would say he is wrong. This is just a set of rules, which I believe make sense, and solves many problems in understanding what the bible really says, and why. :)

Diana,

Yes, I’m still contemplating going back to school, but I’ve been doing a lot of soul-searching and I wonder if a different field might be more suitable for me now. I’ve been told by a number of people lately that they thought I’d make a good grief counselor.

I know that now isn’t the time to make such a far-reaching decision. The conventional wisdom is that widow/ers shouldn’t make any major life decisions for at least a year. But none of the schools in this area will give me credit for the education I already have; I’ll be starting from scratch whatever I decide to study. I could probably start on some of the basics like Freshman Comp and algebra (again!).

One aggravation I’ve already bumped into is the lack of engineering schools in the Rochester area. Rochester Institute of Technology is here, but it’s a private school and even with the company tuition benefit it’s expensive. Same with University of Rochester. The state schools around here don’t offer computer or electrical engineering, just computer science. Three of the state schools in New York are starting to offer an EE degree online (in a couple of years - they need to graduate a class before they can actually grant a degree) but you still need the first two years of the engineering curriculum under your belt before you can start. Two years of community college won’t cut it.

I thought briefly about going for a degree in education, because a college of education will give you credit for just about anything. But the thought of teaching someone else’s kids doesn’t appeal to me. (Grin)

Dave

Daddy,

Here’s my starting point: if there is a God and it wants us to know and worship (etc) it, we should be able to cull the One True Religion from the competition in some way. To me, this is a very basic, reasonable requirement, and no religion can do it.

Ideally, a scholar does not twist his data to support the conclusion he has decided is correct, but collects the data and adjusts his conclusion based upon the fairest, most reasonable interpretation of the data he finds. From a scholarly perspective, any set of rules to text interpretation that require presumption of the book’s truth/divinity is not “a good set of rules.” Any set of rules that insists (on top of that) that any contradiction is only an indication that one does not fully understand the text is not a “good set of rules,” either, as such an approach is pointedly biased at the outset and cannot be fair to the text. As I pointed out already, if you apply the same rules to the Koran, you’ll find that there is only one God and Muhammed is his prophet.

You can’t use such rules to determine if the book is divinely inspired, because you assume it is before you begin. That’s where the “faith comes by hearing” problem arises. Dungan carefully avoids stating this circular assumption as simply as I have, because its fallaciousness would be too easy to spot. However, when a book about interpretation lambasts skeptical approaches, the intent is quite clearly that you must believe first in order to understand. As you know, the Bible directly contradicts this doctrine, as I mentioned already. Dungan’s book also indulges in a lot of well poisoning, and silly assertions such as “the bible is logical.”

Incidentally, I didn’t say you claimed “you must have faith in God to use a good set of rules to understand what the bible says,” but since you brought in this comment, I addressed it. I said the COC insists that “I have to have faith to understand the word of God.” If I point out a contradiction, you will fall back on the a priori assumption that the Bible can’t have contradictions and therefore the contradiction is only “apparent” (i.e., not real); it can’t have contradictions because it is inspired and perfect, of course; And why can’t I see this? Because I don’t have faith. Ergo, you must have faith to “understand” the Bible, a la COC doctrine–and it directly contradicts the Bible’s own claim about how you get faith in the first place. They can’t both be right.

d

Dave,

Have you ever thought about being a writer?

d

Diana,

A writer? I wouldn’t say I’ve thought about it. Daydreamed, maybe, but not thought about it seriously.

It’s an intriguiing idea. Aren’t the majority of writers freelance? That would be a big lifestyle change. But then again, my lifestyle’s changed a lot recently anyway. What are a few more changes?

I’ve done a good deal of writing in my work, but it’s mostly been specifications and reports. I’ve had a few magazine articles published. That was a lot of fun. I was surprised that the magazine printed them with minimal editing. (I tend to use parentheses too much.) (See? I did it again.)

I’m going to have to think about this some more.

Dave

P.S. Thank you for the suggestion! D.