This comment by Kenneth was too great not to make it a post --and, besides, it was too long for the comments!
I think Kenneth hits several nails on the head.... what think ye?
I’m having trouble with the way Hauerwas throws around the term “text.” It
seems that for him the term is a synonym for “meaning,” or nearly so. But this
seems to me too limited. I’m considering a structure that looks something like
the following:
Text: the actual words originally written.
Translation: the words conveyed to us by copyists and translators.
Interpretation: “meaning” derived by interaction between words read and the
reader.
Hauerwas purports to believe that only the last of these depends upon political
considerations, but this assertion cannot be accurate. Since, for example, no
word of the Gospels was set down on paper by anyone who actually met, ate
with, listened to, and/or argued with Jesus; and since important accounts differ
among the Gospels, we know that even the originally written words are hearsay.
What a writer (“Mark,” for example) then chose to include or omit depended at
least in part upon his political views, since the life and message of Jesus were
very political – else no one would have bothered to execute him. Additionally,
decisions as to what to include – or not – in the Biblical canon were based in
part on political considerations, assuming you accept that the formation and
governance of a newly established religious organization must have had political
overtones.
If you take literally Hauerwas’s assertions on pages 66-68, you have to see
that he implies, in fact, that those who were actually present at the Sermon on
the Mount would have had an understanding of its meaning inferior to that of
those who read about it later, after Jesus’s death and resurrection, and after
the Church Fathers had had a chance to give its written words an approved
spin. This possibility is reinforced by the understanding that at least 90% of
Christian theology is based not on anything in the Gospels, but on the words
(probably) of Paul, who never “met” Jesus but on the road to Damascus, and
heard him “speak” no more than twenty of so words on that occasion. If he heard
more, he does not say so.
The same problems exist for copying and translating. Recent scholarship seems
to show that early copyists made hundreds of errors, some insignificant, but not
all, as well as quire a few changes that were probably done in accordance with
current Church policy and interpretations. Translation presents similar issues.
An example I’ve used for students is the phrase, “Dinah, blow your horn!” from
the old song, “I’ve Been Working on the Railroad.” Two thousand years later,
who in the world is Dinah (I can imagine dissertations on Roman mythology,
etc.), and what kind of horn (I don’t even want to go there) does she have, and
why would she be blowing one early in the morning? (More dissertations, this
time on resurrection myths) So, you’re a translator faced with a term that could
mean, “virgin,” or “young woman,” and you’re a member in good standing of the
Church. Which do you choose? No politics here?
So. I’m not arguing that Hauerwas is wrong in saying that basing too much
of one’s Christianity on reading scripture is dangerous. I’m saying that (1) his
argument is not well put, and incomplete, and thus (2) there are implications that
– as soon as he gets into Sermon Mode – he fails to consider. I’m still thinking
about what they might be. Comments about this post may show that I should
have thought more so start with. But that’s what makes it fun.
Kenneth
4 comments:
My favorite translation lesson is Moses with horns - you know you could come down the mountain with your face shining or you could come down with horns on your head. This persisted at least a century - witness Micheangelo's 1515 sculpture with the little goat horns on his head.
And did the people Jesus spoke to understand it any better than we do - hearing it through countless iterations and translations? I don't know, but having recently taught about the feeding of the five thousand I know the story is about people formed and governed by purity laws that made what you eat and who you eat with paramount. And Jesus broke that paradigm over and over again. And he got them all to sit down and eat food from hands and kitchens they didn't know. And they sat down together - ate with strangers. Did they know it was a big moment or were they just hungry? Do we know when it is a big moment or are we just hungry?
Maybe some of it does get lost, and/or amplified in translation. And then there is what I think Hauerwas nudges at is in our own filters for what we read, and what we bring to what we read. But actually I think that thought is taken from Robert Capon.
But enough! Glad to be back in conversation!
word thing is "verably" let that not go to my head!
Maybe we'd all be more likely to eat with a stranger if we were really hungry more often. Part of our problem is that we -- at least those of us who are willing and able to have conversations like this one -- never allow ourselves to become hungry.
It may have one of Jesus's many gifts that he apparently was able to make people hungry for God.
Kenneth
Good point - how do we allow ourselves to be hungry in this overfed world of ours?
So much of what I am reading to prepare lessons these days begs the question of how do we REALLY live the Christian life.
Not sure this iteration of Hauerwas' writings is as on point as is his later book, Resident Aliens.
My goodness! Take a little nap and everybody starts talking!
One nit: I do not accept a "text" as "the actual words originally written"; much of the Biblical narrative is based on oral traditions, which show variation at every discernible level. So, there were always a number of texts and they always included more than writings
Post a Comment