Outline of Post on the Scripture Session held on 11/17/13
- Previous Week’s [11/10/13] Review
- Background to today’s Reading
- Reading: Gen. 33: 12 – 17
- Discussion
Previous Week’s [11/10/13] Review
The central point of the previous week’s conversation dealt with a question that was implicit in our conversation but never came to foreground. So I decided to ask it explicitly; namely what is revelation. Now the answer to this question is very complex but I thought it would be good to take a first step.
What brought the topic up was that in our effort to understand the meaning of the text we referred to two or three different translations. I then asked whether the different translations really mattered. At first we thought it didn’t. I pointed out, however, that it must have mattered at least to those persons and institutions who actually produced the different translations. The three versions that we referred to were the New American Bible which is the version that is on the Bishop’s website and is the basis of our weekly conversations; the New International Version and the New Revised Standard Version which appear in parallel columns in the The New Interpreters’ Bible, the commentary that guides me in my presentations. In addition, Kai brought his 1850 copy of that has in parallel columns a German translation and St. Jerome’s Vulgate, the Latin version issued in 382 CE.
As a matter of fact, we do not have any “original” copies of the Bible; that is, contemporary with the authors’ or editors’ composition of their works. Since this is simply factually true, what then is the source of revelation? The first step in answering the question is to come to grips with the basic category to understand revelation is not directly the words but rather their meaning; the words mediate the meaning of the text and that is why there has been and probably always will be additional translations. Furthermore, the meaning of the text is very rich and allows for many different interpretations. Few, indeed, are the defined meanings. Now for Christians, the meaning is measured by what the early church communicated to us as the words and deeds of Jesus. It is Jesus’ life that throws a backward shadow on the Jewish Scriptures, out of which the early church selected out of the whole specific texts which had a specific meaning for those doing the selection.
At the same time, because the scripture is written it serves to control, as it were, the message. The Jesus story cannot be whatever we want it to be. There have been and will be misunderstandings of the meaning of who Jesus is and what he did. For Catholics it is the role of the church to define. Contrary to public opinion perhaps very little has been defined yet the very little is very important. Our best summary of the defined is simply to recite the Apostle’s Creed and search for its meaning. Remember the written word itself only communicates to intelligent and valuing persons whose intelligence and values are, de facto, shaped by their concrete history. That does not mean that the meanings and values are relative. Nor can the truth be contained in the literal meaning of the words as that meaning is construed by persons who deny the very historicity of the bible itself. Truth is always in human minds and human minds are always historically situated. I want to conclude this effort to share the category in which revelation occurs with a reminder that revelation is a complex yet fascinating reality for us who believe. God has entered into the very fabric of our lives; the very meaning of our lives, the ultimate meaning of our lives. If this raises further questions, thoughts, observations, etc. see comment link below.
Background to today’s our readings.
These six verses bring to a close the relationship of Esau and Jacob with the exception of Esau’s appearance at the burial of Isaac, his and Jacob’s father. Their parting reveals the ambiguity of both human life and God’s relations with us. Deception again seems to be part of Jacob’s style. Esau seems to be straightforward.
Faryl, pointed out correctly, though that the story is told from the point of view of Jacob. Most of what we know of Esau is in relationship to Jacob. For me, this is part of the continuous selection by God of particular people, particular individuals and not other peoples nor other individuals. God, nonetheless, is the God of everyone and over time the meaning of the story becomes clear on this point. The chosen are chosen not only as privileged but much more to the point as responsible. Jesus always serves for Christians as the lens in which to hear / see / understand the biblical stories.
We are reminded as we listen to / read the passages to wonder
- Who are the characters in the story
- What role do these characters play
- What is the plot of the story, the author’s intent
Reading: Gen. 33: 12 – 17: Jacob and Esau Part Ways. http://usccb.org/bible/genesis/33
Discussion
There are only two characters in this episode, Jacob and Esau. What matters though is what each says and does. It is in their words and deeds that we are both limited in our imagination and invited to imagine. I began our conversation with a question, who begins the dialogue.
Tim already had not only an answer to that question but thoughts about the whole of the passage. He knew that it was Esau who began the dialogue but Tim reflected how he thought Jacob heard Esau. Having left Haran dealing the entire time with Laban, Tim felt that Jacob didn’t want to lose his independence, didn’t want to have anyone else lord it over him. So from the beginning Jacob was intent on going his own way and read Esau as possibly wanting to have a common life together. For Tim it came to the point that once again Jacob lies to Esau. He has no intention in the story of meeting up with Esau in Seir. Faryl quipped that Jacob has a history of deception so it is not something that we should be surprised to find out.
Ken, drawing on his own experience of dealing with his dad, talked about what two parties might know but never actually say. It was like the unspoken message that he and his father had at times. They said one thing but actually meant another and both knew that it was the other that was meant. The gist of human conversation revealed in our own lives.
Tim, in response to an early observation of Faryl, that the story was written from the point of view of Jacob, recognized that the same thing could be said of how we [US] tell the story of the Native Americans. They are the bad guys, the savages. Etcs. I mentioned that winners write the history and only later, sometimes much later, is the history corrected. This is a pattern that is rather continuous, the winners’ version is corrected to better approximate the reality of what happened.
Jesus is the stark, contradictory even, model though of winners writing history. He is the loser on the human scene. His followers betray him, deny him, do not defend him; the authorities of his people condemn him and the state power executes him. His Father responds to all of this by raising Jesus from the dead. There was no corpse. The risen Jesus embraces his followers, forgives his followers, and chooses his followers to spread the message. They are changed, become what they might only have dreamed to be. They become his witnesses.
I’m not sure exactly how this part of our conversation lead to what was to occupy the remainder of our time together. Tim, like all of us, has experienced the commercialization of Christmas now beginning before Thanksgiving. The experience of this, for Tim, for Heber, for Rosemarie to name those who joined in the conversation were incensed by it. They felt that Christmas was being taken away. Heber brought up not allowing children in school to sing Christmas carols as another example. Ken did remark that it all depends on what Christmas we’re talking about. Tim was conscious too that many good things happen at Christmas time and not only Christians do these good things. There is no question that Christmas season for the economy is all about the exchange of money.
Rosemarie pointed out that there are two factors that form our thoughts, experience and observation. She pointed to the obvious advertising barrage that confronts us almost every moment of the day and now starting even before Thanksgiving; too much. She felt that our [US] culture is an attack on Christianity today and that this attack is stronger than we think.
The topic swept up many of the members into an emotional exchange. Values were being challenged and people have sharp opinions. Perhaps those of you who are reading the website might want to voice your own opinion. The relationship of a religion in a culture is highly complex and significant factor in our lives. More on this later.
You are invited to respond to these or other questions that might arise within you as you read this passage. Your comments, observations, questions are welcomed. See “comment” link below