Some of the crowd who had been listening said, 'He is indeed the prophet,' and some said, 'He is the Christ,' (New Jerusalem)
Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the Christ. (KJV-AV1611)
On hearing his words, some of the people said, "Surely this man is the Prophet." Others said, "He is the Christ." (NIV)
All three versions cited choose to capitalize the word Christ. Two of the three capitalize Prophet with the New Jerusalem electing not to so capitalize.
Let's be clear here. Little things like spaces between words, paragraphs, and capitalizations won't get invented for centuries after the original manuscripts get authored. So choosing to capitalize (or not) a word is an interpretation of the meaning and not the meaning itself. All manner of theological assumptions undergird the simple choice.
Christ means "anointed" in the original koine Greek. It is a translation of the Hebrew "messiah". It could, and likely does, refer to the promised messiah who would save his people. But it also refers to any legitimate King of Israel anointed by a priest or prophet for the office. Indeed priests and prophets were anointed. So were ordinary folks who received special blessings. The sick were anointed in healing rites.
Similarly with "the Prophet". Some people of Jesus' day expected the Messiah's coming to be heralded by a return of either Moses or Elijah. According to tradition both were taken up to heaven before they died. So God had special plans for each of them. So this is why the prophet or even the Prophet.
Which of course raises the issue. If Jesus was the Christ. Was John the Baptist the Prophet? And then we have the transfiguration where Moses and Elijah drop by to hob nob with Jesus on the mountain. This tradition is so strong that in 1844 and the emergence of the new faith of Baha'i the Bab heralds the coming of Bah'u'llah.
All of which only serves to highlight that there isn't one meaning for a passage of scripture. It is -- before we even get to read it -- already an interpretation of a translation of a translation. What we call the meaning is created by us in the act and event of reading it. We do not read the bible like a computer reads a disk. We perform a reading of the text like a dancer performs a reading of a music score.
And if the scripture passage is inspired by God -- that inspiration -- that Holy Presence is there in the events recorded, in the act of recording, in the hundreds of acts of translation and transcription, in the scholarly reconstruction and recovery and in our thoughtful (or not) and prayerful (or not) reading of it. And again later as we try to bring it into our lives.
1 comment:
That's really great, David. We begin with an interpretation of a translation of a , etc. Down through the centuries it comes showing different flavors every century. More and more poetic it has to be by virtue of the transference of cultures and minds.
The beauty and power of the Bible for me is that it speaks to each of us individually, in accordance with our condition, our level of faith, our intellectual background, etc. etc.
It is truly the Living Bible.
Post a Comment