Jan 16, 2012

Today we have started the discussion of interpreting the origins of the Biblical texts. It was a very exciting, conversation-filled class where the students had the chance to contribute to the topic of discussion – i.e. what had defined the biblical texts in past and present as canon or non-canon, which was the main topic of our discussion.

To accomplish this topic, however, today’s lecture developed gradually. First, we looked at an example of a text – a lyrical song – and asked obvious questions about it: who wrote, for whom, for what reason, under what circumstances, etc. As the students have asked these questions (and were answered them, eventually), they realized that one and the same text can have several interpretations depending on how these questions are answered.

This point was driven further home with the next example – an excerpt of king Solomon’s Song of Songs, an example that connected Biblical texts with that of a romantic song, because, basically, it was both. It was also hard to recognize as a part of Biblical text due to its very confusing textual imagery that does not appear to be straightforwardly religious either.

Then the discussion turned to the issue of translation from the original Hebrew text to other languages, such as Greek, Latin and English. The latter was shown in particular by several examples of Genesis 1:1-3 by their slight differences in translation and grammar. (‘wind of God’ vs. ‘spirit of God’, etc). Also, this was shown on the slide when the gospel of Mathew was compared with one of the earlier prophets: a single stylistic difference resulted in Jesus arriving in Jerusalem on two donkeys instead of one, technically speaking.

Naturally, such changes can have quite an effect (for example, the gospels of Mark and Luke do not have the mangled reference found in Mathew or any reference to this prophecy at all.) Yet, there were accidental changes of translation, and then there were probably more deliberate ones, related perhaps to changing politics of the past: the occupation of Judea by Babylonians and Persians, for example. Another example is the case of Enoch in the more canonical text of Genesis 5 and the more apocryphal text of Sirach: Sirach, being more oriented towards the specifics of Hebrew national culture and away from the more general religious overtones of the Bible gives Enoch more character, explaining that he was pious and that was why he was taken by God, while in Genesis this explanation did not take place. This changed Enoch’s character as well as role in the Genesis – a small difference, but a difference all the same.

Today’s lecture was very interesting and dynamic, full of interesting lectures and even a song. It was very enjoyable and easy to follow and understand. It was full of examples as well, and I, for one, have really benefited from it. Hopefully, the followed classes will be just as exciting and interesting as this one was.