ACTING OUT THE BIBLE

While in graduate school, one of my main hobbies was reading and annotating the most difficult novel ever written, James Joyce's Finnegans Wake. Any of you who have even glanced through this book will realize that it isn't really written in English or any other language. Almost every word is a combination of two or more words taken from different languages with a number of historical and literary references thrown in at the same time. I could only decipher about a fourth of the meaning, and that was with the help of some literary commentaries I borrowed from the school library. But then, knowing that Joyce was Irish, I somehow decided to try reading the text out loud with a poor imitation of an Irish lilt. Immediately, some previously obscure passages became more understandable.

Now why did I mention that seemingly irrelevant story? It was to introduce the observation that we usually read the Scriptures silently to ourselves, unless it is read out loud in church settings for us. But although the words themselves convey most of the intended message, we may be missing some of their real import if we don't read them as they were intended to be heard. And that applies especially to the conversations found in the historical sections of the Bible.

There is a very talented gentleman in our Sunday school class whose ministry is to dress up as the apostle Paul and perform readings of the various epistles at church and prison venues. He reads the words of these letters as he acts out the process of Paul actually composing them for the first time. One of the added nuances you can get from his performances, that you don't obtain from merely reading the words to yourself, is found in the way he emphasizes certain words over others and the tone in his voice as he speaks them. This is, in fact, an interpretation which would probably be somewhat different if another person were acting them out.

The above phenomenon is quite well known to those in the theater. If the author of a play is alive, the director and actors can consult with him or her as to the intended meaning behind the character's lines. Or, in some cases, a playwright such as O'Neill has left rather detailed written instructions to aid those putting on the play. But in the case of someone like Shakespeare, each performance of one of his plays may give an entirely unique take on the author's words. So let's consider some even older written “plays” found in Scripture.

In Acts 19:15 some would-be exorcists try to cast out a demon in the name of Jesus and Paul. The demon replies, “Jesus I know and Paul I know, but who are you?” At least, that is the translation found in the KJV, NIV, and NRSV, all of which preserve the original word order. Now, sometimes the order of the Greek words in the original can give a good idea of which words should be stressed, as in this case of beginning emphasis. But at least six other English translations I looked at reversed the order of the words so that more prosaic translations resulted such as “I know Jesus and I know Paul, but who are you?” Maybe it is just me, but I think that the whole semi-comedic impact of this line is totally destroyed by this needless transposition.

Jesus' last words on the cross, “It is finished,” present another challenge to anyone attempting to act them out. If one feels that Jesus was completely disillusioned at this point and expressing the futility of all his efforts to transform Jewish society, then they would be spoken with a broken heart. On the other hand, if they are taken as expressing Jesus' complete confidence that he had now successfully completed the task he was entrusted with in coming to earth, they would have to be rendered almost with a note of triumph. It all depends on your theology and your proper understanding of the whole of the gospel message.

There are actually several encounters that Jesus had with women during his ministry that could be interpreted as showing either his respect or disdain for them. It all depends on how Jesus orally delivered the words in each text. And again, one's understanding would have to be based on your prior perception of the manner Jesus behaved in other settings.

For example, in Matthew 9:20 a woman with an issue of blood touches Jesus' garment, and he turns around and says, “Who touched me?” This question can be pronounced in even tones to suggest nothing more than mild curiosity on Jesus' part. Or it can be rendered as “Who touched ME!!!” in much the same manner that Robert De Niro said, “Are you looking at ME!!!” in Taxi Driver. Of course, the subsequent actions of Jesus make it impossible to believe that Jesus was irate at the woman's action even though she had violated the purity code of the time by doing it.

In John 2:4, Jesus seemingly turns down his mother's request at the wedding at Cana by referring to Mary with the dismissive term “Woman.” Again, his subsequent actions in granting her request demonstrate that he was, in fact, not particularly angry with her at all. In addition, in that same Gospel (19:26) he again addresses her as “Woman” in the loving act of providing John as her surrogate son for when he is gone.

Luke 10:41 is part of the passage where Jesus is dining at the house of Mary and Martha. When Martha complains to him that Mary is not doing her fair share of the work, Jesus either puts her in her place with a strong rebuke or gently points out to her where her spiritual priorities should lie. The difference in these two diverse interpretations depends entirely on how one pictures him pronouncing the opening words “Martha, Martha,” either in a kindly tone or one of utter exasperation.

The whole scene between Jesus and the woman who wants him to heal her daughter (see Mark 7) has caused problems for many people. He refuses her request and calls her a dog. But she finally talks him into doing it, seemingly against his will. In the first place, the Greek word for “dog” here is not the one that usually designates a stray dog or cur, but has the meaning more of “puppy” instead. And secondly, it is impossible to make any sense out of their conversation without imagining both of them speaking their words with a slight smile on their faces. By doing this, it is easy to see that it is an example of goodhearted, kidding banter between the two of them, and that Jesus has total respect for her throughout even if she is a Gentile.

The encounter between Mary and the risen Jesus outside the garden tomb provides another good example of how one's understanding of a passage can be colored by how one pictures the conversation in one's head. When Jesus tells her not to touch him, it can be taken as simply a reminder that both she and he have other things to accomplish and so they cannot linger together anymore. Or one can picture him shouting his words as he draws away in horror from her. If the latter, it could lead to all sorts of useless speculation as to what in the world would have happened if she had managed to touch him.

As a final example of the importance of “acting out” the NT accounts (and I realize that I am presenting these way out of chronological order), there are the similar incidents involving swords recorded as taking place directly before and after Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane (see Luke 22:35-38, 49-51). In both cases, Jesus speaks different Greek words to the apostles with basically the same meaning: “That is enough.” The second occasion is fairly clear to understand since Jesus is saying this to stop any further bloodshed from occurring during his arrest, the first time the words are used is a little more ambiguous and must be interpreted.

Jesus begins by warning the apostles that the time will come after his death when they will have to be on their guard because the authorities and even the people will be against them at that time. To stress that point, he states hyperbolically that they should each purchase a sword. They manage to dig up two swords among themselves as show them to Jesus. His dejected reply is, “It is enough” as he realizes that yet again they have failed to understand his figurative speech. At least that is the way I picture it happening in my head. However, others have taken Jesus' words quite literally as a simple statement of fact and explained that Jesus was predicting the fact that two swords would indeed be enough to cause Peter to attempt a violent defense during the arrest so that the apostles would have to run for their lives in fulfillment of the OT prophecy that the shepherd would be struck down and the sheep scattered (Zechariah 13:7). It all depends on how you think Jesus said “It is enough.”