In another post titled “Why are there so many duplications and repetitions in the Bible?” I explained some of the reasons for repeated words and phrases being used by the authors of the Bible to highlight certain sections or ideas. When such duplication appears in one of the books of poetry, wisdom, or epistles it is well accepted as a literary device. But when it occurs in one of the history books of the Old or New Testament, it can cause some controversy.
For example, consider the literary technique called an inclusio, or inclusion, in which repeated words or phrases are used to indicate the beginning and end of a book or section of a book to better define its limits and perhaps make some overriding comment on the whole unit. One example would be Paul's frequent use of “grace and peace” to begin a letter while concluding with the same two nouns, but listed in the opposite order “peace and grace.” As I explained elsewhere, this may be Paul's way of saying that grace is the beginning and conclusion of our faith, or perhaps that you can't have true peace without accompanying grace from God. So far, so good. But what about the use of the same technique in one of the historical books in the OT?
Another example I gave in the post mentioned above was that of the rare appearances of a “tamarisk tree” located at the start and conclusion of the extended narrative concerning Saul's several unsuccessful attempts to capture and kill David. The question that might be brought up by critical scholars of the Bible is whether the author made up this detail in one or both of these locations for solely literary purposes without any concern for historical accuracy.
My own thought has always been that when such repeated patterns are found in the narrative portions of the Bible we shouldn't question their accuracy since God as the author of the universe can create such patterns in history itself. But I must admit that I adopt that position on a certain amount of faith since it is also possible that the pattern has been totally fabricated by the human authors of the text, a thesis also based on faith, or a lack thereof, rather than any facts.
All of the above rambling is to turn to a possible example in which a repeated pattern appears to have occurred in biblical history even though it is not found in any one book by a single author. I am speaking about the Garden of Gethsemane episode recorded by several of the Gospel writers, specifically Mark and Luke.
Luke 22:38
In Luke's account, directly before they go to the Mount of Olives, we are given an exchange between Jesus and his apostles in which he warns them of the dangers they will face after He is gone. And so he uses figurative language to say that from now on they will have to go around with a purse full of money and a sword. True to form, the obtuse followers respond by producing two swords. At this point, in a somewhat disgusted reply, Jesus says in Luke 22:38, “It is enough.”
There is not much doubt as to meaning of Jesus' word hikanos here. Vine says that when this word is “said of things it signifies enough.” Soards calls Luke 22:38 a “gentle rebuke” of the disciples. NRSV translates it as “No more of this!” And F.F. Bruce adds, “Luke certainly does not intend his readers to understand the words literally” as if two swords are sufficient. Instead it Jesus' way of shutting off this futile exchange.
Mark 14:41
Now, for a change, turn over to Mark's version of the story to what happens directly after the prayer in Gethsemane and the disciples' failure to stay awake with Jesus. We get a rather long verse, Mark 14:41 in which Jesus makes these following comments to his followers in order:
a. “Are you still sleeping and taking your rest?”
b. “Enough!”
c. “The hour has come.”
d. “The Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.”
The word in bold should look familiar since it is the same English word that appeared right before the scene in the garden. However, appearances may be deceiving since in this second case it translates a completely different Greek word: apechei. Not only that, but unlike the similarly rendered word in Luke 22:38, there is quite a bit of controversy concerning what “enough” refers to here. H. Anderson says that the word “is obscure and is variously explained.” Lane calls it “enigmatic.” NEB notes, “The Greek is obscure.” In fact, there have been at least three different interpretations of this single word.
The first difficulty is to determine whether 41b refers to what has preceded or what follows. Lane is quite definite on this point: “The opening words of verse 41 [i.e. 41a] are to be taken as an ironical demand or a reproachful question.” By contrast, “'it is settled' [41b] is to be interpreted by the two statements which immediately follow [41c and d].” But even if that is true, there are still several shades of meaning possible:
1. Metzger notes, “the difficulty of interpreting the impersonal use of apechei in the context led copyists to introduce ameliorations. Several Western and Caesarean witnesses [i.e. manuscripts] add to telos (meaning perhaps, 'the end has fully come') a gloss that may have been suggested by Lk 22:37.”
2. Along the same lines, Marcus translates apechein by invoking another meaning of the verb, namely “to be distant.” Thus, he feels that Luke 14:b-c should be rendered “Is it far away? The hour has come.”
3. Vine says that apecho may here refer, in its commercial significance to Judas (who is mentioned immediately afterwards), with the meaning 'he hath received' (his payment).” In the same vein, NEB notes that “a possible meaning is 'The money has been paid', 'The account is settled.'” However, Marcus doubts that there is any reference at all to Judas. After all, nowhere in Mark's account does he mention that Judas was paid for betraying Jesus. We need to go to Matthew 27 to learn that information.
4. However, what if Lane and others are entirely mistaken and “enough” refers instead to what has happened immediately preceding 41b? In fact, that is the implication given in the majority of English translations. And many commentators agree with this understanding.
Short says, “Having found them [the apostles] sleeping three times (40,41), waking them up finally, Jesus said to them 'Enough!' i.e. “'Enough of this!'”.
Grassmick: “Jesus' word Enough! (i.e. of sleeping) aroused the disciples.”
Living Bible: “The time for sleep has ended.”
The Message: “You've slept long enough.”
Latin Vulgate: “It is enough.”
One rebuttal comes from Mann who says, “But is this an ironic comment about the disciples' sleeping? This seems unlikely, for there is very little evidence for an impersonal use of the word.” However, that supposed problem is countered by the further suggestion that the Greek word apechein is a poor rendering of the Aramaic word kaddo, definitely meaning “enough.” Keep in mind that Jesus most probably spoke in Aramaic, not Greek.
Anderson says, “Fortunately a final decision on the matter is not essential to an understanding of the words that follow.” However, it does impact the point I am hoping to make in this short essay. And for that, I will go with the last of the four options above as the most probable understanding.
So if we take a harmonizing approach to the historical narrative centered around the prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, we can put together the following combined narrative from Mark and Luke:
A. The apostles are gently rebuked by Jesus' “Enough (of this)” for misunderstanding His teaching on being prepared. [Mark]
B. The apostles fail to stay awake with Jesus in the Garden. [Mark and Luke]
A'. The apostles are gently rebuked by Jesus' “Enough (of this)” for their sleeping. [Luke]
We thus have a case in which no one Gospel writer can be accused of creating a literary pattern by purposely inventing incidents. The improbability of this is strengthened by the use of entirely different Greek words for “enough” in A and A'. Instead we have a symmetrical historical pattern created by God Himself, who orders the events of human history.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments