Can oral tradition written down decades after the fact ever be described as truly literal?
The Woman by the Well
- Thread starter Bruce Michael
- Start date
Good question, wil. (And if you'll notice, I didn't make an attempt to identify the author.) But I guess my thinking is that, even though the verifiable evidence may not be overwhelming as to the accuracy of the Gospel accounts or even the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, the intent behind the those accounts seems to be to accurately record historical events. I can't dismiss this.
InPeace,
InLove
InPeace,
InLove
Bruce Michael
Well-Known Member
Hello Caimanson,
Origen taught that all Scripture, NT and OT, has three distinct senses: somatic, psychic and pneumatic.
What I have presented is a pneumatic. Someone else might find another meaning for themselves. Obviously something to take into quiet contemplation- as one would with the exercises of Ignatius.
Origen of Alexandria, Alexandria, Ancient Christian Church
I'm not surprised that folk just want to stick to the somatic, considering the materialistic world we live in.
Greetings,
Br.Bruce
For those who want more:
The Swedenborgian Church-Sermons-The Five Senses
wil said:
Maybe not totally, but can't there sometimes be a notable element of truth? Consider the oral accounts of former slaves in the U.S. Or maybe the Native Americans? I can think of lots of other examples throughout the history of the world. Aren't these stories still being written down, and aren't some of them proving to be true? Perhaps not every detail, but enough to make people say that it most likely happened?
Just a thought....
InPeace,
InLove
pattimax
Somewhat returning
lol, but really.
Sorry Leo. It was thoughtless and I was in a hurry.
pattimax
Somewhat returning
Bro. Bruce, may I ask you a question? It is related to your statement here:
Do you hold the opinion that acknowledging the possibility of the literal in a passage of Scripture necessarily precludes one's ability perceive the allegorical?
InPeace,
InLove
Bruce Michael said:
Do you hold the opinion that acknowledging the possibility of the literal in a passage of Scripture necessarily precludes one's ability perceive the allegorical?
InPeace,
InLove
Bruce Michael
Well-Known Member
Hi InLove,
No, we can find the three meanings in the one passage- somatic, psychic and pneumatic.
Nothing our Lord did whilst He walked the Earth, was insignificant- the healings were more than healings and the miracles also had deeper meaning.
I could present a lot more of course.
Some folk wish to ignore the historical altogether and concentrate on the Bible as a book about the soul's journey- I am not one of those.
Warm Regards,
Br.Bruce
Thank you, Bruce, for expounding a bit. I hope my question did not seem like I was trying to buy an argument. I only wanted to better understand your position. Actually, I rather anticipated your thoughtful response. I trust you understand my reason for asking--I just thought maybe some clarification would help. You do bring up some interesting subjects. I might not always understand, but I am listening.
InPeace,
InLove
InPeace,
InLove
lunamoth
Episcopalian
I think it's good to dive into the parables and see what they tell us beyond the surface story, but that does not mean that there is one 'correct' meaning or that someone's 'hidden' meaning carries any more weight than what you think, or any more weight than the literal interpretation. It rubs me the wrong way too when someone implies that others are 'not getting it'.... Heh, but having said that, a while ago I wrote my own thoughts on this parable. This one touches me deeply and I relate strongly to the woman at the well. However, I wrote the following during a period when I was thinking and praying about the relationship between the love commandments and the 'law.' Anyway, this can be found on my blog too.
. Heh, but having said that, a while ago I wrote my own thoughts on this parable. This one touches me deeply and I relate strongly to the woman at the well. However, I wrote the following during a period when I was thinking and praying about the relationship between the love commandments and the 'law.' Anyway, this can be found on my blog too.luna said:
lunamoth
Episcopalian
*bump again!* posts not showing
pattimax
Somewhat returning
So sorry you are going bump in the night.
lunamoth
Episcopalian
lol! What this computer will have me do...it's a good thing I don't have a webcam.
pattimax
Somewhat returning
Glad you had a nice time. (sans Blackberry. drat?) I hope you'll be around tomorrow. I can't start a conversation now.
I like what you had to say. Good night.
I like what you had to say. Good night.
Last edited:
Caimanson
Mind or spirit?
Thanks for explaining that Bruce.
Dondi
Well-Known Member
Great post, luna. Wow, I'd never thought that the woman's supposed diversion to the mountains would actually be related to the talk about the well. Interesting thoughts about the external trappings of "religion" in juxtaposition to real worship.
I like to dig deep into these kind of episodes in the life of Jesus, but, of course, I start with the literal rendering first in order to appreciate the backdrop of the scene in question.
I'm first struck by Jesus original premise, "I must needs go through Samaria", a place shunned by the Jews in the first place, primarily for the reason that the Samaritans worshipped on Mount Gerizim, rather than at the Temple in Jerusalem, a factor that will come into play later in the account (more on this later).
So, are we to believe that as implied by the passage that the main reason for the excursion to Samaria is to converse with a woman of dubious reputation?
Another thing that struck me is how convenient it was that the disciples departed to go buy meat, so that Jesus had opportunity to converse with the woman alone. Though it does not directly say, but my thought is that Jesus sent the disciples on this errand, not because He was particularly hungry, as He later indicates, but so that He could be afforded some privacy on such a delicate matter in His dealings with the woman.
But isn’t it interesting that this woman remain anonymous. And I think this is significant on two fronts. For one, I would think it was meant keep such personal matters private so as not to embarrass the woman. But also, the anonymousity also opens the reader to personal application, much as luna has done in placing herself in such position.
So let’s look at this woman closely. She is a commoner, industrious in everyday tasks such as retrieving water from this well. She is obviously one who has trouble holding down a relationship, having been in five previous marriages. My guess is that she has had a number of children and is probably approaching middle age. She has all but given up on marriage and opts to just live with her current beau. Which also brings to question on how many beaus she has had in addition to husbands. And it is also reasonably assumable that because of these various affairs that she is desirably beautiful. But something underlying is preventing her from keeping one man. My feeling is that she has been bumped around several times. And that she seems to have been resigned to her fate (Ashima). But this will soon change.
When Jesus encounters the woman and requests a drink, He knows that it is going to spark controversy 1) in that He being a Jew would have any dealings with a Samaritan and 2) He being a man would have a conversation with a woman, a lament later in the disciple’s minds.
The woman expresses both theses concerns in one reply, “How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria?” To which Jesus issues an enigmic challenge to His identity and the offer of a “gift of God” which has something to do with “living water”. This reversal of service has the woman confused, because like Nicodemus in the previous chapter, she is thinking only in physical terms. She then gives a historical reference to the well, being given to Joseph by Jacob, and asks if Jesus supposes Himself greater than the forefathers. The answer she gets from Jesus impels her to now ask for water herself, “a well of water springing up into everlasting life.”
The answer is not what one would expect, nor immediately apparent, as Jesus tells the woman to go get her husband. It would seem that Jesus is changing the subject, but what He is doing here is opening up her heart to get to the crux of her matter. Jesus is basically exposing her problem that prevents her from receiving this “living water”. He prophetically informs her of her sorted life of many affairs. I shudder to think that a stranger would come up to me and tell me my life’s history, wouldn’t you?
But I admire this woman’s intrigue. She isn’t apparently flustered over the embarrassing revelation, but seems more interested in this fellow that is able know who she is, “Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.”
Now it is instructive understand the Samaritans expectations of the time, particularly in regard to prophets. They were expectantly awaiting for a prophet as a “restorer” (Talev), as foretold in Deuteronomy 18:15-18, who would lead a revolt against the Romans at Mount Gerizim, hence the woman’s immediate reference to worship in the surrounding mountains, which included Mount Gerizim. Mount Gerizim was the place where Moses had half the tribes of Israel overseeing the “Mount of Blessing” back in Deuteronomy 27, thus the place was a holy site for the Samaritans and they even at one time built a Temple to worship there (though that had been destroyed by Jesus’ time).
So having segued to the worship of God in the Samaritan mountains, the conversation turns to the worship of God. Jesus then proclaims that God will neither be worshipped in either these mountains nor Jerusalem, but “…the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.”
The woman senses the revelation coming when she says, “I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.” I believe that when Jesus said, “and now is”, that that had her brimming in her excitement in anticipation that she was about to witness before her eyes the very thing she supposed would happen in regards to the Messiah. She knew what He was about to say, “I that speak unto thee am he.”
I would have like to have known the woman’s response to this statement, but inconveniently, the disciples took that opportunity to show up on the scene after grocery shopping and the woman left in haste.
We are not explicitly told if the woman’s personal issues were resolved. But she did go and tell the elders of the city that the Man she met told her life story. And this prompted them to come and investigate on their own, and eventually came to believe that Jesus was the Messiah. My guess, however, is that her lines of communication to God became wide open, knowing that God knows everything about her. And that Jesus, in introducing to her the concept of God her Father in a personal manner, would stabilize her relationships with men.
So Jesus in going to Samaria and speaking to this woman accomplished more that opening her soul to the true worship of God. He also was able to spread that concept forth to the rest of the city.
Sorry for this being so long.
Dondi
I like to dig deep into these kind of episodes in the life of Jesus, but, of course, I start with the literal rendering first in order to appreciate the backdrop of the scene in question.
I'm first struck by Jesus original premise, "I must needs go through Samaria", a place shunned by the Jews in the first place, primarily for the reason that the Samaritans worshipped on Mount Gerizim, rather than at the Temple in Jerusalem, a factor that will come into play later in the account (more on this later).
So, are we to believe that as implied by the passage that the main reason for the excursion to Samaria is to converse with a woman of dubious reputation?
Another thing that struck me is how convenient it was that the disciples departed to go buy meat, so that Jesus had opportunity to converse with the woman alone. Though it does not directly say, but my thought is that Jesus sent the disciples on this errand, not because He was particularly hungry, as He later indicates, but so that He could be afforded some privacy on such a delicate matter in His dealings with the woman.
But isn’t it interesting that this woman remain anonymous. And I think this is significant on two fronts. For one, I would think it was meant keep such personal matters private so as not to embarrass the woman. But also, the anonymousity also opens the reader to personal application, much as luna has done in placing herself in such position.
So let’s look at this woman closely. She is a commoner, industrious in everyday tasks such as retrieving water from this well. She is obviously one who has trouble holding down a relationship, having been in five previous marriages. My guess is that she has had a number of children and is probably approaching middle age. She has all but given up on marriage and opts to just live with her current beau. Which also brings to question on how many beaus she has had in addition to husbands. And it is also reasonably assumable that because of these various affairs that she is desirably beautiful. But something underlying is preventing her from keeping one man. My feeling is that she has been bumped around several times. And that she seems to have been resigned to her fate (Ashima). But this will soon change.
When Jesus encounters the woman and requests a drink, He knows that it is going to spark controversy 1) in that He being a Jew would have any dealings with a Samaritan and 2) He being a man would have a conversation with a woman, a lament later in the disciple’s minds.
The woman expresses both theses concerns in one reply, “How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria?” To which Jesus issues an enigmic challenge to His identity and the offer of a “gift of God” which has something to do with “living water”. This reversal of service has the woman confused, because like Nicodemus in the previous chapter, she is thinking only in physical terms. She then gives a historical reference to the well, being given to Joseph by Jacob, and asks if Jesus supposes Himself greater than the forefathers. The answer she gets from Jesus impels her to now ask for water herself, “a well of water springing up into everlasting life.”
The answer is not what one would expect, nor immediately apparent, as Jesus tells the woman to go get her husband. It would seem that Jesus is changing the subject, but what He is doing here is opening up her heart to get to the crux of her matter. Jesus is basically exposing her problem that prevents her from receiving this “living water”. He prophetically informs her of her sorted life of many affairs. I shudder to think that a stranger would come up to me and tell me my life’s history, wouldn’t you?
But I admire this woman’s intrigue. She isn’t apparently flustered over the embarrassing revelation, but seems more interested in this fellow that is able know who she is, “Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.”
Now it is instructive understand the Samaritans expectations of the time, particularly in regard to prophets. They were expectantly awaiting for a prophet as a “restorer” (Talev), as foretold in Deuteronomy 18:15-18, who would lead a revolt against the Romans at Mount Gerizim, hence the woman’s immediate reference to worship in the surrounding mountains, which included Mount Gerizim. Mount Gerizim was the place where Moses had half the tribes of Israel overseeing the “Mount of Blessing” back in Deuteronomy 27, thus the place was a holy site for the Samaritans and they even at one time built a Temple to worship there (though that had been destroyed by Jesus’ time).
So having segued to the worship of God in the Samaritan mountains, the conversation turns to the worship of God. Jesus then proclaims that God will neither be worshipped in either these mountains nor Jerusalem, but “…the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.”
The woman senses the revelation coming when she says, “I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.” I believe that when Jesus said, “and now is”, that that had her brimming in her excitement in anticipation that she was about to witness before her eyes the very thing she supposed would happen in regards to the Messiah. She knew what He was about to say, “I that speak unto thee am he.”
I would have like to have known the woman’s response to this statement, but inconveniently, the disciples took that opportunity to show up on the scene after grocery shopping and the woman left in haste.
We are not explicitly told if the woman’s personal issues were resolved. But she did go and tell the elders of the city that the Man she met told her life story. And this prompted them to come and investigate on their own, and eventually came to believe that Jesus was the Messiah. My guess, however, is that her lines of communication to God became wide open, knowing that God knows everything about her. And that Jesus, in introducing to her the concept of God her Father in a personal manner, would stabilize her relationships with men.
So Jesus in going to Samaria and speaking to this woman accomplished more that opening her soul to the true worship of God. He also was able to spread that concept forth to the rest of the city.
Sorry for this being so long.
Dondi
Dondi
Well-Known Member
Duplicate post. Please delete.
I have often thought that this was a good indicator that Jesus planned the trip to the well, and the it was an important mission. And I can’t help but smile about the shopping trip that needed to be made, considering the account of the loaves and fishes, which no doubt has some meaningful layers to explore as well.Dondi said:
Every now and then I run across places like this in biblical study notes. While I think the NIV is an example of a sincere and mostly reliable attempt to assist in our understanding, it does appear to skate right by the point occasionally. Study notes are helpful to me, but I do think that we sometimes tend to devalue our own God-given thought processes by comparing our supposedly limited capabilities with that of the experts. I have struggled with this many times, but I have finally learned that there is nothing wrong with searching the Scriptures and receiving what is revealed, even if it is something you have not considered before. I trust that if I am earnestly and prayerfully seeking to understand, then God will guide that understanding. And if it does not always agree with the experts, that is not necessarily a negative nor a sign of ignorance because neither did my Lord.lunamoth said:
Thank you for the thought provoking post, luna, and by the way:
“blinks”
I need to find this.
InPeace,
InLove
pattimax
Somewhat returning
Don't apologize. That was very good.
Great stuff Dondi...
Causes me to contemplate some more... The relates the account word for word (KJV) and many of the other versions and the NIV update to add "quotes" around what Jesus said....Despite the fact that no one was there to hear the conversation. Now when the disciples returned the woman appeared to relate part or all of the story to them....and they probably quizzed Jesus in walks and talks later...but I just find it interesting that Jesus is quoted for saying these words when it was just between the two of them... another contemplation...maybe someone can help...KJV provides paranthesis around some of the statments...when I look at the Greek or Coptic I don't see them does anyone know how they decided what to parenthisize?