The Pentateuch may be compared to a Rembrandt painting of real persons or events. We do not understand a Rembrandt painting by taking a photograph of the “thing” that Rembrandt painted and comparing it with the painting itself. That may help us understand the “thing” that Rembrandt painted, his subject matter, but it will not help us understand the painting itself. To understand Rembrandt’s painting, we must look at it and see its colors, shapes and textures. In the same way, to understand the Pentateuch, one must look at its colors, contours and textures. To understand Rembrandt’s painting, one must study the painting itself. To understand the Pentateuch, one must study the Pentateuch itself.
-John H. Sailhamer; The Meaning of the Pentateuch, pages 19-20
This quote is excellent, Jeff. Thank you for posting it. The text is indeed immanent. God has given us such a work of complexity yet unity, and it is this ultimate work of art that addresses our humanity in ways that sets of rules or mere historical accounts cannot. Thanks for doing this blog, brother.
I find it interesting that one has overlooked the assumption here. In order to understand the painting, one must have a point of comparison. In other words, to know how entity A colors entity B, one must know the differences between A and B. Indeed, one can know and appreciate a Rembrandt painting apart from the entity of which it depicts. However, of primary importance is how do we know that one element or portion is of deviance or congruence?
First, it is not that the Scriptures “deviate” from the event, but rather, they interpret the event by bringing certain elements into greater or lesser focus. To an extent, a photograph or a video does this same thing in a different manner. Unless you had an infinite number of photographs or video angles of a certain event, capturing the occurrence from every conceivable position, you wouldn’t have a purely objective view. The photographer chooses the angel to show you. Words on a page do this with even more precision. A video/photograph must include every element within its view. For example, if you were able to record a video of Jesus turning water into wine, by necessity it would include his eye color, the shape of the water/wine pot, and the expression on Jesus’ face while he performed the miracle. However, the biblical writers didn’t have to include such things, both because their medium did not demand it and because those details did not contribute to the expression of their message. Rather, the authors favored other details that contribute to the narrative picture of the canon. These interpretive artists use the elements which aid them in painting a theological narrative of biblical history.
In light of this, your objection does not stand. There are no unimportant elements included in the bible. Every word is important. We are not to look only for the things that “deviate” from the event (if there was such things). We don’t need to compare the Scriptures with a more “perfected” reconstruction of history in order to see what the author is trying to emphasize. Rather, the author includes everything he intends, artfully placing every word with care. Rembrandt doesn’t need you to decode what he is emphasizing with a photograph in hand. Rather, he will show you what he is emphasizing… look.
Clearly, Jeff, you have misunderstood the objection, and have overlooked the assumption(s) involved in Sailhamer’s hermeneutics. Moreover, you posit a priori that “Every word is important.” You have not defined or delineated what is entailed in importance or how it is necessary for your proposed hermeneutic. Frankly, I find that biblical theologians are philosophically inept when it comes to articulating their hermeneutical theories.
James,
Please try to keep criticism focused on the topic at hand. If you think that I make an a priori judgment that is in need of a ground, you are free to call me out on it, but try to continue to interact with the ideas instead of complaining about how inept others are at expressing themselves.
The “every word is important” idea flows from this:
Unlike a photograph (or even a painting) which must include peripheral details, the medium of writing only includes the details which the author finds important.
Let’s say Rembrandt is painting a portrait of a woman who happens to be wearing earrings, but chooses not to include the earrings in his portrait because it will take away from the aspect of her which he wants to focus on, her deep beautiful eyes. So, he puts her eyes in the center of the canvas, and then he shades and colors everything to draw attention to her eyes. Do we need to compare this painting to a photograph of the woman (which includes the earrings she was wearing) in order to see that Rembrandt is seeking to draw attention to her eyes? Or can we see and understand everything Rembrandt is trying to show us from the portrait alone? Mind you, this portrait is still an honest portrait of the woman, representing her in looks, posture, dress, and expression. But the artist has interpreted something important about this woman, and is trying to present it to his audience.
The medium of writing is even more “free” than that of painting. In painting, a portrait must include skin color, and perhaps even shape of the face, in order for a painter to give focus to the eyes. However, in writing, the author can choose to ONLY tell about the his subjects eyes, if he so chooses.
Does this help you to understand what I am saying, or am I still missing your point?
Your brother in Christ,
Jeff
Jeff,
Your argument is loaded and assumes a res and a depiction thereof. You still have assumed the epistemic plausibility inherent within one entity apart from the other, not to mention it is committed a certain philosophical view of language that is question begging.