Google apps
Main menu

Post a Comment On: Bruce Charlton's Notions

1 – 3 of 3
Blogger Wm Jas Tychonievich said...

Thanks for this, Bruce -- though I must admit I still find this episode very confusing.

Jesus tells the woman that if she had asked him, he would have given her living water. So she does ask him ("Sir, give me this water"), and we would expect that Jesus' response would be to give her whatever it is that he is symbolically referring to as "living water." Instead, he replies with a non sequitur: "Go, call they husband" -- despite the fact that he apparently already knows that she has no husband. Then, as you say, they suddenly change the subject and discuss the proper place to worship. The conversation jumps all over the place, with nothing following logically from what precedes it. Jesus seems almost to be playing the role of a Zen master, intentionally breaking the conventions of coherent conversation in an attempt to shock his interlocutor into enlightenment. And the woman seems unrealistically obtuse, apparently taking Jesus' offer at face value and expecting him to give her some literal magic water that would make it unnecessary for her to come to the well.

I am almost persuaded that the whole exchange is fictional -- a symbolic story created by the author of the Fourth Gospel to express something about Jesus in relation to the Jewish and Samaritan religions (perhaps symbolized by Jacob's well) -- because it just doesn't seem like the sort of conversation that could have taken place in real life.

(By the way, I take it from your mention of "meat, the most concentrated food" that you are unaware that "meat" in King James English means food of any kind, not specifically animal flesh. "Out of the eater came forth meat," says Samson, referring to honey.)

20 January 2019 at 20:37

Blogger Bruce Charlton said...

@William - The passage as a whole works; albeit that it does not flow smoothly with prose sense. That is why we need to think of it as a poem. If we close-in too much on a poem with our focus, then the meaning will elude us.

I feel the opposite about fictiveness; to me the episode has an air of literal truth, from its very specificity of content; but the events cannot be eye witnessed, so presumably it was reported by Jesus to the disciple/s.

Sure I know that meat also means food in old texts; but among foods meat has the sense of being especially valued; and the meaning here goes beyond food, beyond nourishment. In the KJV meat sometimes seems to be distingushed from bread. But again, explaining poetic symbolism usually fails to explain it, and often kills the poem qua poem.

In this kind of reading we cannot and should not be aiming to explain everything, to answer every question; we aim to understand at the level of communication intended. In this instance the intended unit of understanding is, I think the whole passage quoted.

Scripture must be divinely inspired writing, with divine intervention to preserve what is necessary and to sustain the reader. But in the end we are talking about a direct, unmediated process of knowing being 'stimulated' by the reading of scripture.

This knowing may be blocked by a variety of attitudes and baises and constrained by capacity etc; or this piece of scriptually evoked knowledge may not be relevant or necessary for an individual... I feel this way about much of the Old Testament - it is not relevant to me in what way it is true, or whether it is false - I can't really understand because I don't need to understand.

So, where This passage succeeds with me is in evoking the excitement of meeting the Messiah 'here and now', the wonderfulness of his gift (so wonderful as to be on the edge of what we can apprehend) - and the way in which he has swept aside 'traditional' obstacles to our each grasping the gift. The LDS video gets these across very well.

20 January 2019 at 22:11

Blogger Michaela Stephens said...

Considering the woman had had 4 husbands, we can extrapolate that her experience was of a very broken home life and it is likely that most if not all of those husbands had divorced her. But she was apparently attractive enough that once divorced, another man was perfectly willing to marry her. Likely she was becoming skeptical of men and that the man she had at that time she had refused to marry in order to retain some sort of personal autonomy that maybe had been denied her in marriage.

She would be particularly conscious of her need for the comfort of living water, something to console when the promise of satisfaction and security in family life had been persistently broken. Her conversation goes to the essentials, rather than skimming the surface. She's not interested in mere appearances any more.

Also interesting is that when she goes to tell people about Jesus, she goes to the MEN, and not to the women. And they BELIEVE her.

19 March 2019 at 20:53