dilemmas

1. Depicting the Last Supper

A Question:
What, exactly, constitutes "historical accuracy" in matters of faith? Is it more historically accurate to recreate factual details and propose realistic reconstructions of the past, or to transmit meaning and significance as faithfully as possible? Consider the following examples:

Which One Is Most
"Historically Accurate"?

Read the information for the painting of the Last Supper on the left (click on it). The site claims that this painting is a more historically accurate rendering of Jesus' last meal with his disciples than Leonardo Da Vinci's masterpiece (on the right). The site points out many of the "flaws" with Da Vinci's painting when compared to the gospel accounts.

Interestingly, the site fails to mention that Da Vinci's inaccuracies were deliberate; the painting was commissioned for the refectory of the Convent of Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan, and finished in 1498, and Da Vinci chose to paint the Last Supper so that it appeared to take place in a room whose architectural design matched that of the refectory. Whenever the convent's residents came together to share a meal, it was as if Jesus and his disciples were immediately present to them. The painting served as continual reminder of the Christian proclamation that Jesus is a living presence, not just a historical figure.

Which invites the question...
Which painting is most faithful to the intentions of the gospel authors?

2. Translating the New Testament

Scholars who translate the New Testament into English are faced with a difficulty: The ancient "Koine" or common Greek in which the documents of the NT were written lacks punctuation. There are no commas, periods, spaces between words, or clear beginnings to paragraphs. Add to this the many variations in manuscript versions of a given text, and you begin to see how the process of translating involves a degree of guess work. In most cases, the potential differences are minor and theologically harmless, but there are a few places where a difference in translation can lead to a significant difference in understanding. One such place is in the Gospel of John 1:3-4. The Greek text looks something like this:

PANTADIAUTOUEGENETOKAICWRISAUTO
UEGENETOOUDEENOGEGONENENAUTWZWH
HNKAIHZWHHNTAFWSTWNANQRWTWN

The highlighted phrase is the problem- it is unclear if it belongs to the clause before it or after. This uncertainty is resolved differently in different translations, for example:

New American Bible:
"All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race;"
New Revised Standard Version:
"All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people."
New Jerusalem Bible:
"through him all things came into being, not one thing came into being except through him. What has come into being in him was life, life that was the light of men."

Compare the translations above, which translate the phrase in question with the clause after it, to these translations:

King James Version:
"All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men."
New International Version:
"Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men."
New American Standard:
"All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men."

Do you detect a difference?

What does it mean to say that "life" (i.e. eternal life or salvation) came to be in him (Jesus) or came to be through him, as opposed to saying that "life" was in him?

Does it matter that the last three versions are found in translations that tend to be favored by fundamentalist and evangelical denominations of Christianity, while the first three tend to be favored by more mainstream denominations (including the Roman Catholic Church, which commissioned the NAB and NJB)?

What do you think this passage is trying to tell us about the role Jesus plays in the salvation of "the human race"?

Perhaps we could resolve this dilemma by looking elsewhere in John for other passages that suggest more clearly the way the author understands Jesus' role in salvation- we can "let scripture interpret scripture". All six of the versions listed above translate John 3:36 similarly:

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life,
but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life,
but the wrath of God remains upon him." (NAB)

This verse tends to agree with the second type of variation mentioned above, that eternal life was in Jesus himself, not something that came to be through him. Eternal life is for those who believe in Jesus himself and not for those who believe in that which came to be through him (Truth, perhaps? See John 14:6, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life").

Problem solved?

Hardly! As it turns out, textual and linguistic critics have long noted that the vocabulary and style of the Prologue to the Gospel of John (1:1-14, including vv.3-4, at issue) is different than that of the rest of the gospel (many translations of the prologue put these verses in stanzas, like poetry). In fact, Jesus is referred to as the "Word" repeatedly in the Prologue, but he is never referred to that way again in the gospel. It is likely that the Prologue pre-existed the rest of the gospel, and the author of John copied it into his narrative because it was a familiar part of the liturgical life of his community. This means that the Prologue's Christology (understanding of Jesus) is probably earlier than that of the rest of the gospel, and possibly more authentic. If it represents a different source from the rest of the gospel, then we may not be able to assume that its Christology is the same as what follows it. We are left with a complicated problem that has no clear solution.

The Narrow Gate
2003-2004