LOGIC AND GRAMMAR

C. D. Clark’s book THE ENLIGHTENMENT is devoted to the claim that the idea of The Enlightenment is a figment of the imagination of the majority of thinkers writing about Western intellectual history. He spends over 500 pages tracking the use of the term “The Enlightenment” in his book by this name, and concludes that this notion is a figment of the Western scholarly imagination. It is a very scholarly effort, but I find its fundamental premise off the mark and thus confusing and misleading.

            Clark claims that there never was any such thing as “The Enlightenment”. Rather, he says, the term ‘enlightenment’, which derives from the notion of “shedding light” or fresh thought should not be used as the name for an entity that never existed. The proper word here, according to Clark, is ‘enlightenment’ with a small first letter, serving as a quality of something, not a thing in itself. In other words, he claims that the term ‘enlightenment’ should not be used as the name for anything other than a state of mind or the goal of education, etc. The idea and claim that there once was a period of intellectual history to be so named is erroneous and misleading.

            However, the fact is that the very title of his book involves the use of a definite article, while the subtitle “An Idea and Its History” involves an indefinite article, thereby seeming to instantiate the very thing Clark is denying actually exists. These not so incidental facts would seem to discredit Clark’s entire enterprise at the outset. However, his basic claim, that there never was anything corresponding to the name “The Enlightenment”, as such, is well worth one’s attention. Clark is claiming that the use of the definite article in connection with this term ‘enlightenment’ erroneously instantiates the existence of such a period in Western history.

            Clark’s term for this seemingly minor yet important grammatical mistake about “the Enlightenment” used to track something in history usually called the Enlightenment is an error of “reification”, which according to Webster’s Dictionary is “an act which treats an abstraction as a substantially existing reality”. In other words, Clark is claiming that placing a definite article in front of the term ‘Enlightenment’ renders it the proper name of a person, place, or thing. His overall claim is that no such period as an “Enlightenment” ever existed. This term only serves as a description of something happens to individual people not periods.

       To put it differently, Clark claims that any period referred to by this misleading term is a figment of the writer’s imagination. People can be “enlightened”, but no such period of time ever actually existed. His book, then, consists of his detailed and interesting tracing of various writers and thinkers who have used the term and/or claimed that such a time period and/or intellectual movement actually existed. Clark likens such a mistake to that involved with the term “Industrial Revolution” or “The Renaissance”.

            In spite of the fact that I found Clark’s volume interesting and worthy of some attention, in the end I think he has made a mountain out of the proverbial “mole hill.” Of course, such terms as the ‘Enlightenment’ and the ‘Renaissance’ can be mistakenly instantiated into designating a well-defined time period. They nonetheless serve as terms that signify a commonly understood reality in history. Does anyone ever actually get confused by such terms into thinking that they refer to actual “things”. Even Alice in Wonderland could sort such issues out. The basic relationship between logic and grammar need not be confused here.

            The remainder of Clark’s volume is devoted to an examination of how various international thinkers and politicians tried to make the most out of what was actually something of a linguistic misnomer. Although The Enlightenment was never an actual political movement, it did leave us with a great number of deep and important thinkers, in spite of perhaps having been misnamed. Clark explains the main ideas of a great many 19^th and 20^th century thinkers, along with the implications and sometimes consequences of their ideas very well.    

JESUS’ DIALOGICAL STYLE (sorry, this is a long one)

I have always been fascinated by the dialogical character of Jesus’ interactions with various “interlocutors” he seems to have encountered. Alongside of his “speeches” and silences, Jesus’ sometimes participated in “give and take” with those whom he encountered along the way. I think these interchanges are very revealing when it comes to understanding who Jesus was and what he was about. Let’s track some of these exchanges through the Gospels and see what they reveal. I think they tell us a lot about who Jesus was and who he was not.

     Starting with the Gospel of Mark, perhaps the earliest, we can see Jesus moving about amongst the people, healing and teaching about spiritual matters. As he went about these efforts, he often simply touched the sick person in order to heal him or her, merely saying something like “Be clean” or “Go your way”.

     Being the shortest Gospel, Mark rarely offers extended accounts of Jesus’ exchanges with those whom he heals or engages in discussion. Instead, Mark offers what might be called “one-liners” to indicate how and with whom Jesus conducted these kinds of encounters. In the other Gospels, especially that of John, he frequently engages in rather lengthy dialogues with various people, including religious leaders. I shall focus our attention here on these sorts of exchanges.

     One such occasion arises when Jesus was sitting at table in the house of one Levi a tax collector, along with other tax collectors (Mark 2: 13ff). When the scribes and Pharisees saw him eating with “sinners” and tax collectors (who were despised by their own countrymen because they did the will of the Romans in collecting taxes for them), the Pharisees present asked why Jesus took meals with tax-collectors who are known “sinners”?  When he overheard these remarks, Jesus replied: “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick do. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” (2:17).

     Here we have a clever twist of meanings on Jesus’ part. Just who actually needs help, those who claim not to or those who admit that they do? Here, as often, Jesus resorts to ironic sarcasm in order to point out that he is interested in trying to help those who need help and openly admit it. Tax collectors were among the lowest ranked socially of the Jewish people and were despised by their own countrymen. Jesus’ use of sarcasm clearly has a bite to it. He is not generally polite when speaking to or about those, like the Pharisees, who hold themselves to be superior to regular people.

            It may be a bit puzzling why Jesus would resort to sarcasm and ridicule when speaking to or about those whom he discerned to view themselves above other people, especially when it is on the basis of religious faith. He often speaks to and of these groups in a critical manner. In the long run, of course, this dialogical stance got him into a great deal of trouble with those in religious authority, who in turn delivered him into the hands of the Roman authorities. The Gospel writers never shy away from this aspect of Jesus’ manner of speaking to and with religious leaders. He was, for them, a dangerous “rabble-rouser” and threat to their own control of the Jewish people as well as to their own position under the rule of the Romans.

       After having delivered his famous “Sermon on the Mount”, as recorded in both Matthew (Chapters 5 through 7) and also recorded, though a bit differently, in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus heals a leper but asks him to tell no one but simply show himself to a priest and offer the traditional gift that Moses had commanded for having been healed. Immediately after this episode Jesus enters the city of Capernaum and is met by a Roman Centurion asking for him to heal his sick servant (8:5). This is the first case of Jesus being in conversation with a Roman citizen.

            This is an important encounter, perhaps the first or only direct, between Jesus and a Gentile. It is unclear what language(s) was involved in this short conversation. Jesus, perhaps, may have been involved as a carpenter in nearby Sepphoris a Roman city and thus may have understood some Latin, but most likely this conversation took place in a mix of “pidgin” Hebrew and Greek, which was the most common mode of speech between Hebrews and Romans in those days. Nonetheless, Jesus and this Centurion were able to communicate about the latter’s sick servant. He begged Jesus for help, which seems surprising t the outset. Perhaps Jesus’ “fame” had become known in the area already.

            Jesus offers to go to the servant, but the Centurion suggests that it might be quicker and more appropriate if Jesus would simply “say the word” and heal the servant there and then. Jesus, in turn, marveled at the Centurion’s unusual and strong faith. “Not in all of Israel have I encountered such faith” (8:10). Turning to the Centurion he said: “Go, be it done for you as you have believed”. Matthew says: “In that very hour the servant was healed.” It is worth noting that Jesus said that in this Gentile Centurion he saw a quality of faith that he had not seen elsewhere. The faith of a Gentile is here praised more highly than that of anyone in Jesus’ own Jewish race. His “dialogical” style is on full display herein.

            Later Jesus returns to his home town, most likely Capernaum but possibly Nazareth (Chapter Nine). After healing another paralytic man and forgiving his sins, Jesus asks his interlocutors whether it is more amazing to forgive sins or heal a paralytic man. This behavior and mode of questioning always astounds his hearers. But when moving on he encounters Mathew (Levi) the same tax collector for the Romans mentioned in Mark as well as the very writer of this Gospel account (Matt 9:9). As he sat at the table with various tax collectors and other “sinners” who did the Romans’ bidding, Jesus varies his “lesson” a bit from the way Luke tells it. In any case, the point here being that these so-called “sinners” need God’s mercy as much as, or perhaps more than any others (9:13). 

       Throughout Matthew’s account, as well as those of Luke and Mark, we are offered numerous similar brief encounters between Jesus and various types and levels of common people, as well as detailed instructions to the Twelve disciples as they prepare to go forth in their ministry to the needy, etc. By and large, however, the Gospel accounts of both Matthew and Luke, as well as that of Mark, as we have seen, consist of accounts of Jesus’ public and private “lessons” for the chosen Twelve Apostles. The “Sermon on the Mount” in Mathew and Luke provides the most information and insight into Jesus’ ministry and message in these so-called “Synoptic” Gospels. Here I am more interested in the fascinating dialogues found in the Gospel of John as sources for a deeper understanding of Jesus’ message.

     It must be acknowledged that John’s Gospel was not written until several decades after the synoptics and its author was certainly not the Apostle John of the other Gospels, but some solid evidence of its author’s writing has emerged in the Nag Hamady manuscript recent discoveries which date around 125 to 150 CE.

     Nonetheless, there is considerable evidence that the author of this Gospel wrote it sometime around those dates. It seems likely that its author could well have been the Apostle John, who tradition claims lived well into the First Century CE, may well have been the writer behind this Johannian tradition. Scholars agree that the ideas and vocabulary used by this author resonate with those of the early Christian Church in the first century. There are also several connections to previous copies of this Gospel.

      In addition, it is clear that while the Gospel of John as we have it does not vary much from the Synoptics in geographic and historical detail it does provide considerably more detail concerning the teachings and ideas shared by Jesus with his disciples during his brief ministry. Therefore, it is generally accepted that the ideas and teachings of Jesus in the Gospel of John are at least grounded in the lives and beliefs of the Christians of the early Church. Moreover, it is these ideas and teaching and ideas that have formed the basis of what we have come to know as the core of the Christian Gospel. It is these that I wish to focus on in what follows.

     We’ll start with Jesus’ well-known conversation with Nicodemus in John 3:1-12. The story is familiar. A Pharisee named Nicodemus visited Jesus at night, perhaps to avoid being seen, and acknowledged his own admiration for Jesus as a teacher because of his reputation, remarking that God must be with him because of it. Clearly, this conversation must have taken place many years before, but the writer seems to be drawing on a good source, perhaps his own memories, because of the details involved, or on those of others who passed such stories along. There is a liveliness and detail in the way John relates this conversation which carries a tone of authenticity.

            Jesus is said to have responded with what has now become almost a shibboleth in Christian circles: “Unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God”. (3:16) Nicodemus, a highly educated man, replies by asking what has to be read as almost a joke on his behalf because of its oversimplicity. “How can a man be born when he is old?” On the other hand, perhaps he was asking concerning himself since he himself must have been elderly. But he elaborates on his question by saying something which must have sounded like a joke to Jesus: “Can he enter his mother’s womb and be born?”

            Clearly, Nicodemus was far too wise to have meant his question seriously. His question could in fact be read as an attempt at friendly humor. In any case, Jesus clarifies his comment by suggesting that a person can only become part of God’s spiritual community by having been born twice: once in one’s mother’s birthing water and again through a birth of God’s Spirit. He continues by explaining that he is talking about some sort of spiritual birth, a second birth, one which is like the mysterious character of wind, which seems to come and go on its own accord. In reply to Nicodemus’ question about how this can be so, Jesus jests: “You are a religious Jewish teacher and you would ask such a simple question?” Surely, he must have uttered this remark with a smile on his face and warmth in his tone. There is something very humanly authentic about this account of this conversation.

            Nicodemus appears again in John’s Gospel (7:50) when the disciples are arguing about how serious Jesus’ offenses were with the Pharisees’ teachings. He interrupts them, saying: “Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?” He was quickly dismissed with the seemingly irrelevant remark that the Hebrew Scriptures say nothing about a prophet coming from Galilee. Clearly this learned and devout man had been deeply touched by his initial encounter with Jesus. He had continued to follow his career and was obviously deeply impressed by his person and his teachings. Their dialogue in chapter three was truly significant.     

     Thus, when the disciples are burying Jesus after his crucifixion, we are told that Nicodemus helped in the burial by bringing a heavy amount of myrrh and aloe. Clearly, the author of John’s Gospel had extended his interest in Jesus’ teaching and person throughout his ministry and may even had become a disciple. It is of special interest that this relationship between Jesus and Nicodemus be noted. It was Jesus’ dialogical relationship with Nicodemus that led not only to the latter’s commitment to Jesus, but to our understanding of style of Jesus’ way of drawing others to himself.

            In the very next chapter, Four, of John’s Gospel we are introduced to yet another example of the dialogical style which characterized Jesus’ way of interacting with individuals he met along the way. In a very unconventional manner, Jesus chose to find his way from Jerusalem to Galilee through the region of Samaria, a region populated by a mixed race of people left over from the Persian captivity several centuries previously. These people were partly Jewish and partly a collection people merged together by the Persians in their effort to reorganize and thus better control the Jewish nation. The city of Sychar was the capitol of Samaria and the Jewish travelers sought to avoid this area because they saw these people as heretics and “unclean” ceremonially.

            Unsurprisingly, on his way from Jerusalem to his home in Galilee (John 4:1-42) Jesus chose to go by way of Samaria rather than try to avoid its “unclean” population. He sat down alone by a historic well and a Samaritan woman came to draw water. The Samaritan woman was asked by Jesus for a drink. She was surprised that he, a Jew, would ask a favor of her, a despised Samaritan. He shifts the topic by saying that if she knew who he was she would ask him for “living water.” She does not pick up on his imagery right away and asks where he would get “this living water”. Jesus clarifies his imagery by shifting to talking about “eternal water” that he would provide if she but asked for it.

            It’s possible that the woman thought Jesus wanted to have a discussion about the historic differences between Jews and Samaritans. Jesus skips over their religious and historic differences by suggesting that their common “Messiah” is coming and will challenge both Jews and Samaritans to worship him in “spirit and truth.” The woman agrees and suggests that the Messiah, who is called “the Christ” will explain all things, including the differences between the Jews and the Samaritans. Jesus took this reference to the coming of the Messiah to introduce his own presence “I am the one you are speaking of”. The woman still does not seem to get what he is talking about, and askes for this unending supply of water.

       Oddly, at this point Jesus shifts the topic again by asking the woman to go get her husband, and after she offers that she has no husband Jesus reveals some knowledge about her personal life. The woman finally gets the point that Jesus is some kind of “prophet” and enters into a historical/religious debate about where the proper place to worship is. The woman then left and went back into town to tell her friends about this amazing stranger who knew all about her, wondering if he could be the Messiah. The conversation between Jesus and the woman is interrupted by the disciples’ return from the city with food and asked him to eat. Here John interrupts the scene with a summary of a speech from Jesus about the importance of grasping every opportunity, as Jesus was then doing, to bring the Good News to all who would listen.

            John closes the episode with a summary of the results of Jesus’ visit to Samaria (4:39-42). The book of Acts (9:31) reveals that one of the places where an original Christian church sprouted up was indeed in Samaria. Surprisingly, and unfortunately, we do not hear of this church anywhere else in the New Testament. But this episode in John amply demonstrates the dialogical character of yet another of Jesus’ encounters with different types of people throughout his teaching ministry in different parts of Palestine. Yet another such conversational episode occurs in the 13^th Chapter of John where Jesus washes the feet of his disciples. Here, once again, the tone of the conversation is very personal as Jesus explains to Peter and the others that his relationship to them is more than that of a mere teacher. He concludes the episode with these words: “If I then have washed your feet, you ought also too wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example that you should also do as I have done to you. (John 13:14-15)

            It this openness and servant-spirited displayed in Jesus’ character that I find to be the most compelling aspect of his person and ministry. So often Jesus treats others, even his own disciples, as real persons, worthy of respect and parity, while at the same time being their teacher and Master. He does not “Lord it over” others or deal with them as in any way less than he himself. As Dietrich Bonhoffer put it: “He was a man for others.” He comes to others as a “person”, not as a King. It this dialogical aspect of Jesus’ person that impresses me the most.