Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
Acts 17:11
How do I get you to understand the “color blue”? Regardless of whether I’m trying to activate an existing place in your brain OR trying to create something in your brain, we need a mechanism for doing building that shared understanding.
We can’t ever fully transport or inject our meaning into anyone else, but we can express ourselves and invite communal actions as a way of bringing into harmony with others some part of the meaning structure within ourselves. We commonly speak of “shared meaning” as though it could be distributed within a group, like food and wine. My belief is that meanings can be made to be similar in people who work, dance, sing, and pray together, and I call this portion of their meaning structures “assimilated meaning.” … Words are merely cognitive and cannot lead to the sense of trust that comes with deep assimilation of meaning. Joint action is the real glue that holds societies together. It begins with socialization in infancy and extends throughout life as the midwife of meaning in each of us.
How Brains Make Up Their Minds by Walter J. Freeman; pp 14-15
We make representations and use them to induce the formation of meanings in others.
How Brains Make Up Their Minds by Walter J. Freeman; pg 16
We need a mechanism to communicate a meaning. For ease of understanding we’ll focus on written and oral words are as the mechanism we’ll look at.
Are you reading the text as provocative or as an invitation into assimilated meaning?
Words seem to originate in specific areas of the brain. The Brain Dictionary project study. Please note that these areas are about blood flow to regions and varies person to person meaning that it is not “fact” that they originate in the regions. Rather it is a fascinating and important correlative study and project.
For a quick video describing the project see The brain dictionary.
As noted, it’s not just words in our brain, it is the processing and usage of language that has much involvement. Processing and using language has many parts in our brains including an area known for articulating ideas (the Broca’s area) and comprehending auditory words (Wernicke's area).
For a full overview of Anatomy of Language checkout the text and video from Memory and Aging Center of the Weill Institute for Neurosciences.
A more detailed study on how other areas are critical to understand language in the brain see a study on contributions from functional neuroimaging.
Language may provide possibilities of meaning. Two videos on how language may influence how we create and convey meaning.
Bare in mind, the implications and usage of language in our brains has a several theories. For an overview of the various theories of language see Khan Academy’s Theories of Language and Cognition.
So if words do not contain meaning and instead they only help create an assimilated understanding through interaction and feedback, then knowing the original author is critical to understanding the meaning of the text.
The true object of interpretation is to apprehend the exact thought of the author…
It is not the privilege of any interpreter to impose his own thought upon the words of an author, nor in any way to modify the author’s meaning.
Principles of Interpretation by Clinton Lockhart; pg 19
Reading as an art form is to ask “what does this provoke me to think or do” whereas assimilated meaning is to read asking “what is the author's meaning”
Having context and original author in mind reveals more of the story or how an author uses language to convey events and meanings through representations with words.
… sometimes the semblance of contradiction is due to the use of one or more terms in the two statements with different meanings or applications.
Principles of Interpretation by Clinton Lockhart; pg 27
What hour did Jesus die?
In the book Principles of Interpretation, Lockhart shows a clear example of seeming contradictions involving what “hour” Jesus was tried and crucified with John 19:14 and Mark 15:25 (it is easiest to use Amplified or ESV). He points that in John Jesus is still before Pilate at the sixth hour and crucified in the ninth hour, whereas in Mark Jesus is crucified in the third hour. In John, how can Jesus be speaking with Pilate three hours after His death?
If it can be shown that Mark numbered the hours from six o’clock in the morning, making the third hour nine o’clock, and John counted the hours from midnight, making the ninth hour nine o’clock the statements are harmonious.
Principles of Interpretation by Clinton Lockhart; pg 28
Lockhart refers us to the Bible Commentary on John by Canon Westcott for evidence and explanation of the counting methods used.
Mark figures the time by Jewish reckoning, where the day would start at sundown and be broken into segments. We still see this today as observant Jews start their observance of the Sabbath at sundown. This would make the third hour to be about noon.
The Romans reckoned their time differently and their segments were longer. Ancient Roman sundials show that the daylight hours were divided into twelve equal segments, or hours. However, there were only two major segments, daytime and nighttime, with the hours beginning at sunrise and counted until sunset. Therefore, this makes the sixth hour in Roman time also about noon. John's audience was the Gentile church, so John uses Roman time throughout His Gospel.
Come Reason Ministries
Here the audience and the author play a crucial role in how the account is written and told.
At times seeming contradictions may be showing us a complete picture. I refer to this as the difference between diptych and dichotomous explanations and forms of thought.
Dichotomy is a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different.
Diptych (and triptych) are separated parts of a whole that tell a complete story. Diptych paintings can seem to contradict but are only attempting to clarify, through polarity, a bigger concept that requires separation of the parts for ease in understanding.
With triptych, the two outer sides may seem to contradict each other (see figure D1 and D2) but seen with the middle piece are actually complementary (see D3 and D4)
Figure D1
Figure D2
When we add the missing piece the story unfolds and clarifies that the two parts are actually only separated for clarification of the whole.
Figure D3
Figure D4
Other times, what may seem like a contradiction could actually be different perspectives of the same situation or idea through separate lens as this video on ultraviolet demonstrates.
With this in mind, let’s take a look at a seeming contradiction from Paul and James. Remember, contradictions may just be harmonious parts of a greater song.
If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.’…. It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.
Romans 4:2-3, 4:13 (NIV)
Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,’ and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
James 2:21-24 (NIV)
Is this dichotomous (aka contradictory) or diptych or triptych?
Consider James 2:19 “You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God. Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror.” [New Living Translation]
Read, watch, and listen to the following resources:
