Superfluousity in the New Testament

What do you think of the meaning or implication of the word, impartation?

That's just the point: it doesn't say because (apparently) it doesn't matter.If the vast majority of healings in the New Testament are not meticulously described as miracles, what does that suggest? Maybe that the healing was more important than the miracle?A few "genuine miracles" may have been necessary to show that Jesus could do miracles (or that God could do miracles through Him). Whoever claims there is no superfluity in the New Testament would have to tell us "how many" are the threshold value.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Well... I had to look it up. From that you can tell it's not a word artists use much. I notice the term gets quite a workout in the religious world, though, where it is defined several ways.I will sidestep those definitions that are specific to Christian doctrinal issues: the ritual laying on of hands, the delegation of apostolic authority, the precise moment of Holy Spirit baptism. We were talking about inspiration as it looks from other perspectives.The definition of impartation that most interested me was in describing the process of being touched, of being moved. I find this idea very important. It may be the idea that stands at the center of all experiences we describe as 'spiritual.'Impartation means the process of absorbing something new. We allow something new to enter us or us to enter it. We prepare for it by being mindful, and open, and humble, and still. We are asked to be fearless of the unknown (or, at least, less afraid of the unknown than we are of the things we think we know!).Mystics in all faiths know this process. It's part of the air they breathe. Meditation offers a way to prepare for it. Rilke said all artists have to learn to absorb the new if we are to grow as artists. I suspect all human beings have to do the same if we are to grow as human beings.Contemplatives universally emphasize the importance of solitude. Artists know the usefulness of willed introversion. And it is wonderful for anyone to discover how un-lonely being alone can be. Rilke advised that we pay especially close attention to what enters us at times when we are solitary and sad. New things come to us at such times, he said, if we pay attention.But solitude is not the only thing that allows this. We can be moved when we listen to the chant of Tibetan monks or to Mahler's Second Symphony, contemplate a painting by Marc Chagall or a sculpture by Rodin, hear a poem by Li Po or Mary Oliver, read an essay by Ralph Waldo Emerson or Annie Dillard, or watch a dancer from Cloud Gate or the Netherlands Ballet. At such times we are not alone even in human terms. We are in the company of artists. They have been moved by something and ask to share it with us. They ask for a chance to move us, too. They ask for a chance to take us somewhere. They offer their best as fellow travelers on the journey if we only give ourselves permission to go.Impartation is just another word for sharing, isn't it?___Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML.Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Don't worry, I didn't forget about Malchus' ear...just trying to connect the dots in a way that won't make me a laughing stock.There are details which are integral...like giving an indication of the quantity of fish per the number of diners.The name of the servant, on the other hand, is entirely arbitrary...unless, unless the author had an ulterior motive.You will find that only in John the name is mentioned, so it is clear that the detail is not needed in the synoptics. The name also, because of its location in the verse, seems to be a later addition.John could have said (paraphrase) 'Simon Peter struck off Malchus' ear, one of the servants' or something similar. Instead he tells the story just as in the other gospels, and then says 'oh, by the way, the servant's name was Malchus'. If this was a later addition, you would start to think, well, why was it added? Just for believability? Then why are these details not all over the place in this gospel? Why do we only know the name of this servant? There are plenty of characters who go nameless in the next few verses.I am guessing at a later attempt to establish authorship, or, if the second part of John is indeed of a different author, an attempt on the part of that writer to conform to the tradition that it was the Apostle writing.The detail may have been added to show that the author knew more than the other evangelists.He knows Malchus' name.Later in John 18 he knows that the person who Peter denied Jesus to was a relative of Malchus...how would he know this if he didn't know Malchus?How would he know it was a relative if he wasn't there?There is a little more to this hypothesis than these flimsy ideas, but as yet I am having touble connecting it. In John's account of the passion there is something like dualism IMO, where the story is obviously third person, but yet, gives these hints that the writer was involved.Just let's say, that as of now, I am not sure that your detail is not part of a different, super-imposed, and clumsy plot.

As far as these plentiful 'other books', do you mean, fiction?Why did you have to make this complicated? If a book is fiction, there can be tons of detail added to give a mental image, but not integral to the plot itself. Fiction on the other hand is 100% superflouous?A biography if it is truthful can be thought to be without the superfluous...the more detail the better, as long as it is factual. But how much is necessary to tell the life story of a man?Even if we stuck the gospels in one or the other category, they are not written to do much justice to a work of art, or to a biography, at least not by our standards and desire for detail. Whatever the point of view, you had the idea of my question right when you said 'the right ear'.P.S. I am not sure how my title is superfluous I thought of saying "superfluousity in the NT' but decided that was not a real word.

One of my favorite examples of that is the image created by the dialog in John's retelling of the first miracle, the wedding and turning the water into wine.In the story, Jesus and His disciples have been invited to a wedding party. The booze runs out. Jesus mom turns to him and asks "Well, are you gonna make the beer run?"Jesus replies "Aw Mom, it's not even my party. What's it to me?"Then there is silence. After a pause Jesus mom turns to the stewards and says, "Just do what he says."But even though we are never told what happened between Mary first asking Jesus to make the beer run, his whiny reply, and the FACT that the matter was settled, we can see it.Mary stood there, the classic Jewish mother, her eyes locked on His, Jesus unable to turn away from that glare; no words were needed, it was a done deal. Jesus was gonna make that beer run whether he wanted to or not.Mother had spoken.But then the story gets into more detail. It describes the size of the jugs, how much water they held.And once again, the point of the story is left unsaid.Why were the sizes of the jugs mentioned?Why was so much water on hand?We need to remember that those who first heard this story would understand the process of a Jewish Wedding of the period. It was a long event, one that went on for days. And it was filled with ceremony, and each ceremony required a ritual purification, a washing.That was what the water was for, and why so much water was needed, and why all those jugs of water were on hand.Even more than the wine, water played a part in tradition, ceremony and ritual.BUT...once the water was changed to wine, there was no more water. There was nothing to perform all the required rituals.The miracle was more than just turning water into wine. It was a sign, symbolic of ending ritual for the sake of ritual and returning to living, to life.Jesus said, enough. There is no more need of all that ritual. Here I am. I am the way.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Not necessarily. Walk into any bookstore: how many books are "surplus to requirements" for you?
Superfluity is in the eye of the beholder. That's what I do. Not just fiction. We don't need to know how many stories high the Dallas Book Depository was. We don't need to know that it was raining the day Hitler became Chancellor. I'm wondering if my point got across. I suggested to Archer that some people would put significance on which ear even if the author didn't.Is there symbolic significance in the weather in Berlin in January 1933? Sure, if you put it there. I think the word is "superfluity".

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

One of my favorite such examples of detail that later actually becomes pertinent is "Emily had a Gold Tooth."

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

A Canticle for Liebowitz? I'm not familiar and I couldn't find much on Google.
Perhaps you could enlighten us?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Much is left out of the Memorabilia, often important details like the actual name of the ruler at the beginning of the Flame Deluge or of the rulers of Sodom or Gomorrah, or exactly what it was that pissed God off leading to the Noachic Flood, but one thing was clear. Emily had a Gold Tooth.Brother Francis Gerard of Utah discovered some relics in the southwest which seemed to be related to the Blessed Leibowitz and that might have importance in the efforts to Canonize the founder of the Albertian Order of Leibowitz. One significant issue revolved around whether he was still married when he accepted orders. One thing Brother Francis found was a skull with a gold tooth which was later identified as being Emily Leibowitz and thus showed that she had died long before Isaac Leibowitz accepted orders.The key point is that there seemed no reason for the fact that Emily had a gold tooth to be recorded in the Memorabilia, yet it was. Only later did that take on significance.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So anything that seems "superfluous" might be something that we just haven't figured out yet.
How scientific. Thanks.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Or a plot device.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, that is an awesome idea there jar. I don't know where you got it, or if it just came to you, but very nice.So would you say the story exists for the sake of symbolism, and therefore the detail is included where it wouldn't need to be otherwise?

Or something we have forgotten? Or was connected to a manuscript we have lost? In that case, no point in speculating too much, eh?Btw...how many gospels mention the 'right' ear?

I would say it is certainly not new with me. It was certainly one of the things we discussed during those long winter nights 50 some years ago and I have no idea who first broached the idea. It's a pretty common interpretation though and one I have heard several Priests from several denominations use. The whole story is symbolic. It is filled with it. It is day three of the wedding. What else happens on the third day?This is the teaser. John is saying, "You think this is something, wait 'till you see the finale."Frankly it is much like the story of Jonah, people concentrate on the wrong things. The wine into water is just a superfluous detail. The import of the story is that Jesus transcends ritual and that it is an introduction to a new vision and description of Jesus.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion