I heard Robert Price use the phrase “embedded interpretation” recently. It refers to those bits on interpretation that we just assume are part of the original text of the Bible.
The classic example are the wise men: how many were there? Most people would say three, but there’s actually no number given in Matthew. You have to arrive at the number three by an interpretation based on the number of gifts.
That’s not a bad method, and it may actually be what Matthew had in mind. But we can’t be sure of that. Every time you see a nativity scene with three wise men, you’re seeing a bit of interpretation that has been unconsciously embedded in the image.
A more modern word for it would be “fanon.” That’s a combination of “fan” and “canon,” and it’s usually associated with pop culture. So not surprisingly, TVtropes has a decent page on it, and I’ll steal their definition:
Fanon is the set of theories based on that material which, while they generally seem to be the “obvious” or “only” interpretation of canonical fact, are not actually part of the canon. Occasionally, the explanation seems good enough to just be “common sense.” The salient point to remember is that when someone shouts, “That episode was terrible because it violates canon!”, they are very often totally incorrect.
Examples of fanon include names being given to characters not named in the source material, to the inevitable “so-and-so are gay” about any character not currently in a hetero relationship.
The thing about fanon is that it can become established after long use, causing people to forget that it’s only the current interpretation of the majority of readers. It could be interpreted a different way. And with the authority given to the Bible, that can be a problem.
TVtropes actually has a pretty through list of Biblical examples. As always, don’t click on a TVTropes link if you want to remain productive.
“As always, don’t click on a TVTropes link if you want to remain productive.”
Case in point. Even clicking on the comic leads to TVtropes!
Hi Vorjack.
My dad (an Atheist) just forwarded this post to me (an Episcopal priest) and asked my thoughts. I wrote the following reply to him and figured I’d post it here.
We’ve just talked about this in our adult education course a few weeks
back on the sources of our religious life. Actually, there is an
example of “fanon” to be found in the New Testament itself. In 2
Timothy 3:8, the author mentions Jannes and Jambres, who are
apparently the two magicians who opposed Moses in the presence of
Pharoah back in Exodus. They aren’t named in Exodus, but their names
had apparently become part of the oral tradition of the Jewish world,
and this of course passed into the Christian story.
Naturally, the canon of the New Testament took a while to be written,
and even longer to become “the canon”. The canon became the canon
because it reflected the religious experience that was being lived and
practiced by a praying community, rather than the living community
emerging from a solid and consistent Scriptural authority. This is why
the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura falls down.
In fact, 2 Thessalonians 2.15 gives a hint of evidence into the notion
that some parts of the tradition were handed on in written form, and
some in oral. No culture, no community, no church could possibly write
down every aspect of its shared life. It makes even more sense given
the persecution of the early church.
So that’s why Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican churches have
always had stuff that can’t be directly supported from the texts.
Liturgy is of course the biggest area. There’s nothing in the NT that
says anything other than “on the first day of the week when they had
gathered for the prayers and the breaking of the bread”. That’s why
we’ve got Scripture, tradition, and reason as our famous three-legged
stool. What we do say is that the canon of Scripture is the norm (the
canon=the rule!) so we do at the least assume that our traditions and
our reasonable conclusions may not contradict the doctrinal core of
the Scriptural account. The arguments arise over what is considered
adiaphora!
Not the Bible but recently I read something Sam Harris wrote the other day where he claimed End of Faith does not even contain the word “atheism”. I’d imagine everyone (friends and enemies alike) would assume the word HAD to be there.
My favorite example of this is how the descriptions of hell in The Divine Comedy are now considered by most christians to be biblical.
Also “The lord helps those who help themselves”.
Ben Franklin was a very witty guy!! Love that quotation!
Yeah! Maybe several Wise Guys came to Jesus’ birth but didn’t bring a gift!
Pingback: Biblical Urban Legends | Unreasonable Faith