Atomizing the text vs longitudinal analysis

[Fervent]

So this post is somewhat meta-theological so I'm not sure where to place it, but I've been thinking about how we handle Scripture. Often there is an emphasis on an atomistic view of Scripture where we break the text into the smallest possible unit and analyze it that way. We break it down into propositions or grammatical units and attempt to build meaning from the bottom up.

Yet this doesn't really seem to agree with how we reach meaning normally, as there tends to be interplay between the higher level text with us understanding things as paragraphs and units of thought as well as on the unit level.

In my training I have seen almost nothing on building longitudinal themes that span larger blocks. I can understand why for practical reasons this would be, as it doesn't exactly lend itself to a methodological approach. Yet surely these longitudinal themes are as important as the fine details in getting an accurate picture of what the intended meaning of the Bible is.

So how do we ensure our methods and practices engage at all these levels? How do we build defenses against an atomistic view of Scripture that misses the forest for the trees, or an overly broad view of Scripture that does not interact with the details well? What sort of hermeneutical principles can we employ?

 

[Paidiske]

I find paying attention to intertextuality - both within the canon and in its reception - very helpful. So, for example, if we're looking at a text in (say) Genesis, where else in Scripture is that text referenced, and how do those references shed light on the way those authors understood the text?

Or how are themes developed over time in different Scriptures, and how do those Scriptures interplay to build a rich and complex picture? And so on.

 

[Fervent]

I find paying attention to intertextuality - both within the canon and in its reception - very helpful. So, for example, if we're looking at a text in (say) Genesis, where else in Scripture is that text referenced, and how do those references shed light on the way those authors understood the text?

Or how are themes developed over time in different Scriptures, and how do those Scriptures interplay to build a rich and complex picture? And so on.

That is a great suggestion, especially with Bible software that can assist in quickly assembling such things.

Out of curiousity, did that sort of analysis receive any attention in your seminary education?

 

[Paidiske]

Some, yes. I was certainly pointed to commentaries which emphasised intertextuality and reception history as resources for essays.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So this post is somewhat meta-theological so I'm not sure where to place it, but I've been thinking about how we handle Scripture. Often there is an emphasis on an atomistic view of Scripture where we break the text into the smallest possible unit and analyze it that way. We break it down into propositions or grammatical units and attempt to build meaning from the bottom up.

Yet this doesn't really seem to agree with how we reach meaning normally, as there tends to be interplay between the higher level text with us understanding things as paragraphs and units of thought as well as on the unit level.

In my training I have seen almost nothing on building longitudinal themes that span larger blocks. I can understand why for practical reasons this would be, as it doesn't exactly lend itself to a methodological approach. Yet surely these longitudinal themes are as important as the fine details in getting an accurate picture of what the intended meaning of the Bible is.

So how do we ensure our methods and practices engage at all these levels? How do we build defenses against an atomistic view of Scripture that misses the forest for the trees, or an overly broad view of Scripture that does not interact with the details well? What sort of hermeneutical principles can we employ?

As for how to build up defenses against it, I'd recommend reading huge swathes of Scripture at a time. Like, maybe instead of TV. Read to where you can see the same heart of God in the books of Amos, Job, the Gospels, etc. Reading them to listen to his heart. Reading them without drawing conclusions, but full of wondering.

There certainly is a difference between how we write and how we talk. Also, between how we talk and how we think. Studying other languages is also useful. I'm wondering if your training isn't tangential to linquistics. One thing linguistics is good for is to help understand that the English Bible isn't the Hebrew nor Greek (even if you don't know Hebrew or Greek), which will help "slow your roll" in jumping to conclusions and getting dogmatic too quickly.

Just some thoughts your post provoked.

It is amazing to me how well the old guys (John Owen, and contemporaries, up until the 1800's, I'd say), could write paragraph-long sentences, whole pages, without a word processor, several-page long progressions of thought, without losing their place in the logical sequence.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I find paying attention to intertextuality - both within the canon and in its reception - very helpful. So, for example, if we're looking at a text in (say) Genesis, where else in Scripture is that text referenced, and how do those references shed light on the way those authors understood the text?

Or how are themes developed over time in different Scriptures, and how do those Scriptures interplay to build a rich and complex picture? And so on.

Yes, those are good studies.

I liked especially how the era leading up to Jesus had a theme of water parting leaving dry land in the middle, ending with Jesus dying on the third day.

And Jesus being called the rock, the ground of truth, exhorts us to bear fruit.

all very third day of creation.

 

[Fervent]

As for how to build up defenses against it, I'd recommend reading huge swathes of Scripture at a time. Like, maybe instead of TV. Read to where you can see the same heart of God in the books of Amos, Job, the Gospels, etc. Reading them to listen to his heart. Reading them without drawing conclusions, but full of wondering.

There certainly is a difference between how we write and how we talk. Also, between how we talk and how we think. Studying other languages is also useful. I'm wondering if your training isn't tangential to linquistics. One thing linguistics is good for is to help understand that the English Bible isn't the Hebrew nor Greek (even if you don't know Hebrew or Greek), which will help "slow your roll" in jumping to conclusions and getting dogmatic too quickly.

Just some thoughts your post provoked.

It is amazing to me how well the old guys (John Owen, and contemporaries, up until the 1800's, I'd say), could write paragraph-long sentences, whole pages, without a word processor, several-page long progressions of thought, without losing their place in the logical sequence.

As simple as it seems, a daily habit of simply reading can definitely help. Though I'm not sure it always does, since so many passages are so saturated in the background noise of theological debates. Who in the West can read Romans 3-8 or James 2 now without at least contemplating the debate over sola fide? And then the urge to break down the flow of thought comes in.

One thing I will say, is reading a Bible without chapter/verse numbers can be an eye opening experience.

 

[Peter J Barban]

So this post is somewhat meta-theological so I'm not sure where to place it, but I've been thinking about how we handle Scripture. Often there is an emphasis on an atomistic view of Scripture where we break the text into the smallest possible unit and analyze it that way. We break it down into propositions or grammatical units and attempt to build meaning from the bottom up.

Yet this doesn't really seem to agree with how we reach meaning normally, as there tends to be interplay between the higher level text with us understanding things as paragraphs and units of thought as well as on the unit level.

In my training I have seen almost nothing on building longitudinal themes that span larger blocks. I can understand why for practical reasons this would be, as it doesn't exactly lend itself to a methodological approach. Yet surely these longitudinal themes are as important as the fine details in getting an accurate picture of what the intended meaning of the Bible is.

So how do we ensure our methods and practices engage at all these levels? How do we build defenses against an atomistic view of Scripture that misses the forest for the trees, or an overly broad view of Scripture that does not interact with the details well? What sort of hermeneutical principles can we employ?

I recommend reading a book on Systematic Theology, especially one that examines the pros and cons of the major viewpoints. My preference is for Evangelical or Reformed Theology.

 

[Fervent]

I recommend reading a book on Systematic Theology, especially one that examines the pros and cons of the major viewpoints. My preference is for Evangelical or Reformed Theology.

Systematic theology has a major tendency to do exactly what I'm talking about, breaking the text up into small segments(such as individual verses) and interpreting from there.

One thing I'm getting at is that we don't get meaning from individual words, or sentences even, yet we often try to interpret the Bible at the level of individual words and sentences.

 

[Peter J Barban]

Systematic theology has a major tendency to do exactly what I'm talking about, breaking the text up into small segments(such as individual verses) and interpreting from there.

One thing I'm getting at is that we don't get meaning from individual words, or sentences even, yet we often try to interpret the Bible at the level of individual words and sentences.

I suspect that you have written off Systematic Theology too easily. Perhaps you haven't found the right book yet.

Earlier you were concerned about discerning the "forest from the trees". That's what Systematic Theology does, it gives you a survey of the whole forest, then examines the tress. I don't think that it atomized the texts in any significant way.

The book that I recommend is "Christian Theology" by Millard J Erickson.

 

[Fervent]

Earlier you were concerned about discerning the "forest from the trees". That's what Systematic Theology does, it gives you a survey of the whole forest, then e

Systematic theology doesn't really do that, though. It breaks the text into small chunks and then categorizes them in an original way not necessarily suited to the text. The text is interpreted in a novel context which is likely to render incorrect readings and strengthen presuppositions. It is one of the atomistic manners of handling Scripture I am concerned with.

 

[bling]

So this post is somewhat meta-theological so I'm not sure where to place it, but I've been thinking about how we handle Scripture. Often there is an emphasis on an atomistic view of Scripture where we break the text into the smallest possible unit and analyze it that way. We break it down into propositions or grammatical units and attempt to build meaning from the bottom up.

Yet this doesn't really seem to agree with how we reach meaning normally, as there tends to be interplay between the higher level text with us understanding things as paragraphs and units of thought as well as on the unit level.

In my training I have seen almost nothing on building longitudinal themes that span larger blocks. I can understand why for practical reasons this would be, as it doesn't exactly lend itself to a methodological approach. Yet surely these longitudinal themes are as important as the fine details in getting an accurate picture of what the intended meaning of the Bible is.

So how do we ensure our methods and practices engage at all these levels? How do we build defenses against an atomistic view of Scripture that misses the forest for the trees, or an overly broad view of Scripture that does not interact with the details well? What sort of hermeneutical principles can we employ?

Looking only at the New Testament we have lots of letters to churches and individuals. The authors of these letters do excellent jobs of communicating to those specifically being addressed, but as readers of other people’s mail, we need to place ourselves in the shoes of the person or people being addressed. We search these letters for support to some preconceived conclusion we have, instead of trying to figure out what the question of the person being addressed was answered.

When these letters got to the people being addressed, they would have read it in its entirety several times the day they got it. They were also hand carried by a person who could most likely address questions about the letter.

Reading the Bible with our preconceived ideas and as if it was being addressed to us has kept us from understanding the letter, so just reading it through can help a little, but is not the only issue.

There is a lot more in scripture then we will ever know, but we can know what we need to know. Lots of times we are reading verses we do not even need to know since they will not change us (help us), so we are being academic, intellectual, reading to gain greater knowledge then others, reading to win an argument, reading for the praise of others, reading to put some down, and reading to say we have read. Our motive is huge in knowing, so with the right motive we read what we need to really know, pray, fast, allow the Spirit to work with us, meditate, wait for the answer from the Spirit, check out other similar passages (use a concordance) and discuss with likeminded Christians. If you noticed, I did not say read a commentary on it, since the indwelling Holy Spirit is a much better source.

Individual words can be important, but what we are looking for is: “How did the audience addressed understand that “word” at that time place and situation” (context, context, context, context context). Debaters often use the same words with assumed different definitions.

 

[pescador]

So this post is somewhat meta-theological so I'm not sure where to place it, but I've been thinking about how we handle Scripture. Often there is an emphasis on an atomistic view of Scripture where we break the text into the smallest possible unit and analyze it that way. We break it down into propositions or grammatical units and attempt to build meaning from the bottom up.

Yet this doesn't really seem to agree with how we reach meaning normally, as there tends to be interplay between the higher level text with us understanding things as paragraphs and units of thought as well as on the unit level.

In my training I have seen almost nothing on building longitudinal themes that span larger blocks. I can understand why for practical reasons this would be, as it doesn't exactly lend itself to a methodological approach. Yet surely these longitudinal themes are as important as the fine details in getting an accurate picture of what the intended meaning of the Bible is.

So how do we ensure our methods and practices engage at all these levels? How do we build defenses against an atomistic view of Scripture that misses the forest for the trees, or an overly broad view of Scripture that does not interact with the details well? What sort of hermeneutical principles can we employ?

I believe there are two factors that primarily contribute to the problem of Biblical interpretation...

1) The most important factor is the (tragic) division of Scripture into discrete chapters and verses. Of course, these were never in the earliest manuscripts, but added in the 12th Century, over a thousand years after the New Testament "books" were written. While these are an excellent method of referring to locations within the "books", they were never meant to be included in the texts themselves. They lead to quoting much of Scripture out of context, thereby distorting the meaning. The best translations divide the writings into logical sentences and paragraphs, while retaining the formatting of poetry where applicable.

2) The second major mistake is selecting a single translation as the Word of God. It is, of course, impossible to render a completely accurate translation because of the language differences: the meaning of words, grammatic differences, idioms, cultural understandings, etc. The best that one can do is to read several different translations, understanding the methods and purpose of the particular translation (as expressed in the introduction) and having a cultural reference to understand how the original hearers understood the writings.

As I have often said, the worst translation for most modern English readers is the King James Version. It was written over 400 years ago in a language that is long "dead" for use in a society that is no longer in existence. It sounds "flowery" but that is yet another flaw as it is entirely inconsistent with ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek.

My suggestion is to read a modern translation that has copious notes that explain the writings, either as part of the Bible translation itself or as a separate commentary. My favorites are the NET, with over 60,000(!) translators' notes, the NIV, an excellent translation that is both accurate and relatively easy to understand, and the NRSV, also both accurate and relatively easy to understand.

There are of course other excellent translations, but the emphasis should be on reading with understanding.

 

[Fervent]

Looking only at the New Testament we have lots of letters to churches and individuals. The authors of these letters do excellent jobs of communicating to those specifically being addressed, but as readers of other people’s mail, we need to place ourselves in the shoes of the person or people being addressed. We search these letters for support to some preconceived conclusion we have, instead of trying to figure out what the question of the person being addressed was answered.

When these letters got to the people being addressed, they would have read it in its entirety several times the day they got it. They were also hand carried by a person who could most likely address questions about the letter.

Reading the Bible with our preconceived ideas and as if it was being addressed to us has kept us from understanding the letter, so just reading it through can help a little, but is not the only issue.

There is a lot more in scripture then we will ever know, but we can know what we need to know. Lots of times we are reading verses we do not even need to know since they will not change us (help us), so we are being academic, intellectual, reading to gain greater knowledge then others, reading to win an argument, reading for the praise of others, reading to put some down, and reading to say we have read. Our motive is huge in knowing, so with the right motive we read what we need to really know, pray, fast, allow the Spirit to work with us, meditate, wait for the answer from the Spirit, check out other similar passages (use a concordance) and discuss with likeminded Christians. If you noticed, I did not say read a commentary on it, since the indwelling Holy Spirit is a much better source.

Individual words can be important, but what we are looking for is: “How did the audience addressed understand that “word” at that time place and situation” (context, context, context, context context). Debaters often use the same words with assumed different definitions.

There definitely needs to be some consideration of the audience, but there is only so much we can recapture after 2000 years, multiple languages, and entirely different worldviews. The timelessness of God's truth implies we should be able to get what God intends us to get from it simply from reading, and academics are just as important as other aspects of development.

One thing that's important and tangential to your point is that the Bible is not a single type of literature, but instead runs the gamut and so to truly understand what is meant we have to recognize what it is we are reading. A teaching letter is going to have different formats than a historical narrative.

 

[Fervent]

I believe there are two factors that primarily contribute to the problem of Biblical interpretation...

1) The most important factor is the (tragic) division of Scripture into discrete chapters and verses. Of course, these were never in the earliest manuscripts, but added in the 12th Century, over a thousand years after the New Testament "books" were written. While these are an excellent method of referring to locations within the "books", they were never meant to be included in the texts themselves. They lead to quoting much of Scripture out of context, thereby distorting the meaning. The best translations divide the writings into logical sentences and paragraphs, while retaining the formatting of poetry where applicable.

2) The second major mistake is selecting a single translation as the Word of God. It is, of course, impossible to render a completely accurate translation because of the language differences: the meaning of words, grammatic differences, idioms, cultural understandings, etc. The best that one can do is to read several different translations, understanding the methods and purpose of the particular translation (as expressed in the introduction) and having a cultural reference to understand how the original hearers understood the writings.

As I have often said, the worst translation for most modern English readers is the King James Version. It was written over 400 years ago in a language that is long "dead" for use in a society that is no longer in existence. It sounds "flowery" but that is yet another flaw as it is entirely inconsistent with ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek.

My suggestion is to read a modern translation that has copious notes that explain the writings, either as part of the Bible translation itself or as a separate commentary. My favorites are the NET, with over 60,000(!) translators' notes, the NIV, an excellent translation that is both accurate and relatively easy to understand, and the NRSV, also both accurate and relatively easy to understand.

There are of course other excellent translations, but the emphasis should be on reading with understanding.

Excellent points. I've never cared for the NIV, but I can't put a finger on why.

I would also point out that chapter/verse numbers give an impression of homogeneity to the Bible that doesn't truly exist. A verse in Hebrew poetry is going to have a different purpose in its expression than a verse of prophetic utterances, and both will be different from apologetic history. Yet when we see a chapter/verse we read them all the same.

 

[The Liturgist]

As I have often said, the worst translation for most modern English readers is the King James Version. It was written over 400 years ago in a language that is long "dead" for use in a society that is no longer in existence. It sounds "flowery" but that is yet another flaw as it is entirely inconsistent with ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek.

That’s a gross overstatement. The KJV is elegant, and most modern bibles do not address the actual issues I have with it (for example, translating both presbyter and kohen / hierus / sacerdos as priest).

Excellent points. I've never cared for the NIV, but I can't put a finger on why.

I would also point out that chapter/verse numbers give an impression of homogeneity to the Bible that doesn't truly exist. A verse in Hebrew poetry is going to have a different purpose in its expression than a verse of prophetic utterances, and both will be different from apologetic history. Yet when we see a chapter/verse we read them all the same.

I actually like the older NIV, as modern language additions go, but it lacks the deuterocanonical books, and the new addition doesn’t cut the mustard for me.

What does cut the mustard for me is anything with a second personal pronoun, because without it, we do lose semantic meaning. You and Thou are not synonymous, and the English language has been heading down a dark path of deprecating the latter, requiring the propagation vernacular neologisms such as you all (and the classic Southern y’all).

 

[The Liturgist]

I find paying attention to intertextuality - both within the canon and in its reception - very helpful. So, for example, if we're looking at a text in (say) Genesis, where else in Scripture is that text referenced, and how do those references shed light on the way those authors understood the text?

Or how are themes developed over time in different Scriptures, and how do those Scriptures interplay to build a rich and complex picture? And so on.

A deep regret of mine about the Revised Common Lectionary is it seems to be a step backwards in intertextuality from some of the older one year lectionaries, particularly those which some Protestant churches had implemented, such as the Methodist Episcopal Church in the US, that had assigned an Old Testament prophecy to correspond with the Epistle and Gospel. Also, breaking off 1 Corinthians 11 at verse 26 is an example of the bottom-up eisegesis that @Fervent correctly complains about, and I can think of no justification for not reading vv. 27-34 as was done historically (indeed, the Episcopal Church in their three year lectionary, which was sadly replaced recently by the RCL, continued to read through verse 32).

However, the proposed “Year D” is impressively intertextual, which is why a part of me feels like it might be the solution for the problems of the RCL, despite unconventional lesson choices on some holidays.

Not all ancient lectionaries have as much intertextuality as one might prefer. When it comes to holy days, the Byzantine Lectionary does a very good job, with a prophecy read at Vespers the night before, and carefully matched Epistle and Gospel lessons, and sometimes, in the case of Pascha Sunday, for example, the use of the 14 Old Testament lessons that relate to our Lord being entombed, the epistle and Gospel at the Vesperal Divine Liturgy, the reading of the short ending of Mark at Paschal Matins, followed by the procession outside the church and the reading of the epistle and John 1:1-17 as the Gospel for the Paschal Eucharist, is really well done. However, for ordinary Sundays, there is no intertextuality, because of something called the “Lukan Jump” where the Gospel of Matthew is read, lectio continua, from the second Sunday after Pentecost until the start of October, and then Luke is read, lectio continua, until pre-Lent, when Mark is used, and this means that on ordinary Sundays outside of the period from Septuagesima through All Saints Day, which is the first Sunday after Pentecost in the Byzantine Rite, there is no relationship at all between the Epistle and the Gospel, other than random chance, unless the Sunday coincides with a fixed holy day.

So when it comes to intertextuality, we want to expose it to the laity, to show them the connections, and I find it frustrating how many of our lectionaries, even some of the ancient ones which I mostly love, can occasionally drop the ball in this regard in a major way, denying the people the chance to realize and be edified by connections between the texts they were hitherto unaware of.

As simple as it seems, a daily habit of simply reading can definitely help. Though I'm not sure it always does, since so many passages are so saturated in the background noise of theological debates. Who in the West can read Romans 3-8 or James 2 now without at least contemplating the debate over sola fide? And then the urge to break down the flow of thought comes in.

One thing I will say, is reading a Bible without chapter/verse numbers can be an eye opening experience.

This issue is so important to me that I have an actual objection to versification and a substantial portion of the chapter divisions. I feel the Psalter is the only book that gets chapter divisions right, in that the organic chapter should correspond with pericopes as they are appointed for reading in the different liturgical rites.

 

[pescador]

That’s a gross overstatement. The KJV is elegant, and most modern bibles do not address the actual issues I have with it (for example, translating both presbyter and kohen / hierus / sacerdos as priest).



I actually like the older NIV, as modern language additions go, but it lacks the deuterocanonical books, and the new addition doesn’t cut the mustard for me.

What does cut the mustard for me is anything with a second personal pronoun, because without it, we do lose semantic meaning. You and Thou are not synonymous, and the English language has been heading down a dark path of deprecating the latter, requiring the propagation vernacular neologisms such as you all (and the classic Southern y’all).

I disagree with you 8^) It is invariably clear in context, don't you agree?

Even though olde Englyshe lacks the distinction between you (singular) and you (plural), there is a lot in the KJV that is archaic and often hard to re-translate in one's mind. BTW, how are the unicorns faring? They're mentioned nine times in the KJV!

Luke 14:8-10, KJV...

8 "When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him;

9 And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room.

10 But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.

How's that for clarity? Want to know what it means in English?

“When you are invited by someone to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, because a person more distinguished than you may have been invited by your host. So the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this man your place.’ Then, ashamed, you will begin to move to the least important place. But when you are invited, go and take the least important place, so that when your host approaches he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up here to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all who share the meal with you."

Notice that "you" is translated as singular; "both of you" as plural.

 

[bling]

There definitely needs to be some consideration of the audience, but there is only so much we can recapture after 2000 years, multiple languages, and entirely different worldviews. The timelessness of God's truth implies we should be able to get what God intends us to get from it simply from reading, and academics are just as important as other aspects of development.

One thing that's important and tangential to your point is that the Bible is not a single type of literature, but instead runs the gamut and so to truly understand what is meant we have to recognize what it is we are reading. A teaching letter is going to have different formats than a historical narrative.

Even though the truth is there and some with excellent academics might find it, the right motive, desire, taking the time and the help of the indwelling Holy Spirit can do a better job.

 

[The Liturgist]

I disagree with you 8^) It is invariably clear in context, don't you agree?

Even though olde Englyshe lacks the distinction between you (singular) and you (plural), there is a lot in the KJV that is archaic and often hard to re-translate in one's mind. BTW, how are the unicorns faring? They're mentioned nine times in the KJV!

Luke 14:8-10, KJV...

8 "When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him;

9 And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room.

10 But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.

How's that for clarity? Want to know what it means in English?

“When you are invited by someone to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, because a person more distinguished than you may have been invited by your host. So the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this man your place.’ Then, ashamed, you will begin to move to the least important place. But when you are invited, go and take the least important place, so that when your host approaches he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up here to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all who share the meal with you."

Notice that "you" is translated as singular; "both of you" as plural.

Actually, it doesn’t literally mean that. In the Greco-Roman culture of the First Century, it was the custom to recline on couches facing sideways at dinner parties, and those couches in the lowest tier of the triclinium were reserved for the most distinguished guests. Your preferred translation destroys not only semantic information but important cultural context which is particularly useful for understanding much of the dialogue our Lord engages in in the Gospel of Luke.

This cultural context, which you apparently regard as irrelevant, also radically alters our view of what the Lord’s Supper would have looked like, and thus puts paid people like the Plymouth Brethren who want their Holy Communion liturgy to look like a simplified version of the traditional iconography, and vindicates the Early Church in adopting the liturgical norms of the Eucharist for reasons of practicality.