Consider Judith
We have a seventh century B.C. Assyria, under the rule of a sixth century Chaldean (Babylonian) king, invading a fifth century restored Judah, with an army led by a fourth century Persian general (Holofernes was the Persian general under Artaxerxes III in the successful campaign against Egypt in the fourth century B.C.). In truth, no major attacks were made on Jerusalem while under Persian rule in the fifth and fourth centuries (an unprecedented period of peace for war-weary Canaan).
We have a seventh century B.C. Assyria, under the rule of a sixth century Chaldean (Babylonian) king, invading a fifth century restored Judah, with an army led by a fourth century Persian general (Holofernes was the Persian general under Artaxerxes III in the successful campaign against Egypt in the fourth century B.C.). In truth, no major attacks were made on Jerusalem while under Persian rule in the fifth and fourth centuries (an unprecedented period of peace for war-weary Canaan).
In your view, is facticity essential for the teaching of a spiritual truth? Or can elements from a culture's historical memory be cobbled together in a story to teach a spiritual reality (like a fairy/morality tale)? Is it your understanding that Jews and Christians (in the classical period) understood books like Judith, Tobit and Bel and the Dragon as "factual" stories roughly in the sense that a modern newspaper report uses facts, and that their spiritual meaning was found on the level of their facticity? Or, do you recognize the presence of multiple genres of literature in the Scriptures, some of which may be fiction (e.g., Bel and the Dragon) which, nevertheless, present spiritual meaning true to what has been revealed in Christ?
ReplyDeleteIs facticity essential for spiritual truth? In the Bible' case, yes, unless the genre and author make it clear it isn't factual (e.g., Jesus's parables).
DeleteI'm nervous about divorcing history from truth. This is Lessing's Ditch. And gnosticism.
***Or, do you recognize the presence of multiple genres of literature in the Scriptures, some of which may be fiction (e.g., Bel and the Dragon) which, nevertheless, present spiritual meaning true to what has been revealed in Christ?***
Well, I would have to see the genre. If a story is purporting to be "factually real," and it in fact isn't, then that's quite a problem.
In view of what a lot of modern historical criticism has done with the Scriptures, I can understand your nervousness about divorcing history from truth. Certainly no interpreter of Scripture deemed orthodox or traditional by either of our Christian traditions would divorce the truth of the Gospel teachings from the historicity of Christ's incarnation, life, death and resurrection, etc. On the other hand, discovering how the realities of Scripture's teaching are dealt with in the Orthodox Liturgy (our primary commentary on the Scriptures), this is less of a concern for those of us who don't accept modern historical-critical assumptions of how Scripture is to be interpreted.
DeleteOf course, I can certainly agree with your recognition of Christ's Parables as fiction. I also believe Bel and the Dragon and Tobit are other likely examples. Beyond that, I'm not learned enough to have an opinion.
(cont.) Speaking of how the Scriptures are used in Orthodox liturgy, this excerpt from the "First Prayer of St. Basil" from the prayers of preparation for Communion to be used in personal prayer is interesting. It reads:
DeleteSo receive even me, O Christ Lover of men, as the harlot, as the thief, as the publican, and as the prodigal; and take from me the heavy burden of my sins, You Who take away the sin of the world, Who heals men’s sicknesses, Who calls the weary and heavy laden to Yourself and gives them rest; for You came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. And purify me from all defilement of flesh and spirit.
There are translations of this prayer that are more clear that these references to "the publican" and "the prodigal" are not mere generalities depicting categories of people, but are also references to characters in two of Christ's parables, which you've given as examples of something clearly intended in Scripture as "fiction" (no argument from me on that). This becomes more clear when you consider that during the primary period of Lent in the Church year for hundreds of years now, there has been a Sunday service centered on the story of the Pharisee and the Publican and another centered on the story of the Prodigal Son. In hymns and prayers of the Church for those services, the wording similarly doesn't distinguish whether these are real people and real events or fiction, but treats the stories' events as true and as having "happened"--though in context it is clearly the "reality" of the truth taught in the narrative of Christ's story and not of "history" in any modern factual sense that is the concern of the hymns and prayers.
Similarly, in the wording of St. Basil's prayer here, the fictional characters from Christ's parables are listed as those whom Christ "received" right along with actual people (the harlot and the thief) who interacted with Christ in the Gospel accounts.
I'm offering this as an example of how ancient commentary and interpretation often treat events from the Scriptural narratives as real/true, even though they may be fictional in terms of their "facticity." Is it not still true that Christ's receives the prodigal and the publican? Certainly, that was the whole point of these parables (as well as what was portrayed by the Gospel writers, who describe Christ's frequent association with "sinners", much to the consternation of the most piously observant Jews of His day).
Have you ever heard of Karl barth? Your understanding of Scripture and history is identical to his. You are divorcing truth from fact in your last paragraph.
Deletei know the prodigal parable represents a lot of people, but everyone knew it was a prable and not history. The danger is to view stuff which purports to be history as something less than history.
Can you clarify how I am divorcing truth from fact in my last paragraph? Is it not also a fact that Christ receives prodigals and publicans as well as indicating the same in His teaching using parables? I'm not sure I follow your logic. My point was that meaning, ultimately finding its basis in the Person of Christ, also transcends the discreet facts of history (and those "facts", absent the Spirit's revelation, are subject to human interpretation and application which apparently will fall short of discerning the Holy Spirit's purpose for inspiring those texts apart from Christ who alone reveals the full context and meaning of the sacred historical events and narratives (Luke 24:27).
DeleteAnother way to get at this is to ask if modern historical-critical assumptions to the interpretation of the Bible are true and proper, why is it the majority of Christ's and the apostolic interpretation of the OT in the NT (e.g.,the "Messianic" references) could not be deduced from their "plain common-sense" meaning in their own immediate OT contexts using modern historical-critical assumptions? It seems to me we receive an indication why this is so from Scriptures like those found in John 5:39 Luke 24:27. Perhaps that's why, classically, Christians have understood the correct interpretation of Scripture is also dependent upon a received apostolic (lived) tradition (i.e., the Churches' real encounter throughout history, space and time with the Person of Christ through the Holy Spirit in her midst) and is not found entirely at the literal surface meaning of a static text or in some pseudo-scientific h-c *method* presumably amenable to unenlightened human reason (as is assumed, it seems, in so much modern scholarship).
***My point was that meaning, ultimately finding its basis in the Person of Christ, also transcends the discreet facts of history (and those "facts", absent the Spirit's revelation, are subject to human interpretation and application which apparently will fall short of discerning the Holy Spirit's purpose for inspiring those texts apart from Christ who alone reveals the full context and meaning of the sacred historical events and narratives (Luke 24:27). ***
DeleteThat may be true, but as I've pointed out above, Judith is not factual. It is contradicted by the facts. And I am not sure what "transcended" the facts really means.
***why is it the majority of Christ's and the apostolic interpretation of the OT in the NT (e.g.,the "Messianic" references) could not be deduced from their "plain common-sense" meaning in their own immediate OT contexts using modern historical-critical assumptions?***
But they also maintained the facticity of historical events. Paul said if Christ be not raised (a factual event) our faith is in vain.
I'm certainly not denying here that Christ and the apostles maintained the facticity of certain events in Christ's life/death/resurrection, Israel's history, etc. As I've written above, no Christian in either of our traditions would consider "orthodox" any treatment of the gospel message that denied the facticity of Christ's incarnation, death & resurrection, etc.. What I am suggesting is that the full meaning and the nature of Scripture's "inspiration" is not adequately described through theories dependent upon the assumptions of the modern historical-critical method (which I believe includes aspects of modern "inerrancy" theory, which seems to be the basis here for your rejection of the ancient church's acceptance of Judith as part of the body of her "inspired Holy Scriptures").
Delete"In the Bible's case, yes."
ReplyDeleteWhy is this so in the Bible's case? What leads you to this conclusion? Does that conclusion come from Scripture itself, or is your answer derived from a set of assumptions you hold about the nature of Scripture? Something else perhaps?
John
What I mean is that if a) the narrative itself appears to be factually true, and b) we accept in some sense that the bible is inspired/infallible/whatever, and yet it has such errors that call into question (b), then something has got to give.
DeleteI understand mss can be corrupted and that is a different field, but no apologist for Judith has ever made that claim.
narrative *claims* to be factually true, or it assumes it is telling the truth
DeleteJacob,
ReplyDeleteOn what basis do you assume that the Holofernes of Judith is the same that led an army under Artaxerxes III? I can't seem to find anything in Judith that strikes me as unique in which one could say "that's definitely Holofernes, the general under Artaxerxes III." Am I missing something here?
***Holofernes of Judith is the same that led an army under Artaxerxes III?***
DeleteI'll double-check, but I don't think t here are that many Holofernes that were generals