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.
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.
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
Delete***Holofernes of Judith is the same that led an army under Artaxerxes III?***
ReplyDeleteI'll double-check, but I don't think t here are that many Holofernes that were generals