On Friday I wrote a reflection on this question, taken up from a published article at Stand Firm by Fr. Matt Kennedy. He kindly commented, in fact. I also noticed that a push of a button sent it into the Face Book world (where I rarely visit because of time issues). One thing I noticed was readership shot up a great deal. (So I will be dong that again!!). The other was the large number of comments at Face Book (which come directly to my e-mail). The names included friends from my home church in the 70's, former students, and people I had worked with. All but a couple are people I have not seen or talked to in years, if not decades. While each had their own take, I did want to clarirify my own thought.
1. I think the real issue is the word "history." I do not think the ancients practiced the discipline of modern history (hence the terms "modern" and "ancient"). Modern history, a post-Enlightenmnet phenomenon, intends to provide 'objective' data about the past. (I put objective in quotes because further reflection in the historian's community has led them to realize there is always a subjective element) That does not mean that in times long ago that there weren't people who realized that some things were true and others were false. What it does mean is it was not a (social) science as we understand it today. They did not have clocks and calendars everywhere, like us, and their notion of time was different. They did not have a robust critical method concerned with exactitude in measurement, like us. Theirs was an oral culture and old myths influenced how things were expressed. Even in the Bible we see remnants of this (though generally the OT corrects their neighbors view of things, see especially Noah vs. the ancient flood stories which predate it).
2. The ancient writers write the way most contemporary people do. The typical person, going by memory, often times gets things out of order. Without meticulous record keeping it is hard not to jumble memories. Also, there seems to be a tendency that "if this is not exactly how it happened this is how it should have happened" at work (then and now). Sometimes we repeat things that are not accurate because we 'heard it.' [my gosh this is the internet age. every day crazy stuff is reported about crazy stuff people believe! and sometimes you and I are the crazy folks being duped!] In the NT sometimes OT quotations are given. It is not uncommon for them to be different from the OT text. Sometimes this may be because of translations (Hebrew-Aramaic-Greek, even Latin are all involved). On occassion it seems there is a shift of a word to better apply it to the situation (maybe because it is quoted from memory. How many times do we do that today?) Matthew frequently has "two" where Mark has "one." (off the top of my head: the blind man, donkey and angel) Matthew may be communicating something by this (which we do not understand). It is NOT modern history, i.e. facts, but it is history and what he is doing made more sense to his contemporaries than us. [Although there is not 'one size fits all' for ancients either.]
3. For many ancients, the "concrete and literal" meaning of a text was the least important. They wanted the deeper "spiritual meaning" found through analogies, metaphors, symbolism, typology, etc. In our culture, to say "The Bible is symbolic" seems to mean "The Bible it not true" or "the Bible is fairy tales." It is ironic that we think that because we do seem to understand the reality of symbols in our every day life. A hug and kiss, tears at a funeral, and the middle finger in traffic all evoke powerful emotions. Words are not needed to give meaning to any of them. I think the symbolic meaning of Scripture, in modern terms, might be better expressed as "applicability." I can read the ancient story and apply it to my current situation. That is what Jesus did, time and again. [This is the meaning of the technical word "type" found in NT and early Church Fathers writings or the often cited "fulfills Scripture".] So Jesus reminds His hearers of Jonah and says, "Just like... so when I..." This is why the stories of Moses, Elijah, Elisha, David and Joshua are models for telling the Jesus story. Sometimes the Gospels actually borrow terms and images to make the connection clear. A past event is dead and gone, it cannot be recaptured. It is past. That is why the expression "he is history" means "he is done, we won't see him any more." However, if God is timeless and the Biblical story is God's revelation (He is and it is!!) then we can understand that the constraints of our modern history cannot apply. Jesus, the risen Lord, is not dead. JFK is. So Kennedy can say nothing nor add anything to his words and works. When his visit to Dallas ended badly he ceased to speak. Jesus, on the other hand, is still with us. His words and treachings in the early church include communication post-mortem. He rose. He spoke and taught and instructed for a length of time. (Luke says 40 days, a Biblical number. Perhaps exactly 40 or maybe an expression for a long time, much like we say "I have told you a hundred times!" to convey we have told someone more than enough)
Lastly, most importantly, the issues of history apply to our own time. Too many toss off the Bible as ancient and outdated. They criticize it. They simplistically say it supports slavery or male domination of woman. The say it is useless for morality (generally cherry picking verses). And, not surprisingly, when they are done they are able to justify some 'new' idea or revision of morality. And guess what? Somehow their new insights always reflect their own wants and wishes! Amazing. The Holy Spirit talks and the Holy Spirit always ends up saying just what they want the Holy Spirit to say... Why it is down right uncanny. I believe this is Matt's main concern. The rejection of the authority of Scripture.
Therein lies the reason why my efforts to be honest and have integrity are a burden. What I say can easily be twisted. What I say can lead others to use me to support what they believe (not what I do). To them I say: here is the problem. In the end, if you are not following the ancient rule of faith (creeds and a holy life) you cannot read and understand the Bible. Immoral people cannot teach morality. Unspirtual people cannot read and interpret the Bible accurately. People out of communion with the church cannot understand and read the Bible. And if the interpretations you make support new innovations, question them, again and again. Our culture is not pure or holy. Our culture is remarkably Godless. Our culture is not a curative for all things ancient. And the odds of God always agreeing with you are nill.
No comments:
Post a Comment