I should stress that the question is not whether meaning is to be imported into or taken out of this or any other text. Everyone, of course, wants to know what a text itself means, not just what an interpreter wants it to mean. But there are some assumptions about a particular text that can make better sense of it than others. And it is never simply a case of “letting the text speak for itself,” a common plea of those who want to propose a new interpretation for a text. But as literary theorists have long known, texts don’t speak. They are written and read. And they are written and read by people who have thoughts, opinions, perspectives, beliefs, worldviews, values, priorities, likes, dislikes—living, breathing people who have to make sense of the world, including all the texts in it, and can make sense of the world only in light of who they already are and what they already think. It is naive to maintain that we can interpret a text in a vacuum. And if you ever read anyone’s attempt to interpret a text simply by “letting it speak for itself,” you’ll see that not even wanting to do so can make it possible
I have reference Bart Ehrman over the years here, finding his books worthwhile. Did not find his latest on "heaven and hell" to my liking. The book was organized in a way that seemed off to me. Ehrman tends to repeat various themes (such as the development of texts before they were in their final form in the New Testament) in his works. He also ultimately (last I checked) traveled from being an evangelist to an agnostic.
One theme of his is that there are various "forgeries," no cushioning the blow there, in the name of apostles and so on. And, this would include something like the so-called Pauline letter to Timothy or the like. Many scholars in these cases often speak of the letters in effect being from a "school" of some sort of Paul's followers. And, writing things in their name was supposedly accepted to some degree.
Ehrman (at least in this book) doesn't even reference that as a (wrong-minded) theory. Another thing I recall from reading accounts about Gnostic works particularly, was that some thought it fine to write in the name of some historical figure as a sort of "inspiration" or something. It is hard to know how many actually thought such and such was really let's say something "Adam" or "Seth" actually "wrote."
This would be an interesting subject to read an article about. Let's take something like the Book of Daniel, which is generally thought to be written in the Maccabees period (that is, c. 165 BCE) with concerns arising from that era. (Jews trying to retain their Jewish ways; end of times prophecy). But, it is supposedly about someone that lived years earlier.
How many of the readers (or as Bart Ehrman notes, listeners, since maybe one out of ten were literate, but many more heard the works in some form) actually thought it was about Daniel himself? We might have low opinions of the insights of these people. There is no good reason to be too dismissive of them. Many knew not to take this stuff literally in a range of cases.
This is one of the cases where I am largely reasoning from what is likely though some accounts suggest as much.* Bart Ehrman, for instance, notes some of the stories about Christians written later on -- let's say in the 2nd Century -- were clearly seen at least partially as entertainment. Did Peter really bring a smoked tuna back to life? Did anyone really care?
Anyway, the book is a bit academic, but it covers some interesting ground about "lost" Christianities, including aspects of the current "orthodox" view. Many of these are expected losses -- a belief that you had to retain Jewish practices or that the old Jewish god was evil does not seem to be likely to retain wide support. Plus, the "proto-orthodox" view supported a more organized, hierarchical view more likely long lasting in the Roman Empire especially.
A nuanced understanding (seen by some of the people involved) about "Old Testament" (just using the term without qualifying it is a partisan Christian conclusion) ways of God would be best there. Some today do point out that there does seem to be "two gods" here, a strict OT figure and a more peaceful (up to a point) NT Jesus figure. "God" clearly developed over time though carefully admitting this is often not done.
(Again, one should remember part of what was "lost" here was some aspects of even the more organized churches. The Nicene Creed has doctrinal nuances that developed over time, including following where logic of a sort might lead on the divine nature of Jesus. This was not the same really as what Jesus himself taught or even what might be that logical on some level. Both fully divine and human? Don't focus too closely!)
The most popular "lost" belief here is Gnosticism. There is some interesting aspects there, as seen by how much scholars like Elaine Pagels are fascinated by it. But, gnostics are are just darn esoteric -- try reading some of those books -- and were elitists too.
Only those "in the know" truly "got it." Still, among the many books that didn't go into the New Testament, the gnostic (if "early") Gospel of Thomas is the one that has a pretty decent shot at being ideally included.
A few books in the New Testament very well might have been left out, such as the second letter to "Peter," or a letter to the Hebrews. But, most of it really is fairly early material as compared to favored Gnostic works that were written mostly later, middle and late 2nd Century. And, the works included are a lot more approachable to the average reader.
OTOH, something like the Gospel of Truth or even a shorter Gnostic work like the Gospel of Mary (we only have part of it) could be a useful addition. The Jewish scriptures covered a long history. Why not include more second and third generation type Christian works? The Thecla story, which is included in the New New Testament, also might be useful.
I personally think Didache, which very well might have been written before 100 CE, would have made a good addition. It provides an easy to read look at church practices and beliefs at the time with even a "do the best you can" lesson tossed in. It is partially a sort of liturgical guide as compared to a gospel, epistle, or "revelation," but that doesn't really merit not including it. After all, the Torah includes a book that is mostly legal rules and instructions.**
The Bible has a lot, but there is a lot left unsaid. Just read the stories of Abraham or Moses. You will be asking various questions. There is a lot to be said about the background and how we obtained the final versions. It is one thing that I'm pretty interested in.
---
* At times, such reasoning is challenged, and my general understanding is hard to prove specifically. This can be annoying -- I think of it "you need to show footnotes" test that often is not evenhandedly applied.
Like (without the unfair aspect an issue here) someone argued that rarely did #1 quarterbacks suit up while the back-ups started. I think the opening to do that would be fairly rare anyway -- we are talking the cases where the starters are somewhat marginally healthy, the games are important enough that just trusting some weak #3 if necessary is rejected as an option, the somewhat slight risk of using the not 100% QB is deemed worth it etc. But, it seems like it would happen now and then.
A sportswriter said it was rare. The one case I recall is a playoff game, where an injured starter came into the game. Not a normal case. But, again, it is not your typical scenario. Maybe, I was wrong. Hard for me to check though -- you would have to search the statistics for starts in recent years.
I think there is some place that organizes that -- see how baseball statistics can be called up quickly by some when necessary -- but it takes some knowledge of where to look.
Anyway, it worked okay for Miami on Thursday -- the injured starter (finger) came in after the back-up (who did okay -- with a bit more time, he could have scored at the end of the half, and the offense of both would have been the same), and they beat the Ravens (the defense was fantastic, but the offense was good enough too).
** Some time back, as I noted on this blog, the New New Testament collected some other writings that were left out of the original. A diverse group voted on what to include, drawing a line at stuff written before 175 CE or so to limit themselves to the general New Testament time period.
Didache was a near miss. A major problem, apparently, turned on a reference banning abortion. If you are going to focus on some flaw like that, it is going to cause you problems. The Gospel of Thomas ends with Jesus (using philosophical understandings of the age) saying Mary Magdalene would have to become male in her path to enlightenment.
What exactly was "abortion" considered? A range of things (such as forms of magic) was also rejected. Was the ban absolute? Recall there is a general rule about doing the best you can, if you could not completely follow the good path. And, in general, the sayings of Thomas wasn't the only time some sexist theme was present.
The lesson about bathwater, though the phrasing is a bit uncomfortable in this context, comes to mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!