Resurrection and the Historicity of the OT
I have been thinking since lunch time today whether the resurrection vindicates Israel's Scriptures. I think it does. Here's why: Messianic resurrection only makes sense in the context of second-temple Judaism (all elements needed). It doesn't make sense for Sadducean theology (no resurrection); it doesn't make sense for first temple Jews (no resurrection); it doesn't make sense in animistic/gnostic/spiritual religions (what point is resurrection for the soul? dead bodies are known to stay dead!). It does make sense in the story and tradition of second-temple Judaism, though...lots of sense. I said yesterday that Jesus' resurrection proves what it assumes--that Jesus was born, lived, and died. But since it only makes sense in second-temple Judaism, it also vindicates the story of Israel because no other story would lead to it. So, the OT is true because Jesus was resurrected.
However, if the resurrection does vindicate the OT, then this conclusion makes completely irrelevant the historicity of the Old Testament. If Jesus was indeed resurrected, then it makes no whit of difference whether a group of misfit slaves came out of Egypt, whether a city called Jericho had some falling walls, whether a King named David lived, whether fire fell from heaven to destroy prophets of Baal.
Now, I am still conservative in my Bible reading...so I believe these things happened with all the storied meaning put into them that makes them worth believing, but if Jesus was raised from the dead then their meaning holds true without the actual event mattering in the least. Interesting how the validation becomes more important than what is validated and reorients the very nature of the story that generates the validating event.
However, if the resurrection does vindicate the OT, then this conclusion makes completely irrelevant the historicity of the Old Testament. If Jesus was indeed resurrected, then it makes no whit of difference whether a group of misfit slaves came out of Egypt, whether a city called Jericho had some falling walls, whether a King named David lived, whether fire fell from heaven to destroy prophets of Baal.
Now, I am still conservative in my Bible reading...so I believe these things happened with all the storied meaning put into them that makes them worth believing, but if Jesus was raised from the dead then their meaning holds true without the actual event mattering in the least. Interesting how the validation becomes more important than what is validated and reorients the very nature of the story that generates the validating event.
posted by Aaron Perry at
4:25 PM
19 Comments:
Would you even make such an observation as this if you did not have some tendencies to question the historicity of the OT?
I don't see how the resurrection makes the historicity of the OT irrelevant. Don't get me wrong, the resurrection is the ultimate defining reality of our faith... but isn't it still important that the historic event of the resurrection is grounded on the OT historic events? I should think that if the OT were to turn out historically wanting... that would lead us to question many of the things that were said in the NT--Jesus (and others) often looked back at what happened in OT history to give relevance to what was happening in their day with the Christ event.
I always enjoy reading your posts AP...even though I don't always respond:)
Cheers!
Do I question parts of the historical narrative of the OT? Yes...but I don't think in any threatening way--nor in any way that the OT writers would be surprised by.
If the resurrection happened, then it is grounded in the story of the OT because *no other story* could lead to it (and, then, only certain readings of the OT--that of some second-temple Jews who started reading resurrection into the Psalms, Job, and some prophets). But if the resurrection happened, then it is not the historical elements that matter, but the story itself. So, you can say that the resurrection is what grounds the OT story--which may (and, in my opinion, certainly does) include historical elements, but need not because the *story* is what is vindicated.
What about the events of the OT that Jesus and his followers looked back on and talked about as if they really happened? Even if the resurrection was still undeniable, it would leave me to wonder if history just wasn't Jesus' subject in school.
Peace.
Hey Benson--I am not trying to discount or disprove the historicity of the OT. There are many things that point to its historical reliability--though there is some absence of evidence (which, the apologist will say, is not evidence of absence). The interesting thing about the resurrection is that it validates certain readings, and only certain readings, of the OT, because no other story would generate that event. If the resurrection does that, then the OT story is validated beyong the requirements of history. I could just have easily said, "The Jewish interpretation of historical events (which is a fairly accurate take on parts of the Pentateuch and Historical Books) was the right one." What we have as OT, then, need not be--in any sense--"objective history," because the subjective story we've got is the true one--if the resurrection took place.
Now, I also think the argument can go that the resurrection is a good indicator of historical reliability of the OT--but that historical realibility, if the resurrection is accepted, becomes less important.
It's a bit like stepping out onto the limb of resurrection from the tree trunk of OT and realizing that resurrection is a tree in itself.
First off, I am curious as to how one defines "history"? I'm not sure that history as we think of it is history the way that ancient Israel tells it. I also have to think that we have documents interpreting some sort of historical event that these people saw as divinely inspired. Lots of questions here.
However, these are canonical texts. They exist within the Christian canon. So, I think the real question is how we deal with these texts after the resurrection of Christ (and the subsequent founding of Christianity). I think that bib. studies is still trying to figure this out.
This has been ruminating for awhile in me - I'm in a Ph.D. seminar right now on Eschatology with two profs - one a Ricoeur scholar and the other an OT scholar...ahh the fun.
your questions are not lost on me, nate... in fact that is why i said events as interpreted by Jews (as opposed to "objective history") are vindicated.
i am quite at home in wright's epistemology of "critical realism" where neither "actual event" nor "interpretation" negate the other, but have a dynamic relationship.
your language of "these are canonical texts," however, smells a little like lessing's separation of history and faith. of course these are canonical texts and of course they are historical. benson's read, that i'm trying to disprove them, is incorrect--i'm trying to fuse the history/interpretation line that makes them worth believing. this fusing comes out in removing them from the liberal (and nonexistent) category of "objective history."
Clarification...I don't think I suggested you were trying to "disprove" them...I was simply trying to understand what you were talking about...and you didn't have me convinced that historicity would become unimportant (as historically accurate as you indeed may believe them to be). As I have read on it seems to me that you and Nate are starting into philosophical territory (and terminology) that amateurs like myself dare not tread... I will read along, but I may be a silent onlooker to ya more edubacaded types.:):) This (and other discussions) have been good for my noodle and especially my humility though. Cheers!
Hey, AP,
Does this mean that the NT and OT are sui generis documents? Furthermore, can one only read the NT and OT (together) rightly if they are believers? If yes to both, which seems implied, then Barth would be right to say there is a strange new world in the Bible. Do you really want to go down a road that Barth and Hauerwas go down? I hope you do, but I know you have resisted it previously.
However, Hauerwas would resist terms like "critical realism." BTW, Wright gets that from Bernard Lonergan a Catholic transcendental (read influenced by Kant, but not Kantian here) Thomist. I, like Hauerwas, am suspicious of this (transcendental) kind of epistemology.
Pax,
Tim
benson--sorry, i guess i misunderstood you. i am still pretty sure that their historicity becomes unimportant, although i might be inconsistent at some point.
tim, i have always liked barth. i even like hauerwas (i just think he's is rhetorically violent, which is strange for a pacifist), flaming liberal though he is (i think he denies, in practice, the resurrection and the power of the church to convert empires). but to your strange new world comment, i have been attempting to go down this road for three years. (this is why, when talking about Radical Orthodoxy, i compared it to Lord of the Rings.)
now, on to critical realism. you resist this transcendentalism? where do *you stand* to reject transcendentalism? if from simply where tim stands, then you cannot critique--at least in any way that would be convincing to *me*. if from "outside" 'transcendentalism,' well, then, haven't you proven the point? the question is not whether we stand inside or outside reality. of course we do both; that is part of what enables humans to live *God's* image.
AP,
First, I could critique transcendentalism on how it describes itself; I'm not sure it can do it coherently.
I don't know what it means to live "outside reality;" this sounds like our language is on holiday. Of course, we can talk about and from different language games, but that is quite different from living outside reality.
Also, I don't think being "transcendent" is necessarily linked with being imago dei. Even if it was, we would have to do some serious negative theology to keep from saying we are transcendent like God. The transcendental Thomists like Lonergan and perhaps Rahner are seeking to describe universal human practices and categories. I'm not sure this is possible; it presumes translation can fairly easily be done and the categories always end up being overly cognitive. Thus, the academics are the holders of "the truth." Of course, I won't rule out their projects a priori, but I have yet to be convinced they are successful.
you are more than welcome to critique transcendentalism's self-description. i am not interested in defending it--only recognizing its presence in all forms of reflection.
the fact that you reflect on a language which, i'm assuming, has very little "familial relation" to you own (since you're not sympathetic to it) shows some kind of ability to witness yourself as next to this language--and hence other than. (the fact you say 'I' shows this, too! who is this 'I' that i am to know?)
outside reality = vacationing language? perhaps. i suppose i should have clarified exactly which reality i am outside of, considering we are always reality-bound. i am outside your subjective reality, for example, but always bound to my own. reflecting, in any kind of meaningful sense, on my own reality, however, is what i mean by standing outside reality. can i compare my thoughts to another standard? yes. is self-reflection part of God's image? yes. otherwise God's image would be an imperceptible (and empty) category.
i will have to hold off opinion on lonergan and rahner until i am more familiar with them.
AP,
What does it mean to "reflect" or "self-reflect"? Can't this just mean "describe" or "think"? We seem to use it that way in everyday speech. I'm not sure it does the specialized work you need to it to do. And, I worry about the anthropological grammar that may sustain it: thinking goes on "in" my head, then I translate that thought into words which go "out" into "reality." Thus, the real "I" is trapped inside my head trying to get out into the real word with words. I do not use "I" in this way.
Directly related to this: what does it mean to be "outside [Tim's] subjective reality?" I can think of no other meaning than you don't occupy the same "space" I do or don't use the same brain. Okay, I give you that, but what work does it accomplish? Wouldn't it require that all persons are stuck inside of their own subjective reality? How could you say that from your own subjective reality?
i am no fan of the ghost in the machine, and believe there is some truth to not knowing what i think until i say it. reflection is beyond thinking and possibly beyong description because i can think about me thinking. i can think about what i've thought and can think about why/how i changed my mind. that doesn't require infinite "I's" just one me who reflects.
i don't think we are stuck in our own subjective realities because realities change--conversion happens. even so you might ask from whence i make this claim, assuming my own subjective reality. and this is the case. but if there is a self-disclosing God who invites us into realities beyond our own, facilitated graciously by giving us the gift of reflection, then i think i am safe in believing that my take within my own subjective reality can become the reality of God inasmuch as it falls under the Lordship of Christ. so, i occupy my own space and use my own brain, and as it interacts with the divine the subjective reality that is mine becomes more and more "accurate"--it does not become "other than," but sees and understands differently. this, it seems to me, is how one can map their progress into the strange new world of the Bible.
AP,
We maybe largely in agreement, but your language continues to confuse me.
"Beyond thinking" and "Think about myself thinking"...Hmmm. How is "thinking about myself thinking" not just "thinking" but said in a louder voice? What gives it the special/transcedental status you give it, and, again, what work does it do? It seems like you could only say: "It just does!" which really isn't very helpful.
Seems to me that saying, "It just does," is extremely helpful. Tied up in that is all the emphasis when pointing at something basic to reality ;)
Thinking about myself thinking is not just thinking said in louder voice. For example, take the Canadian election. Today I looked again at some excellent clips of a reporter sticking it to a Liberal Party strategist. I thought about how happy that made me *back then* and how it has become something more than it was to me at that time. Am I think about the clip? No. Am I thinking about me? No. I was thinking about me thinking about (or considering, or appreciating) the clip. At once I was inside my subjective reality and outside what once was my subjective reality--which is still part of my subjective reality, bringing me to where I am today.
You ask what work it does. It makes storied sense of where I was and where I will be. It makes me a commentator in my own life and not just a participant. Of course I remain a participant, but my perspective as participant changes because I have commenting control, as well.
So, the Apostle is able to say, "Consider it pure joy, brothers and sisters, when you face trials..."
AP,
I suppose you could be right about "It just does," but that means it is simply a grammatical remark. That is, a statement about the limits or rules of how you will speak. Thus, it doesn't really explain or add to anything.
I see your point about "thinking", but why do you want to use the language of "transcendence" to describe this. Most of us just call that "remembering" and "learning." This is my question: it seems you believe that "thinking about thinking" carries more weight or is "more accurate" (i.e. what is *really* happening) than the our everyday language of "memory" and "learning." Why? And, how could you ever justify such a claim?
I'll end with a quote:
"Thus it seems to me that I have known something the whole time, and yet there is no meaning in saying so, in uttering this truth.
I am sitting with a philosopher in the garden; he says again and again 'I know that that's a tree', pointing to a tree that is near us. Someone else arrives and hears this, and I tell him: 'This fellow isn't insane. We are only doing philosophy.'"
Paragraphs 466-467 from On Certainty; Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Tim
great quote, tim. i suppose most here consider us insane, yet i just respond, "i'm trying to be a Christian." ;)
now, to your questions: there is something more to thinking about thinking, or reflecting than 'remembering' or 'learning.' i was not just remembering the feeling; i was reflecting on it and considering how i would have felt today had the electiong been otherwise. that i am neither remembering, nor learning. i am reflecting. the language of transcendence is what you started with and i continued. i am not engrossed with this term, though i see its value.
i am not interested in justifying this claim of reflection. why would i want to? i am only interested in describing and fairly sure that anyone who disagrees is simply being ornery...well, maybe not all the time. :)
in reflecting, do i remember something? no, because i didn't know it before--at least in the same way. but it's only possible by remembering who i used to be and what i used to think/believe/etc. in reflecting, am i learning something? yes, but not something new; rather, i am interpreting and commenting on something i already knew--or thought i knew, or would have known. there are elements of learning and remembering, and yet there is control involved in reflecting. it's like teaching yourself and saying you're learning; it's true, but there's more to it.
Hi, AP,
You got me on the "transcendent" word; my own memory could use some bolstering! :-)
I think I get and can affirm what you are saying about "reflection" though I still think there maybe a better word for it. Perhaps I was misreading some overly metaphysical tones into some of your first posts about it. Don't get me wrong, I think metaphysics is necessary, but I would not want to put human thinking into ontological categories.
Tim
AP Says, "i suppose most here consider us insane"
Yes I think you are insane!:):)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home