excerpt: History vs. Political Theory

From Gordon S. Wood's The Purpose of the Past, Chapter 11:

Historians are as interested in the ideas and ideologies of the founders as political theorists like [author]. What is different about the two disciplines is their purpose. Historians attempt to recover a past world as accurately as possible and try to show how that different world developed into our own. Political theorists who work with the ideas of the past have a different agenda. They are primarily interested in the present or future conditions of political life and see past ideas merely as the sources or seeds for present or future political thinking. [T]hey usually see the past simply as an anticipation of our present, and thus they tend to hold people in the past responsible for a future that was, in fact, inconceivable to them.

There is nothing wrong with this sort of ransacking of the past by political theorists; lawyers and jurists do it all the time. But we should never confuse these manipulations of the past for present purposes with doing history... Jefferson's idea of equality, for example, has been used time and again throughout our history, by Lincoln as well as Martin Luther King, Jr. Historians contend that such usages violate the original historical meaning of the ideas and cannot be regarded as historically accurate, but they don't deny the rationality and legitimacy of such violations.

My thoughts:

New Testament research is often political theory disguising itself as history, in order to support church politics, aka "theology". Day by day, dear Lord I pray, we need to spend more time attempting to see our own past for what it is, just as it was, not for how it might help us to mold our own future/present.

It's fine to extract principles of diversity, or of pastoral care, or of social justice, or of ecclesiological order - whichever principles those may be, for you - and then to apply those scriptural principles in another context. The most educated academics and clerics already know how this works, much better than anyone. But there are still some who push views of the first century (or allow it to appear a certain way) which support their ecclesiology, and their theology. Worst of all, it is very hard to find those who search behind the text for a reasonable History of Jesus and Paul, for its own sake. This should not be so rare.

Lord, hear our prayer.

excerpt: Truth in History

From Gordon S. Wood's The Purpose of the Past, Chapter 10:

History is one of the last humanistic disciplines to be affected by deconstruction and postmodernist theories.  These theories are not the same as ordinary historical relativism, which, as historian Gertrude Himmelfarb describes it, "locates the meaning of ideas and events so firmly in their historical context that history, rather than philosophy and nature, becomes the arbiter of truth."  Most historians these days, including Himmelfarb, have become comfortable with this kind of contextual relativism, which accepts the reality of the past and our ability to say something true, however partial, about that past.  [But] postmodernism threatens all that...

All may be contingent; all may be relative. But [citation] this prevalence of contingency and relativism does not mean the end of objectivity and the possibility of arriving at practical workable truths in history writing. It is true that historians, like all humans, are subjective: they have passions, desires, political and personal agendas. But so did Newton and Darwin, and they were still capable of discovering objective scientific truths. We can never return to the absolutist world of nineteenth-century positivism, but the alternative to that world is not the postmodernist world of total subjectivity...

[A new theory of objectivity, called "practical realism"] recognizes that there cannot be an exact correspondence between words and what is out there; still, it continues to aim for as much accuracy and completeness as possible in the historical reconstruction of the past. Our interpretation of the past may be imperfect, but practical realism knows that "some words and conventions, however socially constructed, reach out to the world and give a reasonably true description of its contents."

If those excerpts seemed interesting, the entire chapter demands your attention. Better yet, once again, I say go buy the whole book! (This chapter originally published as part of a book review in The New Yorker, November 1994.)

My comments:

Once again, Wood sings to my soul while he sharpens my brain.  I have absolutely nothing to add that these excerpted paragraphs have not already said very well, and so very profoundly.

I suggest scrolling up for the sheer pleasure of reading them again.

The Scapegoat & The Scattering

Leviticus 16 & 23 may find parallel in Acts 8:1 & 11:19.  Here's how:

On Yom Kippur, Israel's High Priest would slay a bull and a goat, as a sin-offering to the Lord, for all of Israel's sins committed within the past year.  Christ's sacrifice on Passover was the ultimate fulfillment of these rituals for the Day of Atonement.  Thus, typology cannot be strictly tied to chronological parallel.  (For another example, see here.)  With that in mind, consider the following:

After sacrificing on the Day of Atonement, Israel's High Priest would take a second goat and declare all of Israel's sins should now rest with that goat, who then had to depart (or 'escape').  With that, someone would lead the goat out into the wilderness.  In later years, the goat may have been led off a cliff.  Leviticus prescribed simply that it be led out to wander.

On the day after Yom Kippur, all over Israel, faithful Hebrews would begin constructing their Sukkot, the temporary dwellings used to mark a week of feasting.  Each family had four days to build a sukkah (booth).  So, on Tishri 11, 12, 13 & 14, the sukkot (booths) would go up, and from Tishri 15 to Tishri 21, they were supposed to be lived in.  In later years, the booths were used only at dinner time, but Leviticus prescribed them to be dwelling places for seven days.

Now, here's how all of this may be paralleled by Acts 8:1 & 11:19.

On whatever day/evening Stephen was stoned, certain Jerusalemites unleashed pent up animosity against the new sect - perhaps even subliminal guilt leftover from calling for the death of an innocent man.  Jewish believers all over the city were dragged out of their homes and thrown out of Jerusalem.  Bearing the rage/shame of their own countrymen on their heads, the believers in Christ were sent out to wander... just like the scapegoat.

On the day after Stephen was stoned, the scattered Christians of Jerusalem began finding one another in cities elsewhere in Judea.  Whatever believers gathered together that evening, on that spot, the Lord put up a spiritual Sukkah for Himself - because the Church is a dwelling for Him.  Two and three days later, the Lord was still putting up more Christian Houses in places all over Israel.  By the fifth day, if not sooner, certain scattered believers must have been gathering unto the Lord in places outside the bounds of the holy land.

In other words, it just so happens that what Stephen spoke about, according to Acts, is what actually happened in days following.  Like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Aaron & David - before them - the new people of God were now vagabonds.  As Christ had been.  As God had been, before Solomon built the Big Box.

For the first time, since the Ark and the Tabernacle, God's Testimony became mobile on Earth once again.

And all this took place in the pattern - and maybe also around the time - of the High Holy Season.

Praise the LORD.

-----------------------------------------------

Related posts:

3-7-10: Why are the Ushpizin so fitting for Sukkot?
3-9-10: Situating Stephen's Speech - 1
3-10-10: Racism and Geography
3-11-10: Luke liked most Jews
3-13-10: Situating Stephen's Speech at Yom Kippur
3-15-10: Chronology of Acts 1-9
3-16-10: Stephen's Real Bias
5-27-10: Stephen's Day of Atonement

excerpt: Microhistory

Have you not bought this book yet?  From Gordon S. Wood's The Purpose of the Past, Chapter 9:

According to many in the historical profession today, any sort of grand narrative of the past is frowned upon. Even as hard-nosed a historian as Richard D. Brown, who has written several substantial synthetic studies of early America, has succumbed to the postmodern skepticism of the present climate to the point where he doubts the possibility any longer of historians' writing large-scale synthetic accounts of the past. In his presidential address to the Society of the Early Republic, published in 2003, Brown stated that historians' claims to be telling the truth now stand on shaky ground. 'Syntheses cannot make the strongest truth claims because they are based on such selectively chosen facts.' He suggested that historians should escape from this dilemma by writing microhistories, small studies of particular localities, persons, or events. 'By exploring a finite subject exhaustively (though not definitively), the microhistorian commands the evidence on that subject beyond challenge; so within that topic readers learn to accept his or her authority.'" Certainly microhistory has flourished since the mid-1990's... But...

Wood goes on to cite specific authors and texts discussed elsewhere in the chapter. He cites one microhistorian who went on to write a "grand narrative of political history" in 2005, which won a Bancroft Prize. Wood calls this "a welcome sign of change."

My comments:

Some dilemmas can't be escaped from forever.  Eventually, I suppose, all these vigorous microhistories will surely contribute towards something larger, but what that might be we surely cannot predict.

Again, though, Wood's focus is on American History.  One parallel I see with Biblical Studies is the pattern of specialization.  But as with microhistories, one hopes that eventually all such knowledge might converge.

Meanwhile, apparently, not all grand narrative writers are going to remain on the sidelines.  Nor should they.

excerpt: History as Fiction

From Gordon S. Wood's The Purpose of the Past, Chapter 7:

Historical scholarship should not be set in opposition to imagination. History writing is creative, and it surely requires imagination, but it is an imagination of a particular sort, sensitive to the differentness of the past and constricted by the documentary record. ...

One can accept the view that the historical record is fragmentary and incomplete, that recovery of the past is partial and difficult, and that historians will never finally agree in their interpretations, and yet can still believe intelligibly and not naively in an objective truth about the past that can be observed and empirically verified. Historians may never see and represent that truth wholly and finally, but some of them will come closer than others, be more nearly complete, more objective, more honest, in their written history, and we will know it, and have known it, when we see it. That knowledge is the best antidote to the destructive skepticism that is troubling us today.

This chapter was previously published as Dead Certainties (Unwarranted Speculations), a book review in the New York Review of Books, June 1991.

My thoughts:

Wood has the benefit of working with sources on the American Revolutionary Period, and a much vaster reservoir of overall data than we have for Ancient, let alone Biblical History.  Still, I think he speaks generally for all historical work in this quote.  It remains true that we CAN embrace the extent of our ignorance AND make limited attempts to reconstruct the past for its own sake WITHOUT wallowing in uncertainty for its own sake.

History vs. Apologetics

The first problem with apologetics(*) is an assumption.  But I don't mean logical, theological or historical assumptions - which are also problems, at times.  I mean one particular assumption, namely, that any plausible explanation provides reason enough for believing the claims of a text.  It may.  It may not.

The second problem with apologetics(*) is an inconsistency.  But I don't mean logical, academic or argumentative inconsistencies - which are also problems, at times.  I mean one overarching inconsistency, namely, that many apologists work to support claims of historicity, but they do not focus on reconstructing an actual history.  In most cases, once the objection's been covered, they stop.

Plausible explanations nearly always get considered by historians, if the suggestion is properly qualified.  We don't have evidence to support every claim of most ancient texts, that can be reasonably verified.  But any thoroughly historical analysis of the past can contribute towards historians' attempts at reconstructing that past, even if the analysis may be somewhat uncritical.

In contrast to all this, apologetics(*) is almost purely defensive, and very rarely constructive.

Here's my suggested alternative:  Christian scholars, believe that the scripture is trustworthy and affirm that its historical content is accurate.  But, don't make proving that your objective.  Begin there.  Assume historicity, and then go on further to reconstruct actual history.

I think that what most people want is not extra reasons to believe that it happened.  More than that, we want a scenario to suggest how it happened.  So flesh it out, scholars!  Just as the writing process forces stray thoughts into discipline, so can a four-dimensional reconstruction illuminate both strong and weak points in one's historical supposings.

Of course, that makes affirming the scriptural Jesus and the scriptural Church a bit more "leap of faith" than a defensible goal - but that's not just a more Christian strategy for dealing with things.  That also happens to be the chief distinction between "apologetics" and good historical work.

-------------------------------
(*)  It should be clear that I'm referring to a particular strand of Christian Apologetics, often practiced by leading Christian Scholars, ostensibly focused on defending the historical reliability of scripture, but primarily aimed at shoring up traditional interpretation and practice.

excerpt: on 'the New Historicism'

From Gordon S. Wood's The Purpose of the Past, Chapter 6:

The new historicism wants to deconstruct the past in order to show us that all the values, all the institutions, all the cannons, all the truths, and all the texts by which we live our lives are simply imprisoning fictions that were created by some people in the past (usually white males) for self-serving purposes.  These fictions are, therefore, readily susceptible to being destroyed by us in the present, in preparation for the emergence of a new, more just, more democratic order.

Such a Rousseauian view, which assumes that knowledge of the fictional character of custom will itself free us, severely underestimates the power of the past and the power of culture.  All the beliefs, values, and institutions of the culture may indeed be artificial fictions; but the historical fact of the matter is that they are fictions created by a process so complicated, involving so many participants with so many conflicting purposes over such long periods of time, that no amount of deconstruction, no degree of unmasking, can ever undo them.  The culture, of course, can be - indeed, it will be - changed, but in ways that no one, including the radical post-Marxists and the deconstructionist literary critics, ever intended or wanted.  Understanding this fact about the process of historical change is true historicism.

This chapter was previously published in the New York Review of Books, November 1990.

My thoughts:

The New Testament at its best is a Story of how God moved in human beings in the earliest years of Jesus Christ, as he came into his Body.  No matter how purely we see that Story, it will not fundamentally change the Institutional Church, as we know her.  It can, however, provide a more living perspective on HOW God moves in his people, when they gather as Christians to pursue Him in his Kingdom... and THAT ought to be a benefit for anyone, whether hampered by pew sitting traditions or couch sitting conundrums.

There are many things driving change around Christendom these days.  A fresher view of the New Testament Church is worth seeing purely for its own sake.  And God help us all, after that.

NT and/or History Roundup (August, 2010)

Not necessarily the "Best of my Reader", but here are some August 2010 items from all over the blogosphere & interwebs that highlight the kinds of things you'd think NT/History Blog would be most likely to notice.  Enjoy!  Warning:  It came out a bit top heavy with Classical stuff.  NT Buffs, feel free to scroll down.

(1) Jona Lendering has been reading the Roman historian Velleius Paterculus, whose reputation has been improving among scholars in recent decades.  In observing some deliberate counter-messaging (compliment Augustus, but subtly illustrate his flaws), Jona compared Mark's Gospel (positive declarations about Jesus, surrounded by struggle and ultimate failure) and wondered if this general technique was more common in Antiquity than we've noticed.  A very interesting question.

Personally, I was far more intrigued by Jona's insight on Velleius, and what it says about Tiberius' reign (c.29 AD) that a work so set on flattery of the current emperor would be so consistently negative about his previously revered predecessor.  Promoting the Tiberian bloodline, and its guardian Sejanus, public statements like Velleius' probably helped undercut the one thing preserving public favor for Agrippina's sons - their claim to the Augustan bloodline.  There's more to be found here, if someone's not found it already.

(2) By the way, Jona also wrote a fantastic post about Roman Germany, after Varus, based partly on an artifact called the Tongeren lead bar.  Really good stuff, if you're into Roman History.  Siiiigh.  I wish more Classicists with good historical sense would post online... about the NT era... more than once in a blue moon...

(3) The BMCR Books Received (posted Aug.3rd, for July) included several on Religion in Roman times, which look interesting:  Bockmuehl, Markus and Guy G. Stroumsa (edd.). Paradise in antiquity: Jewish and Christian views; Casadio, Giovanni and Patricia A. Johnston (edd.). Mystic cults in Magna Graecia; Mitchell, Stephen and Peter Van Nuffelen (edd.). One god: pagan monotheism in the Roman Empire. AND Monotheism between pagans and Christians in late antiquity (Co-authors, two titles); Orlin, Eric M. Foreign cults in Rome: creating a Roman Empire; Várhelyi, Zsuzsanna. The religion of senators in the Roman Empire: power and the beyond.  Of course, none of these will be gracing my shelves, ever, but if some fellow blogger cares to buy and reviews any of these, I'd love to read that!!!

(4) The BMCR also posted a book review of Danijel Dzino's Illyricum in Roman Politics, 229 BC-AD 68.  If you're one of those who enjoyed my reconstruction of the Pannonian War back in 2007 (included in the 'Yearbooks' for AD 6, 7, 8 & 9), then by all means, you'll enjoy this review.  *** For the rest of you, work on Roman Illyricum helps cement what Paul said in Romans 15:19 about his personal travels - and that reference is huge for anyone trying to work out Pauline Chronology. ***

(5) Mike Bird put up a much noticed article at Bible & Interpretation - called Gentiles for Moses? - about Gentile Proselytes in Antiquity and whether Jews worked very hard to convert them.  I liked it.  I haven't quite finished all of it, with its plethora of footnotes.  But I liked it.  Good stuff.  :-)

(6) Last Friday, Dorothy King, Ph.Diva, discussed and linked to a recent dissertation on the Temple Treasure in Medieval Rome, and then Leen Ritmeyer posted the same day, uncannily, about upcoming [further] excavations at Rome's Forum of Peace, which Vespatian built to celebrate the destruction of Jerusalem.  Fascinating connections.  (The dissertation itself, by the way, was in History at LSU.  Geaux Tigers!)

(7) Daniel Kirk and Dan Wallace had a long conversation about Pharisees.  Daniel also posted a lot this month about something called "Inerrancy".  But I don' know nutin bout dat.  I just try my best to always trust the Bible.  (!)  By the way, Dr. JRDK had several good posts this month and may have peaked in his blogging stride by late summer, two years running.  This time, he seems to have warded off the temptation to quit blogging.  Good.  Of all "theological" blogs that I (try to) read, I like Daniel's Storied Theology best.

(8)  I'm getting tired of hearing about it, without owning it, but I still can't afford to buy it.  But if anyone wants to send me a copy of The Sacred Bridge:  Carta's Atlas of the Biblical World, I'd surely be much obliged!  Or buy any book linked here, and Amazon will give me a few nickels towards it.  :-)

(9)  Various Bibliobloggers also posted great stuff:

Phillip J. Long had an excellent post on First Century Judaisms? - plural, question mark.  RBL has a a review that I still need to read, on a book that offers a political and theological take on Acts.  It's called World Upside Down:  Reading Acts in the Graeco-Roman Age.  And someone on Twitter said the Bible is like a software license.  We all scroll to the bottom and click "agree".

It would naturally be Michael Barber who pointed out that Moses was also a Priest... but of course he's absolutely correct.  Not that I want to live at the foot of Mt. Sinai, Michael.  ;-)  Just joshing, my Catholic Brother!  Meanwhile, Scot McKnight enjoyed reading the book Jesus Manifesto, by Len Sweet & Frank Viola.  I still need to read my copy, too.  The consensus seems to be that, yes, Jesus is indeed very good.  :-)

On the Zondervan blog, Darrell Bock has just said he'll be condensing last year's IBR Jesus book, Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus.  Good.  Thanks, Darrell.  That thing's a dang doorstop.  Meanwhile (speaking of apologetics!) the bloggers at History of the Ancient World let us know that it's possible Cleopatra DID drink a pearl, as Pliny claimed, even though most scholars took that to be fiction.  Here's a video, with some science on the most likely 'solution'.

Brian LePort blogged about Quirinius here and here, as I blogged about here.  Doug Chaplin had a great post about Christians (mis)reading Torah - and yes, that does apply to NT studies, as you'll see if you read Doug's wonderful post.  And Charles Savelle alerted us to some great tidbits offered by first century historian Paul Maier.

By the way - this one's not about NT or History, but - Seth Godin has announced he's no longer going to use traditional publishing.  Wowie, zow-wow.  I am patiently jealous.

(10) Finally, I have to say it seemed like there were tons of posts in August about the possible/supposed historicity of Adam, Eve & Eden.  This helped me when putting my thoughts into Genesis AS IF History, which I'll hope becomes the last thing I ever post on this topic.  By the way, this one IS related to NT/History.  How?  I'll repeat that post's thesis:

it is NOT evidence for Adam's historicity to point out that both Jesus and Paul spoke about Adam as if he were real.  This is unfortunate, from one way of thinking.  However, the pattern of Jesus and Paul IS an example of how we might speak and write about Adam.  Thus, we might do as well as Jesus and Paul did if we continue speaking AS IF Adam were, in fact, a historical figure.

And that's why I said it.  That, plus it goes with the early posts in my super-long series on The Movement of God, which will eventually build all the way up to the NT.

Us NT folks can't ever forget the OT, folks.

Huh.  I guess this post was pretty much the best of my Google Reader, after all.  Go figure!