Why is the issue of scriptural historicity important? One answer I have heard is that it's a matter of truth: that it's important to know whether they are historical or not so that we don't believe something false. And yet, as a matter of truth, historicity generally seems pretty unimportant. For example, it doesn't much matter to me whether the story of the good Samaritan was just a story Jesus made up to teach a principle or a historical event. The point is not the history, it is the message of the story. And it seems to me that most scripture fits into this category.
But are there matters in the scriptures where the point is the history? The one that I think has the strongest case is the historicity of the atonement of Jesus Christ, including his death and resurrection. Why is the historicity of these events important? It seems to me that one primary reason is that belief in their historical reality encourages hope, faith, and repentance.
What makes this particularly interesting, though, is that in the Book of Mormon, we have the story of people who lived prior to Jesus, who were able to exercise faith and hope in him. Historicity was not the driving factor of their faith; it was a forward-looking faith. Their faith was efficacious even though Jesus had not yet gone through his suffering and resurrection. How was this possible?
Unless we are willing to posit some strange backwards causation to the atonement (which may not be so far-fetched?), it seems that their faith, even in the absence of an already-wrought atonement, was sufficient to secure their salvation -- with the exception of a physical resurrection. If they were able to exercise redemptive faith without the historical events having occurred, would the same be possible for us?
More on issues of historicity coming soon...
"Unless we are willing to posit some strange backwards causation to the atonement"
ReplyDeleteThat's actually the most common interpretation, in my understanding. But perhaps I've read enough sci-fi time travel paradox stories that it doesn't bother me as much as it might others. My initial inclination, though, is to say that efficacy of the Atonement for preMeridian repenters was indeed dependent on the Atonement actually taking place at the appointed time.
Other events which seem to be commonly assumed to have a literal historicity include creation, fall, and the BOM narrative (one could throw the flood, the Abrahamic covenant, and the Exodus onto the list as well, though those probably are easier to quibble about, or get away with holding divergent opinions about). Of course, it's possible to go too far, assuming that every detail of the scriptural account as we understand it is literally true. Moroni should have set us straight on that with his warning that the BOM contains mistakes, possibly including mistakes of history (see, for instance, OSC's speculations on the existence of Mulek).
BDemosthenes,
ReplyDelete"efficacy of the Atonement for preMeridian repenters was indeed dependent on the Atonement actually taking place at the appointed time"
Do you mean specifically at the appointed time, or simply at some point in time? For instance, imagine that the Atonement had not yet taken place, but will take place 300 million years in the future on some other planet. Would it still be efficacious for the Book of Mormon peoples?
"For example, it doesn't much matter to me whether the story of the good Samaritan was just a story Jesus made up to teach a principle or a historical event. The point is not the history, it is the message of the story."I'm not sure I buy this. For instance doesn't the significance of the story of the Good Samaritan depend upon whether it was really given by Jesus? If you found out that it was added in the 6th century to make some political point, wouldn't that affect how you view it?
ReplyDeleteCertainly allegory, fiction and other such rhetorical forms don't require historicity. Yet for us to accept the meaning of these forms they must in turn be grounded historically in some sense. Otherwise we merely find texts that happen to agree with what we already believe. In which case texts lose all power to aid our progress of inquiry. We can never gain what is not already believed. But the power of texts is to move us beyond what we currently accept. That entails they must have connection to a reality beyond the text. That connection to a ground is the very basis of historicity.
Depending on how I interpret your question, the answer is 'it depends.' Since God had evidently given quite specific prophecies (to the Nephites, at least) about when the appointed time was, I would guess that the Atonement would have had to happen then, or something disastrous would have happened (and it seems that at least some interpretations posit that Jesus could have failed at the key moment, though I can't think of any particularly good references offhand).
ReplyDeleteHowever, in general, I see no reason that the span of time involved in any 'backwards causation' would make much of a difference--3000 and 300,000,000 years are both incomprehensible to us, really. And the fact that at least some other inhabitable worlds evidently depend on the Atonement that took place on this one could imply that the 'backwards causation' operated farther back than ~4000 years.
But really, these sorts of questions assume that we can understand time the way that God does, and I'm not convinced that we're presently equipped to be capable of that.
Semiotician,
ReplyDeleteDoesn't the significance of the story of the Good Samaritan depend upon whether it was really given by Jesus? If you found out that it was added in the 6th century to make some political point, wouldn't that affect how you view it?Yes, but I'm not sure this is so much a question of actual historicity as it is of my belief in some sense of historicity, in the sense in which you seem to be using it. If we were to discover that there was no "historical Jesus", I'm not sure that would necessarily change the meaning of the parable. Is the meaning of the parable determined by the actual fact that it was given by Jesus, or by my/our belief that it was?
I think it is true that texts need to be "grounded historically in some sense," and this will be the subject of my next post on historicity. But I get the feeling that you and I may mean different things by this.
Your statements about the necessity that texts "have connection to a reality beyond the text" seems to be satisfied by almost anything other than solipsism. As soon as I accept the existence of an Other, I open myself to be challenged in my beliefs by a text that has provenance outside myself. This is a pretty minimal form of "historicity", IMO, and doesn't seem to have much to do with the historicity of the textual account itself.
"...doesn't the significance of the story of the Good Samaritan depend upon whether it was really given by Jesus? If you found out that it was added in the 6th century to make some political point, wouldn't that affect how you view it?"
ReplyDeleteThis is a good way to set up the question, but I think that it may lead in a different direction than may be supposed. The story of the good Samaritan has improved my life. It has guided my understanding of my place within the world and my relationships with others. Were I to learn tomorrow that it was a 6th century addition by a nameless scribe, the information would certainly affect how I view the story, but I would hope that I would not reject the value of the story simply because I had previously had an incorrect idea about its provenance.
"Certainly allegory, fiction and other such rhetorical forms don't require historicity. Yet for us to accept the meaning of these forms they must in turn be grounded historically in some sense."
Can you elaborate? I'm not sure I understand your point. Do you mean that we must be able to connect those forms of literature to specific historical events, or the more general point that we must have ourselves a concept of history (personal memory, if nothing else) to connect the text to anything? I agree with the latter point (I don't think I agree with the former, but I'm not sure), but I don't understand the latter point to require the kind of historicity that I understand Grasshopper to be discussing.
"Otherwise we merely find texts that happen to agree with what we already believe. In which case texts lose all power to aid our progress of inquiry."
Why can we not also find text with which we happen to disagree? And why can we not be curious enough about those things with which we disagree to explore them in greater detail, to exercise a sliver of faith? And what might come from such an exercise?
"We can never gain what is not already believed."
I need more context for this statement. It does not seem self-evidently true to me, but I may lack the background to understand it correctly. Can you illuminate?
"But the power of texts is to move us beyond what we currently accept. That entails they must have connection to a reality beyond the text."
Do you require that they have a connection to a reality beyond or outside the brain cells of the reader?
"That connection to a ground is the very basis of historicity."
To the extent I have understood your ideas, your description of historicity is not the same one that Grasshopper is discussing. But I may be missing important parts of your idea.
I'm interested in this question and your comments. I hope you opt to respond.
BDemosthenes,
ReplyDeleteSuppose we take our rampant speculation a bit further. Imagine that the story of the Book of Mormon is not historical. Imagine further that there had been no "historical Jesus". In such a case, the Book of Mormon prophecies recorded about the specific time of Jesus' atonement serve a purpose in the story but don't necessitate that the Atonement actually occurred a couple thousand years ago. (We could actually read the Book of Mormon as offering a solution to the problem of the historicity of Jesus by providing an account of people who were saved by faith prior to his atonement.)
Would it be possible, in such a scenario, for us to exercise faith in a redemption yet to come, as the Book of Mormon people are recorded as doing? Could it be that God recognizes that many of us need something closer to home, so he allows us to believe in the historicity of these stories in order to "work upon our hearts" (cf. D&C 19)?
Setting that speculation aside, how does our faith in a historical Jesus who performed an atonement on our earth compare with the faith of an inhabitant of another world who is "saved by the very same Savior of ours"?
Demonsthenes, I don't think it is a weak form of historicity. Certainly the fact that any text has an author is an important point. Further the identity of the author counts towards the value of the text. By divorcing texts from questions of historicity, we are in effect saying that the only author who counts is the reader. Thus what grounds the meaning and value of the text is the reader. (Hopefully that answers your question Grasshopper as well)
ReplyDeleteIf we acknowledge the place of the author - whether that be the writer or reality itself - then that changes how we engage with the text.
To the example at hand, it counts whether the story of the Good Samaratan was told by Jesus, by Augustine, by Arius, or someone else. It counts precisely because of the place I give those individuals in my own system of values. I simply value Jesus' comments far more than Arius. I may agree with Arius, but not because of what he says, but because it either already agrees with what I believe, or because he is able to support it via means outside of himself.
The problem is that stories don't have a strong logic to present themselves. They are just given. That is both the strength and weakness of allegories. They provide a clear presentation but no clear valuation. Either if clarifies what you already believe, or else it clarifies what the author believes. But whehter you adhere to the presentation clearly depends upon how you view the author.
Greenfrog, I agree that allegories can be useful for the reasons you mention. However in that case they act not as reasons for behavior, but as a way of keeping before oneself what one already has assented to. In the same way if I have trouble losing weight I may keep a card with me to count calories. I may keep some particular aphorism on a card I read regularly. All of those help me adhere in my practices to a belief. But they don't explain why I adopt the belief in the first place.
ReplyDeletePerhaps a good distinction is to separate out why I adopt a belief and how I make a belief a habit. Put a different way, beliefs may have the same content, but not the same strength. The strength of a belief is how we utilize it habitually. To return to the diet example, I may believe I ought to eat healthily, but the strength of the belief is determined in terms of my habits of action. But all that is separate from why I think I ought to eat healthily.
Returning to our textual example, the ground of the text is what explains why we ought to accept what it says.
Now certainly there is a third way in which a text acts a catalyst for further investigation. i.e. I read something and then exterior to the text try to find out if the content of the text is to be accepted.
Semiotician,
ReplyDeleteBut is it really the author per se who is important to the meaning of the text, or is it the reader's perception of who the author is? For instance, suppose I give you a saying and claim that it is an authentic saying of Jesus. You interpret it a certain way because of your acceptance of my claim. Later, you find out from someone more authoritative that this saying is really a forgery. So you change your interpretation or valuing of the text. Later, you discover that the authority who told you it was a forgery was mistaken, and that it actually was an authentic saying of Jesus.
In none of this has the author of the text changed, but its meaning has. This hypothetical seems to illustrate that it is not so much the author as the reader's perception of who the author is that affects the meaning of the text. No?
Grasshopper, while what we believe is what produces our actions, ideally we want our beliefs to line up with reality. So certainly, if we believe Christ said something we will act as if he did (ideally). However I think that all people also have a goal to not have false belief. In a way you merely admit that falsehoods can produce action. The action may be useful. But that doesn't make it any less a falsehood.
ReplyDeleteThe pragmatist in me says, "Who cares if it's technically a 'falsehood'?" Per Moroni 7, if it leads to Christ and God, isn't it inspired of God? And God seems to take a similarly pragmatic approach to "truth" in D&C 19.
ReplyDeleteI guess it depends upon what kind of pragmatist you are. For Peirce, that is a big issue. For Rorty it isn't an issue at all. For James. . .well I suppose it depends upon how you read him.
ReplyDeleteThe point is, I think, that most pragmatists would not want to cut off inquiry. So even if you don't think it matters, it does matter if you remain content and don't attempt to investigate the issue.
The point about continuing inquiry I can completely agree with. But, as greenfrog pointed out in his comment above (#6), our discovery of the truth of the matter may turn out not to be very significant overall.
ReplyDelete"Suppose we take our rampant speculation a bit further. Imagine that the story of the Book of Mormon is not historical. Imagine further that there had been no "historical Jesus". In such a case, the Book of Mormon prophecies recorded about the specific time of Jesus' atonement serve a purpose in the story but don't necessitate that the Atonement actually occurred a couple thousand years ago. (We could actually read the Book of Mormon as offering a solution to the problem of the historicity of Jesus by providing an account of people who were saved by faith prior to his atonement.)"
ReplyDeleteThe problem with this approach that I can't get past is that if we assume the BOM was wrong in its 3 Nephi account of the Savior completing the Atonement, Occam's Razor suggests we shouldn't be referring to it at all, and thus, no pre-Atonement repentence conundrums remain to worry about in the first place. And if we accept saving faith without any specific Atonement to 'hang' it on, we're left with a very different religion than Christianity, I think. I have no problem with a specific Atonement providing saving power any amount of time forward or backward, but said Atonement seems to be necessary to the picture in the first place, or we're left with some sort of mysticism or something. An interesting question to ask might be how much specific knowledge of the Atonement is necessary for it to work (I suspect very little), but some does seem essential.
"Would it be possible, in such a scenario, for us to exercise faith in a redemption yet to come, as the Book of Mormon people are recorded as doing? Could it be that God recognizes that many of us need something closer to home, so he allows us to believe in the historicity of these stories in order to "work upon our hearts" (cf. D&C 19)?"
Possible, I suppose, but I find it extremely unlikely. If we presuppose that God either doesn't tell or doesn't correct the misunderstandings of the modern prophets on so fundamental a point, there seems to be precious little reason to be LDS.
"Setting that speculation aside, how does our faith in a historical Jesus who performed an atonement on our earth compare with the faith of an inhabitant of another world who is "saved by the very same Savior of ours"?"
That I don't know that we can answer without experiencing life on another world. Sometimes I look at it as being not too different from those who were saved by the Atonement on this world despite their temporal and geographic distance from Ground Zero at the Meridian (ie the Nephites mainly knew of the Atonement through the teachings of their prophets, and accepted (or didn't) that it would happen in a long time in a faraway land--the same model seems plausible on other worlds, as their prophets would fill them in on the essential details).
If there is continuing inquiry, then eventually we'll discover the truth and if we believe the truth it will affect our behavior. So I don't think we can declare this irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteAs to whether it matters. There is an interesting Buddhism Sutra on this called the Lotus Sutra. It deals with a phenomena similar to what we in the west would call "lying for God." Basically there is the allegory of some children in a burning building. You promise them sweets outside to get them to leave the building, even though you have none. The idea is that reality is irrelevant to the behavior.
http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/library/Buddhism/LotusSutra/
I'm not sure I agree. The reasons why are somewhat complex. For one, I think that while inaccuracy is always present in language, lying is a step beyond that. I have faith God won't intentionally lie like that. But I admit it is a matter of faith. I also believe that lies never can be maintained. Honest investigators always undermine the lie. If there is nothing behind the lie, then we have nihilism. Nietzsche's "God is Dead." As the madman said, perhaps those in the churches don't recognize it - but they will. However I don't believe God is dead and see no reason for an empty shell of a teaching.
The other reasons grow more complex. But I think the fundamental issue is one of faith. Why shouldn't we care? Your version of pragmatism seems to take this for granted. But why not turn it around. If it doesn't matter if it is true or not, then surely it won't make a difference if it is true or not. But if it does make a difference, then clearly we should care.