Hi there. I am busy reading an Archaeology book on the bible by Richard Horsley and others and it raises some important questions regarding history and narrative. Specifically theories about Israel’s origin. So bear with me here. If one of these theories were true; say Israel broke away from their Canaanite culture and headed for the hills and then came back to occupy parts of Canaan later, making Abraham, the conquest of Canaan by Joshua, and the partiarchs stories about Israel’s life rather than real flesh and blood people; would the narrative approach adopted by Andrew, others and myself continue to function as coherently as it seems to do. Basically does it matter to this approach whether Abraham was a real person as described in Genesis or rather a story, an allegory, that explains Israel’s sense of calling. Also what does this say about YHWH? Is the narrative more important than actual history for the bible writers?
Thanks Ryan
Re: History and narrative
I’m not sure there is a way to cleanly separate the narrative from the actual history. All the historical artifacts that an anthropologist might find are bound up with narratives.
Re: History and narrative
I definately agree, and I’m aware of the dominant paradigm that has held sway over knowledge production over the modernist era, which has discounted myth and failed to take narrative seriously in interpreting the past, but dont myths have universalizing tendencies. I think of Marcus Borg’s writings on Jesus where he takes labels the narrative as myth or allegory and then gives it universal significance. On the other hand the historical-narrative approach taken by Andrew focusses more on the situation at hand which I find more appropriate. Some things have to happen in history, thats what differentiates early Judaism from a lot of their counterparts. But in many ways research is shedding light on how many narratives did not occur as they were told. How do we as the ones who hold the narrative close to our hearts deal with the apparent evidence occuring? I suppose im struggling to get it clear in my mind becuase in conversing with a lot of people about thse issues they have been quite offended and shocked by these claims.
Re: History and narrative
Ryan, I would have thought that the narrative approach would cope much better with this sort of problem than more traditional attempts to preserve the integrity of scripture.
1. Jacob’s point is correct: archaeological evidence must also be interpreted. We cannot use this argument to diminish the historical problem: the fact is that current archaeological evidence makes it very difficult to accept the stories of Israel’s origins as simple historical fact. But a narrative approach at least does not force a fundamental epistemological divide between theology and history.
2. The sort of hybrid narrative theology that I would argue for is obliged to take the historical-archaeological narrative seriously - we can’t, for example, make the fall of Jerusalem a significant interpretive event for New Testament eschatology without also giving appropriate weight to archaeological accounts of Jewish origins. We can’t pick and choose how we use history. Of course, the archaeological evidence is much harder to interpret than the historical evidence for the war against Rome, but the principle remains: our theology must not only register the tension between sacred text and archaeology but also find in that tension the grounds for its realism.
It may be that in fifty years time archaeology will have come to different conclusions about Israel’s origins - we have no control over that. For now we have to find a way to speak about ourselves with both an authentic sense of vocation - the sense that we have inherited the promise to Abraham - and an open-ended commitment to intellectual integrity.
3. A narrative theology allows us to tell the story simple as story, as our story, without having to defend its historicity at every turn. This is not an argument that will go down too well in a modern environment, but it may be that in a postmodern context, in which very different questions are being asked, the simple act of story-telling will make much more sense. Our identity, integrity, and purpose as God’s people are enshrined not in rationalist arguments or even in confessional statements but in the troublesome narrative of a people’s existence in the midst of the nations.
4. In the end I think it is this concrete sense of being a people called out of the world, redeemed from the world, to belong faithfully to the creator, that grounds us. Part of the value of these debates, to my mind, lies in the fact that they throw us back on our self-understanding. The fundamental question that we face at the moment is not ‘Is it true?’ but ‘Why are we here?’
Re: History and narrative
Hi there. Thanks for your comment Andrew. I agree, the narrative approach does cope better with this sort of problem. I suppose it is just so different to view scripture this way when for so long I have viewed as historical fact. It seems things would be a lot easier if it were all true but thats almost too simple. There is a real beauty in understanding the narrative, that is a product of history and oral tradition. Thr South African church is always behind in terms of ideas and we are still very modern in our outlook. I know of no church in my area that does not take everything in the bible literally. But yes emphasizing the narrative about being called out is the best way forwards.
Thanks