Y Safle

Last month I wrote a post criticising the “Truth Driven Thinking” podcast, and Tom Harpur’s view of a mythical Jesus. The nub of his argument seems to be that ancient literature is “widely understood” to be written in a mythical manner, and that no-one really believed what was written to be truth. Rather they all accepted an assumption that what was being written was spiritual myth.

On the other hand there are people who say that not only is Harpur talking rubbish, but that every part of the Bible must be taken as literal historical fact, including the six day creation six thousand years ago.

Both are wrong, because both misunderstand this issue of how literature was understood.

Let us be clear - all literature has certain conventions, and those conventions change over time. A verbatim narrative of an event is about the dullest thing one could possibly read, and so narrative histories modify conversation somewhat, leave out the dull bits, perhaps re-arrange a little. But in essence, they are narratives of actual events.

Now it may be instructive to look at Thucydides’ Magnus Opus, The History of The Peloponnesian War. (Actually, it is not all the work of Thucydides, but we can ignore that for now, as these comments apply to the part he did write).

In this work, Thucydides recounts the war between Athens and Sparta, with remarkable insight and clearly a first hand knowledge of the events he recounts. When Thucydides stops writing, the account loses some of this detail, and we must marvel at what a remarkable historian this man was.

However, he was not just a historian. Thucydides was also a philosopher, and he used his history to paint a picture of the degeneration of the Athenian empire. The theatre of history is the backdrop for his philosophical teaching (and in this, he is not unusual as a historian).

So consider Thucydides’ accounts of various speeches and motivational addresses in his history. These are often pages in length, and it is clear that Thucydides was not present to hear and record these. Thus we suppose that the speeches are gists of originals, modified by Thucydides to carry his message. It may be that everthing that Thucydides attributes to the speech maker was actually said by someone, but by placing the words in the mouths of the key actors in his history, the narrative is enriched, the point is carried, and the history is richer for it.

Now Tom Harpur would be wrong to suggest that anyone reading the History of the Peloponnesian War should understand that the account is mythical. No one would agree with Harpur, for instance, that the General Pericles was not a historical figure who lived and then died of plague (or perhaps typhoid) in the siege of Athens. Did Pericles actually speak certain words attributed to him? Perhaps not, although we can be near certain that the direction he gave Athens was as reported by Thucydides, because we know that Thucydides had access to the information that allowed him to report accurately on the war.

So based on documents such as this one, we see that we can dismiss Harpur’s suggestions at once. There was no assumption that when reading history one was reading a mythical account.

But the hstory of the Peloponnesian war tells us something else: That history is often arranged to make a spiritual point. In the Old Testament we might read the book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel and be taken with an understanding that Kings that followed God were blessed, and those who failed to do so did badly. 2 Chronicles in particular brings out this point, and it is notable how little attention a godless king might get. Perhaps the most significant example is Omri. Chronicles talks of his son, the king Ahab, and uses this to make its points well. Omri gets no mention at all (except as father or grandfather or son).

In the book of Kings, chapter 16 we read “But Omri did evil in the eyes of the LORD and sinned more than all those before him.”, so we know this much about him and very little more. The Chronicler does not rewrite history - he does not say Omri was a good king, or that he met a quick and unfortunate death because of his evil. The Chronicler just ignores him entirely.

Does this worry us? No - because the message God has placed in the Bible is the message he wants us to read. And the message here is that it does not matter how great your works are - without God they have no lasting significance. All crumbles and decays in its time, and all are forgotten. Without God we really are nothing.

So the omission itself is a part of the teaching of the Bible, and we can learn from it.

But there are also parts of the Bible that are not observed history. The six day creation is an example, because who could have observed God creating the world before Adam was created?

Thus we must treat this part of the Bible as direct revelation, and this being the case, it is not unwarranted to suppose that the six day creation was allegorical, as Origen thought and as Augustine also believed.

Augustine held that creation must have taken place in an instant. And in a sense that is exactly what science says, for in the instant of the big bang, the precise configuration of the Universe that would create me and you was created.

Whether you accept that interpretation or not is up to you, but to me that is the most elegant of all universes. It is beautiful in simplicity hiding its incredible complexity.

And the book of Genesis? If it is allegorical, then what is it teaching us? To me that is the most exciting part of this whole journey - that we can learn so much from Genesis too.

But that will have to wait for another message. This one is long enough already.