How do we know the limits of allegory? I assume it must be a mixture of what comes from the deepest wellsprings of the heart and from rigorous logic from the mind operating in sync or as a single noetic principle. Im just wondering how we keep it from being too subjective and relativistic. For instance, some people take the resurrection to be just an allegory and a symbol for us showing us how to live better lives, more in the present in this our only life and that when we are dead we truly are dead. I can't personally fathom this. If this demented slaughterhouse of a world is the only existence I'll ever know then I'm with Kirillov 100%. I guess it helps that St. Paul explicitly denied the spiritual interpretation of the resurrection. There's also the various apologetic debates about whether or not the Eucharist really is the real presence of Christs body and blood etc. From my own Orthodox tradition I know this comes from the interpretation of a historical community throughout the ages, but that too is problematic since that very community gets many things wrong (infernalism is a good example.)
Well the rule of thumb prescribed by Origen, Gregory, and Augustine is that allegories have to do with materials that are obviously fantastical or that it would be unfitting to attribute to God in a literalist way. Then only spiritual interpretations are warranted. This would not apply to historical claims such as the proclamation of the resurrection. But that’s as clear as it gets.
Thanks that clears things up. One reason I ask is because I've been mired in a debate the last year and have some seething questions I don't have an answer too. I've been convinced by Stephen RL Clark and Charles Camosy that a vegan diet is what Christocentic ethics ultimately demands of us. I've also been convinced by modern scientific kinds like Dr. Michael Greger, Dr. Milton Mills, Dr. Christina Warinner among many others that it is also the most beneficial in terms of human health and the ecological health of Earth and the biosphere. However, it appears the Lord himself ate fish and multiplied fish for the multitudes. The Christian exegesis I've seen on this, even from SRL Clark has been poor (he says we don't usually follow Christ in having no place to rest our head, so why should we bother following him in eating fish). The only thing I could think of is that either I (and all these other people) are wrong and Christ did eat meat and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it, maybe it's a relative matter. But I'm wondering if it is licit to even take those examples of Christ eating fish and multiplying them for hungry people as a spiritual allegory? After all, the point in Luke is to show that Christ is not some Docetic ghost and so he can still eat meat and is not a commentary on how humans should eat. Also, the narrative of multiplying fish for people is meant to show the Lord's compassion in feeding a starving multitude not on the ideal diet for human and animal flourishing. Any thoughts on this? Not sure if you have any dog in this fight, but I try to ask those wiser than myself when I'm perplexed.
I think it's fair to say, first, that human impact on nonhuman animal populations two thousand years ago was basically nil compared with today, and, second, that some ethical questions must be historicized. Thus while it is right for someone in the US to avoid eating animals*, we would be quite presumptuous to lecture the members of an Amazonian tribe on their diet.
*Though I confess I still eat fish and, sometimes, fowl. No doubt my aversion to beef & pork is an instance of speciesism.
Thank you. I agree with you there, there are a great many people who cannot afford to follow a plant based diet both financially and due to physical hardship. Also, the times have definitely changed. I do not contest that. The debate i was having with a friend was that he was telling me that if eating animals against their will is intrinsically an evil act when you can do otherwise, then Jesus would have committed an act of evil, however minor, which is something that is not supposed to happen. Presumably he could have done otherwise. But that opens the floor to even more questions. Presumably he could heal all the suffering in the world in an instant. I don't know why he doesn't.
I guess it can seem like silly arguing over nothing while there are real problems going on, but it is a real stumbling block for many I speak to about why they won't commit to eating less meat and more plants. "If the Lord ate meat, then so can I."
Also, by the by, I definitely strive to be one of those vegans who isn't holier than thou, something they get a justifiably bad rap for. I would never take it upon myself to lecture anyone about how to eat let alone an Amazonian tribe, but I do think it's good to promote a plant based diet for the health of humans, the earth, and the other creatures God made who have lives that are just as worthy to be lived as ours.
Intrinsically evil acts are acts that lead to bad ends, intentionally willed without constraint. When one enjoys the moral luck of being able to make choices that others cannot, the field of such evils expands for one. But the peasantry of the Galilee and Judaea, among whom Jesus lived and to whom his ministry was almost exclusively directed, enjoyed no such luck.
In a political argument, acts that lead to bad ends would be interpreted or evaluated according to numerical and qualitative benefits of constituencies in response to their interests, thus the end could not be derived from or judged by the universal and substantially essential morality.
Christian political thoughts can be therefore converged in operational politics of today only by their secularized abasements in a reconciliated form, that is in one possibility socialism. Jesus's ministry might also become a reinterpretative subject.
As for the "historical Jesus" aspect of this, I think it's fair to say the question goes beyond fish. If Jesus ate the Passover, I take that to mean he ate lamb. Which doesn't necessarily say much about what I should and shouldn't be eating, or when, or how much, etc.
I've read some stuff which casts doubt on the idea that he had a Seder and partook of lamb, but I didn't retain it to the point I could explain it to you. That's why I didn't bring it up. I'll look deeper and see if I can actually remember these things.
Well, it cannot be an *intrinsic* evil. It is part of the evolutionary biology of humans. It was no more evil for foragers twelve thousand years ago to hunt and eat wild game than it is for wolves to eat deer today. That's not to compare humans to wolves, but to suggest that nature exists.
It can certainly be a historical evil, especially once it is no longer a matter of survival but of industrial production. As for the argument that "If the Lord ate meat, so can I," that's just sophistry. Jesus was fully human. He lived in a specific historical society and followed its customs (not all of them, obviously), many of which we no longer find particularly worthy.
He was also confined to a part of the world that was not particularly arable, where only the rich could determine their diets with any special foresight, and where bread, fish, and certain fruits were the only staples. Desert peoples cannot really subsist on non-existent salads.
Not all ethical questions are absolutes, you know. Situations change.
I would like to politely suggest that I don't think that is the case. According to the most up to date research, I think all of that is incorrect. From what I understand humans are setup to be herbivores or even frugivores based on our anatomy. The length of our gastrointestinal tract is most similar to other herbivores, not similar at all to omnivores and definitely not to carnivores. Similarly the amount of food we need and how often is much more similar to herbivores. There's much more in the literature that shows that we are actually herbivores and more specifically frugivores. Anthropologists and archaeologists also confirm this. The whole Paleo myth has been debunked. Ancient man was almost entirely plant based and only seemed to eat very small amounts of typically small game under duress probably during harsh winters. And if even if ancient people did certain things it doesn't follow that they should have done them. Also, a dearth of nutritional research is showing that an entirely plant based diet is the healthiest for us. Even if we completely got rid of the apalling conditions of factory farming and only ate wild caught meat we'd still be less healthy than eating just plants. Animal products always cause inflammation in the body. Countless studies have shown that certain.
At any rate, eventually, the lion will lay down with the lamb. There's much more I can say, but I am of the belief that the eating of animal products, if you can possibly avoid it is something to be avoided. I guess I would say intrinsically evil with the caveat that i believe lying to be intrinsically evil but I would still lie to save a Jew from Nazis, just like I'd eat fish if I had no other choice. So perhaps the problem isn't so insurmountable for you. For someone like me, it is more difficult. But I think the spiritual interpretation is what's left for me. Thanks for your help in thinking through this with me Michael.
I'm always glad to see other people say things like "a vegan diet is what Christocentic ethics ultimately demands of us" because it confirms what I have come to believe very strongly but that I hesitate to say for fear of being deemed judgmental (not that my saying it would persuade anyone anyway).
I hear you and think the same. I try to take after those I look up to like DBH and Clark and speak boldly after I have thought things through. This seems relatively simple given a few assumptions of course. If one doesn't need to kill creatures with real inherent worth due to their spiritual nature in order to live then one shouldn't. The American Dietetics Association and the European one both agree that it's possible to live off plants alone. Many others think it's not only possible but helps us flourish the most. Therefore, unless one absolutely needs to it seems like an indulgence for pleasure and taste (and one that will worsen ones health). Many do obviously need to consume animal products. But most who think they do really don't. And it helps the environment. Win win win. But you are correct that judgmentalism is the cardinal sin of vegans. Anyways thanks for the support!
On the specific topic of the Quirinius/Herod issue, I have seen people claim that Luke can be read as saying that Jesus was born during some census before that of Quirinius, which we can then imagine occured during the reign of Herod (even though there are no records of that).
Is there a specific reason that conjecture is implausible, or is rescuing Luke from that specific historical error just not a very interesting topic for you?
I guess from the perspective of trying to claim the gospels are relatively coherent and the nativity narratives are factual, the reason is because it's easier to assume the Quirinius detail is mistaken or misconstrued rather than that the whole stories having to do with Herod are made up to situate Jesus in certain readings of certain prophecies or something. But if you don't have any special commitment to reading those stories that way no obvious reason comes to mind for me.
I'm not any kind of scholar, so I can't pretend to have useful input on what renderings of the Greek are a stretch or what the Roman records say or anything like that. It's just kind of hard to sort out differing claims as a random lay person who sees one person say "Luke says what he says", and another say "well, maybe he really said something else".
As an aside, I like your books. Reading "The Experience of God" and "The Story of Christianity" were my first real introductions to the history of Christian thought outside of the (you can probably guess) Evangelical culture I grew up in. They've certainly enabled me to read other books (including yours) on similar topics more productively, and I'm grateful for that.
Well, you see, we don't have any difficulty--unless we're fundamentalists--taking the temporal dislocations in John's gospel as having some theological significance (the cleansing of the temple at the beginning of his ministry, crucifixion on the Passover) and doing the same for some of its narratives. There's no reason one could not presume the same for the whole recapitulation of the Mosaic infancy narrative in Matthew. Few historians believe that the slaughter of the innocents could actually have occurred; Rome would not have tolerated it, for one thing, and the palace guard at Herod's command was not an army.
Dear David, Three thumbs up for continuing the learned hermeneutics and exegesis begun and so generously shared with the early Christians--society's "outscoring"--by St. Origen. You and Dr./Fr.
John Behr should have a beneficial effect on the sad state of seminary education today from which many priests graduate believing that Origen was somehow excommunicated while Emperor Justinian
and his wife Theodora still grace the magnificent artwork of Siena, Italy's, Church as "saints."
Great! One of the many things I admire in DBH is that he never shies away from a challenge and is willing to risk much in defense of intellectual honesty. He is truly the Coeur de Lion of theology (although one with infinitely better command of English). Part II can't come soon enough.
I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself: “All right then, I’ll go to hell”—and tore it up. It was awful thoughts and awful words, but they was said. And I let them stay said; and never thought no more about reforming.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this. I am quite engrossed with a sense of adventure as I see you approaching the scriptures with such a commitment to reading the them in a way that is healthily literal and then responding to its evocations.
I'm looking forward to part two of this, I had been intrigued by the recounting of the Eden story in Tradition and Apocalypse, so further clarification is very much appreciated. I posted about it on a DBH discussion group on facebook and got the response "I think Hart is making up an extreme reading of some “original” pagan myth in order to knock the stuffing out of fundamentalists." but I get the sense from what you've written here that you were being pretty straight.
It is interesing that the serpent appears to be the only other being, aside form the two humans, who can speak. And presumably its Creator knew what he was doing. I'm no Hebrewist but I believe that 'arum', translated as subtle/cunning/shrewd, is a cognate for the Hebrew for naked (or is maybe the same word, I forget)- so there exists an affinity between the beings in this triangle which the author(s) convey through the shared use of defining language. Given that Yaweh's curse is for the serpent to henceforth creep on his belly it's possible that he originally stood upright - and given his rather sophisticated conversational powers might be almost human, certianly more so than the other beasts of the field. More often than not in ancient myths serpents are remedial rather than malign - Hermes' cadeceus is still extant in our faded mythology - so it is a really interesting hotchpotch of a myth whatever interpretation it is cast in. As with most myths, it is inherently ambiguous so not really suitable fodder for fundamentalist
Yes, the words for "shrewd" and "nude" are cognates. In the original forms of the myth, other animals may have been able to speak as well; certainly that would fit with the larger Mesopotamian mythology of which the Eden narrative is a lineal descendent. But what we now have is incomplete.
Hence the very mysterious material later about the intermarriage of the sons of the gods and the daughters of humanity, and about an age of heroes and of the nefelim (?). Obviously it's all we now have of what was once a much larger and richer mythology.
Remember also the bronze serpent--the nechushtan, cognate with the nachash of the Eden story--that Moses raised on a pole for the healing of those Israelites who were dying from the venomous bites of "fiery" serpents. Snakes get a bad rap.
It'sa rash person who gets into the ring with DBH but I'm going to disagree that Yaweh lies to Adam and Eve. Strictly speaking he tells the truth but it's a truth along the lines of the Delphic oracle's truths. They will die if they eat from the tree but the tree is not the cause - Yaweh is the cause because he, for whatever reason, has determied that is what will happen , they will become mortal if they disobey him. The serpent also tells the truth becaue itis not due to the tree if they eat from it that they will die but it sems likely, since he seems to be such a knowig serpent that he knows what the outcome will be. I'm sure it is a remnant of a larger original story but taking what we have it feels to me like a classic myth/fairy story in which human beings are the suckers misled by slippery language.Incidentally, why is the serpent so keen for them to eat form that particualr tree? And why don't they choose instead the tree of life? Daft.
But the Hebrew is clear: he’s telling them that to eat or touch the fruit will kill them that very day. And of course they aren’t immortal. That’s made clear at 3:3-5. They were already destined to die, because only the tree of life grants immortality, and the gods don’t share. Wait till next week.
The snake doesn’t necessarily seem keen for them to eat from that tree. He just likes divulging the secret.
Well, I said it was rash. I'll take anther look at the verses and come back woih more bright tideas to be knocked down.....But anyaway, time I wrote my version
I'll save any specific quibbles for the second part of the article (where I assume you'll be making your full case), but I remain convinced that what you say is "plainly written on the page" of the Eden narrative is just as much an act of creative interpretation as the more "pious" reading, and relies too much on blurring the distinction between the actual text, inferences made from the text, and assumptions about the original myth underlying the text. I would say "the devil's in the details," but that would probably sound a little cheeky given the topic at hand.
I know. I'm not advocating for the traditional reading. I just think yours fills in too many blanks and makes too many interprative leaps for it to be "plainly written on the page" by any commonsensical definition.
(My view is you can't really make sense of the story at all without spiritualizing it. Whatever the editorial history of the Eden narrative, what we ended up with makes any "plain sense" interpretation a non-starter, at least if we're set on connecting all the dots rather than excluding some of them in the name of narrative coherence.)
As I read this I recalled the joy I felt at as a freshman undergraduate as an old Jesuit scripture scholar completely eviscerated any fundamentalist or literalist reading of Genesis during a two hour lecture that was much starker but equally merciless in tone. It totally transformed the infantile view I had of the Genesis stories, and opened up a grand world of exploration of scripture, myth, and theology that I've been entranced with ever since.
I look forward to part II, and thank you for bringing this fairly commonplace understanding of not just Genesis but all of scripture into the twitterverse.
I found the Lotus Sutra years ago, and as I was reading it on the D train one morning crossing the Manhattan Bridge, I experienced the scales falling from my eyes. Halted my investigations into other lineages (I knew Buddhism was for me, but had not settled on a lineage at that time), and pursued Tendai. I also looked into Shingon.
Jodo Shinshu came later, and while Tendai cultivates my geek side, Jodo Shinshu keeps me honest.
This text arrived by email today just as I was listening to ‘The Experience of God’ on audiobook (my ears weathered their first half-century more gracefully than my eyes), and I was amazed to think: I’m reading David Bentley Hart in real time. Which is a bit like wandering around Rome in c. 1510 and dropping by the Sistine Chapel to watch the ceiling get painted. (Or seeing Brooks Robinson vacuum up grounders at Memorial Stadium.) Anyway, the new essay is sublime and deeply appreciated. Think I’ll just hang around the chapel (stadium) and wait for Part 2.
I saw an interview of DBH by a former student where the student recalled Professor DBH saying something to the effect of “Christianity is more intelligent and profound than any of you will ever understand…”. I love this powerful statement and would very much like to hear it expanded upon.
I do think, however, that some nuance needs to be added to your account of Thomists and Thomism. The kind of flat-footed literalism you note in Feser et. al. is characteristic of a certain KIND of Thomist, to be sure -- one that confuses being a metaphysical realist with being a dogmatist about a certain reading of Thomas, as the Philosopher-who-solved-it-all, thus making all subsequent philosophy, of either analytic or continental provenance, either superfluous or malevolent. But these are not like the Jesuit Thomists who I encountered in grad-school (Norris Clarke, Gerald McCool), nor are Dominicans like Fergus Kerr or Brian Davies tarred with the same hyper-rigid brush. I can't see any of them talking the kind of maximalist dogmatic rot that you recount above. They all knew their scripture, and recognized allegory when they saw it.
That said, I think that Thomism has taken an unfortunate turn of late, a retreat to the kind of thinking epitomized by Garrigou-Langrange and a turn away from the sort of Thomism epitomized by M-D. Chenu, Henri de Lubac, Rahner, and the other V-II conciliarists. The latter kind of "nouvelle theologie" Thomism tried to take both modern philosophy and historicity seriously, with varying degrees of success. But the turn toward "manualist" Neo-Thomism -- God help us! -- has been nothing sort of a disaster, prompted by an unwillingness to even consider the possibility that "Modernity" (a term nearly as useless as "Postmodernity") might contain ANYTHING worthwhile, and fueled by the kind of fascist chic so titillating to a certain kind of Gen-X right-wing Catholic intellectual these days. The sort of Thomism that flourished in the 60s and 70s is on the wane. Sad but true.
I think it wise to avoid associating oneself with any kind of philosophical/theological "ism" these days -- social media posturing has made this sort of thing positively toxic. I have been influenced by Barth, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and a bunch of others, but I am loathe to add the suffix "-ian" to any of the above when self-describing. This might be a clue that I am Episcopalian, or an explanation thereof. But it is what it is. We take sacramentality seriously, and that's the main thing in my humble opinion.
Thanks. Technically you are not talking about “Thomists” but about scholars of Thomas. I know that we use the word “Thomism” much more generally today, but it’s proper reference in Catholic thought is to the 16th century school of Dominican thought that began with Bañez and Alvarez, includes John of St Thomas, Billuart, Nicolas, and Garrigou-Lagrange, and that produced the infamous manuals.
What's the main issue you see with those Thomists (Banez, Alvarez, et al)? And what do you think of the Summa Theologica? Do you depart significantly from Catholic theology and Catholic scripture interpretation? I'm Catholic and my limited understanding is that Catholic and your Eastern Orthodox are very close in doctrine and tradition ... but I once heard you say something to the effect of "I don't care what the Roman Catholics think as I'll never be a Roman Catholic".
There are many issues. I've recently published a book called You Are Gods whose first chapter deals with some of them; and in my book The Hidden and the Manifest there are other essays that deal with other related issues.
The manualist Thomists are a minority in Catholic thought. But, alas, a toxic presence nonetheless.
But I have the sense, perhaps wrongly, that Brian Davies, say, would take "God is not a moral agent" in something altogether too close to the way in which David's interlocutor did, though I'm happy to be corrected on this point.
You seem to be advocating for two different skills that are difficult to obtain in our educational establishments or seminaries. The first is to read an ancient text, carefully and thoughtfully, again and again. There are no shortcuts! Biblical students also need to move beyond the historical-critical method and study patristic, medieval and early modern commentaries to obtain insight to make sense of difficult stories in the OT. You are absolutely right to argue that Paul uses allegory constantly to interpret the biblical narrative for new believers. Thank you for your efforts to help people understand the scriptures more clearly and meaningfully.
How do we know the limits of allegory? I assume it must be a mixture of what comes from the deepest wellsprings of the heart and from rigorous logic from the mind operating in sync or as a single noetic principle. Im just wondering how we keep it from being too subjective and relativistic. For instance, some people take the resurrection to be just an allegory and a symbol for us showing us how to live better lives, more in the present in this our only life and that when we are dead we truly are dead. I can't personally fathom this. If this demented slaughterhouse of a world is the only existence I'll ever know then I'm with Kirillov 100%. I guess it helps that St. Paul explicitly denied the spiritual interpretation of the resurrection. There's also the various apologetic debates about whether or not the Eucharist really is the real presence of Christs body and blood etc. From my own Orthodox tradition I know this comes from the interpretation of a historical community throughout the ages, but that too is problematic since that very community gets many things wrong (infernalism is a good example.)
Well the rule of thumb prescribed by Origen, Gregory, and Augustine is that allegories have to do with materials that are obviously fantastical or that it would be unfitting to attribute to God in a literalist way. Then only spiritual interpretations are warranted. This would not apply to historical claims such as the proclamation of the resurrection. But that’s as clear as it gets.
Thanks that clears things up. One reason I ask is because I've been mired in a debate the last year and have some seething questions I don't have an answer too. I've been convinced by Stephen RL Clark and Charles Camosy that a vegan diet is what Christocentic ethics ultimately demands of us. I've also been convinced by modern scientific kinds like Dr. Michael Greger, Dr. Milton Mills, Dr. Christina Warinner among many others that it is also the most beneficial in terms of human health and the ecological health of Earth and the biosphere. However, it appears the Lord himself ate fish and multiplied fish for the multitudes. The Christian exegesis I've seen on this, even from SRL Clark has been poor (he says we don't usually follow Christ in having no place to rest our head, so why should we bother following him in eating fish). The only thing I could think of is that either I (and all these other people) are wrong and Christ did eat meat and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it, maybe it's a relative matter. But I'm wondering if it is licit to even take those examples of Christ eating fish and multiplying them for hungry people as a spiritual allegory? After all, the point in Luke is to show that Christ is not some Docetic ghost and so he can still eat meat and is not a commentary on how humans should eat. Also, the narrative of multiplying fish for people is meant to show the Lord's compassion in feeding a starving multitude not on the ideal diet for human and animal flourishing. Any thoughts on this? Not sure if you have any dog in this fight, but I try to ask those wiser than myself when I'm perplexed.
I think it's fair to say, first, that human impact on nonhuman animal populations two thousand years ago was basically nil compared with today, and, second, that some ethical questions must be historicized. Thus while it is right for someone in the US to avoid eating animals*, we would be quite presumptuous to lecture the members of an Amazonian tribe on their diet.
*Though I confess I still eat fish and, sometimes, fowl. No doubt my aversion to beef & pork is an instance of speciesism.
Thank you. I agree with you there, there are a great many people who cannot afford to follow a plant based diet both financially and due to physical hardship. Also, the times have definitely changed. I do not contest that. The debate i was having with a friend was that he was telling me that if eating animals against their will is intrinsically an evil act when you can do otherwise, then Jesus would have committed an act of evil, however minor, which is something that is not supposed to happen. Presumably he could have done otherwise. But that opens the floor to even more questions. Presumably he could heal all the suffering in the world in an instant. I don't know why he doesn't.
I guess it can seem like silly arguing over nothing while there are real problems going on, but it is a real stumbling block for many I speak to about why they won't commit to eating less meat and more plants. "If the Lord ate meat, then so can I."
Also, by the by, I definitely strive to be one of those vegans who isn't holier than thou, something they get a justifiably bad rap for. I would never take it upon myself to lecture anyone about how to eat let alone an Amazonian tribe, but I do think it's good to promote a plant based diet for the health of humans, the earth, and the other creatures God made who have lives that are just as worthy to be lived as ours.
Intrinsically evil acts are acts that lead to bad ends, intentionally willed without constraint. When one enjoys the moral luck of being able to make choices that others cannot, the field of such evils expands for one. But the peasantry of the Galilee and Judaea, among whom Jesus lived and to whom his ministry was almost exclusively directed, enjoyed no such luck.
In a political argument, acts that lead to bad ends would be interpreted or evaluated according to numerical and qualitative benefits of constituencies in response to their interests, thus the end could not be derived from or judged by the universal and substantially essential morality.
Christian political thoughts can be therefore converged in operational politics of today only by their secularized abasements in a reconciliated form, that is in one possibility socialism. Jesus's ministry might also become a reinterpretative subject.
As for the "historical Jesus" aspect of this, I think it's fair to say the question goes beyond fish. If Jesus ate the Passover, I take that to mean he ate lamb. Which doesn't necessarily say much about what I should and shouldn't be eating, or when, or how much, etc.
I've read some stuff which casts doubt on the idea that he had a Seder and partook of lamb, but I didn't retain it to the point I could explain it to you. That's why I didn't bring it up. I'll look deeper and see if I can actually remember these things.
Well, it cannot be an *intrinsic* evil. It is part of the evolutionary biology of humans. It was no more evil for foragers twelve thousand years ago to hunt and eat wild game than it is for wolves to eat deer today. That's not to compare humans to wolves, but to suggest that nature exists.
It can certainly be a historical evil, especially once it is no longer a matter of survival but of industrial production. As for the argument that "If the Lord ate meat, so can I," that's just sophistry. Jesus was fully human. He lived in a specific historical society and followed its customs (not all of them, obviously), many of which we no longer find particularly worthy.
He was also confined to a part of the world that was not particularly arable, where only the rich could determine their diets with any special foresight, and where bread, fish, and certain fruits were the only staples. Desert peoples cannot really subsist on non-existent salads.
Not all ethical questions are absolutes, you know. Situations change.
I would like to politely suggest that I don't think that is the case. According to the most up to date research, I think all of that is incorrect. From what I understand humans are setup to be herbivores or even frugivores based on our anatomy. The length of our gastrointestinal tract is most similar to other herbivores, not similar at all to omnivores and definitely not to carnivores. Similarly the amount of food we need and how often is much more similar to herbivores. There's much more in the literature that shows that we are actually herbivores and more specifically frugivores. Anthropologists and archaeologists also confirm this. The whole Paleo myth has been debunked. Ancient man was almost entirely plant based and only seemed to eat very small amounts of typically small game under duress probably during harsh winters. And if even if ancient people did certain things it doesn't follow that they should have done them. Also, a dearth of nutritional research is showing that an entirely plant based diet is the healthiest for us. Even if we completely got rid of the apalling conditions of factory farming and only ate wild caught meat we'd still be less healthy than eating just plants. Animal products always cause inflammation in the body. Countless studies have shown that certain.
At any rate, eventually, the lion will lay down with the lamb. There's much more I can say, but I am of the belief that the eating of animal products, if you can possibly avoid it is something to be avoided. I guess I would say intrinsically evil with the caveat that i believe lying to be intrinsically evil but I would still lie to save a Jew from Nazis, just like I'd eat fish if I had no other choice. So perhaps the problem isn't so insurmountable for you. For someone like me, it is more difficult. But I think the spiritual interpretation is what's left for me. Thanks for your help in thinking through this with me Michael.
I'm always glad to see other people say things like "a vegan diet is what Christocentic ethics ultimately demands of us" because it confirms what I have come to believe very strongly but that I hesitate to say for fear of being deemed judgmental (not that my saying it would persuade anyone anyway).
I hear you and think the same. I try to take after those I look up to like DBH and Clark and speak boldly after I have thought things through. This seems relatively simple given a few assumptions of course. If one doesn't need to kill creatures with real inherent worth due to their spiritual nature in order to live then one shouldn't. The American Dietetics Association and the European one both agree that it's possible to live off plants alone. Many others think it's not only possible but helps us flourish the most. Therefore, unless one absolutely needs to it seems like an indulgence for pleasure and taste (and one that will worsen ones health). Many do obviously need to consume animal products. But most who think they do really don't. And it helps the environment. Win win win. But you are correct that judgmentalism is the cardinal sin of vegans. Anyways thanks for the support!
On the specific topic of the Quirinius/Herod issue, I have seen people claim that Luke can be read as saying that Jesus was born during some census before that of Quirinius, which we can then imagine occured during the reign of Herod (even though there are no records of that).
Is there a specific reason that conjecture is implausible, or is rescuing Luke from that specific historical error just not a very interesting topic for you?
Because Luke says what he says. Attempts to make pretend that he didn’t are embarrassing.
Oh, and why assume Luke was wrong?
I guess from the perspective of trying to claim the gospels are relatively coherent and the nativity narratives are factual, the reason is because it's easier to assume the Quirinius detail is mistaken or misconstrued rather than that the whole stories having to do with Herod are made up to situate Jesus in certain readings of certain prophecies or something. But if you don't have any special commitment to reading those stories that way no obvious reason comes to mind for me.
I'm not any kind of scholar, so I can't pretend to have useful input on what renderings of the Greek are a stretch or what the Roman records say or anything like that. It's just kind of hard to sort out differing claims as a random lay person who sees one person say "Luke says what he says", and another say "well, maybe he really said something else".
As an aside, I like your books. Reading "The Experience of God" and "The Story of Christianity" were my first real introductions to the history of Christian thought outside of the (you can probably guess) Evangelical culture I grew up in. They've certainly enabled me to read other books (including yours) on similar topics more productively, and I'm grateful for that.
Well, you see, we don't have any difficulty--unless we're fundamentalists--taking the temporal dislocations in John's gospel as having some theological significance (the cleansing of the temple at the beginning of his ministry, crucifixion on the Passover) and doing the same for some of its narratives. There's no reason one could not presume the same for the whole recapitulation of the Mosaic infancy narrative in Matthew. Few historians believe that the slaughter of the innocents could actually have occurred; Rome would not have tolerated it, for one thing, and the palace guard at Herod's command was not an army.
Fair enough. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Ah, Kipling's Just So stories -- thank you for the reference -- some of my daughters (and my) favorite stories.
I should hope so.
Dear David, Three thumbs up for continuing the learned hermeneutics and exegesis begun and so generously shared with the early Christians--society's "outscoring"--by St. Origen. You and Dr./Fr.
John Behr should have a beneficial effect on the sad state of seminary education today from which many priests graduate believing that Origen was somehow excommunicated while Emperor Justinian
and his wife Theodora still grace the magnificent artwork of Siena, Italy's, Church as "saints."
Yours, David Clark McAlpin
Great! One of the many things I admire in DBH is that he never shies away from a challenge and is willing to risk much in defense of intellectual honesty. He is truly the Coeur de Lion of theology (although one with infinitely better command of English). Part II can't come soon enough.
I lick my pelt...and then I blush anyway.
I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself: “All right then, I’ll go to hell”—and tore it up. It was awful thoughts and awful words, but they was said. And I let them stay said; and never thought no more about reforming.
Well, Huckleberry—Huck, if I may—we’ve all been there.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this. I am quite engrossed with a sense of adventure as I see you approaching the scriptures with such a commitment to reading the them in a way that is healthily literal and then responding to its evocations.
I'm looking forward to part two of this, I had been intrigued by the recounting of the Eden story in Tradition and Apocalypse, so further clarification is very much appreciated. I posted about it on a DBH discussion group on facebook and got the response "I think Hart is making up an extreme reading of some “original” pagan myth in order to knock the stuffing out of fundamentalists." but I get the sense from what you've written here that you were being pretty straight.
I may employ certain metaphors of my own to make things clear, but I am neither adding to nor extrapolating from the text. It's all there on the page.
It is interesing that the serpent appears to be the only other being, aside form the two humans, who can speak. And presumably its Creator knew what he was doing. I'm no Hebrewist but I believe that 'arum', translated as subtle/cunning/shrewd, is a cognate for the Hebrew for naked (or is maybe the same word, I forget)- so there exists an affinity between the beings in this triangle which the author(s) convey through the shared use of defining language. Given that Yaweh's curse is for the serpent to henceforth creep on his belly it's possible that he originally stood upright - and given his rather sophisticated conversational powers might be almost human, certianly more so than the other beasts of the field. More often than not in ancient myths serpents are remedial rather than malign - Hermes' cadeceus is still extant in our faded mythology - so it is a really interesting hotchpotch of a myth whatever interpretation it is cast in. As with most myths, it is inherently ambiguous so not really suitable fodder for fundamentalist
Yes, the words for "shrewd" and "nude" are cognates. In the original forms of the myth, other animals may have been able to speak as well; certainly that would fit with the larger Mesopotamian mythology of which the Eden narrative is a lineal descendent. But what we now have is incomplete.
Hence the very mysterious material later about the intermarriage of the sons of the gods and the daughters of humanity, and about an age of heroes and of the nefelim (?). Obviously it's all we now have of what was once a much larger and richer mythology.
Remember also the bronze serpent--the nechushtan, cognate with the nachash of the Eden story--that Moses raised on a pole for the healing of those Israelites who were dying from the venomous bites of "fiery" serpents. Snakes get a bad rap.
It'sa rash person who gets into the ring with DBH but I'm going to disagree that Yaweh lies to Adam and Eve. Strictly speaking he tells the truth but it's a truth along the lines of the Delphic oracle's truths. They will die if they eat from the tree but the tree is not the cause - Yaweh is the cause because he, for whatever reason, has determied that is what will happen , they will become mortal if they disobey him. The serpent also tells the truth becaue itis not due to the tree if they eat from it that they will die but it sems likely, since he seems to be such a knowig serpent that he knows what the outcome will be. I'm sure it is a remnant of a larger original story but taking what we have it feels to me like a classic myth/fairy story in which human beings are the suckers misled by slippery language.Incidentally, why is the serpent so keen for them to eat form that particualr tree? And why don't they choose instead the tree of life? Daft.
But the Hebrew is clear: he’s telling them that to eat or touch the fruit will kill them that very day. And of course they aren’t immortal. That’s made clear at 3:3-5. They were already destined to die, because only the tree of life grants immortality, and the gods don’t share. Wait till next week.
The snake doesn’t necessarily seem keen for them to eat from that tree. He just likes divulging the secret.
Well, I said it was rash. I'll take anther look at the verses and come back woih more bright tideas to be knocked down.....But anyaway, time I wrote my version
Your version is more interesting than the sensus simplex.
Tyndale gives the serpent one of the great lines of the English tradition: "Then said the serpent unto the woman, 'Tush, ye shall not die.'"
Yep, you can't beat Tyndale with the English language
Or maybe "at" the English language. My first impression was of someone attempting to bludgeon Tyndale with the OED.
Well, no, you couldn't because he'd hit right back with his Hebrew dictionary
Yes, the notorious odium theologicum. Not to mention the Battle of the Books.
I'll save any specific quibbles for the second part of the article (where I assume you'll be making your full case), but I remain convinced that what you say is "plainly written on the page" of the Eden narrative is just as much an act of creative interpretation as the more "pious" reading, and relies too much on blurring the distinction between the actual text, inferences made from the text, and assumptions about the original myth underlying the text. I would say "the devil's in the details," but that would probably sound a little cheeky given the topic at hand.
The devil is precisely what isn’t in the details.
I know. I'm not advocating for the traditional reading. I just think yours fills in too many blanks and makes too many interprative leaps for it to be "plainly written on the page" by any commonsensical definition.
(My view is you can't really make sense of the story at all without spiritualizing it. Whatever the editorial history of the Eden narrative, what we ended up with makes any "plain sense" interpretation a non-starter, at least if we're set on connecting all the dots rather than excluding some of them in the name of narrative coherence.)
We are destined to disagree. I think much more is plainly there than you grant.
As I read this I recalled the joy I felt at as a freshman undergraduate as an old Jesuit scripture scholar completely eviscerated any fundamentalist or literalist reading of Genesis during a two hour lecture that was much starker but equally merciless in tone. It totally transformed the infantile view I had of the Genesis stories, and opened up a grand world of exploration of scripture, myth, and theology that I've been entranced with ever since.
I look forward to part II, and thank you for bringing this fairly commonplace understanding of not just Genesis but all of scripture into the twitterverse.
" We still resist seeing the myths as myths."
In my lineage we are reminded not to avoid confusing the finger pointing at the moon with the moon.
Or to avoid doing so—typo.
Thank you. I am such a bombu.
That tends to be a Shin term. Are you a Pure-Lander?
My overarching lineage is Tendai, with a concentration in Pure Land thought and practice.
Ah, good old esoteric Hokke Shu. Rare for a Westerner.
I found the Lotus Sutra years ago, and as I was reading it on the D train one morning crossing the Manhattan Bridge, I experienced the scales falling from my eyes. Halted my investigations into other lineages (I knew Buddhism was for me, but had not settled on a lineage at that time), and pursued Tendai. I also looked into Shingon.
Jodo Shinshu came later, and while Tendai cultivates my geek side, Jodo Shinshu keeps me honest.
This text arrived by email today just as I was listening to ‘The Experience of God’ on audiobook (my ears weathered their first half-century more gracefully than my eyes), and I was amazed to think: I’m reading David Bentley Hart in real time. Which is a bit like wandering around Rome in c. 1510 and dropping by the Sistine Chapel to watch the ceiling get painted. (Or seeing Brooks Robinson vacuum up grounders at Memorial Stadium.) Anyway, the new essay is sublime and deeply appreciated. Think I’ll just hang around the chapel (stadium) and wait for Part 2.
This must be "lavish unwarranted praise on DBH day." For the third time this morning, I blush a lovely roseate.
I saw an interview of DBH by a former student where the student recalled Professor DBH saying something to the effect of “Christianity is more intelligent and profound than any of you will ever understand…”. I love this powerful statement and would very much like to hear it expanded upon.
I would but I never said it. I believe that was his own reaction to my lectures.
A great piece, and timely, too. Kudos!
I do think, however, that some nuance needs to be added to your account of Thomists and Thomism. The kind of flat-footed literalism you note in Feser et. al. is characteristic of a certain KIND of Thomist, to be sure -- one that confuses being a metaphysical realist with being a dogmatist about a certain reading of Thomas, as the Philosopher-who-solved-it-all, thus making all subsequent philosophy, of either analytic or continental provenance, either superfluous or malevolent. But these are not like the Jesuit Thomists who I encountered in grad-school (Norris Clarke, Gerald McCool), nor are Dominicans like Fergus Kerr or Brian Davies tarred with the same hyper-rigid brush. I can't see any of them talking the kind of maximalist dogmatic rot that you recount above. They all knew their scripture, and recognized allegory when they saw it.
That said, I think that Thomism has taken an unfortunate turn of late, a retreat to the kind of thinking epitomized by Garrigou-Langrange and a turn away from the sort of Thomism epitomized by M-D. Chenu, Henri de Lubac, Rahner, and the other V-II conciliarists. The latter kind of "nouvelle theologie" Thomism tried to take both modern philosophy and historicity seriously, with varying degrees of success. But the turn toward "manualist" Neo-Thomism -- God help us! -- has been nothing sort of a disaster, prompted by an unwillingness to even consider the possibility that "Modernity" (a term nearly as useless as "Postmodernity") might contain ANYTHING worthwhile, and fueled by the kind of fascist chic so titillating to a certain kind of Gen-X right-wing Catholic intellectual these days. The sort of Thomism that flourished in the 60s and 70s is on the wane. Sad but true.
I think it wise to avoid associating oneself with any kind of philosophical/theological "ism" these days -- social media posturing has made this sort of thing positively toxic. I have been influenced by Barth, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and a bunch of others, but I am loathe to add the suffix "-ian" to any of the above when self-describing. This might be a clue that I am Episcopalian, or an explanation thereof. But it is what it is. We take sacramentality seriously, and that's the main thing in my humble opinion.
Keep up the good work. ---LMN
Thanks. Technically you are not talking about “Thomists” but about scholars of Thomas. I know that we use the word “Thomism” much more generally today, but it’s proper reference in Catholic thought is to the 16th century school of Dominican thought that began with Bañez and Alvarez, includes John of St Thomas, Billuart, Nicolas, and Garrigou-Lagrange, and that produced the infamous manuals.
What's the main issue you see with those Thomists (Banez, Alvarez, et al)? And what do you think of the Summa Theologica? Do you depart significantly from Catholic theology and Catholic scripture interpretation? I'm Catholic and my limited understanding is that Catholic and your Eastern Orthodox are very close in doctrine and tradition ... but I once heard you say something to the effect of "I don't care what the Roman Catholics think as I'll never be a Roman Catholic".
There are many issues. I've recently published a book called You Are Gods whose first chapter deals with some of them; and in my book The Hidden and the Manifest there are other essays that deal with other related issues.
The manualist Thomists are a minority in Catholic thought. But, alas, a toxic presence nonetheless.
But I have the sense, perhaps wrongly, that Brian Davies, say, would take "God is not a moral agent" in something altogether too close to the way in which David's interlocutor did, though I'm happy to be corrected on this point.
Yes he does. I’m not a Davies fan, incidentally. I’m actually not all that keen on McCabe.
What spiritual lesson can be drawn from OT genocide? The jihad against sin?
That’s the typical exegesis.
You seem to be advocating for two different skills that are difficult to obtain in our educational establishments or seminaries. The first is to read an ancient text, carefully and thoughtfully, again and again. There are no shortcuts! Biblical students also need to move beyond the historical-critical method and study patristic, medieval and early modern commentaries to obtain insight to make sense of difficult stories in the OT. You are absolutely right to argue that Paul uses allegory constantly to interpret the biblical narrative for new believers. Thank you for your efforts to help people understand the scriptures more clearly and meaningfully.