|
Theology and History
A long-standing discussion in theology concerns the relation of history to theology. Christianity makes historical claims, and founds its faith on objective history. Yet a prevailing fashion in liberal circles sees the two as locked in fatal contradiction: to the extent a statement, story, or claim is theological, it is not historical, according to these critics. Thus the New Testament, in particular the Gospels and Acts, are seen as fabricated propaganda and fiction. Philosophically this mood can be traced to the eighteenth century German philosopher Gottfried Lessing, with his “ugly ditch” between the “accidental truths of history, and the eternal truths of reason or ideas”. However, is this contrast as secure as modern liberals would have us believe? How much do they really know about ancient accounts and inscriptions? The following discussion is intended to put the record straight.
Historiography: Where does Truth end and Fiction begin?
Introduction
Our post-modern climate has trained its deconstructionist guns in virtually all areas of study. History is one such discipline which has suffered immensely.
More traditional rationalist approaches had their problems too, but they still looked at the “big picture”, in contrast to the snippets of post-modern “studies”.
A common theme in both is the allegation that historical sources are so biased that they are not to be believed. Particularly this is so with respect to Biblical history.
The thesis of this paper is that even the most overt propagandistic sources still convey factual information, and that the intention of both ancient and Mediaeval historiographers was to enlighten their readers without intention to deceive. Since we are dealing with historiography in general, we will venture far afield to examine works of propaganda, both real and alleged.
Example 1. Sennacherib’s Third Campaign
This records inter alia the famous campaign of 701 B.C. in which Sennacherib attempted to capture Jerusalem.The raison d’être of “Annals”: a justification of the titles and trappings of kingship to future generations, hence they are usually foundation inscriptions in temples. Annals, written in the first person, generally display a formal introduction with a long titulary and pompous self-praise, and in those of the neo-Assyrian period a preference for the poetic, a creation for the king himself as he wanted to be seen: the pious patron and heroic warrior. These productions belong to the same general genre as royal hymns from court bards. Furthermore, the text is a formal recension, plus literary embellishments, of what was read by the scribes at the official parade of booty and captives upon a triumphant return to the capital. Hence one must pick through the hymnic adulation to sift out genuine historical information.
 Much information that is ‘extra’ to that of 2 Kings 18 – 19. According to 2 Kings 18:8 Hezekiah defeated the Philistines, but the annals supply more detail: Padi of Ekron and Şilli-Bel of Gaza he captured but Sennacherib restored. Senn. fought an Egyptian coalition at Eltekeh, and gloats over the tribute and booty. Elsewhere he boasts of destroying cities, taking captives, impaling city rulers, and extending borders.
That Sennacherib’s annals are difficult to harmonise with Scripture at certain points is not the point. Even the annals need to be read in conjunction with the Lachish reliefs from the Palace at Nineveh. Hence the Battle of Eltekeh, the siege of Lachish, the march on Jerusalem itself, the amounts of tribute, and capture of 46 fortress-cities (46 alani-šu dannuti bit durani) create problems of harmonisation in the light of 2 Kings 18:13-14, 17; 19:8-9, 32; Isa.10:28-32. However, in fact plausible reconstructions are possible, but difficulties of detail must not overthrow either the Bible or the information in Sennacherib’s propaganda.
Sennacherib, like all Assyrian kings, omits embarrassing details and aspects to glean as much glory as possible. Hence the famous “caged bird” reference to Jerusalem contrasts with the bloodthirsty description of conquests of other cities and countries. Omissions like this, however, are the essence of propaganda. Elsewhere, e.g. in the Lachish reliefs, the Assyrian scribes and artists show a careful attention to detail as they encountered it.
In spite of their overt propagandistic character, they remain an important source for these events, a fact which few would query. When all is said, there is some hard information in these inscriptions, and nowhere, it would appear, have the Assyrian scribes actually falsified the facts.
Example 2. Ramesses’ Account of the Battle of Qadesh
This account of the most famous battle of Egyptian history is enshrined in five known inscriptions.The locales of these inscriptions are an indication in themselves. They were engraved in Ramesses’ new temple at Abydos, the Hypostyle Hall at Karnak, the Luxor Temple, the Ramesseum, and Abu Simbel.
In a series of tableaux they depict, in the first tableau, the Egyptian camp, beating the bad news out of the Hittite scouts, the attack of Hittite chariotry, and the arrival of the support force. The second tableau portrays the Pharaoh in his chariot, charging at the enemy, all against the backdrop of the city of Qadesh. Some of the tableaux show presentation of prisoners and offerings to the gods. Added to this a florid and poetic narrative: the planning of the campaign, the Hittite onslaught, the panic of the army and Pharaoh’s prayer and courage in battle, the repulse of the Hittites and their subsequent plea for peace.
In this epic text Ramesses is concerned to gain as much glory as possible (see text).
Omission of much factual data and “spin doctoring” serves to the end of (a) making a near-defeat look like a victory, and (b) promoting the image of the Pharaoh as an all-conquering warrior. In reality, Ramesses showed little of the military brilliance of his predecessors. There were major blunders in his strategy:
Complacency
Creduluous acceptance of the stories of the Hittite ‘defectors’.
Reconnaissance failures
Failure of deployment
Although historians argue as to what the story really was, nevertheless the inscriptions still serve as a prime source for the battle and its aftermath.
Example 3. The Bayeux Tapestry
This famous tapestry, commissioned in 1077 by William’s half-brother and Bishop of Bayeux, Odo, tells the story of the Norman Conquest of 1066.
As it stands the work is a piece of Norman propaganda. It has a moral, viz. to show that Harold was a perfidious oath-breaker and usurper, whose claim to the English throne was illegitimate, and suffered defeat and death as Providential punishment.
Certain panels of the tapestry have been charged with conveying blatantly false information. Two in particular call for mention:
The one showing Harold swearing to Duke William on a box of relics. Historians debate whether Harold made such an oath, or even whether he landed on the Normandy coast in 1064. Most, however, agree that events took place as the tapestry records and depicts.
 The one depicting Harold’s coronation with Stigand officiating. Whether this is what the tapestry actually depicts is open to doubt, but the English chronicler Florence of Worcester (d. 1117) asserts that Ealdred of York performed the ceremony. William of Poitiers (d. 1090) and Ordericus Vitalis (d. 1143), both Norman chroniclers, assert on the contrary that Stigand did officiate. The Norman interest here was that Stigand’s morals were dubious, and that his ordination was invalid, as Harold and co. in 1052 had unlawfully expelled Robert of Jumièges from the See of Canterbury. David Starkey The Monarchy of England, 2004. p.120, proposes that both bishops officiated, as was already the norm, and that the Tapestry simply tells one side of the story - but without any outright fabrication.
Hence even these charges of deliberate falsehood are open to serious dispute.
Other panels are open to differing interpretations, e.g whether Harold died of “an arrow in the eye”. Interpretations, however, have to do with the historian, not the source per se.
For all the propaganda intent, the tapestry remains, rightly, a prime source for the events in question. It has not falsified the facts, or if it has, that can be put down to differing estimations by chroniclers from the two opposing sides
.
Example 4. History of King Richard III by Thomas More
Herein is a source that has been alleged to be worthless propaganda. Revisionists have sought to discredit More in the interests of painting Richard as a “white knight”.
Even on the most negative assessment of More, his work must still be held to convey important information. Indisputable facts still stand: the sequestration of the two princes and arrest of their protectors, the execution of Lord Hastings, likewise of Rivers and Grey, Richard’s seizure of power, the humiliation of Elizabeth Shore, etc.
In point of fact, More has been vindicated by sources now at hand, notably Mancini and the Croyland Chronicle (written probably by John Russell, Richard’s Lord Chancellor). Meanwhile, some of the more adventurous allegations of revisionists cannot stand: that Henry of Richmond somehow, from exile, engineered the murder of the two princes; that Richard’s usurpation was somehow justified; or that the legislation Richard brought to Parliament in 1484 somehow reveals his true character.
The discovery of the two skeletons in 1674 also served to vindicate More’s account of the fate of the two princes. Examination of the skeletons at the time by the royal physician, and the re-examination in 1933 by Tanner and Wright confirmed to the best techniques available at the time that these were the remains of the two boys. Since the chest containing the skeletons was found precisely where More said they were interred, plus the fact that a scrap of black velvet (at the time available only to royalty or high nobility) was also found in the box, it vindicates his story, and, by implication, much else in his history. The allegation that More wrote as a “Tudor propagandist” is special pleading.
Therefore More must be held to be giving an accurate account, both in general and in detail, without any “propaganda” (i.e. deceitful) intent.
Implications for Biblical Historiography
The argument by analogy above has important implications:
1. Glib assumptions that ‘author X “has an agenda”, therefore is not to be taken seriously’ must be disregarded. “Therefore” – nothing of the kind!
2. Admittedly propaganda works rarely, if ever, deliberately “fudge the facts”. The issue is more in omissions than affirmations.
Even on the most negative evaluation of e.g. the books of Kings, or the Gospels and Acts, they must be held to convey factual information. One could well argue that deliberate fiction as part of propaganda is a modern development. One finds it in, e.g. Nazi propaganda, or in Communist propaganda, but not in that of antiquity, nor of Mediaeval times.
3. Turning to Bible history, and the Gospels in particular, even if for the sake of argument we concede that the latter are propaganda, that does not mean that what they record as fact is not so. All it means is that they have not given us the whole picture. But whoever said any different!? John 21:25! However, unlike ancient propaganda in general, the Gospels do not give a distorted and therefore false picture. Hence a fortiori (with even greater force) the Gospels, not being propaganda even in the ancient genre, they indeed record factual information.
4. That certain details differ, e.g. in the account of Jesus’ trial, or of the Resurrection, between the four Gospels are ultimately not the issue, and can be plausibly resolved. The main issue here is that such problems of detail must not be held to overthrow the factuality of the whole.
|
