WEBVTT

00:01.630 --> 00:05.750
Prof: Last time I talked
about the Letter to the Hebrews

00:05.749 --> 00:09.199
and I used it mainly as an
example of early Christian

00:09.203 --> 00:11.333
interpretation of scripture.

00:11.330 --> 00:15.480
If you recall I was talking
about Hebrews 7 where there's

00:15.476 --> 00:19.766
the story, the interpretation of
the Melchizedek story from

00:19.771 --> 00:20.661
Genesis.

00:20.660 --> 00:24.650
To review briefly,
Abraham comes back from a raid,

00:24.650 --> 00:27.480
he has a lot of booty,
he has his relatives from

00:27.483 --> 00:31.243
defeating some kings,
he comes to Melchizedek who's

00:31.241 --> 00:34.431
not of course a descendant of
Abraham,

00:34.430 --> 00:38.150
therefore he's not a Jew,
he's not part of the people of

00:38.149 --> 00:41.559
Israel but he is a priest,
a high priest of Yahweh,

00:41.560 --> 00:42.950
according to the text.

00:42.950 --> 00:46.750
Melchizedek gives him a tenth
of the spoils and then this

00:46.754 --> 00:50.224
writer interprets that as being
that since Levi,

00:50.220 --> 00:55.960
the head of the progenitor of
the priestly tribe among the

00:55.955 --> 00:58.685
Jews,
is within the body of Abraham.

00:58.690 --> 01:02.630
That means that Levi himself is
giving tithes to Melchizedek.

01:02.630 --> 01:06.170
The entire priesthood of
Israel, of the Jews,

01:06.165 --> 01:09.695
recognizes the superiority,
according to this

01:09.700 --> 01:12.510
interpretation,
of the priesthood of

01:12.513 --> 01:13.963
Melchizedek.

01:13.959 --> 01:17.279
And then the writer takes
Melchizedek to be a type,

01:17.275 --> 01:19.725
a sign of Jesus and his
priesthood.

01:19.730 --> 01:21.710
This makes perfect sense of
course because,

01:21.709 --> 01:24.199
as the text says,
Melchizedek had no father or

01:24.197 --> 01:26.557
mother,
or it doesn't give a father or

01:26.564 --> 01:28.204
mother,
and no genealogy,

01:28.200 --> 01:31.980
no lineage, came out of nowhere
so the same way happens with

01:31.983 --> 01:33.783
Christ as the priesthood.

01:33.780 --> 01:39.200
Jesus of course was not of the
tribe of Levi according--Jesus

01:39.203 --> 01:43.993
couldn't be a priest in the
normal sense of the Jewish

01:43.994 --> 01:45.354
priesthood.

01:45.349 --> 01:50.879
The writer takes Jesus to be a
priest not of the line of Levi

01:50.882 --> 01:54.852
or Aaron, but of the line of
Melchizedek.

01:54.849 --> 01:58.009
Now this obviously is not the
way any of us in the modern

01:58.010 --> 02:01.060
world would read Genesis,
in its historical setting.

02:01.060 --> 02:03.240
That's precisely the other way
this reader does it,

02:03.239 --> 02:05.489
and it's all part of a
synkrisis,

02:05.489 --> 02:08.679
a comparison of the
leitourgia,

02:08.680 --> 02:13.540
the liturgy of Christ with the
inferior leitourgia or

02:13.538 --> 02:15.348
liturgy of the Jews.

02:15.348 --> 02:19.398
It's done sort of to convince
this congregation that you don't

02:19.401 --> 02:23.191
need to go back to that,
you've got something superior.

02:23.188 --> 02:29.548
Hebrews ends with this kind of
admonition in 13:8,

02:29.550 --> 02:36.170
"Jesus Christ is the same
yesterday, and today,

02:36.173 --> 02:39.033
and forever."

02:39.030 --> 02:41.530
Now remember,
this writer believes that Jesus

02:41.532 --> 02:43.752
Christ has existed all the way
back,

02:43.750 --> 02:45.330
so that's why he can read the
Psalms,

02:45.330 --> 02:49.040
which a historian would read as
addressed to a Davidic King,

02:49.038 --> 02:51.688
as being addressed actually to
Jesus.

02:51.690 --> 02:55.010
So Jesus Christ is back in
history too."

02:55.008 --> 02:57.238
Do not be carried away by all
kinds of strange teachings,

02:57.240 --> 02:59.840
for it is well for the heart to
be strengthened by grace,

02:59.840 --> 03:04.570
not by regulations about food
[You don't need to keep kosher],

03:04.568 --> 03:07.368
which have not benefitted those
who observe them.

03:07.370 --> 03:11.400
We have an altar from which
those who officiate in the tent

03:11.400 --> 03:14.180
[that's referring to that
tabernacle,

03:14.180 --> 03:16.860
the tent of the tabernacle in
Exodus,

03:16.860 --> 03:19.310
which he's been comparing all
the way through]

03:19.305 --> 03:22.455
We have an altar from which
those who officiate in the tent

03:22.455 --> 03:25.005
[that is the Levites]
have no right to eat.

03:25.008 --> 03:28.488
For the bodies of those animals
whose blood is brought into the

03:28.492 --> 03:31.922
sanctuary by the high priest as
a sacrifice for sin are burned

03:31.919 --> 03:33.099
outside the camp.

03:33.098 --> 03:36.928
When you sacrifice an animal,
according to the Exodus'

03:36.931 --> 03:40.111
instructions,
you don't burn the materials of

03:40.111 --> 03:42.571
the sacrifice inside the camp.

03:42.569 --> 03:43.859
You do it outside the camp.

03:43.860 --> 03:45.720
So he's going to do something
like that too.

03:45.720 --> 03:49.700
"Therefore,
Jesus also suffered,"

03:49.700 --> 03:50.460
where?

03:50.460 --> 03:52.310
Outside the gates of Jerusalem.

03:52.310 --> 03:56.530
So now Jerusalem has become
like the Israelite camp talked

03:56.525 --> 04:01.005
about in Exodus,
and Jesus is the sacrifice who

04:01.008 --> 04:07.168
was sacrificed on the cross
outside the walls of Jerusalem.

04:07.169 --> 04:10.439
"Jesus suffered outside
the city gate in order to

04:10.436 --> 04:12.836
sanctify the people by his own
blood.

04:12.840 --> 04:17.410
Let us then…"
now this is a really big period

04:17.411 --> 04:19.291
on this whole speech.

04:19.290 --> 04:23.830
"Let us then go to him
outside the camp."

04:23.829 --> 04:28.989
Basically he's symbolically
saying, let us follow Jesus out

04:28.985 --> 04:32.095
of Jerusalem,
out of the camp of the

04:32.096 --> 04:33.426
Israelites.

04:33.430 --> 04:41.100
Now this is much more radically
supercessionist then we've seen

04:41.101 --> 04:42.341
in Paul.

04:42.339 --> 04:46.249
I've taught that Paul never saw
himself as a Christian;

04:46.250 --> 04:48.940
he never saw himself as
starting something new.

04:48.940 --> 04:52.470
In fact, he saw himself as
bringing the Gentiles into

04:52.468 --> 04:53.078
Israel.

04:53.079 --> 04:56.559
And so he never--although they
didn't have to keep the law,

04:56.560 --> 04:58.030
they didn't have to keep Torah,
they didn't have to be

04:58.033 --> 04:59.453
circumcised,
in fact they weren't supposed

04:59.454 --> 05:02.604
to at all be circumcised,
Paul never thought--he never

05:02.598 --> 05:07.008
talks in this way about the
supercession of a new kind of

05:07.014 --> 05:10.094
liturgy from an old kind of
liturgy.

05:10.088 --> 05:13.468
When you talk about Christian
supercessionist kind of

05:13.470 --> 05:15.560
language--
and the term just means the

05:15.564 --> 05:18.634
traditional Christian teachings
which you've seen throughout two

05:18.634 --> 05:21.854
thousand years of Christianity,
that Christianity is superior

05:21.845 --> 05:23.995
to Judaism--
when you see that kind of

05:24.000 --> 05:27.320
supercessionist kind of language
in the New Testament,

05:27.319 --> 05:28.629
it's not in Paul so much.

05:28.629 --> 05:31.379
It is here in Hebrews because
that's the way it works.

05:31.379 --> 05:34.439
What's interesting from our
point of view is that he

05:34.440 --> 05:37.260
actually uses Jewish scripture
to teach this.

05:37.259 --> 05:40.359
Now in order to use Jewish
scripture to teach the

05:40.360 --> 05:44.040
supercession of Judaism by
Christianity you know that he's

05:44.041 --> 05:47.791
going to have interpreted it in
what we would consider very

05:47.788 --> 05:49.078
creative ways.

05:49.079 --> 05:53.279
We can use that to contrast the
way I've been teaching you to

05:53.279 --> 05:56.079
interpret these texts in this
course,

05:56.079 --> 05:58.669
which is through historical
critical exegesis,

05:58.670 --> 06:03.060
from the way that Christians
have interpreted this text for

06:03.059 --> 06:05.329
all the way through history.

06:05.329 --> 06:06.999
This is not just Christians.

06:07.000 --> 06:11.420
Jewish interpretation of
scripture is just as creative as

06:11.418 --> 06:15.678
Christian interpretation of
scripture before the modern

06:15.680 --> 06:16.550
period.

06:16.550 --> 06:19.640
What, then, is historical
criticism?

06:19.639 --> 06:21.329
And I'm going to review some
things that you've been learning

06:21.333 --> 06:22.353
all the way through the
semester,

06:22.350 --> 06:24.780
but I'm going to line up some
things so they get them really

06:24.783 --> 06:25.653
clear in your mind.

06:25.649 --> 06:27.559
What is it you've been learning
in this class,

06:27.560 --> 06:29.940
the method you've been
learning, and then we're going

06:29.937 --> 06:32.447
to go back to the pre-modern
stuff today and look at the

06:32.452 --> 06:35.382
examples that you read about and
the reading from The Pedagogy

06:35.377 --> 06:36.427
of the Bible.

06:36.430 --> 06:40.310
The meaning of a text,
according to historical

06:40.312 --> 06:45.232
criticism, is what the ancient
human author intended it to

06:45.233 --> 06:46.013
mean.

06:46.009 --> 06:49.479
For example,
in Jeremiah 3:6 it says,

06:49.480 --> 06:55.360
"The Lord said to me in
the days of King Josiah."

06:55.360 --> 07:00.170
Now, if I wanted to be creative
in my interpretation I might say

07:00.170 --> 07:03.580
that the Lord said to me,
Dale Basil Martin,

07:03.581 --> 07:07.081
in the days of King Josiah,
but that would of course not be

07:07.084 --> 07:08.874
a historical critical
interpretation.

07:08.870 --> 07:11.180
It has to be "me"
meaning Jeremiah,

07:11.180 --> 07:12.810
so the Lord says to Jeremiah.

07:12.810 --> 07:15.750
That's who the author clearly
must be referring to,

07:15.750 --> 07:18.310
and we have to take "the
King Josiah"

07:18.309 --> 07:21.429
to be the king who actually sat
on the throne of David in

07:21.425 --> 07:24.015
Jerusalem,
the ancient King Josiah,

07:24.017 --> 07:26.897
not Josiah Bumbershoot,
who happens to own a liquor

07:26.896 --> 07:28.096
store down the street from me.

07:28.100 --> 07:30.790
The text is not referring to
that Josiah;

07:30.790 --> 07:32.490
he's referring to the ancient
Josiah;

07:32.490 --> 07:34.400
that's the basis of historical
criticism.

07:34.399 --> 07:37.209
The expansion of this,
that it's the author's

07:37.209 --> 07:39.569
intention,
comes to be in a lot of studies

07:39.571 --> 07:42.681
even within historical criticism
that another way to think about

07:42.684 --> 07:45.754
the meaning of the text is that
the meaning of the text is what

07:45.747 --> 07:48.857
the original readers probably
would have thought it meant.

07:48.860 --> 07:51.840
Because of course we can't get
to the intentions of the author;

07:51.839 --> 07:53.509
that's lost to us completely.

07:53.509 --> 07:56.279
We have no idea what's going on
inside the minds of these

07:56.279 --> 07:57.169
ancient authors.

07:57.170 --> 07:59.630
But by practicing
historiographical research we

07:59.634 --> 08:02.854
can guess at what probably an
ancient reader would have taken

08:02.850 --> 08:05.860
the text to mean,
and so that's been added on as

08:05.858 --> 08:09.088
another meaning that historical
criticism looks for.

08:09.088 --> 08:13.238
The third point about
historical criticism I want to

08:13.235 --> 08:17.705
make here is that it assumes a
sort of modern historical

08:17.706 --> 08:19.166
consciousness.

08:19.170 --> 08:22.920
By this we mean modern people
just have the notion that really

08:22.918 --> 08:25.128
pre-modern people didn't so
much,

08:25.129 --> 08:27.689
that the world was radically
different in the ancient world.

08:27.689 --> 08:29.449
The ancient world is just not
like our world.

08:29.449 --> 08:32.529
They thought about the world as
being in levels like stories.

08:32.528 --> 08:36.308
Well, we think about the cosmos
as being a bunch of different

08:36.313 --> 08:38.273
spheres in an infinite space.

08:38.269 --> 08:41.479
We read ancient texts and we
see not only were they different

08:41.475 --> 08:43.525
kinds of people--
they had different ethics--but

08:43.530 --> 08:45.890
their whole cosmos,
their whole universe that they

08:45.894 --> 08:47.754
inhabited was different for
them.

08:47.750 --> 08:51.110
What that means with historical
criticism in the twentieth

08:51.110 --> 08:54.590
century: you have theological
students being taught a little

08:54.586 --> 08:57.826
bit about ancient near-eastern
society and culture.

08:57.830 --> 09:00.260
In fact, you have entire
departments of ancient

09:00.264 --> 09:03.074
near-eastern studies arise in
modern universities,

09:03.070 --> 09:05.610
and they don't arise just
because people are automatically

09:05.614 --> 09:07.314
interested in near-eastern
cultures.

09:07.308 --> 09:10.338
They arise as a support for
biblical studies.

09:10.340 --> 09:12.590
That's where they come from.

09:12.590 --> 09:15.040
The idea that if you want to
read the Old Testament or the

09:15.035 --> 09:17.475
Hebrew Bible responsibly in the
modern world you must know

09:17.481 --> 09:20.191
something about ancient Assyria
and ancient Egypt because that's

09:20.186 --> 09:21.256
where it came from.

09:21.259 --> 09:23.699
Also, then you learn something
about the Greek world,

09:23.700 --> 09:26.840
why I gave an entire lecture at
the beginning of the semester on

09:26.836 --> 09:28.776
the Greek world and the Roman
world,

09:28.779 --> 09:31.029
and second temple Judaism.

09:31.028 --> 09:35.278
We have the idea that Judaism
before the rabbis,

09:35.279 --> 09:37.359
which is the time of Judaism
we're talking about,

09:37.360 --> 09:40.620
was a different kind of Judaism
than Rabbinic Judaism that you

09:40.620 --> 09:43.720
might see now in the modern
world or in the Middle Ages.

09:43.720 --> 09:47.030
This reflects the idea that if
you want to get back into these

09:47.029 --> 09:50.339
texts in their ancient period
you have to develop knowledge of

09:50.340 --> 09:50.990
that period.

09:50.990 --> 09:51.480
Why?

09:51.480 --> 09:54.100
Because we've developed a
historical consciousness.

09:54.100 --> 09:56.710
We see ourselves in a place,
in a timeline of history,

09:56.711 --> 09:59.471
and the history is different in
those different times.

09:59.470 --> 10:02.910
This also means that we teach
people: you need to read these

10:02.908 --> 10:05.588
texts if possible in the
original languages.

10:05.590 --> 10:08.890
How many times in this class
have I told you what the

10:08.890 --> 10:12.320
original Greek word of some
particular word the English

10:12.320 --> 10:13.590
translation was?

10:13.590 --> 10:16.530
This is not a Greek class,
most of you haven't studied

10:16.533 --> 10:19.983
Greek, but I'll often scribble
on the board some Greek term.

10:19.980 --> 10:21.300
Why am I doing that?

10:21.298 --> 10:24.388
The text that Christians read
all over the world today is not

10:24.394 --> 10:25.844
in Greek; it's in English.

10:25.840 --> 10:28.010
So why is it important for us?

10:28.009 --> 10:29.329
Why do you accept that it's
important?

10:29.330 --> 10:32.670
Why does it seem natural to you
that I write the Greek text up

10:32.666 --> 10:35.886
here and explain what its Greek
meaning means in the ancient

10:35.893 --> 10:36.443
world?

10:36.440 --> 10:39.280
Because you have this
historical consciousness too,

10:39.279 --> 10:42.399
you have the assumption that
this ancient meaning of the

10:42.402 --> 10:45.812
original language is important
for the interpretation of this

10:45.808 --> 10:46.318
text.

10:46.320 --> 10:51.390
Fourth, historical criticism
teaches you we don't interpret

10:51.390 --> 10:53.490
the Bible canonically.

10:53.490 --> 10:56.290
That means a couple of
different things.

10:56.288 --> 10:59.468
We don't take the whole Canon
of the Bible and interpret it

10:59.471 --> 11:02.051
all by reference to other parts
of the Canon.

11:02.048 --> 11:04.018
Remember, how many times have
we said,

11:04.019 --> 11:07.179
well that thing you're talking
about may be in the Gospel of

11:07.182 --> 11:09.652
John but it's not in the Gospel
of Matthew,

11:09.649 --> 11:11.449
and right now we're talking
about the Gospel of Matthew.

11:11.450 --> 11:13.390
You can't use the Gospel of
John to interpret the Gospel of

11:13.394 --> 11:13.734
Matthew.

11:13.730 --> 11:16.140
Well, why not?

11:16.139 --> 11:18.169
Christians have been doing it
for two thousand years.

11:18.168 --> 11:21.188
Historical criticism,
though, takes the Canon apart

11:21.190 --> 11:24.510
and says each individual
document must be studied in its

11:24.514 --> 11:26.814
own right and for its own
content.

11:26.808 --> 11:30.718
So one thing that means is that
we don't study the whole Bible

11:30.721 --> 11:31.621
as one book.

11:31.620 --> 11:34.670
We study the Bible as a series,
as a library of books,

11:34.668 --> 11:36.508
each one individually studied.

11:36.509 --> 11:39.529
The other aspect of this is
that we in the modern period

11:39.532 --> 11:42.282
don't limit ourselves to the
study of the Canon.

11:42.279 --> 11:43.989
What did we talk about last
week?

11:43.990 --> 11:46.060
The Acts of Paul and
Thecla.

11:46.059 --> 11:47.699
That's not in the Bible.

11:47.700 --> 11:51.790
Why did I, as a crazy mixed up
professor that I am,

11:51.788 --> 11:55.128
think that it was worthwhile
for you to read a non-canonical

11:55.133 --> 11:58.533
second century document in a
class called Introduction to New

11:58.533 --> 12:00.633
Testament History and
Literature?

12:00.629 --> 12:02.949
I'll tell you why.

12:02.950 --> 12:06.270
I've been brainwashed by the
modern historical critical

12:06.268 --> 12:10.018
method to believe that putting
the Pastoral Epistles and those

12:10.015 --> 12:13.695
other canonical texts into a
historical context that included

12:13.702 --> 12:17.142
non-canonical materials is a
good way to teach you how to

12:17.144 --> 12:19.914
think about this New Testament
thing.

12:19.908 --> 12:22.408
That's part of the historical
critical method also.

12:22.408 --> 12:26.398
Fifth, in spite of the fact
that we don't study the Bible

12:26.403 --> 12:30.833
canonically in modern historical
criticism, we actually do look

12:30.827 --> 12:32.537
for source analysis.

12:32.538 --> 12:35.238
For example,
we take the idea that these

12:35.240 --> 12:38.220
ancient authors actually did use
sources.

12:38.220 --> 12:41.000
For example,
we've taught you that Matthew

12:40.995 --> 12:44.645
and Luke probably used Mark as
one of their sources.

12:44.649 --> 12:49.169
That's actually doing an
intra-canonical comparison;

12:49.168 --> 12:52.248
we compare the shape of this
parable in Mark to the shape of

12:52.251 --> 12:54.291
the same parable in Matthew and
Luke.

12:54.288 --> 12:57.428
Isn't that kind of an
intra-canonical comparison?

12:57.428 --> 13:00.318
Yes it is, but the reason we're
doing it is we're trying to get

13:00.317 --> 13:02.877
behind the text of the Canon
into the pre-history of the

13:02.879 --> 13:03.299
text.

13:03.298 --> 13:07.568
The form these texts assumed in
a pre-canonical shape.

13:07.570 --> 13:11.930
Famously, historical criticism
in the nineteenth century,

13:11.928 --> 13:15.128
when it was really invented,
came up with the idea that the

13:15.125 --> 13:17.765
five books of Moses are not
written by Moses,

13:17.769 --> 13:19.339
they're written by different
people,

13:19.340 --> 13:22.880
and they were an edition of
originally four separate strains

13:22.879 --> 13:25.459
of tradition and four separate
documents.

13:25.460 --> 13:28.500
This was called the JEPD Theory.

13:28.500 --> 13:31.640
The J stands for Jahwist and
it's those parts of the Hebrew

13:31.639 --> 13:34.999
Bible that use the name of God
as Yahweh because this came from

13:34.995 --> 13:37.205
Germany,
right, so they pronounce a J

13:37.206 --> 13:39.886
like "ya",
so Jahwist.

13:39.889 --> 13:43.549
The Elohist is a strain that
uses the term Elohim for

13:43.552 --> 13:47.652
God, so scholars said these are
originally two different things.

13:47.649 --> 13:51.259
The P stands for the priestly
documents written by some kind

13:51.263 --> 13:53.903
of priestly class,
and the D stands for

13:53.899 --> 13:57.339
Deuteronomy, so Deuteronomy and
some other things.

13:57.340 --> 14:00.670
The idea was the Deuteronomist
was an editor who wrote some of

14:00.671 --> 14:03.131
this stuff and then edited the
five books--

14:03.129 --> 14:05.259
or at least a good bit of the
Pentateuch--

14:05.259 --> 14:07.329
so that it resembled a certain
shape,

14:07.330 --> 14:10.250
so scholars called--they set
out these four different

14:10.245 --> 14:12.265
traditions--
and if you took a course in

14:12.269 --> 14:14.079
Hebrew Bible,
an introduction to Hebrew

14:14.076 --> 14:16.796
Bible, or even in a seminary
introduction to Old Testament,

14:16.798 --> 14:19.928
you're going to get this theory
crammed down your throat because

14:19.926 --> 14:22.946
this is one of the most dominant
theories of modern historical

14:22.952 --> 14:24.642
criticism of the Hebrew Bible.

14:24.639 --> 14:26.959
It's source analysis,
that's part of what we're

14:26.956 --> 14:27.356
doing.

14:27.360 --> 14:30.280
I taught also that 2 Peter,
the letter 2 Peter,

14:30.278 --> 14:32.688
used Jude as one of his
sources, again,

14:32.690 --> 14:36.180
that kind of source analysis is
part of the method.

14:36.178 --> 14:39.498
The next one,
I think I'm up to six,

14:39.500 --> 14:43.080
in spite of the fact of talking
about authorship of all these

14:43.075 --> 14:45.335
documents,
part of modern historical

14:45.344 --> 14:48.514
criticism questions the
authenticity of authorship all

14:48.511 --> 14:49.231
the time.

14:49.230 --> 14:51.840
How many times in this course
have I said, well the Gospels

14:51.841 --> 14:54.181
say they're written by Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and John,

14:54.183 --> 14:55.403
but we doubt they were.

14:55.399 --> 14:56.149
They're anonymous.

14:56.149 --> 14:58.549
So I've taught you what it
means to call a document

14:58.551 --> 15:00.951
"anonymous":
we don't know who the author

15:00.952 --> 15:01.292
is.

15:01.288 --> 15:03.608
I've taught you what it means
to call a document a

15:03.610 --> 15:06.170
"pseudepigrapha"
or "pseudonymous,"

15:06.167 --> 15:09.337
which means it gives the false
name of somebody for what it is.

15:09.340 --> 15:12.020
These are basic aspects of
modern historical criticism.

15:12.019 --> 15:16.199
Now if you went to a very
conservative seminary you might

15:16.201 --> 15:18.891
not get as much emphasis on
this,

15:18.889 --> 15:21.659
but even there they'll probably
tell you something like,

15:21.658 --> 15:27.148
well those liberals at Yale or
Princeton Theological Seminary,

15:27.149 --> 15:30.669
they'll tell you that Paul
didn't write I and II Timothy

15:30.668 --> 15:33.038
and Titus,
but they're wrong and here's

15:33.042 --> 15:34.092
why they're wrong.

15:34.090 --> 15:37.200
You can tell you're in the
modern period because they feel

15:37.197 --> 15:39.757
the need to explain the theory
to you anyway.

15:39.759 --> 15:42.709
Even if they don't buy it,
they'll teach it to you because

15:42.705 --> 15:45.595
it's part of this modern way of
approaching the Bible.

15:45.600 --> 15:49.580
Next, the avoidance of
anachronism.

15:49.580 --> 15:52.780
This is the big,
bad thing in modern historical

15:52.775 --> 15:53.605
criticism.

15:53.610 --> 15:57.460
Don't be anachronistic;
don't think back into the

15:57.462 --> 16:00.752
ancient text something that
actually arose later.

16:00.750 --> 16:03.410
For example,
most historical critics of the

16:03.413 --> 16:06.213
Bible would say,
it's certainly wrong to read

16:06.205 --> 16:09.055
the doctrine of the Trinity into
Genesis.

16:09.058 --> 16:12.268
Now you already read in the
chapter I gave you that that's

16:12.267 --> 16:14.347
exactly what Augustine does,
right?

16:14.350 --> 16:17.660
Augustine reads the first
chapter of Genesis and when the

16:17.660 --> 16:20.260
text says,
"In the beginning,"

16:20.255 --> 16:23.465
he says that refers to Jesus,
the Son, the wisdom through

16:23.465 --> 16:24.715
whom all things were made.

16:24.720 --> 16:27.210
The spirit that hovers over the
chaos in Genesis 1,

16:27.206 --> 16:28.846
that refers to the Holy Spirit.

16:28.850 --> 16:30.650
So you've got the Trinity,
the God, Father,

16:30.653 --> 16:32.333
Son and Holy Spirit right in
Genesis.

16:32.330 --> 16:34.530
Modern historical criticism
rejects that and says that's

16:34.529 --> 16:35.449
wildly anachronistic.

16:35.450 --> 16:38.370
The doctrine of the Trinity was
only developed centuries after

16:38.371 --> 16:40.981
the writing of Genesis;
you can't read it back in

16:40.982 --> 16:42.342
there, its anachronism.

16:42.340 --> 16:47.470
The last big,
big boogey man of historical

16:47.465 --> 16:50.585
criticism is eisegesis.

16:50.590 --> 16:55.450
If you go to any kind of
seminary, they'll warn you

16:55.447 --> 16:57.387
against eisegesis.

16:57.389 --> 16:57.689
Why?

16:57.692 --> 17:02.232
Because this is reading into
the text something that's not in

17:02.225 --> 17:05.395
the text, and they're playing
off the word,

17:05.397 --> 17:08.947
of course I've used this
before, exegesis.

17:08.950 --> 17:11.350
Exegesis means simply,
as you've already learned in

17:11.348 --> 17:13.028
this course, interpreting a
text.

17:13.028 --> 17:15.338
Some people think it only
refers to historical critical

17:15.338 --> 17:17.308
interpretation,
and that's often what it's come

17:17.307 --> 17:19.397
to mean in schools,
but originally it just means

17:19.404 --> 17:20.374
interpreting a text.

17:20.368 --> 17:22.918
Any kind of interpretation of a
text is exegesis.

17:22.920 --> 17:26.260
It's come to mean historical
critical interpretation of the

17:26.263 --> 17:29.093
text because this is what's
really in the text.

17:29.088 --> 17:32.928
What is eisegesis is just some
modern pious person picking up

17:32.930 --> 17:36.450
the Bible and seeing anything
they want to see in it.

17:36.450 --> 17:38.680
It's "reading into"
because this means "out

17:38.682 --> 17:40.802
of" and this Greek word
means "into."

17:40.798 --> 17:43.768
So eisegesis,
you're taught to avoid that.

17:43.769 --> 17:45.879
Then finally,
one of the last major

17:45.883 --> 17:49.673
presuppositions that relates to
the historical consciousness I

17:49.673 --> 17:52.163
talked about:
the idea that there's a gap

17:52.160 --> 17:55.330
between the world of the Bible
and our world.

17:55.328 --> 17:59.008
If you go into most churches in
the United States--

17:59.009 --> 18:00.399
there are very,
very few that might do this--

18:00.400 --> 18:02.710
but if you go into most
churches--I don't care how

18:02.705 --> 18:04.585
liberal or how conservative they
are,

18:04.588 --> 18:06.768
I don't care if they're a
radical leftist or

18:06.767 --> 18:10.357
fundamentalists--
most of the women will not be

18:10.358 --> 18:11.718
wearing veils.

18:11.720 --> 18:15.250
If they're really conservative
they might have a hat on,

18:15.248 --> 18:16.658
but not a full veil.

18:16.660 --> 18:18.970
We say, well,
you want to be true to the

18:18.967 --> 18:21.627
Bible and right there in I
Corinthians 11,

18:21.630 --> 18:23.110
you've read it,
you know it's there,

18:23.108 --> 18:25.508
Paul's telling women,
you have to wear veils in

18:25.505 --> 18:27.375
church when you pray and
prophesy.

18:27.380 --> 18:28.500
Why aren't your women veiled?

18:28.500 --> 18:31.160
It doesn't matter whether these
Christians are liberal or

18:31.160 --> 18:33.100
conservative,
they'll have some way of saying

18:33.101 --> 18:35.971
something like,
well that was their culture and

18:35.965 --> 18:37.535
it's not our culture.

18:37.538 --> 18:40.958
It was important in the ancient
world for women to wear veils

18:40.962 --> 18:44.022
because it expressed humility;
it expressed control.

18:44.019 --> 18:46.309
If they didn't wear veils they
might be thought of as a loose

18:46.314 --> 18:46.624
woman.

18:46.618 --> 18:51.538
Well, veils don't mean that in
our culture, so we don't have to

18:51.540 --> 18:54.240
obey that text like it's a rule.

18:54.240 --> 18:57.230
They will talk about--and they
might not use the term

18:57.230 --> 18:59.820
"gap"
but that's what I call it--

18:59.818 --> 19:02.838
what they're doing is saying,
there is a gap between their

19:02.836 --> 19:04.686
culture and their world and
ours.

19:04.690 --> 19:09.370
That consciousness of that gap
is a major aspect of modern

19:09.371 --> 19:11.261
historical criticism.

19:11.259 --> 19:14.559
So those are several
principles, you're not going to

19:14.556 --> 19:18.426
probably find those listed in a
textbook, Introduction to the

19:18.432 --> 19:19.082
Bible.

19:19.078 --> 19:22.528
I actually do list them in my
Pedagogy of the Bible in

19:22.528 --> 19:23.678
the first chapter.

19:23.680 --> 19:26.840
But those are list of things
that I just said these are basic

19:26.836 --> 19:29.776
principles of historical
criticism that set it apart from

19:29.784 --> 19:32.994
the centuries of interpretation
of the Bible that have existed

19:32.994 --> 19:33.894
beforehand.

19:33.890 --> 19:35.480
I'm going to stop for a minute
and just say,

19:35.483 --> 19:37.083
is that clear,
do you have any questions?

19:37.078 --> 19:39.668
This is all familiar to you
because you've been practicing

19:39.673 --> 19:42.363
this now all year but it should
have struck some of you,

19:42.358 --> 19:45.358
at least, a little odd in the
beginning of why we were asking

19:45.358 --> 19:48.278
this text what we were doing,
why we were pushing you to do

19:48.275 --> 19:50.585
the exegesis papers in a certain
way we're doing,

19:50.588 --> 19:53.378
why is it wrong to read these
texts and just write a sermon on

19:53.375 --> 19:55.335
them and turn it in as an
exegesis paper?

19:55.338 --> 19:57.568
No, a sermon is different from
an exegesis paper.

19:57.568 --> 20:00.328
We were teaching you this
method with all these principles

20:00.325 --> 20:02.255
and presuppositions all semester
long.

20:02.259 --> 20:03.709
Is there any question about
that?

20:03.710 --> 20:08.130


20:08.130 --> 20:09.950
Okay good.

20:09.950 --> 20:14.040
This historical criticism
didn't just spring out of the

20:14.042 --> 20:15.182
Bible itself.

20:15.180 --> 20:16.900
Where did it come from?

20:16.900 --> 20:18.810
Why do we have it and where did
it come from?

20:18.808 --> 20:21.668
Well, as you know,
before the Reformation,

20:21.670 --> 20:24.840
basically the Bible--scripture
was supposed to mean what the

20:24.844 --> 20:27.704
Catholic Church said it meant,
what the Pope said it--what the

20:27.702 --> 20:28.472
bishop said it meant.

20:28.470 --> 20:31.960
The authority structure of the
church was taken to be the way

20:31.964 --> 20:34.474
that you controlled wild
interpretations.

20:34.470 --> 20:36.880
People in the ancient knew,
you can interpret a text any

20:36.880 --> 20:37.670
way you want to.

20:37.670 --> 20:42.520
So what keeps heretics from
interpreting this text in false

20:42.523 --> 20:43.113
ways?

20:43.109 --> 20:45.049
The institution of the church.

20:45.048 --> 20:48.478
So we'll see later Ignatius,
when we're reading his letters,

20:48.477 --> 20:51.667
he says, you can't just
interpret scripture any you want

20:51.673 --> 20:53.213
to;
you must be in agreement with

20:53.211 --> 20:53.721
your bishop.

20:53.720 --> 20:57.470
The rule of the bishop and the
rule of the church was the way

20:57.467 --> 21:00.837
to keep control over the
interpretation of the text.

21:00.838 --> 21:03.818
Of course in the
pre-Reformation time,

21:03.818 --> 21:06.158
you did have the rise of
humanism and the Renaissance,

21:06.160 --> 21:08.430
which started questioning that
a bit,

21:08.430 --> 21:11.220
and they started going back and
looking at the original Hebrew,

21:11.220 --> 21:13.280
the original Greek,
insisting that you should read

21:13.278 --> 21:15.968
these texts in their original
languages and not just in Latin.

21:15.970 --> 21:17.780
That was before the Reformation.

21:17.778 --> 21:21.128
You already had this move
toward history and reading the

21:21.134 --> 21:24.674
text in historical context in
the humanist movement and the

21:24.673 --> 21:25.653
Renaissance.

21:25.650 --> 21:28.090
With the Reformation,
though, of course you really

21:28.085 --> 21:30.765
get it in the sixteenth century
with Martin Luther,

21:30.769 --> 21:32.679
John Calvin,
Melanchthon,

21:32.675 --> 21:36.575
different writers saying,
well, we're going to throw out

21:36.583 --> 21:38.663
this Catholic authority on the
text.

21:38.660 --> 21:41.380
We're going to get back to the
text itself.

21:41.380 --> 21:47.160
The only authority for the
radical reformers was scripture.

21:47.160 --> 21:53.470
You know this as,
sola scriptura,

21:53.469 --> 21:57.529
scripture only;
scripture only will be the

21:57.528 --> 21:59.388
guide for authority for
Protestants.

21:59.390 --> 22:03.190
Of course then they start
realizing that different people

22:03.190 --> 22:05.770
can interpret scripture
differently.

22:05.769 --> 22:07.919
They're very familiar with
medieval Christian ways of

22:07.919 --> 22:10.399
interpreting scripture to have
several different meanings and

22:10.398 --> 22:11.348
layers of meanings.

22:11.348 --> 22:13.988
And so they say,
well the predominant guide of

22:13.990 --> 22:16.630
scripture isn't going to be just
scripture;

22:16.630 --> 22:19.060
it's going to be one particular
meaning of scripture.

22:19.058 --> 22:22.128
And that's sensus
literalis.

22:22.130 --> 22:26.340


22:26.338 --> 22:30.538
The literal sense of scripture
is what will be now the guide

22:30.542 --> 22:32.892
for the Reformation,
not the Pope,

22:32.894 --> 22:34.324
not the bishops.

22:34.318 --> 22:39.048
Even the bishop must submit to
the literal sense of scripture.

22:39.048 --> 22:42.388
Now it's rather debatable what
they meant by "the literal

22:42.385 --> 22:45.445
sense" because some of
these reformers said that the

22:45.449 --> 22:48.949
literal sense of scripture could
even be a prophetic sense,

22:48.950 --> 22:51.470
so they still said that the
literal sense of scripture could

22:51.469 --> 22:53.049
be in a Psalm when the Psalm
says,

22:53.049 --> 22:56.699
"The Lord said to my Lord,
'Sit at my right hand.'"

22:56.699 --> 23:01.119
Well they knew that the text if
you're interested in an ancient

23:01.124 --> 23:04.554
text would be referring to the
Davidic King,

23:04.548 --> 23:08.388
but they also said that Psalm
also could refer to Jesus,

23:08.390 --> 23:10.310
even in its literal sense.

23:10.308 --> 23:12.808
The literal sense that they
were talking about in the

23:12.806 --> 23:15.346
Reformation was not necessarily
what we would call the

23:15.348 --> 23:16.788
historical critical sense.

23:16.788 --> 23:20.408
It was what they took it to be
the most fundamental plain sense

23:20.405 --> 23:21.685
meaning of the text.

23:21.690 --> 23:23.130
So that was the literal sense.

23:23.130 --> 23:25.480
Then again they realized the
more they did this that

23:25.480 --> 23:28.200
Protestant churches started
splitting all over the place.

23:28.200 --> 23:31.490
Presbyterians and Calvinists
split off from the Lutherans,

23:31.490 --> 23:34.320
the Anabaptists split off from
the Reformation.

23:34.318 --> 23:37.688
And then you have a rise of so
many Protestant movements that

23:37.692 --> 23:40.952
the idea that scripture alone
could settle debates and give

23:40.952 --> 23:43.822
you a foundation started
becoming questionable.

23:43.818 --> 23:46.098
In the nineteenth century,
beginning somewhat in the

23:46.101 --> 23:48.741
eighteenth century but mainly in
the nineteenth century,

23:48.740 --> 23:50.920
and mainly in Germany,
German speaking lands,

23:50.920 --> 23:54.460
scholars started pushing the
historical reading of the text.

23:54.460 --> 23:57.440
They said, we've got to get
down to what the author meant.

23:57.440 --> 23:59.430
What did the historical Paul
mean?

23:59.430 --> 24:01.550
How did we discover that?

24:01.548 --> 24:04.168
That's when you have the rise,
in the nineteenth century,

24:04.170 --> 24:06.700
of the dominance of the
historical critical method with

24:06.695 --> 24:08.095
all these presuppositions.

24:08.098 --> 24:11.598
It was elaborated and invented
in the nineteenth century,

24:11.598 --> 24:14.568
and in some places it was
precisely invented in order to

24:14.565 --> 24:17.845
try to make the text of the New
Testament and the Bible a firm

24:17.854 --> 24:20.984
foundation for doctrine and
ethics within Protestantism and

24:20.980 --> 24:23.620
within the wide of varieties of
different kinds of

24:23.623 --> 24:24.813
Protestantism.

24:24.808 --> 24:28.248
Then the last part of this,
and this is a big sweep of

24:28.246 --> 24:30.966
history I'm giving you in five
seconds,

24:30.970 --> 24:34.270
what happens in the last part
of the twentieth century,

24:34.269 --> 24:36.249
just in the last,
say, thirty years,

24:36.250 --> 24:40.640
is that people like me come
along and say,

24:40.640 --> 24:42.260
you know it hasn't worked.

24:42.259 --> 24:46.059
This attempt to use historical
criticism, to settle disputes

24:46.057 --> 24:49.017
about the meaning of the text,
doesn't work.

24:49.019 --> 24:51.959
Because even the historical
critical method can render

24:51.962 --> 24:54.632
wildly varying interpretations
of these texts.

24:54.630 --> 24:57.260
So you've got some people
reading Romans 1 as a

24:57.261 --> 25:00.011
condemnation of modern
homosexuality and thinking

25:00.008 --> 25:03.268
they're doing a good historical
reading of this text.

25:03.269 --> 25:05.859
You've got other people who
read the same text,

25:05.863 --> 25:08.463
using the same methods of
historical criticism,

25:08.457 --> 25:09.977
and say, are you crazy?

25:09.980 --> 25:11.920
He's not talking about
homosexuality,

25:11.921 --> 25:13.271
that's not his concern.

25:13.269 --> 25:15.189
It's talking about idolatry or
something else.

25:15.190 --> 25:19.100
Even scholars using the same
method of historical criticism,

25:19.098 --> 25:22.338
trained in the same schools,
getting degrees from the same

25:22.340 --> 25:24.170
places,
come up with different

25:24.170 --> 25:27.320
interpretations of these texts
even using the historical

25:27.320 --> 25:28.410
critical method.

25:28.410 --> 25:33.270
And that's why you have right
now a lot of questioning of this

25:33.273 --> 25:38.063
method as not supplying the firm
foundations that Protestants

25:38.057 --> 25:40.607
originally thought it might.

25:40.608 --> 25:43.768
You have new methods now being
brought back into seminary

25:43.767 --> 25:45.697
education,
like feminist analysis,

25:45.702 --> 25:48.552
or literary criticism,
or liberation theology,

25:48.545 --> 25:52.335
or African American approaches,
or Latino approaches.

25:52.338 --> 25:54.928
Or queer readings,
gay and lesbian readings and

25:54.933 --> 25:57.483
queer readings,
you have all these different

25:57.479 --> 26:00.919
kinds of ways of approaching the
text being brought back as ways

26:00.919 --> 26:03.979
to if not displace then at least
to supplement historical

26:03.977 --> 26:07.197
criticism that was dominant for
the twentieth century.

26:07.200 --> 26:11.470
Now the question is,
why do all this stuff anyway?

26:11.470 --> 26:14.100
Why have I first been teaching
you the historical critical

26:14.095 --> 26:14.505
method?

26:14.509 --> 26:16.999
Well I can answer that,
it's because that's the

26:16.997 --> 26:19.967
dominant way that the Bible is
taught in modern American

26:19.970 --> 26:20.890
universities.

26:20.890 --> 26:24.660
It's sort of like,
how do you learn Shakespeare?

26:24.660 --> 26:26.060
How do you learn these kinds of
things?

26:26.058 --> 26:27.918
There are methods,
and it's not necessarily the

26:27.923 --> 26:30.033
historical method in English
departments anymore,

26:30.028 --> 26:33.838
but there are different
dominant methods that academics

26:33.838 --> 26:36.448
use to construct their
disciplines.

26:36.450 --> 26:39.990
The main way still that
biblical studies is constructed

26:39.989 --> 26:43.739
as an academic discipline,
as opposed to a discipline of

26:43.736 --> 26:46.416
faith in a church,
is through at least learning

26:46.422 --> 26:48.342
about the historical critical
method.

26:48.338 --> 26:51.508
So I make that the basic part
of this, when I'm introducing

26:51.513 --> 26:53.873
you to this discipline,
because I'm not just

26:53.867 --> 26:58.117
introducing you to the text;
I'm introducing you to a modern

26:58.118 --> 27:02.148
scholarly discipline,
practices, and assumptions.

27:02.150 --> 27:05.280
But I also believe that we
should study other ways of

27:05.278 --> 27:08.408
studying the Bible also,
at least to be introduced to

27:08.407 --> 27:08.947
them.

27:08.950 --> 27:12.610
That's why later this week
you're supposed to go to the Art

27:12.611 --> 27:13.181
Museum.

27:13.180 --> 27:18.950
None of us are art critics who
work in this class.

27:18.950 --> 27:20.330
None of us are historians of
art.

27:20.328 --> 27:22.338
I know nothing about art
history.

27:22.338 --> 27:25.598
The teaching fellows know very
little about art history also.

27:25.598 --> 27:29.508
Some of you in this class will
be much better at going through

27:29.506 --> 27:32.766
the Yale Art Gallery and
analyzing the artwork there

27:32.770 --> 27:36.550
because you will have taken art
history classes like I never

27:36.548 --> 27:37.188
did.

27:37.190 --> 27:40.140
The purpose of this visit is
not to do a typical art

27:40.136 --> 27:41.636
historical kind of move.

27:41.640 --> 27:45.950
It's so that you can contrast
the stuff you've been learning

27:45.953 --> 27:50.203
in this course with especially
early Christian and medieval

27:50.195 --> 27:52.605
representations of the Bible.

27:52.608 --> 27:55.628
Why did they portray in
painting and in artwork these

27:55.633 --> 27:57.613
stories the way they portray it?

27:57.608 --> 27:59.598
What does it tell us about
their mentality?

27:59.598 --> 28:01.108
What does it tell us about
their world?

28:01.108 --> 28:05.088
To get you to see this is what
interpretations of the Bible

28:05.086 --> 28:09.126
look like without historical
criticism, before the dominance

28:09.130 --> 28:11.050
of historical criticism.

28:11.048 --> 28:14.078
It's to show you there are
other quite legitimate ways to

28:14.078 --> 28:15.268
interpret this text.

28:15.269 --> 28:19.019
We could have done the sort of
literary interpretation where we

28:19.016 --> 28:22.396
take these texts and we talk
about things like character,

28:22.398 --> 28:23.848
development of plot.

28:23.848 --> 28:26.378
We could read the Gospel of
Mark--a lot of people read the

28:26.383 --> 28:28.743
Gospel of Mark as almost like a
modern short story.

28:28.740 --> 28:32.630
It's full of puzzles;
it's full of ways that it leads

28:32.627 --> 28:33.807
the reader astray.

28:33.808 --> 28:35.608
Remember how the Gospel of Mark
ends?

28:35.608 --> 28:37.598
You don't even see the
resurrected Jesus.

28:37.598 --> 28:39.858
The women are told to go
announce he's been raised to the

28:39.863 --> 28:41.443
disciples, and they don't even
do it.

28:41.440 --> 28:43.000
They run off,
and that's the end.

28:43.000 --> 28:46.670
That doesn't end like a normal
ancient text would end,

28:46.670 --> 28:49.990
but it does end like kind of
modernist sort of literature

28:49.994 --> 28:53.624
which poses many questions to
the reader often as it does give

28:53.616 --> 28:54.326
answers.

28:54.328 --> 28:57.618
We could have read the Gospel
of Mark like we would read a

28:57.623 --> 29:00.053
modern short story by Flannery
O'Connor.

29:00.048 --> 29:02.598
You can do that and there's
nothing wrong with that.

29:02.599 --> 29:06.409
Why is all that important?

29:06.410 --> 29:09.460
I think it's important to
realize that because the vast

29:09.457 --> 29:12.337
majority of Christians
throughout human history have

29:12.336 --> 29:15.436
not read the Bible the way
you're learning to read it in

29:15.440 --> 29:16.400
this class.

29:16.400 --> 29:20.140
The vast majority of
Christians, even now throughout

29:20.140 --> 29:24.760
the world, don't read the Bible
as you're learning to read it in

29:24.759 --> 29:25.859
this class.

29:25.858 --> 29:28.178
In spite of the fact that I'm
teaching you this method,

29:28.180 --> 29:29.960
I still want to drum it into
your heads,

29:29.960 --> 29:32.780
at least this week,
that this is just one way of

29:32.777 --> 29:36.317
doing it and you need to be
aware of the other ways of doing

29:36.315 --> 29:40.145
it because in some ways they are
culturally more important as far

29:40.152 --> 29:43.572
as the impact of the Bible on
western civilization.

29:43.568 --> 29:46.788
What I'm saying is that
historical criticism is

29:46.785 --> 29:51.115
important to learn because it's
part of our environment too.

29:51.118 --> 29:55.298
But I would say that even as an
important way to approach the

29:55.298 --> 29:59.198
Bible it's not a sufficient way
to approach the Bible.

29:59.200 --> 30:02.300
It's certainly not sufficient
when it comes to the importance

30:02.296 --> 30:05.026
of scripture in the Bible for
western civilization and

30:05.029 --> 30:05.649
culture.

30:05.650 --> 30:09.710
It would be much better to keep
in mind how Milton read the

30:09.710 --> 30:12.020
Bible for Paradise Lost.

30:12.019 --> 30:16.419
How Dante read the Bible,
how Flannery O'Connor uses the

30:16.415 --> 30:20.725
Bible in our literature,
and how artists use the Bible,

30:20.731 --> 30:23.211
that's also very important.

30:23.210 --> 30:24.260
It certainly,
historical criticism,

30:24.259 --> 30:27.079
is not sufficient for the
Christian theological reading of

30:27.078 --> 30:29.848
the Bible because the historical
meaning of the text,

30:29.848 --> 30:31.568
I think, as people are
beginning to realize in

30:31.570 --> 30:34.930
churches,
cannot provide you with enough

30:34.931 --> 30:39.381
to use this text theologically
and ethically.

30:39.380 --> 30:43.500
You've got to do something else
with the text besides just

30:43.496 --> 30:47.176
history if you still want to use
it as scripture.

30:47.180 --> 30:50.470
That's why today I'm mixing
these things up and trying to

30:50.472 --> 30:52.592
get you to see things
differently.

30:52.588 --> 30:55.488
Now let's look at what you were
reading for today,

30:55.486 --> 30:57.726
the different medieval
interpretations,

30:57.731 --> 31:01.221
ancient Christian and medieval
interpretations of text.

31:01.220 --> 31:04.680
First you should know that
before the modern period there

31:04.682 --> 31:08.582
were these different meanings of
the text and in fact they would

31:08.576 --> 31:11.356
even talk about them as
different levels.

31:11.358 --> 31:15.248
The two most important were the
ones that I've already talked

31:15.250 --> 31:19.140
about basically as the literal
sense and the other one is the

31:19.143 --> 31:20.573
allegorical sense.

31:20.569 --> 31:24.899
You've seen this sort of thing.

31:24.900 --> 31:28.670
Eventually textbooks would be
written that say medieval

31:28.674 --> 31:32.594
interpretation of the Bible have
four different levels of

31:32.589 --> 31:33.429
meaning.

31:33.430 --> 31:36.400
But the most important,
throughout history,

31:36.400 --> 31:39.300
has been basically a two part
division.

31:39.298 --> 31:41.628
This literal sense,
which sometimes can be called

31:41.626 --> 31:43.816
the body sense,
the bodily sense,

31:43.821 --> 31:47.671
or the physical sense,
and then the spiritual sense or

31:47.673 --> 31:50.623
the allegorical sense,
or the higher meaning,

31:50.623 --> 31:52.233
or the elevated meaning.

31:52.230 --> 31:56.300
Over and over again those two
levels of interpretation will be

31:56.298 --> 31:59.898
stressed in pre-modern
interpretations of the Bible.

31:59.900 --> 32:03.420
Then you will often see other
names and other terms attached

32:03.416 --> 32:04.486
to other things.

32:04.490 --> 32:06.370
For example,
sometimes you'll come across

32:06.365 --> 32:08.845
the term "anagogical
sense" of the text,

32:08.848 --> 32:12.358
and anagogical is not exactly
the literal but it's also not

32:12.362 --> 32:15.272
exactly the allegorical because
the anagogic--

32:15.269 --> 32:17.089
"anagogic"
means "leading up"

32:17.092 --> 32:17.512
in Greek.

32:17.509 --> 32:19.789
The idea was that this is a
reading of the text that will

32:19.794 --> 32:22.484
help you be a better Christian;
it'll help you be a more

32:22.478 --> 32:23.368
ethical person.

32:23.368 --> 32:26.868
So an anagogical reading would
lead you to something else and

32:26.868 --> 32:30.018
the varieties of different ways
of reading the text.

32:30.019 --> 32:32.269
Medieval theologians will talk
about this: they'll use the term

32:32.269 --> 32:33.689
literal,
they'll use the term

32:33.690 --> 32:36.090
allegorical, they'll use the
term anagogical,

32:36.088 --> 32:38.348
and they'll mean by that three
different meanings.

32:38.348 --> 32:40.968
Notice they don't necessarily
just mean these are three

32:40.969 --> 32:42.909
different ways to interpret the
text,

32:42.910 --> 32:45.040
although that's the way I've
been talking about them because

32:45.041 --> 32:46.091
that's the way I hear that.

32:46.088 --> 32:48.958
They actually believe that
these are three different

32:48.961 --> 32:52.231
meanings that are in the
text itself: the anagogical

32:52.227 --> 32:54.107
meaning,
the allegorical meaning,

32:54.105 --> 32:55.105
the literal meaning.

32:55.108 --> 32:57.548
Sometimes you'll hear them
talking about maybe the ethical

32:57.548 --> 32:59.028
meaning,
which sometimes looks a lot

32:59.028 --> 33:01.418
like the anagogical meaning,
and then sometimes you'll even

33:01.422 --> 33:03.332
hear them talk about the
historical meaning.

33:03.328 --> 33:05.698
What's funny here is that when
they use that word

33:05.699 --> 33:07.919
historia for the meaning
of a text--

33:07.920 --> 33:09.890
and they sometimes bring--it's
a Greek word originally,

33:09.890 --> 33:11.500
but they'll bring it into Latin
also--

33:11.500 --> 33:13.800
don't get confused when you see
that,

33:13.798 --> 33:15.958
especially if you're reading
something on medieval

33:15.961 --> 33:18.911
interpretation of the Bible,
because it doesn't mean the

33:18.912 --> 33:22.022
historical meaning of the text
in our understanding.

33:22.019 --> 33:25.529
By historia in this
sense, they usually mean the

33:25.528 --> 33:28.708
narrative reading:
f you were to read this text as

33:28.713 --> 33:30.983
a story,
regardless of whether it ever

33:30.980 --> 33:31.470
happened.

33:31.470 --> 33:33.280
So they don't mean historical
in the sense of,

33:33.275 --> 33:34.515
this is what really happened.

33:34.519 --> 33:37.299
They mean the word
historia--this is a

33:37.298 --> 33:40.518
narrative sort of shape,
it's reading the text as if

33:40.519 --> 33:42.099
it's telling a story.

33:42.098 --> 33:45.508
Sometimes they'll call that the
historical meaning of the text

33:45.506 --> 33:48.016
and add that onto some of these
other ones.

33:48.019 --> 33:52.959
The medieval notion that there
are four senses of the text,

33:52.960 --> 33:56.470
literal is always one,
allegorical is always one,

33:56.470 --> 33:58.820
and what counts as the other
two varies among different

33:58.824 --> 33:59.264
authors.

33:59.259 --> 34:02.389
That is definitely there in
medieval theorizing about

34:02.392 --> 34:05.832
scriptural interpretation,
but it shouldn't be exaggerated

34:05.830 --> 34:09.160
because you don't see it quite
that rigidly as always four and

34:09.159 --> 34:11.069
the same four levels of meaning.

34:11.070 --> 34:14.320
But you will come across that
if you do any literary study of

34:14.318 --> 34:17.508
the Bible in English literature
and the European context and

34:17.514 --> 34:18.764
that sort of thing.

34:18.760 --> 34:22.990
The people I gave you to read
illustrate these things.

34:22.989 --> 34:25.939
The first part about Origen,
if you brought your readings

34:25.940 --> 34:28.680
turn to the part about Origin
like around page 56.

34:28.679 --> 34:32.589
What Origen is doing is he's
giving an example of what he

34:32.594 --> 34:35.884
takes to be the literal meaning
of this text.

34:35.880 --> 34:40.060
The story is from I Samuel 28,
and in case you don't remember

34:40.063 --> 34:42.723
the story,
Saul, who is the king,

34:42.715 --> 34:46.185
is fighting a battle,
and he wants to know whether

34:46.188 --> 34:48.778
he's going to win the battle the
next day,

34:48.780 --> 34:50.540
whether he and Jonathan his son
are going to win,

34:50.539 --> 34:51.459
or they'll lose.

34:51.460 --> 34:54.910
He goes and he finds a witch,
and of course he's already

34:54.914 --> 34:58.874
outlawed all the witches in the
country, so he's not supposed to

34:58.873 --> 35:00.133
find one at all.

35:00.130 --> 35:03.110
He goes and finds this woman,
she's actually called a belly

35:03.106 --> 35:05.106
myther,
a person who speaks fabulous

35:05.105 --> 35:08.385
stories from the belly because I
guess they would kind of do it

35:08.393 --> 35:11.793
like this and it sounded like it
was coming out of their gut.

35:11.789 --> 35:14.439
They would sort of sound like a
ventriloquist or something,

35:14.438 --> 35:16.218
and they're speaking hidden
messages.

35:16.219 --> 35:17.659
He goes and finds this woman.

35:17.659 --> 35:19.649
It's translated often in
English as "the witch of

35:19.652 --> 35:20.182
Endor."

35:20.179 --> 35:21.979
That's the popular name for the
story.

35:21.980 --> 35:25.900
And he says call up the spirit
of Samuel the dead prophet,

35:25.900 --> 35:28.940
and he's going to ask the
spirit--of course in--

35:28.940 --> 35:32.280
in these kinds of cultures the
idea is that dead people can see

35:32.275 --> 35:35.615
the future because they're dead,
they live in the realm that

35:35.621 --> 35:37.951
they're not limited by our kinds
of sight.

35:37.949 --> 35:40.859
The idea is that the woman is
supposed to call up the dead

35:40.858 --> 35:42.138
Samuel,
the spirit of Samuel,

35:42.141 --> 35:44.941
so he comes out of the ground--
like all the dead are under the

35:44.940 --> 35:46.770
ground in this kind of
cosmology--

35:46.768 --> 35:49.358
and he asks,
are we going to win the battle?

35:49.360 --> 35:51.820
Samuel is all angry because
he's being called up,

35:51.815 --> 35:55.035
and he curses Saul and all this
kind stuff, so the story doesn't

35:55.039 --> 35:56.369
end too well for Saul.

35:56.369 --> 35:58.319
And sure enough the next day
Saul and Jonathan die,

35:58.322 --> 35:59.222
they lose the battle.

35:59.219 --> 36:03.099
Origen has a problem because
Christians all know that it's

36:03.096 --> 36:06.556
wrong to use witches,
and here's the King Saul using

36:06.563 --> 36:07.383
a witch.

36:07.380 --> 36:09.080
And they also know,
but wait a minute Samuel

36:09.083 --> 36:11.143
obeyed the woman,
she calls him to come out of

36:11.141 --> 36:12.451
the ground and he obeyed her.

36:12.449 --> 36:16.209
Why would a great prophet obey
a witch?

36:16.210 --> 36:19.510
Early Christians reading this
text had a lot of problems,

36:19.510 --> 36:21.370
and so sometimes they would
allegorize it,

36:21.369 --> 36:23.069
and they would say,
well it doesn't mean that,

36:23.070 --> 36:25.040
it means this,
and it doesn't say the woman

36:25.039 --> 36:28.439
actually saw Samuel,
she thought she saw Samuel.

36:28.440 --> 36:31.820
Then other people would say,
but a good prophet like Samuel

36:31.817 --> 36:35.367
couldn't have been in hell,
how could he have been in hell?

36:35.369 --> 36:37.139
Great prophets can't be in hell.

36:37.139 --> 36:39.799
So they would say,
oh it's just--it's an allegory.

36:39.800 --> 36:41.610
It doesn't really mean he was
in hell;

36:41.610 --> 36:43.670
it meant he was in something
else.

36:43.670 --> 36:47.430
Origen comes along and says,
no you can't allegorize this

36:47.434 --> 36:50.264
text, and it means exactly what
it says.

36:50.260 --> 36:52.490
So he says, you have to read it
literally.

36:52.489 --> 36:54.199
He argues for a while.

36:54.199 --> 36:57.149
And this is very funny because
Origen is famous throughout

36:57.146 --> 36:59.576
history for being a great
allegorizing reader of

36:59.576 --> 37:00.296
scripture.

37:00.300 --> 37:02.670
In fact, a lot of historians
don't like him because he tends

37:02.670 --> 37:04.840
to read scripture allegorically
in different places.

37:04.840 --> 37:07.590
But in this case,
Origin this great allegorizer

37:07.594 --> 37:09.934
,is insisting on the literal
reading.

37:09.929 --> 37:11.779
But now notice what he means by
literal.

37:11.780 --> 37:13.720
First he says the woman really
did see Samuel.

37:13.719 --> 37:16.349
Samuel really was in hell,
and if you can't accept that

37:16.353 --> 37:17.333
it's your problem.

37:17.329 --> 37:19.609
Then he explains it,
and he gives some answers for

37:19.606 --> 37:19.836
it.

37:19.840 --> 37:22.220
But then he says,
the literal meaning of the text

37:22.219 --> 37:23.409
is not just the story.

37:23.409 --> 37:25.469
But this is what he says is the
literal sense:

37:25.472 --> 37:27.492
it's on page 56 in the chapter
I gave you.

37:27.489 --> 37:31.099
"Even the literal sense of
the story is to teach that

37:31.096 --> 37:34.446
Christians will enjoy an
afterlife existence."

37:34.449 --> 37:36.249
Now I ask you,
is there anything about

37:36.253 --> 37:37.573
Christians in this story?

37:37.570 --> 37:42.260
No, we would not call that the
literal historical sense of this

37:42.255 --> 37:42.855
story.

37:42.860 --> 37:45.080
It shows that Origen,
when he uses this term literal

37:45.077 --> 37:47.207
meaning of this story,
he's not still referring to

37:47.208 --> 37:49.338
what we call the historical
critical meaning.

37:49.340 --> 37:52.300
For him, the literal meaning of
the story is to teach Christians

37:52.297 --> 37:54.127
about their own after life
existence.

37:54.130 --> 37:57.290
And then he has an elevated or
higher sense of the story,

37:57.289 --> 38:01.949
which he takes to be that
righteous Christians,

38:01.949 --> 38:05.419
unlike even righteous prophets
before the coming of Jesus,

38:05.420 --> 38:10.030
won't have to spend any time in
Hades or hell,

38:10.030 --> 38:11.750
or purgatory.

38:11.750 --> 38:14.630
If you're a good Christian when
you die you'll go straight to

38:14.630 --> 38:16.410
heaven,
and that's something that even

38:16.411 --> 38:18.931
the Old Testament prophets
didn't do because they had to go

38:18.929 --> 38:20.619
hell first,
according to Origen,

38:20.621 --> 38:23.471
to wait until Christ came,
so Christ could open up

38:23.474 --> 38:25.604
paradise and heaven for
everybody.

38:25.599 --> 38:29.239
Origen has an elevated
spiritual meaning of this text,

38:29.239 --> 38:31.849
but it's not a particularly
allegorical meaning,

38:31.849 --> 38:33.979
Ut's just that if you are a
righteous Christian,

38:33.980 --> 38:37.790
the story teaches that you will
get to go straight to heaven

38:37.789 --> 38:40.629
without passing through hell
when you die.

38:40.630 --> 38:43.450
Notice how Origen is still
playing with these notions of a

38:43.445 --> 38:46.305
literal reading and a higher
elevated spiritual reading.

38:46.309 --> 38:49.429
The literal reading doesn't
particularly look like what we

38:49.425 --> 38:51.935
would call the literal reading
of the text,

38:51.940 --> 38:54.900
and the higher elevated
spiritual reading doesn't look

38:54.898 --> 38:57.398
all that allegorical,
it looks almost like a moral

38:57.400 --> 38:57.980
lesson to us.

38:57.980 --> 39:01.250
That's one example,
though, about how Origen thinks

39:01.251 --> 39:05.111
it's perfectly fine to get at
least two readings out of this

39:05.112 --> 39:06.032
same text.

39:06.030 --> 39:09.840
Then you move to Augustine,
Now Augustine's a great

39:09.838 --> 39:10.598
example.

39:10.599 --> 39:13.959
He's an example I use because
of a pre-modern practice of not

39:13.958 --> 39:17.368
just reading scripture for the
answers that it gives you about

39:17.371 --> 39:18.661
ethics or doctrine.

39:18.659 --> 39:21.679
Remember that section in the
readings where Augustine prays

39:21.684 --> 39:24.034
with scripture,
he prays the Psalms so he says

39:24.032 --> 39:25.672
things like,
Then I read,

39:25.666 --> 39:28.346
"Let your anger deter me
from sin"

39:28.346 --> 39:30.896
[which is a quotation from
Psalm 4:4].

39:30.900 --> 39:33.150
How these words moved me,
my God.

39:33.150 --> 39:35.890
I had already learned to feel
for my past sins an anger with

39:35.891 --> 39:38.311
myself that would hold me back
from sinning again.

39:38.309 --> 39:43.079
This is from Confessions
9.10 and it's on page 57 of my

39:43.077 --> 39:43.857
chapter.

39:43.860 --> 39:47.600
Notice what Augustine's doing:
he feels like it's okay for him

39:47.601 --> 39:50.971
to get into the Psalm and put
himself in the role of the

39:50.974 --> 39:51.714
speaker.

39:51.710 --> 39:53.460
What God is saying to the
psalmist,

39:53.460 --> 39:55.380
Augustine says he was saying to
me,

39:55.380 --> 39:58.180
personally, Augustine,
and then Augustine answers back

39:58.175 --> 39:59.755
with the words of the Psalm.

39:59.760 --> 40:02.200
This is actually a reading of
scripture that's becoming

40:02.197 --> 40:04.587
popular more in certain modern
Christian contexts,

40:04.590 --> 40:06.770
especially monastic communities
and churches.

40:06.768 --> 40:09.438
And it's called sometimes
lectio divina.

40:09.440 --> 40:14.020


40:14.018 --> 40:17.218
This just means divine reading
in Latin.

40:17.219 --> 40:21.019
It refers to a practice that
some modern Christians are

40:21.018 --> 40:24.958
trying to resurrect from a
pre-modern Christian practices

40:24.958 --> 40:28.258
of praying reading scripture,
memorizing scripture,

40:28.264 --> 40:30.794
and than using the words of
scripture as your own prayer to

40:30.793 --> 40:33.063
God so that God talks to you and
you talk to God.

40:33.059 --> 40:36.129
People are getting this stuff
straight from pre-modern

40:36.125 --> 40:36.815
practices.

40:36.820 --> 40:39.820
Augustine is also a wonderful
example of the multiplicity of

40:39.822 --> 40:43.032
meanings that are contained in
the text all at the same time.

40:43.030 --> 40:46.510
For example,
on page 58, this is where he

40:46.514 --> 40:51.994
sees the Trinity in Genesis 1,
"In the beginning,"

40:51.994 --> 40:55.894
because of John 1:3-10,
you've read the Gospel of John

40:55.885 --> 40:58.465
the first part of John 1 cites
this "in the

40:58.465 --> 41:00.875
beginning"
but then goes on to say,

41:00.880 --> 41:03.320
"That God created
everything through Jesus,

41:03.320 --> 41:06.460
the logos,"
so Augustine looks at that in

41:06.460 --> 41:09.370
the beginning and says,
oh that's a reference to John,

41:09.371 --> 41:11.531
the Gospel of John,
which means that he's talking

41:11.530 --> 41:13.130
about Jesus here as also being
there.

41:13.130 --> 41:15.620
Then the spirit that moves over
the waters is the Holy Spirit.

41:15.619 --> 41:20.709
Then one of the most
fascinating things is the way he

41:20.706 --> 41:26.376
reads the six days of creation
in Genesis allegorically.

41:26.380 --> 41:30.110
On page 59 and around there,
he says on the first day,

41:30.112 --> 41:33.492
the vault--God created the
heavens and the earth,

41:33.494 --> 41:34.204
right?

41:34.199 --> 41:37.529
The word heaven there
translated doesn't mean what we

41:37.527 --> 41:39.317
think as space in the sky.

41:39.320 --> 41:43.800
It referred to an actual firm
kind of vault,

41:43.800 --> 41:46.070
like a dome,
a ceiling, and that's why in

41:46.068 --> 41:48.788
older translations it's called
the firmament,

41:48.789 --> 41:50.249
because it is firm.

41:50.250 --> 41:52.360
It's not air; it's firm.

41:52.360 --> 41:54.630
Augustine says,
the sky, when you look up at

41:54.630 --> 41:57.960
the sky you see that blue thing,
that big blue dome that's above

41:57.956 --> 41:58.376
you.

41:58.380 --> 42:01.250
We think of that as seeing
space, but ancient people

42:01.253 --> 42:01.763
didn't.

42:01.760 --> 42:04.920
They thought they were actually
seeing like a big canvas spread

42:04.923 --> 42:05.693
over the sky.

42:05.690 --> 42:08.350
The reason it's blue is because
water is behind it.

42:08.349 --> 42:11.719
It's holding back the water
that's in the sky,

42:11.724 --> 42:15.854
and the word "heaven"
refers to that thing.

42:15.849 --> 42:18.099
And so Augustine says,
it's like vellum,

42:18.099 --> 42:20.989
it's like the skin,
the leather that you make texts

42:20.985 --> 42:21.615
out of.

42:21.619 --> 42:24.339
And so he interprets
allegorically to say scripture.

42:24.340 --> 42:28.540
The making of the firmament in
Genesis refers to God's giving

42:28.539 --> 42:29.589
us scripture.

42:29.590 --> 42:31.330
And that's why angels--where do
angels live?

42:31.329 --> 42:33.079
They live on the other side of
scripture.

42:33.077 --> 42:33.337
Why?

42:33.340 --> 42:35.460
Because they don't have to see
what's written because they know

42:35.460 --> 42:36.180
everything already.

42:36.179 --> 42:38.379
But we humans we live on this
side of scripture,

42:38.382 --> 42:40.542
and we look up and we read the
writings of God,

42:40.538 --> 42:42.598
and so we need scripture to
read things.

42:42.599 --> 42:44.769
He goes through this elaborate
allegorical reading.

42:44.768 --> 42:48.358
Day two, the waters that
preside over the vault,

42:48.356 --> 42:52.396
they represent angelic peoples,
he says the angels.

42:52.400 --> 42:55.180
On day three,
the gathered-together sea--

42:55.179 --> 42:58.299
this is when Genesis says,
God separated the sea from the

42:58.304 --> 43:01.324
dry land and separated the water
from the dry land,

43:01.320 --> 43:03.450
the water he called sea,
the dry land he called earth.

43:03.449 --> 43:06.149
Augustine says,
okay the sea represents the

43:06.148 --> 43:09.908
bitter part of humanity;
the dry land represents those

43:09.907 --> 43:12.787
who thirst after righteousness
and God.

43:12.789 --> 43:15.019
And so God separates out,
on day three,

43:15.023 --> 43:17.733
good humanity from bad
humanity, by Augustine's

43:17.726 --> 43:19.546
allegorical interpretation.

43:19.550 --> 43:22.320
All of these just are
illustrations of how Augustine

43:22.324 --> 43:25.434
knew how to read this text
literally, but he shows you how

43:25.425 --> 43:27.325
he also reads it allegorically.

43:27.329 --> 43:29.379
He thinks that the text is full
of all these meanings,

43:29.378 --> 43:31.738
and it is perfectly legitimate
to get all of these meanings of

43:31.737 --> 43:32.237
the text.

43:32.239 --> 43:35.029
Then one of the most
fascinating is the one I gave

43:35.027 --> 43:36.847
you from Bernard of Clairvaux.

43:36.849 --> 43:40.279
This I think is so interesting
because Bernard is preaching on

43:40.279 --> 43:44.139
the Song of Songs,
that erotic part of the Hebrew

43:44.143 --> 43:45.893
Bible,
which is actually--to us

43:45.891 --> 43:47.611
moderns it just looks like a
love poem.

43:47.610 --> 43:50.290
But it was read allegorically
throughout the church,

43:50.291 --> 43:53.551
and even Rabbinic Judaism read
the Song of Songs as being about

43:53.552 --> 43:54.922
God and people Israel.

43:54.920 --> 43:57.880
The bridegroom is God;
the bride is the people of

43:57.880 --> 43:58.320
Israel.

43:58.320 --> 44:01.350
Christian Fathers read that it
be about Jesus and the church,

44:01.349 --> 44:05.319
so Bernard is doing that,
but now notice this is a sermon

44:05.315 --> 44:08.285
being delivered to monks in a
monastery.

44:08.289 --> 44:11.059
These are men--they're all men
there--and if you realize that's

44:11.056 --> 44:13.376
the social setting of this text
it makes it read very

44:13.376 --> 44:14.086
differently.

44:14.090 --> 44:17.830
Like this one big paragraph I
quoted, and I quote it again

44:17.833 --> 44:21.773
now, this is the young woman in
the Song of Songs speaking in

44:21.773 --> 44:22.763
his sermon.

44:22.760 --> 44:26.710
I cannot rest until he kisses
me with the kiss of his mouth.

44:26.710 --> 44:28.430
I thank him for the kiss of the
feet.

44:28.429 --> 44:30.549
I thank him,
too, for the kiss of the hand,

44:30.550 --> 44:33.580
but if he has genuine regard
for me, let him kiss me with the

44:33.579 --> 44:34.689
kiss of his mouth.

44:34.690 --> 44:36.570
There is no question of
ingratitude on my part;

44:36.570 --> 44:38.070
it's simply that I am in love.

44:38.070 --> 44:40.820
It is desire that drives me on,
not reason.

44:40.820 --> 44:43.720
Please do not accuse me of
presumption if I yield to this

44:43.724 --> 44:44.664
impulse of love.

44:44.659 --> 44:48.179
My shame indeed rebukes me,
but love is stronger than all.

44:48.179 --> 44:51.709
I ask, I crave,
I implore, let him kiss me with

44:51.708 --> 44:53.548
the kiss of his mouth.

44:53.550 --> 44:56.900
Don't you see that by his grace
I have been for many years now

44:56.902 --> 44:59.212
careful to lead a chaste and
sober life?

44:59.210 --> 45:03.320
I concentrate on spiritual
studies, resist vices,

45:03.322 --> 45:04.782
and pray often.

45:04.780 --> 45:07.390
I am watchful against
temptations.

45:07.389 --> 45:10.209
I recount all my years in the
bitterness of my soul.

45:10.210 --> 45:13.450
As far as I can judge I have
lived among the brethren without

45:13.449 --> 45:13.989
quarrel.

45:13.989 --> 45:15.649
Lived among the brethren?

45:15.650 --> 45:18.700
Wait, who are we talking about
now?

45:18.699 --> 45:23.999
Are we still talking about the
young girl?

45:24.000 --> 45:27.410
"I have been submissive to
authority, responding to the

45:27.409 --> 45:30.529
beck and call of my superior in
the monastery."

45:30.530 --> 45:32.510
Is this the girl?

45:32.510 --> 45:34.880
"I do not covet goods not
mine.

45:34.880 --> 45:37.380
Rather I put myself and my
goods at the service of others.

45:37.380 --> 45:40.090
With sweat on my brow I ate my
bread, yet in all these

45:40.092 --> 45:42.502
practices there is evidence only
of my fidelity,

45:42.500 --> 45:43.780
nothing of enjoyment.

45:43.780 --> 45:46.530
I obey the commandments to the
best of my ability I hope,

45:46.534 --> 45:49.194
but in doing so my soul thirsts
like a parched land.

45:49.190 --> 45:51.800
If therefore he is to find my
holocaust acceptable,

45:51.800 --> 45:54.880
let him kiss me I entreat with
a kiss of his mouth."

45:54.880 --> 45:59.710
Halfway through this remarkable
quotation the girl morphs into

45:59.708 --> 46:00.578
the monk.

46:00.579 --> 46:05.159
The last part is a monk
talking, not a virgin girl.

46:05.159 --> 46:10.299
And yet this is a male monk
yearning for this male figure,

46:10.295 --> 46:13.625
and he's doing this in a
monastery.

46:13.630 --> 46:16.600
Isn't this kind of odd?

46:16.599 --> 46:20.319
He uses the eroticism of the
Song of Songs,

46:20.320 --> 46:24.020
not to get rid of eroticism--I
don't think he's telling the

46:24.021 --> 46:26.831
monk you're going to have sex
with Jesus,

46:26.829 --> 46:30.239
but he certainly doesn't get
rid of the erotic at all.

46:30.239 --> 46:33.439
He doesn't explain it away or
try to get rid of it like Origen

46:33.440 --> 46:36.430
would have done previously,
or some of the early Christian

46:36.429 --> 46:37.059
writers.

46:37.059 --> 46:40.639
In fact, he capitalizes on the
erotic and even turns it into

46:40.644 --> 46:44.234
the homoerotic because he's
asking the monk to identify with

46:44.231 --> 46:48.061
the body of the girl and to
yearn for this male bridegroom.

46:48.059 --> 46:51.429
Bernard reads this text not
only in an allegorical way so

46:51.429 --> 46:55.039
that the girl represents the
monk in a monastery who's trying

46:55.041 --> 46:57.691
to do the office:
he prays every night,

46:57.690 --> 46:59.960
he does all the right things,
and he doesn't feel anything

46:59.960 --> 47:00.400
about it.

47:00.400 --> 47:03.520
He feels dry,
and barren, and so Bernard's

47:03.516 --> 47:07.846
using the erotic of the Song of
Songs to enliven the daily

47:07.847 --> 47:11.037
office of the monastery for the
monks.

47:11.039 --> 47:14.689
Then this other quotation,
this is where Bernard says,

47:14.690 --> 47:17.450
oh, everybody whose lived a
monastic life knows that there's

47:17.451 --> 47:20.211
time when you go to the church
and you pray in the altar and

47:20.211 --> 47:23.251
you don't feel anything,
you just feel depressed,

47:23.250 --> 47:24.370
you feel alone.

47:24.369 --> 47:26.579
He says,
Men with an urge to frequent

47:26.583 --> 47:28.573
prayer will have experience of
what I say.

47:28.570 --> 47:32.310
Often enough when we approach
the altar to pray [you might not

47:32.307 --> 47:34.447
initially feel all excited about
it]

47:34.452 --> 47:36.662
our hearts are dry and
lukewarm.

47:36.659 --> 47:42.249
But if we persevere there comes
an unexpected infusion of grace,

47:42.250 --> 47:50.320
our breast expands [the breasts
of the monks?],

47:50.320 --> 47:52.920
as it were, our interior is
filled with an overflowing of

47:52.918 --> 47:54.868
love,
and if somebody should press on

47:54.873 --> 47:57.793
them then this milk of sweet
fecundity would gush forth in

47:57.786 --> 47:58.906
streaming richness.

47:58.909 --> 48:01.499
He's talking about orgasm,
folks.

48:01.500 --> 48:05.680
He's describing orgasm,
the orgasm of a woman,

48:05.675 --> 48:10.595
the breast filling up,
swelling, and then experiencing

48:10.596 --> 48:12.356
this explosion.

48:12.360 --> 48:16.760
Bernard is using orgasmic
language taken from the Song of

48:16.762 --> 48:21.402
Songs to talk to a bunch of
monks in the middle of the night

48:21.400 --> 48:26.190
to get them to continue praying,
and to get them more excited

48:26.190 --> 48:29.550
about giving themselves to
Jesus, the bridegroom.

48:29.550 --> 48:33.640
This is part of the remarkable
reading of the text of the Bible

48:33.643 --> 48:37.413
that you get in a pre-modern
world where they seem to feel

48:37.405 --> 48:41.295
remarkably free to read these
texts as containing a lot more

48:41.302 --> 48:45.662
meanings than a historian like
me would see them containing.

48:45.659 --> 48:48.349
Now I could go on and talk
about the Thomas Aquinas stuff,

48:48.347 --> 48:49.947
but it's just there as
examples.

48:49.949 --> 48:52.489
Aquinas is a wonderful example
of how he quotes one

48:52.492 --> 48:54.932
interpretation of John
Chrysostom and then quotes

48:54.934 --> 48:57.024
another interpretation of
Augustine,

48:57.019 --> 48:58.109
and he doesn't decide.

48:58.110 --> 48:59.370
He just says,
okay they're both there,

48:59.373 --> 49:00.093
they're both valid.

49:00.090 --> 49:04.060
He doesn't have any desire to
narrow down the meaning of the

49:04.059 --> 49:05.539
text to one meaning.

49:05.539 --> 49:09.539
I want you to think about this,
also,

49:09.539 --> 49:12.679
these are legitimate ways to
interpret this text,

49:12.679 --> 49:14.559
and at least they have been for
much of the history of

49:14.557 --> 49:15.087
Christianity.

49:15.090 --> 49:17.900
The modern world tended to
reject them, but if you look

49:17.900 --> 49:20.710
anywhere before the modern
period, you'll find them all

49:20.710 --> 49:21.700
over the place.

49:21.699 --> 49:25.389
Experience some of this stuff
too when you go then to the Yale

49:25.393 --> 49:27.213
Art Gallery later this week.

49:27.210 --> 49:34.000