Knowledgeable Consideration
Gnosticism is a subject in which I am deeply interested. Not just because of their fascinating scriptures and writings, but because of their take on the mystery of God and the tremendous power of knowledge.
I say that because I have been reading a particular piece of apologetic writing (that is, a work designed to be an apologetic or defense of scripture) that purports that the way (perhaps even the only way) to read the New Testament is to hold a particular reading of the Old Testament which is defined as a figural reading.
Figural reading is to read a passage from the Old Testament and, without denying that it has a particular historical context, claim that it also prefigures something from the New Testament, something that wouldn't be made clear except through a reading of the Old Testament through the Christian faith. For example, in Isaiah 7:14 we read "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." In the Old Testament context, that passage is not about Jesus. In fact that passage isn't even the prophecy! The prophecy is in verse 16: "For before the boy [Immanuel of verse 14] knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted."
So in the context of Isaiah, this prophetic utterance has a historical setting which concerns itself with Ahaz and the opposing armies of Israel and Syria (see 7:1-2). But for Christians, this passage has come to mean (and for some it has to mean) a prophetic utterance concerning Jesus. Figural reading would say that both are correct. The Ahaz context is right as well as that of the Christian reinterpretation.
The catch is, as this author (and I'm still reading the book, so I won't go into it here aside from this particular point) states, the only way to find these readings in the Old Testament is to read them from the perspective of the Christian faith. I am put immediately in the mind of a passage from the early Christian writer, Justin Martyr who, speaking of the Jewish scriptures in the Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, wrote: "Your Scriptures are rather not yours, but ours, for we are left persuaded by them, while you read them without comprehending the spirit that is in them."
In other words, since Christians believe Jesus is the Messiah, the scriptures that point to him no longer belong to the Jews who don't believe in him.
I won't comment too much on the anti-Semitic attitude this reflects and would foster in the early church, but it certainly is a co-opting of one tradition for the sake of another. A painful reality for the modern church to remember.
My point, though, isn't so much the co-opting as it is that this particular point of view has smatterings of Gnosticism throughout. The truth of the Old Testament is only available to those who happen to know the right way to read it. Those that possess the proper gnosis can figure this out while the rest just can't quite make heads or tails of what they are reading (and had been reading and hearing for centuries).
But what if the real gnosis in this is that the point of view of Justin and this particular argument of figural reading is, in fact, a farce? What if this particular point of view isn't a real reading of the Old Testament at all? What it articulates is an intriguing idea which is that there are layers of meaning to any text - a point to which I would certainly ascent.
Yet what if the realization of how one reads the Old Testament is not a genuine reading? It certainly isn't a literal reading that fundamentalists would prefer, because to take it literally would be to deny that there could be a figural reading. It either means what it says or it doesn't mean anything (not my point of view, I would add). Yet perhaps the Gnostics who often denied that the Old Testament had any bearing on the message of Christ, would argue that the gnosis of this is to be found not in a figural reading but in a recognition that this reading isn't legitimate. What the reader is doing is interpreting based on a faith stance rather than gleaning truth from what the text actually says.
Gnostics generally believed in some esoteric or secret knowledge that they would not share with those who couldn't get it. Perhaps Justin Martyr's statement is that the Christians, through their faith, now possess that gnosis. Yet what if the true gnosis was the knowledge that this wasn't a legitimate reading of the Old Testament at all? What if the great secret was that the emperor had no clothing? In other words, what if the secret knowledge here is actually quite obvious: those who believe that they have found the "secret" reading of the Old Testament have, in fact, found only what they wanted to find and have thereby missed the actual meanings.
Gnostics were declared heretical long, long ago. Yet I have to wonder if they might have been exiled not because of some secret, esoteric knowledge that was "heretical" but because they possessed something far more dangerous: a willingness to call something out as false. Perhaps that is the most feared aspect of knowledge. It can pull the veil back to reveal that Oz isn't all powerful after all and give power back to the reality of the texts as they stood.
I say that because I have been reading a particular piece of apologetic writing (that is, a work designed to be an apologetic or defense of scripture) that purports that the way (perhaps even the only way) to read the New Testament is to hold a particular reading of the Old Testament which is defined as a figural reading.
Figural reading is to read a passage from the Old Testament and, without denying that it has a particular historical context, claim that it also prefigures something from the New Testament, something that wouldn't be made clear except through a reading of the Old Testament through the Christian faith. For example, in Isaiah 7:14 we read "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." In the Old Testament context, that passage is not about Jesus. In fact that passage isn't even the prophecy! The prophecy is in verse 16: "For before the boy [Immanuel of verse 14] knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted."
So in the context of Isaiah, this prophetic utterance has a historical setting which concerns itself with Ahaz and the opposing armies of Israel and Syria (see 7:1-2). But for Christians, this passage has come to mean (and for some it has to mean) a prophetic utterance concerning Jesus. Figural reading would say that both are correct. The Ahaz context is right as well as that of the Christian reinterpretation.
The catch is, as this author (and I'm still reading the book, so I won't go into it here aside from this particular point) states, the only way to find these readings in the Old Testament is to read them from the perspective of the Christian faith. I am put immediately in the mind of a passage from the early Christian writer, Justin Martyr who, speaking of the Jewish scriptures in the Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, wrote: "Your Scriptures are rather not yours, but ours, for we are left persuaded by them, while you read them without comprehending the spirit that is in them."
In other words, since Christians believe Jesus is the Messiah, the scriptures that point to him no longer belong to the Jews who don't believe in him.
I won't comment too much on the anti-Semitic attitude this reflects and would foster in the early church, but it certainly is a co-opting of one tradition for the sake of another. A painful reality for the modern church to remember.
My point, though, isn't so much the co-opting as it is that this particular point of view has smatterings of Gnosticism throughout. The truth of the Old Testament is only available to those who happen to know the right way to read it. Those that possess the proper gnosis can figure this out while the rest just can't quite make heads or tails of what they are reading (and had been reading and hearing for centuries).
But what if the real gnosis in this is that the point of view of Justin and this particular argument of figural reading is, in fact, a farce? What if this particular point of view isn't a real reading of the Old Testament at all? What it articulates is an intriguing idea which is that there are layers of meaning to any text - a point to which I would certainly ascent.
Yet what if the realization of how one reads the Old Testament is not a genuine reading? It certainly isn't a literal reading that fundamentalists would prefer, because to take it literally would be to deny that there could be a figural reading. It either means what it says or it doesn't mean anything (not my point of view, I would add). Yet perhaps the Gnostics who often denied that the Old Testament had any bearing on the message of Christ, would argue that the gnosis of this is to be found not in a figural reading but in a recognition that this reading isn't legitimate. What the reader is doing is interpreting based on a faith stance rather than gleaning truth from what the text actually says.
Gnostics generally believed in some esoteric or secret knowledge that they would not share with those who couldn't get it. Perhaps Justin Martyr's statement is that the Christians, through their faith, now possess that gnosis. Yet what if the true gnosis was the knowledge that this wasn't a legitimate reading of the Old Testament at all? What if the great secret was that the emperor had no clothing? In other words, what if the secret knowledge here is actually quite obvious: those who believe that they have found the "secret" reading of the Old Testament have, in fact, found only what they wanted to find and have thereby missed the actual meanings.
Gnostics were declared heretical long, long ago. Yet I have to wonder if they might have been exiled not because of some secret, esoteric knowledge that was "heretical" but because they possessed something far more dangerous: a willingness to call something out as false. Perhaps that is the most feared aspect of knowledge. It can pull the veil back to reveal that Oz isn't all powerful after all and give power back to the reality of the texts as they stood.
Comments
Post a Comment