Replies

I will try to be brief, since I made my views on these subjects pretty clear in my lengthy exchange with Kosta.

Kosta perceptively pointed out in one of his posts that he and I agree on the basic premise that the Bible cannot be used as a scientific textbook or infallible source of historical details. The other half of his perceptive comment was that he disagreed with most of his Orthodox brethren on where to draw the line with regard to what he is willing to believe as factually true in the Bible.

As I have reflected on this thread, one of the things that struck me was that the "argument" that Kosta and I were having is a very rare one within Orthodoxy. In fact, I'm not sure that I've witnessed in print or person any similar discussion of note. It is the kind of discussion that we tend only to have when we are in a situation like this, with non-Orthodox participants.

As with so many things in Orthodoxy, we seem simultaneously to hold to mutually exclusive positions. On the one hand, we know good and well that at least some of what we believe to be true in the Bible, the lives of saints, etc... has to be not quite true, or not true at all. On the other hand, Orthodox Christians tends to take a stance of belief toward the entire body of Tradition, including the entire Bible.

jo kus stated that the Fathers of the Church do not always take a literalist view of the Scriptures, and pointed out the Alexandrian school. This is very true. But I would point out that the Antiochian school took a different emphasis: one of rather literal interpretation. Both are reflecting means of exegesis that we see in the Scriptures themselves.

Origen himself, in what I have read of him, didn't take the view that the literal stories weren't true in Scripture -- as I mentioned before, look at his famous defense of the literal truth of the story of Daniel and Suzannah in the Apocrypha against the smirking attacks of Julius Africanus. It is an exchange that could be right out of a "liberal vs. conservative" Biblical scholar argument today -- and Origen is the conservative.

What Origen and the Alexandrian school wanted to make sure of was that the Church not take *only* the literal meaning of Scripture. They also wanted to make the point that the spiritual meaning is the most important meaning of every passage of Scripture. In the process, they emphasized the allegorical aspect to the point of making the Antiochians (again I'm painting broadly) feel that they were casting the literal meanings into doubt, which for the most part, I don't think they were.

The Church ultimately decided that both "schools" were correct (which shouldn't surprise us, since both were based on Scriptural precedents.) We basically accept the stories as all being true. We acknowledge somewhere in the backs of our minds that perhaps not every detail is true. And we have such a strong emphasis on the importance of the Spiritual meaning that it generally doesn't occur to us to argue about whether Job or Jonah existed or not.

The internal evidence that Christ treated the basic narratives of the Old Testament as historically true is, to me, overwhelming. The evidence that the Apostles treated the OT and the events in the life of Christ that were later written down in the Gospels as being literally true is also, to me, overwhelming. And the evidence that the Fathers treated all of the above as literally true is likewise overwhelming. But all of these emphasized above all the spiritual meaning.

The idea that we have to choose between the two strikes me as being grounded in some sort of Western rationalism, but I understand that some people have an easier time accepting Christianity by taking a basic stance of doubt toward the history recounted, choosing rather to look more exclusively at the spiritual meaning.

It is impossible for me to come away from the services of the Orthodox Church and the writings of the Fathers and see anything but that they simultaneously treat the stories as literally true, and that the spiritual meanings are deep and paramount. Both.

Regarding who amongst the Jewish people did and didn't accept Christianity, what I was reading last night the commentary of St. Theophylact on the reading for the Sunday of Orthodoxy from St. John.

In it, Philip comes Nathanael, and says to him, "We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.

Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!

Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.

Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel."

There are so many things here that St. Theophylact talks about. First, Philip identifies Christ as being the one spoken of in the prophets. Second, Nathaniel, knowing the Scriptures, is aware that the Christ will not come from Nazareth, so he doubts it -- as is reasonable. Next, Christ greets him before Nathaniel can even speak, and calls him a "true Israelite, in whom there is no guile." He acknowledges here that Nathaniel is an Israelite with a true understanding of the OT, and that his doubts about him are not based in craftiness or pride, but from a sincere desire to correctly recognize the Messiah.

Then, Christ demonstrates that he knew all about the conversation Philip and Nathaniel had (which was apparently under a fig tree). Nathaniel, then, like Philip, acknowledges Christ as the Son of God.

Now, it is worth noting that what convinced Nathaniel was his direct contact with Christ. All questions of whether the Christ was from Nazareth or Bethlehem disappeared in the face of direct experience of Christ's presence and omniscience. To be sure, Nathaniel would learn, as would the rest of the disciples that Christ really did come from Bethlehem and was of the seed of David. The Scriptures were true, but it wasn't through arguing about them that any of the disciples were convinced that Christ was the Messiah.