I ended the previous post abruptly with an analogy. This was mostly by design, because my thoughts on this topic are not finished. I would like to pick up where I left off.
What if a person encounters a piece of literature that was entitled, “Other Than That Mrs. Lincoln, How Was That Play?”? Based on that title (and/or other internal triggers), a reader may assert that this literary unit is a satire or a comedy. Assuming that this interpreter is correct in their understanding of this new book, the rules of understanding the text (as the author intended) is governed by the internal rules of genre. But would it be fair to say that a comedy is untrue? I think to ask if a comedy is true or not is the wrong question to ask. The point of a comedy is not to display factual statements (which may be incidentally present), but to amuse. To interpret a comedy as a one would a historical narrative, would be to incorrectly deal with the text.
How about parables; are parables factual? Does it matter? Can something never have happened and still speak truth? NO, NO, and YES. Is Jesus a liar if the stories in his parables didn’t really happen? NO! The point of a parable is not to recount actual events. If there was never “a certain rich young man” would the point of Jesus’ parable not ring loud and clear? I personally think that the parable would still communicate the intended point that Jesus was making.
A question that may be posed: if God inspired people to write, and those inspired authors employ a particular genre to relay this inspired message, and that Genre is not history (and/or historical), does it make Scripture any less inspired by God? My answer is no, the message behind the medium is inspired.
This is not to say that I believe that all or even most of the Scriptures are not written as historical narrative (although there may be a polemic twist from time to time), and meant to be understood historically. As an example, I affirm the historicity of the Exodus event. Throughout Leviticus the refrain “Be holy for the Lord your God, who has delivered your from Egypt, is holy” affirms that this historical event, while defining the character that the people of God should posses (because this event affirms God’s love and working through their history), did in fact happen.
In the end, I would love to have a conversation that is irenic in character. I don’t think we are in a place to say de Witte, Gunkel, or Bultmann is the devil or Hitler (Calvin, I mentioned Hitler. Do I lose?). I may disagree with their approach, which is perfectly ok. It is not ok to think that I am correct on any given topic that I have reached a conclusion on. I am not concerned with being right, but knowing truth. I believe God speaks through scripture, and this discussion is birthed out of a theological presupposition: in order to better understand God, I must wrestle with the “inspired word” of God. I want to take this word seriously, which means wrestling with the thought forms of the culture. I don’t claim that I understand the intricacies of the thought forms of the ancient Near East, but in order to understand any piece of literature, it is essential to speak honestly about genre and begin to dissect the elements of a particular text in order to understand what it is trying to be conveyed.
In my next post, I would like to explore genre in a more hands on way by comparing literature in the ANE to see what legitimate (whatever that means) interpretive options are available.
