Models of History

In defense of the authors of the catechism, their allusions to history, it could be argued, may not intend the term in its modern, secular sense. After all Pius XII asserted that the first eleven chapters of Genesis represented history, though not in the classical sense.507 Theologians speak of ‘salvation history’ with reference to God’s interaction with Israel, a narrative that is not primarily concerned with dates and cold, hard facts, as it were. James Barr notes that there may be in fact be less agreement than supposed as to what theologians routinely mean by the term ‘history’, from Gehschichte to Heilgeschichte, from Weltgeshcichte to Urgeshschichte, from

Historie to Sage, Barr suggests that models of history are often constructed to serve the

theological purpose at hand.508 Luke Timothy Johnson points to the sense in which the term, ‘history’ can denote something other than recounting sequences of events.

The term, history manifestly cannot be used simply for “the past”, or “what happened in the past” any more than historical can be used simply as a synonym for “what was real about the past.” History is, rather the product of human intelligence and imagination. It is one of the ways in which human beings negotiate their present experience and

understanding with reference to group and individual memory.509

While conceding that the term, ‘history’, especially in relation to the bible and theology, may suggest an interpretative narrative that goes well beyond chronology, I propose that the

catechism’s references to history in relation to the fall of humanity and the mystery of death are still problematically historicist. In contrast with the nuanced views of history invoked by

506

A.S. Kapelrud, ‘You Shall Surely Not Die’, in History and Traditions of Early Israel: Studies Presented to

Eduard Nielson (Leiden, VTA, 1993), pp. 50-61. Cf Alan McGill, ‘The Vassal’s Lament: The Vocation of

Humankind in the Adamic Myth and the Fall to Authoritarianism in Its Reception History,’ Glossolalia, Spring 2011, p. 111. Available at http://glossolalia.sites.yale.edu/ Accessed on 4.14.2014.

507 _{Pius XII, Humani generis, #38.}

508_{James Barr, ‘Revelation in the Old Testament and in Theology,’ p 68.} 509 _{Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus, pp.81-82.}

173 Johnson, the catechism interprets the Adamic narrative as recounting ‘what happened in the past’, whereas the mystery and enormity of the fall and of mortality lies in their sheer ubiquity, their inescapable universality.510

Ricoeur’s work on the development of history is highly nuanced in this regard. Ricoeur suggests that the process of writing history passes through a documentary stage of gathering evidence, a comprehensive stage of seeking to understand and explain what the sources reveal, and a literary stage at which point, facticity and meaning-making can become vexingly

intertwined.511 Ricoeur detects in the literary stage of historiography, a tendency towards ‘exclusion of the real past from the linguistic realm’, suggesting that the literary enterprise eventually dehistoricizes the narrative. Whereas, as we have noted, Ricoeur has argued that myth is not history, he does, in effect, suggest, that historical narrative can be infused with mythical symbolism. To detect the emergence of a mythical symbol-system, a mythical register of language, or a mythical worldview in historical narrative, however, is a different matter than arguing that mythical narrative is a figurative way of recounting history (in a manner similar to what Gunkel has called ‘legend’).512

To illustrate the distinction, it would be a different matter to detect mythical symbolism at work in the Exodus narrative (for example the ‘angel of death’), than to argue that the Adamic myth reflects a particular kernel of history rather than all of history.

If the term ‘history’ is to be employed so broadly as to denote interpretations of current experience that do not to some extent reflect particular events, then the distinction between

510

Catechism, #390.

511 _{Paul Ricoeur, ‘Humanities between Science and Art.’ Speech by Paul Ricoeur at the opening ceremony for the} ‘Humanities at the Turn of the Millennium’ conference, University of Århus, Denmark (June 4, 1999). Available at http://www.hum.au.dk/ckulturf/pages/publications/pr/hbsa.htm. Accessed 2.15.2014. Cf. Jens Bruun Kofoed, “Adam what are you? The Primeval History Against the Backdrop of Mesopotamian Mythology,’ Available at http://www.see-j.net/hiphil] Published March 7, 2006. Accessed on 2.28.2015.

174 historical narrative and other forms of narrative, including myth, becomes blurred. Having

blurred such distinctions, the importance of acknowledging the implications of literary form in the interpretation of the biblical text would then be questionable.

To summarize, the catechism unequivocally states that the Adamic narrative in Genesis recounts a ‘deed’ and ‘event’ that transpired early in human history. Historical deeds and events are perpetrated by historical characters, specific beings that is, as opposed to mythical personas. Hence, the historicization of the Adamic myth leads to the assertion of an Adam, an Eve and a serpent, who, although they may be figuratively represented in the text, correspond to particular beings that acted in history. Given Justin Martyr’s identification of the serpent with Satan, the historicization of the Adamic myth provides support for the position that Satan exists (or at least existed) as a particular being, responsible for particular historical misdeeds.