The problem of interpretation of sacred
Scriptures and the conflict of Islamist
fundamentalism and
the West
A. Voin
23/09/1910
The
problem of interpretation of Scriptures connects not only to the conflict of Islamic fundamentalism and the West, but much
broader - to understanding between people of different religions, different denominations, and even believers and
atheists. But, of course, the conflict between Islamic fundamentalism and the
West, accompanied by terror and the threat of global nuclear war, is the most important. And
because of its importance and the danger to humanity the media and academic
writings have already spent a lot of words to explain his reasons and to offer the recommendations to overcome them. And
misinterpretation of the Koran
by Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists is declared by many authors as cause of this conflict and the correct
interpretation is
that of moderate Islamic theologians, and even better
Western scientists.
And as proof of the correctness of a moderate interpretation they gives the quotes from the
Koran. But the fundamentalists in response leads other quotations to
prove their point of view, and such passages are much longer. And then begin to
appear voices
that the Koran is a pernicious book. However, it is clear that with such an approach any peaceful settlement of the conflict can not
be achieved. This brings us to the question, what is the correct
interpretation of the Koran and, in general, the scriptures.
This
study is more convenient to start with the Bible, not the Koran, as the Bible,
and especially the Old Testament, written long before the Koran, and there has
accumulated much more experience in interpretation. Moreover, the
interpretation of the Bible eventually turned into a science, which deals not
only theologians, but scientists are atheists. And this is the
science of hermeneutics. This is hermeneutics in the
classic sense it. There is increased understanding of hermeneutics when it comes
to the interpretation of any text. I will confine myself to considering only the classical hermeneutics.
The need for correct interpretation of the Bible
appeared not only before hermeneutics, but before the Bible itself in its
current form. As soon as the Jews made a covenant with God at Sinai, taking the
commandments and the Law, as it emerged a practical, matter of vital
importance,
need in right understanding and applying the commandments and the
Law in each situation, which life provides in infinite variety.
For example, one of
the Israel tribes, tribes of Benjamin,
were steeped in the sin of Sodom and the like debauchery, which is prohibited
by Law. Others found out about it and wanting
to perform Testament well, went against the Benjamin war and destroyed them
almost entirely, including women and children (left 400 people). Then they
grabbed their heads: “What have we done? The Law does not say how exactly should be punished for this sin, but
we, it seems, exaggerated, destroyed an entire tribe, and yes even innocent
children. Perhaps God will punish us for it. We must do something to rectify the situation by punishing those
responsible for misdeeds”. And they found, as well as punished. They destroyed even the whole city Iaves Gilaadsky whose
residents just refused to take part in the campaign against Benjamin. Yes -
sigh chronicler - "in those days ... every man did what he thought
fair."
This
example demonstrates to us the whole
problem of interpretation of the Bible and all scriptures: the Law demands of justice (well, and various other things), but what
is justice in each case, it does not
defined. And, to add, it is fundamentally unable to do so, because the
number of different possible cases is infinite, continuously and always changing life throws up them, as already mentioned, more and more. The issue can be only one - to establish rules by which we could
extract from the written law, all from the Bible, the rulls for all occasions. And this is just and will hermeneutics, by
definition.
But
hermeneutics as a science, yet far. Meanwhile
the
incessant attempts to interpret what has already been given by God, and that
then becomes part of the Bible, are coming, what ,in fact, is the occupation of hermeneutics, but which, as such, are not yet
understood, and, the term himself for this occupation is not slung.
Note, that from the outset not only the Commandments and the Law are interpreting, but also other aspects of Scripture. For example, the whole
stage of history, described in the Old Testament, the Jews are concerned and try to interpret and reinvent the question of how to understand their own
covenant with God. In Testament says that if the Jews will follow the
commandment and the law, they will be fine. First, the Jews see it as God's
promise to reward every righteous even in this life. But reality quickly
refuted such an interpretation of their covenant. Experience shows that both
good and bad happens to righteous and unrighteous and often
unjust lives good and righteous - bad. And through the whole Old Testament goes the cry of the Jews to God about this injustice.
Only
at the end of the Old Testament period of Jewish history Isaiah and Jeremiah
guess another possible interpretation of the covenant, namely, that not every
Jew will be rewarded in life for his righteousness, but all the people, for their righteousness in general.
Interpretations continued after the end of the Old Testament and the emergence of
Christianity. And they are continuing and among the Jews who remained
in the Old Testament and continuing to interpret it, and among the Christians who interpret both the
Old and New Testaments together. And there and there interpretations are growing
up in the mountains of books as tall as a Mont Blanc. As Christians, the
teachings of Jesus Christ, as such, already is nothing like an interpretation,
the revolutionary interpretation of teaching given by God to the Jews in the
Old Testament. After all, Jesus Christ says that He "did not come to
abolish the Law and the prophets”, but at the same time, He formulates the provisions of this law differently than they have
been formulated in the Old Testament and understood before by Jews.
"You
have heard that it was said:" Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.
"
And I tell you: Love your
enemies, bless them that curse you and pray for those who persecute you ....
(Matthew 5. 43-48)
And
such interpretations -
changes in the teaching of Jesus are lot.
Jesus
Christ gives, in particular,the revolutionary new
interpretation a sense of Testament (agreement) people with God, an issue that so
troubled the Jews the previous term. Now it turns out that the reward for
righteousness will receive every one for himself, but not in this life, as at first thought the Jews,
but in that which comes after the resurrection
and the Last Judgement, ie, in the kingdom of heaven. Another revolutionary new
interpretation of Jesus Christ is the assertion that the unrighteous, but
repented and believed in Him will be forgiven and also go into the kingdom of
heaven. This, in general, is the main meaning
of the Good News that Jesus brought to people.
Interpretations
of the same words of Jesus are begining by his disciples immediately upon their utterance, and even before
they are written. The disciples - apostles, as a rule, do not understand their
teacher and twist the meaning of his words. This is evidenced by the Gospel, as
the words of the Evangelists, and the words of Jesus Christ:
"To the
other side, they had forgotten to take bread.
Jesus said to them: Take heed
and beware the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.
And they reasoned among
themselves, saying: this means that the bread we do not have ...
How not to perceive, that does
not concerning bread I said to you, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and
the Sadducees?
Then they realized that he had
told them not beware of the leaven of bread, but the doctrine of the Pharisees
and Sadducees. "(Matthew 16, 5-7, 11,12), etc.
Interpretations
at random are continued also by Evangelists in the
process of writing the Gospels. No doubt, Evangelists, when recorded their
memories, do not remember much, on the other hand added a few things on their own, that seemed an appropriate spirit of Teaching or reinforcing that makes it more convincing. And to make
the weight of this gag, they were often referred to certain passages from the
Old Testament, interpreting them at their discretion and, as easy to show, incorrectly.
Here is
an example of such a "zeal" in Matthew:
"Then Herod, when he saw he
was mocked of the Magians, was exceeding
wroth, and sent a slew all the children in Bethlehem and in all the coasts
thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time that he had
ascertained from the Magi. Then was fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet
Jeremiah, who says:
"A Voice in Ramah, wailing
and weeping, and great, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be
comforted, because they are not." (Matthew 2. 16-18)
Matthew wants to say that by "Rachel weeping" Ierimiya predicted the Massacre of the
Innocents by Herod, and, hence, the birth of Jesus Christ. But this is brutal
violence on the text. Enough to read in Jeremiah paragraph following the quoted
Matthew, to see it. Here's how it looks together:
"Thus saith the Lord: A
voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for her
children refused to be comforted for her children, because they are not.
Thus saith the Lord: Refrain thy
voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears, for there is reward for your
labor, says the Lord, and they shall come again from the land of the
enemy" (Jeremiah 31. 15, 16)
Ie Rachel's children are not
destroyed, but taken away in Exile,
about the outcome of which here prophesies of Jeremiah. And to Jesus Christ that has not the slightest relationship. There are many more such examples I give in my book, «От Моисея до постмодернизма. Движение Идеи» (“From Moses to postmodernism. Movement of idea"), Kiev, 1999.
We can find many
interpretations of the Jesus Christ teachings in the epistles of the Apostles,
especially Paul, and not always correct. I describe
them
in my book and will not repeat
here.
After
the death of the last apostle John begins tercentenary period of anarchy, orgy of interpretations, distinguished in extraordinary riot of fantasy and
borrowing style and substance as rabinistic interpretations of
the Old Testament, ie, the very hypocrisy, which is opposed by Jesus, so the ancient paganism,
in particular, the philosophy of Plato. And even the impact of Kabala is in interpretations of this period. The authority of the interpreter
was determined at this stage only by his ability to
impress his followers. Critical
thinking, aimed to check compliance
with interpretations of the very Teachings, not
observed or very weak.
For example, Barnabas sees in the outstretched hands of Moses during the battle of Israelis with
Amalek (Exodus 17) and in Bronze Dracon built
by Moses in the wilderness (Numbers 21), the prototype of the cross on which
Jesus Christ to be crucified, and thus, a prediction of His coming and
crucifixion. Why? - Because he wants. The main thing is that it impressed his
contemporaries, Christians, and therefore came to us in the surviving fragment
of his "Epistles". He considers the ban Jews to eat pork, as an
indication of the true Christians to avoid contact with not true, who forget
their God when they feel good, and remember only when they are ill. Indeed, so
behave is a dirty trick, and this
is what hints Moses, forbidding Jews to eat pork (fccording Barnabas). And the bishop of Rome
Clement argued that the red dress that Rahab hung in the window of her home in Jericho, as a signal to spies of Israeli commander
Jesus Ben Nun, was the prophesies of the
blood, which must be shed by Jesus Christ. Etc.
In the fashion were interpretation builted on the fact that in
Hebrew each letter corresponds to some
number. Replacing in the text of the Bible
characters in any word, sentence or passage in the numbers, and carrying with
them the mathematical operations that he wants, the interpreter got some new
words (mostly "Jesus") and this proves that in this site of the Old
Testament had predicted His coming. This is child's play with numbers taken
from Talmud and even cabalistic interpretation, in which individual Jews believers
are practiced up to this day, only
with the other, of course, results.
During this period scholastic refinements
on theological topics begin to come in fashion, such as the divine
essence, which in principle can not lead us to the truth and only lead away
from the rational content of Teaching. Here is proof
by Origen ("On the principles") immateriality of Jesus Christ and that God the
Father gave birth to Him before everything
else, ie before creation of the world. First, he ascribes to Solomon that in
his hymn of wisdom he under this same
wisdom is referring to Jesus Christ. Why? Just because Origen want to. Of
course, that Solomon had no hint of Jesus Christ, neither in this nor in
another place. Moreover, about wisdom Solomon wrote
a very, very different. For example, he wrote "In much wisdom is much grief,
and multiplying the knowledge you increaseth sorrow." This, too, should be referred to Jesus Christ? Further Origen hooked on the fact that in this hymn to the wisdom Solomon said that God created Wisdom before all else. For Solomon it was just a poetic device of praise to God for His wisdom in the
creation of the world. In Origen it is transformed into
what he wants to prove, ie that Jesus Christ was created before the creation of
the world.
And in
the seventh chapter of the first book “On the principles” Origen is ascertaining whether the sun,
moon and stars are "principalities,
or must think that they only have authority over
day and night, because of their responsibilities to cover them, but among the
rulers of them, however, does not belong?" This is the direct introduction
into medieval discussions on the topic: how many devils can fit on the end of
the needle.
Another
line along which the "development" interpretation of Bible exercises at this time, it is the
inclusion in it of the elements of a
completely alien to it teachings. The same
Origen, without asking how it can be linked with the teachings of Jesus, or
where he saw even a hint of
anything like that in it, combine with it the Hindu doctrine of reincarnation.
Sometimes the interpreters of this period
include in their interpretation of homegrown arguments about anything, not
having any relation not only to Teaching, but to the
Bible in general. The same Origen in the
first chapter of the second book "On the principle" gives a lengthy
discourse on the matter, which included claims that "Matter has four
qualities: heat, cold, dryness and humidity”. Why only these
four, why not take more: firmness, softness,
volume, weight, and one thing or another what? Unknown. And anyway, what does
all this have to Teaching?
I
omit for brevity, the description of the evolution of interpretations of the
Bible took place thereafter and to modern times, when there is a rational
science, as such, and hermeneutics, which claims to be a rational science, in
particular. Let me just note that such notorious events of this period, as the
Inquisition, indulgences, holy war, etc., were the result of misinterpretation by the Church of Teaching the Bible.
When
appeared rational science, its representatives tried
to interpret the Bible, based on the methods, tested by this science in its other fields. Becouse these interpretations have accumulated since the whole mountain, then examine them in detail in this article are not
advisable. I shall delineat only dotted
the evolution of these interpretations and what they gave in result.
First,
what to do scientific rationalists, turned their eyes toward the Bible, this is proof that there is no God, that
Jesus Christ never existed, and even if He existed, He was an ordinary man and not the Son of God, and that's for sure,
he did not raise from the dead, did not resuscitate up, did not go by sea, the
Jews did not over Red Sea, opened to let them pass, they could not eat manna from heaven,
because there is no manna, etc. Over time it became clear that at least some of
these “proves” are inconsistent. Red
Sea, was found, in a certain
direction and strength of wind can to give way, "manna"
was a certain seed plants, wind-blown and then precipitating in the desert,
etc. Absense of God (as well as His existence) in principle impossible to prove by rational means. And finally, at least some of the
scientists realized that the most important thing in the Bible is its Teaching, which tell people how they
should live, and they began to aply
the methods of rational science to this part of it. It was recognized
that for a proper understanding of fragments of the Bible is important to
consider them not in themselves, but in context. (Example of how to extract
individual passages out of context can lead to misinterpretation, and
accounting context - to the right
understanding, I gave above for the case with "Rachel weeping"). Then
they realized that Teaching should be seen not only in the context of the book, but in
the context of history, because the individual words and even expressions can
change its meaning over the centuries. The success of linguistics, archeology
and related success of history in the last couple of centuries, helped to clarify certain
passages in the Bible. But to a
general correct interpretation of the Teachings of the Bible
hermeneutics brought mankind still very little, if any closer. Evidence of this - the fact that after emergence of hermeneutics
(the science), the number of Christian denominations, as well as trends in
Judaism, with different
treating of Teaching,
not only departed, but, conversely, increased. Moreover, they even add a lot of hermeneutic
schools - trends, each with its
own interpretation of the Bible and have no common language among themselves.
Take for example, only two
such schools from among more or less contemporary, besides united under the
name "structuralism". One of them, ancestor of which is A. J. Greimas, has the
subtitle “oktant
analysis”,
another major figure of which is Claude Levi-Strauss – “paradigmatic analysis”. Structuralism as a
whole comes from the belief that any story (not just the Bible) for all authors
of all time has
the same deep structure. And it is enough that the structure of the narrative
found to get its correct interpretation. But, what this structure is, that is different
for oktant
and paradigmatic structuralists.
Oktant structuralists imagine this
structure as follows:
Object→Giver→Recipient
↓
Assistant→Subject→Opponent
And for a particular story
appearing in it person
can serve in not one, but in 2, 3 strands - the elements of
this structure. Take, for example, how looks like this structure in their interpretation of the
parable of the rich man and Lazarus:
God→luck/paradise→rich
↓
Moses/prophets→rich→his
pleasure
That is, God (giving) wants to bring eternal happiness (object) each
person (the recipient), but the rich man (one of the possible beneficiaries,
but also the entity through which Lazarus can also become beneficiaries) can
not receive this gift, because his lifestyle, which consists in the
pursuit of pleasure (an opponent), prevents him take it. Moses and the prophets
(Assistant), if the rich heed to what they taught, could help him overcome his
thirst for pleasure.
From this example we see
that, yes, some scenes may be more or less fit into this scheme. But first, we
see that the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is not too smooth climbs under
it. The role of the rich man as a subject through which Lazarus comes to
eternal happiness, seems pretty far-fetched. And secondly, what this oktant scheme helps us to discover in the parable, that
would not be obvious without it?
No better case with
paradigmatic structuralism. The latter in any written plot offer to see the structure, which Hegel in his dialectic seen as
the main driving force of development in life. Namely - the two opposites, and
one or another way to resolve the contradictions between them. Just as Hegel
easily found opposite contradictions in life, paradigmal structuralists find
them in the biblical stories. But Hegel and paradigmatic structuralists have one
common weakness. Hegel in abundance shows us what had been in the past
contradictions (thesis and antithesis), and how they were resolved in
synthesis. But he does not give us the recipe, how to determine what kind synthesis we will receive, if it had not yet been
realized. For any contradiction can be resolved quite differently. And if there
is no rule conclusively establish predict what will result, then the
corresponding theory is no more science than
the one with help of which was educated Fonvizin’s ignoramus. And paradigmatic structuralists don’t give recipe how to correctly
understand that resolution of the
conflict, which refers to the authors of the text in the
Bible. They simply indicate they discovered the contradiction (opposition, the
antithesis of the characters, viewpoints, ways of life), sometimes true (there are enough of such in the Bible), and
sometimes seeming to them, and offer their interpretation of the
resolution of this contradiction, which allegedly has view of author. But their interpretation does not follow from their
method. It is simply their subjective opinion, which may be right
and may be wrong, and can be any number range different from one to the other structuralists. This is like komunist
party in Soviet Union determined on the
basis of dialectic its general line, which
is bent as you like depending on who was general secretary of it in that period.
Nevertheless, hermeneutics
as a science, has brought an important, in my view, result. Namely, it was
recognized that the interpretation depends essentially on the preposition, ie,
the idea what is the Bible in general. Well, for example, the vast majority of believers and
theologians believe that all things written in the Bible, comes directly from
God (or His Son Jesus Christ). Ie, either it is written by people from the
words of God (Jesus Christ), or God inspired those who wrote the texts in the
Bible (the chroniclers, prophets, evangelists, apostles), their thoughts and words. And therefore
each
word in the Bible faithfully, and any contradictions that we find in it is, by definition, visible and permit and
be overcome through interpretation. And even if we do not find such an
interpretation, which would overcome any contradiction, it is because that the
divine wisdom is infinite, and the human mind is limited and that someday we
will overcome, but now we must "believe because it is absurd."
Representatives of the science of
hermeneutics are based in most on idea
that
the various texts of the Bible written by people, each of which has sufficient
autonomy, as a thinking subject, even if they are united by common ideology (belief in one God, etc.). And therefore the texts written by
these people do not have to be not inconsistent with one another. Utmost version of this point of view - is that the Bible is simply a
collection of myths, like the myths of ancient
The weakness of each
of the two main existing today preposition is obvious. In the first case, the
assignment of obvious contradictions in the text (some examples I gave above, and more is possible to see in my book) at the expense of God smacks
of heresy - self-slander of God. Secondly,
according to the notions of themselves believers,
the Bible is given to people for them to live on its teaching. And how can one live on the teaching, which contains
inherent contradictions? For example, Paul in many places requires a "not
judge" in the literal sense of the word. Jesus Christ, not speaking about Moses, requires to judge. To judge fairly, objectively, impartially, and so forth,
but - to judge. (I reinforce that by
quote
abundant in my book, so there will
not be repeated). So, to judge all the same
or not to judge?
Finally, who said that all the saints in the Bible authors (and only these
authors) have been divinely inspired, and even in the precise sense that their
every word holy and they are unable to add any wheeze? This made the Holy
Church 300 years after the death of Jesus Christ. However, it did a sample from a large number available at the time of the
Gospels, Epistles, and similar writings, not included in the canon of
Scripture, many of even such esteemed authors as the Apostle Peter. But the
Church itself recognizes that divine inspiration (in the sense indicated above)
ended with the death of the last of the apostles. So those, who decide what to include in the canon and what does not include, were let arbitrarily
respectable, but nonetheless common, not Divinely inspired people and they might be wrong. And that means that they can include in the canon
not divinely inspired authors (and some inspired authors were not included). To
this we must add the repeated warnings of God the Father in the Old Testament
that, besides the true prophets false prophets can be and must guard against
the latter. And, therefore, we must be careful to
use words of all those who claim
to be divinely inspired.
As for the second
preposition, then what's the point to interpret the Bible, if you do not see it
as teaching how to live people. Then, these interpretations may be of interest
except for the writing of theses.
Thus, we see that, despite
the partial success, mainly related to the refutation of some particularly
heinous errors in previous interpretations, hermeneutics has not given up yet
universally recognized by all method of interpreting the Bible. As a
consequence, it is virtually no way assisted in the initial finding of a common
language between members of different denominations of Christianity and even more
so in its present state can not serve as a basis for finding common ground
among religions. And finally, it can not serve in such
a state resolution of the conflict between militant Islamism and the West. But
can there be hermeneutics, which would handle all these tasks? Can there be
science-based interpretation of the Bible, taking into account that science has been studying the objective reality, but in what
respect this reality is the Bible - that in itself is the question? Finally, in
order to find a single reasonable interpretation of Bible, it is necessary that it existed, but recall that many scholars
hold the view that it generally is not and can not be. I contend that such a
hermeneutics is possible, and I built it.
But before we proceed to its presentation,
I must say that this is not the interpretation of all that is in the Bible.
Purely theological questions like, God is one or in three
persons, not subject to rational investigation and interpretation and my
hermeneutics are not considered them. These questions are not important to find a mutual understanding between people of different religions
and faiths in the long run: let them alone believe that
God is one, and others - that He is in three persons. This does not hinder anybody. My hermeneutics
considers only the part of the exercise, which deals with how people must to live, and in particular, to fight or not fight and with whom and
for what fight. These are issues that are
important today for the survival of humanity and to his normal life. And I
argue and show that this part of the Bible can be interpreted rationally
justified, not contradictory, and at the same time, convincing sincere
believers.
In my hermeneutics, which I
used while writing the book "From Moses to postmodernism. Movement of idea" (where the first two
parts give an interpretation of the Old and New Testaments), I proceed from the
assumption that the Bible contains a harmonious and consistent teachings given
by God and Jesus Christ. All other authors in
Bible can be regarded as divinely inspired in terms of their inspiration
by the Holy Spirit, but not in the sense that their every word sacred and not
subject to critical review. Their inspiration does not make them equal to God
on reason. They set out their ears from God or Jesus Christ, interpret it and
develop in measure of their purely human understanding, ie, with the possible errors, as a
result of which appear the above
contradictions. Again, this is so far only a
hypothesis, a prerequisite for further research, rather than its result. The study can confirm this assumption, and to refute
it. The premise does not require proof, the study itself will be its proof (or
refutation), but the argument in favor of such a premise, I, nevertheless, will
bring. It is the history of Christianity, or people who took it and passed
through it. These people led the development of human civilization and not see
other reasons for this, moreover, that the Bible contains, although distorted by interpretation, but, in
general, the true teaching how to live.
Once adopted, this assumption can be used for further interpretation of
the Bible, what I do using
developed by me the general method of substantiation of scientific theories. I
will not explain it, referring willing to sort it out for my articles in the
"Philosophical Investigations" (Философские исследования) and
the site of the International Institute of Philosophy and social problems
(www.philprob.narod.ru). I shall mention only that according requirements of the “general method” a scientific theory must be built in an
ideal axiomatically
(and in practice as close to this ideal), the axioms must satisfy certain
requirements (eg, consistency), and must be bound by certain rules to the
experience. Of course, the teaching given by God in the Bible is not a
scientific theory. Therefore, the method is applied to
it in a modified (adapted) form. Here axioms are not extracted from the
experience and not attached to it. Here they are extracted from the words of God and Jesus
Christ. But the requirement of consistency remains. (Otherwise, it will be very
controversial doctrine and it will not be live). So the first thing we
have to show is that God the Father and Jesus Christ never contradict
themselves and each other. If this is done and
consistent system of axioms is built, it would in principle already established
that hermeneutics, which satisfies the above requirement. Requirement, that using this hermeneutic, we could obtain
unambiguous answers, how we must act in accordance with
the Bible (its teachings) of various life situations. (Of course, this is not
about all possible cases the choice in life, but only those who regard the
Bible teachings. The choice what we get a snack, for example, this field does
not apply). This follows from the property of the axiomatic theory, which consists in the
fact that the axiom system unambiguously identifies all the conclusions of the
theory, as has already been made, and those that can be derived from it
someday. (Incidentally, only axiomatically builted theory has this property). Thus, having, so to speak,
a system of axioms of the Bible, we have a opportunity to receive the output only
related the teachings for any life situation with regard to morality, spirit,
etc. For example, for
one in which the Jews were in the above stories with extermination of the
tribe of Benjamin. Or, more importantly, for situations arising from modern
reality.
We must, of course, take into
account that the system of axioms it is not ready algorithm by which even the students can easily get the correct conclusion. Getting the
conclusions from the axiom system is the same that the formulation and proof of
theorems, ie, it is a creative problem and in most cases quite not trivial. (Suffice it to recall the ongoing century and more
attempts to prove Fermat's theorem). But this is common language, which allows to representatives of different religions and denominations to agree on what is correct (ec. relevant teachings of the Bible) in any one of infinite life
situations related to both the individual and society as a whole.
The first thing that gives
us such a system of axioms, is the possibility to check on compliance with
these axioms all the statements of the authors of Scripture, as well as all
existing interpretations of it today. If they are from the axiom system, then
they are the correct interpretation or development of Teaching. If they are not derived, so much
the more contradict the axioms, then they are the misinterpretation, misconception of authors, no matter how respectable are these authors.
But the task to derive out a consistent system of axioms of the Bible directly from the words of God the Father and Jesus
Christ, too, is not simple. Even in this part of the Bible is quite apparent
contradictions. Especially many of these contradictions is between the
teachings of Moses (ie, the doctrine of God the Father referred to Jews through Moses) and the teachings of Jesus Christ. I have already
given examples of such contradictions in the understanding of love of neighbor
and distant (or enemies), in understanding the meaning of covenant with God,
etc. No less apparent contradiction exists in the inside of each of the teachings (Moses and Jesus Christ). Well, for example, the apparent
contradiction between the numerous sermons of Jesus Christ of love and its
famous "Do not throw pearls before
swine" or "not peace but a sword I brought”. After all pigs in this quote - it is not those with hooves, but
those to love whom Jesus calls in other places. It is apparent contradiction. Similarly, as it is contrary to charity
"not peace but a sword…”.
Some of these apparent
contradictions have already been successfully solved by using methods of
hermeneutics worked it until now, such as simple accounting context, taking
into account the historical context, etc. An example of such methods (context,
in particular), I already gave above. But these techniques is not enough to
remove all visible the contradictions between the teachings of Moses and Jesus
Christ, and within each of them. To resolve the remaining (which, moreover, are
the primary), I use another assumption,
the validity of which previously prove.
I show (in the book "From
Moses ...”) that Teaching is not given in the Bible as a dogma, but evolves in the
course of it. The meaning of evolution is that the Teaching is given portions, each of which corresponds to its
historical moment and of those to whom it is given in this period. The first
portion is given to ancestors,
especially to Abraham. Second – to the Jews in the Sinai by Moses. Third - through Jesus Christ. These portions are parts of
a single teaching, which aims to lead humanity to the "image and likeness of God”. But these parts are different from the parts of a scientific
theory, which is issued to the public fully and without having to worry about whether society is ready for the perception of it. Parts
of Bible teaching are issued with a gap in the century and millennium, and
each of them should work, have an impact on people, not waiting to be
given next. On the contrary, its task is just to prepare people (at least part of them) to ensure that it
could give them the next portion of
the Teaching. Each part must be such that the society, albeit with difficulty,
with effort and with time, but it would be able to accept it. As a result, the
movement of humanity to the "image and likeness," directed by the
Teaching, is like the movement of a sailing ship against the wind. The
direction vector of each portion of the Teaching does not coincide with the
direction of the previous one, but when aggregated they create a vector
directed to the "image and likeness”. To this we must add
that in the intervals between the appearance of portions of the Teaching society evolves not only influenced byTeaching, but also under the influence of will and mind of individuals,
and more specifically, each of the people. This evolution is not necessarily
going in the direction of local or global vectors of Teaching, and can go in the opposite, producing phenomena such as
fascism, etc. Returning to the apparent contradictions between different parts
of the Teaching, I would argue that
they are caused by different orientation of the local vectors of it, and the resolution of these contradictions can be achieved by
taking into account that different trends of the local vectors (Teachings of
Abraham, Moses and Jesus Christ) and the global vector (to achieve an
"image and likeness of
God"). In the book, I examined in detail the orientation of each of the
vectors of Teacing, and what it caused,
and how visible the contradictions it leads, and how they are eliminated in the
light of the global vector. Here I confine myself to a few examples.
First, about the orientation of the local vectors of Teaching. Before God made
a covenant with Abraham, humanity forgot their Creator. It completely fallen
into polytheism (according to the
Bible). In order to guide humanity on the path to the "image and
likeness” God decides to make
a new nation from Abraham, which will
go on the right path and show it to others. But as
mankind, which (according to the Bible) once knew his Creator, but forgot him,
then, first of all, it was necessary to unequivocally attach the newly created people to the One God. This determines the
direction of the local vector Teachings of Abraham, acting on stage before Moses,
or rather before the handing over him to
the Jews second portion of Teaching in Sinai.
At
this point God never said to the Jews and to the Ancestors (Abraham, Jakob, Isaac), in particular, about "Thou shalt
not kill", "Thou shalt not steal", etc. But this does not mean
that God has not yet figured these claims out that He still has not His Teaching
fully, does not know its global vector, to which these claims, of course, belong. Evidence that God and at this stage knows
that a man should not kill, steal, cheat, commit adultery, etc., is the punishment of Cain for killing
Abel. But the covenant with the Forefathers is not
required from them did so
explicitly, verbally, in text form in the contract. At this stage there is only the
demand of the unconditional belief in one God and unconditional obedience to
him, the implementation of its direct guidance (eg, Abraham to sacrifice his
son Isaac). Moreover, for their unwavering devotion to God and obedience to
him, God forgives them violation of the commandments. Abraham is excused for his participation in adultery, when he gives his wife Sarah to Pharaoh, then to Canaan potentate, presenting her off as his sister. Jacob is
exused for deception of his father and brother, and father-in-law. Meanwhile, as the Pharaoh and the Canaanite chieftain for
participation (unconscious) in the same adultery are punished. Thus, there is apparent contradiction between the
teachings of Abraham and the teachings of Moses. According to Moses, not to
cheat, not commit adultery (and complicit in adultery), but according to
Abraham, like, all this can be. The
solution of this contradiction with
help of the local and global vectors is that, of course, it is not good to cheat and commit adultery, but to Abraham, and, in general, before Moses, this is
temporarily allowed in the light, so to speak, the historical situation at that
time and under condition of performance of the
main God requires (principal, again, for those times), namely, without a murmur to perform his immediate guidance.
A similar situation with the
apparent contradiction between the teachings of Moses and Jesus Christ. The
focus of the local vector of the teachings of Moses - the law and justice. The
direction of the vector teachings of Jesus Christ - in spirit and love of neighbor. But this does not mean that giving
the Teaching at Mount Sinai, God
does not know that to approach the
"image and likeness…" is required
and spirituality and love of neighbor. And Jesus Christ "did not come to
abolish the law and the prophets." But it was still too early
to "load" the Jews of the time of Moses by spirituality to the extent as did Jesus Christ, because they have not been able yet to accept it. But
Jesus Christ is not only could but should have been done it, because the hypocrisy twisted the teachings of Moses, remove from him or distorted the beginnings of
spirituality, what it was. Hence the pathos of philippic Jesus
Christ against the Pharisees and the apparent neglect of by Him at law. Hence, the different attitudes of Moses (Moses'
Teachings), and Jesus Christ (Christ's teachings) to "distant" or “enemy”. At the time of Moses, "distant" pagans could not take the teachings of the Jews, who
themselves have not yet entrenched in it. They could only hinder the Jews a
foothold in it. And that because the attitude
to them was to be only as enemies, ie, without any love. But at times of Jesus Christ the Jews
already entrenched in the belief in one God. But the Teaching was distorted, in particular, soul was hardened. Therefore
it was necessary to kindle in them the love of neighbor and expand it to
"distant". In more details I investigate and solve this and other contradictions between the teachings of Moses and
Jesus Christ in my book. I also explain in it how the deviation of
the local vectors of Teachings from the global one impact on the
appearance of apparent contradictions inside these teachings.
This approach, that hermeneutics
can be applied also to interpretation of
the Koran. And then it will become clear why in
the Koran, along with calls for peace, there are calling for the war and which of these calls are valid
today and in what cases.
Literature:
1. Bible. Synodal edition
2. Origen. On
Principles. In the Russian translation Petrova, the publication of Riga, 1936
3. W. W. Klein, C. L. Blomberg, R. L. Hubbard.
Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Word Publishing, 1993
4. Jones-Wake. N. T. Apocryphal books,. Bell edition, 1979
5. A. Voin. «От Моисея до
постмодернизма. Движение
идеи» ("From Moses to
postmodernism. Movement
of Idea»),
Part 1 "From Moses to Jesus” Christ, Phoenix, Kiev, 1999
6. A.Voin. «От Моисея до постмодернизма. Движение идеи» ("From Moses to
postmodernism. Movement of Idea»), Part 2,
"Christianity», www.philprob.narod.ru
7. A. Voin. The problem of absoluteness - the relativity of
scientific cognition
and a general
method of substantiation. Философские исследования (Philosophical Investigations). № 2, 2002. Moscow