Telegraph: Christians have had it all wrong for centuries!

According to religious editor, No Christians took Bible as history for 250 years after the apostles died.

On 23 August 2017 the Telegraph published a story,

“‘Don’t take the Bible literally’ says scholar who brought to light earliest Latin analysis of the Gospels”

The occasion of this story was the imminent publication, for the first time in English, of a previously lost work by the fourth-century bishop, Fortunatianus of Aquileia, consisting of a commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew as well as on parts of the Gospels According to Luke and John. I reproduce here the opening four paragraphs of the Telegraph’s article:—

The earliest Latin interpretation of the Gospels has been brought to light by a British academic – and it suggests that readers should not take the Bible literally.

Lost for 1,500 years, the fourth-century commentary by African-born Italian bishop Fortunatianus of Aquileia interprets the Gospels as a series of allegories instead of a literal history.

Dr Hugh Houghton, of the University of Birmingham, who translated the work, said it was an approach which modern Christians could learn from.

The find adds weight to the idea that many early biblical scholars did not see the Bible as a history, but instead a series of coded messages which represented key elements of Christianity, he said.

Fortunatianus was bishop of Aquileia circa 343—355 A.D., according to Wikipedia[1].

Unfortunately the Telegraph’s article was a catalogue of inaccurate and/or deceptive statements. Regardless of what Dr Hugh Houghton actually believes on the matter, the writer of the article, the Telegraph’s religious editor Olivia Rudgard, has quoted him as if — and her article is clearly designed to imply that — we cannot and should not read the Bible as historically factual, and that Christians have been doing so in error for centuries (if not for 1½ millennia).

Olivia Rudgard’s contempt for evangelical Christians is obvious, as we shall see presently. She is, of course, entitled to this contempt. It does seem, however, that, whilst making racist comments about a footballer will not be tolerated (rightly so), and saying that Britain has a “problem” with a certain section of society carries serious repercussions; yet say what you like about Christians, we are fair game.

So then. Where do we even start with this article?

1. The ‘allegorical’ vs. the ‘literal’ way of reading is a false dichotomy

“Lost for 1,500 years, the fourth-century commentary by African-born Italian bishop Fortunatianus of Aquileia interprets the Gospels as a series of allegories instead of a literal history. […]

“‘But for people teaching the Bible in the fourth century, it’s not the literal meaning which is important, it’s how it’s read allegorically,’ [said Dr Hugh Houghton].”

I would suggest that Dr Houghton’s statement above (i.e., the second paragraph), as it stands, is an accurate one.

As presented in this article, however, his statement appears to line up the literal and the allegorical approaches to the Bible as fighters in opposing corners of the ring, as arch enemies. Either you read the Bible literally, “as history”; or you read it allegorically, “as non-historical.” It’s either one or the other.

What Olivia Rudgard doesn’t tell you, is that that isn’t how fourth-century theologians viewed the Bible. They viewed it as historical and allegorical.

How is this so? For theologians of the time, one of the keys to explaining the Bible is to uncover its allegorical meaning — they also call this its spiritual meaning.

So in a narrative account, such as the Gospels, ‘what happened’ was just the surface meaning of the text. Discerning the surface meaning of a text was just the most basic first step in understanding God’s real intention therein.

The real task of interpreting a passage of Scripture consisted in discerning its spiritual signification. “What mystery about the nature of Christ and his Work is concealed in this historical event?”

This approach of reading a passage of Scripture at multiple levels was regularly practised by the early Christian theologians. The great 3rd-century theologian Origen, however, went farther and actually codified three ‘levels of interpretation’ of any Bible passage. These were:—

• The ‘bodily’ (or ‘somatic’) sense — “What is the obvious meaning of this text?”
• The ‘soulish’ (or ‘psychic’) sense — “What does this text teach Christians about how to live?”
• The ‘spiritual’ sense — “What mystery about Christ is revealed in this text?”

As a very rough approximation, we might map these three levels of interpretation onto more modern-day terms as follows:—

• ‘Bodily’ sense = the ‘literal’ sense;
• ‘Soulish’ sense = the ‘ethical’ sense;
• ‘Spiritual’ sense = the ‘allegorical’ sense.

This is a huge topic, and I won’t distract the reader’s attention farther with it here (if you want to know more see here).

But my point is simply this: here is, For the early Christians theologians any passage of Scripture can legitimately be read in the ‘literal’ sense, in the ‘ethical’ sense, and in the ‘allegorical’ sense all at the same time.

There is therefore no competition between the ‘literal’ and the ‘allegorical’ meaning of a text: any text of Scripture can and will bear a ‘literal’, an ‘ethical’ and an ‘allegorical’ sense all at once.

So the false dichotomy which Olivia Rudgard sets up in her article, between the ‘literal’ and the ‘allegorical’ reading of the passage, is a dichotomy that the Christian theologians of the second, third and fourth centuries simply wouldn’t have recognized.

2. This text is miles away from being the earliest Christian writing outside the Bible

Look carefully at the following statements in Olivia Rudgard’s article:—

The headline:

‘Don’t take the Bible literally’ says scholar who brought to light earliest Latin analysis of the Gospels

The opening paragraph:

The earliest Latin interpretation of the Gospels has been brought to light by a British academic – and it suggests that readers should not take the Bible literally.

Farther down:

Dr Houghton said the book was an “extraordinary find”. It predates better-known writings by famous scholars including St Jerome, St Ambrose and St Augustine.

Do you see what all of these statements are doing?

They are attempting to suck you into a Dan Brown-style conspiracy theory by making you believe — with carefully-constructed wording — that this text is somehow earlier than any other surviving Christian writing outside the New Testament. Olivia Rudgard is, in other words, making this document ‘explosive.’

Except that it isn’t explosive, and it isn’t anywhere near to being our earliest Christian writing outside the New Testament.

Sorry, conspiracy theorists, but this document is not about to blow up the Christian faith.

I don’t think the text of Fortunatianus is even the “earliest Latin analysis of the Gospels,” as claimed in the headline.

Our first major Christian theologian to write in Latin was the North African presbyter Tertullian (c. 155 — c. 240 A.D.). Tertullian was a prolific writer. One of his longest works, ‘Against Marcion,’ is a five-volume work written to counter the heresy of Marcion which arose in the middle of the 2nd century A.D.

Since the heretic Marcion refused to recognize any of the four Gospels as authentic except for that According to Luke, Book IV of Tertullian’s work comprises a sentence-by-sentence decomposition of the Gospel According to Luke, in which he carefully shows — almost from every line — that Marcion’s views of God and Christ are untenable.

Book IV of Tertullian’s ‘Against Marcion’ is effectively, then, a “Latin analysis of the Gospels,” one hundred years earlier than the text of Fortunatianus.

I can only assume, therefore, that Olivia Rudgard claims for Fortunatianus the title of “earliest Latin analysis of the Gospels,” based on some hair-splittingly precise definition of ‘earliest’, ‘Latin’ and ‘analysis’ as held by nobody outside her office.

Not only so, but let me list for you some of the Christian writers of whom substantial writings survive, either in Latin or in Greek, from before the century of Fortunatianus:—

• Clement, bishop of Rome (died c. 100 A.D.) — we have one letter of his to the church in Corinth.[2] Wrote in Greek.
• Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (died c. 107 A.D.) — we have seven letters of his addressed to various churches and to Polycarp.[3] Wrote in Greek.
• Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna (died c. 155 A.D.) — we have one letter of his to the church in Philippi.[4] Wrote in Greek.
• ‘Letter of Barnabas’, a letter by an unknown author, probably written between 100 and 130 A.D.[5] — Written in Greek.
• ‘Mathetes’, an unknown writer who wrote a letter to one ‘Diognetus’ 130 A.D.[6] Wrote in Greek.
• ‘Didache’, a writing by an unknown author, generally dated to either the 1st or 2nd century A.D.[7] Written in Greek.
• Justin Martyr, theologian (died c. 165 A.D.) — we have three major surviving writings of his.[8] Wrote in Greek.
• Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (died 202 A.D.)[9] — we have a five-volume work of his, ‘Against Heresies,’ as well as a shorter work, ‘Proof of the Apostolic Preaching.’ — Wrote in Greek, but his ‘Against Heresies’ only survives completely in a Latin translation.
• Clement (c. 150 — c. 215 A.D.), bishop of Alexandria.[10] Wrote in Greek.
• Tertullian (c. 155 — c. 240 A.D.), North African presbyter and theologian.[11] Wrote in Latin.
• Cyprian (c. 200 — 258 A.D.), bishop of Carthage.[12] Wrote in Latin.

We’ve only got up to about 250 A.D., but hopefully you get the idea by now. Contrary to what is popularly assumed (and milked for all its worth by people like Dan Brown and Olivia Rudgard), we actually have no shortage of Christian writers from the end of the New Testament until 300 A.D.

Unearthing a text like the text of Fortunatianus is not, therefore, suddenly going to re-shape how we think the early Christians viewed the Bible. Sorry.

3. The earlier Christian writers did treat the Gospels as history

You may be asking yourself, “Did any of these earlier writers comment upon the Bible?”

Of course they did!

And when they comment on the Gospels, these earlier writers take it for granted that what they are reading is historical. They believe the events in the Gospels happened.

One example will suffice to demonstrate this:—

“And that Christ would act so when he became man was foretold [in the book of Genesis]. […] He ministered to the will of the Father, yet nevertheless is God, in that he is the first-begotten of all creatures. For when he [Christ] became man, as I previously remarked, the devil came to him—i.e., that power which is called the serpent and Satan—tempting him, and striving to effect his downfall by asking him to worship him. But he destroyed and overthrew the devil, having proved him to be wicked, in that he asked to be worshipped as God, contrary to Scripture. [The devil] is an apostate from the will of God. For [Christ] answers him, ‘It is written, “You shall worship the Lord thy God, and shall serve him only.”’ Then, overcome and convicted, the devil departed at that time.”
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 125[13]

Justin Martyr is speaking in this passage with Trypho, a Jew. He is trying to show Trypho that Jesus Christ, when he was on earth, fulfilled everything that had been predicted about him in the Old Testament. The ‘Dialogue with Trypho’ was written around 160 A.D.[14]

Notice what he says about the temptation of Jesus by the devil in the wilderness, an event recorded in the Gospel According to Matthew, 4:1-11. He clearly takes the events recorded in Matthew as having happened. He even quotes part of Christ’s answer from Matthew 4:10. This is not somebody reading the Gospels as ‘allegories’ (in the sense of ‘non-historical’).

And the other Christian theologians of the second and third centuries do the same thing: they take it for granted that what they are reading is history.

4. Reading the Bible ‘literally’ ≠ not interpreting it

Read again this section from Olivia Rudgard’s article:—

[Dr Houghton] said that the Bible had to be “understood in the context that the authors were working in.”

The approach differs from the trend of biblical literalism adopted by modern evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, which interprets the Bible as the literal word of God which is not open to interpretation.

This has been the basis for beliefs such as the idea that the earth is 6,000 years old and that it was created in seven days.

The contempt which Olivia Rudgard feels toward evangelical Christians is very obvious from the preceding three paragraphs.

Notice,

(a) Those who consider the Bible the ‘literal’ word of God are “fundamentalists.”

And — as everybody knows — a fundamentalist is somebody who belongs in the 13th century and is probably going to commit some religiously-motivated act of terrorism at any given moment. Oh come on!

(b) Those who consider the Bible to be the ‘literal’ word of God also consider it “not open to interpretation.”

This is a bad case (Exhibit A) of mixing concepts.

Evangelical Christians do consider the Bible to be ‘literally’ the word of God.

That does not mean, however, that we treat every passage of Scripture ‘literally.’ Reader, can you seriously believe that there are people — even Christians! — who would treat the following as literal?

“For you shall go out in joy
and be led forth in peace;
the mountains and the hills before you
shall break forth into singing,
and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.”
(Isaiah 55:12)

Clearly the above is metaphorical language, and Christians therefore treat it as metaphorical language.

In fact, we do not believe the Bible is “not open to interpretation.”

Every Sunday sermon in an evangelical church is an act of interpretation. The speaker is interpreting the passage for the hearers; the hearers are interpreting the passage as they hear it explained.

All of this is much along the lines of the ‘three levels of interpretation’ we mentioned earlier. It happens Sunday after Sunday in churches in Europe, the U.S., Africa, the world over.

I would suggest, in fact, that it is those who claim we don’t interpret the Bible who are the real non-interpreters.

We, after all, are wrestling with each text, trying to take it in the sense in which its author intended it.

It seems to be those who denigrate us who are in fact not interpreting — not bothering to read, but simply assuming that every passage in the Bible is ‘non-historical’!

(c) What has a commentary on the Gospels got to do with Genesis chapter 1?

Another bad case (Exhibit B) of mixing concepts.

“This has been the basis for beliefs such as the idea that the earth is 6,000 years old and that it was created in seven days.”

Thank you, Olivia Rudgard, for your blithe observation on young-earth creationism.

Your comment, however, has got absolutely nothing — nada, zilch — to do with a fourth-century commentary on the Gospels.

After all, any given person in the street could subscribe to any of the four following points of view:

1. The Gospels are historical accounts AND Genesis chapter 1 is a literal account of creation.
2. The Gospels are fictitious accounts BUT Genesis chapter 1 is a literal account of creation.
3. The Gospels are historical accounts BUT Genesis chapter 1 is not a literal account of creation.
4. The Gospels are fictitious accounts AND Genesis chapter 1 is not a literal account of creation.

After all, the appearance of a fourth-century ‘allegorical’ commentary on the Gospels may possibly influence your view on the historicity of the Gospels.

It really has no bearing whatsoever, though, on whether you view Genesis chapter 1 as a literal or non-literal account of creation. The ‘literalness’ of Genesis chapter 1 is an entirely different question, requiring an entirely different set of criteria, to the ‘literalness’ of the Gospels.

There is really therefore no reason for Olivia Rudgard to make this facile point about young-earth creationism — other than, quite obviously, it’s a favourite ‘axe’ in need of grinding.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Is this the quality of journalism we can now expect from the Telegraph?

Before I finish, however, let me leave you with one more observation which — if nothing else has — will convince you of the quality or otherwise of this particular article in the Telegraph.

5. Do you think these three statements are all possible?

I put before you now, side by side, three direct statements made in this article. Consider, O reader, whether you think all three of these are possible:—

(1)

Lost for 1,500 years, the fourth-century commentary by African-born Italian bishop Fortunatianus of Aquileia interprets the Gospels as a series of allegories instead of a literal history.

(2)

It had been hidden for 1,500 years within an anonymous manuscript in Cologne Cathedral Library, until it was digitised by the University of Salzburg in 2012, but lay untranslated until Dr Houghton came across it.

(3)

The work is thought to have been copied out by a scholar in around 800, more than 400 years after the original was written.

Q.E.D.

 

---

Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

 

---

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bishops_and_patriarchs_of_Aquileia#Bishops_of_Aquileia.2C_c._50.E2.80.93355

[2] http://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1-300/clement-of-rome-11629592.html; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_I#Epistle_of_Clement

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarp

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_Barnabas

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_Diognetus

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Martyr

[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus

[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Alexandria

[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian

[12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprian

[13] Taken from the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, found online at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.i.html. I have slightly adapted the text into more modern English.

[14] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_with_Trypho#Dating