Is history “just one damned thing after another” per the view the historian Arnold Toynbee criticises? Or does one take the view that both philosophers and mystics tend to be drawn to that everything that is true about the past (and future) – regardless of the tensed language - is in some sense true at all times, all at once? After all, for a statement to be true there have to be truth conditions that are met, and the facts about history must ‘exist’ in a way to support that proposition. And what, in either view, is the relation between the events that seem to occur within time, to these timeless truths? Is how and when truths ‘unfold’ something relevant to those truths themselves?
These are questions that pose themselves prominently in the
reading of Jubilees, through the juxtaposition of historic events and eternally
binding law; with an event (the Sinaitic revelation) that both is narrated as
happening at a particular point in time and yet connects with the “Heavenly
Tablets” that stands outside of that frame.
As an example of rewritten scripture, Jubilees (re)covers many of the
events of Genesis and Exodus – stories that occur both in time and at a time prior
to the Sinaitic Law that is (seemingly) binding a parte post. Yet the setting of the book is the Lord
and Moses conversing on Mount Sinai, scribing (and not inventing) from
the Angel of the Presence’s dictation of the Heavenly Tablets.
It says (1:27) “Dictate to Moses from the beginning
of the creation until the time when my temple is built among them throughout
the ages of eternity”. Here the
ages of eternity modifies beginnings and ends into logical and not temporal
terms. To use Hele Kvanvig’s
differentiation, there is a distinction between the stories from Genesis and
Exodus (which occurs in time) and the narration about Moses (which put those
stories in a timeless frame). This
narration provides an authority larger than the Torah (the “first law”) given in
the story – detailing a concept and not just an event.
This is put in further relief through how it backdates
later law and interpretation into the earlier events. First, however, certain readings could full
squarely within the bracket of interpretation, no different than the Rabbinic
Oral Law (a conclusion Martinez, quoted by Vanderkam comes to). For example, the litigation and exoneration of
one ancestor’s misdeeds (e.g. how Jubilees shows Judah’s transgression with
Tamar was not adulterous) may be no different to how the Rabbis try to present
David as not really sinning with Batsheva.
Filling in gaps of the story are also in the same vein as midrashic
exegesis: such as the relation (in Jubilees, but not Genesis) between Abraham
and Jacob during their joint 15 years alive.
Both may be “a pious effort to convey what is taken to be the essence of
earlier traditions” or VanderKam’s assertion that “this is not a replacement
but a guide”
Yet certain interpretations and laws are done in such a way
not just to resolve textual difficulties but to buttress a deterministic (and
timeless) approach to creation. The laws
of Shabbat are given in the account of creation itself to “keep sabbath with
him in heaven”. This is not G-d resting,
nor a universalistic message of creation, but one designed to sanctify the Jewish
people from amongst the nations and given to them alone. And it is not a time-bound law, or one
derivable from revelation alone, but “He made his commands rise as a fine
fragrance which is acceptable in his presence for all times”. This is less revelation than it is Natural
Law, or a Spinozistic mode of G-d. Equally, the priesthood is just a part of
the fabric of creation – Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Levi are all priests
who officiate at alters. This is less
“prefiguring” the future and more “re-enacting” a timeless present.
Where time does come in is in progressive revelation of this
eternal truth. VanderKam: “according to
Jubilees the heroes of Genesis received legal revelations (and other kinds as
well) and passed them down through the generations in permanent form. They knew more and more of the law through
the generations but not all of it”. They may not empirically have known all the
truth in history, but when they did it was no less binding; and no time in
which the ancestors lived “law free” -as the law is an expression of reality. Though there is “progressive revelation”; nothing
‘new’ was introduced in any point history but to paraphrase: “All roads lead to
Jerusalem” and it ever was thus.
Where then does this leave the Sinaitic revelation? According to Najman “only at Sinai does the
entire people become obliged to obey the Law.
Thus Sinai remains unique. Indeed
through its repeated emphasis on pre-Sinaitic revelation Jubilees does
now downplay the authority of Sinai”. This
is true at the narrative level – and thus the author uses Sinai to buttress the
authority of Jubilees. It – and its metaphor
of scribing from a Heavenly Torah – is the ultimate symbol for the escape from
temporal to eternal truth. But if there
is a story and a narrative, there is also a meta narrative. That a later writing taps into the same
metaphor supplants the event of Sinai and its concrete first law; in
favour of the eternal truth it now tells – with a revelation that goes beyond
it.
No comments:
Post a Comment