WIFE AND SISTER THROUGH THE AGES - Blessed Edmund Rice ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

noSEMEIAthat he can successfully ignore an event that is described, Abram'sconversation with the king.Philo is also guided by his understanding of the relationship of thepresent text (or the events it narrates) to the larger scope of texts of whichit is a part. The Abraham narrative, with the other ancestral stories, arerelated to the legal material coming later as anticipation and exemplification,a relationship that precludes the negative depiction of Abram orSarai in this episode.The second form of control lies in the realistic conventions. Addeddetails must have verisimilitude as possible elements of the event beingdescribed. God's deliverance of Sarai from the king's power is accomplishedthrough "all manner of scarce curable plagues" (Philo: 51), ratherthan the force majeur of a host of angels, in part because of the realisticconvention governing interpretation. The reader must be able to assimilateadditional details on the level of everyday occurrences.The third control resides in the interests of the interpretive communitythat received Philo's work. Philo addressed a particular community ofAlexandrian Jews, a community with particular needs and interests, aneed for moral exhortation and an interest in its own identity, to judge byPhilo's statements. The interest of the community of which Philo was apart shaped his interpretation. Had he failed to incorporate their interests,his interpretation would have been irrelevant. As it is, Philo's interpretationtakes its impetus and its seriousness from the life of his community.This discussion does not exhaust by any means the range of forcesthat influence Philo's interpretation. Additional complexity is hinted at bythe possibility of the interaction of midrashic conventions in Philo'srealistic reading. Other factors doubtless enter in.AUGUSTINE'S LITERAL INTERPRETATIONAugustine's interpretation of the story of Abram and Sarai in Egyptappears in a polemical interchange with the Manichaean Faustus. To alarge extent Faustus sets the terms of the debate and, although we haveonly Augustine's representations of Faustus's positions, it is clear thatFaustus cited the immoralities of Abram and the other ancestors of theJews to discredit the Old Testament. Indeed, Faustus attempted to presentAugustine a conundrum which would force him to abandon the authorityof the Old Testament. Faustus was prepared to grant that the biblicalauthors had libelled Abraham. There were, he allowed, no distressing actsto explain, no sale of Sarai to Pharaoh or Abimelech for Abram's gain. Thebiblical stories were fabrications (Augustine, 1909: 272). If Augustineaccepted this generous proposal, he would not be forced to defend the
ROBINSON: WIFE AND SISTER THROUGH THE AGES 111questionable honor of Israel's ancestors. But, of course, the price would behigh. The Old Testament narratives would become a tissue of lies.Faustus's carefully poisoned bait was intended to induce Augustine toabandon the prevailing realistic conventions of reading, according towhich the biblical narratives were regarded as transparent windows onthe events they described. In place of interpreting the events themselves,as reliably depicted in the narrative, Faustus suggested interpreting theauthors' motives or intentions. However one characterized the authors'motives, as reliable or libelous, motives as an object of interpretation wereless secure than transparent realistic narration. Faustus could hardly lose.Augustine, however, declined the gambit. He refused to accept theimposition of the author between text and event as an intermediate objectof interpretation. He implicitly affirmed the realistic convention of readingthe text and, in the process, incurred the responsibility for defendingthe honor of Abram and Sarai. If their actions could not be defended, theauthority of the Old Testament would be undermined.In defending Sarai and Abram against Faustus's charges of immorality,especially Abram against the charge that he profited at the expense ofhis wife's chastity, Augustine was aided by the conventions of realisticreading, conventions shared by Faustus once his suggestion to interposethe author between narrative and event collapsed. That is, both Augustineand Faustus in following realistic reading practice tacitly agree to interpretthe event to which the narrative refers. The possibility of meaningfuldiscussion between Augustine and Faustus hangs on their sharing thisconvention and the difference between them turns on how the conventionis to be applied. More precisely, it turns on how the obscure areas of thetext are to be illuminated and, still more specifically, on the motives to beimputed to the characters. The text, we will remember, conveniently failsto make anyone's motives explicit.Faustus is less reticent in ascribing motives. Abram acted "fromavarice and greed ... in sacrilegious profanation of his marriage"(Augustine, 1909: 273). Not once but on several occasions. The conclusionseems fully justified by the narrative if, as in common law, motive is to bededuced from the effect of actions. Abram emerges wealthy from bothepisodes.Augustine's task is more difficult. Because of the polemical situation,Augustine cannot simply ignore interchanges in the biblical account, asPhilo was able to do. Faustus would throw the omissions up toAugustine. Augustine must find plausible explanations for Abram'sactions that do not impute fault to him. The argument is quite involved.Faustus had charged that Abram acted from greed. Augustine countersthis charge by downplaying the part of the biblical account which
Page 1 and 2: WIFE AND SISTER THROUGH THE AGES:TE
Page 3 and 4: ROBINSON: WIFE AND SISTER THROUGH T
Page 7: ROBINSON: WIFE AND SISTER THROUGH T
Page 26 and 27: 128 SEMEIABonner, Gerald1963 St Aug

WIFE AND SISTER THROUGH THE AGES - Blessed Edmund Rice ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?