FROM PAST TO PRESENT AND BEYOND: THE VENERABLE BEDE, FIGURAL EXEGESIS, AND HISTORICAL THEORY Dissertation Submitted to The College of Arts and Sciences of the UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree Doctor of Philosophy in Theology By Timothy J. Furry UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON Dayton, OH December, 2011 FROM PAST TO PRESENT AND BEYOND: THE VENERABLE BEDE, FIGURAL EXEGESIS, AND HISTORICAL THEORY Name: Furry, Timothy J. APPROVED BY: ____________________________ John A. Inglis, Ph.D. Faculty Adviser Professor of Philosophy, University of Dayton ____________________________ William L. Portier, Ph.D. Faculty Reader Mary Ann Spearin Professor of Catholic Theology, University of Dayton ____________________________ Dennis M. Doyle Ph.D. Faculty Reader Professor of Theology, University of Dayton ____________________________ Silviu N. Bunta, Ph.D. Faculty Reader Assistant Professor of Theology, University of Dayton ____________________________ Ephraim L. Radner, Ph.D. Outside Reader Professor of Historical Theology, Wycliffe College, University of Toronto ii © Copyright by Timothy J. Furry All Rights Reserved 2011 iii ABSTRACT FROM PAST TO PRESENT AND BEYOND: THE VENERABLE BEDE, FIGURAL EXEGESIS, AND HISTORICAL THEORY Name: Furry, Timothy J. University of Dayton Adviser: Dr. John A. Inglis The importance of historical inquiry in all disciplines in the humanities has dramatically increased over the past century. From the philosophy of language to sociology and anthropology, the historical constitution of knowledge and human action continues to entrench itself in our ways of thinking. While shared values and beliefs constitute the practice of history, each use of history is structured by how it represents its subject matter. Each historical work presents its subject matter within a framework and/or context that cannot be reduced to mere empirical claims. Though logically dependent on empirical claims, historical representation contains non‐empirical content. If history cannot ground itself on solely on empirical claims, the possibility of retrieving ancient Christian figural or allegorical modes of reading Scripture presents itself in a new light and can be understood to be historical itself, despite critics who often think it a/unhistorical. iv This work explores the relationship of the exegetical and historical works of the Venerable Bede to show how conceptions of the past determine the writing of history. It argues that while Bede undoubtedly had a theological conception of the past, his lack of attention to important issues in philosophy and exegesis resulted in ambiguity and problematic readings of the literal sense of Genesis 1 that someone like Augustine was able to avoid. The contemporary lesson to be learned from Bede is that trenchant philosophical and theological issues matter in the writing of history, since they are part of the inevitable representational structure of history. More specifically, Bede is treated, not as object in the past, but as an historian worthy of a place at the table alongside contemporary historians, despite the issues previously mentioned in his work. In fact, despite his own separation of exegesis and history, it is shown that Bede did, just like his contemporary interpreters, use representation in his historical writings and that figural exegesis and history writing have more in common than usually thought. v For Corrie vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Other than myself, of course, this book can be blamed on many people. Probably most important, in terms of its genesis, was Robert Orsi. Professor Orsi came for a graduate seminar at the University of Dayton where we discussed his fascinating reflections in Between Heaven and Earth.1 At the time, I was wrestling with questions between scholarly descriptions of religious practices and how those practicing them would self describe.2 The conversation turned to the complexities in descriptions in history and anthropology, and with utmost seriousness and a hint of cynicism I asked “What is history?” Many in the room furrowed their eyebrows at me indicating misunderstanding, disapproval, confusion, or a combination thereof. Not even slightly phased by my query, Orsi responded: “Great question.” That exchange resulted in several brief conversations with Bob during seminar breaks where he introduced me to contemporary historical theory, specifically Constantin Fasolt and Frank Ankersmit. He only somewhat jokingly admonished me not to tell anyone that he gave me these names 1 Robert Orsi, Between Heaven and Earth: Religious Worlds People Make and the Scholars Who Study Them (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006). 2 Thanks to Orsi’s recommendation of Constantin Fasolt, I would later realize that I am actually wrestling with the difference in grammar or logic between first and third person statements. Ludwig Wittgenstein summarizes it nicely: "One can mistrust one's own senses, but not one's own belief. If there were a verb meaning 'to believe falsely,' it would not have any significant first person present indicative." Philosophical Investigations (Oxford: Blackwell, 1963), 190. vii to study. At the time, I did not understand why, but I heeded the advice from such an accomplished scholar and thinker. The proverbial cat is now out of the bag. While I doubt he will ever read this, please accept my sincere apologies Professor Orsi. What follows in my argument owes an immense debt to the thinkers Orsi recommended. There are many others to whom I owe a debt as well; while perhaps painfully obvious, my dissertation committee who trusted me enough to make the subsequent argument deserve praise: William Portier, Dennis Doyle, Silviu Bunta, Ephraim Radner, and John Inglis. They have been extremely gracious and generous. I want to especially thank John and Ephraim. As my director, John worked with me constantly, offered critical remarks, and encouraged my work every step of the way. He is also the reason Brill is interested in this as a book, and my argument would be much worse if it were not for him. Ephraim was involved more than any outside reader probably would like to be or needs to be, but his help was invaluable. I think Ephraim’s work is some of the most important theology being done in North America right now. He deserves more credit and a wider readership than he currently enjoys. Moreover, I am forever grateful for the advice in other matters even more important than this work that Ephraim has provided me. Frank Ankersmit, whose work also deserves a wider audience, read parts of this manuscript and offered wonderful feedback. His consistent and insightful correspondence with a strange American graduate student who emailed him out of the blue one day is a testament to his character and love of teaching and scholarship. Ethan Smith and Wes Arblaster also functioned as critical sounding boards as I worked through viii my argument. Their comments and feedback has made this book better, but more importantly their friendship has helped sustain me through my years at Dayton. Finally, and most crucially, I thank my family. My parents instilled in me an inquisitive mind that should not shirk hard questions and have been an unfailing support and encouragement. My children, Ezekiel and Samuel, without conscious knowledge of doing so, made sacrifices for me as well. There were many times I could have been playing or tending to them that I was not because of this book—not to mention the times when I was “with” them, though absent in mind thinking about this project. Most of all, thanks to my wife, Corrie. To allow me to reach this point, she has endured three moves (two within a couple weeks of each other) and more uncertainty than she likely expected. She even ended up teaching junior high, which was not in her plans. Fortunately, she still teaches them happily and voluntarily. Her ability to adapt and be open to God’s movement and work in her life inspires me. It demonstrates the openness we humans should have before God’s providential work in history. Only she knows what it could possibly mean for this work to be dedicated to her. ‐‐T.J.F. Memorial of St. Benedict Anno Domini Nostri Iesu Christi ix TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..iv DEDICATION………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………..vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………………………..…………………….vii LIST OF FIGURES …………………………………………………………………………………………..……………...xii INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..….1 1. Brief Summary of Bede’s Life ………………………………………………………………….………8 2. Terminological Clarification……………………………………………………………….............11 3. Argument Summary………………………………………………………………………………………16 I. (RE)FRAMING HISTORY: A CONTEMPORARY HISTORIOGRAPHY OF BEDE’S HISTORIA…………………..……………………………………................21 1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………..…………………..………21 2. Setting the Stage: Carolus Plummer’s 1896 Edition of the Historia …………………………………………………………………………………..………………..……..22 3. Scholarship on Bede’s Historia in the First Half of the 20th Century…………………………………………………………………………………………………….29 4. Scholarship on Bede’s Historia in the Second Half of the 20th Century…………………………………………………………………………………………………….50 5. Conclusion………………………………………………………….............................................70 II. CAN HISTORY BE FIGURAL? A STUDY OF BEDE’S ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY AND DE TEMPLO…………………..….…………………………………….……74 1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..………..74 2. Bede’s Historia and De Templo………………………………………………………………….….79 3. Bede’s Use of Scripture