Choosing Between Truths
I care about truth. Twist the epistemological argument every which way and slander postmoderns as you will, but pursuing truth does matter to me. But in the myriad of options for interpreting the Bible, sometimes it is hard to claim one truth over another. It is difficult to know which truth I want to cling to – which holds the most meaning for me.
Before you get too weirded out let me explain why this is currently bugging me. I was considering the story of Josiah rediscovering the book of the law as recorded in 2 Kings 22. Not exactly a story I grew up hearing often (no animals so therefore not an appropriate children's Bible story apparently). But one that resonates with powerful meaning – depending on how you choose to interpret it.
The few times I heard this story mentioned in the literalist/inerrantist churches I attended, the truth in the story rested on it being historically factual. As in everything in it actually happened exactly as written in scripture. The King miraculously found the lost books of the law, was convicted by the nation's lack of regard for God, and turned Judah back to worship of the one God. The moral of the story being to always immerse oneself in scriptures lest one fall away from true worship. Josiah was a great hero of the faith, and we too should be sure to never forget our daily quiet time of reading the Bible.
Then there's the source criticism interpretation. Scholars suggest that Shaphan and Hilkiah, representatives of two powerful families in Judah at the time, actually forged the supposed long lost document. Their agenda was to reform the religious practices of Judah, centralize the worship in Jerusalem as a way of unifying the Judean and Israelite people in the wake of the destruction of the Northern Kingdom by the Assyrians a century prior, and also to limit the power of the king by making him subject to the Deuteronomic Law. The truth lies in the representation of the communal religious story, as well as in a historical accounting that meshes with other historical knowledge of that period. It makes sense – helping to explain the difference between the Levitical and Deuteronmic law as well as the strong emphasis on social justice in Deuteronomy. There is not so much a moral of the story here as a solving a puzzle feeling.
Finally (for my purposes at least) there is the feminist interpretation. Instead of dwelling on the power plays of influential families in Judah, or on the heroic acts of a King, this interpretation focuses on Huldah. A lost gem of scripture she was the prophetess who interpreted the books of law to Josiah and delivered the word of the Lord to him. Amongst all in Judah, she was the only one faithful enough to the mandates of God to continue in the study of and devotion to scripture. And she's a woman. Take that all you complementarians – here's the prime example of women in the Bible not only preaching and teaching men (the King and high Priest at that!), but doing so in a major way. She's more than a hero, she's a symbol of hope for all us women seeking to break free of the church's silencing and oppression of our sex. Historically true because it has to be in order for the precedent setting to work. But also true in the message of hope it conveys to women.
This is where gets messy. I see the truth in all three interpretations (and I am sure more exist as well). I don't automatically assume that the Bible just couldn't be actually representing historical facts. But neither do I dogmatically insist that such is always the case. The story is true whether that truth rests in its historicity or in its power as a cultural narrative. I wouldn't really care except that I want to claim Huldah's story and point to her as an historical precedent for women's leadership in the church. I don't want her to just be a manipulated (or manipulative) pawn in some ancient power play – I want her to be genuine. I want this interpretation to work.
And so I wrestle with truths. Amongst equally valid options do I simply choose the story that makes the most sense in my worldview? Or do I sacrifice resonating meaning for scholarship or theological camps?
Truth in the end is all about choice.
But more importantly – faith.
julieclawson(at)gmail(dot)com 
"Amongst equally valid options do I simply choose the story that makes the most sense in my worldview? Or do I sacrifice resonating meaning for scholarship or theological camps?"
Great questions Julie! I recently came across that same 2Kings/Deuteronomy issue in reading Kenton Sparks book (God's Word in Human Words). I think the crux is just what you raise…how do we make sense of valid critical scholarship, and how to we appropriate it within our worldview?
Good, thoughtful post. If you haven't already read it, I recommend 'God Sense: Reading the Bible for Preaching,' by Paul Scott Wilson. He speaks about the different 'senses' or layers of truth in the Bible and how to draw them out. It was very helpful for me.
Peace to you today.
I recently came across this quote from Elie Wiesel: "Some events do take place but are not true; others are although they never occurred."
Scripture holds all sorts of truths for us that may or may not be linked to historically accurate descriptions of events. My default position is that I do look for the elements of historical truth in the stories, but to see those three possibilities in the text doesn't bother me. I don't think I'd try to preach them all in the same sermon, of course! I tend to be skeptical of people who have a once-and-for-all interpretation of any given text, and aren't open to the living word speaking in fresh ways.
I don’t want her to just be a manipulated (or manipulative) pawn in some ancient power play – I want her to be genuine. I want this interpretation to work.
While I'm sure that I already lean more toward "accept it as historically accurate" than you might (although I'm by no means dogmatic about this), it seems to me that it's worth noting, whatever the historicity of the passage is, that this text was recorded in this way centuries ago!
If nothing else, this remains a strong feminist example simply because the text has existed in this form from such an ancient time. It's the kind of thing that, patriarchal cultures being what they are, stands in contrast to the prevailing structures. This contrast should stand as an encouragement even if, somehow, the actual historical truth itself did prove to be the result of the manipulations of some wealthy or powerful family.
I have the same dilemma. I'm ok with seeing many different things in the text and historically true or not I think all of them can be important, but I'm not trying to build a particular dogma on a given passage. I'm ok with the possibilities without knowing for sure what the intention was or the historical fact. But it's very difficult when an evangelical-type person asks you what you believe about "this passage".
This question is actually a very potent one for me. In a way, just as we say not all religions can be true, not all of these interpretations can stand simultaneously. If the critical scholarships claim that the book Josiah read was forged, it calls into question the historicity of other parts of the Bible if not this story itself. And such a conclusion would lead to the inference that the Christian faith as human an origin as other religions (the plausibility of which I'm currently finding rather scary). Its one thing to hold that stories can metaphorically be interpreted in multiple ways – different people can take different things out of the same story by relating to different character, etc., but to be historically interpreted in multiple ways is tricky. I apologize if this comment is somewhat off topic or misunderstood your question, but its an area I've pondered much lately. How can 'truth' be a matter of choice?
Truth is always a matter of choice to one degree or another because we don't ever know anything with absolute, 100% certainty. Thus we're always left with a choice between competing probabilities. Granted, some things have a very high probability of being true (like gravity, or the death rate), but historical theories are rarely among them. We just don't know as much as we think we know about the past, and what we do know is usually based on very thin and tenuous foundations.
I'll have to pay more attention to Huldah