Sunday, June 16, 2019

Can the Past be changed?

That is to ask: is the Past etched in stone? Or as Omar Khayyam wrote: “The moving finger writes; and having writ moves on: nor all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.” The dictionary defines the Past as “Time gone by” or as “[something] having existed or taken place in a period before the present.” In other words what we refer to as “the Past” is no longer available to experience. So how could it be changed? From our current linear perspective the past is “water under the bridge”—that is, the Past has passed beyond our ability to influence or affect what happened; in short the Past is transpired “history.”

There is, however, a curious passage in Ecclesiastes that supports the idea that the Past is constantly recurring. In an opening poem (Ecclesiastes 1:4-11) the author (called Qohelet) “characterizes nature as an endless round of pointless movement, a rhythm that engulfs human generations as well.”1 From the author’s perspective the Past is so clearly delineated, however, that it can repeat itself: “What has been is what will be and what has been done is what will be done and there is nothing new under the sun” (Eccl 1:9 RSV; compare 3:15). James Crenshaw, however, insists that “a myth of eternal return does not lurk beneath” these words. “Rather, the emphasis falls on the burdensome monotony of everything in nature and among human beings.”2 Nevertheless, Qohelet’s words do seem to affirm that the Past is a “thing in itself,” and that what has been done will happen again.

Today we also think of the Past as a discrete “something” with clearly defined parameters except that it lies in a bygone era. We seem to consider the Past as a substantial “thing”—just like the Present and the Future. The truth is, however, we know the Past imperfectly and then only partially in artifact and narrative, and not at all in its aggregate totality. We know only its artifactual vestiges and partial narrative reconstructions, which do not always agree. One’s personal lived past is also available in one’s faulty memory. The collective memory of our shared human past is recited in idealized public ritual and narrative reconstructions and it is partially available in museum artifacts and personal mementos. The Past is hardly etched in stone, however, but rather it still remains accessible in the present.

The Past can be changed! That is to say: not in whatever actually transpired in that bygone era but rather in how we have come to think of those events—in short, by changing our understanding of those past events we can essentially change the Past’s influence on the present. Here are two examples from the Gospel of John in which the Past has been changed.

John 12:12-19

Jesus passes through Bethany on his way to celebrate Passover in Jerusalem (John 12:1) and stops at the home of Mary and Martha (12:2-3). The next day he proceeds to Jerusalem riding on a young donkey (2:14)—the situation is not unusual; the donkey is a common mode of transportation in the ancient Near East (e.g., 2 Sam 17:23; 19:26; 1 Kgs 13:13-14). The disciples who were present at the time thought nothing of Jesus riding on the ass to Jerusalem. It was a common sight to see travelers on donkeys. The crowd had gathered (12:12) because of the popularity of Jesus (12:11, 13, 19). But later, after the resurrection (12:16) when the disciples were reading Scripture and reflecting on what had transpired they chanced upon Zechariah (9:9), and suddenly the earlier incident became charged with Messianic significance as the disciples came to a new understanding of the incident through the Scripture. No longer was it a simple visit to Jerusalem before an admiring crowd at Passover; rather in the disciples’ new understanding the donkey-event had become a prophetic act announcing Jesus as the Messianic king, and the former enthusiastic shouts of the crowd became a confession of his Messianic status stated in the words of Zechariah’s “prophecy”:

Rejoice Greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Lo your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a colt the foal of an ass. (RSV)

John 2:13-22

John’s account of the “Cleansing of the temple” is described in strongly violent language depicting vicious acts (2:15) more so than what appears in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 11:15-19; Matt 21:12-13; Luke 19:45-48). The depiction features a sequence of vicious attacks by Jesus; he specifically uses a whip of cords to drive men and animals out of the temple and pours out the coins of the money changers overturning their tables. This visual image initially created problems for the disciples. But then they happened to remember that it had been foretold in Scripture that the Christ would be “consumed by zeal” for the Lord’s house (2:17; Ps 69:9). In other words Jesus is overcome by religious fervor at what he takes to be a desecration of the temple. From the disciples’ perspective this new understanding of Jesus’ violence and cruelty provides Jesus the excuse of “righteous indignation,” essentially pardoning his behavior and changing their earlier view of his cruelty—the “incident” had become an instance of divine justice at work.

            Since the Past is remembered and reconstructed from differing perspectives, who is to say that it should not be changed from yet another perspective? For example, was Benedict Arnold a traitor or a patriot? How do you see it?

Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University

1James Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes. A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987), 60.
2Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes, 67.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi Charlie,

Can the past be changed? As a young boy I remember thinking that I had an experience of older boys taking me to the edge of the local reservoir and threatening to thrown me in. As I got older, I began to think that maybe it was just a scary dream I'd had when much younger. For many years now, I've felt confused about the whole matter (I'm ow 75) and have no idea if the incident really happened or was a dream. Without objective measures, history for sure will change!

Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.

Anonymous said...

The “past” to me relates to what doesn’t exist anymore except in memory, which is perceived differently to each (how it is encoded and remembered), taking into account “clouding” like interference, extinction, forgetting and even enhancing. Also, what is significant to one might not even be noticed by another. “History” to me is generally a written narrative of the past, and many times it can tell us as much about the author and the intended audience (which gives a glimpse into why it was written) as the event. It is necessarily selective, which reveals the slant of the author.

The largest market for history texts is probably public schools. Since one goal of public education is the inculcation of dominant societal values in the masses, these are usually reflected positively in the texts. These preferences change with generations, as can be seen in the differences between nineteenth century texts and today’s texts. For instance, I hope texts no longer claim “Adam” as the first human on Earth, as does an 1850’s history book I have. Even in the sixties, the text of Georgia history we used was largely apologetic to the South in its portrayal of the Civil War, Reconstruction and segregation The past, other than our romanticized memories, is gone, whereas history attempts to recreate it, presenting perceptions based in part on the author’s perspectives of his or her world. The past is subject to the mosaic of memory and history is subject to the gleaning of the historian. Both change.

Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.

Charles Hedrick said...

Good Morning Gene,
My statement below is in response to your comment "history for sure will change."
If by your statement you mean to say that in some way we alter what happened in that bygone era, I can only say that it will not. Whatever happened, happened. But if you mean to say that your understanding of the presumed event or dream will change, that is entirely possible.
Cordially,
Charlie

Anonymous said...

Hi Charlie,

Sure, I was speaking of "my understanding" of the reservoir phenomenon.

But I disagree with defining history as an unalterable "whatever happened, happened." That statement, I think, is unprovable. And so if there are 10 eye witnesses to an event, an investigator could only come up with an approximation of what happened. All history is to a degree subjective. We know nothing unless a human observes it, and the observation automatically changes what is observed. Then persuasion enters the picture, and we hope that cult leaders, liars, narcissists, and sociopaths don't win the day.

Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.

Charles Hedrick said...

Hi Dennis,
I would modify your next to last sentence to read: "the past is subject to the mosaic of memory and [our understanding of] history is subject to the gleanings of the historian."
My reason would be to keep the distinction between history as what actually happened and reconstructed history as what the historian gives us.
Cordially,
Charlie

Charles Hedrick said...

Hi Gene,
So your view is that the narratives of historians are equivalent to what happened in the past?
Cordially,
Charlie

Jim said...










Re: actual history and reconstructed history

Charlie & Gene,

Your discussion clearly illustrates the various histories of any past event. Take for instance the founding fathers' efforts, motivations, & intentions in constructing the U.S. Constutution (USC). There were the actual efforts, motivations, & intentions by those men in the construction of the USC. Thereafter and even to this day there have been literally thousands if histories of these efforts, motivations, & intentions. The various histories are all over the political map from one extreme to another and every place in between. Many of these histories have been written by scholars of colonial America as well as American historical scholars. Perhaps most of these historians were actually motivated by honorable intents on increasing their readers knowledge of these particular events. Many other were and are presently motivated simply in convincing Americans of their particular favored interpretation of these events. Such is the dilemma of humans reading any record histories of past events!

Now another consideration: has the same happened and continues to happen in the human histories of the various Gods and humans?

Jim

Anonymous said...

History is even reshaped, errant “facts” reinforced, in pop culture, as I noticed last night on a quiz show. A question asked the name of the “last book in the Bible.” According to the response, the “correct” answer was “Revelation.” But, is it, or is this a rewrite of history that reflects Christian supersession? For me, the final book in “The Bible” is “Chronicles,” reflecting the Jewish Bible. To Syrian Christians (and maybe other sects) who don’t consider “Revelation” as part of their canon, it wouldn’t be “Revelation.” And, what is the purpose of Revelation other than a book of inclusion or exclusion with Jesus (the “A and Z”) coming back to Earth to “...repay according to to everyone’s work” (22.12b)?

A movement of evangelical Christianity toward adoration of Donald Trump that many mainstream Christians don’t seem to understand had more to do with the notion of nativism, which one might argue, has its roots in the idea of manifest destiny and the notion that America is “God’s chosen people” (the idea of divine election, the favoritism of God, which runs through Tanakh and came to be applied to Christianity. Donald Trump (or his handlers) knew how to channel “divine election” into his messaging in a way that made immigrants (though most from Latin America are Roman Catholic) “them,” a demonized threat to “us.” To me, that seems to run counter to the biblical theme of “You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Ex. 22.20, also a sentiment found in 23.6, 9.12, Lev. 19.33, 23.22, Deut. 1.16, 10.18-19, 24.17-22, 27.19), which was the duty to protect marginalized groups, including immigrants, with compassion. The “moral failings” many claim of the president just didn’t matter, because nativism which, arguably also has a major function in the Bible and the Christian writings “trumped” any possible indiscretions.

Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.

Charles Hedrick said...

Good Morning Dennis,
I take your point in your first paragraph. The current arrangement of the books in the Bible is traditional. So "The last book in the Bible" depends on how one hears the question and which Bible one is talking about. In my case I would say Second Peter or perhaps Acts by recent attempts to put it also in the second century.
Cordially,
Charlie

Anonymous said...

Thanks. I wasn't looking at chronological order but the order they are in the publications. I agree with that, and as far as Tanakh, it would probably be Daniel, I think.
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.

Elizabeth said...

Charlie I agree wholeheartedly with Gene in his statement "Observation automatically changes what is observed." Take for example the phenomenon of cell phones recording police arrests- the very observation and recording of certain people being arrested has gone viral and changed the entire criminal justice system. (i.e.. policemen now have to wear body cams, etc) An entire nation watched the arrest of Freddie Gray and Eric Garner and many others... No two indviduals agreed on the interpretation of what they observed. Two people can observe the exact same event and see two totally different outcomes... So just think how difficult it is for an historian to make sense out of these subjective observations and fit them into a cohesive narrative- what a task. The past present and future are in a constant state of flux, or so it seems.

1) If the past could indeed be "changed" as you suggest- how would we know? Is it possible to know such a thing?

2) The past is changed most likely on a daily basis- look at the Jussie Smollet case. Can we ever know the truth? Is it even possible to know the real truth when it comes to the past... or is that a pipe dream?

3) One more gospel question... I just want to verify: Is it your belief that Paul's resurrection stories were written and circulated before the gospel accounts? If so, how does that impact the early Christian communities and followers? In other words- what is your opinion about the preachings/teachings of Jesus vs. the Resurrection of Jesus? Which is more important to you?? Which is more important to historians and scholars?

Many thanks for another wonderfully thought provoking article!!! Elizabeth

Charles Hedrick said...

Good Morning Elizabeth,
My point was that what occurred in history can never be changed. It remains what it always was into perpetuity. What can be changed is how we come to understand what happened. But our changed attitudes do not affect what happened, they only change us and how we viewed what happened. When a historian revises a historical narrative, s/he is only revising how we view what happened, and the new understanding has no affect on whatever happened--since it has already happened, it must remain what it was.
To your third paragraph: Yes Paul wrote his letters before the gospel writers wrote their gospels. But that does not necessarily mean that gospel traditions are later than Paul they might be earlier and Paul was simply unfamiliar with them.
What is more important to me is the record of what Jesus had to say rather than what was done to him (i.e., the crucifixion). Historians and critical scholars cannot comment on the resurrection and continue to be regarded as "critical." The resurrection is not part of human history, rather it belongs to a kind of "salvation history" like other acts of God in the Bible and is only accessible through faith.
Cordially,
Charlie

Charles Hedrick said...

Hi Elizabeth: P.S.
I will have to ponder Gene's idea that "observation automatically changes what is observed." I will get back to you and Gene in due time.
Cordially,
Charlie

Anonymous said...

Hi Charlie,

My point was that the only form we know of what occurred in history is the result of change by human perception. Asserting an unknowable objective event(s) is an unprovable hypothesis, and therefore is accessible only through faith. In other words, "What happened, happened" is an article of faith.

Now the point I've tried to make is probably unnecessarily argumentative since humanity's only hope is a dialogical meeting of perceptions with the goal of the common good.

Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.

Elizabeth said...

So what I'm gathering from everyone here is that we can never really know for sure "what happened" in the past... with absolute certainty. But I think a better way to put it is this: There are some events that are certain to have taken place such as the assassination of President Kennedy. We do know with certainty that that happened. What we do not know is how it happened... Knowing what happened and how it happened are two completely different sets of facts. When you say "what can be changed is how we understand what happened," this is accurate. It also accurate to state that our understanding of how something happened can be changed as well- evolution for example. We know evolution happened, but not necessarily how it happened. Elizabeth

Charles Hedrick said...

Hi Gene,
The only thing that I know of that can be changed by watching it is an electron. I am told that it is impossible to determine the position and velocity of an electron and to state confidently its position and velocity. "For by the very act of observing its position its velocity is changed and conversely the more accurate its velocity is determined the more indefinite its velocity becomes." (Lincoln Barnett, "Have we Reached the Limits of Vision" in Young, Exploring the Universe, 303.
I still would have to modify your statement in your comment (i.e., "What happened, happened is an article of faith"). I think the following: what happened in the past is unalterable. Historians who write narratives to explain what happened may or may not be correct, but in either case the explanation will only last until a better or more generally acceptable one comes along. And the historian who thinks that historical narratives that purport to describe history are actually history itself (i.e., what actually happened) are only fooling themselves.
Cordially,
Charlie

Charles Hedrick said...

In the above response, I have mistyped one word: Line six from the top, at the end of the quotation just before the citation, the beginning of the line should read] "...its position becomes."
Sorry about that.
Charlie

Elizabeth said...

Thank you Charlie- you answered my question as soon as I got done typing it:
"I think the following: what happened in the past is unalterable. Historians who write narratives to explain what happened may or may not be correct, but in either case the explanation will only last until a better or more generally acceptable one comes along. And the historian who thinks that historical narratives that purport to describe history are actually history itself (i.e., what actually happened) are only fooling themselves."

Many thanks- as usual! Elizabeth