Saul and Christ?
I believe it is Consciens in Passus Three who describes the story of God's rejection of Saul. While Saul was the king of Israel, God commands Saul to go to the nation called Amalek and "utterly destroy all that they have... slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass" (Samuel 15). However, Saul disobeys the order and decides to spare the king and the best animals, so God becomes angry with him and says he regrets making him king.
According to the summary of this story at the end of Passus Three, Christ was somehow involved in this event even though Saul live roughly one thousand years before Jesus was born. The passage reads, "he kylde not the king, as Crist hym bad" (line 253, page 72). Even though we know that God wanted Saul to kill the king, from the way the quoted sentence reads I am not sure if this means that Jesus ordered Saul not to kill the king. If Jesus gave a command different from God's command, this may explain why Langland or the editor chose not to just refer to God again. There is a stark contrast in the portrayal of God between the Old and New Testaments of the Christian bible. In the Old Testament, God often punishes people severely and he is a force to be feared. He even drowns most of the world's population in a flood when he isn't happy with humans. In the New testament, God is much more forgiving when he is presented through Jesus and teaches "turning the other cheek" rather than seeking revenge and violence. The dichotomy between God and Jesus appearing to Saul provide conflicting instructions, and this may indicate some contradictions in Christian doctrine: When God in the Old Testament wanted Saul to kill, Jesus might have instructed him to be merciful.
If the line I quoted actually means that Christ ordered him to kill the king, then the use of Christ instead of God may reflect flaws in understanding of the bible. Because most people outside the clergy were illiterate during this time and had difficulty accessing the bible, I think it is plausible that people that the narrator encounters would have an inaccurate timeline of the religion and would not be able to distinguish God from Jesus during these stories.
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-Samuel-Chapter-15/
According to the summary of this story at the end of Passus Three, Christ was somehow involved in this event even though Saul live roughly one thousand years before Jesus was born. The passage reads, "he kylde not the king, as Crist hym bad" (line 253, page 72). Even though we know that God wanted Saul to kill the king, from the way the quoted sentence reads I am not sure if this means that Jesus ordered Saul not to kill the king. If Jesus gave a command different from God's command, this may explain why Langland or the editor chose not to just refer to God again. There is a stark contrast in the portrayal of God between the Old and New Testaments of the Christian bible. In the Old Testament, God often punishes people severely and he is a force to be feared. He even drowns most of the world's population in a flood when he isn't happy with humans. In the New testament, God is much more forgiving when he is presented through Jesus and teaches "turning the other cheek" rather than seeking revenge and violence. The dichotomy between God and Jesus appearing to Saul provide conflicting instructions, and this may indicate some contradictions in Christian doctrine: When God in the Old Testament wanted Saul to kill, Jesus might have instructed him to be merciful.
If the line I quoted actually means that Christ ordered him to kill the king, then the use of Christ instead of God may reflect flaws in understanding of the bible. Because most people outside the clergy were illiterate during this time and had difficulty accessing the bible, I think it is plausible that people that the narrator encounters would have an inaccurate timeline of the religion and would not be able to distinguish God from Jesus during these stories.
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-Samuel-Chapter-15/
This is quite an interesting discovery, and not something that I picked up on while reading. I would say that it is improbable that it is a simple mistake, but I suppose it could be intentionally wrong to try to influence someone who could not read the Bible. Good observation, and it may be useful to look for other disconnects from the Bible in the rest of the book.
ReplyDelete