Rewritten Essay

Another update will be coming soon (it has been an insane week and will continue to be insane as it continues) but I wanted to post my rewritten essay for my Issues in the Theology of Scripture class. I can't get the footnotes to post, so you'll have to trust that I've cited things correctly to give credit where it's due and that my points are supported in places. But here is what I wrote after studying the issue for three weeks. Most of the change comes at the end (with completely new paragraphs at the end) but I've made a few wording changes and tweaked things significantly in the interpretation section. Feel free to leave comments!

--

Reading the Bible Faithfully

To say that the Bible is true means that the sacred texts of the Christian community are a trustworthy source of guidance concerning God’s relationship for humanity and what that relationship requires of those who follow God. To interpret the Bible faithfully, one must read it in a way that takes into account the whole story of the Bible, which can include but does not necessitate an understanding of the historical and cultural context from which the Bible was written.

We must begin by asking what the Bible is, which is a complex task. There are at least two different accepted Bibles in the Church: the uniformly accepted 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, and the Old Testament apocryphal books accepted as deutero-canonical by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. This raises the question of why certain books were included in the canon while others were not. We have evidence that there were many gospels circulating in the early centuries of the first millennium. Further, the codices and lists of the canonical books show that the Bible’s texts changed throughout the first three centuries of the Church’s existence. Texts such as the Shepherd of Hermes and the Didache were eventually cut from the canon, while books such as 2 Peter and Jude were contested additions to it. Looking at the criteria for canonical books becomes critical to understanding why some texts were chosen over others, particularly when some of the books seem to be informative and historically useful to the Church (such as the Didache).

One reason the books were selected by Christian communities is that they were written by the Apostles or their close followers. The early church found it important to include books from the apostolic tradition, because their writings best reflected the story of Jesus and the nature of God’s work in the world. While some scholars, such as Bart Ehrman, suggest that the early church fabricated stories about Jesus in order to give him a God-like status, this argument imports modern notions about reality (particularly naturalistic and materialistic perspectives) into the first century world. Importing these philosophical perspectives into a first century worldview which was unaware of sciences like biology and psychology is anachronistic. Regardless of whether their understanding of the world is scientifically accurate or not, the important point is that the writers of the Biblical texts believed that what they were reporting was true (a point we will return to later).

Biblical texts were also chosen because they reflected the traditions of the Church throughout its history, including the history of Israel. This was an important criterion for the early church fathers who argued for the inclusion and exclusion of particular books. One argument by scholars, such as Elaine Pagels, suggests that the early church was politically motivated to pick and change texts that gave Jesus a particular image in order to stamp out competing strands of Christianity, such as Gnosticism. However, the historical evidence shows that Christianity (until the time of Constantine) was in no political or financial position to pursue such an endeavor. By the time of Constantine, most of the canon was well established, making this argument somewhat sketchy. Overall, there is reasonable evidence to believe that the early church was motivated out of a genuine desire to transmit the story of Jesus’ life faithfully rather than to fabricate a story or emphasize particular agendas in order to dominate other visions of Jesus in the first century.

A final consideration for why canonical texts were chosen is the original languages of the texts. The emphasis on the original languages became critically important on two occasions in history. The first occurred when Jerome translated the canon into Latin and chose the Hebrew Old Testament over the Septuagint ( the Greek Old Testament which including the Apocrypha). While Augustine argued that the Greek text had been the scripture used by the Church from its beginning in the first century, Jerome believed the Hebrew texts should be used because they were the original texts of the Old Testament. This argument returned during the Reformation, when Luther chose not to include the Old Testament Apocrypha in his translation on the same grounds. The emphasis on original languages is valid because we know the Greek Old Testament has additions (i.e. the Apocrypha) that were not originally written in Hebrew, meaning they have not been a part of the larger Church tradition (including Israel’s history). Even the sects of Christianity that use the Apocrypha acknowledge that it is deutero-canonical or of a lesser authority than the Old and New Testaments. Does that invalidate the Apocrypha, meaning we should not consult it at all? No, because it still provides important historical and cultural contexts that help us better interpret the Bible (a point to which we will return). However, this does not make it a source for truth, the next point of discussion.

When we say the Bible is true, this does not mean that the Bible is accurate on every historical and scientific point. Some churches do argue for the complete inerrancy of the Bible (i.e. the Bible has no mistakes or discrepancies of any kind), but inerrancy assumes that the writers and original audience of the Bible had the same attitude and approach toward science and history as modern society. The Bible is not always scientifically or historically correct. For example, the Bible’s cosmology assumes the earth is flat and surrounded by water around, above (being held up by the sky, which is a large dome), and below. Modern science clearly shows this to be an inaccurate understanding of the universe. Also, some of the historical facts, particularly pertaining to numbers and dates, seem skewed if not insupportable. Often this is because numbers carry a symbolic meaning rather than a literal one. Numbers like 3, 7, and 12 became important because of their significance to the Israelite community. Sometimes, numbers may have been exaggerated to emphasize or embellish a story, and dates may have been changed to line up with important events. In the Gospel of John, Jesus is crucified on Thursday rather than Friday (as recorded in Matthew, Mark, and Luke) because the Thursday of Passover was the day the sacrificial lamb was slaughtered. These discrepancies do not invalidate the stories; rather, they show that dates and numbers may have been changed for literary and social reasons.

The Bible is true because it is trustworthy account about God’s relationship with humanity and what that relationship requires of humanity. The Bible is not meant to be a history or science book, though the Church should affirm the historical nature of the Bible to an extent. These are not stories fabricated by the early church nor are they metaphors (as some scholars suggest) that have significant meaning. Paul says on a few different occasions – particularly in I Corinthians – that if the death and resurrection of Christ did not happen, then Christianity is a waste. History confirms the accuracy of some of the Bibles stories (such as the crucifixion) while it casts doubt on others, and the Church can be honest about this. But the Bible’s truth transcends history and science while not ignoring them. The truth the Church wants to affirm is that God entered history and acted through the works of Israel and Jesus Christ to reconcile the entire world to God’s self. On those points, the Bible is a trustworthy and valid source to affirm that truth. While every historical detail may not be accurate, history does affirm enough of the Bible to enable the Church to call it true.

To garner the truth of the Bible, the Church must employ good interpretation, which begins with the translation of the texts. One option for good interpretation is to have every Christian learn Greek and Hebrew, and then read the Bible in its original languages. Aside from being impractical, this is unnecessary. A central message of Pentecost is that the Gospel can be translated into any language without losing the core of the message. This does not set the criteria for choosing what texts should be included in the canon. Rather, it opens the possibility that the Church in any culture and context can read the Bible and interpret it well.

There are two layers of interpreting the Bible well. The first layer takes into account the historical, cultural, and literary frameworks of the Bible. These are the tools that modern Biblical scholarship has used to help the Church better understand the texts. These tools help the Church better understand what the Bible meant to its original audience so it can better understand what it means for the contemporary Church. They should be used to construct good translations which take into account the historical and cultural context of the Bible, translating it into the language of the new audience. The NRSV, NIV, NASB, and the Message Bible are examples of good translations or paraphrases, while the KJV or NKJV would represent less reliable translations.

The second layer of interpretation is a critical reading of good translations the Bible. While the contributions of Biblical scholarship are vital, they should not be considered the only valid methods to interpret the Bible. If Biblical scholarship has provided lay readers with the best translations possible (which most good English translations have), the cultural and historical context will come through in the translation, at least in part. A layperson’s reading of the Bible can be a valid interpretation if that layperson is reading a good translation and with an approach that seeks to understand texts within their literary contexts (i.e. looking at an entire text, not proof-texting) and the greater context of the canon. The historical and cultural contexts can help lay readers better understand the Bible, but if they are reading a good translation with a critical eye, these tools should not be necessities to interpreting the Bible well.

There is a third element to interpretation: the church. While it is important for lay readers to be able to read the Bible and interpret it without using the tools of Biblical scholarship, there also need to be accountability to ensure that interpretations do not undermine the truth that the Church seeks to proclaim. The Church takes on this role in Biblical interpretation. Throughout the history of the Church, the interpretation of the Bible has been a communal practice, providing both context and accountability for the interpretation. No interpretation of the Bible is valid if the person or group interpreting it purposely puts themselves outside the community of the Church. Rather, it is through the communal practice of the Church that good interpretations of Scripture are made.

Finally, the Holy Spirit must play a part in good interpretation. While this is a complex issue – discerning where the Spirit is moving, how the Spirit works through the Bible, etc – the fundamental way this happens is through prayer. Asking the Holy Spirit to be a part of the interpretative process and to illuminate the truth in Scripture is foundational to good interpretations of Scripture. The Church also plays a foundational role in discerning the movement and work of the Holy Spirit through the interpretation of Scripture. The accountability of the Church community will always be a central aspect of Biblical interpretation. Finally, if we take the message of Scripture seriously that the central ministry of the Church is the proclamation of the Gospel, then every interpretation of Scripture should ultimately support that ministry. This is not to say that every verse in Scripture specifically has to address the ministry of Proclamation of the Gospel, as there are multiple ministries in the Church. Rather, no interpretation of Scripture should undermine that interpretation, and ultimately our interpretations of Scripture should lead us to proclamation.