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.

Good Times

I want to try to update this blog more regularly than I have the past couple months. So hopefully you'll see some more posts on her than last semester.

I always enjoy the moments when I can get away from campus and spend time just having a "normal" life (whatever normal can possibly mean in any context let alone a grad school context). Tonight was one of those nights where I was able to get away and have a relaxing time with good friends. Probably seems funny to the friends I was with since the night could been described as stressful rather than relaxing. =) But sometimes those goofy experiences are the ones we treasure more than the ones where everything is perfect. So sitting in traffic became a time to talk about music and talk about places where traffic is less of concern (you can probably tell who dominated that part of the conversation seeing as my friends are from Indiana and Ohio). Waiting at Pizza Hut for an hour just to get drinks and appetizers turned into a time to tell stupid stories (probably more crass than people would expect) and just goof around. And listening to rude complaining from the table next to us reminded us how difficult it is to work in service jobs, particularly when the staff is short-handed; and what it means to show grace, especially when you can tell that someone needs it.

In the sometimes asinine exercises of school, it's a pleasant respite to endure the challenges of regular life.

That's not to say I'm not enjoying my class during January. Quite the opposite in fact. It's nice to have a professor who is willing to be questioned after class about the more interesting points of his lecture. It's nice to sit down with him for lunch and just shoot the breeze. And it's nice to discuss a topic that has material implications for every day life. It sometimes gets lost in the academic ventures around here, and it's nice to see that at least some professors on campus have serious concerns about the way education is traditionally done and trying to find alternatives to address those shortcomings.

Two weeks down, one to go, and then it's a week off before starting my final semester at Princeton. Hard to believe that I'm already there and yet not completely surprising. One of my valued mentors, Michael Bruner, warned me a few weeks before I left for Princeton that my three years would fly by faster than I could imagine. And sure enough, when we had lunch the day I flew back to Princeton, we both reflected on just how quickly that time has gone. It certainly has been an interesting experience, in some ways meeting my expectations, in other ways challenging them. But I feel more confident as time goes on that, for some strange reason, this where God wanted me to be. It will probably take me some time before I truly understand why, but I have the fullest confidence that, despite what has arisen in the last three years that has been negative, this was where I was supposed to be.

It's time to hit the hay, but before I end, I just want to say that I am truly grateful for the things I have and the people God has placed in my life. I have a wonderful family who loves and supports me, an amazing girlfriend who I am looking forward to coming home to hopefully sooner than later, thoughtful mentors who have supported and challenged me as I continue to grow and learn, and wonderful friends both at school and at home who have been a steady support, particularly during the stormiest parts of my life. Thank you to all of you for everything you have done to support me, and I thank God for having you all in my life.

Recent Paper

Occasionally I like to post recent papers I've written so people have an idea of what I've taken away from seminary and the rest of my theological education. This essay was written for "Issues in the Theology of Scripture," and our assignment was to write a 1500-word essay answering these two questions: "What do we mean when we say 'the Bible is true,' and what methods of interpretation help us reveal its truthfulness?" It is an initial essay that we will be revising into a 2000-word essay at the end of our January intensive in a couple weeks, so the goal of the assignment is just to get our cards on the table so that we can see where we have confidence on what we know and what is fuzzy. So here is my initial essay. Feel free to comment if you'd like. I'll post my 2000-word essay at the end of the semester as well so you can see where my thoughts have progressed. I've entitled my paper: "Reading the Bible Faithfully"

*Side note: my footnotes could not be imported, so if it seems like something is unsupported, it's most likely because the footnote didn't make it.*

--

When the Church says the Bible is true, it means that the sacred texts of the Christian community are a trustworthy source of guidance concerning God’s relationship with 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 fully necessitate an understanding of the historical and cultural context in which the Bible was written.

We must first ask what the Bible is. This is a complex task at the outset because there are two different accepted Bibles in the Church: the uniformly accepted collection of 66 books from the Old and New Testaments and the collection which includes the Old Testament apocryphal books accepted as deutero-canonical by the Roman Catholic Church. This raises the question of why certain books were included in the canon while others were not. Furthermore, scholars believe there were at least 80 gospels written during the early centuries after Jesus’ life with about 30 of them being preserved at least in part. Of the 30 we have, four are contained in the Gospel. Further, some of the oldest manuscripts and lists of the canonical books show that the sacred texts of the Church changed throughout the first three centuries of the Church’s existence. Texts such as the Letter of Hermes and the Didache were eventually cut from the canon, while others such as 2 Peter and Jude were later additions. Questions about the Bible’s compilation – particularly about which books were included and which were not – are valid and serious questions.

Two historical reasons come to mind as to why the texts we have in the Bible were chosen. One reason why books were selected by Christian communities is because they were written either by the Apostles or close followers of Jesus. From that perspective, the early church found it important to include books that accurately told Jesus’ story or spoke of his life in a way that was theologically sound. Scholars have suggested that the early church was influenced by other motives, suggesting that the church fabricated stories about Jesus in order to boost his image and make him God-like. However, these arguments import modern notions about reality (particularly naturalistic and materialistic perspectives informed by modern science) into the first century world. Some scholars reject the possibility of miracles and other “supernatural” phenomena and assume that the audience of the first century would do the same. While naturalism and materialism could be argued to be flawed foundations, to import them into a first century perspective that was aware of sciences like biology and psychology is inappropriate. Other scholars have suggested that the early church was politically motivated to change Jesus’ image during Constantine’s time. However, historical evidence suggests that the canon was mostly established by the fourth century. Further, most of the Bible’s manuscripts were written before Constantine came to power, making this argument somewhat sketchy. There is enough 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 create an image they knew not to be true.

The second historical reason for books being included in the canon is that only books in their original language should be included. This reason, generated from the Reformation, was used precisely to exclude the Old Testament Apocrypha from Protestant use. The emphasis on original languages is valid since we now know that the Septuagint (the source of the Old Testament Apocrypha in the Bible) had later additions not found in the Hebrew canon. But does that completely invalidate the Apocrypha and mean we should not consult it at all? This leads us to a discussion of what we mean when we say the Bible is true and how we interpret the Bible.

When we say the Bible is true, the Church does not necessarily mean that every detail of the Bible is historically and scientifically accurate. Some Christians do argue for the complete inerrancy of the Bible, but this argument is faulty. It assumes that the writers and audience of the Bible had the same tools for doing scientific and historical research and had the same attitude and approach toward science and history as modern society. Further, the Bible is not always correct when addressing science or history. The Bible’s cosmology is one where the earth is flat, surrounded by water around, above (being held up by the sky, which is a large dome), and below. Concerning the Bible’s reports of history, particularly pertaining to numbers and dates, the history is skewed if not completely unsupportable by historical facts. This is usually the case because numbers hold a symbolic meaning in the text rather than a literal one. Numbers like 3, 7, and 12 are incredibly important because of their significance to the Israelite community.

While historical and scientific perspectives of the Bible are not always correct, does this mean the Bible is not true? No, because the Bible is not meant to be a history or science book. We want to affirm the historical nature of the Bible; these are not simply stories made up by the early church or metaphors (and some scholars suggest) that have significant meaning. Paul says on a few different occasions – particularly I Corinthians – that if the death and resurrection of Christ did not literally happen, then Christianity is a waste of time. Furthermore, the Church needs to affirm the historical accuracy of the Bible to a certain extent. But when the Church says the Bible is true, it means that the Bible is trustworthy for learning about God’s relationship with humanity and what that relationship requires of humanity. This does not mean that nothing reported in the Bible literally happened, nor does it mean the opposite. What matters is that when the Bible speaks about God’s relationship and love for humanity and what that relationship looks like and requires, the Bible is valid and trustworthy. Apocryphal books are useful in that they give greater historical and cultural context to the Bible, but they are not true in the sense that they reveal God’s relationship to humanity or what humanity’s response to God should be.

What does a correct interpretation of the Bible look like? Part of the answer lies in translation. One option is for every Christian to learn Greek and Hebrew and read the Bible in its original languages. Aside from being impractical, this is unnecessary. One message of the Pentecost story is that the Gospel can be translated into any language without losing the core of the message. The Bible can be translated into any languages, but what does a good translation look like? We must look at how the Bible is best interpreted before this question can be fully answered.

There are two layers of interpretation when reading Bible in the best way. The first layer is to take 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. By using these tools, we can better understand what the Bible meant to its original hearers in the first century and earlier so that the Church can better understand what the Gospel means for us today. These are the tools we use to construct good translations of the Bible. A good translation of the Bible into any language is one which best tries to capture the meaning of the Bible as its original audience would have heard it – using the best tools and best available manuscripts – into the language of the new audience. This is why the NRSV, NIV, NASB and even the Message Bible would constitute good translations or paraphrases, while the KJV or NKJV would not.

The second layer of interpretation is a critical reading of the Bible as it is presented in good translations. While the contributions of Biblical scholarship are vital, they should not be considered the only valid way to read the Bible. Further, if Biblical scholarship has provided lay readers with the best translations (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 reading the Bible with an approach that seeks to understand texts within their literary contexts and the greater context of the canon. If the Bible is for and can be read by everyone, then interpretations from laity should be valid to garner truth from the Bible. 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.

Thus, the Bible is true in that it reveals to the Church what God has done for the world and what is required of humanity in response to God’s action in the world. A valid interpretation requires that one looks critically at the Bible with the tools available to the person reading it, including reading the Bible in community with the church as a whole.

Only Five More Months

I'm back in Princeton after another trip home. Every time it gets harder to come back to school after being at home. And especially after this break, it has been even harder. I think most of the readers of my blog know this already, but just in case you hadn't heard, I am no longer single. My girlfriend is Cathy Hansen. We've been dating for almost four weeks now. We met about five years ago, and have been good friends for about four years. After being in denial about it for a long time, I finally admitted that I had feelings for her. And there you have it. :-) So it probably shouldn't take too much to guess why going back to school was little harder this time around.

Alas, I am back at school, ready to get started on my work so I can finish it quickly. I only have five months left until I am done with school, graduated, and on to the next great adventure of my life. What that adventure will be is up in the air once again. I have decided to put my Ph.D. aspirations on hold for the near future. The more I have thought about it, the more I feel getting "life experience" under my belt would be more useful for me at this point. That's not to say that school isn't a life experience in itself, but I want my learning to stop being theoretical for the time being. There were some other considerations in there as well, but that was a major influence on my decision.

So I am going to try to power through this semester and make the most of my last semester here at Princeton. It has been a struggle to fully appreciate my time here, but, as Simone Weil put it, the importance of education is not necessarily what you learn, but simply the fact that you challenged yourself to go beyond what you thought possible. And sometimes it has felt like pushing against a brick wall, but even if I moved that wall an inch, I'll consider these three years a success. I am slowly beginning to see the progress I've made even though I feel like I've hardly gone anywhere. I imagine that as I continue to process these last three years, I'll see that I've come a lot farther than I thought.

For those who are curious what I'm taking this year, here is my class schedule:

Exegesis of Ephesians - Shane Berg
Israel's Wisdom Literature - Choon-Leong Seow
Film, Faith, and Spiritual Formation in Young Adults - Kenda Dean
Word and Act: Service in the Lord's Day - Nancy Lamers-Gross

I'm still working on my Lesslie Newbigin research paper.

Now, it's late, I'm jet-lagged and I should sleep. So until next time...