Building Bridges - 03

The Bible:  its history

Last article it was suggested  that we are facing a paradigm shift as humanity's perception about its position in creation sinks in. In order for that message to have any meaning for us as members of the United Church of Canada, we have to take a fresh look at the biblical message we have propagated in our effort to "make disciples of all nations". Before we do so however we should visit the Bible once again for the purpose of getting re-acquainted with a) the Bible itself and b) its message.

The Bible (Biblia = library) is a collection of books, sayings, poetry, wisdom literature, laws and what have you. For ever so long it has been talked about as "the Word of God" and the public in general believed that its message had been written by authors with direct pipelines to God. The "Word" was said to be inspired by God and was therefore infallible.  Is the Bible infallible? To find some of the answers to that question, we have to unwrap the layers of tradition this collection of literature has been bundled in.

We all know that the Bible is of Jewish origin. What many probably don't know is that it goes by the name "Tanakh", which is an acronym, bringing together the initial letter of the three principal parts of the Jewish Scriptures:

The Pentateuch (Torah),

Tthe so-called Five Books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers. Deuteronomy.

The Prophets (Nevi'im).

This includes several historical books:  Joshua, Judges, l Samuel, ll Samuel, l Kings, ll Kings.

The Three Major Prophets:

Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

The 12 Minor Prophets:

Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Joel, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi.

The Writings (Kethuvim):

Psalms, Proverbs, Job, the Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemia, l Chronicles, ll  Chronicles.

It doesn't take much to observe that there is a significant difference in sequence from the Christian Bible. For one thing, Daniel is not a prophet as far as the Jewish Scriptures are concerned. 

What else do we know about the Old Testament?

Shrouded as they are in the fog of antiquity, not too much is known about the O.T. authors. According to tradition the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) was written by Moses. Once again, it is due to painstaking research that it was established that Moses was not the author of the first five books of the Bible. 

After a great deal of work by scores of experts in different fields, it was the German theologian Julius Wellhausen who formulated the so-called "Documentary Hypothesis" . "It is the theory that the Pentateuch is the result of the artful weaving of four sources (J, E, P & D) that were written over the course of five centuries". Today that is the prevailing view. 
The story of the research into the authorship of the Bible is fascinating and one rendition can be found in "Who wrote the Bible?" by Richard Elliot Friedman. (ISBN 0-671-63161-6). 

The Pentateuch of course was followed by the other Hebrew scriptures which record the unfolding history of the Jews. 

Approximately 400 years prior to the birth of Jesus we enter what is known as the "intertestamental" times. We have no (Bible) manuscripts dating from that period of time because, as far as I know,  non were written. Subsequently, Jesus was born and the Christian era began. It is from that time that we have the " New Testament". It consists of the letters of Paul and others as well as the 4 Gospels and the book of Revelation. Although it had its roots in Judaism as well, it soon moved out of its confines and took on a different appearance under the influence of the Apostle Paul who did a mighty job spreading it through Asia minor and beyond. 

What do we know about the New Testament?

Most of us can recite the first 4 books of the New Testament. They are called the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, giving the impression that a) those men were actual followers of Jesus, and b) that these were the first books written and c) that they were written in that order. As far as modern scholarship is concerned, neither of the above is true.
Per a),  The consensus among Biblical scholars seems to be that none of the authors of the four Gospels was a disciple/follower/acquaintance of Jesus, not even John. 
Per b & c), the four Gospels should not have occupied the position they have in the NT, as they were not the first NT documents to be produced. That distinction belongs to the letters of Paul, the first of which were written +/- 55 AD. 
It was in the 70's that the first Gospel was produced, and that was the Gospel according to Mark. His Gospel served as the template for the Gospels according to Matthew and Luke. Being so similar, those three Gospels became known as the synoptic Gospels. The Gospel according to John is different in style and was produced around the turn of the first century. As mentioned above, the Gospel according to John is said to have been written by one of the disciples, but there exists real doubt that this is so. Research in this particular topic seems to indicate that it was written by disciples of the disciple John. i.e. it is likely that we are dealing here with a document that was the product of a school of thought. 

Further about the New Testament: Paul is the first to produce any New Testament literature. He does so without the benefit of any of the Gospels (they hadn't been written yet).  This observation ought to raise a few questions about the process that was in progress. Given the further fact that Paul had never met Jesus and had not been an observer nor a participant in any of the reported actions of Jesus and his group of disciples, one begins to wonder about the veracity of his accounts. What were they based on, and what weight are we to assign them.  Another question deals with the influence Paul's writing had on Mark, Matthew and Luke. Did they have Paul's writings in front of them, and if so, how did that affect them?

Not only that, but how does this reversal of sequence of NT authors impact on our understanding of the NT message if we stop to think about it? 

Further about the Old Testament: As was mentioned, the sequence of the manuscripts was changed. Who changed that sequence of the manuscripts and for what purpose?  Is it important to know the answer to these questions? It is important in so far as it shows a process at work. In turn, that process witnesses to the fact (reality) that the sacred documents of the Hebrews were written and edited for the purpose of creating a seamless history that reflected an accurate picture of events as they had transpired.  Having access to the results of so much research  , it is not difficult to show this process at work. Why would anybody go to such length to create such a seamless document?  As is usually the case,  the process of recording history is done from the perspective of the religious and political leaders of the nation. The Jews are no exception to this practice. The authors, editors and redactors of the sacred scriptures of the Jews told the story in such a fashion as to "prove" the veracity of their version. It happens to this day.
Today those stories have the weight of "tradition". 

To read the story of the research into this material is absolutely fascinating, and anybody who wants to dig into this for him/herself should consult:

"Who wrote the Bible" Richard Elliot Friedman ISBN 0-671-63161-6 &  (Jewish Scholar)
"Reading the Old Testament" Lawrence Boadt ISBN 0-8091-2631-1     (RC Scholar)
"The Pentateuch" Joseph Blenkinsopp             ISBN 0-385-41207-x      (Notre Dame-RC?)

Remember, we are dealing here with the question of whether the Bible can be read and understood literally. We have seen from the above that this is not the case. Not only do we have the information provided, things get even more complicated when we listen to today's TVangelists and contemplate the pronunciations of the religious institutions. Both of them admit to having made mistakes in their interpretations of certain biblical texts and/or concepts. Institutions have finally come to see that slavery is a no, no, as is apartheid, as is segregation. Well known Televangelists have confessed on TV that they wrongly taught the supremacy of one denomination over every other one (Dr. Jack VanImpe), and that those who attained heaven would be driving around in golden Cadillac's (Dr Billy Graham) . 

All this is past tense. What of today? For those who are interested in this topic of an infallible scripture and our relationship to it, ought to go visit http://www.uccan.org/bq01,htm. The visitor will receive information about our understanding of the Bible, and on how we encounter and interpret its story. The purpose of the study program "Bible Quest" is to help young and old engage the Bible for the purpose of arriving at personal interpretations of the biblical message. i.e. one approach to Bible study, which is promoted by the United Church of Canada, is to enable its adherents to arrive at faith statements that reflect their personal level of understanding. 

Where does all this leave us? It leaves us with the realization that to read the Bible literally is not the way to get at *the* truth.  #1, we don't have sufficient sources to make definitive claims about what was said by whom and when, and #2, there are too many ideas and opinions floating about which claim to be *the* truth, and nothing but the truth. To get an idea of the myriad opinions that are about and are struggling for supremacy, turn to the book "A history of Christian thought" (Paul Tillich: ISBN 0-671-21426-8) were we read:

"Actually, nobody would dare to present a complete history of what every theologian in the Christian Church has thought. That would be an ocean of contradictory (emphasis mine) ideas. The purpose of this course is quite different, namely to show those thoughts which have become accepted expressions of the life of the church". page xxxviii

We seem to be faced with two, equally important, intertwined problems:
a) What is *the* message of the Bible, and
b) How do certain thoughts become accepted expressions of the life of the church? 

The answer to b) is that "certain thoughts become expressions of the life of the church" by political means.
Any support for this statement? Yes. In the "Handbook of Theological Terms" (Van A. Harvey) we read under the heading "Logos":

"Those who emphasized the subordinate nature of the Logos, gradually drifted into Arianism. Those who emphasized the identity of the Logos with the Father became Monarchians. The struggle  (my emphasis) between these two emphases gradually led to the formation of the doctrine of the Trinity".

As can be seen here, #1 the formation of the Trinitarian formula was a slow development, and #2, the author states that the shift from one position to another was a struggle. Struggles usually indicate two persons or groups vying for supremacy. We, in the United Church of Canada, are not unfamiliar with this process. Many of us have participated in changing the direction in which the church is traveling, and the beliefs we hold. And all changes were accomplished by democratic means.

Bottom line: the Bible was written from a certain angle and can therefore not be accepted as a reliable historical document. No, its power lies in the *meaning* of its message/narrative .

The answer to a) "what is *the* message of the Bible?" will have to wait till the next time. <;-}

Shalom,

Peter

PS, as you can see, there are enough unanswered questions to warrant a thorough study of the 20 Articles of Faith and the background they arose from. Help make it come about.

Table of contents  or  Next