What the Bible means (to me) – a brief excursus

Here is a brief question as an aside to the main posts:

In the light of Paul’s words in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (“All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching…”), and assuming that Acts can be understood to be now included in this category, consider this verse from Acts 17, where Paul is preaching in Athens and quotes two pagan poets, Epimenides and Aratus:

For ‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we too are his offspring.’ (Acts 17:28, NRSV)

My question is this – at what point, exactly, were the words “In him we liveĀ  and move and have our being” and “For we too are his offspring” inspired by God? Was it (a) when the poets wrote them? (b) when Paul quoted them in his address? or (c) when Luke made the editorial decision to include them in his book?

Advertisements

Cafe culture in the Northwest

Think of cafe culture and I rather suspect that Bury will not be the first town to spring to mind. However, Mrs Tree and I went there for a visit to the East Lancashire Railway earlier today and missed the train we had planned to catch. So a brief excursion into the town centre brought us to @utomatic, a restaurant on the main street. As it was a sunny day we took coffee outside and very continental it felt. Espresso, decaf cappucino and the service all recommended. A great day to watch the world go by.

Later in the day we went for a meal with our friends and on the way back stopped by the coastal erosion at Blundellsands between Liverpool and Formby to witness this scene.

What the Bible means (to me) – part 2

The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.

I have spent a lot of my life with the Bible, first growing up in a Christadelphian family, then from late teenage years as a more orthodox Christian in an evangelical Anglican environment. However, in both those environments, the attitude towards the Bible and Christian belief could be summed up in the words of the legendary American bumper sticker quoted above. [I have unsuccessfully tried to track down the original source of this statement – if anyone knows, I’d be interested to hear].

But this no longer works for me. So I want in this post to take an apophatic approach and begin by looking at what the Bible is not. For some this will be Biblical Studies 101, but it might get more controversial (to some) further down the line.

The Bible is not a book.

This is in two senses. Firstly, it is a library, anthology or compilation of writings by a number of authors and written at different times, in different places and in different settings and circumstances. And some of these writings appear themselves to be compilations of earlier material, some of which show signs of their origins in an oral tradition.

Secondly, there are differing views of the composition and structure of this library. Jewish tradition, of course, regards the Bible as being only what Christians would describe as the Old Testament. But the arrangement of the books into Torah (teaching), Prophets and Writings is different from any Christian Bible. But Christians also do not agree on what constitutes the Bible. Some Christians include only the 39 books of the Jewish Tanakh plus the 27 books of the New Testament. Others include a further 11 books that appear in the Septuagint (a pre-Christian Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures). My own (Anglican) tradition regards these additional books in a kind of half-way house way as being profitable for reading but not for the derivation of doctrine. And within the overall canons of the Bible individual groups and churches tend to have their own “canon within the canon” – writings that are considered more, or less, important than others. For example, Luther famously referred to the epistle of James as “right strawy” because he thought it contradicted his understanding of salvation by grace. But listen to the preaching over a period in any church and you get the impression that certain parts of scripture provide the key by which others are understood and judged. I may return to the question of canon in a later post.

The Bible was not dictated by God.

Whereas the Qur’an is understood by Muslims to be a single entity given by direct divine revelation to Muhammed, Jews and Christians recognise the human element in the writing of scripture. Although parts of scripture do claim to give the words of God (the ten commandments, parts of some prophetic writing) they are given in a wider context and narrative. So they are given as reported speech rather than as direct dictation.

The Bible is not inerrant or infallible

It never claims to be! In spite of the claims of many evangelicals (and their Statements of Faith which define who is to be trusted or not, who is “in” or “out”), there is nowhere within the canonical writings where such a claim is made. The closest it comes is in Paul’s famous verses:

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.
(2 Timothy 3:16-17, New Revised Standard Version)

So scripture (or is that simply “writing”?) is “inspired by God” or “God-breathed” (NIV), but inspiration as we commonly understand it hardly means infallible or inerrant. This is but one case of an attempt to read back into scripture the solution to a problem in the later church (the issue of where authority in the church is to be located). And incidentally, the NIV’s choice of translation here is a highly selective one.

This absence is hardly surprising, though, given that at the time the last original manuscript of the NT was penned, the church was still at least 200 years away from finalising what counted as “scripture” and what did not. But the claim to inerrancy or infallibility is extra-scriptural.

Here endeth the second part. Part three will continue the apophatic theme, and in later posts we will begin to think in a more positive frame of mind.