"...the shorthand phrase "the authority of scripture" when unpacked, offers a picture of God's sovereign and saving plan for the entire cosmos, dramatically inaugurated by Jesus himself, and now implemented through the Spirit-led life of the church precisely as the scripture-reading community. ... We read scripture in order to be refreshed in our memory and understanding of the story within which we ourselves are actors, to be reminded where it has come from and where it is going to, and hence what our own part within it ought to be."
N.T. Wright, The Last Word
about me
- Travis Greene
- Durham, NC, United States
- seminarian, happy husband, and sleep-deprived dad. interested in theology, film, and prison issues.
Facebook Badge
stuff I'm keeping an eye on
friendos
who's reading this anyway?
freedom hangs like heaven over everyone
2 comments:
Were the scriptures inaugurated by "jesus himself"?
There are very few words in the scriptures that were actually spoken by Jesus. In fact all of it was written by people who never ever met Jesus in the flesh. Most of it was written down decades, even centuries after Jesus lived.
The final product, namely the Bible was put together by, in effect, a committee of men from all kinds of Christian writings which were available to them at the time.
Why did they choose some writings and neglect others? Even later calling such writings "heresy".
Why did they edit the writings that they chose?
And even make up stories that never actually happened.
And whose interpretation of the scriptures are you going to use?
The understanding of Saint Theresa of Avila, Saint Catherine of Sienna, or Saint Seraphim of Sarov?
Or that of Oliver Cromwell, John Calvin, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell?
The above two groupings of understanding of the scriptures, and thus of LIVED PRACTICE being almost mutually exclusive, and radically different too.
I'll take your comments in order. I assume we're talking about the gospels in particular.
'Were the scriptures inaugurated by "jesus himself"?'
That isn't what the quote says. God's saving plan for the cosmos was inaugurated by Jesus. The Bible is the collected testimony of the community surrounded by Jesus. They are about him, and for his community.
"There are very few words in the scriptures that were actually spoken by Jesus."
That is a matter of opinion and scholarly debate. Even the Jesus Seminar would put it at about 20%, which I still don't think qualifies as "very few". And even if they're completely right (which I don't believe), the rest comes from the community Jesus surrounded himself with, and is an extrapolation of his teaching and thought.
"In fact all of it was written by people who never ever met Jesus in the flesh."
Perhaps. We don't know that much about the identity of the gospel writers. But certainly they depended on the eyewitness testimony of a community of people who did know Jesus intimately. Relying on apostolic authority, that is, those who knew Jesus, was just as important to them as it is to us.
"Most of it was written down decades, even centuries after Jesus lived."
Decades yes, centuries no. Maybe one century for John's gospel, but it isn't trying to be a strictly chronological account. It's a theological meditation (or midrash) on the other gospels.
"The final product, namely the Bible was put together by, in effect, a committee of men from all kinds of Christian writings which were available to them at the time."
Yep.
"Why did they choose some writings and neglect others? Even later calling such writings "heresy"."
Well, like I said, connection to an apostle and eyewitness testimony was important. And some of the writings did have harmful teachings. Gnosticism, in particular, is ultimately escapist and life-denying.
"Why did they edit the writings that they chose? And even make up stories that never actually happened."
What, you don't think contemporary biographers have to edit? Luke, I think, says that many more events happened, but he doesn't have the space to describe them all. He wasn't exactly writing on a MacBook, you know.
Yes, the gospels are literary writings by human beings. They have theological points of view. Some events are surely left out. Others probably conflated. A lot of it is based on oral tradition, and thus is probably embellished. The chronology is re-arranged. Stories with thematic similarity are placed together when they may have actually taken place at separate times. None of this is news.
"And whose interpretation of the scriptures are you going to use? The understanding of Saint Theresa of Avila, Saint Catherine of Sienna, or Saint Seraphim of Sarov? Or that of Oliver Cromwell, John Calvin, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell?"
I take all of the above folks under advisement. They're all part of the church, whether I like it or not. There may be large differences between the two groupings, but they aren't mutually exclusive, I think.
You're right that interpretation matters. That's what the community is for, and that's what the N.T. Wright quote is about. The Bible is the story we find ourselves in. And I may not care for Robertson or Falwell’s interpretation because I find them judgmental and unloving, but why does that bother me? Because Jesus teaches us, in the Bible, not to judge, and above all things to love God and others.
Post a Comment