From: "Terry M. Gray" <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
> So is there anything special about the Bible that sets it apart from, say,
> your writings, or the reflections/experiences of the Christian community
> today. If so, what is it?
Neither my writings nor any other works written during the last 19 centuries
have been designated (by human decision) to serve as the canon for a
worshiping community.
> Also, don't forget the first part of that 2 Timothy 3 passage that you
> quote--"all scripture is God-breathed". What does that mean?
I would see it as an indicator that the idea of a communally designated
canon, an idea already in effect in the Jewish community, was now being
passed on to the early Christian community -- not a particularly surprising
phenomenon.
> Is there a
> qualitative difference between "scripture" and other writings on the basis
> of this?
Perhaps, but differences arising not out of some extraordinary divine
guidance or direct communication of information, but out of mature communal
judgment. I believe it is most likely a matter of a reasonably coherent
worshipping community finding and selecting a subset of the community's
historic documents to be especially valuable in defining its continuing
identity in the face of numerous and strong cultural influences. Again, this
is not at all an unusual situation. Recall how various Christian communities
have designated certain historic creeds to play a similar -- though
secondary -- role. Recall also the several ecclesiastical councils that
selected the various contributions to the canon in the first place -- very
human actions.
> You refer to a "humanly-crafted theory about the divine
> inspiration of the canon"--of course, this is a question begging reference.
> The scriptures themselves speak of this inspiration--if the scriptures are
> God-breathed, then this "humanly-crafted theory" isn't so far removed from
> a "God-crafted theory".
But, of course, question-begging goes both ways. Appealing to one or more
verses in a text to warrant claims regarding the divinely inspired character
of the same text is thoroughly self-referential. Thus, if the biblical canon
is a thoroughly human-crafted document, then the concept of a divinely
inspired text is equally a humanly-crafted concept. In either case, perhaps
we just have to be willing to state our judgment and leave it at that,
without claiming incontestable warrant for that in some incontrovertible
authority.
> I'm finding the flow of this discussion fascinating (and, of course--none
> of this is new). We are troubled by the contradictions between the finding
> of science and certain interpretations of scripture. A desire (a good
> desire in my opinion) to take seriously the findings of modern science
> results in the near abandonment of Biblical inspiration (in any traditional
> sense) and supernaturalism in general (we get re-enchantment instead).
> This, indeed, is a funny hermeneutic--that such a dominant role to
> interpreting the Bible should be given to making it compatible to modernity
> (an Enlightenment rooted modernity at that).
Why "funny"? At any point in history we have to make informed judgment
calls. We make those judgment calls re the scriptural canon all the time.
The question is about the merits of the basis for making those judgment
calls -- institutional authority, ancient tradition, or what seems to be the
best thinking of the day. I realize that I am putting more emphasis on the
latter than most evangelical Christians are comfortable with.
> While I'm out punching, let me just comment that I think that "both sides"
> of this discussion suffer from an unwillingness to have lose ends in their
system.
> Some people twist science and history to make their system work. But the
> end result is a system free of contradictions, uncertainties, and gray
> areas. Others deny what the Bible says about itself and the supernatural in
> order to get rid of the lose ends. Again, they gain a system free of
> contradictions, uncertainties, and gray areas. I'm sure I do the same
> thing--we all need a certain amount of coherence in our thinking.
OK, I agree.
> But, as a
> Christian, I have long ago consented to many such things: the Trinity, the
> Incarnation, divine sovereignty vs. human responsibility and free-will, a
> fully human and fully divine Scripture, evil/theodicy resolved in the cross
> and in the eschaton, etc.
You have every right to do that. If you find your approach both reasonable
and satisfying, stick with it. For myself, I think that many of these
puzzles and antinomies need to be reexamined. Many of the traditional
answers strike me as a facile acceptance of things that need further
examination.
Cordially,
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 08 2002 - 14:54:49 EDT