« Hopping stones | Main | Promoting peaceful understanding? »
February 03, 2006
When are the Scriptures not the Scriptures?
Well, according to some, it depends on whether they are "Apocryphal" or not. In fact, I have heard an Evangelical member of my own congregation declare, after reading a passage set for the lesson from the Wisdom of Solomon, that "I cannot say this is the word of the Lord because as it is from the Apocrypha, which isn't the true word of God". I almost shouted "Oh yes it is!" from my stall, but bit my tongue and had a quiet word later! I am thus interested to find a piece on this very subject at Catholic Apologetics of America.
The author of that article makes the very good point that this division arose at the Reformation when Erasmus, Calvin, Knox and others decided to reform the Biblical canon - particularly of the Old Testament, to bring it in line with the Jewish accepted Canon for the "Babylonian" Torah. The original version on which the Vulgate Bible is based is based on the Hellenic version of this Canon which includes Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Maccabees, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon and Baruch. Their reason for doing this was that the Babylonian Canon was "more authoritative" and that Jewish scholars regarded the "Apocryphal" books as "instructive, but not authentic in their attribution". Yet both Canons include in the Old Testament the Books of Job, Esther (which makes no mention of God at all!) and Ruth, all variously described by scholars as being part of a "Pseudepigraphical" canon. In other words not written by the supposed author and not factual but philosophical debates. In the case of Job it is part of a discussion on the nature nof sin and the nature of evil, not a factual account of the suffering of a single man at the hands of an arbitrary God rather more in the mould of the "gods" worshipped in the Greek or Roman pantheon than the God with who we are familiar with from the teaching of Christ. What makes these any more valid than the books of the Apocrypha or, for that matter, the Gospel of James, The Acts of Pilate or the Gospel of Mary Magdalene all at various times read and used by different branches of the Christian faith?
The simple truth is that the entire matter is not as simple as it seems, since the Gospel writers quote liberally from these books as do the writers of the various Epistles. In fact, if we are to exclude books on the "doubts" held by certain scholars at certain times, then we find ourselves loosing one of the Gospels, five of the supposed "Letters of Paul", two by St John, Judes letter, two of Peter and the Revelations - one I personally would not mind losing at all since it is frequently misquoted and misused. St John's Gospel in fact opens with a quote from 2 Enoch, so if he thought, and indeed the early Church thought, that these books were authoritive, we should take more notice of them today. Personally, I love the Book of Sirach/Ecclesiasticus, it is filled with simple but telling wisdonm and is a wonderful set of advice for negotiating ones way through the minefield of living!
I believe that we should approach the Bible and all the associated writings - even sopme of the more modern ones - as being God inspired. That we may not fully understand the thrust of them is down to two important things; firstly, the limitations of human language, and secondly, our own limitations of understanding of matters so vast (or so miniute!) as to be almost beyond our comprehension. I constantly find things in the Bible which I might once have understood in a very superficial way, but which, now that I have the benefit of experience and a wider understanding of several scientific discoveries, the thinking of a wide range of very respectable theologians and philosophers, my understanding of these things has developed and grown and I can now see much more in some parts of scripture than ever before.
It was pointed out to me again recently that it is a great mistake to read the new testament without looking up the relevant references in the old. A classic example is our modern understanding of the Last Supper, famously portrayed in paintings as a "men only" affair, yet, reading three of the four Gospels clearly tells us that it was a Passover meal.(The fourth clearly says it was the Eve of Passover and thus equally unlikely to be an "exclusive" affair since it assumes the character of a Meal of Fellowship.) Reading the Old Testament makes very clear that the Passover meal (or a Fellowship Offering Meal) is one that cannot be exclusive - friends, neighbours, children and, above all, women HAD to be there. Again, a too literal understanding without looking at the background trips up many readers who do not look at the whole, but see in part only. As St Paul famously says, we see through the glass "darkly" and do not see the full glory for the "glass" of our humanity distorts the vision.
The Reformers of the 15th and 16th Centuries did many things in their efforts to remove "superstition" from the Christian Faith, and in much of this they were probably motivated by a genuine desire to reform a church which was, at theat time, badly in need of reform. In fact, the Church of England's Bishops broadly supported Henry VIII in his break with Rome because they saw it as an opportunity to reform, retaining the best "Catholick" thinking and practice, and removing the "superstition". Hence the Canon Laws that require every Minister, Church Warden and Sidesman in the Church to "labour for the spread of true religion and the teaching of the Gospels." It was a battle they almost lost when Cromwell and his Presbyterians seized power, imposing the worst of Calvinism on the populace. Fortunately it never, as we say, "took".
So I return to my original question; when are the Scriptures, not the Scriptures? Clearly there is no definitive answer, since there is no agreement on what the authentic Canon is between the various factions debating this. For what it is worth, I would say that all of Scripture is valid, it is only our present use and understanding of it that is flawed when we do not read all as a valid whole, or when we fail to take notice of the purpose underlying the authors inspiration and intent. Only when we see Ruth in the context of a counter argument against the "Racial Purity" arguments of the post Babylonian exile period of rebuilding and reoccupying of Jerusalem, does it begin to make sense in the context of the history of the nation and in our understanding of the purpose of God. So to with Esther, the Jewish heroine who saves her people from the deceit of the Babylonian Court - yet makes no mention of God at all and in fact almost appears to praise deceit and revenge.
Scripture is best understood when read without preconception, without prejudice and when the heart and mind are open to God. As pilgrims through this world and on the road to growth in both mind and spirit we have to be prepared to have our faith tested, tried and siometimes changed as we study our Scripture on the road to Emmaus or Damascus. No pilgrimage is ever easy, and this one is littered with the political ambitions of the 16th and 17th Century, overlaying the politics of the 4th to 7th Centuries and further muddied by our own limited understanding of the culture in which these books, letters and philosphical debates were produced.
One thing I have learned in a long pilgrimage through scripture on my own journey in faith, is that there is no room for blinkers and certainly no room for prejudice when seeking to understand God's message and His plan for creation. As I said at the outset of this piece, we understand only partially the scriptures because most of us read them in poor translations, and even then, our understanding is limited and affected by our own limitations, some imposed by our approach to scripture and some the limitations of our mental ability to tackle such vast and almost unknowable subjects.
All scripture is valid, all understanding of it may contain flaws. The best we can do is to read, attempt to understand and to pray for enlightenment as and when God thinks we need it!
Posted by The Gray Monk at February 3, 2006 05:38 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://mt3.mu.nu/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3906