God,
The Bible
And Me
By Tom A. Davidson
A pastoral approach
to
Appreciating The Bible
Introduction
If my memory serves me correctly, it was Paul Tillich who was asked, “Do you believe in The Bible?” Tillich replied, “No, I do not. I believe in the God of The Bible.” For me, the pivotal word in both question and answer is the word “in”. For me to believe in” something or someone is for me to entrust myself to that something or someone, and to do so with confidence and conviction that I am safe and secure in that faith-commitment. If I were to say that I believe “in” The Bible (The Holy Bible), I would be saying that I have faith “in” The Bible. This would mean that I have entrusted myself to The Bible, and that I feel safe and secure in that faith-commitment. But, The Bible is a book. How do I entrust myself to a book? I ask myself: What is so appealing between the covers of this book? What is it that is holy? Can this book, in and of itself, provide a cure for cancer? Can it provide safety on the battlefield? Does it empower anyone who holds it, carries it, or quotes from its pages? Is there anything magic about The Bible? I believe not. And yet, there is something distinctively unique about The Bible. What is it? I can best answer this question by addressing two issues. The first issue relates to how The Bible came into being. The second issue relates to the message of The Bible.
Toward an understanding
of
The Bible
The Bible is not THE MESSAGE.
THE MESSAGE is in The Bible.
The Bible is THE MESSENGER of THE MESSAGE.
THE MESSENGER is composed of many individual messengers that carried THE MESSAGE forward through the ages. These messengers were prophets (forth-tellers who proclaimed the word of God to their respective generations, and fore-tellers who declared God’s will for the future.)
THE MESSAGE is the unfolding story of God’s redemptive involvement in human history, ultimately accomplished in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Some people believe God’s redemptive involvement began with Adam and Eve. According to the Hebrew/Christian tradition, it began with God’s covenant with Abraham.
The History
of
The Bible
In 1546 A.D., at the Council of Trent, Church scholars and Church officials poured over countless manuscripts for the purpose of selecting those manuscripts they believed worthy of The Christian Church. Until 1546, the Christian Church did not have a composite book that could be called “The Bible.” At that time, all of the church congregations had their own respective set of manuscripts that they used for guidance and authority as a Christian church. In the eyes of Biblical scholars and Church officials, some of these manuscripts being used by the churches were believed to be both authentic and authoritative, while other manuscripts being used by the churches were believed to be less so. With incredible patience and meticulous care, the council carefully examined all of the available manuscripts. Finally, a total of 66 manuscripts, or books, were selected and canonized as the only authentic and authoritative guide for faith and practice for The Christian Church. Thus, The Bible of The Christian Church came into existence. Of the 66 manuscripts, or books, 39 of them were designated as The Old Testament, and 27 of them were designated as The New Testament. Notice again, this was in 1546. Today, some five centuries later, those same 66 books still comprise and constitute The Bible.
Why were there so many manuscripts? A more basic question might be why there were any manuscripts at all. Since paper did not exist until the 2nd century A.D., anything that was written had to be written on something else other than paper. Before paper, many documents were written on papyrus. Papyrus was a cane-like plant that was cut, split into strips, pasted and pressed together, and then cut again to form sheets on which to write. Documents were also written on the skins of lambs and young goats (vellum), sheep and goats (parchment) and other animals (leather). When a document was completed, the manuscript was rolled up into a scroll. Thus, like all of the other manuscripts, every one of the 66 books of The Bible was originally a manuscript. Due to the ravages of time, and other unknown circumstances, not one of those original 66 manuscripts exists today. As a matter of fact, neither did they exist in 1546. Obviously, what the Council of Trent had in its possession was copies of copies of copies of copies of the original manuscripts. And – this is very important to recognize - with every copy there was a copier.
Now, it is safe to assume that a copier was able to read. Keep in mind also that every copy was hand-copied. Thus, it is only reasonable to assume that even the best copiers made mistakes in their copying. According to Biblical scholars, simple mistakes were made in spelling and grammar. In some manuscripts, words and even lines were sometimes omitted. Scholars also tell us that some manuscripts were deliberately changed to convey a meaning different from the copied manuscript. Attempting to follow this long and involved journey from copies of lost original manuscripts to the formation of The Bible was quite a journey. Was the outcome of the journey – the formation of The Bible – to be regarded as accidental? Or, was the journey miraculous? I regard it nothing less than miraculous. I believe the entire journey was under the protective and purposeful guidance of God.
Authorship
The Old Testament
If the history of The Bible raises questions that challenge our understanding and stagger our imagination, surely the authorship of The Bible raises questions that are even more perplexing. A fundamental issue that has continued to confront Biblical scholars, especially textual critics, in examining and assessing manuscripts, is that of authorship. Just because a manuscript attributes its authorship to a particular person does not guarantee that that person is the one who wrote the manuscript. A vital responsibility of textual criticism is to ascertain who authored the manuscript being examined. This is not as easy and as simple as it sounds. For example, Moses is traditionally believed to have been the one who wrote the first five books of The Old Testament (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy), called The Pentateuch. It is traditionally believed that much of the earliest historical data came by way of oral transmission rather than by written documentation. Understandably, oral transmission is not always reliable. For instance, if Moses wrote The Pentateuch, how did he record his own death? See Deuteronomy 34:7. Obviously, Moses could not have recorded his own death. Moreover, considering the massive amount of data from Genesis through Deuteronomy, plus his long life of 120 years, it would seem to me that textual critics would have a difficult time attributing all that data to one man.
I was first taught that David wrote The Book of Psalms. I later learned that David was not the author. Textual critics believe that an unknown editor compiled The Book of Psalms shortly after the Babylonian captivity ended in 537 B.C. At least 73 of the 150 psalms were attributed to David. One was attributed to Moses. Among the remaining psalms, some were attributed to Asaph, some to the Sons of Korah, and to others. It is believed that The Book of Psalms was among other books in David’s library.
Authorship of The Book of Isaiah is attributed to the prophet Isaiah. The scholars have concluded that there were two authors. The writer of chapters 1 - 39 is identified as First Isaiah, while the writer of chapters 40 – 66 is identified as Second Isaiah. Chapters 1 –39 cover Israel’s rebellion and unfaithfulness to God and Isaiah’s prophecy against Israel, culminating in Israel’s captivity in Babylon. Chapters 40 – 66 cover Isaiah’s prophecy of God’s forgiveness, Israel’s release from Babylonian captivity and the renewal of Israel’s covenant relationship with God.
Although it appears in The Bible as one book, technically, it is often referred to as First and Second Isaiah.
(As you, the reader, will soon realize, more attention is being given in this document to The New Testament than is given to The Old Testament. The main reason for this is that I am more New Testament centered, while I acknowledge that The New Testament cannot be understood apart from The Old Testament. In no way am I attempting to be exhaustive and comprehensive in this presentation. I am not qualified, even if I wanted to be so. What textual criticism that is used is intended to assist in highlighting the mystery and wonder of The Bible.)
The New Testament
Years ago, I read that the epistles were written before the gospels. What struck me was the suggested explanation for this. The explanation was that, after the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, His followers lost little time in following the command of their Lord to spread the good news of the Kingdom of God wherever they went. In time, church congregations were formed here and there. Communication between and among the churches was soon to follow. It is understandable that this would happen. It is also understandable that, according to the textual critics, the first epistles to be canonized were the epistles of the apostle Paul. Paul has been traditionally identified as “the” theologian of the Christian Church. Textual critics do not believe that Paul wrote all of the epistles in The New Testament that are attributed to him. Among those epistles, or letters, the critics are convinced he wrote were three of my favorites – Romans, First Corinthians and Philippians. We are told that Paul wrote his epistles in the 50’s A.D.
I found it interesting that the four gospel accounts – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - were written after the epistles. These four were the only Gospels that were canonized. Again, there was a suggested explanation for this. As time passed, after the resurrection, the apostles realized the importance of their recording, for future generations, their own first-hand knowledge and experience of Christ. This, of course, is speculation, as no original manuscripts exist. So far as is known, Matthew (Levi) and John were the only apostles to write their gospel account. Textual critics tell us that the first Gospel account was The Book of Mark, written in the 60’s. Matthew and Luke were written in the 80’s, and John was written in the 90’s. An interesting commentary on Mark, the first gospel writer, was his close relationship with the apostle Peter. It is believed that it was this close relationship with Peter that provided much of the data for Mark’s gospel account. Throughout the disciples’ three years with Jesus, Peter is seen as a man of action, at times even to the point of being impulsive. Interestingly enough, in Mark’s account of Jesus’ ministry, his frequent use of “immediately” and “straightway” shows Jesus as always on the move. Much of the data in Matthew and Luke reveal that it had been taken from Mark’s account, while much of their material was their own. John’s gospel account is markedly different from Matthew, Mark and Luke.
An overall view of each of the four accounts reveals the individual nature of each writer. As it appears to me, Matthew’s purpose is to show, by Old Testament proof-texts, that Jesus is Israel’s promised and long-awaited Messiah. Mark emphasizes God’s amazing and sovereign power in Jesus Christ. Luke stresses the sensitive compassion and loving kindness of God in Jesus Christ. John portrays God in the human form of Jesus Christ revealing and teaching access to the Kingdom of heaven.
The genealogy of Jesus:
In The Gospel according to Matthew, the genealogy of Jesus is traced back to Abraham. Mark includes no genealogy in his account. In Luke, Jesus’ genealogy is traced back to God. There is no genealogy in John. Instead, God becomes a human being in the person of Jesus Christ.
The birth of Jesus:
In Matthew, the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, and told him that Mary would bear a son by the Holy Spirit. The Lord told Joseph he should not divorce Mary, that the child’s birth would fulfill the prophet’s promise of the child’s birth. Further, the child would be named Immanuel, which means “God with us.” In Luke, the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her she had found favor with God, that she would bear a son and would name her son Jesus, and that He would be called the Son of the Most High. A choir of angels announced his birth, and shepherds came and worshiped Him. In Mark, there is no account of Jesus’ birth. Instead, Mark begins his account by writing, “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” Almost immediately, Jesus is baptized by John the Baptist and begins His ministry. As already stated, in John’s account, there is no reference to Jesus’ birth. Instead, he writes that “In the beginning” the Word (Christ) was with God, and the Word (Christ) was God. He was in the beginning with God.” This translates into “the pre-existent Christ”. “The Word (Christ) became flesh and dwelt among us” translates into “The Incarnation.”
Books have been written on the harmony of the Gospels. The three authors – Matthew, Mark and Luke – share much in common in their accounts of Jesus’ healings, miracles and parables. In John, there are no parables. To run the risk of over-generalizing, I view Matthew, Mark and Luke using Jesus’ healings and teachings to portray Jesus as Savior and Lord. I view John as showing Jesus declaring directly and indirectly (through similes and metaphors) that He is who He claims to be, and that He can do what He claims He can.
For me, just as the four Gospels are the heart of The New Testament, so the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus is the heart of the four Gospels. A comparative reading of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, found in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, reveals noticeable differences and contradictions in their respective accounts. Despite these differences and contradictions, however, it is important not to miss the forest because of the trees. The one crucially important thing to notice is this: All four Gospels clearly and plainly state that Jesus was killed, that he was raised from the dead, and that He appeared to His disciples in a resurrected body. It was in Jerusalem, on the Day of Pentecost, after the resurrection, that the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit, and dispersed into the world about them. Wherever they lived, they rejoiced in sharing the good news of Jesus Christ with their neighbors. The Christian Church was well on its way into other parts of the world.