In looking at the influence that Gutenberg’s printing press had on our view of the Bible, one of the principal things is that the Bible became a book. Well, yeah, I know… it had been gathered into book form long before. But up until Gutenberg’s day, it was still common for people to have copies of portions of the Bible (much like the Ethiopian eunuch with his copy of Isaiah).
Scriptures became Scripture. The holy writings became the holy book. And by our day, it was hard for people to think of the Bible in any other way. We sort of assume that the early Christians had a book that they carried around and read, that each congregation had the same materials available to them. It’s just not so. Some would have had some writings, others would have had others. Arguments could be based on the Old Testament, for it was the custom at that time for it to be read publicly in the synagogue each week. But we can’t assume that Peter’s readers had all read Paul, nor that John’s readers had read Luke.
Does that matter? Yes. We need to read each book in light of its own teachings first, then look to other books. For example, when we read “blessed are the poor” in Luke, we shouldn’t automatically insert “in spirit,” even though that is what Matthew quotes. Luke’s readers most likely wouldn’t have had access to Matthew. The message in Luke is a complete message that has to be understood in its own context.
When we read the Bible, we need to first think “books,” then think book. Despite of how its bound.
Good read today. On a slightly related topic…You know I always hear people talk about the printed word is dying and how books will soon give way to e-readers. I think there is something powerful about the printed word. If things were different and lets say e-readers had been invented before Gutenberg’s press…everyone would be used to interactive display and smooth scrolling, but the world would rejoice at the invention of the press. Finally the printed word in our hands. No software glitches or battery power just the pure unadulterated text. Of course maybe that’s the issue, people are sick of the same old text and are convinced it needs commentary and dynamic accession.
Skye, you’re highlighted one of the great assumptions that is created and enforced by the printing of The Bible: the assumption that what you have in your hands is the “pure, unadulterated text.”
How could it not be true???
Look at the binding! How authoritatively it is stamped! THE HOLY BIBLE
Look at the 66 books! Those must be the only important ones!
Look at that fine English script! That must be God’s pure word!
I don’t believe there’s any such thing as “pure, unadulterated text” – or if there is, we have to look for how God would define such, rather than how we would. I don’t think Paul’s emanuensis was any better of a scribe than the thousands of scribes that have made the ancient version of typoes in writing down the word of God.
I believe there is good, trustworthy text. But the written word of God must struggle with the same incarnational limitations as the human Word of God. Remember how shocking God’s definition of a pure and unadulterated Messiah was to the religious sensibilities of his day.
And the binding, and the collection, and the trappings surrounding The Bible all seem to try to afford Holy Scripture a worldly look of authority (like judges’ robes, etc) – a kind of authority that Scripture never claims.
Also, as I commented on yesterday’s offering, I think that the real power is in the spoken word – the Word read aloud in community. The printed word is just ink on a page, a tool to encourage the public reading of Scripture.
Skye,
There’s an old humorous piece (at least back to 2002) that talks about that very thing:
http://www.frontiernet.net/~bilbo/Humor/BOOK.html
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Nick,
A few years ago at the ACU Lectureship, Danny Sims did a class that was entitled something like: “How reading the Bible gets in the way of hearing God’s Word.”
A lot of your comment will come up in other posts I have planned for this week.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
While I can’t say that I recommend his conclusions, Inspiration and Incarnation – Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament by Peter Enns challenged assumptions I never knew I had about Holy Scripture.
I look forward to the rest of the series! I wish I could find a train of thought and get ahead like you and Jay do.
Of course, Jay writes more in one post than I write in an entire series!
This may be a little off, but I do think it is related to this discussion and should be considered: Canon.
In D.A. Carson/John D. Woodbridge’s “Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon” (Zondervan, 1986), they discuss 4 critical factors in canon formation that I believe relate to this discussion. I’ll try and be very brief in summary.
1)Authority of the OT – NT testifies to the Scriptures as inspired and profitable. They testify about Jesus (repeated use of Law of Moses, Prophets, Psalms). Jesus fulfilled the Scriptures. Jesus testified that Moses spoke of Him; therefore the Christological interpretation by Jesus validated the OT. The early church had an established canon (the OT); therefore the idea of a canon was not foreign.
2) Authority of Jesus – The words and life, death, resurrection formed the heart of the canon. Jesus was superior to Moses (I AM) and He verified the OT. Therefore words of and about Jesus were given highest esteem.
3) Authority of Apostles – Inseparable from authority of Jesus as Jesus gave them the authority as His witnesses (Mark 3:4, Acts 10:39-42, 1 Cor 9:1, 15:5-7). “He who listens to you listens to me” (Luke 10:16). The New Testament was read in congregations like the OT was in they synagogue. Paul’s letters are considered “like the other Scriptures” in 2 Peter 3:16. 1 Timothy 5:18 cites Luke 10:7 verbatim as “Scripture.” Paul even sets up the New Testament writings up against the OT (2 Cor 3:6,14) confirming authoritative body of literature.
4) Rise of False Teaching – Jesus and apostles warned of false teachers and teachings. The early church MUST have had a marker for orthodoxy/heresy. The NT is full of admonitions of sound teaching vs. strange teaching and deceivers.
Further more, as early as 96AD (1 Clement), there were 2 synoptic Gospels that were considered Scripture because the words of Jesus were considered equal with Scripture. There is also acknowledgment that early of the following: 1 Cor, Hebrews, Romans, Acts, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Tim, Titus, 1 Peter, James, Col, and 2 Tim. This at the very least shows authority of these texts. And this is 1st-century we’re talking about here. Skeptical claims of no 1st-century orthodoxy is simply invalid.
Additionally, (and contrary to liberal arguments), there is sufficient evidence the church fathers were “recognizing” authoritative book rather than “selecting” them. In fact, the fathers were not even consumed with making a canon but in keeping what was authoritative in the early church. We can recognized that the apostles did not recognize that they were writing inspired literature to be kept for the church for ages to come; but still uphold the Spirit’s guiding of these texts to be kept. The canon is apostolic and Christological; and produced itself naturally before realization of its effects.
The canon, therefore, is limited to those books that were foundational to the church. This closed at the age of the apostles. Indeed, the 2nd-century is in a better position to acknowledge what was valid a heck of a lot more than we are (I know, a blow to our oh-so-intellectual western pride). The binding of the canon is due to the authority of Jesus Christ and the apostles who come from him; also the divine authority (and role of the Holy Spirit) over human events and history, which gave us the books we have the way that we have them.
Grace to you –
Jr,
I’d really like to do some posts on the canon. I’m one of those who operates pretty much with blind faith when it comes to the canon. I’m almost hesitant about digging into it.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
On canon, Tim, Matt Dabbs just posted a glowing review on a slim, pithy little book called (I think) “How Did We Get The Bible?” It looks very handy.