When we think about people throughout history who have affected the way we view the Bible, who do we think about? There are the obvious choices, of course, which include the authors of the Bible themselves and the people that appear in it. There are the great theologians, both modern and ancient. There are the major philosophers, both religious and secular. There are preachers and teachers, laymen and clergy. Lots of people come to mind.
One man that may not immediately come to mind is Johannes Gutenberg, yet I would put him high on a list of people who have influenced our view of the Bible. I’d like to spend a few days thinking about Mr. Gutenberg and my Bible.
Gutenberg, of course, invented the moveable type printing press. A goldsmith by trade, Gutenberg refined the printing process to make possible the mass production of books. His hand mold allowed for the creation of metal type in large quantities, bringing profitability to the printing process. Within a few decades of Gutenberg’s invention, there were over 200 printing presses in a dozen European cities. The information revolution had begun.
One of the earliest major works printed by Gutenberg was the so-called “Gutenberg Bible,” a copy of the Latin Vulgate Bible. It seems fitting that Gutenberg would have printed a Bible, for his work would forever change the way Christians looked at God’s Word.
Before moving on to discuss how the printing press changed our views of Scripture, think about other developments and other historical figures that have influenced how we see the Bible. Besides the biblical authors and characters, who and what would you say have most influenced our outlook on God’s Word?
{photo copyright Willi Heidelbach, distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 License
Constantine, and the Catholic Church.
Laymond,
Interesting. In what ways do you see Constantine as affecting the way we view the Bible?
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
The reign of Constantine established a precedent for the position of the Christian Emperor in the Church. Emperors considered themselves responsible to God for the spiritual health of their subjects, and thus they had a duty to maintain orthodoxy.[20] The emperor did not decide doctrine — that was the responsibility of the bishops —, rather his role was to enforce doctrine, root out heresy, and uphold ecclesiastical unity.[21] The emperor ensured that God was properly worshiped in his empire; what proper worship (orthodoxy) and doctrine (dogma) consisted of was for the Church to determine.[22]
In 316, Constantine acted as a judge in a North African dispute concerning the Donatist controversy. More significantly, in 325 he summoned the First Council of Nicaea, effectively the first Ecumenical Council (unless the Council of Jerusalem is so classified, Pre Ecumenical councils include the Council of Rome 155 AD, Second Council of Rome 193 AD, Council of Ephesus 193 AD, Council of Carthage 251 AD, Council of Iconium 258 AD, Councils of Antioch, 264 AD, Council of Elvira 306 AD, Council of Carthage 311 AD, Council of Ancyra 314 AD, Council of Arles 314 AD and the Council of Neo-Caesarea 315 AD). Nicaea however was to deal mostly with the Arian controversy. Constantine himself was torn between both the Arian and Trinitarian camps. As Constantine, after the Nicene council and against its conclusions, eventually recalled Arius from exile and banished Athanasius of Alexandria to Trier. Constantine himself was baptised into Christianity just before his death in May 337 by his distant relative Arianian Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia. During Eusebius of Nicomedia’s time in the Imperial court, the Eastern court and the major positions in the Eastern Church were held by Arians or Arian sympathizers.[23] With the exception of a short period of eclipse, Eusebius enjoyed the complete confidence both of Constantine and Constantius II and was the tutor of the later Emperor Julian the Apostate.[24] After Constantine’s death one of his sons and Successors to the Emperial throne, Constantius II and later also Emperor Valens were Arian.
I would have to agree that Constantine as well as Augustine still have influence over the way we read scripture. To what degree is a debateable question.
I would say the biggest influences in the way I was raised to read scipture was the legalistic side of Churches of Christ. Since then, I would say my professors have had a huge impact and benneficial change in the way I read scripture, a few Christians who have personally influenced my understanding and practice of being a disciple, and then authors like Jurgen Moltmann, N.T. Wright and the missional church writings of Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Laymond,
When quoting from other sources, it’s good to say from where. This is Wikipedia I take it?
I guess I wasn’t clear. I wasn’t talking about individual doctrines per se, but about how we view the Bible itself.
Clever way of working your favorite topic into the discussion. My offer still stands to discuss it. http://www.timothyarcher.com/kitchen/?p=247
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Rex,
Augustine I can see. I just don’t remember Constantine having said or done much of anything as regards Christian scripture. Was he involved somehow with the canon?
I’m really not challenging you guys, just asking you to fill in the gaps for those of us who are less well read.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
It is not what he did directly himself but his “conversion” to Christianinty that had influence on how the Christian faith was came to be understood more as a building-centered, christendom religion than that of a missional faith from the margins of society. That influence is still indirectly assumed by many western Christians in their reading of scripture.
Grace and peace,
Rex
the renaissance, the enlightenment, 19th cent Germans, Darwinism
pretty much every new popular philosophy changes some big view of scripture, maybe some times for good, other times for bad
Ok, Rex, I can see what you mean now.
Brian, those are definitely big events. Any particular philosophers you would point to? I know that for our heritage Bacon and Locke were huge.
That Constantinian / Augustinian influence is still indirectly assumed by many western Christians in many other issues such as the notion of “just-war”, the doctrine of sin, election, etc…
The Reformation, the Age of Enlightenment and the scientific age which “began” with the industrial revolution…
Yeah Wikipedia, I didn’t see it necessary to write my own version, when you have read that version before. I can’t understand why you would think that doctrine would not affect how we see the bible, If Constantine had gone the other way the message of the bible would be seen differently. It does not affect my reading of the bible, because I don’t believe the (man’s) doctrine,but people who do have to search for proof they are right. and certain things have different meanings to them.
The question isn’t about the message of the Bible but about how we see the Bible itself. How Holy Scripture became The Holy Bible.
I think the growth and popularity of silent reading has deeply influenced how we view and think of Scripture. Scripture was written to be heard in a group setting.
I think that the published order of the books heavily affects how we view The Bible.
I think that the beautiful leather binding (rather than a rough, durable binding like work gloves) and the gilt edges affects how we view The Bible.
Laymond, Tim wasn’t asking you to write your own version, but to not claim something as your own writing. When you put your name at the top, choose not to use quotation marks, and choose not to cite where you got the information, what should the reader believe except that you wrote it yourself?
Rex: I will challenge your assertion that Constantine led to a “building-centered, christendom religion than that of a missional faith from the margins of society.”
Kevin DeYoung had a recent 3-part review of Reggie McNeal’s “Missional Renaissance” at his blog. Here is an interesting excerpt concerning the usual Constantine argument:
The “anti-church-as-we-know-it cliches that resemble slogans more than substantial arguments. The blame Constantine motif needs more nuance and research or it needs to be dropped. Before we paint a picture of the early church as an organic, clergy-free movement, focused on the simple teachings of Jesus (13-14), we should realize that the early church had lots of theologizing, lots of structure, lots of liturgy, lots of authoritative leaders, even before Constantine! The church was more than “a way of life” for the first 300 years of its existence (14). Even a cursory look through the Ante-Nicene Fathers will demonstrate this.
Likewise, the anti-institution bent is ahistorical and unrealistic. James Davison Hunter makes a convincing case in To Change the World that institutions are necessary for cultural change, let alone for sociological identity. Contra McNeal, a “total conversion from the institutional model” of church is neither wise nor possible (58). We need to put to rest the mantra: we don’t go to church, we are the church (45, 19). Membership is New Testament language (1 Cor. 12:12-20) and so is the language of coming together as a church (1 Cor. 11:18). Going to church is biblical. Being a member is biblical. Discipline is biblical (1 Cor. 5). Church oversight is biblical (Acts 20:28; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1-7; 5:17). Submitting to your leaders is biblical, and so is making the care of church members a serious priority (Heb. 13:17). Let’s not spur on mission by stomping all over ecclesiology.”
The internet may end up being as profound as the printing press. The printing press helped get the Bible into people’s hands. The internet is allowing people to connect in a way that was unheard of before. People have available at their fingertips vast amounts of information and opinions on every topic in the Bible.