The Bibles (1)

As for God, his way is perfect: The Lord’s word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him.  Psalm 18:30  NIV

Flawless – Yes, that’s right.  The title of this little investigation is not “the Bible.”  It is “the Bibles.”  Why?  Because there is no such thing as the Bible.  Hold on!  Take a deep breath—and continue.

Bowley and Reeves wrote in an article on re-examination of the idea of the Bible: “ . . . ‘the Bible’ is not and furthermore never was.”[1]  What can they possibly mean?

The answer is that our concept of the Bible is much more canonically based and theologically driven than the actual historical and social facts support.  This is not only true because there are differences between “the Bible” of the Catholic Church and the Protestant world.  There are also differences in the collections of the books found in Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Greek Orthodox, and other branches of the monotheistic religions.  Furthermore, and this is the really important point, there are significant differences between the historical collections of the sacred materials that eventually became what most of us call “the Bible.”  The Qumran scrolls don’t match up with the Masoretes’ text (and there is more than one).  Some things are left out; some are added.  The documents that are included in the sacred texts of the now-accepted Jewish Scriptures weren’t always agreed upon, and even in their present state, there are references to other books we no longer have.  Furthermore, the existing collection seems to have various perspectives that are not always aligned.  Theologians who make a priori commitment to “the Bible” will engage in “reconciling” these discrepancies, but they do so for theological reasons, not because the differences are historically unjustified.

Zornberg notes:  “The blurring of boundaries between revelation and interpretation, between the written and the oral Torah, is a fundamental mode of the rabbinic imagination.”[2]  But the same is true for the original authors whose perspective about “history” isn’t the same as our modern idea of accurate event chronological reporting.  Bowley and Reeves note:

If one acknowledges the freedom each writer has to make use of existing materials—most of which have their own interpretations—the tensions within and between accounts can mostly be accounted for. One can then permit the Deuteronomist’s formulae to remain intact: thus, “Joash was buried in the royal tombs in David’s city” (2 Kings 12:21). We can also permit the Chronicler to choose to specify the king’s burial place as a signal of his judgment on the nature of the king’s reign, and especially as an evaluation of the king’s devotion to the LORD at the end of his life: “(Joash) was buried in David’s city but not in the royal tombs” (2 Chron. 24:25). To try to prove that either account is right or wrong distorts the intention of the Scriptures. When we move beyond the concern to harmonize these histories to a concern for their meaning, we discover more inclusive and richer understandings of the truths of God. And we can then appropriately apply those truths to ourselves today.[3]

Most of us are familiar with Christian books that attempt to “harmonize” the Gospels.  The synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) display similar (but not exact) sequences, but John—well, that’s another story.  But if we apply Bowley and Reeves’ suggestion, then all we’re really reading are four separate interpretive accounts, not four reporters trying to get their story straight.  The effort to “harmonize” distorts the textual reality because the texts don’t attempt to keep in line.  We’re the ones who need harmony, not the authors.  When the Psalmist uses the Hebrew ṣārap, he doesn’t intend to say that there aren’t any discrepancies.  The word doesn’t mean that.  It means “smelted, refined, tested.”  The words of God are refined like a goldsmith’s fire.  Not flawless like a mathematician.  They are tested like a battle sword.  Not perfect like a geometric proof.

What can we say about our commitment to “the Bible”?  Perhaps we wanted a fixed canon because we need religious certainty.  We don’t like the idea that even the text is malleable, that God’s word varies from one religious community to the next.  We need THE TRUTH!  Of course, in the West this means the correct answer.  It doesn’t mean quite the same thing in Semitic thought.  In fact, the “truth” is more likely determined by the paradigm commitment to a particular community.  The Essenes, Pharisees, Sadducees, and other first century groups didn’t necessarily share the same “canon” (the word didn’t even exist at that time) but they did have sacred writings, writings that facilitated their practice of living according to God’s will.  When you really think about the relationship between our chosen Bible and the religious practice of groups today, it’s pretty much the same thing.  Perhaps we need to keep this in mind when we engage in debate about the meaning of any particular text.

Topical Index: Bible, truth, certainty, Bowley, Reeves, flawless, Psalm 18:30

[1] James Bowley and John Reeves, “Rethinkinbg the Concept of ‘Bible’: Some Theses and Proposals,” HENOCH, Vol. XXV, 2003, p. 4.

[2] Avivah Gottlieb Zornberg, The Particulars of Rapture: Reflections on Exodus (Schocken Books, New York: 2001), p. 2.

[3] Allen R. Guenther, “Kings and Chronicles: Interpreting Historical Interpretation,” https://directionjournal.org/11/2/kings-and-chronicles-interpreting.html