Bible in the Life of the Church Today Today, the Holy Bible remains the mainstay of Christian churches around the world, but there remains a debate over its precise role in the life of the church. To help determine the facts in this debate, this paper reviews a series of selected essays surrounding the nature of the Bible and its use in the modern Christian church. This review includes a synopsis and description of the structure of each article, the main points of interest and an analysis concerning the extent to which the authors succeeded in conveying these main points. Finally, a description of the author's methodology and an assessment concerning the validity of each author's arguments is followed by an evaluation of their effectiveness in communicating their main themes and a summary of the research and important findings regarding the main themes addressed in these articles are provided in the conclusion.

Review and Analysis

Bernard W. Anderson (1981), "Tradition and Scripture in the Community of Faith," Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 100, No. 1, pp. 5-21.

Synopsis. In this opinion article, Anderson describes the current status of the Holy Bible and the sources of its modern influences, including most especially Europe in general and Germany in particular. In addition, the author presents the history of the debate over the division between biblical theology and doctrinal theology that began in the late 18th century. Like U.S. Supreme Court justices interpreting the Constitution, Anderson maintains that responsibility of biblical theologians is the interpret the meanings of Holy scriptures without adding their own personal beliefs or views about their content In this regard, Anderson (1981, p. 6) writes, "The primary task of the biblical theologian is to elucidate the theological meaning that is concealed in the concrete and particular texts. Biblical theologians are governed by the historical givenness of the biblical texts and should not intrude into exegesis current concerns or fashions of thought."

Structure. This essay is divided into an unlabeled introduction, an overview of the traditio-historical process, the final scriptural foundation, and a discussion concerning tradition and scripture as a conclusion.

Main points of interest. The main point of interest presented by Anderson (1981, p. 21) was that, "It is tradition and scripture: tradition which still makes its theological witness in scripture, and scripture which theologically incorporates and crystallizes biblical tradition."

Description of methodology. The author used a critical review of the relevant literature concerning the issues of interest, an approach that is highly congruent with the guidance provided by a number of social science researchers (Neuman, 2009).

Contrasting views. Not all biblical authorities are of a like mind with Anderson when it comes to his conclusions about the fundamental responsibilities of biblical theologians. For instance, Paul (2000, p. 147) points out that, "Patristic exegesis [is] not purely about extracting meaning from received scriptures but about constructing a universe of religious discourse (and a concomitant literary culture) in which Christian understanding and identity [can] be shaped and sustained."

Effectiveness in communicating main themes. To his credit, Anderson provides an exhaustive analysis of the issues of interest, but this analysis is detracted by his overuse of snippets of quotations to illustrate his views and his verbosity in making simple points. Notwithstanding these constraints, though, the author succeeds in making a case for his argument concerning the role of tradition in the interpretation of scripture.

D. Moody Smith (Spring 2000), "When did the Gospels become Scripture?," Journal of Biblical Studies, Vol. 119, No. 1, pp. 3-20.

Synopsis. In this essay, the author makes the point that although the authors of the New Testament were unaware that their writings would ultimately form canons of the Christian church, they would likely have been pleased by the prospect. In fact, Smith emphasizes that some biblical authorities believe that these early writings did not become the four-Gospel canon until 4 centuries after Christ died, while others suggest that these writings had acquired the effect, if not the form, of the four-Gospel canon by the 2nd century CE. The author (2000, p. 3) also makes the distinction between canon and scripture at the outset as follows: "Scripture' means 'texts that are revered as especially sacred and authoritative'" while "[c]anon' refers to the delimitation of such texts. . . . In most, but not all, cases, 'scripture' clearly refers to what Christians call the Old Testament." In sum, Smith analyzes the historic record to identify the intended audience for early Christian writings that would ultimately form the four-Gospel canon of the church.

Structure....

The author makes the point that while history provides modern biblical scholars with 20-20 hindsight, the fact that the four-Gospel canon emerged in its current form is evidence that even early Christians regarded these writings with high esteem and placed a significant amount of importance to their messages.
Description of methodology. This essay is based on a systematic review of the relevant literature concerning the history and interpretations of the early Gospel writings and how they became subsumed into the modern Christian dogma.

Contrasting views. While the four-Gospel canon was officially created and accepted by the church, there remains a debate concerning the extent to which these writings were actually intended to become scripture. In this regard, the editors of U.S. Catholic (Do the Gospels paint a clear picture of Jesus?, 1996, p. 6) point out that, "For decades scripture scholars have been questioning the veracity of everything in the New Testament from the true site of Jesus, birth to the reality of the Resurrection. Others claim that every word in the Bible is literally write." This debate centers on whether the four disciples were writing about what they actually experienced or whether they were attempting to communicate a message that would endure the test of the ages.

Effectiveness in communicating main themes. In sum, Smith makes a valid argument that while it is clear that that John, Matthew, Luke and Mark could not foresee the incorporation of their writings into a "new" testament, it is equally clear that the guidance provided by these actual disciples of Christ were not only worthy of memorialization, they represented the foundation of what would become the Christian church.

David J. A. Clines, "Story and Poem: The Old Testament as Literature and as Scripture," pp. 115-127.

Synopsis. Gaining a fuller understanding of the Bible requires the ability to read and interpret the scriptures with a view towards its rightful place in the Christian church, but when it is studied in the context of comparative literature, the potential exists for this rightful place to be diminished. In this essay, Clines argues that current religious curricular offerings secular universities may adversely affect this prominence of the Bible as it is taught in seminaries and divinity schools. In this regard, Clines (p. 116) writes, "There is a danger that particular contexts of reading and studying the Bible will tend to dictate particular ways in which the Bible is approached." In sum, it is possible that when students approach Bible study in secular universities, it is regarded as literature; conversely, in seminaries and the church it will be heard as scripture. This unfortunate trend, Clines (p. 116) maintains, prevents each approach from informing the other: "It would be painful if at this moment, when theologians and literary critics have so much to learn from one another, such a distinction should become institutionalized."

Structure. This essay is divided into (1) an untitled introduction, (2) a section entitled "Story" that reviews excerpts of the Old Testament to illustrate the effect of reading them as narrative stories, and (3) a section entitled "Poem" used to describe biblical examples as poems, (4)

Main points of interest. The major take-away point of interest from this essay is that there is much to be gained from approaching biblical study with an open mind that considers "all reasonable readings of it" (Clines, p. 126).

Description of methodology. The author uses salient examples from the Old Testament to illustrate his respective points concerning scripture as literature and poems.

Contrasting views. Some biblical scholars suggest that reading the Old Testament from a Christian perspective may introduce erroneous interpretations of what these early writers intended (Sawatzky 2015).

Effectiveness in communicating main themes. Although it takes him 12 pages to achieve his goal, Clines succeeds in communicating the basic message that the distinction between the Bible as literature and scripture is largely artificial and that "the church can properly hear its Bible as Scripture only when it reads it as literature" (Clines, p. 117).

Krister Stendhal, "The Bible as a Classic and the Bible as Holy Scripture," Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 103, No. 1 (Mar 1984), pp. 3-10.

Synopsis. The author describes the shift from studying the Bible as history and Holy Scripture in recent…