The Bible's Role in the Church: A Review of Four Essays

Introduction

Today, the Holy Bible remains the mainstay of Christian churches around the world, yet debate persists over its precise role in the life of the church. To help examine this debate, this paper reviews four selected essays concerning the nature of the Bible and its use in the modern Christian church. For each essay, the review includes a synopsis, a description of its structure, the main points of interest, and an analysis of the extent to which the author succeeded in conveying those points. Each section also describes the author's methodology, assesses the validity of the arguments presented, and evaluates the effectiveness with which the author communicated the central themes. A concluding section summarizes the key findings across all four works.

Anderson (1981): Tradition and Scripture in the Community of Faith

Synopsis

In this opinion article, biblical theologian Bernard W. 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. Anderson also presents the history of the debate over the division between biblical theology and doctrinal theology that began in the late eighteenth century. Like U.S. Supreme Court justices interpreting the Constitution, Anderson maintains that the responsibility of biblical theologians is to interpret the meanings of Holy Scripture without imposing their own personal beliefs or views on the text. 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 agree with Anderson's 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, though this analysis is somewhat undermined by his overuse of brief quotations to illustrate his views and his verbosity in making straightforward points. Notwithstanding these constraints, the author succeeds in making a case for his argument concerning the role of tradition in the interpretation of scripture.

Smith (2000): When Did the Gospels Become Scripture?

Synopsis

In this essay, D. Moody Smith argues 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. Smith emphasizes that some biblical authorities believe these early writings did not become the four-Gospel canon until four 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 second century CE. The author (2000, p. 3) also makes the distinction between canon and scripture at the outset: "'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 historical record to identify the intended audience for early Christian writings that would ultimately form the four-Gospel canon of the church.

Structure

This essay is structured in four parts: (1) an untitled introduction, (2) an analysis of the extent to which the Gospels were regarded as scripture, (3) an examination of the relationship between the Gospels and contemporary developments in early Christianity, and (4) a discussion of whether Jewish scripture was still being written during this period in history.

Main Points of Interest

The author makes the point that while history provides modern biblical scholars with the benefit of 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 significant importance on 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 incorporated into 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 (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 true." This debate centers on whether the four evangelists were writing about what they actually experienced or whether they were attempting to communicate a message that would endure across the ages.

Effectiveness in Communicating Main Themes

In sum, Smith makes a valid argument that while it is clear 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 disciples of Christ was not only worthy of memorialization — it represented the foundation of what would become the Christian church.

Conclusion

The four articles reviewed above provided a wide range of views concerning modern approaches to reading and studying the Holy Bible and its role in the Christian church. Anderson (1981) made the point that tradition influences exegesis, while Smith (2000) demonstrated that even early Christians regarded the four Gospels as scripture. Clines argued in support of a holistic approach to biblical study, and Stendahl (1984) concluded that the recent shift in the study of the Holy Bible — from history to classic literature — represents a valuable trend in gaining a fuller understanding of the text.

References

Anderson, B. W. (1981). Tradition and scripture in the community of faith. Journal of Biblical Literature, 100(1), 5–21.

Martens, E. A. (2006). What have they done to the Bible? A history of modern biblical interpretation. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 49(3), 382–385.

Neuman, W. L. (2009). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Allyn & Bacon.

Paul, M. (2000). Biblical exegesis and the formation of Christian culture, by Frances Young [Review]. Shofar, 18(3), 147.

Sawatzky, G. (2015). Old Testament theology: Reading the Hebrew Bible as Christian Scripture [Review]. Anglican Theological Review, 97(1), 167–170.

Smith, D. M. (2000). When did the Gospels become scripture? Journal of Biblical Literature, 119(1), 3–20.

Stendahl, K. (1984). The Bible as a classic and the Bible as Holy Scripture. Journal of Biblical Literature, 103(1), 3–10.