The
search for scripture has posed many problems to the modern scholar. The Jesus
Seminar interprets scripture through an archeological method, pinpointing less
than 10 percent of the words of Jesus, actually having been spoken by Him. The
diverse approach to studying scripture can be compared to the early church too
how scripture was being interpreted by many such groups like the Gnostic and
the “Proto-Orthodox” groups (Origen and Jerome). Scholars, with the rise of modernity, have taken a
new approach with trying to get back to the original reading of the text. Bart
Ehrman asks the question “Can we get back to the original reading of the New
Testament”, which he thinks we can. Others might ask “would it matter if we can
get to the original reading at all?” If modern historians claim that they try
to examine scripture in light of the first century apostle writers, then we
must read it as scripture and nothing more. Instead of wasting ink on paper
trying to figure out why the passion narratives of synoptic differ from the
gospel of John then we start to lose sight of the “original reading”.
Historians
tend to neglect one aspect that is vital to understanding scripture as it was
being written during the early 1st century; tradition. Taking the
traditions out of scripture, many think was popularized by the 16th
century reformers; however, this concept dates back to the Gnostics of the
early 2nd century when they interpreted scripture out of the context
of Scripture (Old Testament) and neglecting the passion of Christ. The idea
that tradition is connected to scripture is crucial to understanding what
scripture is. When Phillip saw the Ethiopian man reading the suffering servant
passage he asked “Do you understand what you are reading?” his reply being,
“how can I understand unless some guides me” (Acts 8.30-31). Phillip then
preached Jesus to this man. Right after he was baptized on the road. Scripture
was revealed through the traditions of the coming of Christ and his suffering.
This passage (the suffering servant passage) was not about what the passage meant rather it focused on the
meaning, which resides in the person of whom the text speaks of and it is our
task to know this Person and what the text says about Him, the same way Phillip
knew and explained to the Ethiopian man.
It
was not until 1768 that the term "canon" came to be associated with a list of books.
Before then it was associated with things that had to with a straight line.
This explains why the “canon” of the New Testament was not formally agreed upon
till the late 4th century. Church fathers from the 2nd
century onwards knew what scripture was and what was deemed heretical. The
fourfold gospel and the letters of Paul were quoted about as early as the 2nd
century by Irenaeus. The search for scripture was not a problem for the early
church because scripture had been revealed through the person of Christ. This
is why we never see church fathers talking about why manuscripts had a
different writings or why Jesus died on different times in the gospels but
rather, explaining the scriptures through the person of Christ. Seeing
scripture in light of who Jesus was is how scripture was interpreted by the
early church fathers. The breaking of bread and opening of scripture (cf. Luke 24) is the
main focus of this understanding. Just like the disciples on the road to Emmaus
believed after the scriptures were opened and broke the bread, the same aspect
happened with the Ethiopian man. He believed because he opened the scriptures
and came to realize that scripture spoke about the suffering servant of Christ.
The search for scripture is realized not in the modern historical critical
approach of breaking down the text to come up with the original reading but
rather realizing who Christ was through his passion. The same way the disciples realized who Christ is with the opening of Scripture and breaking of bread (cf. Luke 24; cf. 1Cor 15:3-8) is the same we we know and see who Christ is today through our liturgical participation in the one body of Christ.
I recommend a very excellent book that treats this topic with precise care. Fr. John Behr is an excellent writer and focuses on how the treatment of theology and history has been misunderstood in our 20th century context. The idea of combining both the disciplines of history and theology has mistreated the person of Christ. Fr. John in this 5 chapter book examines how the mystery of Christ is to be viewed in light of the cross. Excellent book that everyone should read! This reflection focuses on chapter 2 of the book.
No comments:
Post a Comment