This is Life!: Revolutions Around the Cruciform Axis

The Essence of Scripture

The three global monotheistic faiths—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—all have their Scriptures: the Hebrew Bible, the Christian Old and New Testaments, and the Koran. The Koran famously refers to Jews and Christians as the “People of the Book.”(cf. Suras 9:29; 29:46), and, indeed, all three faiths are known for their devotion to their Scriptures.

What is clear, however, is that both Judaism and Islam have a different relationship with their respective Scriptures than do Christians with theirs. Both Islam and Judaism focus explicitly on that actual text of their respective Scriptures such that the Masoretic text is well known for its scrupulosity in passing down the exact text of the Hebrew Bible, and Islam does not even acknowledge any versions of the Koran as being the Koran but are considered commentaries (by translation) on the Arabic text.

Christian Scriptures, on the other hand, though handled with reverence and fidelity, and though focused attention was given to the faithful transmission of the actual text, were nonetheless not handled with the same sort of scrupulosity. The Christian Scriptures are rich with varying text-type traditions, and the Christian Old Testament varies in the translation methods of the various Hebrew and Aramaic (in most cases) originals from quite loose paraphrase to wooden word-for-word translation. The Septuagint also contains noticeable differences from the Hebrew Bible's Masoretic text not just in the canon (including texts excluded by Jews after the advent of Christianity) but even in including portions of canonical books not included in the Masoretic text, and excluding verses included in the Masoretic text.

Furthermore, from the very beginning of Christianity, the translation of the original texts were considered as authoritative as the originals themselves. Thus the Latin Vulgate took hold in western Christianity, and various translations became the Bible for their respective language groups, such as Slavonic for Russia. Christian children memorized the Scriptures in their native languages, whereas Jewish boys had to learn to read and chant Hebrew for their bar mitzvah, and Muslims memorize the Arabic original.

That is to say, Christians have always viewed the essence of Scripture to be the meaning and not the words. Indeed, the Christian hermeneutical key for the Old Testament has never been what the original audience of Jews would have understood, however helpful this may be, but rather the interpretive key to the Old Testament has always been for Christians Christ himself.

As St. Paul writes in his epistle to the Corinthians:

Ye are our epistle, which hath been inscribed in hour hearts, known and read by all men, since it is manifest that ye are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, which hath not been inscribed with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not in stony tablets, but in fleshy tablets of the heart.

And we have such trust through Christ toward God: Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to reckon anything as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God, Who also made us fit ministers of a new covenant [diathekes], not of the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter killeth, but the Spirit maketh alive. . . .

But their [i. e., the Israelite's] minds were hardened: For until this day, the same veil remaineth upon the reading of the old testament [diathekes], it not being revealed that in Christ the veil is being abolished. But until today, when Moses is being read, a veil lieth in their heart. But whenever it shall turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away. (2 Corinthians 3:2-7, 14-16)

Indeed, that the point of the Scriptures is their meaning, which is to say, is Christ, is also made evident in the epistle to the Hebrews:

God, Who of old, in many parts and in many ways spoke to the fathers through the prophets, did in these last of days speak to us through the Son, Whom He appointed heir of all things, by Whom also He made the ages . . . . (Hebrews 1:1-2)

Christ is the final revelation of God, in him is all of what God wants to say to us. We worship a living Word, not a written text. Indeed, many Christians today, actually misinterpret another passage from Hebrews; namely the one about the living and effective Word. Here is a different translation from what most Christians have read:

For the Logos of God is living and effective, and sharper than every two-edged sword, even going through as far as the dividing of both soul and spirit and of both joints and marrows. And there is no created thing not manifest before His face; but all things are fixed and laid bare to His eyes with Whom is our account. (Hebrews 4:12-13)

If one looks in the context of Hebrews four, the writer has not discussed written Scripture. In verse 10, the author speaks of the one who has entered his rest from his works, just as God did from his own. This is a clear reference to Jesus. Verse 11 exhorts us to enter into that rest which Jesus has obtained. And verse 12 talks about the “Word” (or Logos) of God. Clearly then verse 12 is talking about Jesus and not a written Scripture.

This is borne out by the way logos is used in Hebrews. There are twelve occurrences, which carry these respective meanings: a spoken word (2:2; 4:2; 5:11*; 7:28*; 13:7); an account rendered (4:13; 13:22); perhaps the Hebrews epistle itself (5:11*); God's oracles/revelation (5:13; 7:28*); and Christ himself (4:12; 6:1 [as subject of teaching]). Only in two instances (5:11 and 7:28) could logos be interpreted as referring to written Scriptures, but both of these interpretations depend upon the subsequent result and not the original event. That is to say, in Hebrews 5:11, the author is indicating that he has much more to teach them. This could be construed as the subject matter which follows, especially in chapter 7. But then this presumes that the Hebrews epistle is Scripture, something that the author himself never clearly intends about his own letter. And in Hebrews 7:28, the “word” is the word of the oath God spoke relative to the Messiah being a priest forever. This spoken word from God is written in the Psalm, which is received as Scripture, but it was originally that which God had spoken, or revealed, to his prophet. In other words, logos in Hebrews is never clearly used to refer to Scripture, and the context of Hebrews 4 is not referring to Scripture, so verse 12 refers to the Christ, not to a written body of Scripture.

So the essence of Scripture is Christ, and that essence is communicated to us through the meaning of the Scriptures and not the mere letters of the text. That this was the view of the early Church is also clear. We read in St. Justin:

For these words [of the Old Testament] have neither been prepared by me, nor embellished by the art of man; but David sung them, Isaiah preached them, Zechariah proclaimed them, and Moses wrote them. Are you acquainted with them, Trypho? They are contained in your Scriptures, or rather not yours, but ours. For we believe them; but you, though you read them, do not catch the spirit that is in them. (St. Justin the Philosopher, Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. 29)

In fact, St. Hilary of Poitiers wrote, "Scripturae enim non in legendo sunt, sed in intelligendo., or "For Scripture is not in the reading, but in the understanding." ad Constantium Aug. [to the Emperor Constantius], Bk II, Ch. 9). St. Jerome echoes this.

We ought to remain in that Church which was rounded by the Apostles and continues to this day. If ever you hear of any that are called Christians taking their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some other, for instance, Marcionites, Valentinians, Men of the mountain or the plain, you may be sure that you have there not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist. For the fact that they took their rise after the foundation of the Church is proof that they are those whose coming the Apostle foretold. And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if we follow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church.(The Dialogue Against the Luciferians, ch. 28)

So, for Christians, what is important about the Scriptures is what they mean, how they reveal Christ and not the letters of the text.

Now don't mistake me. I do not mean to indicate that the practices of textual criticism or reliance on the Greek Old Testament and New Testament is inessential. On the contrary, if what is important is the meaning, then that meaning will be conveyed by words and to the best of our ability we should reconstruct the actual words of the originals from the copies we have available to us. But we need not fret over whether we have the exact wording of the original text. For the meaning of the texts is not going to be preserved in the mere letters of the text, but in the Christ who is revealed in them.

And it is this hermeneutical principle that will reveal to us the need for our Old Testament to conform to the Old Testament of the Church, which is not the Hebrew Bible as it is currently known. For the meaning of the Old Testament is preserved in that text that the Church received and which was her Bible. And that text was the Greek Old Testament. Once again, however, we need to fret over whether we have the exact same texts of the Septuagint that the apostles had—there is room for variations of Septuagint text-types. In any case, if we want to establish an authoritative “first edition” of the Christian Bible, we would do well to practice our textual criticism primarily via liturgical reconstruction of the biblical texts and not only the biblical codices.

To return to the primary point of this post, however, if the essence of the Scriptures is Christ, and is, therefore, their meaning, then it is going to be radically important that Christians “get right” the meaning of the text. This is not to imply that there is only one singular meaning of each text, for there are legitimately layers of meaning in the texts of Scripture. But to adequately access those layers, that meaning, it will be necessary to follow the proper hermeneutic.

But what is that proper hermeneutic? How do Christians get at the true meaning of the Scriptures? They do so through the mind of Christ. And where do we find this mind of Christ? According to 1 Corinthians 2:16, Ephesians 4:11-16 and 1 John 2:20-24; 3:23-4:6, that mind of Christ is found in the Church, the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15). Therefore our interpretations of the Scriptures, if we would get the essence of the Scripture, must conform to what the Church has always said about them.

As St. Vincent of Lerins put it in the fifth century:

A General Rule for distinguishing the Truth of the Catholic Faith from the Falsehood of Heretical Pravity.

I Have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason,-because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense "Catholic," which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors. (St. Vincent of Lerins, The Commonitory, Ch. II)

Posted by Clifton at August 18, 2005 10:30 AM | TrackBack