What is the Bible

Dr. Emmanuel Assante

Let us continue our Old Testament studies by raising the question, "What is the Bible?" The answer which readily comes to mind is that the Bible is the "Word of God." But such an answer raises a further question, namely, "In what sense is the Bible the Word of God?" Where Scriptures are regarded as literally inerrant (i.e., without error) and the writers are seen as passive instruments in God's hands, there is a clear and definite sense in which Scriptures are understood as the Word of God in a literal sense, it is held that God, in His sovereignty, so supervised and the human writers that, although they used their own writing, it was, nevertheless, the very words of God down minutest details of individual words and idioms. The Scriptures therefore, are God's very writings and are, thus, without error in their minutest detail.

The case is a little different where Scriptures are not regarded as written by passive instruments in God's hands, but are seen as documents written by people who were not only inspired by the Spirit, but were also shaped by institutional structures and symbolic codes operative in the primary sectors of communal life, such as, culture, informed by the economy, family, government, law, war, ritual
and religious beliefs. In such a situation, the expression, “Word of God," as a definition of the Bible, takes on a different meaning. Here, the Bible comes to be understood as the "Word of God” in the sense of a divinely-inspired work of the human. In the words of Edward Young, "The Old Testament is the very Word of the God of truth. It is also the work of men."(1)

Our position is that, the Bible is both the "Word of God" and the “work of the human." In respect of this, Young observes as follows: "In His inscrutable wisdom, God chose and prepared for the task of writing, those human agents through whom He desired to speak His will. Then in a mysterious fashion His Spirit wrought upon them, so that what they wrote, although in a very true sense their own, was, nevertheless, precisely what the Spirit of God desired. The Bible, therefore, in one sense, may be regarded as a human book.

Essentially, however, it is divine and God Himself is its Author." In that sense, the Bible, as Howard Marshall has observed is infallible in the sense of a document that is entirely trustworthy for the purpose for which it is given.(2) The language of infallibility rather than that of "inerrancy" allows for possible historical inaccuracies, grammatical errors, and infelicities of expressions in the literary transmission of the Word of God.

Yet, even though it allows for these human weaknesses in the literary transmission of the Word of God, infallibility does not compromise the trustworthiness of the Word of God. On the contrary, infallibility assumes the unqualified and total trustworthiness of the Bible, in the sense of the "comprehensiveness of Scripture's truth claims," for the purpose for which it is given.

The Word of God
To refer to the Bible as the "Word of God" is to make a faith assertion. Here, one recognizes the divine origin or the inspiration of Scripture (inspiration is understood as a supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit upon divinely-chosen people in consequence of which their writings became trustworthy and authoritative). As the "Word of God," the Bible is understood and regarded as being in some sense, the special revelation of God, as "God-breathed" (theopneustos) and, therefore, as being the final standard or norm of Christian truth. As the "Word of God," the Bible confronts humanity with the reality of God. Its study then must mediate an encounter neither with words nor forms, but with a Jiving reality, God, whose encounter allows one to confront one's own ‘creatureliness’ and, hence, one's limitations and possibilities. In that sense, an encounter with God through His Word brings about a transformation of life. As the Word of God, the Bible constitutes the inspired role of faith and practice. The Bible then is divine.

The Work of the Human
Nevertheless, the Bible is also the "Work of the Human." It is precisely because it involves the human, whose reality can be defined with a social, cultural, historical, linguistic, geographical and religious space.

All this means that in studying the Bible, there is the need to into account, the geographical, sociological, political, religious, historical, cultural and linguistic settings of the books and their authors as well as the religio-cultural experiences lying behind the Bible, understood as the record of people's encounter with God. It is important to note that words are dynamic. Words receive different meanings in the passage of time. The historical contexts within which words are used are, therefore, important with respect to the meaning of the words.


As the ‘Work of the Human," the Bible is a piece of literature. Literature involves words and syntactical constructions. These are put in literary unit. Each literary unit has a form, a genre, the consideration of which is important to the interpretation of the text. It is important to understand that the overshadowing paradigm of God as the sole. Author of the Bible can hinder the important recognition and appreciation of Scripture's literary pluralism. Yet, as has been correctly observed, "A thorough-going acknowledgement of Scripture's diverse forms (genres) better helps us to understand the humanity of Scripture, without surrendering the notion of divine authorship."(3) The point is genre is constitutive of meaning. Be that as it may, genre "conditions our expectations as readers and permits understanding to take place."(4) It "enables the reader to interpret meaning and to recognize what kinds of truth claims are being made in and by a text."(5) The writers, who were inspired by God, used diverse linguistic and literary conventions in their writings. Some conventions yielded a world closely approximating our everyday life. Others did not. We neither check the historical authenticity of a talking frog in a fairy tale, of heroes with magical powers in romance, nor of gods talking with humans in epics, by consulting our everyday experience on these matters. One of the conventions of Ananse stories or fairy tales is that animals can speak human language. The point is that, a given literature must be read according to its genre and interpreted according to the conventions of that genre. This means that to understand a piece of literature, there is the need to take into consideration its genre. It has been observed that, "our stance about the literary genre of the book determines our entire interpretation of the book."(6) We know that the Bible is a rich composite of many oral and written traditions. The authors brought together and used diverse literary genres deriving from many sociological and linguistic settings. Critical scholarship has shown that the Bible involves different literary forms (genres).

Among these literary forms are the following:

Etiology: A narrative that provides an explanation for a certain name or situation. The etiology can be word play (Exodus 15:23 - Mara), or it can be a narrative that explains an event, such as the explanation given in Genesis 47:13-26 for the land tax established by Joseph.
Ritual: A description of the way in which a community carries out "significant" ceremonies, such as the offering of the first fruits in Deuteronomy 26:1-11, or the prescriptions for sacrifice (Leviticus 1-7).
Toledoth: Genealogy - A list that traces ancestral descent and/or a relationship intended to define the identity of specific individuals.
Hieros Logos: "Sacred Words" or sacral tradition, which refers to the origins of holy places (Genesis 28:22; 33:18-20).
Blessing: A form of speech that imparts an efficacious power (a performative word upon someone).
Myth: A symbolic expression of an event or a reality which lies at the heart of a community's existence and, therefore, defines or gives meaning to that existence.
Saga: A story transmitted orally from generation to generation in an exaggerative manner, preserving traditions of wanderings, exploits and adventures of clans.
Legend: The exploits of tribal heroes, like the stories of Samson, Komfo Anokye, Asebu Ainanfi, etc.
Sermon: Proclamation of an inspired word.
Commandments: Prescriptive discourses which provide the basis for a covenant relationship with God and with one another.
History: Although the literary genre of history, as it is conceived in modern historiography, cannot be properly applied to the biblical records, the Bible does supply history in various forms. It records events of the past, not in the sense of modern historiography. Its chronological sequence, cause and effect relationship, and selectivity are, however, characteristic of historiography. Historical narrative dealing with humans' encounter with God or vice-versa, serves God's revelatory design by "allowing us vicariously to live through events and experiences rather than simply learning about the issues involved in those events and experiences."(7)

As the 'Work of the Human,' the Bible is a social product, that is to say, it is a community reality. For example, the canonicity of Scripture was defined by the people of God to serve as the norm and rule of their faith and conduct. The Bible is what the religious community has accepted as sacred and authoritative. Behind the reality of the Bible, then, are a community and its religious traditions and expectations. The Bible, by no means, reflects a single theology. On the contrary, it reflects an eclectic theology. It is a book representing the harmony of many voices. For the people of God, the Bible is living, in the sense that it speaks to their differing concrete situations through a diversity of literary forms. This diversity of literary forms does not imply that Scripture contains competing kinds of truth: It shows rather that, Scripture is about various kinds of facts.8 With great indebtedness to Aristotle, we agree that, "Being may be said in diverse ways." The Akan in Ghana, West Africa, say: "Wisdom cannot be monopolised by one person" (Nyansa nni obaakofoo tirim). The Akan also say:

"Consultation calls for more than one person" (Tikoro nnko agyina).

What remains as a real theological issue today revolves around the authority of Scripture. As we have seen, the process of shaping the Canon of Scripture involved the religious community, which determined the books to be included or excluded. The question is does the determination of the Canon of Scripture reflect imposition of the authority of the religious community, that is, the Church, upon the Bible, or the recognition by the Church of the intrinsic authority of the Bible?

Put in another way, could the authority of the Scriptures so easily be divorced from the authority of the Christian community?

The Roman Catholic Church, on the one hand, holds the view that the Canon of Scripture reflects the imposition of external authority of the Church upon the Bible. According to Roman Catholic apologists, the authority of the Bible cannot be divorced from the Church's authority. To them, it is the Church's infallibility which ensures the authority of Scripture. The Protestant churches, on the other hand, generally maintain that the shaping of the Canon of Scripture is simply
informed by the Church's recognition of the intrinsic authority of the Bible.

Reacting to Augustine's assertion in contention against the Manicheans that, "I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church," Luther said:
We must not understand St. Augustine to say that he would not believe the Gospel unless he was moved thereto by the authority of the whole Church. Every man must believe only because it is God's Word, and because he is convinced in his heart that it is true, although one angel from heaven and the entire world preached to the contrary. His meaning is rather, as himself says, that he finds the Gospel nowhere except in the Church, and that this external proof can be given heretics that their doctrine is not right, but that is right which all the world has with one accord accepted.(9)

Calvin agreed with Luther on this.(10) What is clear in both Christian traditions is that, there is coexistence between the community of faith and Scripture, the believing community and the Bible. "The Canon of Scripture then may be regarded as emerging organically from a community of faith already committed to using and respecting it."(11) The implication of the debate is that for Roman Catholic theologians, "not only the correct interpretation of Scripture, but the shape and content of the Canon itself were guaranteed by the infallibility of the Church."(12) The Reformers could not accept this Roman Catholic position which threatened the central principle of the Reformation, Sola Scriptura.. Consequently, they opposed the view that the Church had the power to determine the canonicity of the Bible. To the Reformers, it was the Spirit who determined the Canon. The Church's role was to bear witness to what God had established. The Church is infallible in its role as witness. For the Reformers, "the authority of the Scriptures was self-authenticating (autopistos) and sealed to the works of God's people by the witness of the Holy Spirit alone ....”(13) In our view, the belief that the Holy Spirit inspired the writing of the Bible must include the belief that the Spirit also led to the reception of the books which constituted the Canon. It must be admitted that the Spirit could not have ceased working once the last book of the Bible was written. He also led in the determination of the Canon.


---------------------------------------------------------

1. Edward Young, Introduction of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1958), p. 29
2. Ian Howard Marshall, Biblical Inspiration (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982) See Chapter 3.
3. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “The Semantics of Biblical Literature: Truth and Scripture’s Diverse Literary Form,” in D.A Carson
and John D. Woodbridge (eds.), Hermeneutics, p.79
4. Ibid., p. 80
5. Ibid
6. Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook of Hemeneutics, 3rd rev ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1973), p. 144
7. Vanhoozer, “The Semantics,” pp.80-81
8. Ibid., p.85
9. Works of Martin Luther , Vol 21 (Philadelphia: Muhlberg, 1943). Pp. 452-3
10.Calvin, Institutes. 1.7.3 (Battles, ed.). p. 77.
11. Alistair E. McGrath. Christian Theology: An Introduction, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001). p. 160.
12. David G. Dunbar, "The Biblical Canon." in D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (eds.), Hermeneutics, p. 343.
13. Ibid.

Il documento è stato creato per il discorso durante il Seminario Teologico tra 17 e 19 settembre 2010.