|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The word 'scripture'.
|
jrw
Shipmate
# 18045
|
Posted
What exactly do the scriptures themselves mean by the word 'scripture'?
--------------------
plug plug
Posts: 522 | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jrw:
What exactly do the scriptures themselves mean by the word 'scripture'?
The Torah and the Prophets
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by jrw:
quote:
What exactly do the scriptures themselves mean by the word 'scripture'?
The Torah and the Prophets. But it's interesting that Peter refers to Paul's writings as scripture along with 'the other scriptures' - meaning the aforementioned OT documents.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jrw
Shipmate
# 18045
|
Posted
Could 'scripture' simply mean 'writings'?
--------------------
plug plug
Posts: 522 | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Yes, 'scripture' simply means 'writings'. But, it can't be as simple as that. When Paul (or whoever) writes to Timothy that "all Scripture is God-breathed ..." he can't possibly mean "everything ever written down". There could be a circular argument - 'scripture' is that subset of 'writings' which are recognised as 'God-breathed' and useful for teaching, rebuking, training in righteousness - and all those scriptures are God-breathed and useful for ....
I would say that the recognition of a writing as Scripture is something that has to be done by the Church, and is thus beyond the scope of the role of Scripture itself. It appears fairly certain that the first Christians simply accepted the Scriptures as recognised by Judaism. But, as noted by Mudfrog within the NT documents there is evidence that very early on in the history of the Church that body of recognised Scriptures was being supplemented with additional writings from Christian authors - Peter acknowledging some of the letters of Paul as Scripture.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by jrw:
What exactly do the scriptures themselves mean by the word 'scripture'?
The Torah and the Prophets
Plus the Psalms, the Gospels and (according to Apostolic teaching) the writings of Paul and other NT epistles.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I agree with mudfrog. (That must be a first!)
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif) ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif) ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jrw:
What exactly do the scriptures themselves mean by the word 'scripture'?
The other aspect of this question is "what is the meaning of the word 'scripture'?"
Does it 'just' mean 'writings' or is it rather 'holy writings' (and what would be meant by THAT)?
And is there a single 'scriptural' definition of the meaning of the word 'scripture'? Or did different writers mean slightly different things by the word?
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
I don't think "scripture" means anything by a word, especially not an English word. The translators of a given Bible translation certainly mean something by an English word they use, or possibly different things at different times they use it. Various human authors of scripture mean various things when they use various words that various translators sometimes render into English as "scripture." You're going to have to bring up a specific example to a get a concrete answer.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
A lot of agreement here. Paul and Peter use γραφή (graphé) which simply means writings.
In context it means the contents of the holy book, though what that is is not defined.
The Synoptic Gospels and Acts add a third meaning, a portion of this body of work. You could argue that referring to a short passage from the scriptures is scriptural; that is if you like circular arguments.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
..afterthought...
The Jews refer to the whole of their holy book as the "Written Torah" (as opposed to the Torah which is the first 5 books).
If the new testament writers were meaning the Written Torah then that would be The Law, the Prophets ans the Writings.
[ TANGENT ]When the New Testament says "it is written" it is usually referring to that portion of the Old Testament not in the Law or the Prophets. [ End of TANGENT ]
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flubb
Shipmate
# 918
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, 'scripture' simply means 'writings'. But, it can't be as simple as that. When Paul (or whoever) writes to Timothy that "all Scripture is God-breathed ..."
James Barr points out that it can also be translated "All scripture that is God-breathed...".
--------------------
In cyberspace everyone can hear your spleen...
Posts: 234 | From: St. Androos | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Waw consecutivum
Apprentice
# 18120
|
Posted
Taking Barr's discussion - see his "Escaping from Fundamentalism" for the details - a bit further, maybe the writer of 2 Timothy left room for "non-canonical" writings to be "God-breathed". St Jude seems to have had regarded 1 Enoch as a "writing" of high authority. Several writings - 1 Clement, the Ignatian letters - hung around the borders of the canon for a long time.
One is assuming a static notion of "God-breathedness" (Barr discusses that in his book too) - if OTOH this breathing of God is something not (just) once for all in the past, but a repeated act of God, that complicates the meaning of "scripture" somewhat.
--------------------
James
Posts: 17 | From: North-Western Middle Earth | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Waw consecutivum:
One is assuming a static notion of "God-breathedness" (Barr discusses that in his book too) - if OTOH this breathing of God is something not (just) once for all in the past, but a repeated act of God, that complicates the meaning of "scripture" somewhat.
Welcome Waw consecutivum.
I would say that's a good point. The thing about God-breathing is that it is, almost by definition, dynamic - it's the process by which Genesis tells us God gave life to a form made from dirt. I believe that we have life (real spiritual life) only because God continues to breathe into us.
Likewise, the life of Scripture - the ability to be a light shining in the darkness, to teach, rebuke, to train in righteousness - is dependent upon the breath of God within Scripture. That's the ongoing presence of the breath of God. Scripture needs to be alive and dynamic, otherwise it would be incapable of speaking to new situations.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Scripture needs to be alive and dynamic, otherwise it would be incapable of speaking to new situations.
Yes, so it is a glorious multi-directional dynamic, an interchange between author (often anonymous), canonizers, translators readers, interpreters ... I guess any text is (literature is my primary field) and this applies to Shakespeare or Goethe or Mann for example, but in the multiform transaction between canonical texts and the participants there is somehow this other dimension, this electricity that is the "God-breathedness" (especially as Jamie Barr interprets the word ...) and we the "followers" are called to act upon the word we encounter (mind you that is true of say Marx or Fariña or dare I say it Dawkins, even I suppose a maths-book editor to ... but ...).
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Waw consecutivum
Apprentice
# 18120
|
Posted
Thanks for the welcome ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Would it perhaps be more adequate, Biblically and humanly, rather than thinking of the Bible as alone or unique in being "God-breathed", to think instead of all literature as in some measure "God-breathed", with "the Holy Scriptures" being "special" because (perhaps) of their origin in Israel and their function ?
On this theory, God is as truly "behind" outstanding works such as the Homeric poems, or the Divine Comedy, or the Aeneid, or the Epic of Gilgamesh, or [insert name]. (If there's anything in this, the credit is Barr's).
Such a notion could have rather interesting implications for an understanding of the Church, the Holy Spirit, creation, election, Providence, and the non-Christian world.
--------------------
James
Posts: 17 | From: North-Western Middle Earth | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Waw consecutivum:
Would it perhaps be more adequate...to think instead of all literature as in some measure "God-breathed"...
We're thrown a bit back on another question here, aren't we: What criteria do we then use to validate someone's selection of a work as being 'god-breathed'? How would the Epic of Gilgamesh be 'god-breathed' in a way that Mein Kampf is not? Or is it? The latter was accepted as authoritative in a community at one time, so is the criterion that the work in question must have been accepted in a community that lasted over a considerable period of time and not just one generation? Would the Epic of Gilgamesh pass a test, given that whatever community that retained that piece of literature has long since passed into dust?
Another way of looking at this may be to say that – on a Judeo-Christian reading – humans (despite their rebellion against God) from time to time get near to reflecting God's image and so a piece of literature is bound to appear that will strike a chord among other humans.
Of course a humanist would say that all humans have a similar emotional make-up and so from time to time a piece of literature will appear that will strike a chord among other humans.
What both readings depend on is an author who reflects deeply on the nature of humans and the issue of humanity's angst. I think Barr would argue that the type of writings that make up the bible are special because (or perhaps, if) they reflect on God and Jesus, so not all human writings are 'god-breathed' in that sense. Barr's issue is more with authority, it seems to me. He backs off any claim to that because he is concerned it leads to abuse.
Which poses another question: How does one validate any given interpretation of a biblical text? Surely the answer cannot simply be that an interpretation is wrong if it jars with my personal predilections or sensitivities!
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
To Nigel's question: the ultimate hermeneutic criterion is whether a particular interpretation draws us deeper into the love of God and neighbor. Mein Kampf does not.
ETA: This applies as well to whether a writing is God-breathed, even more so!
[ 15. June 2014, 16:37: Message edited by: Bostonman ]
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
The 'love God / love neighbour' is a good principle to look at, I think. It can take as a starting assumption that validation will be built on Jesus' approved summary of the Torah's commandments, the first part being that section known as the Shema...
quote:
Deuteronomy 6:4-5
“Listen up, Israel! Our God [El] is Yahweh! There is no other. You must be loyal [show love] to Yahweh your God with your whole mind, your whole being, and all your strength.”
...and secondly:
quote:
Lev. 19:18
“You must not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the children of your people, but you must show loyalty to [love] your neighbour as yourself.”
Jesus' summary can be found at:
quote:
Matt. 22:34-40
“Now when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they assembled together. And one of them, an expert in interpretation, asked him a question to test him: “Teacher, which commandment in Torah is the greatest?” Jesus said to him, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’This is the first and greatest commandment. The second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ All the law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.”
So if that is a principle for validating interpretations, and if the NT is an interpretation of the OT (the Jewish scriptures), and if much of the OT is an interpretation of the Torah, then it could follow that 'Scripture' itself understands 'scripture' to refer to any writing that supports the 'Love God / Love your fellow community member' principle.
Admittedly there is a circularity in this and I'm not sure it's possible to get out of it. Scripture sets up the interpretive principle by which scripture itself is to be interpreted.
Additionally it might be argued that the principle works only at the macro level (at best), because there are specific texts in both testaments that cause issue with some readers who cannot reconcile them with that principle. A way out of this is to introduce another assumption-based principle: that there is a community of interpreters and believers who have tested out the texts and have concluded that they are worthy of dissemination and of providing an authoritative base from which to draw guidance on how to live. Of course, Mein Kampf falls into this category as well, so we cannot rely on that principle alone.
And, of course, we probably should test the assumptions!
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
