Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
Michael J. Watts, Adjunct Instructor in Religion, East Carolina University 1986-1995
Updated 2009
Hebrew Bible. Almost all Christians give authority to the at least the 27 books
commonly called “the New Testament.” But even among Christians there are
some differences.
So-called “main-line” Protestant Christians and Pentecostal Christians
generally limit canonical authority only to the 39 books commonly called “the
Old Testament” and to the 27 books called “the New Testament.” But if you are
a Roman Catholic Christian your church also gives authority to a group of some
14 or 15 books called “the Deuterocanonical Books” or “the Apocrypha.” And
if you belong to one of the Eastern Orthodox branches of the Christian faith a
couple of additional books are added to that group, plus an additional Psalm.
(Some Lutherans and nearly all Episcopalians also give a degree of semi-
authority to most or all of the Apocryphal books when they include texts from
these in lectionaries of daily worship readings.) The Ethiopian Church adds the
Book of 1 Enoch, which was written originally in Greek, but which, except for
a few Greek fragments (Codex Panopolitanus), has survived only in the
Ethiopic language.
Adherents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the
“Mormons,” usually accord canonical authority to The Book of Mormon,
The Pearl of Great Price, and The Doctrines and Covenants, as well as to
official pronouncements made by the Presiding Elder of that church.
And if you are a Seventh-day Adventist Christian, the writings of the
founder of that denomination, Mrs. Ellen White, hold a degree of at least
semi-“canonical” authority for you.
Furthermore, if you are a member of the Church of Christ, Scientist,
you probably give a degree of at least semi- “canonical” authority to a work
called Science and Health, With Key to the Scriptures, and perhaps to other
works by the founder of the Christian Scientists, Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy.
And those are only the present-day differences. In fact, nothing like a
unanimous decision about the extent of the canon for all of Christianity has ever
existed. In the New Testament itself, the Book of Jude, verses 14-15, quotes
from the “pseudepigraphical” Book of 1 Enoch (“Ethiopic Enoch”) (1:9; cf.
5:4 and 27:2). It is clear that the writer of Jude regarded 1 Enoch as an inspired
and authoritative text. Furthermore, Jude, verse 9, refers to an incident in the
work called The Assumption of Moses with similar implications. There are
many other references of similar nature scattered throughout the New
Testament, especially in the Pauline letters.
2
Michael J. Watts, Adjunct Instructor in Religion, East Carolina University 1986-1995
Updated 2009
As late as the year 325 CE, bound copies of the New Testament often
included books like The Shepherd of Hermas and The Letter of Barnabas and
The First Letter of Clement [Bishop of Rome c. 100 CE] to Corinth. At the
same time, many such bound NT copies omitted some books in our current
New Testament, like Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and the Revelation to
John, because these were not thought to be authoritative Scripture.
It is true that by about the year 397 CE something like a consensus had
been reached and published in some regional decisions within the Roman
Empire. But even as late as the year 1534 CE the Protestant reformer Martin
Luther felt perfectly free to place the books of Esther, James, and the Revelation
into an appendix to his German translation of the Bible because he held that they
should not be considered authoritative for Christians. He felt those books did not
reflect the central doctrines of the Christian faith, as he understood them,
especially the concept of “justification by faith.” The Roman Catholic canon was
set in April of 1546 during the fourth session of the Council of Trent (1545-
1563), but was never recognized as authoritative by Protestants.
(2) There is a second reason that a person can never be certain that the
book he or she is studying is actually “the” Bible. Let us accept for the moment,
either on faith, or just for the sake of argument, that only a certain group of books
were correctly chosen by some person or group with authority to make such a
choice, to be the only authoritative and canonical books. There remains another
problem. It is the unfortunate but true fact that we do not currently have even a
single book of the Bible available to us in the original copy (the “autograph”),
as it came from the pen of the original writer or compiler.
All that we have are copies—or to be more accurate, copies of copies of
copies of copies . . . And if you have ever attempted to copy any long passage
by hand then you have probably experienced this problem first hand. Today we
have thousands of manuscripts of all or parts of Biblical books from the Hebrew
Bible and the New Testament. But no two of them read exactly alike! Those
copies were preserved under less than ideal conditions, long before the age of
printing and proofreading. They contain numerous unintentional errors by
scribes, and often even some deliberate alterations to the earlier text that reflect
some scribe’s attempt to clarify obscure references or bad grammar, or to put
forth his own special bias or interpretation of the Biblical writer’s intent.
Devout Biblical scholars called “textual critics” have worked for many
years to develop principles by which to determine, as closely as possible the
correct and original text of the Biblical books. Both “conservative” and
“liberal” translators must depend on the work of such scholars. But this
3
Michael J. Watts, Adjunct Instructor in Religion, East Carolina University 1986-1995
Updated 2009
4
Michael J. Watts, Adjunct Instructor in Religion, East Carolina University 1986-1995
Updated 2009
5
Michael J. Watts, Adjunct Instructor in Religion, East Carolina University 1986-1995
Updated 2009
6
Michael J. Watts, Adjunct Instructor in Religion, East Carolina University 1986-1995
Updated 2009
7
Michael J. Watts, Adjunct Instructor in Religion, East Carolina University 1986-1995
Updated 2009
acting under orders-from the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate, perhaps at the
instigation of certain Judean religious leaders, as the execution of a rabble-
rousing revolutionary. But a Christian believer, reading the same story through
“eyes of faith,” might interpret that same event as another instance of Divine
intervention into human history. He or she might see it as another instance in
which the eternal God entered into a human life in a unique way, engaging in a
self-offering, as a kind of “sacrifice” for the sins of the world, again forever
changing the human situation. Again, “objective history” can neither prove nor
disprove such an assertion. It is a matter of personal faith-interpretation.
Such conclusions as these can never be proved or disproved by the
methods of scientific or historical research. The student of the Biblical
texts must always be humbly aware that the Biblical writers do read their
history through “eyes of faith,” as “salvation history,” because the Bible is a
collection of “religious” writings.
5. The Problem of the Limitations of Human Language
When we recognize the Bible’s religious character and purpose we
then encounter a fifth difficulty in studying the Bible. We now find ourselves
compelled to recognize that those Biblical writers were attempting to
perform an essentially impossible task. They were attempting to express
ideas that are basically inexpressible, and to describe events, and concepts
that are basically indescribable, simply because human words have limits,
and because human language is inadequate to communicate what the Biblical
writers were attempting to communicate.
Those Biblical writers were attempting, through “eyes of faith” to speak
of encounters of human beings with that which is Divine or transcendent, or
supernatural. Human language is not really adequate for this task. Human
words cannot totally communicate the kinds of realities these Biblical writers
wanted to describe. And much of the time they had to use symbolic, or poetic,
or metaphorical, or parabolic, or even mythological language, because those
are often the only kinds of language that can even come close to doing justice
to the kinds of realities these Biblical writers were trying to communicate.
Thus, the writer of Genesis speaks of a primeval time when human
beings had personal fellowship with God in a Garden, where there existed
talking snakes, and trees whose fruit was not apples or pears, but Life, and the
Knowledge of Good and Evil. And thus, the writer of the Revelation speaks of
the reward of the faithful that included a New Jerusalem, with gates made of
precious stones and streets paved with gold. That is the language of poetry, of
metaphor, of allegory, of symbol, of parable, and of myth. Such language
8
Michael J. Watts, Adjunct Instructor in Religion, East Carolina University 1986-1995
Updated 2009
does not make the realities any less real for the person of faith, but the Biblical
student must humbly recognize this problem of literal versus figurative or
mythological language in dealing with Biblical texts, and not get the two kinds
of language confused.
6. The Problem of Erring and Fallible Interpreters
The final difficulty is the simple fact of our own human imperfection.
Even with all the knowledge available to Biblical interpreters today, and even
with full realization of, and compensation for, all the other difficulties that
have been described above, there is still no guarantee that anyone can provide
a perfect interpretation of any Biblical text.
Whatever a person might believe about the theory of an infallible or
inerrant Bible, the plain fact is that such a Bible, even if it exists, must still
be subject to interpretation by fallible and errant human beings like you
and me. No Pope, no Church Council, no Council of Rabbis, and no pastor
or Bible teacher can guarantee a perfect interpretation. As Martin Luther
observed, Popes have erred, and Church Councils have erred. And the plain
fact is, that you and I err also. And since human beings are imperfect and
fallible, how would they be able to recognize something infallible and
perfect if they encountered it? One might even conclude that, if God
purposed to send an inerrant or infallible revelation to humanity, then God
had failed in that purpose, since humanity has never discovered an infallible
or inerrant interpretation of the infallible inerrant revelation that all
humanity could agree upon and recognize immediately for what it is!
Examples abound throughout history of the ways in which persons of
equal sincerity and devotion and scholarly ability and knowledge and
persistence still have come to widely divergent interpretations of the very
same crucial Biblical passages. This fact applies not only to Rabbis
Shammai, and Hillel, and Akiba, in Jewish interpretation, and not only to
Pelagius, and St. Augustine, and St. Jerome, in the early centuries of
Christian history, and not only to Luther, and Calvin, and Zwingli, during
the Protestant Reformation. It applies to all of us in every generation.
And thus it is that our world is still divided by a multitude of religious
denominations and sects. Most of them have at one time or another chosen
to believe that theirs was the only way to believe, and that all others were
“heretics,” while “each drew his sword on the side of the Lord.”
But even if I myself were to rely solely on my own judgment and
scholarship and devotion, without benefit of those potentially erring opinions
9
Michael J. Watts, Adjunct Instructor in Religion, East Carolina University 1986-1995
Updated 2009
Michael J. Watts, Adjunct Instructor of Religion, East Carolina University. Revised 2009
10