1 Cor 15 (2/3)



		(I Cor 15); (Introduction 2/3): The Resurrection of Christ Posted Spring, 1995 to soc.religion.christian.bible-study III. The following are my assumptions (in a nutshell) regarding the study of the Bible. A. Jesus Christ, the Word of God, is God's self-disclosure to Creation. Thus all people, irrespective of Christian commitment, can witness to the Word of God present in Creation. B. While all aspects of Creation witness to the Word of God which creates and sustains them, the Bible is the authoritative written witness to that Word. C. Similarly, the Church (today and in history) is the authoritative living witness to that Word. D. Because of the regrettable fractures within Christendom, the various churches with their various canons of scripture and scriptural interpretation form a pluralistic witness to the Word of God. E. Because of the distinction that exits, in my humble opinion (IMHO), between the Word of God and the authoritative written and living witnesses to that Word, the alleged inerrancy of scripture and the alleged infallibility of the Church - and the necessity for Christians to accept one or both claims - remain open questions. F. Because of the distinction that exists, IMHO, between final truth regarding Creation and the tentative conclusions of historians and scientists seeking to witness to that truth, the alleged contradictions between biblical narrations of events and historical or scientific interpretations of events remain open questions. H. Although the Bible (and its parts) can have various levels of meaning, I believe that a person reading any of the many currently popular translations of the Bible with a willingness to be taught by God's Holy Spirit can acquire a saving knowledge of and relation- ship with Jesus Christ. IV. The following is a crash introduction to some historical- critical assumptions I will be making regarding the interpretation of the Bible. Needless to say, other interpreters may find them offensive or impious (although I do not use them to offend or desecrate) and will choose not to use them. I will welcome their alternative interpretations. A. The interpretation of the text is separate from any particular group's esteem of the text as scripture. The methodologies used in the interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew are no different than those used for the interpretation of the Gospel of Thomas, or Hamlet for that matter. A text portraying Jesus working a miracle is examined as dispassionately as any other ancient text portraying a " divine man"(such as Apollonios of Tyana) working a miracle. A document which claims to be written by Paul is put to the same test as a document which claims to be from the hand of Abraham Lincoln. B. The interpretation of the text is separate from any interpreter's personal faith commitment. The object, using I Corinthians as an example, is to interpret what Paul was telling the Corinthians, not what God was telling them. What God was telling them, or is telling us for that matter, is application - not interpretation. And while application of God's Word to us through I Corinthians is a matter of Christian discernment and faith, interpretation of Paul's word to the Corinthians lies within the public domain. C. The basic introductory text I am working with is Norman Perrin's _The New Testament: An Introduction_. (Second Edition, 1982). Decisions made in that text involving authorship and date of composition for New Testament documents include the following: " The gospels were not written by eyewitnesses of the ministry of Jesus. They were written in the period between A.D. 70 and 100, forty years or more after the crucifixion, and originally they circulated anonymously."(Perrin, 1982, p.42) " ...in the ancient world it was quite common to attach important names to anonymous works, or to write in the name of some teacher or famous person from the past..."(Ibid.) " Of the thirteen letters traditionally ascribed to Paul, seven were written by him: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon and Romans. Two of these, 2 Corinthians and Philippians, are not single letters but rather collections of several letters and remnants brought together into single letters when Paul's letters were collected and circulated as a group. The other letters are pseudonymous, written by men who used Paul's name, not by Paul himself."(Ibid.) D. A theory that seeks to explain the text is evaluated according to the criteria one would use in evaluating any scientific hypothesis. So, for example, a theory which explains apparent discrepancies in II Corinthians as we possess it with the hypothesis that it is the editorial combination of five letters that Paul actually wrote (which, incidentally, is Norman Perrin's view (Perrin, 1982, pp. 130 - 131)) would be rejected in favor of a simpler hypothesis that explained the same discrepancies by saying Paul wrote the letter pretty much the way we possess it (which is the view of Werner Georg Kummel, _Introduction to the New Testament_ (Revised English Edition), pp 292 - 293.) This assumes, of course, that the one document hypothesis answers the various questions raised regarding the text as well as the five document hypothesis answers them. Return to top of page. Return to Bible page. Return to Archive Return to The Inclusive Christian Bill Bekkenhuis
	Return to top of page.