Field of Dreams: if you build it, they will come!

Genesis 1.1 En archê epoiêsen ho theos…
Genesis 2.1 kai synetelen ho theos… ha epoiêse

John 1.1 en archê ên ho logos…
John 19.30 Ho Iêsous eipen tetelestai…

Rev 22.13 egô to alpha kai to ômega, ho prôtos kai ho eschatos, hê archê kai to telos

Arche, Latin principium, is not just the first in a temporal sequence, but the source or origin of what follows. Similarly, telos is not just the last in the sequence, but the aim or goal of that sequence.

In Genesis, synetelen is strong – utterly finished, completed, brought to its proper conclusion, after which God takes his rest. In John, the “beginning” is God’s Word, he speaks. On the Cross, Jesus announces that “It is accomplished”, as he enters his Sabbath rest in the tomb. In Revelation, Jesus calls himself A and O, first and last, “hê archê kai to telos”, the source/origin and end/goal of everything. Elsewhere in John (8.25), Jesus refers to himself as “the Beginning”. He is asked, “Who are you”, and replies, “Tên archên ho ti kai lalô hymin,” which can be understood in several ways (and there is no punctuation in the original), including, “The Beginning, even that I speak to you.” The ambiguity may be intentional.

The first chapter of Genesis gives an overview of God’s entire creative plan, arranged in six days, followed by a seventh of rest or fulfilment (God comes to dwell in the house/Temple he has made, and which he has entrusted to humankind as his stewards and priests). The second chapter, however, reverts to the creation of humankind, so we are still in Day Six, according to the overall scheme. In a certain sense, the death of Christ marks the end of that day and the beginning of the Seventh; but the Days of Creation begin with evening, before morning: in one sense we have begun the “Age to Come”, while in another we are still in the “Present Age”. We await the Dawn, the definitive Sunrise (Oriens).

I start with the claim that the New Testament was written within the lifetime of those who had witnessed the ministry and death of Jesus, and who were accessible to those writers who were not themselves witnesses. While this claim cannot be strictly proved, it seems as likely as the converse, and is consistent with the “face value” of the writings themselves, so that the onus of proof is on those who contest it.

Nevertheless, the New Testament texts were not composed to give a purely neutral record of facts, but to suggest the meaning and relevance of those facts. In accordance with the literary styles and conventions of their time, this intention affects the way the stories were told. Thus commentators must distinguish the “face value” of a narrative from its “interpretative value” – something perfectly possible, but requiring careful study of each particular text. We cannot assume that, for instance, the author of “Mark” had exactly the same intention as the author of “Luke”, let alone the intention of Paul in his letters.

In this regard, I take seriously the early witness of Bishop Papias regarding the authorship of the Gospels. He says that Matthew was the first to record the sayings of Jesus, in Hebrew (i.e. Aramaic), which were then translated into Greek. It is not clear what he understood by “the sayings of Jesus”, and I will leave this for the moment.

“Mark” is usually taken now as the earliest Gospel in the form we now have it. Papias says that Mark was an associate of Peter, and drew his information from the Apostle. The Gospel was composed in Rome. This claim is consistent with the internal evidence of the Gospel, in which Peter is featured prominently, yet not entirely favourably (unlike other NT writings and later tradition). The Gospel has small details that suggest first-hand information, such as snatches of Aramaic (“Talitha, Koum!”) or the remark that Simon of Cyrene was the father of Alexander and Rufus. It is perfectly possible that the Gospel was composed from Peter’s reminiscences by, say, 60AD. The structure is schematic rather than chronological, save that the Gospel begins with the baptism of Jesus (at which, according to John’s Gospel, Peter was first associated with Jesus), and proceeds to the point at which Peter acknowledges Jesus as “Messiah”. Then, with a second theophany in which Jesus is named “Beloved Son”, the repeated prophecy of suffering and death leads to the narrative of the final week. Almost the last words are the command to the women to give news of the resurrection to “the disciples and Peter”.

Proceeding next to “Luke” and “Acts”, the face-value claim is that this two-part work is by a companion of Paul, who at certain points gives his story in the first person plural (the “we” passages). From the narrative itself, we can deduce that the author was with Paul during his two-year detention at Caesarea, and so would have had the opportunity to gather information about the ministry of Jesus from eye-witnesses, as well as from earlier writings that he alludes to in his preamble to the Gospel. These may well have included one or more versions of “the sayings of Jesus” mentioned above. Luke accompanied Paul to Rome, but leaves the story three years later with Paul still awaiting trial. My own working hypothesis, for what it is worth, is that Luke spent those three years completing his two works. He found in Rome that Mark had already completed his own account of Jesus’s ministry, and incorporated it into his own work. The whole work, with the story of Jesus and that of Paul, was designed to provide background for Roman authorities dealing with Paul’s case (in which case, “Theophilus” may be a flattering address to the judge as “God-loving”). Luke therefore presents a version more favourable to Roman authorities than to the Jerusalem priesthood, and soft-pedals some of Paul’s own brushes with Roman authorities.

“Matthew” I regard as of Palestinian (even Galilean) origin, also combining Mark’s Gospel with “Sayings of Jesus”. Whether this was done by the Apostle Matthew himself, or by another, is impossible to say. The arrangement of material falls into a pattern based on the Torah (the very first word is “Genesis”), with alternate sections of narrative (largely Marcan) and teaching. The Passion narrative has some additional features, and the resurrection narrative concludes in Galilee with the command to go and preach, with the assurance of Christ’s continuing presence.

In John’s Gospel, “Mark” is conspicuous by its absence, and I regard this as quite deliberate. The author (or source of information) claims to have been an eye-witness at the crucifixion, and since the disciple John is also conspicuous by never being named – unlike the others – I have no doubt that the traditional ascription of the Fourth Gospel to John is correct. John assumes his readers will be familiar with one or other of the preceding Gospels (for instance, in the account of the death of Lazarus he refers to Mary as the one who anointed Jesus before including that incident in his own narrative). Even where there appears to be overlap, such as the baptism of Jesus, he does not in fact narrate the event, but refers to the following days. Apart from the Passion narrative itself, the one substantial overlap is the feeding of the five thousand, included probably to give a context to the discourse on the Bread of Life that follows. John implies a longer ministry, with several visits to Jerusalem, than a face-value reading of the other Gospels, and this is historically more probable. The longer discourse may or may not have been “worked up” by John from sayings and teachings given at different times. I am, personally, struck by the two Marian incidents, at Cana and at the Cross, in which Jesus’s mother is addressed as “Woman”, and combined with Pilate’s words about Jesus, “Behold, the Man!” are to me echoes of Genesis, with Jesus and Mary seen as the archetypes of Man and Woman, the true Adam and Eve.

The words ‘Bible’ and ‘Scripture’ mean ‘books’ and ‘writing’. We are dealing with material artefacts, manuscripts and (eventually) printed matter. We no longer have the originals, but have a reasonable expectation that the copies we do possess adequately convey them. The originals were composed in classical Hebrew and (a little) in Aramaic, eventually translated into Greek, with a few ‘Old Testament’ books and the whole ‘New Testament’ composed in Greek.

The collection includes writings of various genres – narrative, exhortatory, letters etc. They often include ‘stories’ to illustrate ideas. The earliest culture did not have the vocabulary for abstract analysis such as we find beginning with the Greek philosophers. Poets (‘makers’) used ‘myth’ and drama to make their points about human nature, as later on we find novelists doing. In understanding a particular part of the Bible, we need to situate it in its time and culture. One of the great enemies of interpretation is simply anachronism, reading something as if it were written with the knowledge and outlook of a later period. In fact, it is important to realise that the Bible writers themselves were often anachronistic in their interpretation of earlier times, attributing to their predecessors outlooks belonging to their own time. Since much of the Bible is ‘retrospective’, we should not assume that ideas attributed to historic characters were actually as described. What we see is a gradual purification and development of ideas, towards what would eventually be the Christian revelation. (The process of course continues.)

The earliest parts give us ideas of a world proceeding from and dependent on an all-powerful, wise and benevolent Creator; of the dignity and freedom of human beings ‘made in the image and likeness of God’; of their misuse of that freedom resulting in suffering and death. Later parts tell of the long process by which the Creator seeks to repair the damage done by human sin, which ultimately finds its climax in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Along the way, the history of Israel gives us the great symbols of Kingship, Worship, Temple and sacrifice. There is an insistent promise of hope and redemption after disaster, of a future according to the original design of the Creator. It is a story that still continues.

THE CREATION STORY

The ‘Image’ is reminiscent of Babylonian cosmology. The world we see (as an intelligent person in Iraq 3000 years ago would picture it, not as modern science sees it), the known world being a great plane watered by rivers, bounded by mountain chains and seas, and covered by the dome of the sky. Waters well up from beneath and fall from above. But the ‘theology’ differs radically from Babylonian myth. The Creator God by his simple utterance or fiat forms the world to be a kind of Temple or House in which he himself will take his rest. (cf Proverbs: Wisdom has build herself a house; and cf. the Jerusalem Temple seen as a ‘microcosm’, an image of the cosmos). God and the world are utterly distinct and there is an irreducible asymmetery in their relationship, but God is not ‘Deist’, creating the world and then leaving it. In the final stage he creates mankind, with a double command, (a) to increase and multiply, and (b) to ‘subdue the earth’, i.e. develop it towards the completion of the divine plan. Human beings are as it were stewards and care-takers of God’s house and household. Genesis 1.1- 2.4 thus gives an ‘overview’ of God’s creative intention, as first conceived. He is like a man who builds himself a house, and installs a ‘staff’ to look after it before he takes up residence.

Genesis 2.5 – 3.end then takes us back to ‘Day 6’ in the preceding scheme, and explains how the original plan has been subverted. Mankind is made of the same materials as the earth, but animated by the breath of God. Mankind is also a social being (“It is not good for him to be alone”, the first thing said to be “not good” after the initial creation). The animals are not adequate companions for him, and so God makes him a companion from his own flesh and blood. Together they will bring creation under the control of rational beings, ‘domesticate’ it, making it a ‘domus’ or ‘oikos’ for God to dwell in.

God gives a command or warning. Mankind must accept its limitations. The ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil’ is out of bounds. What might this mean? Although mankind has freedom of will, it does not have complete moral autonomy, the ability to decide what shall be good or bad, without consequences. To attempt such autonomy will lead to ‘death’, since life comes from God (cf. Christ’s analogy of the vine and branches). At this point a new character enters the story, the ‘serpent’, clearly not a mere snake but the personification of an anti-God influence, not only ‘crafty’ but malevolent. Satan begins with a lie, that God himself has lied in saying that disobedience will lead to death. God is presented as not as a loving Father but as a jealous tyrant who does not want mankind to develop and grow. His warning of danger is presented as an arbitrary rule enforced by threat of punishment. If mankind believes this, then transgression will be marked by shame, fear and guilt, and the consequences seen as arbitrary punishment, reinforcing alienation and loss of trust.

How is God to repair this? Is he to allow the de-railment of his plan for the world and for mankind? His plan involved endowing human beings with freedom; did he not allow for the possibility of that freedom being abused? Or did he incorporate that possibility into his plan so as to arrive at his goal anyway? Such a greater plan would show even more power and wisdom and benevolence.

The stories of Cain and Abel (reflecting the rivalry between pastoralists and agriculturalists) and their successors show a steady deterioration in human society. Eventually things reach the point at which God (it seems) determines to wipe out humanity; but he does not. He is still determined to work through the human race. The story of Noah no doubt has echoes of real catastrophic floods in Mesopotamia, which appear in other ancient stories, but the point for the writer of Genesis was that God saved Noah and his family, and promised that no such catastrophe would happen again. It is a story of God’s faithfulness to his original plan, and of enduring hope for his people. But human beings still fall short, building their tower to rival God, and being divided and scattered among themselves.

It is at this point that the story of Abraham begins. God will start to rescue humanity from within, choosing Abraham to be the father and founder of a nation called to become a blessing for all the nations. To say that Abraham, or Israel, is ‘chosen’ is not to say that they are somehow superior to others, or ‘chosen on merit’. They are chosen for a purpose, with a task to fulfil. That purpose will ultimately include all humanity. Specifically, God begins to form a matrix in which, in the fulness of time, he himself will act to restore what has been lost, to put things back on the right track. Rather like Frodo, whose task (Tolkien said) was not to destroy the Ring, but to get it to the place in which it could be destroyed, Israel itself could not put humanity right, but could become the place in which God could put humanity right. The term iustitia (justice, righteousness) means fundamentally to be in a right relationship with God. Iustificare (justification) means to make or put in a right relationship with God. So Abraham’s faith or trust in God was what put him in that right relationship. It is the ob-audientia (obedience, respectful listening) that was required of Adam. But the call of Abraham was only the start of a thousand-year journey. Its next stages involved slavery and rescue, covenant and divine Presence, conquest and kingship, city and Temple.

It may be that the first recorder of this story believed that the promises to Abraham had been fulfilled, or were in process of being fulfilled, in the establishment of the Davidic monarchy and its Temple. But the later story, involving destruction and exile (and hoped-for but never quite achieved restoration, proved otherwise.

THE EXILE

The two principal Biblical writings emerging from the exilic period itself (about 70+ years) are the Book of Ezekiel and the second half of the Book of Isaiah. The priest-prophet Ezekiel was taken to Babylonia in the first deportation mentioned in the previous post. He denounced the corruption of the Jerusalem priesthood, and in vision saw the Glory of the Lord (the “Shekinah”) depart from the Temple. In a later vision he saw the temple rebuilt and the Shekinah return to an idealised and reorganised Holy Land. The restoration of Israel was presented as a resurrection from the dead (the “dry bones” vision).

The “second Isaiah” saw the Persian Cyrus as the divinely-anointed instrument whereby Babylon was overthrown and Israel allowed to return. His vision was of a restored Israel which would be a witness to God to all the nations, and he also wrote of a mysterious “Servant of YHWH” (Israel personified or an actual individual representing Israel) who would through suffering and rejection bring about “the return of YHWH to Zion”.

POST-EXILIC RETROSPECT

Some, but not all of the Exiles, did return to Jerusalem and start to rebuild. Some time later, another scribe composed an abbreviated and extended history, based on the earlier scriptures and bringing them up to date. The two books of Chronicles reduce the pre-Davidic period to a series of genealogies, and gloss over the faults of David to emphasise his role in the foundation of the first Temple. The story then continues with the history of Judah, the northern kingdom being largely ignored and with a number of additions regarding the Temple and its worship. Following the Chronicles proper, the history continues with the books of Ezra and Nehemiah (scholars suspect some dislocation in the historical sequence of events) which tell of the early years of return and the rebuilding of city defences and a second Temple. Significantly, there is no mention of a return of the “Glory”, as for the desert Tabernacle and the First Temple. The restored community is still subject to the vagaries of Persian rule, among hostile neighbours. The story ends with a call to reform by the priest Ezra, who seems to have returned at a somewhat later date.

On the whole, the Persian period seems to have been reasonably peaceful, and the second-temple priesthood had opportunity to review and revise all the preceding writings, and compose new ones. There seems to be some tension between “exclusivist” and “universalist” tendencies, the latter being expressed in such books as Ruth and Jonah. The rise of the Greek Empire of Alexander, and its successor states, brought fresh conflict and persecution. These provide the background not only to the histories of the Maccabees, but also to the book of Daniel. By this period, the earlier Scriptures had already been translated into Greek, which had become the international language. The Jews (as they may now be termed after the Return) were spread widely, in east and in west. In the Holy Land itself, the Maccabean (Hasmonean) kingdom petered out in petty squabbling, until the intervention of the Roman Empire set up a local war-lord, Herod, as client king.

DEUTERONOMY

The Book Deuteronomy seems to have been composed fairly late in the Kingdom/First Temple period. It supplanted Joshua as the fifth book of Torah. It is presented as addresses by Moses to the Israelites before their entry into Canaan. It recapitulates the story of the Covenant at Sinai, Towards the end, Moses warns that failure to keep the Covenant will result in exile, although if there is repentance God will restore the people to their land. The book therefore acts as a preamble to the actual history of the Kingdom as told in the books of Samuel and Kings.

THE SECOND RETROSPECT.

The second retrospect, contained in the four books of Samuel and Kings, dates from around the end of the Kingdom of Judah. Some at least was composed before the end, referring at one point to the Tablets of the Law being in the Ark “to this day”, while the final part follows the destruction of the Temple, and the final verses must have been added some years later again. There are frequent references in the text to earlier records (now lost) which have been utilised by the author.

Once again, the overall theme concerns “how we got to where we are now”, but instead of a triumphant conclusion, the narrative arc is “the rise and fall of the Kingdom.” The story begins where the previous retrospect ended, if we add the Book of Judges as a preamble. The conquest was not as clear-cut as the Book of Joshua suggests, with a number of separate tribes fighting their own battles under heroic leaders (champions or “judges”). There is at least one failed attempt to establish a unified command, but the final verdict is that, “In those days there was no king, and everyone did what seemed right in his own eyes.”

This sets the scene for the First Book of Samuel. Samuel is dedicated to the service of God from infancy, and he is regarded as both the final “judge” and as a “prophet”. But his “charismatic” style of leadership does not satisfy the people, who ask for a proper king, like everyone else. Though Samuel tells them that their real King is God himself (YHWH), he agrees to their demand and selects Saul, who is anointed (thus “Mashiach”, in Greek “Christos”). Saul is a tragic figure, great but flawed, and is eventually rejected by Samuel (and YHWH), being replaced by the young shepherd David. A difficult period ensues, since although anointed, David is still only “king-in-waiting” until the death of Saul. David is then accepted as leader of all the tribes, including the northern tribes of which Ephraim is the principal, and his own tribe of Judah. He establishes his capital at Jerusalem, close to the north/south boundary, and subdues the neighbouring non-Israelite nations. David’s flaws are acknowledged, but he is depicted as totally loyal to Israel’s God.

If David (despite his flaws) is presented as the paradigm of a warrior-king, his son Solomon is presented as the paradigm of a wise and peaceful king. His historic personal flaws are nevertheless not glossed over. His reign providentially coincided with the simultaneous weakness of the two major powers, Egypt and Assyria, so that his influence extended from the borders of Egypt to the Euphrates. The major achievement of the reign was the building of the Temple, replacing the old Tabernacle. This centralisation of worship in the capital gave a religious as well as political focus to the kingdom. From the standpoint of what came after, the period is presented as a “golden age”.

The Davidic kingdom always suffered from a division between its northern and southern components, and after Solomon, and because of the insensitivity of his successor, the unified kingdom broke in two. The Davidic line continued in Jerusalem, but the larger and more fertile northern kingdom, now called simply “Israel” (as opposed to “Judah”, including the tribes of Benjamin and Simeon) established its capital at Samaria, with religious centres there and further north. It monarchy suffered a series of coups and changes of dynasty. From a southern viewpoint, the religious innovations of images of calves (possibly intended to represent YHWH in some way) were evidence of idolatry, compounded by dynastic marriages with neighbouring kingdoms leading to adoption of Canaanite religious practices. These practices were found in the south as well, often tolerated by the kings, but repudiated by the Jerusalem priesthood.

The Books of Kings incorporate stories about two great northern prophets, Elijah and his disciple Elisha, who opposed the idolatry of the northern kingdom. The resurgence of Assyrian power eventually led to the conquest of the northern kingdom, and the relocation of much of its population to other regions of the empire. While the south was threatened, it managed to survive. The succession of kings produced both good and bad rulers. At the time of the Assyrian threat, the good Hezekiah was advised by the prophet Isaiah, who warned that the next threat would come from Babylon. Isaiah left writings now forming the first part of the book bearing his name, and an “Isaianic tradition” among his disciples. Other prophets also left writings.

The downfall of the southern kingdom began with the reign of Hezekiah’s son, Manasseh, who virtually abandoned the worship of YHWH, corrupting even the Temple worship. After his fifty-five year reign, his son was overthrown by the “orthodox” party in favour of his eight-year-old son Josiah, who was brought up to maintain the traditional worship. When he reached adulthood, a Book (now generally accepted as the Book of Deuteronomy” was discovered in the Temple. This appeared to be a series of addresses by Moses himself to the people of his day, before they entered the Promised Land, reminding them of the Law and Covenant, and predicting what would happen if they abandoned it (as had happened by the time the book was “discovered”). This led to a short-lived reformation under Josiah, followed by a relapse into the ways of Manasseh. A major dissident figure at this time was the prophet Jeremiah, whose ministry coincided with the rise of Babylonian power. Despite his warnings, the kings trusted in political manoeuvering with Egypt, and both Babylon and Egypt imposed puppets of their own. A first deportation to Babylon was followed by rebellion and the destruction of city and temple, and the deportation of the rest of the civic leadership. The postscript about the freeing of the deported king is the only note of hope for the future.

I see the Old Testament as containing a series of retrospects, in which the past is reviewed and interpreted for the contemporaries of the writer. The first such retrospect is what we call the Pentateuch, although the first version probably included Joshua, later displaced by Deuteronomy. It was probably composed in the time of David or Solomon as a statement of “Who we are, and how we got here,” as the Kingdom established itself. The main body of the narrative shows signs of the (possibly later) blending of two lines of transmission, the so-called J and E traditions, along with a further revision, the so-called P material.

As we now have it, the Creation narrative sets the scene for the entire Bible. The world and all that it contains is the result of the creative word of God, and the cosmos is depicted as a house or temple designed to be the place where God takes his rest. Human beings are created as “caretakers” of this house, or priests of this temple, with the commands, first, to be fruitful and multiply, and then to “subdue” the earth. That is, to bring it to the final state intended by the Creator.

Having given this overview of the divine plan, the narrator then returns to the creation, nature and role of the human race. This “mythological” picture expresses important theological insights. Human beings, though formed from the same material as the rest of the world, are animated by “the breath of God.” This sets them apart from the rest of the animals. Human beings are meant to form a community (it is not good to be alone, the first thing said to be “not good” in the narrative). Male and female are of one nature, complementary to one another.

Human beings have a task, and they have freedom. This freedom makes them vulnerable. They are warned that “to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” is dangerous, and will result in death. The exact significance of this tree and its fruit will become the subject of much theological debate in after years. At this point, a new character is introduced, the Serpent. Whatever his mythological origin, the Serpent is no ordinary snake. He is created by God, but is “craftier” than the other animals. He also appears malicious. He effectively calls God a liar, and brings it about that the human pair disregard the divine warning. This immediately produces shame and disharmony and an end to their paradisal existence. These are the consequences of departing from the divine guidance. However, they are not deprived of divine protection, and there is an understanding that God will not simply leave things as they are. The next chapters illustrate how, once on the wrong path, humans go from bad to worse, until they bring a disastrous flood upon themselves. Nevertheless, God saves a remnant to make a new beginning, and promises that he will never completely destroy human hope.

Humanity now spreads, and sets up its own rival to God in Babylon (a hint of much later events). God disperses and divides mankind, and soon calls Abram from Chaldea to the land of Canaan. We are to understand that this now marks the beginning of a process which will result in the rectification of the world and a re-establishment of the divine plan. All nations (now scattered) will be blessed in Abraham and his offspring. Although there are frequent wrong moves and risks (Hagar, Sarah in Egypt etc), Abraham is faithful and his family grows, until forced by circumstances it takes refuge in Egypt and is enslaved. In captivity it becomes a numerous people.

God now commissions and empowers Moses to confront Pharaoh and free the people. Leading them into the desert, at Sinai he becomes the intermediary whereby God makes a covenant with the people. They will be his people, and he will be their God. They are given a Law, regulating their relationship with one another in society, and the way in which they are to worship God. Despite their backsliding, God establishes his Throne (the Ark) among them, in his own Tent. In due course, under Moses’ successor Joshua, he leads them on a triumphant march into the Land promised to Abraham, and the covenant is renewed. From the perspective of the newly established kingdom and Temple, this answers the questions posed above, “Who are we, and how did we get here.” The slightly messy history between Joshua and David is passed over.

“The Bible” is a collection of writings. It contains traditions from maybe 4000 years ago, but when were these first written down? From the history contained in the writings themselves (in particular the Books of Samuel and Kings), as well as other evidence, we can place the foundation of the Israelite Kingdom under the first kings Saul, David and Solomon around the tenth century BC. My assumption is, that it was not until this period, and especially until the centralisation of worship in Jerusalem and the building of the First Temple, that there would have been a professional class of scribes (priests and Levites) with the skills and leisure to undertake the work of collecting and editing earlier traditions.

However, this early work was added to, revised and redacted, and only reached the form in which we now have it much later. As a collection, it began to be translated from its original language in Greek. This took place piecemeal, from around 250BC until maybe 100BC or even later. It was this “Bible”, known as the Septuagint (LXX), which was in use among Diaspora Jews such as St Paul (even though Paul himself would have studied the Hebrew texts as well). The New Testament was composed in Greek. The text of the LXX predates any extant Hebrew manuscripts and thus witnesses to earlier readings when these differ from the Hebrew.

To say that the Bible was inspired by God, or have God as their Author, is to say nothing about how that inspiration was received. It does entail that what we now have is what the Divine Author intended, and bears the stamp of Divine authority. But it is “the Word of God in words of men”, and to understand it properly we need to understand how those ancient writers thought and what they meant by their words.

I take seriously what J.R.R.Tolkien said, in relation to Fairy Stories, about “the soup”. Just because you can identify some or all of the ingredients of a soup does not totally account for the soup itself. The process of cooking turns those ingredients into something more than their sum-total. We can see, for instance, elements of Babylonian mythology behind the Genesis stories of Creation and the Flood, but that does not fully account for what the Biblical author has done with these elements. Similarly (this is my personal view) elements of the Exodus story (the ten plagues) may reflect historic memories of the aftermath of the Santorini volcanic eruption, but these have been incorporated into a narrative of Divine rescue. We can also see something of the “cooking process”, for instance the experience of the Exile led to a re-evaluation of everything that had led up to it.

By “The Bible” I mean the collection of ancient Jewish/Christian writings accepted by the Catholic Church as “canonical”, and as (in a sense to be explained) “having God as their Author.”

The “authorship” of God does not exclude the activity and true authorship of human writers, since it belongs to a different level of reality. The Catholic notion of inspiration is quite different from (for example) the Muslim belief that the Holy Quran was dictated to the Prophet by and angel, or the Mormon belief that the Book of Mormon was translated by Joseph Smith from golden plates subsequently taken back into heaven. The human authors may have been entirely unaware that they were writing “Scripture”, but by the operation of the Holy Spirit they produced what God willed to be produced.

The Christian Scriptures fall into two unequal sections. The earlier and larger collection (the “Old Testament”) was originally composed in Hebrew and Aramaic, and was translated into Greek c. 250 years before Christ. The earliest parts may have taken written form c.1000 BC, but it is thought that they were added to and re-edited at various times. The Greek translation therefore represents the definitive stage of composition. The later collection (the “New Testament”) was written in Greek in the first century AD.

I take it as axiomatic that the Bible is “the Word of God”, but mediated through words of men. In order to understand the Divine meaning, it is necessary to understand the human meaning. This, however, is not straightforward, because the human authors lived at different times, over at least a millennium, and had different presuppositions, world views and literary conventions. All this has to be taken into account.

An obvious example is the creation narrative in the Book of Genesis. The human author presupposes the cosmology of his time (a flat earth, a heavenly dome on which the sun, moon and statrs move, etc.) to convey the theological truth that the whole universe is created by God. Subsequent scientific discoveries do not invalidate this. Even by the time of the New Testament this cosmology had been superseded, as has the Greek cosmology by the Newtonian and Einsteinian.

I also take it as axiomatic that the central focus of the Bible is the story of Jesus Christ. The Old Testament gives the background and preparation for the story of Christ, the New Testament gives the story itself and its significance – who Jesus is, why he came, what he did and its relevance to us.

Former commentators, and indeed the recent Catechism of the Catholic Church, distinguish the “literal” or “historical” meaning of the text, and one or more “spiritual” or “allegorical” meanings. This roughly corresponds to what I called the human and the Divine meaning. The human meaning takes into account the literary genres and conventions of the periods in which the various writings were composed. The Divine meaning is discerned gradually by the Church, which is itself guided by the Holy Spirit.

In subsequent posts I hope to look at the Bible in more detail, as I read it.