This second installment of my response to a former student concerning my understanding of the authority of scripture will deal with the importance of reading any literature, including the Bible, in accordance with its inherent character.  Science fiction books are not science textbooks.  It is important to listen to the Bible regarding its nature instead of applying a priori definitions to it. So, what is the literary character of the Bible?

A Literary Anthology

First, the name itself reveals something important, namely that the Bible is not monolithic.  “Bible” derives from the Greek expression ta biblia (“the [collection of] little books”) used in the early Church to designate the books of the canon in aggregate.  Although modern editions of the Bible have the appearance of a single book, appearance masks the long history of composition and compilation that produced it. No one knows how many authors and editors contributed to the books that comprise the Bible. The books of Psalms (Asaph, the sons of Korah, Ethan, Heman, etc.) and Proverbs (Agur, Lemuel, a number of unnamed wisdom teachers, etc.) mention multiple authors and, along with Lamentations and probably Song of Songs, constitute anthologies. Ecclesiastes represents the work of an editor who collected the teachings of Qoheleth, “The Preacher,” and published them with a brief editorial introduction (Eccl 1:1) and postscript (Ecc 12:9-14) admonishing readers to handle the words of Qoheleth with caution.

The Process of Collection or Canonization

Writing over more than a millennium, the authors and editors of the sixty-six (as enumerated in the Protestant tradition) components of the scriptural anthology had no awareness that their works would one day become part of the collection that came to be called the Bible.  God did not first reveal the Table of Contents of the Bible. When the Evangelist wrote the Gospel of Matthew, he did not think that he had written the first book of the New Testament! (In fact, in historical order, the first New Testament book written was probably either Galatians or 1 Thessalonians). At the time, there was no New Testament and no “plan” on the part of its authors to produce it.  Instead, a centuries-long process in which the community of faith, first the Jews and then the Christians, came to recognize these books as a necessary source for their faith.

It is helpful to think historically.  No one can be sure which of the books of the Hebrew Bible, or portions of books like the Psalms, were written first, or when. They will have circulated individually, probably on scrolls. Incidentally, we probably would not even think of “the Bible” as a single book were it not for the Greek invention of the codex (book with turnable pages).  In the era when “books” were written on “scrolls” one would have needed a wagon to transport the individual books of the canon.  One could certainly not have carried it in its entirety in one’s hands.

Scholars can say with relative certainty that, sometime in the late exilic or post-exilic periods, probably circa 300 BCE, the believing community had come to regard the five books grouped together to comprise the Torah (the Law, also called the Pentateuch or “five books”) as authoritative.  Books like Isaiah and Jeremiah existed and circulated alongside the Pentateuch, but did not attain canonical status until a century or so later (cf. the “Letter of Aristeas”).  Significantly, this second section of the Hebrew canon, the Nebi’im or Prophets, contains Joshua, Judges, 1-2 Samuel, and 1-2 Kings (the so-called “Former Prophets”), the three major prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel), and the twelve minor prophets (usually written on one scroll and referred to as “the Book of the Twelve” or the Dodekaprofeton). The Hebrew canon remained ‘open,’ as it were, to the inclusion of still other books until sometime after Jesus, who regularly referred to the scriptures as “the law and the prophets” (Matt 7:12; 22:20; Luke 16:16; cf. John 1:45; Rom 3:21), reflecting the fact that, in his day, the third section of the Hebrew Bible had not yet been defined as canon.  Sometime after Jesus, probably motivated by a perceived need to close the canon to Jewish-Christian literature, the Jewish community acknowledged the significance of a series of other books, known collectively as the Kethubim or “the Writings.”

The cases of the books of Esther, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes offer instructive perspectives on the process whereby the faith community came to recognize certain individual books as authoritative during the period of the formation of the Kethubim. According to the Mishnah (mYad III:5), during the time of Rabbi Akiba (c. 50-135 CE), there was some uncertainty concerning canonicity of these three books: Esther because it does not even mention God (cf. bMeg 7a); Song of Songs both because it does not mention God and because of its undeniable eroticism; and Ecclesiastes because of its skeptical tone. According to the Talmud (bSan 101a) and the Tosefta (San XII:10), Rabbi Akiba argued strongly against acknowledging the eroticism in Songs by singing it in a secular “banquet house.” In the end, the association in popular practice between each of these books and an important festival (Esther – Purim; Song of Songs – Passover; Ecclesiastes – Feast of Booths or Tabernacles) seems to have swayed sentiment in favor of their canonicity.

The New Testament canon took shape over a much shorter period. Several positions regarding which books should be considered authority surfaced in the early centuries of the church. When Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria issued his pastoral Easter letter of 367 CE, he listed the familiar 27 books of the New Testament, although in a different order.

It is important to remember that the believing communities, both Jewish and Christian, produced scores of other books during the period of the formation of the canon. Some books seemed to speak more clearly to the community than others, however. In fact, for Christians, two criteria seemed to determine whether a book would be considered canonical:  apostolicity and catholicity (in the sense of universal). First, the book in question must have been able to claim connection directly to the generation of those who knew Jesus during his lifetime. (Paul dealt with the accusation that he was not truly an apostle on these grounds. He maintained that the Damascus Road experience qualified him as such.)  Contact with Jesus of Nazareth lent authenticity. Second-hand information would have been unreliable.  Second, the book must not be parochial, but speak to the whole church everywhere and across time.

A Collection of Diverse Genres

In accordance with its character as an anthology, “Bible” is not, itself, a literary genre. The books in this anthology represent tens, if not scores, of distinct genres, each requiring a distinct interpretive approach. As already mentioned, the book of Psalms contains prayers; Deuteronomy offers guidance on applying the axiomatic principles of the Decalogue in concrete situations. Song of Songs comprises a cycle of, sometimes quite erotic, love songs.  Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the rest are prophetic books. Daniel and Revelation are apocalyptic literature. Each of these genres calls for different interpretive approaches.  One could say that one can hear the word of God in them on different frequencies.

Of course, many biblical books contain narratives of various sub-genres. They do not purport to be something like “scripts” written by God directing human beings to do and say what God wanted done and said. They are stories that report what people did and said, often contrary to God’s will, in fact. Here, it may be well to point out the distinction between prescriptive texts (love your neighbor) and narrative or descriptive texts (just about anything David ever did).

Since the Bible records God’s relationship with God’s people, it includes a significant proportion of narrative material relating events in the life of God’s people.  David committed adultery with Bathsheba and arranged the death of her husband, Uriah, to hide his crime.  God did not direct David to do so; David did these things on his own. The Bible records it because it was an important event in David’s relationship with God – a negative event, but an important one.  The Bible abounds in accounts of human misbehavior: violence, sex, deceit, theft – the whole range of possibilities for human wrongdoing.  God inspired none of these acts.  The Bible faithfully records it all, however, because to say that God enters into relationship with people is to say that God becomes involved in messy human lives.

Since the Bible records God’s relationship with God’s people, it records God’s involvement in a specific branch of human history.  God called Abraham, a native of Ur in Mesopotamia; God called Moses, an adoptive Egyptian prince.  Israel took shape as a people and a nation amid cultures that had already developed writing, that had legal systems, that had established societal norms and practices. It should not be surprising that Abraham continued many of the customs and practices (polygamy, for example) he had learned in Ur, nor that Moses and the Israelites of the Exodus would continue the institution of slavery.  God met these people where they were; God did not create their culture.  Over time, through relationship with God, the people of God came to clearer understandings of God’s character and God’ will. The Bible records the history of that growth.  To take a snapshot of a moment in that history and make it definitive is to miss the grander, broader picture.

The Bible is not a monolith. It does not communicate God’s will unfiltered by the experience of the human beings who fill its pages and who authored it. The Bible can become God’s word for the reader who engages with it profoundly, for a prolonged period, and with wise hearts, and open ears.