Like many
journeys, sometimes a short detour is required. If we’re fortunate, the detour
actually presents a new perspective on a route that we might have missed going
on the main road. In that light, this post is a bit of an excursion, but it is
something that may be worth a little time to ponder.
It may
surprise you that the Bible is not so easily classified in terms of being a
primary or secondary source. “A primary source is a document or physical object
which was written or created during the time under study. These sources were
present during an experience or time period and offer an inside view of a
particular event.”
There are
some compelling reasons to hold that the Bible is a primary source: the
original writings were authored by those who had the inside scoop. I would also
say they were authorized by God:
“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for
teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,”
(2 Timothy 3:16, ESV).
θεόπνευστος theópneustos
“To express the sacred nature of the Scriptures,
their divine origin, and their power to sanctify believers, perhaps St. Paul
coined the verbal adjective theopneustos, 'breathed, inspired by God.' … the parallel text 2 Pet 1:21—“born along by the
Holy Spirit, men spoke from God” (hypo
pneumatos hagiou pheromenoi elalēsan apo theou anthrōpoi); Ambrosiaster’s
gloss, “divinitus inspirata … cujus Deus auctor ostenditur” (“whose author is shown
to be God”)…”[1]
As
witnesses to divine events and the oracles of God, the prophets of old most certainly
count as primary source authors. “Thus saith the Lord” clearly denotes first-hand
experience. The Gospel writers also reported eye-witness accounts and
discourse, and the entire New Testament engaged in situations that were
contemporary and immediate. In fact, it is a vital fact to realize the Bible
was not written directly to us in our day, but to an ancient audience. In these
and other ways it can be clearly argued the Bible is a primary source.
Yet at the
very same time, I think an equally interesting argument could made that the
Bible contains characteristics of a secondary source. “A secondary source
interprets and analyzes primary sources. These sources are one or more steps
removed from the event. Secondary sources may have pictures, quotes or graphics
of primary sources in them” (Ibid).
As many
Christians would agree, Scripture interprets Scripture (http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/79/what-does-it-mean-that-scripture-interprets-scripture).
Perhaps in that sense, the Bible is a secondary source. The New Testament often
quotes the Old Testament. Many passages reference other biblical texts and help
give light to their meaning. This has the hallmark of a secondary source.
Moreover, the
Bible was written over a vast period of time (http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/bible-faqs/when-was-the-bible-written).
Some of the writings were collected and arranged to serve as an organized
religious curriculum. For instance, it is likely Moses brought some oral and
written sources together in the writing of the Torah. He functioned (under the
movement of the Holy Spirit) as an inspired analyst and instructor.
Indeed, the
Bible a most unique collection. It is unified yet diverse. It is ancient yet
relevant. It defies definition and has resisted attacks for centuries. My goal
in this series is to deepen the appreciation for the Bible, and to provide a
growing ability to engage the text of the holy writ faithfully. By God’s grace,
let us proceed to “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that
needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15
KJV).
[1]
Ceslas Spicq and James D. Ernest, Theological
Lexicon of the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994),
193–194.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment