Biblical Studies

Listening to: Nothing

Ok here we go. A real blog post from college on theology- finally!

Having chosen a slightly more academically oriented course here at Wycliffe, I have the opportunity to have teaching and work set by Oxford University. In this context (secular academic theology) the phrase 'biblical studies' is not quite what you might imagine. It's a far cry from a homegroup or cell! Alas, we are not doing Bible studies for our BAs in Oxford University.

Biblical studies in the academic world really means approaching the Bible simply as ancient literature. This means using certain tools to interpret it, namely those of modern critical theology, rather than reading it as the Holy Spirit's inspired scripture. The academics like to look at the various books merely as products of their time, geography, social context, and whatnot. So there are various forms of 'criticism' (think film critic, rather than critical feedback!): historical criticism (how does the Bible's history line up with other histories we have?), redaction criticism (did the person who wrote the book use different sources for his information, and how did he employ them?), textual criticism (how has the process of copying manuscripts, with errors and omissions, affected the Bible we have?), and others.

I've come into contact with some of these tools, and I'm getting the chance to read some of the foremost scholars in these fields. Much of it is pretty interesting, and people are obviously doing their homework... but so far I don't really buy it at all! Surprised? I hope not. You see it's quite amusing when you begin to see how many hypothetical entities are introduced to explain things if you don't have a commitment to the authority of scripture. Here are some:

1. There is a hypothetical document called Q which Matthew and Luke must have had access to (along with Mark) in order to write their Gospels. This would explain why they share lots of material with Mark, but also share a lot that isn't in Mark.
2. There is a hypothetical set of sources that contribute to the Pentateuch: J, E, D, and P. I'm not on Old Testament yet, so I haven't spent much time here. They explain varying emphases, conflicting details, and material that seems unusual.
3. My favourite so far: there's a hypothetical Jewish council in the first century called Jamnia which set the canon of the Hebrew Bible.

These assumptions, hypothesised to uphold various theories, are very strong here at the University... and I have to say it's quite odd! But let me tell you all that four weeks into my theology degree (oh, what great learning!!!) I still don't buy it, I still think the Bible is very much the work of the Holy Spirit, it still is all about the Lord Jesus Christ, and it is entirely trustworthy. Maybe it sounds rash to make such bold statements in the face of a mountain of books that claim otherwise- surely I should be enlightened by now! Perhaps so. Perhaps not. You see, while they're all deliberating over hypothetical documents, processes, and events, some of us are meeting the living Christ in his Word.