Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Confirmation by the Church
Another version (perception) of the canon is that of the Roman Catholics. Unlike the Protestants, whose canon is comprised of only the sixty-six books of the Bible, the Catholics have the sixty-six books, plus the Apocrypha as their canon. Both old and recent scholars such as Bryant (1967:48) and McDonald (1995:116-117) respectively indicate that the Roman Catholic Church had received the Apocrypha as being canonical at the Council of Trent in the year 1546. According to McDonald, ‘Church councils did not create Biblical canons but rather reflected the state of affairs in their geographical locations.’ They only reflected the general views and feelings of people about the Scriptures according to their particular geographical areas. In my view the general views of people according to their various locations is typical of the Church generally. It is an expression of people’s individual and group freedom to the message of salvation from the Scriptures. It is further an indication of how various people understood the Scriptures and subsequently expressed both their individual and collective beliefs, which in my view has elicited the acknowledgement of both people’s human dignity and rights even within Christian circles.
Therefore, this leads me to the point of trying to show how from my Christian point of view, the controversial liberal and conservative views about the indispensability of the Bible can be reconciled. My opinion is that the importance and indispensability of the Bible should not be down played under the pretext that Jesus disregarded the authority of the written Scriptures of his time (in this case the Pentateuch and the rest of the Old Testament writings which formed part of the canon) as being unauthoritative. I want to try and show how indispensable the Bible (not only the sixty-six books) has been as an essential part of communication between God and humanity. Matthew (5:17) quotes Jesus as declaring that he did not come to abolish the Law (which was then already in written form) and the teachings of the prophets. Instead of showing contempt towards the status of the Scriptures of his time, Jesus rather put them in their much clearer perspective: ‘…these very Scriptures speak about me,’ He said (John 5:39). According to this statement, the Scriptures were not the end to themselves. Jesus Christ has been their content and target.
Indispensability of the Bible
Contrary to Barton’s view that the Bible (in this context representing all the Scriptures) is not indispensable to faith, and therefore without authority that is currently attributed to it by the conservative Christians, my intention is to show that the Bible has been one of the essential means of reference through which many people (many of whom are Christians) acquired their faith in God. Therefore, in this sense it has served as a spiritual and religious resource to many Christians, through which they came to know God. For example, the authors of 2 Kings (22:18-2) and 2 Chronicles (34:8-28) in the Old Testament give an account of how the book of the Law was discovered in the temple.
What is significant about the discovery and the reading of the book is that the king of Judah ‘listened to what is written in the book,’ and humbled himself and repented before God. According to this book of the law, God ‘would punish Jerusalem and its entire people with the curses written in the book that was read to the king,’ (emphasis mine). In my view the authority of the Scriptures here is demonstrated in their being read and listened to, which resulted in the king’s obedience and faith in God. Another significance from this story is that the book that was referred to here was acknowledged as a whole as the Word of God. The fact that it contained the teachings about God, made the people to respect and accept it as the Word of God. The book was never divorced from God and his purpose, which was to communicate his message of salvation to his people. ‘The Bible has one main message. The message is God’s love and his plan of salvation,’ (Eby 1992:22).
The authority of the Scriptures is further confirmed in a similar situation of Nehemiah (8:2). Here the author of the book of Nehemiah gives us an account, where it was essential for the Scriptures to be read to the nation of Israel publicly. What is significant to me is that the writer stressed the importance of understanding. It was essential that the audience understood what was being read to them. Therefore, the first important thing was to make sure that the audience was mature enough to understand the reading of the Scriptures. Nehemiah (8:2) reports: ‘So Ezra brought it (i.e. the book of the Law) to the place where the people had gathered – men, women, and the children who were old enough to understand,’ (emphasis mine). Nehemiah (8:7) goes on to give a list of the names of the leaders who interpreted the Scriptures concerned to the audience. Here we see the necessity of the right interpretation. Winger (2000:260) comments in reference to the Scriptures that ‘A letter will not establish its own authority.’ In my view, therefore, the correct interpretation first connects the passage of scripture with its intended meaning from the owner, God, and thus makes it alive and powerful. With the originally intended meaning is the authority of the message. Williamson (1985:288) quotes Hosea 4:6, ‘My people are destroyed for the lack of knowledge,’ to show how the Israelites used and depended on the Scriptures as their source of knowledge. The Scriptures were their means to overcome the contemporary prevalent superstition.
Williamson explains that ‘Mindless superstition was the mark of paganism (‘they cannot understand,’ Isa 44:18f.) and had been the downfall of an apostate Israel.’ He further comments ‘the raising of their hands demonstrated their sense of need and dependence (cf. Ezra 9:5; Ps 28:2; 134:2), no doubt with the thought that God would meet that need through the Scripture soon to be read,’ (Williamson 1985:289).
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Hypothesis
1.2 Survey of research
1.3 Research gap
1.4 Relevance
1.5 Methodology
1.6 Research plan
1.7 Summary
CHAPTER 2: THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE
2.1 Rights role model
2.2 Anachronism
2.3 Human suffering
2.4 Leading concepts
2.5 Divine grace
2.6 Nature of Bible authority
2.7 Conclusion
CHAPTER 3: HUMAN DIGNITY
3.1 Origin and source
3.2 Status
3.3 Freedom
3.4 Self esteem
3.5 Multi-faceted nature
3.6 Violation
3.7 Unique faith
3.8 Modern application
3.9 Conclusion
CHAPTER 4: PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY
4.1 Homosexuality
4.2 Origin
4.3 Politicization
4.4 Irreconcilability
4.5 Communication
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
5.1 Scripture-Christ imply human rights
5.2 Choice in dignity
5.3 Rights in accountability
SUMMARY
OPSOMMING
BIBLIOGRAPHY
