Confessions of a Seminarian

Oral Preaching, Written Preaching

The Bible has undoubtedly been one of the most important documents in world history.  Many Christian believe it is totally true.  However, you have to inquire as to the nature of this book.  God did not descend from heaven and hand mankind the Bible, (although some Christians might try to sell something like that).  The Bible is not one document; it is a collection of documents.  The Bible has many authors, Old Testament and New Testament alike.  They were written at different times (over a period of about 1500 years) and for varying reasons.

Over time, various documents were collected together, and recognized as authoritative.  They were canonized.  There is a lot of debate over this issue (that’s an understatement), and I think it’s an important one.  I used to think canonization had to be nice and neat.  In reality, it wasn’t until the 4^th century that the Bible (in its current form) was all bound up together.  I have often wondered why early Christians didn’t deal with the issue sooner, and I think they approached the issue differently.

It is interested that Jesus Christ did not leave any writings.  So we only know of Jesus through later historical figures, like his disciples and other contemporaries.  Much can be said on this, but on the face value of it we can say that Jesus of Nazareth apparently did not feel he had to write us a New Testament, or even contribute.  What he did do was teach and preach orally.

 While history can deal only with surviving document (precluding orals account of the time) preaching was very common in the first two centuries.  When the apostles were alive their spoken word was as valid as their written word.  I think it’s interesting how both 2 and 3 John end abruptly. John writes in his second epistle, “Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink. Instead I hope to come to you and talk face to face, so that our joy may be complete” (2 John 1:12).  Similarly, John ends his third epistle, “I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink.  I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face”(3 John 1:13-14a).  John obviously felt a face-to-face conversation would be more edifying to his hearers than a letter. 

This is because there was an emphasis upon the person giving the message stemming from Jesus himself.  In his letter to the Philadelphians Ignatius argues against those who believe Jesus is not in the “achieves,” or the Old Testament.  In doing so Ignatius claims the “authentic archives are (Jesus’) cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which bears on these things, by which I desire, through you prayers to be justified… it is hard to disbelieve Christ; it is hard to reject the preaching of the apostles” (Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians).  The truthfulness of the Gospel is not tied up in prepositional statements for Ignatius, but in the oral preaching of the gospel.  For Ignatius this was possible as a disciple under the apostle John. Truthfulness was to be found in the reality of Jesus, which is found in the apostle’s preaching.

Some Christians continued to prefer oral preaching to scriptural reading even into the early second century.  Papias (c. 125 CE) once wrote “for I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.” 

So when one reads the New Testament, one should be asking, “what is the teaching of this author in this text?”  We talk a lot about textualization and authorial intent.  In interpreting the Bible (or any document for that matter) it is vital to start with the person writing.  Most of the epistles are basically sermons when the apostle couldn’t be present.  Romans is a case and point of this.  Paul wanted to see the Romans, but could not.  So he wrote them a letter instead.  It is not a theological treaties.  It is not an answer to our preconceived Western questions on systematics.  It is a man writing to other people about God, and the truth there in.

Recommended Reading

 F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture

            -Classic on the issue, really good with primary documents

Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament

            -Strong on looking the canon in geographical areas,

-Also good with primary documents

Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities

            -Alternative position