Here’s a little piece from the Living Bible that periodically makes the rounds:
A much more literal word for word translation (like the RSVCE) makes much clearer what the text of 2 Timothy 4:3-4 actually says:
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.
While they often quote Scripture (by which they mean what Christians would later call the Old Testament) no New Testament writer ever talks about “the Bible” for the very good reason that it would not exist for several centuries after his lifetime. A variable collection of writings called ta biblia ta hagia–the holy books–was generally accepted by various Jewish communities, having various levels of authority depending on the Jew you asked. But the final compilation (in the West) of the Christian Bible was not finished till Pope Damasus I basically said (to the western Church) “Here’s the books we read at Mass” in 392 (and even then the Eastern Church had and has a slightly different collection). What made the holy books the holy books was basically “What stuff do we read in Mass or divine liturgy?”
Some moderns ask, “By what right does the Church get to decide what books go in the Bible?” I think this is like demanding to know by what right we Sheas get to decide what goes in our family photo album. It’s our photo album. Of course we decide. In exactly the same way, the Church compiled the Bible: It’s the expression of who we are and what we believe.
And, by the way, even after Pope Damasus I, the conception remained for a very long time of “the books” and not of “The Book” or The Bible. It took centuries for the conception to evolve from the collective to the singular notion of “The Bible”. And it took centuries more to start treating the Bible as the Big Book of Everything. Only in the 16th century attempt to exalt the Bible over and pit it against the Church that had writtten, edited, selected, and collated the Bible into The Book did sola scriptura Reformers take for granted the substitution of “the Bible” for “the truth” (the actual words of the text). The reduction of “the truth” into simply ‘the Bible” is an idea that would have made no sense to the author of 2 Timothy.
In short, the translation in the image is a bit of Protestant sleight of hand meant to pit the 16th century myth of sola scriptura and the fiction that “the truth” is simply and solely contained in, limited to, and coterminous with The Bible Alone against what the author actually means (namely, Sacred Tradition, both written and unwritten).
That this is indeed how Paul understands things is evident from his writings:
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Th 2:15)
For him, the “word of God” is the preaching of the apostles, whether spoken or written, and through that word, the Jewish holy books are to be read just as through a lens light is to be focused. This is not something Paul has arrived at on his own. Jesus himself continually talks like this, insisting that he himself is the hidden meaning of the Jewish holy books and teaching his disciples to begin with that assumption whenever they read them:
You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me. (Jn 5:39)
***
“O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. (Lk 24:25–27)
***
Then he said to them, “These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled.” Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high.” (Lk 24:44–49)
So, for Paul, the Jewish scriptures are “the oracles of God” (Romans 3:2) and are, to be sure, inspired by the Spirit of God. But without the Holy Spirit of Christ to illumine them, we remain blind to their deepest truth. So he says of all who attempt to read the Bible while rejecting the illumination of the Spirit of Christ that “a veil lies over their minds; but when a man turns to the Lord the veil is removed” (2 Co 3:15–16). For the New Testament writers, reading “the Bible” without the help of the Spirit is useless and even worse than useless, since it is possible to weaponize it into hatred of God and neighbor.
In other words, the translation in the OP is, paradoxically, itself a distortion of what the Bible says, rendered so in order that the Living Bible translator can tell himself and his audience what their itching ears want to hear.
Advertisement
9 Responses
Mark, My wife is an American Baptist pastor who has worked in a number of churches, and is currently working as an executive minister for a midwestern region. I have seen many protestant pastors preach throughout the years.
I frequently witnessed a number of sermons where the pastor would find scripture to attempt to back up their theme. In fact, I remember one who would pick a half dozen or so scripture verses from various bible translations and include them in their sermon to better fit their point as well as to satisfy those itchy ears. It drove me crazy!
In other words, “Not all the important stuff is in the preserved writings of be verified Apostolic authorship”. Or “sola scriptura is bunk,” as Jesus and Mary Magdalene told their youngest son, Jean-Claude, in 55 AD.
I’m not sure “we decide what goes on our family album and we decided to include a passage where Jesus said ‘Not only is Peter a very important figure in the original founding of my church, which will never become extinct, but I am also I conferring infallible authority on him and his successors, although only on matters of faith and morals, which shall not include questions like ‘should we execute heretics'” works unless one is already convinced of that infallible authority.
Ironically, the protestant view of the Bible – “gather together every piece of writing of verified Apostolic authorship, preserve it, and assume that any teaching that contradicts this collected corpus, or that claims it omits anything of major importance, is heresy” – would actually strengthen the Catholic position, being less circular than “we are infallible because one of these documents we have infallibly canonised says that we’re infallible.”
Except:
“gather together every piece of writing of verified Apostolic authorship, preserve it, and assume that any teaching that contradicts this collected corpus, or that claims it omits anything of major importance, is heresy”
isn’t what Protestantism did. It received the Bible from the Church, then picked and chose which bits to keep and worked at their own interpretations of what they did keep – hence there isn’t “Protestantism” but “Protestantisms.”
No, if Protestants had “picked and chosen” which parts of the Bible to keep, their versions today would look a lot different. Instead, after some initial up-for-grabs in the early days of the Reformation (eg Luther wanting to de-canonise Hebrews, James and Revelation but being talked out of it by other Lutherans), for 500 years Protestants have used the first of two “package deals” – the NT plus the Hebrew Bible without the Apocrypha – in contrast to the Catholic choice of the other package deal, which is the NT plus the Hebrew Bible with the Apocrypha. In turn, the two Hebrew Bibles package deals reflected an existing split among Jews of the time.
(I have heard there are a few brief, marginal candidates for NT books outside the Rome vs Geneva divide, eg Nestorians (?) having a third letter of John (?), but it seems the content of these content wouldn’t significantly change doctrine even if they were included in the canon – ie, it’s basically “Brethren, be nice unto one another” not “For James was the second son born to Mary Herself, so his blood descendants shall be revered among you as the Christian equivalent of Sayyids and Sayyadinas” or “For Jesus’ flesh truly and literally becomes a vine and branches when you drink of the Cup” or anything game-changing like that).
There’s certainly plenty of variation among Prots as to translations (KJV), marginal notes (Scofield), what exactly to include as Words Of Christ In Red (do the three guests at Mamre qualify, etc) and – probably most significantly – which passages to preach sermons on (no shortage of examples…) but I think it would be misleading to say Prots “picked and chose” as this implies Lutherans officially striking out James (what?! good works?!) or Anglicans refusing to accept Hebrews (what?! No more human priests offering sacrifices?!).
Which is not what happened. Instead, while different Protestant sects do have their favourites, with the specific exception of “KJV Onlyists”, you can use any one of a large range of Bible translations in almost any Protestant congregation and no one will object. They will, of course, dispute how you interpret the text — but not the content of the canon.
Of course, there’s always the Mormons 🙂
But are Mormons considered Protestants by themselves, or by Anglicans, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, or Presbyerians, JTJ?
They have a magisterium they consider infallible, and believe in salvation by works. Apart from speaking English wearing polyester suits, they have little in common with the core cases of what would be considered “Protestant”. True, they say some unkind things about the Roman Catholic Church, but if that’s the criterion then the Orthodox monks at Mt Athos are “Protestant” too.
I have found that The P Word seems to be the ultimate harsh burn in online Catholic debates – the Trads accuse the Vatican II supporters of being “protestant” for departing from centuries of Tradition, and in turn the Vatican II supporters accuse the Trads of being “protestant” for presuming to withstand the Pope himself to the face – but it would be useful to retain a fairly definite meaning. If Catholics want an umbrella term for “every sect that professes to be Christian but doesn’t claim communion with the Pope”, “Noncatholic” is more precise than lumping High Anglicans together with Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Sorry, it was only a quip on the theme of deciding what is Scripture.
We good, JTJ.
We could taxonomise futher for “Nonpatriarchal” for every sect of Christendom other than Catholic and Orthodox; “Nonepiscopal” for every sect of Christendom other than Catholic, Orthodox and [High] Anglican; and “Nonsacramental” for every sect of Christendom other than Catholic, Orthodox, [High] Anglican and Lutheran.