Holy Spirit in Revelation (Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit)

Simon continued on the Holy Spirit and wrote:

We started with another observation of the work of the Holy Spirit.: he helps us perceive what the “real” reality is.

This was illustrated through an extract from an interview with Eugene Peterson. Peterson was asked to join Bono for a few days, just to hang out together. When asked why he turned Bono down he said he was facing a deadline to translate the OT portion of the Message. When pressed again by the interviewer how he could have turn down a chance to hang out with Bono. He answered, “It was Isaiah”. To Peterson, Isaiah is more “real” and thus more important to hang out with Isaiah than with Bono.

HS prompted us to see the real world which is a world with a spiritual slant, a world that God rules. This really is the “real” world and not the sex, drug and rock and roll world that was promoted by the media on a daily basis. It is different and often more difficult to live in a “real” world. Being real is what our faith is about.

With similar intention but a different channel of communication (written words), the scripture also seeks to show us the “real” world and the HS also has a hand in shaping that.

(Our discussions so far and will continue going to be rather pragmatic and gear towards having a grasp of the implications of the issues rather than being informed of details of various arguments.)

The following extract from “Holy Writings, Sacred Text – The Canon in Early Christianity” By John Barton (p1) was used as a reading to start the discussion.

The formation of the Christian Bible is a story with neither beginning nor end. The first Christians already had a scripture, inherited from Judaism, whose origins time has concealed; while still today the edges of the biblical canon are blurred, with old disputes about the 'deuterocanonical' books asleep perhaps, but by no means dead.

But no one would deny that there was a critical period for the canonization of the New Testament portion of this Bible. Its outer limits are marked by the life and teaching of Jesus, and the series of fourth- and fifth-century council decisions which settled all but a few marginal uncertainties about the contents of the New Testament. Though the evidence is scrappy, circumstantial, and often obscure, most of it has been known for the last two centuries, and the basic texts are already to be found as an appendix to the Hulsean Lectures of Christopher Wordsworth, delivered in 1848 and published in the same year. Bruce M. Metzger's The Canon of the New Testament adds further material and a wealth of secondary literature; but at its heart lie the same texts that Wordsworth discussed.

These and a few other texts may well be called canonical themselves, and no theory about the biblical canon has any hope of success unless it finds a place for them.

But though the texts are necessary, they are plainly not sufficient; for there remains little agreement on their interpretation.

What are the new disputes? Is there an “end to the canon story”? Recent discussion of Gospel of Judas, or other documents alluded in the Novel/Movie “Da Vinci Code” are just examples of this never ending story. The heart of the disputes is about “new” info in these historical documents. Conspiracy theorists question whether the decision was hiding what may be detrimental to the established church. However, does the new information really “update” our gospel? Does these new info add or diminish our faith in any substantial way? Do these documents has enough claims to be authentically “inspired” scriptures? These questions in fact points right at the criteria that were used to determine what should be accepted into the Canon.

At this point several historical facts were introduced. Jesus did have a certain view of scripture as indicated in Luke 24:44. The three fold division was indeed the division used in the Hebrew bible (Moses-Torah, prophets-prophetic and Psalms-writings). It may not indicate the complete OT canon but at the very least a rudimentary that includes the core of the canon was alluded to. Marcion in his abridge canon (Luke, Acts and most Pauline epistles) certainly played a role (may not be the deterministic role) in prompting the “what should be included” question. And Montanus in his prophetic utters also contributed to “what should not be included” question.

We then read gospel Thomas section 11 and psalm 151, as well as Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 to get a first hand look the issues. The fact that a certain passage appeal to us (e.g. the John passages should not be the sole criteria for inclusion.

As a conclusion the idea of canon being “Historically closed but theologically open” was introduced. The good news is for almost two thousand years the “core” has not changed at all. We can have the comfort of the HS at work even though the discussion continues.

A more stern warning was issued against the practice of not respecting the canon in the practice of canon within a canon. Earlier scholars has used the method of collecting “cited” documents in early Christian writing to help determine which are the “canonized” documents. Despite continuing discussing of this method, it does indicate the significant placed on certain documents. It would be very interesting to use the same method and rummage through our sermons, bible study notes and devotion material and see what conclusions we may have. Songs of songs, Judges and Jude may well be questioned by future researchers looking back at our usage of “canonized scripture”.

The questions do not end with canon. Itself as indicated in last sentence of the Barton quote. What of interpretation? Does the inspiration of the text continue through interpretations? How shall we come to some consensus on the various interpretations? Should we then include the interpretation as scripture as well? If inspiration from text to interpretation is a spectrum then where should we draw the line? On the other hand, if inspiration is distinct from interpretation then again where should we draw the line?

No answer was proposed but just a pragmatic caution. We should not interpret the scripture alone without the community. We should consult commentaries (earlier interpreters) and peers (present interpreters) at the very least. Jesus asked us to pray privatly. He did not ask us to read the scripture in private.

Appendix (some links that may be of interests):

• The discovery of the Gospel of Judas
• April Deconick Challenges the National Geography translation
• Several post discussing several translation issues on Dr. Darrel Bock’s Blog
• Translations of other early Christian writings