II. THE BIBLE IN ORTHODOX THINKING

                        A. The Bible in context

If we are to understand the place of the Bible and its role in the Orthodox context we need to become familiar with the comprehensive system of which it is a part. The discussion about the Bible and its relationship with tradition is part of the prolegomena of any Orthodox dogmatic. The system we talk about connects in a unified and structured whole concepts like revelation, Church, tradition, Scripture, creeds. Each of these elements circumscribes other concepts, as can be seen in what follows:

            1. Revelation

            The concept of revelation provides the larger context in which the whole discussion of tradition versus Scripture takes place. The Orthodox Church does not make a separation between natural and supernatural revelation. Dumitru Staniloae, following St. Maximus the Confessor, states that `the later is nothing but the incorporation of the former in persons and historical actions'.[1] The content of natural revelation, according to Staniloae, is formed of `the cosmos and man, who is endowed with rationality, consciousness and freedom, he being not only the object to be known of this revelation, but also the subject of its knowledge'.[2]

            2. Church

            God revealed Himself progressively in a supernatural way to His people through words and deeds, His final revelation being in the Person of Christ, His Son, whom John the Evangelist calls the Word. God's self-disclosure in history stands supremely first. Man is called to exercise his freedom (an essential aspect of his being created in the image of God, which is not affected by the Fall). His response in faith and obedience brings about a new reality, called the Church, the mystical Body of Christ.

            3. Tradition

            The memory of God's revelation through words and deeds of power in history is kept alive and transmitted from generation to generation through the oral tradition of the people of God (Israel in the Old Testament and the Church in the New). This is done first of all through liturgy and the sacraments and only secondarily through other means.

            Georges Florovsky explains that `there is much of which the Church testifies not in a dogmatic, but in a liturgical manner, in the symbolism of the sacramental ritual, in the imagery of prayers, and in the established yearly round of commemorations and festivals'.[3] In another very relevant passage for the Orthodox understanding of the relation between liturgy and tradition Florovsky says:

"Liturgy", in the wide and comprehensive sense of the word, was the first and initial layer of the Tradition of the Church, and the argument from the lex orandi [rule of worship] was persistently used in discussion already by the end of the second century. The Worship of the Church was a solemn proclamation of her faith... The New Testament itself came to existence as a "Scripture" in the Worshipping Church. And Scripture was read first in the context of worship and meditation.[4]

            4. Scripture

            The written Word of God is in a very concrete sense the quintessence of the three realities described above. It is first of all a form of preservation of the revelation of God, but it contains at the same time a human side to it. `Human response is integrated into the mystery of the Word of God. It is not a divine monologue, it is rather a dialogue, and both are speaking, God and man.'[5] This is done in such a way that `what is human is not swept away by divine inspiration, it is transfigured'.[6]

            The Bible is a record of the Church's experience with God as it was preserved in the oral tradition, which preceded the Scripture. However, this does not mean that the Bible exhausts revelation or makes tradition unnecessary.[7]

            5. Creeds

            The Church has distilled the Scriptural message in the Creeds, which borrow from Scripture an underlying historical structure. However, the character of system that the Creeds display is obvious. The historical structure of Scripture does not satisfy all the needs of the Church. The contribution of system consists in that it brings forth the inner structure of the Biblical message and the interdependence between its components. The Creeds, then, were never intended as substitutes for Scripture.[8] Rather, their role was to clarify and preserve the core message of the Scriptures, in response to challenges coming from inside the Church, through heresy, schism, etc. and from outside the Church, through adverse philosophies, pagan religions, etc.[9]

            Since these significant components form a comprehensive system of which the Bible is a part in Orthodox theology, in order to understand the Orthodox "Scriptural mind", we need not to isolate what the Orthodox theologians say about the Bible from the conceptual context we have already described.

                        B. The purpose of the Bible

In Orthodoxy, as in the other Christian traditions, the Bible is seen as having two main purposes: for the spiritual edification of the Church of Jesus Christ and for bringing the world under the obedience of the Gospel. The difference comes in the way these are understood and in the specific emphasis on one rather that on the other of the purposes.

            1. A book for the Church

            This is by far the most important purpose of the Bible for the Orthodox Church. The Bible is, according to Fr. Florovsky, `a sacred book addressed primarily to believers'. In the following discussion of the subject the author states emphatically, against the common Western presupposition, that the Bible's message was properly addressed to the Christian community and `to individuals only as far as they are members of that community'.[10] This brings a necessary correction to Western individualism, but many times it discourages people in the pew from having access to the Bible outside of liturgy.

            2. A book for missions

            On the other hand, the Word of God was not intended only for the edification of the faithful, but also for the conversion of the world. Therefore, we should not overlook the missionary background of the Bible. This does not mean that anybody can have easy and unhindered access to its message. Fr. Florovsky considers Tertullian's attitude to Scripture as being typical of the Orthodox mentality. Tertullian refused to discuss with the heretics the controversial issues of faith on the Scriptural ground, the reason being that `Scriptures belonged to the Church. Heretics' appeal to them was unlawful. An unbeliever has no access to the message, simply because he does not "receive" it. For him there is no "message" in the Bible'.[11]

                        C. The Bible and the Church

            1. The Church precedes the Bible

            The Orthodox theology never separates the Bible from the Church, the first reason being that without the Church we would have not had the Bible. In fact `the book as a whole, was a creation of the community, both in the old dispensation and in the Christian Church'.[12] The Bible, in its human aspect, is a reflection of the primitive Church, of her concerns and struggles, of her worship and teaching, of her life with Christ through the Holy Spirit.

             The selection of the individual books in the Christian canon was made by the Church on the basis of very clear criteria, the most important one being their Apostolic origin. This does not mean however that the Church has authority over the Bible. Florovsky writes on this matter: `The Church was not an external authority, which had to judge over the Scripture, but rather the keeper and guardian of that divine truth which was stored and deposited in the Holy Writ.'[13]

            2. The sufficiency of Scripture

             The Orthodox Church believes in the sufficiency of Scripture,[14] but denies that Scripture itself lays any claim to self-sufficiency. Florovsky writes on the implications of a belief in the self-sufficiency of Scripture:

If we declare Scripture to be self-sufficient, we only expose it to subjective, arbitrary interpretation, thus cutting it away from its sacred source. Scripture is given to us in tradition... The church as the Body of Christ, stands mystically first and is fuller than Scripture.

            Realizing probably that he has already pushed his argument a bit too far, the author adds: `This does not limit Scripture, or cast shadows on it'.[15] However, this is the exact effect of such an approach on a practical level.

            This kind of ambiguity is a feature of the Orthodox discussion of the relationship between Church and Scripture. On one hand, the Orthodox theologian wants to elevate the importance of the Church, as the sole guardian and interpreter of Scripture. He also insists that the meaning of the Word of God is not to be found in the literal, but in the spiritual interpretation of Scripture.[16] On the other side, he understands the danger of belittling the authority of Scripture.

            This is an area where we believe that the Orthodox Church has not yet been able to produce a balanced and viable model. It is possible that as a result of the ecumenical dialogue, the Protestant insights on the importance of Scripture could provide useful suggestions and stimulate a rethinking of the whole area.

                        D. The Orthodox study of the Bible

Although the Church Fathers, so highly regarded in Orthodoxy, were men of the Word of God, the private study of the Scriptures has not been a common feature of the Orthodox circles. The explanation of this phenomenon is to be found in the restrictions imposed on lay Orthodox Christians in certain historical periods, concerning reading and preaching the Word of God. Fr. Ion Bria explains things in the following manner:

It is true that the catechisms and certain ecclesiastic writings from the seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries, especially of Greek origin, texts written against the Protestant Reformation, introduce in this area, in an arbitrary way, restrictive prescriptions unknown in the Patristic tradition, which is by definition a Biblical and homiletical tradition. Moreover, the ecclesiastic canons invoked many times on these matters, refer to historical circumstances which are obsolete today. The issue which confronts us today is not that of underlining these restrictions originated in deficient times and of continuing to consider the lay preaching of the Gospel a "serious offence". The issue is that of training and instructing the lay people to interpret the Holy Scripture correctly and to preach the Gospel authentically.[17]

            As this statement shows, there has been a very obvious change of attitude towards the lay use of the Bible in the twentieth century Orthodoxy. The initial impetus for this change came, as Veselin Kesich contends,[18] from external pressures, especially from Protestant circles. The Orthodox Diaspora seems to be more affected by this change, but there are already good signs in the Orthodox countries, too. We see this attitude clearly, for example, in the powerful school of Biblical studies at the University in Tessalonika, in Greece.

            In an article written for The Orthodox Study Bible, itself a sign of this new direction in Orthodox scholarship and spirituality, Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia analyses what he calls `the four characteristics marking the Orthodox "Scriptural mind". According to him, the Orthodox approach of the Bible should be obedient, ecclesial, Christ-centered and personal.

            1. Obedient reading

            This involves at least two things: a sense of wonder and an attitude of listening. The first instinctive reaction of the Orthodox mind towards the Bible should be a sense of expectation of really meeting and worshiping the God who speaks through His Word. The second important thing is an apophatic (silent) attitude.

            Obviously, we cannot avoid to bring our own agenda to the Bible, but for the Orthodox that is of secondary importance. In order to come to a correct understanding of Scripture, before bringing our questions and our concerns, we need to have a submissive and obedient attitude. Before we start speaking, we have to hear God speak.

            2. Ecclesial reading

            Kallistos Ware introduces in the following words the ecclesial perspective on the private study of Scriptures: `We make full use our private understanding, illuminated by the Spirit. We make full use of biblical commentaries and of the findings of modern research. But we submit individual opinions, whether our own or those of the scholars, to the judgement of the Church'.[19] The reason for such an approach is obvious, when we see things in the Orthodox frame of mind. The individual Christian is not an autonomous entity. He is a distinctive and unique personality and this entitles him to a personal and private opinion, but he is also a member of the mystical body of Christ; therefore his opinions, and the opinions of other fellow Christians, should not come in contradiction with "the mind of the Church".

            3. Christ-centered reading

            The Orthodox exegete is skeptical towards the value of an analytical approach of the Bible. As a general tendency he refuses both the literal interpretation of the fundamentalists, which he accuses of illegitimate concentration of the "letter", at the expense of the "spirit" of Scripture, and the allegorical method, which is accused of evading history and forcing the Bible into a Platonic mold which is foreign to the "mind of the Church". What is common to both methods is their concentration on the words of the text, on the philological aspect of Scripture.[20]

            To these approaches the Orthodox theologians present a typological method of interpretation, which is consistently reflected in the writings of the Church Fathers. It is not an interpretation of words (in fact one author goes as far as saying that `particular words are not examined at all'[21]), but of the events in the light of the Person of Christ. In other words, this is a historical and eschatological approach.

            Typology celebrates God as the Designer and Master of history, and as the one who when the Day of the Lord will come, will `bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ' (Eph 1:10). At least theoretically, typology does not involve putting arbitrarily new meanings into the old text. For typology to be legitimate the meaning should have been there implicitly, even if it could not be seen before.[22]

            The typological interpretations of the Orthodox writers have not always represented correctly the truths of Scripture and they have been tempted by allegory. This happened frequently, especially in homiletical and devotional writings. In the catechetical teachings, however, a clear typological approach was maintained,[23] and this is the method of interpretation recommended to the lay readers of the Bible.

            4. Personal reading

            Finally, the Bible should be applied in the personal life of the readers. From a methodological point of view, Bishop Kallistos suggests to the Orthodox readers of the Bible three steps they need to make in approaching the Word of God personally:

a. they need to reflect on Scripture as sacred history - seeing the Scripture as a whole and not forgetting that Christianity is a historical faith;

b. they need to observe the particularity of the sacred history - paying attention to the specific ways in which God has dealt with individual persons in concrete circumstances, not letting the universal swallow the particular;

c. they need to apply Scripture directly to themselves - including themselves, as it were, in the sacred history.