Is the Bible the only source of Truth?
The book is a record of God revealing his truth through myriad agents across time. If the book were the source of truth, that would mean the revelatory agents (prophets, peasants, and prostitutes) are mere symbols. If the words on the pages are our source of truth, then the real human (and sometimes animal) agents behind the words are robbed of their meaning.
It is semiological. Words are signals that point to objects or ideas. The linguistic signifier “RAT” is attached to the signified gray rodent. Without an object standing behind the word, the signifier loses meaning.
Of course, some argue that the Bible is a fictional spiritual text—a collection of stories meant to teach and inspire. In this case, the words themselves do in fact matter more than the fictional characters or cities or objects. On this path, the art object itself is the means of affecting change on the viewer. Annie Dillard has made a very good case for the value of fiction in morality in her book, Living By Fiction.
Still, this doesn’t satisfy my question. If I am supposed to base my life and soul on this faith, I need a reliable source of truth. At least, that’s what I’ve been told I need. See, fiction is beautiful, and I have come to settle for a fictional interpretation of some of the crazy histories contained in the Bible, but I also believe that the beauty of fiction is that it is rooted in reality. In other words, a fictional story is meaningful because it is like real life. In this I am not excluding all other genres besides Realism; I am only saying that all fiction points to something because all words point to something, and the degree to which good fiction resounds in my soul is parallel to the degree in which I can read the novel and agree “Yes, that is life and I see it clearly.”
For that reason, I cannot subscribe to the claim that the Bible is the only source of truth. It is a window through which we may view the beauty of life. Ficitional or not, the stories, the poetry and the prophecy within radiate through the words on the pages. That is why Jesus admonished the Pharisees for their unilateral vision:
“I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me. And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.” (my italics)
Jesus said his work testified for him. That tells me two things. Taking the last verse in the book of John for a cue, I would posit that not all of Jesus’ works were recorded in the gospels, therefore making the written word ‘incomplete’ in that sense. Second, I believe Jesus is still currently ‘at work’ in the world and in the hearts of men and women everywhere in every moment. This suggests I must open the canon of Jesus’ testimony to his movement today and tomorrow.
Jesus’ words in the last two sentences of the quotation seem to show clearly that the scriptures point to him, not the other way around. The Pharisees neglected to view the scriptures as a frame through which to see Jesus, the Word of God Incarnate. For the Pharisees, the written word was the end, but in Jesus’ economy, the written word is only the means to the true End, Jesus himself, the Word of God Incarnate.
I guess I have been admiring the frame and not the canvas.
