I have a copy of In Retrospect, an autobiography of F F Bruce. I have read other material on him, but I have never before read an interview conducted with Bruce. Recently, I "chanced" upon this interview with him conducted way back in 1987. I thought this might interest some who have appreciated Bruce's extensive work, not least, his treatments on the intertestamental period and the different books of the New Testament. I am certain you will find many interesting and surprising comments by him here. I should add you will probably also find much to agree or disagree with! Whatever your reaction, I hope this proves an interesting read and gives you an insight into his positions on various issues which you might not find elsewhere. As the interview was quite lengthy, I shall be posting it in two parts. The summary given below of Bruce was provided by the interviewers, and it and the interview were first published as Ward & Laurel Gasque, “An Interview with F.F. Bruce,” St Mark’s Review 139 (Spring 1989): 4-10.
_____________________
The figure of Frederick Fyvie Bruce (born 1910) towers like a giant over the field of contemporary biblical scholarship. His commentary on the Greek Text of the Acts of the Apostles (1951) is generally recognized as the first important work in what has since become a contemporary renaissance of evangelical theological research. In recognition of its excellence his alma mater, the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, awarded him an honorary doctorate. Generations of college students have been first introduced to Bruce by reading his little book The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable (IVP and Eerdmans) which has been regularly reprinted and revised for nearly a half century. His New Testament History (Doubleday) has been a standard textbook in seminaries and colleges for two decades. Educated lay men and women have appreciated his ability to translate the results of specialized studies into non-technical books that you do not need a theological degree to be able to understand and enjoy – such as History of the Bible In English (Oxford University Press) and Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Eerdmans), while pastors and teachers look forward eagerly to each new commentary or biblical study from his pen. The latest of these, on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians for the New International Greek Testament Commentary (Eerdmans), will doubtless remain a standard work well into the next century.
A simple listing of Bruce’s publications runs to fifty-six pages of small print! He is the author of more than forty books and nearly two thousand articles and reviews. In recognition for his work he is one of the few scholars who has been elected president of both the Society for Old Testament Study and the Society for New Testament Studies.
From 1959 until his retirement in 1978 he occupied the prestigious John Rylands Chair of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at Manchester University in England, where he supervised more PhD students in biblical studies than any other professor in British history.
The following interview was conducted by W. Ward Gasque and Laurel Gasque, who recently visited Professor and Mrs Bruce in their home in England.
THE INTERVIEW
GASQUES: Has your church tradition [the Plymouth Brethren] shaped your study and teaching of the Bible?
BRUCE: I suppose in some ways it has. As far as my experience goes, it has been part of the tradition of the ‘Open Brethren’ to encourage independent Bible study and independent thinking, without following one school of thought rigidly as sometimes happens in other ecclesiastical groups.
When you began your academic career, there were very few people in British universities, especially in England, who were committed to combining an evangelical faith commitment with academic biblical studies. Things are quite different today, I believe.
Oh, completely different now. And I think it is due, in some measure at least, to the influence of the Tyndale Fellowship which is an association of evangelical men and women who wish to engage in serious biblical research without unnecessary strings but linked with a faith commitment.
It has been forty-five years since you defended the essential trustworthiness of the New Testament in your little book "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable"? Do you still stand by what you wrote then?
I still stand by the general thesis of the book. I may differ in details from some of the critical points I dealt with incidentally, but I still maintain the same outlook that I argued for in that book.
How do you as a Christian and as a scholar, approach the study of the Bible?
I think I should have to distinguish between academic study and more general study. At one level – and perhaps this is the most important level – I approach the Bible with a readiness, and an expectation, to hear the voice of God there. But there is no conflict between that more devotional use of the Bible and its academic study. Over the years I have played a pretty full part in Bible ministry in churches – preeminently, of course, in the local church that I happened to be associated with at any particular time – and what I have tried to do in this ministry has been to combine the two approaches. I have sought to make available to my hearers, in a form that they can assimilate, the results of my academic study, while at the same time trying to enable them, like myself, to recognize and apply the voice of God in holy scripture.
The term ‘biblical criticism’ normally has a positive connotation in your writings, in spite of the negative connotation it has in some circles. Why is this?
Because biblical criticism is the study of the biblical text. It involves the establishing of a reliable text on the basis of manuscripts and other early witnesses: this is the work of ‘textual criticism.’ And when that is done it involves the interpretation of the text, what is technically called ‘exegesis.’ And this requires the study of such matters as the structure of individual books, a consideration of the dates at which they were written, how they fit into their contemporary setting, and then the question of authorship. It is in these three areas – structure, date and authorship – that we have the group of studies that used to he summarized in the single term ‘higher criticism.’ Thus biblical criticism is a very positive study. Its aim is to help people to understand the Bible better. One of my eminent Manchester predecessors in the Rylands Chair, Arthur Samuel Peake, who was no mean practitioner in biblical criticism, has put it on record that ‘criticism for its own sake has never interested me. The important thing is to pierce to the core of the meaning.’ And any technique that enables us to penetrate to the central meaning of scripture is helpful.
Is there is a uniquely ‘evangelical’ view of biblical criticism that differs from other types of biblical criticism?
Not so far as I’m concerned. Some evangelical scholars probably do have unique views of biblical criticism which they would distinguish from certain other approaches. But when I was appointed to teach biblical criticism in the University of Manchester, I was appointed to teach the same subject as my predecessors had taught – Peake, whom I have mentioned. C. H.
Dodd, and T. W. Manson – and I have been conscious of no difference between the criticism that I have taught and the criticism that they taught. They may, in certain respects, have reached different conclusions from those that I reached. But that is a different matter.
In North America there has been a lot of debate concerning the ‘inerrancy’ of the Bible, and ‘inerrancy’ has often been viewed as a touchstone of evangelical orthodoxy. What do you think about this concept?
Happily, from my point of view, that is a North American phenomenon which one does not find very much in Britain. The term that has been traditionally used to describe a high view of the authority of scripture in this country is ‘infallibility.’
What is the difference between the two terms?
When one looks at the words themselves, there is no difference! ‘Inerrancy’ means ‘not going wrong’ and ‘infallibility’ means ‘incapable of going wrong’ or ‘incapable of leading astray.’ But the infallibility of scripture as traditionally defined relates to its function as ‘the rule of faith and practice.’ Inerrancy seems to imply more than this.
What term would you prefer to use in describing the Bible?
Truth. What’s wrong with that word? The truth of scripture is what we’re talking about. Or, if one says that the scripture is the Word of God, why bother about terms like ‘infallibility’ or ‘inerrancy’?
Some years ago you objected to being labelled a ‘conservative evangelical.’ You said you preferred to he known as an ‘unhyphenated evangelical.’ What did you mean by that?
Conservatism is not of the essence of my position. If many of my critical conclusions, for example, are described as being conservative, they are so not because they are conservative, nor because I am conservative, but because I believe them to be the conclusions to which the evidence points. If they are conservative, then none the worse for that.
And what do you mean by ‘evangelical’?
An evangelical is someone who believes in the God who justifies the ungodly [Romans 4:5]. To believe in Him, and nothing more nor less, is to be evangelical. That is evangelicalism in what might be called the Lutheran tradition.
How do you draw the line between those who are evangelical and those who are not?
Those who have a defective view of the work of salvation and of the sovereignty of divine grace in the saving process. Anything that begins to allow for an element of merit or human achievement in the work of salvation is, to that extent, non-evangelical.
So ‘evangelical’ to you signifies more a theological orientation than a movement or a group within the church.
Primarily, it is, I think it’s disastrous when evangelicalism becomes the designation of one party within the church.
Still, recognizing that there is a group of people who might he identified as evangelicals sociologically, what are some of the changes you have observed as having taken place among them over the years?
In my experience in Britain almost the only Christian grouping in which there has been a distinctively evangelical party has been the Church of England. Now I cannot speak from first-hand experience of Anglican evangelicals, but I think that they themselves would be the first to admit that there has been a very considerable change of outlook among them over the past generation. They have become a much more outward-looking, instead of inward-looking body. They realize their responsibility is to play an active and positive part within the witness of the Church of England as a whole. But here I speak merely as an observer. In my own church tradition I think it would be right to say that we’re all evangelicals. We (in the Brethren) would have no possible existence apart from the faith of the gospel as I have tried to indicate it.
In terms of the world-wide evangelical community, have you observed any similar trends?
I think there is a much greater sense of responsibility to contribute to the well being of the church as a whole, and, of course, of the human race as a whole. The Lausanne Covenant is one very interesting manifestation of this change in outlook.
What do you think of the so-called charismatic renewal movement?
I have had very little experience of the charismatic renewal. Certainly, no active involvement with it. So I cannot say anything that is very well informed. But from what I know of it, it does seem to be a movement of the Spirit of God which is playing a part in the maintenance and the revival of Christian witness in many parts of the world in these present days.
No comments:
Post a Comment