Picasso’s Napkin (Part 3, “Inspiration”)

I love great quotations, don’t you? When my mother was living she sent me quotes all the time; I made a notebook of them. Here are a few of my favorites:

• “Think not of yourself as merely the architect of your career; but as the sculptor. Expect to do a lot of hard hammering and chiselling and scraping and polishing.” (Unknown author)
• “It is not so much the greatness of our troubles, as the littleness of our spirit, which makes us complain.” (J. Taylor)
• “Ideals are like the stars – we never reach them, but like the mariners on the sea we chart our course by them.” (Carl Schurg)
• “Many ideas grow better when transplanted into another mind than in the one where they sprang up.” (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.)

I could go on and on, of course; I have pages and pages. But another of my favorites came through my brother; he introduced me to Kahlil Gibran:

• “Your pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding . . . .” (from The Prophet)
• “Your soul is oftentimes a battlefield, upon which your reason and your judgment wage war against your passion and your appetite. Your reason and your passion are the rudder and the sails of your seafaring soul.” (from The Prophet)

Great quotes appear in countless places: Reader’s Digest’s “Quotable Quotes”; famous speeches from Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln and many others; well-known authors, from the illustrious Mark Twain to the modern Kurt Vonnegut; even Hallmark cards can be profound. Words of wisdom abound in literature (both ancient and modern), and sometimes “a word aptly spoken is like apples of gold in settings of silver” (Proverbs 25:11), invaluable to your life.

And that is why, so often, you find yourself treating Scripture as a handy collection of Quotable Quotes. Among the most prevalent are the following:

• “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.” (Jeremiah 29:11)
• “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love Him.” (1 Corinthians 2:9 quoting Isaiah 64:4)

The first verse is often quoted to provide hope and security (those are good things, not bad). The second verse is used at funerals to give hope and security during a family’s grief (also, good things, not bad). In many ways today Christians who employ the Scripture in this way could just as soon benefit from the inspirational words found in countless, oversized, fully illustrated coffee table books. It amounts to the same thing, i.e. encouraging words to give you a positive attitude as you approach each challenging day. And you know, that is certainly some benefit; we all can use it.

The only trouble is this: we never learn the real intent of the words when they were penned. It’s like a person from 2023 having a conversation with someone in the 1850s about being “gay.” You both would derive something from the conversation, but . . . maybe not what was meant. Or maybe it’s like asking if Eli Whitney’s “cotton gin” had to do with a type of liquor; a bit of anachronistic thinking, right? If you value Scripture the way the early church did, and the way the so-called “church fathers” (Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, etc.) did, then it becomes all-important for you to learn what the Scriptures really SAY, not just in what way you’d like to use them.

We say that writers, public speakers, producers, musicians, artists, etc. are “inspired” by their craft. “Inspiration” is used to mean anything from the ability to create a musical composition, to the writing of stories, to the invention of a machine that does amazing things for us. But often when Christians use it a plethora of additional meanings are attached. Foremost among these is the idea of inerrancy; that the words (as they were originally penned) were flawless, i.e. there are no mistakes.

When you do research into the word translated “inspired” you learn some interesting things. The original word (Greek, θεόπνευστος) is used only ONE TIME in the New Testament canon of Scripture:

“All Scripture is God-breathed, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

2 Timothy 3:16-17

Word definition is determined by usage, right? So, here is our first problem. If we break down the word into its two parts we see that literally it means “God breathed.” But without other uses to compare we are left guessing the parameters of that definition. It does appear several times in secular Greek and appears to mean “life giving,” but beyond that there is little to say. And here we need to be cautious; sometimes our best thinking can get us into trouble. When we “put two and two together” we often end up with 100! Some have reasoned that if Scripture came from God . . . it would be perfect, right? And if it’s perfect, it would have to be flawless, right? And if it was flawless when originally penned, God would not allow it to be corrupted? So, the text is inerrant and has been protected from tampering! There!

One of the many problems with this deduction is that Christians in the early centuries did not all agree with the contents of the canon of Scripture, not to mention that an enormous amount of work has gone into the discovery of ancient manuscripts, comparing them with ancient translations into other languages, archaeological findings, and the decisions about which of the variant readings of certain passages seems most likely. THEN . . . scholars have attempted to translate it into words or idioms you and I could understand; and they update these translations all the time.

The Bible is not a magic book; it is not a spiritual prism: turn it one way and it will speak to you thusly; turn it another way and another message comes to you, adjusting itself to magically fit with the nuances of each generation and culture. But we often treat it in just this way.

So, I want to ask you the question: do you need for “inspiration” to mean flawless?

I don’t know about you, but . . . I’ve not read many books (even modern ones) where there are absolutely no errors. I mean somewhere in the volume I will see an honest mistake that an editor missed: a misspelling, a word that sounds like the word intended, etc. And this is the world of automation. Ancient writings were copied by hand, one after another; no spell check existed.

I don’t NEED inspiration to mean inerrant. In fact, when one defines “inspiration” as flawless it often causes the honest inquirer to doubt the authenticity of the work in question; nothing in this world is perfect. Even God’s people are flawed (see Galatians 2:11-21).

The oldest extant complete copy of the Hebrew Old Testament was sold at Sotheby’s for 38.1 million this year; it is called Codex Sassoon (dated 900 AD). Some of Picasso’s works have sold for almost twice that much, and some for much less. His reputation, of course, is quite sordid, unlike the writers of Scripture. But authenticity is often enough to warrant great value. The Old Testament Scriptures were viewed as “God-given” to the Jews of Jesus’s day, and the New Testament writings eventually came to be viewed in much the same way. Picasso’s work remains valuable because of who created it, and the Scriptures remain valuable not only because of who wrote them, but because they contain the “wisdom from above.”

Can the truth from God be clearly seen even though the vehicles that carry it may be flawed? I certainly hope so. Because people’s words, people’s actions, people’s writings, people’s art, etc. are always imperfect.

So, were the writers of the New Testament documents “inspired”? Absolutely! Were they perfect, without flaws, inerrant? How on earth could they be? Much is made of Paul’s mention of the 23,000 killed in a plague (1 Corinthians 10:8), contrasted with the Numbers 25:9 account that says 24,000 died. Some scholars jump through hoops to harmonize the two, even suggesting that Paul was referring to some other plague (Exodus 32) where no exact number is given. I’ll never forget my Greek professor’s response to this. He said, (and you have to say this with a New York Jewish accent) “You know the Jews . . . 23,000, 24,000 . . . , what’s the difference?”

All I’m saying is this: don’t allow your definition of one (hard to define) word, used only one time in the New Testament, cause you to present these ancient writings as “flawless” to an unbeliever who has never even heard of a book without flaws in his/her life. It is not only counterproductive, it is unnecessary. Authenticity is enough! And that . . . we have! Minor mistakes and all. In fact . . . the mistakes add credibility.

Picasso’s Napkin (Part 2, “Kissin’ Cousins”)

I have some cousins; I’ll bet you do, too. Linda, John, Mary, Victor, Vernon, and Tim (born to one of my mother’s sisters). All in the same family, all having the same mother and father, all having been raised by the same parents in the same localities. But oh how different they are!

Isn’t it amazing how different children in the same family can be from one another. Now there are almost always some obvious similarities, too. But what makes each one unique, memorable, recognizable . . . are the differences.

Linda was the oldest, the most sophisticated; John was the mischievous one; Mary was the quiet, reserved one (except at times); Victor and Vernon were twins, but each had his own distinct personality and manner of speaking; and Tim was the baby, into absolutely everything. They are all grown now, of course. But I loved those cousins, and their individuality.

One way people deal with Scripture is to look for the common thread that runs throughout; they will refer to parts of the Old Testament and compare them with the New Testament, looking for the similarities. And sometimes . . . ignoring the stark differences. Often you will hear it said, “you should interpret the Bible with the Bible.” That might work . . . as long as you know what you’re doing.

But linking verses of Scripture together can be dangerous, too, of course. As in the case of the man who read from Matthew’s gospel and then flipped over to Luke’s gospel, looking for direction for his life from the Bible.

” He (Judas) . . . went away and hanged himself”
AND
“Go and do likewise.”

Matthew 27:5b; Luke 10:37b

This sounds comical, of course. And it should! Because to take a compilation of ancient documents, bound together in a single volume, and then randomly read them like one would read if seeking advice from the Magic 8 Ball . . . . Now that IS comical! And sad, too. Do people do it? Yes. ALL THE TIME.

Part of the reason is because we’ve been taught to use the Bible this way. But when you do so you not only are doing something dangerous (with regard to interpretation), but inadvertently you rob yourself of seeing the uniqueness of each book in the compilation. Remember, these ancient documents were not written as audition pieces in order to get into the Bible. Each one has its own author, recipients, occasion, and purpose. If you really want to know what they SAY, you must know each of those things.

_{No auditions for New Testament authors}

For example, using the illustration of my twin cousins, Victor and Vernon . . . the Apostle Paul had a couple of “twin” letters: Ephesians, and Colossians. There is a great deal of similarity between these two ancient documents, both likely written in the 60s A.D. And yet, their uniqueness shines through if the reader takes the time to notice. Their two messages complement one another, but they are not the same. Their terminology has some similarities, but also some stark differences. They both address the behavior of wives, husbands, slaves and masters, etc., and they both discuss “the mystery,” but whereas Ephesians talks a great deal about “the heavenly realms” (1:3, 20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12) and the Lord’s “power” (1:19; 3:7, 16, 18, 20; 6:10), Colossians emphasizes the “fullness” of God in Christ (1:19, 25; 2:9-10) and “the basic principles of the world” (2:8, 20), ascetic practices that threaten the Christian’s new identity.

Sometimes these letters were meant to be shared, as in the case of Colossians, where Paul asks that the church there exchange their letter with the Christians in Laodicea and vice versa (Colossians 4:16). Galatians was written to multiple churches in an area (Galatians 1:2), and 1 Peter was written to Christians “scattered” throughout several provinces (1 Peter 1:1). Some were written to individuals, e.g. 3 John, Philemon, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Luke & Acts.

Each document is unique. Are they in conflict with one another because they do not have the same message or use the same vocabulary? Of course not! If you wanted to tell someone how to get to your house you would not give identical instructions to someone living in New York City and someone living in San Francisco. They are two very different places; and different highways (or airports) would be used to get them to your home.

The documents we call “Scripture” do not have the same audience, do not all address the same issue(s), and do not have the same author. Sometimes, referring to them all as “God’s Word” can be misleading, making the reader unconsciously assume that since God is the ultimate source of the material the reader can “mix and match” (so to speak) at will. The fact is, even when the same author is writing (e.g. Paul) there are differences in the terminology used. Writing in the late 40s A.D. to Gentile Christians, recent converts to the faith, Paul says:

” . . . you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God . . . .”

1 Thessalonians 1:9b

This would have made little sense to a Jewish audience. Just as the following (written around the same time to Jewish Christians) would have made little sense to a Gentile audience:

“Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman.”

Galatians 4:21-22

You can’t read Revelation (written in an apocalyptic style) in the same way you read Jude, even though they are situated right next to each other in the current canon. Genesis isn’t like Song of Songs (in fact, almost nothing is), and you can’t read Job like you read 1 Corinthians. James says that “faith without deeds is useless” and “dead” (James 2:17, 20, 26); by contrast, Paul says ” . . . by grace you have been saved through faith . . . not by works . . . ” (Ephesians 2:8-9). They don’t sound the same.

My cousins are very much alike in one sense, and impossibly different in another sense. 1 Corinthians was written in response to a series of questions Paul had been asked. Romans was written to help Gentiles to accept Jews back into the church after having been expelled by the emperor for 5 years. Jude had intended to write a letter about “the salvation we share” (Jude 3), but dire circumstances caused him to change his message (Jude 3-4). Over and over again the unique nature of each document is of utmost importance. Their intent dictated the words chosen, just as they do in any conversation, letter, email, or text you write today.

Picasso doodled and scribbled constantly, and the things he doodled are as varied as they come. Often he gave those scribblings away. But no matter how much variety there was in his doodles . . . they were still Picassos. The variety you find in Scripture works the same way.

If you want to flip open the Bible, point to a verse and read it to receive direction for your life . . . of course you can do so. But if you really want to understand what the words were meant to convey, well . . . that is a whole different project altogether. The “cousins” are waiting for you.

But we’re not done yet! We will tackle the subject of “inspiration” in the next blog entry. Hang on to your seats!!!!! It’s bound to be a bumpy ride.

Picasso’s Napkin (Part 1, “The Nutshell”)

Pablo Picasso. Ever heard of him?

The story of Picasso’s napkin has numerous variations and may in fact be apocryphal, but it is commensurate with his personality, manner, and stories shared by those who knew him. His “doodles” and “scribblings” are still being discovered, and they garner enormous amounts of money when sold. Basically, the story goes like this: he was in a restaurant, drew on a napkin (one version said he drew a goat figure), then was willing to sell the napkin for a large sum of money (to the surprise of the customer who wanted it for nothing).

We’re all familiar with the value placed on things like alleged pieces of Jesus’s cross, King Tut’s funerary mask, the Rosetta Stone, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the original Declaration of Independence, Abraham Lincoln’s handwritten notes for the Gettysburg Address, etc. We are fascinated with the past and enthralled with items of antiquity that have survived the years . . . even a famous artist’s napkin drawing.

Even in the present day, when a U.S. President signs a bill or an executive order, ink pens used in the signing are given to special persons present as historical artifacts commemorating the moment. Book collectors search for 1st editions of famous works and/or signed copies by the author, and the homes of famous historical figures are registered and preserved and protected; their value has no dollar amount.

In April 1968 I received a signed letter with a pencil drawing from the Beatle, George Harrison. I sold it at auction at Christie’s in London months after his death. I have in my possession: an autographed photo of Metropolitan Opera baritone, Robert Merrill; an autographed photo of actor, Richard Boone; an autographed photo of country music artist, Marty Stuart. And priceless to me personally are some handwritten letters from my mother and father, now deceased.

Years ago, when we lived in the Ashland City, TN area, I became close friends with country music legend, Don Williams. There are stories I could tell you about Don, his family, and his home that you won’t find in a book or magazine; I got them right from the source, straight from his heart. He once told me of an amazing experience he’d had while touring with his band, and he had only ever shared it with two other people. If you wanted to know the real Don Williams . . . I would be a good source.

When it comes to the Scriptures . . . we have a similar phenomenon: preserved for us from antiquity are a variety of documents that the early Christians deemed “keepers.” They were believed to have been composed by persons who knew Jesus personally, had walked with him, eaten with him, joked with him, and learned from him; that is, they knew “how he liked his eggs” (so to speak). Or, as in the case of Paul, had had an encounter with him that was both unique and life-changing. In fact, one of the main criteria for which writings would be in the canon and which ones would not (and this list evolved with time) was this: who wrote it? By the way, this was why a number of documents (e.g. the Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Enoch, the Gospel of Peter, etc.) were considered pseudepigraphical (falsely attributed to someone famous), and not put in the list of accepted books.

The word translated “Scripture” was the generic Greek word for “writings” of any kind (γραφή, from which we get the word graphic); the early Christians used it to refer to a specific set of writings, just as we do today. The Jews of the 1st century A.D. had grouped a number of ancient writings together, writings which they believed were “the very words of God” (see Romans 3:2; Acts 7:38), and the copies they made of these writings were meticulously preserved and revered (see John 10:35). On two occasions they are referred to as “holy” writings (ιερές γραφές, 2 Tim. 3:15; γραφαῖς ἁγίαις, Rom. 1:2), but normally in the New Testament the word “Scripture” appears by itself (e.g. 2 Pet. 1:20; Jn. 10:35; Lk. 24:27; Rom. 15:4), and refers to what we call the Old Testament.

The test for authenticity in the early church was twofold: (1) did the writing in question support teaching that was already accepted by early Christians? (2) who wrote it? Numerous documents were rejected for one or both of those reasons. And the incidence of “false” claims to authorship existed in an attempt to fulfill one of those criteria.

Those writings that were accepted and deemed authentic were preserved, copied meticulously (although some manuscripts show slight emendations or embellishments) and ultimately collected into a volume which we have come to call The Bible. They passed the tests for authenticity. And as such, they assured future readers that they were reading the words of people who knew Jesus intimately, and had a vested interest in preserving his words and the stories about him accurately.

In a nutshell . . . when you read the New Testament, what you have in your hands is a collection of ancient documents written by Jesus’s closest followers, the “inside scoop.” And grouped along with many heavy theological treatises like Romans, Ephesians, and Hebrews you also find a proverbial “Picasso’s napkin” in books like Philemon.

How can we trust these “writings,” these Scriptures, to be trustworthy? You don’t have to take a leap of faith; you just have to treat them as you would the words of a close friend. For example, Abraham Lincoln had such a friend in his old roommate, Joshua Speed. You can trust his words about Lincoln because he knew him.

When my daughters were younger, I tried to get autographed pictures of celebrities they loved, because I knew that was special to them. Those celebrities actually signed those photos with their own hands. Priceless! It’s interesting though, that I never got an autographed picture of Don Williams. That’s because he was my close friend; it would have been weird to ask for that. And it would have cheapened the relationship.

We don’t have any document that Jesus signed. But we DO have copies of treasured documents that his closest friends wrote; those who knew him best. And we can trust them for the inside scoop. They knew him intimately, and so their assessment of who he was and what he did is priceless.

In the early church great importance was given to the words of the apostle John, and then to the words of any student of John. Interestingly enough we have a small scrap of John 18 called the John Ryland’s fragment, carbon dated to around 125 A.D. This would have been during the lifetime of any of John’s students. They would have been able to authenticate or refute anything written that early. And authenticated it was.

But there’s more we need to deal with in future entries. For instance, the importance of “Kissing Cousins.” So, stay tuned!