Hmmm. I’m not so sure on that. I certainly agree that any dichotomy between Jesus and the Bible is unnecessary. The Word incarnate and the Word encovenanted are both the Word of God afterall. I equally dislike the “I don’t need your Bible verses or theology, jut give me Jesus” attitude which is ignorance masquerading as piety.

On the other hand, I cannot find any reason to postulate a bibliocentric theology over a Christocentric one, which is like confusing the messenger with the message (though I’m not suggesting you advocate this). Jesus is the centrepiece of Scripture and is simultaneously the goal of Scripture and the lens through which it must be interpreted through. When you write: “I doubt that Jesus himself would have subscribed to a view that placed him above Scripture” – I have to disagree. The formulae in the Gospels, “You have heard it said, but I say unto you …” presupposes the authority of Jesus over Scripture to either (a) provide the proper interpretation of Scripture; or (b) to intensify or nullify certain commandments in light of the new eschatological situation that Jesus himself has inaugurated. A question I often set my students is: “Does Jesus ever prohibit what the Law allows, and does Jesus ever allow what the Law prohibits?” The answer of course is ‘Yes’! Jesus’ actions on the sabbath, though obviously exceptional and not anti-law per se, are anchored in a sense of unmediated divine authority that not only circumvents the Law and Prophets but even surpasses them. That’s not piting Jesus against the Bible, but Jesus speaks both for God and as God and where the imperatives of Torah and Kingdom conflict, Jesus can overrule.

Likewise, the comment: “if the Bible were central, how could people have come to faith in Jesus Christ before the New Testament was written?” is hardly moot but a good point. We cannot anachronistically retroject our own circumstances into the first millenia of the Christian era. Not all Christians had access to all the Scriptures. The lists of Christian writings in the papyri and codices make that much clear. Did Christians who knew the Apostles creed but didn’t have a copy of Matthew-Revelation at their disposal know Jesus? Did Christians who only had copies of the Pauline letters know Jesus? I think Jesus is known from both the word proclaimed and the word inscripturated – in the NT both are treated as the authoritative “Word”.

That’s my take on the subject. Thanks for that thought-provoking post. Anything that gets Christians talking about and discussing the Bible and Jesus has to be good. Perhaps you should write a monograph on the topic afterall!