The Bible, Inerrancy and Inspiration
By Vincent Sapone, ©2002
Introduction
I think there are clearly errors throughout the canonized
Christian scriptures. I am not referring to obvious textual errors like
later additions (‘periscope de adultera’ also known as the account of the
woman caught in adultery or the work of John’s redactor), simple copyist
errors like mixing up numbers (1 Kings
I have seen lists of hundreds of contradictions all over
the net and I link to four sites with alleged refutations of alleged contradictions
on my resource
page. A few things I’ve learned about contradictions, Christians, skeptics
and debating this subject on the internet:
Four Things I’ve Learned
This is unreasonable when debating online. Asking someone
to prove the Bible inerrant by refuting 20, 50 or a hundred contradictions
is unreasonable. Who has the time to sit down and attempt to address so
many diverse issues sometimes requiring specialized knowledge in a number
of fields? A more moderate and practical approach for a skeptic is to limit
themselves and come out with what they perceive to be their strongest contradictions
with a suggested cut off line of no more than five apparent discrepancies.
My goal is not to inundate anyone here with more material than they can
manage. By limiting myself to four errors I think I am leaving the door
open more for viewer interaction and feedback than many places on the net.
But the length of this is over 25 pages so in that effect I have worked
against myself.
A case in point would be the Skeptics Annotated Bible. First in regard to Genesis the SAB argues that a computation of the dates in Genesis yields an age of the universe only thousands of years old which is at odds with current scientific knowledge. While the earth is certainly 4.6 BYO and the universe is around 15 BYO the authors of the SAB have completely missed the literary genre that Genesis falls into. Reading Genesis as a factual account of the universe’s and earth’s formation is something done by young earth creationists (Yec) or old earth creationists (Oec). Alternative theories to Yecism and Oecism (e.g. Gap Theory, Framework Interpretation, etc.) are not touched upon at all. The authors assume Genesis 1 is factual and go about finding external discrepancies from there as if Christianity monolithically accepted the creation accounts as factual and literal scientific accounts of the universe’s formation. I have written a paper on Christianity and Science that pertains to the relationship between theology and science and you can get more information on this subject there.
A further blunder
made here by the SAB is highlighted in a paper I wrote on the Days of Genesis, the contents
of which should alert readers to the poor scholarship that went into the
SAB. Even under a literal interpretation of Genesis we are not necessarily
left with 24 hour days nor are we left with thousand year days. I concluded
my paper on the day age theory with the notion that the Bible leaves the
age of the earth open. If anyone disagrees, feel free to critique my paper
;-)
Another obvious error made in the notes of the SAB occurs
in their treatment of Mark 16. Here are the comments by the SAB on Mark
16:9-20:
16:9
Jesus first appears to Mary Magdalene "out of whom he had cast seven
devils." Now there's a reliable witness for you.
16:17-18
The true followers of Christ routinely perform the following tricks: 1)
cast out devils, 2)speak in tongues, 3) take up serpents, 4) drink poisons
without harm, and 5) cure the sick by touching them.
This defies my senses as it is widely recognized that we
do not know the original ending of the Gospel of Mark. There are four extant
endings of Mark’s Gospel found throughout the various Biblical manuscripts
and textual scholars tell us that none of the 4 endings commend themselves
as original. The SAB comments were in regards to what is known as the long
ending of Mark. Metzger (The Text of the NT, p. 227) points out some of
the reasons why this ending is rejected as being authentic: “the presence
of seventeen non-Marcan words or words used in a non-Marcan sense; the lack
of a smooth juncture between verses 8 and 9 (the subject in vs. 8 is the
women, whereas Jesus is the presumed subject in vs. 9); and the way in which
Mary is identified in verse 9 even though she has been mentioned previously
(vs. 1)—all of these features indicate that the section was added by someone
who knew a form of Mark which ended abruptly with verse 8 and who wished
to provide a more appropriate conclusion.”
There are many more examples of the poor scholarship (if
it may be called scholarship) that went into the SAB but my point is already
made and continuing like this is unnecessary. The same lazy, hackneyed scholarship
found throughout the SAB pervades skeptic’s lists of contradictions all
throughout the internet. Some of the contradictions posed on the internet
come from people who actually have a noble cause or come from honest people
with honest questions so I will not stereotype all skeptical lists in such
a manner. It should also be noted that some of the lists do contain some
genuine errors and absurdities as does the error ridden SAB, but many of
the lists are filled with alleged discrepancies that are ridiculously shallow,
poorly researched and whimsically thrown together in an ideological effort
to undermine the Christian faith. Some of them are only “contradictions”
for specific viewpoints within smaller sects of Christianity that are not
characteristic of Christian views as a whole. Many of those types of “contradictions”
occur in the SAB.
I am convinced of
two things: 1) There are errors in the Bible, and 2) There are more errors
in the notes of the SAB than there are actual errors in the Bible.
Once a believer grants the Biblical text presumption of
being God’s inerrant word any error can be explained away. The solutions
can go as far as one’s imagination will take them. John record’s Jesus’
cleansing of the temple at the beginning of his ministry while the Synoptics
record it at the end. Is this an error? Apologists can assert that Jesus
cleansed the temple twice and thus claim its not an error. Of course the
silence on these two
Another example is the death of Judas Iscariot. One account
has his stomach bursting while another has him hanging himself. The solution
is simple for apologists: Judas hung himself and the rope or tree broke
and he fell bursting his stomach. Possible scenario? Yes. Do we have certainty
this happened or that this is not an error? No. Many posed discrepancies
enter into the realm of stagnation like this one never to return.
4. A problem with
Excessively harmonizing Errors
There are lists of contradictions on the internet and there
are lists of solutions to these contradictions. Amidst this game of tag
we can present a difficulty that needs to be addressed by advocates of inerrancy.
If one were to go through contradictions and attempt to harmonize them,
fine. But when does the Bible stop being God’s word as the fundamentalists
and conservative evangelicals see it? At what point do we say, given all
these “apparent” errors, how skilled was its author? If this is the vehicle
chosen to reveal truths to us that was authored totally or partially by
God, why is not clearer and more consistent? I assume things that make little
sense to us probably made better sense to someone in antiquity but such
a defense only serves to prove my point. If the Bible was written by and
to people in ancient times why do we treat it as an infallible moral handbook
today? Why do we view it as inerrant, infallible—either partially or totally?
I give the Bible—especially the
Apologists may assert that the bible is a historical revelation and thus needs to be treated historically. That certainly can be defended but the problem is that it isn’t always treated as such. Some who hold to inerrancy may even agree with me on this. Proof-text hunting does not treat the bible as a “historical revelation” by any means and many Christians engage in proof-text hunting. Christians are also inconsistent in their application scripture. Christians will readily quote the Levitical mandate against homosexuality as evidence that it is bad but willingly ignore a host of other OT laws that the majority of them scarcely would follow. And my later comments on Jesus declaring all foods clean and Jesus touching a leper are relevant to this discussion so keep this in mind.
Even if we allow the concession that God chose to reveal
himself to us historically, as she would probably have to no matter what,
we are still left with the question: Could it have not been clearer?
Throwing Down The Gauntlet—Four Examples of Errors in
The Bible
With textual errors
and preliminary thoughts on the subject of contradictions
out of the way
I can move on towards my first goal and delineate what I feel are some more
difficult to resolve errors in the Christian Bible. I am restricting
myself to four errors here. The second one can be classified as an external
error in that I will be presenting geography errors in Mark. The first,
third and fourth errors are more internal errors where I will be focusing
on what I perceive as contradictions within the Biblical texts or “conflicting
traditions.” The fourth error is limited to certain sects within Christianity
and has the most wiggle room for apologists and their attempted harmonizations.
Alzheimer’s Disease
and its Four Errors.
#1. The Baptist’s
infliction of Alzheimer’s Disease and the Messiah.
The first error involves Jesus and John the Baptist. Critical
scholars across the board recognize that the Christian tradition is somewhat
uneasy with John baptizing Jesus and the relationship between the two. This
is especially clear from the baptism accounts and the various texts subordinating
John and exalting Jesus over him (e.g. Lukan infancy narrative). This is
where our problem develops though.
Form a synthesis of the baptism accounts this scenario
is revealed: John is baptizing people and his message is that one greater
than him will come whom he is not worthy to untie the strap on his sandals.
He is preparing the way for one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit and
with fire. People were actually wondering if John was the Christ but he
was preaching the good news of the one to come whose winnowing fork will
clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning
up the chaff with unquenchable fire." Luke specifically says John was
preaching the good news.
From John 3 and 4 we know that Jesus’ disciples baptized
with Jesus with them. John’s disciples were somewhat jealous it seems and
report to John that the man whom he testified about was baptizing with his
disciples and everyone was going to him. John responds with “A man can receive
only what is given him from heaven. You yourselves can testify that I said,
'I am not the Christ but am sent ahead of him.' The bride belongs to the
bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits and listens for
him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom's voice. That joy is
mine, and it is now complete. He must become greater; I must become less.
The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth
belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes
from heaven is above all.”
John clearly knew Jesus was the Christ here, the Messiah
to come. The text also specifically states this was before John was put
in prison. We should also note that John baptized Jesus as well according
to the synoptics and John. In the synoptics Jesus comes to him to be baptized
and John tried to deter him saying, "I need to be baptized by you,
and do you come to me?" But
Jesus said it needed to be done to fulfill all righteousness and John consented.
As Jesus was coming up out of the water and praying the heavens tore open
and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice
came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well
pleased."
There are a few differences in GJohn’s portrait. JBap specifically
says look at the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. It’s
interesting to note the differences between the account in the synoptics
and GJohn.
Anyways, the point I wanted to establish from all this
was the fact that John the Baptist clearly knows who Jesus is! This tradition
however runs into a brick wall, or rather, another antithetical tradition:
In Matthew 11:2-6 and Luke 7:18-23 we find out that John
the Baptist, who is now in prison is inquiring as to whether Jesus is the
Christ or not.
Matthew 11:2: When John heard in prison what Christ was
doing, he sent his disciples 3to ask him, "Are you the one
who was to come, or should we expect someone else?"
This appears to be a flat out contradiction between the
Biblical accounts as John is already describes as knowing Jesus was the
Christ and already proclaimed his as the one to come after him and as the
lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
This seems to be a very clear error and if inerrancy advocates
think its not then I would love to have my inbox flooded with attempted
resolutions ;-)
.
# 2. Mark’s contracts
it from the Baptist and fails Marcan Geography 101.
Our next error involves the Gospel of Mark and a few apparent
Geography errors found within. We start with a passage from chapter 5:
“They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes.
When Jesus got out of the boat, a man with an evil spirit came from the
tombs to meet him . . . 11A large herd of pigs was feeding on
the nearby hillside. The demons begged Jesus, "Send us among the pigs;
allow us to go into them." He gave them permission, and the evil spirits
came out and went into the pigs. The herd, about two thousand in number,
rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned.”
Raymond Brown highlights the problem with this account
quite well in his Introduction to the NT (p. 134 n. 17) “There is a major
geographical problem in Mark’s location of the scene where the pigs can
run down the embankment and drown in the sea. Gerasa is a site over thirty
miles from the Sea of Galilee, and the alternative reading Gadara is no
real help since that is about six miles from the sea.”
On page 160 (n. 83) Brown relays more information on Mark
and his confusion of Palestinian geography. “Mark
A charitable concession could be made that Mark was condensing a larger passage but that does not resolve the “errancy” aspect of it and has no bearing on the account of the demoniac
It seems that Mark clearly betrays confusion of Palestinian Geography. His directions and geographical locations do not seem to be inerrant nor infallible. Though natives of a land sometimes betray confusion about directions in it and Mark is no worse than any of those map/direction giving companies online ( e.g. Map Quest or Expedia ;-) )
# 3. Alzheimer’s
Disease Spreads to the Table
This contradiction will focus on another set of contradictory
traditions in scripture. The first scripture passage is found in Mark 7:19
“For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of
his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")”
It can be argued that this statement itself violates Jesus words that he
had not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, that not one iota of
it would disappear till all had been fulfilled. This may well show different
traditions about Jesus and the law. Here in Mark we have him setting aside
a written mandate of the Torah while in Matthew 5:18-20 he says, “I tell
you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter,
not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law
until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of
these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least
in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands
will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” I can hardly imagine these
views being reconciled but I am going to be bringing up a different set
of verses that Mark’s problematic gloss seems to contradict.
According to Mark Jesus declared all foods clean. As Raymond
Brown notes (ibid. p 137) “The hard-fought struggle over kosher food attested
in Acts and Paul would be difficult to explain if Jesus had settled the
issue from the beginning.”
Galatians 2:11-14 When Peter came to
Romans 14:14-21 As one who is in the Lord Jesus,
I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards
something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed
because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your
eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. Do not allow what you
consider good to be spoken of as evil. For the
Acts 10:9-15 About
"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything
impure or unclean."
The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure
that God has made clean." This happened three times, and immediately
the sheet was taken back to heaven.
Paula Fredriksen relays similar thoughts to Brown’s above
in Jesus of Nazereth King of the Jews (p.108) "we must take
into account the controversy in Antioch, years after this supposed encounter
between Jesus and the Pharisees, when Peter, the men sent from James, and
Paul disputed about mixed Gentile-Jewish meals taken in community (Gal 2:11-13).
If Jesus during his mission had already nullified the laws of kashrut, this
argument never could have happened.”
Scholars recognize this as the voice of Mark, rather than
the voice of Jesus. Mark’s gloss stylistically intrudes upon this passage.
Fredriksen (p.108) “Its the equivalent of a film actors stepping out of
character and narrative action and speaking directly into the camera, addressing
the viewing audience . . . The addition makes Mark's point, not his main
character's.
Mark dismisses the concerns of Jesus’ opponents—Shabbat,
food, tithing,
We seem to have a two-fold contradiction here. Was Jesus
an observant Jew? We get yes and no. Did Jesus declare all foods clean?
Mark would say yes but the disputes over the issue and Peter’s vision in
Acts would imply no.
# 4. Jesus’ family
contract it from JBAP and forget the Virgin Birth
This objection will really focus on the infancy narratives
of Luke and Matthew and some verses about Jesus and his family’s reaction
to him. It should be noted that this is a limited error and only applies
to certain groups of Christians. Some Orthodox Christians accept the reasoning
offered at the end and still accept the Virgin Birth.
I will not be addressing
external historical errors, possible external astronomical errors (the star
seen) or internal contradictory errors within the birth narratives. They
are both fraught with errors when taken literally. For the problem with
Jesus’ family I will be assuming all the details are literal in the infancy
narratives.
An angel visits Mary and tells her she will give birth,
as a virgin to a Child. The angle says that she is to give him the name
Jesus. “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The
Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign
over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."
Joseph is also visited by an angel because Mary discovered
with child before they were married. She was pledged to marry him but he
had in mind to divorce her quietly because she was found with child and
it was not his. An angel told him "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid
to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from
the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the
name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."
So they get married. They
both know about their Child. He will be born of the virgin, was gong to
save people of their sins and his “kingdom would never end.”
For
As Jesus was born in a cave an angel of the Lord appeared
to nearby shepherds and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they
were terrified. But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring
you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the
town of
Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising
God and saying, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace
to men on whom his favor rests." When the angels had left them and
gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, "Let's go to
Luke also tells us of the incident with Simeon and the boy Jesus in the temple: “After three days they
found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to
them and asking them questions. 47Everyone who heard him was
amazed at his understanding and his answers.”
Matthew tells us that after Jesus was born in
When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph
in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother
and escape to
John tells us about Jesus changing water to wine: “On the
third day a wedding took place at
When looking at all these details on account of Jesus birth
I find the statements below problematic:
John 7:5 says “For even his own brothers did not believe
in him.”
Mark
Mark
6:3 records Jesus’ reception in his alleged hometown. “Isn't
this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the
brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with
us?" And they took offense at him.”
The third can be rationalized away somewhat easier than
the first two but this complex presents us with a problem. All these facts
just don’t mesh well in my mind. It
is conceivable that Jesus was born of a virgin but was teaching something
so radical or doing something so strange that his mother thought he was
beside himself. But the fact that his brothers did not believe in him, he
was rejected by those in his hometown and his family went to take charge
of him as they thought he was beside himself becomes more difficult to swallow
when coupled with the idea that Herod slaughtered all the boys under two
on account of Jesus, all the angelic visitations to Mary and Josephus concerning
Jesus, the account of Simeon, the magi, the shepherds (who spread word of
it), Elizabeth’s baby leaping in her womb when Mary came and greeted her
and Elizabeth’s pronouncement that Mary is the mother of the Savior, the
fact that “all Jerusalem” along with Herod were up in arms about the child
and that his family apparently knew he could perform miracles (wedding at
Cana account in John). All these pieces do not mesh well with one another
when taken collectively.
Along with this seeming inconsistency there are many noted
historical problems in the two infancy accounts and also some internal problems
between them but despite all of these problems a Christian can still accept
the virginal conception of Jesus. If you do not view all of the details
of the birth narratives as factual and literal but as theological things
can fall into place. For example, Brown seems to think that “although Luke
likes to set his Christian drama in the context of well known events from
antiquity, sometimes he does so inaccurately.” Theological reason abounds
in Matthew whose infancy account presents Jesus as the new Moses. That seems
the most logical stance for conservatives to take. Brown (pp. 219-220) notes
a few reasons for accepting the Virgin Birth held by some serious scholars,
some of which are held despite of such problems in the infancy narratives:
“(a) Independently it is affirmed by Matthew and Luke, which suggests a
tradition earlier than either evangelist; (b) In both Gospels the virginal
conception is situated in awkward circumstances: Mary becomes pregnant before
she goes to live with Joseph, to whom she has been married—an unlikely invention
by Christians since it could lead to scandal; (c) As just indicated, the
nonhistorical explanations are very weak; (d) There is theological support
fir a virginal conception: Some Protestants would accept it as true on the
basis of inerrancy or Biblical authority; Catholics would accept it on the
basis of church teaching; and some theologians relate it closely to their
understanding of Jesus as divine.”
I was not presenting an argument against the virginal conception
of Jesus. Just against all the details of the infancy narratives of Matthew
and Luke.
The Bible has Errors. What now?
This is the start of section two of this article where
I will be focusing on various stances on inspiration and evaluating their
plausibility.
A bone to pick
with Fundamentalism in General
Accepting that the bible has errors does not mean it is
unimportant or worthless. I find the Bible to be full of worth and accept
it as a Christian authority. It also serves as a means of bestowing grace
but when its pawned off as factual, inerrant and infallible in matters of
history, science, morality and internal consistency it becomes a hindrance
to the proclamation of the Gospel. Such a view of the Bible has quickly
become outdated and unacceptable to many people. Somehow the good news has
become bad news in many circles.
I think the backbone doctrine
of Fundamentalist Christianity, characterized chiefly by its view of the
Bible as inerrant and infallible special revelation, has unknowingly hindered
and trivialized the Gospel while consciously trying to preach it. Fundamentalists
advocate the self-proclaimed “traditional” view of the Bible. The Fundamentalist
view is certainly very similar to the traditional view. That cannot be denied.
But it is actually a recent invention of the church and scholars such as
Marcus Borg have delineated the chief and mitigating difference between
these two views. Until recent times there was no reason for Christians
to deny the historicity of Biblical accounts. The conventional wisdom of
the time entailed Genesis through Revelation. The obvious difference here
is that Fundamentalism employs conscious literalism while older Christians
embraced natural literalism. A citation from Borg’s Reading the Bible
Again For the First Time (pp.16-17) will help clarify:
“Christianity in the modern
period became preoccupied with the dynamic of believing or not believing.
For many people, believing “iffy” claims to be true became the central meaning
of the Christian faith. It is an odd notion—as if what God most wants from
us is believing highly problematic statements to be factually true. And
if one can’t believe them, then one doesn’t have faith and isn’t a Christian.
The thoroughly modern character
of this notion of faith can be seen by comparing what faith meant in the
Christian Middle Ages. During those centuries, basically everybody in Christian
culture thought the Bible to be true. They had no reason to think otherwise;
the Bible’s stories from creation through the end of the world were part
of the conventional wisdom of the time. Accepting them did not require “faith.”
Faith had to do with ones relationship to God, not whether one thought the
Bible to be true.”
Is
the Bible the foundation of the Christian faith?
Another issue stems around the
Bible and its role in the Christian life. Whether Fundamentalists are conscious
of it or not, to outsiders it seems as if intellectual faith has become
a criterion for salvation. The defining lines are made clear by the litmus
tests. Where does one stand on the “creation/evolution” issue? Is homosexuality
immoral? Should homosexuals be allowed Church membership? These questions
and a host of others are cast in a framework of “acceptation” or “rejection”
of Biblical authority. A rejection of Biblical authority, in the eyes of
many if not most fundamentalists is equivalent to a rejection of “real”
Christianity. Many Fundamentalists will not hesitate to tell you that without
inerrancy and an infallible Bible, Christianity does not have a foundation.
“Christian” and “believing the Bible” are synonymous. The Fundamentalist
position is clear judging by the t-shirts and bumper stickers that say,
“God said it, I believe it, that settles it.” I do not deny the importance
that the Bible has had in the Christian church nor do I wish to confine
it to dust bins, bookshelves or turn it into coaster or table-top decoration
but the view above is largely inaccurate.
The Bible is not the foundation
of the Christian Faith. It never has been and it never will be. That role
is reserved exclusively for the transforming and living Jesus experienced
in the lives of believers. Raymond Brown, in his Introduction to the
New Testament Forward (p. 8) has
said, Only in a limited way is Christianity a "religion
of the book." those who followed and proclaimed Christ existed for
some twenty years before a single NT book was written (i.e., before AD 50).
Even when the NT books were being composed (ca. AD 50-150), Christian communities
existed in areas where no preserved book was authored; and surely they had
ideals and beliefs not recorded in any NT book. (Indeed some who thought
of themselves as followers of Christ probably had ideas rejected or condemned
by NT writers.) Furthermore, during the last few decades in which NT books
were being penned, Christians were producing other preserved writings (e.g.
Didache, I Clement, Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch, Gospel of Peter, and
Protoevangelium of James).” Before the completion and general acceptance
of the Christian canon the Church lived and spread with no New Testament.
Philosophers and apologists Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in their joint
Handbook of Christian Apologetics are on record as saying that “for
many years early Christian apologists and church fathers argued quite effectively
for Christianity without even having the New Testament scriptures as authoritatively
defined, since the canon was not established until generations later.” The
Church existed and thrived without a New Testament (because it was not written
yet, canonized, widespread, they couldn't read, oral teaching was preferred
over written or they didn’t have access to one…..are a few possible reasons).
Jesus, not the Bible, is the
foundation of Christianity. At the heart of Christianity lies not a book,
but a Roman Cross. Jesus, the alpha and the omega--the beginning
and the end, is the cornerstone of the Christian faith. The importance of
the Bible lies in the fact that it relays important information to us about
God, Jesus and our shared faith with the first Christians who were in contact
with the historical Jesus and experienced the living Jesus after his crucifixion
under Pontius Pilate.
The epistles by Paul and others
were being used to teach and correct in places they could not get to. I
take it that all four of the Gospels were written for the same reason GJohn
claims to have been written: So “that we may believe that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God, and that by believing we may have life in his name.” (GJn
20:31) The Bible, as mentioned previously, serves as
a means of bestowing grace as well. It has a very important role in the
Christian life but its not the foundation. A citation from Marcus Borg (ibid.
p 7-8) should really hammer down the point:
“Ordinary people did not read
the Bible until relatively recently. Until about 500 years ago, the Bible
could be read only by the very few who knew Latin, Greek, or Hebrew and
who had access to handwritten manuscripts, which were expensive to produce
and therefore relatively scarce. Two developments changed this. In the middle
of the 1400s, the printing press was invented. Less than a hundred years
later, largely because of the Protestant Reformation, the Bible was translated
from ancient “sacred” languages into contemporary languages.
The accessibility of the Bible
to anybody who can read has been a mixed blessing. Positively, it has resulted
in a democratization of Christianity. No longer are the riches of the Bible
known only to an educated elite. But it has also had negative consequences.
It has made possible individualistic interpretation of the Bible; and that,
coupled with the elevated status given to the Bible by the protestant Reformation,
has led to the fragmentation of Christianity into a multitude of denominations
and sectarian movements, each grounded in different interpretations of the
Bible.
Moreover, prior to the invention
of the printing press, virtually nobody had seen the books of the Bible
bound together in a single volume. Rather, the Bible was most commonly experienced
as a collection of separate manuscripts. Indeed, during antiquity and the
Middle Ages, the Bible was most often referred to in the plural as “scriptures”—that
is, as a collection of books. Once the Bible was routinely bound as a single
volume, it became easier to think of it as a single book with a single author
(namely, God).”
Is
the Bible God’s chosen vehicle of special revelation?
“Is the Bible the vehicle chosen
by God to reveal certain truths to the world?” I would answer this question
with a “no”. A case can, however, be made that the Bible is a chosen vehicle as opposed to the chosen vehicle. I think sola scriptura is clearly flawed and either
way the Bible has become one of the primary ones. But many places and people
throughout the world have never even seen a Bible. Despite this I think
the Bible is a vehicle that believers should continually converse with.
Apologists will usually argue this on the basis of the Bible’s use in Church
life (present and past) and/or because of an appeal to inspiration.
Inspiration
and Inerrancy: Various Positions
I’d like to go through inspiration
and its various forms. James Leo Garrett, in Volume 1 of his Systematic
Theology (p 110) used two citations to define Inspiration:
“The definitions set forth for
the term “inspiration” in reference to the Bible have been legion, and here
it seems necessary to quote only two . . . According to Strong, “Inspiration
is that influence of the Spirit of God upon the minds of the Scripture writers
which made their writings the record of a progressive divine revelation,
sufficient, when taken together and interpreted by the same Spirit who inspired
them, to lead every honest inquirer to Christ and to salvation.” Erickson
has defined inspiration as “that supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit
upon the scripture writers which rendered their writings an accurate revelation
of the record or which resulted in what they wrote actually being the Word
of God.””
Also The New International
Version Bible Dictionary (page 469) defines
inspiration as “the work of the Holy Spirit by which, through the instrumentality
of the personality and literary talents of its of its human authors, he
constituted the words of the Bible in all of its several parts as his written
word to the human race and, therefore of divine authority and without error.”
Also, the word Inspiration is
found in the KJV in 2 Timothy
Verbal Plenary inspiration
With Inerrancy (VPI w/ I)
According to Garrett
(ibid. p115), “Advocates of this position have affirmed the divine inspiration
of words, not merely ideas, and the total inerrancy of scriptures.” I refer
viewers who wish to know more about VPI w/ I to the Chicago Statement on Biblical
Inerrancy. It does a wonderful job delineating this point of view. In
its most basic form, VPI w/ I says God chose the very words that would be
included in the Biblical texts. The errors I presented above would seem
to devastate this view. Its interesting to note Article VIII of the CSOBI which states, “We affirm that God in His work of
inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of
the writers whom He had chosen and prepared. We deny that God, in causing
these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.”
Immediately, I find the affirmation and denial to be somewhat contradictory.
If God chose the exact words how could he not have overrode their personalities?
To say God didn’t seems equivalent to saying they would have used the same
words God chose. I take “literary styles” to include things like vocabulary
and knowledge of the workings of a language as well. It is a well know fact
that not all of the New Testament contains the best Greek. As Raymond Brown
says in his Introduction to the New Testament (p. 70), “The
heavy Semitic influence on the Greek of some NT books, the colloquial character
of Mark, and the grammatical mistakes of Rev might well have made these
works sound crude to better educated audiences who had the whole course
of schooling.”
So this I take
we attribute to the “human literary style” aspect. God obviously could not
have chosen the very words unless they were part of the writer’s vocabulary.
The position really says, God chose the exact words in a limited context—that
context being the writers perspective. He did not get to express himself
in the best possible way in the Greek language but in the best possible
way through human writers, some of which weren’t the best at writing Greek.
A writer with less skill may not be able to convey his points as effectively
as another writer. This brings up a host of questions itself but a different
type of example will help illustrate my point here. From Raymond Brown (ibid.
p39):
“By way of example one may note Luke does not report a scourging
of Jesus by Roman soldiers as do Mark/Matt; accordingly, in Luke 23:26 the
antecedent of the "they" who led Jesus away to be crucified is
grammatically "the chief priests and the rulers and the people"
of 23:13. Many commentators would read this passage as a deliberate Lucan
attempt to make the Jews the agents of the crucifixion and to exculpate
the Romans. Yet careless use of antecedents is not infrequent in writing.
34 Eventually Luke makes clear that there were
(Roman) soldiers involved in the crucifixion (
34 Indeed, Luke is
sometimes a careless editor: he reports Jesus' prophecy about being scourged
(
I think its obvious the books are written from a fallible
human perspective (but errors do not mean they were not inspired!) and the
four errors I brought forth above substantiate this. I don’t see how God
could have chosen the very words. Is God not a skilled writer? Was the grammatical
sense of what God wrote not what he intended to convey regarding the lack
of a scourging by Roman soldiers? Is it God or Luke who, sometimes, can
get careless? I don’t see how VPI w/ I is consistent. I don’t see how we
can affirm the very words of a text can be chosen by God, yet at the same
time deny that the author’s personalities were not overridden except to
say that God chose the very words within their personalities but even this
is problematic. If that is what is meant by this I hope it is not accompanied
by a teaching of scriptural “infallibility.” According to Garrett (ibid
p 117), those who hold to VPI w/ I “have had difficulty in avoiding the
commonplace criticism of the dictational theory, namely, that the Biblical
writers are seen as “passive instruments of amanuenses—pens, not penmen,
of God.”” I can’t see how the authors are both pens and penmen of God at
the same time in this context.
It would also be informative to quote Raymond Brown (ibid.
pp 32-33) one more time here: “Many, more conservative Christians think
of scripture as the product of revelation, so that every word of it constitutes
a divine communication of truth to human beings. This approach, which identifies
Scripture with revelation, runs up against the objection that some passages
in Scripture (lists of names, temple measurements, poetic descriptions,
etc.) do not seem to involve truth or, at least, truth that affects a way
of life or salvation . . . other Christians, not finding revelation in every
Biblical passage, contend that Scripture is not revelation but contains
it."
If God chose the very words, what was the purpose of including
things like temple measurements (a proposed solution to this is mentioned
later on)? Also, why did God, in Mark 16, decide to call the two angels
(assumed harmonization of all the Gospels) in the empty tomb a young man?
It may have been common in antiquity to only mention only the person who
spoke in such situations or to refer to angels as men so maybe technically
this is not an error but if God chose the very words, I do not think he
would have needed to override Mark’s personality to say two angels were
there, one of which who spoke, instead of saying there was a young man there.
It seems somewhat inconsistent. But in closing on this issue I must stress
that the most devastating claims against VPI w/ I are the external and internal
errors found in the Bible.
Evangelicals versus fundamentalists
We have discussed VPI w/ I—the first view I wished to discuss. Now I’d like
to briefly comment on the differences between evangelicals and fundamentalists
who generally have similar views on the Bible. Many evangelicals embrace
VPI w/ I. Sometimes it can be very hard to draw the lines between fundamentalism
and evangelicalism. Though, sometimes it is easier as not all evangelicals
embrace things like young earth creationism and the like. In general, I
have found that evangelicals tend to view the Bible more historically than
fundamentalists do. Fundamentalists often engage in careless proof-text
hunting. Two citations from Raymond Brown (ibid p . 33 and 36) will help
clarify: (1) “No matter how earnestly modern Christians may affirm that
they hold nothing except what is found in scripture, they are so far from
the worldview of the OT and NT authors they cannot look at spiritual realities
the way those authors did.” And (2) “The NT books were written some 1,900
years ago in Greek. From the viewpoint of language, even the most competent
English translation cannot render all the nuances of the original Greek.
From the viewpoint of culture and context, the authors and their audiences
had a worldview very different from of ours: different backgrounds, different
knowledge, and different suppositions about reality. We cannot hope to open
an NT book and read it responsibly with the same ease as we read a book
written in our own culture and worldview.” An old maxim says, “A text without
a context is a pretext.” I think evangelicals have a better grasp of the
context of the various Biblical books and the sayings within or--to borrow
language from the field or hermeneutics—they engage more in exegesis than
eisegesis. Thus far in Biblical Scholarship, the historical-critical method
has been the most effective. According to Garret (ibid p. 137), "The
historical-critical method seeks to interpret a text in view of lexical,
grammatical, syntactical, comparative lexical, author-related, literary,
comparative religious, secular historical, and other factors or to see the
text, as far as possible, in light of its total context and situation."
Garrett went on to say (p. 148): "Either "proof-text" hunting
or excessive biblical literalism can lead to misinterpretations of the bible.
According to Harry Emerson Fosdick, "to read the books of the Bible
without thus knowing their vivid settings is like listening to one half
of a telephone conversation."” All in all, I think evangelicals have
a better grasp on the historical nature of the Biblical texts and engage
in better apologetic defenses of the faith. Though from the liberal perspective,
evangelicals do engage in proof-text hunting themselves and do a good deal
of “harmonization” themselves but on a different level than those in the
fundamentalist camp.
Partial Inerrancy or
Inerrant in Regards to Faith and Doctrine
We are now moving on to another
view on Biblical inspiration. The first view that we have seen encompassed
the total inerrancy of scriptures as divine in origin and infallible down
to the very words. As outlined above, that view is riddled with difficulties
but does partial inerrancy fare any better? In a word, no, but I have a
more positive view of partial inerrancy. Partial inerrancy is usually understood
as meaning the Bible is inerrant in regards to all faith and doctrinal issues
within it. I disagree with this stand and the reasons will soon be highlighted.
There are positive and negative aspects to partial
inerrancy as noted by friend and “Adversary” Ron Garrett, “The merit of
this position, i.e. authoritative as regards faith and doctrine, would seem
to be that it is honest regarding a plain difficulty, and allows for a healthy
humility in one's approach to Biblical truth. The demerit of the position
is obviously the same, i.e. that absolute confidence in any sense is prohibited.
Given how prone so many believers are to using proof-texts and out-of-con-texts
to beat up on other believers and non-believers, I think the uncertainty
is a good thing.” I share Garrett’s thoughts on the issue. One of my minor
objections to partial inerrancy is how exactly does one determine that the
Bible has been partially inspired? Such a view seems inherently problematic.
One route is to claim that all doctrinal and faith passages, when interpreted
properly, are accurate. Has such an exercise ever been exhaustively done?
If not, on what grounds does one arrive at PI?
Another minor problem arises
in my mind. What exactly constitutes faith and doctrinal vs. scientific
and historical issues? The Exodus is much more than a mere historical story
to many Jewish people and Christians. How does one bifurcate between the
faith and doctrinal level and the historical one here? It seems the two
are interwoven. Also, if we do not need to grant the historicity of the
Exodus, the details concerning JBAP in the Gospels or all the details of
the infancy narratives why the Resurrection? I accept “we don’t accept it
by default but because of the evidence” as a somewhat reasonable position
but a position that will face severe criticism and one that will not go
unchallenged by any means. But apologists like myself are willing to take
up this challenge.
I think one of the biggest problems and my major difficulty
with partial inerrancy is the notion that there are in fact conflicting
faith and doctrinal issues in the Bible. I honestly don’t even think this
idea can be reasonably disputed. To bring up a commonly harmonized example
as noted by Raymond Brown (ibid. p 43) who tells us that “some earnest believers
are under the false impression that the biblical message is always (and
indeed, necessarily) uniform, whereas it is not. One may explain that there
is no contradiction between Rom 3:28 ("justified by faith, apart from
works of the law") and Jas 2:24 ("justified by works and not by
faith alone"); but one can scarcely imagine that Paul's attitude was
the same as that of James. When people quote Paul, "Christ is the end
of the Law" (Rom 10:4), they may need to add that in Matt 5:17-18 Jesus
says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law . . . not the
smallest letter nor the smallest part of a letter of the Law will pass away
till all these things have come to pass." Then one has a fuller picture
of what the NT says about a Christian’s relation to the Law. Whether consciously
or unconsciously, the church has placed side by side in the same canon works
that do not share the same outlook. The response to the canon is not to
suppress or undervalue the sharp view of an individual biblical author,
but to make up one's mind in face of diverse views existing side by side.”
Another issue here is that if one assumes James and Paul must be in conformity
they WILL find a solution even when they shouldn’t. That is a major problem
with harmonization. It is normally “impossible” to prove a contradiction
to believers who feel this is God’s word, as I mentioned above.
A question we could ask that argues against partial inerrancy:
Were all foods declared clean by Jesus or not? We see conflicting traditions
in the Bible on this issue as noted above. For another similar example we
turn to Mark 1 and John Dominic Crossan.
Mark
“These sufferers are in morning for their lost lives, because
in an honor-and-shame society, where, as we have seen earlier, one’s existence
is in the eyes of others, they are now quite dead. In such societies, with
strict distinctions of clean and unclean—not, of course, as clinical or
medical but as social or symbolic categories—the heartbreak of psoriasis
was not funny. It was tragic. If, by the way, such practices strike you
as archaic and pathetic, you might ask yourself whether you or your group
has ever been militarily defeated, socially marginalized, or culturally
absorbed. Probably for better, our social boundaries are very open, and
so, possibly for worse, are our bodily boundaries.”
I do not share Crossan’s blanket rejection of physical-world-altering-miracles
but I find his comments on the healing of the leper in Mark1 quite interesting
(ibid. p 82-83):
“The leper who met Jesus had both a disease (say,
psoriasis) and an illness, the personal and social stigma of uncleanness,
isolation and rejection. And as long as the disease stayed or got worse,
the illness also would stay or get worse. In general, if the disease went,
the illness went with it. What, however, if the disease could not be cured
but the illness could somehow be healed?
This is the central problem of what Jesus was doing in
his healing miracles. Was he curing the disease through an intervention
in the physical world, or was he healing the illness through an intervention
in the social world? I presume that Jesus, who did not and could not cure
that disease or any other one, healed the poor man’s illness by refusing
to accept the diseases ritual uncleanness and social ostracization. Jesus
thereby forced others to either reject him from their community or to accept
the leper within it as well. Since, however, we are ever dealing with the
politic body, that act quite deliberately impugns the rights and prerogatives
of society’s boundary keepers and controllers. By healing the illness without
curing the disease, Jesus acted as an alternative boundary keeper in a way
subversive to the established procedures in his society. Such an interpretation
may seem to destroy the miracle. But miracles are not changes in the physical
world so much as changes in the social world, and it is society that dictates,
in any case how we see, use, and explain that physical world. . . . In terms
of the original situation, therefore, Jesus’ action puts him on a direct
collision course with priestly authority in the
It should also be noted that Crossan argues that the ending
of the leper’s healing where it is said “as a testimony to them” is better
translated as “a witness against” them or, in other words, “to show them
who’s boss.” At its original level this account does not appear to relay
evidence of legal observance to temple purity. It probably served as a confrontational
witness that pitted Galilean peasants against
Luke 17:11-17: 11Now on his way to
14When he saw them, he said, "Go, show yourselves to the
priests." And as they went, they were cleansed. 15One of
them, when he saw he was healed, came back, praising God in a loud voice.
16He threw himself at Jesus' feet and thanked him--and he was
a Samaritan. 17Jesus asked, "Were not all ten cleansed?
Where are the other nine? 18Was no one found to return and give
praise to God except this foreigner?" 19Then he said to
him, "Rise and go; your faith has made you well."”
We see a legally observant Jesus here. The lepers stay
at a distance and are healed from a distance and are sent off to the priests
as was required. We see here a war of interpretation in the Gospels. Was
he legally observant or not? I believe there are mixed traditions about
Jesus’ view on the law in the Gospels. Crossan, whom I’ve cited extensively
on this issue thus far recaps the situation well (ibid., p 84):
“This story [healing of 10 lepers] is found only in Luke’s
gospel, and whether created totally by him or not, it shows how a leper
and a legally observant Jesus should behave. First, the lepers keep their
distance and never approach too close to Jesus. Second, he sees them but
never comes close enough to touch. Third, he tells them immediately to go
to the
Mark, who has Jesus declare all foods clean, also has Jesus
touching a leper? Was Jesus a legally observant Jew or not? This issue and
the issue of foods being clean or not seem to clearly fall into the area
of “faith and doctrine.” These objections and a host of others need to be
addressed by advocates of partial inerrancy.
The Historical route
to Inerrancy
Before going on to the view of inspiration that I deem
the most reasonable of the bunch I want to finish my treatment of VPI w/I
and Partial Inerrancy with a discussion on the usual way evangelicals attempt
to justify or arrive at inerrancy. The route usually offered by evangelical
apologists goes something like this:
Given such a picture it is no wonder that Greg Boyd said,
in Letters From a Skeptic (p. 128), “how can I call Jesus “Lord,”
and yet correct Him on a central part of his theology.” Cornelius Van Til,
in An Introduction to Systematic Theology (p. 146) has outlined a
similar line of reasoning as the one offered above: “In order to avoid this
charge of circular reasoning, orthodox theology has often offered the following:
In the first place, it is proved by ordinary historical evidence that Christ
actually arose from the dead and that he performed miracles. This is said
to prove his divinity. Secondly, it is noted that this divine person has
testified to the Old Testament as the Word of God and that he himself promised
the gift of the Holy Spirit who should lead the apostles into the truth
and thus be qualified as authors of the New Testament.
This general view has a number of problems that it needs
to address:
1. It presupposes a level of reliability in the Gospels
not supported by critical scholarship. Critical scholars do not generally
recognize the completion of all the books to have occurred any time prior
to the second century. Brown put the dates at (50 AD to 150) and those are
general dates given the various disagreements concerning the actual dating
of some books. Critical scholars, through a comparison of I and II Peter
have concluded that the same author did not pen both and that II Peter originated
some time in the second century. The Church Father Jerome already noted
in the 4th century that the same author did not compose both
books. Brown posits a date of around 130 AD for II Peter. This tells us
that the entire New Testament was not even completed until at least one
hundred years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth (sometime between 26
and 36 AD). The Gospels themselves were not written until some years down
the road. They were written in a different language than the one Jesus spoke
(Greek as opposed to Aramaic). The authors in all likelihood never saw the
historical Jesus. As Brown notes (ibid, forward pp. 8-9), “We do not have
exact reports composed in Jesus' lifetime by those who knew him. Rather
what we are given pertinent to the life and ministry of Jesus comes to us
in a language other than the one he regularly spoke and in the form of different
distillations from years of proclamation and teaching about him. In one
sense that attenuated reminiscence might seem an impoverishment; in another
sense, however, the Gospels understood in this way illustrate how Christians,
dependent on word of mouth, kept alive and developed the image of Jesus,
answering new questions."
2. In regard’s to Boyd’s argument that Jesus pre-authenticated
the NT, must we assume original “apostles” actually authored the books?
3. Jesus telling his followers they would be guided in truth after he was gone does not establish that their writings would be inerrant and infallible. If Jesus was speaking to his disciples, what does that tell us about GMark and GLuke (assuming the names attached to these Gospels are accurate)? To show the evangelicals that the apostles were not always perfectly guided in truth, a person can appeal to Galatians 2:11 where Paul, regarding Peter’s hypocrisy, said that he “opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.”
4. Some Christian scholars are under the impression that
the central claims of the Gospel cannot be proven historically. As Luke
Timothy Johnson, in The Real Jesus (p. 168) points out,
“Only if Christians and Christian
communities illustrate lives transformed according to the pattern of faithful
obedience and loving service found in Jesus does their claim to live by
the spirit of Jesus have any validity. The claims of the gospel cannot be
demonstrated logically. They cannot be proved historically. They can be
validated only existentially by the witness of authentic Christian discipleship.
The more the church has sought to ground itself in something other than the transforming work of the Spirit, the more it has sought to buttress its claims by philosophy or history, the more I has sought to defend itself against its cultured despisers by means of sophisticated apology, the more also it has missed the point of its existence, which is not to take place within worldly wisdom but to bear witness to the reality of a God who transforms suffering and death with the power of new life.”
The assumption that the resurrection is a historical problem rather than a metaphysical issue needs to be substantiated by apologists
5. Van Til argued that proving Jesus performed miracles
proves his divinity. Til has put forth a non-sequitor here. It is often
argued that Jesus’ ability to perform miracles is proof of his divinity.
Strange as it may seem to some readers, critical scholars generally
accept that Jesus was some sort of miracle worker. Of course, many like
John D. Crossan and E.P. Sanders only accept psychosomatic healings as genuine.
The others are explained as fabrications, some as apparent miracles (e.g.
Jesus walking on water), some as coincidental miracles (e.g. the calming
of the storm) and group psychology has been often used to explain the feeding
miracles. The text actually seems to argue against the genuineness of the
feeding miracles. Great public impact was attributed to a "minor"
miracle by Mark (1.28) while the feeding of a multitude (Mark 8:8) drew
very little response. All the Gospel of Mark tells us is that “They ate
and were satisfied." The same thing is found in the feeding of 5,000
in Mark 6. The same thing in Luke 9 and Matthew 14, they ate and were satisfied.
This does not testify on behalf of the accounts alleged authenticity though
it does not completely rule it out either. Even if some miracles were created
by the evangelists I do not wish to give the impression that the Gospel
writers were frauds. As scholar E.P. Sanders in The Historical Figure
of Jesus (p. 136) points out, “If the God could produce one kind of
miracle he could produce another. The modern reader is inclined to make
distinctions: stories that we find as credible are regarded as possibly
true, while those that are incredible are fiction. Fiction usually implies
a moral judgment: dishonest. Although ancient people knew about fraud and
dishonesty in religious claims, and were often suspicious of fantastic stories,
they did not draw the line between truth and friction precisely where we
would. The did not regard it as impossible for spiritual forces to influence
the physical world in tangible ways, and this view meant that tales of miracles
could develop in the circles of sincere and honest people. . . . My own
assumption about such stories is that the incredible ones are based upon
wishful thinking, others on exaggeration, and only a very few on the conscious
wish to deceive. . . . The most important points for the reader of this
book to bear in mind are that miraculous stories were common in the ancient
world and that we should hesitate before assigning them to either truth
or deliberate falsehood.” Though the most damning point of contention between
Til’s view and reality is that Jesus was just one of many miracle workers
from antiquity. Miracle workers were common phenomena before, during, and
after 1st century Judaism. To his Jewish contemporaries Jesus’
miracles did not prove his divinity (its possible he was viewed more as
a Honi type). To those who rejected Jesus, they could attribute his miracle
ministry to “Beelzebub, the prince of demons” (Matt
6. All of the contradictions or “alleged contradictions”
need to be explained or at least discussed in detail.
7. That Jesus was an advocate of Old Testament inerrancy
needs to be qualified. It first needs to be shown that there was a concept
of “Inerrancy” in Jesus’ day. I would posit that most Jews were illiterate
and did not even have access to the Old Testament scriptures as do inerrancy
advocates today. They certainly would have been familiar with the stories
and teachings of the law though. I also have trouble accepting the idea
that 1st century Jews (at least not all of them anyways) were
concerned with fact-literalism as well but don’t get me wrong, 1st
century Jews most likely did believe in a historical exodus and the like.
But I think comparing contemporary “inerrancy” and first century Jewish
views on sacred scripture is like comparing apples and oranges. As we see
in the Gospels, things could be revised, added to, created from whole cloth,
cast in a different light et cetera. A quote from Brown (ibid p. 51) regarding
early differences in New Testament verses says, “'Many differences among
the textual families visible in the great uncial codices of the 4th and
5th centuries existed already ca. 200 as we see from the papri and early
translations. How could so many differences arise within a hundred years
after the original books were written? The answer may lie in the attitude
of the copyists toward the NT books being copied. These were holy books
because of their content and origins, but there was no slavish devotion
to their exact wording. They were meant to be commented on and interpreted,
and some of that could be included in the text.” It should also be noted that the OT canon was
not set in Jesus’ day (more on that when we get to canonization) and that
Jesus is recorded as quoting from non-OT books in the NT Gospels apparently
without any distinction. Jesus’ own attitude towards the Law should be noted
as well: As Gerald O’ Collins tells us, in Christology A Biblical, Historical,
and Systematic Study of Jesus (p. 60), “He took it on himself not only
to criticize the oral law for running counter to basic human obligations
(Mark 7:9-13 par., but also to set aside even the written law on such matters
as retribution, divorce, and food (Matt. 5:21-48 par.; Mark 7:15, 19 par.).” In some places even a hint of slight hostility
to the law is implied (John8:17 and
8. We do not have any of the
autographical texts. Inerrancy advocates need to address this issue, textual
criticism and the quote in number 7 by Raymond Brown.
9. A feasible defense of canonization
must be put forth by inerrantists as well. Boyd made such an appeal (Letters
From a Skeptic pp 140-142 on Canonization) : “Now in answer to your question
of how we can know for sure that all the right books were included, and
all the wrong books were omitted, I'm afraid I don't have a conclusive answer
for you. I can't rule out the theoretical possibility that a certain book
shouldn't have been included that was included (Luther suspected this about
the book of James). Nor can I conclusively rule out the possibility of an
inspired book being left out that could have been included.” Boyd does appeal
to a few reasons one need not worry about canonization though: providence,
the early church took the issue seriously and most of the major books were
clearly discussed and if a few minor letters are tossed not much changes.
In my estimation the evangelical
road to inerrancy is littered with so many problems and impediments that
passage is impossible. And as far as I am aware, this is the only real attempt
to argue to inerrancy. I see no other practical way to do so. I think those
who accept Biblical Inspiration should come to grips with the fact that
God gave them a fourfold Gospel, not Tatian’s Diatesseron.
A More Feasible Stance on Inspiration
Some theologians hold to a qualitative inerrancy rather than
a quantitative inerrancy. A Citation from Brown (ibid p. 30-31) should help
lay out this view: “A number of interpreters take an intermediate position.
20 They accept inspiration, deeming
it important for the interpretation of scripture; but they do not think
that God's role as an author removed human limitations. In this approach,
God who providentially provided for
Within positions (4) there are different attitudes on inerrancy.
Some would dispense altogether with inerrancy as a wrong deduction from
the valid thesis that God inspired the scriptures. Others would contend
that inspiration did produce an inerrancy affecting religious issues (but
not science or history), so that all theological stances in the scriptures
would be inerrant. Still others, recognizing diversity within the Scriptures
even on religious issues, would maintain only a limited theological inerrancy.
Finally, another solution does not posit a quantitative limitation of inerrancy
confining it to certain passages or certain issues, 21
but a qualitative one whereby all Scripture is inerrant to the extent that
it serves the purpose for which God intended it. Recognition of this type
of limitation is implicit in the statement made at Vatican Council II: "The
books of scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully,
and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings
for the sake of our salvation." 22
Yet even this response runs up against the problem of finding a criterion:
How exactly does one know what God wanted put into the Scriptures for the
sake of our salvation?"""
20 Sometimes designated "centrist," these may
well constitute the majority of teachers and writers in the NT area.
21 Any effort to maintain that only certain passages in
the NT are inerrant is problematic if inerrancy flows from inspiration that
covers all the scriptures. For a general treatment, see
22 Dei Verbum (Nov 18, 1965) 3.11.
The view I am speaking of here would dispense altogether
with inerrancy and recognize the statement made at Vatican Council II as
accurate. I have heard a student/teacher analogy offered up in defense of
this position. I am indebted to the Venerable Bede of Bede’s Library for this analogy:
“God guided the creation of the bible and
assembly of the canon but with the light touch of a teacher. If a child
comes home from school and shows a picture she has painted to her parents
then it is her work. But the teacher has guided, helped and allowed the
child to produce the best she can. But the teacher didn't paint the picture
and the child's integrity depends on her being able to say it is her work.
Human beings wrote the bible but there was an invisible hand that ensures
that it says what God wants it to. It says a whole lot else too and has
mistakes that God allowed to be made as they didn't impinge on the message.
Likewise our child's picture of a person has two arms, two legs and a head
but it is not exactly accurate in every respect.”
This analogy breaks down at a point like all others but it is still useful and fitting.
This “more feasible view” is not without problems. First one can ask how they actually arrive at this position. Is there good evidence for it? Another question that could be raised was already asked by Brown, “How exactly does one know what God wanted put into the Scriptures for the sake of our salvation?” These are difficult questions to address.
Possible answers to how they arrive at this stance:
1. Church or Christian tradition teaches and has taught this for a long time.
2. Through a modification of the “evangelical route to inerrancy” above. They do not think it can be demonstrated that Jesus accepted inerrancy as do fundamentalists today but think he clearly had a conception of the Torah as God’s Law or Word. Like Boyd, they are not comfortable correcting him on his theology. They would also assert that Christianity is built upon the foundation found in the Hebrew Scriptures. A claim could also be made to some sort of “apostolic authority.”
3. The Bible has an amazing means of bestowing grace. It has inspired and continues to inspire people this very instant (I do not mean to ignore or neglect the negative effects the Bible can have but that is superfluous to this discussion).
4. This is somewhat circular but the Bible validates itself in certain places.
These are some possible reasons. I know these reasons will probable not convince many or any skeptics but they make sense to those who hold this position. It should not be the goal of an apologist to get a skeptic to accept the Bible as God’s word anyways. The goal should be to let God work through you and help the person come to know the Word of God.
How do we know what God wanted in the Bible for the sake
of our salvation?
Some might say individual discernment and through the aid
of the Holy Spirit but as Brown notes, “Private interpretation is logically
paralyzed when two who claim to have the spirit disagree.” Others might
appeal to church teachings but as Brown also notes that “Roman Catholics
who appeal explicitly to Spirit-guided church teaching are often unaware
that their church has seldom if ever definitively pronounced on the literal
meaning of a passage of scripture.
Despite the problems and questions that arise, this seems to be one of the more plausibly held inspiration stances. There are other issues that arise as well in general in relationship to inspiration. For instance, are all Biblical books of equal value or equally inspired? Is all one chapter of Jude as important as say all of first Corinthians? Is all of the Bible revelation? If so, what about seemingly inane details like temple measurements? One response is that knowledge communicated by God is important whether we understand it or not. Or does the Bible simply contain revelation? Is there a center of the canon or a canon in the canon so to speak? There are many issues involved but this stance seems to commend itself as the most logical of the bunch and this stance appears to be the official stance of the Catholic Church.
The Bible as a Human Response to God
Others would dispense altogether with the doctrine of Biblical inspiration and call the Bible “a human response to God.” This would view the Biblical books as totally human works in response to God. The response to God aspect comes from God revealing himself historically. The main example for Christians is the Incarnation where God jumped into our history as one of us. This view on the Bible would tell us that what we are reading is the voices of those first, second and third generation followers of Jesus. Though not inspired by God it traditions brings us back to the first followers of Jesus and to Jesus himself. The analogy used to describe this view is that of an artist and a mountain:
God inspired the Bible just as a mountain inspires a painter. The mountain is there, beautiful and magnificent, inspiring the painter to paint it. So too was the living and resurrected Jesus there in their hearts, inspiring his followers to preach and write about him.
For more information on this view I recommend Marcus Borg’s Reading the Bible Again for the First Time. Along with a lengthy excerpt from chapter one you will find my review of it here.
These last two views on inspiration seem to be the most
plausible of the bunch and I urge readers to study the evidence for themselves
and look into the merits and demerits of both stances.
Hermeneutics or Interpretation Issues
There are some hermeneutics issues involved that I’d like
to hit briefly before closing. We cannot expect to just pick up a Bible
and read it as responsibly as we would some other contemporary work. Two
quotes from Brown will suffice:
"""No matter how earnestly modern Christians
may affirm that they hold nothing except what is found in scripture, they
are so far from the worldview of the OT and NT authors they cannot look
at spiritual realities the way those authors did."""
p 33
"""The NT books were written some 1,900 years
ago in Greek. From the viewpoint of language, even the most competent English
translation cannot render all the nuances of the original Greek. From the
viewpoint of culture and context, the authors and their audiences had a
worldview very different from of ours: different backgrounds, different
knowledge, different suppositions about reality. We cannot hope to open
an NT book and read it responsibly with the same ease as we read a book
written in our own culture and worldview."""
p 36
Also one from Garrett (Systematic Theology, p. 147).underlines the problem: “The historical-critical method seeks to interpret a text in view of lexical, grammatical, syntactical, comparative lexical, author-related, literary, comparative religious, secular historical, and other factors or to see the text, as far as possible, in light of its total context and situation.") He went on to say (p. 148): "Either "proof-text" hunting or excessive biblical literalism can lead to misinterpretations of the Bible. According to Harry Emerson Fosdick, "to read the books of the Bible without thus knowing their vivid settings is like listening to one half of a telephone conversation."
The picture looks grim but its certainly not hopeless. It takes a lot of work to study the Bible in depth but it is very rewarding. I have a few recommendations to help readers:
Ending
The Bible can be used for good or evil however. The Bible
was used by some to justify slavery in
Bibliography—Works Cited and Referenced
Note: When I say “John wrote x” or “Mark wrote y” I do not mean to give the impression that I accept the traditional authorship of the Gospels. I merely used each work’s respective title out of convenience.
Marcus Borg, Reading the
Bible again for the first Time.
James Leo Garrett, Systematic
Theology, Biblical, Historical and Evangelical Volume 1
Raymond Brown, Introduction
to the New Testament
New International Version
Bible Dictionary
The New International Version
Bible
The King James Version of the Bible.
Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament
The
Ronald Tacelli and Peter Kreeft,
Handbook of Christian Apologetics.
Greg Boyd, Letters From A
Skeptic
Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction
To Systematic Theology
Luke Timothy Johnson, The
Real Jesus
E.P. Sanders, The Historical
Figure of Jesus
Gerald O’ Collins Christology
A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus
John Dominick Crossan, Jesus
A revolutionary Biography
Ron Garrett, Cited From An Online
Open Debate and Discussion Forum.
Skeptics Annotated Bible found Online
A Citation from the Venerable Bede
Paula Fredriksen, Jesus
of