A Feasible Stance on Inspiration
By Vincent Sapone, 2002
Partial Inspiration
Partial inspiration usually entails belief that the Bible is inerrant in regards to all areas that touch on faith and doctrine. I have some issues with this view, mainly that there are errors in regards to faith and doctrinal stances within the Biblical text itself. That would be my most substantial argument against this position. If not for those errors that I see I would probably find this position better than the one I will defend below. In light of those, however, I find a more plausible view on inspiration to be along the lines of the view espoused by Raymond Brown in the citation below:
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?"""
Notes from the excerpt
20 Sometimes designated "centirst," 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.
Raymond Brown’s An Introduction to the New Testament (ABRL, DoubleDay, 1997) pp. 31-31
It seems plausible to affirm that scripture is qualitatively inspired in this regard. This means that Mark can make geography errors, Luke can have made a historical mistake regarding the census, the resurrection accounts need not be perfectly harmonizable etc, yet once can still reasonably accept the Bible as God’s word. One positive aspect of this view is that it allows us to accept a plain error as such and will help prohibit us from engaging in special pleading to explain it away. A demerit of the view has been mentioned by Brown in the citation already; how do we know for certain what God wanted put in there? Also, how can we tell what is true and what is not true if some of it may be erroneous. Obviously, this stance negates any absolute certainty we may like to have.
What Did God want put in there?
For starters I would like to address Brown’s question. We may run into the problem of knowing what God wanted put in there for our salvation but one thing we cannot dispute, as Christians, is crucifixion and resurrection. As Brown asks (ibid. p. 122), What proof is there that any early 1st-century Christian believed in a Jesus who was not uniquely distinguished by the fact that he had been crucified and raised? A rejection of crucifixion/resurrection is characteristic of a Gnosticism not clearly datable before the 2d century. The early church is clear on this point. The NT as a whole revolves around or stems around this fact. Under any stance on inspiration it would be unreasonable not to accept this. The entire message of the New Testament points to this. As far as the central and defining characteristic of what makes Christianity Christianity, we can be reasonably certain of it from the NT under a qualitative inspiration framework. For many other smaller and less important (though all of them may not be trivial) doctrinal questions it may not be as clear and may be open to more dispute and alternative views. But the essence of the Good News is clearly discernable.
This obviously stemmed into the other question. We are now faced with, if there are errors in the text, how can we know what it true and what isn’t? Isn’t this simply picking and choosing?
All or Nothing--Self Defeating
The first question is usually posed by fundamentalists and I find it necessary to throw their assertion back at them and see how they respond. All informed verbal plenary inspiration with inerrancy advocates know that inspiration applies only to the autographical text. There are plain copyists errors (however few one might want to argue they are) in the text that we now have. This means the Bible as we have it cannot be 100% inerrant. Apologists recognize this and that is why article E of the Chicago statement on Biblical Inerrancy says:
Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission.
They would further say that the science of textual criticism demonstrates that the text is amazingly well preserved, so much that no major doctrine of the Christian faith rests upon a disputed reading. It would be argued that the “authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free” (Chicago Statement). Of course, their case is being overstated. While the Bible does fare well when looked at through the lenses of textual criticism more sober views recognize a higher level of diversity in the texts. As Raymond Brown (ibid. P. 51) notes, “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. Later when more fixed ideas of the canon and inspiration shaped the mind-set, attention began to center on keeping the exact wording. The Reformation spirit of "Scripture alone" and an ultraconservative outlook on inspiration as divine dictation intensified that attention.”
To be quite honest, as far as the NT goes we have no absolute certainty of how close to the original copies ours are. Later on we know that slavish devotion to exact wording occurred. But when Paul first wrote his letter to the Romans, it may have been copied many times and altered by some or redacted to fit certain theological purposes very early before our first copies. We have no way of knowing for sure. Presumption is usually granted as a rule in textual criticism but we do see that there was no slavish devotion to copying the exact words of the NT early. Because of this “presumption”, its generally granted by many textual scholars that the NT is reasonably close to its originals. But obviously apologists like Josh Mcdowell and others overstate their case tremendously.
What does all this mean? If conservatives want to point out that partial inerrancy can never be absolutely certain of something they are in essence, critiquing their own view as well. On a historical level, their view does not have the certainty they seem to accuse other views of lacking. On a further note, errancy is a slippery slope. Once we allow errancy in one sense we allow it in all senses. If it is possible for textual errors to be here or there as is demonstrated by the copies it is possible for them to be anywhere in scripture! Once we allow even minor textual errors, we open up the possibility for any passage to have potential errancy. So much for absolute certainty and this conservative objection!
I suppose one could counter my objection with providence and argue that God would not allow anything substantial to change but that is an unfalsifiable position, its not a necessary position, and the texts seem to state otherwise or at least balance against that view. To mention a few examples: the pericope de adultera or the story of the woman caught in adultery does not appear to be original, the original ending of Mark is now lost to us, scholars believe GJohn was redacted and ended with the twentieth chapter, not with 21 as in our current copies of the Bible, the changes to 1John 5:8, etc. There are many more examples of textual corruption in the NT, some of which are deliberate. Despite notions to the contrary, not all changes in the manuscripts are unintentional. Also, I could equally argue or invoke this “get out of doctrinal trouble free--providence card” in regards to the traditional and current understanding of scripture under partial inspiration. If we are allowing unfalsifiable positions to constitute evidence or serve in response against objections the possibilities and capability of special pleading is endless. Don’t get me wrong, as a Christian I believe a providence argument can work here--to an extent--but not at the level conservatives would need it to in order to avoid their own charge of uncertainty against partial inspiration advocates. Whether we accept a qualititative inspiration or verbal plenary inspiration, absolute proof or certainty alludes us.
As an analogy I would recommend looking at it sort of as an encyclopedia. Just because it has an error in one section does not mean it is worthless, useless or incapable of serving as a means of getting accurate information from. The reality of the matter is that no encyclopedia is perfectly inerrant yet we still use them for reports and maintain a high degree of certainty in them. With that being said I would like to offertwo of my major pointers on how to know what is true and false in the Bible if we are allowing the possibility of errors in it.
Knowing What is True and What isn't--Picking and choosing
First I would point to Jesus Christ. Anything that Jesus can be shown to have likely said or anything likely to go back to him should be taken as truth. Christians are not in a position to correct their Lord on doctrinal issues. While some may argue that it is “hypothetically possible” for Jesus to have made a mistake or stated something inaccurate as a fully human being during the Incarnation this will not really be a major factor in any hermeneutic. What Jesus said should be given presumption (and recognized in its historical 1st century setting setting of course!) and not doubted. This right here may very well authenticate a very significant portion of the NT and the Gospels especially (the Jesus Seminar’s publicity-seeking voting theatrics on the sayings of Jesus not withstanding). Also, from the Gospels we discern that Jesus, a first century Jew, had a fixed sense of sacred scripture and propounded the Torah as the commands of God. The OT was not completely set in Jesus’ day, however, but this type of reasoning does authenticate it as being inspired. And by looking at how Jesus used it and cited it should give us at least some indication on how to treat individual passages that make logical truth claims in both the old and new testaments. So we are not left in utter darkness here. I also put up a page on interpreting scripture as well. We cannot begin to know or question whether something is true or false if we do not understand what that something is to begin with!
I would also point ot the Cross as a means of interpreting the Bible. I do not mean reading Jesus back into the Old Testament or applying prophecies to his life that historically had nothing to do with Him. We need a systematic theology and I propose that we start with the Cross. I further propose that any systematic theology not starting with the Cross is going to be inherently limited. This first of all means stating what the Cross is. Many of us have issues with standard forms of penal substitution, some of us have issues with original sin (especially a literal Adam and Eve but the idea of them being symbolic of humanity is more plausible), some of us want to know why God was able to forgive before and after the Cross and what that means for atonement theology? In fact, Jesus forgave and taught forgiveness before his sacrificial death. That brings up the question of, was Jesus' death "necessary" for forgiveness? Crucifixion and resurrection is the major theme of the entire NT. As Christians it only seems logical to start there. We would have to start by defining what exactly it means to the Church.
All of those atonement theology questions above are superfluos to my purposes here and it will suffice to say that I've always seen the Cross and incarnation as a statement from God saying, "I love you". At the center of Christianity is LOVE. That is my framework for viewing the world, morality and also viewing the commands of the O&NT.
I think the most important thing we need to know about regarding what is true and false in the Bible concerns morality and those verses that apply to living. Whether many of the people or events are factual or not is irrelevant (not all, however) so I focus here on morality or on the application of Biblical principles to contemporary life. I think all laws break down into a few apodictic teachings like "love your neighbor as yourself, love the Lord God, do unto others" etc. To even look at contemporary laws: can the speed limit not be seen as based upon these principles? Even the laws against drinking and driving. I don't want you driving drunk on the road with my children driving on that same road any more then you want me driving drunk on a road with your children on it. This is how I see morality and laws and rules. It breaks down to a core few apodictic rules. I think this would negate Paul's command that woman should not pray with their heads uncovered (discussed below) today but back in the first century it may have been an issue of respect or modesty for a woman not to do such a thing. So it may have been based off of an apodictic value of sorts. Or on the flipside, maybe it was discrimination against women in a patriarchal society and worthy of no serious consideration and does not stem logically from any apodictic value but rather, violates one.
I would even view some of what Jesus said as cultural (and possibly not applicable
today) based off of apodictic or universal rules. He himself uttered the universal
rules of "loving thy neighbor as we love ourselves" as we all no
doubt know. And Christians believe that He himself provided the clearest example
of Love and slefless service on the Cross.
Apply this view to contemporary views: Is drinking a beer sinful? Is drinking
12? Is drinking and driving? Is drinking if you get violent when drinking
or if you can't drink just one or a few? Is it wrong to drink in front of
a recovering alcoholic? Obviously quite a few of these questions are very
easy to answer. Others become shady and where exactly certain lines are drawn
is more open to dispute. There is nothing inherently wrong with drinking a
bear but even this is context specific. It breaks down into love and an issue
of being salt and light and an agent of the Cross.
The Bible is True Because It Says Its True
This is very basic and trivial but I must mention the circular reasoning aspect that many uncritical Christians fall victim to. It is not unusual to receive a comment such as this: Since the Bible is so closely tied together, one cannot deny part of the Bible as truth and God-breathed without denying the whole thing. In Christianity, you can't pick and choose what to believe. God doesn't say "Follow what sounds good to you and make up the rest." He says to follow him in all your ways. The Bible also says that ALL Scripture is God-breathed. If you deny that, then someone could, using the same logic, deny Jesus is the Lord's son, or that he rose again.
The first statement about the Bible being tied together and the “all or nothing”
stance is a non-sequitur and self defeating in light of copyist errors and
the fact that we have no autographical texts. The second through fourth statements
are a caricature of partial inspiration. It is not picking and choosing in
that implied context that is implicit to the argument. The fifth statement
is circular reasoning or begging the question. The Bible may claim to be true
but that alone makes it no more true than a self-authenticating claim in the
Koran, the book or Mormon or this paper you are reading would make them true!
As far as the last statement, they could deny those things but that would
not be the logical thing to do. I already touched on this above. All early
Christians accepted the fact of a Crucified and Risen Jesus. There is no indication
they believed otherwise and that is the entire meaning or basing of the NT.
Only smaller doctrines can really be disputed here.
I might modify it some but usually conservative apologists will accept an
argument like the one below as valid:
I can put forth powerful arguments for the resurrection: How else can you
explain Christianity's inception and rapid spread? How else do you explain
why Peter, James and Paul were martyrs for their faith? If they didn't believe
what they were preaching was true there certainly was no gain in it for them?
What reason for them to preach it? What possible reason was there for them
to make it all up? Why would Paul who was initially persecuting (and even
killing?) Christians convert and become one of its greatest and most influential
and articulate members? Etc.
Existential experiences with the living and transforming Jesus would factor in as well. With that being said, despite doing away with inerrancy in regards to all details, one can still affirm the central -core component of Christianity.
Defense of Qualitative Inspiration
The next logical question is how do I arrive at such a position on inerrancy? How would one ever arrive at this position? The same question can be asked of verbal plenary inspiration advocates as well. If God was going to reveal himself to us I see no reason to assume a priori that it would not be a qualititative inerrancy and would be total inerrancy. We should let the text speak for itself here. Many of the same arguments the more conservative Christians use to arrive at their inerrancy position would be used by partial inerrancy advocates. Here is a brief outline of them:
1. Church Dogma teaches the Bible is God's word in such a sense (Remember the Statement from Vatican II above). Or also the Bible has played too significant a role in Christian history and tradition to not be inspired.
2. It may be argued that it is reasonable, as Christians, to expect God to reveal himself to us in some form that is accessible to us and one that will survive. The most reasonable place we can find is the Bible. Since both verbal plenary inspiration and inspiration in regards to faith and doctrine seem to be ruled out by the evidence it seems reasonable to assume that it is inerrant in regards to God's intended meaning and/or soteriological reasons. This is more an issue of providence and this assumes a priori that God's word or revelation would be truth. Remember that if this is revelation from God--or more accurately-- contains it, that revelation must be truth. There is no other practical reason discernable from the nature of the text and number three lends credence to this view.
3. A third line of reasoning would be the Bible's ability to change lives, bestow grace, and transform people through a living aid or as is commonly called, the Holy Spirit. Some form of inspiration would be consistent with the Bible’s pastoral role in the church and its special ability to help transform the lives of sinners and make them saints.
4. This final note is one of the strongest lines of argumentum. Jesus had a sense of scripture. There is no evidence or indisputable proof that Jesus accepted verbal plenary inspiration or any other modern fundamentalist conception of the Bible (e.g. the details and ideals of the Chicago Statement). 2,000 years of interpretation separate us from the historical Jesus and we do not look at spiritual realities the same way first century Jews did. As Raymond Brown notes (p. 33 and 36): 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 . . . . “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. Despite all this, we can see through historical studies of the NT that Jesus propounded the commands of the Torah as commands of God. The OT was not exhaustively set in Jesus' day, however. But Jesus did seem to endorse a substantial portion of our now current OT as God's word (we cannot assume that Jesus had modern verbal plenary inspiration with inerrancy connotations or a modern understanding of the text with this). But some form of inspiration is much more consistent with a moderate reconstruction of Jesus than no form of inspiration. To paraphrase Greg Boyd’s response on why he accepted the Bible as God’s word In Letters From a Skeptic, “How can I call Jesus Lord of my life yet correct him on a fundamental doctrinal point he accepted?" This would probably be one of the strongest arguments in favor of inspiration for Christians but it does not really help the NT get inspiration status.
This is usually the same route total inerrancy advocates will take but I modified it some. They would usually state that Jesus accepted the OT as God's word and that he commissioned and said he would guide his followers in all truth which pre-authenticates the NT. Of course, their argument for OT inspiration is much stronger than their argument for NT inspiration and it is the same with mine as well. Jesus no where guaranteed us an inerrant or inspired New Testament but he clearly did authenticate much of our currently used Old Testament in some form or another. Stating he would guide his followers in truth does not correlate to inerrant letters from Paul or infallible Gospels from the four respective authors no matter how hard we try to force-fit the idea or no matter how much we would like it to be such. Its obvious Peter's hypocrisy was not guided in all truth in Galatians 2. The acceptance of the NT being inspired is a bit of a faith position that factors in providence. We may say Peter puts Paul's writings on the same level as scripture but I would challenge this on several counts, 1) I cannot accept the assumption that Peter authored either epistle without good evidence and definitely not the assumption that he authored second epistle bearing his name which probably was written in the second century and 2) using the Bible or Peter to prove Paul would be circular reasoning. It could be used, in a more sober fashion, as supportive evidence that the Bible was seen as inspired early by Church pillar. Unfortuantely this is ruled out because II Peter dates to the second century. Iit is in the second century that we have evidence Christians had and used something referred to as a "New Testament."
The lines of evidence in one, two and three can be used to argue for an NT inspiration but the strongest line of reasoning cannot. It extends to a significant portion of the OT. However, as I stated numerous times, the central aspect of Christianity is beyond dispute whether we view the Bible as naturally inspired (inspired by God just as a painting of a mountain is inspired by the mountain), as total inerrant (in all details including, but not limited to scientific, historical, mathematical, internal, geographical etc.), as partially inerrant (in regards to faith and doctrinal issues only), or as qualitatively inspired or inerrant (all Scripture is inerrant to the extent that it serves the soteriological and pastoral purpose for which God intended it).
The New Testament as a whole and the Gospels in particular are good news. They are not exact biographies and should not be treated as such. The Gospels are not meant to be chronological accounts (see how John has the temple cleansing at the beginning of Jesus' ministry for theological reasons while the other gospelers do not and Luke is not chronological despite the often misinterpreted statement of an "orderly account"). They are not perfectly historical (errors in the Lukan infancy narrative), they are not perfectly geographical (Mark's blunders with Palestinian geography), and all its mandates are not morally relevant (OT food Laws if we accept Paul, Mark and Luke’s views, casuistic laws, and also Paul’s idea that a woman praying with her head uncovered is inappropriate amongst others).
On the final example of a woman praying with her head uncovered I know of no rule of common hermenrutics, aside from sheer opinion that allows us to distinguish between this mandate and any other as being cultural or not. I think most Christians say that was cultural rather than a universal teaching. The distinction between casuistic and apodictic laws is not really relevant here so I have to ask, what is the methodology used to determine whether that was a cultural rule or not? It is too easy to "define" this as cultural because we simply think there is nothing wrong with a woman praying with her head uncovered. Just because it may have been culturally unacceptable for a woman in the first century to pray with her head uncovered does not mean we can say it no longer applies. Many of the rules or laws in the bible were probably cultural norms and that does not give us reason to reject them out of hand. We obviously need a valid method for determining what applies and what doesn't don't we?
To further add to this point, just look at the account in 1 Cor 11:
3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man
is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head.
5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors
her head--it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not
cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace
for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.
7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God;
but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman
from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this
reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority
on her head. 11 In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor
is man independent of woman. 12For as woman came from man, so also man is
born of woman. But
everything comes from God. 13Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman
to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not the very nature of things
teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15but that
if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as
a covering.
There seems to be NO hint at all that any of this is cultural and not applicable
today according to any common method of biblical
hermeneutics without special pleading. And for would be arguers lets not forget
Paul's next comment (v. 16):
If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice--nor do the churches of God.'
If I put this in my systematic framework up above focusing on the Cross,
its meaning and message we can say there is nothing inherently wrong with
a woman praying with her head uncovered and view this as entirely cultural.
Obviously the church of Vinnie is going to be contentious here.. If a woman
wants to pray with her head uncovered or if a man wants to have long hair
they are free to do so. Also, in the church off Vinnie the head of woman is
Christ as opposed to man. On a final note I wish to argue, in a similar fashion
to Paul up above, the very nature of things teaches this.
This is a pet peeve of mine. I dislike a lot of the ways Christians will use scripture. Many are quick to quote the OT in regards to homosexuality being sinful but are they quick to stone their disobedient children as required by the OT(Deut 21)? Even if we are going to distinguish between apodictic and casuistic laws here that is irrelevant. Most Christians, as may a few who are reading this, probably do not even have a clue as to what the difference between apodictic and casuistic laws are. If this is the case, it is impossible for many, if not all Christian to escape the charge of “picking and choosing” in some sense at least.
The same general problem can be seen in free will or once saved always saved debates. Both of those are links to indexes with a ton of scripture both for and against both positions. As Raymond Brown notes (ibid. p. 44), Consistently in the course of history, Christians who were arguing to prove they were right and others were wrong have appealed to select NT passages and books, unconsciously ignoring other passages and assuming they were following the whole NT. Is that remedied by consciously ignoring other passages? Might not those who profess to follow the NT profit more by paying serious attention to the passages they find problematic and by asking whether those passages highlight something defective in their own perception of Christianity? Might they not profit more by maintaining the whole canon even if that means that they are challenged by its diversities? Readers could then allow Scripture to serve as both conscience and corrective.
We have canonized epistles that were written in light of the Gospel. We have also canonized Gospels along with them. If we accept inspiration we should recognize that we were given a four-fold Gospel and not Tatian’s Diatessaron. The Gospels are Gospels. That is, they are Good News and that is something many of us seem to forget. The Gospels should be treated as such--as inspirational religious documents capable of bestowing grace. They teach and preach the good news of God's victory on a Roman cross.
©, 2002, Vincent Sapone Email: = laurie.vailonis@snet.net