A Third Consideration for Articulating Inerrancy
By MSH | August 27, 2008
In two previous posts I sketched out two principles I think are important to keep in mind for an accurate and honest statement of inerrancy: taking the Bible is taken on its own terms and the idea of divine accommodation. I now offer a third: distinguishing literary techniques in the text from a modern, empirical sense of inerrancy/errancy. More simply stated, we shouldn’t judge something in the text as an error when there is a coherent literary explanation for what’s there, especially when there are literary parallels in other ancient texts.
As an example, I have posted three articles below (two very short) on the problem of the large numbers in the OT exodus and census accounts. The first article (Davies) lays out the problem nicely. It is the largest article (20 pp) but need not be read in its entirety. When you read it, read the footnotes - #6 for example illustrates in very understandable terms why the numbers are untenable. The second article (Fouts) argues for literary hyperbole. This conclusion is similar to that of the first article. The third (Rendsburg, commenting on the work of others) argues that there is a literary - mathematical intent behind the numbers that requires taking them as artificial but having a point.
No matter what view you find persuasive, the point is the same - there is a literary artificiality about the numbers. And that shouldn’t be seen as a problem–it’s the solution. We need to keep this kind of thing in mind when talking about inerrancy.
Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
Is It the Autograph, a Copy, or Something Else?
By MSH | August 20, 2008
Ivan has surfaced again!
Ivan emailed me this missive yesterday, so I thought I’d post it. Ivan spotlights some very interesting content in Jeremiah that pertains to our discussion. That book of Jeremiah just seems to play with our minds!
Here’s Ivan, between >>
>>
I never really thought much about this story before, but we know the book of Jeremiah has a pretty tortured textual history, and we know that Baruch had something to do with the production of the text, because the text tells us this repeatedly.
Jeremiah 36:1-2, 4 - 1 In the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, this word came to Jeremiah from the Lord: 2 “Take a scroll and write on it all the words that I have spoken to you against Israel and Judah and all the nations, from the day I spoke to you, from the days of Josiah until today….” 4 Then Jeremiah called Baruch the son Neriah, and Baruch wrote on a scroll at the dictation of Jeremiah all the words of the LORD that he had spoken to him. (ESV)
- So, is the production of a copy, or the production of an autograph? If a copy, why did Jeremiah have to “dictate” (Heb, DBR)? Why not just copy directly from the scroll? If an autograph, does this mean that Jeremiah had not previously written any of these things down? We’re apparently talking about YEARS worth of oracular material here (”from the days of Josiah until today”). The text just says that Jeremiah spoke (from memory?!) and Baruch wrote; it doesn’t say anything about any filling of the Spirit or any trances. Only Jeremiah is speaking here, not God. Not to mention that in verse 10, they’re called “the words of Jeremiah”, not “the words of God” or “the words that God spoke to Jeremiah”.
Then Baruch goes and reads the scroll in the temple, because Jeremiah is banned from its precincts.
Jeremiah 36:16-18 - 16 When they [various temple officials] heard all the words, they turned one to another in fear. And they said to Baruch, “We must report all these words to the king.” 17 Then they asked Baruch, “Tell us, please, how did you write all these words? Was it at his dictation?” 18 Baruch answered them, “He dictated all these words to me, while I wrote them with ink on the scroll.” (ESV)
- Same questions as above. Particular emphasis is given on Jeremiah speaking and Baruch using “ink” to write on the scroll.
Jeremiah 36:21-23 - 21 Then the king sent Jehudi to get the scroll, and he took it from the chamber of Elishama the secretary. And Jehudi read it to the king and all the officials who stood beside the king. 22 It was the ninth month, and the king was sitting in the winter house, and there was a fire burning in the fire pot before him. 23 As Jehudi read three or four columns, the king would cut them off with a knife and throw them into the fire in the fire pot, until the entire scroll was consumed in the fire that was in the fire pot. (ESV)
- Oops! There goes the autograph, right? Or was it just a copy? But then if it wasn’t the only copy, why do this:
Jeremiah 36:27-28 - 27 Now after the king had burned the scroll with the words that Baruch wrote at Jeremiah’s dictation, the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah: 28 “Take another scroll and write on it all the former words that were in the first scroll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah has burned. (ESV)
- Then God tells them to add some stuff about Jehoiakim burning the scroll, and a curse against him. Fair enough. But apparently, Jeohoiakim burned the only copy. So what happens the SECOND time they do the whole dictation thing?
Jeremiah 36:32 - 32 Then Jeremiah took another scroll and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah, who wrote on it at the dictation of Jeremiah all the words of the scroll that Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire. And many similar words were added to them. (ESV)
- Wait? “And many similar words were added to them”? Seriously? So there were two DRAFTS of these oracles? And the second draft not only contained the extra stuff that God TOLD them to add, but other stuff, too? What other stuff? How much longer did it get second time around?
- Not to mention that this is a standard case of Moses writing about his own death: This is the book of Jeremiah, commenting on how (part of) the book of Jeremiah was created. How did that story get in there at all, unless Jeremiah was written in multiple passes? If, that is, the “scroll” in question here has anything to do with the production of Jeremiah the canonical book at all - which would be an interesting theory to say the least.
>>
Let me add just one more. We all know Jeremiah has 52 chapters. Look at how chapter 51 ends (51:63-64):
63 When you finish reading this book, , tie a stone to it and cast it into the midst of the Euphrates, 64 and say, ‘Thus shall Babylon sink, to rise no more, because of the disaster that I am bringing upon her, and they shall become exhausted.’ ”
Thus far are the words of Jeremiah.
Hmmm . . . “To this point, these are the words of Jeremiah” - so what about chapter 52? Who wrote THAT?
Obviously, this is another clear example of editing in the Bible. Frankly, I wish all the scribes that touched the text had been as clear as this guy! Just more data that needs consideration when you try and hammer out a doctrine of inspiration.
Topics: Bibliology | 3 Comments »
Let’s Talk About Divine Accommodation
By MSH | August 17, 2008
So far in my forays into inerrancy, on the heels of laying out my thoughts on inspiration, I’ve put forth the idea (with the help of Chet) that I just want to make sure the Bible is taken on its own terms, not terms that we, in the wake of Enlightenment empiricism, would want. Let’s just take it for what it is. Seems fair — and it’s also consistent with the Chicago Statement, though that statement has easier examples in mind than what we’ve been dealing with here.
On to the next key idea (I’m trying to lay out principles with the hope of going back and articulating something that works for inerrancy - that takes the data seriously). The next key principle is divine accommodation. Evangelicals haven’t like this, so don’t comment back to me and tell me this - I already know it. What critics of this idea don’t know (or don’t seem to know) is how poorly their rebuttals to this idea have been. I’m going to use Wayne Grudem’s rebuttal to illustrate (pp. 97-98 of his Systematic Theology). I’ve appreciate Wayne’s scholarship on a number of issues, but his arguments here are very poor.
I’ve pasted Grudem’s rebuttal below (entirely), and have blocked my own responses to it in places.
GRUDEM:
4. The Biblical Writers “Accommodated” Their Messages in Minor Details to the False Ideas Current in Their Day, and Affirmed or Taught Those Ideas in an Incidental Way.
This objection to inerrancy is slightly different from the one that would restrict the inerrancy of Scripture to matters of faith and practice, but it is related to it. Those who hold this position argue that it would have been very difficult for the biblical writers to communicate with the people of their time if they had tried to correct all the false historical and scientific information believed by their contemporaries. Those who hold this position would not argue that the points where the Bible affirms false information are numerous, or even that these places are the main points of any particular section of Scripture. Rather, they would say that when the biblical writers were attempting to make a larger point, they sometimes incidentally affirmed some falsehood believed by the people of their time.
To this objection to inerrancy it can be replied, first, that God is Lord of human language who can use human language to communicate perfectly without having to affirm any false ideas that may have been held by people during the time of the writing of Scripture. This objection to inerrancy essentially denies God’s effective lordship over human language.
MSH: The point is not GOD’s ability to use human language; he’s perfectly capable of that. Rather, this is about other points Grudem fails to consider.
1. While God certainly knows how to use human language, does the human language in question have the vocabulary that would allow God to communicate scientific truths to the original recipients? Could God have communicated full, precise scientific information about, say, how human reproduction works (cf. the 1 Cor 11 article here, where Paul connects this to women’s hair; and the information has to be full and precise, lest God accommodate himself to humans!). So . . . what are the ancient Greek words for: zygote, oocyte, chromosome, DNA, etc.? It’s about an ancient language being insufficient for a host of scientific issues, not God’s ability.
2. While God certainly knows how to use human language, do the human recipients have the capability to understand what is being said? Let’s say there was a way for God to communicate 20th and 21st century science in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (think about that statement for a moment and ask yourself if you really want to side with Grudem here). Let’s say God uses those words - and he would certainly be capable if those words existed in the languages - and really spells out exactly how the cosmos was created (never mind the fact that the writers wouldn’t be aware of what a cosmos is) and where babies come from (it isn’t implanting a seed in a woman for it to grow - we need genetics here). So . . . who’s going to understand this? Surely the wordings would have to be supernaturally given, since the authors don’t know any of this science. But then how would their readers understand what was written? And if readers can’t understand the revelation (it’s basically gibberish to their minds), what’s the point? Doesn’t it undermine the whole idea of God wanting people to know truth and know about him? No, it’s not about God’s abilities; it’s about HUMAN inability at the time and place God initiated the process of inspiration.
GRUDEM:
Second, we must respond that such “accommodation” by God to our misunderstandings would imply that God had acted contrary to his character as an “unlying God” (Num. 23:19; Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18). It is not helpful to divert attention from this difficulty by repeated emphasis on the gracious condescension of God to speak on our level. Yes, God does condescend to speak our language, the language of human beings. But no passage of Scripture teaches that he “condescends” so as to act contrary to his moral character. He is never said to be able to condescend so as to affirm-even incidentally-something that is false. If God were to “accommodate” himself in this way, he would cease to be the “unlying God.” He would cease to be the God the Bible represents him to be. Such activity would not in any way show God’s greatness, for God does not manifest his greatness by acting in a way that contradicts his character. This objection thus at root misunderstands the purity and unity of God as they affect all of his words and deeds.
MSH: So, if we dilute information in any way, we lie? So when my four year old asks where babies come from, and I say “mommy and daddy get together and then there’s a baby,” completing omitting the details of sexual intercourse, I’m a liar? Say what? What’s the alternative? To tell my four year old to go away? To tell her all about how mommy and daddy have sex? (Maybe a video would be better since her vocabulary is limited-besides, I wouldn’t want people to know I talk about this stuff to my toddler). Should I tell her she’s not old enough to understand, so forget it? Wonder why God didn’t do that, since I’m not reading about genetics and embryology in 1 Cor 11 (i.e., he said SOMETHING to us). No, this has nothing to do with God’s purity and holiness; it has to do with God being far superior to us and our frailty. God isn’t lying when he dilutes information and allows the human writers to think poorly about science. We wouldn’t understand it anyway. We’d have no way to process it. Perhaps a parallel illustration will help. The setting for what follows is different, but it goes to the issue of withholding information being appropriate and not lying. Where is it written in Scripture that we have to give full, precise answers to questions like, “Do I look fat in this dress?”; “Do you like my hair?”; “Doctor, did my little boy suffer before he died?”; “Where’s your mom, kid; I want to teach her a lesson?” Bunk. There is room for tact and protection from harm in the words we use. The command “thou shalt not bear false witness” refers to uttering words, and, in context, in a courtroom setting (the biblical “by two or three witnesses things will be known” idea). The purpose of the law is NOT to allow evil to grow and take power over people - it is to stop evil. When evildoers would use the law for evil, THAT is a distortion of the law. Undoing or forbidding acts of heroism and courtesy is NOT the purpose of the ninth command. The command was not given to allow evil to proliferate, to have others suffer, to have children lose innocence, or to compel people to be rude.
GRUDEM:
Furthermore, such a process of accommodation, if it actually had occurred, would create a serious moral problem for us. We are to be imitators of God’s moral character (Lev. 11:44; Luke 6:36; Eph. 5:1; 1 Peter 5:1, et al.). Paul says, since in our new natures we are becoming more like God (Eph. 4:24), we should “put away falsehood” and “speak the truth” with one another (v. 25). We are to imitate God’s truthfulness in our speech. However, if the accommodation theory is correct, then God intentionally made incidental affirmations of falsehood in order to enhance communication. Therefore, would it not also be right for us intentionally to make incidental affirmations of falsehood whenever it would enhance communication? Yet this would be tantamount to saying that a minor falsehood told for a good purpose (a “white lie”) is not wrong. Such a position, contradicted by the Scripture passages cited above concerning God’s total truthfulness in speech, cannot be held to be valid.
MSH: This is quite misguided. If you think withholding information is lying, then go read 1 Samuel 16. Frankly, I can’t wait to get to God’s use of deception for a thread on the blog. These objections are poorly argued. I could go into more detail, but this should be sufficient.
Thoughts, anyone?
Topics: Bibliology | 2 Comments »
Inspiration and Inerrancy: Distinguishing Ends and Means, Process and Product
By MSH | August 11, 2008
In the last post, I focused on 2 Tim 3:17 for an answer to the question, “What was the point of the exercise of inspiration?” Paul gives us four purposes in this text, and it seems wise to me to approach the question from that perspective. I also noted that I have no interest in affirming “limited inerrancy.” All well and good, but I also think we need to let Scripture tell us what Scripture was intended for and not try to articulate what we believe about Scripture on some other basis - like our need as moderns of Enlightenment thinking to cram everything in a box or neat categories so we can pretend that all the problems are solved and all the questions have real time (OUR time) answers. So where’s the middle ground? I’m going to try and find that middle ground and then steer through it. I’d really like some critical input here, since I’m making this up as I go.
I’ll start with an analogy. (My apologies for the way TABLES do NOT work well in Wordpress).
INSPIRATION
|
PROCESS |
PRODUCT |
|
|
HUMAN AGENTS |
GOD |
|
|
Immediate source of the text of Scripture |
Ultimate source of the text of Scripture |
The final form of the text of Scripture
|
CANONICITY
|
PROCESS |
PRODUCT |
|
|
HUMAN AGENTS |
GOD |
|
|
“real time” recognizers of the sacred status of the canonical books |
Ultimate oversight of the recognition of canonical books
|
The canon |
Evangelicals know that this looks like a completely human process of recognition, but we believe God was in the process, “superintending” the decisions made by humans. Hence we assign the results to providence. As readers know, I have argued inspiration should be viewed the same way. Just as no one would argue God whispered which books were “in” to those people debating such a thing, we do not need God to whisper each word into the ear or mind of the Scripture authors. There is no need for dictation or automatic writing, any more than there was a need to dictate the canon list or seize the minds of those making such decisions. It was providence.
The next obvious question is “How well did the process work?” This is another way of asking whether God preserved the human agents from making any mistakes. In the case of the canon, mistakes would mean not recognizing a book that ought to have been recognized. I exclude the notion in that statement that something got in that shouldn’t be in. That is theoretically possible, but in my mind highly unlikely, especially for the Protestant evangelicals that I’m guessing make up most or all of my readership. Evangelicalism has a minimalist canon - the smallest of the lists that emerged in any widespread Christian tradition, so the problem becomes whether something that ought to be in was excluded in what has become the evangelical Protestant Bible. Moving back to the inspiration issue, mistakes would mean errors in the text. This brings us full circle back to 2 Tim. 3:17.
We all know that human agents (whether as part of the inspiration process or the canon recognition process) are fallible. We would all agree that God could overcome such frailty if he chose to do so.
God would only approve what was consistent with his own purposes. If something in the text obstructed or obscured his purposes, he would not have allowed it. I am suggesting as a general principle that THIS PERSPECTIVE ought to be the guiding criterion for whether the Bible has errant content in it.
How does this differ from limited inerrancy? I’ll try to illustrate that - but be advised, I need input on better ways to say things here since I’m making this up!
LIMITED INERRANCY
|
PROCESS |
PRODUCT |
|
|
HUMAN AGENTS |
GOD |
|
|
Immediate source of the text of Scripture |
Ultimate source of the text of Scripture |
The final form of the text of Scripture
|
|
* were literary artists, not uncreative hacks * had some pre-scientific beliefs * had some cultural / patriarchal beliefs that were abhorrent to moderns * were capable of mistakes in historical recording and use of historical sources |
* God allowed literary artistry, and that is often lost on us. That said, there may still be errors in the text. * God allowed mistakes in science to be in the text; these are errors of science * Cultural and patriarchal features are either excusable features not to be followed, or could be construed as human failings inconsistent with the mind of God. * God allowed such mistakes to be placed in the text of Scripture; they are errors. |
A Bible that is mostly inerrant; limited inerrancy
|
MY OWN PARSING:
|
PROCESS |
PRODUCT |
|
|
HUMAN AGENTS |
GOD |
|
|
Immediate source of the text of Scripture |
Ultimate source of the text of Scripture |
The final form of the text of Scripture
|
|
* were literary artists, not uncreative hacks * had some pre-scientific beliefs * had some cultural / patriarchal beliefs that were abhorrent to moderns * were capable of mistakes in historical recording and use of historical sources |
* God allowed literary artistry, and that is often lost on us. The problem is OUR misunderstanding of the author’s technique and purpose. We have no warrant to automatically construe the text has errors; rather, we ought to seek literary reasons for things we might see. God’s purposes for the enterprise were not dependent on the absence of literary artistry. The (a) skill or ineptitude of the author in literary terms has nothing to do with (b) the content of the final form of the text fulfilling God’s purposes. The latter (b) is the end; the former (a) is a means. * It was not God’s purpose to have Scripture teach us science. Scripture authors may argue a point that does fall under the purposes of 2 Tim 3:17 (e.g., “doctrine”) using some pre-scientific idea, but God could have cared less. Inerrancy isn’t about the means used to fulfill the purpose of the enterprise; it’s about the end purposes of the enterprise. In other words, Scripture was given to us to put forth truth to accomplish the purposes of 2 Tim 3:17 - THAT list of purposes is its self-declared focus, not science or anything else deriving from the culture or worldview of its authors. God can allowed flawed means (flawed ideas) to communicate infallible truth. Inerrancy or errancy ought to be a question that focuses on the truth statements that fall under Scripture’s own stated purposes, not on the means to those ends. * Scripture’s stated purposes include teaching morality and chastising immoral behavior. To those ends, laws, commands, and morality tales are found in abundance in Scripture. Unless Scripture itself informs us that certain points of morality and ethics were culturally bound and intended to be temporary, those items are put forth as truth and are subject to the scrutiny of the inerrancy question. As with science, God may allow a greater point of conduct to be articulated on the basis of a temporary (and thus non-binding) worldview. Such means are not errors since they are not the point of the enterprise. * There are problem passages in some historical comments. While it wasn’t God’s purpose to give us history, it isn’t necessary to include such issues as a focus of inerrancy or errancy. God could allow errant means in accomplishing the purposes for the enterprise. That said, the fact that we are necessarily dealing with a limited data pool (both with respect to the biblical text and secular historical sources), means that we ought not declare something errant. Some can consider an item errant, but that is more of an opinion than statement of fact. |
A Bible that inerrantly accomplishes the Bible’s self-declared purposes.
|
Now here’s my problem. I know that this sounds like I’m just saying certain things don’t count when it comes to inerrancy. And, that’s sort of in my ballpark. But what I’m really saying is “that’s fair to say” since I think we ought to play by Scripture’s own rules - it tells us what it’s for. We ought not to judge Scripture’s errancy by standards that are well outside its own context and purposes.
We cut written and spoken material this kind of slack all the time. We know intuitively in many cases *how* a certain statement was intended to be taken (”Since the sun rises every day the way God made it to, we can believe God is faithful”). A scientifically imprecise thing to say, but it wasn’t my intent to lay down scientific fact. My point was the latter truth that extended from my colloquialism. The problem is with US - we often don’t know how a certain statement ought to be taken. And when we do know that, for example, the real point wasn’t to give us science, why not cut the Bible the same slack?1 Well, you might say, “we can’t cut it slack, since it was written by God, and he ought to know better.” Sorry - it wasn’t written by God. God was not the immediate author - the people he chose to produce it were. It is God’s thoughts in human words, and very focused, pared-down divine thoughts at that, for our sake. Let’s face it - once God made the decision to use people to produce Scripture rather than dictate content to us that would have been mostly incomprehensible to our puny minds, he had chosen a very limited resource. I imagine God looking down and shaking his head as it were, knowing the only way to communicate with us would be to use us to that end. God had specific purposes in mind and more or less said “Well, I’ll prompt them with my Spirit, other believers, and general providential intervention to get them to write down a record of my dealings with humanity, my purposes, who I am and what I’m like, how they can know me and be forgiven for their sin, how I came to them in human form and then the incarnate Son. . .” etc., etc. “I’ll make sure they get across what I want them to get across, not only for them but for all those who will follow, especially those who believe.” God knew that letting men do this would be ugly (relatively speaking, with respect to his perfection) - that they’d bring their pre-scientific ignorance to the table, along with a specific, localized cultural perspective. But hey, that’s what he chose to work with. What else would they be?
Frankly, if we believe the final product is what God approved, we ought to judge the final product by its’ self-described intent (2 Tim 3:17) - our argument for inerrant truth is therefore with God, not his human agents.
- And by the way - how do we know OUR scientific understanding is always (or mostly) correct? Science by its very nature goes through a process of correction as understanding increases. But we live with that, knowing it’s part of life. God could have used writers in the first millennium BC to really tell us how the universe holds together or how he made it, but what point would there be in that? The information would not only be ahead of the writers, it would be ahead of us - by how far we can scarcely imagine. ↩
Topics: Bibliology | 6 Comments »
What’s the Point of the Inspiration Exercise?
By MSH | August 5, 2008
This is a question I’ve raised a few times now on the blog with respect to this topic. I’m going to answer it below (or at least kick it off) in startlingly brief fashion. It will serve as a transition point into inerrancy (at least that’s how I’m thinking of it now).
I think the Bible itself answers this question - right on the heals of introducing inspiration itself. I appeal to 2 Tim 3:17 (in context with 2 Tim 3:16 below).
16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
What’s the point of God’s use of human agents to give us an inscripturated revelation? There are four points, actually:
- Teaching (theological content)
- Reproof (rebuking false teaching or bad conduct)
- Correction (restoration in right doctrine and conduct)
- Training in righteousness (morality and ethics)
Pretty simple. I would suggest that all of those objectives (1) can be and were accomplished despite a pre-scientific worldview; (2) do not extend from a pre-scientific worldview (i.e., their explanation may at times be articulated from a pre-scientific worldview, but you don’t need accurate science to have these four things). You also don’t need a Bible that is devoid of historical problems or aims to teach us how to do historiography. Anyone who reads the Bible closely knows there are historical problems that await resolution, and knows there is biased historiography (the Chronicler). I would further suggest that to accomplish these ends the biblical writers can (hearkening back to crazy Ivan here) use fiction or any other literary device. The final form of the text can also pass through as many hands as providence care to have it pass. God was influencing people to produce something that accomplished HIS purposes as revealed in 2 Tim 3:17 - not ours or the intellectual standards of any particular era that was FOREIGN to the writers and their milieu.
Finally, note that the above isn’t my “permission” for limited inerrancy; it’s just a statement of reality to the effect that 2 Tim 3:17 isn’t about any of the things a discussion of inspiration and inerrancy typically gets fixated upon. God didn’t need to focus on any of these things to accomplish the goals of 2 Tim 3:17. SURELY the intent of God has SOMETHING to do with judging and defining inerrancy. Why is it that we give the human authors the benefit of this doubt in any number of passages (”Well, you have to judge what he says by his purpose”) and we hesitate to do so with the DIVINE author for the whole package? Seems quite inconsistent to me.
Topics: Bibliology | 5 Comments »
« Previous Entries
