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 »
1 Samuel 13:1 - The Matter of Missing Words in the Bible
By MSH | July 31, 2008
1 Samuel 13:1 is sort of a classic OT textual criticism problem. The United Bible Society’s Handbook for Translators of 1 Samuel describes the problem this way:1
This verse follows the standard formula for introducing kings of Israel (and later also of Judah) in the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. But this verse contains one of the most difficult textual problems in the book of 1 Samuel, if not of the whole Bible. The following table shows the great diversity of solutions to the problems:
| Problem 1 | Problem 2 | |
| njps | “… years old” | “two years” |
| kjv | “one year” | “two years” |
| rsv | “… years old” | “… and two years” |
| at | “… years old” | “… years” |
| niv | “thirty years old” | “forty-two years” |
| reb | “thirty years old” | “twenty-two years” |
| nasb | “forty years old” | “thirty-two years” |
| neb | “fifty years old” | “twenty-two years” |
The Masoretic Text (MT) literally says “Saul was a son of a year in his reigning and two years he reigned over Israel.” Obviously there are two errors in the Hebrew text as we have it today: (1) Saul was not one year old when he became king, and (2) he reigned more than two years.
The first error is obvious, since the book of 1 Samuel tells us plainly how Saul was chosen and anointed king — and he was a full grown man. The second error is plain when viewed against Acts 13:21 (and when reading the account of Saul’s kingship in the OT).
Now, in one regard, this is no different than any other text-critical problem. You detect the error in the present text, then work to find out how it came about, and consult other manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible for the solution. But there’s the rub — in the case of 1 Sam 13:1, there are no other reliable manuscript readings.
Interpreters and translators have followed many solutions to this textual problem (and note that the choice of solution for “problem 1″ gives rise to the reading of “problem 2″). Quoting from the UBS Handbook again:
(a) Some translations, following the example of the Septuagint, omit the entire verse (so tev, frcl, and itcl).
(b) Some translate the verse but leave blank spaces as in rsv (so also nrsv, nab, Osty, and bp).
(c) Others leave only the first number blank.
(d) Some follow the first-century Jewish historian Josephus and Acts 13.21, and claim that Saul ruled for (about) forty years. Compare niv “Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty-two years.” The “thirty years” is based on a few late Septuagint manuscripts.
Solution (d) above may seem the best at first glance, but a major problem with this is that early in his rule Saul already has a grown son able to command troops (see verse 2). Therefore Saul must have been older than thirty when he became king.
Note well the comments about solution “d” - the only reason some versions read “thirty” in the verse is because the number is found in a few LATE manuscripts of the LXX. But that number cannot be right. Where does “thirty” come from in those few manuscripts? The textual note on the verse in the Word Biblical Commentary summarizes the answer nicely:2
A few LXX mss, have “thirty,” though this seems to be a secondary calculation (cf. 2 Sam 5:4). Since Jonathan was old enough to have 1,000 troops under his command in v 2, and since Saul had a grandson before his death (2 Sam 4:4), an age of forty or more is plausible. The whole verse is lacking in most LXX mss.
The “thirty” was simply borrowed by some LXX scribe from 2 Sam 5:4, which is talking about DAVID! They were confused by the error, and that was their solution!
The textual reality, as it stands today, is that the number is lost. We just don’t have any manuscript evidence for a coherent reading.
For our purposes, in my mind this is the same sort of issue as I’ve just covered in regard to Joshua 8:30-35 and Jeremiah. I’d approach it the same way with respect to inspiration. There *was* some thing produced by the process of inspiration, where men were the immediate source of the text, and God was the ultimate source. When that *produced thing* was finished, I believe the text was whole (that there WAS a coherent reading in 1 Samuel 13:1). Since that time, transmission of the text was left to human beings, and now we have a missing word or words.
What’s the point? Only to note two things:
(1) like traditional articulations of inspiration, I believe that inspiration does not apply to copying the final product. There is no guarantee from God in the Bible that transmission of the text would be inerrant. Our copies of the Scripture (one the simplest level) are “inerrant” when they reflect the contents of the original thing produced. Of course, we’ve spent weeks on this blog already dealing with the reality that inerrancy concerns a lot more than this issue (and I promise we’ll get back to those things). in 1 Samuel 13:1, then, our Bible is “errant” in that something is missing, but NOT in the sense that the original thing produced by inspiration was wrong. The original product of inspiration was whole. Perhaps (like the historical problems readers have brought up) we will find manuscript evidence for 1 Sam 13:1. That would be cool. But until then, I believe it is philosophically and theologically coherent to stick with a process of inspiration that produced a whole product that was inerrant.
(2) An example like this helps us to factor in yet another facet of what we actually find in the biblical text. When we get back to inerrancy, we’ll have to return here and pick this up as part of trying to find a definition that works.
Topics: Bibliology | 8 Comments »
The Naked Bible’s Thoughts on Inspiration, Part 5 - Which Edition of the Book of Jeremiah Originated with God but not the Human Writers?
By MSH | July 28, 2008
It’s been pretty quiet at The Naked Bible. The last post on the multiple editions of Joshua didn’t get much of a response. It’s made me wonder about posting more edition “problems” — especially this one — but I promised. Again, the issue of the biblical books being edited during and after the exile is not a problem with respect to the view of inspiration I’m espousing here. We have incontrovertible evidence that books were either edited well after the presumably original work was composed, or that books were put together by editors for the first time after the prophet was dead and gone — that is, his material was either written piecemeal by himself or recorded by others, and then only later fashioned into the “book” we have. I believe God was in this process and that, by providential means, his Spirit oversaw the results of what the original authors and later editors did to produce the canonical books.
We not turn to the most dramatic example of a biblical book in flux sometime between the exile and the “intertestamental” period: the book of Jeremiah. We know that those chronological boundaries are appropriate, since Jeremiah lived until shortly after the exile began, and since we have evidence for two dramatically different versions of the book at Qumran among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
There is quite a bit of difference between the Masoretic text (MT) of Jeremiah — the version our English Bibles are based on — and the Hebrew text underlying the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the OT (and so Jeremiah in this discussion), and the Bible quoted most often by the New Testament writers. The LXX of Jeremiah is about one-eighth shorter than the Masoretic text of Jeremiah. Since the book of Jeremiah is so long, this amounts to hundreds of verses and thousands of words. Additionally, the order of the chapters differs, and material within the chapters also differs in order. The following chart illustrates the chapter order divergence:
| MT | LXX |
| 1:1-25:13 | 1:1-25:13a |
| 25:14-46:5 | 46:1-51:35 |
| 46:6-51:64 | 25:13b, 15-31:44 |
| ch. 52 | ch. 52 |
Let’s think first about the ramifications of this data. Certainly the LXX is not to be considered superior or preferable in all instances where it differs from MT. However, the remains of many Hebrew texts at Qumran agree with the Septuagint against MT. A good number of those instances also coincide with NT quotations — and so we know the NT writers used or preferred the LXX against MT in those places. In fact, many specialists estimate that roughly 3/4 of the time a NT author quoted the OT, the quotation matches or is closer to LXX than MT. All this means that we can’t just write off the LXX and say “well, we’ll just go with the MT.” Lastly, if LXX is the better version or edition, or is even better half the time, then it could be argued that the Bible used in the English (only) reading world has a lot of added material in it. In reality, though, claims like “this version or that version is THE best version” can’t be made with coherence since we aren’t omniscient. We just can’t know how the version issue (which one was the final edit) can be resolved. For evangelical scholars who have facility with Greek and Hebrew, it’s a non-issue since scholars work hard to come to their own decisions passage-by-passage as to what was most likely original. Fortunately, more recent translations are starting to go with Dead Sea Scroll and LXX readings in the running text, which helps English readers have more confidence that their translation reflects the final form of the books of the Bible. UNFORTUNATELY, though, this hasn’t been done with Jeremiah since the results would frighten uninitiated pastors and laity. So we just live with MT for completely pragmatic reasons.
Before concluding, I should note that it isn’t only Jeremiah and Joshua that differ in order of material and significant amount of content. There are other books where evidence of more than one version exists. For instance, LXX Job is about one-sixth smaller than MT Job, and includes an ending not extant in MT Hebrew, and almost half of the verses in LXX Esther are not found in MT Esther.
This is the kind of “real world” data that “God alone” statements of inspiration ignore. There is no sense in denying anthropopneustos, and it seems dishonest to do so with respect to such data. Having humans as the immediate but not ultimate source of the biblical text is far more coherent; it gives pride of place to theopneustos without denying reality or claiming omniscience. This is why I think it nonsensical to ignore the data in favor of something like the Westminster Confession. Confessions are worthwhile, but they are historically circumscribed. I’m no expert in LXX studies, but I’m guessing the authors of the Confession may not have known much about these issues, or even the LXX. The LXX was certainly known in antiquity, but the loss of Greek in Europe in all but the monasteries until the Renaissance may have meant that few scholars before the 19th century did much work in LXX. I’m not an LXX expert, so I don’t know. Whether they didn’t know or didn’t care, it’s hard for me to understand how we should care more about how a 17th century Confession articulates inspiration than how contemporary scholars equally committed to inspiration would handle the issue.
Topics: Bibliology | 15 Comments »
The Naked Bible’s Thoughts on Inspiration, Part 4 - Which Edition of the Book of Joshua Originated with God but not the Human Writers?
By MSH | July 23, 2008
My focus for this post is Joshua 8:30-35.
For centuries scholars have considered the placement of Joshua 8:30-35 to be a odd problem in that book. The reason is that it is completely out of place (or so it seems) with the campaigns of Joshua. In Joshua 5 the new generation of Israelites are circumcised, the Passover is celebrated, and the Jordan is crossed. The location is central Canaan for obvious reasons. God had instructed Joshua to divide and conquer. The military goal was to take the center of Canaan, cutting off north and south from each other and thus preventing a unified force from forming against the Israelite army. In Joshua 6 we read of the conquest of Jericho. Joshua 7 takes us to nearby Ai and the incident with Achan. Ai is conquered after Achan is judged in Joshua 8:1-34, bringing us to the problem section. All of a sudden, after taking two of the cities in the center of Canaan, Joshua 8:30-35 tells us that Joshua (with all the people of the nation, no less) builds an altar at Ebal and renews the covenant. Mount Ebal was the place where Moses had commanded the Israelites that they should build an altar when they entered the land.
Unless you know the geography, you don’t see the problem. The location of Mount Ebal is 70 miles from Ai/Jericho! Why on earth would Joshua march the nation 70 miles? Not only would this disrupt the entire military strategy, but it makes no sense to go to Ebal AFTER beginning the conquest, when Moses had instructed the covenant renewal when they entered the land. Now, IF this covenant ceremony had taken place in chapter 5, when the males were circumcised (which was part of the covenant!), THAT would make good sense. But it isn’t in chapter 5, it’s in 8:30-35 . . . well, at least in one version of the book of Joshua.
There are two other text versions of the book of Joshua witnessed by manuscripts at Qumran. The ceremony at Ebal is in a different place in all three versions of Joshua! In the Masoretic text (MT), which our Bibles follow, it’s at 8:30-35, which has befuddled scholars for a very long time since it makes absolutely no sense in terms of the geography and military strategy. In the Dead Sea Scroll material of Joshua, it is located just before the observances of circumcision and Passover, between 5:1 and 5:2, which makes perfect sense. In the LXX, it is found just after the notice of a Canaanite coalition that came against the Israelites, after 9:2. To be a bit more precise, I’ll cite Dave Howard’s summary:
At this juncture in the text, one of the most important divergences from the Masoretic manuscript traditions upon which our Bible translations are based is found in the Qumran scrolls. In one short fragment, portions of Josh 8:34-35 and an editorial transition not found in any other extant Bible manuscript immediately precede Josh 5:2. The portion is very fragmentary, but it is almost certain that all of 8:30-35 preceded 5:2. This shows a radically different order and arrangement from the majority Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible upon which almost all Bible translations are based today. . . . Thus, the evidence from Qumran that Joshua and the Israelites fulfilled these instructions immediately after the crossing is very important. This evidence is buttressed by Josephus’s account (the first-century Jewish historian), who mentions the building of an altar immediately after the crossing. If the original manuscripts of Joshua did have this covenant renewal ceremony between 5:1 and 5:2, then this shows the Israelites attempting to obey Moses’ commands as closely as possible. This fits in very well with the following two episodes in chap. 5: the ceremonies of circumcision and Passover. Both of these (or all three) show the continuing attention in the book’s early chapters to the command-fulfillment pattern we have observed and to the Israelites’ ritual proper preparation before they began their military encounters (NAC, Joshua, p. 145).
My purpose here is not to solve the problem. Rather, it is to point out that three separate editions of the book of Joshua were extant in the Qumran evidence. At least one scribe at Qumran felt that there was a problem in what would become known as MT - the problem of having the ceremony at 8:30-35, which makes little sense. The scribe therefore moved that material and added a few words to make the rearrangement coherent. Someone corrected someone else. In this case, the Qumran editor corrected a text tradition that we inherited.
Now, to be fair, there are scholars who argue that MT should be retained, even though it violates the geography, the divine military strategy, and (apparently) the divine command through Moses. For instance, Butler argues in the Word Biblical Commentary that the placement of the Ebal ceremony at 8:30-35 is done for theological reasons (recall the Chronicler does this sort of thing for theological purposes). Since the covenant had been violated at Ai, after Achan was judged, Joshua needed to go to Ebal and make things right. The editor of what would become MT then either deliberately fashioned his text tradition this way, or he corrected an existing text tradition that would have matched the Qumran edition.
The question is, of course, who corrected who? We can’t be selective with appeals to providence, either. Providence can work both ways. One could say, “well, MT is the right one since God preserved that in the rabbinic community” (of course we’d conveniently be forgetting that the same community preserved a text that had deliberate changes in it for arguing against points of Christian theology). Conversely, one could say (as conservative evangelicals argue every day for text critical issues) that God providentially brought the right text to light (which would be the Dead Sea version in this example) - but realize that the correction of MT would have already taken place in ancient times, likely the period after the exile when basically everyone agrees the final form of the canon was completed. Nevertheless, the separate traditions (versions) of Joshua survived in manuscript copies and libraries beyond that date.
So how does this relate to the inspiration model I’m sketching? Well, in either case (I don’t really care how the chicken or egg problem resolves), I would say that God was in the process-the correction that was needed was made (whichever direction that went - we have both, so the need to know lessens for me). There was one “correct” version that God would have approved at the end of the inspiration process. He then left if to men to copy the results. Men muddied the waters by keeping both (all three) text traditions alive. Maybe they couldn’t decide which one had emerged at the end of the inspiration process, and so they kept all three afloat rather than make the wrong choice and kill off the right tradition. We just don’t know what was in their heads on this. Maybe they didn’t care what arrangement order was right - perhaps we are unique in caring because of our modern, rational, empiricist outlook on such things in nailing down God as the source of each word while forbidding human authors as the source in any way. At any rate, since I have humans as the immediate authors and God as ultimate, providentially invested in the process, I don’t need greater certainty than what I’ve expressed. If I thought that humans were not to be seen as the originators of the Scripture in any way (if I denied anthropopneustos), then I’d feel like I needed an answer as to WHICH text originated with God and which didn’t. Since I’m not omniscient, I’d never be able to scratch that certainty itch, which would be annoying, and perhaps disturbing. But I just don’t think we need to look at things that way. My view of inspiration relieves me of the burden of pretending to have answers to such questions as knowing which one text was “the” text God (alone) originated, and - more importantly - of pretending that such questions matter. I can let God surprise me in heaven with which text was the one he wanted at the end of the inspiration process. I can say “who cares” when a critic says the biblical text existed in several versions and was edited after the exile (the oldest evidence we have). I’d EXPECT the text to get edited since that’s how books are made (and were made - see my denial of the holy stapler idea in the last post). God was in the process. We know there were rounds of editing because of the manuscript data, but we don’t know the order of the rounds. That would matter only if I denied editing happened and I needed to know the order. I don’t on both counts.
By the way - one addendum here. If one acknowledges that any editing occurred, how does the view of inspiration that denies anthropopneustos deal with it? It is one thing to say that every word originated with God and not with man and then gloss over the problems that entails in the inspiration process. It is quite another to say, on one hand, that God himself selected every word and then, on the other hand, say that some of the words were changed. If God selected every word (if he was the immediate source), then why would any correction be needed? Mind you, we’re not talking about textual transmission and manuscripts. As the last post indicated, we’re talking about (1) added explanatory notes (did God need to go back and do a better job?); (2) marks of the merging of material (cf. Ezekiel 1 and changes of person; why did God choose to vary person? If he was breathing it out and humans weren’t selecting the material, why not just stick with first or third person?); and (3) re-purposing material. We haven’t even gotten to how NT authors occasionally change the wording of verses from the OT they quote (why would God do that if HE had given the original wording - wasn’t it sufficiently clear or suited to his purpose? Wouldn’t he have known it needed changing if he selected the words in light of his own omniscience?). Isn’t just adopting something like the model I’m trying to articulate easier? Why create these theological grenades by denying the obvious place of humans as the immediate source of the text?
In the next post, I’ll hit on the granddaddy of the “more than one version” problems and then hopefully move on to quotation examples.
Topics: Bibliology | No Comments »
« Previous Entries Next Entries »
