I hope I am charitable and humble in what I write here. I begin typing this with great fear that I will not be these things and that I will bring dishonor to our Lord. I hope I have approached this with enough prayer…
Tim Challies has just concluded a series of posts about inerrancy http://www.challies.com/archives/articles/scripture/errors-and-contradictions-in-the-bible.php .
In certain ways I am excited by this series of posts and comments. They show a deep commitment to wrestling with the importance of the authority of God and Scripture in the church and what that means. They show a commitment to helping others in the church in areas that are important and practical. At the same time, I am deeply disturbed at this series of posts, many of the comments, and how the comments of some who are wrestling with questions were essentially ignored—or given some sort of ‘pat answer.’ In view of this, I desire to write some sort of engaging and dialogical response. Since I want to touch on many issues, especially a few of those raised in some of the comments but not answered, this post is somewhat lengthy.
As with everyone (I imagine) in that discussion, I have deep personal investments in these issues on many levels. I am a member of a Confessional Reformed (evangelical) church and believe that the Bible is inerrant—by which I mean that everything in it is doing exactly what God wants it to be doing. He inspired it in exactly the way he wanted it back in the ancient world that he controlled.
I have seen much discussion by Tim Challies of how questions of supposed contradictions and errors tend to come from people who are just ignorant, have not read their Bibles, and are just spouting off the latest fad from a website. Also, any supposed error or contradiction really is not either of those. Either (1) it is not a real error or contradiction or (2) we are assured that ‘experts’ have dealt with the issues. Since Gleason Archer has been brought up in all this, I will look at one of his pet books, Daniel.
For Gleason, Daniel is a 6th or early 5th century BCE book, not a 3rd-2nd century book as most historical scholars (including some evangelicals) think. For him this is an inerrancy and inspiration issue. I will bypass this for now. Daniel 5.30 and 9.1 confront us with ‘Darius the Mede.’ According to 5.30 he received the kingdom when Babylon was conquered and Belshazzar, son of Nebachadnezzar according to Daniel, was killed. In 9.1 we read, “In the first year of Darius the son of Xerxes, by descent a Mede…” I should start with Belshazzar. He was not Nebuchadnezzar’s son, as Dan 5 claims. He was the son of Nabonidus, a king subsequent not only to Nebuchadnezzar, but also subsequent to Amel-marduk, Neriglissar, and Labashi-marduk. Though ‘son’ can technically mean ‘grandson’ at times in Aramaic, this does not help since Nabonidus was not in any way descended from Nebuchadnezzar. Since Nabonidus, Belshazzar’s father, was a usurper, it is doubtful you could argue some form of ‘adopted into the family’ idea. So much for Belshazzar as Nebuchadnezzar’s son. I will pass over further issues associated with Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Dan 4-5, save one. It seems Dan 4 was originally about Nabonidus and not Nebuchadnezzar and that Daniel, or whatever form of Daniel we have now, has appropriated the story as about Nebachadnezzar and so updated references to Belshazzar’s father in Dan 5 along these lines.
Getting back to ‘Darius the Mede,’ such a figure is not historical. Cyrus (ca 559-30), a Persian, conquered Babylon–not ’Dairus the Mede’ or the Medes (and certainly not Darius I [ca 522-486], whom it is likely the book of Daniel has recast as ‘Darius the Mede’). Indeed, various Evangelicals have put forward detailed arguments to explain ‘Darius the Mede,’ but they are all thick on speculation and arguments from silence and thin on engagement with extant historical materials. I should add that I have read refutations of the evangelical arguments that seemed much more honest with the Biblical and historical data than the evangelicals’ work—but this is me also appealing to ‘experts.’ From my point of view it is better to understand ‘Darius the Mede’ in Daniel as functioning in a very specific way. The book of Daniel operates with a traditional 4-kingdom schema, seen elsewhere in the Near East. It traditionally referred to Assyria, Media, Persia, and then Macedon (Greece)–of course, followed by a decisive final kingdom that will overthrow Macedon. It was a form of Near Eastern anti-Hellenistic political discourse arising in the aftermath of Alexander’s conquest of the Near East along with the Seleucid and Ptolemaic control of the area following Alexander. The book of Daniel shows it being re-appropriated in a Jewish context. Babylon has replaced Assyria and the final kingdom is, obviously, one established by the God of Israel for his people. In Daniel the scheme is thus Babylon, Media, Persia, then Macedon (Greece-Ptolemaic-Seleucid) followed by the decisive and eternal kingdom set up by the God of Israel. Many things in Daniel show the control of this schema. This is where ‘Darius the Mede’ comes in. Daniel has re-cast the well known Persian king Darius I—the Darius Dan 6 certainly has in view—to fit the 4-kingdom schema; a scheme that has a theological function in this book (I can go into this if someone would like). Darius I was not a Median—nor was he (1) the conqueror of Babylon as he is presented in 5.30 or (2) the son of Xerxes as presented in 9.1, he was actually Xerxes’ father! The book of Daniel presents him as such to preserve the 4-kingdom schema: (1) Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar–Babylon, (2) Darius–Media, (3) Cyrus–Persia, and (4) Macedon. The schema is partially repeated in the second half of the book: ‘Darius…by decent a Mede’ (9.1) and then ‘Cyrus king of Persia’ (10.1) leading up to the account of the Macedonian kings.
As to why Daniel 9 presents him as son of Xerxes—again, when he was actually Xerxes’ father—understanding Daniel as a 3rd or 2nd century BCE work helps here. It is doubtful that a 6th or 5th century author would have made this ‘mistake.’ People in the Persian empire—and certainly anyone writing a book such as Daniel, especially if the author was part of or had access to the imperial court!—back then would know (1) that Cyrus conquered Babylon, (2) Darius was a Persian and not a Mede, and (3) that Darius was Xerxes’ father and not the other way around. They would most certainly know 2 and 3. Perhaps the author of Daniel thought the way he did because he had a maximal knowledge of his peoples’ literature and traditions and a lesser knowledge of, for him, ancient Persian history. Thus the literary order of Ezra 4, for example, might have made him think that Xerxes (4.6) preceded Darius (4.24). Perhaps the author of Daniel was driven to fit the 4-kingdom schema around the conquering of Babylon the way he did—with the Medes and not Persians conquering Babylon (c.f. 5.30, again)—because he so understood Jer 51.11, “YHWH has stirred up the spirit of the Medes, because his purpose concerning Babylon is to destroy it.” Though I will not go into this further here, this type of explanation perhaps helps us understand better some other things the book of Daniel does. What I have presented from Daniel is a challenge to certain ways American Evangelicals, and Tim Challies, articulate and understand inerrancy. From one point of view Daniel contains historical errors. Furthermore, it structures itself theologically (and ‘historically’) around political propaganda discourse from its own world.
Why have I brought up Daniel and a few of the issues the book of Daniel has for inerrancy? Mr. Challies advocates starting with “the clear teaching of Scripture” that it is inerrant. This derives mainly from Tim’s doctrine of God—as it should be intimately related to that—of how God does not lie and how God would surely thus behave when giving us his Word. If I may quote from one relevant part of his final post on inerrancy, “So how do we answer charges of error and contradiction? First, I think we assure ourselves that the Bible is inerrant and then we ensure that what we believe about inerrancy is correct. We read what the Bible says about itself and express faith that what God says in Scripture is true. Having done that, it is often valuable to turn to the many resources available for those wrestling with apparent errors or contradictions. Most of these questions have been dealt with very well in the past—well enough to give you assurance that they reflect contemporary arrogance or misunderstanding more than error. When challenged with a list of contradictions I believe there is often little value in answering the charges of error point-by-point and engaging in lengthy dialog about each of them. Anyone who is really seeking the truth will find not only the contradictions but the many answers to them.”
My problem with this is that I believe this approach is ultimately not a very ‘high view’ of Scripture or God. This is so even though it sounds like it is (and is surely meant that way) on the surface. Functionally his approach works out to looking at Scriptures such as 2Tim 3.16, 2Pet 1.20-21, 2Sam 7.28, Num 23.9, Ps 12.6, Prv 30.5, etc, and noting how they state that Scripture is true, inspired, God does not lie, etc. This approach’s understanding of what it means for God not to lie and for the Bible to be true then defines what the Bible is as inerrant—what a properly Christian approach to the Bible CAN say and find about it. When confronted with material that calls this into question, it is assumed that the Bible cannot behave differently than expected and thus the material does not really challenge this inerrancy view of Scripture. The misunderstanding is either (1) due to ignorance of the Bible or the proper definition of inerrancy or (2) though this does not get as much play here but I suspect will come out soon, because the person presenting said material is not approaching the Bible in an acceptably Christian way. With these assumptions it is assumed that answers can be found from the evangelical experts or that appealing to inerrant autographs that would not have this problem will save our view of inerrancy from any real challenge. Thus Mr. Challies can say, “When challenged with a list of contradictions I believe there is often little value in answering the charges of error point-by-point and engaging in lengthy dialog about each of them.” In many contexts this is certainly sound pastoral advice. But, in the way Challies used it, and what he disallows in context by it, I find this unhelpful.
I submit that a truly high view of Scripture will, in certain ways, be willing to allow ALL our conceptions of God, theology, Scripture, and interpretations of Scripture to be challenged by Scripture itself. It will not consciously decide ahead of time how God MUST HAVE behaved when giving us his Word such that things that challenge that notion can be functionally ignored—even if it seems that Scripture has told us it ‘is’ that way. When historically examining the Bible, a truly high view of Scripture will not assume that everything can be explained to fit some pre-existing paradigm of what Scripture ‘is.’ Rather, it will glory in material along the lines of what I have presented in Daniel as yet another window God has given us on what it means that the bible is His word. This material is equally a part of the Bible as the verses Mr. Challies, for example, would cite to derive inerrancy. Such material should inform not only how we understand those verses, but also how we understand what the Bible ‘is.’ What do we do if we find that we have (1) misunderstood those verses Mr. Challies cites or, equally important yet often neglected, (2) if we have misunderstood how those verses function with the rest of Scripture to inform us of what it means that the Bible is God’s Word? What if the Bible is not as univocal on different points as we thought it was? What if a type of diversity exists within the Bible that does not fit our conceptions of inerrancy? What if God inspired things in the Bible that are ‘counter to fact’ (as we understand fact) for an ultimately edifying purpose. Again, we might protest that such things would mean God has lied. But, again, what if the Bible actually does these things? Are we unwilling to allow the Bible to modify our conception of God, who he is, and how he behaves? Are we willing to allow YHWH, through the Bible, to continue to challenge and to surprise us in our conceptions of him just as he did when he sent His Son? Or, is YHWH only allowed to challenge us in ways that are not really challenging to what we think about Him and His word?
As Reformed we have a traditional commitment to sola-Scriptura and to following the Bible wherever it goes. Studying it, what it is, and living out its authority is, for us, ultimately the essence of practical. This is one of the reasons I am driven to rigorous historical study of the Bible, frequently in ways that challenge aspects of our traditional conception of inerrancy. I am unwilling to press the Bible into a mold that it does not really fit—this stifles our engagement as a church with what God actually said and meant (and means) in the writings of the Bible. When you decide ahead of time how the Bible must behave and explain away all material that challenges that, you functionally cease allowing the Bible to work us over. R.C. Sproul is correct that, “The Christian has nothing to fear from rigorous historical research. Rather, we have everything to gain.” We should make explicit that modifications of traditional conceptions of what Scripture ‘is’ are not exempt from what we ‘gain’ from rigorous historical research.
I must stress, this approach does not ask questions of ‘is the Bible God’s Word’? What criteria would one use to assess this since God and Scripture are above any other authority? The problem with the conception of inerrancy presented by Mr. Challies is that it establishes a functional criteria on what it means that the Bible is God’s Word. It is, of course, assumed that the Bible cannot deviate from this inerrancy understanding; an understanding seemingly derived from Scripture. But, the fact remains that the effect of this way of understanding inerrancy is that anything deviating from it (falling short of it?) could not be God’s Word. This is a dangerous way to approach God and the Bible. God did not give us his Word as an application to be our God, “Here is my Word, I trust it will continue to live up to your conceptions of what something must be in order to be the Word of God.” Even though we know this in our theology, I submit that conceptions of inerrancy along the lines of what Mr. Challies presents cause us to approach the Bible in this Application way. Such traditional conceptions of inerrancy cause people to walk away from the church when it is found that the Bible does not match the inerrancy-criteria of Mr. Challies. Obviously this is where people such as Tim Challies and I have some different assumptions. He assumes that the Bible CANNOT contain material that challenges his understanding of inerrancy, which from his point of view was derived from the Bible. I assume that the Bible WILL continue to challenge our conceptions of it, and from my point of view I get this understanding from the Bible. I should stress, and I hope Mr. Challies agrees with me, that this does not mean one of us is basically a Christian (or functioning from Christian commitments) while the other is not. Rather, I would see both of us as wrestling with what it means to follow the authority of Christ our Lord as expressed in his Word. What we have in common there transcends our differences in how we understand that authority playing out; in how we understand what it means for the Bible to be God’s Word.
Even though my post should end there—it is already too long winded—I feel as though I should address some of the issues brought up in the comments. A couple people have brought up issues of text-transmission, canon, and the notion of autographs. Albert already brought up some issues that challenge some of our ideas of autographs. Most, if not all, the writings of our Bible have very long and complex composition and editorial histories PRECEDING the forms of the writings we have in our Bible. Albert brought up Samuel-Kings. I would like to submit the example of Jeremiah. The Masoretic Text—MT: the Hebrew text version our translations operate from and the one generally considered inspired by evangelicals—version of Jeremiah is a theologically modified version of an earlier shorter Hebrew version of Jeremiah. We can see the social, cultural, and political reasons along the lines of which the MT was theologically updated and modified—and not by the historical Jeremiah. So, how does this factor into our conception of the autograph? Jeremiah and Samual-Kings are not alone in this. We know that other books of our Old Testament existed in multiple different versions, even before and around the time of Jesus (so, what version did He use?). These many instances should not be viewed as the exception to the rule but rather a window on how the texts that make up our Bible were handled in the ancient world by God’s people.
What about scribal transmission of the texts. Scribes did alter their texts. Though this is debated, I am convinced that scribes copying texts of the New Testament sometime altered their texts consciously for theological reasons—just as scribes who transmitted and updated the texts of our Old Testament and scribes who transmitted other ancient literature did. So, what does it mean to discuss autographs, which we do not have? PeterG is correct, how does tying inerrancy to autographs help when we derive our doctrines from forms of the text clearly different from ‘the autograph’ (a dubious notion anyway)? I agree that the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ has preserved the Bible for us. But, we need to be honest. He has not preserved it in a way that makes most of us comfortable. What does it actually mean to say what WCF 1.8 says, “The Old Testament in Hebrew [the MT for the framers of the WCF]…and the New Testament in Greek…being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are THEREFORE [?!] authentical…”? What do we mean by ‘kept pure in all ages’? Is there some standard for this such that if the transmission process does not conform to it the Bible is not THEREFORE authentical? Again, our notions of what the Bible ‘is,’ both in the ancient world and the one we have, need to be informed by what God has actually done in the transmission process. For me, at least, going to the notion of the autograph is not helpful. That is not the Bible we have. Rather, we have the Bible God wants us to have and this is a messier situation than we would like.
Several people brought up issues of canon and how do we know we have the correct Bible. On the one hand, I agree with Challies that accepting our Protestant canon is ultimately a faith commitment. On the other hand, I do not think Mr. Challies was as helpful in discussing the ‘selection’ process. Mr. Challies puts forth the thesis most forcefully presented by R.L. Harris in 1957 (Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible: An Historical and Exegetical Study). Challies, whether consciously functioning from Harris or not, claims that inspiration was the criteria of canonicity: “The primary measure they used was whether a book was inspired by God.” Furthermore, “When the Bible was compiled into the book we know and love today, it represented every word God had ever written”—read: everything that was inspired. From a historical point of view this has been decisively refuted by many, including some evangelical scholars. The most forceful refutation was Everett Kalin’s 1967 dissertation, which directly addressed Harris’ claims. Inspiration was not a factor or criteria discussed in the literature and thought of the ancient church in relation to what writings are sacred scripture or should be in the canon. Furthermore, the ancient church predicated inspiration of other documents, bishops, councils, those who interpreted sacred writings, etc. From a historical point of view, how the writings we know of as the New Testament came together is much messier than what Mr. Challies’ understanding of inspiration, canon, and inerrancy would seem to allow. The criteria discussed were very explicitly appeals to types of authority that make us uncomfortable: did the writing conform to the church’s tradition and understanding of what is orthodox, was the writing one seen to be used widely in the church, etc? The writings of our Bible were functionally authoritative in so far as they were interpreted along the lines of church tradition.
I should touch on issues of the Catholic Bible (with the Apocrypha; what Catholics call Deuterocanoncial writings) versus the Protestant Bible from a historical point of view along with other general issues of canon. Many of the early church figures and writers to whom we look for information on the development of the canon make the situation messier for us than we would like. We look to many of these people to find our early attestation of our 4 Gospels, Acts, some collection of Paul, 1 John, 1 Peter, etc. These same figures, however, also quote many writings as Scripture that are not part of our canon. Two apocalypses, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Apocalypse of Peter, are at the top of this category. Some gospels that are not one of our 4 are more widely attested as ‘scripture’ at an earlier period than some of the writings that are now in our New Testament—especially 2 Peter. Moving to the Old Testament situation, evangelicals commonly hold to the thesis most recently propounded by Roger Beckwith, that the Old Testament canon was closed by the early to mid 2nd century BCE—and it happened to coincide with our OT canon. Thus, we can use the argument that the canon of Jesus is our canon. This is one of the primary ways of refuting claims that the Apocrypha is part of the canon. The problem with this is that the historical material does not support Beckwith’s detailed arguments. Books such as Jubilees and various of the writings making up 1 Enoch were wildly popular as Scripture around the time of Jesus and in the century or two preceding him. In fact, one of the writings of 1 Enoch—the Book of the Watchers; 1En 1-36; a Jewish apocalypse of the 3rd century BCE—is quoted as scripture by the book of Jude (14-15). More than this, those same early church figures to whom we go for our material on the formation of the New Testament canon quote many of the writings of the Apocrypha as scripture. This is especially common of the writings of Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Baruch, etc. This continues up into the 4th and 5th centuries for some. 1 Enoch is also cited as Scripture by multiple of these same figures in the early church. My point here, as I said above, is that the canon situation is much messier than we would like. At the same time, my point is not that we need ‘to go to Rome’ or that the Catholic Bible is the one for us. Rather, since we believe that our Lord ultimately controlled all these processes and the ancient world within which it happened, studying this should somehow shed light on what our Bible ‘is.’ From my point of view, it should make us more comfortable with the messiness that will not be cleaned up by some aspects of our traditional conceptions of inerrancy and canon.
My goal here has not been to provide all the answers. I hope to have helped us have an encounter with our Lord through looking at the Bible in all its glorious details. Since the glory of our Lord involved the cross, we should not be surprised that the glory of His Word will look very different from some of our clean conceptions of inerrancy. As I hope to have made clear, in no way does this material (should I be accurate in my presentations of it) threaten the Bible as God’s Word. Rather, it is what we must wrestle with together as we grapple with what it means that the Bible is God’s Word. Mr. Challies and I agree (I think) that accepting the Bible we have as God’s word is ultimately a faith-in-our-true-Lord commitment. It seems we disagree as to what that means in practice when dealing with certain parts of the Bible and articulating what it means that the Bible is our God’s authoritative Word. We both agree that we must follow it and the Christ with which it challenges us. I hope this post serves to further the work of the church in following its Lord. I hope that I have been humble and charitable, keeping in mind that Christianity is ultimately about our Lord and our faithfulness to and in Him.
Stephen Young
January 21, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Harking back to J.D. in comment #6: You make an excellent point with respect to the ongoing utility of the term “inerrancy.” The schools of inerrancy have been so micro segmented that the word by itself is simply no longer helpful. Rather than debate over the right definition – or lobby for exclusive rights to the word – perhaps it’s time to find other ways to say what we mean in describing the attributes of God-breathed texts.
January 21, 2008 at 1:36 pm
This is what many of us who have been critical of the “original autographs” portion of the inerrantist community have been asking for: a definition of “original autographs” that at least takes into account the data we have about how the Bible (and canon(s)) were actually formed. Most definitions of inerrancy that I’ve seen seem to pay no attention to this phenomena, or act as if it doesn’t exist. Ignorance of such may be widespread among evangelicals in general (I was certainly largely ignorant of the issues before a few years ago), but certainly the scholars who form statements such as the Chicago document can’t be?
January 21, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Jason,
Howdy. We need to catch up at some point. Relating to your comment, I have had my doctrine of Scripture called many names, but never adoptionist. This is a new one : ). If you would like, feel free to explore that further…
Garver,
I like your exploration of having multiple autographs, in keeping with the transmission, reception, and redactional histories of the, even, multiple forms of various Biblical writings.
Craig V,
Would you care to comment on some of the ‘tougher’ examples of Biblical writings whose transmission histories defy traditional conceptions of THE autograph. For example, some of what I talked about concerning Jeremiah? How would Jeremiah’s transmission/editorial history being a window into the common situation—rather than an aberration—impact ways traditional inerrantists think about the Bible? What about the book of Isaiah? Even if you do not accept some nuanced form of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Isaiah views, it is difficult to get around having to deal with serious updating, adding-to, editing, re-working, etc of any material from a historical Isaiah—re-working, adding, and re-casting many times from Isaiah of Jerusalem up through history into the post-exilic period. To be clear, this involves much re-contextualizing of earlier material for later audiences (multiple times), editing of earlier material in light of the theology of later tradents and redactors, etc.
From what I understand, garver’s way of understanding the notion of autographs fits with (or, rather, has been fitted by) this type of material. What are your thoughts Craig V?
Mark,
Just look at some of the recent Evangelical commentaries on books with significant issues along these lines. For example, Tsumura’s commentary on 1 Samuel (NICOT) completely ignores and explains away the multiple Hebrew versions issues. Anything that could possibly deviate from the MT is explained away and/or ignored. From what I understand Tsumura would be one of those more aware of such issues than most scholars. Yet, look at what he does. Some of the core figures in framing the Chicago Statement were scholars who would have had much less awareness of these issues (partially, also, because much of the research along these lines has been advanced a great deal in the last couple decades).
Back to work…
Stephen Young
January 21, 2008 at 12:34 pm
garver,
For myself, I have no problem adopting something like what you describe. We know Luke used some sort of a process (from Luke 1:1-4) in writing his gospel. If we assume Luke made several drafts (I know, this is a ‘modern’ assumption, but I use it as an example) then trying to find the time at which the drafts become Scripture may be more artificial than helpful. In short, I agree that origins may be complex.
Stephen,
I was making a small point with respect to autographs (I don’t think I made it very well). In several of the posts at various blogs I kept running into the assertion that inerrantists hide behind the autographs as a way to cover obvious errors. I don’t find any competent inerrantists doing this without calling it out as highly speculative. Most inerrantists exegete what they have in front of them. There have been many other questions and problems raised about the original autographs, yours included, that do call for some rethinking on inerrancy.
As I wrote above, we need a better definition of ‘inerrancy’. That’s why I tried to give a semi historical context. I don’t think we mean what we might assume from the word itself (on this I agree with Stephen’s definition, though he still needs to clarify in the light of my objection). Suppose I write a book that consists of thousands of lines like the following:
2 + 2 = 4
Would we then say that there are now two inerrant books, mine and the Bible?
January 21, 2008 at 12:29 pm
When one’s definition of “inerrancy” comes to embrace errors in the Bible, I can’t help but hear the liberals laughing.
If there is an analogy between Scripture and Christology is it proper to label such a doctrine of Scripture “adoptionist”?
January 21, 2008 at 9:27 am
Couldn’t someone tied to the notion of “autographs” permit that what constitute the autographs changes at different points in the formation of the canon (recognizing that even “canon” is not without difficulties)? After all, even pretty conservative inerrantist positions have allowed some room for redaction and editing.
So, for instance, if written bits of what became the Pentateuch circulated as authoritative text at some point, they, at that time, constituted the inspired autographs. But later, as they were compiled and redacted, the resulting texts constituted the autographs.
Or, consider the Psalms as originally written as compared to the Psalms as they come to be positioned and edited within the five-book structure of Psalms.
Or suppose that Isaiah himself first wrote down certain prophecies, which at that time constituted the autographs, but later, he or his followers and successors edited, expanded, and re-issued some of those collections.
At any rate, you get the idea. If “inspiration” isn’t tied solely to an “author” in the modernist sense of that, but to an entire providentially-superintended process (including perhaps the formation of canons), then does that open enough space in the notion of “autographs” that those who remained tied to the concept and those who are not so tied down, might be able to have some modest agreements?
One might even allow that the “autographs” of a particular book are multiple rather than single. As I recall, Thomas Aquinas, in his commentary on Job, suggests something of this sort in a minor way. He looks at variant textual traditions and, instead of asking, “Which is the original?” he supposes instead that, since both readings are theologically fruitful, God permitted diversity to enrich to the text.
January 21, 2008 at 1:39 am
Craig V,
I understand the reasons Evangelicals tie inerrancy to ‘the autograph(s).’ Do you understand my criticism of the notion or idea of ‘autographs’ for the writings of the Bible? I touch on this in my post–multiple version of Jeremiah, etc.
Stephen Young
January 19, 2008 at 9:22 pm
[...] Yankeemom wrote an interesting post today on Tim Challies on Inerrancy-my attempt at Conn-versation – (1 of 17)Here’s a quick excerptIn reading over some of the recent blog comments (here and elsewhere) on … unable to resolve an apparent contradiction, inerrantists claim that [...]
January 19, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Thanks for the welcome.
I agree with the voices above calling for a definition of ‘inerrancy’. One of the odd side effects of a creed confessing church is that we may end up with a term that we are obligated to confess before we have a clear understanding of what we mean.
In reading over some of the recent blog comments (here and elsewhere) on inerrancy there are a couple of clarifications that I believe should be made. First of all many have taken the inerrantists to task for holding inerrancy only with respect to the original autographs. It’s even implied by some that inerrantists use this as a hermeneutical principle. In other words, when unable to resolve an apparent contradiction, inerrantists claim that the contradiction probably wasn’t in the original autographs. Though I’ve no doubt that some inerrantists hide exegetical failings behind this veil, I think it’s a caricature to act as if this is common practice. The reason for stipulating the original autographs is really quite simple. We have thousands of manuscripts and they don’t all agree. If we want to say that Scripture is inerrant (or, for that matter, inspired or authoritative) what constitutes Scripture? We could go with one set of manuscripts (a textual tradition, though even here we would find differences in the actual manuscripts), but it seems more in keeping with our sense of what makes Scripture Scripture to argue that we should use all of the manuscript evidence to determine as best we can what was original. Most inerrantists would argue that we can determine what was originally written with pretty good confidence most of the time. This distinction between the originals and what we actually have does raise some challenging theological problems, especially when we look at how the New Testament writers quote the Old Testament. These problems, however, at least it seems to me, don’t entail that the distinction is not useful.
Secondly, in trying to understand what inerrancy means I think we need to put the term in some kind of historical context. A semi mythical history of the term might go something like this. A group within Christendom claims that they do not believe miracles occur and hence do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead. When we point out that they don’t believe the Scriptures they reply indignantly that they do. We realize that what we mean by believing the Scriptures is not what they mean. How can we describe the difference? We ask if they believe the Bible is authoritative, they say they do. We ask if they believe it is inspired, they say they do. We ask if they believe in the full verbal inspiration of the Scriptures and they say they do. We are puzzled. How can they make such claims about the Bible and not believe in the resurrection? What’s different about our belief in the Bible and theirs? We ask if they believe the Bible is inerrant. They say they don’t. Finally, it seems we have a way of distinguishing their belief from ours.
Sorry for the long post.
January 19, 2008 at 9:24 am
Joel and Art:
Paul’s comments here seem to me to bring up another ‘requirement’ of inerrancy that many (but perhaps not all) inerrantists claim: a one-to-one factual correspondence between historical events as they actually occurred and as they are recorded in the Bible. At the extreme end of this is the biblicism of James Jordan, who insists that a biblical faith means that one must accept the chronology of the Bible, even if all other historical evidence runs against it.
January 19, 2008 at 9:55 am
Craig V,
Yikes. I forgot to get back to you. And, I still have to run–as I did 30 minutes ago. You know how it is trying to get out of the house…
Quickly, I have heard your first point before and, well, good point on a number of levels. I do not have a quick ‘answer’ to that from my side. Anyone else (Art, JD, etc) got ideas? I have to run now.
Thanks for joining us CraigV.
Stephen Young
January 19, 2008 at 9:24 am
Paul,
I am in a hurry right now, so I cannot write much.
But, I want to apologize for sounding rude or flippant. I did not mean it to come across that way. Even though I (obviously) disagree with such standard evangelical responses and the impulse driving us to them, I have great respect for those who come up with them and those seeking them out. I understand that it is part of a respect for the Bible and drive to grapple with the Bible at a deep level that.
Thanks for your comments Boulet and garver. Hopefully I can Conn-versate : ) a little later this morning.
Stephen Young
January 19, 2008 at 3:30 am
Is describing my comment as “one of the standard American Evangelical responses” intended to be as pejorative as it sounds?
No I don’t believe that I am muddying the waters at all. Historical records are often incomplete. Historians have a tendency to ingratiate themselves to the powers that be and may not always present a true or full record of what happened.
I am really not sure what you think you are proving here. Your arguments are based on incomplete data, and so prove very little. Perhaps all you prove is that reconciling Biblical history to other historical documents is very difficult. But I don’t see how this challenges Biblical Inerrancy.
Paul
January 19, 2008 at 12:58 am
Piggy-backing off of Joel, there is another angle of the concept of “inerrancy” that, I think, deserves serious attention: textual criticism.
It is sort of a mantra in the evangelical world to say that one believes that the “original autographs” were inerrant down to the very word. While such a definition might have worked had we been granted the original autographs, in light of our current predicament I find that definition completely irrelevant.
I think that there needs to be a clearer definition of what one means when one says “inerrant” and make sure that the definition is actual applicable to the actual situation. Like Joel has pointed out, that means talking about the differences of genre and also about what the implied author meant to communicate.
It also means dealing with the issue of textual criticism, many of which have been brought to the forefront by scholars such as Bart Ehrman. Had the evangelical world had a robust enough definition of inerrancy while Ehrman was a graduate student, his career might have taken a different path. And even if it hadn’t, a more robust definition of inerrancy would have made his book nothing more than white noise.
So not only is there the historical questions and the literary questions, but also the textual ones.
Am I leaving any out? (I’m almost sure that I am.)
January 19, 2008 at 12:15 am
Just a couple thoughts about the notion of “inerrancy.” The notion has always been relative to context, genre, etc.
To say, for instance, that Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son is “inerrant” isn’t to say that the events in the parable actually occurred but rather that [a] Jesus really did give a parable of that sort at some time and [b] the parable accurately communicates truth about God. Even the most conservative of inerrantists would, I think, admit that much.
So, the notion of “inerrancy” needs to be appropriately adjusted or calibrated to varying contexts and genres, given what the literary conventions and expectations of those would be.
Many of disagreements among evangelicals, then, would become ones over whether a particular text was ever expected to communicate a particular truth (whatever we mean here by “expected” – original audience, intent of the human author, divine intent, meaning of words within a context, etc.).
So, for instance, to take a relatively straightforward example: should the fact that a certain set of prophecies are collected under the name of a single prophet be taken to imply that the prophet actually himself wrote down all the prophecies contained therein, in the form that we now have them? If the answer is “no” then the possibility of multiple authorship, later revision, etc., poses no difficulty for “inerrancy.”
There are, of course, exceedingly complex cases (the seemingly dodgy nature of Daniel is perhaps one of them). But the basic principle seems sound. The question, it seems to me, is whether any actual examples in the scriptures push that principle to the breaking point.
I’m not sure if that’s helpful, but there it is.
January 18, 2008 at 10:56 pm
The iMonk, having first called, “Not so fast!” on Challies’ inerrancy assumptions, now takes on the concept of canon, another concept fraught with misconceptions and anachronisms among evangelicals today.
January 18, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Thanks for your post Stephen,
Permit me a few, hopefully helpful, comments to spur the conversation along. First of all, I’m not sure what is really being asserted in your definition of inerrancy (I think this is similar to JD’s point). Given a certain view of God’s sovereignty plus your definition one could argue that I’m inerrant (I assure you I’m not) because from the point of view of God’s sovereignty I do exactly what God ordains.
Secondly, I don’t know as I would be so quick to dismiss an attempt at reconciling a passage with other passages or with history because the attempt is speculative. In fact, I think that charge can cut both ways. Isn’t your assertion that Dan. 4 was originally about Nabonidus speculative at least in the sense that we don’t have any actual manuscripts that back this up. The key, it seems to me, is to clearly distinguish our speculations from the actual data.
On a personal note, this morning I almost decided to stop reading many of the blogs I visit. The reason is that I was looking for real conversation. I was beginning to think that blogging simply isn’t conducive to real discussion. Your comments on Tim’s blog encouraged me to not give up.
My one suggestion for your post is that we break it up. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to discuss all the issues you raise in a comment or even in a thread.
January 18, 2008 at 7:25 pm
JD,
You make excellent points. I need to wrestle (or continue wrestling) with my church community about if I am being honest.
I would like all of us–in our individual churches, larger denominations, and as Evangelicals–to humbly discuss these issues. It would be great if we could leave aside charged and debated terminology for a little while and see if we are all ultimately after the same thing; see if we can all articulate what we ‘really mean’ by such terms and what we are trying to communicate and to protect. I suspect that in many ways I want to uphold the same thing as my brothers and sisters who demand a traditional position on inerrancy and demand the use of that term. We could have an edifying Spirit-filled dialogue over our various wrestlings with the Bible if we could start from this point–being brothers and sisters ultimately after the same thing. In this way I would feel much more comfortable relinquishing the term inerrancy. Thus it might not be automatically assumed that I reject certain things that many Evangelicals see bound up with inerrancy.
Also, as I do recognize and agree with many of your points, if I can help it I try not to use the term inerrancy when I discuss the Bible. When discussing this aspect of how we understand and approach the Bible I try to stick with what we have already discussed: everything in the Bible is doing exactly what God wants it to be doing.
Thanks for your comments JD.
Stephen Young
January 18, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Paul,
Thank you for your comment. You have produced one of the standard American Evangelical responses to the problem of Daniel on Belshazzar as Nebuchadnezzar’s son. The respected Evangelical scholars A.R. Millard and D.J. Wiseman are best known for taking this position. The problem with it is that there is no evidence for it. It is utter speculation that Nabonidus married the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar.
More than that, a much more probable reason for the book of Daniel calling Belshazzar the son of Nebuchadnezzar is that the story in Daniel 4 originally concerned Nabonidus, Belshazzar’s father. In the form of Daniel we have now the material of Dan 4 has been appropriated as about Nebuchadnezzar, probably because he was a well known figure in Jewish writings and tradition at the time. Dan 5 was thus updated (or written, transmitted, etc) to fit this.
Sure, on one level the Evangelical cleaning-up of Daniel on Belshazzar as Nebuchadnezzar’s ‘son’ is possible. But, (1) we have no evidence for that solution and (2) we do have evidence for the approach I have advocated–along with most historical scholars (again, including some evangelicals). I should note that Wiseman, in his treatments of such difficulties in Daniel, explicitly says that he has no evidence for his position but that he is motivated by apologetic reasons. In all this, why do we regard such things as problems or difficulties requiring solutions?
This is what I am more concerned about–what I talked about in my post. Why do we have the impulse to explain away such ‘issues’ in the Bible? Why are we driven to such far-reaching ‘it is possible’ arguments? This especially concerns me since such an approach leads us away from how such ‘issues’ and details are windows into what God is actually doing in the text–which matters to us since it is God’s Word.
Also, do you hear yourself talking about “Of course, this is assuming the accuracy of other historical documents and perhaps, more to the point, the accuracy of the translation and interpretation of other historical documents.”? Please correct me if I am wrong, but this really sounds like an attempt to muddy historical issues through a lot of ‘feel safe’ rhetoric. Even if you do not see it that way, that seems to be the effect of it. Again, my concern is that protesting in such ways is part of a larger project that leads us away from the text because it makes us uncomfortable. Can we not be open to questioning why we have the impulse to do anything (with the Bible, ancient history, etc) other than read it as having some sort of ‘error’ in it? What if it does and the impulse to explain such ‘errors’ away leads us away from what our Lord’s Word actually says?
Thanks again for your comment.
Stephen Young
January 18, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Stephen,
Just to continue the dialog. I do sympathize, of course. It’s like saying “in the on-the-ground-factual sense, there really are errors; in the god-accomplished-what-he-intended sense, there aren’t.” One problem I have with it though is that as it’s usually understood, inerrancy won’t allow for “part a” of that definition, which makes it look confusing or deceptive if we use it. If you say “I believe the Bible is inerrant, but I believe Daniel is wrong here,” that’s just not how anybody–Christian or not–uses the word, and it sounds ridiculous.
Of course both terms have their own freight, especially depending on one’s context. But I feel that in terms of what people normally mean by “inerrancy,” it’s much less equivocating to just abandon it. I think people like you and I basically believe the same thing, the question is how to describe it honestly.
January 18, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Stephen,
You say:
“Though ‘son’ can technically mean ‘grandson’ at times in Aramaic, this does not help since Nabonidus was not in any way descended from Nebuchadnezzar. Since Nabonidus, Belshazzar’s father, was a usurper, it is doubtful you could argue some form of ‘adopted into the family’ idea. So much for Belshazzar as Nebuchadnezzar’s son.”
Isn’t it possible that Nabonidus married Nitocris the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, who was subsequently the mother of Belshazzar? This would make Belshazzar descended from Nebuchadnezzar.
Your argument seems to be the Bible doesn’t agree with other historical records therefore the Bible cannot be inerrant. Of course, this is assuming the accuracy of other historical documents and perhaps, more to the point, the accuracy of the translation and interpretation of other historical documents.
Paul
January 18, 2008 at 3:03 pm
JD,
Indeed, the post is a little long. Sorry.
You have an excellent question about how do I differentiate inerrancy from errancy. As you can see my approach is functionally similar to your approach, “even the errors are inerrantly inspired.” I guess I go with “inerrancy” over “errancy” because of some sort of theological definition of ‘error’ that I appear to have. If it (an ‘error’) is doing what God inspired it to do in the Bible, in that context there is a way in which I do not feel the need to call it an error.
I have read Vanderkam’s critique of Beckwith–it was delightful. One of the things I do appreciate about Beckwith is that he is honest in having a theological-faith reason for what he argues. I cannot tell you off the top of my head on what page that is in his book.
For those of you who do not know what we are talking about, Roger Beckwith has a hefty (500ish pages!) detailed book arguing that the Old Testament canon was closed in the 2nd century BCE–and it happens to be the same one Protestants have. The theological payoff of this for many, and Beckwith it seems, is that the Protestant church can argue that its OT is correct because it is the one Jesus and the Apostles used.
Most historical scholars of Early Judaism and Christian Origins–again, including some evangelicals–disagree with Beckwith’s work in this area. I discuss this some in the post above.
January 18, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Susan,
I really do appreciate your comments and encouragement. I have been somewhat disappointed at the lack of interaction here. I was hoping this post could stimulate some dialogue with people on Challies’ blog. Perhaps I just made it too long : ). Sorry.
For theological structure in Daniel, there are any number of places to go. What I presented is a fairly standard approach. George Nickelsburg’s classic ‘From the Bible to the Mishnah’ has some accessable sections on Daniel 1-6 and then 7-12. Look at the recent 2nd edition. Anything by John J. Collins on Daniel is also great. You could read his chapter on Daniel in his ‘Apocalyptic Imagination.’ Goldingay’s commentary is also helpful, if you want a scholar with some sort of evangelical commitments. Just for fun, Lester Grabbe’s article on Darius the Mede is excellent. I believe Dillard and Longman (1994) cites it somewhere.
I do not want to sound too anti-evangelical here, but it is on these issues (especially the theological structure in relation to them) that some American Evangelical scholars are not as helpful. Sometimes they are so driven to explain difficult historical details or to harmonize that they miss the theological points being made. Lastly, my favorite (somewhat short) treatment of the 4-Kingdom schema and discourse in the ancient Mediterranean and the Near East is an essay by David Flusser, “The Four Empires in the Fourth Sibyl and in the Book of Daniel” (Israel Oriental Studies, vol 2; Tel Aviv Univ, 1972). The WTS library does not have that volume, sadly.
Thanks again for your comments and encouragement. To whatever extent I reflect good Biblical Theology being applied to various issues, I had good training : )…
Stephen Young
January 18, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Not bad Stephen (though a little long).
One thing. I’m curious how you practically differentiate your definition of “inerrancy” from “errancy.” They look very similar to me. You can guess where I’m going here.
You probably know where I stand on this. The only definition I’ve been able to live with is inerrancy means “even the errors are inerrantly inspired.” But that’s really just saying that I believe in God’s providence over an errant collection of texts. Hence I prefer to call myself an errantist.
PS, on Beckwith, have you read VanderKam’s response? It’s delightful.
January 18, 2008 at 10:07 am
Stephen, I’m sure you’re frustrated at the absence of comments so far on your excellent post. I wanted to read it thoroughly, and finally resorted to printing it out. Alas, the print was 6 point font, and – well – it’s taken some time. But, I’m glad I persevered.
First, regarding Daniel, much of your thesis is bolstered in my old edition of Dillard and Longman [1994]. They discuss the lack of historicity for Darius the Mede at length, and debunk the leading efforts at harmonizing through the 80s. You provide more genealogical and succession detail, and a stronger explanation of the four kingdom structure in the court narrative. Very informative and helpful! Whom do you like for more detail on the theological structuring?
Second, your essay is an excellent example of the strength of biblical theology in helping 21st century believers and skeptics alike navigate the challenges of Scripture. Thanks for reiterating the need to let Scripture speak for itself organically and robustly. We are called to submit ourselves to what is actually there rather than what we wish were there. The puzzles and ambiguities over which we labor are part of what keeps the living word living!
Third, I always appreciate a reminder on the messiness of canon formation. It,too, invites the inquiry and reflection that keeps us digging for more, and wonderfully, finding more.