I occupy an awkward middle ground between “conservative evangelical” and “flaming liberal”. On the one hand I no longer have a place in Southern Baptist life (although I serve a congregation that contributes to the Southern Baptist Convention and frankly that does not overly bother me – there is still much that is good and praiseworthy). On the other hand I identify increasingly with “orthodox/conservative Anglicans”.
One of my best friends Chris Brady (now Dean of Schreyer Honors College at Penn State) once observed that he and I are theologically almost identical – and yet among Southern Baptists I am considered a “liberal” (which I most certainly am not) and among Episcopalians he is considered a “fundamentalist” (which he most certainly is not).
I have on this website advocated for a “critical orthodoxy” (thanks to William Witt for the phrase and the concept). That we can be orthodox in our theology and practice – and yet not reject completely modern biblical scholarship. (In fact we find that modern biblical scholarship properly applied supports orthodoxy quite well.)
Turns out that the big presentation at the Evangelical Theological Society meeting (in Boston – right before Society for Biblical Literature I assume?) was by G. K. Beale of Wheaton College on “biblical inerrancy”. Southern Seminary professor Jim Hamilton summarizes:
Beale argued that Inerrancy is not a scholastic theological deduction made by interpreters of the Bible, but rather that it is an exegetical observation of a theological deduction that at least one biblical author has already made within the text of the Bible itself.
Okay fair enough. Inerrancy is not a “scholastic deduction” but rather it is…
Hold that thought.
Reading the summary provided by Prof Hamilton I find myself thinking, “That sounds like a pretty scholastic argument in order to deny that inerrancy is a scholastic deduction”.
I offer a caution/apology and a point.
Caution/apology. I was not there, did not hear the lecture, have not read Beale’s book – so my reaction can only be incomplete and contingent.
The point is that so often “inerrancy” (and there are multiple version of this slippery concept) is defended with an argument – not observation (except such as in this case the observation of a handful of verses interpreted a certain way). As if (and here is a second significant point) logic always wins over observable reality. If scholars who have studied the Bible for decades if not centuries observe certain details and compare them to what else we know about the ancient Near East (excuse me ancient West Asia – a better term) and conclude the Bible does indeed contain “mistakes” if by mistakes you mean (and this is the kicker – pay attention) assertions that taken literally (or heck just taken a certain way – such as the books of Daniel and Esther) are contrary to scientific/historical fact.
But rather than dealing with facts – defenders of inerrancy offer… an argument.
The Bible has to be inerrant. It does not matter what evidence you supply to the contrary. It has to be inerrant. And we have an argument to prove it.
The logic generally goes like:
- God is perfect and does not lie or deceive or make mistakes (no argument from me)
- God inspired the Bible (again – no argument from me)
- Therefore the Bible is perfect and does not lie or deceive or make scientific-historical mistakes (ah – now this is where it gets messy)
And since the Bible itself – according to Beale – contains this logic… *poof* the Bible has to be inerrant. No matter the evidence you supply to the contrary. You are wrong a priori. You just have to be wrong if you question (which version of?) “inerrancy”.
But let me add another point. Precisely what good does a doctrine of inerrancy (and again – which version?) accomplish?
Does it mean we suddenly interpret the Bible correctly? That suddenly we all agree on what the Bible teaches? Well – no apparently not because even inerrantists do not always/entirely agree. We still do not know absolutely what this absolute truth of the Bible is. Unless – and there are some who do this I believe – you more or less assume your interpretations/understandings of this inerrant Bible are at least implicitly… inerrant.
Do not misunderstand. Even with a PhD I am not much of a scholar. Have hardly produced anything and am not actively involved in research/writing. People like Beale and Hamilton are far better scholars than I am or ever will be. So I am not saying they are dumb or ignorant. But I wonder if they are so committed to a theological conviction (the Bible must be inerrant) that logic takes priority over details/evidence.
Not “what kind of Bible would God give us (or should give us)” but “what kind of Bible has God actually given us”? If we observe a Bible that (annoyingly? maybe maybe not) is not always literally accurate in terms of science or especially history (Daniel and Esther are post-exilic I just see no way around that)… and yet God is a God of truth…
Then what does this tell us about God?
Scholastic arguments to prove that the idea of biblical inerrancy is not a scholastic deduction. Hmm.
Rick,
Thanks for your thoughts and for your kind words. I’m curious: what do you find erroneous about Daniel and Esther? You only mention that they’re post-exilic. I don’t think anyone disputes that. . . For me, inerrancy is just another way to say that I think the Bible is totally true and trustworthy, and that when I run against something that seems to conflict with other evidence, I’m inclined to reserve judgment and give the Bible the benefit of the doubt.
I’m sincerely interested in which particulars you see as errors.
Every blessing to you in Christ Jesus,
Jim
I rarely use the word “inerrant. I’ve been known to say “infallible.” However, now I’m choosing a different word. I want to use the word “trustworthy.” The Bible is trustworthy. You can be confident that it has everything in it that God wants to be in it, especially as he wants it to be communicated to you. It is trustworthy in all things that God wants it to teach.
Is that not the worse thing ever!?
But, I’m sticking with it.
Tim
Hi Tim and Jim (aka Prof Hamilton who is too modest to present himself as such)!
Thanks for the thoughtful comments.
1) (Tim) I can live with “infallible” and especially how you characterize the trustworthiness of Scripture: “in all things that God wants it to teach”. I can even live with “inerrant unto its purpose”. But that pesky word “inerrant/cy” has just taken on too much baggage for me to be comfortable with it.
2) (Jim) I do not normally (ever?) run around speaking of “errors” in the Bible so it is risky perhaps misleading to speak in terms of “erroneous” or “mistakes”. It is when we expect everything in Scripture to line up perfectly with “history and science” (how’s that for a cliche?) that I think we run into some awkward situations.
Or to put it more positively – yeah sure I also would confess the Bible is “totally true and trustworthy”. But we may have slightly different views about how much is covered by that expression. That which pertains to salvation (and obedience)? Or everything including minute historical/cultural/scientific details?
So with regard to Daniel and Esther the “error” (which may not really be an “error”) is that they purport to be about events from the Exile. I have seen quite a few conservative Christians (fine students/scholars) get exercised over the idea that Daniel is post-exilic. (Why is that?) Granted one may respond “they are true stories that were not written down until much later”. But there are still some difficulties with how the stories line up (details) with what we know about Babylonian and Persian history/culture. I know that more conservative/evangelical scholars offer explanations for these difficulties (“they are not mistakes, they are difficulties we can explain”) but I have not found them persuasive. They read too much like “we already know what the conclusion is, now we have to come up with an explanation”.
Let me put it this way. I can live with Daniel and Esther being “divinely inspired fiction”. David did not write all the *ldawi(y)d* Psalms. Isaiah 40-66 are exilic or post-exilic (the whole Second maybe Third Isaiah thing). Maybe Moses did not write the Pentateuch. And yeah the whole Genesis-Creationism thing. And so on. Many Christians would say one cannot believe such things and believe in the Bible because these would constitute “errors/mistakes”. If we accept such “errors/mistakes” (see below) then we cannot trust anything the Scripture says about anything. One conservative Anglican website gave me some serious heat over this.
I do not see these as “errors” if 100% literal historical accuracy is not part of God’s intent in inspiring Scripture. But some Christians do and argue against such views quite strongly.
Now if some “evangelical” scholars (such as Prof Hamilton) have more nuanced understandings of “inerrancy” that is cool and I would be happy to understand that better. I understand your point about giving the Bible the “benefit of the doubt”. I think that works more when there is a lack of clear evidence one way or the other.
John Barton’s short book _What Is the Bible?_ is pretty much where I stand at this point.
Oh we could get into lengthy exchanges about “well give me your examples and I will try to respond”. I know that sounds like a dodge. Others have written about the alleged “mistakes” and the supposed “explanations” and it may come down to which we find more persuasive. I would like to find these arguments persuasive – I really would and in graduate school I did – but I just can’t bring myself to say “yes in my heart I believe that”. Perhaps I am dead wrong. But I am being true(?!?) to my best most honest understanding of the various evidence and arguments. For what it is worth – I do not go around trying to get people to “doubt the Bible”. It is more when someone says “you need to agree with this or else your Christian faith is flawed” that I push back a little.
Let me ask this not as challenge but genuine question. Set aside the terms “mistake/error/erroneous”. What “difficulties” would a self-described believer in inerrancy accept? (Thinking of the famous Chicago Declaration.)
I’m not going to come to the point of saying that the Bible has errors in it. I will wholeheartedly agree that I’ve a limited understanding. I will always believe that there is a very good chance that I’m wrong on an interpretation.
One thing that helps me is that I don’t look upon Scripture as a data source. It isn’t an informational source as much as a communication tool. I see it as God’s primary means of communication. Not the only way, but the primary way. Not only is it a communication tool, but also a transformative tool. There is an assumption on my part that God actually has something to say to me. There is also the idea that God wants me to change.
As long as I see Scripture as a means of God’s communication and transformation; I begin to have less of an emotional investment on it’s “Historicity” or “Scientific” value.
Good night,
Tim