It is often declared in support of the Christian faith that the Bible has never been proven wrong and that it contains no inconsistency. Given the origins of the Bible, this certainly would be remarkable, though I am not wholly convinced it necessitates divine inspiration. Nevertheless, should any book be divinely inspired, we would expect that these conditions be met. That is
If text X is God inspired, then text X must be without error and completely consistent.
The above conditional is most certainly reasonably true. The problem I have found is that many people confuse the truth of the implication with the affirmation of the antecedent and therefore the consequent. In other words, many, say Christians, assume that the Bible IS, in fact, God inspired. But how do they know this? Well, despite claims to the contrary, they don't. It is (usually) an assumption made based on personal and subjective factors. While this seems of little consequence, the problem is that it creates a confirmation bias. Studying the Bible, then, is no longer about truth, but about supporting the assumption. It therefore cannot be falsified because any difficulty will simply be viewed as a lack of understanding or something that is wrong with our interpretation. And while these are certainly possibilities and indeed probable culprits in many instances, it is terribly misguided to prescribe these as the reasons at the outset.
One common example of this error is the claim that "Scripture must interpret Scripture". Now certainly, when seeking to properly understand and interpret any written text, it is essential that context, culture, history, language, etc. be taken into account. But the above prescription requires more. Implicitly it says that Scripture must be understood circularly, by the assumption that it is already self-contained and wholly consistent. If you read one book of the Bible and your understanding of it conflicts with another part, then your understanding is mistaken. You must factor in what the other part says into your interpretation and do whatever it takes, no matter how difficult, to reconcile each part together. This, however, ignores the fact that each book was written independently of the others and does not assume that the reader has access to any complete collection of Scripture on which the writing in question may depend. And since the goal of any writing (at least in most cases) is to communicate ideas, it seems reasonable that we should not have to venture far outside of the text in consideration to ascertain what it is communicating.
Therefore, should one book of the Bible be found to be possibly inconsistent with another, this possibility should be taken seriously and not immediately written off as a defect in ourselves. We should always be open to new evidence, which may, at times, demand a critical reevaluation of our beliefs. Note that this does not require that one always be changing his/her mind, but it does perhaps recommend that we avoid being overly dogmatic about things we might like to be true even if it is much easier to live that way.
You said, "It is often declared in support of the Christian faith that the Bible has never been proven wrong and that it contains no inconsistency...That is If text X is God inspired, then text X must be without error and completely consistent.”
ReplyDelete**You are conflating two issues - the inerrancy of scripture and its internal coherence. These are not equal. The first benchmark of an authoritative book is that it is generally historically reliable (coherent). The Scriptures meet this qualification easily (and then some). Moreover, we do not judge the historical trustworthiness of any work of antiquity based on an “all or nothing” criteria. That would be the fallacy of a false dilemma. One does not have to choose between the absolute errancy of a text, or the absolute inerrancy of a text (e.g. Josephus or Philo). This, I realize, is a minimalist position. But then, it simply isn’t necessary to make the maximal case to assert the Scriptures’ integrity. All we have to do is prove the minimal case to demonstrate that the text is a sufficiently trustworthy source for Jesus’ life, death, and the belief in his bodily resurrection by the earliest messianic community. Simply put, absolutely nothing is tethered to the issue of biblical inerrancy. Though we may inductively show that the ancients asserted the trustworthiness of Scripture, we may not anachronistically pour OUR meaning of inerrancy back into their words. And it is apparent that this is what you've done here.
You said, “The above conditional is most certainly reasonably true…It therefore cannot be falsified because any difficulty will simply be viewed as a lack of understanding or something that is wrong with our interpretation. And while these are certainly possibilities and indeed probable culprits in many instances, it is terribly misguided to prescribe these as the reasons at the outset.”
ReplyDelete**Why is it terribly misguided? If a person is removed from the cultural milieu of the Scriptures by hundreds or thousands of years (and miles), then we should assume hermeneutical deficiencies from the outset. So you are right in saying that bad interpretation is likely the hiccup with most of these “instances” (which is vague and you should tease that out a bit).
As well, while it is true that many believers do not view the Scriptures as falsifiable (either in an “original manuscripts” argument or a preservationist doctrine), it is not true that falsifiability is the ultimate litmus for authenticity. Sometimes, verifiability is a better option - especially when something is not falsifiable - like the assertion that there may be life on other planets. Indeed, this assertion is NOT falsifiable, but it is most certainly verifiable (find a little green man and its game over).
My friend, this is at least an analogue to finding God. If God does in fact exist, and believers are eligible for an immediate, veridical experience of God in their inner man, then this experience provides epistemological warrant for belief. That is, if a believer’s experience of regeneration by the Spirit is a fact, and if God has indeed authorized the Scriptures (I will have more to say about your definition of inspiration in coming posts) then one would expect the believer to have a strong commitment to these inspired words a priori. This is not a flawed way to approach “knowing” God (though I would say that it is not the best approach to “showing” God’s existence through evidence and argument - which is a distinction I think William Craig makes cogently).
You said, “One common example of this error is the claim that "Scripture must interpret Scripture". Now certainly, when seeking to properly understand and interpret any written text, it is essential that context, culture, history, language, etc. be taken into account...If you read one book of the Bible and your understanding of it conflicts with another part, then your understanding is mistaken…”
ReplyDelete**Well, I must say you have not understood the “scripture interprets scripture” maxim very well. First, this very saying is shorthand for larger hermeneutical realities. There are in fact many places where obscure passages MUST be interpreted in light of clear ones. An example of this would be Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 14:34 that “women should remain silent in the churches…” This obviously cannot be referring to prophesying as he has just stated that “when a woman stands to prophesy in church…” and it obviously can’t be extended to teaching, evangelism, or even conversation (to take an extreme view). This obscure statement must be interpreted in light of his flanking contexts (disorderly chatter in an already chaotic charismatic environment), and other passages relative to women in speaking roles. So, other passages (including 1 Cor 14) do not allow for certain interpretations and they do allow for others.
Another category of obscure sayings that must be interpreted in light of clear ones is the subject of metaphorical statements. One doesn’t even have to venture outside of Matthew’s Gospel to run into this dilemma. What does Jesus mean when he says “Kingdom” and what does he mean when he states that if our right hand causes us to sin we should amputate it etc.? These intentionally cryptic statements must be interpreted in light of clear passages on the subject elsewhere.
cont...
ReplyDelete**So what about the sticky middle where it does appear that the Scriptures conflict on certain teachings? An example would be the Pauline teaching of Grace. In this case, he seems to portray any attempt at earning or working for salvation as illegitimate. Yet, in the very same book (Romans) Paul also affirms obedience to Torah, affirms the worth and value of Torah, praises Abraham - the ultimate exemplar of faith for his OBEDIENCE to the command of God etc. In fact, we discover that the very term “faith” is shorthand for “the obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5). As well, we discover that the “works of Torah” was a first century code for the badge of membership among the Jews: sabbath observance, kosher compliance, and circumcision and couldn't possibly refer to the ethical core of mosaic law.
So when one takes into account the cumulative witness of scripture, he finds it to have a remarkably coherent message concerning Jesus the risen Messiah. Paul isn’t schizophrenic, and he certainly doesn’t disagree with James or Matthew on these issues of Torah.
You said, “Therefore, should one book of the Bible be found to be possibly inconsistent with another, this possibility should be taken seriously and not immediately written off as a defect in ourselves…”
**For example? What books would you be referring to? Even if we look at the widest possible theological perspectives (Paul and Matthew), it is clear that all of the Pauline themes are introduced and developed Narratively in Matthew (for example). So even though Paul and Matthew have radically different approaches to telling the Gospel story (Thematic Narrative vis-a-vis Matthew’s Ancient biography), they are both asserting the same truths about Jesus.
Blessings,
Jeff