For real discussion to exist, for the critic to really make ground, I think the critic needs to meet the defender on the defender’s home turf.
If the critic can find even one place where the Bible clearly disagrees with itself, then the strict and total defense of Biblical absolutism is lost. And the defender is left to defend the Bible on less solid ground.
It seems to me that where a lot of Biblical criticism falls down, and where a lot of defenders spend probably way too much of their time is focusing on the other categories. Whole books are written on criticism and Biblical defense that don’t even touch this area. But it is the most important. These books basically say "assume that the Bible is without error. Now I'll prove that the Biblical issues can be explained". Look, if you assume that the Bible is without error, you don't need to explain the issues. It's like the Catholic belief that the Pope is infallible. Why do they think that? Because there's a Papal decree saying it. But.. huh?
But it's the same thing. These books will quote the Bible to prove the Bible is inerrant. Huh?
What’s more, if the Biblical critic can win here, he can then go back and pick up the other areas. If the defender concedes that there may be some factual areas where the Bible might be wrong, then it throws the gates open to talk about theological areas where the Bible might be wrong.
This is monstrously huge.
Let’s face it, there are a lot of places where the Bible seems to offer challenges to the defenders on theological matters. There are theologians who spend their lives banging their heads against the wall, trying to explain how two seemingly inconsistent sections of Scripture can co-exist without contradiction. How could Moses say that an all-knowing God changed His mind? How could God condone of Abraham marrying his sister? How could we be saved by "grace apart from works lest no one should boast," but then have it be that it is "works, and not faith alone that saves you".
Once the defender concedes Biblical fallibility, then all of this Biblical confusion goes away by the simple assertion that one of the sections is probably wrong.
The good news here is that lots of things get simpler. Any of the other categories of criticism become non-issues. The bad news is that some things get way more complex. There is a certain simplicity to believing that there is a flawless set of instructions, given by God, on which we can build our doctrine and even our lives. Take it away and you introduce confusion. As soon as you allow the argument “well, maybe Jesus never said that”, you force people to pick and choose their theology.
So, what would happen if the Bible were to have internal errors? It seems to me that there are three possible things that could mean.
The Bible is not in-errant.
OK, let’s start with the double negative! Basically, this means that the Bible is wrong. It may not be all wrong in every place, but it’s not always right either.
Of course, this makes some things a lot simper and some things more complex, as mentioned. Then we would need to ask questions about its reliability. If it’s wrong, then how wrong is it?
Here’s the deal, when people open this one up and say “ok, the Bible seems to have internal factual errors”, then this opens up all the other areas for discussion. Then it becomes valid to say “the Bible seems to contradict itself theologically, so rather than looking for a solution or changing my doctrine, I’ll just assume it’s a contradiction.” Then it makes sense to look at the Bible like any other inspirational document and deny the parts of it that seem inconsistent with our modern thinking. Basically, then it becomes perfectly valid to re-visit the issues above. It doesn't mean the Bible is bad, or without value, just that it is not the source of all truth.
The Bible is in-errant, but not really meant to be taken literally.
This is similar to the Roman Catholic view that says the Bible is without error on issues of faith and morals, but not necessarily on matters of historical fact. It’s the view that the events in the Bible are meant to be symbolic. Perhaps there was no flood and no Noah, but the story has some teachings that we can learn from.
Of course there are a couple issues here. First, it seems strange that the Bible would be flawless on theology, but wrong on other things. And it also calls into question what the theology means. If there really is a 40-day flood with Noah, it's simple. God is telling us to get in line. And telling us what happens if we don't. But if the story is just a parable then what does it mean? It leaves a door open.
The Bible is in-errant and meant to be taken literally, but it does not mean what it seems to say.
This is a view often taken by Biblical defenders. When pushed against a wall, they will refer to some rather obscure historical tradition that (in their minds at least) makes the issue go away.
For example, take a look at the genealogy of Jesus. There are two, and they differ. Luke and Matthew indicate that Joseph had 2 different fathers (Luke says it was Heli, while Matthew says it was Jacob). Some Defenders say that this is because one of the two genealogies belong to Mary and it was a "common tradition" to apply a woman's ancestry to her husband. Only, these defenders cannot provide any other examples of this, nor could they tell which of the two belong to Mary and which is Joseph's. In addition, it is not what the Scripture says. It may be what it means, but it isn't what it says. So, how can one be sure?
The uncomfortable implication here, though, is that those of us who are not so knowledgeable can never really understand the truth in the Bible.
Throughout history, there have been periods when the laity were discouraged from reading the Bible for this very reason.
There is a forth view, that I didn’t list. Some churches say that the Bible is without error in its original texts, and the problem is that we don’t have the original texts. These things, they say, are simple scribal errors. But the big issue here is that we don’t have the original texts. So how do we know what is in them?
This is a big deal. For example, take the great commission found in the Gospel of Mathew.
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying,
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mt. 28: 18-19 KJV
This verse is etched in stone on the top of many church doors. It is the verse on which many evangelical churches find their identity. It is the theme verse for whole missionary movements. However, according to the best research we have been able to do, it may have not been in the original Gospel of Mathew. In fact, it most likely was not.
Other verses meet into the same fate. The famous story of the woman caught in adultary, for example, is probably not in John at all, but added later.
I'd like to spend some time zooming in on some of these problematic verses, but that will have to wait until later.
No comments:
Post a Comment