Trustworthiness of the Bible?

Does anyone know of a rather recent, brief essay on the trustworthiness of the Bible written for a popular audience?

Inspiration and the Bible

The latest issue of JETS is out and it contains several good little articles, one of which is "What Does Theology Have to Do with the Bible? A Call for the Expansion of the Doctrine of Inspiration" by Norris C. Grubbs and Curtis Scott Drumm from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. In their conclusion they wisely state:

"The definitions of inspiration drafted by systematic theologians clearly do not address the entire process as it is acknowledged and described by biblical studies scholars. Even though the concepts are well known, the issues of collection, revision, multiple authorship, and the use of secretaries have no place within our current definitional understandings of inspiration. Similarly, biblical scholars are making affirmations about the formation of the biblical text without considering the theological implications or possible contradictions inherent in those affirmations. Indeed, there seems to be a disconnect on the part of biblical scholars for how these textual theories relate to the theological concept of the original autographs ... The most important implication from this article is that the traditional definitions of inspiration need to be expanded in order to account for issues such as collection, revision, and multiple authorship. While the tradition understandings of inspiration with their emphasis on the authors are helpful and theologically correct, the various genres and content of the biblical text require a broader view of the important issue. Perhaps a larger stress on the process rather than just the writer would provide an avenue for going forward."

That is indeed the problem. It is impossible to attribute several books of the Bible to a single author writing a book in one or more sittings without any subsequent collection and revision of their work (e.g., Psalter, Jeremiah). The pink monkey in the room, however, is how much process can you allow? Can you go to Trito-Isaiah, JEDP theory, two editions of Acts, etc? But this article pushes the discussion in the right way and their Grenzian approach is commendable.

American and Global Evangelicalism

I've just read the latest issue of the Briefing published by Matthias Media which has a fantastic article by John Woodhouse (principal of Moore Theological College) on "Where Have All the Miracles Gone? Cessationism, Continuationism, and the Bible". But one of the paragraphs in his introduction is very illuminating on the differences between American and global Evangelicalism:

"Evangelical Christianity in the US has often been marked by sharply polarized debates peculiar to the American context. For example, in the UK, the doctrine of Scripture was fought out against liberalism, and it was Jim Packer's writings - especially Fundamentalism and the Word of God - that set the terms of evangelical thinking about Scripture in much of the English-speaking world for a generation. In the US, however, there was a fierce fight within so-called evangelical circles over 'inerrancy' verses 'infallibility'. Harold Lindsell's Battle for the Bible, represented one side of this sharply polarized conflict. I do not believe that Lindsell's book would have been written in England (or Sydney for that matter). An American Christian of the time may well have viewed English evangelicals as lukewarm about the Bible because they were not fighting the same battle, whereas an English evangelical was likely to view the American battle as strange - as drawing distinctions foreign to the Bible itself".

Elizabeth Achtemeier and God's Word

Thanks to Michael Horton's book, People and Place, I discovered this quote from Elizabeth Achtemeier:

"No one believes that God speaks through his Word until they hear it. And no argument can convince the unbeliever apart from the work of the Spirit. "Faith comes by what is heard," writes Paul, "and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17, RSV). And it is the preaching of Christ - the testimony of faith that is there beyond our human words a transcendent word - it is that alone which can awaken and renew the church".

E. Achtemeier, 'The Canon as the Voice of the Living God,' in Reclaiming the Bible for the Church, eds. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), 122-23.

Greg Beale on the Erosion of Inerrancy

Over at the Reformed Forum there is a session with Greg Beale on inerrancy. A few thoughts:

I appreciate Beale's arguments as I confess that I'm also not sure about using the incarnation as an analogy for a doctrine of Scripture, some postmodern views of Scripture are between weird and scary, and I am wary of parallel-o-mania in using ANE and Second Temple texts in biblical study. Concerns that I do have, however, are:

1. That a priori theological deduction about Scripture always trumps the phenomena of Scripture in formulating a doctrine of Scripture. A doctrine of Scripture should take into account Scripture's witness to itself, but also the phenomenon of Scripture's textual history and its relationship to its cultural context (Charles Hodge said: "Our views of inspiration must be determined by the phenomena of the Bible as well as from its didactic statements" [Systematic Theology 1.169]).

2. In my mind, there are undoubtedly antecedents to Warfield-Henry-Chicago from Augustine to John Owen. But I think you have to admit that modern discussions on inerrancy have been influenced by post-enlightenement critiques of revealed religion, philosophical rationalism permeating theological method, and the "Battle for the Bible" in North America. But the assumption, I think intimated by Carl Trueman in the interview, is that 17th century doctrines of Scripture were basically identical to the 20th century left me gobsmacked. I wouldn't deny the similarities, but we shouldn't deny the different contexts either. I get the impression that some think that God gave Calvin and the Westminster divines a private revelation of the works of B.B. Warfield. Yet Calvin was influenced by medieval views of Scripture and not by modernist ones! I would point out that some doctrines of Scripture from the period could define the Bible's truthfulness without using inerrantesque language at all, e.g. the Anglican 39 Articles (and see the recent GAFCON statement of faith - no reference to inerrancy: alas, orthodoxy without inerrancy is possible!!!). In fact, references to the autographa in particular were fairly spasmodic in the 17th century, but only now have become central. That is one clear difference between the 17th century context and the 19th-20th century context.

3. Why has "infallible" become such a pernicious term now? I know Fuller Seminary uses it and Rogers/McKim tried to redefine it somewhat, so it is guilt by association I suppose. But the word occurs in the WCF and 1689 LBC and I don't see why I should somehow be ashamed of my confessional heritage and be forced to use the word "inerrancy". The word "infallible" was good enough in the 17th century and it's jolly well good enough now. I would say, contra Beale, that J.I. Packer was right, the word "inerrancy" was basically absent prior to the 19th century. Who said Warfield is the standard to which the reformers and reformed scholastics must match up to? Admittedly, much of what is included under the aegis of inerrancy is absorbed under the older term infallible - so why not go back to using the word infallible if its in the reformed confessions?

4. That inerrancy requires rejection of certain genres and means holding very particular views of intertextual hermeneutics. The matter of genre should be settled by genre criticism, not by an appeal to inerrancy (e.g. is Matthew 1-2 midrash). On intertextuality (Beale is very good in noting that NT authors have "varying" levels of interest in the original context of the OT) we need to take a case by case approach and be prepared for some creative applications by NT authors of OT texts that was quite meaningful in its own literary context, but does not square up with modern literary criticism (e.g. Paul's allegory in Galatians 4).

5. I would say, with the Chicago Statement, that Scripture is "true and trustworthy" and that trustworthiness is anchored in the faithfulness of God to his Word.

Augustine on Translation, the Study of Languages, and the LXX

Thanks to Archaic Christianity, I found these interesting quotes from Augustine's On Christian Doctrine book 2 on Bible translation, the importance of study of the biblical languages, and the Septuagint.

6. And hence it happened that even Holy Scripture, which brings a remedy for the terrible diseases of the human will, being at first set forth in one language, by means of which it could at the fit season be disseminated through the whole world, was interpreted into various tongues, and spread far and wide, and thus became known to the nations for their salvation. And in reading it, men seek nothing more than to find out the thought and will of those by whom it was written, and through these to find out the will of God, in accordance with which they believe these men to have spoken.

16. The great remedy for ignorance of proper signs is knowledge of languages. And men who speak the Latin tongue, of whom are those I have undertaken to instruct, need two other languages for the knowledge of Scripture, Hebrew and Greek, that they may have recourse to the original texts if the endless diversity of the Latin translators throw them into doubt. Although, indeed, we often find Hebrew words untranslated in the books as for example, Amen, Halleluia, Racha, Hosanna, and others of the same kind. Some of these, although they could have been translated, have been preserved in their original form on account of the more sacred authority that attaches to it, as for example, Amen and Halleluia. Some of them, again, are said to be untranslatable into another tongue, of which the other two I have mentioned are examples. For in some languages there are words that cannot be translated into the idiom of another language. And this happens chiefly in the case of interjections, which are words that express rather an emotion of the mind than any part of a thought we have in our mind. And the two given above are said to be of this kind, Racha expressing the cry of an angry man, Hosanna that of a joyful man. But the knowledge of these languages is necessary, not for the sake of a few words like these which it is very easy to mark and to ask about, but, as has been said, on account of the diversities among translators. For the translations of the Scriptures from Hebrew into Greek can be counted, but the Latin translators are out of all number. For in the early days of the faith every man who happened to get his hands upon a Greek manuscript, and who thought he had any knowledge, were it ever so little, of the two languages, ventured upon the work of translation.

22. Now among translations themselves the Itala is to be preferred to the others, for it keeps closer to the words without prejudice to clearness of expression. And to correct the Latin we must use the Greek versions, among which the authority of the Septuagint is pre-eminent as far as the Old Testament is concerned; for it is reported through all the more learned churches that the seventy translators enjoyed so much of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in their work of translation, that among that number of men there was but one voice. And if, as is reported, and as many not unworthy of confidence assert,(2) they were separated during the work of translation, each man being in a cell by himself, and yet nothing was found in the manuscript of any one of them that was not found in the same words and in the same order of words in all the rest, who dares put anything in comparison with an authority like this, not to speak of preferring anything to it? And even if they conferred together with the result that a unanimous agreement sprang out of the common labor and judgment of them all; even so, it would not be right or becoming for any one man, whatever his experience, to aspire to correct the unanimous opinion of many venerable and learned men. Wherefore, even if anything is found in the original Hebrew in a different form from that in which these men have expressed it, I think we must give way to the dispensation of Providence which used these men to bring it about, that books which the Jewish race were unwilling, either from religious scruple or from jealousy, to make known to other nations, were, with the assistance of the power of King Ptolemy, made known so long beforehand to the nations which in the future were to believe in the Lord. And thus it is possible that they translated in such a way as the Holy Spirit, who worked in them and had given them all one voice, thought most suitable for the Gentiles. But nevertheless, as I said above, a comparison of those translators also who have kept most closely to the words, is often not without value as a help to the clearing up of the meaning. The Latin texts, therefore, of the Old Testament are, as I was about to say, to be corrected if necessary by the authority of the Greeks, and especially by that of those who, though they were seventy in number, are said to have translated as with one voice. As to the books of the New Testament, again, if any perplexity arises from the diversities of the Latin texts, we must of course yield to the Greek, especially those that are found in the churches of greater learning and research.

Note in this last quote, Augustine asserts the inspiration of the Septuagint as a Bible specifically for the nations. What is more, Augustine's version of the superiority of the Greek texts over the Latin witnesses is the exact opposite of Ambrosiaster.

Roland Boer, the Bible, and Secularism

Over at Religion Compass Exchange, Roland Boer has a post on Books: Stolen Bibles which raises some interesting and provocative points. Let me offer some thoughts in relation to Roland's post (at Roland's invitation!):

1. Roland assumes that the left is correct in their views and values. Now I write this as a social conservative and a proponent of a free market economy with socialist sympathies. I cannot join the radical left and here's why. I believe passionately in civil rights and defending the most defenceless which is precisely why I'll part with my head rather than consent to abortion on demand and euthanasia. I think high levels of government intervention in a free market is better than a communist system against the ownership of private property. Legalized drugs profits only drug dealers and prostitution, legal or illegal, is the most common means of exploiting girls under the age of 17. To give another example, Christian sexual ethics of celibacy in singleness and faithfulness in marriage (despite the fact it's not uniquely Christian and is common in many non-western cultures) is not oppressive but is actually good for individuals and society in my view. Compare that to the sexualizing of children in recent art exhibitions in Australia and I'll chose Benny 16 over Bill Henson any day of the week! I'm not stupid enough to try legislate Christian sexual ethics for people who are not Christians, but I tire of being called a sexophobe because I belong to a tradition that values chastity, purity, and fidelity. (Note, none of these issues are raised by Roland and it's just my rant as to why I'm not a leftie).

2. What Roland calls the extreme religious right seems to refer to those who hold to teachings and beliefs that are centuries old (esp. in regards to sexuality, the uniqueness of Christ, belief in the authority of Scriptures, etc). The problem here is that you can become right wing just by standing still in 2000 years of Christian teaching! Roland also seems glabberghasted by the fact that the Pope is Catholic! If Roland wants to rescue the Bible from those who use it to support the Iraq War, oppress the Palestinians, oppose climate control measures, support American military and economic hegemony, and the right to carry arms and form militias - no objection from me and I'll give you an "amen" - but I think his idea of the religious right also seems to absorb those more moderate Christians who would adhere to what C.S. Lewis called "mere Christianity". Now maybe Roland has teased this out elsewhere, but there is alot of people in between the extremes represented by Liberation Theology on the one hand and those represented by the Rapture Index on the other hand. Most of us evangelical Christians are neither!

3. An alliance between the religious left and secular left? I see no reason why the secular left will ever want to make use of the Bible any more than the Vatican would want to make use of the Humanist Manifesto. Some secular groups (I think of the Greens in Australia) are determined to exterminate the non-religious left from the public landscape. The Australian Greens oppose the existence of Christian private schools and public schools having chaplains. The left wing intelligentsia preaches pluralism and tolerance but does not tolerate anyone who does not accept their view of religious and social pluralism. As for the religious left losing the Bible, well, the problem is not that they lost it, but they abandoned it. In the left-leaning American Episcopal Church their mission is based more on the UN Millennium Goals and Al Gore's home movies than on Scripture. Call the Bible a fractious and multivalent document if ya like, but in ecclesial communities it is a symphonic arrangement of voices that sing about the story of God, God's Word, and God's new world revealed in his Son. Perhaps this is what the religious left needs to learn again rather than taking a course on Marxism 101.

4. The pro-religion secular left (i.e. those who see religion as having a legitimate and helpful place in a secular society) would do better to partner up with moderate conservatives rather than gravitate to the vocal but impotent ultra-religious left and spend their time fighting the ultra-right. Despise the evangelicals if ya like for their opposition to gay marriage and abortion, their claim that Jesus is the only saviour, but take into account their philanthropic exploits. I know of more Christians Doctors who leave their practices and go to Africa and Asia than areligious or atheist Doctors who do the same (now there can be atheist Philanthropists, Bill Hayden comes to mind), but you're more likely to see the Salvation Army on the Streets of Sydney after dark helping the homeless than members of the Australian Humanist Society. As James Crossley and I concluded in our book How Did Christianity Begin? secularists and evangelicals can work together to enhance the human condition. Though we might disagree with what is enhancing (e.g. gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research) there can be agreement on fighting world poverty, HIV-AIDS programs, and promoting religious freedom. If you know of organisations like the International Justice Mission, Tear Fund, or Compassion Australia, then you'll see that the evangelicals have already gone ahead of you.

Four Talks on the Bible

Today I start my preaching series at Dingwall Baptist Church entitled: "The Bible: It's a Big Book, But Still A Cracking Good Read". It has four sessions:

1. How Did We Get the Bible?
2. How is the Bible True?
3. How is the Bible Authoritative?
4. How Do We Interpret the Bible?

My opening illustration includes me impersonating an Independent Baptist KJV-only proponent and then impersonating an ultra-liberal Dan Brownesque conspiracy theorist. I doubt if I'll be invited to give the same sermons at either the TEC Cathedral in Washington or at Tenessee Temple University.