Bart Ehrman claims the reliability of the New Testament is in question because we don't have the original manuscripts. We have "copies of copies of copies" that are untrustworthy because they've been changed so that we can't know what the originals actually said.
It's true we don't have the original manuscripts, but rather copies a few generations down from the originals. But it isn't a sound conclusion from this fact that we can't know what the original said and it would have been better if we did have the "autographs" - the documents the Apostles actually wrote. In fact, it's a good thing we don't have the originals and we can have more confidence in determining the accuracy of the text without them because of the many copies we have. Greg explains here in "God Doesn't Give Autographs."
The fact that we have multiple copies rather than just one original is far greater help to determine later additions and changes. The many thousands of copies we have to compare is more help than one original that may have been tampered with and we'd never be able to tell. That the many copies we have helps us to see that Mark 16 was a later addition doesn't call into question the entire New Testament, it actually gives us confidence that we can distinguish these later changes from the similarity and agreement of the vast majority of manuscripts that we have. We wouldn't be able to do that if all we had was the original.
As usual, Ehrman is accurate on the facts - as far as he reports them - but doesn't report all the facts and draws bad conclusions from them.
And, of course, I meant "your assessment"
Posted by: WisdomLover | September 02, 2010 at 07:15 AM
Hi Wisdom Lover,
As I said elsewhere, I really enjoy your posts.
===
Arnauld,
! Corinthians 7:12 does not say what you think it does. Paul writes as an inspired teacher and Disciple of Christ. Here he is merely contrasting two thoughts, the first of which Jesus Christ taught on earth and which had been written down and communicated among the brethren already. In the second he is giving further inspired advice: but advice which was not spoken directly by Jesus during His ministry.
Does Paul mean to deny inspiration when he separates his voice from the known teaching of the Lord Jesus? If you keep reading it seems not:
""""
1 Corinthians 25L
Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.""
...
40 I think that I too have the Spirit of God.
"""""
-----
Hi Eric,
Reasonable and decent people of all beliefs read a man's words for their actual meaning before calling down condemnation.
Posted by: Daron | September 02, 2010 at 07:42 AM
Ok now I'm curious. Let's all just suppose, HYPOTHETICALLY, that Psalm 137 really does pronounce a blessing on those who dash Babylonian Babies against rocks (rather than merely describe some good things that will end up happening to those who do so). If you were convinced that that is what is going on in Psalm 137, then it seems you are faced with two choices: A.) deny that the blessing is God's blessing; i.e. claim that this is a part of scripture in which the intention of the human author is not identical with God's own intention. Note that this option does not require saying that God made a mistake in including Psalm 137 in the Bible; only that God does not endorse what the human author endorses. B.) Insist that, since all of scripture is inspired, Psalm 137 really does pronounce a blessing FROM God on infanticide of a certain highly specified sort. We might not feel comfortable with that, but our hearts are deceitful above all things and we cannot trust our own moral intuitions.
So my question is which of (A) or (B) you would take, were you to be convinced that Malebranche's reading of Psalm 137 is the correct one.
Posted by: Arnauld | September 02, 2010 at 07:58 AM
Hi Arnauld,
God raised up and blessed sinful nations in judgment against other nations throughout the OT and especially in the Prophets. But He still condemned their sinful actions and held them responsible.
Posted by: Daron | September 02, 2010 at 08:13 AM
Daron and WisdomLover,
When Truth Warrior says:
It seems clear to me that he/she (I will stick with "he" for simplicity, unless corrected) actually means that if the verse does endorse this practice, then he, Truth Warrior, will accept the practice as good on the basis of the authority of the author. Perhaps you can tell me what other reasonable interpretation there is of his actual meaning.
Truth Warrior can please clarify if I have misrepresented his view. I take his comments to mean that if the author of the psalm is saying that it is a good thing for the little ones to be dashed upon the rocks, then Truth Warrior will not question that judgement. In other words, Truth Warrior is prepared to accept, on the basis of this text, that it is a good thing to smash babies on rocks. Even if he is personally disinclined to think this is a good thing, he is prepared to set his own personal judgement aside and accept the judgement of the author of the psalm.
This would be a good place for Truth Warrior to clarify, and to clearly state that his opinion is that it is not good to smash babies' heads on rocks even if the author of the psalm is saying that it is good. If this occurs, I will gladly retract, and apologize for, my earlier statements.
If Truth Warrior is not willing to so clarify, then I think my earlier statements stand. This attitude is dangerous. Those of you who have questioned my assessment know it is dangerous, which is why you think I may be misinterpreting his comments. I hope you are equally ready to condemn him and the line of reasoning that leads to his position if he does not clearly reject my interpretation of his view.
Posted by: eric | September 02, 2010 at 08:40 AM
Hi Eric,
You aren't representing what seemed "clear" to you very accurately.
You have called upon us to condemn Truth Warrior. You have called him immoral and dangerous. You have implied he is insensible and indecent.
But you don't know what he is talking about.
If God blessed the Mede-Persian empire because they dashed the Babylonian babies against the rocks then all this says is that in this place and time, in this situation, this was worthy of blessing. It does not say that anyone else can do it to any other babies at any other time and also receive a blessing.
It is just this kind of bad reading and impugning of character without knowing the context or knowing the Bible that makes skeptics look bad.
Posted by: Daron | September 02, 2010 at 09:11 AM
Daron,
It sounds like you are a moral relativist. Dashing babies against rocks is morally praiseworthy (or at least divine-blessing-worthy) for some people at some times, but not for other people at other times.
Posted by: Arnauld | September 02, 2010 at 10:28 AM
Hi Arnauld,
Really?
Posted by: Daron | September 02, 2010 at 11:08 AM
Daron,
If you were to interpret a passage in the Bible to say that it is a good thing today, at this particular time, in this particular place, under these particular circumstances, to kill the babies of your enemies, would you support and advocate killing babies? As I interpret Truth Warriors comments, his answer would be "yes", although it is possible that will clarify this for us.
It seems to me that this attitude is dangerous. People who think it would be okay to smash babies on rocks if a particular authority tells them to are just one step away from committing this crime. That one step is them coming to believe that the authority says they should do it. Someone who abdicates their ability to overrule such a judgment becomes a danger to those around them.
I can understand those Christians who say passages such as this are not the Word of God. I can understand those Christians who interpret such passages as not really saying what they at first appear to say. I cannot understand those Christians who take such passages at their plain meaning, and say that they are the Word of God, and still attempt to justify them as good. I see this last as indicating either posturing, evil, or pitiful fear.
Posted by: eric | September 02, 2010 at 11:10 AM
Hi Eric,
You've got too many hypotheticals in there for me.
If I thought that the Bible were advocating evil then I wouldn't be a Christian.
But I have many good reasons to be a Christian and to think the Bible is the inspired Word of God. So when something in the Bible offends my moral sensibilities I know enough to understand that there is something in the passage that I don't understand, some flaw in my perception, or a small mystery among thousands of plain things that I have to shelve.
But anyone who pretends that they could never think of a morally justifiable reason to smash babies against rocks is posturing - I'm sure if you try, instead of posturing in moral outrage, you could start a list for me.
"would you support and advocate killing babies?"
I know of an entire generation doing this to the tune of a million of deaths a year because of a Supreme Court decision.
Posted by: Daron | September 02, 2010 at 11:30 AM
WisdomLover,
WisdomLover,
Awesome. Now we’re getting to the good stuff.
So, we’re both starting by granting the premise that all Scripture is inspired by God. Before I get to your remarks, however, I’ll propose an alternative theory of inspiration and see how your remarks relate to it. I’ll call this the Appropriation Model of Divine Inspiration.
In order to explain this theory, consider the following story:
That’s the story. But if you slow down and think about it, it’s a pretty interesting phenomenon. Consider, for instance, what is being asserted by the sentence “Thy countenance is to me my fortune.” Well, by means of this sentence the original human author asserted that the good pleasure of the goddess brought him good fortune in war. Also, by means of this same sentence, I am saying something romantic to my wife and am saying nothing at all about goddesses. I manage to do this even though I did not write this sentence and even though I disagree with what the original human author affirmed by means of this sentence. After all, there are no goddesses.
Despite the fact that the poem was written by someone other than myself who by means of this poem affirmed things about goddesses, the poem still counts as my word to my wife. That is because I appropriated it. By means of giving it to her on our anniversary in the collection I arranged, I appropriate the words of other humans with which I disagree in order to communicate my own message with which I do agree. The fact that the original author used this poem to affirm things with which I disagree in no way detracts from the fact that that very poem in my collection given to my wife counts as my word to her.
You can probably see how this will go in the divine case. God, by means of Jesus of Nazareth founding a Church which canonized Scripture, collects various writings into a single book and offers that book to his people. In other words, just as I appropriated the poem to communicate to my wife, so God appropriates Song of Songs in the single book of Christian Scripture to communicate to his Church. God had already revealed himself in the Incarnation prior to this appropriation, and so that puts the act of God giving the Church the Scripture into its appropriate context. All of Scripture, in other words, ought to be read in light of Christ. For example, though the original human author of Song of Songs was not affirming things about God and the Church, God, by appropriating Song of Songs and placing that book in the collection he gives to the Church, may actually have only been affirming things about himself and the Church. It might be the case, therefore, that God’s word in Song of Songs is not to be found in the original human author’s affirmations at all (just as my word to my wife is not to be found in the original human author’s affirmations in the poem). If asked whether or not Song of Songs is the word of God, the answer will be, “Of course it is.” But if asked, “Well then was God telling some bride long ago that her lips drop sweetness as the honeycomb’ (3:11),” the answer will probably be, “No, God was not giving anyone such compliments, even though the original human author may have been by means of the poem of Song of Songs.”
There is no reason in principle, furthermore, why God would have to agree with everything the original human authors were affirming by means of the passages God appropriates. The human author of Psalm 137 very well may have been saying that those who dash Babylonians infants against rocks are blessed in virtue of doing that. God, of course, does not agree with that. But that in no way detracts from the fact that Psalm 137 is God’s Word. It is just that God’s message to the Church by means of Psalm 137 (read in light of Jesus of Nazareth, as all Scripture ought to be read) is different and perhaps at times not consistent with the original human author’s message.
That’s how I think about Scripture. I therefore think that all Scripture is inspired, that all Scripture is the Word of God, but nevertheless God may disagree with the original human authorial affirmations in Scripture. It does not obviously follow from the fact that Psalm 137 is the Word of God, therefore, that God thinks that the nation that bashed Babylonian infants against rocks is blessed. If my theory of inspiration is true, then it would not follow at all. God may think just the opposite. Nevertheless, Psalm 137 is the Word of God. And the fact that God uses Psalm 137 or Song of Songs to communicate a message that may even be inconsistent with the original human message in no way makes him a deceiver. That objection is similar to my wife complaining that I am being deceptive to her by speaking my word to her through poems that contain passages originally addressed to goddesses when I do not believe in goddesses.
Posted by: Malebranche | September 02, 2010 at 11:31 AM
Eric,
And a plain reading of Scripture entails first the most important part of that sentence; that one actually reads the Scripture. As Greg repeatedly admonishes, don't read a Bible verse. You don't get to claim other people's promises nor do you get to claim their blessings.
Posted by: Daron | September 02, 2010 at 11:38 AM
Daron,
I'm glad that's your position. But then you go on to explain how you have insulated yourself from ever reaching this conclusion. Even if the Bible contained clear evidence disconfirming your view, you would not change your view because there may be some mysterious explanation that you just haven't thought of.
I see plenty of cases of the Bible advocating evil, sometimes very clearly attributed to God. The difference is that I am not so motivated to search for nuanced rationalizations to salvage a minimally plausible interpretation by which God escapes being a monster.
Is there a difference between there being a morally justifiable reason for doing something and the thing being a good thing to do? Do you think that entire generation is to be blessed by virtue of this? 1.I always look at the context. If you think there is context that alters the meanings, you can provide it. That should be some proximate context, as opposed to the "broad narrative scope", which is too vague of an idea to help us interpret individual passages. When Greg says "never read a Bible verse", he usually goes on to say you often need to read a paragraph or more, sometimes a whole chapter -- not the entire OT, or even an entire book.2. There is nothing in this particular Psalm, or in all of Psalms, or in all of the OT, that provides a context in which it is a good thing to dash the little ones upon the rocks. You can only make this be good if you say God wanted it to happen and you define "good" as "things that God likes". If you do that, then you cannot apply "good" as an attribute of God, because it would be a simple tautology conveying no information.
The "little ones" are innocent, right? They are being killed to punish their parents and their community, right? Is this good in your view? Is killing innocent children a just punishment for the parents under any circumstances? Please provide some examples for which you think the proper punishment for someone would be to kill that person's child.
Posted by: eric | September 02, 2010 at 12:46 PM
Malebranche-
I'm not sure what to say about your Appropriation Model. It seems to me possible that God inspires Scripture in a lot of different ways. My main commitment is simply that the autograph never comes as a surprise to God, and only He has any rational control over the words of the autograph. That, I believe, leads us from inspiration to inerrancy (assuming that God is no deceiver). As an inerrantist, I'm committed to the idea that Scripture is inerrant, not the human authors. I think I suggested in one of my earlier posts that it seems possible that God endorses something in Scripture that the human author isn't even aware of.
It seems certain in fact. For example, I think that when you look at all of Scripture, the seven claims that comprise the doctrine of the Trinity are implied. But I would not be surprised to find that at least some of the human authors had no notion of the Trinity (I don't think any of them would deny the doctrine, but some might not be sufficiently aware of it to either affirm or deny the doctrine). The same goes in spades for the incarnation. The OT authors, at least, had no idea that Jesus is the Incarnate Word, even if they believed that there would be an Incarnate Word.
With that said, I'm not sure how these ruminations would help with Psalm 137 or other alleged errors. I don't think that your hypothesis about inspiration will provide a sliver bullet to kill them all. Nor will it provide a means to be able to accept the errors. God would still be wholly responsible for them. So I think you still have to address them one by one.
BTW, I agree with Daron about I Corinthians. As for Stephen in Acts, that's reported discourse. Stephen made some mistakes in his speech about Abraham and his close kin. Acts reports Stephen's speech accurately, including Stephen's mistakes.
Posted by: WisdomLover | September 02, 2010 at 12:49 PM
Malebranche-
Wow. That's a very interesting way to think about inspiration. Your analogy with the love letter to your wife makes it very clear.
WisdonLover -
You say that one of your main commitments is that "only [God] has any rational control over the words of the autograph." You've also said earlier that you hold to no theory of how inspiration works, and more particularly that you are not committed to a verbal plenary theory. However, this commitment surely implies that the human writers of scripture had no rational control over their words. Does this not imply that they were used merely as tools in the hand of God (i.e. verbal plenary inspiration)?
I suppose I entered this with the same basic commitments as WisdomLover, but I'm no longer so sure about them. What possible reason might one have to insist that only God had rational control over each word of scripture? I think Malebranche has given some very strong reasons against thinking that this commitment can be justified from scripture alone. What else justifies it? I suppose you might argue that you just "see it by the light of reason" but if I'm to be entirely honest I couldn't follow you there. It isn't just obviously true the way that "all bachelors are unmarried" is. Alternatively, you might claim that you just see it by the light of the Holy Spirit; that God just convicts you of its truth. I'd be much more sympathetic with that answer but, again, if I am to be entirely honest, the voice of the Holy Spirit in my own life is not so luminous that it is impossible to mistake it for my own preferences and presuppositions. Furthermore, the few things that I could say with confidence that the Holy Spirit has convicted me of are all very down-to-earth, immediately practical things ("you need to go apologize to your wife right now," "stop concerning yourself about what will happen in the future - I will always love you and care provide for you"). I cannot honestly claim that the Holy Spirit tells me something so theoretical and contentious as that only God had rational control over every word of scripture.
I guess I've been struggling with the dilemma of (A) rejecting the divine inspiration of every part of scripture (Psalm 137 included); and (B) admitting that smashing the head of a living, crying, innocent baby against a rock repeatedly until it stops moving is "blessed" in some circumstances.
Malebranche seems to offer a way to avoid the dilemma altogether.
Posted by: Arnauld | September 02, 2010 at 01:58 PM
"That objection is similar to my wife complaining that I am being deceptive to her by speaking my word to her through poems that contain passages originally addressed to goddesses when I do not believe in goddesses."
The principal question seems to not be about whether you've recycled words used at one time for one purpose to say something different at a different time. It's about whether you uttered the truth. We're talking about a case where, for example, you use a passage (wherever it came from) to describe your wife that says her lips are like pomegranates, when you actually think that they're like old tortoise shells.
One subtlety I missed on my first read that might be important: Are you suggesting that the psalmist is in the position of the pagan writer, writing about the companion. Are you saying, in essence, that the psalmist was not inspired, but that his words later became inspired?
Posted by: WisdomLover | September 02, 2010 at 02:04 PM
WisdomLover,
Initially our dispute concerned whether or not the following proposition is true:
Disputed Proposition: Every proposition affirmed in Scripture by the human authors of Scripture is also endorsed by God.
I do not believe this is true (I even think it’s false). I was under the impression that you believed it is true.
I asked you, “Why do you believe the Disputed Proposition?” You reply, “Because all of Scripture is inspired by God.” I replied, “I agree, but divine inspiration does not entail the Disputed Proposition.” I gave the Appropriation Model of Divine Inspiration in order to explain how exactly the entailment relation fails to hold. I can, without being a deceiver, appropriate a poem in order to speak my own word to my wife addressed originally to a pagan goddess even though I believe there are no goddesses. Similarly, God can appropriate passages in the Old Testament to teach us about Christ without thereby affirming everything affirmed by the human authors of those very passages.
If this model is correct, then one cannot get from “Such and such is the Word of God” to “God affirms what the human author of this passage affirms in this passage.”
“But,” you protest, “God must be in complete control of the words that went into the books of the Bible. Fine. Give him all the control you please. Make it such that God, from the first moment of the universe, arranged things so that these human authors would pen these exact words. It still does not follow, on my model, that God thereby endorses everything they endorsed in those passages. In other words, God’s Sovereignty will not get you the Disputed Proposition on my model of inspiration. That is just a non-sequitur. God could foreordain that a pagan write a poem to a goddess and also later appropriate that poem to express God’s Word to the Church.
I still fail to see why the doctrine of divine inspiration entails the Disputed Proposition. I believe that all Scripture is inspired by God, but my theory of inspiration does not permit me to deduce the Disputed Proposition. So, until I see that my theory of inspiration is false, I will deny the entailment relation you are claiming to see.
Also, I think it will do no good to protest, “But if you’re theory of inspiration is true, it becomes much harder to figure out what God is saying in Scripture.” So be it. It really is difficult to figure it out in many passages. That is why relying strongly first and foremost on the revelation in Jesus of Nazareth is indispensable to reading Scripture properly.
Posted by: Malebranche | September 02, 2010 at 02:06 PM
WisdomLover,
You ask if I'm suggesting the Psalmist was not originally inspired. Well I don't know how to answer that directly, so I'll say what I can and hope it helps.
First, on my view of inspiration, if I found out Psalm 137 was written by monkeys throwing strings of words together, I would still believe that Psalm 137 is the word of God, since it has still been appropriated by God to speak God's Word to the Church. The causal origin of the text is irrelevant. It is the divine appropriation through Christ and his Church that matters.
Second, I see no reason at all to suppose that the human author of Psalm 137 was under the influence of anything miraculous.
Finally, as is clear by now, I see no reason at all to believe that God (miraculously or non-miraculously) preserved the psalmist from affirming falsehoods in Psalm 137. Whether he did or not, Psalm 137 is still the Word of God in which God speaks to the Church only what is true.
Posted by: Malebranche | September 02, 2010 at 02:17 PM
"Disputed Proposition: Every proposition affirmed in Scripture by the human authors of Scripture is also endorsed by God."
This isn't quite the proposition I'm defending. I'm defending this one instead:
"Every proposition expressed in the original autographs of Scripture is endorsed by God"
I think what I've said so far has been based on this claim. No doubt I have not expressed it as clearly as I could have or should have. So I apologize for that confusion.
As I've said almost from the start, the authors might not even know that the words that they are writing expresses a proposition, let alone one that they (and God) endorse.
So, to some extent, we may have been talking past each other all this time.
Regarding the proposition I have been defending, it seems to me that your model of inspiration is idle. As long as it's all inspired, all the propositions it expresses are endorsed by God (because god, and God alone, controls what propositions are expressed in the autographs).
Posted by: WisdomLover | September 02, 2010 at 02:50 PM
WisdomLover,
Autographs do not, all by the themselves, express propositions. Rather, persons, by means of autographs, express propositions. So, I think you've now slipped back perilously close to that sloppy locution according to which "Scripture says..." when strictly speaking persons speak by means of Scripture.
So, if you tell me, "Every proposition expressed in Scripture is endorsed by God" I will return with, "Every proposition expressed BY WHOM by means of Scripture is also endorsed by God?"
Are you telling me that every proposition affirmed by God in Scripture is affirmed by God? That is obvious.
Are you telling me that every proposition affirmed by the human authors of Scripture by means of (portions of) Scripture is also affirmed by God? Then I ask again, "Why do you believe that is true" and return to my theory of inspiration in order to undermine the link between inspiration and the Disputed Proposition.
Posted by: Malebranche | September 02, 2010 at 03:00 PM
WisdomLover,
Perhaps we've occasionally spoken past each other, but I believe there is a substantive disagreement between us, not merely a misunderstanding. For instance, I affirm all of the following:
(1) Psalm 137 is, in its entirety, the Word of God.
(2) Psalm 137 is, in its entirety, inspired by God.
(3) God, by means of Psalm 137, speaks (and endorses) truth and only truth to his Church.
(4) Despite the fact that all of (1) through (3) are true, the human author of Psalm 137 may have affirmed by means of Psalm 137 the false proposition that the man who commits infanticide against the Babylonians is blessed for doing that.
(5) God, but not the human author of Psalm 137, believes it is false that the man who commits infanticide against the Babylonians is blessed for doing that.
I suspect that you think (or at least used to think) that affirming all of (1) through (5) borders on a contradiction. But given my Appropriation Model of Divine Inspiration, one can rationally believe all of (1) through (5) without the slightest hint of inconsistency.
Posted by: Malebranche | September 02, 2010 at 03:10 PM
Hi Eric,
That is not what I went on to do. I cannot reach this conclusion because I have read the Bible maybe as much a dozen times and I do not find it advocates evil. Instead, what Scripture tells us is that God is Goodness itself, that He can do no wrong and that He is completely faithful and just. Knowing this, and seeing its evidence in the Bible, my life, and history, I accept the truth that God does not teach us to evil.
How could the Bible suddenly come to disconfirm the very view it has instilled in me year after year?
If it plainly disconfirmed my view I would not have this view. Of course there might be some mysterious explanation. We are human and we don't get all the answers at once. You have claimed to be a great fan of science and a man of evidence. Do you understand that there are many mysteries in this universe? There are many mysteries that we describe and name as though we know the answers. And there are some things in nature that just seem to be plain contradictions, but we trust that somehow they aren't because it defies logic that nature could somehow be in contradiction of itself. And many of you trust that the answer is just around the corner. We all have to deal with mysteries and it doesn't mean we are insulating ourselves from proper and right conclusions when we admit such.
Neither am I. I tend to read the entire Bible and let it interpret itself. You could try it if you are going to claim Biblical knowledge and the rights of a skeptic.
This question doesn't make any sense to me. Obviously, the morally justified thing is the good thing. Is that not what morality means?
Many tell me that they are. Why, people are happier, wealthier, they have free choice, they don't interfere with their careers or education, etc., etc. Yes, there are blessings associated with advocating for the killing of babies that the community doing this attributes directly to the action.
I already have. The context is not just that found in this particular song, but the context is the times that it was written and sung in, the situation it referred to and the clear teaching of the entire Bible.No, you have to use the whole story of God to interpret individual passages. When Jesus rose from the dead He walked and spoke with the disciples on the road to Emmaus and opened the entire Scripture to them as seen with Him as the subject.
That is never enough and Greg would tell you so. You have to know the intent of the author and the milieu in which he is writing. You have to read enough to know what is being said, regardless of how many paragraphs that takes.
There absolutely is. You just choose to see with blinkers so that you can affect a black and white stance for this issue and save your understanding and nuance for your own preferred subjects.
I'm not going to have the entire grounding argument just now but you are simply wrong to pretend you know the only way this can be called good. I suggested you start making your own list. If you are an honest thinker you have about half a dozen reasons this could be good.At the level of your discussion, yes, let's presume so.
No. The language is that of the annihilation of the empire.
If I were claiming this I might cast about for some examples. I might point you back to the societies I showed to RonH where it is viewed as the good and just thing. But that's not necessary here, nor is it necessary to show that without God the relativity that ensues makes it so that whatever these societies see as good is, in fact, good.
Everyone dies, you realize. And you know that Christians who are aware of this still think God is good. And you know that even though Christians view death as an unnatural aberration we know that death is a good, in the grand scheme of God's plan of redemption. So it does no good to argue that this person or that person dies and then act as though that is an attack on God's goodness. Everyone is going to die. If you believe that fact makes God a monster then no argument is going to help you. If you think that it does not make Him a monster then the very fact that death occurs does not change that. So the question is still only whether or not the Psalm teaches us we should dash children against the rocks. If you read the Bible, what God says about children, and how Jesus interacted with them, then the answer is obviously that the Psalm does not teach this. Even though it was part of God's good plan in this situation and it made the perpetrators happy.
Posted by: Daron | September 02, 2010 at 03:23 PM
I don't know if this touches upon the rest of the discussion, but to me clearly there are propositions expressed in Scripture which are not endorsed by God. Simon the Sorcerer thought he could buy the power of the Spirit, the prophets in Jeremiah's time cried "peace, peace", Job's friends expound fallaciously about the problem of evil, and even the learned author speaks many falsities but describes them as following from a worldly world view.
Posted by: Daron | September 02, 2010 at 03:40 PM
One more thing worth thinking about: Malebranche says something about God's purpose for scripture being to show Christ to us, the way that the purpose of his letter in his example is to show his wife how much he thinks of her. Maybe this gives us a principled way to make the sort of distinctions I was worried about earlier. I worried that, once you allow for a division between what the writer of Psalm 137 intends to express with his words and what God intends to express with the same words, your only principle for determining what belongs to God and what belongs merely to the human authors is your own desires and preferences. But if Zadok is right, then maybe we can mitigate this worry somewhat. Another principle we can appeal to is the centrality of Christ. If God's goal for us, in giving us scripture, is to reveal Christ, then this gives us something to look for in the whole of scripture. I'm still absorbing this stuff, and trying to hold at bay my gut reaction to simply oppose new suggestions. I think Malebranche is on to something important.
Posted by: Arnauld | September 02, 2010 at 07:36 PM
Arnauld,
I certainly agree that the reason all Scripture is inspired is because it presents Christ to us. As J.N.D. Kelly writes in his celebrated Early Christian Doctrines, “For the Church as a whole it [the Old Testament] was a Christian book which spoke of the Saviour on every page.” Even portions of the Old Testament that initially seem to have nothing to do with Christ on closer inspection reveal Jesus of Nazareth to us. Consider, for instance, the following remark by Paul:
Here we see Paul reading this passage as though it teaches us about baptism and Christ. Elsewhere (in Galatians) Paul argues that Sarah and Hagar, representing the covenant from the Jerusalem above and the covenant from Mt. Sinai respectively. So, I am in good company in advocating that we read all of Scripture, even the mundane portions of the Old Testament, in order to encounter Jesus Christ.
I’m also glad to see that you’ve noticed a third way between the extreme of endorsing everything the human authors of Scripture endorse or rejecting the divine inspiration of Scripture. Too often people fail to see that this is a false dichotomy, so I hope the Appropriation Model I discussed helps people see that. I’ll use just one more example from the Psalms to illustrate the Appropriation Model. Consider the following passage:
Now almost every inerrantist will insist that the Psalmist was not asserting here that the earth does not move. Instead, they think that the psalmist was merely speaking from a phenomenological perspective.
But have you ever wondered how these inerrantists know that? After all, it was not unusual back then for folks to think that the earth stood still. Many even thought that the earth was surrounded by a dome called the ‘firmament’ to which the stars were attached. I am not denying that the inerrantist reading of this passage is possible. I am not even denying that their reading is correct. But I do find it odd how confident they are that the psalmist was not affirming in this Psalm that the earth stood still. For all they know the psalmist was affirming exactly this. What evidence could they have that he wasn’t? The only reason they deny this is in order to protect their dogmas. Their only evidence for their interpretation is their doctrine of plenary verbal inerrancy, the very thing now at issue.
My view of inspiration, however, requires no such maneuver. Suppose, as very well may be the case, that the psalmist, in Psalm 93, intended to assert that the earth does not move. It does not follow, however, that this is what God is speaking to the Church by appropriating this passage. God has appropriated this text in order to tell his Church that he is the foundation of order and stability, unlike the chaotic seas that toss to and fro. The sentence “The world is firmly established; it cannot be move,” when appropriated by God in order to speak to his Church, does not communicate the message, “The earth stands still,” even though that may be what the original human author affirmed by means of this passage. And again, on my view of inspiration Psalm 93 is the Word of God in which God speaks only truth to his Church.
The situation for the inerrantist, I think, is not good, for the following reasons:
(A)It does not follow from the fact that God speaks both truthfully and uniquely in Scripture that everything affirmed by the human authors of Scripture in Scripture is affirmed by God (as the Appropriation Model shows).
(B) It does not follow from the fact that all Scripture is the inspired Word of God that everything affirmed by the human authors of Scripture in Scripture is affirmed by God (as the Appropriation Model shows).
(C) It does not follow from the complete veracity of God in Scripture or the complete inspiration of Scripture by God that everything the human authors of Scripture affirm in Scripture is true.
(D) When we actually read Scripture to see whether everything affirmed by the human authors of Scripture in Scripture is true, it does not appear to be the case, and sometimes appears to not be the case.
In my opinion, (A) through (C) undermine all a priori arguments from the veracity of God and the inspiration of Scripture to the claim that everything the human authors of Scripture affirm in Scripture is true. Furthermore, (D) undermines a posteriori argument based on examining Scripture itself for that conclusion. When those two pillars crumble, one wonders what is left that so strongly supports plenary verbal inerrancy.
Posted by: Malebranche | September 03, 2010 at 06:24 AM
Thanks, Malebranche - that helps. Let me ask you this, though: you said earlier that the words of scripture could have been randomly typed out by monkeys on typewriters, and it wouldn't affect your commitment to the doctrine of divine inspiration. I can't help but think of this as a strength of your theory. It is kind of weird, however. Consider your analogy again - when you collect together the materials for your love letter, you are very intentional about what you select for inclusion and what you reject. If you come across an ancient poem comparing the goddess to a serving wench, you won't include that one in your letter. Similarly, then, would you say that the hand of God is active in the collection of the scriptural texts, even if not in the actual writing of the words? One of the worries I initially had is that it seems that God could have appropriated just any collection of writings and used it as his message to the Church. He went with the Hebrew tradition, but He could have just as easily taken the Epic of Gilgamesh and other Sumerian writings. But that isn't right, is it? Not just anything, after all, will present Christ to the Church in the right way, just as not just any ancient goddess poem will express your real feelings toward your wife (on her better days at least ;) )
What I am getting at is that it is more than merely accidental that God appropriated the writings He did, is it not? He appropriated the ones He did because they are most apt to present Christ. But if that is right, then we should ask WHY they are the most fitting writings for divine appropriation. Why did God appropriate only the writings that He did, and not others? Here's one answer: because He had a hand in producing them in the first place. I'm not suggesting wedding your account to a plenary verbal theory, but I don't see why it couldn't be wedded to some robust theory of the divine inspiration of the writers of scripture rather than just the end product. Maybe God really was active in the life of the psalmists, for example, in a way that He was not active in the life of, for example, the Egyptian poets. It is in virtue of that activity in their lives that they wrote what they did, and also in virtue of that activity that God appropriated their writings rather than those of the Egyptians.
Posted by: Arnauld | September 03, 2010 at 07:07 AM
WisdomLvoer,
Hope you let us know what you think about what has been said thus far.
Arnauld,
Well those are the tough questions. What should I say?
First, it is entirely consistent with the Appropriation Model to believe that God providentially arranged (either miraculously or non-miraculously) that these texts (and not those) should contain exactly these words (and not those). It is important to see, however, that the following are consistent:
(I) God providentially guaranteed (somehow or other) that the human authors of Scripture would pen exactly the words that they penned, in order that God may speak to the Church with exactly the words he wants to speak to them by means of.
(II) By means of the words of Scripture, the human authors affirm propositions that are not affirmed by God.
It is crucially important to see that the truth of (I) does not entail that (II) is false. One can rationally and consistently believe both (I) and (II).
Second, I think that we should avoid the view that the human authors are not genuine authors who are not genuinely speaking in Scripture. The proper view, in my opinion, is that in Scripture we have both the human voices and the divine voice.
Now, why did God not include Gilgamesh in his canon? Well, the first thing to point out is that this is not a question I have a unique obligation to answer. Inerrantists also must deal with the fact that some books were not used by God to speak to the Church. If asked, “Why wasn’t this book so used?” they will reply, “Because God did not choose to inspire those books.” But I could just as easily respond with, “Because God chose not to appropriate those texts.” That isn’t a very illuminating answer, though.
The second thing I would like to say, therefore, is that it is not a cost of my view to not know why God included Psalm 109 but not some unknown poem written by an unknown pious ancient Israelite. I doubt very seriously that anyone will know the answer to that question in any amount of detail, inerrantists included. There was a lot more that God could have included in Scripture without adding any errors to it. Why did he choose to omit these texts? Not sure.
Finally, you say that God may have appropriated the texts that he did because they were the most apt for presenting Christ. One wonders, however, how apt Psalm 109 is for that task. On this point, I’m not so sure. For all I know God has chosen some passages that are not apt of themselves to present Christ to the Church, but which nonetheless accomplish this task by virtue of God’s redeeming omnipotent resolve to speak Christ through these texts anyway.
Posted by: Malebranche | September 03, 2010 at 08:57 AM
Wow! A lot happened while I was sleeping. I don't think I'll be able to catch up with all of it. For now, let me deal with the two objections to claims that I've made that I think are the most telling.
Malebranche's Objection
I'm tempted to say, just as a goof, "Of course I mean propositions expressed BY GOD, and at least what I am saying is obvious."But there is more to say. My claim has the non-tautological consequence that there are no propositions expressed in Scripture that are not also endorsed by God. This is contrary to the idea of the Scriptures merely containing God's Word. Let's call the set of all propositions expressed in Scripture, S, and let's call the set of all propositions endorsed by God, G. My view is that S minus G is empty. The view I've been arguing against (which at some point I thought was yours) is that S minus G is non-empty.
My view also has the non-tautological consequence that God actually believes all the propositions expressed in Scripture.
Now, you seem to be staking a lot on the question of who does the expressing of the propositions. Let's make this issue more clear. Who does the expressing of propositions through the sentences of Scripture? I'm only interested in the propositions that God is expressing through the sentences of Scripture. (As I've been at pains to say, the human authors of Scripture might not even understand the propositions God is expressing through their words.) When I say, for example, that Scripture is inerrant, I mean that the propositions that God expresses through the sentences of Scripture are all true. When I say that Scripture doesn't just contain God's word, but is entirely God's Word, I mean that there is no sentence with propositional content in Scripture that is not also a sentence whereby God expresses a proposition which He believes.
Now notice that, in the end, all that any of us have are the sentences. We have to read those sentences and understand what propositions they express in order to figure out what God is saying to us. This makes Biblical interpretation a very important activity. It is also a very difficult activity. But insofar as God is not a deceiver, we can at least rule out secret and hidden meanings. We should look first for the plainest possible reading of any text. If that reading is coherent, that's what we should assume the meaning to be.
Let's turn to Psalm 137. Notice that the plainest reading of the text is merely that God will bless the nation that defeats the Babylonians. And that that nation would do to the Babylonians what the Babylonians did to the Israelites (namely, dash their infants against the rocks). Perhaps you are right, perhaps the Psalmist did harbor feelings of revenge and actually desired that this sin be committed against the Babylonian children. Perhaps the psalmist even thought he was expressing this desire through what he wrote. But that's really reading between the lines. God inspired the psalmist in such a way that, when you take the plainest reading of the text, the psalmist did not write this.
I'd go on a bit about what I mean by the "plainest reading", but this post is already too long. Perhaps we'll get to it in follow-ups or perhaps it will come out in another thread. In brief, I'm looking for the coherent reading that involves the least reading between the lines. Of course, you take literary forms, metaphor and so on into account. I'm not talking about a dumb literalism. It seems to me that a non-deceiving God who is trying to speak to people throughout the ages would speak in this plain way, even if it is sometimes awkward.
Arnauld's Objection
Now let me turn to Arnauld's point about my commitment to the idea that only God has rational control over the words in the autographs. You, Arnauld, did not see how this was different from a commitment to verbal plenary inspiration. I don't blame you for not being able to see the difference, I do not think I expressed my point well (at least on that occasion).
What I meant by "rational control over the autographs" was "rational control over the quality of the autographs". I did not mean to say that only God had rational control over the exact words (though, of course, He foreknew exactly what those words would be). Only God can control how well the autographs express the propositional content He wants to get across.
It does not follow from this that God is dictating the words, or even that God determined the exact words. For example, if you have a theory of inspiration such that God inspired Samuel so that Samuel wrote "Jonathan was loved by David", but that the same inspiration might have resulted in Samuel's writing "David loved Jonathan", then I don't think you've got a verbal plenary view. But my argument does not have a problem with your view. My argument is not committed to the idea that that cannot be the way God inspired Samuel. The only kinds of view that my argument rules out are those where the same inspiration could result in "David was indifferent to Jonathan" or "David could barely tolerate Jonathan" or "David's dog was named Jonathan" or...
Posted by: WisdomLover | September 03, 2010 at 09:46 AM
WisdomLover,
I still fail to see how exactly your argument goes. You want to say that every proposition endorsed by the human authors of Scripture in Scripture is also endorsed by God. I’ll continue to refer to this as the Disputed Proposition. But that, of course, does not follow from the trivially obvious fact that every proposition endorsed by God in Scripture is endorsed by God in Scripture. You say
I haven’t the faintest idea what claim you are referring to which has this consequence. The tautology that everything endorsed by God in Scripture is endorsed by God in Scripture does not entail the Disputed Proposition.
You say,
But the issue is not whether there are propositions God endorses in Scripture that the human authors of Scripture fail to endorse in Scripture. The issue is whether there are propositions the human authors of Scripture endorse in Scripture that God fails to endorse in Scripture.
You say,
But I also believe that everything God endorses in Scripture is true! I, however, am certainly no inerrantist. Furthermore, the fact that everything God endorses in Scripture is true does not entail the Disputed Proposition. You go on to say God expresses some proposition by means of every sentence in Scripture with propositional content. Fine. But we are still left with the issue of whether there are propositions the human authors of Scripture endorse in Scripture that God fails to endorse in Scripture.
Perhaps you are saying, “When I say that Scripture is the Word of God in its entirety, I mean that every proposition the human authors endorse in Scripture is also endorsed by God.” Fine. You may stipulate your meaning as you please. But that still is not a reason to believe that the Disputed Proposition is true.
You say
So you think it is deceptive of God to place hidden meanings in the Scriptures? St. Paul didn’t seem to think so. I’m not sure I follow what you are saying here.
So, despite the fact that you have been very clear that you are an inerrantist, I still do not know what reasons you have for believing that the Disputed Proposition is true.
Posted by: Malebranche | September 03, 2010 at 10:21 AM
WisdomLover,
Ran across this passage in Leviticus 27 today:
The context concerns offering sacrifices to the Lord. Within that context, this passage suggests that the human author of Leviticus is affirming that God requires that any human (presumably a slave, since the offering comes ‘out of all that he [the one doing the offering] has’) devoted as an offering to the Lord is most holy to the Lord and so must be put to death (i.e., killed as an offering to God). Human sacrifice to Molech is forbidden in Leviticus 20:2, but this does not forbid human sacrifice to the Lord. The context in Leviticus 20 suggests that offering human sacrifices to Molech is abominable because it is an act of idolatry, not necessary because human sacrifice is always in principle forbidden by God.
I do not believe God ever required human sacrifice in the incident that some human dedicated his slave as a sacrifice to God. So, I think the human author of Leviticus 27 simply got it wrong on that one.
Posted by: Malebranche | September 04, 2010 at 10:10 AM
If you believe in Jesus because of the hocus-focus slight of hand of supposed fulfilled prophecies rather than the morality of his teaching, then you are an immature child with no concept of anything, a total and absolute rube. After all Isaiah himself tells us in Isaiah 7 that the virgin birth prophecy is a sign of when two kings in his lifetime will be defeated and in Isaiah 8 that the child born in his time, Mahershalhashbaz, is the fulfillement. Matthew is lying and pulling hocus-pocus sophistry over our eyes with the virgin birth claim. If that is why you believe in Jesus you believe for no real reason at all. All who believe for something other than the morality of his teachings, are not worthy of him.
Posted by: rey | September 06, 2010 at 12:36 PM
Rey,
Thank you for that unlettered rant. Edification seems to be your forte (it is not, for what it's worth, mine). Also, I appreciate you letting us know about this new criteria for identifying those unworthy of Christ. I longingly hope for even more occasions when you graciously decide to shine your beacon of light before us blind beggars.
With the deepest humility and admiration of your gift of insight,
Malebranche
Posted by: Malebranche | September 06, 2010 at 04:07 PM
Malebranche-
Sorry I've been silent for so long. Too many things to do, too little time.
Let me try a different tack.
I don't care what propositions the human authors of Scripture intended to endorse. For all I know they consistently failed miserably. So I don't think I'm disputing what you call the Disputed Proposition.
I do care what sentences the human authors of Scripture actually did write. It is these sentences that I view as the objects of Divine responsibility. In the end, since we can have no direct notion of what was going on in the minds of the human authors of Scripture (or the mind of God for that matter), we only have the sentences to go on.
My argument does not assume that God inspired these sentences word for word (though He might have). It does assume that if the sentences, at least in their initial form, could not be plainly read to understand what God wanted to say, then God has only Himself to blame for the confusion. This is because no one else was in a position to correct any errors in those original sentences. That's why I endorse inerrancy in the autographs.
Since the initial inspiration, of course, a lot of people (copyists) have had some measure of control over the accuracy of the sentences. That's why I endorse inerrancy only in the autographs.
Now, as for Leviticus 27:29, I think it's interesting that the various 'Literal' translations of the OT (Green's, Young's and Darby) don't really smack of human sacrifice:
Green's:
No devoted thing which is dedicated by man shall be ransomed, dying it shall die.
Young's
No devoted thing, which is devoted of man, is ransomed, it is surely put to death.
Darby:
Nothing devoted, which shall be devoted from among men, shall be ransomed: it shall certainly be put to death.
On the other hand, the NASB does:
No one who may have been set apart among men shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death.
The Hebrew word "kol" is masculine, but (when coupled with "lo") it is sometimes translated as "nothing" rather than "no one". Even the NASB translates it that way sometimes. There is no article "he" in the Hebrew. So this is really a matter of translational ambiguity. Green's, Young's and Darby resolve the ambiguity with the neuter "nothing" and "it". My usually favored NASB resolves it as "no one" and "he".
So which is right?
Letting the clear passages of Scripture interpret the murkier ones, I'll say that Green's, Young's and Darby are. Of course the Jews did not engage in human sacrifice. That's abundantly clear form the rest of Scripture. This ambiguous passage should be read as referring to animals set aside to YHWH, not people. To its, not hes.
I'll further add that NASB is probably just trying to maintain the ambiguity in English that exists in the original text (which is actually an excellent translational rule). You could refer to a bull or a ram as "he", but you would never refer to a man as "it". So the NASB translates the ambiguity. It is highly unlikely that the NASB translators were trying to convey the idea that the OT Jews engaged in human sacrifice.
Posted by: WisdomLover | September 08, 2010 at 06:24 PM
WisdomLover,
Well here’s what I think both of us agree on:
God, in some fashion or other, managed to get in Scripture the sentences he wanted to speak by means of. Furthermore, everything God endorses as true by means of the sentences in Scripture is true. Finally, it would be unfortunate if the sentences of Scripture were composed in such a way that God’s message in Scripture was nearly inscrutable (on this last point, however, I would point out that this problem is greatly exacerbated by any Protestant theology that lacks a high view of the councils and the traditions of the Church).
I also, however, go on to assert the following, which I’m not sure if you are now committed to denying:
Human Error in Scripture:The human author of, say, Joshua, may actually have endorsed a false proposition in Scripture by means of the sentences of Scripture (e.g., that the sun moves and comes to rest).
If your view of ‘inerrancy’ is compatible with Human Error in Scripture, then it seems misleading to me to call your view a kind of verbal plenary inerrancy. On the other hand, if you reject Human Error in Scripture on the grounds that Scripture is the Word of God, then that is where our principal disagreement lies.
Since it’s been a while, I’ll briefly summarize the tenets of my view as articulated thus far:
1. All of Scripture is the Word of God and is inspired by God.
2. Scripture is the revelation of God to the Church insofar as it presents Christ to the Church.
3. Everything God endorses by means of Scripture is true.
4. God may actually not endorse everything the human authors of Scripture endorse by means of Scripture.
5. It may actually be the case that some of the things the human authors of Scripture endorse by means of Scripture is false.
Thanks for the thoughts about the passage from Leviticus. That’s a bit tangential, so I hope we don’t pursue that in place of the main issues that concern us.
Posted by: Malebranche | September 08, 2010 at 08:06 PM
Is it possible that all of the following are true?
- A human author, A, of Scripture wrote a sentence, S, under the inspiration of God.
- A believed at that time that the plainest meaning of S is proposition P.
- The plainest meaning of S is, in fact, a distinct proposition Q
- P is false, but Q is true.
Yes, I suppose that that is possible. I'm committed to the inerrancy of Scripture, not to the inerrancy of any human being.There may be special reasons to think that some authors are not going to make mistakes like those described in 1-4 above. For example the apostles were the subject of the promise of John 16:13. That might count against 1-4 ever being true in their case. But I don't see any reason in general to think that 1-4 couldn't be true in some case.
I'm pretty sure that I would not identify Joshua 10 as such a case. The plainest meaning of those sentences is that the sun stopped and the moon stood still.
In general, I don't think that 1-4 provides much wiggle-room for the hard cases. One can't for example suppose that Matthew wrongly believed he was saying that there were two demoniacs in the tombs or two blind men near Jericho or two donkeys ridden into Jerusalem when there was really only one and through his sentences God only intended to say that there was one. You're going to have to deal with Matthew's double-vision by some means other than saying that Matthew didn't really know what he was writing.
I also don't think that 1-4 give one carte blanche to suppose that the human authors were idiots or that they didn't have normal concerns about consistency. So, for example, a reading of Genesis 1 and 2 that requires us to believe that the human author(s) of Scripture simultaneously believed that man was made before the plants and animals and that man was made after the plants and animals has to be rejected as the plainest reading of the text.
Posted by: WisdomLover | September 09, 2010 at 02:05 AM