Are the Words of the Bible God's Words?
December 16, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall
I've been having a discussion with Steve Bush from generousorthodoxy.net here on whether or not [the Bible claims for itself that] God spoke through authors to bring about the words of Scripture. Steve's general argument is that even though there are verses that refer to specific other verses of the Bible as being from the Holy Spirit, one cannot conclude that all of the verses of the Bible came from the Holy Spirit. To conclude this, we would need to find a verse specifying that all of the Bible–and not just parts–came about by God speaking through the writers.
Even though 2 Timothy 3:16 speaks of all the books of Scripture as being “God-breathed,” Steve says that “whatever the entirety of Paul's concept of 'God-breathed' was, we cannot say” beyond the statement that Scripture is useful, as Paul describes.
However, I think we can get an idea of Paul's general view of Scripture by asking the question, what was the Jewish view of Scripture in Paul's day–especially that of the writers of the New Testament? Perhaps Paul didn't feel the need to precisely lay out the origins of Scripture because he assumed it was common knowledge. I can imagine writing a paper today that would reference the Constitution throughout but would never explain how the document came about or what sort of authority I thought it had over me and our laws. I wouldn't need to do this because everyone already knows this information. What if, in this paper, I wrote, “All the principles in the Constitution have formed the basis of all our laws and are useful in understanding our history.” A thousand years from now, someone might read the paper and think the Constitution was a useful guideline for creating laws, but they would be wrong in assuming that was all it was. Just because I didn't speak of its ultimate authority (there was no need in my day), that wouldn't mean that I didn't believe it to be the case.
But what if, in the paper, I then went on to mention specific laws that had been struck down, saying that a particular principle in the Constitution had more authority than that law, so the law was removed–maybe making two or three or five references to specific laws that had to be rejected because they were in conflict with specific principles of the Constitution? The good historian would start to get a picture of my general view of the Constitution–that is, that I viewed all of the Constitution as having more authority than all subsequent laws. He could reasonably infer my view of the whole by considering my view on the specific parts that I happened to mention. It would be much less reasonable (and in this case, wrong) to infer that I believed only those particular principles in the Constitution that I mentioned to have authority over laws, and none others.
In the same way, though the writers of the New Testament never explained exactly what they meant by “God-breathed,” or “holy,” or that “it cannot be broken” when referring to Scripture, we can look at their attitude toward particular verses and reasonably get an idea of how they viewed the whole of Scripture.
1. Consider Psalm 2:1-2. There is nothing in this passage saying that this is the Lord speaking. In fact, later on in this Psalm, the writer (who appears to be David) quotes the Lord. These two verses appear, then, to be David speaking from his perspective, and not his quotation of God's words. However, in Acts
2. Now look at Psalm 95. The author is calling for us to worship God “for He is our God.” The writer tells us, “Today, if you would hear His voice, do not harden your hearts.” Then, turning to Hebrews 3:7-8, we read: “Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says, 'Today if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts….'”
3. Here are some more verses in Hebrews, Chapter One. According to the writer, God said Psalm 97:7, Psalm 104:4, and Psalm 102:25-26. The writer claims this even though all of these verses in Psalms are written in the first person by their authors and are not claimed by these authors to be direct quotes from God.
4. In Acts 13:35, Paul's sermon quotes Psalm 16:10, telling us that “He [God] also says in another Psalm, 'You will not allow Your Holy One to Undergo decay.'” Again, this Psalm is written as David's words and yet is considered at the same time to be the words of God.
5. Paul says in Romans 1:1-2 that he was “set apart for the gospel of God, which He [God] promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures.” We know already that Peter wrote in 2 Peter
All of these verses speak to the general attitude held by the Jewish people of Paul's day the writers of the New Testament. That is, the writers appear to believe that God spoke the Scriptures through His prophets. It seems unreasonable to think that these people only happened to believe these particular verses were spoken by God through the prophets. Were there really only certain verses they considered to be God's words? Maybe only these Psalms that I mentioned? If so, how did everyone know which ones were God's words such that they were confident enough to refer to the passages as such later in the New Testament? They clearly thought at least some of the writers' words were the words of God (even when the verses did not claim to be). Why are there no Jewish writings about which words of Scripture are the words of God and which aren't? All of Scripture was set apart as holy from other writings (even the other useful ones) by the Jews. Why would all of Scripture be seen as a whole that “cannot be broken” (as Jesus said) if there was such a significant qualitative difference between the passages? The difference between our words and God's words is enough of a difference to call for a separation–especially as the Jews were so conscious of separating the holy from the ordinary.
It would be valuable to look at other writings by Jewish men of the time to see how they viewed Scripture as well. (If anyone can direct me to examples of this, please do!) One ought to understand the cultural view of the day in order to make a reasonable guess as to what Paul meant by “God-breathed.” Paul may be right or wrong about his assessment, but I think we should at least try to understand his view on his own terms.
Related posts:
- The Role of the Bible in Evangelism, Pt 1
- The Role of the Bible in Evangelism, Pt 2
- The Role of the Bible in Evangelism, Pt 3
- ETS 2007: How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What Can Be Done About It by J.P. Moreland
- Of Sure Words and Last Words
- Wisdom in Words
Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Main Page, Theology
content rss
December 16th, 2005 at 6:46 pm
Interesting food for thought. What do you think the author of 2 Timothy was referring to when he said, “Scripture”?
As a piece of unsolicited advice, be careful of making statements such as these:
“All of these verses speak to the general attitude held by the Jewish people of Paul's day.” This sentence and the paragraph it is in does not take into account that there was significant canonical debate within Judaism around the time of Jesus — the Sadducees only believed the Torah was Scripture and there was a lot of other discussion of whether what is not the Apocrypha should be given the same weight as the Tanak. There was also great debate on how to interpret Scripture. Jesus' interpretations fell within the debate, but he was far from the norm. Read how Philo treats the Tanak versus how the Targumim's editors treat the Tanak — both are highly allegorical, but use allegory very differently and for different ends. The point is, Ancient Judaism was never a monolithic entity with a single understanding of Scripture. The closest point it ever had to having a single voice was after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 when the rabbinic party gained dominance, but even then, there was a ton of difference.
December 16th, 2005 at 6:50 pm
Crap, that comment was rife with typos. The last bit should read:
As a piece of unsolicited advice, be careful of making statements such as this:
“All of these verses speak to the general attitude held by the Jewish people of Paul's day.” This sentence and the paragraph it is in does not take into account that there was significant canonical debate within Judaism around the time of Jesus — the Sadducees only believed the Torah was Scripture and there was a lot of other discussion of whether what is now the Apocrypha should be given the same weight as the Tanak. There was also great debate on how to interpret Scripture. Jesus' interpretations fell within the debate, but he was far from the norm, if we can even speak of a norm existing. Read how Philo treats the Tanak versus how the Targumim's editors treat the Tanak — both are highly allegorical, but use allegory very differently and for different ends. The point is, Ancient Judaism was never a monolithic entity with a single understanding of Scripture. The closest point it ever had to having a single voice was after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 when the rabbinic party gained dominance, but even then, there was a ton of difference.
December 16th, 2005 at 7:15 pm
Hmmm. This discussion was about what Paul meant by “God-breathed.” At least, that was how it started on the other post. I probably should have said (this is what I meant) that specifically, these verses speak to the view of Scripture held by the writers of the New Testament and the community that Paul was a part of when he made the statement. That's possibly more relevant to determining Paul's position on Scripture than the other positions you mentioned.
As for what should be included as Scripture, that's another question. The first question is simply, what does it mean to be Scripture?
I will say this, though, Paul quoted Luke as Scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18, and Peter refers to Paul's writing as Scripture in 2 Peter 3:16.
December 16th, 2005 at 7:23 pm
Let me just add, you're right that I've only shown what the writers of the New Testament believed, and not necessarily the greater Jewish poplulation (thanks for the correction!); but even though people disagreed on what should be included as Scripture and on how to interpret it, did they have the same view of what Scripture was? You didn't address that in your comment. That's what I'm most interested in hearing!
December 17th, 2005 at 12:42 am
Amy, let me be sure I'm understanding you correctly. Which of these two options (if either) express your position:
Option A:
Scripture does not contain the claim that Scripture in toto is the Word of God. However, certain authors of scripture (and certain individuals referred to in scripture) believed that Scripture in toto was the Word of God. We should believe that Scripture in toto is the Word of God on the basis of the fact that the biblical authors believed it to be so.
Option B:
Certain authors of scripture (incl. Paul) (and certain individuals referred to scripture) believed that Scripture in toto was the Word of God. This serves as evidence that in calling Scripture 'theopneustos', Paul was stating that Scripture is the Word of God. We should believe that Scripture in toto is the Word of God (primarily) on the basis of the scriptural identification of itself as the Word of God in 2 Tim 3:16.
December 17th, 2005 at 8:23 am
This subject is a difficult one for me. I think the foundational basis of Scripture as God's word has to be an article of faith, one that can then be supported by reasoning, but not (I suspect) a belief that we can arrive at through reasoning.
I don't think this means we don't interpret Scripture carefully, or even consider some scripture as more fundamental than others (Paul says “this is from me, not the Lord”, and “this is from the Lord, not me”). And I still think it's worthwhile to think about how Scripture came to be put together, and the sort of cultural/linguistic analsys Amy is using here to think about what the Jews meant by Scripture (I also like the constitutional comparison).
But, and I'm more emoting here than thinking perhaps, I'm uneasy with seriously entertaining the notion that the Bible is there for us to pick and choose which parts are authoritative or not. I realize Amy is arguing against this. I'm just not sure, for evangelicals, or sola scriptura Christians, what the ground of such an argument can be.
(and I should note for self-disclosure that I'm not strictly speaking an inerrantist. I think infallible is a better description. Scripture may be God-breathed, but then I think Adam was as well).
December 17th, 2005 at 8:55 am
Micah, this is EXACTLY my position, and I don't find it to be a weak one, nor one we should have to apologize for.
“This subject is a difficult one for me. I think the foundational basis of Scripture as God's word has to be an article of faith, one that can then be supported by reasoning, but not (I suspect) a belief that we can arrive at through reasoning. “
December 17th, 2005 at 10:48 am
Micah and Bill, what are your thoughts and feelings about the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy? About the only part of it I disagree with is the affirmation of the propriety (or prudence) of the term inerrancy, which I think has too much baggage to be a useful term. When most people hear the word, they think of die hard bible thumping fundamentalist wackos who take their King James Bibles literally. As for the rest of the statement, though, what, specifically, about the Chicago statement would keep you from calling yourselves inerrantists on its terms, apart from any preconceived notions about the word inerrancy? As for me, my position was essentially the same as yours, Micah, until I read through the statement, and I likewise affirm that
“the foundational basis of Scripture as God's word has to be an article of faith, one that can then be supported by reasoning, but not (I suspect) a belief that we can arrive at through reasoning.”
December 17th, 2005 at 12:07 pm
Steve, actually, I'm not arguing that you should believe anything! Our whole discussion began on the other post with the question, what does Scripture itself claim to be? You have said it doesn't claim to be anything more than “useful,” and I have claimed it says it's the words of God. It could be that all the people throughout history who have valued the Bible as the Word of God are wrong, and I could be wrong as well. In fact, it doesn't matter what the people who wrote the Bible thought about Scripture if their words didn't come from God. It doesn't even matter what the Bible claims for itself. If it's just the useful words of men, then even if it came right out and said, “All of Scripture is the words of God through men,” it wouldn't mean anything for what you should believe.
I'm only countering your argument that the Bible never claims to be God's words. You've set the standard for determining this claim at an explicit statement, but I've tried to show that there's evidence throughout the Bible as to what it claims to be for itself (again, its own testimony is only valid to compel belief if it's the Word of God, and this argument alone is not enough to prove that). You've said that the one explicit statement in the Bible about itself (2 Tim 3:16) can't really be understood because we don't have enough information, so I've tried to fill out the information to show Paul's likely meaning, considering the view of Scripture in his community. You're free to reject Paul's opinion!
So where does this leave us? Only at what the Bible claims for itself. I personally do believe it's the words of God based on (yes) what it claims to be, but also its trustworthiness, fulfilled prophecy, spiritual impact, its collection and survival against the odds, the nature of God, my faith, etc., etc.
You have chosen to believe something different, and I'm trying to show you that your belief is not based on what the Bible claims for itself. What you do with that is up to you! If you don't trust the Bible completely, then ultimately it won't matter to you what it claims for itself. Since you haven't yet answered my question from the other post: “It's my understanding that the Jews of Paul's time had a different view of Scripture than what you're suggesting. [Here's the question:] Do you think we should try to understand Paul on his own terms from his own context, or that it's better to interpret his words how we see fit from our position today?”–I think I can gather from your other answers that you think it's better to interpret the words of the Bible as you see fit from your position in our culture today. In other words, there's something else in authority over the Bible that you use to evaluate the Bible. Does that seem accurate?
I guess my question now is this: does it matter to you what the Bible claims for itself, or will you always assume it's the words of men? If it doesn't matter to you, then I think it would be good for you to be clear about this with people as you discuss the Bible. If it doesn't matter to you what it claims for itself, then using the argument “the Bible never claims to be God's words” should not be your argument. It should be: “the Bible has so many problems, it can't be God's words,” or “it's not possible for men to write God's words,” or “it's an outdated notion,” or whatever your ultimate problem with “the Bible as God's Word” is.
On the other hand, if it does matter to you what the Bible says about itself, I'm very interested to hear why. And again, I'm enjoying the discussion, Steve. Thanks!
December 17th, 2005 at 12:18 pm
I'll try to find a moment to read through it and respond, Tim. I've heard of it, but I don't recall it, nor do I know who wrote it or affirms it.
December 17th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
Micah, my post is definitely speaking to those who have regard for the Bible and are already asking what it claims for itself. If I were directing a post toward those who completely disregard the Bible, I would have written a completely different post! I just clarified all this in my answer to Steve above, so you can take a look at that, and hopefully my position will be more clear to you as well.
Also, you mentioned something I've thought about a lot–If Scripture is the Word of God, then I would say the written words are equally inspired whether or not Paul is recording a saying given by Jesus while he was on the earth. Ultimately, the source for both is God.
I'm not sure that all the writers of Scripture knew at the time they were writing that their words were inspired, so it's not surprising Paul would make a distinction as he's teaching.
December 17th, 2005 at 12:42 pm
Guys, thanks for helping me clarify my post. I was making connections in my mind that I didn't intend to put on the page and that are outside the argument at hand. You could see my assumption of trust in the Bible that if it claims to be something then it is that thing, but that's not what I was intending to assert; and really, it's a different question altogether. Hopefully now–with those corrections–it says what I want it to say. Thanks!
December 17th, 2005 at 12:46 pm
Tim, just reading through the affirmations and denials, there were many things I disagree with and could not give my assent to.
I'll try to go through it and give a line by line with what I disagree with when I have a moment.
Just to offer my beginning reactions though, these are some affirmations that I would make that would be out of step with the chicago statement. (These are not developed and refined statements, these are my initial reactions.)
I affirm that scripture is in places factually innacurate and contradictory in a fashion that cannot be reconciled, yet is not diminished in its capacity to instruct in the ways it intends to teach.
I affirm that scripture is infallible in what it intends to teach, is sufficient and is the highest authority on matters of faith and practice.
I deny that scripture was inspired word for word by God through individual writers.
I affirm that particular books were inspired by God at each step through original writers, editors and redactors and a community of faith led by God.
I deny that such a process is less an act of inspiration by God, nor less authoritative than word for word inspiration. I affirm that this understanding embraces the power of God to work in a community rather than be limited to an individual.
I affirm that this understanding of inspiration suggests a method of interpretation that understands and examines the authors, editors, communities and cultures in which it was written.
December 17th, 2005 at 12:56 pm
I might add this as another incomplete peice of my affirmations. It's part of Fuller's statements of faith which can be found here.
December 17th, 2005 at 1:04 pm
“I'm only countering your argument that the Bible never claims to be God's words” OK. Then I take it that your argument is more along the lines of Option B than Option A. I thought perhaps from your post that you were dropping the claim that The Bible claims to be God's words, and pursuing a new strategy to defend inerrancy. But that is not the case.
Here's the problem. To say that Paul believed that all of Scripture is the Word of God is not to say that that is what Paul meant in his use of the term “theopneustos.”
This is easy to see. Let's say that some person, Joey, writes, “The sun is shiny.” Let's also say we have good reason to believe that Joey believes that “The sun is hot.” Perhaps Joey also believes that “Everything that is shiny is hot.” None of this indicates that when Joey says “The sun is shiny” Joes means the sun is hot. Collateral commitments to a concept or term are not invested in the meaning of a term, otherwise distinctions between the the semantic content of “shiny” and “hot,” or “God-breathed” and “God-spoken” are lost.
So even if we were to grant that Paul had the collateral beliefs about scripture that you attribute to him, you still have a long way, too long of a way in fact, to go before you can make a convincing case that “god-breathed” = “god-spoken”. Again, since Paul easily could have said “god-spoken,” we have good reason to think that's not what he meant, unless you want to make the impossible case that “god-breathed” either is equivalent to or necessarily implies “god-spoken.”
I have avoided answering your question about interpretation and original context b/c I think that question is more complicated than a short blog post can get at. The short answer is, yes, we must interpret an author in accordance to the author's own context. That is in fact what I have consistently attempted to do. I've never said, well, Paul thinks 'god-breathed' means such-and-such, but to me, it means so-and-so. The long answer is that I don't believe that any act of interpretation occurs in a vacuum, the interpreter's interpretative moves reflect the interpreter's own context. This is not pernicious, however, as long as we can accurately translate across contexts, which I believe is in principle possible. At any rate, I don't think that debate plays any role in the present discussion. I'm as willing as you are to attempt to get at what paul meant by “theopneustos.”
“In other words, there's something else in authority over the Bible that you use to evaluate the Bible.” I have to admit that I often suspect that this is the real reason that motivates inerrantists to affirm inerrancy. I often suspect that (and perhaps you will prove me wrong shortly) they accept what I and others see as very weak arguments about scripture's claim to be the Word of God, less on the basis of the quality of the arguments themselves and more on the basis of their desire to avoid the complexities involved in a position which required one to make judgements as to which passages of the Bible to accept and which not to.
That is a separate conversation, and admittedly a complex one, that I don't want to run off into prior to establishing what the precise nature of scripture's claims regarding itself are.
(Wolterstorff's chapter “Has Scripture become a wax nose?” in Divine Discourse is interesting reading on this subject: “One minimizes the risk that Scripture is becoming a wax nose in one's hands by coming to know God better.” He affirms that Scripture is God's Word, but in a different sense from the inerrantist and from Barth.)
“If it doesn't matter to you what it claims for itself, then using the argument “the Bible never claims to be God's words” should not be your argument.” (a) It does matter to me what the Bible claims about itself, although other things matter as well; (b) I don't think that the Bible ever claims to be God's words, so that is in fact my argument against the standard defenses of inerrancy that rely upon that premise.
December 17th, 2005 at 9:33 pm
There's a lot I agree with, but I'm probably pretty close to Bill. Though I do agree with Tim that “inerrancy” is just about worthless as a word, not because of its connotations necessarily, but b/c of its meaning. I particularly found it hard to square with article VIII, which seemed to me to really get at the heart of why people often accept infallibility but not inerrancy.
December 18th, 2005 at 4:41 pm
Steve, leaving aside completely for now both the question of inerrancy and the meaning Paul had for “God-breathed,” let me ask you this: I've given some examples here of writers of the New Testament referring to other parts of Scripture as God's words. Those parts referred to do not overtly claim to be God's words and yet, that is what they're called by the New Testament Christians. One of those passages says that Peter, John, and all their companions called those verses the words of God as they spontaneously worshipped, so we're talking about a view held by the core of the Christian community.
So, in light of that…
1. Do you agree that, at least in the instances I listed, those parts of Scripture were viewed as the words of God (i.e., that God said them through the prophets) by the early church?
2. If so, do you agree that it's possible that more verses than just those few mentioned are the words of God–or at least, that they believed that more parts of Scripture were the words of God? (Or, one could say, that they believed all true Scripture to be the words of God? This may or may not coincide for you with the canon we use today.)
3. If you think they did not believe these verses or other parts of Scripture to be the words of God, why do you think they said “God said” when referring to these verses?
December 19th, 2005 at 2:17 am
1. I agree that the contents of scripture in the instances you listed were regarded as god's words by the NT authors who claimed they were such.
2. I agree that it's possible that these NT authors regarded more parts of scripture than those you listed as god's words. You make a quick jump from the minimal “more parts” to the maximal “all true scripture” which seems unjustified.
December 19th, 2005 at 10:49 am
Thanks for your response, Steve. A few more questions to clarify your view…
1. Regarding those verses, it wasn't just the view of the people who wrote Scripture that these verses are the words of God–it's actually contained in the words of Scripture as well. So in light of that, and in light of your opinion that it matters to you what Scripture says of itself, do you agree or disagree with these words of Scripture (and the early church) that these verses referred to are the words of God?
2. If you agree, then is your view that all the verses referred to as God's words (including these and many others I didn't mention in Genesis, Isaiah, etc.) are actually God's words, but none others?
[Here's the problem I see with your reluctance to infer the writers' general view of Scripture: there's no apparent reason for the writers of the New Testament to think these are God's words except for the fact that they're included as part of Scripture. As I said, with these particular verses, there's no indication that God is saying these things.
If your view is correct that they did not view all of Scripture as the words of God by definition, what do you see as a plausible reason for their believing these particular verses are the words of God? I think you would need to come up with a reason for this that is more plausible than inferring that the reason is because they viewed Scripture as God's words in order for your position to be more justified than the other.]
3. If you don't agree with Scripture that these particular verses are the words of God, then why not?
December 21st, 2005 at 8:34 am
“If your view is correct that they did not view all of Scripture as the words of God by definition, what do you see as a plausible reason for their believing these particular verses are the words of God? I think you would need to come up with a reason for this that is more plausible than inferring that the reason is because they viewed Scripture as God's words in order for your position to be more justified than the other.”
I just want to make sure that we're clear on what is at stake in this line of argument. If you are successful in pressing the case that the most reasonable explanation of why certain nt authors referred to particular passages in the hb as the word of god, then what you have established is not that scripture claims to be the word of god, but that nt authors, and perhaps also their communities, believed that scripture was the word of god. But no inerrantist claims that just anything that any nt author believed, even about such lofty things as scripture, is inerrant or binding. That doesn't make their views of scripture insignificant; I just want to make sure we understand that this is a very different claim than the claim that scripture itself refers to itself as the word of god. If a biblical author said in scripture “the sun is hot” and we infer that the reason he made that claim is b/c he believed that “the sun is shiny” and “that which is shiny is hot,” that doesn't mean that “that which is shiny is hot” is itself scripture. Neither does it mean that it's irrelevant, but this raises a whole host of complex issues for the inerrantist, such as, what is the status of beliefs of biblical authors which are not codified in scripture? what is the status of such beliefs if the nt author relied upon them inferentially in what the author does say in scripture?
Steve
December 21st, 2005 at 12:55 pm
Steve, to clarify, at this point I'm trying to establish two things:
1) Scripture testifies that certain verses–verses that themselves don't claim to be the words of God–are actually the words of God and
2) the NT Christians believed the category of “Scripture” was made up of writings which they thought ought to be considered “the words of God.”
I don't think our discussion has reached the point of applying the conclusion that all Scripture is actually the words of God yet. But as a principle of good hermeneutics, understanding their mindset helps us understand their actual words written in Scripture. My above questions are about the words of Scripture, not the writers' unwritten opinions. For example, Hebrews clearly says, “God said
December 21st, 2005 at 5:13 pm
Amy, I've stayed out of the way because Steve does a much better job of articulating in response than I do, but I can't resist popping in to answer #4 above: “4. Would you agree, then, that the early Church believed Scripture to be the words of God?”
Biblical scholars seem to agree that “the early church” was not at all unified in their views about what constituted Scripture. In fact, it wasn't “The” early church, but perhaps “early churches”. Some believed that the Pentateuch and some other Hebrew writings constituted scripture; some believed that one or more gospels, including writings “we” now consider noncanonical such as the “gospel of Thomas”, constituted Scripture too; and if we go back to the writers of Hebrews, Peter, or any other epistle, we find different beliefs or assumptions as to what constituted Scripture. So, to answer your question: I think an informed believer today cannot claim to know precisely what was considered “Scripture” by any given author of NT writing.
Vicky
December 21st, 2005 at 6:40 pm
Vicky, actually my question doesn't depend on what they considered to be Scripture. You say there was confusion about what would be considered Scripture, and I say yes–there was confusion because Scripture was considered to be something specific, and they were trying to decide which writings belonged in that category. Regardless of what they considered to be in the category, I'm asking a question about the category itself. In other words, when they said “Scripture”–regardless of which books they were referring to–what did they mean? I hope that's a more clear way of saying it.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:13 pm
Amy, my own views on which parts of scripture are and are not the words of god is beside the point, as far as I am concerned. I am not here to convince anyone of my views. As I see it, NT usage of HB scriptures are eclectic, improvisational appropriations, which interpret the HB in light of, and as qualified by and subjected to, the revelation of god in jesus christ and the apostolic witness concerning him. These appropriations add semantic content of their own, reading the HB in the shadow of Christ's resurrection; they are not mere recitations. They are, in R.B. Hays' term, “echoes,” providing a semantic signature that is a combination of the original voice and the landscape which reflects it. The nature of the appropriations are pluriform and non-systematic. I don't seek to provide a single answer to the question of how various authors conceived the HB or its relation to Christ. Obviously they saw the HB, as scripture, as authoritative and sacred. Certain authors saw certain passages as containing the words of god, especially the prophetic writings (that makes sense, prophetic sayings were often introduced by “and the word of the lord came to …”), the psalms, and once, even Gen 2! Beyond that… ???? My own views are further complicated by my understanding of the processes of scripture formation, which for any given passage can involve some or all of the following: the original utterances, their transmission, inscription, compilation, editing, and (again) transmission, processes which require us to specify carefully just what it is we are identifying as the words of god.
But I simply don't have the time to expound and defend my own views at length. My point here is not to press my own views. I have a rather limited concern, to argue against the position that scripture teaches that scripture in toto is the word of god; and so also against defenses of inerrancy that rely upon that view. I think most do, so this is not insignificant.
I'm not really sure where you're headed. Either you could claim that “scripture is the word of god” is true by virtue of the meaning of the term “scripture”. To use some tired philosophical categories, the statement would then be an analytic truth, like “bachelors are unmarried males.” But that seems quite the stretch, to say the least.
Or you could argue that many or most of the nt authors and their fellow church-members believed that scripture is the word of god. But that is not the same as the claim that scripture itself contains the claim that scripture is the word of god, and we then need to hear an account of why collateral beliefs of nt authors and early christians are binding.
Or you could argue that scripture does contain the claim that scripture itself is the word of god, in which case, all you need to do is point us to the book, chapter, and verse in which this claim occurs. I don't see any other route… Am I missing something?
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:55 pm
You could speculate all day, but why don't you just answer the questions and find out?
Seriously, they're very straightforward. And I don't think they need long answers, just direct ones. As you said, you came here to argue against my view, so it's only fair for you allow me to develop my response by establishing ground that we can agree on. If I were to skip ahead as you're asking me to do, you would rightly condemn my answers as unsubstantiated. I'm not sure why you're unwilling to answer them, but how can I respond at all unless you'll allow me to build a case from the beginning? You're condemning conclusions I haven't even asserted.
So here they are again with extra clarification:
1. Regarding those verses [that do not in themselves explicitly claim do be God's words as do many verses by the prophets], it wasn't just the view of the people who wrote Scripture that these verses are the words of God–it's actually contained in the words of Scripture as well. So in light of that, and in light of your opinion that it matters to you what Scripture says of itself, do you agree or disagree with these words of Scripture (and the early church) that these verses referred to are the words of God [in the sense that "God said" them, as those verses say]?
2. If you agree, then is your view that all the verses referred to as God's words [in the sense that "God said" them (including these and many others I didn't mention in Genesis, Isaiah, etc.) are actually God's words, but none others?
3. If you don't agree with Scripture that these particular verses are the words of God, then why not?
4. Would you agree that the early Church believed Scripture to be the words of God [in the sense that "God said" them]?
5. If not, then what do you see [from looking at the verses themselves] as a plausible reason for their saying these particular verses are the words of God [in the sense that "God said" them]?
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:41 pm
Amy, I don't feel like you've gotten the gist of my previous post, which is to say, I have no simple, single answer to questions 1, 2, 3, & 5. My answer to 4 is no, since I have not encountered evidence that indicates the early church did believe this about scripture, although I'm open to correction on this point. Regarding 5, various possibilities exist; again, I see no need to posit a single explanation to cover all cases. It is possible that some NT authors did believe 'that which is scripture is the word of god.' It is possible that some NT authors believed that particular genres of literature were utterances of god (e.g., the psalms). It is possible that god, as god revealed the christological import of particular passages, simultaneously enlightened the author as to whether or not the passage in the hb was god's words. It's possible that the author, in recognizing that a particular passage had christological application, concluded that the passage must have been god's very words on that basis. Since nothing, for me, hangs on which of these possibilties, or still other possibilities, obtains in the case of any given passage, I have no motivation to go through case-by-case and attempt to determine the most plausible explanation for each one.
If my indeterminacy leaves you unable to proceed with your argument, then I suggest that we, for the sake of argument, stipulate the following: Q1: Yes. Q2: No. Q4: No. Q5: Unanswerable, as we have insufficient information to determine this, since the authors did not themselves specify what their criteria for 'spoken by god' was. I think what we arrive on from those assumptions will be interesting and have important bearings to the defense of inerrancy.
Equally interesting would be your assessment if I were to grant that the answer to Q4 is “yes.”
December 22nd, 2005 at 4:49 pm
Okay, so you agree that those Scripture verses are saying that “God said” those other verses. Are you saying for #2 that no, you do not agree with those verses (i.e., you don't agree that they're the words of God)?
December 22nd, 2005 at 6:13 pm
Oops–sorry! I confused the questions. You're saying:
1) yes, you agree with the testimony of Scripture that those particular verses are the words of God–that “God said” them
2) no, you do not believe that those are the only words of God (I'll assume you mean here that there could be more you don't know about, but we'll just never know for sure)
4) you believe it's more probable that the early church believed some of Scripture to be the words of God, but not others (although you think it's possible they believed all of them were)
[I don't know a lot about church history, but a quick search through the internet indicated that Luther and Calvin held to a divine source of Scripture. I also found this quote from B.B. Warfield: "Christendom has always reposed upon the belief that the utterances of this book are properly oracles of God."]
and
5) You offer various speculations as to why they would call these the words of God other than believing Scripture is the words of God, and find these more plausible than the possibility that they considered Scripture to be the words of God.
Does that fairly represent your position?
December 23rd, 2005 at 2:21 pm
Amy, no, I do not feel like your previous post accurately represents my position; most of the beliefs you attributed to me I do not in fact endorse. I think I stated, as clearly as I can, what my position is in the last two posts. I feel like we're getting bogged down.
It seems to me that we have different conceptions of how best to articulate an argument. You would like to proceed step by step, achieving agreement on every step (or at least clarifying points of disagreement), before going on to the next one. There's something to that, but I find that sort of dialogical strategy works best in face-to-face, personal dialogues. It is impossible to proceed in that manner in written arguments, since one must just lay out one's own argument, without knowing what the commitments of one's audience are. Blogs are somewhere in between, but I just don't have time to state and defend my own positions, or achieve agreement on every step of the way. Again, I did not come here to advance my own position, but strictly to criticize a standard defense of inerrancy.
So either you have a case to make or you don't. If you do, clearly state your case, and I can attempt to locate where it goes wrong in my opinion, and state my reasons for thinking so. You say earlier, “If I were to skip ahead as you're asking me to do, you would rightly condemn my answers as unsubstantiated.” Not if you were to take the time to carefully substantiate your claims! It's hard for me to believe that carefully stating why you think the defense of inerrancy succeeds would not be a more time-efficient procedure than the current one. Not to say I'm not enjoying and profiting from this, but we're already dozens of comments into this and I feel like we're regressing, not progressing, because you're intent on getting a full statement of my own position on these matters, which I simply cannot provide at this time and in this context. And besides, my own doctrine of scripture really is irrelevant to the question at hand, which is, “Are the Words of the Bible God's Words?”
In a nutshell, my case is this: (1) 'God-breathed' does not mean 'God-spoken'; so 2 Tim 3:16 does not say that the Bible is the Word of God; (2) We do not have sufficient evidence to determine which portions of scripture the various NT authors believed were the words of god and which were not, and likewise, we do not have sufficient evidence to determine what criteria they employed in determining which were; we can raise various possibilities, but we cannot determine which possibility is more plausible than the others in any given case. To attempt to do so would be wildly speculative. (3) Even if we grant that the HB scriptures that the NT authors identify as the word of god in fact are, this still does not establish that scripture in toto is the word of god. (4) Even if all of the NT authors, and even if the entire church believed that all of scripture was the word of god, that does not establish that scripture itself contains the claim that scripture is the word of god. Unless it could be shown that “possesses the property of being the word of god” just was part of the definition of “scripture.” But this cannot be shown.
Which of those claims do you think is/are incorrect and why?
December 23rd, 2005 at 3:38 pm
Steve, thanks for this challenging discussion. I tried to interpret your yes, no, yes answers the best way I could. I have no idea which one I got wrong, but at this point, I'd just like to sum things up. I find one side more plausible and reasonable based on what we know, and you find the other side more plausible. Everyone else will just have to decide for themselves.
You agree that there are verses in the Bible that are the words of God, even though there is nothing in the verses themselves to indicate this. (You agree that God speaking in Scripture through the authors is possible and has occurred.)
You agree that we know these verses are the words of God because other parts of Scripture call them the words of God.
According to the words of Scripture, the early church believed at least some of the words of the Bible to be the words of God (in the sense that “God said” them). We know this because Peter, John and all their companions said so in an instance in Acts, and because other writers of the New Testament said so about other passages.
You say it's more plausible that only some words of Scripture are God's words and not all (or, at the very least, we will never know if all are God's words). Also, you say it's more plausible that the NT writers only believed that some of Scripture was God's words (though they thought they were God's words for a reason you don't know because no reason has ever been written down regarding this), rather than all.
I say that the references of Scripture to particular verses as the words of God (when they had no apparent reason believe they were so) without controversy or defense speak to the accepted view in their community of Scripture in general, and that the most plausible explanation for their calling these the words of God (without any other apparent reason) is because they're a part of Scripture and they believed Scripture to be the words of God.
Accepting this view of the early church as the most plausible explanation, I say that understanding their mindset can help us understand their other claims made about Scripture–especially when they use words that aren't defined. Some examples (this is not exhaustive):
2 Peter 1:20-21–”No prophecy of Scripture