Around the Horn

This week is the official beginning of hope. Spring training has started, everyone is a potential World Series champion, and warmer days are just around the corner.

In honor of baseball, here are a three bases and a home run from around the blogosphere.

At first base, Ben says, “Sometimes, the Bible doesn't say everything we wish it said, even if our wishes are motivated by our desires to defend it.” This is in response to a discussion about whether or not Genesis 1-2 teaches something about the length of the creation days and weeks.

This past week, I preached from Mark 10:1-12 about marriage. A thought that I had (and probably said) rings true here. Ben is right that sometimes the Bible doesn’t say everything we wish it said. But often, it says far more than we are willing to admit, whether about creation or marriage.

I think Genesis 1-2 is pretty clear. There is really no other way that God could have communicated six successive twenty-four hour days. There are, on the other hand, much better ways to communicate long periods of time.

At second base, Mark set off a bit of a firestorm with some comments about Christ in the OT. Here’s the funny thing: I think what Mark said about separation in the OT is far more controversial than what he said about Christ in the OT. Of course, I say that in light of Mark’s helpful clarifications both in the comments there and in this subsequent post. I post my “mostly agreement” with Mark here instead of at his blog so that no one will see that I agree mostly with Mark.  There is no doubt that Christ is in the OT, in the Law and the Prophets. But I also think that there is no doubt that Christ is not nearly so omnipresent in the OT as many people seem to think. Perhaps later I will write a bit on my take on Christ in the OT, but suffice it to say that if we are going to preach the text as the text, Christ will not be preached as the meaning of the text all the time.

I think the whole “Gospel-centered preaching” from the OT is well-intended, but I fear that it adds a pious slant to old moralism, such as Dave indicates here. Interesting, a long time ago I started a post quoting the same thing Dave quotes because I was astounded that Tim Keller actually said this. I didn’t take time to transcribe it but you can read it for yourself. I think the lectures where Keller gives this illustration are excellent, and helpful in so many ways. Just don’t use his examples.

At third base, a couple of parables showed up on the internet this week, along with a complaint by someone that he couldn’t understand one of the parables. This included a demand for an apology for the parable. I think he means an explanation, but perhaps in a moment of sensus plenior, he actually means something else. I wonder if he holds Christ to the same standard, demanding an apology for His parables.

And for the home run, just when you think it can’t get any more bizarre, I happened upon a discussion about the KJV and Revelation 16:5. A commenter, ironically (or perhaps prophetically) using the handle of “Faith” says:

ANYWAY, this being the situation, the decisions of faithful translators simply ARE evidence equal to the manuscript evidence. OBJECTIVELY equal. This isn’t just an arbitrary thing I’m saying. There is very good manuscript and version support for Holy One in 16.5, including previous English versions by faithful translators, but nevertheless Beza chose against it and gave reasonable support for his decision, and the KJV translators followed him rather than the other line of evidence.

BOTH LINES HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED FAITHFUL TO GOD’S WORD because there is no objective way of deciding one way or the other. Beza COULD have been right in his conjecture that the verse once read as he corrected it to read. WE CAN’T KNOW.

What we learn is that manuscript evidence doesn’t matter so long as a “faithful translator” (apparently defined as someone who translated the KJV) inserted some words into the text. Of course, words inserted by someone other than a “faithful translator” don’t count. They are perversions and corruptions.

What we also learn (in what is perhaps a bit of a Freudian slip), is that two contradictory readings can both be considered “faithful to God’s word,” which destroys the whole movement this commenter is apparently trying to save.

I think what we learn most of all is that a segment of KJVOnly proponents have no clue what they are talking about, and regularly participate in and propagate beliefs and arguments that have the potential of destroying the Christian faith.

And now, in honor of spring training (and Jim Rome), I’m out.

Noble-Broadmindedness

There’s a certain noble-broadmindedness about this claim:

On the historicity of Genesis, I suspend judgment, officially.  For rhetorical and investigative purposes, however, I'm going to proceed AS IF every word in Genesis speaks of historical fact.  If that's true, goody.  If that's not true, so what?

If Genesis isn’t true, then so what?

There is a lot of stake here.

There is the inspiration of Scripture. If God-breathed it out, then it must be true. Simplistic? Perhaps. But what else do we say about a God for whom it is impossible to lie? There is nothing in the Genesis account that would cause us to read it any way other than as historical fact. And there’s nothing in the character of God or the Bible’s teaching about itself that allows us to read it as anything other than historical fact.

There is the reality of brokenness in the world. If not for the historical fact of Genesis, there is no explanation for brokenness and fallenness in the world. Sin makes no sense other than as a cultural category rather than a moral category. Death is not the result of sin, and if not for sin, we would all die anyway.

There is the sufficiency of the atonement of Christ. If not for the historical fact of Genesis, there is no expectation that sin is a real problem that can only be dealt with by the seed of the woman conquering the serpent. Jesus’ death becomes only a moral example, a parable about the cost of sin, which really doesn’t matter anyway because sin doesn’t bring death.

And there are myriads of other implications.

The fact is that we cannot treat Genesis so glibly. There is a renewed battle over inerrancy, I think. And it starts where the word starts and where the Bible starts—in Genesis.

These superficial treatments of Scripture are unworthy of the grandness of God’s revelation that alone provides a rational metanarrative for life in this world.

Let us not be intimidated by those with no anchor. Their high-sounding language is really worldly and empty chatter, falsely called “knowledge.”

We know better.

Or at least we should.

The Truth of the Bible

Someone presents an argument: If all the Bible isn’t true, then none of it is true.

Now I have never heard anyone actually make this argument. Perhaps you have. I have only heard people who disagree with the argument say it.

It is a stupid argument? Well, yes, in a way. But calling it that probably won’t open a door for conversation.

The argument should actually be made quite differently: If all the Bible isn’t true, then we have no way to know what is true in it.

Some people argue for a limited inerrancy. They want to say that the Bible is inerrant in all that it affirms, but is not necessarily inerrant in all that it says about matters of science, geography, etc.

First, the very notion of “limited inerrancy” is, well, shall we say non-sensical. Inerrancy is binary. Something either is inerrant or is not inerrant.

Second, the notion of “limited inerrancy” really says nothing specific. Virtually everything but the baldest of bald-faced lies partakes of limited inerrancy. The problem with people who lie sometimes is that you never know what to believe.

Third, the notion of “limited inerrancy” is a charade of the worst sort. It is a construct of modernity, a way to affirm a historic teaching without actually affirming the historic teaching. It is a way of maintaining the dignity of a name without partaking of its corresponding indignity (as some would consider it).

Fourth, the notion of “limited inerrancy” does not comport with the Bible’s affirmations. When the Bible teaches that Moses parted the Red Sea, that is presented as a historical fact to be believed. It is teaching us about the life of Moses. When the Bible says that “X did Y,” it is teaching that as a fact to be believed. These teachings are no different than affirmation the the Lord will accomplish salvation for his people.

Now, to be sure, “inerrancy” does not require (and has never required) that one hold to the notion that trees clap or that stars sing. Inerrancy has never claimed that figures of speech should be anything other than a figure of speech.

Inerrancy has never required that people ignore the cultural and historical context in which the Scripture were written.

But what we must recognize is that figures of speech and historical and cultural contexts do not mean that the Bible is inaccurate.

And we cannot legitimately define “inerrant” or “truthful” to be something other than “truthful.”

This is an area where not much critical thinking has been done. People blindly accept the assertions of limited inerrancy or cultural accuracy without considering the serious ramifications of it. As a result, we are left not knowing what in the Bible is actually true.

We need a more robust scholarship, not a lesser one. We need a revival of historic bibliology that refuses to kowtow to modern notions of intellect that defy the propositions of Scripture.

The Doctrine of the Bible

In an ironic twist, the doctrine of the Bible frequently comes under attack by those who claim to love it most. Dave Doran addresses one particular manifestation of this in this recent article. I am sure the publication in question awaits me at my office when I get there tomorrow. I can hardly wait.

Now this topic of Bible versions is one that I don’t address here at my blog often because 1) I think it is mostly nonsense … a house of cards and cotton candy, and 2) I don’t want the comments about it from what are probably well-meaning people who have been misinformed about the issue. (Notice I didn’t say I don’t want comments from people who disagree, although I will not let my comment section become your personal vendetta.)

Doran rightly says that one cannot embrace the doctrine of “hardcore” King James Version Onlyism with “without doing damage to the biblical doctrine of inspiration.”

Now it is important to note that Doran’s comments (and mine) are not directed at people who prefer the KJV, or who prefer the Majority Text or even the Textus Receptus (two different versions of the Greek text underlying the NT). They are not directed at people who think that some modern versions are poor translations, or translate from a poor text, or that some modern versions could do a better job of translating some passages of Scripture.

They are directed at people who claim for an English version what should only be claimed for the original—namely the inspiration of the Spirit. The claim that the Holy Spirit directly inspired the KJV, or that the KJV is word perfect (or letter perfect or even punctuation perfect as some claim) is outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy. One who makes such a claim has, by definition, departed from the faith once for all handed down to the saints. They should be exposed as false teachers and separated from. They are not fundamentalists. They are not orthodox.

What we, as people of the Book, have to realize is that the danger from within is just as great as the danger from without. When one embraces a faulty doctrine of Scripture, it is no more worthy when it embraces one single English version than when it denies inerrancy. Faulty bibliology is faulty, no matter how well intended it is, no matter how deadly the error that it is intended to refute, and no matter how sincerely one believes it. You cannot enhance the authority of Scripture by destroying its authority.

Listen folks, the use of modern versions is not destroying Christianity. It’s not watering it down. So quit saying it is. I guarantee throughout history more bad messages have been preached from the KJV than from modern versions, if for no other reason because the KJV had a three hundred year headstart (and it is the version used by people who are King James Only who are notorious for bad preaching that has nothing to do with the text).

So let’s get serious about the Word and quit making up doctrines.

If you use the KJV, fine. I don’t care. Preach the KJV (which incidentally will keep you from preaching KJVOnlyism.)

If you think I am a heretic, or weak, or compromised because I use a modern version, fine. I do care, but it doesn’t bother me. I will sleep well tonight.

But please don’t destroy the faith of fellow believers by telling them that they can’t trust their Bible because it isn’t the KJV.

I have had the misfortune of sitting across the table from people whose faith was jeopardized when someone told them they couldn’t trust their Bible because it wasn’t the KJV. It is not a pretty sight. It made me mad.

And it reminds me, “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment” (James 3:1). God help those who mislead his children about his word.

Or to quote someone else, “Keep your stinkin’ feet out of my drinking water.”

Apologetics and Critical Scholarship

Douglas Mangum at Biblia Hebraica offers some thoughts on the intersection of critical scholarship and apologetics (Part 1 and Part 2). I won’t repeat the argument here since you can read his argument for yourself. But let me do two things: 1) give two short definitions, and 2) interact a bit with what seems a false dichotomy.

Two short definitions:

1. Critical scholarship – A type of scholarship that arose predominantly in the 19th century that reexamined long held beliefs about the inerrancy of the Bible. It generally concludes that the Bible is not inerrant, particularly in matters of history, geography, science, etc., though it may affirm a belief in “limited inerrancy,” that is that the Bible in inerrant (without error) only in matters of faith and doctrine, not necessarily other areas such as history, geography, science, etc.
2. Apologetics – A defense of the Christian faith.

Mangum’s argument: Many evangelical/conservative arguments against the conclusions of critical scholarship are not based on exegesis and consideration of the evidence. They are, in reality, apologetic arguments to defend a commitment to a particular view of the Bible. Conservative scholars are not really scholars; they are apologists, defending their view of Scripture in spite of the text in many cases, thus taking what would otherwise be clearly an error and harmonizing it to fit it into their view. He argues, in essence, that one cannot be (or at least finds it very hard to be) committed to a particular view of Scripture as inerrant (typically called a “high view of Scripture'”) and still properly use evidence.

Mangum’s examples: Some argue for Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch or the unity of Isaiah based on their view of Scripture, rather than based on the evidence from the Scripture. They argue for an early date of the Exodus (1445 B.C. rather than 12-13th century exodus) based on their view of the Bible rather than based on the evidence from archeology.

My concern with Mangum’s argument: He does not seem to interact in this article with the inseparability of apologetics and exegesis/evidence/argument. We cannot argue from a neutral position (which someone mentions, citing Bultmann that there is no presuppositionless exegesis). All of us are biased.

He does not seem to interact much with the idea that a commitment to inerrancy is not a “theological position;” it is an exegetical position derived from examining the evidence. He references this only briefly in one response (so far as I can tell), and is almost dismissive of it.

If you read Mangum without much thought, I think he makes sense. I don’t think Mangum’s attempt is to undermine Scripture. However, I think he espouses some false dichotomies and some “brush pile theology” that renders him able to make what are some invalid distinctions.

Can we approach Scripture with the values of critical scholarship and still honor what the text says about itself? I think not. If we take seriously the words of the text of Scripture, we must write off much of critical scholarship as misguided error. If we are serious exegetes of the evidence that Scripture gives of itself, we cannot at the same time be critical scholars.

Critical scholars are as much apologists are conservative scholars are. They are simply defending something else.