Inerrancy and the Nature of the Bible.pdf

1 Inerrancy and the Nature of the Bible 1. Introduction Forty years ago, scholars and pastors from around the world gathered in the city of Chicago (USA) for the International Conference on Biblical Inerrancy and produced the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.1 While this balanced and carefully worded statement has greatly served the English-speaking world for a generation now, it has had essentially no perceivable impact on the Spanish-speaking world.2 This paper aims to address this unfortunate lacuna by providing an updated explanation and defense of the view of inerrancy that was articulated at the International Conference on Biblical Inerrancy. This paper is organized in the following manner: after briefly discussing various forms of logical argumentation, the main body of the paper is dedicated to explaining and defending the following syllogism: 1) God’s words are true (i.e., inerrant); 2) The Bible3 is God’s words; 3) Therefore, the Bible is true (i.e., inerrant). The paper concludes with a discussion of what is not meant by the term inerrancy as well as why inerrancy is important. First, however, a definition of inerrancy and an important qualification are in order. To begin, the following definition of inerrancy has been adopted for this paper: Inerrancy means that when all the facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographa and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm—whether 1 Interestingly, although conservative Protestants have not been known for their ecumenical tendencies, ICBI was one of the great exceptions to this rule: nearly 300 scholars and pastors from every major denomination attended. 2 Ricardo Rábanos Espinosa only cites nine works (some quite brief) that address inerrancy; eight were written before ICBI and the ninth addresses Vatican II’s views on the matter (Bibliografía bíblica hispanoamericana [BHB 15; Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1993], cf. # 186, 191195, 2348-2349, 3615); Klaus van der Grijp does not cite any work on inerrancy, and only one work on inspiration—from the year 1895! («Ensayo de una bibliografía de la historia del protestantismo español», in Diálogo Ecuménico 38 no 119 [2002]: 329-652); Olegario González de Cardenal does not discuss either inspiration or inerrancy (La teología en España (1959-2009) [Madrid: Ediciones Encuentro, 2010]). 3 In this paper the term “Bible” refers to the 22 books of the Jewish Scriptures (= 39 books of the Protestant OT) and the 27 books of the Christian NT. For a standard work on the OT canon, cf. Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (London: SPCK, 1985); for the NT canon, cf. F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988). As for the texts themselves, for the OT, BHS4 has been used, and for the NT, NA28/UBS5. 2 that has to do with matters relating to faith and practice or with those relating to science, history, and the like—with varying degrees of clarity and precision that correspond to its purposes.4 Second, this paper attempts to discuss inerrancy at a general level, and therefore does not enter into detailed arguments on other related matters. Therefore, issues such as accommodation, pseudepigraphy, theological diversity, the use of the Old Testament in the New Testament, and purportedly conflicting data in synoptic accounts are not discussed here, but rather have been left to be addressed on another occasion. 2. Forms of Argumentation The primary argument of this paper takes a broadly syllogistic form, and thus a brief discussion of syllogism and logical argumentation is in order.5 2.1. Deductive logic A syllogism contains three parts: 1) a major premise, which states a universal truth; 2) a minor premise, which states a particular truth; and 3) a conclusion, which states the proper relationship between the universal and particular truths. This kind of logic is particularly suitable for deductive logic, which assumes the validity of a universal truth in order to draw conclusions regarding particular truths. Thus, an example of deductive logic that employs a syllogism might be as follows: 1) All crows are black; 2) This bird is a crow; 3) Therefore this crow is black. Such reasoning is particularly suitable for mathematics, the “hard” sciences, and many instances of human experience. 4 This definition is slightly modified from Paul Feinberg, “The Meaning of Inerrancy,” in Geisler, Inerrancy, 294, and is closely aligned to that of Archibald Hodge and B. B. Warfield, “Inspiration,” The Presbyterian Review 6 (1881): 225-260, here 238. It should be noted that since inerrancy is tied to truth assertions, other means of communication such as commands, questions, parables, proverbial sayings, etc., are included in this study only to the extent that they indirectly or implicitly assert truth in some way. 5 While syllogisms are Greek in origin, and therefore potentially limited in arguing for a truth based in Hebraic thought, they are also logical, and therefore universal. Greeks were simply the most successful at conceptualizing and organizing logical thought. The Hebrew Scriptures clearly ascribe truthfulness to God and His words (2 Sam 7:28; 22:31; Ps 12:6; 18:30; 119:140, 160; Prov 8:8; 30:5), thus making a direct argument in favor of Scripture’s truthfulness from within a Hebraic work. The Greek syllogism makes logically explicit what the Hebrew Scriptures make declaratively explicit. 3 2.2. Inductive logic There is another kind of logic, however, that opposes deduction, namely, inductive logic. Induction objects to the methodology of beginning with assumed universal truths based on the great variability and uniqueness of particular truths.6 Thus whereas deduction begins with the universal and seeks to explain the particular, induction begins with the particulars and seeks to arrive at the universal. To return to the syllogism used above, induction might object to the major premise by arguing that there is no way of knowing whether or not all crows are black (after all, who has researched this?) and that some might indeed be white or brown (after all, don’t anomalies exist in the real world?). In other words, all of the particulars must be known before inductive logic can speak with confidence, and since all of the particulars are almost never known, inductive logic does not provide certain conclusions but rather varying degrees of probability. Such reasoning is particularly suitable for historical and linguistic phenomena as well as many other instances of human experience. 2.3. Abductive logic A mediating position between deductive and inductive logic is abductive logic. Abduction employs the major premise of an argument as a working definition (i.e., deduction), but is willing to revisit it if sufficient data call into question its validity (i.e., induction), thereby creating an interdependent relationship between the two premises. Abductive logic cannot provide absolute certainty as with deductive logic, but neither is it impossible to provide any sense of certainty as with inductive logic; rather, it can provide a relatively high degree of certainty based on the coherence of the universal and particular truths. To return to the syllogism above, to the extent that the assumption that all crows are black coheres with the observational data that all crows are black, one can have a relatively high degree of certainty that the particular crow under discussion is black. Such reasoning is 6 That is, inductive logic objects to deductive logic’s assumption that the objects named in the major and minor premises are identical. 4 particularly suitable for detectives and lawyers attempting to explain the observable facts in light of their working theories. 2.4. Summary This paper seeks to employ an extended syllogism based on abductive reasoning to explain inerrancy.7 The syllogism is as follows: 1) God’s words are true; 2) The Bible is God’s words; 3) Therefore, the Bible is true. While virtually all Christians agree with the major premise that God’s words are true, most of the debate hinges on the minor premise regarding the divine origin of the Bible and its implications for inerrancy. Thus, the majority of this paper is dedicated to interacting with the claim that the Bible is God’s words. Finally, if both the major and minor premises cohere to one another, then we can have a relatively high degree of certainty regarding the conclusion that the Bible is true (i.e., inerrant). Since the Bible is the Christian’s final (although not necessarily the only) source of authority, it is used as the primary source from which the data are taken. 3. God’s Words Are True Being that few, if any, Christians doubt the major premise that God’s words are true, relatively little space is dedicated to articulating and defending this claim. God’s truthfulness is openly confessed throughout Scripture. The most important texts regarding God’s truthfulness are cited below and grouped into two broad categories: 1) passages that speak of God’s truthfulness in general; 2) passages that connect God’s truthfulness to specific words, be they spoken or written. 3.1. God’s truthfulness in general 7 A similar approach has been taken by Feinberg, “The Meaning of Inerrancy,” 269-276; Armin Baum, “Is New Testament Inerrancy a New Testament Concept? A Traditional and Therefore Open-Minded Answer,” JETS 57 no 2 (2014): 265-280, here 277-280 (suggestively). 5 To begin, Scripture speaks of God’s truthfulness in general.8 Several texts attest to God’s truthfulness in a positive fashion by stating that God is true (2 Chr 15:3; Jer 10:10; John 3:33; 7:28; 8:26; 17:3; Rom 3:4; Eph 4:21; 1 Thess 1:9; 1 John 5:20; Rev 3:7; 6:10; 19:11). In fact, Jesus Christ calls Himself “the truth” (John 14:6), and one of the names for the Holy Spirit in Johannine literature is “Spirit of truth” (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13; 1 John 5:6).9 What all of these texts have in common is their witness to God’s truthfulness at a fundamental level, meaning that truthfulness forms a part of God’s character. 3.2. God’s truthfulness with respect to words Second, and more immediately relevant to the current discussion, there are several texts that speak of God’s truthfulness as it relates to His words, be they spoken or written. On the one hand, several texts attest to God’s truthfulness in a negative fashion by stating that God cannot lie or speak falsehood (Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29; Titus 1:2; Heb 6:18; 1 John 5:10). On the other hand, several texts attest to God’s truthfulness in a positive fashion by stating that God speaks truthfully (2 Sam 7:28; 22:31; Ps 12:6; 18:30; 19:9; 119:43, 142, 151, 160; Prov 30:5; Dan 10:1; John 8:45-46; 15:26; 16:7, 13; 17:17). Of particular note is Proverbs 30:5, which says that “every word of God proves true.”10 Three important observations can be made regarding this verse. First, the author draws attention to God’s “word” (Heb: ‫) אִמְרָ ה‬, which refers to concrete words that come from God and which is often used in contexts that refer to God’s written words (Deut 33:9; Isa 5:24; Ps 12:6; 119:11, passim; Lam 2:17). In this context, God’s “word” probably refers to a written text such as the 8 For the sake of comparison, there is mixed testimony regarding how the Greeks understood the gods’ truthfulness. On the one hand, Plato (Republic 2:382e) and Demosthenes (Orations 18:289) understand the gods to be free of falsehood. On the other hand, Plato charges Homer with attributing falsehood to the gods (Republic 2:383a; cf. Homer, Iliad 2:111-115). 9 It may be that 1 John 4:6 is another reference to the Holy Spirit, but its comparison with the “spirit of error” could imply that the referent is rather “one in whom truth dwells” (cf. Stephen Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John [WBC 51; Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1993], 230). 10 All quotations come from the English Standard Version (ESV). Proverbs 30:5 shares much the same language as Ps 18:30 (= 2 Sam 22:31). The special contribution in the Prov text is on “every” word of God. For another similar text (although different), cf. Ps 119:151. 6 Torah.11 Second, the author draws attention to “every” (Heb: ‫ ) כֹּל‬word of God, which refers the comprehensive nature of God’s truthfulness with respect to His verbal communication. Third, the word “true” in this verse is ‫ צרף‬, which often is translated as “refined” and normally is associated with the process of refining or purging out any imperfections from precious metals such as gold or silver.12 Thus according to Proverbs 30:5, every word of God is as refined and as pure—and therefore as true—as pure gold or silver. 3.3. Conclusion In conclusion, the Bible testifies both to God’s general truthfulness of character as well as to God’s particular truthfulness in relationship to His words. This is the major premise of the argument, and while one may be justified in deducing immediately from this conclusion that the Bible is true as well, nevertheless it is important to look at the data of the minor premise to see if they cohere with the major premise. It is to the minor premise of the syllogism that we now turn. 4. The Bible is God’s Words This section addresses the minor premise, which is the focus of the debate on inerrancy, namely, that the Bible is God’s words. This section is divided into four major parts: the first part presents evidence for the Bible’s self-attestation of divine origin and its later recognition as such; the second part addresses the issue of whether God’s self-revelation in the Bible is subjective or objective; the third part addresses the issue of whether or not God’s selfrevelation is mixed with human experience; and the fourth part discusses the incarnation as a possible illustration for understanding the Bible’s inspiration. 4.1. Evidence of the Bible’s self-attestation of divine origin and its later recognition as such 11 Thus Ronald Murphy, Proverbs (WBC 22; Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1988), 229. Murphy helpfully points out the contrast between God’s word in v. 5 and Agur’s self-testimony in vv. 2-3. The implication is that whereas Agur (representative of all men) is limited and finite in his knowledge, God is not. 12 HALOT, 3:1057. 7 The first part presents evidence of the Bible’s self-attestation of divine origin and its later recognition as such. The implication of such evidence is as follows: if the argumentation presented above is correct that God and His words are true, then those portions of the Bible that claim to come from God are also true (i.e., inerrant).13 Additionally, later biblical texts that recognize previous writings as coming from God assist in filling out the picture that the Bible, as a whole, comes from God. In what follows, the evidence is presented in this order, and has been divided further into Old Testament and New Testament texts. 4.1.1. The Old Testament’s self-attestation of divine origin To begin, various portions of Scripture claim to come from God, and they do so in at least two different ways. First, the Ten Commandments are unique in that they were written by “the finger of God” (Exod 20:1-17; 24:12; 31:18; 32:16; 34:1, 28; Deut 4:13; 5:6-22; 9:10; 10:1-4).14 Being that God Himself uniquely authored this text, it can be said that they are free from error.15 Second, and more commonly, the Old Testament prophets are presented as God’s spokesmen and therefore provide a direct link between God and the written text.16 One text 13 Unless, of course, they were lying and not really speaking on God’s behalf; for mandates regarding the identification and punishment of such “prophets,” cf. Deut 18:18-20. 14 The language of Exod 34:27-28 is ambiguous as to who is writing the second copy of the Ten Commandments, be it Moses or God. However, Deut 10:1-4 makes it clear that God is the one who wrote the second copy as well. Daniel 5:5, 25 may be another example of text written by God. 15 There are minor differences between the two lists given in Exod 20 and Deut 5, the most notable being the shift in focus in the fourth commandment, Deut’s combining the final six commandments into one with by the word “and” (cf. 5:16-21), and slight modifications in the fifth and tenth commandments. While this could be due, at least in part, to textual corruption, a more likely explanation is that in Deut 5 Moses had contextualized the original list in Exod 20 for pastoral purposes (cf. Daniel I. Block, “‘You Shall Not Covet Your Neighbor’s Wife’: A Study in Deuteronomy’s Domestic Ideology,” JETS 53 [2010]: 449-474). Nevertheless it should be noted that there is no commandment given in Deuteronomy that does not appear in Exodus. 16 The derivation of “prophet” (Heb: ‫ ) נָבִיא‬itself is instructive. Although according to folk etymology it comes from ‫( בוא‬to come, go), it more likely comes from the Akkadian nabû, and “more probably” carries the passive sense of “one who has been called” (HALOT, s.v. ‫) נָבִיא‬. It should also be noted that while “prophet” is perhaps the most well-known title, other titles were employed such as “man of God” (Heb: ‫ה ֖ים‬ ִ ֹ ‫ ; אִישׁ־אֱל‬ex., 1 Sam 2:27; 9:6-10; 1 Kgs 12:22), “seer” (Heb: ‫ רֹאֶה‬or ‫ ; חֹז ֶה‬ex., 1 Sam 9:9; 2 Kgs 17:13; Isa 30:10), and “servant” (Heb: ‫ ; עֶבֶד‬ex., Jer 7:25; Ezek 38:17; Zech 1:6). On at least one occasion the priest is called the “messenger” (Heb: ְ‫ ) מַלְאַ֥ך‬of the Lord (Mal 2:7), but with a difference. Commenting on this passage, Ralph Smith writes “A priest was a ‘messenger of God’ (2:7), but not in the same sense a prophet was. God revealed his message to the prophet and the prophet was to proclaim it. The priest was the messenger of God in the sense 8 that makes explicit how Old Testament prophets served as God’s spokesmen is found in Numbers 22:38 and is placed on the lips of the prophet Balaam17: “Have I now any power of my own to speak anything? The word that God puts in my mouth, that must I speak” (cf. 24:13).18 In other words, to be a prophet meant to be God’s spokesman, and to be God’s spokesman meant to speak the words that God wanted him to speak, thereby creating a unity between God’s words and the prophet’s words (ex., 1 Kgs 14:18; 2 Kgs 17:13; 2 Chr 20:20; 29:25; Ezek 3:10-11).19 A human parallel to this phenomenon is found in the case between Moses and Aaron, in which the latter was the “mouth” and “prophet” of the former in the presence of Pharaoh, speaking Moses’ words on his behalf (Exod 4:15-16; 7:1-2).20 However, within this understanding of the prophets as God’s spokesmen, two important qualifications are in order: first, prophets were not necessarily God’s spokesmen every time they spoke (ex., 2 Sam 7:3) or wrote (ex., 1 Chr 29:29-30; 2 Chr 26:22), but rather only when God, by His Spirit, moved them to speak or write;21 second, much prophesy that he was the guardian and teacher of a body of religious knowledge” (Micah-Malachi [WBC 32; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], 318). 17 The fact that Balaam was a false prophet does not diminish the force of the argument that true prophets spoke God’s word truly. In fact, the case could be made that this actually increases the reliability of the true prophets: if even false prophets who did not obey God could speak only His word, how much more would true prophets who did obey God speak His word truly? For a similar phenomenon, cf. John 10:50-51 where Caiphas prophesied (although not as a prophet in the strict sense) correctly about the death of Jesus for the nation, but “he did not say this of his own accord” (John 11:50-51). 18 For a similar reading of this event, cf. Josephus, Antiq. 4:118-119. For similar expressions of complete surrender to God’s message, cf. 1 Kgs 22:14; 2 Chr 18:13; Jer 42:4. For other references to prophets being impelled to speak when God has spoken to them, cf. Jer 20:9; Amos 3:8; 7:14-15. That prophets had to be compelled to stop from prophesying implies that they had to speak whatever God told them (Isa 30:10; Amos 2:12). While some prophesy appears to have been uncontrollable (ex., 1 Sam 10; 19:20-24), other prophecy appears to have been controllable (ex., 2 Chr 25:16; Ezek 3:17-18; 33:7-8; 1 Cor 14:32). Perhaps different experiences of inspiration provoked different responses on the part of the prophets. 19 Along these lines, it is significant to notice the many references to the “mouth of the LORD”: Josh 17:4; 2 Chr 36:12; Isa 1:20; 40:5; 58:14; Jer 9:12; 23:16; Lam 3:38; Mic 4:4. Even if this phrase is anthropomorphic, it nevertheless evokes God as the ultimate source of the message. The question regarding whether or not such mediation implies freedom on the part of the prophets to change or alter God’s message is dealt with below in §4.2-3. It is important to note that prophets did not always speak God’s words (ex., the prophet Abraham lied/mislead; cf. Gen 12:11-13; 20:2, 7, 11-13), but only when God’s Spirit spoke through them. 20 It is within the context of Aaron speaking on Moses’ behalf that Moses is made “like a god” before Pharaoh (Exod 4:16; 7:1): Moses has his own “prophet” in Aaron. 21 See below for further development of this point. Cf. Hesiod, Theogony 31-32 for a similar claim to inspiration via a divine spirit (ἐνέπνευσαν δέ µοι αὺδὴν θέσπιν). It should be noted that on at least one occasion the “angel of the LORD” spoke to a prophet similarly to how the Spirit did so (1 Chr 21:18-19; cf. 2 Sam 24:18-19). The sending of God’s Spirit to speak truth should not be confused with accounts that record God sending a lying spirit (1 Kgs 22:19-23; 2 Chr 18:18-22; Ezra 14:6-11; cf. 2 Thess 2:9-12). In these 9 remained at the oral level and was never committed to writing (ex., 2 Chr 25:1-2) and thus does not enter into the discussion of biblical inerrancy.22 It is within this “prophets as God’s spokesmen” context that five phenomena become relevant for delineating the extent of the Old Testament that claims to come from God. First, there is the ubiquitous three-part formula (with minor variations): “the LORD said to,” followed by a prophet’s name, followed by a message.23 Such reports of direct speech vary in length but can accumulate to cover large portions of Scripture, such as what happens, for example, in numerous consecutive chapters in the books of Exodus and Leviticus.24 Second, many of the prophetical books open with the prophet claiming that the “word of the LORD” had come to him (Jer 1:1-4; Ezek 1:1-3; Hos 1:1; Joel 1:1; Jonah 1:1; Mic 1:1; Zeph 1:1; Hag 1:1; Zech 1:1; Mal 1:1). Each prophetic book has different amounts of material that claim to be a “word of the LORD,” but each of them does contain substantial amounts that fit this category (ex., Amos 1-4; most of Ezek), thereby amplifying considerably the amount of material in the Old Testament that claims to come from God. Third, and read within the context of the first two phenomena, it is instructive to observe that the prophets often spoke in first person (ex., “I say,” etc.) as opposed to third person (ex., “The LORD says,” etc.). instances, neither the inquirers nor the prophets are truly seeking God, but rather seeking to use God for their evil purposes, and are speaking from their own minds and hearts (Jer 23:16, 25-27; Ezek 13:2-3, 17). It is, perhaps, within this context that Ps 18:26b ought to be understood, “with the crooked you make yourself seem tortuous” (cf. Prov 3:34). For Greek parallels, cf. Hesiod, Theogony, 27-28; Justin Martyr, Dialogue 7:3. 22 At least one reason why some prophecy was committed to writing was so that future generations would praise the LORD for His salvation (Ps 102:18-22). 23 An Accordance search (version 12.0.2) yielded 181 hits for the construction ‫ אמר‬+ ‫ י ְהו ָ ֖ה‬+ ‫ אֶל‬and 232 hits for the construction ‫ דבר‬+ ‫ י ְהו ָ ֖ה‬+ ‫ אֶל‬. Not all are followed by a direct quotation from God, but many are. A related phenomenon is the repeatedly used phrase, “thus says the LORD.” Wayne Grudem presents evidence that this phrase is parallel to the common royal decree formula “thus says the king” that was used in other ANE societies (for biblical examples, cf. Exod 5:10-11; 1 Kgs 2:30; 20:2 [BHS: v. 3], 5; 2 Kgs 18:18). The content of the royal decree, whatever it was, was not to be questioned by the king’s subjects but only to be received and obeyed (“Scripture’s Self-Attestation and the Problem of Formulating a Doctrine of Scripture,” in D. A. Carson and John Woodbridge (eds), Scripture and Truth [Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1983], 19-59, here 21-22). Henri Blocher makes the interesting observation that in these cases there was “little if any emphasis on the herald’s own personality” (“God and the Scripture Writers: The Question of Double Authorship,” in Carson, Enduring Authority, 502). 24 The Exodus passage relating the Book of the Covenant (Exod 21-23) is illustrative: when Moses read the Book to the Israelites (Exod 24:3, 7), the people responded by saying, “All the words that the LORD has spoken we will do” (Exod 24:3; cf. v. 7). Thus all three chapters of material are seen as coming from God. Although these points are emphasized later, the emphasis on specific words (as opposed to ideas) coming from the LORD (as opposed to Moses) should not go unnoticed. 10 This manner of speaking coheres nicely with the understanding that God Himself was communicating His words through the prophets, and again amplifies the material that claims divine origin. Fourth, on several occasions it is said that God puts His words directly into the prophets’ mouths (Num 23:5, 12, 16; Deut 18:18-20; Jer 1:9; 5:14; Hos 6:525) or something similar (Exod 4:12; 1 Kgs 16:12; 1 Kgs 22:14;26 Jer 15:19;27 Ezek 2:7; 3:4, 27; 33:22).28 This evidence extends the situation noted above in the Balaam account to other parts of the Old Testament, such that their words are, in a very literal sense, God’s own words (Deut 18:19).29 Fifth, on several occasions God commanded prophets to write down certain messages (Exod 17:14; 24:2; 34:27; Num 33:2; Deut 31:19; Isa 8:1; 30:8; Jer 30:2; 36:2, 28; Ezra 43:11; Hab 2:2).30 Zechariah 7:12 illustrates the connection between God’s words and the written medium when it speak of “the law and the words that the LORD of hosts had sent by his Spirit through the former prophets.” In this chain of four links, 1) God sends 2) His Spirit to speak through31 3) the (former) prophets who 4) had written down the law and the words.32 25 The “spacing” of the words here may reveal a different translation: instead of “by the prophets” it could be “by my fearsome speech” (cf. Douglas Stuart, Hosea–Jonah [WBC 31; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988], 109). 26 This text is especially important because a few verses later in v. 16, the prophet Micaiah is implored to speak “nothing but the truth (Heb: ‫ ) אֱמֶת‬in the name of the LORD” (cf. 2 Chr 18:13, 15). 27 Cf. Exod 4:15 for a parallel with Moses and Aaron. The Jer 15:19 passage is even more forceful than the others, since there it is said that the Jeremiah himself shall be as the LORD’s mouth. 28 It is uncertain if Isa 51:16; 59:21 are referring to the same phenomenon as the one explained above. 29 On the contrary, a false prophet speaks in the name of the LORD when the LORD has not spoken to them: Jer 14:14-15; 23:16, 25-26, 32; 27:14-15; Ezek 13:1-3, 17; 22:28. 30 Nevertheless, as Hos 8:12 implies, it would be God Himself writing down the laws. For examples of nonprophets being commanded to write down God’s law, cf. Deut 17:18-20; 27:1-8. In addition, there are several passages that speak of prophets writing down various texts without any direct command from God (Exod 24:4; Deut 31:9-13; Josh 8:32; 24:26; 1 Sam 10:25; 1 Chr 28:19 [?]; 29:29; 2 Chr 20:34; 21:12-15; 24:19-20; 26:22; 28:19; 32:32; Isa 8:16; 29:18; 34:16; Jer 25:31; 29:1; 45:1; 50:60-64). The key difference seems to be this: whether they were commanded to write or not, when God’s Spirit was with them, they were writing on God’s behalf, and when God’s Spirit was not with them, they were not. This difference may explain how prophets could write non-canonical books. The link between God’s prophets and inspiration is pre-Christian; cf. Josephus, Apion 1:37, 41. 31 The preposition is important. God did not speak “by” the prophets as if they were the ultimate source of God’s revelation, but rather “through” (Heb: ְּ‫ ) ב‬them, thereby allowing the message to be both fully divine and fully human. For references to God speaking “through” the prophets, cf. Hos 1:2; 12:10; Zech 7:12; Hag 1:1, 3; 2:10. The idea of God speaking “through” the prophets and apostles becomes the predominant idea in the Patristic era (Latin: per; Greek: διά). 32 For other texts linking God’s Spirit and the prophets, cf. Num 11:29; 24:2; 1 Sam 10:10; 19:20, 23; 2 Chr 15:1; 20:14, 20; Neh 9:30; Ezek 2:2; Hos 9:7; Mic 3:8. Perhaps a parallel to this phenomenon may be found in Exod 31:1-11 (cf. 35:30-36:2; 38:22-23), where God filled Bezalel (and Oholiab?) with His Spirit for the 11 The link from the first (God) to the last (written documents) is direct, with no evidence of any decline in authority or truthfulness. This evidence is uniquely important because it completes the link between God’s words and the written texts. Therefore, in conclusion it is safe to assert that large portions of the Old Testament attest to having divine origin, and that there is a direct connection between God’s words and the prophets’ words, including their writings. 4.1.2. The New Testament’s self-attestation of divine origin Coming now to the New Testament, the evidence for divine origin is in some cases stronger and in some cases weaker than the Old Testament evidence. On the one hand, the New Testament states that Jesus is God in the flesh (ex., John 1:1, 14), and claims that He and His words are authoritative, eternal, and true (Matt 7:24 pars; 24:35 pars; Mark 8:38 pars; John 1:17; 8:14, 40, 45-46; 14:6; 16:7).33 This implies that large portions of the four Gospels, a few scattered sayings in Acts and the Pauline corpus, and a few sections from Revelation are true (i.e., inerrant).34 On the other hand, the New Testament does not contain divine origin formulae as was seen above in the Old Testament. In a strict sense, therefore, outside of Jesus’ words there is relatively less evidence of the New Testament’s self-attestation of divine origin.35 Nevertheless, there are at least five data that point in the direction of the New Testament being authoritative and true. purpose of constructing the Tabernacle that God had shown Moses: 1) God sends 2) His Spirit to work through 3) Bezalel (and Oholiab) who 4) constructed the Tabernacle. 33 Notice as well the connection with God’s Spirit in Luke 4:18-19 (cf. Isa 61:1-2).There are some texts that might suggest that Jesus’ words were not always truthful, but these examples can be explained rather easily. In Mark 9:1 pars Jesus’ words do not need to be interpreted as referring to His second coming but rather to any one (or combination) of the following events: transfiguration, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, or coming of the Spirit. In Luke 16:8, the master is approving of the steward’s shrewdness, not his dishonesty. In John 7:1-10, Jesus did not lie about not going up to Jerusalem, but rather did not want to go up based on the worldly counsel of his unbelieving brothers (cf. 7:4) but rather waited for the Father’s promptings and went up to Jerusalem for motives other than to proclaim Himself the Messiah. 34 For works treating the reliability of the Gospels with respect to transmitting Jesus’ words accurately, cf. Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1998); Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2017). 35 Perhaps the texts that come closest to claiming divine origin are Gal 1:8-9; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Cor 11:10; 13:3. 12 First, there are many texts that state that the author is not lying but rather telling the truth (John 19:35; 21:24; Rom 9:1; 2 Cor 11:31; 12:6; Gal 1:20; 1 Thess 2:3; 1 Tim 2:7).36 In fact, on at least one occasion where Paul had thought himself mistaken, he went out of his way to clarify himself (1 Cor 1:14-16).37 Second, many texts bear witness to their being read aloud in early Christian gatherings, thereby either implying some kind of authority over the churches or explicitly mimicking the reading of the Hebrew Scriptures in the synagogues (Matt 24:15; Mark 13:14; Acts 15:30; 16:4; 2 Cor 7:8; 10:9-10; Eph 3:4; Col 4:16; 1 Thess 5:27; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:14; Phlm 1-2; Heb 13:22; 2 Pet 3:1 [15-16?]; 1 John 5:13; 2 John 1; 3 John 9; Rev 1:3; 13:18; 17:9-10; 22:18-19).38 Third, several texts suggest that the apostles and their associates saw their own teachings and writings, as well as those of other apostles, as authoritative (Acts 2:42; John 14:26; 21:24; 1 Cor 2:13; 7:10-12, 25, 40; 14:37 [?]; 2 Cor 3:6; 10:8, 11; 13:3, 10; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6, 14; 1 Tim 5:18 [?]; 2 Pet 3:1-2, 15-16; 1 John 1:1-4; 5:13; Rev 1:3; 22:9, 18-19). In several of these texts, the apostles claim such a high degree of authority—such as that following their teachings assures one of having a relationship with God, and that they are able to give commands even when Jesus Himself is not known to have given any—that it 36 Luke 1:1-4 similarly implies truthfulness, but does not state it explicitly. Notice that this was over a minor detail, suggesting that the Apostle wanted to speak truthfully in everything he had written, and not just matters relating to “faith and practice” (see below §4.3). 38 For the reading aloud of OT texts in early Christian gatherings, cf. 1 Tim 4:13. While it is true that other non-canonical texts were read aloud in early Christian gatherings (ex., Acts 18:27; Ignatius, Eph. 20:1), there is evidence that there was an understanding that the apostolic writings were different (ex., 1 Clem. 47:1; Ignatius, Tral. 3:3; Rom. 4:3; Polycarp, Phil. 3:2; 11:2). The letter “of” or “in possession of” (see below) the Laodiceans (Col 4:16) is an interesting case: obviously it was to be read aloud in various churches, but its identity remains uncertain. If it is a letter that is now lost, it was lost rather early as it is not included in any early canon list. However, the ambiguous Greek phrase τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας (“the [letter] of/among the Laodiceans) could be understood as 1) “of the Laodiceans,” meaning a letter that the Laodiceans had written to Paul (this was the view, among others, of Chrysostom); or 2) “in possession of the Laodiceans,” meaning a letter that was currently at Laodicea but not addressed to them, i.e., an encyclical letter that currently was at Laodicea. If the second option is correct, then the most likely candidate on thematic and geographical grounds would be the letter known as Ephesians (first posited by Marcion, 2nd cent.), with Philemon and Hebrews being less likely options as well (for discussion, cf. James Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon [NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1996], 286-287; Peter O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon [WBC 44; Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2000], 257-258). 37 13 suggests that the apostles saw their words not as mere human opinion but rather as having divine authority, thereby implying their truthfulness.39 Fourth, and related to the previous evidence, behind the Greek word ἀπόστολος stands the Semitic word ַ‫( שָׁלִיח‬Matt 10:2 pars; Mark 6:30 pars; 11:49; 17:5; 22:14; 24:10),40 which denotes one who has been commissioned by another to say or perform an act on their behalf, with all of the rights and responsibilities necessary to do so.41 The significance of this fact is that many New Testament letters begin (with minor variants) with the claim that the author is an “apostle” of Jesus Christ (Rom 1:1; 1 Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; 1 Tim 1:1; 2 Tim 1:1; Titus 1:1; 1 Pet 1:1; 2 Pet 1:1).42 Thus, by calling themselves “apostles” of Jesus Christ they were claiming to have been sent by Jesus Christ to speak and act on His behalf, with all of the rights and responsibilities necessary to do so, thereby evoking divine authority and implying truthfulness. This phenomenon is arguably the closest New Testament counterpart to the Old Testament prophet.43 Fifth, unique to the book of Revelation is its opening line that it is a “revelation” that “God gave” through Jesus Christ to His servants (1:1). Such a claim makes God as the ultimate source of the book of Revelation (cf. Rev 22:18-19), thereby implying its 39 If Eph 2:20 were talking about OT prophets, then this would place NT apostles with them, thereby inviting us to draw parallels between the two; however, based on Eph 3:5 and 4:11 it appears that the term “prophets” in this verse refers to a NT office (thus Andrew Lincoln, Ephesians [WBC 42; Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990], 153). 40 Although it should be noted that in the Syriac versions, another verb, ‫ שׁדר‬, is also used to translate the Greek ἀποστέλλω at times. 41 The word ַ‫ שָׁלִיח‬appears some ten times in the Mishnah, the most pertinent of which are Ber. 5:5; RoshHa. 4:9; Meil. 6:1, 3. It also appears in Yoma 1:5 in the Eshkol manuscript, but the more reliable Kaufmann manuscript reads ַ‫ שָׁלוּח‬. For discussion of the meaning of these terms, cf. Frank Gavin, “Shaliach and Apostolos,” ATR 9 no 3 (1927): 250-259 (he concludes that during the time of the NT, ַ‫ שָׁלִיח‬meant “plenipotentiary” and ַ‫ שָׁלוּח‬meant “deputed agent” [ibid, 257]). 42 The modifying phrase “of Jesus Christ” is important. The NT employs the term “apostle” both generally and specifically: generally it can refer to anyone “sent” by someone else for any purpose (John 13:16; 2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25), but specifically it refers to those who met two conditions: 1) they had seen Jesus after His resurrection (most also had been with Him during His lifetime), and 2) they had been specifically commissioned by Him as an apostle (Acts 1:2-3, 21-22; 4:33). In addition to the original Twelve (Jesus’ eleven disciples plus Matthias; cf. Acts 1:26), other (probable) apostles “of Jesus Christ” are Paul (1 Cor 9:1), Barnabas (Acts 14:14), James the brother of Jesus (1 Cor 15:7-9; Gal 1:19), Silas (1 Thess 1:1; 2:6) and perhaps Timothy (1 Thess 1:1; 2:6; but cf. 3:1-2), bringing the number (possibly) to 16 or 17. 43 For examples of ‫ שׁלח‬in the context of God sending a prophet, cf. Exod 7:16; 2 Sam 12:1; 2 Chr 25:15; 36:15-16; Isa 6:8; Jer 1:7; Ezek 2:3-4; Hag 1:12; Mal 4:5. 14 truthfulness.44 Therefore, although the data are not conclusive, the overall tendency and trajectory of the New Testament writings is that the apostles saw themselves and the other apostles as God’s and Jesus’ spokesmen, thereby claiming divine origin and implying truthfulness (i.e., inerrancy).45 4.1.3. Recognition of earlier texts having divine origin by later texts Finally, different parts of both the Old and New Testaments recognize previously written texts as either having come from God directly or at least as being authoritative, with the implication that said authority comes from God, thereby implying truthfulness. The evidence is divided into three groups: the first group contains the testimony of Old Testament texts recognizing other Old Testament texts; the second group contains the testimony of New Testament texts recognizing Old Testament texts; and the third group contains the testimony of New Testament texts recognizing other New Testament texts. As for texts from the Old Testament recognizing other texts from the Old Testament as either having come from God or being authoritative, three texts stand out as especially important in this regard.46 First, in Joshua 1:7-8 God commands Joshua to meditate in, and to do, all that Moses had written in the “Book of the Law.” This is an early endorsement of the authority of the book of Deuteronomy,47 and may perhaps extend to the Pentateuch as a whole. Second, in Daniel 9:1-2 the author mentions generally the “Scriptures” (Heb: ‫) סְּפָרִ ֑ים‬ and specifically the book of Jeremiah (alluding to 25:11-12 or 29:10) as the sources he read in his search to discover the length of the exile that God had determined. With the phrase “according to the word of the LORD” used in 9:2, there is a clear reference to divine origin for the book of Jeremiah. If it is true that the “Scriptures” refer to a corpus of writings that all 44 Cf. David Aune, Revelation 1-5 (WBC 52A; Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1997), 12. This is the same view, generally speaking, of various first-and second-century Christian writers; cf. 1 Clem. 42:1-2; Ignatius, Mag. 6:1; 7:1; Smyr. 8:1; Polycarp, Phil. 6:3; Barn. 5:9; 8:3. 46 Other texts not discussed are: 1 Kgs 2:1-4; 2 Kgs 14:6; 22:8-13; 23:21-24; 1 Chr 16:40; 23:18; 31:3; 35:4, 12; Ezek 3:2-4; 6:18; 7:10; 9:11-12; Isa 34:16; Dan 9:11-13. 47 Thus Trent Butler, Joshua 1-12, 2nd ed. (WBC 7A; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 220. 45 15 shared the same characteristic as being “according to the word of the LORD,” then this would imply that Daniel saw the whole corpus as having divine origin. Third, Zechariah 1:4; 7:7, 12 all mention the “former prophets” (Heb: ‫ ) הַנְּבִיאִ֨ים הָרִ ֽאשֹׁנ ִ֜ים‬as those through whom God had spoken in times past. As Zechariah 7:12 especially makes clear, their works were authoritative because God, by His Spirit, had spoken through them. As for texts from the New Testament recognizing texts from the Old Testament as either having come from God or being authoritative, three texts stand out as especially important in this regard.48 First, 2 Timothy 3:16 says that “all Scripture is breathed out by God.” The word used for “Scripture” is γραφή, and while on a few occasions in early Christian literature it can refer to non-canonical writings (Jas 4:5 [?]; 1 Clem. 23:3; Barn. 16:5; Shep. 7:4 [γέγραπται]), the great majority of its usages refer to Old Testament writings, which are almost certainly what Paul has in mind here.49 The significance of this is that Paul says that “all Scripture” comes from God. The direct referent to “Scripture” here is the Hebrew Scriptures, thereby referring to the Old Testament in its entirety.50 Second, 2 Peter 1:21 says, “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”51 While much could be said about this text, the most important issue to note here is that Peter is denying that the prophets themselves were the ultimate source of their own messages and affirming that it was instead 48 Other examples of other texts not discussed here would be too numerous to list, since virtually every citation, allusion, echo, etc., to the OT by the NT authors either implied or explicitly stated that OT’s divine origin. However, examples of some of the more explicit cases are: Acts 4:24-25 (cf. Ps 2:1); 13:35 (cf. Ps 16:10); Heb 1:6 (cf. Deut 32:43); 1:7 (cf. Ps 104:4); 1:8-9 (cf. Ps 45:6-7); 1:10-12 (cf. Ps 102:25-27); 3:7-11 (cf. Ps 95:7-11). 49 Thus William Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (WBC 46; Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2000), 565-568; George Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1992), 445. To be more precise, as far as I can tell every use (except for perhaps Jas 4:5) of γραφή in the NT refers to an OT text. 50 For the OT canon, see note 3 above. However, for an argument that “all Scripture” refers “both to the OT and the gospel message” (the latter of which would include perhaps some written documents that later would be included in the NT), cf. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 568. For an OT parallel to the “all” of Scripture, cf. Prov 30:5. 51 Such language is not too distant from 1 Pet 1:10-11. 16 the Holy Spirit.52 Such an affirmation is wholly in line with the Old Testament’s selfattestation of divine origin (see §4.1.1 above). Third, Hebrews 1:1-2 states that it was the same God who spoke through the prophets and the Son. This claim evokes the divine origin of the prophetic writings and thereby implies their truthfulness.53 In addition to these three texts, the testimony of Jesus Christ should be given special attention. His direct and indirect references to the inspiration and truthfulness of the Old Testament are so numerous that only the two most important texts can be mentioned here.54 First, in Matthew 5:18 Jesus demonstrates His conviction that even the smallest units of meaning in the Old Testament are important: “For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished” (cf. Luke 16:17).55 The words used here for “iota” and “dot” are ἰῶτα and κεραία, respectively, and refer to the smallest letter and smallest part of a letter in the Hebrew/Aramaic alphabet, respectively.56 Thus Jesus’ comments here cannot be understood to restrict the Bible’s authority to general ideas that could be found at the paragraph or sentence level of 52 Thus Richard Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (WBC 50; Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983), 234. This argument goes against the objections of those like James Dunn who argue that since texts such as 2 Tim 3:16 and 2 Pet 1:21 do not explicitly argue for inerrancy in every detail, then they cannot be interpreted to mean such (“The Authority of Scripture According to Scripture,” Churchman 96 no 2 [1982]: 104-122). At least four answers are in order: 1) Just because a text does not explicitly affirm something does not necessitate the conclusion that it is explicitly denying the opposite; 2) These texts do not limit themselves in any way, and thus any limitation is foreign to the text; 3) God’s truthfulness in His self-revelation in Scripture is attested to in numerous places throughout Scripture, but there is no indication that God ever reveals anything containing any sort of error; 4) If God is true, then inspiration at the very least implies a truthful revelation, if not assures it altogether (for this connection, cf. B. B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, ed. Samuel Craig [Philadelphia, PA: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1970] 150). 54 For a standard work treating Jesus’ view of the OT, cf. John Wenham, Our Lord’s View of the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (London: InterVarsity Fellowship, 1953). An example of an interesting text that could be added to the list is Mark 12:24-27 pars where it is stated that if the Sadducees had known the Scriptures, then they would not have erred, thereby implying that the Scriptures do not err (Baum, “Is New Testament Inerrancy,” 265). 55 That the “Law” is a reference to the entire OT can be surmised from the reference to the “Law” and “Prophets” in v. 17. It ought to be noticed that v. 18 is preceded and followed by verses that also speak of the abiding applicability of the OT, down to the “least” of its commandments. 56 That is, ἰῶτα translates the Hebrew/Aramaic word yod (cf. the Syriac versions ‫"ܕ‬# ) and κεραία refers 53 either to the small strokes that distinguish between, for example, the Hebrew/Aramaic letters ‫ ד‬and ‫ ר‬, or to ornamental strokes that were added to some letters (cf. John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text [NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005], 220). 17 communication, but rather must be understood to include individual words as well.57 Second, in John 10:35 Jesus demonstrates His conviction in the abiding truthfulness of Scripture: “Scripture cannot be broken.” In the context of this statement Jesus is stating that God’s Word cannot be annulled, set aside, or proved false, even when it may contradict what humans prefer in certain occasions (which was the case with Jesus’ opponents in this context).58 In summary, Jesus held a very high view of Scripture, and saw all of it important and containing abiding truthfulness.59 As for texts from the New Testament recognizing other texts from the New Testament as either having come from God or being authoritative, three texts are important. First, 2 Peter 3:16 talks about “ignorant and unstable” people who twist the meaning of Paul’s letters “as they do the other Scriptures.” The word used for “other” is λοιπός, which means that the author is placing Paul’s writings in the same category as the rest of the Scriptures.60 Second, Hebrews 1:1-2 states that whereas beforehand God had spoken to His people through the prophets, now He had done so to an even greater degree through the Son (cf. John 1:17).61 This text is significant in that it heightens God’s revelation through Christ as compared to the Old Testament prophets, and this revelation has been mediated to the Christian world primarily through the four canonical Gospels. Needless to say, truthfulness is inherent in such a revelation. Third, although there are questions regarding both chronology and sources, it is possible that in 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul quotes from both Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7, and 57 There are numerous examples of Christian exegesis in the NT that depend on a word or short phrase; see §4.2.2 and §4.3.3 below for examples. 58 D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991), 399. 59 Cf. Craig Blomberg, “When it comes to the inspiration, truthfulness, authority, and relevance of the Bible of his world, Jesus could scarcely have held to higher views” (“Reflections on Jesus’ View of the Old Testament,” in Carson, Enduring Authority, 696). 60 Thus Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 333. BDAG glosses the phrase as “the rest of the scriptures” (s.v. λοιπός, 2.a.). 61 Interestingly, Matt 11:9 pars makes a similar claim about John the Baptist, namely, that John was “more than a prophet.” The difference, however, is that John the Baptist’s greatness was connected with his heralding the coming of God (Matt 11:10), whereas Jesus was the Coming One. Additionally, John the Baptist was never filled with the Spirit to write anything authoritative for the people of God, and as Matt 11:3 pars demonstrates, he was confused about Jesus’ purpose and mission. 18 refers to them both equally as “Scripture” (Gr: γραφή).62 If this argument is sound, then it would place Luke on the same level as Deuteronomy regarding truthfulness.63 It is perhaps best to include here a brief discussion of the interesting phenomenon found in the Bible in which God can be attributed to have said something in Scripture that He did not in fact “say,” and Scripture can “say” something even though it is God Himself who is the only one who can speak.64 Thus in Matthew 19:5 Jesus says that God said “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh,” even though Genesis 2:24 does not record God as speaking but rather contains narrative material. Contrariwise in Romans 9:17 the introductory phrase “Scripture says to Pharaoh” is found, followed by a quotation of Exodus 9:16; but in this passage it is the LORD (not “Scripture”!) who is speaking to Pharaoh through Moses. Finally, in Galatians 3:8 we read the following: “And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘In you shall all the nations be blessed’.” This exceptional verse applies to Scripture the attributes of foreseeing, preaching, and saying, and all of this from a quotation from Genesis 12:3 in which God Himself is speaking to Abraham. The combined testimony of these texts unites God with Scripture to such an extent that “God” and “Scripture” can be used interchangeably when referring to Old Testament texts.65 4.1.4. Conclusion 62 Cf. Knight III, Pastoral Epistles, 234-235. Personally, I tend to link the writing of 1 Tim with the events recorded in Acts 20:1-3, thereby providing a date of composition of AD 56, and thus negating any dependence on Luke’s Gospel. 63 Again, if this were a valid argument, then its significance would have implications for the other four Gospels, and possibly for other canonical writings, since Luke’s Gospel is the furthest removed from personal interaction with Christ (Luke 1:1-4). If, however, Luke can be called “Scripture,” then why not those other texts that are closer to Christ? 64 Cf. B. B. Warfield, “‘It Says:’ ‘Scripture Says:’ ‘God Says’,” in B. B. Warfield, Inspiration and Authority, 299-348. 65 Other texts that exhibit a similar phenomenon would be Acts 4:24-25 (cf. Ps 2:1); 13:35 (cf. Ps 16:10); Heb 1:6 (cf. Deut 32:43); 1:7 (cf. Ps 104:4); 1:8-9 (cf. Ps 45:6-7); 1:10-12 (cf. Ps 102:25-27); 3:7-11 (cf. Ps 95:7-11). 19 In conclusion, both the Old and New Testaments claim to have divine origin at numerous places throughout the Bible, and several texts ascribe divine origin to other texts as well, thereby augmenting the amount of texts that fit this category. One of the important keys to understanding the evidence is the role and function of the prophets: they were God’s spokesmen who were enabled to speak God’s words through God’s Spirit. The significance of this fact is found in its relation to the major premise stated above: to the extent that these passages may be said to be from God—and the evidence points to a direct relationship between the two—then they may be said to be true, because God Himself is true, as are His words.66 Thus far in the argument, not much controversial has been stated. All Christians agree that God is true and most Christians would agree that when God speaks, be it directly or through a prophet or apostle, He speaks truly. The next two parts, however, discuss the crux of the controversy, since they center around the quality and quantity of Scripture’s testimony to God’s self-revelation. 4.2. Verbal Inspiration The second part addresses the issue of whether God’s self-revelation in the Bible is subjective or objective.67 To state the issue in the form of a question: Is the Bible primarily the product of spiritual, subjective encounters with God, or is it primarily the product of propositional, objective self-revelations from God?68 The issue being faced here is whether God’s self-revelation is to be found in the ideas conveyed by Scripture, or rather in the particular words themselves. The following discussion provides evidence from the Old Testament and the New Testament regarding this issue. 66 The self-attestation of Scripture was used as early as the early third century by Clement of Alexandria to demonstrate the Bible’s truthfulness; cf. Stromata 7:16). 67 Although broader in scope, this part addresses some strands of neo-orthodox thinking. For a perceptive critique of neo-orthodoxy from an insider, cf. Langdon Gilkey, “Cosmology, Ontology, and the Travail of Biblical Language,” JR 41 no 3 (1961): 194-205. 68 Michael J. Christensen, C. S. Lewis on Scripture (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1979), 20; D. A Carson, “What is inerrancy?” (YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6zudFtjI4U; last accessed 01 June, 2018). 20 4.2.1 The Old Testament The Old Testament provides testimony that the particular words of Scripture are important. This can be seen in at least four different ways.69 First, the phrases ‫דְּבַר־י ְהוָ֣ה‬ (“word of the LORD”) and ‫ה ֽים‬ ִ ֹ ‫ב ֥ר אֱל‬ ַ ְ‫“( דּ‬word of God”) are used throughout Scripture to refer to messages from God with specific, verbal content (ex., Gen 15:1, 4; Exod 4:28; 9:2021; Num 3:16, 51; 15:31; Deut 5:5; 34:5; Josh 8:8, 27; Judg 3:20; 1 Sam 3:1; 9:27; 2 Sam 7:4; 12:9; 1 Kgs 2:27; 12:22-24; 1 Chr 17:3; 2 Chr 29:15). In numerous passages, there is a specific response on man’s part (ex., Jer 13:1-7; Jonah 3:1-3), thus favoring the understanding that the words themselves were important.70 Second, as was noted above, various texts speak of God putting His words (Heb: ‫דבָר‬ ָּ ) in the prophets’ mouths. This makes God the primary (if not sole) speaker in the text, thereby reducing the possibility that the prophet inserted his subjective experiences into the act, but rather only recorded God’s objective self-revelation. Third, various texts that touch on God’s self-revelation place an emphasis on the verbal component itself. Thus, for example, after Moses reads aloud the “Book of the Covenant” (i.e., Exod 21-23), the people respond by saying, “All the words that the LORD has spoken we will do” (emphasis mine; Exod 24:3; cf. v. 7).71 The people’s response is not based on an idea impressed upon them due to their encounter with God, but rather on specific commands that were communicated to them with specific words.72 Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, there are a few places where there are warnings not to add to 69 Not included here is Isa 28:9-10 (cf. v. 13). While the interpretation of this passage is debatable, it is at least possible that the priests and prophets (cf. vv. 7-8) were supposed to teach the Law in a very exact, systematic fashion. If so, this would be another argument for the importance of the words themselves. 70 A similar expression is ‫א ֑ל‬ ֵ ‫“( אִמְרֵ י־‬words of God” Ps 107:11), again with an emphasis on specific words. 71 A similar event would be the rediscovery of the Law of Moses during the reign of Josiah (2 Kgs 22:8-13; 2 Chr 34:14-21). The very fact that God’s words had been rediscovered was significant, and the passages highlight that Judah had not obeyed “all” the “words.” A similar phenomenon can be found in Neh 8:8 where the Law of God was read and explained so that the people could understand it. 72 Similarly, passages such as Exod 33:11; Num 7:89; 12:6-8, highlight the fact that God spoke to Moses with a “voice,” “face to face,” as a “friend,” “mouth to mouth,” and “clearly,” and Deut 5:28 implies that God spoke to Moses just as the Israelites spoke to Moses (cf. Isa 22:14). These all imply direct, objective revelation. 21 or take away from God’s words (Deut 4:2; 12:32; Prov 30:5-6; Jer 26:2).73 Such an emphasis on words does not square with a view of inspiration in which the Bible is primarily the product of spiritual, subjective encounters with God, but rather with that of propositional, objective self-revelations from God.74 4.2.2. The New Testament The New Testament similarly places emphasis on the importance of the very words of Scripture. This can be seen in at least four different ways. First, the language used in 2 Peter 1:19-21 resembles that of other Greco-Roman and Jewish discussions regarding inspiration, and all such discussion provided almost no role, or even control, to the prophets.75 While Peter’s language is slightly different, and thus allows room for human agency,76 at the very least it favors the limited role of humans in the inspiration process, thereby implying that the words come from God Himself.77 Second, Matthew 5:18 and Luke 16:17 demonstrate that Jesus saw importance in the tiniest, most minute details of Scripture, and Revelation 22:18-19 states that adding to or taking away from any of the words found in that book would be met with a curse.78 What all three of these texts have in common is the implicit assumption or explicit statement that the very words of Scripture are important.79 Third, there are a host of New Testament citations of and allusions to the Old Testament whose validity depends on the 73 A careful comparison of God’s words given to Adam in Gen 2:16-17 and Eve’s words to the serpent in Gen 3:3 illustrates the importance of this principle. 74 Jeremiah 36 illustrates the importance of words: after King Jehoiakim burnt the first scroll that Baruch had written at the dictation of Jeremiah, the LORD commanded Jeremiah to “Take another scroll and write on it all the former words that were in the first scroll” (v. 28; emphasis mine). 75 For example, Plato, Ion 533e-535a; Phaed. 244a-c. 76 This can be illustrated by Rom 10:20, where Isaiah is said to have been “bold” in writing the words found in Isa 65:1. How could Isaiah be said to be bold if he were not in some way active in the writing process? 77 For texts and discussion, cf. §4.3 below and Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 233-234. While not a strict case of inspiration, Jer 36 may provide an illustration of the limited role of human agency in the inspiration process. Although Baruch was the technical author of the scroll, the message it contained was referred to as the “words of the LORD” (v. 6) and the “words of Jeremiah” (v. 10). 78 Some would argue that these closing words in Rev could be extended to include the whole of Scripture; while this may be a legitimate systematic move, it is not a legitimate exegetical one. 79 That this was the case among Jews can be illustrated by Josephus’ testimony that no Jew had ever added to, taken away, or changed any part of their Scriptures (Con. Ap. 1:42). That the Jews were accustomed to precision in cultic language can be illustrated by m. Ber 5, where one’s prayers, blessings, and reports had to be exact. 22 correctness of one word or short phrase, such as Matthew 2:5 (Bethlehem), 15 (Egypt); 21:25 pars (colt); 22:44 pars (my); John 8:17 (two); 10:34 (you are gods); 13:18, 26-27 (bread); 19:33-37 (break, pierced); Romans 4:3 (believed), 9 (faith), 23 (it was counted to him); 15:912 (Gentiles); Galatians 3:13 (tree); Hebrews 3:13 (today); 4:7 (today).80 All of these examples imply that the New Testament authors saw importance in the words themselves. Fourth, there a few New Testament texts whose validity depends on minute grammatical details found in Old Testament texts, such as Matthew 22:32 pars (verb tense), 44-45 pars (pronoun; one letter in Hebrew), and Galatians 3:16 (grammatical number; one letter in Hebrew).81 Again, these examples demonstrate that the New Testament authors saw importance in minute details in the text, not merely ideas conveyed in the text.82 4.2.3. Conclusion In conclusion, the combined evidence from the Old Testament and the New Testament both implicitly assumes and explicitly states that the very words of Scripture come from God and are therefore important. This view is called “verbal inspiration” and argues against understanding inspiration as a subjective encounter of the individual with God, but rather as a propositional, objective revelation from God to the individual. This conclusion strengthens the connection between God, who is true, and His self-revelation in Scripture. 4.3. Plenary Inspiration The third part addresses the issue of whether or not God’s self-revelation extends to every part of the Bible. To state the issue in the form of a question: Is the Bible composed solely of God’s self-revelation (no matter what that revelation may include), or is it also 80 For similar examples, cf. Roger Nicole, “New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” in Revelation and the Bible, ed. Carl F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1958), 139. 81 For similar examples, cf. Greg Bahnsen, “The Inerrancy of the Autographa,” in Geisler, Inerrancy, 169. For rabbinic parallels regarding the importance of individual letters and words in the Hebrew Bible (although all of the evidence comes from the 2nd century AD or later), cf. Hermann Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (München: C. H. Beck, 1922), 1:244-249. 82 Examples of finding importance at the word and individual letter level can be illustrated in the Mishnah; cf. Maas. Sh. 5:10; Yoma 1:1; Taan. 4:8; Sot. 2:4-5; 8:4; Sanh. 10:3; Avot 3:18; Hor. 1:4. 23 composed of human testimony, especially as the topics shift away from faith and practice matters and turn towards science, history, and the like? In other words, while all sides agree that the primary purpose of the Bible is to provide humanity with a sure testimony regarding faith and practice,83 some would seek to limit inerrancy to these areas only, and to admit errors in the Bible when it touches upon issues such as science, history, and the like. Thus, given the multiple references in Scripture to human authorship (Matt 3:3; 15:7 pars; 19:7-8 pars; 22:24; Mark 1:44; 7:10; Luke 16:29, 31; 24:25; John 1:45; [8:5;] Acts 2:25, 34; 3:21; 6:14; 7:37; 26:22; Rom 10:19; 11:9; Heb 7:14), does this imply that some portions of the Bible originate with humans themselves, and therefore are not necessarily inerrant?84 To be fair, Christians who put forth these arguments maintain that the primary purpose of Scripture is related to issues of faith and practice, and therefore insist that the primary purpose of Scripture has not been compromised despite these scientific and historical errors.85 Additionally, to the extent that the vast majority of biblical material is devoted to issues of faith and practice, these Christians share much in common with inerrantists regarding the inerrancy (or infallibility) of Scripture. Nevertheless, as is shown below, drawing such a distinction between matters relating to faith and practice on the one hand, and science and history on the other, is not justified either from a survey of how others have handled the evidence in the past nor how Scripture itself addresses the issue. There are at least three reasons to think that all, as opposed to some, of the words found in Scripture are of divine origin, and these reasons are developed below. 4.3.1. Early Jewish and Christian testimony 83 As the conversation has developed over the decades, the term “infallibility” is used to refer to the Bible’s truthfulness with regards to matters related to faith and practice, while the term “inerrancy” is used to refer to the Bible’s truthfulness with regards to all topics that it addresses. 84 This was, for example, Augustine’s approach to the book of 1 Enoch, which he deemed to contain some truth and divine content, but which was mixed with fables and falsehoods. It is for this reason, he concludes, that 1 Enoch cannot be considered canonical (City 15:23). 85 Historically this would be the view of many European (German, Dutch, and English) theologians, as well as a growing number of North American scholars. 24 First, although somewhat anecdotal, early Jewish and Christian testimony unanimously denied virtually any human component in the process of inspiration. Such a stance implies that man has not written down his own testimony in the Bible, but rather that God has spoken through him; and since God’s knowledge is exhaustive and true, He would speak truthfully about whatever topic He on which He spoke. Aside from the direct biblical evidence that supports this view (ex., Num. 22:38; 24:13), Jewish and Christian authors who espouse this view (often comparing the biblical authors to musical instruments who were “played” by the Holy Spirit) are Philo (Heir, 265; Spec. 1:65; 4:49); 4 Ezra (14:22, 37-47); Genesis Rabbah (8:8);86 Justin Martyr (Exhor. Gr. 8); Theophilus of Antioch (To Auto. 2:9); Athenagoras (Plea 7, 9); and Hippolytus of Rome (Christ and Antichrist 2).87 Again, the vocabulary used in 2 Timothy 3:16 (θεόπνευστος) and 2 Peter 1:21 (ὑπὸ πνεύµατος ἁγίου φερόµενοι) should not be forgotten: God is the primary author of Scripture.88 In fact, the very issue of whether or not certain verses were from God or merely human authors was addressed directly in b. Sanhedrin 99a: Another [Baraitha] taught: Because he hath despised the word of the Lord — this refers to him who maintains that the Torah is not from Heaven. And even if he asserts that the whole Torah is from Heaven, excepting a particular verse, which [he maintains] was not 86 This text is interesting: “R. Samuel b. Nahman said in R. Jonathan’s name: When Moses was engaged in writing the Torah, he had to write the work of each day. When he came to the verse, AND GOD SAID: LET US MAKE MAN, etc., he said: ‘Sovereign of the Universe! Why dost Thou furnish an excuse to heretics?’ ‘Write,’ replied He; ‘whoever wishes to err may err’” (H. Freedman and Maurice Simon, Midrash Rabbah [London: The Soncino Press, 1939], 59). Two important observations regarding Genesis Rabbah’s view of inspiration can be noted: 1) the human authors were self-conscious of what they were writing; 2) the human authors had to write down the exact words that God wanted, even if it went against their will. 87 Josephus, Antiq 4:119 may be another example, but it is uncertain if Josephus is stating his own position or rather reporting what the biblical text says. 88 Similar language appears in Philo when he says that “the laws are oracles vouchsafed (θεόχρηστος) by God” (Embassy to Gaius 210; trans. Colson LCL). The word translated “vouchsafed” means “delivered by God,” thereby evoking God’s direct link between Himself and the oracles, that is, the Hebrew Scriptures (Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, rev. and aug. by Sir Henry Stuart Jones and Roderick McKenzie [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940], s.v. θεόχρηστος [accessed on perseus.tufts.edu; 10 Aug, 2018]). However, cf. Life of Moses 2:188 where he appears to distinguish between three different kinds of prophecy (Yehoshua Amir, “Authority and Interpretation of Scripture in the Writings of Philo,” in The Literature of the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud, Volume 1, Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Martin-Jan Mulder [Leiden: Brill, 1988], 421-453, here 437ff. 25 uttered by God but by Moses himself, he is included in “because he hath despised the word of the Lord.” And even if he admits that the whole Torah is from Heaven, excepting a single point, a particular ad majus deduction or a certain gezerah shawah, — he is still included in “because he hath despised the word of the Lord.”89 While this combined evidence cannot determine whether or not Scripture should be divided into faith and practice portions and science and history portions, it does demonstrate that the unanimous testimony of early Jews and Christians essentially did away with the intermediary role of humans in the inspiration process, often comparing them to passive objects such as musical instruments that perfectly responded to God’s initiative.90 This, in turn, makes God the primary author of Scripture which, in turn, implies the Bible’s truthfulness. 4.3.2. Jesus’ view of the relationship between mundane and spiritual truths Second, and more to the point, in John 3:12 Jesus connects His trustworthiness regarding mundane matters to His trustworthiness regarding spiritual matters: “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?”91 In other words, the proper relationship between spiritual and mundane matters is not one of divine and human origin, respectively, with the latter being open to equivocation. Rather, Jesus evokes the idea of a ladder of knowledge, with the mundane matters representing the lower rungs of observable and verifiable experiences that lead up to the higher rungs of spiritual truths that are not open to observation and verification. In this way, the importance of the Bible’s veracity regarding scientific and historical data is not 89 Translation: http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_99.html (last accessed June 05, 2018). For similar statements, cf. m. Sanh. 10:1; Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities 25:13. 90 Biblical support for this view would be the ecstatic experiences of at least some prophets, such as recorded in 1 Sam 10; 19:20-24 and the books of Ezek and Rev. Nevertheless, it should be noticed that complete passivity is not the only phenomenon found in the Bible; for example, it would be very difficult to reconcile 1 Cor 1:14-16 with such a view. Henri Blocher’s appraisal of the musical instrument illustration is wise: “The intention…is to glorify the divine origin, not to deny humanity’s part” (“God and the Scripture Writers,” 513, emphasis his). 91 Thus Bahnsen, “The Inerrancy of the Autographa,” 153; Feinberg, “The Meaning of Inerrancy,” 281. Cf. Luke 16:10-11 for a similar principle. 26 minimized, but actually augmented, since its testimony allows the individual to examine whether or not God is true in observable areas before believing God is true in unobservable ones.92 Additionally, it should not be forgotten that spiritual and mundane matters cannot always be easily separated; such is the case with, for example, sexuality, climate change, and stem-cell research,93 not to mention the overwhelmingly important acts of God in history, such as creation, the Exodus, and the resurrection of Christ. 4.3.3. Evidence from the New Testament Third, the New Testament is replete with references to the Old Testament in which the former cites seemingly trivial historical data from the latter and yet frequently draws faith and practice application from them: Solomon’s clothing was beautiful (Matt 6:29); David ate the bread of the Presence (Matt 12:3-4 pars); Jonah was in the belly of a great fish and he preached to the Ninevites (Matt 12:40-41 pars);94 the Queen of Sheba visited Solomon (Matt 12:42 pars); Zechariah was murdered between the sanctuary and the altar (Matt 23:35); in the days of Noah people were eating, drinking, and marrying (Matt 24:37-39 pars); Elijah was sent to a widow of Zarephath (Luke 4:25-26); Naaman was cleansed of leprosy (Luke 4:27); Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness (John 3:14); Jacob gave a field to Joseph (John 4:5); the Israelites ate manna (John 6:49-51); a tomb was bought from the sons of Hamor (Acts 7:16); a certain Pharaoh did not know Joseph (Acts 7:18); Moses had two sons (Acts 7:29); Saul, son of Kish, was from the tribe of Benjamin (Acts 13:21); Abraham was reckoned as righteous before he was circumcised (Rom 4:10); one man sinned, and he only had to sin once (Rom 5:12-21); Adam was created before Eve, and Adam was not deceived 92 This is the assumption of many parts of Scripture (ex., Proverbs) which make scientific observations about the world and draw spiritual application from them. 93 William Brown, “Introduction,” in William Brown (ed.), Engaging Biblical Authority: Perspectives on the Bible as Scripture (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007), xii. It should be noted that Brown does not support inerrancy (ibid, xi). 94 While it is possible that Jonah is a parable, at least three factors suggest its historical nature: 1) it begins like other prophetic books of the OT, all of which claim to be historical at least in some sense; 2) Jonah is mentioned in 2 Kgs 14:25 and therefore was understood to be a historical person at an early date; 3) Jesus appears to have understood the book to be historical since He says that the “men of Nineveh” will rise up and condemn those who do not repent at His teaching. 27 but rather Eve (1 Cor 11:3-16; 1 Tim 2:11-15); Psalm 95 was written after the book of Numbers (Heb 4:1-13); Melchizedek’s expected genealogical and biographical details are not provided (Heb 7:3); Jacob bowed his head on his staff (Heb 11:21); Moses’ parents thought he was a beautiful child (Heb 11:23); and Esau sold his birthright for a meal (Heb 12:16).95 This evidence is important for two reasons: first, it reinforces the idea that the very words of Scripture are important as opposed to merely its ideas (see §4.2 above); second, it suggests that the New Testament writers did not draw any distinction between texts that related to faith and practice and texts that related to science and history, but rather that they took the Hebrew Scriptures as a whole.96 By doing so, they simply were being faithful to the theology expressed in Proverbs 30:5, that “every word of God proves true” (emphasis mine). An interesting parallel with another field of biblical interpretation opens up at this point. Ever since Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-1274), Christians have tended to divide the Old Testament laws into moral, civil, and ceremonial. Within the last few decades, however, there has been a growing consensus among New Testament scholars that such a tripartite division of the Old Testament was never envisioned by the authors of the Old and New Testaments themselves, but is a foreign concept that has been forced onto Scripture.97 Rather, they saw the Old Testament as a unity that stood or fell as a whole. Such a reading of the Old Testament is surely the correct one (even if it makes it harder to interpret!), and will no doubt continue to be the standard view for some time to come. The upshot for the current investigation is that just as the Old Testament laws cannot be divided into moral, civil, and ceremonial, neither can the Bible be divided into faith and practice parts and science and 95 Other texts could be added to this list, such as the fact that God made the world in seven days (Exod 20:811) and the number of loaves that were gathered after Jesus fed the multitudes (Mark 8:19-21 pars). 96 It is in this regard that William Mounce’s comments on the use of πᾶς (all) in 2 Tim 3:16 are entirely appropriate: “[T]ranslating πᾶς as ‘every’ emphasizes that the origin of every single element of the OT comes from God” (Pastoral Epistles, 566). That is, God is the author of every statement found in the Bible. 97 For example, Robert Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975); J. P. Meier, Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel: A Redactional Study of Mt. 5:17-48 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1976); Douglas Moo, “Jesus and the Authority of the Mosaic Law,” JSNT 20 (1984): 3-49. 28 history parts, with only the former being given the status of divine origin, and therefore inerrant. The entire Bible must be seen to stand or fall together as a unit, just as its authors understood it to do. 4.3.5. Conclusion In conclusion of this part, Scripture does not allow itself to be divided into faith and practice on the one hand and science and history on the other, and the earliest testimony we have regarding inspiration attributes almost no role to humans, thereby making a direct link between Scripture and God, who is true.98 This view of inspiration is called “plenary inspiration.” Thus “all” of Scripture or “whatever” was written (Luke 24:25, 27; Acts 24:14; Rom 15:4; 2 Tim 3:16) means that Scripture is to be taken as a unified whole, and not divided into spiritual and mundane parts.99 4.4. The incarnation as a possible illustration for understanding the Bible’s inspiration The fifth and final part of this paper briefly discusses the incarnation as a possible illustration for understanding the Bible’s inspiration and its relationship to inerrancy. The basic argument is this: just as Jesus was fully human and yet fully true, so too is the Bible fully human and yet fully true.100 Thus just as both divine and human elements were fully active and compatible in Jesus, so too both divine and human elements are fully active and compatible in the Bible. True humanity, in other words, does not necessitate error, especially when humanity is imbued with God’s Spirit. While the illustration ought not be pressed too far,101 it is nevertheless helpful in illustrating how God could inspire an inerrant Bible while 98 The testimony from Prov 30:5 and 2 Tim 3:16 should not be forgotten: “every word” of God is “pure” and “all Scripture” is “inspired.” There is no restriction and limitation placed on God’s words in Scripture. 99 Wayne Grudem similarly concludes: “[A]ny attempt to find in the Bible some encouragement to restrict the areas in which Scripture is reliable and truthful will surely fail, for the implication of literally hundreds of verses is that God’s word is reliable in every way” (Grudem, “Scripture’s Self-Attestation,” 58). 100 A further parallel may be the Tabernacle. In Exod 31:1-11 God filled Bezalel (and Oholiab?) with His Spirit for the purpose of constructing the Tabernacle. In this way, the Tabernacle is the result of both a fully divine and fully human endeavor. 101 Gregory Beale has pointed out an obvious weakness in the illustration: “[W]hereas with Christ’s incarnation there is one person with two natures, with Scripture there are two persons—God and the human 29 using human authors to do so.102 This illustration becomes more helpful once it is noticed how frequently Scripture can refer to both divine and human authorship in the same text (2 Sam 23:2; Matt 1:22; 22:43 pars; Mark 7:10//Mt 15:3-4;103 Luke 1:70; Acts 1:16; 2:16-17; 3:18, 21; 4:25; 28:25; Rom 1:2; 9:25; Heb 1:1-2; 4:7). In short, what we have in Scripture is a text that is fully human and fully divine, with the divine element assuring us that God has revealed Himself truthfully.104 4.5. Summary In summary of the major portion of this paper, four conclusions have been reached. First, it is right to claim that the Bible is from God due to the many ways in which the Bible itself attests to this fact. Second, inspiration is primarily the product of propositional, objective self-revelations from God as opposed to spiritual, subjective encounters with God. Third, inspiration applies to the entirety of the Bible as opposed to only those parts that touch on faith and practice. Fourth, the incarnation serves as a helpful example of how the divine and human can cooperate. The term used to describe this view of the Bible is “verbal plenary inspiration,” which means that all (plenary) the words (verbal) of the Bible are from God (inspiration), thus implying that all of the Bible is inerrant. This view has been the mainline, orthodox view of Scripture among Christians since the beginning and was not challenged prophet— and one nature, i.e., the one scriptural speech act” (The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority [Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008], 40). 102 For authors who have evoked the incarnation as an illustration of inspiration, cf. Origen, Comm. Mat. 15:3; Pope Pius XII, Divino afflante Spiritu, §37; J. I. Packer, “Inerrancy and the Divinity and the Humannity of the Bible,” in The Proceedings of the Conference on Biblical Inerrancy, 1987 (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1987), 135-142, here 142; David Dockery, Christian Scripture: An Evangelical Perspective on Inspiration, Authority, and Interpretation (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 38; Blocher, “God and the Scripture Writers,” 530-532 (who, among others, cites Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck in support); Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), esp. 17-18, 168-169 (it should be noted that Enns does not support inerrancy). 103 Mark 7:10 reads “Moses said” whereas Matt 15:4 reads “God commanded.” Whether one ascribes to the patristic opinion that Mark summarized Matthew or the modern opinion that Matthew expanded Mark, both sides agree that one author knew of the other’s work. The import of this fact is that one author felt free in changing “Moses said” to “God commanded” or vice versa, without any apparent scruples in doing so. 104 The Roman Catholic Church officially recognizes both God and humans as “author(s)” (Dei verbum 11), and this has deep roots in Church tradition. 30 until modernity.105 The next section contains the conclusion of the syllogism, and provides some essential clarifications regarding the precise meaning of inerrancy. 5. Therefore, the Bible is true Thus far in the argument, the major and minor premises, namely, that God’s words are true and that the Bible is God’s words, have been proven to be coherent. The conclusion, therefore, is logically inescapable, namely, that the Bible is true (i.e., inerrant). However, at least four clarifications need to be made so that the conclusion is properly understood. These qualifications are as follows: The Bible is true: 1) in its original autographa; 2) when interpreted correctly; 3) when all the facts are known; 4) with varying degrees of clarity and precision. Each qualification is be dealt with in this order below. 5.1. In its original autographa To begin, the Bible is true in its original autographa, otherwise known as the original manuscripts. Four further clarifications are in order regarding this point. First, inerrancy is not extended to everything that the prophets or apostles ever said, wrote, or did during their lifetimes (ex., 1 Chr 29:29-30; 2 Chr 26:22;106 Gal 2:11ff107), but rather is restricted to the writings they penned under the inspiration of the Spirit of God (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:19-21).108 Second, the relationship between the autographa and its copies must be clarified. On the one hand, inerrancy does not extended to subsequent copies of the original autographa in 105 Cf. John Woodbridge, Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982); John Hannah (ed.) Inerrancy and the Church (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984). 106 It seems unlikely that the reference here is to the book of Isaiah since Uzziah is mentioned only at 1:1; 6:1 and 7:1 (cf. Raymond Dillard, 2 Chronicles [WBC 15; Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1987], 211). Thus it appears to be a reference to a lost work of Isaiah. 107 Regarding the dispute between Peter and Paul, since at least as early as Tertullian, several scholars have argued that at issue in Gal 2:11ff. was not what Peter said, but rather what he did. According to this interpretation, Peter and Paul did not contradict one another with different Gospel messages, but rather Peter was not living in accordance with the one Gospel message that he and Paul both preached (Baum, “Is New Testament Inerrancy,” 271). 108 This explanation is intentionally broad, and can include compositional histories such as second copies (Jer 36), “messy” composition histories (perhaps 2 Cor), amanuenses (ex., Rom 16:22), and even subsequent authorized additions of previous texts (perhaps Gen 14; Deut 34). 31 which scribal errors may have crept into the textual tradition.109 Both Jews and Christians were aware of textual variants from a very early period and attempted to preserve (or restore) the correct reading.110 In passing it should be noted that the Christian Bible is the most wellpreserved book in all of antiquity, and thus the Christian has every right to claim that he or she possesses a faithful copy of the original autographa. On the other hand, inerrancy does extend to subsequent copies of the original autographa to the extent that they accurately preserve the text. The fact that we do not possess the original autographa (i.e., the physical documents) does not necessarily mean that we do not possess the original message (i.e., the words).111 The preservation of the original message, not the original authographa, is the most important thing, and textual criticism allows Christians to have confidence that they still have the original message. Third, inerrancy does not extend to translations of the Bible since it is well known that some translations have rendered incorrectly various parts of Scripture (ex., the Vulgate at Matt 4:17).112 Nevertheless, the Jewish and Christian communities have over two thousand years of translation practice, and both communities have long histories of producing faithful translations of the original languages. In fact, the fact that various New Testament authors used the Septuagint as opposed to the Hebrew text testifies to the fact that translations of Scripture can be used to convey Scripture’s message adequately. 109 Thus, for example, 2 Sam 10:18 says that there were 700 chariots while its synoptic equivalent in 1 Chr 19:18 records 7,000 chariots. It is possible—if not probable—that this is an example of a scribal error that has crept in to the manuscript tradition (for other examples, cf. 2 Kgs 24:8//2 Chr 36:9; 1 Kgs 4:26//2 Chr 9:25; 2 Sam 23:8//1 Chr 11:11). These may all be explained as “decimal” differences, a scribal error particularly easy to commit (cf. Gleason Archer, “Alleged Errors and Discrepancies in the Original Manuscripts of the Bible,” in Geisler, Inerrancy, 60-61). A unique example is found in Gen 14:14 where “Dan” appears to have been recorded in place of its original name Laish (Judg 18:29). This may be a case of scribal error, updating, or a case of mistaken identity between two distinct towns, Dan and Laish. On the issue of updating as it relates to inspiration and inerrancy, cf. Michael Grisanti, “Inspiration, Inerrancy, and the OT Canon: The Place of Textual Updating in an Inerrant View of Scripture,” JETS 44 no 4 (2001): 577-598. 110 For Jewish examples, cf. Let. Ar. 32; Josephus, Con. Ap. 1:42; m. Meg. 2:2; MoedQa. 3:4; ARN 34; Gen. Rab. 12:6; Sif. Num. 69; b. Meg. 16b; various masorah. For Christian examples, cf. Irenaeus, Con. Her. 5:30:1; Origen, Comm. Matt. 15:14. 111 For a helpful discussion on terms such as “Bible,” “text,” and “original,” cf. Peter Williams, “Ehrman’s Equivocation and the Inerrancy of the Original Text,” in Carson, Enduring Authority, 389-406. 112 Thus it would be incorrect to conclude, as did many ancient authors, that the LXX was an inspired translation; cf. Philo, Moses 2:37-40; Justin Martyr, Exhor. 13; Augustine, Christ. Doct. 2:15 (but cf. 4:7:15). 32 Fourth, one must distinguish between what the phrase “original autographa” means for the Old Testament and the New Testament. On the one hand, it is fairly straightforward to identify the original autographa of the various New Testament works. Taking one of Paul’s letters as an example, after he wrote his letter (or dictated it to an amanuensis), and after he (presumably) reviewed and edited it, the finished text can be called the original autographa. On the other hand, the case is different for certain Old Testament texts because there seems to be considerable evidence that the “original autographa” are the result of a long editorial activity that include additions and perhaps even editing by subsequent scribes (ex., Gen 14; Deut 34; LXX Jer vs. MT Jer; Prov).113 Therefore, when speaking of certain Old Testament texts, it seems best to reserve the phrase “original autographa” to refer to the final, canonical form of the text, and other phrases such as “first draft,” “second draft,” etc., or “preliminary draft” to refer to the previous stages of the compositional history of the text.114 Within this understanding, textual criticism would extend only to the “original autographa” (i.e., its final form) and not to any previous stages of its development.115 113 For examples of (inerrantist) scholars who argue along these lines, cf. Bruce Waltke, “Historical Grammatical Problems,” in Earl Radmacher and Robert Preus (eds.), Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible: Papers from ICBI Summit II (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 69-129, here 78; E. Earle Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1992), 43-44; Daniel Block, “Recovering the Voice of Moses: The Genesis of Deuteronomy,” JETS 44 no 3 (2001): 385-408; Grisanti, “Inspiration”; J. Daniel Hays, “Jeremiah, the Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Inerrancy: Just What Exactly Do We Mean by the ‘Original Autographs’?,” in V. Bacote, L. Miguélez, and D. Okholm (eds.), Evangelicals and Scripture: Tradition, Authority, and Hermeneutics (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 133-149; idem, “Inerrancy and Evangelical Old Testament Scholarship,” in Carlos Bovell (ed.), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the Authority of Scripture: Historical, Biblical, and Theoretical Perspectives (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2011), 109-132, here 114-118. To provide but one example, Bruce Waltke provides a list of some 80 verses in the Pentateuch that are partly or entirely “aMosaica” (Genesis: A Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001], 28 n. 41). However, it should be noted that some scholars would argue that such additions and editing are unauthorized, and therefore fall under the same rubric as other well-known New Testament passages such as Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11. 114 Grisanti, “Inspiration,” 580-581; cf. 582-588 for several examples of possible/probable textual emendations. 115 While some (ex., John Owen, Francis Turretin, John Gill) have argued that even the vowel pointings of the Hebrew text are inspired (cf. Helvetic Consensus Formula [1675], Canon 2), this goes too far. The vowel points were not added to the text until the Middle Ages, and some can be shown to be incorrect; ex., compare Gen 47:31 (“bed”) with Heb 11:21 (“staff”). The Hebrew words for “bed” and “staff” are the same at the consonantal level, but differ at the vocalic level. If one were to “repoint” the word “bed” in Gen 47:31, the difference between the two texts would be resolved. 33 To state the matter positively, to say that inerrancy applies to the original autographa is to focus on the specific, verbal message116 that God originally revealed. Therefore, it is best to state that inerrancy is extended to modern-day translations of the Bible under two conditions 1) the manuscripts on which the translation is based accurately reflect the original autographa, and 2) the translation accurately reflects the original languages. Being that most translations sufficiently meet these two conditions, it is fair to conclude that inerrancy may be extended to modern Bibles. 5.2. When interpreted correctly Second, the Bible is true when interpreted correctly. This statement somewhat anticipates a fuller treatment that is provided below, but it needs to be addressed here briefly. The point to be made here is that inerrancy is invariably bound up with other issues such as hermeneutics.117 To demonstrate this point with but one case, those who are persuaded that the Bible teaches that the sun revolves around the earth (ex., Josh 10:12-14; Ps 19:4-6) must conclude that the Bible is erroneous on this point due to the findings of modern science. However, if such passages do not teach that the sun revolves around the earth but rather describe the sun’s relationship to the earth from the perspective of the human observer at a phenomenological level, then there is no contradiction between Scripture and science on this point.118 Cases could be multiplied but the point has been made: how one interprets the Bible affects whether or not one sees errors in it. 116 Again, the phrase “original autographa” does not focus on the material elements such as papyrus and ink as it does on the message that the material elements conveyed; cf. B. B. Warfield, Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1889), 1; Bahnsen, “The Inerrancy of the Autographa,” 161; Williams, “Ehrman’s Equivocation,” 395. 117 At least two texts illustrate this point. First, Neh 8:8 says that the Law of God was read aloud and then explained so that the people could understand it. Second, 2 Pet 1:19-21 spells out the doctrine of inspiration whereas 3:15-16 touches on the issue of hermeneutics. These texts are important for demonstrating that the Bible’s inspiration does not necessarily entail its easy interpretation (although neither does it necessarily imply that it is difficult to interpret). 118 This has been the basic argument articulated by theologians and scientists for more than 400 years now. Important works on the topic are Johannes Kepler’s Astronomia Nova published in 1609 and Galileo Galilei’s “Letter to Castelli” (known by other names such as “Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina”), first written in 34 5.3. When all the facts are known Third, the Bible is true when all the facts are known. This qualification has been included because at times the Bible has been accused of having errors in it, only to be vindicated later on by new discoveries and/or more convincing interpretations of the text. To cite just one example, in the early 1990s, some Old Testament scholars were beginning to doubt that King David (and Solomon) ever existed.119 But in the mid-1990s, three archaeological discoveries were found or restored, all of which contain (likely) readings of the “house” or “heights” of “David,” and all of which come from the 9th-10th centuries BC.120 While archaeological evidence itself does not settle the matter, it does caution against adopting a “minimalist” approach to verifying biblical data. 5.4. With varying degrees of clarity and precision that correspond to its purposes Fourth, the Bible’s truthfulness is proportionately clear and precise to the extent that it addresses issues related to its central purposes. Although no summary of the central purpose of Scripture is perfect, a strong case can be made that it is to reveal the person and acts of God, especially as they relate to creation, redemption, and consummation. That is, most of the Bible has to do precisely with matters connected to faith and practice (ex., John 20:30-31; Rom 15:4; 1 Cor 10:1-6; 2 Tim 3:14-17; 1 John 5:13). Less central to the purposes of Scripture are issues relating to science and history, and therefore one should expect less clearness and precision when the Bible addresses these topics.121 For example, in Genesis 1613 and later published 1636. For discussion, cf. Rodney Stiling, “Natural Philosophy and Biblical Authority in the Seventeenth Century,” in Carson, Enduring Authority, 115-136. 119 Ex., P. R. Davies, “‘House of David’ Built on Sand: The Sins of the Biblical Maximizers” BARev 20 no 4 (1994): 54-55; J. Alberto Soggin, An Introduction to the History of Israel and Judah, 3rd ed. (London: SCM Press, 1999), 33 (p. 32 in his 1993 edition, and apparently has not changed his mind!). 120 Tel Dan inscription: A. Biran and J. Naven, “An Aramaic Stela Fragment from Tel Dan,” IEJ 43 (1993): 81-98; idem, “The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment,” IEJ 45 (1995): 1-18; Mesha Stela (Moabite Stone): A. Lemaire, “‘House of David’ Restored in Moabite Inscription,” BARev 20 no 3 (1994): 30-37; topographical list of Shoshenq I: K. A. Kitchen, “A Possible Mention of David in the Late Tenth Century BCE, and Deity *DOD as Dead as the Dodo?” JSOT 76 (1997): 29-44. 121 Consider the following example given by Wayne Grudem: “Consider the following statements: (1) ‘My home is not far from my office.’ (2) ‘My home is about one and a half miles from my office.’ (3) ‘My home is 1.6 miles from my office.’ All three statements are absolutely true (or ‘inerrant’). All three are completely free 35 22:16 the Bible says that Hagar sat “about the distance of a bowshot” away from her son. This quite imprecise statement can be attributed to the fact that this particular historical detail lies at the periphery of the Bible’s central purposes. In fact, in many (but not all122) cases where the Bible does touch on matters relating to science and history, it merely asserts the scientific and/or historical fact, but then focuses on its theological interpretation (i.e., what God is revealing through it). To take but one example, while the crucifixion of Jesus is recorded at various places throughout the New Testament, the focus does not fall on proving its scientific or historical veracity, but rather on its interpretation at a theological level.123 Therefore, to claim that the Bible is inerrant in all that it says is to claim that whatever it does speak about, it does so truly (John 3:12), although not equally clearly or precisely in all cases. 5.5. Conclusion In conclusion, four qualifications are important for a correct understanding of inerrancy: the Bible is true 1) in its original autographa, 2) when interpreted correctly, 3) when all the facts are known, and 4) with varying degrees of clarity and precision that correspond to its purposes. These qualifications (and others) have been necessary to include in the discussion due to various critiques that have been aimed at inerrancy. With these qualifications included, however, the assertion that the Bible is true becomes a well-argued and defensible position to maintain. 6. What inerrancy is not of falsehood; they contain no errors. Even though (3) is much more precise then [sic] (1), it is not more ‘true’ than (1)” (“Scripture’s Self-Authentication,” 51). The three statements must be evaluated in light of the speaker’s purposes. 122 The resurrection of Christ would be a well-known exception. 123 Another example would be the history of the kings of Israel and Judah. As Est 2:23; 6:1-2; 10:2 illustrate, the “chronicles” of the kings of Persia and Media contained several historical events. Assuming that this was roughly similar to the “chronicles” of the kings of Israel and Judah, we can expect that they, too, contained much historical information. However, the books of 1-2 Kgs and 1-2 Chr are not interested in history per se as much as they are interested in its theological meaning. In other words, it would be hard to imagine that a historical document such as the “chronicles” of the kings would included phrases such as “King X did what was evil in the eyes of the LORD,” but this is exactly the sort of repeated refrain that is found throughout 1-2 Kgs and 1-2 Chr. 36 Inerrancy addresses a very particular issue, namely, the nature of Scripture as it relates to truth. It is related, however, to other issues with which it is easy to confuse. Below is a brief discussion of three issues that should not be confused with inerrancy. 6.1. Particular views of inspiration Scripture makes room for various views of inspiration: from the ecstatic experience in which the prophet is completely passive (ex., 1 Sam 10; 19:20-24), to the confusing revelations of Daniel (Dan 12:5-13), to the unwitting predictions of Ananias (John 11:50-51), to the memory-forgetting corrections and changing of plans of the Apostle Paul (1 Cor 1:1416; cp. 1 Cor 16:5-8//2 Cor 1:15-16), and everything in between. This is hinted at in Hebrews 1:1, where it says that God spoke to the prophets “at many times and in many ways” and illustrated in Numbers 12:6-8, where God tells Aaron and Miriam that whereas He reveals Himself to prophets in “visions” and “dreams,” He reveals Himself to Moses “mouth to mouth.” Inerrancy does not address the “how” of inspiration, but only its end result as it relates to truth.124 What is important, however, is to articulate inspiration in such a way that allows for the full presence of both God and man.125 6.2. (American) Fundamentalism Many scholars assume or argue that inerrancy and “fundamentalism” (i.e., narrow, anti-academic, unsophisticated, naïve, etc.) go hand-in-hand, and since fundamentalism as a movement has its roots in America, at times inerrancy can be caricaturized as a uniquely American phenomenon.126 However, as a simple study of Church history easily demonstrates, 124 As John Mueller has said, “In the treatment of the doctrine of inspiration, the question is not: ‘How did the holy writers obtain the truths which they wrote?’ but rather, ‘Did the Holy Ghost prompt the sacred writers to write down certain words and thoughts which God wanted men to know?’” (Christian Dogmatics [St. Louis: Concordia, 1934], 110, cited in Waltke, “Myth,” 570). 125 Some have preferred the phrase “concursive revelation,” which makes inspiration as blended of a process as, for example, sanctification. 126 Ex., N. T. Wright, Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense (New York: Harper Collins, 2006), 183; Carlos Bovell, “Editor’s Preface,” in Bovell, Interdisciplinary Perspectives, xvii-xxiii, here xxi; Stephen Dawes, “‘But Jesus Believed that David Wrote the Psalms…’” in Bovell, Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 164182, here 179-180. 37 inerrancy has been believed by most Christians from the beginning.127 Most would recognize that inerrancy was articulated by Augustine (and before), and his position greatly influenced subsequent generations until modernity.128 Thus, inerrancy is neither American nor fundamentalist in its origin (even if Americans and fundamentalists were those who continued to espouse the teaching when others did not), but rather is the common inheritance of the whole Church. 6.3 Hermeneutics As closely as the doctrines of inerrancy and hermeneutics may be, they are not the same. Inerrancy addresses the issue of the nature of the Bible as it relates to truth whereas hermeneutics addresses the issue of the underlying principles and methods one uses to interpret the Bible.129 To state it another way, inerrancy is connected to ontology whereas hermeneutics is connected to epistemology. Many people who think they are attacking inerrancy are actually attacking a hermeneutic that incidentally happens to be employed by some inerrantists. But the relationship between the two is just that—incidental. In other words, many people equate the belief in inerrancy with a naïve, wooden, sophomoric approach to reading Scripture, with no regard for issues such as authorial intent, historical context, genre distinctions, and the like. However, while it is true that inerrancy does force one to read the Bible literally, it does not force one to read the Bible literalistically. This issue has been included merely to point out that two people can maintain belief in inerrancy and at the same time interpret the Bible differently.130 7. Conclusion 127 See note 105 above for two standard works on the topic. Cf. Augustine, Ep. 28; 82. 129 For this understanding of hermeneutics, cf. Grant Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, rev. ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 21. 130 For an interesting discussion on the relationship between inerrancy and ecclesiastically based hermeneutics, cf. D. G. Hart, “No Creed but the Bible, No Authority Without the Church: American Evangelicals and the Errors of Inerrancy,” in Bovell, Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 3-27. 128 38 This paper has sought to provide for the Spanish-speaking world an updated exposition of inerrancy as it was set forth in the International Conference on Biblical Inerrancy forty years ago. The paper has proposed and defended the following syllogism: 1) God’s words are true (i.e., inerrant); 2) The Bible is God’s words; 3) Therefore, the Bible is true (i.e., inerrant). It has also provided four important qualifications, which are that the Bible is true 1) in its original autographa, 2) when interpreted correctly, 3) when all the facts are known, and 4) with varying degrees of clarity and precision that correspond to its purposes. Finally, it has distinguished inerrancy from other issues such as particular views of inspiration, (American) fundamentalism, and hermeneutics. Thus it is hoped that inerrancy has been explained in such a way that demonstrates its logic and appeal. Far from a “crisis,” inerrancy has retained and strengthened its vitality.131 Inerrancy is important to maintain in the Church for at least four reasons. First, it affects how we understand God’s self-revelation. Has God revealed Himself, and if so, how? Inerrancy says that He has, and that He has done so truthfully, whatever the topic may be. Second, and related to the previous reason, a unified theology becomes possible because ultimately there is one author, God’s Spirit, behind the various individual books of the Bible. Without inerrancy, no such unification is guaranteed. Third, it provides humanity with objective truth about the most important topics in life, such as who God is and what He has done in our world. Fourth, Scripture is the norma normans non normata (the norm of norms that cannot be normed) that functions to stand over and against all other truth claims, and calls the Church back to God’s truth as it relates to the Church’s central calling.132 In short, inerrancy is important because it is God’s good gift to His children so that we may know what He wants us to know about Himself and His world. 131 For an author who claims that inerrancy is in its final stages, cf. Carlos Bovell, “‘Inerrancy, a Paradigm in Crisis’,” in Bovell, Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 91-106. 132 As J. I. Packer has stated the matter, “Whenever the Bible is not allowed to have the last word on any matter of belief or behavior, there the Bible is being relativized to human opinion” (“Inerrancy,” 137).