BBI Part Two

What happens after a person reads the biblical text? That is a great question.  There is normally some sort of response: prayerful repentance or prayerful praise.  However, when pursuing the scripture as something to understand the normal response is a series of questions; some appropriate, some not; some good, some not.

Part Two: Ask Questions
When I said above that some questions were not appropriate or not good, the decision is based on whether the question seeks to divert attention from the text itself or to short circuit the painful work of study by jumping to a conclusion based merely on the immediate reaction.  Neither of these count for the work of biblical interpretation.

Biblical interpretation does take work and the second part (remember the parts make a whole and leaving one out results in a half eaten donut hole) is to ask, or if you prefer to voice, the questions that the first part, reading, invokes.  These questions normally begin with what or how, even why or when, and often in the midst of narrative who or when.  The worst question of all to ask at this moment is the meaning question, "what does this passage MEAN?" because that question short circuits the interpretive process. Meaning is derived from context, both context within the Bible and the context of the reader.

I will assume that most of the nine regular followers to this blog are western hemisphere, north american, college educated and drive a car.  This last has nothing to do with the text but allowed me to end the sentence. If one is not western hemisphere, north american, college educated, or able to drive or even own a car then the context for understanding and finding meaning of the text will vary radically.  However, I prefer to deal with the text's context rather than that of the reader so I will stick to that area.

I recommend starting the questions with "What does this text say about God?" and "What does this text say about humanity?" I also try to avoid questions that lead to yes/no responses since little thinking takes place in that case, don't you agree?  Therefore, avoid the starting the question with a verb, especially "am/is/are/was/were"  Ask meaningful questions about the text, or about objects in the reading that you simply don't understand.  One can attend a lecture on quantum physics and come away with much or little based simply on an understanding of the vocabulary used.  If you don't know what a word means as it is used in the Bible, phrase it as a question.

Review:

Part One: Read
Part Two: Ask Questions

It starts to get more difficult soon, so try to master the first two parts quickly!!!

BBI part One

Starting a new thread today: Basics of Biblical Interpretation.  Although most other writers call it Bible Interpretation, I prefer biblical interpretation.  Bible is a noun  so either they mean the Bible interprets or interpretation of the Bible.  Biblical is the adjective so it describes what kind of interpretation will be pursued.  On to part one. . .

Part One:  This could also be called stage one, step one, rule one, guideline one, but I will go with Part one, as in there is no whole without all the parts.  Part One: READ


When I say "read" I find it interesting that self proclaimed students of the Bible will propose to study the Bible by reading a single verse or even clause. They will start with Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (NAS95) and stop reading. They will then study the prepositional phrase, "in the beginning" and try to determine what that might mean.  It is no wonder (satire moment) that Twitter has become so popular with the modern world.  All that needs to be said can be said in 140 characters or less!!!!! (more satire).

These same individuals will sit through an entire movie, or even 6 Star Wars Episodes or 8 Potter episodes at a single time, but when asked to "read the Bible" they will stop after a mere 10 words in the English language (also in the LXX if one counts the articles, 7 in the Hebrew).

So when I say "read" that is what I mean!  Read, read, read and read until you have read (past tense sounds like dead which never rhymes with read in the present).  Read again until you have nearly memorized what comes before, after, and even in the middle.  Read again and again.

The failure of this culture to value reading is demonstrated by the host of video productions released nearly every weekend.  The overproduction of reading materials (including blogs) leads to a devaluing of the reading experience.  Quora tells me that in 2007 27% of Americans did not read a single book and 27% read more than 15 books.  The mean was 6.5 books in a year!!!!! http://www.quora.com/How-many-books-does-the-average-American-read-per-year

So, what is the first part for biblical interpretation, it is reading. See Spot run!

On Inerrancy

Following Roger Olson's post yesterday I decided to post my thoughts from several weeks ago as a starting point in processing the difference between practice and proposition.

The Error in Claiming Inerrancy

Why is inerrancy so appealing? Why is claiming inerrancy fraught with error? How does the claim of inerrancy weaken biblical authority? These questions are addressed in this proposition to examine the roots of and foundation for claiming biblical inerrancy, rather than the accuracy of that claim.

I find the appeal of inerrancy to be its ability to answer all the questions.  By affirming the inerrant nature of the biblical text, all questions brought to bear against Christian beliefs and practices can be answered by appealing to the text.  The problem this leads to is legalism.  Since there is one and only one answer available from the biblical text (and that one comes from the interpreter’s community) it becomes sufficient to have and abide by the answers to the extent that any unanswerable questions are considered inappropriate or irrelevant. When the answers, correct and unchallenged, define the pursuit, then legalism is the end result, even when it is not the goal.

Why is inerrancy an issue?  What gives rise to its prominence at this time in history?  The claim for biblical inerrancy is a consequence of modernism.  By “modernism” I refer to the philosophical belief arising from the Scientific Revolution that all things could be understood through observation and rational inquiry.  Nothing was considered to be beyond the reach of human inquiry.  The cultural world of modernism ran headfirst into the premodern world of Western Christianity. Soon the philosophical thinking of modernism permeated scholarship as biblical scholars began asking questions regarding the presuppositions of the origin and derivation of the biblical text. Consequently, 18th century Western Christianity had two essential choices, retreat or reforge.  The inerrancy claim is one element of the reforging movement. 

This new authority, scientific investigation, challenged the previously unquestioned authority of the Bible as a means for understanding the origins of humanity, the world we know, the universe, and as essential truth for human existence.  Any idea or previously held concept was open for rational or scientific inquiry and many of these findings undermined the previously unquestioned authority of the Bible.  At the same time the world was becoming smaller as the British Empire and other European nations expanded to encompass parts of all hemispheres. This expansion brought to light other understandings of the world with the result that the Bible as undisputed authority came under attack.  

Consequently, in order to reinforce the foundation of Christianity some understanding of the Bible had to be reached that would prevent it from falling into disrepute under the incessant waves of modern inquiry. What could be more unassailable than the absolute perfection of the textus receptus, the received text as originally placed into written format?  Since the original, autograph documents are directly from God they contain no errors, thus the inerrancy of the divine insures the inerrancy of the Scripture. 

The main problem with this particular resolution of the problem is that there are no original, autograph documents. This lack of original documents seeks to ground the Bible in something that it hasn’t had for nearly two millennia. The Bible does not trace itself to an original text, translation, or vision as nearly all other inspired, religious texts claim.  This claim of inerrancy states simply, if I may paraphrase, “if we had the originals there would be no way to question our teaching.” While this paraphrase may appear irreverent at first, it is much like stating, “if I had 100 bucks, I could pay you back.” From a logical standpoint the statement is nonsensical because the conclusion is based on a non-existent hypothesis.  To the non-inerrantist Christian and the non-Christian, the claim for inerrancy is a demonstration of irrational thought. As a result, continuing to claim inerrancy for the autograph documents in an open forum has no impact on the others.

A second and related problem to this approach of undergirding the foundation of Christian teaching is the reluctance to engage in a vigorous defense of Christianity.  The default mode for any discussion utilizing inerrancy is that since our source documents are unassailable there is no need to defend the Christian position. But the active defense of Christianity does not take place in a realm where the authority of the Bible serves as common ground that both sides recognize, because non-Christians don’t.  Instead the argument is being played out in the field of orthopraxis--how is Christianity lived.  Non-adherents to Christianity are asking whether the manner of living promoted by Christian adherents is viable, in other words is this manner of living better than any other options?

One could challenge the previous difficulty by appealing to the concept of truth.  If truth is the trump card of scientific discovery, isn’t the fact that the Bible is truth because it is inerrant sufficient to take all hands? Well, in a word, no. At the foundation of scientific inquiry is the pursuit of truth.  No truth exists unless it can be substantiated.  The words of the US Founding Fathers, “We hold these truths to be self-evident”, is not a statement of modernism. Truth for science is documented by observation and repetition, such as the acceleration rate of gravity.  This information might also be called fact, but the line between fact/truth is too permeable to hold any firm distinction.  The inerrantist will also make the statement that the information held within the inerrant Bible is fact.

A second avenue of challenge for inerrancy is post-modern thought.  Since inerrancy is rooted in the modern philosophical realm where scientific inquiry and the pursuit of knowledge held as a single goal the finding of the absolute, inerrancy has little to offer the post-modern world of thought.  Since modernism could not completely fulfill its self-promoted potential, humanity proceeded to another mindset, that knowledge was a result of specific combinations of presuppositions and perspective.  Individuals with differing presuppositions who shared the same perspective were likely to draw separate conclusions and those with shared presuppositions but different perspectives were equally likely.  In other words, the post-modern world shifted the pursuit of knowledge from an empirical model to a personal model.  The individual became responsible for assimilating empirical information and applying that information to their particular situation. The application of that information in statistically distinct individuals was seldom equivalent. Post-modernism is the by-product of extreme individualism.

The claim for inerrancy based on the textus receptus is no longer pertinent and a shift jn emphasis is required to engage the post-modern world.  Thus adherents of inerrancy move from the Bible as inerrant--a position holding a non assailable premise--to their individual (or in some cases shared group) application, i.e. interpretation, as inerrant.  The logic follows from the Bible as inerrant, to my particular position on the text as inerrant.  Thus the position of inerrancy removes the adherent from the realm of fruitful discussion with a non-adherent.  When one holds that his/her own theological position is unassailable because they consider it irrefutable, there is no room for real discussion with a non-adherent, others are wrong simply because they do not agree with oneself.

Before the reader jumps to the conclusion that this author is opposed to anyone who holds to the view of an inerrant Bible, that conclusion is false. I simply find it to be an untenable position and seek to offer an alternative model.  What inerrancy attempts to do by building up this ideal solution: undergirding the authority of the Bible, it actually prevents.  The plan of inerrancy is to cause non-adherents to accept the authority of Scripture and its teachings but the result is their rejection of its authority.  There is no prima facia evidence that can cause the acceptance of authority, neither does true and powerful authority require defending. I am arguing for a consideration, historical and spiritual, of the real authority for Scripture, the life giving nature of its teaching verified by 2000 years of experience within Christendom.  Those who follow the teachings validate their authority on a daily basis.  Those who question the authority of the Bible do so because they do not encounter adherents to Scripture who can give testimony to this life giving nature.

A second failing of inerrancy is to reckon insufficently the teaching of Jesus regarding the conflict between followers of and opponents to Jesus. There is, and has been for over two millennia, a battle for the hearts and minds of humanity.  God’s message, which for reminder sake predates the time of Christ, challenges the dominating views of its time period.  God’s message clarifies that there are many ways to wrongly attribute the blessings of God, and many more ways to merely pursue the selfish pursuits of the human will. Inerrancy seeks to eradicate this conflict with a single claim, accomplishing what even God and Jesus fail to achieve.

Challenges to inerrancy do not claim that God is prone to error, or that the Scripture is not inspired or even lacks authority.  Challenges to inerrancy are simply that, challenges to a viewpoint placed on Scripture to make it something it is not, namely God. The thought process, “since God is without error the Bible as the direct pronouncement of God is without error” is full of multiple possible addenda. Unless the proponent is willing to close the direct revelation of God to humans, and by doing so relegate God to the dark past, any direct pronouncement of God to humans must assume the same claim to inerrancy. A second element is the assumption of the process by which God made these direct pronouncements. Unlike other texts that discuss the supernatural source of their origins, the biblical writings are presented as that, written documents.  No one of them describes the process.  Few of them even indicate a divine origin for the recorded words. 

Finally, claims to biblical inerrancy do exactly what followers of God are commanded not to do, elevate anything else to the level of God.  Christians are called to worship God and God alone.  The recorded revelation of God is not God, but how and what God chooses to reveal of his person. It is not the summation of God, but the summation of his revelation.