It is generally recognized that the Bible's 66 books were written over a period of 1500 plus years. As Christians, many of us believe that the Bible is the revelation of God, and is "God breathed." Consequently, many of us believe the Bible has one divine author who inspired 40 or more human authors to write about him and reveal his character. What's more, many of us probably studied the Bible and accepted by faith the frequently quoted text for the revelation of God through Scriptures -- "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." -- 2nd Timothy 3:16-17. It's helpful to remember that when this text was written, the books of the New Testament did not exist and the only Scriptures the author could have had in mind were the Hebrew Scriptures.So far so good? But the issue becomes more complex when we ask two questions:
First, what do we mean by the term "inspired?" For example, which theories of inspiration do we believe?
- Hypnotic theory where the writers are taken over by God?
- Verbal dictation theory where the writers listen to God and put what they hear in writing?
- Combination theory where the writers, in co-operation with God, put their stamp on their writings?
Second, how far out do the doctrines of inspiration extend? To those: (1) Who compiled the original manuscripts? (2) Redactors who edited the original manuscripts? (3) Who participated in the canonization process in both testaments? (4) And who translated the Scriptures from the original languages?Your thoughts?
Posts
17 comments:
Read this post with extreme interest. Questions got me fired up since I never thought of inspiration this way! Decided to take a stab at answering them.
For the reasons below, my faith view of inspiration is broadly extended to cover the writer and the readers. It assumes an active participation of the Holy Spirit with man throughout the entire process described below, and includes the readers of the Bible on basis of faith.
With my biases, I’m convinced various Bibles we have now are the miraculous outcome of a God-inspired process. From the oral tradition, writing of the initial manuscripts, to those redactors, editors, compilers, to canonizing both testaments, to translation, even with all the potential and actual manipulations from forces of greed, power, egos, political intrigue and church preservation, the Bible emerged as a book of faith and compelling account of God’s desire to save man. One of your bloggers described the gospel as God loves man like crazy.
Your post ignores the role of faith or trust, which at some point, one just has to say, I believe in X because I’m biased that way. I believe the Bible was designed for faith, not for skeptics. The Bible was designed to reveal God’s love to those who would believe and understand how God works. It is a book of faith, not of facts, because we read it with prejudice (choices absent sufficient information), biases (choices based on preferred information) and our own mixture of assumptions and beliefs going in. It is God revealing himself to those who are seeking him or called by him, and are led by the Spirit to search.
The Bible’s purpose is to reveal God’s desire to save man. Bible writers focused on ideas and stories about God’s creation, love and judgment. Failing to recognize this will drive us crazy from get-go of conflicting creation sequences in Genesis, to Gospel conflicting periods about when Jesus ate the last supper and when he died in John. This is tough stuff to be consistent on.
When Christians say they examined other religions and concluded that Christianity made the most sense, they sound downright silly to me.
Don’t believe Christians can spiritually discern the Koran because they don’t hold the biases of culture and faith in the Muslim culture and the Koran. Similarly, don't think Muslims can’t spiritually discern the Bible because they don’t hold the biases and faith assumptions built in, unless they are opened up by God’s grace or calling. And if they're honest, secularists, atheists and agnostics should fess up about their sets of prejudices, biases, and assumptions built into their questions and points of view.
Of course, that's not to ignore how people from one faith get converted into another. But there is a much different process going on there in my view than simply reading and assessing.
Comparative religious assessments may work in a classroom, or elsewhere on this blog. But it does not work in a faith room in which we discuss our beliefs, which by definition, are biased. We just have to recognize our bias, and be comfortable not assuming it to be an indisputable idea or fact.
Interesting to see if you draw comments from ministers, or students of the Bible who have been traditionally instructed on the inspiration and authority of the Bible in seminaries
Your post ignores the Holy Spirit as 1 Peter 1:10-21 tells us the Holy Spirit is a big factor that oversaw the process. And also: “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (2 Peter 1:20-21). And Paul says, “we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual (1 Corinthians 2:13).
Now that I’ve put this out there, I’m anxious to see how others answer your questions, and react to my comments.
Hey Anonymous.
I enjoyed reading your courageous and refreshing post to a difficult topic. Since you asked for comments, I’ll share mine as I agree and disagree with you. Let’s start with how I disagree.
You’ve presented an extremely generous view of Biblical inspiration by extending it beyond the writing of the Scriptures all the way to the readers of the Bible. And while your post is an imaginative approach, I doubt that Bible scholars would find it to be sound. It is an erroneous view to which you are entitled. But it is still erroneous in my view, and may generate unintended consequences below.
The doctrine of inspiration has many contributors, including Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Barth, among others. But that doctrine is generally applied only to the writing of Scriptures and to the degrees to which God or the Holy Spirit interacted with authors. I’ve not read any that apply the doctrine beyond the authors as you seem to have. However, there are some churches, appropriately described as cults, that claim to apply the doctrine inspiration to the writings of their saints or prophets after the Bible canon was closed, claiming their saints and prophets were inspired by God, and so their writings should have same Biblical authority. Those views are rejected by mainline Protestant Christians. As you know, inextricably linked to any meaningful discussion of inspiration are the issues of inerrancy and authority of the Bible. You can’t escape them by focusing only on inspiration. The Reformation’s principle of sola scriptura (Bible alone) reacted to and anticipated such efforts.
Now I agree with you that the Holy Spirit, in addition to its role you described, is also a critical partner to the correct reading and understanding of the Bible. That is a fundamental assumption of good Bible study and is important to ask for the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Inductive study methods are most helpful for sound understanding of meaning of Bible passages, versus the “proof text” methods that are found in many churches. I noticed there are such resources on this site.
I further agree with your view that the Bible is the revelation of God’s love and desire to save man. Well stated summary that fits the whole Bible.
And I also completely agree with you that the history and reliability of redactors, editors, compilation of documents and manuscripts, and the process of the Old and New Testament canons present a nightmare for Christians who want to believe in simple inerrancy and authority of the Bible in the face of inconsistencies and textual conflicts. Any quick reading of the history of the canon process will drive you nuts. But your solution of extending the doctrine of inspiration beyond the authors of the Bible will not solve that problem. It is its own can of worms that needs a different and much more complex approach.
Very nice try, but poor methodology. I applaud your willingness to take a point of view, a refreshing one, I might add, on an issue that does not get much talk these days. Many ministers just assume it and hope it does not surface.
I’ll join your anxiety to see how others answer the questions.
Whoa Various Anonymouses!
This awesome exchange of ideas got me thinking about how some of us also treat what we know about scholarship and research about the Bible as fixed and stable, while many new discoveries and research challenge conventional findings.
For example. How many of us "believe" that Moses is the author of the first five books of the Old Testament? I'd guess that most do, and that it is one of the most widely held beliefs about the author of the Torah. After all, did not Christ and many New Testament authors and apostles refer to the Books of Moses, or the Law of Moses? I think it is also safe to say that most Jewish Rabbis, including Jesus believed the Torah to be composed of words dictated by God. As I understand, that "dictated by God" view of inspiration focused mainly on the Torah, with a more relaxed view of inspiration held about the prophets and later writings. Most Jews, as I understand. believe God's Revelation was complete in Moses' five books, and that plenary inspiration extended to the very letters. Safe to say that many Christians hold the same view of verbal inspiration and apply it to the entire Bible.
But, what would happen to our sense of inspiration if we were to discover that Moses was not the only author of the Torah? How would that change, if any, our view of inspiration?
First, its interesting that many hold that view of inspiration (verbal dictation by God to Moses) today despite the fact that we've all read the account of Moses' death in Deuteronomy, but never questioned how Moses could write about his own death. That's the power of an assumption embed in a belief, I think.
Second, what would happen to our view of inspiration if we discovered that more recent scholarship (versus traditional scholarship methods) found that it is more likely that there are four sources for the books of Moses?
This theory is known as the Documentary Hypothesis has been a prevailing theory among Bible scholars for about two hundred years! Where have I been all these years?
So here's another question--How does that discovery, if validated and "true," affect how we think about Biblical inspiration, if any?
To the growing population of STRETCH-Bloging Anonymi:
Before I begin the journey to my thoughts/opinions/perspectives on the matter of inspiration associated with the Canonical New Testament, please hear my plea. I would respectfully request that a conclave, council, conference or conversatorium among the legion of Anonymi be convened to ascribe either a numeric designation or some other method of differentiating one Anonymous from another Anonymous. This would be an act of mercy to those of us who have difficulty in sorting out rebuttal or affirmation to assertions made by The STRETCHers who call themselves Anonymous.
Now to the business at hand! I believe that Divine inspiration is bestowed by God to those who are receptive to the “voice of God” that exists in each of His children. God provides inspiration to a sincere heart, an open mind and a longing spirit regardless of geography, cultural orientation or religious heritage.
Long ago I disposed of the notion that divine inspiration, faith, trust and ministering of the Holy Spirit are exclusive to the Christian world. Does that mean I believe that God…the one God of the Universe inspires and bestows special insight to those of other world religions??? Yes it does; to think otherwise is an insult to the Universality of God.
One of the Bloggers Anonymous cited culture (cultural bias was the term used) as a factor to religious orientation. I found that to be an enlightening and insightful statement but not so enlightened if Anonymous believes the Bias of others to be inferior or mislead or confused.
I appreciate the Anonymous declaration of Bias toward the Bible by confessing belief in Bible’s inerrant nature as a preference…as a product of faith. I applaud the candor but cannot embrace your confidence.
You apologize for the Bible’s flaws of fact, context, translation, scribal manipulation and apologize for the greed, prejudice and political gamesmanship that characterized the process of defining Orthodoxy and in Canonization of the New Testament. (The Old Testament already existed and was not subject to the manipulations of our early Church fathers.)
For me, I find no comfort in ignoring facts and turning the blind eye toward the actions, atrocities and greed of our early Christian leadership and then concluding that the product is a Perfectly Inspired Book declaring God’s Will.
I do not consider myself a Skeptic, I consider myself a Student of God’s inspiration to mankind to be searched for in thoughtful and prayerful association with Divinely inspired messages passed on to mankind in thousands of different forms. What’s inspired? Believe me…it doesn’t take a Theological Scholar to recognize inspiration when it’s presented before you.
I find much greater inspiration in some of the beautiful messages of Buddha or Confucius than in Paul’s declarations to Timothy that Women should not be allowed to teach or to have authority over men (1 Timothy 2: 11, 12). Man, Paul didn’t even write the Book of Timothy…in fact the Books of Timothy contradict Pauline teaching.
I’ve become weary of those who view the world through the eye of a needle, trashing all others who maintain a broader view.
Always Doubtful
Fides Quarrans Intellectim (Faith Seeking Understanding)
Always Doubtful,
I agree with your entire post. Especially this: "I believe that Divine inspiration is bestowed by God to those who are receptive to the “voice of God” that exists in each of His children. God provides inspiration to a sincere heart, an open mind and a longing spirit regardless of geography, cultural orientation or religious heritage."
Anonymous 3 - A3
(But I'm A2 on another bloggersation here! :-)
Hello everyone. Looked at your blog this weekend and laughed. Always Doubtful was hilarious! I agree with his challenge to Anonymi! Leno and Letterman should take lessons. Anonymouses, please differentiate yourselves.
To the questions which view of Biblical inspiration we used when reading and interpreting the Bible, and how far it extended beyond the inspired writing, I'm not sure we’re all answering the same question. Here’s a stab at an answer, which doesn’t presume a correct point of view, but hopefully adds value and stimulates further thinking and discussion.
I read the Bible and see it as the revelation of God that is special because God influenced not only the inspired writing, but also, I believe, found a way to use many uninspired, unethical, corrupt and sinful persons to produce the Bible we have today. I stipulate that those involved in the transmitting, writing, compiling, authentication, canonization, translation were as flawed as those they wrote about, and those of us who read it.
Therefore, I see inspiration as -- concept inspiration that assumes interactions between God and man in recalling, transmitting (oral tradition) and writing. 2nd Timothy 3: 16-17 is on point here for me in terms of the purpose of the Bible.
My view assumes that both testaments had an inconsistent process of canon that was vague, secretive, loaded with power struggles. And having read stories of the Bible characters, however, I can't expect to find a perfect authentication and canon process involving perfect individuals to produce a perfectly written Bible with no contradictions, when in reality, God used humans with flawed characters, and contradictions.
While there is a generally accepted belief that the Bible does not contradict itself, I disagree and think it does.
BUT I DON’T think the Bible contradicts itself on the large and repeating themes of salvation like God’s righteousness, love, our sinfulness and God’s saving grace.
Using Always Doubtful’s caution (elsewhere on this blog) against discrediting the message even if the messenger may not always have been a credible character (like Seneca). I agree and apply the same principle here -- that God’s revelation of himself is perfect for us to know that he is righteous and we are sinners, and we are sinners in need of a perfect Savior. The message is perfect for teaching us about God’s love, how he wants to save us, and that we are saved by faith, and need to reflect God’s love to others. Yes, I believe the Bible is perfect for salvation although the messengers and those involved in the production of the Bible were not.
In terms of how my view of inspiration affects how and what I read?
I try to understand the overall message of what is being taught, however imperfectly transmitted, written, authenticated, compiled or translated because I accept that God is trying to tell us something about himself that is good for us to know. I believe we should pay attention to discovering and sharing the message (majors) without getting distracted about the minors.
Calling all Stretchers...
See if this makes sense and can reconcile or further stir up the thoughts and comments above.
Lately, I’ve been wondering why I've felt traditional pressure along with many Christians to believe that as the word of God, the Bible is perfect and without error? Where did that come from?
But now, I've been much more aware that how we see the Bible is largely determined by our faith in God’s claim that it contains what we need to know about God. Bible makes perfect sense to those who trust God. It is what trust does to our relationship, I believe.
But let me say now that I believe the Bible is quite imperfect and flawed!
It is imperfect and flawed for those who do not trust God and have faith that he is powerful enough to make sure that his teachings and grace are communicated clearly. If I don’t trust God, why would I trust his writings? If I enter the Bible in doubt, I'm not sure I can leave it in belief.
But since we who trust God have faith that the Bible says what God wants to say, even if said imperfectly, why should we wonder whether it is perfect?
Here is the conundrum I think.
If God said that David, a confessed and public sinner was a man after God's own heart, why should we expect what David wrote to be perfectly written and contain no errors?
Do we believe God can speak through sinful Bible writers like David, Moses and Paul? Then can we believe that he speaks validly through imperfectly written books?
For me now, here is the Bible equation:
Imperfect Bible authors PLUS imperfectly written books PLUS Trust to believe God communicated perfectly through imperfect authors and books, PLUS Belief that Holy Spirit will guide our understanding. Therefore, the Bible is a valid expression of God’s messages to those who trust him.
Others can of course make the argument that what we think of the Bible is irrelevant since it is the word of God, and therefore, is objectively perfect in its message about God.
Your thoughts?
You wrote: "the Bible is a valid expression of God's messages to those who trust Him". Do you think God has a plan B for those who can't quite trust Him? Maybe a plan for those whose faith & trust are a bit on the immature side? Bible reading should be reserved only for those who are on solid grounding with their Christian experience? But what should one read prior to that?
I don't think everything in the Bible can be taken literally. Some of those stories couldn't possible be accurate. But I hate admitting that because it then leaves the door open to excusing large portions of say a supposed prophet living in the 1800s. I don't know why I can accept that the Bible has errors, but can't excuse others (prophets from 1800s and more recently a prophet who came clean that his dreams weren't from God.)
When I read Bible accounts of the OT God killing babies, etc.etc., I sure hope that the Bible strays from being completely true/accurate.
Karen
Hello AK or Karen Anonymous or KA...LOL
Sure is good to have your thoughts and questions, which are excellent ones! Please keep them coming because you energize this blog so well.
I'll respond to your post tomorrow night, but for now, just wanted to assure you that I believe there is absolutely no Biblical reason to give persons who claim to be prophets, or whose churches claim they are prophets, the authority as the Bible.
None. None. None.
Obviously, there are churches who don't teach or believe in the concept of the Bible alone (or sola scriptura) as a principle because much of their doctrines are based on the teachings of the prophet or prophetess. Failure to apply the principle of the Bible alone is why some churches are appropriately classified as cults--they are extra Biblical.
More later...
Amen to everything you wrote!
Karen
To Karen Anonymous's question of..."do you think God has a Plan B for those who can't quite trust him?
Well, seems to me the mustard-seed-faith Jesus described that was enough to move mountains in Matt 17, and move mulberry trees in Luke 17, should be close to what you might consider faith enough for Plan A, don't ya think?
I bet our faith might be more qualified for Plan A than we think, especially when we take a look at the lives of the Hall of Faithers in Hebrews 11. I trust Jesus selected the size of mustard seed to make this precise point, because he could have called for faith the size of a watermelon instead?
What say ye?
LIG's mantra: mustard seed faith & Hebrews 11's Hall of Faithers ! ;-)
"What say ye?" I say you're probably right. Good point that maybe the faith requirement is much more liberally enforced by God. Good news, I guess.
Now, how to reconcile OT God (killing, genocides, etc.) with NT's God that loves us like crazy? I'm not fond of having to do mental & emotional gymnastics in order to find the love in that. I don't really expect you to have the answer to that. Just sayin'...
Karen
Hey KA,
If Jesus said mustard seed-size could move mountains, I wonder how much smaller the faith-size of the thief on the cross who had nothing to lose. Jesus saved him immediately and all he did was ask Jesus to remember him in paradise! How cool is that???
Pretty cool! But no one really knows whether or not the thief would have remained saved if he didn't die. I think getting saved isn't the biggie. It's staying/remaining saved that's the challenge. Maybe I need to study denominations which believe OSAS.
Karen
I have some news for you, KA! Great news!
We're pretty close, KA. The more I've studied, through the eyes of the gospel, the more I realize how much God wants to save us!
And that means, staying saved is just as easy as being saved, because they both-BOTH-BOTH come from God.
If you're okay with it, we'll take a look at some great passages that outline just that. The key is to realize that denominations can get it very wrong and teach it as if it were very right. And our job is to compare what they've taught us with the Bible, then, unlearn many things that we were taught that simply are not accurate Biblically. Faith in Christ, not denominations.
Are you up for it?
Sure, I'm up for it. Don't be too flattered, though....it's just that I'll pretty much read anything these days ;-) But I have to warn you that I have a really finely-tuned radar when it comes to any kind of legalism or added human part, no matter how small.
KA
Well, then KA, if you are looking for OSAS thinking which the denomination I grew up in outright rejects, I have to say that we're on the same page....
Based on my reading of the gospel Jesus and Paul talked about, as well as OT sinners like David, and also, Abraham, who God saved in Genesis 15, but yet, Abraham went on to screw up royally like we all do, after he was saved...and yet, stayed saved and was listed in the HOF, which is not a finalized list, but just examples!
Although open to challenge, I'm not aware of any sinners who are listed in the HOF, or who accepted Jesus who are listed in the Bible's Hall of Losers because the Bible doesn't have a HOL!
Though I'm GUESSING, I have to believe the Bible's lack of a HOL tells me that the theif on the cross, and everyone who accepted Jesus by faith stayed saved...
BTW, IMHO, I believe......
....OSBF,GGUAWHTWEHAGTGL...
...Once Saved by Faith, God Grabs Us and We Have to Work EXTREMELY Hard Against God to Get Lost...!!
In fact, "For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,[m] neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." - Romans 8.
OSBF,GGUAWHTWEHAGTGL...
Remember those Hall of Faithers in Hebrews 11? =
OSBF,GGUAWHTWEHAGTGL...
No need for you to be "up for it" because you are already there. (:>) OSBF,GGUAWHTWEHAGTGL...
Hope you got some great shopping in!
Hope you enjoy the rest of the blog...
Post a Comment