Science in Christian Perspective
Another View: The Battle for the Bible
RICHARD J. COLEMAN
Durham Community Church
Durham, New Hampshire 03824
From: JASA 31 (June 1979): 74-79.
Using Harold Lindsell's book, The Battle for the Bible, as a springboard, this article asks if there is such a position as unqualified inerrancy. Almost all defenders of inerrancy have relied upon some kind of qualification to clarify their position: the demand for the original autographs, the use of secondary sources and personal observations, the utilization of certain literary forms, the distinction between direct and indirect revelation, cultural and incidental references, harmonization to explain inconsistencies, and finally the limited employment of the critical-historical method. What is the consequence of a qualified doctrine of inerrancy? Lindsell's position is one approach. Another, my own, is that the discussion on inerrancy must ask what is the essential character of Scripture: dogmatic or kerygmatic.
In the foreword to Harold
Lindsell's controversial new hook, The Battle for the Bible, Ockenga states, "As evangelicalism grows, it becomes more and more
threatened with incipient division. The perplexing question of the inspiration
of Scripture is endangering the unity of the evangelical
movement." Ockenga
continues by delineating two opposing stances. The first view considers all of
Scripture to be infallible, including the historical, geographical,
and scientific
teachings.
The second view, labeled as "limited inerrancy," holds the Bible to
be incrrant only when it speaks on matters of faith and practice (i.e., those
truths necessary for our salvation).
I could not agree more with these two distinguished mentors that a division is
growing within the evangelical movement. However, I cannot concur
that the division
is merely or simply between full and limited inerrancy. In the limited space of
this paper, I attempt
to demonstrate that the defense of biblical inerrancy requires the admission of
certain qualifications and that these qualifications do not endanger
the orthodox
position concerning inerrancy.
Fundamentalism vs Evangelism
It may be instructive to ask whether fundamentalism and evangelicalism reflect
similar positions concerning inerrancy. Before the rise of neo-evangelicalism
as a separate movement, the two were identical in their defense of
inerrancy against
the modern critics. In the minds of many it may still he assumed that there are
few or no basic differences. It is clear, on the one hand, that
evangelicals are
more ironic in spirit. Lindsell's book is a good example. As much as Lindsell
is hurt and disturbed by the breaking of ranks over biblical inerraucy, he still
does not deny them Christian fellowship and still wishes to engage
them in public
debate (24, 25). Fundamentalism, on the other hand, is still characterized by
meeting intellectual difficulties with appeals to obedience and faith
rather than
reason and evidence. But apart from an attitude is there a
substantive difference?
I ask the question because it goes a long way toward unpacking the complexities
behind the issue. Since biblical infallibility is becoming the watershed issue,
one would like to know if there is one standard orthodox position.
There appears to he a consensus among prominent evangelical scholars that the
point of no return is over the word "intends." Is Scripture inerrant
in all that it communicates or only inerrant in what it intends to
teach as essential?
Lindsell and others argue that any form of qualification, any
restriction of incrrancy,
leads to additional qualifications until Scripture is no longer the
authoritative
word for Christians. In his own phraseology, a qualification like
"intends"
is the beginning of an infection that spreads. Yet, if we permit no
qualifications
whatsoever, we become the defenders of a static literalism that
isolates the individual
text (i.e., proof texting)
Qualifications on Inerrancy
All reasonable defenders of biblical inerrancy allow certain
qualifications. Warfield
and Hodge, for example, limited inerrancy to the original autographs. This in
itself is nothing less than a Catch 22. In fairness, though, it must be added
that this qualification has not been overly abused. In addition
Warfield and Hodge
imposed two further limitations. We must be shown, they declared, that an error
is the professed intent of the author, and that an error is
indisputable and not
open to further resolution.1 We must ask ourselves immediately if
these qualifications
do not make the debate over inerrancy meaningless. To prove that an
error is intentional
involves the interpreter in a game of mind reading.
Pseudonymity is the extreme extension of this interpreter's dilemma. It would
become necessary to show that if someone other than Peter composed or rewrote
II Peter, he did so with the conscious knowledge of deceit. Deceit, of course,
may have had a different meaning before the days of copyright laws.
It would not
necessarily have been fraud if the unknown author was trying to capitalize upon
Peter's authority, since rabbinic tradition was based upon reference
to previous
All reasonable defenders of biblical inerrancy allow certain qualifications.
authorities. If, however, the author used Peter's name to
legitimatize a heretical
interpretation of the kerygma of Jesus, then he was guilty of deceit.
But obviously
the early Church did not find the material of II Peter to he
heretical regardless
of the name attached.
The interpreter most contend not only with determining which alleged
errors were
intended and original, but original in what sense. Very early in the
debate, Warfield
and Henry P. Smith disagreed whether inerrancy extended to the use of secondary
sources and personal observations (e.g., I Cor. 7:6, "I say this by way of
concession, not of command"). A fundamentalist might deny or
reduce to minimal
the use of secondary sources by the biblical authors, but most
evangelicals willingly
accept their vital role in the history of biblical authorship. It was
none other
than E. J. Carnell who declared that the Old Testament contains
"infallible"
accounts of historical errors that were lifted without correction
from the public
registers and genealogical lists.2 The difficulties are compounded
when we realize
the great variety in the synoptic gospel materials. Many of the
sayings and actions
of Jesus are cast into different contexts, chronological order, and
receive different emphases.3 There are a number of ways to account for this wide variation. One
way is to cast it into an error vs. no error category, but not even the liberal
critic feels that approach accurately describes the original process.
It is more
a question of adapting written or oral traditions to a new setting,
or rewriting
sections of a previously received Gospel, or recasting the same event
from a different
viewpoint. In any case the interpreter must decide, if the author is utilizing
secondary material (written or oral) or adapting secondary material for his own
theological purposes, whether it was conscious or unconscious and whether the
differences in the written accounts were "original" or secondary in
the sense of belonging to the biblical writer himself. This is a
formidable task
indeed for the exegete, but necessary if we are going to play the
game of finding
an "original" error.
Fundamentalists and evangelicals also agree that it is not fair to count as a
proven error the various literary forms of symbols, figures of
speech, hyperboles,
etc. While this qualification seems slight, it is open to wide interpretation.
There is sharp disagreement about what aspects of Genesis 1-2 are
poetic and which
are historical. Are references to the structure of the universe meant
to be understood
figuratively or literally, and how are we to understand woman's creation from
the rib of man? We must know the intention of the author before we can answer.
We must not only know his primary theological purpose, but determine if he (not
the contemporary interpreter) assumed that the inner historical core
was inexorably
wedded to the literary (cosmic, anthropic) form. Warfield and Hodge, of course,
believed it was always the intention of the biblical writers to teach
truth (who
would argue otherwise?), but it remains a matter of subjective judgment on our
part to determine which figures of speech were poetic and which were
historical.
Is All Scripture of Equal Value?
The staunch apologist for inerrancy grants another qualification: but
here evangelicals
and fundamentalists would probably part ways. Lindsell states that
certain portions
of Scripture were received by direct revelation (as in the Book of Revelation),
while other sections reflect a process of reporting, researching, rewriting, or
setting into written form oral traditions (30,38). This is not to
deny the inspiration
of Scripture in toto, only to point out that not all Scripture is of
equal value. 4 All of Scripture is profitable but some truths are central (Gospels) and some
are peripheral (details of the history of the kings). This is a
pragmatic observation
to he sure, but the door is thus opened to make human verdicts about
which truths
are essential and which are not. Since the Bible is scarcely a book of formal
doctrines and confessions, it is by no means obvious which truths are directly
revealed. More than a few individuals have been denied Christian
fellowship because
they did not believe in the "right" form of millenialism.
This qualification
becomes a real thorn because there is not even unanimity whether the
Bible teaches
a fonnal doctrine about its own infallibility. The biblical writers themselves
seemed to have no difficulty, when called upon, in making a distinction between
what was authoritative because it came from God and what was authoritative when
it came from a human source. Unfortunately it is not very often that they call
attention to this distinction, and we the twentieth century
interpreters are left
to discern the revelatory from the semi-revelatory.5
It is freely recognized, due to historical criticism, that the biblical writers
shared the cultural world view of their particular age. This is a seemingless
harmless qualification filled with all sorts of implications. An
accepted defender
of inerrancy, Clark Pinnoek, writes, "infallibility does not
update the writers'
view of the physical cosmos where this is unnecessary."6 Yet if the Bible
is infallible on all matters, as Lindell argues, the Holy Spirit must
have inspired
the authors with supernatural knowledge on such matters as biology
and astronomy
in the creation account(s). Pinnock, however, qualifies himself by
declaring the
obligation to distinguish between what was incidental to the teaching intended.
"We need to ask what is being asserted in this passage" (72). We are
thus led back to where this discussion started. It is legitimate and necessary
for the exegete to decide by some criteria what timeconditioned concepts were
essential and thus corrected by the Holy Spirit and which were
incidental to the
author's intention arid left untouched.
If one judges Paul's admonition for women to remain silent in church
and to cover
their heads (1 Cor. 14:34; 11:4-13) to he time-conditioned and relative, then
by similar logic another interpreter may judge Paul's views on homosexuality to
be illustrative of his contemporary situation. The difficulty is not
really solved
by reference to a broader biblical base (say the Old Testament),
because the same
time-conditioned attitudes are encountered. Certainly the Christian interpreter
does not judge Scripture based upon his own cultural milieu, but he
likewise should
not feel hound by a particular historical condition of another age. The exegete
is forced then to evaluate a specific passage in light of broader
biblical principles,
i.e., to peel away
a time-conditioned illustration from the fundamental theological intention of
the author. No matter who does the evaluating, it is a subjective
process repugnant
to the idea of inerrancy.
In order to defend an unqualified inerrancy, a sufficient case must be made that Scripture teaches absolute truth in contrast to essential truth.
Plenary Inspiration
Integral to the consideration of Weitbild is that of plenary
inspiration. Evangelicals
do not believe in verbal dictation, but do believe the Holy Spirit so
guided each
biblical writer that he wrote what God willed. The Holy Spirit
superintended their
writing but not to the extent of obliterating their particular personalities,
style, or language. So Warfield and Hodge conceded that
Inspiration does not suppose that the words and phrases written under its influence are the best possible to express the truth, only that they are an adequate expression of the truth. Other words and phrases . . . might furnish a clearer, more exact, and therefore better expressions . . . .7
The implication seems clear. If the words and phrases are only
adequate as compared
to unequaled, then the concepts and propositions can be only adequate
as compared
to perfect. The total and final result then is a Bible that is fully adequate
for man's salvation but not inerrant in the sense of expressing the exact truth
for all times.
Jacob Preus of the Missouri Synod seems to know intuitively that if Scripture
is infallible then it must be verbally inspired, and if verbally inspired then
it must give such verbal and conceptual expression that transcend
historical and
human limitations. Preus accordingly rejects the possibility that the biblical
authors could have accommodated themselves to any erroneous ideas of
their time,
that the use of literary forms might have a hearing on the historicity of the
content, that a text might have more than one meaning depending upon
its various
stages of precanonical history, or that the interpreter must take into account
the intent of the passage when evaluating its truth.8 In order to
defend an unqualified
inerrancy, therefore, a sufficient ease must be made that Scripture
teaches absolute
truth in contrast to essential truth.9 The latter tolerates a
degree of development,
but the former requires the author to have written in such a way that
his vocabulary,
grammar, style, and conceptualization transcended his own cultural milieu. In
the one instance it can be said that Scripture in no way falsifies or
misrepresents
Gods revelation of himself, while the other requires that Scripture
presents the
fullest expression of truth possible (i.e., one that can never he
improved upon).
The unqualified explanation of inerrancy leads us back to a
fundamentalistic literalism.
The other choice is to struggle with the implications of a qualified inerraney.
The Natural Sense of Scripture
It is axiomatic among evangelicals that Scripture is to be
interpreted according
to its natural sense, unless the context of the passage dictates
otherwise. Lindsell
writes that "evangelicals have always agreed that the writers of Scripture
penned straight history" (205). This Reformation principle acts as another
qualification to inerrancy, because without it inerrancy would be
reduced to either
an absurd literalism or a form of spiritual allegory.10 But it is the literal
sense of a text that causes the case for an unqualified inerrancy
heartburn, because
many of the frequently cited "problem texts" can he gotten
around only
by ignoring the plain sense. Lindsell undertakes to find solutions to a number
of specific errors and what happens is that rather than reading the
text as "straight
history," he is forced to harmonize or contort the plain meaning of the
author. Lindsell's handling of such problems as the measurement of the molten
sea as described
in II Chronicles 4:2, or the parallel conflict between Numbers 25:9
and I Corinthians
10:8 illustrates what Warfield and Ilodge meant when they said that other words
would have furnished a clearer, more exact meaning.
John W. Montgomery presents as one of his six principles of biblical
interpretation:
"Harmonization of scriptural difficulties should be pursued
within reasonable
limits, and when harmonization would pass beyond such bounds, the exegete must
leave the problem open. 11 Harmonization is obviously another
qualification since it detours around those passages where a
straightforward reading
raises many difficulties.12 If we assume that the resurrection
accounts are straight
history, an infallible description, then the interpreter has no choice but to
harmonize. It is then an open question whether Lindsell's citation of
J. M. Cheney's
elaborate harmonization of the different accounts of Peter's denial of Jesus is
within reasonable limits. I suspect the answer depends upon one's philosophical
and theological persuasions: a subjective matter to be sure.
Clark Pinnock finally resorts to a kind of Catch 22 qualification:
Where the straightforward
reading of a text does not support inerrancy, let the difficulty stand until it
can be explained at some future date. Now, there is nothing
illegitimate in asking
for a little patience and leaving the door open for further evidence. Liberal
critics are doing it all the time.'3 Nevertheless, it is a necessary
qualification
to biblical inerrancy; and what is more, a qualification that can be
just as easily
abused as any other hermeneutical principle.
The issue becomes not whether we can harmonize or find a plausible solution to certain difficulties, but whether such a method is in accord with the purpose of the author.
The Critical-Historical Method
Finally, there is the qualification of the critical-historical method itself. In
recent years a new breed of
evangelicals (a la Richard Quebedeaux) have made it evident that defenders of
inerrancy have various degrees of commitment to biblical criticism. At the one
end of the spectrum are the extreme fundamentalists who see the
critical-historical
method as entirely negative except for an occasional quip that it has provided
helpful background information. At the other end are respected scholars such as
Daniel Fuller, George E. Ladd, F. F. Bruce, and E. Earle Ellis who
are wary about
some of the rationalistic presuppositions behind the method.14 but
have an open
mind to some of the results of historical criticism. The Ladds' of
evangelicalism
do not propose any new qualifications; they only take more seriously the ones
already mentioned, Furthermore, they realize that the exegetical process is not
possible without hermeneutical principles. Evangelicals are rapidly
being categorized
as either proponents or opponents of full inerrancy. Not only is this division
an oversimplification, it overlooks the other division between evangelicals who
believe inerrancy can be defended only as "unqualified,"
and evangelicals
who believe certain qualifications are necessary and desirable. In either case
one group views the critical-historical method with mistrust (it has led us to
disregard the divine nature of Scripture), while the other group sees
the historical
method as a key to understanding the true character of the biblical
witness.
A More Flexible View of Biblical Infallibility
It was not my purpose to show that inerrancy has died by a thousand
qualification. 15 The limitations I have cited are ones traditionally cited by all
reasonable
defenders of inerrancy, because they are necessary if the concept of incrraocy,
is to maintain its integrity. I supported Lindsell in his contention that one
limitation leads to another, but I disagree with him that "once
limited inerrancy
is accepted, it places the Bible in the same category with every other
book that
has ever been wirtteo" (203). Even the most innocent
qualification illustrates
the kind of interpreter's quandary that results. The logical conclusion, as I
see it, is an alternative. Either we return to a non-qualified obscurantism of
nineteenth century fundamentalism, or we accept a more open, flexible concept
of biblical infallibility. I am aware that Lindsell and I are coming
from opposite
ends of the spectrum. He fears the danger from the left, namely, an
unscriptural
humanism that ignores the divine authorship of the Bible; while I
fear the danger
from the right, namely, an unbiblical literalism that stands upon the
Bible rather
than under it. Lindsell's defense, however, assumes that by limiting
the qualifications,
biblical inerrancy can be protected from the left without falling prey to the
right. The assumption is naive, more like hopeful wishing than
realistic expectations,
and is indicative of trying to return to an era before historical
criticism.
Dogma vs Kerygma
In addition it is unfortunate that once again Lindsell has chosen to
make inerrancy
a black and white issue of errors vs. no errors. The fence is much broader than
this, as many evangelical scholars are poignantly conscious. The liberal critic
who searches for that "one fatal error" is just as much a myth as the
conservative who argues for verbal dictation. The heart of the
matter, if the discussion concerning inerrancy is going to progress,16 is
not about errors but about the basic character of the biblical writings. If the
essential character of Scripture is dogmatic, and if absolute truth is required
to achieve this purpose, then inerrancy will he defended in one way.
If the fundamental
character of Scripture is kerygmatic, and if essential truth is
necessary to achieve
this purpose, then inerraney will he defended in another way.
The polemicist asks, "Would God lie?" He attempts to
harmonize the resurrection
accounts, designs elaborate explanations for the measurement of the molten sea,
and justifies the Chronicler's amending of II Samuel 24:1 (cf. I Chr.
21:1). This
kind of debate has gone on for centuries and has changed the minds of very few
people about Scripture's infallibility. Form criticism and redaction history,
however, have been asking a different kind of question. They ask
whether the Deuteronomist
was more a theologian than an objective reporter, whether the author of Genesis
1 was a poet first and an astronomer last, whether the Gospels are historical
biographies or post-Easter proclamations, or whether the book of Revelation is
to he read as forensic predictions of the future or as warning and
encouragement
to Christians under distress. These are of course not either-or type questions,17
but they do reflect a different kind of probing. The biblical interpreter knows
full well that the kind of question asked of the Bible will largely determine
the kind of answer received. The issue becomes not whether we can harmonize or
find a plausible solution to certain difficulties, but whether such a method is
in accord with the purpose of the author. God, of course, does not
lie; but that
may he the proper kind of question to ask in order to discover the
basic character
of Scripture."18
Some years ago James Smart posed the problem as it needs to he discussed: Does
Scripture embody a concept of inspiration that is dynamic or
static?19 There
has been so much attention paid to the doctrinal verses that nothing
is said about
the remarkable freedom with which the biblical writers reinterpreted
and reshaped
the "saving history" to each new context. James Smart points out the
obvious:
The NT at a whole, however, is dominated by the OT attitude to sacred documents. The church was plainly untroubled by differences of detail in parallel traditions. The author of John's Gospel claimed for himself a very high degree of freedom in reinterpreting the traditions concerning Jesus in order to bring out clearly what he knew to he the truth of the gospel. A church in bondage to literalism could never have admitted John's Gospel alongside the three earlier ones that tell their story so differently. The lateness of its general recognition was must likely a consequence of the difficulties its character provided for those in she church who could not endure contradictions in sacred Scripture.20
What is the basic character of Scripture? Is it dogmatic or kerygmatic? As the
critic carefully compares the thousands of parallel accounts in Scripture, he
does not conclude that they are the result of plagiarism or deceit. To be sure
there are details that resist harmonization, but for the most part
the differences
are best interpreted as tensions resulting from a pattern of
development. Various
lines of research converge on the conclusion that the pattern of precanonical
Christianity appeared in a multiplicity of forms rather than a single
primitive cast.21 If we accept the consensus of biblical scholarship that the
Gospels were not written primarily as reportage but as kerygma,22 the issue of
inerrancy is cast into a different light. Yet in the abundance (and redundancy)
of words written about biblical inerrancy, it doesn't seem to matter what the
critical-historical tells us about the fundamental character of the
biblical witness.
Some readers of this article may conclude that I do not believe in
biblical inerrancy.
I would not agree with them. Their concept of inerrancy, however, is probably
different from mine. I find the defense of an unqualified inerraney
strained and
thin. On the other hand, a concept of qualified inerrancy does not
mean a restriction
of inspirations to certain kinds of subject matter. Infallibility is
limited only
by the intention of the author and the kerygmatic nature of the
biblical message.
As a Christian I trust Scripture as it faithfully presents the good
news of God's
grace and judgment. As a Christian historian, I see the Bible as the remarkable
account of the historical acting out of God's love and man's
response. The tensions,
difficulties, and possible contradictions we encounter are not the blemishes of
a system of doctrine and practice, but the natural result of writers who were
compelled to preach the Gospel in the language and forms of their
contemporaries.
REFERENCES
1Archibald A. Hodge, Benjamin B. Warfield, "Inspiration,"
Presbyterian Review, H (1881j, pp. 242ff. Actually there were two more
qualifications: an error
cannot be attributed to a difference in form as long as the same basic truth is
conveyed; an alleged error must be shown to be incapable of being
harmonized with
other statements.
2E. J. Carnell, The Case for Orthodox Theology (Westminster, 1959), pp.
102-11.
Carnell in this ease was following another widely quoted scholar,
James Orr, Revelation
and Inspiration (Eerdmans, 1951), pp. 179, 216.
3For some of the best illustrations see Joaehim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus
(Seribner's, 1963) or his Unknown Sayings of Jesus.
4W. A. Criswell in Why I Preach that the Bible is Literally
True (Broadman, 1969) believes every line and word of Scripture is revealed and
cannot he counted as secondary.
5There are those occasions when the prophet ("Thus says Yahweh") or
Paul (Gal. 1:llff.j, for example, wish to demark God's authority as opposed to
theirs. We have no right, however, to assume that those statements
are more revealed
than others. The history of biblical studies is one of the painful discovery of
how difficult it is to separate the essential from the incidental.
6Clark H. Pinnoek, Biblical Revelation (Moody, 1971), p. 72.
7Hodge and Warfield, ibid., 256. Another supporter of inerrancy at
the time, professor
Samuel C. Bartlett, wrote what has become a standard statement of
verbal inspiration:
"While there was not a universal dictation, there was such
guidance as would
prevent the use of wrong forms of statement, and in all passages of importance,
wheresoever the natural powers would not have supplied the befitting
word of expression,
there it was supplied by the real though probably unperceived influence of the
Holy Spirit" (Princeton Review, Jan. 1880, 35-36.) The
hermeneutical question
is still unanswered. How does one decide where
the Holy Spirit took charge?
8See the Report of the Synodical President to The Lutheran
Church-Missouri Synod (1972), pp. 154-55.
9Writing in the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation
(June, 1972) its editor, Richard H. Bube, draws our attention to two types of
errors. Type 1 is judged by the criterion of absolute truth, such as
those derived
from natural or scientific law. For example, the statement that "the son
rises." Type 2 is a false statement with respect to the
criterion intrinsic
to the Bible itself (e.g., a statement that misrepresents God). While the standards for
absolute truth are "relatively"
fixed, they
are by no means unchanging. Bube thus argues we do not need to defend in order to
avoid the mistakes
of the past. Scripture against type 1 errors, because
the biblical
authors man, wrote
under different
standards for absolute truth than we often
assume.
10Some would see
as a new form of spiritual allegory Bultmann's program of demythologizing. C. C. Berkouwer certainly makes a
valid observation
that the Reformation
doctrine of perspicuity was aimed at the message of Scripture and not at the words
themselves. See
Studies in Dogmatics:
Holy Scripture (Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 274ff. The danger is in tact twofold: literalism and allegory.
11John W. Montgomery, ed., God's Inerrant Word (Bethany,
974), p. 278.
12At what point does
a difficulty
become an outright contradiction? A conflict in detail becomes a contradiction only when we know both authors are writing
as eye witnesses
or acting as historians in passing on the report of an eye witness. If, however, the author in question deals
with the detail from a
literacy or theological viewpoint, as redacation history often claims to be the ease,
then it becomes very
difficult to decide
when a difference in detail is an error. The genealogies of Matthew and Luke illustrate the problem, not to
mention the
Gospel of John.
13 Ernst Kasemann comments in the opening chapter of his The Testament of Jesus According to John
17 (Fortress, 1968): "Not without irony, one could point to
the history of exegesis
as offering the proof that only occasionally has exegesis
achieved lasting results. If true understanding had actually
been realized, then the great problems of NT interprtation would not need to become the
object of diligent research in each new
generation" (p. 1).
l4Namely,
the a priori exclusion of miracles based upon a closed system, a humanistic philosophy that teaches the truths of Scripture are the result of
a natural development of ideas, and the assumption that ancient man was not able to write accurate, objective history. Certainly
one of the
important
changes since
the nineteenth century is a reexamination of these presumptions by the modern critic
himself.
15The
phraseology belongs
to the philosopher-linguist R. M. Hare as quoted by John W. Montgomery, ibid.,
p.275.
16 I have outlined elsewhere other issues that must be
considered in order to avoid the mistakes of the past. Richard J. Coleman,
"Biblical Inaccuracy: Are we going anywhere?," Theology Today (January
1975), 295-303.
17 A moment of decision comes when the interpreter is faced with a text that is both literary and
historical. As in the case
of Genesis 1 or John 6, there is both a primary and a secondary purpose, and only careful exegesis, and then only tentatively, will tell
us if the theological-literary put pose so dominates as to influence and share the
historical. The genealogies of
Genesis 5 and 11:10-32,
namely the life spans
of the pro-flood ancestors, presents a typical interpreter's dilemma.
18In no way do
I mean to imply the Christian interpreter is not concerned with the historical accuracy of Scripture.
We are simply narrowing
the hermeneutieal question to what is the root idea of biblical truth. Is it the philosophical truth of
subject-object correspondence
or the Bible's faithfulness in presenting the saving God and His word to the people
of Israel and then to the world?
If the latter is more curate, then errors in the observation of physical
phenomena or the reporting of chronological events
constitute no major
difficulty for the believer, though they may for the historian. So much is admitted by the great
evangelical scholars of the past when
faced with a "minor" historical discrepancy.
19James D, Smart, The Interpretation of Scripture (Westminster, 1961), pp.
166-67.
20lbid., p. 189.
21For example, James M. Robinson
and Helmut Koester, Trajectories
through Early Christianity (Fortress, 1971); and William G. Doty, Contemporary New Testament
Interpretation (Prentice-Hall,
1972).
22 0r as Ernst
Kiisemann puts it: "History is only accessible to us through tradition and only comprehensible
to us through interpretation."
He balances his statement with the comment that the Gospel writers did not abstract their
faith from history. See
E. Kasemann,
"The Problem of the Historical
Jesus," and "Is the Gospel Objective," in Essays in NT Themes (SCM Press, 1964).