Monday, April 07, 2008

Ents

(Posted on behalf of Steve Hays.)

[According to the Seminarillion, Ents are the offspring of Pieter Enns, a legendary ogre who dwelt in the land of Westmünster during the Second Age, and devoured nubile seminions for breakfast.]

I've been asked to comment on something which Stephen Young posted over at Green Baggins. Let's make a few preliminary observations before I delve into the details.

i) I don't know what theory of inspiration he thinks that he's opposing. Who or what is the target of these examples? The Westminster Confession? The Chicago Statement? Warfield? Turretin?

If so, then he's shadowboxing with a straw man.

ii) What if we couldn't harmonize two Biblical accounts of the same event? Would that impugn the accuracy of Scripture? No.

Suppose you and I went to Disney World. Suppose that evening we wrote down what we saw in our daily journals.

There would be almost no overlap between your account and mine if you and I chose to go to different events at Disney World.

Or suppose we saw the same events, but I went in the morning while you went in the afternoon. And suppose we didn't state the time of day when we attended.

That might make it difficult for an unsuspecting reader to sort out the chronological details. Yet the discrepancies would be purely illusory.

But imagine if the higher critics got hold of our journals. They would insist that each journal was a work of composite authorship, involving several different redactors. The stories of what we saw must have undergone a long period of oral gestation before they were committed to writing. The higher critics would carefully peel away the editorial layers to isolate and identify the rival theologies of the Ur-Hattist, Ur-Cinderellist, and the Ur-Epcotist. Erudite monographs reconstructing the Epcotist Community and the Cinderellist Circle would be published. Bart Ehrman would write a bombshell book on the long lost ideology of the Hattist faction—which had been ruthlessly suppressed by power-hungry, "orthodox" Cinderellians.

Yet stuck-in-the-mud fundies would blindly insist that these canonical accounts were authentic and accurate even though they didn't coincide on many details. Bold, visionary professors who tried to liberate their students from the shackles of this scholastic, antiquated paradigm would be persecuted by the old guard.

iii) Then there's Stephen Young's disingenuous disclaimer. On the one hand, he double-dares the inerrantist to harmonize these passages. But just in case the inerrantist should rise to the challenge, he dismisses the effort in advance because it robs the text of its "richness" and significance. If the inerrantist fails, he fails—but if he succeeds, he also fails.

Moving along:
Hopefully you would accept me as a Christian—I am, after all, a member in good standing at a PCA church.
Perhaps his membership status needs to be readjusted in light of his public comments.
A while back, when I was frustrated by similar sentiments from someone else on a different blog, I typed out the following nine examples off the top of my head and posted them. They represent some of the types of issues, I think, inerrantists should confront when articulating what Scripture 'is.'
As if inerrantists had never done that before.

So, for all the nuanced Reformed inerrantists here—who pay close attention to the phenomena of Scripture—please do share your thoughts on these examples.

The issue isn't specific to Reformed inerrantists. I see no reason to cast it in such parochial terms.
Some of these may seem harmonizable. But, in those cases, as I try to point out, you miss out on the theological depth and significance of the passage and the Scriptural writing in question—thus making me suspicious that the harmonization deal with the text in a way honoring to it.
He sets up a false antithesis between theology and historicity.
1) Mark 12.9 attributes words to Jesus that Matthew's version of the pericope attributes to the crowd (Matt 21.41).
I agree with Bock that this as probably a case of narrative compression.1 Instead of distributing the question to one speaker, and the answer to another, Mark and Luke summarize the incident.

Does Young think that the traditional doctrine of inspiration can't make allowance for narrative compression? Where did he get that idea?
For another fun synoptic 'who said what' instance compare Matt 19.16-17 with Mk 10.17-18. In Mark the man said to Jesus 'Good teacher.' In Matthew the man says uses good with reference to the deed in question. What is going on here? We could multiply examples such as these from the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) almost endlessly. The Matt 19 and Mk 10 example has an interesting history of discussion in Westminster circles. Both E.J. Young and Ned Stonehouse treated it at some length. Young essentially harmonizes while Stonehouse refuses to do so, looking at how the differences reflect the freedom and creativity of the author and as such serving as windows in on the theology of the writings in question.
The conventional explanation is that Matthew redacted Mark. The Markan version could leave a misleading impression regarding the divinity or rectitude of Jesus.

Does Young think the traditional version of inspiration is unable to accommodate this? If so, why?

Without a proper context, facts can be deceptive. And a writer like Matthew was in a position to know something that his audience did not.
(2) The Synoptics portray Jesus as eating his last supper with the disciples as a Passover meal (Thursday night), being arrested that night, and being crucified Passover day, Friday (c.f. Mk 14.12 / Lk 22.15; then follow the narratives). John portrays Jesus as eating supper sometime prior to Passover and then being crucified on the eve of Passover precisely when the Lambs are being slaughtered for the Passover meals for the Jews (see John 13.1-5; 19.14-16). It seems that John has a rich theological reason for what he is doing—Jesus being killed with the Passover lambs fits in nicely with his emphasis of Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1.29; cf. 1.36). Or, perhaps the Synoptics were motivated in their chronological presentation to cast the last supper (eucharist?) as a new Passover meal? It seems we have the authors of the Gospels (or at least one/some of them) modifying the 'facts' for their theology.
Blomberg discusses this issue in his standard monograph of the historicity of the Gospels.2 Unless Young can tell us why he thinks that Blomberg's harmonization is unsatisfactory, we need go no further.
(3) Does Jesus tell the disciples to take a staff (Mk 6.8) or not (Matt 10.10)? I have heard it suggested that the only way to 'deal with' this is positing autographs that did not have this problem—therefore this issue arises from corruption in the transmission history of either Mark or Matthew. This would seem like an extreme case of 'special pleading.' What do you all think?
i) I agree with Blomberg that this is probably a case of narrative compression.3 On his understanding, Matthew's version is a composite speech combining some of Jesus' injunctions to the Twelve with some of his injunctions to the seventy-two disciples. There is only a contradiction if we fail to make due allowance for Matthew's redaction.

ii) France makes the additional point that,
The specific application of these instructions to the mission of the Twelve in Galilee, rather than as rules for all subsequent Christian mission, is indicated by Luke 22:35-36, where they are rescinded for the new situation following Jesus' arrest.4
So these injunctions were always flexible in time and place.
(4) Do you mind if I mention a canon 'issue'? Jude quotes the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 1-36; a Jewish apocalypse of the 3rd century BCE) as Scripture, Jude 14-15. The way he introduces it corresponds to ways other parts of our Bible (and contemporary Jewish literature) cite what the authors in question would consider Scripture. Such a view of the Book of the Watchers for Jude makes sense since the Book of the Watchers—along with many of the other writings making up 1 Enoch—were viewed as Scripture by Jews in many (most?) strands of Early Judaism in the centuries prior to Jesus and around his time. In fact, the view of 1 Enoch as Scripture continues in the early church as early church writers cite 1 Enoch as Scripture (see, for example, the Epistle of Barnabus with its 3 citations of 1 Enoch with scripture citation formulas!). I am not claiming 1 Enoch or some of the writings in it should be in our canon—but rather that this material makes the Bible messier than we would like.
i) Jude doesn't use a standard citation formula for Scripture in quoting Enoch.

ii) Young offers no documentation to back up his claim that many Jews in pre-Christian Judaism regarded 1 Enoch as Scripture. As one authority has noted:
The fact that works such as 1 Enoch or Jubilees have been preserved since 70 CE through other/Christian channels need not indicate that they were accepted as authoritative and authentic within Second Temple Judaism beyond the pale of the sect which came in part to occupy Qumran.5
iii) Has Young ever read the standard monograph of Jude by Charles? Unless he can explain why he thinks that this analysis is unsatisfactory, we need go no further.6

iv) Commentators generally attempt to reconstruct the life-situation of a Biblical document as a preliminary exercise before they proceed to the exegesis proper. This includes an effort to identify the target audience or implied reader.

But we only have one document from the hand of Jude. And what we do have is exceedingly brief. As such, we have a very restricted frame of reference for knowing what this sectarian literature would have meant to him or his audience or his opponents. As such, there's no solid basis on which to draw sweeping conclusions regarding his personal opinion of the Apocrypha or Pseudepigrapha.
(5) What did Jesus say on the Cross? You could put all the Gospels on this together and have our '7 last words of Jesus' sermon series. But, that distorts the different theologies of the death of Jesus that each Gospel has. This is especially true if you conflate Mark and Luke on the death of Jesus. They have different views on the death of Jesus and his approach to it—which can be very theologically enriching (after all, it is the Bible) if we do not flatten them out.
i) Traditionally, the seven words of Jesus consist of Matthean saying (27:46; par. Mk 15:34), three Lucan sayings (23:34; 23:43; 23:46), and three Johannine sayings (Jn 19:26f.; 19:28; 19:30). And the textual authenticity of Lk 23:34 is questionable.

ii) How one Markan saying and three Lucan sayings represent different theologies is something that Young asserts rather than demonstrates.

iii) Moreover, "different" is ambiguous. Does he mean "different" as in contradictory? If so, how does he think they represent contradictory doctrines of the Passion?

And if they're not theologically contradictory, then how does that present a contrast to the traditional doctrine of inspiration?
(6) Deuteronomy (10.1-5) has a different understanding of where the ark came from than Exodus.
He doesn't say what he means here. But as one commentator has observed, there's a difference in literary genre between the two accounts, so we'd expect some differences: "the sermonic style of the text in Deuteronomy is such that particular parts are emphasized and other items are added (the ark) which do not appear in Exodus."7

Does Young think that the traditional doctrine if inspiration can't make allowance for differences in literary genre?

Another commentator makes the additional point that,
In the following verses [Deut 10:1-11] we have a very condensed account of the incident [Exod 34:1-4) without special attention to exact chronology. It was sufficient to draw attention to some of the more important features of those events which presumably everyone knew about.8
Does Young think the traditional doctrine of inspiration can't make allowance for narrative compression or topical selection?
(7) Who failed to dislodge the Jebusites from Jerusalem, Judah (Josh 15.63) or Benjamin (Judg 1.21)? Note, it is exactly the same verse, except that Judges has modified the material from Joshua to fit in with its, basically, anti-Benjamin ideology/theology seen throughout the book. If you delve into this further, you find this to be a window into some rich theology in Judges. But, if you flatten this out, you start to miss something God was saying through Judges.
i) As several commentators (e.g. Block, Howard, Woudstra) have explained, Jerusalem was a border town. As such, we'd expect the city limits to be disputed by rival claimants.

ii) Moreover, Judges obviously recounts a latter state of affairs than Joshua. Would we try to harmonize a 1990 roadmap of NYC with an 1890 roadmap of NYC?

iii) How does understanding that both statements are factually accurate removed the "rich theology in Judges"? Is Young saying that rich theology comes at the expense of impoverished factuality, or that rich factuality comes at the expense of impoverished theology?
(8) Was Hiram/Huram-abi's descent from the tribe of Naphtali (1 Kgs 7.14) or Dan (2 Chr 2.13-14)? Perhaps one could harmonize this, but then you are missing out on the Chronicler's rich theology of Solomon and Hiram/Huram (in the building of the Temple) as the new Bezalel and Oholiab (who built the Tabernacle). As the Chronicler draws on his sacred scripture and traditions, he brings out this parallel between Huram and Oholiab by, among other things, giving Huram the same tribal affiliation as Oholiab (see Exod 31.6, 35.34, 38.23). All this has a very important function in the Chronicler's overall message and theology. But, again, to harmonize this is to get in the way of understanding what God is saying and doing through Chronicles.
i) Since every man has both a mother and a father, it's quite possible to be of multi-tribal descent. Moreover, some place names can be geographical while others can be eponymous.

ii) And how does factual accuracy "get in the way" of theology? Young seems to think a message is more meaningful if it's less truthful. Is fiction his standard of sound theology? If so, he might be happier converting to Mormonism or Scientology.
(9) Is it ok for a Moabite to enter the assembly of the Lord and be part of Israel (the book of Ruth) or not (Deut 23.3-6)? See also the general theology of Ezra-Nehemiah on foreigners, Israel, and marriage.
i) In context, the Mosaic legislation is talking about pagan Moabites who also enemies of Israel. By contrast, Ruth was a convert to the true faith.

ii) In addition, the Mosaic law has to be adjudicated, and OT judges enjoy broad powers of judicial discretion. That's' because the Mosaic law, like ANE law codes generally, was paradigmatic rather than exhaustive.

In sum, Young's 10 examples are pitifully easy to harmonize. They pose no threat to the inerrancy of Scripture. We don't need to revise our theory of inspiration—a "theory" which happens to be conterminous with the self-witness of Scripture.



1 D. Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53 (Baker 1998), 2:1602.
2 C. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (IVP 2007), 221-25.
3 Ibid. 187-88.
4 R. France, The Gospel of Matthew (Eerdmans 2007), 386.
5 D. Jackson, Enochic Judaism (T&T Clark 2004), 7.
6 J. Charles, Literary Strategy in the Epistle of Jude (USP 1993).
7 P. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy (Eerdmans 1989), 199.
8 J. Thompson, Deuteronomy (IVP 1974), 143.

11 comments:

  1. Steve,

    Before engaging what you have written, I want to put some of my thoughts and frustrations on the table. I have posted the following on the greenbaggins thread you mention at the start of your post here ( http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/on-peter-enns/ ). I thought I should post it here as well.

    ________________

    Paul (258)

    I see Steve Hays has replied to my points. Before addressing any of his comments on the points in question I would like to make a couple comments on Steve Hays. Some of you might claim this is just an ad-hominem response. I do not intend it as such. Rather, I hope to find some hope on this blog...

    A while back Steve Hays posted a fairly nasty response to Enns. In part 2 of that response ( http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/02/inspiration-incarnation-2.html ) he connects Enns with his supposedly liberal WTS predecessors, Ray Dillard and Tremper Longman. Steve Hays wrote, "This is not the first time that a more liberal view of Scripture has been broached by a faculty member of Westminster. Back in the 90s, Dillard and Longman issued an OT introduction which conceded to the unbelievers everything that E. J. Young had resisted."

    Though I do not find Hays in any way helpful in that comment, what he says following the quoted comment blew me away, "Thankfully, Dillard died of a heart attack..."

    Matters got worse. Josh Dillard, one of Ray's sons, posted a kind comment on that thread requesting that Hays alter his wording. Steve responded by defending his cold and sinful comment. Steve continued to defend and to engage in his vitriol as two other people tried to call him out on his hateful comments.

    I ask everyone here on greenbaggins, whether you found Dillard theological helpful or not, can you all at least agree that Steve Hays' comments stepped over the line? Does he not show how it is possible for a commitment to theology to trump a commitment to following Christ and exhibiting him? Does Hays not show there are repugnant ways of 'defending the truth' that have really ceased being of anything that can be called Christian?

    It is difficult for me to interact with Hays. I have mixed anger and disgust towards him. I have been praying for myself and him over this, but this remains very difficult for me. Beyond his comments about Dillard and treatment of those attempting to call him to account, his post directed at me drips with disrespect and an utter lack of charity. Is there not a way to disagree and to interact in a charitable, humble, and ultimately respectful way, even with those with whom one disagrees? Can we not at least start there? Is it possible for us to engage each other without acting as though the one(s) with whom we disagree are basically heretics (which Hays seems to do in suggesting that my church membership status should be reevaluated in light of my public comments…and through his overall tone towards me). I realize I am not always charitable. And for that I MUST REPENT! I hope we can carry on this discussion, treating each other as brothers and sisters who are having a family disagreement. Even if these issues turn out to be such that they cannot be considered inner-family conflict, should we not start our interactions as brothers and sisters and only assume ‘the worst’ when it has eventually come to that? Again, I plead for this here.

    Honestly, I hope and pray everyone here can call a spade a spade and not defend Hays in this. This will help me, because right now in my life, I need to encounter Reformed folk who are willing to exhibit Christ, especially in how they go about fighting for truth and doctrine (which is important!).

    I am posting this comment on Hays' blog too with a link back here. Again, I intend to engage his points. But, I needed to throw this out there for now. Thank you all for your time.
    ______________

    So, there it is for now. Can we repent together for times we have not been charitable and Christ-like in our debates and discussions with others?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Stephen said:
    ---
    Some of you might claim this is just an ad-hominem response.
    ---

    That's because it is.

    By the way, I find it rather disingenous that you attack Steve and accuse him of all kinds of horrific things, and then have the gall to end with: "Can we repent together for times we have not been charitable and Christ-like in our debates and discussions with others?" I read it as you going, "I got my digs in so now I can call for a cease fire."

    Something tells me you're not interested in repentance. You just want the last word. Your supposed desire for more civility rings rather hollow to my ears.

    And note that that has nothing to do with whether or not Steve's original comment was justified.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I posted this over at Greenbaggins as well:

    **************

    Stephen (269), I don’t know why you addressed that post to me. In response to what he said, I don’t think he meant it as many are taking it, as some sort of gleeful statement that a man died. Rather he meant to express that he was thankful that the spread of liberalism was halted at WTS by Longman’s leaving and Dillard’s death. Now, maybe he could have said it better. That’s a point that can be discussed. Maybe the choice of words wasn’t the wisest. That too can be discussed. But I know from private talks with him that he didn’t mean it in a dancing-on-your-gravestone kind of way. Intent has a role in ethics too.

    More important, though, is that I see in your attitude a common theme in future apostates. Your statement that “right now in my life, I need to encounter Reformed folk who are willing to exhibit Christ, especially in how they go about fighting for truth and doctrine (which is important!),” seems to be a set up for a fall. I have seen countless apostates (and dealing with ex-Christians in apologetic debate is circle I run in) use this very excuse as a justification for their apostasy.

    Stephen, men will always fail you. Men will fail to exhibit Christ. And leaving the “Reformed” world won’t change anything. All the apostates I’ve read were not involved in the reformed world. So you’ll find Arminians who will upset you too. This will not be an excuse for you. You will not be able to use this as a justification. You won’t be able to say: “I would have continued as a Christian, but at a time in my life when I needed it the most, Reformed men said mean things.”

    Stephen, “at this time in your life” you don’t need a man; you need the God-man. You need to focus on the inerrant words of Christ speaking in the Scriptures. There’s a reason that so many apostates started where you are. Is it a coincidence? Or does hermeneutical atheism really lead to atheism?

    “All hermeneutic theories which play down the natue of God as communicator, and which move the focus to either the autonomous text or the autonomous reader, are expressions of hermeneutical atheism.”

    –Graeme Goldsworthy. Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of Evengelical Biblical Interpretation, IVP, 2006, 53 Fn. 22.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Stephen Young,

    Why did you feel the need to air out your dirty laundry in a public space?

    Have you privately confronted Steve Hays with his "sinful comment" that has so offended you? Or how about the personal issues and differences you've also mentioned? If not, I direct you to Matthew 18:15-17.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You mean both parties *answered* the question?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Steve,

    Before posting some more substantial engagement with your comments, I would like some clarification, especially in your use of the term 'narrative compression.' For example, with reference to Mk 12.9 and Matt 21.41 you say, "I agree with Bock that this as probably a case of narrative compression. Instead of distributing the question to one speaker, and the answer to another, Mark and Luke summarize the incident." This is your explanation for how Mark has the answer coming from Jesus (well, part of Jesus' longer block of speaking) whereas Matthew has it coming from the crowd?

    So, for you, does this mean that the authors of Mark and/or Matthew summarized in such a way that one or both of them may have attributed to someone an answer he/they did not give? Eg, both Mark and Matthew get the overall thrust of the interaction and main points accurate, and this is sufficient? Is something along these lines what you are saying? Or, do you mean 'narrative compression' in a way that you still hold that inerrancy requires, historically, both Jesus and the crowd answered the question during this interaction---and Mark and Matthew each chose to write about only one of them answering the question?

    Your discussion of how Matthew redacted (altered) Mark’s version Jesus interaction with the man of Mark 10 (Matt 19) also brings this up for me. It appears as though you adopt a fairly standard position on this, Matthew altered his source (Mark) for theological reasons. Again, does this mean that your view of inerrancy allows this (inspired) flexibility? Or, does this mean that you see everything recorded between Mark and Matthew as having been said and that Matthew chose to relay different parts of that historical exchange than Mark, perhaps for theological reasons? Oversimplified, the first option corresponds with Stonehouse’s approach while the second corresponds to E.J. Young’s approach; just to name some figures from the WTS-Reformed tradition.

    Again, my question here concerns your use of ‘narrative compression’ and, also, your broader thoughts on inerrancy. This will help me in my more substantial engagement with you. The examples I bring up here hopefully help us get to the question I have. In what various Biblical authors write, you appear to advocate a freedom for them to be selective and to craft their writings for their purposes. We (appear to) agree here. But, do you still think that however a Biblical author might craft or select material, the author’s presentations still exactly covers some historical reality? Again, for example, even though Mark and Matthew attribute the answer(Mk 12.9 and Matt 21.41) to different parties, in the actual historical interaction both parties answered the question in some way and thus each author selected a different party to record?

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  7. thnuhthnuh, thanks for noticing that. I do not know what I was thinking...

    ReplyDelete
  8. STEPHEN YOUNG SAID:

    “Or, do you mean 'narrative compression' in a way that you still hold that inerrancy requires, historically, both Jesus and the crowd answered the question during this interaction---and Mark and Matthew each chose to write about only one of them answering the question?”

    I don’t think an ancient reader expected a historian to reproduce verbatim everything that was said, by whom and to whom. I think an ancient reader understood that a historian will frequently speak in his own voice even when he’s speaking on behalf of others.

    A narrator often assumes that role. And in the gospels, that role can operate at more than one level. There is the writer of the gospel, who is the narrator for his own audience. And he, in turn, will sometimes relay what other speakers said to their audience.

    In telling a parable (Mt 21; Mk 12), Jesus assumes the role of a narrator. He’s a storyteller. As such, he’s a spokesman for other parties. An ancient reader would understand that convention. And Matthew is a narrator of the other narrators whom his narrative includes.

    His representation would only be erroneous if he claimed to be quoting someone verbatim, or if the point he was making was to identify who said what when and where.

    “It appears as though you adopt a fairly standard position on this, Matthew altered his source (Mark) for theological reasons.”

    That oversimplifies my explanation. I’m not driving a wedge between theology and historicity. It’s not as if Mark has a low Christology while Mathew has a high Christology, and Matthew is trying to promote the Christ of faith at the expense of the Jesus of history.

    There are no isolated facts. Taking a fact out of context can be just as misleading as an outright falsehood.

    That’s what slick lawyers do. Ask the witness a skewed question, then arbitrarily limit how much information the witness is allowed to furnish.

    The answer may be narrowly correct, but because the answer was taken out of context, it might as well be a lie.

    The gospels writers knew more than their audience. In addition, the gospel writers also had to be selective in what they said. They couldn’t write down everything they knew. It’s therefore incumbent on the gospel writers to contextualize certain events or statements.

    That isn’t a departure from factuality. Rather, that’s presenting a fact in its proper context, so that a reader, who wasn’t there to see and hear the “uncut version,” won't form a misimpression of what a speaker meant. That’s why Mark translates Jewish terms for his Roman audience. That’s why John punctuates his gospel with editorial asides. That’s why Luke may substitute a dynamic equivalent which is more intelligible to his Gentile audience.

    It would be inaccurate to report raw, isolated facts—for the words and events weren’t discrete words and events, but meaningful words and events—the significance of which lies in their continuity with other words and events.

    Historical reality is a continuum. But a historian can’t reproduce the entire continuum. He must excerpt the continuum. And, when he does so, he needs to supply enough context so that his excerpt ought not foster a false impression. He needs to give his reader the sense of the sense data.

    “Or, does this mean that you see everything recorded between Mark and Matthew as having been said and that Matthew chose to relay different parts of that historical exchange than Mark.”

    Depends on what you mean by “having been said.” I don’t think gospel writers make up statements whole cloth. But they summarize and paraphrase.

    I’m not a positivist. I’m not Harold Lindsell—although I respect his exposé.

    As to Stonehouse and E.J. Young, this isn’t necessarily a different theory of what inerrancy allows or disallows. Rather, the difference may simply be due to the fact that Stonehouse was a NT scholar who specialized in the Synoptic Gospels while Young was an OT scholar commenting on a passage in the NT.

    I’d add that I’m not really interested in casting this debate in terms of Reformed tradition. Because the faculty at WTS are sworn to uphold the WCF, disciplinary action will be framed in those terms.

    But I’m not interested in exegeting the WCF or debating the hermeneutical continuities and discontinuities in the history of WTS. That’s a necessary discussion for purposes of disciplinary action at WTS. For it’s a contractual question. Is Enns in breach of contract, by violating a condition of employment?

    I don’t have to adjudicate that essentially legal issue. And I don’t care about tradition for tradition’s sake, even if it’s Reformed tradition. The correct formulation of inerrancy doesn’t turn on that institutional dispute.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Steve,

    I have been busy and out of town for a little while...

    On the one hand, I appreciate your recognition of how ancient writers worked in giving (shaped) accounts of things.

    On the other hand, I am suspicious that you bring up these points simply to guard inerrancy. You can use your understanding of how ancient authors worked to make it just about impossible to find an error. But, will you use consistently apply your understandings of ancient genres and writing-conventions to all of the Bible, even the parts that do not seem to have issues in them?

    Also, if you read EJ Young and then Ned Stonehouse on the issue in question carefully, they do very much seem to come with differing understandings of what inerrancy does or does not allow. Young's approach is a harmonization--strikingly similar to how Harold Lindsel works. Stonehouse points to the redactional-theological motives of Matthew and leaves the impression that harmonization misses the point and is not appropriate here.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Steve,

    Just to get it off my chest again, you know of my disappointment with you from my previous comment. I have trouble understanding why you cannot revise your, at the very least, poor wording concerning Dr. Ray Dillard.

    If you do not mind, I would like to throw a few other thoughts on the table.

    Perhaps I am going to start here because of the Van Tilian in me. We clearly have a difference at the presuppositional level. This does not mean we cannot have dialogue. But, our various assumptions should be recognized. Let me know if you disagree with my thoughts here.

    You seem to assume that the Bible being God’s Word means inerrancy. If it is possible to explain or to understand parts of the Bible in ways that line up with a nuanced inerrancy point of view, by definition such an explanation is to be preferred to an understanding that does not so understand said part of the Bible.

    I disagree with you on this point. I fully believe that the Bible is God’s inspired Word, through and through. But I do not think that the Bible being God’s word means that it must be inerrant in the more traditional sense. I think this way because I do not see that Bible operating in this way. This is not because, at least from my conscious point of view, I have a ‘low view of Scripture’ and/or think God could not have given us an ‘inerrant’ Bible.

    For the purposes of discussion, I would hope recognizing these differing assumptions could help us put away some of our theological daggers. From a logical point of view, one cannot assume that my position is inherently a ‘lower’ view of Scripture or that the traditional inerrancy approach is a ‘higher’ view of Scripture. That begs the question. The point at issue is if the Bible being God’s Word means that it is inerrant in the traditional sense or if the Bible being God’s Word means it might look different. If, in fact, the Bible does not behave in an ‘inerrant’ way, then the traditional inerrancy point of view is, interestingly, the ‘lower’ view of Scripture.

    Where else do these differing assumptions lead us? As I mention above, it appears to me that for you explanations of the Bible that fall in line with inerrancy are to be preferred by definition to explanations not in line with it. This makes inerrancy a hermeneutical guide for you. This is the primary level at which I take exception to the traditional doctrine of inerrancy. Since I do not think the Bible being God’s Word means it must be inerrant in the traditional sense, then I find the hermeneutical principle associated with it unhelpful. It automatically orients our approach to Scripture with a set of assumptions and questions that, from my point of view, are extra-textual and un-Scriptural. If one assumes that all the propositional teachings of Scripture must cohere in a logically systematic way or that no texts can be understood in a way that makes them not harmonizable, then one defines ahead of time what the Bible is allowed to say. Again, if a traditional conception of inerrancy is un-Scriptural, then this hermeneutical position inhibits our reading of the Bible.

    In many ways your ‘more nuanced’ approach (see your comment on how you are not like Harold Lindsel) functions to make it more difficult to challenge your views on inerrancy. I made a short comment on this above. On the one hand this allows you to explain away possible ‘errors’ in the Bible. On the other hand, you will still use inerrancy as a hermeneutical guide for what the Bible is allowed to say. So, even in view of your more nuanced takes on how ancient authors worked and their freedom to shape their accounts, you still come with certain assumptions about how the Bible is allowed to behave and thus what it is allowed to say—assumptions that go beyond general historical-hermeneutics methodologies. In this case, these assumptions stem from your position on inerrancy. For example, any type of serious theological diversity seems to be unacceptable to you. But, what if Luke’s take on Jesus’ death diverges sharply from Mark’s, even to the point of Luke consciously writing his Gospel in such a way that it stands against Mark’s view?

    More on this later and after you have a chance to respond. For now, I must get some more things done before tonight.

    Thank you for your patience. Please let me know your thoughts on what I have said.

    ReplyDelete
  11. STEPHEN YOUNG SAID:

    “I am suspicious that you bring up these points simply to guard inerrancy.”

    If you suspect my motives, then I’m the wrong person to ask about my motives.

    “You can use your understanding of how ancient authors worked to make it just about impossible to find an error.”

    Is it your objective of find an error in Scripture?

    “But, will you use consistently apply your understandings of ancient genres and writing-conventions to all of the Bible, even the parts that do not seem to have issues in them?”

    If my motive is to safeguard inerrancy, then how would my understanding of ancient literary genres and literary conventions be threatened by parts of Scripture that don’t even pose an apparent challenge to inerrancy?

    “Also, if you read EJ Young and then Ned Stonehouse on the issue in question carefully, they do very much seem to come with differing understandings of what inerrancy does or does not allow.”

    i) I’m not especially interested in that frame of reference. I think it’s introduced into the discussion, in large part, because it goes to the tactical and intramural debate over whether Enns is a true heir to Machen and Old Princeton, &c.

    While that’s a natural frame of reference in the current debate over the future direction of the seminary, it’s too parochial to interest me. Tradition is not my frame of reference.

    ii) I do think it’s quite possible that Stonehouse was a more sensitive exegete than Young. Young was a tremendous scholar, but not the most insightful interpreter.

    “You seem to assume that the Bible being God’s Word means inerrancy.”

    I think that’s a valid inference. The identity of the Bible with the Word of God implicates the inerrancy of Scripture inasmuch as whatever God says is truthful and trustworthy.

    However, that’s not the only argument for inerrancy. There’s the self-witness of Scripture, and its bearing on the truthfulness of Scripture.

    “If it is possible to explain or to understand parts of the Bible in ways that line up with a nuanced inerrancy point of view, by definition such an explanation is to be preferred to an understanding that does not so understand said part of the Bible.”

    That’s correct, but that definition also flows from the self-understanding of Scripture.

    “But I do not think that the Bible being God’s word means that it must be inerrant in the more traditional sense.”

    I haven’t seen you define what you mean by inerrancy in the “traditional” sense—although you may have done so elsewhere.

    “The point at issue is if the Bible being God’s Word means that it is inerrant in the traditional sense or if the Bible being God’s Word means it might look different.”

    You’re assuming that if Scripture is inerrant, it would look inerrant. I don’t share that assumption. It’s quite possible for Scripture to appear errant even though it’s inerrant.

    An author leaves many things unsaid. He takes for granted a shared understanding between himself and his audience. The audience is expected to fill in the gaps based on common knowledge.

    But what was common knowledge to the original audience isn’t common knowledge to a modern reader. So some things may appear errant to a modern reader that wouldn’t appear errant to the original reader, with his background knowledge.

    “This makes inerrancy a hermeneutical guide for you.”

    That objection cuts both ways. If a commenter thinks the Bible is inerrant, but the Bible is really errant, then that will skew his interpretation at certain points.

    If, however, a commentator thinks the Bible is errant, but the Bible is really inerrant, then that, too, will skew his interpretation at certain points.

    So your errantist grid creates its own hermeneutical circle.

    “Since I do not think the Bible being God’s Word means it must be inerrant in the traditional sense, then I find the hermeneutical principle associated with it unhelpful. It automatically orients our approach to Scripture with a set of assumptions and questions that, from my point of view, are extra-textual and un-Scriptural.”

    Once again, that cuts both ways. It’s not just a conservative thing. You’ll remember Bultmann’s admonition that there’s no such thing as exegesis shorn of presuppositions.

    I approach the Bible as a Christian. To be a Christian is to have certain theological commitments, not least of which involve a Christian view of Scripture.

    I don’t regard that precommitment as an intellectual vice. It would only be a vice if the Christian faith is false.

    “If one assumes that all the propositional teachings of Scripture must cohere in a logically systematic way or that no texts can be understood in a way that makes them not harmonizable, then one defines ahead of time what the Bible is allowed to say.”

    i) If that’s what you mean by a hermeneutical guide, then you’re characterization of my position is mistaken. I don’t assume that one text must be harmonizable with another.

    We only have access to the end-product of the process. We don’t know what a Bible writer brought *to* the process. We know what he left in, but not what he left out.

    Since we lack independent access to the totality, we lack a larger frame of reference for harmonizing one text with a parallel text. Although we can make an educated guess, there may well be occasions when we can’t abstract a common sequence from text A and text B, then drop the unique elements of text A and text B into the empty slots.

    The narratives of Scripture weren’t put together to be taken apart. It’s not as though the narrator left empty spaces waiting to be penciled in by a modern literary critic.

    So there may well be occasions when, in principle as well as practice, we can’t harmonize two texts with each other. In that sense, I don’t bring a harmonistic agenda to the interpretation of scripture.

    ii) However, I do believe that, in principle, it is possible two harmonize two parallels texts with the underlying event which they narrate. At that level, harmonization must be possible if the text is a truthful representation of the event.

    iii) Mind you, this doesn’t mean that a Bible writer is like a court stenographer who transcribes everything a speaker said, or a security camera that registers everything that fell within the viewfinder.

    For example, a Bible writer, in reporting a later event, will sometimes use literary allusions in his description which trigger associations with an earlier event, reported in Scripture. He will do that to draw attention to historical parallels.

    iv) When, however, you deny that Biblical propositions always cohere in a logically systematic way, that’s a a euphemistic way of saying they contradict each other.

    v) As to not allowing the Bible to speak for itself, this objection is self-delusive. Generally, modern readers deny inerrancy because they are approaching the sacred text with a modernistic set of assumptions. For example, if they think that scripture is errant because it contradicts science, that value-judgment is extra-textual. It mirrors the cultural conditioning of a modern, Western reader.

    So they are not hearing the text with the ears of the original author and his target audience. It doesn’t speak to them (the modern audience) the way it was intended to be heard.

    It’s not as if a Bible writer prefaces his “thus saith the Lord” with a disclaimer to the effect that what he is saying may not be true. A Bible writer intends to speak the truth.

    If, in your judgment, he spoke falsely, then your judgment runs counter to his self-understanding. You’re the one who is not allowing him to speak truthfully. He meant one thing, but you construe his meaning to be at variance with the facts. That’s the way it looks to you, but that’s not the way looks to him.

    Therefore, you are unconsciously superimposing an appearance on Scripture which is not how Scripture appears to itself.

    “Again, if a traditional conception of inerrancy is un-Scriptural, then this hermeneutical position inhibits our reading of the Bible.”

    No, what inhibits our reading of Scripture is if we’re unable to identify with the viewpoint of Scripture.

    “In many ways your ‘more nuanced’ approach (see your comment on how you are not like Harold Lindsel) functions to make it more difficult to challenge your views on inerrancy.”

    You betray a schizophrenic attitude towards Lindsell and Young. On the one hand, you fault them for their stilted view of Scripture. On the other hand, you fault me for my more “nuanced” view of Scripture.

    So you seem to think that the “traditional” theory of inspiration is, in fact, the correct theory. The problem is that it’s been applied to the wrong book.

    If the Bible were inerrant, then it would “behave” the way the “traditional” theory predicts. Since it doesn’t behave that way, the traditional theory is still (hypothetically) correct, but misapplied, since the Bible is actually errant—which is why there is a mismatch between theory and praxis.

    “On the one hand this allows you to explain away possible ‘errors’ in the Bible.”

    Once again, you see the problem in the same way that Lindsell and Young saw it. Where you differ is not in how you perceive the problem, but in how you perceive the solution. Right theory, wrong book.

    I have a different solution because I don’t see a problem where you do. I don’t expect the Bible to “behave” the way you do if it were inerrant.

    “So, even in view of your more nuanced takes on how ancient authors worked and their freedom to shape their accounts, you still come with certain assumptions about how the Bible is allowed to behave and thus what it is allowed to say—assumptions that go beyond general historical-hermeneutics methodologies.”

    No, grammatico-historical exegesis makes allowance for the self-understanding of a document. The methodology is neutral on the claims of the document.

    To interpret Dante, you must identify with his viewpoint—even if you disagree with his viewpoint. You must interpret Dante in light of Thomism, Aristotelian physics, and Ptolemaic astronomy—even though you don’t share that outlook.

    That’s what we mean by critical sympathy. You’re confounding hermeneutics with doxastics.

    Where Scripture is concerned, the primary difference emerges at the tail-end of the exegetical process: do we believe what we exegete? For a Christian, the answer ought to be yes. That goes beyond critical sympathy.

    “For example, any type of serious theological diversity seems to be unacceptable to you. But, what if Luke’s take on Jesus’ death diverges sharply from Mark’s, even to the point of Luke consciously writing his Gospel in such a way that it stands against Mark’s view?”

    i) It’s euphemistic for you to cling to plenary inspiration (“I fully believe that the Bible is God’s inspired Word, through and through”) if you’re also going to say that Luke presents his theological interpretation as a self-conscious competitor and corrective to Mark’s theological interpretation.

    ii) At the same time, when you say this you’re taking every bit as much interest in how two texts relate to each other as an evangelical harmonist. You’re not leaving these texts in splendid isolation. To broaden the point, a redaction critic is just as interested in how the synoptic gospels are interrelated as an evangelical harmonist. Indeed, that’s why a guy like Craig Blomberg finds redaction criticism useful in harmonizing the gospels.

    iii) Finally, let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that your view of Scripture is correct. Where does that leave us? What’s so great about a true interpretation of a false statement?

    Suppose that Peter Enns and E. J. Young are both fans of Babylon 5. Young believes that Straczynski is inerrant. His commitment to inerrancy becomes a hermeneutical guide. In his effort to harmonize the story arcs, he flattens out the narrative depth and diversity of the story arcs. He defines ahead of time what Straczynski is allowed to say.

    By contrast, Enns doesn’t bring a harmonistic agenda to Babylon 5. He makes no effort to harmonize the story arcs in a logically systematic way. As a result, his reading of Babylon 5 captures the depth and diversity of the story arcs.

    The problem, though, is that even if Enns’ interpretation is more accurate, it’s an accurate interpretation of a fictitious narrative.

    I lose interest in John’s theological interpretation of the Cross if his narrative is fictitious. Unless his interpretation of the event corresponds to a real event in time and space, why should I care what he thought? Likewise, Luke’s interpretation can’t be opposed to Mark’s interpretation and both be equally true—although both could be equally false.

    Keep in mind that we’re now discussing the central event in the Christian faith. If we don’t even have a true and trustworthy account of what Jesus accomplished on the Cross, then we can forget about Genesis or Chronicles.

    There was a lot of theological diversity in Babylon 5. But I really don’t care about the theological significance of Foundationism, because it’s a fictitious religion.

    ReplyDelete