Inerrancy and the Historical Veracity of Literary Scripture

I have a number of theological positions which differ from those held by my peers in the evangelical conservative community. And, frankly, I really do not care whether anyone agrees with me on these particular positions or not. Why? 1) These positions are true or untrue whether any other evangelical agrees with me or not. 2) These views really do not affect one’s faith and one can be a faithful believer whether or not they hold to these theological positions, so I feel no great urgency to convince everyone that my theological positions are correct. 3) Such a task is far too difficult for me to do so. Why? a) I’d be struggling against the “tyranny of first beliefs”, which means that people so strongly grasp onto the first beliefs they have that it is almost impossible to have them change such beliefs – particularly when such beliefs are matters of religious faith. b) I’d be struggling against old traditions which are held by the majority of the evangelical crowd. The overwhelming majority of individuals do not like to go against “the crowd” either due to peer pressure or because of anxiety and uncertainty of being wrong. c) Because the tendency of evangelical conservative Christianity is to equate the authenticity of faith with the accuracy of belief, people are afraid to consider other interpretations of the faith for fear that they would be heading towards apostasy (or at least be perceived as being heading towards apostasy). d) There is a particular level of theological inquiry which must be reached in order to begin to think about particular subjects and issues. We all know this is true: one must understand basic fundamentals of algebra before one proceeds to think about Calculus problems. One is not going to be able to consider Calculus problems if they are still struggling with algebra (like myself). I reached this conclusion back in May. I began to realize that the theological and biblical issues which I was pondering were generally beyond the paradigms of my peers. It wasn’t that they were somehow stupid or something. Far from it! My peers were very intelligent but they (or I) had gone towards other avenues of exploration of the Faith. Really, how can I discuss issues of the atonement with Calvinists? How can I discuss man made in the image of God with those who reject evolution? How can I discuss Luke’s creative process of Luke-Acts with those who refuse to accept documentary hypotheses? So I generally ceased to debate many issues with many of my friends and peers because the particular issues which I wished to debate required a particular set of presuppositions that the average evangelical conservative Christian just doesn’t have.

Nevertheless, I am extremely interested in the two great commandments and am extremely devoted to the notion of facilitating love and equality amongst believers. In fact, one of my ministerial goals is to create a greater level of theological tolerance in the Church with particular focus on the evangelical conservative community. While this goal might seem to be an overwhelming task it does benefit from the fact that it does not necessitate that a person must adopt the beliefs to which he is intolerant; it only needs to convince him that another believer can have such a belief. For example, I hold to the Q theory of the Synoptic problem. However, I know of some great scholars and professors who hold to another theory. In fact, my seminary’s NT dean rejects the Q theory. Imagine if I attempted to have him fired because he did not hold to the Q theory! Such nonsense! But similar such things do occur in SBC seminaries. So, in pursuit of this goal, I am going to attempt to make palatable to the evangelical conservative mindset a particular theological and biblical position which leads many accuse other believers of advocating errancy.

Amongst evangelical conservative Christians there is a general confusion of how any believer could believe that a particular story of the Bible is true but then reject the notion that this same particular story is not historical. Such confusion and ignorance usually leads to allegations of liberalism or not holding to inerrancy. Even when one does state their allegiance to conservative orthodoxy and inerrancy, such declarations and confessions of faith and theological principles go unheeded and are ignored in the face of positions that most evangelical conservative Christians believe to be untenable with conservative evangelical orthodoxy and inerrancy. Thus those believers who do not hold to the historical veracity of particular Biblical stories such as the Creation accounts in Genesis 1-2, the Flood, the Tower of Babel story, the stories of Jonah, Daniel, Esther and Ruth, and the apocalyptic events of the Revelation of John are pegged as liberals, one step away from apostasy.

Usually moderate believers who hold this view of a particular passage will try to explain this position by presenting the example of the parable whose meaning is true regardless of its historical validity. Unfortunately, this example often fails because too many evangelical conservative Christians believe all of the parables of the Bible are historically valid. Indeed, most evangelical conservative Christians believe that only a story that is an historical event can be true. Thus the parable of the Good Samaritan and that of the Prodigal Son have absolutely no veracity if they are not completely true or lack historicity. The truth and meaning of a story is said to be based upon concrete events instead of general principles which the story points (a very modernistic idea which has been heavily influenced by Enlightenment thinking).

So, instead of pointing to the example of the parable, allow me to point to two examples from Scripture which might help evangelical conservative Christians understand the thinking and faith of those believers who do indeed hold to the truth of a story without having to insist on its historicity. Two examples:

1) The Example of What “Jesus Said”

Throughout Scripture the authors of the Gospels will state (in their original manuscripts) that “Jesus said” and then quote Jesus’ words in the Greek.

Now, as we all know, Jesus did not actually make that statement … in the Greek. The statement made by Jesus was made in Aramaic, not in Greek. However, the Scriptures state that “Jesus said” something in Greek.

Yet, we read: “The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.”

Of course, we must then arrive at the conclusion that the inerrancy of Scripture takes into account that the Gospel writers are translating, paraphrasing, interpreting and rearranging the “historical” words of Jesus into the language, culture and situation in which the Gospel authors are writing. This would explain why the Synoptic Gospels frequently vary on the statements that Jesus made. This would also explain why Jesus in the Gospel of John speaks with the very words, syntax and thoughts of the author of the three epistles of John and not like the Jesus portrayed in the Synoptic Gospels.

2) The Example of the Poetry of Job

The book of Job is a very interesting book and extremely complex. Its final form was written sometime after the Babylonian Exile, probably close to the Maccabean period. Whether this story has any historical veracity is quite unimportant to me. I really do not care any more than I care about the historical veracity of any of the other poetic and literary books. However, I am interested in how this story (if it is indeed historical) has been theologically arranged to become the Scripture that it is. This interest is based on how the Gospel writers (particularly Luke) arranged their historical material as Gospels (mostly I have been looking at the Maccabean books, which are also “theologically” arranged “histories”).

Thus, I do make the case that the book of Job is literature and has been theologically and literarily composed. It must be affirmed that Job and his 3 (or 4) friends did not say all that the book of Job attributes to them. Why? Simple: if Jonah has lost all that he has, is sitting naked with boils over his body, and his friends are wailing at his side, then how can we believe that they spontaneously began to have a theological discussion completely in poetic verse? Really? Poetry?

The Scriptures are literary constructs, composed by people inspired by the Holy Spirit to write various forms of literature about God and His relationship with Man.

What God desired to communicate through Scripture He did so using the medium of literature and the various aspects which accompany literature. God could have communicated through art but literature was the better choice. But literature differs from reality in the same way that film differs from books. A film communicates visually and musically in ways which books could never do. Conversely, film contains inherent limitations in which books excel. The best example is with the Lord of the Rings. Here is a book that was transferred to film. In order to do so, the filmmakers had to rearrange the literary material in order to make the book’s material acceptable to the film genre. In a similar way, the Scripture writers (through inspiration of the Holy Spirit) composed their books in ways which altered the reality of an event to best communicate its meaning. Thus, the historical, Aramaic statements of Jesus were translated into Greek. Thus, the events of Job are written out in long, theological and poetic monologues. Any other method would have been inappropriate to the intended purpose. Thus, millions and billions of years of creation are collapsed within the poetic framework of a few days.

Therefore, when a believer states that he doubts the historical veracity of a particular Scriptural story he is not necessarily stating that he doubts the meaning and truth of the story. He may simply think that the story has been literarily composed to meet the conditions necessary to effectively communicate the truth.

The doctrine of Inerrancy must be an emphasis on inerrancy of meaning and not inerrancy of form (it certainly should not be a matter of inerrancy of interpretation). To do otherwise is to dismiss a particular genre of literature as being beneath the literary dignity of Scripture (in terms of considering “inerrancy of interpretation”, that however one interprets Scripture to mean is what Scripture means, is reader-response hubris on the highest level). Such an effrontery is unbecoming evangelical Christianity.

I hope this little monograph has done some good in furthering the fellowship and love amongst believers in the Church. I hope I have given to the evangelical conservative community some legitimate and understandable reasons for why some other believers do hold and can hold to the truth of the Scriptural teachings while not having to accept the historical veracity of a Scriptural story. Again, you do not have to believe such a position is true but that it is okay for a believer to have it and that is it okay to fellowship and serve with such believers. And to let those other believers serve.