Last week there was a bit of conversation on my Facebook page about what difference it might make for interpreting the biblical book of Daniel if someone believes that the Bible is inspired by God.
By “interpreting Daniel” I mean, specifically, what sorts of conclusions might one come to about the date on which it was written, the legitimacy of its rather “unique” naming of kings, etc. Historical questions.
And, when we’re talking about “inspired by God” we’re talking about something more than one might say for other “inspired” pieces of literature–something that would distinguish the Bible from even, say, Flannery O’Connor (pbuh).
This is a challenging question for many folks, especially as we start getting knee-deep into biblical studies. Do critical scholars question the historicity of certain passages simply because they don’t believe in the God who wrote it? Do scholars read the theological intent of certain passages, in ways that we don’t, due to their rejection of the God whose hand is behind it? 
What difference does it make that the Bible is inspired?
First, a positive:
If the Bible is, as we believe, inspired, then this is the particular Bible that God wants us to have.
If we strain the data to make the Bible into something we presume it should be based on our theories of inspiration, we call into question God’s goodness in giving us the Bible we actually have.
If a doctrine of scripture constantly causes us to deny the data about the actual Bible we have, we are clinging to an idol of our own devising rather than gratefully receiving what God has given.
This brings us to the question of history.
We should be very careful about when we demand a different reading of history–limiting our different “readings” to instances when, in faith, we are called to recognize the hand of God at work in a narrative.
Christians will interpret history differently from non-Christians. We believe that God raised Jesus from the dead.
We believe that Jesus did miracles, fed thousands, walked on water.
But we don’t have to believe that Quirinius was governor with authority over Judea while Herod was still alive, or that the census that he took about ten years after Herod died occurred ten years earlier.
The former questions are questions of faith. The latter questions are questions of historical record. The Bible we actually have contains a number of geopolitical statements that do not line up with what we know from historical sources that had access to better records.
We need to exercise caution when we confront a historical discrepancy. The Bible God actually gave us contains this sort of thing, and we need to allow it to shape what can qualify as an “inspired” text.
What about theology?
We should not disallow an interpretation of a passage because we know that such an interpretation is theologically incorrect.
If a passage tells us that God changed his mind, we should assume, at least at first, that the writer intended to tell the reader that God changed His mind.
This is not to displace the issue of hermeneutics: we may very well reread a passage in light of the fuller Biblical picture. But such “rereading” should not overwhelm the voice of the text we’ve come into contact with until full justice is given to the text itself.
But this leads to the question of why we should reread at all? What positive value does inspiration have? Here, I go back to the famous 2 Timothy passage:
The purpose of scripture is to make us wise for salvation in Christ Jesus.
Everyone loves the part that comes after: “all scripture is God-breathed…”
But the part that precedes helps us understand what the content of this inspiration is. Scripture can teach, correct, and reprove because it is the God-inspired, yes. But it is an inspired story:
“You have known the sacred writings that are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.”
To claim an inspired Bible is to claim an overarching unity that is found in a story that climaxes in Jesus Christ. Inspiration means that I can read the parts as tied to a whole.
That whole isn’t a systematic theology. That whole isn’t a history of the entire world. That whole is the story of God reconciling the cosmos to himself in Christ Jesus.
Good thoughts Dan,
You wrote: “The Bible we actually have contains a number of geopolitical statements that do not line up with what we know from historical sources that had access to better records.”
Possibly we can consider another thought. We often objectify history or archaeology as though 1) We have “inspired” non-agenda driven 21st century historians and thus they trump Scripture or 2) We have ALL the archaeological evidence, despite in the most “dug” country in the world, Israel, perhaps we have uncovered 6-9% of the sites, and if Archaeology does not confirm, or the latest digs don’t affirm, perhaps the Bible record in some areas is wrong.
Could be. Yet I have become a tad bit skeptical about our human confidences 30 years after graduating from Fuller. Not that Fuller is the cause:) Rather, Bultmann was boldly affirmed then…Today he is eclipsed by newer students and studies; conclusions of Qumran then…are usually radically repaired now.
The human body and the body of scripture perhaps hold an analogy-These living bodies are the object of studies by Research Hospitals/Seminaries. Know the body well, they are (relatively) constant. But, and that is a huge but
Know well that our theories about them are constantly morphing. Our theories are often sandcastles built before an incoming tide while the rock remains.
Well said, Terrance. Our conclusions should be held provisionally; tentatively. This is true with respect to archaeological and historical research as well as our biblical studies.
While I agree with the principles Daniel notes (we must be careful not to force the Bible to fit our preconceptions about what “inspiration” means), I think we must apply the same scrutiny and tentativeness to other areas.
Drawing a conclusion from limited archaeological finds that the Bible must be in error on a particular historical point is, it seems to me, a “god of the gaps” methodology. God of the gaps says, “If this cannot be explained by science, we must invoke God as directly acting here or there” (as Newton did when he could not figure out planetary wobble). In the same way, I should not immediately argue “the Scriptures must be in historical error” simply because I cannot find external history to support it (perhaps there was another census; or perhaps there’s some other explanation).
This doesn’t take away from the point in the post. But, it is cautionary and important. There are indications that at times the Bible does not operate with crisp historical or scientific accuracy in the way we would expect (esp. the descriptions of the cosmos).
I blogged some time ago about the meaning of “inspiration”: http://whitherthougoest.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/so-what-does-inspired-really-mean-the-bible-and-god-breathed/#comment-56
If we attend to the biblical imagery of “God-breathed” as breathed upon, rather than breathed out, we see that scripture as inspired/God-breathed is something that has already emerged by the time God breathes upon it, giving it new life and power. This means that we can have a text with minor historical errors (i.e., errors that don’t subvert the primary narrative the text is attempting to communicate) that is still theologically true. Discerning that theological truth is, of course, the goal of interpretation. So, in fact, inspiration necessarily and by definition requires interpretation. They are not mutually exclusive.
Good points here, Daniel. Spot on. I just had a very similar conversation with my nephew. Thanks for the confirmation.
I don’t understand–Dr. Kirk–why the historical record as we have it becomes the standard by which to judge the accuracy of the biblical text. Even the point of multiple witnesses from history functioning against details presented in the text of Scripture do not provide us with any sort of empirical proof that the text is wrong. When there is a discrepancy (and honestly, on the whole the historical/archaeological record confirms the biblical witness) who is to say that the multiple witnesses outside the text are not wrong–just as in textual criticism of the New Testament we find similar errors that have creeped in to multiple text families–why couldn’t this also be the case with the historical record? We also seem to forget that much of the ancient history we do have rests on a much more dubious foundation than the actual textual evidence of the Bible and is subject to just as much manipulation and interpretation as any biblical text ever was. And, much like other commentary above, it seems that further studies in archaeology and history often confirms the biblical record rather than deny it. It wasn’t a hundred years ago that many higher critics thought Nahum was simply fraudulent on the basis of a grand argument from silence because no one had ever heard of a city called Nineveh. Now, we know that’s just not the case as archaeologists discovered it in the 1850′s or so. It seems to me that in the Academy we often prejudice the matter by exalting the certain reads and the worth of historical and archaeological sources over and above the text of Scripture. I just don’t get it. Perhaps someone can explain to me why this is the case.
Kevin, you raise a good point. Why, for example, when we know that Josephus’ historical accounts are tendentious and sometimes self-contradictory, do we insist that he must be “right” and the NT accounts “wrong” when it comes to historical information? At least we shouldn’t simply assume that to be the case. I think the question is, what would we do if it seemed to turn out that it was the case?
With all due respect, you’re a theologian, equipped neither to do the task of biblical criticism, at least as it pertains to historical matters, nor the task of archaeological investigation. I trust you would care very little for my opinion on McCormack or Hunsinger, and given your rather curious perspective on the historical record, I’m not certain why I should value your opinion on matters from the Babylonian exile.
Scot, what are you talking about? On second thought, don’t answer that.
I’m assuming ScotT was talking to Kevin, not MMT.
That might help a bit. I was having trouble deciphering.
Let’s try to keep our disagreements civil.
I guess no one wants to answer my questions?
It depends on the situation, Kevin.
When it comes to counting bodies at a battle, no–the ancient Mesopotamian kings are not going to have more accurate reporting of either who won a battle or how many people died. Both sides embellish to their own good.
The problems with Daniel are of a different order. When we have court records that name kings, there is no reason for the documents to be making up names of random kings. Kings like to have their names recorded and their deeds celebrated. Compare this with another document that gets several names or circumstances wrong, and that otherwise shows evidence of having been composed a few hundred years later, and you go with the court records, the ancillary evidence of other historians’ writing, etc.
When you get to something like Luke’s Quirinius episode, here’s what we’re dealing with: Luke and Josephus both indicate some sort of census.
Luke tells us that the entire Roman world was going to be registered for a tax, and this is why Joseph traveled. This is problematic for a couple of reasons: (1) there was no world-wide Roman census at the turn of the era that we know of from any other source; and (2) when the Romans tax people, they do it based on where they live, where they’re making money. They aren’t interested in sending people back to some “home of record” associated with a forefather from 14-20 generations prior.
It’s not just that if Rome had done such a thing, we should have heard about it. There was a Quirinius, and he did take a census. The reason for his taking a census was taxation. But here’s the thing: he takes this census so that he can tax the people who are there (i.e., there is no travel involved–Rome would have viewed those ancient ties as fictive or irrelevant). And, he does this when Judea is annexed to Syria. The Syrian governor only needs to know how many people there are, and how much money is to be had in taxing them, once the Herodian line is no longer in power and Judea is annexed to Syria. It’s only when Archelaeus is deposed that such a census is needed. This is 10 years after the death of Herod the Great.
In this case there’s not only conflicting data, but the data of the non-biblical historian has a greater coherence with historical practice and political realities. Why listen to the non-biblical writer in this case? (1) Because everything points toward his having a better historical record; (2) because the differences in Luke’s account fit his needs (getting Jesus to Bethlehem) in a way that finds no parallel in Josephus; and (3) because Josephus writing in Rome probably had access to official documents written at the time of the events that Luke simply did not have access to.
We can recognize that all historians make mistakes, and that everyone writes with an agenda. That’s fine. But we can’t allow that to keep us from looking at the data we do have and clinging to the Bible’s version as historically true just because it’s the Bible in which we’re reading it. There is too much data disproving the claim of “inerrancy” to think that this is the kind of Bible God has given us.
I disagree. As a feminist it is impossible for me to believe that the deliberate rewording of some translations to make women subordinate was divinely inspired.
Gemmie, I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
People introduce mistakes and agenda with their translation and teaching of the Bible. That’s for sure. But returning to the “original” Bible only helps in some places.
In Rom 16, with people mistranslating the woman Junia’s name, it’s great to get back to the “original.”
However, there are numerous passages that also reflect the Bible’s patriarchy, and advocate for subjugation of women. Getting back to the original isn’t going to help here. Instead, we need a hermeneutic to help us faithfully cultivate those passages of scripture that promise (even if they never fully make good on) equality between men and women in the body of Christ.
“We believe that Jesus did miracles, fed thousands, walked on water…..But we don’t have to believe that Quirinius was governor with authority over Judea while Herod was still alive,…. The former questions are questions of faith. The latter questions are questions of historical record….”
I’m not convinced this distinction can be maintained. Or at least it is the difficulty maintaining this distinction that continually reproduces alternatively a total mythologising of the biblical record and a rigid fundamentalism.
I think we need to recognise that the Bible is not a God (a fourth member of the trinity). It is about God. We can use it only to remember what past human communities thought. Anything else creates a magic book. Particularly when you start getting into Paul’s letters that just seems ridiculous. Paul is clearly writing in the same genre as your own blog.
Thanks Daniel for some great thinking and rethinking on authority and inspiration and the proper understanding of Scripture.
I must say, I’m with Tony. I enjoy your blog Dr. Kirk so thank you for the stimulating reads. I must say, in this case, I struggle to see how an historical detail (and why not just go for it) such as the resurrection is any different from Quirinius being governor.
Perhaps one is a little more important than the other one but I don’t see how you can be willing to let go of the one and not the other on any basis you’re suggesting.
I’d appreciate comment because I’ve been wrestling with these sorts of problems (my particular interest is Job and his perfect life at the beginning of the book – I would certainly be inclined towards reading Job as an historical figure but otherwise I could point at the years of peace after the judges or the number of baskets the disciples pick up after Jesus’ feedings).
Well… There is good historical basis for thinking Luke got his details wrong in Luke 1. And by “historical,” I mean, comparison with other sources, likelihood of the details, etc. But Quirinus performing a census isn’t an article of faith. It’s a detail in the historical record situating Jesus that just happens to be wrong.
The resurrection of Jesus, though, is what makes Christianity Christianity. If Jesus isn’t raised then he can’t be Lord. If he isn’t raised, then God isn’t the one who gives life to the dead. If Jesus isn’t raised then all authority in heaven and on earth has not been given to him. If Jesus has not been raised then the Romans were right–crucifying this self-inflated ego shows that Rome is more powerful than this guy (or his god). If Jesus isn’t raised then our faith is worthless we are still in our sins. Then there’s no hope for us, because there is no new humanity dawning.
It’s a theological and faith decision to say that the resurrection is at the heart of what is true about the cosmos. It’s even more an act of faith for many of us as we realize that not every piece of data in the Bible is factually correct, or even that not every theological perspective is eternally valid.
Not sure if I should call you J.R. or Kirk, but you’re argument seems to be merely that you have put more at stake on that historical detail that Jesus rose from the dead and less at stake on the historical detail of who was governor. That’s a difference in the effect of an error on you but not really an objective difference in the type of facts we’re talking about.
Now if you were say talking about the philosophical/theological conquering of the hold of death over us (which may or may not have occurred in the form of a bodily resurrection of a person called Jesus), then that would be a different kind of fact that a matter of historical record could never establish. That “kind of truth about the cosmos” may be the case no matter what the historical record says.
The actual and physical resurrection of Jesus body and subsequent sighting by witnesses is bound up with the historical reliability of the texts. A truth that is represented by that resurrection metaphorically or symbolically is not.
“The actual and physical resurrection of Jesus body and subsequent sighting by witnesses is bound up with the historical reliability of the texts. A truth that is represented by that resurrection metaphorically or symbolically is not.”
Tony, I think part of the question here is how you conceive of the gospels’ function. If (as many Protestants sadly assume) Christianity’s claim that Jesus rose from the dead is derived first and foremost from the gospels, then I concede your point – an error anywhere in that account casts a shadow over the whole. However, the church predates the gospels; the apostles taught that Jesus rose physically from the dead long before the gospel accounts were composed. The gospels represent ordered reflections on apostolic teaching; they were meant to preserve the oral teaching, not to replace it. Consequently, the truth of the resurrection is NOT dependent on the inerrancy of the gospels.
A very good point Doug. The truth of the resurrection is absolutely not dependant on a record about the resurrection. Nor does God themselves disappear because a book about them has one error or a million.
It is this forgetting that scripture is about God rather than is God that I find very useful (and if I suggested otherwise, sorry).