Today I read the June 2018 issue of JETS, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. ETS was started in 1949 to promote the truth that the Bible has no errors in it.
I graduated from seminary in 1982. At that time there were two views regarding errors in the Bible: 1) there are no errors (called inerrancy) and 2) there are errors in the Bible. The Evangelicals who adopted the second position argued that while there are errors, those errors do not impact doctrine or practice. The Bible is still authoritative, even though it has errors in it.
During the past 36 years, a third view has emerged. It is the view that 3) there are no errors in the Bible if we hold the Bible up to the ancient standards of what an error is. The NT, for example, was inerrant when written. And that is what matters. To hold the NT up to the standards of today would be a major error. It would be anachronistic. We cannot hold ancient documents up to the historiography of today. That is expecting more than God intended to give us.
There are many Evangelicals, and many members of ETS, who hold this third view. Indeed, it is probably the leading view among member of ETS.
David Nystrom reviewed a 2016 book by Craig Blomberg entitled, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament: Countering the Challenges to Evangelical Christian Belief (JETS, June 2018, pp. 381-84). I’ve not yet read this book by Blomberg. I plan to read it. But Nystrom’s review raised some interesting points that deserve comment.
First, Nystrom gives this work a glowing review. He ends with these words, “We owe Craig Blomberg a debt of thanks. Wide-ranging, lucidly written, graced with easy erudition, this is a first-rate reference book” (p. 384).
Second, note this comment by Nystrom (p. 382):
He [Blomberg] writes that what matters is not what appears to be an error for us, but rather “what would have counted as an error in the context in which the statement first appeared” (p. 26) and that “concluding that the Gospels are biographical is not the same as deciding that everything in them actually happened” (p. 27). Thucydides can be glimpsed in the background.
That ETS published this review shows that it is comfortable with this understanding of inerrancy. Surely if ETS felt that Nystrom misrepresented Blomberg, it would not have published this. Likewise, if ETS felt that this view of inerrancy was inconsistent with the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, the new ETS standard, then it would not have published this review.
The strength of the view Nystrom lays out is that it relegates all discrepancies in the Gospels to the realm of acceptable loose historical reporting at the time of writing. Thus the interpreter need not even try to harmonize seeming discrepancies.* He can just accept them as the lax historiography of the first century.
Leading Evangelical scholars argue that this view of inerrancy is needed to keep Evangelical seminary students from abandoning the faith. Their experience is that when they teach seminary students this approach, it satisfies them and eliminates any nagging doubts about the Bible.
The weakness of the view Nystrom embraces is that it leaves Christians not knowing what in the NT, and particularly in the Gospels, was actually said or done.
God anticipated this problem and had the NT (and OT) writers write based on the highest standards of what is inerrant. John 14:26 guarantees that when the Apostles quoted Jesus, they did so word for word. Bodycam style.
________________
*Note: Yesterday I received and read the first 85 pages of Blomberg’s The Historical Reliability of the New Testament. I was pleasantly surprised that he indeed did try to harmonize some of what he calls “apparent discrepancies” (see pp. 77, 78, 84). And his harmonizations are first rate. Excellent. He sounds like Norm Geisler in these places. Of course, he did bypass many of the “apparent discrepancies” by referring to the acceptable literary practice of the day. For example, he said that Matthew used “a standard literary convention of the day” (p. 71) to say that the centurion spoke directly with Jesus, when in fact, he did not. I plan to review this book for our journal.
Brady
CHARGE!!!! Let us stay on top of those seeking to accommodate NEW students by rewriting God’s infallible Word.
Don ortolano
It would seem that this “approach”, while appearing reasonable , is in fact dangerous. Can we now dismiss difficult to understand or accept passages as merely “ literary practices of the day” ?
David Wyatt
This is scary though I suppose it shouldn’t be surprising. I recall how blessed I was by your 2001 article that I have read multiple times, “Toward A Narrow View of Ipsissima Vox.”
Doug Brock
I highly recommend Tim McGrew’s work in this area. His harmonizations and explanations are well grounded and uphold historic reliability, apparently to a higher standard. For example, the one you mention from the book: “Matthew used “a standard literary convention of the day” (p. 71) to say that the centurion spoke directly with Jesus, when in fact, he did not.” McGrew doesn’t appeal to some nebulous “standard… of the day, ” but to normal speech. When a commander sends a representative to do something, it is perfectly normal to say the commander did such and so. If isaid, “General Tommy Frank’s invaded Iraq in 2003.” No one would question my historical accuracy, despite the fact the he himself did not cross the boarder.
Google Tim McGrew; it will support a strong view of historic reliability.
Leo Z
Pastor Bob, I too have not read this book but from what you have initially shared, it looks like that this new thought on Scripture’s inerrancy has the markings of it standing on a slippery slope. This is a new attempt to tear down the doctrine of the Bible’s inerrancy. Many have tried before and have failed. God protects and preserves His Word.
This proposition is subtle in it’s approach and is showing some effectiveness in leading some off the path of truth, as evidenced by ETS not flinching one bit on its assertions and as you’ve pointed out, its acceptance by many ETS members. I’m concerned about it (as we all should be), but not at all a bit surprised.
The Bible is a bastion of absolute, objective truth, God’s truth. It was written by the God of Truth, who does not and can not lie nor err, therefore His Word is truth and no error is found in it. To assert that there is error, is to question God’s veracity, no matter how you try to harmonize and account for it. Error is error, in this case, it means that God either lied or He made a mistake.
Men in their fallacious wisdom will always try to supplant God’s truths. Fortunately, their wisdom is considered by God as foolishness. As far as the thought of using this approach to appease new seminarians into staying in seminary, what a folly that is. Trying to appease and win the approval of men over God’s? What a sad state of affairs evangelicalism is in. Keep up the vigilance. Earnestly praying for you and GES.
Derek
I agree that the Scripture is inerrant. However, this discrepancy bothers me.
Leviticus 11:5 NASBS
“Likewise, the shaphan, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you;”
This animal DOES NOT chew cud, it is not a ruminant. My assumption is that because it appears to chew cud the Isreslites would assume that it does and think that it was a clean animal. So, God was speaking to the Israelites in terms they could understand rather than saying “it appears to chew cud..” Any thoughts?