I am going to get to Bevans's book. Honest. Jared asked a question that I want to play around with (and not just in the hopes of getting a copy of Wright's The Last Word ;). Jared asks:

Do we treat the scriptures with greater respect by approaching them with an a priori commitment to their infallibility, or by letting them stand or fall on their own... and why?

An interesting question, to say the least - I spent some time thinking on it this weekend, because I'm not honestly convinced by it. What I mean is that I'm not sure infallibility is even a good category in which to think of the scriptures - but then I thought perhaps that's what Jared was getting at in the question, so I'll throw out some thoughts for consideration. (I'm assuming here that "infallibility" and "inerrancy" are basically the same position - at times infallibility is defined as being limited to matters of faith and practice, but I think it's more often used interchangeably with inerrancy, so that's the definition I'm using as well.)

My big problem with the whole category of infallibility is that it places us in the same relationship with the text that I've been talking about - our relation and submission to the text is defined in terms of its factual accuracy. On some level, it's the scripture-as-answer-book syndrome taken to its logical conclusion. The challenge that this presents is that there are many texts that are factually accurate but that I don't consider authoritative. Scot McKnight mentioned some time ago that we expect infallibility from the phone book, but that doesn't place it in authority over us. The premise, though, that underlies the argument of infallibility is, in part, that the text is trustworthy because it is accurate. An accurate text reflects the trustworthiness of God - if the scriptures were found to contain the smallest of errors, then the entire structure of Christian belief would come crashing down like so many jenga blocks.

There is, of course, some sense in which this is true. If, for example, the biblical narrative discussed Atlantis as opposed to Israel, then certainly I think we'd have something of an issue. We do take for granted, many of us at least, that there is an historical referent for the narrative - we believe that Jesus really was a man who really lived and really died and really rose again, or at least those of us who find ourselves interested in questions like infallibility believe along these lines. The problem, I think, lies with the nature of what we mean by "infallible". I'd suggest that "infallible" imparts a twenty-first century understanding of historical reporting and factual retelling that may not be fair to premodern storytellers - in short, the human authors of scripture themselves.

What I'm suggesting is that the narratives we find in scripture are all biased. They tell the story from a particular perspective and with a particular goal, and are unembarrassed by this approach. There is no sense of impartiality or objectivity - the scriptures unabashedly describe the unfolding history from a particular perspective, offering a particular "spin", if you will, on the events themselves. All scripture carries a certain apocalyptic undertone, in which the often hidden activities of God are revealed to the reader in such a way as to present the perspective of God on human history. That the tellers of the tale sometimes play fast and loose with their material - the raw "facts" of the story - should not be considered from the perspective of modern journalism but rather from that of the authors themselves.

A case in point - compare the narratives of David counting the fighting men in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. On the surface, these narratives are simply two retellings of the same events. But the devil is in the details, so to speak, and in this case literally. 2 Samuel 24 tells the story as God inciting David against Israel. But 1 Chronicles 21 recounts it as Satan. 2 Samuel counts 1,300,000 fighting men, 1 Chronicles 1,100,000. 2 Samuel says he paid 50 shekels of silver for the threshing floor, 1 Chronicles 600 shekels of gold.

Now, at this point I need to stop and ask myself a few questions. Is this a "factual" account? In some sense, yes - and a lot of ink has been spilled trying to account for the differences. Just google "David census differences Chronicles Samuel" and you'll see what I mean. But let's pause for a second and realize that, by virtually every estimation that I've ever read, the Chronicler would have had access to Samuel. So the question we should be asking isn't so much about whether the two accounts contradict one another, bringing the tower of jenga blocks tumbling to the ground. Instead, why not ask what the author intended by changing the details in the way that he did? In this case, a focus on "infallibility" may actually prevent us from hearing the voice of God through the scriptures. The gospels, by the way, are full of this sort of rearranging and retelling and have caused folks headaches for years along these lines.

This is an incomplete answer to a complicated question - good thought provoker, Jared! My answer, in short, is to let the scriptures stand on their own merits. Focusing on the minutiae often required by an a priori commitment to infallibility may actually result, at times, in missing the point that the author may be trying to make.

As an aside, I should note that I really haven't said anything here that, as I read it, goes against more nuanced definitions of inerrancy or infallibility. I don't in any way deny the truthfulness or authority of scripture - I just think that there comes a point at which continuing to nuance these definitions is no longer helpful, and perhaps we should start instead by rethinking our categories.

Technorati Tags: scripture, hermeneutics, inerrancy, infallibility