This is a two-part post on the important issue of how we should view the
Bible. The title of this post is taken from chapter one of the book ěThe
Critical Meaning of the Bibleî by the late Raymond E. Brown, S. S. Brown was
a Catholic New Testament scholar who spent a substantial portion of his life
advocating for the validity of a modern reading of the Bible. By "modern
reading" Mr. Brown meant a reading informed by biblical criticism, which he
defined as "an analysis such as one would use for determining the meaning of
other ancient literature." He argues that such an analysis is needed
because "no 20th-century church" is the same as a church or churches of new
Testament Times, and that inevitably 20th-century Christians have a
worldview different from that of first century Christiansî. A lot of people
may object that a Roman Catholic scholar who espouses the
historical-critical method has nothing to say to a (mostly) Protestant list
of scientists who are suspicious of such an approach to Scriptural
interpretation. However, I am convinced that the recipients of this list
would profit by at least considering what he has to say.
Brown asks the question, "What does it mean when we call the Bible the word
of God"? He asks, "Does God speak?" Since most would agree that God does
not speak in terms of emitting sound waves, then any revelation from God
necessarily comes through human mediation. ěIf God does not actually speak
words (external or internal) one must admit clearly and firmly that every
word pertaining to God in the history of the human race including the
biblical period is a time conditioned word, affected by the limitations of
human insight and problems. The attribution of a word to God, Jesus, or the
church would not enable that word to escape that limitation." This is
Raymond Brown's thesis.
He considers and rejects liberal approaches to the question, which claim
that the Bible is simply the word of man. He also rejects a conservative
approach exemplified by Carl Henryís statement, "the Bible is a
propositional revelation of the unchanging truth of God." He argues that
this collapses inspiration into revelation. The traditional view is that
the whole Bible is inspired but only some parts transmit revelation. Brown
argues that some authors believe that they received divine communications
(St. Paul, Amos), whereas others (for example the writer of Ecclesiastes)
make no such claim.
Even when we turn to the law and prophets, where the writers are conscious
of having received a divine revelation, we find different ways of expressing
the word of God received by them. There is a poetic and prose form of the
same oracle (compare Jeremiah 7 with Jeremiah 26). Prophetic oracles appear
to conflict (Isaiah 2:1;compare Joel 3:10 RSV). There are also two versions
of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20: 1217; Deuteronomy 5: 6-21). According
to Brown, the biblical critic would be inclined to say that message is from
God but the words are from particular human authors, and are a
ěreformulation of an unspecified divine revelationî. He argues that even in
the words of Jesus it is dubious that one encounters an unconditional,
timeless word from God. ěThe Son of God who speaks in the... gospels is a
Jew of the first third of the first century, who thinks in the images of his
time, speaks the idiom of his time, and shares much of the worldview of his
time."
Brown discusses the problem of inerrancy. He argues that attempts to
explain away errors and inconsistencies in scripture often do more harm than
good. He says that there is indisputable evidence of not only scientific,
but also historical errors in the Bible. (He cites Danielís mistakes about
the timing of various Babylonian interventions). He goes on to state that
there are even theological errors. For instance, Job 14: 13 -22 denies the
possibility of an afterlife.
He argues that there are two approaches that one can take. You can decide a
priori that there can be no errors in the Bible, and that the writer does
not mean what he appears to state. He describes the approach as ěan
unmitigated disaster resulting in the acceptance of numerous
implausibilities and turning exegesis into apologetics.î Another approach
is ěto realize that there is a kenosis involved in God communicating his
message in human words... if one discovers (errors), one does not seek to
explain them away; one recognizes that God is willing to work with human
beings and other limitations, and each contribution is only part of a larger
presentation of biblical truth."
The human author of Job was wrong in denying an afterlife. However, his
book is now part of a canonical collection that includes later parts of the
Old Testament, which speak of an afterlife (Isaiah 26; Daniel 12), and a New
Testament that unanimously affirms an afterlife, and so "the author's
rejection of an afterlife" can be seen in the context of the "gradual
perception of a larger truth."
How then can the Bible be regarded as inerrant? (BTW, I know of no biblical
writer who claims that he, or the Bible, is without error). Brown cites a
statement by the Pontifical Bible Commission that "the books of scripture
must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error the
truth with God wanted to put into the sacred writings for the sake of our
salvation." In other words, "everything in scripture is inerrant to the
extent to which it conforms to the salvific purpose of God."
Brown concludes by stating "the fact that the word of the Bible is time
conditioned and human makes it no less ëof Godí ". He argues that just as
Jesus is fully human and fully divine, so is Godës written word. A believer
in revelation and inspiration can nonetheless hold that the inspired
Scripture is human, time-conditioned, and subject to error, precisely
because the Bible is the "human word of God ě just as îthe word of the
eternal Father having taken the himself the weak flesh of humanity, became
like other human beings."
FURTHER READING
Raymond Brown, ěCritical Meaning of the Bibleî
Raymond Brown, ěBiblical Exegesis and Church Doctrineî
J.L. McKenzie, ěThe Old Testament Without Illusionî
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 24 2002 - 01:13:46 EDT