As has been noted, many conservative apologists has spent an inordinate
amount of time explaining away various errors and inconsistencies in the
Bible. They have at best been partially successful. I shall discuss two
approaches to interpretation, and the result when we apply those approaches
at texts that appear to contain errors. The two approaches are: the centrist
approach, which I discussed in my earlier post, The Human Word Of The
Almighty God, and the conservative approach. The conservative approach to
interpretation rules out the possibility of errors in the Bible, on the
theory that it is the inspired word of God and so must be free from error. .
The centrist approach also has a high view of Scripture as the inspired Word
of God, but affirms that the Word of God is human, time conditioned and
subject to error. I shall treat three different types of problems that may
appear in the text of the Bible. Problems will be characterized as
scientific, historical, or theological.
1. Scientific problems.
People who hold the conservative interpretation of the Bible tend to have a
negative view of science, particularly the life sciences like biology and
geology. This is because science has gradually built up a picture of the
prehistory of the world very different from that suggested by a simple
literalist interpretation of Genesis. Conservative interpreters therefore
see science as the enemy. Any advance in the life sciences is seen as a
retreat for religion. The Answers in Genesis Website is typical that
approach, and spends most of their time debunking the achievement of life
scientists. Indeed, scientists are often seen as part of a global
conspiracy to inculcate " secularism".
I will not discuss the well-worn topic of Genesis, but will look at
another passage of Scripture that contains clear scientific errors. I refer
to Leviticus 11, which lists clean and unclean animal. In this passage,
bats are classed as birds, (v.19) insects are described as having four legs
(v.20-22), and rabbits are classified among the animals that chew their cud
(v. 6). Conservative arguments that the passages do not contain scientific
errors are unconvincing. I have heard one conservative argue that the
classification of bats as birds is not erroneous because "a bat is somewhat
like a bird". By the same logic, I suppose that the baseball is somewhat
like tennis (they are both sports), a law professor is somewhat like a
football coach (they are both educators), and Pluto is somewhat like the sun
(they are both celestial bodies). Another conservative has argued that the
word "bird" use in the passage could be interpreted to mean "flying
creature". However, it is my understanding that that word used is
translated bird everywhere else in Scripture, and that the Hebrew has other
words that mean generally flying creature. The centrist approach
understands that the writer shared the pre scientific view of his time and
of the audience, views that we now know to be wrong as regards zoology.
Moreover, centrist interpreters can argue that the purpose of the writer was
to instruct his audience as to clean and unclean animals, not to instruct
the audience as to modern scientific taxonomy. To take the writer to task
for committing scientific errors given his purpose would be as silly as to
dismiss Aesopís fable of the hare and the tortoise, because hares and
tortoises do not speak. The fable of the hare and the tortoise was meant to
be a story to instruct children, not to give a scientific description of the
behavior of hares and tortoises. Centrist interpreters may further point
out that modern scientific journal articles usually fail at being religious
or inspirational literature, yet no one says that scientific journal
articles are useless or absurd because of that. In the same way, centrist
interpreters can argue that God and the writer of Leviticus fulfilled their
purpose for writing, even if the writing contained scientific error.
2. Historical problems
A major historical question concerns the Hebrew conquest of Palestine. In
the book of Joshua, the conquest is described as being accomplished in a
single military campaign that begins with an invasion from the North.
However, the Book Of Judges speaks of a gradual, long, "stepwise" process
that began in the South and lasted until the time of David. The
archeological evidence is inconclusive. There is some evidence of warfare
and destruction associated with the Hebrew entry into Palestine (about 1200
B.C.). On the other hand, cities such as Ai and Jericho, which were
described as having been captured by Joshua, may have been unoccupied at the
time of the invasion. This does not mean that there was not a historical
takeover of Canaan by the Hebrews. Indeed, Old Testament scholars have
suggested various reconstructions of what happened. (See Bernard Anderson,
Introduction to the Old Testament, 1984). However, we cannot understand
what happened by a simple, literalistic interpretation of the two accounts.
Conservative interpreters tend to simply glide over the inconsistencies,
falling back on the assertion that the accounts were inerrant in the
original autographs, as if we were talking about a spelling error or minor
inconsistency, instead of two fundamentally different accounts of the
conquest.
Centrist interpreters understand that there were diverse traditions
concerning conquest, and that the scribes incorporated the traditions into
their account without attempting to harmonize them. Their concern was not
so much historical reconstruction as theological interpretation.
A similar approach can be taken to the gospels. The gospels represent
diverse traditions about life, ministry, and death of Jesus. Different
writers incorporated different traditions into their accounts. According to
scholars, Mark probably wrote the first gospel, and later Matthew and Luke
combined Mark with another source, called Q, plus other traditions, to
create the other Synoptic gospels. The Gospel of John relies on a tradition
separate from the Synoptic and develops the material in a completely
different way. This concept of gospel formation explains inconsistencies
such as the three different versions of the parable of the wicked tenant,
the differences between the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke, and the
differences between John and the Synoptic gospels. In both the conquest and
the gospels, the centrist interpretation is that it is better to see the
creation of these accounts as a historical, human process, guided by God,
rather than as a product of a divine dictation process.
3.Theological problems
We should realize that there are that there is theological diversity in the
Bible. Conservative interpreters have a hard time admitting such
differences but the differences certainly exist.
For example, Genesis 1 portrays a transcendental God who creates the
universe by his word, yet in Genesis 3 God walks around in the Garden of
Eden (presumably on two legs) enjoying the evening breezes. No one has ever
seen God, according to John 1: 18, yet in Numbers 33: 11, Moses talks to God
face-to-face. Job denies a meaningful afterlife, yet the New Testament
affirms it.
Those who hold that the Bible is "a propositional revelation of the
unchanging truth of Godî cannot explain these differences, because there
cannot be inconsistencies in the Bible. Centrist interpreters understand
that no one writer has a complete picture of God and his message. Rather,
each writer has a partial perception of a larger truth. For example, the
prophet Amos sees God simply as a righteous judge. Hosea, however, adds the
picture of God as a wronged husband who loves his adulterous wife Israel.
In the New Testament, the Synoptic gospels portray Jesus as the Son of God
from birth. The Gospel of John adds to this portrait the view of Jesus as
the divine Word sent from heaven.
A historical view of the Bible see a gradually deepening perception of God,
from Abrahamís personal God to the King of the universe, to a suffering God
who goes into exile with his people and who dies on a cross. I believe that
a centrist interpretation that explains the differences and errors as the
product of a gradual process of deepening revelation is better than a
conservative interpretation that tries to explain the differences and errors
away.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 28 2002 - 21:28:58 EDT