Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
CHAPTER TWO THE HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF BIBLICAL INSPIRATION AND THE FORMATION OF THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE
Introduction
For centuries, theologians from different persuasions have wrestled with the issues of biblical inspiration. The connection between what God revealed and how the human writers committed this revelation to paper and its subsequent development into canonical Scripture inspired a complex debate among Christians for many centuries past. The need to know to what extent and on what basis the Bible is to be regarded as an authoritative document has resulted in a diversity of opinions on the meaning of biblical inspiration. Thus, various views on the history of the doctrine of inspiration will be considered. The development of the canon of Scripture will also be discussed as we attempt to show the authority of divine revelation.
Theology being a process, in that it continues to develop over the years, the current controversies over the Bible are not unique to our era. These controversies over the Bible simply reveal our attempts to come to grips with modernity and the theological issues of our society. However, the controversies over the doctrine of biblical inspiration have not always been as complex as they are now, or perhaps not as intensified as they are today.
This chapter on the historical development of biblical inspiration will do at least two things for this dissertation: (1) It will help provide the important background for the analysis and evaluation of James Barr’s view of biblical inspiration as well as the exposition of the view suggested in this study; and (2) It will contribute towards placing this study in a wider scope of theological trends in the area of biblical inspiration.
First, this chapter discusses the various theological alternatives (evangelical and non-evangelical) which have been presented by different people groups in their attempt to address the issues of biblical inspiration and biblical authority. A brief history of each of the seven different theological developments, namely, Roman Catholic Scholasticism, Protestant Liberalism, Neo-orthodox Theology, Vatican II Catholicism, Liberal Evangelicals, Protestant Fundamentalism, and Church Fathers and Reformers, are presented.1 Second, the history of the evangelical development of the biblical doctrine of inspiration will be discussed briefly. Yes, I embrace the evangelical view of the Bible. I also affirm the complete reliability of the Bible as the criterion for the Christian’s beliefs and conduct in this day and age. In the course of this study I hope to explain why I take this position.
The Roman Catholic Scholasticism: Historically, the Roman
Catholic theology has adhered to the principle of the divine origin and inerrancy of the Bible. Hardon explains biblical inspiration as: The special influence of the Holy Spirit on the writers of Sacred Scripture in virtue of which God himself becomes the principal author of the books written and the sacred writer is the subordinate author. In using human beings as his instruments in the composition, God does so in harmony with the person’s nature and temperament, and with no violence to the free, natural activity of his or her human faculties. According to the Church’s teaching, “by supernatural power, God so moved and impelled them to write, He was so present to them, that the things which He ordered and those only they first rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth” (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, Denzinger 3293).2
This view of the Scriptures dates back to the Council of Trent in 1546 when the Vulgate was declared to be authentic: According to Pius XII, “the Vulgate, as the Church has understood and does now understand, is free from all error in matters of faith and morals. Consequently, as the Church herself testifies, it can be safely quoted, without the least fear of erring, in disputations, public readings, and sermons. Its authenticity should not be called critical, but juridical. The authority the Vulgate enjoys in doctrinal matters does not by any means proscribe–and in modern times it fairly demands–that this same doctrine be corroborated by the original texts. Nor does it mean that the original texts cannot be continually used to help clarify and explain more and more of the proper meaning of Sacred Scripture. Nor does the decree of Council of Trent forbid that translations be made into the vernacular so that the faithful may use them and profit by them and understand more readily the meaning of the divine message. These translations may be made from the original texts” (Denzinger 3825).3 Commenting on the concepts around which the theology of biblical inspiration has developed, Vawter, a Catholic theologian, observes: The technical term par excellence in the later theology of Biblical inspiration has been borrowed from 2 Tim 3.16, whose author designated ‘all Scripture’ or perhaps better, ‘every scriptural passage’(BF » (D »NZ) as 2,`B<,LFJ@H, a term which the Old Latin, followed by the Vulg, correctly rendered divinitus inspirata, that is, ‘divinely inspired’ or ‘breathed-by-God.’ In the intended historical context of the epistle, the ‘sacred writings’ (\,D (DVμμ »J ») to which reference is made (v.15) are, of course, expressly the books of the OT canon that the early Church had accepted as its own Scriptures, ‘which can instruct unto the salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.’However, we can probably agree with those commentators who contend that the author would also have had in his purview those writings of the apostolic Church that were already being equated with the Biblical canon: in 1 Tim 5.18 the author cites as Scripture alongside an OT passage what is apparently a logion of Jesus, a Q-saying now found in Mt 10.10 and Lk 10.7.4 Moreover, even some of the early Roman Catholic scholars like Thomas Aquinas who conceded that there were no errors to the inspired writers even insisted that “the author of Holy Writ is God.”5 He concluded that “It is heretical to say that any falsehood whatever is contained either in the Gospels or in any canonical Scripture.”6 However, although such a high view of the inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures was held, practically, the authority of the Scriptures was neutralized, if not undermined. No wonder people like Martin Luther protested against the falsification and interpretation of Scripture only by the hierarchy. Luther concluded that the Romanists “treat the Scriptures and make them what they like, as if they were a nose of wax, to be pulled about at will.”7 So we see that even in those early days of doing theology, there was a recognition of the complexity of the doctrine of biblical inspiration. The concept of papal and episcopal infallibility and canon laws complicated this doctrine further, especially as the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy saw itself as being above the Scriptures. The First Vatican Council concluded: The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra–that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and therefore such definitions are irreformable of themselves, and not in virtue of consent of the Church (Denzinger 3074). Episcopal infallibility: Preservation from error of the bishops of the Catholic Church. They are infallible when all the bishops are assembled in a general council or, scattered over the earth, they propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful. They are assured freedom from error provided they are in union with the Bishop of Rome and their teaching is subject to his authority. The scope of this infallibility, like that of the Pope, includes not only revealed truths but any teaching, even historical facts, principles of philosophy, or norms of the natural law that are in any way connected with divine revelation.8
This resulted in the equal veneration or reverence for the Scriptures and tradition. Consequently, the Apocryphal books, once regarded as lacking genuineness and canonicity, were declared inspired by God and thus making them part of the canonical books of Holy Scripture.9
Protestant Liberalism:
The concept of a supernatural revelation has always bothered this camp. Hence, they have always attempted to either undermine or reject completely the notion of the Bible as a sacred document. People the likes of Horace Bushnell, a western liberal, refuted the doctrine of verbal inspiration and infallibility of Scripture as something involving “insuperable difficulties.”10 Part of the difficulties with the notion of accepting the doctrine of biblical inspiration was coming out of the deistic view of Scripture.11 Furthermore, the formation and canonization of Scripture was questioned and undermined. Bushnell and others believed that God had inspired the biblical writers in the same way that any person is inspired to do any work.12 With such an understanding of biblical inspiration, there is no recognition of a completed canon of Scripture. In fact, this idea of biblical inspiration is one that “will continue until the church ushers in the kingdom of God.”13 In a word, this view regards biblical inspiration as an on-going process. This is also a very fluid definition of biblical inspiration. Actually, this is the same view that sees the Bible as merely a collection of religious traditions of Judaism and Christianity. James Barr, as a representative of Protestant liberalism takes the same position when he defines biblical inspiration as follows:
Inspiration is not the inspiration of books, but the inspiration of the people from whom the books came. Is inspiration then a special event, an influence or relationship, which once existed but no longer exists? I think not. The relationship through which God is with his people in his Spirit in the formation of their life and tradition is not essentially different in kind from the mode in which he is with his people today.14 Indeed, for the Protestant liberalism, biblical inspiration is really a constant that goes throughout history. Therefore, Demarest is probably correct when he says of Barr: By inspiration Barr means that God was with his people in the formation of their religious traditions. Since the biblical writers played a pioneering role in the formation of Judeo-Christian traditions, one may call them “inspired” in some special sense. So defined, inspiration has nothing to do with inerrancy and final authority. Indeed, Barr insists that the early church concept of inspired and authoritative Scripture was a gross mistake: it was “the clearest demonstration of the presence of original sin in the early church.”15
Barr’s view of biblical inspiration will be discussed in greater detail in the coming chapters. Suffice to say, at this point, that this theological camp sees the Bible as simply a collection of Hebrew literature, containing the history of the evolutionary development of the religion of Israel. The Bible’s authority or value for us lies in the insights on religious experience recorded therein. As far as the significance of the human authors God used to write the Scriptures, these are, basically, men and women who found God, and here (as recorded in the Bible) is how they found him.
Neo-orthodox Theology:
This was a theological movement that started in the “crisis associated with the disillusionment following World War I, with a rejection of Protestant scholasticism, with a denial of the Protestant liberal movement which had stressed accommodation of Christianity to Western science and culture, the immanence of God, and the progressive improvement of mankind.”16 The fundamental beliefs of neo-orthodox theology, especially regarding the doctrine of Holy Scripture, asserted ‘Scripture as a witness to divine revelation, and Scripture as the Word of God.’ This view of Scripture makes a distinction between the Bible and revelation. Karl Barth was an early proponent of this movement which regarded Scripture as a witness to divine revelation.
Acknowledgments
Abstract
Preface .
Chapter:
1. INTRODUCTION
2. THE HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF BIBLICAL INSPIRATION
3. JAMES BARR’S VIEW OF BIBLICAL INSPIRATION
Barr’s Hermeneutical Conclusions
Scripture is the Product of the Community
Inspiration Does Not Guarantee Inerrancy
Barr’s Comments on the term « Inspiration »
Barr’s Interpretation of II Timothy 3:16-17
Barr’s Interpretation of II Peter 1:20-21
Summary of Barr’s View of Biblical Inspiration
Inspiration is not a Central Doctrine
Inspiration Applies to the Community of Faith
Inspiration Includes the Contemporary Effects
Inspiration Means Scripture is Inspiring
4. CRITIQUE OF BARR’S INTERPRETIVE CONCLUSIONS
II Timothy 3:16-17
Overview of Exegetical Issues
Issue One: The Meaning of AF » ‘D »NZ
Critique of Barr’s Conclusions
Issue Two: The Syntax of 1,`B<,LFJ@H
Barr’s Treatment of the Syntax of 1,`B<,LFJ@H .
Critique of Barr’s Treatment of 1,`B<,LFJ@H .
Issue Three: How 1,`B<,LFJ@H Relates to ‘D »NZ
Barr’s Answer to the Relationship
Critique of Barr’s Answer to the Relationship
II Peter 1:20-21 .
Overview of Exegetical Issues
Critique of Barr’s Conclusions on II Pet.1:20-21
5. A CRITIQUE OF BARR’S VIEW OF BIBLICAL INSPIRATION
One: Inspiration is a Minor Note in Scripture
Two: Inspiration Does Not Guarantee Inerrancy
Implications of Barr’s View of Inspiration
6. BIBLICAL AUTHORITY ISSUE
7. HOW THEN SHOULD WE THINK OF BIBLICAL INSPIRATION?
One: Inspiration Involves God and Human Beings.
Two: Inspiration Does not Guarantee Inerrancy
Four: Inspiration Means the Bible is Authoritative
8. CONCLUSION
9. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
10. CURRICULA VITAE
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
