The Bible is the primary authority for all Christians. But this causes a problem when we are asked “why do you trust what the Bible says?” Whatever reason we have must be a higher authority still, because we trust that when it tells us to trust the Bible. Neither can it be true that we have no reason for trusting the Bible. If that were the case, then we could not give non-Christians reasons why they should believe it.
The Bible’s authority has been grounded in four different ways. I believe three of them are helpful contributions but don’t ultimately solve the problem, and only the fourth one can give a satisfying solution.
Option 1: The Bible Gives Itself Authority
Summary
The Bible is a witness to its own authority from God. Jesus and Paul both endorse the Old Testament (John 10:35, Matt 26:56, 2 Tim 3:16), Peter endorses Paul’s writing (2 Pet 3:16), and everywhere people claim divine authority for what they are writing (e.g. 1 Cor 2:7, Rev 1:1). The Bible doesn’t need any external authority – it has its own authority direct from God.
Positives
This offers an important piece of the puzzle. The Bible makes big claims about itself which are either true or false, and they need to be taken seriously.
Why This Doesn’t Work
It is circular reasoning to say “the Bible is true because the Bible says so.” Many books claim to be authoritative – the Koran and the book of Mormon, for example. We do not usually believe something simply because it claims to be trustworthy. There needs to be a reason outside the Bible for believing it, simply because not everyone accepts that it is true without question.
There is another problem with this approach which is less often noticed. The Bible, of course, is not a single book but a collection of books which do not all mention one another. Even if we trusted one part, that would not give us enough reason to trust the whole. The Bible does not contain an authoritative list of which books belong to it. The gospels do not testify to their own authority, nor do the other letters of the New Testament give authority to the gospels.
Option 2: the Holy Spirit Witnesses to Each Individual that the Bible is True
Summary
If you read the Bible, the Holy Spirit will convict you of its truth, unless you are hard-hearted and refuse to listen to the Spirit’s voice. Therefore, the Church is made up of individuals who have read the Bible and been convicted by it directly from the Spirit.
Positives
It is certainly vital to recognise the role of the Holy Spirit in stirring the believer’s heart towards truth. Any view of the Bible’s authority which leaves out the Holy Spirit must be flawed.
Why This Doesn’t Work
The precise way that the Holy Spirit is involved according to this view is problematic. There are several reasons for this.
- Like the first view, it assumes that the Bible is a single book when it is actually a collection. Should the Spirit convict you of the authority of each book individually (and presumably, fail to convict you of many other first-century books which were left out of the Biblical collection), or should he convict you that the list is authoritative?
- It leaves no room for doubt, evidence or argument. If you accept this view, then how could you ever find out if you were wrong? You either believe or you don’t, and how you acquire belief is a “black box” mystery hidden from rational thought. No communication is possible between those who believe and those – either Christians or non-Christians – who doubt.
- It doesn’t help you choose between conflicting interpretations.
Does the Holy Spirit guide also in discovering the Bible’s meaning? If so, then why do Christians disagree on what the Bible means? Are some of them simply not listening to the Spirit although both claim to be? How do you know which side is right? But this problem raises an even more basic question. If this is how the Spirit guides, why do we need the Bible at all? Why not trust, without the Bible, that the Spirit will tell us what we need at any moment in our lives?
The core problem with this view is that it is individualistic, having no concept of the community of believers. It imagines that each individual Christian finds answers independently of anyone else. When there is conflict among Christians, then it has no advice about how to resolve it.
Option 3: The Historical, Scientific and Rational Evidence Supports the Truth of the Bible
Summary
If we study history carefully and apply our full intelligence to the task, then we will discover that the evidence proves the truth of the things the Bible claims.
Positives
If you hold this view then you know how to find out if you are wrong, which is essential for anyone – either Christian or not – who has doubts or questions about the Christian faith. Also, the same criteria that guide you in determining whether the Bible is reliable will also guide you in interpreting it, which is a stage better than the previous two options.
This is also the first view we have seen which makes evangelism possible. It means we can communicate with non-Christians using a shared public understanding of reality. Without publicly available knowledge it becomes impossible to share the gospel with anyone – all you can do is pray that the Holy Spirit will reveal to them what he has revealed to you. But this view means you can do more than pray: you can invite people to investigate the public claims for themselves.
Why This Doesn’t Work
- Should faith be dependent on academic scholarship?
There are many expert historians who don’t think the evidence does in fact prove the truth of the Bible.
The phrase “historical evidence” is always shorthand for “the results of lots of historical research” which is shorthand for “What a lot of academic experts think right now.” But the problem is that the experts don’t all agree on what they think about the Bible. Also the academic consensus changes over time as new evidence shows up. There were periods in the 20th century when “history” (i.e. the consensus of historians in Universities) concluded that the Bible was unreliable. If we were relying on historical evidence during that time, then we would have to conclude that the Bible was mistaken about lots of things. - History can never prove anything
The evidence will always be ambiguous and can be argued either way. If we should wait for every historian to agree that the Bible is historically reliable (or even a majority), then none of us should become Christians yet because that hasn’t happened! - Christians are not smarter than non-Christians
If thinking clearly and knowing enough history led to faith, then all the most intelligent and knowledgeable people in the world would be Christians, and you would know whether someone was intelligent or not by whether they were a Christian. But our faith has never been based on the wisdom of the world. - There is no such thing as “the Bible” from the perspective of history
As with the previous two views, people taking this view have forgotten that the Bible is not a single book. Why should the books in our modern Bibles be given more authority than the other hundreds of ancient documents about Christianity and Judaism?
Option 4: We Trust the Bible Because We Trust the Church
It was the Church who put together the list of books it considers authoritative, over the first few hundred years of its existence. To be a member of that Church means to submit to what it says is authoritative: and the Church submits to the Bible as its primary authority.
To become a Christian does not mean “to become convinced of the Bible’s truth (for some reason), and then to join a group of other people who have also been convinced.”
Rather, to become a Christian means “to join a community called the Church for which the Bible is the highest authority.”
If you don’t trust that the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit (at least) for the first 400 years of its existence, then you have no reason to trust the Bible, because the Church could have been wrong in recognising/choosing which books were in the collection. Nor are there any independent criteria we could use to decide whether the Church was right or wrong about this. The only alternative to trusting the Church is to form our own church – really, to create our own religion – and decide for ourselves which books are the Bible for that religion.
There is only one Holy Spirit, who is involved at every stage in the process of growing in faith and maturity. He is a unifying Spirit who brings people closer to one another as they also come closer to God.
This way of understanding the Bible’s authority is also helpful when we ask how to interpret it. If the Holy Spirit has guided the Church through history in recognising the right Biblical books, then we have reason to be confident that the same Spirit will help the church when trying to figure out what those books are saying. He sometimes does that through individual Christians humbly offering their interpretations of the Bible to the wider body for acceptance or correction. Usually, however, we can be confident that the same Church which collected these documents together in the first place, has also interpreted them well.
As you can see, there is still an element of faith involved in option 4, but it different from the faith needed for options 1 and 2 because it is not disconnected from reason. There is also reason involved in option 4, but it is different from the reason needed for option 3 because it is not disconnected from faith. Only in option 4 are faith and reason combined, as they always should be and in fact always are whether we recognise it or not.
Latest posts by Barney (see all)
- Ricœur at the Limits of Philosophy: Why I wrote it - 12th October 2022
- Faith at the Frontiers – New Podcast - 8th November 2021
- Violence in the Bible: The Case of the Canaanite Genocides - 6th July 2021
Barney, I can’t help but disagree.
I have had a hard time articulating why though- but it feels as though you are treating trust and authority as something we reflectively attribute to the Bible. For instance when you say, “If you don’t trust that the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit (at least) for the first 400 years of its existence, then you have no reason to trust the Bible, because the Church could have been wrong in recognising/choosing which books were in the collection.”
(I don’t know how to change the font size!)
It sounds like the trust and authority ‘we attribute’ to the bible is no different than the authority we attribute to government or science or logic where we stand back, take it all in, and make a decision. I am not sure we can describe Christian faith in the scriptures in that sort of a fashion. For instance, one can make the argument, as you have, that the Spirit was guiding the canon through its development, reception, and interpretation and thus it is authoritative- but does that help us to believe? Or is it more a description of what we already believe?
I can’t help but think that your second option is the most valid. I see no reason to hold the scriptures as authoritative without the individual personal encounter with God that can occur through them. Regarding your counterarguments to this position- I do not think that it assumes the bible is a single book- I think it assumes that we receive it as a single canon- which is the experiential reality. Similarly, the fact that it is individuals doesn’t bother me at all- God is constantly encountering individuals in the scriptures- what keeps it from devolving into relativist individuals religions- an objective God who really acts and moves and calls us to himself.
And finally, (I just thought this up in the shower) I would suggest that reason is itself an act. We chose to think and we will to reason: reason is intentional and human. And if it is true that we cannot act our way into salvation- then we cannot reason our way into either. I would posit alternatively, that faith is not an act but something that is done to us and reason serves at the pleasure of faith. So I would be hesitant to equalize them for the risk of over-rationalizing faith.
Justin, you’re totally right. I am not offering a reason to believe but a description of what we already believe. From a phenomenological angle, of course, someone can encounter God in the Bible without having any idea of the process that went into its formation – and indeed many do. My goal in this post is to help clarify the situation, not to argue for the truth of Christianity or for the authority of the Bible on rational grounds. If someone does encounter God through the Bible, they are, whether they realise it or not, implicitly putting faith in the process of canon formation.
For this reason I think that in this model faith still comes first as a priority over reason. They are linked and not divided in the fourth optionbecause reason is still an essential element in it. Why is reason still an essential element? Because without reason, our faith can often contradict other people’s faith. If there is only one Holy Spirit, then rationally speaking, he cannot give self-contradictory instructions, telling one person that one thing is true and another person that the opposite thing is true. One of the ways God speaks to us is through other people, and through our trust that the Holy Spirit is speaking to them in ways we can’t hear. It requires humility, and removes fragmented individualism, bringing us together.
Hmm, interesting, but it doesn’t answer the bigger question of why a deity should choose a tiny proportion of the world’s population to reveal itself to, and then ask a tiny group of individuals to pick and choose from the many texts available. These texts having been copied and re-copied over hundreds of years after being “remembered” by those who heard verbatim. Now I know the oral tradition was very strong in the Middle East in early times, but I am afraid it is nowadays a leap of faith too far to believe in such a hotch potch of texts.
Hi Martin, thanks for this interesting comment! I think your question is in two parts which can be dealt with quite separately. I’m going to examine your second question initially and then turn to your first.
Kenneth Bailey has done a great job here (http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_tradition_bailey.html) of enumerating and analysing the evidence for different types of oral traditions, using the synoptic gospels as case studies of what he calls “Informal controlled” oral tradition – i.e. the central point of a pericope remains, but is sometimes embellished differently. I don’t think you can apply this concept directly to the early Hebrew traditions, because there seems to be evidence that they were more controlled. Additionally, there is internal evidence that the Torah was written down very early on (see Exodus 24:7 Deuteronomy 28:58, 28:61, 29:20-21 and many others) so the only part of it which even needed much of an oral tradition is Genesis. For more information on this, I would recommend the book “A Biblical History of Israel” by Iain Provan, Phillips Long and Tremper Longman. It analyses the evidence for and against the historicity of everything from Genesis 12 onwards.
Your first question is a much bigger one and concerns what has been termed the “scandal of particularity.” It is a fascinating and really important question, and I do not have time to treat it properly here. My article was not directed at defending the Christian faith, but at defining it properly. For those who are Christian, the particularity of revelation is an interesting question to ponder, but if no answer is found, it doesn’t invalidate their faith, because their faith is precisely that there are answers out there even if we don’t have them yet.
If I were asked about the scandal of particularity, I would probably respond by asking what alternatives there are given the premises of the situation. It seems that, if God wants us to trust each other instead of all receiving direct and identical inspiration from him, then revelation has to begin somewhere at some time. The only alternative is for multiple identical revelations to begin in various places at different times, but I am not sure what would be gained by this. You might be interested in some reflections I gave relating the Bible to religious experience here (http://manyhorizons.com/2013/09/19/biblical-authority-primacy-experience/).
Does the above make sense? Or can you think of another alternative that I haven’t thought of?
Barney, thanks for those clear options.
Let me come back one line of thinking on option 4: “and the Church submits to the Bible as its primary authority”. This might be oversimplifying what “the church” is and overly unifying the Bible itself and its historical interpretation.
The Catholic church’s perspective of the ecumenical councils and the authority of their pope is – I believe – right up there with the Scriptures themselves. This is not man’s speculation on the sacred book(s), so much as an actual divinely revealed interpretation of the texts at key moments in history. The Holy Spirit himself is considered present and guiding the deliberations, votes etc. The Protestant church, as you know really well I am sure, but just to complete the comment, would be – on paper – much warier of church tradition and councils. This is on the proviso that we do not speak too much of Protestant religiosity or touch on the two natures of Christ (although I think we back-peddle on the issue of the number of wills of Christ) or the Triune God. In both cases then, these interpretations of the text remain very authoritative indeed for the church, I would say right up there (and probably sometimes beyond) the authority of the texts themselves.
Hi John,
Thanks for this thoughtful pushback! And you make some very important points You’re probably right that my usage of the term “Church” is a little loose, given the division we currently suffer under.
I have always been puzzled by those who pit the Bible against Church tradition, because it seems clear to me that tradition is the only basis we have for Biblical authority in the first place. We can easily saw off the branch we are sitting on if we are not careful. The canon of the New Testament was decided at a 5th century council, chronologically after Nicea and Chalcedon, so theoretically the Trinity should be more binding and authoritative than the Bible. But of course that is a gross oversimplification, because (a) the Trinity claims the Bible as its own (partial) justification, and (b) the individual books of the Bible precede the councils. So in reality they are both equally foundational. There is a potential inconsistency in Protestantism here when it affirms sola scriptura, and I am not the first to notice it (see Pannenberg, “The Crisis of the Scripture Principle”; Jenson, “Canon and Creed” as examples). Liberal theologians have played this inconsistency in the other direction, as for example William Wrede, who says that we should abolish the canon of Scripture and simply investigate early Christianity on a historical basis. He writes, “Anyone who accepts without question the idea of the canon places himself under the authority of the bishops and theologians of [the first four] centuries. Anyone who does not recognize their authority in other matters – and no Protestant theologian does – is being consistent if he questions it here, too.” (Wrede, “The Task and Methods of New Testament Theology,” 71)
The unified church made decisions which were binding on all future Christians, the most significant of which were the Trinity and the canon of Scripture (I have written more on this here: http://manyhorizons.com/2013/09/19/biblical-authority-primacy-experience/ ). The fact that the church is now divided makes us unable to guarantee the legitimacy of any future decisions, which puts us in an awkward situation. It seems to me, then, that one of the primary tasks of the present day is to reunite the church.
Barney! It’s been a long time. I like your writing style, and your conclusion has got to be part of the answer. I think it could be strengthened though by looking at the person and ministry of Christ himself. I recently read a superb little book called “Unbreakable” by Andrew Wilson. At the start he points out what I had not really thought of on this subject, but now he’s said it, it seems so obvious. Our faith is founded on Jesus.
We became Christians not because of a foundational confidence in ecumenical councils or methods of textual transmission, trustworthy though they are – we join churches and believe all the other stuff because we love Jesus, and those other people love him too. “Unbreakable” is a popular survey of Jesus’ attitude to scripture.
In practice I think Wilson is right; the Church trusts the Old Testament because Jesus did. We trust the New Testament because it reveals Jesus, and in it Jesus promises the disciples Holy Spirit help to pass on his teaching, and his continuing presence with the Church. 4th century bishops have his authority as they submit to him – they have none of their own (remember that Peter was “Satan” when he urged Jesus to change his mind from following his Father’s will? Could could any bishops claim more authority than Peter?).
Jesus gives the bible its authority. He is our example in teaching it, submitting to it and trusting future promises in it. It’s about him, he is God’s Word in flesh, and he was present by his Spirit to inspire it and preserve it.
Hi John, thanks for this helpful contribution! You make some very good points here, and I think you’re absolutely right that Christianity is fundamentally an encounter with Jesus which transforms our lives. This is our strongest apologetic and our only evangelism.
I think there may be a difference in Christian faith between its centre and its boundaries, which parallels the difference between bridge-building and boundary-drawing. Unequivocally, Jesus is the centre. But once people have been drawn to Jesus, they don’t always agree on what he meant or said. How do we reconcile the different interpretations ot Jesus that are available? What rule or measure do we use to choose between alternative “Jesuses”?
Imagine the following scenarios:
1) Someone comes to you and says: “I believe in Jesus, but Paul was an impostor who distorted Jesus’ original message. The four gospels are the only reliable guide to Jesus, and all the Pauline epistles should be sacked.”
2) Someone comes to you and says: “I believe in Jesus, but there is ample historical evidence that he didn’t really say “no man comes to the Father except through me.” That was a later interpolation by power-hungry apostles. In reality, Jesus was one of many ways to the Father – Buddhism and Jainism are other equally viable ways.
3) Someone comes to you and says: “I believe in Jesus, but I think the gospel of Thomas best articulates Jesus’ message and mission – much better than the four gospels traditionally recognised by the church.”
How would you respond to these people, not just pastorally but in substance?
Fair enough, my answers would be a bit of a hybrid of my answer and all four of yours. For brevity here’s an overly blunt summary of what I’d say:
1) Someone comes to you and says: “I believe in Jesus, but Paul was an impostor who distorted Jesus’ original message. The four gospels are the only reliable guide to Jesus, and all the Pauline epistles should be sacked.”
No. The four gospels testify that Jesus chose the disciples and promised to build his Church on the foundation of the apostles (especially Peter) teaching that Jesus is the Christ. He promised that they would be filled with the Spirit to understand fully and teach properly (John 14:26, 16:12-14). Part of the teaching is found in the disciples’ letters, including 2 Pet 3:15-16. Paul’s letters are categorised as scripture, and so everything Jesus and the rest of the bible says about writings in that category apply to Paul’s letters.
If they accept Luke, presumably they also accept Acts – where his call and instruction by Jesus himself and his authenticity as an apostle is placed beyond doubt.
2) Someone comes to you and says: “I believe in Jesus, but there is ample historical evidence that he didn’t really say “no man comes to the Father except through me.” That was a later interpolation by power-hungry apostles. In reality, Jesus was one of many ways to the Father – Buddhism and Jainism are other equally viable ways.
The most reliable historical evidence of what Jesus said is without rival John 14:6. This fits with everything Jesus taught as a true and faithful Jew who abolished nothing from the Old Testament. There has only ever been one God and one way of access to him in scripture. Jesus said that scripture cannot be broken, so Buddhism and Jainism ways of approaching God through idols, or their teachings on reincarnation are prohibited and should be understood as false prophecy.
3) Someone comes to you and says: “I believe in Jesus, but I think the gospel of Thomas best articulates Jesus’ message and mission – much better than the four gospels traditionally recognised by the church.”
The by far the best record we have of Jesus’ message and mission are the Gospels, which were inspired by the Spirit, written by or in close collaboration with eye-witnesses, under the authority of those Jesus personally chose and trained and commissioned to lead his Church. A recently discovered text of questionable authorship, which the early Church did not value enough to circulate and preserve, and which the Lord in his providence allowed to languish in a forgotten Egyptian box, can in no way trump the texts that have always been the bedrock of the Church’s faith in Jesus from the time of the apostles until now.
I still maintain that it is unnecessary and unwise to appeal to the Council of Nicea for the authority of the bible (although I affirm what they agreed). Nicea and those who went before with canonical lists only bore witness to which documents are scripture, and they did so faithfully.
Here’s why it matters: Option 4 as it stands doesn’t work.
If the Church grants authority to the bible, we need to be sure which groups are part of the Church, and when they are acting faithfully as the authentic Church. Who do we trust? The Marcions? The Gnostics? Pope Alexander VI? The Watchtower Society or Branch Davidians?
The Church is that which is built on the foundation of the Apostles and prophets (Ep 2.20), which is centred on the person and work of Christ (1 Co 3.11) as the fulfilment of scripture. When groups cease to believe and submit to scripture, they are not living as the authentic Church. The Church’s authority comes from Jesus via the bible. If the bible’s authority depends on the Church, this is a circular argument no better than Option 1.
John, great answers! You have obviously thought about this and researched it quite a bit. You make some very good points, including that my own answer is also circular just like option 1 which I have rejected. Thanks for the insight you offer.
I want to make it clear that I am not offering an apologetic for the truth of Christianity. This blog post, and the ensuing discussion, is not an attempt to provide a basis for Christian faith. It is instead an attempt to *define* Christian faith and where it comes from. Because of this, I will for now leave your objections to trusting the early church councils unanswered. I would like to return to this in a subsequent comment. But for now, I want to deepen the problem instead.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems you are putting the emphasis of your answers on modern historical scholarship, trusting that it bears out results that correspond to the reliability of our biblical canon. You make a case for the historical reliability of the four canonical gospels, and especially for the historical reliability of John 14:6. The examples I gave were meant to serve only as examples, not as the substantive issue at stake. The underlying issue is about the foundations for biblical faith, and the question at hand is whether modern historical scholarship is a reliable and sure foundation.
As I am sure you’re aware, there is by no means a historical consensus around the reliability of the gospels. Although some relatively prominent New Testament scholars have argued for their authenticity, they have not successfully swayed the consensus opinion in their favour. We evangelicals like to focus our attention on other evangelical bible scholars. But that is to settle the question in advance, which is: does biblical scholarship support the claims of evangelical faith?
As you undoubtedly know, there is an overwhelmingly long-standing and large consensus that only 7 of the Pauline epistles are authentic; the others being spurious and written by later authors. Similarly, there is as far as I know nobody in mainstream biblical scholarship who supports the authenticity of 2 Peter. Its pseudonymity is now unquestioned, for a number of hard-to-argue-with reasons. Likewise, only a tiny proportion of scholars will argue that Jesus said everything recorded in the four gospels. Even if they agree with you that the gospels are the best available witness, they do not think even that witness is very good. Hence Bultmann’s famous statement that we can know almost nothing about the historical Jesus. Bultmann is, of course, far more influential than any other NT scholar of the 20th century, with the possible exception of Schweizer.
So my question to you is this: do you agree with the scholarly consensus on these issues? If not, then what is your basis for disagreement? Do you consider the question of the canon to be *in principle* an open one, subject to possible revision by future historical and archaeological discoveries? If, for example, the historical evidence amongst the experts tipped against the resurrection of Jesus, would you put your trust in their expert conclusions? If not, then why not?
I am glad you’re a fan of Andrew Wilson. I am a fan of him too. But Andrew himself admits on his blog that evangelicals are “unicorns” among biblical scholars. And of course, if the very question at hand is whether we should be evangelical or not, then we must ask why we should decide in advance that evangelical doctrine concerning the Bible is the most historically accurate? We should, I suppose, at least ask the question?
Hi Barney, thanks for your gracious reply. Wilson seems to say great things with witt, in a quarter of the words anyone else needs.
That’s a helpful distinction in reading your post – that “is not an attempt
to provide a basis for Christian faith. It is instead an attempt to *define*
Christian faith.” It doesn’t remove my unhappiness with the suggestion that the Church grants authority to the bible though, rather than the other way around. The only grounds for knowing the boundaries that define the Church is whether they listen to, believe and submit to the words of Jesus. John 15 makes this point; remaining part of the Vine, having Jesus’ words remain in you, and obeying Jesus’ commands all seem pretty much synonymous.
One small correction: I don’t object to trusting the early church councils. I think they were very good at what they attempted, and we stand on the shoulders of giants, but they never claimed that they were granting authority to scripture. It’s very rare that I agree with Bart Ehrman, so it’s nice to quote him favourably: “The canon of the New Testament was ratified by widespread consensus rather than by official proclamation.” (Some people falsely believe that it was decided at Carthage 397, but if you read the pronouncement it’s clear that the canon is assumed by then and is then listed to avoid doubt.) Is it any wonder that before Constantine not all parts of the church were familiar with all the bible books, or that there were writings by other esteemed early leaders that were as regarded almost as highly; they were scattered, persecuted and often isolated. Once they could meet, consensus emerged fairly quickly and was the basis for their brilliant debates on the Trinity and the natures of Christ. I regard them as bearing trustworthy witness to the authoring of scripture, and I resist the suggestion that they conveyed authority on scripture or regarded themselves as doing so.
I don’t think I’m putting the emphasis of my answers on modern historical scholarship. I accept the testimony of the Early Church on the canon however (which again, I distinguish “testimony” from “bestowing authority” (just a thought – we aren’t just having a semantic debate on the word “authority” are we?). I have not read the arguments about 2 Peter, so I won’t comment beyond scepticism that theologians separated from its
composition by nearly two thousand years and a substantial language and
cultural barrier can see more clearly than the theologians who won the debates about the letter in the 3rd and 4th centuries in the same
language, with a far similar culture.
Yes, I admit I concentrate on evangelical scholars, and while not wanting to denigrate your colleagues, there is a great deal of modern scholarship that I don’t rate at all. Bultmann built an entire career on conjecture and circular reasoning. His approach to the gospels was built on a baseless theory of how the gospels were written which ignores the testimony of
people like Eusebius about when they were written (you may not accept the Early Church leaders’ accounts of when the gospels were written, but surely the burden of proof lies with Bultmann). The theory itself was based on the assumption that the miracles are false. He assumed the gospels are wrong, and used that assumption to produce a theory which suggests that the gospels are wrong. Who would have thought it? Form criticism has been humiliated when applied to other writings with known authors, because most writing has some form of tension in it, which is what makes it interesting.
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom. People who don’t submit to Jesus’s words aren’t part of the vine, don’t fear the Lord and frankly have nothing much to say to those who do.
“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognise them” (Matthew 7:15-16).
German higher criticism led to such a moral collapse in the German churches, they were in the main unbothered by the Nazi party (it is significant that their few ecclesiastical opponents like Barth and Bonhoeffer rejected liberal theology). Liberal theology has precipitated a collapse in western Protestantism. Around the world, the Church is growing very rapidly in various denominations and styles, but I know of nowhere where it has been precipitated by liberal academia or where liberal churches endure and grow under persecution.
The fruit of liberal theology is horrific, so I’m not embarrassed at disagreeing with it. That all sounds like a terrible rant, but I just wanted to explain why scholarly consensus across the board is not the touchstone of truth for me. There used to be a scholarly consensus that Belshazzar didn’t exist and many other things that have since been proved true. Our faith is certainly built largely on the testimonies of the witnesses to the resurrection – if it could be conclusively proved that Jesus did not rise, then yes, we would have to abandon Christianity as false, but I don’t regard a liberal academy as the best arbiter.
I admit that I indulge in circular reasoning too (I trust in the Christ of the scriptures because of how he appears in the scriptures, just as Bultmann dismisses miraculous descriptions of Christ because he does not believe in a miraculous Christ), but for me the touchstone has to be Christ because I know him. I can’t win a debate with that, but I’m sure we both experience that every now and then someone we debate with reads a gospel and sees a Spirit-filled church at work and meets him too!
John, sorry for the delayed reply. I hope you had a great Christmas and New Year.
Thanks for your helpful points and clarifications. You are quite right in observing that the early church did not “bestow authority” on each book of the canon, but rather recognised its authority which was, as Ehrman says, was ratified by widespread consensus. I agree wholeheartedly with these points.
However, I am not sure this get to the heart of the issue. We could still ask the question: do we trust the early church’s powers of recognition? If not, then do our powers of recognition lead to the same conclusions? If we take the former route, then we are effectively trusting the Bible on the authority of the church. If we take the latter route, then we are left, once again, with no canon, and with the task of finding criteria to determine what counts as a canonical book, since we have chosen not to rely on the testimony of the early church.
We could solve the problem in a circular way: “a true Christian is one who agrees with me on the 27-book canon, so if you disagree then you are not a true Christian. Thus all true Christians recognise the authority of these books.” But it seems to me that this is the “no true scotsman” fallacy.
Another response to this is the existential one that you have given: “I trust in the Christ of the Scriptures because of how he appears in the Scriptures.” This is no doubt an essential part of the answer. It is helpful for individual faith, but not so helpful for building collective faith, especially when someone simply chooses, existentially, to trust Matthew, Mark and Luke, but not John. Unless our reasons are more concrete then we cannot call such a person less Christian than ourselves.
Another response is the moral judgment: people who believe differently to us are morally inferior. As you said, “the fruits of liberal theology is horrific, and I’m not embarrassed at disagreeing with it.” However, I am not sure the question can be answered by dividing the church into “conservatives” and “liberals” and then tarring everyone called “liberal” with the unfortunate consequences of some. Conservatives certainly don’t like this done to them – when someone says “Inquisition, crusades, Westboro Baptist Church, bombing abortion clinics, etc. The fruits of conservative Evangelicalism have been horrific.” We prefer to say “not every conservative acts the way these do. Give the rest of us a chance.”
The third response would be the “personal judgment.” As you say, “there is a great deal of modern scholarship that I don’t rate at all.” Many Evangelicals go this route, simply deciding for themselves that non-evangelical scholarship isn’t worth the time. I never felt satisfied doing this, because to me it always felt presumptuous to pass judgment on experts in a field in which I was not an expert. If I went around saying “I don’t rate Einstein’s theory of relativity” without being a trained physicist, I think people would consider my opinion not particularly valuable.
That is why I have opted for the fourth response. To rephrase it in light of the above reasoning, I would put it like this: “I belong to a 2,000 year old community which has always held these documents to be authoritative over itself. I am not very smart, but other people in this community are.” Modern biblical scholarship is subject to change in its conclusions, but the global church has not changed.
Hi Barney. My name is Nia, and I’ve just been introduced to this blog by a friend. I’ve really enjoyed reading your work. You make some great points in this and other posts (I especially love the one about the Doctor being like Christ).
I’ve already been through my liberal arts tribulation, so to speak, learning how to allow God to work through different means to alter what I believe, to be able to delve into different philosophic reasonings and beliefs with an open mind, and ultimately to solidify my faith and learn how to defend it with authenticity and authority. This was in a primarily secular culture. Now, however, I am moving to a country that is predominately Muslim in order to aid in the refugee crisis for a year.
I know that much of the draw of Islam is the idea that the words of the Koran are breathed by God himself and if translated into other languages, is no longer valid. The Bible, of course, is translated into many different languages, and even various versions exist within each language, so that most believers don’t have access or a way to understand the Scriptures in their original context and language. I agree with this post in that the Church does bear witness to the authority of the Scriptures, but how would you answer someone who argues that the Bible is corrupted by its translations?
My first instinct is the same response as you have articulated above: that I trust the Church through the work of the Spirit, and those who God ordained to translate the Bible, but that doesn’t fully answer the question of the various versions. If, say, the first English translation was ordained by God, why all the other versions? Many of them place different emphases, or phrase things in ways that may seem to slightly alter our understanding of the original meaning. I’ve been thinking this one through and would appreciate your insight on the topic.
Hi Nia, thanks for your kind words! Also thanks for engaging on this site! Your question is a very important one, and worth spending some time thinking about.
How would I answer someone who argues that the Bible is corrupted by its translations?
I guess everything hangs on what is meant by the term ‘corrupted’. It could mean one of two distinct ideas: (1) that the meaning of a Bible passage is not fully captured in its translation into another language, or (2) that the meaning of a Bible passage is _altered_, such that it points in a different direction than it did in its original language.
I would say that (1) is a reality with which all translation must reckon. The cultural nuances from one language can never be totally transposed into another language, because every word is rich with deposits of meaning from its history of use. There is a loss of meaning that comes with every translation. But a loss of meaning is not the same as a distortion of meaning.
Let me offer an example. 1 John 4:7 says “Beloved, let us love one another.” The original Greek says “agapomen allelous.” The richness and depth of the Greek word ‘agape’ can greatly enhance our understanding of this bible verse. But it never takes it in the opposite direction to the English word ‘love’. It enhances, but doesn’t negate.
In truth, every translation is mostly accurate. You needn’t worry about drastically missing the message of the Bible through reading a poor translation. You are more likely to run into problems, not with a badly translated passage, but with a passage that’s hard to understand even when all the words have been accurately rendered! Think, for example, of the Canaanite Genocides of Joshua 10 – there is no problem of ambiguous meaning there!
Why is there more than one translation? Well, first of all, because a living language grows and changes over time. Words take on new shades of meaning, or fade out of use, or change their meaning entirely. Many of the words used in the King James translation mean quite different things now. The second reason is just that people disagree on the best way to translate a verse, so they offer alternatives. The third reason is that there is a lot of money in the business of bible translation, if you can persuade millions of people to buy your version.
Fortunately, God didn’t leave us only the Bible. He also left us a community, the Church, to help explain and interpret the meaning of the Bible. And the Church is not left to itself either – it is guided by the Holy Spirit.
I hope that’s a helpful answer! Please get back to me if you have any more thoughts or questions!
“If you don’t trust that the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit (at least) for the first 400 years of its existence, then you have no reason to trust the Bible, because the Church could have been wrong in recognising/choosing which books were in the collection. Nor are there any independent criteria we could use to decide whether the Church was right or wrong about this. The only alternative to trusting the Church is to form our own church – really, to create our own religion – and decide for ourselves which books are the Bible for that religion.” My sentiments exactly. Great blog.