Liberal theologians in colleges and universities throughout America and
Europe consistently, and eloquently, lecture and write in such a way as
to create doubt about the Bible. Many of these liberal theologians do
not believe in such things as predictive prophesy or miracles, so they
cannot accept the Bible or Jesus without drastic modifications. For
example, many of these do not believe in the virgin birth of Christ, his
miracles, his resurrection from the dead, or his ascension to the right
hand of the Father. They may get their living by teaching the Bible,
but they do not actually believe in the Biblical Christ.
Other, perhaps less-liberal theologians may believe in Christ, but have
serious doubts about the Bible. For these the Bible is a human/divine
book that has multiple contradictions and inaccuracies. Although they
speak wonderfully about the Bible, they cannot accept it as the ancients
saints did. Since it is not reliable except to show that Christ is the
Savior, then there is no need to be concerned about the myriads of
doctrines that the Bible teaches. Therefore, this group will go against
some commands of Christ and his apostles on the grounds that the Bible
is not reliable, and therefore they feel justified in changing the
church's teachings and practices to match that of prevailing culture.
It is regarding this last group that I wish to consider in this page.
An excellent example of this group is found in chapter 2 of
God's
Holy Fire: The Nature and Function of Scripture, which is entitled,
"The Bible as the Word of God."
1 Dr. James Thompson was
primarily responsible for this chapter according to the Introduction,
but all the three authors agree with the contents of the book.
2
These authors are all Ph.D.'s in their fields, and are instructors at
the Graduate School of Theology at Abilene Christian University in
Abilene, TX. Their book is part of the Heart of the Restoration
series that also includes
The Crux of the Matter as well as
Unveiling Glory: Visions of Christ's
Transforming Presence.
These men were all raised with the conviction that the Bible was
not of
human origin. Rather, the Bible was the very Word of God. They reminisce of
how 2 Tim 3:16 and 2 Pet 1:20-21 were taught to them. However, they
then say,
What do we mean when we say that the Bible is inspired? How does the
living voice of God actually speak through a book?3
These two questions open a broad stage on which they argue that the
Bible is of human/divine origin, that it has errors and discrepancies,
that it is scientifically flawed, and that it doesn't claim to be
inerrant. Thus they conclude that the Bible is trustworthy only
for what God intended to be: A guide for salvation and right
living. Having articulated this critical position, they go on in
further chapters to "...to reclaim the entire Bible for the church and
especially to see the richness of the Bible's story."
4
Now let's examine their major claims and see how they compare to what
the Bible says.
THE BIBLE IS OF HUMAN/DIVINE ORIGIN
Dr. Thompson gives a history of what "inspiration" meant to the
ancient Christians. These understood inspiration to mean that
the human authors were simply instruments of the Holy Spirit and Dr.
Thompson refers to a Rembrandt painting in the Louvre as an example
of what inspiration mean to him as a young man. That picture
is at the head of this page. Then he undertakes an explanation
that shows how far away from that picture the authors have come now.
TRANSLATORS
Dr. Thompson describes the "human" contribution to the Bible.
First, there were human translators who have translated the text
imperfectly because the text is ancient. He stresses the
uncertainty in meaning of 1 Cor 7:21 as an example. He tries
to reassure the reader that we still hear the Word of God in these
translations, despite their imperfections, and that "...no issue of
translation is significant enough to affect our understanding of the
Christians faith."
5 I cannot help but wonder
that if the
"imperfections" and the "uncertainty" are so minimal, why mention
them? One needs only read on to realize it is just his way of lining up circumstantial
evidence against the New Testament.
COPYISTS
Second, the "copyists" were human, and made many mistakes in their
copying of the Scriptures. The copyists were necessary because
we have none of the original autographs. Dr. Thompson says
that there are more than 5000 Greek manuscripts of the New
Testament, and makes the following statement regarding this field of
Textual Criticism:
While scholars can trace the transmission of the manuscripts well
enough to believe that they record the message of the biblical
writers reliably, numerous footnotes in study Bibles frequently have
the words "Other ancient authorities read...." These footnotes
indicate that the editors of our Bibles had to choose among many
variant readings of the Scriptures.6
What is interesting about his approach is that he continues to
imply the uncertainty and the imperfections. That appears
to be his
goal, all the while trying to reassure us. But the doubts
about the Bible will continue to grow as Dr. Thompson continues to
present his carefully selected evidences against the Bible.
The fact is that many copyists made errors, but not all the copyist made
the same error. Thus, by looking at all the Greek texts in
question, the discipline of Textual Criticism can clearly determine the
majority opinion, especially among the oldest texts. If there is
any doubt about that, consulting other ancient translations of the Bible
as well as the extensive writings of the early Church Fathers will
reveal the preferred text.
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON
Third, the process of collecting the 66 books of the Bible into
a single volume "...is, in part, a mystery."
7
He says that our current canon of books in the Bible was not
settled until A.D. 367 by Athanasius.
8
Obviously this, in addition to the uncertainty he has already
created with his prior concerns, would stir additional alarm
with the reader. What Dr. Thompson doesn't say is that the
writings of the "Church Fathers," which were written between
A.D. 90-160, quote or allude to most of the books in the New
Testament.
9 Dr. Neil Lightfoot offers this
summary of the Church Fathers' witness in the second to the fourth
centuries to the New Testament:
The most important of these for the New Testament text include Justin
Martyr, Titian, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria, all of the second
century; Origen, Tertullian, and Cyprian, of the third century; and in
the fourth century the famous names of Eusebius of Caesarea and Jerome.
Volume after volume of their writings have been preserved, many of which
are literally filled with quotations of the New Testament Scriptures.
These men lived long ago and possessed copies of the Scriptures which
are naturally older than our manuscripts today. How their many
quotations read certainly tells us much concerning the ancient Bible of
the primitive church. "Indeed," as Professor Bruce Metzger has
pointed out, "so extensive are these citations that if all other sources
for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they
would be sufficient alone in reconstructing practically the entire New
Testament."10
Dr. Thompson also doesn't mention that
even in the writings of the Gnostic school of Valentinus, written before
the middle of the second century, "...most of the New Testament books
were as well known and as fully venerated in that heretical circle as
they were in the Catholic Church."
11 Dr. Thompson also
fails to mention the various early lists of New Testament as follows:
| LIST |
DATES |
BOOKS INCLUDED |
| Ignatius |
c. 115 A.D. |
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John |
| Marcion (heretic) |
c. 140 A.D. |
Marcion's revision of Luke, 10 of Paul's epistles (pastoral
epistles omitted) |
| Tatian |
c. 170 A.D. |
Tatian turned the fourfold Gospel into a continuous
narrative or "Harmony of the Gospels." |
| Irenaeus |
c. 180 A.D. |
Recognized the fourfold Gospel (Matthew, Mark, Luke,
John). |
| Muratorian Fragment |
c. 190 A.D. |
Mutilated at the beginning, but evidently mentioned Matthew
& Mark; Luke is specified as the 3rd Gospel, John, Acts, Paul's
9 letters to churches and 4 to individuals, Jude, and 2 Epistles
of John. Some other non-canonical books in the list also. |
| Origen |
185-254 A.D. |
Mentioned the Four Gospels, Acts, 13 epistles of Paul, 1
Peter, 1 John, and Revelation as acknowledged by all;
Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James, and Jude, with the
Epistles of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache,
and the Gospel according to the Hebrews', were disputed by
some. |
| Eusebius |
265-340 A.D. |
Mentions as generally acknowledged all the books of our
New Testament except for James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John,
which were disputed by some, but recognized by the majority. |
| Athanasius |
367 A.D. |
Lays down the 27 books of our New Testament as alone
canonical.12 |
Bruce then makes this statement:
One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books
did not become authoritative for the Church because they were
formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church
included them in her canon because she already regarded them as
divinely inspired, recognizing their innate worth and generally
apostolic authority, direct and indirect. The first
ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both
held in North Africa--at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in
397--but what these councils did was not to impose something new
upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the
general practice of those communities.13
After summarizing an extensive overview of the formation of the
canon, R. S. Riggs offers this meaningful summary:
In conclusion let it be noted how much the human element was
involved in the whole process of forming our NT. No one
would wish to dispute a providential overruling of it all.
Also it is well to bear in mind that all the books have not the
same clear title to their places in the canon as far as the
history of their attestation is concerned. Clear and full
and unanimous, however, has been the judgment from the beginning
upon the Gospels, the Acts, the Pauline epistles, 1 Pet and 1
John.14
This is a fair statement from the standpoint of what can be
known about the formation of the New Testament canon. That all
of Paul's epistles were among the first to be recognized as
scripture (2 Pet 3:15-17) should be of some interest to Dr. Thompson
and his colleagues, as they are quick to bring doubt on their
applicability for today.
15 Certainly I would
applaud Riggs' statement that God was active in His providence in
the formation of the canon of the New Testament. Yes, I
believe that God was powerful enough to accomplish that too!
Dr. Thompson's selected evidence appears to emphasize "mystery" and
differences, and thus generates suspicion about the canon of the New
Testament.
F. F. Bruce's comprehensive evidence is meant to emphasize the firm ground
on which the canon of the New Testament stands, and this builds
confidence instead of doubt.
DIFFERENT WRITERS' STYLE
Dr. Thompson then lists his fourth evidence for the human element in the
Bible--that of style. Admittedly, the styles of the
various biblical authors are diverse. Some were elegant, some were
simple, some were poetic, some were complex. He says, "Therefore,
the human element of the Greek and Hebrew styles is undeniably present
in the biblical writings."
16
Dr. Thompson apparently assumes that since varying styles are clearly
present, inspiration cannot be viewed in the same way. However, is
it not possible for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to so superintend
the writing of Scripture so that it conveys the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, even if there are differences in style?
Obviously this is not a strong evidence for Dr. Thompson's hypothesis,
but he is still going to use whatever he can to bring home the point
that the Bible is substantially human, and therefore we must change our
minds about inspiration.
BIBLICAL WRITERS CONSULTED SOURCES BEFORE WRITING
Dr. Thompson then lists his fifth evidence of the human element in the
Bible--that of sources. He notes that both Joshua and Samuel quote
from the "Book of Jashar." Some material in 1 & 2 Kings was drawn
from "Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel." Ezra
consulted Persian archives. And Luke "carefully investigated
everything from the beginning," implying sources since he was not an
eye-witness. It appears that Dr. Thompson wants us to infer that
not everything in the Bible is inspired since non-biblical sources were
consulted by the writers. Therefore, we must change our
definition of "inspiration."
17
However, again I must ask, is it not possible for the Holy Trinity
to so superintend the writing of Scripture so that it conveys the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, even if there are other
sources? Cannot God even control and use other sources? God
demonstrated that He could superintend Pharaoh, leading that pagan, that
most powerful man in the world at that time, to humiliation, defeat, and
death ( Ex 9:16; 14:10, 17, 18, 28; Rom 9:17). Paul certainly
quotes from pagan writers in Acts 17:28, 1 Cor 15:33, and Titus 1:12,
and Jude quotes from non-canonical writings in verses 9 and 14-15.
However, in so doing , they are portraying these quotes as truth, and I
would suspect that the first audiences were familiar with the sources,
and the quotes from these sources probably helped that original audience
understand the purpose of what was being communicated. It should
not seem strange that one might find truth in a pagan poet, or in a
non-canonical book. However, neither Paul nor Jude were trying to
say these were canonical writings, but what they had quoted was, in
fact, truth. We can be certain of this because Jesus called God's
Word "truth" (John 17:17).
Therefore, my response is that God can inspire the writing of Scriptures
and even superintend the use other sources to communicate truth.
