It Doesn’t Matter if Noah’s Ark Existed
In my previous post, I ranted about those who feel the need to call the Bible 100% accurate about historical facts. The Bible is not about historical facts. Indeed, I imagine there are very few historical facts in the Bible that might actually make any difference in anyone’s life. At the moment, I can think of only one event whose historicity (whether or not it actually happened) is made important by a biblical author (see 1 Cor 15:13-14). Certainly not Noah’s ark. In my last post, I mentioned Noah’s ark as a relevant example of this principle. Bob Cargill, a fellow Bruin, has published an article at Biblical Interpretation addressing this theme regarding Noah’s ark: “Forget about Noah’s Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood.” The following bit hits on my point exactly:
It is time for Christians to admit that some of the stories in Israel’s primordial history are not historical. It is ok to concede that these stories were crafted in a pre-scientific period and were designed to offer ethical answers to questions of why and not questions of how. Christians and Jews must concede that the Bible can still be “inspired” without being historically or scientifically “inerrant.” . . . Simply because a factual error exists in the text of the Bible does not mean that an ethical truth or principal cannot still be conveyed. It is time for Christians to concede that “inspiration” does not equal “inerrancy,” and that “biblical” does not equal “historical” or even “factual.” . . . It is time Christians conceded that there was no flood. . . . It is time for groups of evangelical amateurs to stop making sensational claims about discoveries they did not really make. And it is time for people to stop looking for Noah’s ark. [emphases mine]
Right on, Bob (check out his iTunes lectures on Jerusalem, by the way). To his comment “answers to questions of why,” I would also add “who.” That is, these stories also indicate who is the highest God and, by extension, define a people: the people of that God.
By the way, your faith is not in vain if Noah’s ark didn’t exist . . . even if Jesus refers to it. A commenter on Bob’s biblioblog [not to be confused with "Bob Loblaw's Law Blog"] raises this issue: What about the fact that Jesus talked about Noah? The commenter (who is certainly not alone with this argument) says:
If the Noah’s Ark story is merely fictional, how do we interpret NT passages referring to it? (Matthew 24:37-39, Hebrews 11:7, I Peter 3:20, II Peter 2:5)
I can accept that the epistle writers’ understanding of the OT may be culturally bound, but what about Jesus’?
He’s willing to go further than most, granting that the epistle writers are culturally bound. But why can’t Jesus be culturally bound? Seems to me (reading his culturally bound parables, for instance, or about his culturally bound crucifixion) that he was. It also seems to me that suggesting otherwise feels a bit like docetism. Furthermore, even if we granted that there was no way anything Jesus said could have been culturally bound, the fact of the matter is: we don’t have the direct words of Jesus. He didn’t write anything, at least nothing that lasted (John 8:6). If the epistle writers are culturally bound, then why aren’t the gospel writers? And finally, the specific reference in Matthew is figurative apocalyptic discourse anyway. The historicity of Noah’s ark makes no difference to the point the Matthean Jesus is making in the passage.
The Bible Is Not a History Textbook
I know that some people feel that they have to use the word “inerrancy” to describe the Bible in order to be part of their community of faith (generally, more conservative evangelical or even fundamentalist groups). I have friends who are graduate students in biblical studies and are in this boat. They are pushing the envelope in their research, willing to admit the Bible may not be 100% historically accurate, but they’d be willing to sign a statement of faith with the word “inerrancy” in it. They explain inerrancy in such a way that, as I see it, it really no longer is inerrancy.
I recently read this statement from one educational institution’s website. It is included in the statement of faith that any professor would have to sign. If you feel so inclined, you can google it. It’s not the institution itself that really concerns me right now, but the social phenomenon that it represents:
The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are without error or misstatement in their moral and spiritual teaching and record of historical facts. They are without error or defect of any kind.
Really? No error or defect of any kind? I mean, there’s no getting around this one. You can’t explain it away. So, if Matthew and Luke seem to conflict in regards to the dating of Jesus’ birth (Herod versus the census), then what? That’s going to destroy the foundation of the faith? This sets us up for the contradiction game. The atheists tout all these contradictions in the Bible and then the evangelicals swoop in and “harmonize” the “apparent” contradictions because, “apparently” their faith depends on it. When did the Bible become a history textbook?
Heck, history textbooks are not even history textbooks. That is, history textbooks are not “just the facts, ma’am.” They also include analysis, some claim of meaning, cause and effect, in the midst of those facts, events, etc. I tell my students in Western Civ. that, yes, you need to learn some facts in this class, but that’s not what we’re about. It’s about learning to think critically and analyze historical texts and assumptions: struggling to figure out what it all means.
If history itself is not simply a string of facts, then why must the Bible be? Doctrinal statements like the one quoted above do a disservice to the Bible. When we make the Bible into a collection of accurate facts and events more than a witness to the story of God and God’s people, we demolish the power of the message in the text. The beauty of the Bible is not historical accuracy, but its mysterious and profound story.
When we make the Bible into some grand textbook, some unquestionable repository of facts, we use it as the authoritative weapon to crack people’s heads with “truth.” But truth is not about an absence of factual errors or “defects” but about what gives meaning.
Thus, for instance, even if there were an ark of Noah that were found in Turkey (which there isn’t) what good would that do for our understanding of the meaning of the story of Noah?
Dallas Seminary students speak out: "It's not so bad."
On my last post, I responded to Dan Wallace’s provocative entry on the Parchment and Pen blog. I admitted that I do indeed have this impression of Dallas Seminary that they are prohibited from engaging fully in honest academic inquiry because they are not allowed to “offend” the school’s doctrinal base with their research. I was pleased with the response from some students and alumni from Dallas Seminary.
One commenter remained anonymous as “JBR” because, he said, “It’s probably unwise of me posting this in the first place.” About the DTS prof who I heard describe Dallas in such a rigid way, JBR explained: “Regarding Bingham, I’m sure he made it sound more rigid than what it is. He thinks he’s the theological police anyways (I call him “the dictator of all things ‘orthodox’”).” His impression is that such rigidity was characteristic of the school 20-30 years ago (which I believe was Wallace’s original point), but not any more. What I gather from his comment, though, is that there still exist some stalwarts of the old uber-fundy guard, while there are also others who are a bit looser with their understanding of inerrancy and dispensationalism. They still feel like they need to use those words to remain in their conservative evangelical community, but they have vastly reinterpreted them. As Rob Kashow notes, “this loose definition is why many profs and students are able to remain at DTS.”
At the same time, though, just because the institution uses those words doesn’t necessarily mean that the students are accurately represented by them. This is Rob Reid’s point: “I think what should be kept in mind is that a student’s ability and/or ideological framework should not be equated with their institution.” That is a huge favor to ask of the guild, because that’s pretty much a foundational principle of our profession. Conventional wisdom tells us that a Harvard grad is more intelligent and skillful than a Fuller Seminary grad, for example (picking on my own seminary alma mater). Or for that matter, the Harvard Div School grad is more “liberal” than the Fuller Seminary grad. But these things are not necessarily true.
Another issue for me is the role of women in ministry. For some reason, I had this impression of Dallas Seminary that it was one of the places that wouldn’t allow women to take ministry courses, or if so, they wouldn’t allow them degrees for ministry. Turns out, they starting allowing women in courses in 1980 and several degrees within the following decade or so. From my googling around the DTS website, it appears they emphasize the “complementary” roles of men and women in ministry and have a concentration for “Women’s Ministry.” But I think they probably allow women to do other sorts of ministries too (after all, their first woman Ph.D. student studied the Old Testament and then taught OT at DTS). Apparently, according to a D.Min. dissertation by Joye Baker, the more recent women graduates (1991-2003) reported that during their time at DTS, they felt more accepted and respected by the DTS faculty and male students than those women who graduated before 1991.
Okay, so maybe DTS isn’t as rigid as I thought it might be, particularly in practice, even if the “party line” is still quite conservative in writing. Students are supposed to affirm inerrancy, among six other “essentials.” And the professors have to agree with a rather elaborate 21 article doctrinal statement, which includes articles on “ANGELS, FALLEN AND UNFALLEN” (article 2) and “THE DISPENSATIONS” (article 5). Check out Doug Chaplin’s take on these.
I’m not crazy that they still have these doctrinal remnants of a more rigid era, and a few folks trying to uphold them, but it sounds like there’s a little more academic freedom at DTS than I had previously thought. Even if people feel they have to discuss that freedom via anonymous blog comments.
I Confess. I'm Biased Against Dallas Seminary.
But I’m open to being surprised! I am responding here to Dan Wallace and his challenge that the academy of biblical scholars are hostile towards his kind. That is, the conservative evangelical kind as represented at Dallas Seminary.
A few years ago, I went to a session at SBL which reviewed the inner workings of a number of Ph.D. programs. It was great because I was on the market as an M.Div. student at the time, looking for a good program. I wasn’t considering Dallas Seminary as a prospective doctoral program, to say the least, but I was interested to see what they would say in this diverse group. D. Jeffrey Bingham, Department Chair, was representing DTS. Bingham came out and said explicitly that Dallas students must agree with the school’s doctrinal positions and research cannot “offend” their doctrinal base. I find that bothersome, from the perspective of scholarship. (See also this comment in response to James’ post, quoting this link at the DTS website.)
Another confession. I have a difficult time understanding how one can affirm inerrancy of the Bible while also being a biblical scholar. To me, the two seem mutually exclusive.
On both counts, however, I have been surprised. I have a good friend who is a solid scholar of Christian origins, with a very nuanced and complex understanding of the New Testament and other early Christian documents. He says that he could sign a document with an inerrancy statement if required by his place of employment. That blows me away. My interpretation of what he has told me, though, is that he doesn’t really believe in inerrancy. “Inerrancy” is so watered down that it’s something else entirely and is only used as a way to remain within the conservative evangelical community. Power to him. That community needs him!
I have interacted online and in person with a number of DTS students who have also shocked me in their complexity of perspective and sophistication of argument. I wonder how these students avoid “offending” the doctrinal base of the school. I heard about the story Wallace cites in his recent post while at SBL, talking with another DTS master’s student there. In fact, I even know the scholar in question who walked away at the mention of Dallas Seminary. I personally wouldn’t have taken the same action as this scholar (walking away), but I too would have been a bit surprised at a sophisticated student coming from a place like Dallas, which I view as rigid. This was a scholar of texts outside of the NT canon, though, and perhaps he had just been approached by too many conservatives who were trying to “hide out” from the difficult questions posed by biblical scholarship. Perhaps he should have asked some more probing questions rather than giving up on the student.
I don’t think Wallace helps his case, though, when he falsely states: “As remarkable as it may sound, most biblical scholars are not Christians.” [Doug also pointed this out in his carnival.] It is “remarkable” how incorrect Wallace’s statement is. Perhaps there are many who are not the same sort of Christian that he is. Actually, my experience is that SBL is wonderfully diverse. We also, of course, have many people calling out SBL as being too influenced by confessional stances. I have a number of friends who are on the job market and are having a very difficult time simply because they are not religious. The fact that it is more difficult for a person without faith commitments to get a job than someone with faith commitments should tell us something.
Others have weighed in. See James, Doug, James again, Rob, Mike, Nick. I like Doug’s post the most thus far: “It’s unclear to me, however, how ‘going where the evidence leads’ would work at a conservative evangelical college or seminary.” My feeling too.
Questioning Bart Ehrman's (Un)Faith?
It’s often stated that Bart Ehrman lost his faith because of his revelations in scholarship, particularly text critical work. For example, take a look at the quote from Daniel Wallace that I earlier referenced on this blog and to Craig Evans new book Fabricating Jesus (see pp. 25-31). In a recent interview with Biblical Archeology Review, he makes a clarification. Perhaps he’s made it elsewhere; I don’t know. Ehrman lost his fundamentalist outlook on Scripture due to his critical work with the Bible. In his words, “I shifted from being an evangelical Christian to becoming a fairly mainline liberal Protestant Christian.” What made him lose his faith, however, was the question of theodicy, that is, the question of why suffering exists in a world created by a good God. Ehrman became dissatisfied with “conventional answers” to the question, particularly the contradiction of answers that he saw in the Bible, and he “couldn’t believe in a God who was in any way intervening in this world, given the state of things. So that’s why I ended up losing my faith.”
It’s an important distinction to make and one that I wasn’t aware he made. The “enlightened Christians” among us (I’m indicting myself here) might be tempted to assume that Ehrman is misguided in his choice because he did not know how to shed his fundamentalist way of looking at the Bible without shedding Christianity entirely. We might say, “Well, of course inerrancy is wrong. You don’t need to ditch the faith because inerrancy is false!” From my perspective, if we do this, we’re setting up Ehrman to be a kind of “faithless dolt” straw man: his reason for unbelief is silly, so therefore, his unbelief is silly. But I think that Ehrman has raised a valid theological concern here. There are some pretty good answers to the theodicy question out there, but no one has the perfect answer. My undergrad adviser, Mike Cosby, liked to say of Job that he asked the “unanswerable question” and he got the “Unquestionable Answerer.” I like that way of looking at it, but it just highlights the idea that we have no good answer. Furthermore, throughout the discussion, Ehrman raises some valid points about needing to have good “reasons” to choose one faith over another (or faith over unfaith, for that matter). I guess what I’m saying, then, is that I’m not sure Ehrman’s unfaith should be the subject of our critique, at least not in the context of biblical scholarship.
I also appreciate Ehrman’s tone. It does not seem to me that Ehrman is anti-faith, but simply agnostic. He would like to believe, but doesn’t feel compelled by the reasons to believe. He doesn’t appear to hold it against those who do believe. On whether one cannot be a believer in biblical studies, I think he has a helpful and balanced perspective:
Historical scholarship calls into question certain beliefs and can call into question faith. But it can’t resolve any faith issues. There are historians who agree with everything that I think about the historical Jesus, about the New Testament, about the development of Christian doctrine, and yet they’re professors in theological seminaries training pastors. If you ask them, they will say, “Yes, Jesus is God. Historical scholarship doesn’t determine what we believe.” So I think what’s important is that people engage in historical scholarship. It’s better to have a knowledgeable faith than an ignorant faith, and it may be that it will change faith, but it’s not necessarily going to lead somebody to agnosticism.
The article is actually a four-way interview, or discussion, about faith and biblical scholarship. The other participants are “James F. Strange, a leading archaeologist and Baptist minister; Lawrence H. Schiffman, a prominent Dead Sea Scroll scholar and Orthodox Jew; and William G. Dever, one of America’s best-known and most widely quoted archaeologists, who had been an evangelical preacher, then lost his faith, then became a Reform Jew and now says he’s a non-believer.” It is a very good read, recommended.
Thanks for the heads up, Danny.
Pinnock on inerrancy: it's not biblical…
I was on a search for good quotes about inerrancy recently (something I’m trying to collect for this blog) and I came across a webpage claiming that the Evangelical Theological Society is in error for allowing Clark Pinnock to remain a member even though his writings showed that he does not hold up inerrancy. He lists a whole bunch of quotes from Pinnock’s The Scripture Principle (which is coming out in a new version soon) and Most Moved Mover, which in his mind show that “neither [Pinnock's] theology nor his scholarship is respectable, and that ETS, by voting to retain him as a member in good standing, is flying false colors.” The author of the webpage is John Robbins of the Trinity Foundation (not to be confused with John Robbins, the son of Baskin-Robbins co-founder Irv Robbins). I thought the quotes he listed were great! Then again, I’m not an inerrantist. So I picked up a copy of The Scripture Principle (1992) and found one quote that I’d like to share. I would highly recommend, though, Robbins’ collection as I found many of them just as worthy a read.
It is not just that the term inerrancy is not used in the Bible. That would not settle anything. The point to remember is that the category of inerrancy as used today is quite a technical one and difficult to define exactly. It is postulated of the original texts of Scripture not now extant; it is held not to apply to round numbers, grammatical structures, incidental details in texts; it is held to be unfalsifiable except by some indisputable argument. Once we recall how complex a hypothesis inerrancy is, it is obvious that the Bible teaches no such thing explicitly. What it claims, as we have seen, is divine inspiration and a general reliability, with a distinct concentration upon the covenantal revelation of God. . . . Why, then do scholars insist that the Bible does claim total inerrancy? I can only answer for myself, as one who argued in this way a few years ago. I claimed the Bible taught total inerrancy because I hoped that it did–I wanted it to. How would it be possible to maintain a firm stand against religious liberalism unless one held firmly to total inerrancy? (pg. 58)
Incidentally, John Robbins’ site for the Trinity Foundation has the motto listed on it: “The Bible alone is the Word of God.” I know this harkens back to classic Reformation language, sola scriptura and all, but I still find it disturbing that this statement excludes Jesus from being the Word of God. Isn’t that what John’s Gospel says from the get go? Oh well. I guess Jesus isn’t as important as the Bible. [YES, THAT WAS FACETIOUSNESS!] I know that this could be a semantic difference, but I think it goes deeper. When our beliefs about the Bible are lifted up as primary over our beliefs and actions regarding Jesus the Messiah, I think we’re distracted from the Gospel.
By the way, for those who don’t know, the Evangelical Theological Society holds inerrancy as a central doctrine. The “doctrinal basis” for the group which must be “subscribed to by all members annually with the renewal of their membership in the Society” is: “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.” Simple, short, and holds up their view of the Bible as more important than their view of any member of the Trinity, Jesus included. Wouldn’t you think that God should come before Bible? Although, they do get kudos for using the word “written” to distinguish from any other “Word of God” that might be out there somewhere, like say… Jesus. Oh, what do I know anyway? I’m just a jaded seminarian.
Inerrancy is the slippery slope…
Daniel B. Wallace on inerrancy:
What I tell my students every year is that it is imperative that they pursue truth rather than protect their presuppositions. And they need to have a doctrinal taxonomy that distinguishes core beliefs from peripheral beliefs. When they place more peripheral doctrines such as inerrancy and verbal inspiration at the core, then when belief in these doctrines start to erode, it creates a domino effect: One falls down, they all fall down. It strikes me that something like this may be what happened to Bart Ehrman. His testimony in Misquoting Jesus discussed inerrancy as the prime mover in his studies. But when a glib comment from one of his conservative professors at Princeton was scribbled on a term paper, to the effect that perhaps the Bible is not inerrant, Ehrman’s faith began to crumble. One domino crashed into another until eventually he became ‘a fairly happy agnostic.’ I may be wrong about Ehrman’s own spiritual journey, but I have known too many students who have gone in that direction. The irony is that those who frontload their critical investigation of the text of the Bible with bibliological presuppositions often speak of a ‘slippery slope’ on which all theological convictions are tied to inerrancy. Their view is that if inerrancy goes, everything else begins to erode. I would say that if inerrancy is elevated to the status of a prime doctrine, that’s when one gets on a slippery slope. But if a student views doctrines as concentric circles, with the cardinal doctrines occupying the center, then if the more peripheral doctrines are challenged, this does not have an effect on the core.
~From an interview with Evangelical Textual Criticism blog, March 20, 2006 (emphasis mine). Wallace is the author of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics.
Since I have a fundamentalist background, I have an interest in pondering this whole inerrancy issue. I am no longer an inerrantist, but I welcome the opportunity to find how others articulate their struggles with the doctrine. Over time, I will be making an effort to track down quotes from NT scholars and theologians to share them on kata ton biblon.
-
Elsewhere . . .- Blog titles beginning with "A" to "Z" on your reader Mark Goodacre
- Of making many books there is no end Chris Brady
- Free Online: The Liddell-Scott Jones Lexicon S and C
- Does Higher Criticism Attempt to “Destroy the Bible”? II agathos
- Steven J. Friesen and the Identity of Satan’s Throne in Pergamum alan
- Does Higher Criticism Attempt to “Destroy the Bible”? agathos
- Bloomsbury buys Continuum Mark Goodacre
- Imperial America Peter J. Leithart
- C.F.D. Moule on the Birth of the New Testament d. miller
- Responding to Kostenberger (with comparisons to Marshall) Jeremiah
-
As a member of RevGalBlogPals, I am committed to building a supportive online community for women clergy, women church professionals, and women in religious life.
Research assisted by: