Biblical "Inerrancy"

There's an interesting discussioin going on at Biblical Theology, a weblog about biblical studies, theology, and current events, operated by Jim West,a fairly big guy in the world of online biblical scholarship. The discussion starts with this post concerning the historicity or not of biblical texts. Readers should be aware that the background of this discussion is the big debate raging nowadays between "minimalists" who recognize very little in the OT as being demonstrably historical (and that's the operative word— demonstrably), and "maximalists" who want to take everything in the Bible as historically true unless positively proven otherwise. To quote the relevant parts of the initial salvo:

What historians of Ancient Israel generally offer is theology in the [guise] of history. If the [historical] make-up is scrubbed off and the pristine skin of theology is laid bare for what it is, then we have [only] a simple retelling of the story of the Bible[, which is not really the same as history]. Or perhaps an archaeological example will be better. If the patina of theology is scrapped off the underlying historical events, the one who scrapes will soon discover that the patina is so thick that the actual artifact is forever encased— and hence lost unless the patina is thoroughly shattered, which would sadly also shatter the membrane thin artifact beneath. What the maximalists offer us is more patina on the existing patina of historicism. If this is not the case ... let two or three witnesses (aside from the Biblical text, or even along side of it!) be called and testify to what they have seen and heard— or else admit the hearsay nature of the evidence and dismiss the case called The Historical Israel.

...“Historical Israel”, whatever that was before the period of the Maccabees, is encrusted in a virtually impenetrable layer of ideology. It is, of course, absolutely true that “the real issue is, which evidence is to be taken seriously”. But it is precisely the paucity of evidence itself, even from Ancient Near Eastern sources outside of the Biblical text, that is the center of the entire problem. Even if one privileges Assyrian texts or Babylonian or Hebrew, one is still left with near emptiness in one’s historical hand. Historians of Ancient Israel must develop new, more sophisticated tools for examining this relic so as to peel off ideology and expose genuine history (Historie ["history-as-event"]). The best models for this kind of reconstruction are found in the works of Garbini, Liverani, Thompson, and Lemche. If scholars are to offer the public a reconstructed history of Israel they must adopt the methods of these scholars rather than the method of the maximalists who simply use the Biblical text to “Retell” the history of Israel. The Biblical text is, in the excellent phrase of Gerhard von Rad, Theological Historiography. It is Geschichte ["history-as-story"] and not Historie. It is theological story telling and sermonizing, and not historical recapitulation of actual events.

...[W]hat methodology [to] use when doing historical reconstruction?

• 1- Examine all texts relating to events, locations, or persons; and collect any relevant archaeological evidence (this includes ANE texts as well as canonical and extracanonical texts).
• 2- Collate said texts and artifacts.
• 3- Where there is verification of factually presented statements by multiple attestation textually and archaeologically- accept them as historical.
• 4- Where there is no verification- factual statements cannot be established as factual.
• 5- If there is no establishment of fact- judgment must be suspended until further data becomes available.

I found the following comments to be particularly illuminating, in other words, right on target:

[That] ...there is no way to understand the Bible without a historical foundation... [is true only IF] we realize that there is precious little history that we can uncover from biblical texts. ... The Bible is the Word of God and is the primary source for all our knowledge of God. God reveals himself in the Bible by speaking through his inspired authors. The Holy Spirit takes the words of those inspired writers and makes them real, personal, and applicable to our own lives and situations. Hence, again, the Bible is the starting point and basis for all our thinking about God [but not for our thinking about history]. ... the Bible isn't about history— it's about God— Ernest Wright notwithstanding.

The stories contained in the bible, in all their multiplicity- do not have a historical purpose. Whether they be aetiologies, or novellas, or any other genre; their purpose is theological, not historical. [Those who search the Bible for history] are approaching the bible mistakenly. It's as though you came to a music book, [which teaches] music theory, and used it to reconstruct the history of Prague. Sure, there might be mention of Prague, and Prague is a real place, but that is not the purpose of the book.

There is, indeed, historical recollection, in a fragmentary form, in the Hebrew Bible. We have, at best, snippets of historical remembrance- but ... those historical fragments are so overlayed with theological and ideological external layers that the recovery of "history" is impossible. The Hebrew Bible is not, and never was intended to be, a history book.

I find [maximalist] theorizings an overreaching intended to build a firm foundation on a paper thin sheet of ice. Further, I take [maximalists] to be, at heart, unbelievers. For [they] will not believe unless you have proof. And [they] will not have proof unless [they] can establish historical fact. And [they] must establish historical fact, or [they] have no evidence. And without evidence [they] have no proof. And so the circularity goes.

...making the Bible into a history textbook lowers its value, while treating it as a theological text increases its significance. To put it plainly, those who wish the Bible were history lessen it as [Word of God].

I think the last few paragraphs are an especially good summation of the whole issue. We have to keep in mind two things: Absence of evidence of historicity is not evidence of the absence of historicity, of course— one is not claiming that— but even less is absence of evidence any kind of proof of historicity! The fact should be obvious, but people are very invested in having a "historically true" Bible!

A monk on Mount Athos, gee, almost 20 years ago now! once said to me, quite in line with Jim West's comment that he finds maximalists to be "unbelievers", that "fundamentalism is the last refuge of rationalism"— a quip which he got from the great Gerontas Aimilianos of Stavronikita, as I recall. And he cited specifically the need to make historical proof the basis of faith.

Right on, right on, right on! It's interesting how little the fathers of the church were interested in a purely historical reading of scripture. Oh, to be sure, they had no reason to doubt that the Bible was historically accurate, but that didn't interest them. For them— and, I submit, for us as well— the real question is always 'What is there about this (story, passage, text) that parallels and therefore illumines my own life?'

I've long had a hunch that what is called 'biblical literalism' or 'biblical inerrancy'— the idea that scripture has to be, and stands or falls on whether it is, historically accurate— was a novel doctrine which arose as a consequence of the invention of photography. The latter facilitated a new definition of historical truth as what would be photographically accurate— and this new definition cast earlier ideas of truth as what would be emotionally or spiritually or socially meaningful into doubt. Earlier culture had its paintings, but now it was realized that a painting of, say, a battle, or even of a person, couldn't be "historically accurate", but was a vision realized by the painter as much as it was a representation of the event or person in question. Today, of course, postmodern criticism has taught us that even photographs are composed and framed and shot from a point of view, which might not have been the best perspective, or even the only possible one.

Whether my idea that theories of biblical literalism were first propounded in modern form consequent on the invention of photography is accurate or not, it does seem that there is an inherent connection between such theories of biblical truth and the arising of modern science. For the question of biblical history could only become a question about the scientific historicity of the bible, when historiography became a scientific endeavor. What seems to have gotten missed along the way is the fact that now science defines and controls the truth of the Bible, for all truth is expected to conform to positivistic scientific norms. And what seems to be happening nowadays is a much-belated recognition that scientific truth is not all there is to the world. Well, we had to try it out; it looked good at first. Only later did we see the ways that it's blind.

Rightly do a number of modern Orthodox commentators like Phillip Sherrard, David Hart, and others (though I can't cite any passages just at the moment, it wouldn't be hard to find if I had to) point out that scientific positivism, which is purely exterior and sensory, is actually inimical to and at some odds with spiritual understanding. Really, it doesn't take a geronta to see that!— because, obviously, as everyone knows, Crime & Punishment is as true in its own way, or perhaps even more true in a more compelling way, than E=mc2.

***

By the way, another biblical studies link apparently worth watching is groups.yahoo.com/group/biblical-studies/.