So what is the difference between a break and a short-term abandonment? I do not know. Either way, it has been almost three months and I really need a platform on which to write…and it cannot be my dissertation! Gratitude to those sticking with me.
As we draw closer to the annual meeting for the Evangelical Theological Society – the main topic being Inerrancy – a pool of simmering questions starts to bubble and boil. I assume the topic of inerrancy is derivative of the recent wave of books that redefine, reanalyze, or even reject the doctrine, especially as the concept relates to evangelical identity. Here are some of the works I have in mind:
– Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, 2005.
– Kenton Sparks, God’s Word in Human Words, 2008.
– Christopher Hays and Christopher Ansberry eds., Evangelical Faith and the Challenge of Historical Criticism, 2013.
– Greg Beale, The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism, 2008.
– Robert Price, Inerrant the Wind: The Evangelical Crisis of Biblical Authority, 2009.
The discussion will inevitably orbit these volumes or, at least, the questions and concerns they raise. Inerrancy is indeed a topic that Evangelicals need to iron out. Unfortunately, for all of the benefits of such a doctrine, any good to come from the affirmation of inerrancy is quickly overshadowed by one problematic instinct: gatekeeping.
Hopefully, we will make inroads at ETS. One of the benefits of the topic is in refocusing attention back onto the nature of scripture. A welcomed byproduct of this attention is (admittedly) further practice for biblical studies scholars in how to articulate, what John Webster calls, an “ontology of scripture.” I do not believe it is a coincidence the first embers of this blaze are volumes published by Old Testament scholars; it would be unwise to ignore the connection between Old Testament biblical scholarship and heightened skepticism toward confessional statements about Holy Scripture.
Solutions will, therefore, need to come from a multitude of disciplines: biblical studies (OT and NT), systematic theology and church history (consider Mark Noll, Between Faith and Criticism: Evangelicals, Scholarship, and the Bible in America [2nd ed.], 2004).
Loss of any one discipline would result in an array of misdefinitions. It is not simply a matter of discerning genre (a common direction in biblical studies) nor a simple affirmation of God’s inerrant character (a common direction in theology). Reliance on any one sphere or discipline may inadvertently tip the scales. As an example, consider how canon is construed: in the simplest of terms, is the canon a vehicle of revelation that holds some form of authority or is it a negotiable collection of books brought together by politics, power and chance? Such disagreements surrounding the sub-components of Scripture impact doctrines like inerrancy and inspiration.
To be sure, it is an indirect route to a resolution – conflicts will escalate if gatekeeping is approached head-on. Time will tell how this new wave of arguments will be received – ETS 2013 can redirect the discussion and it is for this possibility I remain hopeful.
Rod, Ruler and Standard 
The “byproduct” is pretty much the best thing about this whole discussion. I think that the way prophetic writtings deal with early writtings is an important way to set the subject.
I hear you, Caio. And, whether someone agrees with it or not, it seems most of inerrancy’s “detractors” are producing texts with the genre/literary convention argument as a (valid) centerpiece.
I think the problem of inerrancy is a much greater problem for the NT than the OT.
“I do not believe it is a coincidence the first embers of this blaze are volumes published by Old Testament scholars”
Because by having their nose in the OT so much they have noticed how badly the NT misuses the OT. Paul might as well be one of the silly authors of the Talmud with how bad he mangles the OT.
And this is why Evangelicalism CANNOT in fact admit the problem, becausr the OT nowhere says that sans perfect lawkeeping you’re going to hell, which means recognizing that Paul is twisting means recognizing that no human sacrifice was strictly needed for our “salvation” (what salvation? Only Daniel teaches a resurrection to begin with), and there goes Evangelicalism.
Hi David! Your post has forced me to brush off the cobwebs and see what people are saying. To start, I love this response and plan on looking at your blog for more snippets like this.
If I recall what I mean (haha), the OT contains a host of features that require a more robust treatment of inerrancy (…we may have to table the merit of inerrancy for another time). Here are a few reasons why I think the OT pressures inerrancy to be expanded upon: ANE thought seems to be an amalgam of historical reasoning and narrating the Divine; a vast well of genres and genre-hybrids; unique styles and literary features; and an overall theological pursuit rather than ONLY a pursuit of historical verification and ‘timelining’.
Hmmm…I miss the feeling of having a blog and discussing these things: you may have encouraged me to rekindle the flame! Let’s continue this, if you don’t mind, particularly your point on Daniel đŸ™‚
I’ve been noticing through reading Psalms via the ole Book of Common Prayer 1928 Psalter that aside from one Psalm every Psalm that takes a position on this presupposes the world lasts forever. Eccl 1:4 also does. Aside from that one Psalm about the world growing old like a garment and one passage at the end of Isaiah I can’t think of any outside Daniel that speak of an end of the world. And that is a prereq to a resurrection on the last day. Also only Daniel suggests an afterlife for the wicked (aside from maybe the “Lucifer” passage in Ezekiel I think). Psalms like especially Psalm 37:20 take a position of the obliteration of the wicked, so if there is any afterlife its only for the righteous and not specifically specified as being a resurrection.
Another thing I notice now is the 3 things the Sadducees dont believe per Luke, the resurrection, angels, and spirits, could be due to a rejection of Daniel. Named angels only occur in Daniel so Luke could be oversimplifying a rejection of named angels to a rejection of angels. Similarly the Sads probably believed in human spirits, but evil spirits only occur in Daniel (i.e. the prince of persia one of the named angels fights). So I’m struggling with how to deal with Christianity basing itself on Phariseeism and so heavily on Daniel rather than rejecting Danirl and going a more Sadducean (and more rational) route, such as for instance is found in Sirach.
I also wonder if Paul wasn’t in fact an ex Sadducee of sorts himself rather than Pharisee, since I see zero evidence in the epistles that he believed in a resurrection of the unjust/unsaved. The wages of sin is death to him not hell. He speaks of hoping to “attain unto the resurrection.” He speaks only of yhose “in Christ” and “who belong to Christ st his coming” as being raised. 1 Cor 15 shows he only believes in a resurrection at all die to an analogy to Jesus’ resurrection and not because he was a Pharisee or believed the OT taught a general resurrection. So I kind of think Pauls gospel was “hey, if you dont want to cease to exist, if you want to be raised, then believe in Jesus.” Even in Acts where they put the phrase “resurrection of the just and unjust” in his mouth at least once, his sermons make more sense if you understand him as believing the unsaved cease to exist. Also “Pauline theology” with its predestinarianism is much more massively unjust if the non-elect go to hell, but if they only cease to exist, I can understand better how Paul could believe it so fervently.