The original Autographs

I'm currently wondering about the value of the concept of the original "autographs" as the locus for a doctrine of biblical inspiration. A number of issues come to mind:

1. Text-critics debate whether their task is to reconstruct the original autographs or simply an "initial text" (i.e., the earliest recoverable edition of a text).

2. The death of Moses in Deuteronomy 34 is obviously secondary (Moses didn't write about his own death) and was written up after the event and not by Moses.

3. The LXX edition of Jeremiah is significantly shorter that MT Jeremiah. That means that the Hebrew Vorlage underlying LXX Jeremiah was also considerably briefer that MT Jeremiah. MT Jeremiah, though considered by Jews and Christians as the canonical edition, may then constitute an expansion of an earlier Hebrew edition of Jeremiah.

4. The Psalter probably experienced some redaction at the level of the collection as a whole when it was formed into books with phrases added like "people of his pasture" and perhaps the superscriptions added as well.

5. The best witnesses to The Lord's Prayer in Matt 6:13 omit the words, "For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, forever and ever, amen" and so most modern critical editions omit the words as do most English translations. And yet, the words are still widely used in Christian prayers today despite not being in the autographs.

6. The western text of Acts is 10% longer than other witnesses and some scholars have speculated that Luke produced two editions of Acts, the second one a slightly expanded and embellished version. If so, which one was the autograph?

As a text-critic, I'm not willing to give up on the autographs, even if I cannot guarantee 100% that we have them fully reflected in modern editions (but I think we must be pretty darn near close if not on target for the most part). Yet there are instances where the text that we consider canonical, inspired, infallible, and authoritative is probably not identical to what the authors themselves probably wrote. Thus, I'm starting to think that the theologically significant text for a doctrine of inspiration is not the autographs, but the Bible as it has been received in the church.

Scripture Memorization

Thanks to a Crossway student, Sam "Periscopes" Duncan, we listened to a message from John Piper in chapel yesterday about Scripture memorization. Watch it here. Piper spends 15 minutes reciting several biblical texts from the OT and NT. His performance of Romans 8 is very powerful and it goes to show the power of aural/oral delivery of the biblical writings. One of the best things that I ever did as a young Christian was spend time memorizing a bunch of Bible verses in a pack made by the Navigators. I still think of Psalm 119.9, 11: "How can a young man keep his way pure, by living according to your word ... I have hidden your word in my heart that I might not sin against you".

Latest Issue of RTR

The latest issue of Reformed Theological Review includes:

Andrew G. Shead

"Is There a Musical Note in the Body? Cranmer on the Reformation of Music".

Stephen Rockwell

"Assurance as the Interpretive Key to Understanding the Message of 1 John"

Joe Mock

"Bullinger and Romans"

Andrew M. Bain

"Re-reading Scripture with the Latin Fathers"

Sacred Text Cover

Above is the cover for the imminently available book called The Sacred Text edited by myself and the indefatiguable Michael Pahl. It's a cracking good read with essays by top scholars like Jim "Da Mang" Hamilton of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on inerrancy, Jack Poirier of Kingswell Seminary on concepts of Scripture, Tomas Bokedal of Aberdeen University on Scripture in the second century, Karen Jobes of Wheaton College on the Septuagint, Brant Pitre on Catholic approaches to Scripture, and many, many more. Available for order NOW at Gorgias.

The Sacred Text

Michael Pahl and I are editing a book called The Sacred Text (Gorgias Press). A description of the book as well as its list of contents is available at Michael Pahl's website. It has some great contributors writing on some hot topics. Should be out later this year.

Markus Barth on Paul and Scripture

Was Paul a proof-texter? Mark Barth says "no":

"It is questionable whether one should speak, as do many of his interpreters, of Pauline 'proofs from Scripture,' because this ambiguous concept suggests that Paul sought in the Bible no more than a verification of certain insights which he had gained, without benefit of the Scriptures, through personal experience and reflection. It is more probable that the Apostle, from one missionary, congregational, personal situation to the next, discovered step by step, learned, and presented to his hearers and readers what Scripture says about the Messiah, redemption, faith. He calls Scripture a 'witness' (Rom 3:21), because he is depenent on it in reaching his conclusions."

Markus Barth, "St. Paul - A Good Jew," 9.

Stephen R. Holmes on Evangelical Doctrines of Scriputre

Stephen R. Holmes has an interesting article in Evangelical Quarterly called, "Evangelical doctrines of Scripture in transatlantic perspective," EQ 81.1 (2009): 38-63. Basically, Holmes notes that references to "inerrancy" are basically lacking from British confessional/doctrinal statements in the last hundred years. He thus asks: "It seems to me surprising that so central a claim on one side of the Atlantic should be virtually unknown, or if known unaccepted, on the other."

Holmes does not deny that inerrancy at its most basic level is merely the confession that the Bible is without error in those things it affirms and this reflects a generally known position within Christian churches through the ages. He also refuses to buy into the view that B.B. Warfield invented inerrancy (in fact it was first articulated at Vatican I in 1870!). Holmes provides a list and analysis of British evangelical statements on Scripture and notes that "inerrancy" is noticeably absent and the main terms that have been used are authoritative, inspired, infallible, and sufficient.

In the end, Holmes thinks that the main reason for the difference is that Evangelical American Theologians have preferred a correspondence theory of truth with its emphasis on fact and meaning, while British Evangelicals have been more influenced by Romanticism with its emphasis on experience, image, and vision. He rejects the correspondence theory of truth because (a) the philosophical objections are devasting, and (b) classical Reformed theology and the nature of Scripture itself should lead us to a different account of truth. For Holmes, faith must go beyond assent to factual accuracy and requires an element of personal appropriation as well. [Incidentally several years ago Ben Myers had a very good article review of Peter Jensen's book on the doctrine of Revelation in Churchman where he pointed out that propositional and personal revelation are not mutually exclusive - MB comment].

He goes on to say that "those who want to claim inerrancy as the primary attribute of Scripture have the worst of this argument, particularly when it comes to Jn 14:6". The affirmation that God's truth takes the form of propositional statements (found in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics) leaves Holmes asking if "the framers of that article had opened a Bible" before since there is a diversity of literary forms in the Bible itself. In addition, he finds Scripture speaking about itself in profoundly dynamic terms like "living and active" and thus its power is not in the power of propositions, but in the effectiveness of the Word. Finally, he regards biblical epistemology as principally about transformation by Scripture and assimilation to Scripture.

In his conclusion he states: "So, I think there are very good reaons to resist a full-blown inerrantist account of truth as merely propositional truth and the Bible as no more than compendium of true propositions. I feel more comfortable with the British tradition of insisting that the inspired text wants to do something, or, and perhaps better, that the Holy Spirit wants to do something through the inspired texts, so that conformity of life is what the Scriptures demand ... that said, the Scriptures do make propositional claims, both vital ones ('On the third day he rose from the dead') and incidental ones ('Joiada son of Paseah and Meshullam son of Besodeiah repaired the old Gate'); faithfulness to the Christian tradition, and, the sort of rich account of truth I would want to embrace, leads me to believe, despite all the problems, that it is probably necessary to affirm all such propositions are true. So if asked the narrow question, 'Is the Bible inerrant?' I think I want to say that it is, but that is not an especially interesting or important claim". Holmes concludes with these words: "By graciously inspiring the original writers of Scriptures, and by gracious illuminating our minds, God has given us a written testimony of what he requries of us, a testimony which is truthful, and clear and complete in its essential points. This I offer, humbly but seriously, as a more adequate doctrine of Scripture than any I find in the Evangelical confessions, on either side of the Atlantic Ocean."

As a point of order, I would press Holmes on one issue. He says that "I would not baulk at 'inerrant', but 'truthfulness' or 'trustwrothiness' seem to me to be more comprehensive terms that cope better with the actual literary forms of Scripture". That said, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy states that Scripture is true and trustworthy so there is no inerrancy vs. trustworthy dichotomy that Holmes implies. You could say that one is the flip side of the other. Personally, I prefer describing how Scripture is true rather than describing how it is not untrue. But that's another matter.

Regardless of whether you agree with Holmes or not, he does make a good observation, namely, that British Evangelicalism has never really taken to using the word "inerrancy". My own tradition uses the word "infallible" and we have to ask whether the word "inerrancy" properly represents the grammar of catholic and global perspectives of the veracity of Scripture. On the one hand the concept of inerrancy clearly can be found in Church History, and yet have not the precise formulations of inerrancy from Princeton to Chicago somehow shaped by the unique American context? Can one recognize the cultural contingency of how inerrancy has developed or been expressed in the US without resorting to the assertion (or is it an accusation) that it was somehow invented by B.B. Warfield? But that, again, is another matter for some American grad student to ponder.

Elizabeth Achtemeier and God's Word

Thanks to Michael Horton's book, People and Place, I discovered this quote from Elizabeth Achtemeier:

"No one believes that God speaks through his Word until they hear it. And no argument can convince the unbeliever apart from the work of the Spirit. "Faith comes by what is heard," writes Paul, "and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17, RSV). And it is the preaching of Christ - the testimony of faith that is there beyond our human words a transcendent word - it is that alone which can awaken and renew the church".

E. Achtemeier, 'The Canon as the Voice of the Living God,' in Reclaiming the Bible for the Church, eds. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), 122-23.

My Greek Memory Verses

I'm aspiring to memorize more biblical Greek this year and here is my intended list:

LXX
Deut. 10.12-13
Pss. 110.1
Isa. 53.11-12
Dan. 7.13-14

Greek NT
Matt. 6.9-13
Mk. 10.45
Lk. 9.23-24
Jn. 3.16
Rom. 3.21-26*
Phil. 2.5-11*
Col. 1.15-20
Heb. 12.1-3
Jas. 1.27
Rev. 21.6-7

AF
Ignatius, Rom. 3.2
Diog. 9.3-5

The asterix signifies what I've done so far! Still a long way to go!! But feel free to join me in the quest.

Scripture Memorization

When I first became a Christian, I was well discipled, and a young pastor met with me weekly and we did alot of Scripture memorization together (we used one of the those Navigators scripture memory packs). I now do alot of memory verses with my eldest daughter and I shall never forget how proud I was when she was able to recite the entire chapter of Revelation 5. These days I try (and struggle) to try memorize portions of the NT in Greek. I've done a bit of stuff on Rom. 3.21-26 but hope to learn all of the major christological passages by rote one day (Rom. 1.1-4; John 1.1-2; Heb. 1.1-3; Phil. 2.5-11, etc.). I think I read somewhere that Adolf Schlatter had memorized a fair bit of the Greek NT if not all of it. I tried to bribe a Greek class by promising that I've given them each a copy of my forthcoming commentary on Colossians/Philemon if they would memorize Rom. 3.21-26, but they didn't go for it (lazy sods). On the same subject read Dan Reid's post on memorization of NT Greek as well!

Doctrine without Scripture?

Sometime ago I was reading the website of a Reformed Institution that had a page detailing its official views on justification. There is nothing at all wrong with saying where you stand on controversial issues. I could agree with some of the statements, some I could agree with if they were qualified, some I could not accept, and some were just flat out strange. But as I read this document with all of its assertions about justification, I noticed that it cited many catechisms and confessions but it did not cite Scripture even once in the entire document. This left me concerned and confused (that is PC for it scared the daylights out of me).

What role does Scripture have in Reformed theology? The approach taken in the anonymous document mentioned above is concerning because: (1) It replaces Scripture with the Confessions. (2) It makes the Confessions the mediator of Scripture. (3) It assigns, by implication, the authority of Scripture to the Confessions. (4) It turns the Confessions and its modern devotees into a new magisterium and thus undermines everything that the Reformers themselves fought against and even died for, the authority of Scripture in the life of the church: Sola Scriptura.

Let me head off two potential objections. First, that the Confessions are a summary of what Scripture teaches. Yes and No! The Confession constitute an attempt to summarize and systematize the teaching of Scripture. As such, I can happily sign my name on the dotted line underneath the WCF because I believe, all things being even, that it represents the mind of Scripture. However, the Confessions are also interpretations of Scripture by fallible human beings and they place Scripture in a theological framework also developed by human beings. Thus, they are one step removed from Scripture itself. To cite the Confession then is not the same as citing Scripture and neither should we ever presume to think so. Second, we all interpret Scripture in light of some tradition and there is no neutral perspective and no strictly biblicist approach to interpretation. I concede as much. The Confessions and Catechisms represent the fallible attempt of men and women to articulate the infallible truths of Scripture. The Confessions/Catechisms represent the mind of the Reformed Tradition. Tradition is a tool for reading Scripture. We should read Scripture in light of our Tradition, but we should also read Tradition in light of Scripture!

For those in the Reformed churches, I ask you, should we cite the Confessions rather than Scripture in our doctrinal forumulations? I say unto you: "nay" and "over my dead body"!

1. We have the example of the Bible itself where theological truth is defined by that which is "according to the Scriptures" (e.g. 1 Cor. 15.3-8) and theological truth is apprehended by being good Bereans and "searching the Scriptures" (e.g. Acts 17.11).

2. The example of the Reformers themselves would lead us to believe that Scripture must be primary in our theological formulations and church life (not just derivative from commentaries on Scripture). Calvin himself said: “Let us not take it into our heads . . . to seek out God anywhere else than in his Sacred Word, or to think anything about him that is not prompted by his Word, or to speak anything that is not taken from that Word.”

3. Semper Reformanda means testing our doctrine, polity, liturgy, and church life to make sure that it is in line with Scripture not in line with the Confessions (not rehearsing the mantra that the Confessions are substantially without error and engaging in deviant labelling of those who disagree).

4. This perspective is also the view of one of the Reformed Confessions. Let me cite to you the 1560 Scots Confession XVIII:

When controversy arises about the right understanding of any passage or sentence of Scripture, or for the reformation of any abuse within the Kirk of God, we ought not so much to ask what men have said or done before us, as what the Holy Ghost uniformly speaks within the body of the Scriptures and what Christ Jesus himself did and commanded. For it is agreed by all that the Spirit of God, who is the Spirit of unity, cannot contradict himself. So if the interpretation or opinion of any theologian, Kirk, or council, is contrary to the plain Word of God written in any other passage of the Scripture, it is most certain that this is not the true understanding and meaning of the Holy Ghost, although councils, realms, and nations have approved and received it. We dare not receive or admit any interpretation which is contrary to any principal point of our faith, or to any other plain text of Scripture, or to the rule of love.

Once upon a time, men could make doctrines for the Christian religion without reference to Scripture. It was called the Dark Ages. For the sake of the Reformation of the church, I urge my brothers and sisters in the Reformed churches to give serious consideration to the relationship between Scripture and Confession and not elevating (in practice especially) the latter over the former. Otherwise we will wake up one day and find ourselves enslaved to a new magisterium that claims to be biblical, but in practice, is far from it. There endeth the lesson.

Westminster Theological Seminary Document

WTS-Philly has released a document on "Affirmations and Denials" related to recent controversies over biblical interpretation.

Public Reading of Scripture

Today at chapel at HTC Andrew McGowan gave a good sermon on the public reading of Scripture (1 Tim. 4.13). A long time ago in Scottish churches you used to have the "lecture" which consisted of a Bible reading with commentary and then you would have the "sermon" as a separate event. Twenty years ago the Rev. Willy Still of Aberdeen was well-known for his 20 minute Bible readings and 90 minute sermons which arguably followed this model.

I think there is something to be said for having regular and systematic Bible readings in churches on Sundays in addition to the reading for the sermon. (1) In some more "liberal" churches where they have a lectionary you actually get more Bible reading than in some "evangelical" churches. (2) At Dingwall Baptist Church our current pastor, Bill Wilson, was a missionary in Malawi for ten years and he deliberately introduced a lectionary into some churches precisely because they were not getting regular preaching and teaching from the whole breadth of Scripture. (3) I think there is something to be said for the art of reading Scripture dramatically, powerfully, and movingly which is lost these days.

N.T. Wright on Scripture at Lambeth

Now on-line is NTW's Lambeth lecture on, The Bible and Tomorrow’s World, delivered on the 30th of July 2008.

Review of Divine Spiration

Out of the many reviews of Andrew McGowan's Divine Spiration of Scripture on the net, a sympathetic if concerned review can be found here.

Infallibility vs. Inerrancy: Reformation 21

Over at Reformation 21, there is a review article by Martin Downes entitled, Is Inerrancy Unbiblical, Rationalistic and Presumptuous? A critique of A.T.B. McGowan's proposal for evangelicals to reject inerrancy which deals with Andrew McGowan's book The Divine Spiration of Scripture.

I don't want to offer a counter-response to Downes' article as I'll leave it to Andrew to respond himself if he chooses to (although I don't think that the central focus of Andrew's article is against inerrancy as much as it is reconfiguring a doctrine of Scripture as part of a doctrine of God). But a number of questions do come to my mind. Now before I press ahead let me say that I ask these questions as one who is committed to the authority and veracity of Scripture. I write as one who regards the Word of God as "true and trustworthy" and I have laboured elsewhere to show that the Gospels are historically reliable accounts of Jesus' career. In my mind, the Bible teaches history, theology, and ethics and it is "true" on all three counts. I teach my students that the goal of their instruction is that they would know better the Word of God and the God of the Word!

(1) To what extent is it legitimate to derive a theology of Scripture from a priori inferences about God? Does "God is X and therefore Scripture is Y" constitute a reasonable argument? At one level I want to say "yes" as I would maintain that the faithfullness of God means that his Word will also be faithful and reliable. But does an a priori inference allow us to determine what the phenemenon of Scripture must have been and to define further the standards upon which its "faithfulness" must conform to? I am not so sure on that one. (2) The WCF 1.5 and 1689 LBC 1.1 all use the phrase infallible to define the veracity of Scripture (the Anglican 39 Art. 6 speaks of "sufficiency"). Does a preference for "infallible" over "inerrant" constitute a doctrinal abberration? Is the entire Reformed Tradition, as exemplified by the confessions, an insufficient theology of Scripture? As I read the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy the impression I get is exactly that: infallibility alone is insufficient (see esp. art. 11 and 19.III.C). I remain concerned and confused as to why persons, however polite and well intentioned, imply that my Reformed Baptist heritage that has been around for 400 years just ain't good enough any more (and the same is true for Presbyterians)! It was good enough in 1689 and it is jolly well good enough now! Can one become a liberal by holding fast to 400 years of tradition? (3) Is there any cultural or historical contingency to the Warfield/Henry articulation of inerrancy? Keep in mind that inerrancy was articulated during the height of the fundamentatlist versus liberal controversy of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. There was the "Battle for the Bible" in North America which was really about the struggle between Modernity and Revealed Religion. Christianity was subjected to a critique based on the assumptions of post-Enlightenment philosophical rationalism. Did Christians such as Warfield and Henry try to defend Scripture by using the same tools of philosophical rationalism such as a foundationalist epistemology and objectivist views of historical knowledge? Has the inerrancy of the autographa always been the rubric upon which Christians at all times, in all places, and in all ages have articulated the authority and veracity of Scripture, or was it a new way of defending the Bible against an atheistic worldview birthed out of of the rationalist impulse of the time in the particular setting of North America? In other words, is inerrancy a "catholic" doctrine?

The Chicago Statement provides the best exposition of inerrancy to date and one that tries to nuance the term where it needs to be. If I had to choose between "errancy" and "inerrancy", I'd choose inerrancy any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Still, I am reminded of the words of Howard Marshall who said that if you need fifteen pages to define one word, may be you should just get a new word. I have an old explanation in mind: "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation ... All of which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life." (LBC 1.1-2).

The NT and Intertextuality

I've just noticed a new book out from SBL, The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations of Theory and Practice edited by Thomas L. Brodie, Dennis R. MacDonald, and Stanley E. Porter.

Scripture and Confession

Chris Terry Nelson of Disruptive Grace, provides a good 10 point summary from Edmund Schlink's Theology of the Lutheran Confessions about the relationship between Scripture and Confession. My favourites were # 5 and # 9:

"(5) Dogmatics is bound by the Confessions as exposition of Scripture. This means again, obligation to Holy Scripture as the sole norm - obligation not so much to a specific exegesis as rather to Scripture itself. Not what men say about Scripture constitutes the sole norm, but what Scripture says to men. A Confession has no binding force apart from the fact that it correctly expounds Scripture. If we were bound to the Confessions simply because they claim to see the propriety of this claim on the basis of Scripture, the Confession would be, like the tradition of the Roman church, a second norm for dogmatics alongside Scripture. Doctrine cannot be bound to the Confessions in the sense of a fides implicita, that is, independent of a clear exegetical understanding of their scripturalness. The truth and binding force of a Confession does not rest simply on its claim - no matter how much that claim may be supported by respected church fathers at various times - but in its actual agreement with Scripture which ever anew discloses itself to exegetical study."

"(9) From all this it follows that we must carefully distinguish between a theology of the Lutheran Confessions and a text in dogmatics. If by a theology of the Lutheran Confessions we mean a faithful preproduction of their content in systematic order, this endeavor is not dogmatics. Again, dogmatics is not simply a repetition or repristination of the Confessions. Two facts must be considered: (a) The Confessions are the model of all church doctrine, including all dogmatic endeavor, which teachers of the church undertake and the results of which they present orally and in writing. As the voice of the church Confessions have more authority than the voice of an individual. (b) On the other hand, the norm for dogmatics is not the Confession, but solely the Holy Scriptures. Dogmatics, like the Confession, must teach the summary of Scripture. The possibility must be conceded from the start that dogmatics may, in the process of exegesis, question some of the confession formulations. Unlike a theology of the Confessions, dogmatics must, furthermore, review the consensus of the Confessions with the ancient church as well as the consensus of the Reformation age, develop them further, even call them into question."

In other words, the confessions of the church are not infallible, and Scripture always, always, always trumps the confessions!

HT: Ben Myers

A High View of Scripture Part 5: Inspiration and Inerrancy

We come now to the end of my review of Allert's book A High View of Scripture and find the juicest and most controversial part of the entire book.

Allert contests the widely held conclusion that inspoiration was the only criterion for the inclusion of books in the New Testament. Inspiration was not the criteria used and what was regarded as inspired referred to more than the New Testament and also included the offices and ministries of the church.

He devotes a significant amount of time to discussion of theopneustos in 2 Tim. 3.15-17 where he notes: (1) the passage is more concerned about the function than the origin of Scripture; (2) the passage emphasizes soundness of life and doctrine which one may learn through Scripture and tradition; (3) Allert understands 'sacred writings' not as all Scripture but as all relevant passages in that body of religious authoritative writings known as Scripture, not necessarily the OT and NT; and (4) He warns against etymological errors in that take 'God-breathed' as a mechanically literal description of how Scripture was produced. Allert emphasizes that this phrase could be a pauline neologism and it indicates that the authority of Scripture is from God and it contributes to the plan of salvation; thus, the main point is the usefulness of Scripture. I would accept most of this with a few qualifications and a slight objection. Most pressing of all is that Allert never really tells us what 'God-breathed' actually means. Surely it has connotations of origin, source, authority, and spirit-givenness-by-God-givenness or something like that!

In the next major section, Allert covers, "Inerrancy - A Necessary Evangelical Definition". He takes issue with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and he objects specifically to articles # 4 and # 5 on the grounds that they appear to be denying that a critical examination of the phenomenon of Scripture can inform a doctrine of Scripture. Here I would slightly disagree. The Chicago Statement does not actually deny this as much as it fails to incorporate the phenomena of Scripture in the early church. Allert further points out that the problem with this definition of inerrancy (i.e. Chicago) is that it assumes modern standards of precision for truth and error.

Allert then has a juicy section on the case of R.H. Gundry, ETS, and the Gospel of Matthew. In sum, Gundry argues that elements of Matthew 1-2 were midrash and were fictitious stories based on patterns from OT narratives. Midrash itself is a slippery term and I think Matthew 1-2 is perhaps midrashic given the constant flow of OT quotes (so too D.A. Hagner) but not actually midrash! Allert contends that when Gundry's approach is measured against the Chicago Statement it is clear that he has tried to understand Matthew in terms of the literary conventions of his day just as the Chicago Statement advocates. This is why Gundry said that he could in good faith affirm inerrancy. What is the problem then? The problem is, Gundry regards the genre of Matthew 1-2 as making it unhistorical whereas most of his peers regarded it as historical. Allert notes correctly: "If the logic of Gundry's critics is followed, then a failure to agree with a group's interpretation of a particular passage of Scripture may leave one open to the charge of failing to hold inerrancy because one does not see what the Bible says, that is, does not a agree with that group's interpretation of the Bible". The problem here is that one's view of genre can be regarded as a litmus test of inerrancy which I take to be problematic. Let me give two examples:

1) Luke 16.19-31 is a story about the rich man and Lazarus. Now I take this to be a parable and not a literal description of the afterlife. Nonetheless, some interpreters have argued (including a former Professor of mine) that the word 'parable' is not used in the story and thus it is a literal description of the intermediate state! If I regard this as a parable, would I be denying inerrancy?

2) Tremper Longman's NICOT Ecclesiastes commentary argues that much of Ecclesiastes is written in a genre similar to the speeches of Job's friends. In other words, it is indicative of the perspective that one should not have about God and hard times. I think Tremper is wrong on this (and several other persons I'm told think the same), but is this a denial of inerrancy by getting the genre wrong.

Now some might object that these two examples do not refer to historical events in the life of Jesus. But why priviledge history in this way? (For what it's worthy Gundry's Mark commentary is one of the best defences of the historical material in Mark available). History matters and the Gospels are undoubtedly rooted in testimony and history, but how does history have to be told and can multiple genres be used? Does the Chicago Statement allow for this? If not why not?

In sum, Allert's book argues sucessfully for taking into account the phenomenon of Scripture for developing a doctrine of Scripture and not relying on theological inferences about what Scripture should look like. Though many details are contestable, it is worth reading. Next week I'll start a series on reading Markus Bockmuehl's Seeing the Word.

A High View of Scripture Part 5: Two Canon Lists

Returning to Allert's book A High View of Scripture, in chapter five he looks at two important fourth-century canon lists by Eusebius and Athanasius.

The fact that Eusebius could divided what are now our NT books into homologoumena (accepted) and antilegomena (disputed) categories in addition to his own doubts about the status of Revelation imply that the canon was still open and fluid at this point. Indeed, Eusebius refers to the "encovenanted" books as opposed to a canon of books.

On Athanasius' Festal Letter of 367, we have the first reference to the use of the term "canon" being used to describe a closed collection of writings. Athanasius does not have the three categories of Eusebius (homologoumena, antilegomena, notha) but he still knows of a third category of books (Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, Didache, Shepherd of Hermas) that are useful for instruction in godliness even if they are not part of the canon. If one takes Athanasius' Festal Letter and the Third Synod of Carthage in 397, then we have two instances from the East and West respectively that recognize what is now our canonical list of 27 books for the New Testament. Although these two lists have been influential on the wider church they were not unanimous. For instance, Revelation had a problem gaining canonical status in the East and Gregory of Nazianzus excluded from his list of canonical books. Didymus the Blind, who was appointed by Athanasius to be head of the catechetical school of Alexandria, regarded 2 Peter as a forgery. Amphilochius of Iconinum was a bishop in Asia Minor (d. after 394) and he rejected not only Revelation as "spurios" but also 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Allert cites Westcott who refers to no less than six different canon lists received in the Eastern churches. (I would add that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes Jubilees, 1 Enoch, and the Didascalia as part of its canon and in the past the Armenian Orthodox Church has held various views about 3 Corinthians).

Allert concludes: "The assertion that these documents forced their way into the canon by virtue of their unique inspiration has little historical support ... The Christian faith did not grow in response to a book but as a response to God's interaction with the community of faith. The Bible must be viewed as a product of the community becasue tradition of the community provide the context in which Scripture was produced" (p. 145).

This is all interesting stuff. I think it worth pondering how many canons there are out there and which books are in each one, e.g. 66 books in the Protestant canon, 73 in the Catholic Canon, and 81 in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church's canon. Whose canon is the real canon and how do we know? I would want to say that it comes down to the "self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit" but I suspect that everyone will of course say that about their own canonical collection. Probably a better criteria is just to ask which books are accepted by the universal church.