such a case Daniel and Revelation become effectively more important than the Gospels for that community. For others contemplation of the life of Jesus is of first importance. Then the Gospels are of primary importance. If we ask: ‘As a matter of practice what actually happens?’ we must have regard for what the church does rather than what its formal teaching might lead us to think.
Since it is clear that use of the Bible is selective, we certainly must take that into account in developing a doctrine of the authority of Scripture. What this means is that in giving an account of the church’s practice we shall point to two facts: first, the church claims that the Bible has unique authority; and second, in her practice and her use of Scripture some parts are more frequently referred to, some are built into a doctrinal scheme, others are passed over. The Bible, whose uniqueness the church acknowledges in her doctrine, is never uniformly treated as equally important in all its parts. If it were it could not support the doctrine of the uniqueness of Scripture.
5 TWO RIVAL VIEWS OF THE BIBLE: A DILEMMA?
So there is something of a dilemma between two rival views of the Bible.7 Allowing for a certain latitude in the meaning of the term ‘inspired,’ we can for the present let the assertion stand that all Christians believe that the Bible is inspired. But the question, ‘How is the Bible inspired?’ gives rise to different answers. These answers stand in opposition to one another. One is the conservative view, the other the liberal-critical view. (We must not of course get stalled with names, but it is convenient to have some labels, to point to what may well be ‘ideal types.’) The conservative view stresses that the words are inspired, that the Holy Spirit is the author of the very words of Scripture. It teaches (in the judgment of one writer) ‘a peculiarly materialistic conception of the inspiration of the Bible, identifying its truth with rigid exactness in matters of physical fact.’8 The emphasis here is on the inerrancy of the Bible. Since God spoke through the writings, they are guaranteed to be free of all error. This is the view not only of the conservative Protestant. It is also the officially stated view of the Roman Catholic Church. The writers rendered with infallible truth all that God commanded. The Bible is unassailable, for its truth is God’s truth. Hence all of its statements are true.9
The other view recognizes as of primary importance that the writers of the Bible lived at particular times and in particular places, that since they were human they were conditioned by the understanding of their time. They lived in particular circumstances, under specifiable historical conditions, which provided the milieu, the context in which they worked, thought and spoke. That context can be studied historically. Light is shed on the words they wrote by an historical analysis of the contexts and procedures which influenced them.
The Jewish and Christian faiths are historical. The events which give meaning to faith were historical events. The Exodus, the rise of the prophets, the coming of Jesus, the setting down in writing of the messages of important spokesmen, the compilation, preservation and interpretation of such writings — all these are historical events. That means that they can be studied historically. One of the great events of recent times is the development of the historical method. It has revolutionized our outlook. We now know so much more than people two centuries ago could know about the composition of the Bible, the history of Israel, of the early Christian movement and of the relationship of the writings of the Bible to that history. This has been the result of a dedicated, painstaking and continuing application of the historical method to the Bible. We now carefully consider what we may call the humanity of the persons we study, the social conditions of the time in which they lived and the nature of the experience of individual and group. We put questions to the Bible and carefully analyse its text and content, according to well-established literary and historical principles.
The fact that the Bible has a special and irreplaceable authority in the Christian church is not in question when the historical, analytical, critical approach is used. In fact the historical studies of the last two centuries have made it possible to answer questions which the traditional view either did not consider (and which it should have considered), or which it considered inappropriate. Such historical studies have enabled us to find answers to problems of interpretation we had not hitherto been capable of solving.
This can be disturbing. When we question older positions we have to consider anew what we mean by the authority of the Bible. But the labours of such dedicated scholars are labours of love, seeking for truth and understanding, often the labours of sincere Christians.
The contrast between these two approaches can be put in various ways. An unquestioning acceptance of the text of the Bible is set over against a dedicated effort to establish the text that we are best able to achieve, even if this means the raising and the consideration of critical questions.
Some doctrines of the Bible’s authority so emphasise the divine that they minimise, even overlook, the humanity, the historicity, of the ‘writers’ of the Bible. The writers of the biblical books were human beings with limitations of understanding and experience. Of course, some had extraordinary gifts and perception.
The belief that there is a direct divine source of all that is written in Scripture contrasts with the principle that the place to start is where and when the human writer lived and see life as far as is possible in the light of the history we are able to reconstruct. This means dealing first with the text, and then framing a theory of inspiration, of revelation, of canon.
Emphasise the non-historical, the supra-natural in sharp contrast to the historical, the divine rather than the human and you then think of the person as the supernaturally inspired spokesperson for the divine. Their native abilities are in abeyance as the divine spirit takes over. But why set divine authority in contrast to, even in opposition to, the human character of the biblical writings? Why claim that where God acts the human diminishes to the vanishing point? The principle of incarnation, that the divine reveals himself through the human, sets itself against such an extreme view.
Can one reasonably affirm the divine authority of Scripture and at the same time recognize the genuine humanity of its writers? Can Christians believe the Bible to have unique religious authority and at the same time accept the genuine humanity and historicity of the writings? Is there a way of affirming that the Scriptures are both the word of God and the word of men? It would seem that the Christian, holding the fundamental principle of incarnation, that God operates through the human, should be striving for a position which can do full justice to both sides of what, expressed in an exaggerated form, leads to paradox. The heavenly treasure is contained in earthen vessels. Recognise the humanity and historicity of the ‘writer’ and he is then the discerning and perceptive human being speaking out of his understanding and discernment at a particular time and to a specific situation. To give a theological expression to this principle in relation to the Bible, to affirm that the human is a suitable vehicle for the divine: — that would seem to be the task.
In what follows we shall seek to present a carefully studied account of the Bible which will try to do justice to both of these interests: an interest in the divine authority and in the genuine humanity of the writers. We shall not ‘plead’ for either, but move forward in the belief that in trying to account for both we can arrive at a balanced and reasonable Christian account of the Bible.
We shall not shirk the real problems, but in every case we shall try first to see clearly what the facts are. We must not turn aside from the facts of the matter, but give them their due weight as we try to provide a theological account of the Scriptures. No theology is worthy if it finds it inconvenient to pass over salient facts. In our exposition we shall find ourselves constantly coming back to the facts of the matter.
1 Martin Kähler in The So-called Historical Jesus, develops this threefold rubric.
2 lbid., p. 130.
