Ivan Karamazov worried that if God is dead then all things are permissible. Likewise, so evangelicals have been told, if there is no magisterial authority, then all biblical interpretations are permissible. But even if this is not the case, we could still argue that “biblicism” results in pervasive interpretive pluralism, which is a very serious problem. So goes the argument of Christian Smith in his new book The Bible Made Impossible. The conclusion in Smith’s argument seems to be that the Bible alone is not sufficient to bring us to clear, unambiguous answers on whatever topic we might want it to address.
Naturally, evangelicals have been resistant to Smith’s conclusion. The most prominent piece of criticism of Smith’s new book comes from Robert Gundry, which has been cited as a helpful defense of “biblicism” by a number of evangelical blogs. One scholar even goes so far to say Gundry’s article is a “superb review” from “a senior evangelical statesmen.” But it seems that not everyone shares such a high view of Gundry’s evangelical credentials.
Gundry was ousted from the Evangelical Theological Society, the closest thing evangelicals have that resembles a magisterium, in 1983. The reason: the method deployed in a 1982 commentary on Matthew reached conclusions that were judged to be incompatible with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.
Norman Geisler recounted the history of Gundry’s transgressions in a recent open letter that charges Michael Licona with the same sins. Apparently, Licona made an interpretive move in his recent book defending the historicity of the resurrection that lead him to conclude Matthew 27:51-54 was composed for literary reasons; not for the purposes of recording history. Al Mohler agrees that Licona has made the same interpretive blunder as Gundry and that Licona ought to recant his position.
The central premise in Mohler and Geisler’s argument is that the doctrine of inerrancy entails the historicity of Matthew 27:51-54. Thus any exegetical method that results in “dehistoricizing” the passage is unacceptable. Article XVIII of the Chicago Statement if Biblical Inerrancy is taken to make this clear:
WE AFFIRM that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.
WE DENY the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.
All I will say about how the Chicago Statement is being deployed is that taking account of a text’s literary forms and devices seems compatible with the conclusion that a given text may not have been intended as history. I am not qualified to judge whether or not this is the case in the disputed Matthew text, but it is clear to me that there is a noticeable irony in that this text seems to result in the problematic “interpretive pluralism” that Smith highlighted in his book. By all accounts Gundry and Licona are reputable evangelical scholars who are at home in the “biblicist” tradition. Yet at the same time, voices in this same tradition name them as rogues, or at least proprietors of rogue methods of biblical interpretation.
As to what we should think about the issues raised by the controversy between Licona and Geisler/Mohler, William Lane Craig offers a helpful strategy for approaching these issues from an apologetic standpoint. If views like Craig’s are deemed to be wrongly accommodating of Licona, then it seems we need a magisterium, some authoritative interpretive community, to make these calls. Does the ETS play that role? If so, then what do we make of Gundry and the status of “biblicism?” It seems evangelicals are faced with what may be a tough choice: jettison biblicism or the authority of ETS-like institutions as a boundary-setting entities. The curious case of Robert Gundry makes it difficult to accept both.
UPDATE:
I was curious to see what Gundry’s 1982 commentary had to say about the Matthew 27:53. He writes:
Hence, Matthew probably means that the resurrected saints entered Jerusalem only after Jesus’ resurrection. It is unclear whether they came out of their tombs only after Jesus’ resurrection, or came out earlier but stayed in the countryside till Jesus had risen. The doctrine that he is “the first-born from the dead ” (Col 1:18; Rev 1:5) and “the first fruits of those who are asleep” (1 Cor 15:20) favors the former view because a delayed exit from the realm of death would seem less liable to contradict that doctrine.” Thus Matthew probably means that the saints stayed in their tombs for several days even though their bodies had been raised to life. Then they came out and “entered into the holy city and appeared to many.” [Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1982), 576.]
So when Mohler says
In 1983, the Evangelical Theological Society voted to request that Robert Gundry resign from its membership. The arguments for his expulsion from the ETS are exactly those that are now directly relevant to the argument that Michael Licona makes about Matthew 27:51-54. The suggestions that these events reported by Matthew are “special effects” and a “poetic device” are exactly the kind of dehistoricizing that led to Gundry’s removal from the ETS. Gundry’s argument concerning Matthew’s use of midrash is virtually parallel to Licona’s argument from classical references and Jewish apocalyptic sources.
We should not take him to be making the impression that Licona’s interpretation mimics Gundry’s. It seems that Mohler and Geisler would be inclined to agree with Gundry here, making the Gundry/Licona connection less pronounced. It would be a matter of using the right hermeneutical method, not the necessarily getting the right results.
September 14th, 2011 | 5:27 pm | #1
This would be an interesting set of issues to discuss amongst Evangel contributors in a blog series (perhaps not commentators because in my opinion comments-sections tend to poorly facilitate conversations about controversial matters).
I’ll only mention a few things that strike me.
First, what is unfortunate is that there are many Christians who do believe the Bible is “sufficient to bring us to clear, unambiguous answers on whatever topic we might want it to address” full-stop. Most thoughtful Christians (and most evangelical scholars) realize there are problems with this particularly simplistic conception of biblical interpretation and that most historic Christian traditions articulate a more sophisticated, nuanced and accurate understanding of biblical interpretation, but one must admit many people have suffered because of ham-fisted, defensive articulations and actions based upon an oversimplified biblicism that requires some sort of rationalist foundationalism and the achievement of Cartesian certainty for feelings of security rather than a premodernproper confidence. Dr. Smith does a service to the many who have been oppressed by that kind of biblicism.
That said, I am not sure if Dr. Smith gave these more sophisticated views (e.g. here and here) enough credit.
Further, I wonder whether another reason is that the idea that pervasive interpretive pluralism requires one to choose between a simplistic biblicism and a magisterium (inevitably understood as a Roman Catholic sort due to Christian Smith’s background) is not persuasive despite the argument being made for centuries. Ecclesially-minded Reformation Protestants have always recognized the place of authoritative interpretive communities–that is, an important but fallible place, second to Scripture. To be sure, the same Christians who believe they “just read the plain sense of Scripture” and don’t interpret it probably also have difficulties acknowledging the role of authoritative interpretive communities, and Dr. Smith’s criticism do apply to them (and their numbers are quite large).
In the end, I don’t think Dr. Smith’s book or cases like Gundry or Licona show we must choose between the simplistic biblicism Dr. Smith rightly eviscerates and an infallible magisterium. We might instead recognize the essential and inescapable role of fallible authoritative traditions in biblical interpretation, discipleship and cultural engagement, which is where the work by grace for unity in truth and love begins.
September 15th, 2011 | 2:05 pm | #2
Interesting comparison between the commentaries there. For the record, the reason Gundry was expelled was over his treatment of early parts of Matthew (the first couple chapters), which Gundry described as being composed in the form of “midrash” rather than history – a conclusion not so different from Licona’s view that the raising of the saints at the end of Matthew is “apocalyptic.” In other words, both were arguing that parts of Matthew fit into genres somewhat broader than pure historical reporting.
In that sense, Mohler is correct that they’re very much doing the same thing. However, I’m not persuaded that Mohler and Geisler understand that the real issue (as a number of other bloggers have highlighted) is that it is possible to argue for parts of Matthew being non-historical while still believing them to be absolutely inerrant – simply by taking genre considerations into account. And this is the point where the discussion should be had: are Gundry and Licona’s readings of the texts at these points as different genre accurate, or not? If they’re accurate about the genre, then they have by no means rejected inerrancy. If they’re inaccurate, then they still haven’t; they’re just mistaken about an interpretive conclusion.
Geisler and Mohler’s responses seem to me to be shortsighted and rather remarkably dismissive of the value of historiography and contextual research. The Bible was not written in a vacuum, and while outside sources cannot be ultimately determinative of its meaning, it’s just silly to think that we can understand it and interpret it in some hermeneutical bubble without taking into acccount context, genre, etc. (Nor would they make that argument in many other contexts, including preaching!)
I am not sure what to think of Licona’s proposal, but I am certain that it’s still within the bounds of real inerrancy.
September 15th, 2011 | 2:15 pm | #3
I fail to see how a magisterium solves the problem of disagreement, except that it elevates a particular viewpoint while silencing others. A magisterium may or may not have the practical consequence of producing a more orderly, uniform group of people who march under the banner of “Protestant.” But if the question we are asking is, how do we figure out the true meaning of the text, then the magisterium is a non-answer (unless God comes down from heaven, hand-picks twelve pastors, and declares that their understanding of the Bible is infallible). Plus, it adds a new layer to the same problem. Because if we can’t agree on what Jesus said, what makes us so sure we can agree on what the rulings of the magisterium mean? With new guidelines come new lawyers, salivating over the chance to argue their perspective on the guidelines.
September 15th, 2011 | 4:38 pm | #4
Read my post on The Catholic Thing tomorrow. You can get it through my blog, which you can get to by clicking my name.
It will be up tomorrow.
September 15th, 2011 | 4:39 pm | #5
My comment was meant for Anthony. I discuss Scripture and the magisterium in tomorrow’s post over at The Catholic Thing.
September 16th, 2011 | 9:17 am | #6
Be sure to see my reply to Gundry in the next print issue of B&C.
September 16th, 2011 | 11:40 am | #7
Thanks, Francis. I’ll take a look when I have the chance.
September 16th, 2011 | 12:17 pm | #8
I’d like someone to give a clearer statement of Smith’s thesis. Adam writes:
Does he mean to say that Smith’s apparent conclusion is that there are no crucial topics for which the Bible alone is sufficient to bring us clear, unambiguous answers? (It seems too trivial to say that, for many topics, the Bible doesn’t provide clear, unambiguous answers.) And what is meant by “the Bible alone”? (If we don’t bring anything to the table, we won’t even perceive the Bible alone, much less gain any understanding by it.)
September 17th, 2011 | 9:31 pm | #9
(1) Better interpretive pluralism than the enforced errors of the magisterium.
(2) “Bible only” doesn’t mean that you must not employ extra-Biblical categories or methods; it means that for belief and practice the Bible is the sole authority. Use whatever tools you should in order properly to understand and apply the teaching of that singular authority. But the tools are an aid, not an authority.
(3)There might be truth and insight outside the Bible, but that is not the same as saying there is another authority.
(4)Be very careful what extra-Biblical tools you employ because many of them are not only unbiblical, they are anti-biblical. Like Barth, I am convinced that pagan Greek philosophy, like that of Plato and Aristotle, are just such tools, and stand behind some of the errors enforced by the magisterium, errors like transubstantiation and Thomistic natural theology, for example.
September 18th, 2011 | 10:35 am | #10
Dr. Bauman, your claim (1) sounds like a value judgment. Is there some “authority,” or justification, upon which it is grounded? Also, suppose that decisions must be made regarding the “categories and methods” you mention in (2), or regarding what is to count as the “truth and insight” you mention in (3). Is there anything that authorizes one decision over another? If so, then can you plausibly claim that it is always only “the Bible alone”?
September 18th, 2011 | 7:34 pm | #11
Point (1) is not a value judgment, but an academic assessment of exegetical results. For example, because we know many things about, say, Hebrew history, language, culture, religion and literature that those who helped shape the magisterium did not know, we have been spared some their mistakes. It’s matter of knowledge, of clear thinking, and of careful research, not of ecclesiastical authority. It’s an issue of competence, not values.
This increase in knowledge, this move away from the exegetical and methodological errors embedded in the magisterium, is not the result of appealing to some authority outside the Bible. We can, and we do, know all sorts of historical, philological, literary, and scientific things that do not depend upon something other than the Bible having religious authority. It’s not about authority; it’s about acquiring more and more knowledge, knowledge that aids in our improved understanding of Scripture, an understanding not hindered by the errors enshrined in the magisterium and its purported authority.
September 19th, 2011 | 10:09 am | #12
Dr. Bauman, I wonder if this would be a fair characterization of your position (in answer to my questions): While the Bible is the only “ecclesiastical” or “religious” authority, there are external standards by which our interpretations of the Bible are to be evaluated. To say that these standards are “external” is to say that the standards are not themselves determined or justified on the basis of what the Bible says, or upon its authority.
September 19th, 2011 | 1:04 pm | #13
RR,
The authority of the Bible rests upon the fact it is inspired, that is, comes from the Holy Spirit. It’s authority does not rest on something else, say upon its recognition or non-recognition by some ecclesiastic body or another. The books inspired by God are authoritative whether everyone or no one recognized their inspiration, or whether or not some group or another got the list of inspired texts partially correct, as must be the case with either the Protestants or the Catholics. To know which texts ought to be so regarded is best pursued in light of Christ, seeing which books of the OT He so regarded and by identifying the texts written by those whom He taught or by their closest circle of associates.
By the way, I wasn’t talking about external standards; I was talking about knowledge gained by competence, not by authority.
Best to you, RR.
MB
September 20th, 2011 | 9:22 am | #14
MB, I think I understand what you are saying, except for the distinction you draw between what you call “competence,” and I have called “external standards.” I don’t see how this distinction can run very deep. If there is such a thing as philological or scientific competence, then I think we should say that an interpreter of the Bible can be philologically or scientifically incompetent. To say that the interpreter is in these ways incompetent is to say that he or she has failed to meet some standard. But, now, should we say that the relevant philological or scientific standards are themselves determined by what the Bible says, or that they are justified on the basis of the Bible alone? If not, then we should probably say that the standards are external in the sense I describe. This would mean that, although the Bible might be the only religious/ecclesiastical authority, our interpretation by of that authority must be guided by standards external to that authority.
September 20th, 2011 | 12:28 pm | #15
RR,
If I understand your point correctly, then “yes;” though by that I’m not saying that the standards, or measures, in view are an authority, certainly not an infallible authority. Rather, they are the potentially revisable and improvable ways and means by which we have come to understand some portion of the truth, and (in this case) hopefully to interpret the Bible more accurately as a result.
By “truth” here, I mean ideas that are in accordance with reality, with the way things really are. In that sense, if you like, we can call reality the standard, or the measure, by which we must judge between competing truth claims, including truth claims made about the Bible and its teachings, or about the magisterium and its teachings. The magisterium too is subject to reality, as are our and its assertions about the Bible.
Of course, reality itself is a bit elusive too isn’t it? So is our version of it — and the magisterium’s version of it, which ought to be continually subject to review, to new discoveries and amendments, some of which might undermine, or even overturn, previously held views. I think here of geo-centrism, among many other things.
When we make our way through a fallen world with fallen minds, it is easy to be wrong. That is one of the chief noetic effects of sin. It ought always to keep us humble regarding our conclusions. That might make us uncomfortable, but that is the world in which God has placed us, and we must faithfully pursue our object of knowing the truth in those circumstances.
September 21st, 2011 | 9:38 am | #16
MB, As we seek truth and understanding, I wonder if we possess any “ways and means” that aren’t “potentially revisable and improvable.” I don’t see that we do, even if we grant that the Bible, as truly interpreted, would be an “infallible authority.”
September 23rd, 2011 | 10:21 am | #17
RR,
No, so far as I can see, there are none that are not potentially revisable, perhaps even in large part. Given that we work our way through a fallen world with fallen minds, it might always be prudent to fly the banner of “provisional” over our conclusions. That’s not to say that knowledge is impossible or that relativism is the way to go. Both those ideas are false, and I resist them. But humility and teachableness remain the order of the day for folks like us — and for the magisterium that some advance as above this limitation.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact