on the supposed inerrancy of holy scripture

I've been doing a lot of writing recently on empirical criticism as applied to all variety of texts, including religious texts. I got a number of excellent replies and comments (both on Facebook and here at Blogger) with regard to criticism as well as a few private notes on the "dangers" and "intentionally hurtful" implications of trying to apply empirical disciplines to texts like the Bible. I have no shortage of friends, family and colleagues that are frustrated with my critical exegesis of a collection of texts that they consider to be the "Living Word of God." At the end of the day, each person is responsible for what (s)he takes to be true about the world they live in. The important element of critically studying a text is not in reinforcing or undermining a belief(-system), but in "rightly dividing the word of truth" between a tradition of belief and allowing a text to speak for itself.

What I hope to explore in this post is not whether the Bible is truly "dictated by God" but whether it actually claims to be. I will be discussing a particular concept in order to set up the question: Does Paul claim (in 2 Timothy 3:16) that the Bible is inerrant? 

In his second recorded letter to Timothy, Bishop of the Christian Church in Ephesus, Paul writes the following passage:

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness."  - 2 Timothy 3:16 (NASB)

For purposes of transparency and for the reader to be able to read the text on his/her own, here is what the verse says in the original Greek:

"πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, πρὸς ἐλεγμόν, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ"

I would like to break each word down and render a translation from the Greek to the English:

• πᾶσα (pas) - All, every one of such a thing
  
• γραφὴ (graphyin) - Any written thing [where we get the English words "graph" or "graphic" from]
  
• θεόπνευστος (theopneustos) - from two words theos (meaning "god" or "divinity") and pnuema (meaning "breath" or, loosely, "spirit")*
  
• καὶ (kahee) - and, also, indeed, even, but [Greek conjunction]
  
• ὠφέλιμος (ophelimos) - profitable
  
• πρὸς (pros) - to the advantage of
  
• διδασκαλίαν (didaokalian) - teaching or instruction [where we get the English word "didactic" from)
• ἐλεγμόν (elegmon) - reproach
• ἐπανόρθωσιν (epanorthosis) - correction, return to a state of uprightness
  
• παιδείαν (paideian) - the training and education of children
  
• τὴν (hon) - the, these [Greek article]
  
• ἐν (en) - in [Greek preposition]
  
• δικαιοσύνῃ (dikaiosune) - rightness
  

Paul, in my reading of this passage, is saying to Timothy:

"All writings are influenced [blown by god] and profitable in advantage of teaching, reproach, correction and training the youth in rightness."

I'm certain that there are those that will disagree with my translation of this passage, this is one of the largest problems with translating anything from the Greek language into English: it's nearly impossible to come away from a Greek translation and say "this is precisely what it says," as there are any number of ways to translate/interpret any number of words within a text. In light of this rendering of Paul's encouraging words to Timothy, I would like to make a number of points that, I feel, go very often unsaid when studying the writings of Paul:

• This writing of Paul to Timothy is a letter, written from one very experienced and well-trained teacher to another relatively inexperienced teacher. In the most modern analog to this kind of letter, we might think of Paul's epistles as "memorandums" or, in political terms, "policy statements".
  
• Scholars know that Paul had extensive, two-way, correspondence with all bishops and pastors that he established in Anatolia, Thrace and Greece. In these letters - most of whom only Paul's end was kept for posterity due to its subsequent canonization - any number of problems, questions, concerns, requests for clarification and reports of church activity were transferred to Paul and Paul sent his responses to either the pastor/bishop in a private letter (as in Timothy) or to the church-at-large (as in his letter to "the Ephesians"). We should always be conscious that there is a whole narrative happening around these letters that we have limited-to-no information regarding. 
• What we do know about the context of this letter is that there was a considerable row between Jewish Christians and Greek Christians over the following "church policies": circumcision, keeping the kosher laws, keeping, teaching and application of the Hebrew scriptures (for more information see Galatians 2:12, Galatians 6:13, Acts 21:15-26, Titus 1:10, 1 Corinthians 7:18, Romans 3:27-28 vs. James 2:17, 26, etc.). This controversy, as evidenced by Paul's extensive discussion of circumcision and "the law" to churches in traditionally non-Jewish cities (like Rome, Corinth, etc.). We know that "men from James" (brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church, most of which were Jews) went to a number of Greek churches to encourage them to adopt the Jewish traditions that Jesus himself observed (i.e. circumcision, the law and the Hebrew scriptures).
  
• What can be interpreted from this "policy statement" by Paul to Timothy, in my reading, is this: amid the controversy of what to do with all of the Jewish traditions still observed by the Jerusalem church and the Apostles, Timothy (a very young half-Jewish, half-Greek bishop of a large cosmopolitan church in traditionally Greek city) asks Paul how he should settle this highly charged question for his own congregation. 
• Paul's response "splits the baby" with regard to the Hebrew scriptures. He does not encourage Timothy to do as the Jerusalem church and the Jewish-Christian congregations did: which is make the Hebrew scriptures a centerpiece of the Jewish-Christian experience. He tells Timothy that these writings are "blown on by God" (an idea which was well understood by anyone exposed to Greek religious and philosophical culture as "inspired" or "blown upon by the gods") and, as such, they are useful for teaching Christians how to be righteous before God and Christ. 
• What is noteworthy here is that Paul does not say that the scriptures are directly dictated by God and, thus, "inerrant". There is a phrase in Greek that would have directly conveyed this idea. Here it is in the original Greek: "υπαγορεύεται από τον Θεό και δεν σφάλμα [upagopeuetai apo hos theos kai den ophalma]." Paul does not say this. Instead he, essentially, creates a whole new vocabulary word with an ambiguous meaning.
• The last point that should be made is possibly the "touchiest" of all. In the twenty-first century, we are very comfortable using the words "the Bible", "the Word" or "scripture". It is very important, when making claims about the "the Bible", that we understand the following: what we call "the Bible" is a compilation of various different texts, penned (if not actually authored) by a number of different writers, written across centuries of history, in at least two entirely different languages. Modern American readers read the Bible as one contiguous book, in one language as though it was penned by one person sometime in history and chosen by a god-ordained authority/apostle. The books of the Bible were selected in 393 AD at the Synod of Hippo, and chosen by this council of bishops to represent "sacred scripture." In the time of Paul and Jesus, "scripture" only referred to the Hebrew Tanakh (or the "Old Testament"). None of the Gospel narratives or apostolic letters were considered by any first-century Christian to be "canon." 
• In light of this, it is important to understand that if we insist that "the Bible" is "inerrant" we have to answer these questions: Which version of the Bible is inerrant? What texts are included in this version? Are all of the texts "inerrant" or just a select few? If Paul is saying that scripture is "without error", do we take that to mean only the "Old Testament" like he said? Or do we apply that error-less-ness to the decisions made by the Synod of Hippo almost four hundred years later?

In the end, the question still remains for each of us to decide thoughtfully, not capriciously or based on a potentially unfounded tradition: does Paul claim (in 2 Timothy 3:16) that the Bible is inerrant? 

Perhaps the even more important question is this: does it need to be "error free" in order to be "profitable for teaching, reproach, correction and education of the youth in righteousness"? 


I certainly look forward to everyone's comments and criticisms on the subject and hope to hear from you all soon.

you can('t) believe everything you read

In order to keep this post short and sweet, I just want to ask an open-ended question and see where the conversation leads us:

Is it appropriate to read any text as authoritative, or to read texts in an uncritical fashion?


In order to clear any confusion on what I mean by this let me provide some examples of what I mean:

- Reading news articles without stopping to question the sources or the biases (intentional or unintentional) of the author/journalist. This includes news from conservative, liberal and "non-partisan" sources.
- Reading history books without questioning their interpretation of the events, their significance and what they may have left out by virtue of space or limitations. 
- Interpretations of law and political theory. Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, wrote that "we hold these truths to be self evident..." But are any "truths" genuinely self-evident? This question applies to "strict interpretation" of political documents/laws and interpreting thse same documents as "living" and "dynamic."
- Perhaps most controversial of all: spiritual traditions, religious scripture and subsequent commentary. While this absolutely does not only apply to Christian texts and traditions, but to all religious and philosophical traditions. 


I'm interested to hear comments from everyone on this.

Thoreau on Democracy as a Theory of Government

"Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen." - Civil Disobedience, 1849

Here are the questions that this quotation poses to me:
- Is democracy the best possible form of government? 
- If democracy is not the best possible form of government, do we have an inkling of what is? 
- Moreover, can government "work" at all?


Feel free to leave your answer via the comments section. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Influential Quotes and Ideas

In addition to my own musings, I wanted to add - from time to time - some quotes and ideas that I find both thought-provoking and influential. I hope that they will spark some critical discussion with our own selves and with each other.

thoughts on objective reality

In my last post, I attempted to explore and contrast the differences between assumption, fact, belief and knowledge and apply them to the standard of "objective reality." I recently received this comment from a reader:

I'd like to hear more on objective reality. Your "the world is round" comment made me think...is Earth round? Obviously, we know it is round from a extraterrestrial yet intra solar system perspective. But what about from another galaxy? Our solar system is not spherical. It is a flat disc. And our Earth is a non-dimensional speck. Without rambling, I'm just curious as to how objective is reality? And similarly, how universal can truth be?

I want to: a) thank the reader for his question and, b) attempt to answer this question to the best of my ability.

One of the prevalent definitions that I have been working off of for the purposes of this blog has been that of "objective and factual reality." Let me begin by making a clear admission: all three key words in that phrase are highly debatable in terms of conception. Allow me to explain further:

• Objective - the dictionary defines "objective" as "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased." The definition, however, can be deceptively straightforward. The problem is not necessarily the act of defining objectivity but achieving objectivity. It is my opinion that humans, because of their inherent first-person perspective, are not able to achieve complete objectivity. We all have limited perspectives as individuals and, as a species, our perspective is also currently limited. Whether that will change any time in the future remains to be seen. I do believe that there is a "reality" that is completely objective and free from personal bias and limited perspective, even if humans cannot perceive it. It appears to me that φύσις (physis or, crudely, "nature") is objective outside of νόμος (nomos or "human convention"). In this light one might say that nature, itself, is both objective and real because it does not conform to the biases, feelings or interpretations of human convention.
  
• Factual - this idea, too, is difficult to wrestle with. In modern, English-speaking traditions we understand the word fact to have the meaning of "holding a mirror to reality." From an empirical, and scientific, perspective this makes plenty of sense. There is a conflict, however, when one reads the idea of a fact in an ancient sense. The Latin word for fact - facere - means, roughly, to do or make with one's hands. It is the same Latin root that provides English words like "factory" and "manufacture". The ancient Greek analog of facere is poeio or poesis - the root word for poetry. Tying this with the previous definition, a fact is also a product of human convention because it requires a medium of communication in order for it to be shared between peoples and because it also, generally, requires an agreement between peoples to be accepted. Thus, in order to get to a place where your knowledge of the world is informed by facts, you must first come to terms with the idea of factuality and decide how you intend to deploy the word with language.
  
• Reality - this may be the most troubling idea of all. Every time I use the word "reality" I can feel my professors cringe. I use this word a lot, but I also try to use this word advisedly or, on occasion, by framing it in quotation marks. The English word "reality" has a Latin root in res - meaning "thinghood" or "thingness" - and in the Greek word onto - meaning "being". If that sounds confusing or pedantic to you, you're definitely not alone. How can anyone begin to define something like "being" or "thinghood"? This, of course, is the problem associated with using a word like "reality" without prefacing it with a specific definition.

Even with these logological difficulties with understanding "objective factual reality", I still think it is possible to employ the concept. If we refrain from framing our exploration of reality in a human-centered (anthropocentric) view and allow for a broader Being-centered (ontocentric) view, the idea of "reality" begins to take sharper focus. All of that is a ridiculously philosophical way of saying the following: "reality", as I understand it, is considerably larger than the human being's perspective and experience: unlimited, unaltered and indifferent to our attempts - successful or not - to understand it.

With regard to "how universal can truth be", I can only fall back to a simple answer: truth is only as universal as reality is; which is to say that it is only universal, since truth and reality are the same. How people understand, interpret or communicate truth may be prone to mistake or manipulation, but - again - reality (and truth) is unbiased and not influenced by human convention.

thoughts on the christian spiritual tradition

In a recent post on this blog, I stated two opinions about the nature of belief in general and the Christian religion in particular. A friend of mine sent me a message asking me to explain what I meant by them. His message read:

Can you explain [these ones] to me:
- "Belief, especially religious belief, is one of the only conventions in the human repertoire that will blatantly defy 'reality.' And no, that's not a good thing."
- "I'm not entirely sure that the Jesus talked about in Christian religious traditions is broadly-enough defined. In other words: Jesus is interpreted too narrowly for my tastes within most expressions of Christianity."

I will attempt to tackle these explanations as best as I can and I hope to satisfy the spirit of the request if not the actual request itself.

The first statement that I want to address is the one concerning belief. I've set out to explore - via this blog - the difference between beliefs, values, ideologies and their relationship to objective reality. Beliefs, as I've come to understand them, are based almost solely on assumptions. This is different from my understanding of knowledge insofar as knowledge is informed by commonly agreed-upon empirical facts. (At this point I could digress into a lengthy bit about the theory of knowledge, the Latin etymology for "facts" and classical skepticism, but I won't. Anyone wanting to understand more about how those three items relate to my previous statements can look those up for his/herself.) Let me explain, crudely, the difference between a belief and knowledge. "God created the Universe." This is a belief. "The world is round." This is knowledge.

Because I feel certain that I'll be interpreted this way, let me say very clearly: there is nothing wrong with having a belief. We all have them both despite and because of our expanding knowledge-base as a species. The problem that I have is when people take a belief, which is fine to have in its own right, and elevate it to the level of "unquestionable authoritative truth." It is my opinion that beliefs enrich our lives most when they are kept in their place: as beliefs. Beliefs, however, because they are often elevated to the level of "unquestionable authoritative truth" often cause believers to blatantly deny "reality" - the existence which can actually be confirmed and verified via empirically-derived factual knowledge.

I've gone round-and-round on this point almost two dozen times with friends, relatives and colleagues so pardon me as I return to it. The Book of Genesis is a beautiful collection of texts, narratives and traditions. It was (and continues to be) the basis for a number of traditions - when read literally - that blatantly defy what humans know about the Earth. The "heavens and the Earth" were not created in six, twenty-four hour periods. Humans know this. It isn't a guess. It isn't a belief. It is backed up by consistently validated, confirmed and verified facts. What's more is: these facts were originally discovered by committed and devout Christians whom, after having discovered them, did not become atheists or turn their back on Christianity but allowed this new information to expand and enrich their understanding of both the mundane and the divine. Holding to a literal interpretation of Genesis is every Christian, Jew and Muslim's right. It is, however, a profound example of how a belief leads people to blatantly defy reality. And no, I do not think that it is good for a person to deny a factually-informed "reality" for an assumption-informed belief. Especially when there is an overwhelming amount of evidence in support of one at the zero-sum expense of the other.

Turning, now, to the question of the Jesus and his relation to mainstream American Christianity, I would like to first say that I, personally, believe there is something special about Jesus in human history. This belief is informed by several assumptions: a) he actually existed as a historical figure of which there is almost no extra-Biblical empirical verification that I am aware of, b) his life had any relationship to the narratives and texts which became the canonized New Testament of the Christian Bible and, c) that the authors of the previously mentioned New Testament texts are trustworthy hagiographers and worth giving the proverbial "benefit of the doubt." I feel that it is incumbent on me to state, very clearly, that I do not treat the New Testament as "authoritative", nor do I approach the texts uncritically. In my own exegetical endeavors, I have come to a number of conclusions that would - and have - angered a number of devoutly orthodox Christians. Most Christians I know believe that, while the original texts of the New Testament were penned by men, the words are actually the direct dictation of God. My research on this question has led me to conclude that at no point in the New Testament do any of the authors claim to have been directly dictated to, outside of the Book of Revelation, which has significant - and currently irresolvable - authenticity issues of its own. (Again, there is a temptation to digress into an explanation of Paul's statement in 2 Timothy 3:16, but that will have to wait for another post if anyone is interested in hearing why it is not a claim of biblical divine dictatorship.)

What can be easily agreed upon by both the most devout and obstinate Christian and the most obstinate atheist is this: Jesus occupies an unprecedented place in human history. Major religious movements and traditions - as well as anti-religious movements and traditions - are devoted to him. Nearly everyone in Western society since him (or, at least, the birth of his movement) has been forced to think about him and come to some kind of understanding about him. Very few men, if anyone, have ever occupied this level of importance in human history: with all due respect given to Muslims, Buddhists, Jews and any individual whose religious patron I have not referenced. The claim that the Beatles were "bigger than Jesus" set off a firestorm of controversy for a reason! In Western tradition - perhaps in all human tradition - no one is, or has been, bigger than Jesus. As Saul Silver might claim: Jesus is "the apex of the vortex" of Western spirituality.

It is both because of this and despite this understanding that I believe that Jesus is "too narrowly interpreted" for my tastes within most expressions of the Christian tradition. In my personal research into primitive Christianity, I have found that the earliest Christians were deeply divided over the nature of Jesus. Was he only human? Was he human at all? Was he to be understood only as a Jewish rabbi? Was he to be understood as the last of the Greek demigods? Despite the revisionist history that comes with the canonized New Testament, there was no monolithic movement which embodied a set orthodoxy of Christianity before - in the very least - the third century AD/CE. There were Ebionites, Paulines, Alexandrians, Romans, Nestorians and Donatists, just to name a few! The name "Christian" was given to anyone that followed the teachings of Jesus, according to the tradition they were exposed to.

"Orthodox Christianity" in a very real sense - despite the beliefs of many American protestants - is still not a settled question and, in my historical opinion, never has been. Deep-seated divides over what is "legitimate" within Christianity have not, to this day, been settled by anyone. From the earliest disputes between James and Paul to the Ebionites versus the Paulines, to the Pelagians versus the Augustinians, to the Roman Catholics versus the Eastern Orthodox, to the Roman Catholics versus the Protestants, to the Calvinists versus the Arminians... the divides continue, mostly because each side believes that they have an exclusive claim to the truth about Jesus. It is partly because of these exclusive claims - which are deterministically closed-minded about other interpretations about Jesus - that I claim that most expressions of Christianity interpret Jesus too narrowly.

Another reason that Christian interpretations of Jesus, in general, "turn me off" is that even with all of the intra-Christian dissent about Jesus, Christianity as a whole applies the same attitude about interpreting Jesus against "non-Christians." In short: Christians believe that you have to be a card-carrying Christian in order to contribute to a faithful understanding of Jesus. This, to me, is both odious and senseless. I feel that Jesus, according to my belief in his special-ness, is far too large of a personality in human history to be closed-minded about. Let me clarify further: the more solid and inflexible your beliefs become about Jesus, the more narrowly you interpret him - the smaller he becomes. I speak from vast personal experience on this matter. It is my opinion that the more you try to define something like Jesus (whether as a person, an ideal, or simply an idea), the more you attempt to contain him... the more you attempt to limit his being and inspiration. Despite his obviously central role within Christianity, most expressions of that tradition - to me - do far too much defining, limiting and containing for my tastes. I prefer to believe that if Jesus is "the apex of the vortex", then he won't mind any of my attempts to find his inspiration, example and the wonder he represents in "unlikely" places.

Feel free to leave any comments that you feel are appropriate. As always, please leave the light on.

addendum to "it's all greek to me"

The following anonymous comment was left on the post "it's all greek to me":

"Your greek translation is wrong. The greek actually states: 'OutOs gaup egapesen o Theos ton kosmon Oste ton uion ton monogenE edoken, ina pas o pisteuon eis auton mE apoletai alla eche zoen aionion'."

The poster is correct. I did not use a conjugated translation of the John 3:16 passage but rather provided the key words of the passage for the purposes of readers being able to look up the vocabulary on their own.

I appreciate this comment and his/her attempt to hold my translation to a higher scholarly level. I want to go ahead and provide the un-transliterated Greek text so that readers have this for their purposes.

"Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ' ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον."

This translation was provided by the online source Greek Bible.

new functionality!

Hey everyone, I just wanted to point out that there is new functionality here at veritas regnum! A friend of mine clued me into a quick "Reaction" section at the bottom of each post. Just click on the one that best fits your reaction to what I've written. Thanks to my buddy for helping me figure it out.