To help readers avoid the task of going back through Ivan’s comments, I’ve quoted a number of them here and offered some brief responses.  At the end I’ll give you a bit of a sense of direction for where I’ll take this discussion next.

Ivan wrote:

“We glibly say that “Jesus says X” when saying “Matthew says that Jesus said X” would be more accurate. We do this for the sake of expediency, but also because doctrines such as inspiration and inerrancy fool us into believing that Matthew’s presence in the equation neither adds nor takes away. However, as readers, we cannot relate to people, places, and events, but rather characters, settings, and plots. Points of correspondence between a literary reality and the reality-qua-reality that it exposes may be many or few, but the two are NEVER one and the same. Congruent, but not equivalent.

MSH: Agreed.

Ivan wrote:

This is why secular postmodernist literary theorists say that you cannot “know” or “experience” the reality that lies behind a story, but only the story itself. Why? Because the author interposes himself, selectively revealing or obscuring as it suits his purposes, using words to manipulate the imaginations of his readers. In fact, in narrations, you cannot know the author, because he distances himself through the narrative voice he adopts, which may be a construction, wholly or in part. Furthermore, the reader is immediately present in the text, participating in recreating the events in his own mind, construing and misconstruing the author’s intent, and arriving at a model of reality that is unique to himself; but he is not present in the world behind the text, and can have no influence on it. Therefore, in any communication there is a barrier between the sign (the text) and the signified (its subject), a distance which cannot be crossed by reading alone.

MSH: True enough, but I’m not sure this is as “disturbing” for a discussion of inspiration or inerrancy as you suggest. Neither theological term is ever purposefully articulated as referring to the event - both refer to the record of the event.  We can still engage the text (the “artifact” as it were) and discuss the notions of inspiration and inerrancy in light of the text.  These doctrines are not attempts to describe our ability to re-discover past reality; they refer to the text as produced and received.  That said, it’s certainly true that some people don’t comprehend the distinctions you are drawing.

Ivan wrote:

This is where my hermeneutic gets off the pomo train: What differentiates the Bible from The Brothers Karamazov or Catch-22 (which also happen to be “true” in much that they “affirm”) is that the Signified, to which all biblical typology points, is able to pierce the sign-signified barrier and make a personal encounter with believers as a real individual and not a literary construct. You CAN know Christ through the text, not because of anything the text does, but what God accomplishes through the work of the Holy Spirit.

MSH: Yes, although without the text you couldn’t know Christ the same way, or as well, or perhaps even at all (How would we know about the work of Christ without a written revelation? Personal encounter without the more objective (not perfectly objective, just “more”) is inherently (and wildly) subjective.

Ivan wrote:

Put another way, the text is not the truth, but points to it. We do well to realize the distinction, since even if we rescue some form of inerrancy, we have still not gained as much as we may think.

MSH: I think this is correct, but overstated. The text “is” the truth in some way, as it is able to reflect the reality to which it points. That is, the truth and the text are not altogether separable, but they are distinct.

Ivan wrote:

Further to author-as-author: Any formulation of inerrancy must deal the human element in inspiration. Westminster says in response to Peter Enns that the Bible is production of God, not man. The first part is obvious; the second unnecessary. And demonstrably false.

As I wrote previously, readers encounter Jesus the character, not Jesus the person. The evangelists stand between us and Christ, filtering, shaping, arranging, sometimes changing (!) what Jesus said to suit whatever purposes they had in writing the gospel in the first place. No one sits down to write a book that might get him executed without having some kind of agenda! The gospels are literature, biography, history, revelation, propaganda - texts that define the boundaries of a counter-cultural community and bind it together - but they aren’t transcripts, nor even journalistic accounts. They are cast as drama, based on actual events, but fairly bristling with the thoughts, emotions, intents, and biases of their human authors - to say nothing of grammar and diction. Read Luke and then John, in Greek, and tell me that the Bible is not the production of God AND man!

Put another way: Does God swing the hammer, or the man who holds it?

Any doctrine of inspiration that tries to write the human authors out of the picture is hopelessly impoverished.

MSH: Agreed - and well said.  Westminster’s statement is startlingly naïve.

Ivan continued:

As a simple example, consider the very real differences between the character of Christ in the four gospels:

- Mark’s Jesus is an impenetrable stranger, the ultimate “alien other”, walking among us but is not really one of us, disclosing of himself what he sees fit to whom he sees fit, come to do a great work (in secret!), knowing that he will be misunderstood, persecuted, and rejected. Who is this who teaches with authority? Who is this that demons flee before him? Who is this that even the wind and the waves obey him? Who IS this? (I am content to let chapter 16 end at verse 8. It is perhaps an unsatisfying ending, but consistent with the themes of the gospel as a whole.)

- Matthew’s Jesus is teacher and fulfiller of the Law, come like a prophet of old to denounce the wayward practices of the day and call the children of Israel back to their former glories and beyond, to re-establish their connection with Holy God and inaugurate his eternal Kingdom through a paschal self-sacrifice. He is a reformer, come to tear down the old institutions and bring in the new.

- Luke’s Jesus reads more like a Greek philosopher, a paragon of divine virtue, a great physician dispensing both wisdom and random acts of kindness, brimming with compassion, caring for the needs and ailments of his people, a tragic hero who lays down his life for the salvation of the world.

- John’s Jesus is the strangest of all: A walking, talking paradox, he is both tangible, palpable, and all-too-human - we find him tired, hungry, thirsty, frustrated, angry, weeping for a dead friend, letting Thomas fondle his wounds - but at the same time he is the Pantokrator, god-in-flesh, a full and perfect manifestation of the Old Testament God, equal parts love and fury, barely contained within the flesh he pours himself into. John’s Christ is a cosmic phenomenon, but on a human scale.

Granted, these are caricatures - each gospel is complex in its own way, and themes and episodes are freely swapped between them, often transformed in the process. But the differences in characterization arise from the literary conceits of their respective authors, a certain amount of “spin” applied to the narratives to achieve a unique purpose: Mark intends to tell the good news of Jesus, plain and simple; Matthew intends to demonstrate Christ as fulfillment of Scripture; Luke intends to set down an orderly account so that his readers may feel secure in their knowledge of the truth; John intends to give you a sign that you may believe.

These conceits rest upon a very real underlying historical event (1 Corinthians 15:12-18 means what it says!) but they are literary productions nonetheless, and subject to the demands of Story as much as to Accuracy, subject to the whims of their human authors in submission to and in participation with the will of God.

If we fail to recognize this and account for it, we fail.

MSH: Agreed again

Ivan wrote:

We ought to be honest about what we mean when we use various terms. Let’s start with “truth”.

Do we take a correspondence view of truth, where the truth value of any statement is only legitimately evaluated with respect to the world? Or do we take a coherence view, where the truth of any statement is evaluated with respect to other statements? Does a true system necessarily have to correspond to observable, knowable facts about the world (correspondence)? Or does it merely have to internally consistent (coherence)? Put another way, does truth arise from the propositions within a system (correspondence)? Or may it only arise from as a gestalt property of the system as a whole (coherence)?

As I understand it, Dr. Heiser opts for a correspondence view of the truth, which means that in order to hold the Bible inerrant, he must admit to realities that are both real and unobservable. This is a defensible position, although requiring some exertion, but it is consistent with a state of affairs that should be self-evident to all but the most hardened empiricist/positivist/materialist/nincompoop, namely, that we are unable to observe All Things.

MSH: By “correspondence view of truth” I refer to my desire that one cannot accept something as true if it does not correspond to reality as we are able to comprehend or detect it. I freely accept that there is reality beyond what we can discern with our senses or our science (e.g., the divine reality).

Ivan adds:

For my part, I opt for a coherence view of the truth, which means that I can hold the Bible inerrant if all of its statements form an extensive body of consistent propositions, some independently verifiable and some not. This is easily defensible - I can clear vast swaths of jungle by declaring all questions that boil down to “Come on, none of this nonsense actually ever happened, did it?” as moot - and causes me great glee because it gives positivists and materialists severe indigestion. I can ask a positivist, “But how do you know?” all the way back through the chain of evidence until he must finally admit, “Because I think I must know”, and then I have him right where I want him, stuck in the morass of his own perception. It’s all just a big appeal to authority, isn’t it? Huh? Huh? Why do you think your authority is better than anyone else’s? Huh? Huh? In the meantime, those who hold a correspondence view of the truth have to slug it out on the merits. Boring!

MSH: I don’t think a properly-qualified correspondence view omits this kind of defense.

Ivan adds:

That said, I can “coherently” argue that Paul’s appeal to nature in 1 Cor 11 is true, because if we adopt the same framework that he has adopted (so far as we can tell, a Hippocratic theory of physiology coupled with a to-some-extent Hellenized flavor of second-temple Judaism), none of his statements contradict. It all hangs together as a coherent whole, and the whole truth that emerges as being greater than the sum of its parts becomes readily apparent. His argumentation is sound, his propositions reasonable, and his conclusions justified, even though some of his premises are now known to have negative correspondence with the real world (but were not so known at the time). As a matter of truth, they are coherent, but not correspondent. Deal.

MSH: There’s something about this I don’t like. It seems an inadvisable retreat to adopt a scientifically-flawed framework (in terms of how that might be used against us later on in other areas).  I get Ivan’s approach, but someone might come along and ask us why we don’t adopt a framework that includes the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause and argue accordingly. That said, Ivan’s approach seems related to my own thoughts on just admitting the obvious: biblical writers are part of a pre-scientific culture, and this in turn explains why their writings reflect pre -(un)scientific ideas. I said earlier in some place something to the affect of not judging them unfairly for this, which seems akin to what Ivan is saying-but I don’t want to “adopt” their framework. This takes me back to what has become a touchpoint for this whole discussion:  What was the point of the exercise of God revealing truth to us through flawed and limited humans in writing?

Ivan writes:

Of course, all of us will wander back and forth between the two viewpoints. I agree with Paul by saying, “Well, yeah. That resurrection thing really happened, because if it didn’t, man are we screwed!” which forces me, for the sake of my own skin, to adopt a correspondence view of the truth, at least for that proposition. On the other end, I doubt if anyone really wants to take a full-on correspondence view of, say, the Apocalypse of John. Really? The locusts in Rev 6 have to be real locusts with people-heads and not blackhawk helicopters. Still interested?

MSH: These interpretive choices have little to do with a correspondence view of truth (witness the Van Til crowd - champions of the correspondence view and vehemently amillennial).

Ivan writes:

Surely I jest, but given how much of the Bible is cast in mythopoetic rather than empirical terms, we will find ourselves fairly often dealing with a coherence view of truth rather than a correspondence one. A correspondence view of truth could make the entire book of Ecclesiastes into a house of cards, for two reasons: First, it’s filled with speculation, rumination, hypotheticals, and general cases. Very little to accord with reality in the first place.

MSH: I get what Ivan is saying, but don’t agree that his conclusion follows.  Since when does genre consideration require a choice between these two views of truth? Seems either can state the obvious: this is wisdom literature, and wisdom literature is by nature characterized by such things.  I don’t buy this point at all. This caricatures the correspondence view as though it is ignorant or afraid of genre considerations.

What next?

Well, two things - I could post these now, but this one is already long. Look for these two posts, one each in the next two days:

1. I’ve been collected some phrases and ideas from the posts and comments (mostly Ivan since he’s the windiest ), and I’m going to post them.  I think they reduce some of the problem areas to manageable propositions (there you go, Ivan) or concisely-put “issues with which to take account” in the discussion.  I will suggest one as a targeted discussion point.

2. The Chicago Statement has surfaced in the discussion. I’m going to reproduce its affirmations and denials in a post and then target a few for specific critique.

This may have a convoluted sort of feel right now, but this is how it usually feels when you try to go beyond statements and confessions that don’t deal with their blemishes.  It’s useful, but it will take time.  I’m in no hurry for this one.

Technorati Tags: definitions, inerrancy, inspiration

I’ll be posting and answering comments starting tomorrow!

Mike

The first thing I’d like to pursue is Chet’s criticism of the word “affirm” — I also think it’s a weasel-word. You quote 1 Cor. 11:14, which says, “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him?” Here Paul makes a specific statement about nature–it’s clearly a comment on the natural world and a truth that Paul believes the natural world communicates or points to. Having read the article in the readings list, it is quite clear that Paul’s statement is rooted in an absolutely non-scientific worldview. His statement is scientifically false. I’d say he’s clearly “affirming” something about nature here and then extrapolating to his more significant point. So, I think we need to dump this “affirming” language as some sort of safeguard (read: weasel-word) for defending inerrancy. Here’s what I’d like your (and others’) thoughts on:

1. Paul is clearly in error in terms of his understanding of nature on this point (he’s a pre-scientific man). Does that matter? Although Paul believed this, is he putting forth this belief as something his readers must believe? that is, while his contemporary readers no doubt believed what he believed, should be view this belief as something that we must believe? Is this the way this statement is cast? Put another way, when I read this passage, is Paul’s belief about hair what I am supposed to embrace as truth from this passage? I don’t think so, and I think you’d agree. But I also think it would be silly to say Paul isn’t “affirming” the particular erroneous belief about hair. He believes it.

2. Should we give Paul a pass? I’d say, of course — how is he supposed to know anything else? The science of his day was primitive by our standards.

3. What ARE we supposed to embrace from the passage? What is Paul teaching? I don’t think he’s teaching us about biology or sexual reproduction–though he presupposes some beliefs about those things that are erroneous when making his argument. If he’d said “this is what God wants you to believe about how we get babies,” the inerrancy issue would be a dead one-inerrancy would be untenable. But is it coherent to say that a speaker or writer’s conclusion or position cannot be correct if his arguments are not always correct? Obviously, the answer to this is no. People are right about X all the time when their reasons for thinking they are right are bogus. We all know that. But in this passage of Scripture this leaves us with a problem: How are we to correctly discern WHAT Paul’s point is (the thing that can still be correct) if the argument he’s using is wrong? That’s a problem, but I think it’s not an issue of inerrancy so much (as stated) as it is an issue of interpretation.

I say all the above to say this: perhaps in our understanding and articulation of inerrancy we should make it clear that taking the Bible on its own terms means not expecting more from the culture that produced it than is fair. I don’t think it’s fair for us to judge Scripture by standards foreign to the people who produced it. God chose to come to people of a particular culture, a particular region of the world, at a particular time. He used what he had at his disposal once he made that decision-some people who didn’t know squat about a whole host of things (and we’d have to say that about ourselves were we the people God chose to communicate through). God wasn’t trying to teach us science in the Bible precisely because he wasn’t teaching its authors science. They wouldn’t have understood it, and even if correct science was dictated to them, their readers wouldn’t have understood it. That would sort of defeat the purpose of dispensing revelation, wouldn’t it? (”I’m going down there and telling them lots of things they can’t grasp-and then hold them accountable for it” Huh?). To use the weasel-word, I’d say the Bible specifically does NOT “affirm” anything about science because God didn’t have anyone at his disposal sufficient to the task. So, I don’t care if Paul is wrong in his science; God didn’t care either.

But while Paul’s science shouldn’t be embraced by us as truth, can’t we still embrace what he says in this passage outside of science? I don’t think the hermeneutical gap in this instance (1 Cor 11) is that wide, either. I think we can get a pretty good idea of what Paul meant, however odd or wrong his reasoning process was. I’d say we CAN discern the truth item God wanted him to communicate while allowing Paul (even directing Paul) to make that point on the basis of his worldview’s bad science. The original audience wouldn’t have been able to understand it any other way. Our task is to recover his worldview and THEN judge the ends to which he’s arguing, not necessarily the means.

So, I just don’t think the pre-scientific worldview issue forces me to not hold to inerrancy. It DOES force me to not word what I believe the way the earlier definitions are worded (at least with respect to the “affirm” wording). I’d like to do better.

Not sure this helps (me or anyone else).

Technorati Tags: 1 Cor 11, inerrancy, pre-scientific worldview, science

1. Grudem’s definition: It’s simply inadequate. On one hand, it doesn’t offer the sorts of qualifiers the others do in a succinct way (though Grudem eventually gets to some of that discussion); on the other hand, those who lack any experience spent on this issue would be led to believe the issue is far simpler than it is. Grudem knows the issues, so I’m not sure why he settled on this definition.

2. Two of the articles I asked you to read are very clear illustrations of the pre-scientific worldview of the Bible. Erickson and Reymond have language in their definitions that seem to allow for this (without using the word “pre-scientific” or “unscientific”), but they also talk about the Bible not erring in what it “affirms.”  There is nothing in their definitions that informs us what is meant by “affirm,” though they do insist that the Bible be taken on its own terms (and I’d agree there). A key issue will be what is meant by “affirm.”

3. Reymond wrote: “we must not evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its Sitz im Leben . . . .”  I like that, but do we mean it?  What if that means the biblical authors believed there was a solid dome over the round, flat earth?  I personally don’t think we should judge them for that–that was their worldview.  Why would we expect anything else?  Here’s the real issue, though (for these definitions):  is this pre-scientific worldview “affirmed” by the biblical author?  Is it “assumed” — and is that any different than “affirmed”?  Does it even matter — maybe the “affirming” language has to go, to yield to something better.  That’s what I want us to think about.

4. Reymond’s discussion also includes the qualification about “the use of hyperbole and round numbers.” Fair enough–but what if the use of such hyperbole is a literary feature and completely deliberate (a deliberate exaggeration)?  I have a friend who did his dissertation on large numbers in the OT, and reached the (quite coherent) conclusion, based on comparative ANE historioraphic accounts, that exaggeration of numbers was a stick element in such literature (you were supposed to brag up your god).  Is this “affirmation” of deliberate disinformation?  Is there a better way to view this?

5.  I think the issues in numbers 3 and 4 need to be viewed in light of Erickson’s note about “the purpose to which Scripture was written.”  Purpose can dictate both literary technique and is not thwarted by pre-scientific worldview.  The author’s audience could not process anything by their own worldview, and has certain expectations about how something should be written to accomplish an intended purpose.  In other words, there is nothing deceptive going on.  Yes, the biblical author can be scientifically ignorant and still get his point across–the purpose isn’t impeded.  But is ignorance of some now-known scientific fact to be equated with “affirming” that ignorance as truth?

6. I’m on Peter Enns’ side, but I find his definition unsatisfying. It just doesn’t deal with any of the issues (and doesn’t pretend to want to). Someone who is struggling with the phenomena of Scripture isn’t going to find any help there.

Technorati Tags: Bible in ancient context, definitions, inerrancy, inspiration

In the wake of the readings, I’ve listed below a number of definitions of inerrancy. Some come from respected systematic theology books; others do not. What I’d like it for you to read them and then comments about their strengths and weaknesses, especially in light of the readings. These definitions will be our starting point.

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine:

The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact. (p. 90)

Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology Of The Christian Faith 2nd Edition - Revised And Updated:

What does the word “infallibility” mean? The Westminster Confession uses the word infallible” in I/v and I/ix (”the infallible truth and divine authority thereof”; “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself”). By it we assert that the Bible is true, that is to say, devoid of, and incapable of teaching, falsehood or error of any kind in all that it intends to affirm. It is internally noncontradictory and doctrinally consistent. Its assertions correspond to what God himself understands is the true and real nature of things . . . By “inerrancy” we intend essentially the same thing as “infallibility,” namely, that the Bible does not err in any of its affirmations, whether those affirmations be in the spheres of spiritual realities or morals, history or science, and is therefore incapable of teaching error . . . It is important that we mean by these two words no more and no less than what the Bible itself would permit by its own claims to truthfulness and by its textual phenomena. That is to say, we must not evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its Sitz im Leben, usage or purpose. Such phenomena as a lack of modern technical precision, perceived irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts and the use of free citations should not be used as arguments against the Scripture’s inerrancy. (pp. 70-71)

Millard Erickson, Christian Theology

The Bible, when correctly interpreted in light of the level to which culture and the means of communication had developed at the time it was written, and in view of the purposes for which it was written, if fully truthful in all that it affirms. (pp. 233-234)

Peter Enns offers this definition on his blog:

The Bible as it is is without error because the Bible as it is is God’s Word.

Such a confession does not predispose us to affirm in what way Scripture is without error. Rather, it puts us in a position of reverent expectancy to see what the Spirit will teach us from and about Scripture, to be self-reflective enough to allow the very categories about which we speak of Scripture to be driven by Scripture . . . To put it another way, a belief in Scripture as God’s word is an article of faith, a gift of the Spirit, and is confirmed by faithful study and following Jesus within a community of believers. It is not where we end up after some rational proofs. It is where we begin so that we can end there.

This should be sufficient to get us started. However, I also recommend reading Chris Tilling’s proposal for a new statement on inerrancy, posted a year ago on his Deinde blog.  I think it will help in some respect to stimulate our thinking.

Technorati Tags: definitions, inerrancy

Technorati Tags: inerrancy, inspiration, Peter Enns

1. The human dead

• This is by far (and perhaps exclusively) the referent of the term metim.
• This term, then, would be a term that, in contexts that describe an ongoing afterlife in the Underworld / realm of the dead, would describe a ghost-the spirit of a departed dead person. Term number also describes a human ghost.

2. The dead kings of old / the dead Rephaim

• This category presents a difficulty, and so we’ll be discussing it further. Rephaim could of course die, so it is no surprise that the word metim is used in connection with them. There are questions to address with respect to the Rephaim: (a) should they be viewed as merely and only human or, since they are also one of the giant clans that descended from the nephilim,¹ should they be viewed as part human and part divine; (b) when one of the Rephaim was killed, should the departed spirit be viewed as a demon? This was the view of 1 Enoch, for example (demons are specifically said to be the departed spirits of the nephilim giants); (c) are there any biblical texts that have the Rephaim not only as the dead warrior kings of old, but as demonic spirits. For sure the Rephaim are among the giant clans descended from the nephilim, but are the dead Rephaim also demons?

3. The offending divine sons of God of Genesis 6 infamy (a.k.a., the “Watchers”)

• Jewish tradition is consistent that these beings were imprisoned until the time of the end. Although we are not given this detail in the OT, the NT tells the same story. 2 Peter 2:4 says that “the angels that sinned” were cast into “Tartarus.” This is precisely the Greek word that Jewish texts (like 1 Enoch in Greek) use to describe the place where the sons of God who sinned in the Genesis 6 story were imprisoned.

4. The spirits who have knowledge (”the spirits; that is, the knowing ones”)

• This is terminology frequently used in passages that condemn mediums and their activities.
• There is no evidence that this term is used for human dead (see below). These are non-human spirits.
• Passages:

Deuteronomy 18:9-13 (my translation):

9 “When you come into the land that the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. 10 There shall not be found among you anyone who passes his son or his daughter through the fire, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or makes potions from herbs 11 or a spell binder, or one who consults a non-human spirit that has knowledge (šōʾēl ʾôb yiddĕʿōnî), or who inquires of the human dead (dōrēš el-hammētı̂m), 12 for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD. And because of these abominations the LORD your God is driving them out before you. 13 You shall be blameless before the LORD your God, 14 for these nations, which you are about to dispossess, listen to fortune-tellers and to those who practice divination. But as for you, the LORD your God has not allowed you to do this.

NOTE: verse 11 distinguishes the spirits who have knowledge from the dead. I would argue that the these spirits are non-human entities and that the dead are the human dead.

Leviticus 19:31 - “Do not turn to the spirits (ʾôbôt), to the ones who have knowledge (yiddĕʿōnî); do not seek them out, and so make yourselves unclean by them: I am Yahweh your God.

Leviticus 20:6 - “If a person turns to the spirits (ʾôbôt), to those who have knowledge (yiddĕʿōnî), whoring after them, I will set my face against that person and will cut him off from among his people.

Leviticus 20:27 - “A man or a woman who is with a spirit (ʾôb) or one who has knowledge (yiddĕʿōnî) shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them.”

Isaiah 29:4 - And you will be brought low; from the earth you shall speak, and from the dust your speech will be bowed down; your voice shall come from the ground like the voice of a spirit ((ʾôb), and from the dust your speech shall whisper.

NOTE: Lev 20:27 makes it clear that the ʾôb / ʾôbot can possess human beings (the medium), and Isaiah 29:4 has the ʾôbot coming from up out of the ground (i.e., from the Underworld).

5. “Ghosts”

• The word ʾiṭṭîm is used only once in the Old Testament, Isaiah 19:3. This is the Hebrew equivalent of ʾetemmu (notice the consonants between the Hebrew and Akkadian term are identical), the most commonly-used term in ancient Mesopotamia (Akkadian) for “ghost” as in “departed spirit of a human being.”² English translations are frequently of poor quality here, so I’ll give my translation with the Hebrew words of importance-you will recognize them by now:

Isaiah 19:3 - “and the spirit of the Egyptians within them will be emptied out, and I will confound their counsel; and they will inquire of the idols and the ghosts (ʾiṭṭîm), and the spirits (ʾôbôt), the knowing ones (yiddĕʿōnî).

NOTE: The ʾiṭṭîm are grouped together with other terms for non-human entities in this passage, including idols, which were thought to be inhabited by the god(s).

6. Demons

• There are a couple words for “demon” in the Old Testament (that are found more widely in literature in literature of Israel’s neighbors, like Mesopotamia):
• šedîm (twice: Deut. 32:17; Psalm 106:37)
• lîlît (once: Isaiah 34:14); the term is associated with the night and with winds; usually viewed as a demonic spirit for that reason. Referred to as a demon in Akkadian literature.

Should “Rephaim” be listed as a term for demon? I’ll address that possibility in the next installment. We’ll also hit on ghost terminology in the New Testament before we wrap this up.

Observation Summary:

1. I think we can say that there is scriptural warrant for distinguishing ghosts from demons. There are, in point of fact, references to ghosts in the Old Testament and those ghosts are the departed spirits of the human dead, not demons.

2. It is interesting that, while the OT says mediums can be possessed by non-human spirits (ʾôbôt; Lev. 20:27), it never says mediums can be possessed by the spirits of human dead. Perhaps this can form the basis of viewing whatever happens at a séance (in instances where the medium is “indwelt” by the contacted entity) as more likely demonic than true contact with the human dead.

3. Recall from an earlier post that Ecclesiastes 9:5 and Isaiah 8:19 suggest that the departed human dead aren’t very good sources of information-but the non-human spirits are called “knowing ones.” It seems we should be suspicious of knowledge gained from alleged contact with the (human) dead-scripturally speaking, the odds are in favor that the contact was made with non-human spirits.

Technorati Tags: afterlife, grave, Sheol, the dead

Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament

I therefore want to start a discussion on how to word the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy. I more or less know what I think, but I’m having a hard time putting it into words, and so I need your help. HOWEVER, in order for the rest of you to really get into my head on this, you need to do some reading. Below are links to articles that bring to light very real data that show how the OT and NT are products of their ancient environment. They make it evident that the Bible didn’t just drop out of the sky or ONLY from the mind of God–God used people, like he does all the time (at least according to the Bible!). I want you to read them all, and then I plan to go back to this thread in about a week. This isn’t casual reading. For the one on 1 Cor 11, it would help if you at least knew the Greek alphabet. If you haven’t read the material and want to take me or others who comment to task, you’ll be ignored. This is for people who want to help me think through the issue, not for people who want to be contentious and offer simplistic solutions. Here they are:

1. The Three-Storied Universe of the Bible - a brief overview of OT cosmology

2. Old Testament Covenants and ANE Covenants, Part 1

3. Old Testament Covenants and ANE Covenants, Part2

4. Paul’s Argument from Nature for the Veil in 1 Corinthians 11:13-15: A Testicle instead of a Head Covering - yes, you read “testicle” correctly. This is a fascinating article with great explanatory power for a vexing passage. The article focuses on the Greek word usually translated “head covering” and the problem of knowing what the heck Paul was talking about in the chapter about a woman’s hair and long hair for men. The author traces the word back into medical literature of the day and the result is that you’ll never look at this passage the same way again — and, frankly, you won’t have to. It resolves all the problems.

Give these a read and we’ll talk in a week. I’ll wrap up the ghost thing in the meantime.

Technorati Tags: Bible in ancient context, inerrancy, inspiration