by Lee Strobel
“I think Roberts’ point is valid,” Wallace said. “Even if we did have the originals, skeptics who are philosophically committed to their position would try to explain them away. Many skeptics only appear to be liberals; they’re actually a species of fundamentalist. Martin Hengel said that the only difference between a fundamentalist and a radical liberal is their starting presuppositions. Their methods are the same: they start with where they want to end up and then look at all the evidence selective for their purposes, rather than being open to what the evidence actually reveals.”
INSPIRATION, INERRANCY, INFALLIBILITY
I wanted to get some definitions straight at the outset. “The Bible says that all scripture is ‘God-breathed,’”21 I said. “Exactly what do Christians believe was the process by which God created the New Testament?”
“We aren’t given a lot regarding the process of inspiration, but we know the Bible wasn’t dictated by God,” Wallace replied. “Look at the Old Testament: Isaiah has a huge vocabulary and is often considered the Shakespeare of the Hebrew prophets, while Amos was a simple farmer with a much more modest vocabulary. Yet both books were inspired. Obviously, this doesn’t mean verbal dictation. God wasn’t looking for stenographers but holy men to write his book.”
“Then how does inspiration work?” I asked.
“We get some clues from where Matthew quotes the Old Testament, saying, ‘This was spoken by the Lord through the prophet.’22 ‘By the Lord’ suggests God is the ultimate agent of that prophecy. ‘Through the prophet’ suggests an intermediate agent who also uses his personality. That means this prophet was not taking dictation from God; instead, God was communicating through visions, dreams, and so forth, and the prophet was putting it in his own words. So the process doesn’t coerce the human personality, yet ultimately the result is exactly what God wanted to produce.”
Seeking a crisp summary, I said, “Complete this sentence: when Christians say the Bible is inspired, they mean that…”
“…that it’s both the Word of God and the words of men. Lewis Sperry Chafer put it well: ‘Without violating the authors’ personalities, they wrote with their own feelings, literary abilities, and concerns. But in the end, God could say, That’s exactly what I wanted to have written.’
“Remarkably, the New Testament writers didn’t even know they were writing scripture, so obviously God’s work was behind the scenes. In the end, I think this is a greater miracle than a Bible coming down from heaven on golden tablets, because the books of the Bible are a collective product that men embraced as their own while ultimately—and often only much later—recognizing that there was another author behind the scenes. It wasn’t until one of the final books of the New Testament was written that Peter uses the word scripture in referring to Paul’s letters.”23
Wallace stopped for a moment, apparently pondering whether to offer one more remark. “Unfortunately,” he said as he continued, “some evangelicals have what one scholar called a ‘docetic bibliology.’”
“Hold on!” I said. “You’re going to have to define that.”
“That means they regard the Bible only as divine and not also a human product. Many seminary students start that way. I looked over a student’s shoulder while he was translating Greek in a workbook and said, ‘That must be from the Gospel of Mark, because the grammar is so bad.’ The student was surprised. I said, “Well, yeah, he’s one of the worst writers of Greek in the New Testament.’ But that doesn’t impact inspiration, because we’re dealing with what the product is, not how it’s communicated. If Mark Twain can say ‘ain’t,’ and it’s considered good writing, then you can have Mark do the same kind of thing.”
“Now, finish this sentence,” I said. “When Christians say the Bible is inerrant, they mean…”
“They mean a number of things. For some, it’s almost a magic-wand approach, where the Bible is treated like a modern scientific and historical textbook that’s letter perfect. Some Christians would say, for example, that the words of Jesus are in red letters because that’s exactly what he said.
“Well, if you compare the same incident in different Gospels, you’ll notice some differences in wording. That’s fine as long as we’re not thinking in terms of quotations being nailed exactly, like a tape recorder. They didn’t even have quotation marks in Greek. In ancient historiography, they were concerned with correctly getting the gist of what was said. The other view of inerrancy, on the other end of the spectrum, is to say the Bible is true in what it touches. So we can’t treat it like a scientific book or a twenty-first-century historical document.”
“How do you define infallibility?” I asked.
“My definition of infallibility is the Bible is true in what it teaches. My definition of inerrancy is that the Bible is true in what it touches. So infallibility is a more foundational doctrine, which says the Bible is true with reference to faith and practice. Inerrancy is built on that doctrine and it says that the Bible is also true when it comes to dealing with historical issues, but we still have to look at it in light of first-century historical practices.
“So if we were to build a pyramid of bibliology, the broad foundation would be: ‘I believe that God has done great acts in history and the Bible has recorded some of those.’ On top of that would be: ‘The Bible is telling me the truth when it comes to matters of faith and practice.’ And on top would be: ‘The Bible is true in what it touches.’
“Unfortunately, some have inverted the pyramid and tried to make it stand on its head. Then if you take someone like Ehrman, when a professor tries to kick the legs out from under inerrancy, it’s like the whole pyramid falls over. Ehrman ends up throwing out everything. The problem was that he was putting his priorities in the wrong place.”
“It was almost as if Ehrman were saying: ‘Find me one error and I’ll throw out the whole Bible,’” I said. “That’s something you hear at some ultraconservative Christian schools.”
“Good grief, that’s such a shockingly naive approach to take!” Wallace exclaimed. “You’ve basically turned the Bible into the fourth person of the Trinity, as if it should be worshiped. I’ve actually had Christians tell me Jesus is called the Word, the Bible is called the Word, and so I worship the Bible. That’s scary.”
THE PROTECTIVE SHELL
I knew from Ehrman’s own account how finding one apparent discrepancy in the New Testament launched him on a journey toward agnosticism. I wondered what would happen to Wallace in a similar situation. “What if you found an incontrovertible error in the Bible?” I asked. “How would you react?”
He thought for a moment, then replied: “I’d say, well, I guess I have to make some adjustments about what I think about that top level of the pyramid. But it wouldn’t affect my foundational view of Christ. I don’t start by saying, ‘If the Bible has a few mistakes, I have to throw it all out.’ That’s not a logical position. We don’t take that attitude toward Livy, Tacitus, Suetonius, or any other ancient historian’s writings. For instance, does the first-century Jewish historian Josephus need to be inerrant before we can affirm that he got anything right?
“If we do that to the Bible, we’re putting it on a pedestal and just inviting people to try to knock it off. What we need to do with scripture instead is say it’s a great witness to the person of Jesus Christ and the acts of God in history. Now, is it more than that? Yes, I think so. But whether it is or not, my salvation is still secure in Christ.”
“So it’s not necessary for a person to believe in inerrancy to be a Christian?” I asked.
“Personally, I believe in inerrancy,” he began. “However, I wouldn’t consider inerrancy to be a primary or essential doctrine for saving faith. It’s what I call a ‘protective shell’ doctrine. Picture a concentric circle, with the essential doctrines of Christ and salvation at the core. A little bit further out are some other doctrines until, finally, outside of everything is inerrancy. Inerrancy is intended to protect these inner doctrines. But if inerrancy i
s not true, does that mean that infallibility is not true? No. It’s a non sequitur to say I can’t trust the Bible in the minutiae of history, so therefore I can’t trust it in matters of faith and practice.
“The question I’m asking is: What must a person believe to be saved? Can you be saved if you don’t believe Jesus was raised from the dead or that he’s not God in the flesh? I don’t think the scriptures allow you that privilege. Can you be saved if you think that the demons in the Gospels were not real? I don’t think you’re in a good position to say that, but I don’t think it impacts your salvation directly. Can you be saved if you don’t believe in inerrancy? Yeah.
“Keep in mind that the first Christians didn’t even have a New Testament. All they had was the Old Testament and the proclamation of the eyewitnesses to the resurrection. And Christians down through church history have not always believed in inerrancy. It really became a major issue during the Reformation, and especially in the twentieth-century debates between modernism and fundamentalism. So it’s possible to be a Christian without holding to inerrancy or even infallibility.”
I nodded as he talked to indicate I was following him. “With that concentric-circle approach, then, a supposed error in the New Testament should not be fatal to a person’s faith,” I said.
“Absolutely,” he replied without hesitation. “It might affect inerrancy, which is an outer-shell doctrine, but dismantling that would not affect Christ, who’s a core doctrine.”
Looking for further clarification, I asked, “Are you saying doctrines like inerrancy and infallibility aren’t important?”
“No, not at all,” he said. “I’m just saying they’re not necessary for salvation. However, they are important—for instance, for spiritual health and growth.”
“How so?”
“If you doubt whether the Bible is an authoritative guide for faith and practice, it will inevitably affect your spiritual journey. You might begin questioning passages that are clear in their meaning, but they’re too convicting for you, so you reject them. You begin to pick and choose out of the Bible what you want to believe and obey. Thus, infallibility and inerrancy are important for the health of the church, but are not essential for the life of the church.”
“You obviously have a high view of scripture,” I observed. “Why?”
“Because Jesus did,” he said matter-of-factly.
“How do you know?” I asked.
“One criterion that scholars use for determining authenticity is called ‘dissimilarity.’ If Jesus said or did something that’s dissimilar to the Jews of his day or earlier, then it’s considered authentic,” he said. “And he’s constantly ripping on the Pharisees for adding tradition to scripture and not treating it as ultimately and finally authoritative. When he says that the scripture cannot be broken, he’s making a statement about the truth and reliability of scripture.24
“The Judeo-Christian scriptures are the only ones in the world that are intended to subject themselves to historical inquiry,” Wallace continued. “If God became man in time, space, and history, then he’s inviting us to examine the historical evidence for the life of Jesus, the miracles of Jesus, the prophecies of Jesus, the death of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus.
“The Gospels don’t merely say, ‘Jesus performed a miracle somewhere. I can’t recall if there were any eyewitnesses. I don’t recall exactly where or when it took place, and I’m not sure if it was a healing miracle or something else. All I know is Jesus is great!’ No, they name names, specify places, identify the exact miracles performed, and mention eyewitnesses. When Paul says five hundred people saw the risen Jesus and that most of them were still alive, he meant, ‘This is verifiable.’ When Jesus was raised from the dead, the rock of the tomb was rolled back, not to let him out, but apparently so the disciples could say, ‘The body isn’t there.’
“This isn’t true of other religions. For instance, you can’t scrutinize the teachings of Buddha that way, because they don’t connect with history. The Bible claims more. It says it’s faith, and it’s in the real world. The Bible deserves to be rigorously investigated because the Bible claims to be a historical document. We have to ask the Bible tough questions because that’s what Christ not only invites us to do, but requires of us to do.”
THE CORE OF THE GOSPELS
Wallace has been subjecting the New Testament’s text to scrutiny for decades. “Has your scholarship shaken your belief that the Bible is trustworthy?” I asked.
“No, not at all. But it has caused me to see it in a different light,” he said. “For example, I thought when I started out that when I saw the words of Jesus, they must be exactly those words that he uttered. But historians of that day were trying to accurately get the gist of what was said.
“For example, it would take you no more than two hours to say all of Jesus’ words in the Gospels. Well, that’s not a very long time to speak. It takes only fifteen minutes to get through the Sermon on the Mount—but when Jesus delivered his sermons, people were often hungry at the end. I don’t think Jesus gave fifteen-minute sermonettes for Christianettes. So the Gospels contain a summary of what he said. And if it’s a summary, maybe Matthew used some of his own words to condense it. That doesn’t trouble me in the slightest. It’s still trustworthy.”
“Do you think this idea of inerrancy has been elevated out of proportion to its genuine importance?” I asked.
“At times. Some have made it the litmus test for whether a person is a Christian,” Wallace said. “Theologian Carl F. H. Henry argued against this in 1976. He urged young evangelicals to recognize that while inerrancy is important, it’s not on the level of certain other crucial truths—and belief in inerrancy shouldn’t be used as an excuse not to engage seriously with history. Still, sometimes Christians put a roadblock in front of somebody, saying they can’t become a Christian until they believe in inerrancy.”
Wallace paused. “May I tell you a story along these lines?” he asked.
“Please,” I said.
“Some years ago I met a Muslim girl who was interested in Christianity,” he said. “She came to me with six handwritten, single-spaced pages of supposed discrepancies in the Gospels. She had been taught by Muslims that if you can find one error in the Gospels, then you can’t believe anything they say. She said to me, ‘You’re going to have to answer every single one of these before I can believe anything about Christianity.’ My response was, ‘Don’t you think this list proves that the writers didn’t conspire and collude when they wrote their Gospels?’ She said, ‘I’ve never thought of it that way.’
“I said, ‘What you need to do is look at the places where the Gospels do not disagree at all. And what do you find? You find a core message that is revolutionary: Jesus was confessed as the Messiah by his disciples, he performed miracles and healed people, he forgave sins, he prophesied his own death and resurrection, he died on a Roman cross, and he was raised bodily from the dead.
“‘So now, what are you going to do with Jesus? Even if the Gospel writers have differences in their accounts—whether we should really call them discrepancies is a topic for later—then this only adds to their credibility by showing they weren’t huddled together in a corner cooking all of this up. Doesn’t their agreement on an absolute core of central beliefs suggest that they got the basics right, precisely because they were reporting on the same events?’”
“What happened to her?” I asked.
“Two weeks later, she became a Christian, and now she’s a student at Dallas Seminary. My point is this: inerrancy is important, but the gospel is bigger than inerrancy.”
Wallace’s analysis seemed logical to me. In fact, I was reminded of the way I looked at the Bible when I checked out Christianity for the first time. “When I was an atheist, I set aside the issue of inerrancy and merely treated the New Testament as a set of ancient documents, which it obviously is,” I told Wallace. “That way, I could evaluate them as I could any other ancient documents—and, of course
, some differences are expected in all such records. Is that a legitimate way to evaluate the New Testament?”
As he was listening, Wallace was sitting back with his arms folded across his chest. “I think it’s thoroughly legitimate,” he replied. “As one British scholar said, ‘We should treat the Bible like any other book in order to show it’s not like any other book.’ That’s better than the opposite position that has become an evangelical mantra: ‘Hands off the Bible—we don’t want people to find any mistakes in it, because we hold to inerrancy.’”
I brought Wallace back to the apparent discrepancy in Mark 2:26 that essentially wrecked Ehrman’s faith. In that passage, Jesus is teaching that the Sabbath was made for people, not vice versa. He cites an incident in the Old Testament where King David and his hungry soldiers ate the showbread in the temple, though this was reserved for the priests to eat. Mark says this happened when Abiathar was the high priest, but 1 Samuel 21:1–6 indicates Abiathar’s father, Ahimelech, was priest.
“I’m just curious,” I said. “Have you looked at that passage?”
“I wrote a paper for the Evangelical Theological Society that described five possible explanations in dealing with this,” he said.25
“Did you conclude that one of those explanations was best?” I asked.
“In the end, I didn’t have a conclusion,” he replied, “but I said whatever you do with this, don’t throw out Christ if you’re going to question inerrancy. And I think that’s fair. Personally, I believe in inerrancy, but I’m not going to die for inerrancy. I will die for Christ. That’s where my heart is, because that’s where salvation is,” he said with conviction.
“The Bible wasn’t hanged on the cross; Jesus was.”
THE TELEPHONE GAME—AND SNOOPY