Characteristics of the Bible: “inerrancy” or “theological reliability”?

[Terry_Sampson]

@NicholasB

I’d like to propose a few points to consider.

• Technically, you started out by proposing “a few points to consider”.

@NicholasB

First of all, it is right and just to insist that the biblical inerrancy doctrine upheld by the well-known Chicago Statement is demonstrably wrong

• IMO, that’s a “meet, right, and proper” place to start; and I’ll add that I don’t agree with the inerrancy doctrine. It elevates the Tanakh and the New Testament to too high a status, almost as high as Islam elevates the Qur’an.

@NicholasB

these ideas. #1., #2., and #3.

• Regarding #1, I learned this distinction from Conservative Jewish Bible Scholar and Professor at the Jewish Theological Seminary, Benjamin D. Sommer. who describes “a stenographic theory of revelation” and “a participatory theory of revelation”.

@Terry_Sampson

In Dr. Sommer’s book, Revelation and Authority, he writes:

• Throughout this book I use the terms “participatory theory of revelation” and “participatory theology” to speak of approaches to revelation that view the Pentateuch (and Jewish tradition generally) as the result of a dialogue between God and Israel. According to the participatory theology, the Pentateuch not only conveys God’s will but also reflects Israel’s interpretation of and response to that will. This view of revelation puts a premium on human agency and gives witness to the grandeur of a God who accomplishes a providential task through the free will of human subjects under God’s authority. We may contrast participatory theologies with a better-known view of revelation, which I term “the stenographic theory of revelation.” According to the latter theory, God dictated all the words of the Pentateuch to Moses, and Moses recorded God’s words without altering them. In the stenographic theory, all the words of the Pentateuch are God’s. In the participatory theory, the wording in the Pentateuch is a joint effort involving heavenly and earthly contributions; or the wording may be an entirely human response to God’s real but nonverbal revelation. Especially in the second chapter of this book, I argue that the Pentateuch itself gives voice to both stenographic and participatory theologies of revelation."