It is difficult to explain this to some people. Those who are in the habit of jumping around from a text in one book of the Bible to a text in another, are usually unable to see the distinctive theology and theological themes of one particular author in the Bible.
Biblical theologians recognise that the Gospel of Luke and Acts, (sometimes referred to by its fuller name of the Acts of the Apostles), are written by the same person. This is evident from the introductions to both books. Biblical scholars recognise this by referring to “Luke-Acts”. The naming of the author as “Luke” is by no means certain, but is retained for convenience. If one wants to understand the theology of Luke, one must avoid jumping to texts outside Luke-Acts.
Steven’s speech begins at Acts 7:1 and continues right through to 7:60. Steven’s speech is an unrelenting condemnation of the people’s rebellion against God. When he comes to the building of the temple by Solomon he has a prophetic rebuke:
But it was Solomon who built a house for him. Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made with human hands; as the prophet says, ‘Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord, or what is the place of my rest? Did not my hand make all these things?’ "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you are forever opposing the Holy Spirit, just as your ancestors used to do. Which of the prophets did your ancestors not persecute? They killed those who foretold the coming of the Righteous One, and now you have become his betrayers and murderers. (Act 7:47-52 NRS)
There is no relenting, in Luke-Acts, for this condemnation of the building of the temple in Jerusalem. We have an unfortunate tendency to unconsciously think of other texts that might soften God’s condemnation of the building of the Jerusalem temple, but that softening does not occur in Luke-Acts. To be true to the theology of Luke we must stay within Luke-Acts.
Staying strictly within the Luke-Acts, or even the scene of Stephen speaking, I still interpret the text so that the matters criticized did not aim towards criticizing the building of the temple.
What was criticized, are the key points I already mentioned: serving of other gods (idols) and disobedience, and killing of the prophets and the Messiah.
An additional point in the attack of Stephen was that God is greater then the temple. Those giving more weight to the temple (place of worship) than the will of God were blinded. The temple was assumed to be the place where the name of the Lord rested but now had come the one who was the representative or owner of the name - and those protecting their own authority in the temple had killed him.
It was a rebuke of wrong actions, not a rebuke of the place of worship.
Luke tells about the relationship of Jesus and the temple of Jerusalem in some verses, like Luke 2:49 and Luke 19:45-46. In those, Jesus did not condemn the temple, he criticized the actions of those that utilized the temple and the service within the temple for their own benefit (Luke 19:45-46).
Well, until I can be presented with actual evidence, this idea that some significant groups or organizations of Christians believe God literally dictated the Scripture, remains, respectfully, simply a baseless assertion.
(I’ve tried to help you out by searching the internet to find any of these myself, and I have come up empty also, I’m afraid. even the most fundamentalist sites I could find that address the topic still deny any form of mechanical or literal dictation.)
If there was this signification portion of evangelical Christians that believe this literal dictation theory as you seem to suggest, with those like me that deny dictation being just some fraction of inerrancy/verbal-plenary-inspiration-affirming believers, you’d think it wouldn’t be hard to find some tangible evidence of these literal-dictation-believing Christians.
You’d have to explain to me what goalposts I’m moving. If someone makes an assertion, and there is literally zero evidence presented that backs up said claim, then it is de facto a “baseless assertion,” by definition, regardless of the topic. I don’t mean in the least to be rude, but that is just kind of what a baseless assertion is, no? So I don’t even know what goalposts we’re talking about?
I’d be interested to hear any Christian group however small make such a claim, if that is the goalpost you fear I’m moving. As I think I said earlier, I wouldn’t be surprised if you can find someone’s grand aunt that says she believes that. But I’d be sincerely interested to hear about any significant or insignificant organized Christian group, church, denomination, or the like, however small, that has affirmed this position in their writing, books, a statement of faith or on the back of a napkin.
I glanced at Chafer’s treatment of the topic, and it looks like he mentioned the dictation theory as a hypothetical possibility in order to show why it is completely inconsistent with what we have in Scripture; and more significantly, as you mentioned, he gave no indication or reference that anyone actually holds or teaches this, though he recognizes it as a hypothetical option among theories of inspiration (as I do).
An example of a church that had that statement – I say “had” because the church isn’t there any more – was the “First Apostolic Full-Gospel Bible Church of Prophecy of the Holy Ghost” (I think I remember that right) in Portland, Oregon. They were King James Only, Pentecostal types who rejected the internet as “a tool of Satan” (they also considered medical insurance to be ungodly) even when it was just text.
I also encountered a “Third Baptist Church” that held to dictation, though what they actually said was that “God chose every word”.
If there are any actual denominations with the dictation view I’ve never encountered one, just an occasional individual church.
Evidence that it did exist can be found in churches that explicitly deny a dictation theology. The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod used to publish materials that explicitly denied any “mechanical process akin to dictation” (one document has the interesting statement that “But “inspiration” and “revelation” are not completely coextensive terms. Revelation can occur without inspiration; inspiration can occur without revelation.”).
I stymied a couple of folks from one of those groups once with the question, “Which edition?” (Not many people know that there was more than one edition!) When they said, “1611” I pointed out that while that was the year of first publication, many editions followed that didn’t match.
They actually came back and said, “The corrected edition of 1769”.
I lack the tools to dig into the literature, but there’s a strong strain of scholarship that suggests/argues that the priesthood wasn’t supposed to be pinned to one tribe, so it wasn’t something “God did not want” but something that ended up differently than intended.
I sort of agree. I think what’s being said in Stephen’s speech was that God was rebuking the Israelites for thinking that He could be confined to a building or anything else.
But G does have a point: with all the other authors, we can presume a thorough knowledge of the OT writings (I don’t think that any of the authors was a Sadducee, anyway) but seeing as Luke was a Gentile we shouldn’t assume that.
But evidence was given.
Here’s another: Lenski’s volumes on Christian dogmatics, used often by conservative Lutheran seminaries today, advocates PVI with the meaning that “inspiration involves the imparting of the very words by the Holy Spirit to the human authors”. While not explicitly stating “dicated”, it’s the very same thing.
I don’t know if it’s still the case, but Lenski’s was the standard dogmatics text at several Lutheran seminaries in the U.S. as late as 1985.
That would be what he considered “inconsistent with what we have in Scripture”. He considered it more than a hypothetical. From a couple of different editions.
And of course he would explain why he didn’t agree with it. He didn’t agree with the other theories that he mention with the exception of VPI. That was the purpose of the book. And as St. Roymond said, if anyone didn’t actually hold to this theory why even put it in a book in the first place.
And hence the problem… I also believe that God chose every word, as do/did the signers of the Chicago statement. And yet we all deny dictation just fine.
Hence it sounds like a caricature, misunderstanding, or straw man… what they said was that God chose every word…. OK, fine. But this gives is irrelevant and gives no data whatsoever on whether or not they believed that God literally dictated the Scripture.
Sounds to me like someone making up excuses to ignore incarnational theology when it comes to scripture.
Some of those “various theories of inspiration” came from people asking what scripture says of itself and from asking how the written word reflects the living Word.
That’s an interesting way to put it! “Possession” is indeed spoken of as a bad thing, as we’re usually thinking of demons when speaking of it. But ‘possession’ by God? Isn’t that exactly the state all of us are exhorted to voluntarily aspire toward?
I do tend to agree with you, though, @St.Roymond , that it’s probably just mincing words at this point if one was splitting hairs about “God choosing every word”, but that being different than God ‘dictating’. It seems to me that if we understand ‘dictating’ as consisting only of the normal process of one agent being physically present with another, and verbally delivering a message for the other to be taking down, then that strict understanding of dictation will of course probably allow just about everyone to escape the apparently unwanted charge of thinking scripture was dictated. But that’s such a narrow view (excluding just about everyone) as to make that distinction useless. If we understand the concept more broadly - as in every word was ultimately the controlled choice of God even though that ‘control’ came via willing and obedient minds of scribes - even to the point of also protecting later modern translations, then I think ‘dictated’ isn’t too strong a language to describe what somebody means.
So any group that claims something to the effect: “I believe each and every word in all 66 books of Protestant scriptures - because every last word of it is all the inerrant word of God” (and I imagine a fair number of denominations and people present here might affirm just such a statement), then they are effectively treating scriptures as “having been ‘dictated’ by God”, whatever such ‘dictation mechanics’ may have been involved. I don’t see any real daylight between those - they result in the very same veneration of scriptures either way, and are thus open to the same affirmation or criticism that various parties may give it. So the way I see it here, ‘dictated’ is just a convenient categorical label for how so many think of scriptures rather than a literal commentary about the mechanics of what was happening when words were being put to papyrus.
But back on the ‘possession by God’ … I must say, God - as known in Christ - would be the gentlest of ‘possessors’, and, (unlike the demons), is easily evicted at the whim of the one possessed. God does not stay on as an unwelcome guest. But hovers and patiently pursues as one tries out life apart from God.
gregoreite, those are arguments for truth or error…not interpretation. I can add another…
The apostle Peter, whilst shipwrecked on the Isle of Malta was bitten by a poisonous snake whilst putting some wood into a fire that they had lit…to the horror and amazement of the locals, he shook it off and suffered no ill effects. If you use your bible concordance on this text, its clearly in reference to the prophecy in Marks gospel:
16:15And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In My name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;d18they will pick up snakes with their hands, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not harm them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will be made well.”
The thing is, we know scientifically that the entire event described in Acts 28 below is untrue:
1Once we were safely ashore, we learned that the island was called Malta. 2The islanders showed us extraordinary kindness. They kindled a fire and welcomed all of us because it was raining and cold.
3Paul gathered a bundle of sticks, and as he laid them on the fire, a viper, driven out by the heat, fastened itself to his hand. 4When the islanders saw the creature hanging from his hand, they said to one another, “Surely this man is a murderer. Although he was saved from the sea, Justicea has not allowed him to live.” 5But Paul shook the creature off into the fire and suffered no ill effects.6The islanders were expecting him to swell up or suddenly drop dead. But after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.
According to science, there have never been any fossils or other evidences of deadly snakes on that Island.
The argument that the locals didn’t know the snakes were not poisonous is a completely furphy…no one knows the wildlife of a place like that better than the native population and these islanders were certain that this bite should have caused Paul serious illness even death. Now if the locals new that the snakes were not deadly, that a bite from one only caused local swelling of the bite area, the text wouldnt have included the statement “or immediately drop dead”!
If we are to take the position of science over eyewitness testimony (the writer who originally recorded the event) then our only option is to believe that scientifically the evidence (or lack of poisonous snakes on the Isl) is such that the entire story is fabricated.
Again…the above has nothing to do with interpretation…the story is clearly written as fact (it names times, days, events surrounding the bite, locations, people who were there, a timeline of how Paul came to be on the Island…this is a literal historical account of the poisonous snake bite)
Now the real problem is as follows:
If one claims that the story of Paul being bitten by a snake on Malta is just an exaggeration, that he was bitten by a snake but it wasn’t a deadly one, then at what point does one stop with the “oh that was just an over exaggeration”?
If we are to remain consistent in our reading of the text, then Christs resurrection and ascension into heaven, given we have only a handful of written eyewitnesses about it and none outside of the bible in any Jewish or Roman records, then the entire event is just an over exaggeration and Christ didnt really rise from the dead. The disciples and a group of mercenaries overpowered the Roman guards (as they claimed publicly) and stole his body away. These mercenaries then fabricated a story and the entirety of the gospel of Salvation.
I see possession as nullification of personal control, replacing it with another’s. So no, possession by God isn’t something I aspire towards.
This reminded me of a comment by one participant at a seminar; he said he could see God saying, “Wait, not that word”, but not much more than that. Of course some smart-aleck had to ask, “What about ‘No, don’t use a pluperfect there!’?”
The “mechanics” of it is such a modern question! A view I like is that God chose authors at birth and said, “I’m going to guide this guy’s life so that when it comes time to write, he’ll get the message across to his audience”. I was delighted to find that this fits with how Dr. Michael Heiser talks about inspiration not as a momentary “Wow – now that’s over with…” sort of event but a lifelong process where the writers were prepared to be the right spokesmen at the right time.
I don’t see any reason to venerate something that was dictated; I’m far more impressed by God preparing someone and then saying, “Go to it!”, and afterwards, “That works!” (Especially since the “good” in Genesis 1 links to the idea of “that works”.)
An interesting proposal I encountered is that ships traveling that coast frequently picked up such serpents at prior stops, so the people were familiar with them but they actually came from somewhere else (and there are a good number of Aegean and Mediterranean islands with poisonous serpents).
That’s not remaining consistent, that’s beating it into submission to a wooden reading – which is a total failure to treat the scriptures as literature!
In particular, the Gospels are all Greek Bios, a type of biography. An interesting aspect of Bios is that it is written similarly to eye-witness testimony where little details will differ from one person to another. That’s just how human memory works, so finding it in the Gospels tells us we’re reading material from real people who were involved with the events, not people inventing tales.
In reading around I found an interesting take on B.B. Warfield’s view of inspiration. He proposed God would foreknow what each writer would do in a given set of circumstances. Then He simply setup the circumstances so the writer would chose the word that He wanted of the writer’s free will. This way the words are exactly what God wanted while being the product of the writer’s free will. However, to me this just makes the writers almost puppets on a string with strings that aren’t visible. And I would still call this dictation, just not human dictation. And what is funny is one of the arguments against the dictation theory is the writings don’t appear like they were produced by human dictation. Which of course they wouldn’t since God didn’t just send the words to the writer as a human would.
Whoa! Not so fast. While I think Luke does have errors of fact in Luke-Acts, I don’t think this is one of them. Certainly, there are no lethally poisonous snakes on Malta, either today or in ancient times. But is Malta the location of this event? I don’t think so. Let’s take a closer look at this account in Acts. According to Acts 27:27, the ship was being carried across the Adriatic Sea. They came ashore on an island which the Greek text says was called Mileta (Μελίτη). This appears to be an island off the coast of modern-day Croatia, in the Adriatic Sea, where there are in fact many deadly vipers. So many in the past that in 1910 a predatory mongoose was released on the island to control the snake population.
So why do so many Greek lexicons translate Mileta as Malta? According to Maltese Fauna and Flora expert, Stephen Misfud, Maltese traditionalists have come up with several complicated nautical, archaeological and other arguments to discount the Adriatic Melita as St Paul’s island, in favour of Malta. Unfortunately the clear biological evidence proves otherwise.
I suspect the tourist dollar may have something to do with it.
The follow-on question is, why didn’t Paul die? Well, the text doesn’t say whether the snake actually bit him, just that the snake had fastened itself to his hand. Possibly the snake curled around his hand. I live in a place with deadly snakes and have heard no end of snake stories. One former colleague, in a former life, had been quite an outdoors man. One night he threw down his groundsheet and his sleeping bag on top of that and then climbed into the sleeping bag for a good night’s sleep, but with his arms outside the sleeping bag. He awoke to find a snake curled around one of his arms. I suppose cold-blooded animals like to cosy-up to warm-blooded mammalians when it gets cold at night. But even if the snake did bite Paul, this doesn’t mean it actually injected any venom. Sometimes snakes bite without injecting venom to give a warning.
If there be any theological conclusions drawn, they are not made by either Paul, or Luke as narrator. They are simply the superstitious conclusions of the islanders. So then, what do we do with the reference to handling snakes at the end of Mark’s Gospel?
As most Biblical scholars know, the oldest manuscripts of Mark’s Gospel end at chapter 16 verse 8, not verse 18. The ending of Mark’s Gospel appears to have been lost. There are at least 5 different attempts to supply an ending by later scribes. The reference to handling snakes is just one of them. It appears to draw on Luke’s account and to retro-actively make predictions about such events. It is a very human attempt to fake a Gospel prediction, and a very dangerous one at that.
adamjedgar: Im referring in the Topic title to the Isle of Malta poisonus serpent biting of the apostle Paul account as researched and recorded by Luke in Acts 28
THE KJV got it right when they took the Greek Μελίτη (meh-LEE-tay) and spelled it just as it sounds except adjusting the ending to fit English linguistics: Melita.
Given the winds and currents of the Mediterranean it is essentially impossible to be driven by a storm in the Adriatic, which is where Luke says they were, all the way to Malta, so whoever “corrected” the KJV was more than a bit ignorant: first, as to the possibility of getting blown by a storm from near Greece all the way to Malta, and second because there is an island in the Adriatic named “Melita” – in fact an island where it is quite probable that a storm in the Adriatic would drive a ship.
adamjedgar: Paul being bitten by a poisonus snake on Malta - there is no evidence that we have yet found of any poisonus snakes having ever existed on that island
reply: The Greek text calls the island “Melite” (meh-LEE-tay). It just so happens that the most poisonous snakes in the Mediterranean live on an island called Melite.
adamjedgar: On the Isle of Malta, Paul is miraculously saved from the venom of a viper.
reply: The odd thing is that Luke does not say it was Malta, he wrote that it was Melita – which is where the deadliest viper in Europe lives in large numbers. How anyone got “Malta” from “Μελίτη”, which in Latin letters is “Melitay”, has got to be weird.
adamjedgar: the record of the travels of the apostle Paul has its very credibility trashed when one reads the biblical claim that whilst shipwrecked on Malta, he was bitten by a poisonous snake and survived. The scientific record shows no evidence of any such species on that island.
reply: Somewhat “missing the [legitimate] point” you are making, the island in question is literally “Μελίτη,” transliterated “Melité” which could be this: [Link to Mijet]. I don’t know if it “works” in terms of the trajectory of Paul’s journey, but I have a hard time believing that “nobody in Acts knew about Malta,” which is prominent enough in the Mediterranean and was under Roman control by 218 BCE…and Mljet has venomous snakes…
