The "Holy" Bible? Who Says So?

By Rod Hemphill

Question: Is the Bible truly divinely inspired? Who determined which writings would be included among these scriptures.

Answer:

Hi Bob.

You referred to "Verbal Plenary”. This refers to words + fullness/completeness and is a theological term indicating divine inspiration for the all the words of the original texts. There are three emphases here:

Original texts: Only the original texts were inspired –not subsequent copies or translations. Although none of the original manuscripts have been discovered, the literary science of textual criticism has firmly established that we know nearly every word that was in the original autographs, and of those few that remain in question, not one affects our knowledge and understanding of the text or puts any Biblical teaching or doctrine in question.

Words: It is the words of the Bible that are inspired --not the writers. This is far different from saying that Handel was inspired by God when he wrote the oratorio, The Messiah. This does not mean, however, that God dictated the words, and the writers simply recorded what God told them. It is clear that the personality and modes of expression peculiar to each writer are evident in the texts. What "verbal plenary" means in this situation is that God superintended the writing so as to assure that what the writer wrote was correct and the truth that God intended to be conveyed.

All the words of the original text are considered to be inspired, as opposed to inspired words being interspersed with the writer's non-inspired personal opinions. This includes even personal opinions such as the apostle Paul included at times in explaining to his readers the point he was making. In this it is evident that writers of scripture were writing from within their understanding or from revelation they received form God, and were not aware that their writing was going to become scripture. But even though Paul sometimes states that what he is writing is something he received from the Lord, and at other times indicates that what he writes now is his own opinion --not revelation, God has placed his approval on the whole of the text of that writing, inasmuch as that writing attained the status of scripture.

The verbal plenary theory of inspiration takes its place along side other theories of inspiration, but the logic supporting this theory and the logical fallacies of all the others is apparent in any apologetic work such as Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.

You mention the Septuagint, a translation (into Greek) of the Hebrew scriptures dating to about 250 BC because by that time many Jews were no longer fluent in Hebrew. Many Jews were now resident in Egypt and throughout the Mediterranean area. Even in Palestine, the spoken language at the time of Jesus was no longer Hebrew, but Aramaic. But the international language of the day was koine Greek, so that most people of the Mediterranean understood it, and it was close enough to the classical Greek of the Septuagint that New Testament references to Old Testament passages generally quoted the Septuagint.

That the Septuagint is quoted in the inspired scriptures does not mean that the Septuagint itself is in any way inspired. In fact, there are references to other books in both the Hebrew and Christian parts of the Bible, but only those specific writings which comprise the canon of sacred scripture are in any way inspired. This means then that while the original autographs of Hebrew scriptures (as written in Hebrew and Aramaic) were inspired, subsequent copies and translations such as the Septuagint are not. But (to repeat myself from above) although none of the original manuscripts have been discovered, the literary science of textual criticism has firmly established that we know nearly every word that was in the original autographs, and of those few that remain in question, not one affects our knowledge and understanding of the text or puts any Biblical teaching or doctrine in question.

Finally, it is a common misunderstanding that a group of church leaders decided which writings would be included in the canon of scriptures. Especially since the Council of Nicea took some action to clarify the matter in the 4th century AD. The short answer to this is that the Council did not determine the contents of the canon ??? which writings would be included and which were to be excluded. The Council simply accepted and affirmed the Canon as they received it.

The Canon was formed by the common consensus of the Christian community as a whole over the period from the mid-first century until the Council of Nicea in AD 325 as to which writings it regarded as Scripture and which it didn’t. There were some individual churches that also used one or two outside writings, but these were few and the exception. And no orthodox Christian church accepted any of the Gnostic writings as Scripture, such as the Gospel of Thomas, much touted in today’s debate over The Da Vinci Code. In short, all the Council of Nicea did in this regard was to place an official imprimatur on the canon of sacred scripture as it received it.

The recent Dan Brown novel, The Da Vinci Code, and its subsequent film capitalize on this misunderstanding and have given rise to extensive debate regarding the formation of the canon of sacred scriptures, particularly the presumption that a church council was the authority which determined which writings were to be regarded as scripture and which were to be excluded from the canon.

One thing The Da Vinci Code does is to present many of the arguments and contentions against the validity of the Biblical writings as promulgated by those who do not want to accept the Bible as the authentic Word of God, and in doing this, Dan Brown does us a favor because he expresses those points of view so clearly and enables us to deal with them pretty much as a whole.

In this regard, I have dealt with the questions you raised more extensively in my commentary, Critique of The Da Vinci Code, which I will provide as an attachment below.

I appreciate your inquiry and the opportunity to respond to it.

Thanks.
Rod

Read Rod's Critique of The DaVinci Code

Other Articles by Rod:
How to Take Over a Country Without Firing a Shot
How and Why We Can Afford to Give Disbelievers Their "Best Shot"
Critique of the Da Vinci Code
On Understanding the Trinity
Refiner's Fire
On Celibacy and Marriage

Back to Guest Writers main page.