The unfairness of outsider analysis

February 23rd, 2009 | 26 Comments

Almost two years ago when I posted on another website the original version of what would become the last two posts of my Bibliology and Hermeneutics series, my friend Jeremy Lile took a principled stand against my essay.  He disagreed with the idea that “if the Bible does not present a ‘scientific’ explanation of phenomena it is also errant.” Recommending Clifford Geertz’s Interpretation of Cultures, Jeremy argued that this was improper: “[This conclusion is] the result of the method you have adopted. The etic strategy, i.e., the outsider’s perspective, you employ necessarily removes the text from its cultural framework and breaks it down into foreign categories created by the analyst. Analysis now occurs ‘outside’ the cultural system – meaning is no longer ‘local.’ This approach is useful for cross-cultural studies, but it has its shortcomings. The emic view, which I have been advocating implicitly in my articles, approaches data from inside the culture. In other words, it would be wrong to call ‘story’ (emic) errant because is doesn’t line up with our notion of history (etic). It would also be wrong to assume the author was trying to present what we call history. It’s an unfair assessment of the text from the outside. More to the point: the errancy may only exist in the categories you created for analysis.”  Regarding the invalidity of forcing the outsider view, another contributor noted, “This would be like discovering and claiming an already inhabited island, and then prosecuting the natives for trespassing.”

I realized how heavily I had weighted my writing towards demonstrating “errors” in Scripture. This was never my intent. As I explained: “I agree that ‘error’ sounds much too derogatory; my use of it is concessive . . . If you define ‘error” as ‘not matching the scientific and historical details with impeccable precision’, you must admit that the Bible does contain those sorts of issues. If you define ‘error’ as ‘not being successful at the thing for which it was intended’, we coincide much more closely with your emic view and the Bible is absolved of that sort of guilt. It is nevertheless the fact that people in a modern age will consider your emic view to be a mamby-pamby way of saying that errors are not errors.”

I explained that my approach to the modernists with their anachronistic etic approach to Scripture was to concede their approach for sake of argument but then to compel them to deal with the consequences of it.  “I’m cutting them off at the pass. Perhaps I’m cutting them off a little too far down the pass, but in the end, I don’t think our views are too far apart. All I want to do is show that we in our modern era ivory towers interpret Scripture differently than those who wrote the Bible and their original audience, and that we cannot impose our science on to the text.”  When I speak of “errors” I am attempting to force them to see the need to approach Scripture differently, because as far as they’re concerned, their modernist biblical interpretation looks just fine from where they’re sitting. My philosophy has been that some people need the shock of seeing how their approach to Scripture actually undermines its authority when we approach science and history honestly and realize the lack of concord between those subjects and Scripture.  But increasingly, especially following my recent musings, I agree with my friend that it simply won’t do to leave them there clutching their modernist’s Bible riddled full of holes, even for a second.  More than ever, I stand by what I told him at the end of our conversation.

“My essay is deconstructive of old conclusions, and your view is more constructive of new conclusions. Mine would be the first chapter of a book, and yours the rest of the book.”

Thanks for your challenging comments, Jer.  I’m still waiting for more chapters from you…

FacebookRedditGoogle ReaderDiggStumbleUponPrintFriendlyShare

February 23rd, 2009

Tags: , , ,

  • AMW

    My main issue with Jeremy’s definition is that it promotes a fallacy of equivocation. The median inerrantist takes the term inerrent to mean: “fully accurate to modern standards in all details.” Jeremy seems to take the term to more mean, “consistent with the knowledge and standards of the time and place of authorship.”

    You attack the former definition, Jeremy attempts refutation by defending the latter definition. I worry that his refutation just encourages the median inerrantist to hold to the former definition among peers, shift to the latter definition when challenged, then shift back when among peers again.

    Or, as you put it, “… people in a modern age will consider [Jeremy's] emic view to be a mamby-pamby way of saying that errors are not errors.”

    • http://undeception.com/ Steve

      I understand your problem here, but I think the key to Jer’s position is his insistence that the whole question is based upon a category error: “More to the point: the errancy may only exist in the categories you created for analysis.” In other words, “errors or no errors” is the wrong sort of question to ask of an ancient text; at very least, it’s the sort of question only someone out of touch with the culture that produced the Bible would ask. It’s like deeming Germanic poetry to be bad poetry because it did not rhyme.

      • Jer

        That’s a good, succinct assessment, Stephen.

        It’s like deeming Germanic poetry to be bad poetry because it did not rhyme.

        Now that’s funny :)

        My main issue with Jeremy’s definition is that it promotes a fallacy of equivocation…I worry that his refutation just encourages the median inerrantist to hold to the former definition among peers, shift to the latter definition when challenged, then shift back when among peers again.

        AMW, my main issue with the statement you issued while taking issue on this issue is that it is a fallacy of argumentum ad consequentiam :)

        • http://undeception.com/ Steve

          Ah! the argumentum ad consequentiam. My favorite fallacy.

          And by “favorite” I mean I despise it with all my passion and seek its destruction with all might and main.

  • AMW

    My main issue with Jeremy’s definition is that it promotes a fallacy of equivocation. The median inerrantist takes the term inerrent to mean: “fully accurate to modern standards in all details.” Jeremy seems to take the term to more mean, “consistent with the knowledge and standards of the time and place of authorship.”

    You attack the former definition, Jeremy attempts refutation by defending the latter definition. I worry that his refutation just encourages the median inerrantist to hold to the former definition among peers, shift to the latter definition when challenged, then shift back when among peers again.

    Or, as you put it, “… people in a modern age will consider [Jeremy's] emic view to be a mamby-pamby way of saying that errors are not errors.”

    • http://undeception.com Steve

      I understand your problem here, but I think the key to Jer’s position is his insistence that the whole question is based upon a category error: “More to the point: the errancy may only exist in the categories you created for analysis.” In other words, “errors or no errors” is the wrong sort of question to ask of an ancient text; at very least, it’s the sort of question only someone out of touch with the culture that produced the Bible would ask. It’s like deeming Germanic poetry to be bad poetry because it did not rhyme.

      • Jer

        That’s a good, succinct assessment, Stephen.

        It’s like deeming Germanic poetry to be bad poetry because it did not rhyme.

        Now that’s funny :)

        My main issue with Jeremy’s definition is that it promotes a fallacy of equivocation…I worry that his refutation just encourages the median inerrantist to hold to the former definition among peers, shift to the latter definition when challenged, then shift back when among peers again.

        AMW, my main issue with the statement you issued while taking issue on this issue is that it is a fallacy of argumentum ad consequentiam :)

        • http://undeception.com Steve

          Ah! the argumentum ad consequentiam. My favorite fallacy.

          And by “favorite” I mean I despise it with all my passion and seek its destruction with all might and main.

  • AMW

    A couple other thoughts based on these quoted sentences:

    The emic view, which I have been advocating implicitly in my articles, approaches data from inside the culture. In other words, it would be wrong to call ’story’ (emic) errant because is doesn’t line up with our notion of history (etic). It would also be wrong to assume the author was trying to present what we call history. It’s an unfair assessment of the text from the outside.

    Does the emic approach even allow for errancy? It seems that so long as a piece of literature is consistent with its culture, one would be unable to pass judgement on it. Does the Quran contain errors? The Book of Mormon? The Apochrypha and Pseudopegrapha?

    Most inerrantists are quite sure that the Bible lines up with what we would consider history. More than that, I would say a lot of them are quite sure that it lines up with what we would consider a documentary. Is it at least fair to tell them “if that’s what you mean by ‘inerrant,’ the Bible contains errors”?

    Using the emic approach to defend inerrancy smacks of relativism to me, which is something most evangelicals don’t cotton to. Is this a case of special pleading on Jeremy’s part? (I’m not trying to be snarky. I don’t know him, so I honestly don’t know if it is or not.)

    • http://undeception.com/ Steve

      It seems that so long as a piece of literature is consistent with its culture, one would be unable to pass judgement on it. Does the Quran contain errors? The Book of Mormon? The Apochrypha and Pseudopegrapha?

      I can’t speak for Jer at all, but I don’t think there’s any special pleading here. I would say that we shouldn’t judge whether the Quran is true or false based solely on the presence of historical or scientific errors, especially if they were the type of “error” that was acceptable and expected within that culture. This does not mean that all ancient texts are equally valid pictures of Truth, but it does mean that we can’t decide it’s rubbish simply on the basis of its meeting its own criteria and violating ours.

      Is it at least fair to tell them “if that’s what you mean by ‘inerrant,’ the Bible contains errors”?

      I think so, and that is the position I have maintained throughout.

  • AMW

    A couple other thoughts based on these quoted sentences:

    The emic view, which I have been advocating implicitly in my articles, approaches data from inside the culture. In other words, it would be wrong to call ’story’ (emic) errant because is doesn’t line up with our notion of history (etic). It would also be wrong to assume the author was trying to present what we call history. It’s an unfair assessment of the text from the outside.

    Does the emic approach even allow for errancy? It seems that so long as a piece of literature is consistent with its culture, one would be unable to pass judgement on it. Does the Quran contain errors? The Book of Mormon? The Apochrypha and Pseudopegrapha?

    Most inerrantists are quite sure that the Bible lines up with what we would consider history. More than that, I would say a lot of them are quite sure that it lines up with what we would consider a documentary. Is it at least fair to tell them “if that’s what you mean by ‘inerrant,’ the Bible contains errors”?

    Using the emic approach to defend inerrancy smacks of relativism to me, which is something most evangelicals don’t cotton to. Is this a case of special pleading on Jeremy’s part? (I’m not trying to be snarky. I don’t know him, so I honestly don’t know if it is or not.)

    • http://undeception.com Steve

      It seems that so long as a piece of literature is consistent with its culture, one would be unable to pass judgement on it. Does the Quran contain errors? The Book of Mormon? The Apochrypha and Pseudopegrapha?

      I can’t speak for Jer at all, but I don’t think there’s any special pleading here. I would say that we shouldn’t judge whether the Quran is true or false based solely on the presence of historical or scientific errors, especially if they were the type of “error” that was acceptable and expected within that culture. This does not mean that all ancient texts are equally valid pictures of Truth, but it does mean that we can’t decide it’s rubbish simply on the basis of its meeting its own criteria and violating ours.

      Is it at least fair to tell them “if that’s what you mean by ‘inerrant,’ the Bible contains errors”?

      I think so, and that is the position I have maintained throughout.

  • Jer

    AMW wrote:

    Is it at least fair to tell them “if that’s what you mean by ‘inerrant,’ the Bible contains errors”?

    I agreed to a similar statement made in response to the original article:

    It’s one thing to point out that if judged consistently by the standard of many inerrantists the scriptures would be declared ‘errant’.

    To which I replied:

    I would agree with this… because they typically use the etic approach as well, e.g., Creation Science. Yet it sounds like Stephen, too, is using the criteria of “history” and “science” to determine “error” from his perspective.

    AMW wrote:

    Using the emic approach to defend inerrancy smacks of relativism to me, which is something most evangelicals don’t cotton to. Is this a case of special pleading on Jeremy’s part?

    I wasn’t pleading for the doctrine of inerrancy, although I understand how that conclusion could be reached. As Stephen noted previously, “…the whole question is based upon a category error: ‘More to the point: the errancy may only exist in the categories you created for analysis.’” My focus was on methodology rather than theology.

    Here’s a brief article on Emic/Etic Distinctions.

    AMW wrote:

    (I’m not trying to be snarky. I don’t know him, so I honestly don’t know if it is or not.)

    No problem.

    (For some reason I have a craving for root beer.)

    • http://undeception.com/ Steve

      (For some reason I have a craving for root beer.)

      There, AMW. Now you know Jer. :D

      • Jer

        Ha! Fun with phonemes… I’m glad you caught that, wordsmith :)

  • Jer

    AMW wrote:

    Is it at least fair to tell them “if that’s what you mean by ‘inerrant,’ the Bible contains errors”?

    I agreed to a similar statement made in response to the original article:

    It’s one thing to point out that if judged consistently by the standard of many inerrantists the scriptures would be declared ‘errant’.

    To which I replied:

    I would agree with this… because they typically use the etic approach as well, e.g., Creation Science. Yet it sounds like Stephen, too, is using the criteria of “history” and “science” to determine “error” from his perspective.

    AMW wrote:

    Using the emic approach to defend inerrancy smacks of relativism to me, which is something most evangelicals don’t cotton to. Is this a case of special pleading on Jeremy’s part?

    I wasn’t pleading for the doctrine of inerrancy, although I understand how that conclusion could be reached. As Stephen noted previously, “…the whole question is based upon a category error: ‘More to the point: the errancy may only exist in the categories you created for analysis.’” My focus was on methodology rather than theology.

    Here’s a brief article on Emic/Etic Distinctions.

    AMW wrote:

    (I’m not trying to be snarky. I don’t know him, so I honestly don’t know if it is or not.)

    No problem.

    (For some reason I have a craving for root beer.)

    • http://undeception.com Steve

      (For some reason I have a craving for root beer.)

      There, AMW. Now you know Jer. :D

      • Jer

        Ha! Fun with phonemes… I’m glad you caught that, wordsmith :)

  • http://www.thesmoakhouse.com/ Josh H.

    All I want to do is show that we in our modern era ivory towers interpret Scripture differently than those who wrote the Bible and their original audience, and that we cannot impose our science on to the text (emphasis mine).

    That was a good statement, Stephen. I think it better communicates your position and makes your positi0n of “errancy” an easier pill for folks to swallow.

    Translation: The ancient Biblical scribes did not know as mcuh about cellular biology, astronomy, and physics, therefore we should not expect to learn such things from them. But what they did know was how to know and understand God and what He expects.

    Is that a proper synopsis of what you’re saying?

    In the same unfortunate way that “myth” has come to mean “lie”, “errant” (as it relates to the Bible) has come to mean “wrong.” There’s a subtle difference. When you say “the Bible has errors”, the immediate thought (heck! until I understood your position this was my thought) is that “Steve is saying that the Bible is wrong about some things. What’s it wrong about? Jesus? Salvation? Prophecy? If it has errors, how can I trust it? Maybe I should try Hare Krishna.”

    For better or for worse, this is what inerrantists will think you’re saying (well, maybe not the Krishna part). But that statement I quoted explains it well. You should take suggestions for a different label than “errantist.” Sorry, but I have no suggestios myself.

    Josh H.´s last blog post..J.R.R. Tolkien: Lord of the Rings Poetry

    • AMW

      You should take suggestions for a different label than “errantist.”

      Maybe a “historical contextualist.”

      Actually, I think the term “literate” would be more appropriate, but it’s not going to win friends and influence people.

      • http://undeception.com/ Steve

        Good suggestion, AMW (the first one, that is :) ). Another term commonly used is “non-concordist”, someone who doesn’t expect full concord between the biblical authors’ presentation of science/history and actual reality. A lot of these terms are good for emphasizing different things.

        But in the end, those who argue that “inspiration” entails 100% perfection in every conceivable way have to reject the “historical contextualist” view no matter what it’s called because there is no room for authorial/cultural misconceptions bleeding through the text. This effectively makes the authors of Scripture more “perfect” than Jesus: as a human, even he admitted not knowing everything, and he was the Word of God!

    • http://undeception.com/ Steve

      Translation: The ancient Biblical scribes did not know as mcuh about cellular biology, astronomy, and physics, therefore we should not expect to learn such things from them. But what they did know was how to know and understand God and what He expects.

      Is that a proper synopsis of what you’re saying?

      Well said. I tried to say as much in my “The Fallout” post. Here’s the relevant excerpt, which I encourage you to read:

      Because I have spent so much time talking about the errancy of Scripture, I fear that some will exaggerate my view out of an overreactive reflex. I am not saying that most or even much of Scripture is incorrect in scientific or historical detail. On the contrary, we have no reason to doubt that they truly believed everything they said, and moreover, that the NT writers especially had very good reason to believe it. They had no reason to fabricate any of the science, history, or doctrines expounded in the New Testament out of thin air. They were liars and hypocrites indeed, if these men whose leader proclaimed Himself the Truth willfully disregarded truth in order to concoct testimony and gain a following; if deceivers, they were underachievers, because there are definitely points at which their fabrications could have been a bit more comprehensive and coordinated. No, for honest testimony related by humans capable of unintentional error, our Scriptures certainly bear the expected signs. We should not expect to see error without having good cause.

      I may be accused of devaluing the place of history in unforgivably post-modern fashion. Actually, I view history, and specifically the history of our Lord made flesh, as the centerpiece of the faith. The record of His actions in the Gospels (perhaps this is why we have four of them) and Acts are actual photographs, whereas everything else in the Bible ranges from stylized and caricaturized medieval paintings to the crudity of cave drawings in comparison. The Old Testament and the epistles are but interpretations, each part a believer’s honest but ultimately subjective impression of the Lord Who appeared.

      . . .

      If we can’t trust their historical, scientific facts, how can we trust their spiritual teachings? If an accomplished professional plumber wrote a plumbing handbook in which he shared his vocational expertise, but peppered it throughout with his speculations on the history of plumbing, his views on politics, etc., would inaccuracies in these last two cast doubt on how he says to proceed in choosing piping for your new bathroom addition? Of course not – you bought the book because you wanted to know about his area of expertise, and the value of his book for its primary purpose rests ultimately on his credentials as a plumber, and would not be tainted by the fact that he has erroneous beliefs in unrelated subjects!

      Similarly, the men who wrote the Bible were experts, licensed to practice by God Himself, and the theological Better Business Bureau called the Church has given them its seal of approval. Note that these commendations stop shy of making the Witnesses infallible. Yet it is foolishness and arrogance to claim that they were wrong on any spiritual matter without good cause. This is the same way historians read all first-hand accounts. An historian reading Julius Caesar can assume that the main content of his accounts are true, whether he embellished, downplayed, or simply missed some details. If we hold the Gospel writers to at least the same standard as scholars hold most ancient historians (and why shouldn’t we?), we have at least Christ’s resurrection on the concord of four separate first-century documents; we also have the testimony of extra-biblical history, which attests the meteoric rise of a religion that turned the world upside down within a generation’s time despite originating in a two-bit territory under Roman occupation, not to mention the otherwise unexplainable willingness to be martyred on the part of the apostles. No wonder Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 lays the weight of the whole gospel upon Christ’s resurrection — notice he didn’t have a canon to appeal to, and yet was more than confident in the legitimacy of his faith based upon that one event.

  • http://www.thesmoakhouse.com Josh H.

    All I want to do is show that we in our modern era ivory towers interpret Scripture differently than those who wrote the Bible and their original audience, and that we cannot impose our science on to the text (emphasis mine).

    That was a good statement, Stephen. I think it better communicates your position and makes your positi0n of “errancy” an easier pill for folks to swallow.

    Translation: The ancient Biblical scribes did not know as mcuh about cellular biology, astronomy, and physics, therefore we should not expect to learn such things from them. But what they did know was how to know and understand God and what He expects.

    Is that a proper synopsis of what you’re saying?

    In the same unfortunate way that “myth” has come to mean “lie”, “errant” (as it relates to the Bible) has come to mean “wrong.” There’s a subtle difference. When you say “the Bible has errors”, the immediate thought (heck! until I understood your position this was my thought) is that “Steve is saying that the Bible is wrong about some things. What’s it wrong about? Jesus? Salvation? Prophecy? If it has errors, how can I trust it? Maybe I should try Hare Krishna.”

    For better or for worse, this is what inerrantists will think you’re saying (well, maybe not the Krishna part). But that statement I quoted explains it well. You should take suggestions for a different label than “errantist.” Sorry, but I have no suggestios myself.

    Josh H.´s last blog post..J.R.R. Tolkien: Lord of the Rings Poetry

    • AMW

      You should take suggestions for a different label than “errantist.”

      Maybe a “historical contextualist.”

      Actually, I think the term “literate” would be more appropriate, but it’s not going to win friends and influence people.

      • http://undeception.com Steve

        Good suggestion, AMW (the first one, that is :) ). Another term commonly used is “non-concordist”, someone who doesn’t expect full concord between the biblical authors’ presentation of science/history and actual reality. A lot of these terms are good for emphasizing different things.

        But in the end, those who argue that “inspiration” entails 100% perfection in every conceivable way have to reject the “historical contextualist” view no matter what it’s called because there is no room for authorial/cultural misconceptions bleeding through the text. This effectively makes the authors of Scripture more “perfect” than Jesus: as a human, even he admitted not knowing everything, and he was the Word of God!

    • http://undeception.com Steve

      Translation: The ancient Biblical scribes did not know as mcuh about cellular biology, astronomy, and physics, therefore we should not expect to learn such things from them. But what they did know was how to know and understand God and what He expects.

      Is that a proper synopsis of what you’re saying?

      Well said. I tried to say as much in my “The Fallout” post. Here’s the relevant excerpt, which I encourage you to read:

      Because I have spent so much time talking about the errancy of Scripture, I fear that some will exaggerate my view out of an overreactive reflex. I am not saying that most or even much of Scripture is incorrect in scientific or historical detail. On the contrary, we have no reason to doubt that they truly believed everything they said, and moreover, that the NT writers especially had very good reason to believe it. They had no reason to fabricate any of the science, history, or doctrines expounded in the New Testament out of thin air. They were liars and hypocrites indeed, if these men whose leader proclaimed Himself the Truth willfully disregarded truth in order to concoct testimony and gain a following; if deceivers, they were underachievers, because there are definitely points at which their fabrications could have been a bit more comprehensive and coordinated. No, for honest testimony related by humans capable of unintentional error, our Scriptures certainly bear the expected signs. We should not expect to see error without having good cause.

      I may be accused of devaluing the place of history in unforgivably post-modern fashion. Actually, I view history, and specifically the history of our Lord made flesh, as the centerpiece of the faith. The record of His actions in the Gospels (perhaps this is why we have four of them) and Acts are actual photographs, whereas everything else in the Bible ranges from stylized and caricaturized medieval paintings to the crudity of cave drawings in comparison. The Old Testament and the epistles are but interpretations, each part a believer’s honest but ultimately subjective impression of the Lord Who appeared.

      . . .

      If we can’t trust their historical, scientific facts, how can we trust their spiritual teachings? If an accomplished professional plumber wrote a plumbing handbook in which he shared his vocational expertise, but peppered it throughout with his speculations on the history of plumbing, his views on politics, etc., would inaccuracies in these last two cast doubt on how he says to proceed in choosing piping for your new bathroom addition? Of course not – you bought the book because you wanted to know about his area of expertise, and the value of his book for its primary purpose rests ultimately on his credentials as a plumber, and would not be tainted by the fact that he has erroneous beliefs in unrelated subjects!

      Similarly, the men who wrote the Bible were experts, licensed to practice by God Himself, and the theological Better Business Bureau called the Church has given them its seal of approval. Note that these commendations stop shy of making the Witnesses infallible. Yet it is foolishness and arrogance to claim that they were wrong on any spiritual matter without good cause. This is the same way historians read all first-hand accounts. An historian reading Julius Caesar can assume that the main content of his accounts are true, whether he embellished, downplayed, or simply missed some details. If we hold the Gospel writers to at least the same standard as scholars hold most ancient historians (and why shouldn’t we?), we have at least Christ’s resurrection on the concord of four separate first-century documents; we also have the testimony of extra-biblical history, which attests the meteoric rise of a religion that turned the world upside down within a generation’s time despite originating in a two-bit territory under Roman occupation, not to mention the otherwise unexplainable willingness to be martyred on the part of the apostles. No wonder Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 lays the weight of the whole gospel upon Christ’s resurrection — notice he didn’t have a canon to appeal to, and yet was more than confident in the legitimacy of his faith based upon that one event.