Authority of the Bible

Robert Gnuse

Throughout history the Bible has exerted influence on the development of Christian art, literature, morality, and especially theology. Christians have affirmed the authority of the Bible in church life, but different theologians, denominations, and schools of thought have exhibited great diversity in understanding the nature of this authority.

1. History of Biblical Authority. Jesus and the early church used Hebrew Scriptures and the Septuagint as their authoritative literature, even though the canonical form had not yet arisen. In their interpretation some texts were more authoritative than others, and frequently passages were not understood literally. This approach set the standard for later Christians (see Grant-Tracy, 8-16).

In the patristic church the writings of the NT received gradual acceptance until their fourth century canonization. The faith of the church was the norm for canonization, but once created the canon assumed the greater authority. However, church fathers perceived that using scriptural passages as a theological authority without this "rule of faith" could lead to heresy. The apostolic faith remained the basic authority behind the Bible. Theologians differed in hermeneutical approaches. The Alexandrian School (Clement, Origen) allegorized texts to avoid crude anthropomorphisms and to obtain Christian insights; the Antiochenes (Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom) were more literal in an attempt to find meaning without allegorical excesses. Theologians often spoke of divine "accommodation" or "condescension" in God's revelation to finite human beings, especially Origen, Chrysostom, and Augustine (see Rogers-McKim, 11-34).

In the middle ages the approach to the Bible was influenced by the rise of scholastic methods. Interpreters used the four-fold way to obtain meaning: literal, allegorical, tropological (moral), and anagogical (eschatological) senses. Only a few, like the Victorines (Hugh, Richard, Andrew) and Nicholas of Lyra, who followed Jewish scholars like Rashi, pursued the literal-historical interpretative approach, which later influenced the reformers (see McNeil, IB 1.119-22).

With the Reformation the Protestant insistence upon sola scriptura was an attempt to replace tradition, philosophy, and ecclesiastical structures with the Bible as the primary theological authority. Luther and Calvin both saw Christ as the authority behind the Scriptures, so that both could assess critically the text and the culturally bound ideas found therein. For both, Scriptures spoke to the heart as much as to the mind, and they were validated by the inner testimony of the Spirit. Calvin was the more systematic theologian and his biblical commentaries were oriented more exegetically. Though not as free to criticize parts of the text as Luther, nonetheless he spoke of divine accommodation (see Reid, 29-72; Kraeling, 9-32).

Roman Catholic polemics against Protestant theology undermined the authority of the Bible in favor of ecclesiastical authority. Theologians produced models of inspiration and authority which limited the extent of biblical authority, hence, they were called minimalists (Lessius, Suarez, Bonfre;re, Simon, Jahn, Haneberg, 1550-1870). The Bible was authoritative only because God provided negative assistance to avoid errors or because the church subsequently granted authority to these works (see Burtchaell, 44-56). However, many defended a maximalist view which attributed a high view of inspiration or even dictation to the text (Cano, Bañez, Billuart, 1550-1750). The Council of Trent (1545-1563) provided ideas not too dissimilar to Protestant definitions when it described Scriptures as the norma normans non normatus, the "norm which governs but is not governed," so that Scriptures were perceived as foundational for tradition.

With the rise of empirical sciences, deism, and rationalism the authority of the Bible seemed challenged. The age of orthodoxy (1600-1750) saw the Bible viewed as a compendium of theological statements and buttressed by increasingly defensive appeals to its authority by both Lutheran (Gerhard, Quenstedt) and Reformed (Vermigli, Beza, Turretin) theologians. The "material principle" (justification by faith or the gospel) became subordinate to the "formal principle" (Bible). In particular, Francis Turretin (1632-87) used scholastic-aristotelian methods to articulate the doctrine of Scripture (see Kraeling, 33-42; Rogers-McKim, 147-199).

The nineteenth century saw the rise of biblical criticism. The roots of this movement lay in seventeenth-century English Deism and the eighteenth-century German Enlightenment (see Reventlow, 1-414). Combined with the philosophical idealism of Hegel and the Romantic theology of Schleiermacher, the greater majority of theologians moved from orthodoxy to liberalism, and authority was posited in the human dimension, religious experience, or the intellectual quest for understanding. Inspiration was attributed to the individuals who created the Scriptures rather than the biblical text (see William Sanday's "Bampton Lectures") and defined as religious genius. NT methods were pioneered by the Tübingen school, and Wellhausen outlined the evolution of Hebrew Scriptures.

Critical thought influenced theology greatly, and the late nineteenth century witnessed the rise of liberal theologians like Harnack, Ritschl, and Troeltsch. Only a few theologians adhered either to confessional movements or traditional orthodoxy. The most notable example of the latter position were the Reformed Princeton theologians (A. Alexander, C. Hodge, A. A. Hodge, B. B. Warfield, 1812-1921), who combined the scholastic theology of Turretin with the eighteenth century Scottish "Common Sense" Realism of Thomas Reid as mediated through John Witherspoon in America (see Noll). Their view of the Bible as inerrant became the point of dispute in the Modernist-Fundamentalist debates among twentieth century Protestants (see Rogers-McKim, 235-361).

Though at first only conservative Protestants were threatened by critical thought, the same controversy also came to Roman Catholic circles. Debate over the nature of inspiration arose in the nineteenth century. Advocates of "content inspiration" (Realinspiration in German and res et sententiae in Latin) proposed that only certain portions of Scripture were inspired, while other sections reflected the limited biblical world view (Franzelin, Lenormant, Pesch, Newman). While most proponents of this view were Jesuits, their position was criticized by Dominican theologians who advocated a stricter "verbal inspiration" (Denzinger, Lagrange). The former position predominated until the encyclical Providentissimus Deus (1893) of Leo XIII, then the latter view was ascendant, until the Modernist Controversy (1907-20) cast suspicion upon both positions. Encyclicals like Pascendi Domenici Gregis (1907) by Pius X and Spiritus Paraclitus (1920) by Benedict XV condemned all views of inspiration which lacked the notion of inerrancy. This trend was reversed, however, when in 1943 Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu which accepted critical biblical methods. Roman Catholic biblical scholarship began anew, and the document, "Verbum Dei" by Vatican II, furthered this impetus (see Vawter, 70-71, 143-50; Burtchaell, 58-163).

Among Protestants in the twentieth century a wide range of opinions has been presented on biblical authority and inspiration. Barth, Brunner, and other neo-orthodox theologians proclaimed the Bible as the medium through which the authoritative Word of God might address people. Related biblical studies used the model of salvation history to describe the Bible, and the authority behind the text lay in the events to which it testified (von Rad, Wright, Bright, Cullmann). Existential theology maintained that the text was authoritative when it addressed the situation of the reader or listener (Bultmann). Recent trends in theology, such as process thought, theology of hope, liberation theology, feminist theology, various post-modern and deconstructionist theologies, and others have moved in a more liberal direction, but they still appeal to the biblical text as a primary theological resource. Concern with the hermeneutical approach to the Bible typifies the quest of these more contemporary theologies.

2. Models of Biblical Authority. The following typology may reflect in a general fashion the ways in which biblical authority has been understood.

a. Inspiration. The most frequently affirmed model is to declare the Bible authoritative by virtue of its inspiration or authorship by God (2 Tim 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21). Since the divine-human relationship in the process of inspiration is not explained by the text, great debate has arisen over its exact nature.

A modern conservative view declares the very words to be inspired or dictated by God (Verbal Inspiration) and the text to be inspired in all parts (Full or Plenary Inspiration). The text is without error in matters of faith and human knowledge, though inerrancy is sometimes limited only to the original texts or autographs. Early advocates appeared in the age of orthodoxy (Gerhard, Quenstedt, Turretin), but the concept of inerrancy was developed most fully among the nineteenth century Princeton theologians. For them Scripture was absolute truth, and texts were treated as propositional revelation for the articulation of theology and morals. Contemporary advocates stress biblical accuracy in matters of science and history and sternly critique Christians who adhere to a position other than this (Pache, Engelder, Young, Schaeffer, Packer, Montgomery, Gerstner, Archer, Carlson). Others less dogmatically inclined admit authentic Christian theology can be done without such a strict definition of inerrancy (Carnell, Henry, Fuller, Pinnock, Michaels, Lovelace).

Many evangelicals affirm a more flexible definition which views Scripture as inspired and infallible in regard to theology and morals, but not inerrant in matter of history and science. Culturally and historically conditioned literature was produced by human authors through whom God communicated by accommodation. This view appears to reflect the position of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin more sensitively. Modern proponents have included continental Reformed theologians (Bavinck, Kuyper, Berkouwer, Orr) and Roman Catholics who advocated verbal inspiration (Lagrange, Bea, Lohfink, Loretz, Harrington, Scullion). Contemporary evengelical Protestants defending this view, however, often find themselves on the defensive in denominational controversies (Beegle, Davis, Alley, Hubbard, Jewett, Rogers, McKim) (see Johnston, 15-47).

Some theologians perceive only the ideas or content to be inspired, while the words are totally the product of people culturally conditioned. The Word of God, mixed with erring human words, speaks authoritatively, because it arises from theological, intellectual, and deep experiential dimensions (Semler, W. R. Smith, Cardinal Franzelin, Cardinal Newman). Newman, for example, said Scripture had authority in matters of faith, but the rest of the text, the obiter dicta, was not binding and could contain error (see Newman, 102-53).

Inspiration might be associated with the experience of the biblical spokespersons but not the writings, since the writings were produced by different people. Inspiration may refer to the divine-human encounter or the religious genius of a sensitive individual, the communion of a person with the divine force either externally or internally. This genius has authority today when it exhibits the power to create a religious community and relive the experiences of the original prophets. Levels of inspiration exist according to the degree of divine truth expressed. Under the impulse of Romanticism this notion was born, and it was followed by later German idealists and the confessional Erlangen School (Herder, J. J. Griesbach, J. D. Griesbach). More recent articulation was offered by Sanday, Fosdick, and especially Dodd (see Dodd, 27-28, 264-70).

The modern scholarly perception that the biblical text was the result of a long process of oral tradition, precipitation into writing, written redaction, and finally canonization has led to a view of inspiration which attributes the charism to the entire community of faith which produced Scripture. Roman Catholics like Benoit, Rahner, McCarthy, and especially McKenzie have defined this as social inspiration. Their more organic view understands the relation of Scripture and tradition; though the discussion about inspired community may lead to theological rationales for ecclesiastical authority (Rahner). Protestants like Barr use similar imagery, but the emphasis lies upon individuals within the community who participated in the developmental process of creating Scripture. Since such individuals often stand in tension with their religious communities (Job, Paul), the charism or inspiration should not be attributed to the entire community (see McKenzie, 115-24).

b. Salvation History. Among biblical theologians in recent years the Bible is viewed as the record of salvific events initiated by God for the chosen people, a record of divine irruptions into human history (exodus of Israel, resurrection of Jesus) whereby God delivered, constituted, and preserved the holy people. The community of faith was created by those events and looks to them for self-understanding. Traditions develop around those primal events and theological interpretation turns to them as the norm for faith. The Bible's authority is derived from the events to which it testifies (von Rad, Wright, Fuller, Cullman, Bright, Minear) (see Wright, 11-128).

Several scholars have been reluctant to point to the events as the source of authority, since events are inascertainable things, and all we have are interpretations of the events. An event is meaningless until interpreted by faith in the religious community, be it Israel or the ancient church. Von Rad and Bultmann considered Scripture to be faith interpretations of events with little or no historicity. Not only is the original history irrecoverable, it is really unimportant, since the interpretations alone have meaning and authority for us.

Pannenberg, Moltmann, T. Rendtorff, U. Wilkins, and others moved the locus of authority from the text to the arena of history itself. God does more than offer revelation in history; rather, history is revelation, the continuing arena of divine self-disclosure. History becomes the primary category in theologizing rather than mere reports of divine events. Theologians turn to the present social and historical realities as the source for theology (see Pannenberg, 90-152; Moltmann, 15-238).

c. Existentialism. Existential models move the locus of authority from the text or the category of history to the individual who hears and responds to the Word of God. When a person is confronted by the preached word, the past becomes alive again in the context of faith.

This scholarly hermeneutic was advocated by neo-orthodox theologians (Barth, Brunner, Gogarten) and the Heideggerian existentialists of Bultmann's school. For Barth the Bible contains the Word of God, which becomes such only when listeners are confronted by the viva vox, preaching and teaching (see Barth, 522-44). Bultmann declared the message to be authoritative when it confronts an individual to condemn inauthentic existence and to elicit response--the acceptance of freedom and responsibility (see Pannenberg, 153-62).

A less radical mode of interpretation views the text as authoritative when it describes situations parallel to our own. Since believers face many of the same problems as their biblical counterparts, their elicited response may be a guideline for the modern age when properly translated from that cultural context. The rationale behind the biblical text is applied to the modern situation in a fashion appropriate to human need. Preaching should relive authentically the experience of the text in order to find the common spiritual bond between ancient and modern people. When the text addresses religious needs in similar situations, it speaks with authority.

Scholars sympathetic to artistlc and literary dimensions perceive scriptural images not in logical, ideational, or positivistic categories, but rather as poetic and symbolic images which inspire. Non-rational symbols communicate transcendent truth more effectively than propositions and evoke a full range of intellectual and emotive response: doctrine, liturgy, preaching, teaching, and art. Biblical authority lies in the power of its symbols to evoke a full religious response (Farrar, Thornton, Moran, Frei, and Alonso-Schökel) (see Alonso-Schökel, 91-105, 296-99, 376-85).

d. Christocentric Models. A norm from part of the biblical text may provide the norma normans to interpret the rest of the text, and Christians often appeal to Christ or the proclamation of the Gospel as such a norm. There are different ways to view Christ as the center of the process. The Christ event, the death and resurrection of Jesus, might constitute the Gospel and serve as the locus of authority (Luther's justification principle). Nineteenth century scholars sought to rediscover the real teachings of the historical Jesus in order to build an authentic Christianity upon this foundation. In response, twentieth century Christians would view the Christ of faith, the living Lord of the church, as the source of authority.

Luther is singled out as exemplar of this approach, for he described the Bible as the cradle wherein laid the Christ child, and his theological and exegetical point of departure was the expression, "what drives Christ home." In the same tradition Barth described Christ as the "immediate Word of God," while the Bible was a "derived" Word of God, and tradition and the preached message (viva vox) were the Word in a dependent sense (also Forsyth, Gogarten, Cunliffe-Jones, Reid, Dodd, Tavard).

Käsemann took this principle to its logical conclusion when he spoke of the "canon within the canon" of Romans, Galatians, and Corinthians. These works contain the Gospel in its purest form; divergent views in the remaining books are subordinate. Hence, the "primitive Catholicism" of the later Epistles remains inferior to the charismatic and egalitarian theology of Paul (see Käsemann, 63-107, 169-95).

e. Limitation. Different approaches seek to limit the authority of the Bible and its extensive use in theology. In turn, other norms would be advanced as theological resources.

Some theologians might advocate an open canon. The fourth-century canonization is seen as a mistake, for authority then was crystalized unduly in a single book. Valuable but excluded writings were lost, the authority of Christ lessened, and theological growth ossified. An open canon position would permit inclusion of additional religious writings and affirm the progressive revelation of God in the life of the church.

Various theologians limit the authority of the Bible to grant other theological sources greater respect. Roman Catholic minimalists elevated the importance of tradition by declaring that God merely provided negative assistance to biblical authors to prevent error (Jahn) or that God merely approved the creation of the texts subsequent to their writing (Bonfre;re, Sixtus, Haneberg). Liberal Protestants subordinated biblical authority to religious feeling as a source for theology (Schleiermacher, Herder, J. D. Michaelis, Griesbach). Biblical authority lay only in its experiential dimension. Later nineteenth-century Protestants tempered biblical authority with German Idealism. Finally, contemporary theologians often emphasize that biblical authority must be balanced with philosophy, the humanities, social sciences, and current human need in the theological process.

3. Conclusion. Modern critical historical consciousness has led theologians to view biblical authority with a wider range of options and provided new ways of perceiving the issues in a broader context. The biblical text was created by a developmental process: oral tradition, precipitation into writing, redaction, textual transmission, and canonization. Scripture was produced by an on-going process of tradition-making and theologizing, and the process did not end with the creation of the canon.

Recognition of this dynamic process may lead to several new observations: (1) The relationship between scripture and tradition is closer than has been admitted by Protestants and more fluid and dynamic than admitted by Roman Catholics. (2) Inspiration as a charism should be applied properly to the entire process of creating the text. (3) Inspiration, however, is not the cause for authority, but a chief characteristic of an authoritative text; nor is inspiration limited to just canonical writings. (4) The gospel, or the "rule of faith," or "The Tradition," is the guiding theological and interpretative norm underlying the scriptures, which in turn are the norm for the later Christian traditions. (5) To declare Christ, the resurrection, or the gospel testimony as the ultimate authority is theologically ideal, but ultimately these notions are too abstract to be a theologoumena to undergird any concrete discussion of biblical authority. (6) Finally, the canon has authority because it contains the spiritual experiences of the earliest communities of faith, and it has inspired generations of Christians past and present. The Scriptures contain the paradigms of the divine process still operative yet today (see Achtemeier, 114-47; Gnuse, 102-24).

Bibliography. P. Achtemeier, The Inspiration of Scripture (1980); R. S. Alley, Revolt Against the Faithful (1970); L. Alonso-Schökel, The Inspired Word (1965); J. Barr, The Bible in the Modern World (1973); Holy Scripture (1983); The Scope and Authority of the Bible (1980); K. Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. I, pts. 1-2 (1932, ET 1936); The Word of God and the Word of Man (1924, ET 1928); D. L. Bartlett, The Shape of Scriptural Authority (1983); J. Barton, People of the Book? (1988); D. M. Beegle, The Inspiration of Scripture (1963); Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility (1973); P. Benoit, Aspects of Biblical Inspiration (1965); G. Berkouwer, Holy Scripture (1975); J. Bright, The Authority of the OT (1967); E. Brunner, Revelation and Reason (1941, ET 1946); J. T. Burtchaell, Catholic Theories of Biblical Inspiration since 1810 (1969); R. Bryant, The Bible's Authority Today (1968); H. von Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Bible (1972); Y. Congar, La Tradition et les traditiones (1960); H. Cunliffe-Jones, The Authority of the Biblical Revelation (1948); S. Davis, The Debate about the Bible (1977); C. H. Dodd, The Authority of the Bible (1929); F. W. Farrar, History of Interpretation (1886); R. Gnuse, The Authority of the Bible (1985); R. Grant and D. Tracy, A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible (1984); R. Grant, J. T. McNeil, and S. Terrien, "History of the Interpretation of the Bible," IB 1 (1952) 106-41; F. Greenspahn (ed.), Scripture in the Jewish and Christian Traditions (1982); C. F. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, vol. 2 (1976); A. G. Herbert, The Authority of the OT (1947); A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, Inspiration (1881); R. Johnston, Evangelicals at an Impasse (1979); E. Käsemann, Essays on NT Themes (1964); D. Kelsey, The Uses of Scripture in Recent Theology (1975); E. G. H. Kraeling, The OT since the Reformation (1955); O. Loretz, The Truth of the Bible (1964, ET 1968); J. McKenzie, "The Social Character of Inspiration," CBQ 24 (1962) 115-24; D. K. McKim (ed.), The Authoritative Word (1983); J. Moltmann, Theology of Hope (1964, ET 1967); J. H. Newman, On the Inspiration of Scripture (ed. J. D. Holmes and R. Murray, 1967); M. A. Noll, The Princeton Theology 1812-1921 (1983); J. Orr, Revelation and Inspiration (1910); W. Pannenberg, Revelation as History (1961, ET 1968); C. Pinnock, The Scripture Principle (1984); K. Rahner, Inspiration in the Bible (1962); K. Rahner and J. Ratzinger, Revelation and Tradition (1966); J. K. S. Reid, The Authority of Scripture (1957); H. G. Reventlow, The Authority of the Bible and the Rise of the Modern World (1980, ET 1985); A. Richardson, The Bible in the Age of Science (1961); A. Richardson and W. Schweitzer (eds.), Biblical Authority for Today (1951); J. B. Rogers (ed.), Biblical Authority (1977); J. B. Rogers and D. K. McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible (1979); W. Sanday, Inspiration (1896); J. Scullion, The Theology of Inspiration (1970); N. Snaith, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (1956); P. Synave and P. Benoit, Prophecy and Inspiration (1961); L. S. Thornton, The Form of the Servant (3 vols., 1950); F. Turretin, The Doctrine of Scripture (1847; ed. and trans. J. Beardslee, 1981); B. Vawter, Biblical Inspiration (1972); B. B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (1948); G. E. Wright, God Who Acts (1952); R. Youngblood (ed.), Evangelicals and Inerrancy (1984).