What do you think?
Rate this book
Scripture, Tradition and Infallibility
332 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1973
1 person is currently reading
12 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
June 1, 2024
A REVISION OF THE CONTROVERSIAL 1963 BOOK
Dewey M. Beegle is Emeritus Professor of Old Testament at Wesley Theological Seminary; he also wrote “Moses, the Servant of Yahweh.”
F.F. Bruce wrote in his Foreword to this 1979 book, “Dr. Beegle’s first edition was largely a demolition job. Here he has rearranged and amplified his material… and struck a more positive note. He does not ask his readers to agree with him but to take his arguments seriously. In particular, I endorse as emphatically as I can his deprecating of a Maginot-Line mentality where the doctrine of Scripture is concerned. The Word of God is something alive and active, not least when it bursts the confining hands in which our well-meant definitions try to enclose and protect it, and manifests its power to overcome opposition and lead on to fresh enterprises in the cause of Christ those who bring to it the response of obedience and faith.”
Beegle explains in the Preface, “The first edition of this book was published in 1963 under the title ‘The Inspiration of Scripture.’ At the time there was a growing dissatisfaction with established institutions, especially the church…. This spirit permeated the church to such an extent that in many congregations the biblical ideas of revelation, inspiration, and authority were considered relics of the past. Any desire to discuss the subjects was taken as proof of irrelevancy…. there are signs that this sickness of the sixties is beginning to pass… Because of this renewed interest … there is still a need for discussion of inspiration. Since, however, this biblical idea is intertwined with revelation, canonicity, tradition, and authority, an adequate discussion of one faced of the cluster of concepts necessarily involves consideration of the others.”
He proposes the “inductive method” of reasoning about the Bible, noting, “the most conclusive argument in favor of the inductive method is that without it there is no way for Scripture to correct traditions where they have misinterpreted passages in the Bible… the inductive method …is an honest approach to Scripture that revolves at all costs to let God’s Written Word speak for itself.” (Pg. 19)
He summarizes, “the term ‘revelation’ has a dual meaning when understood as communication… revelation has a subjective side as well as an objective side. This duality is expressed … in the biblical understanding of ‘knowledge’ as experiential (life in fellowship with God) and factual (the deposit of teaching and doctrine associated with that fellowship). In short, the Written Word is objective revelation and the response of faith is subjective revelation. The latter is not possible without the former, and the former without the latter incomplete.” (Pg. 52)
He says of German theology professors Willi Marxsen and Wolfhart Pannenberg, “difficulties in the biblical accounts do no compel faith, and so Pannenberg’s sole reliance on history as revelation is the opposite extreme of Marxsen’s refusal to recognize any aids to faith. Neither this writer nor any other Christian has the authority to declare that Marxsen cannot possibly have genuine faith because he cannot bring himself to believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. But when this recognition is acknowledged, those Christians who share the witness of the primitive church do no constitute a ‘barrier’ to faith.” (Pg. 63)
He states, “it is impossible to practice the use of ‘Scripture alone’ in an absolute sense. Even Martin Luther did not understand it that way… a simple reading of the Bible cannot bring out the nuances of the message as given in its original context. For this reason, a thorough comprehension of Scripture necessitates a knowledge of biblical languages, history, and background.” (Pg. 119) He adds, “The core meaning of ‘Scripture alone’ is that the canon is the only place where one can go to find the authoritative gospel of Christ. Notwithstanding all the difficulties of the Bible, it presents the clearest picture of Jesus and God his Father… the vast majority of ecclesiastical tradition resulted from the Holy Spirit’s working through the canonical books… This is also why there can be no constitutive tradition outside of the biblical canon. Once the apostolic period was closed, ecclesiastical tradition could never be the criterion for the truth.” (Pg. 121)
He points out, “Neither in these key passages by Paul, Jesus, and Peter nor in the rest of the New Testament passages that refer to the inspiration of the Old Testament are there any explicit statements that single out the autographs as being different in kind from copies. The reason is clearly seen from the New Testament as a whole. In proclaiming and defending the ‘good news,’ Jesus and the apostles took as their authority the available manuscripts of the Old Testament books. Their Jewish opponents shared this belief, and so the spiritual battle was waged and won on the common ground of the extant copies of Scripture, not on an abstract reference to the autographs.” (Pg. 155-156)
He says of Jude 14, “The specific problem concerning us here is not… the quotation from an apocryphal or pseudepigraphic book… Jude quotes 1 Enoch 1:9 as a PROPHECY that is being fulfilled in his day. Would he have done so had he thought the book and the passage originated during the period between the testaments? Does not the cruciality of the quotation indicate, rather, that Jude thought the authority of his source derived from Enoch, the preflood patriarch{?}” (Pg. 176-177)
He quotes OT scholar R.K. Harrison, who acknowledges that inerrancy ‘is not a formally stated claim made by the Scriptures… It is rathe ran inference…’ But it is precisely this ‘inference’ which is at issue… there is an unconscious shift from the inductive to the deductive method. The assumption that God had to reveal himself inerrantly becomes determinative for interpretation. Thus it is claimed that Jesus believed and taught the doctrine of inerrancy. This view is to be accepted on the authority of Christ whether or not it accords with all the facts.” (Pg. 217)
He notes, “Those evangelical Christians who do not find the doctrine of inerrancy in Scripture are free to recognize that the phenomena indicate the presence of some errors in the autographs… Instead of trying to determine implications of the text and to fill in areas of silence, they emphasize the explicit teachings of Scripture. In this way there is no need to choose between teaching and phenomena. They both arrive at the same conclusion.” (Pg. 219)
He suggests, “Ultimately… truth must be defined in terms of reality or facts… the doctrine of inerrancy is pointless. Regardless of the motivation or intent of the biblical writers, if any portion of the Bible deviates from reality, it is far better to speak in terms of the essential accuracy and trustworthiness of Scripture.” (Pg. 236)
He argues, “We have seen how [Jesus] and the New Testament writers referred… to the manuscripts of the Old Testament current in their day. These were errant, as all are compelled to admit, so the dilemma arises We are told we must believe either (1) that Jesus taught inerrancy, or (2) that he was fanatical or dishonest. But all of this stems from the assumption that Jesus taught inerrancy… But why must one start with the assumption of inerrancy? The inductive evidence indicates that Jesus taught a strong doctrine of inspiration and authority of Scripture, yet without claiming inerrancy. Once this is recognized, there is no need to discredit Jesus by considering him either a fanatic or a liar.” (Pg. 275-276)
He summarizes, “it is imperative to understand that the issue of truth will never be solved inerrantly.” (Pg. 294) He concludes, “Difficult though it may be to understand, God chose to make his authority relevant to his creatures by means that necessitate some element of fallibility. Whether we like to think of authority in such terms is beside the point. The facts permit no other understanding of Scripture’s inspiration and authority.” (Pg. 299) He ends, “Ultimately, authority is an individual, personal matter because everyone will be judged according to his willingness to know God’s will and to obey it. Scripture still speaks today. The real question is whether we will listen and act diligently.” (Pg. 312)
Forty years after it was first written, this book seems far less “radical” than when it was originally published. Nevertheless, it will be of great interest to those studying the issues of Infallibility and Inerrancy.
Dewey M. Beegle is Emeritus Professor of Old Testament at Wesley Theological Seminary; he also wrote “Moses, the Servant of Yahweh.”
F.F. Bruce wrote in his Foreword to this 1979 book, “Dr. Beegle’s first edition was largely a demolition job. Here he has rearranged and amplified his material… and struck a more positive note. He does not ask his readers to agree with him but to take his arguments seriously. In particular, I endorse as emphatically as I can his deprecating of a Maginot-Line mentality where the doctrine of Scripture is concerned. The Word of God is something alive and active, not least when it bursts the confining hands in which our well-meant definitions try to enclose and protect it, and manifests its power to overcome opposition and lead on to fresh enterprises in the cause of Christ those who bring to it the response of obedience and faith.”
Beegle explains in the Preface, “The first edition of this book was published in 1963 under the title ‘The Inspiration of Scripture.’ At the time there was a growing dissatisfaction with established institutions, especially the church…. This spirit permeated the church to such an extent that in many congregations the biblical ideas of revelation, inspiration, and authority were considered relics of the past. Any desire to discuss the subjects was taken as proof of irrelevancy…. there are signs that this sickness of the sixties is beginning to pass… Because of this renewed interest … there is still a need for discussion of inspiration. Since, however, this biblical idea is intertwined with revelation, canonicity, tradition, and authority, an adequate discussion of one faced of the cluster of concepts necessarily involves consideration of the others.”
He proposes the “inductive method” of reasoning about the Bible, noting, “the most conclusive argument in favor of the inductive method is that without it there is no way for Scripture to correct traditions where they have misinterpreted passages in the Bible… the inductive method …is an honest approach to Scripture that revolves at all costs to let God’s Written Word speak for itself.” (Pg. 19)
He summarizes, “the term ‘revelation’ has a dual meaning when understood as communication… revelation has a subjective side as well as an objective side. This duality is expressed … in the biblical understanding of ‘knowledge’ as experiential (life in fellowship with God) and factual (the deposit of teaching and doctrine associated with that fellowship). In short, the Written Word is objective revelation and the response of faith is subjective revelation. The latter is not possible without the former, and the former without the latter incomplete.” (Pg. 52)
He says of German theology professors Willi Marxsen and Wolfhart Pannenberg, “difficulties in the biblical accounts do no compel faith, and so Pannenberg’s sole reliance on history as revelation is the opposite extreme of Marxsen’s refusal to recognize any aids to faith. Neither this writer nor any other Christian has the authority to declare that Marxsen cannot possibly have genuine faith because he cannot bring himself to believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. But when this recognition is acknowledged, those Christians who share the witness of the primitive church do no constitute a ‘barrier’ to faith.” (Pg. 63)
He states, “it is impossible to practice the use of ‘Scripture alone’ in an absolute sense. Even Martin Luther did not understand it that way… a simple reading of the Bible cannot bring out the nuances of the message as given in its original context. For this reason, a thorough comprehension of Scripture necessitates a knowledge of biblical languages, history, and background.” (Pg. 119) He adds, “The core meaning of ‘Scripture alone’ is that the canon is the only place where one can go to find the authoritative gospel of Christ. Notwithstanding all the difficulties of the Bible, it presents the clearest picture of Jesus and God his Father… the vast majority of ecclesiastical tradition resulted from the Holy Spirit’s working through the canonical books… This is also why there can be no constitutive tradition outside of the biblical canon. Once the apostolic period was closed, ecclesiastical tradition could never be the criterion for the truth.” (Pg. 121)
He points out, “Neither in these key passages by Paul, Jesus, and Peter nor in the rest of the New Testament passages that refer to the inspiration of the Old Testament are there any explicit statements that single out the autographs as being different in kind from copies. The reason is clearly seen from the New Testament as a whole. In proclaiming and defending the ‘good news,’ Jesus and the apostles took as their authority the available manuscripts of the Old Testament books. Their Jewish opponents shared this belief, and so the spiritual battle was waged and won on the common ground of the extant copies of Scripture, not on an abstract reference to the autographs.” (Pg. 155-156)
He says of Jude 14, “The specific problem concerning us here is not… the quotation from an apocryphal or pseudepigraphic book… Jude quotes 1 Enoch 1:9 as a PROPHECY that is being fulfilled in his day. Would he have done so had he thought the book and the passage originated during the period between the testaments? Does not the cruciality of the quotation indicate, rather, that Jude thought the authority of his source derived from Enoch, the preflood patriarch{?}” (Pg. 176-177)
He quotes OT scholar R.K. Harrison, who acknowledges that inerrancy ‘is not a formally stated claim made by the Scriptures… It is rathe ran inference…’ But it is precisely this ‘inference’ which is at issue… there is an unconscious shift from the inductive to the deductive method. The assumption that God had to reveal himself inerrantly becomes determinative for interpretation. Thus it is claimed that Jesus believed and taught the doctrine of inerrancy. This view is to be accepted on the authority of Christ whether or not it accords with all the facts.” (Pg. 217)
He notes, “Those evangelical Christians who do not find the doctrine of inerrancy in Scripture are free to recognize that the phenomena indicate the presence of some errors in the autographs… Instead of trying to determine implications of the text and to fill in areas of silence, they emphasize the explicit teachings of Scripture. In this way there is no need to choose between teaching and phenomena. They both arrive at the same conclusion.” (Pg. 219)
He suggests, “Ultimately… truth must be defined in terms of reality or facts… the doctrine of inerrancy is pointless. Regardless of the motivation or intent of the biblical writers, if any portion of the Bible deviates from reality, it is far better to speak in terms of the essential accuracy and trustworthiness of Scripture.” (Pg. 236)
He argues, “We have seen how [Jesus] and the New Testament writers referred… to the manuscripts of the Old Testament current in their day. These were errant, as all are compelled to admit, so the dilemma arises We are told we must believe either (1) that Jesus taught inerrancy, or (2) that he was fanatical or dishonest. But all of this stems from the assumption that Jesus taught inerrancy… But why must one start with the assumption of inerrancy? The inductive evidence indicates that Jesus taught a strong doctrine of inspiration and authority of Scripture, yet without claiming inerrancy. Once this is recognized, there is no need to discredit Jesus by considering him either a fanatic or a liar.” (Pg. 275-276)
He summarizes, “it is imperative to understand that the issue of truth will never be solved inerrantly.” (Pg. 294) He concludes, “Difficult though it may be to understand, God chose to make his authority relevant to his creatures by means that necessitate some element of fallibility. Whether we like to think of authority in such terms is beside the point. The facts permit no other understanding of Scripture’s inspiration and authority.” (Pg. 299) He ends, “Ultimately, authority is an individual, personal matter because everyone will be judged according to his willingness to know God’s will and to obey it. Scripture still speaks today. The real question is whether we will listen and act diligently.” (Pg. 312)
Forty years after it was first written, this book seems far less “radical” than when it was originally published. Nevertheless, it will be of great interest to those studying the issues of Infallibility and Inerrancy.
Read
June 4, 2020This book was published in 1973 at the height of the notorious 'Battle for the Bible' - a time which conservative institutions (churches and seminaries) witnessed a large defection over the issue of inerrancy. And this publication represents the liberal answer to the debate. While I don't agree with Beegle's conclusions, I gave the book three stars because it was an interesting read and he did a pretty good job delineating his view.
Want to read
April 5, 2017I need to read it now please.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews