Page 325 - Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible Christianity. Based on the King James Bible

INSPIRATION

To make room for form criticism, D.A. Carson and his understand the reports written by redaction scholars.
fellow New Evangelical authors of “An Introduction to Ordinarily they do contain one word of doctrine,
the New Testament” reject the verbal inspiration of the reproof, correction, or instruction in righteousness, yet
Gospels and replace it with a more vague “voice those are the very purposes for which the Holy
inspiration.” They say, “But their failure to preserve the Scriptures were given (2 Ti. 3:16-17).
ipsissima verba Jesu (the authentic words of Jesus) does 7. The alleged contradictions and problems within
not mean that they have tampered with the ipsisima vox the Gospels that are raised by those who promote form
Jesu (the authentic voice of Jesus)” (p. 44). This is the criticism have been answered satisfactorily without
old modernistic argument that the Gospels give only a resorting to modernistic theories. For one thing, form
semblance of what Christ said rather than His actual criticism ignores the traditional approach to the
words. And it a repetition of the modernistic mumbo- Gospels, which says the Holy Spirit gave a supernatural
jumbo that the Bible is somehow authoritative even four-fold portrait of Christ, and that the material in each
though it is not verbally inerrant. Gospel was divinely selected from the events of Christ’s
2. The Gospels are miraculous upon their very face. life to contribute to the individual portrait.
They contain not merely eyewitness accounts that could Evangelicals who follow form criticism mention
have been produced by men, but many things that could many alleged contradictions, and they claim that the
not have been produced by even the closest human only satisfactory answer to these is some sort of
observer. They describe the thoughts and motives of naturalistic redaction view of the writing of the Gospels.
men’s hearts, for example. How can that be accounted D.A. Carson and his co-authors state, “Only a theory
for on any naturalistic basis? The disciples could hear that includes as a major component literary
what Jesus said and see what He did, but they could not interdependence among the Synoptic Gospels is capable
reach into His very mind to see, for instance, that He of explaining the data” (p. 29).
knew the thoughts of men’s hearts (i.e., Lk. 5:22; 6:8;
9:47; 11:17). And they could not discern the actual And Daniel Wallace says, “When one compares the
motives of men such as Pilate (i.e., Mk. 15:15). Only synoptic materials with John’s Gospel, why are there so
God the Holy Spirit could have produced the Gospels. It few verbal similarities? On an independent hypothesis,
is foolish and unbelieving to attempt to look for any either John or the synoptics are wrong, or else John
other explanation. does not record the same events at all in the life of
Jesus.”
3. If form criticism is true, we will never know for
sure what part of the Gospels contains the fallible words The differences and apparent contradictions between
of men and what part contains the infallible Word of the Gospels have been analyzed carefully by men of God
God. If, as Dallas Seminary professor Daniel Wallace through the centuries and satisfactory answers have
implies, there was a mysterious “Q” document from been given without resorting to fanciful textual
which some of the Gospel writers drew their criticism. I have a large library of books dealing with the
information, it will never be known because no such alleged contradictions in the Bible, including many
document exists today. Dr. Wallace admits that there are volumes from the 18th and 19th centuries. The
dozens of theories within the broad scope of problems raised by redaction critics have been answered
reductionism or form criticism. If redaction theories of to the satisfaction of many godly minds.
the Gospels are true, we are not left with established Many of the “problems” in the Gospels are dealt with
and settled truth; we are left with endless theorizing. in our book Things Hard to Be Understood.
4. The theories of form criticism are contrary even to And though we cannot answer every problem that
common sense. To think that Matthew and John, who arises when comparing parallel passages in the four
were apostles and who were intimate eyewitnesses to Gospels, the solution for a believer is not to give up the
the Gospel accounts would depend upon Mark or Luke, doctrine of verbal inspiration or to think that the
who were not eyewitnesses, or upon any other human Gospels do not give us a verbally accurate transmission
source such as a “Q” document, makes no sense. of Christ’s actual words and deeds. The solution is to
5. If form criticism is true, there are errors in the walk by faith, not by sight, for “without faith it is
Bible. Even the evangelicals who are dabbling in form impossible to please him” (He. 11:6).
criticism make this unbelieving conclusion. If there are 8. Form criticism focuses on the method of
errors in the Bible, Jesus was wrong when He promised inspiration rather than the product. We know there is a
that the Scripture cannot be broken (Jn. 10:35). human element in the Scripture in the sense that men
6. Form criticism does not edify the flock; it wrote the Bible, but the Bible itself doesn’t focus on the
entertains the scholars. Only someone trained in the human element. We are given brief glimpses from time
finer nuances of modern textual criticism could even to time of some of the mechanics of the giving of

Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible & Christianity 325