by God? And if it is inspired, must it be seen as infallible or perhaps inerrant? Are such
beliefs about the Bible compatible with contemporary Biblical scholarship?
In answering such questions much depends on the nature of the relation between God and
the inspired human agent of revelation. If one thinks of God as literally the author of a
revelation, which is simply dictated to the prophet or human agent, as Islam claims is the
case for the Quran, then it would appear that the revelation would be completely inerrant
as well as inspired, since God is
end p.327
incapable of error. Most Christian theologians, however, have rejected such a dictation
model of inspiration, and urged that God's inspiration in some way employs the ordinary
human capacities of the prophet, taking the term “prophet” here as a general term for the
human agent involved in the giving of a revelation.
A number of different models seem possible. For example, God could instill an
understanding of some truth in a prophet and then allow that person to express the truth in
his or her own characteristic manner. Or God could, being omniscient, know that some
human is going to speak the truth and then declare that this person is authorized to speak
for God, that is, that this person is a prophet. Alternatively, God could simply adopt the
words of some human and declare that they express what he wishes to reveal, that they
have the status of prophecy, much as a human being might take the words of some other
person's poem as expressing what the first person wishes to communicate. All of these
possibilities and more would seem to give a large role in the process of revelation to the
human author.^1 However, there is much disagreement about the nature of inspiration thus
conceived and about the implications of taking seriously the role of the human author.
One view, especially associated with Protestant fundamentalism, is that inspiration
logically implies that the revealed Scriptures are inerrant, without error with respect to all
the truths contained, including historical and scientific truths as well as those concerning
morality and religion. Such a position might appear to be an extreme one that is difficult
to defend, but in reality, claims for inerrancy are always heavily qualified in a number of
ways. First of all, only the original “autographs,” now presumably irrecoverable, are
actually alleged to be inerrant, which allows for errors to develop as the Scriptures are
copied and translated.
An even more significant qualification, however, is that the Scriptures are claimed to be
inerrant only when properly interpreted. As soon as the issue of interpretation emerges,
matters become complicated. For example, the proper interpretation of a particular
passage depends on the identification of its proper genre. If the Book of Jonah was
intended as history, then if no such prophet in fact was swallowed and then regurgitated
by a giant fish, the book contains falsehood. If, however, the book was composed as a
parable, and was meant to be understood as such, as many scholars think is likely the
case, then its truth would not depend on its historical versimilitude, but on the soundness
of its ethical and theological point, which seems to be that God is willing to show mercy
on all who repent, including the people of Nineveh and not just the Israelites.
Defenders of inerrancy usually accept other interpretive principles that restrict the scope
of inerrancy. For example, the biblical authors use the language of appearance, rather
than the precise language of science, in speaking of the sun rising and setting and going