Not circular. The argument regarding the the inspiration of the Bible is a spiral one, rather than a circular one.
I agree that this is a
spiral argument, not a circular one!
I still don’t think it is without shortcomings, which I’ll outline below.
Also, I believe that the Protestant can utilize some of this spiral, no less than the Catholic, even though the Protestant’s version of it will have even
more shortcomings than I believe the Catholic version has.
the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history.
Let’s say that a historian agreed that, generally speaking, the Bible is reliable as a historical document. The first shortcoming I see is that historical reliability can never be measured in terms of “100% reliable.” Any of the following things can come into play:
—a fault of memory
–confusion on the part of the author relating the story (getting his facts mixed up); or, in fact, a failure to fully grasp the concepts
–a “filling in the gaps” of specific details that the author may not recollect with exactitude, for the sake of not creating a “patchy” story
And that doesn’t even cover the possibility of deliberate fictions, though – for the sake of the argument – I’m assuming that there were none. That still leaves human error, which no argument for historical reliability – in a scientific sense – would ever deny is possible. Even Caesar’s book on the campaigns in Gaul – written in his
own hand – can contain historical inaccuracies; dates mixed up; conversations partially fictionalized, in order to fill gaps in memory.
So my first argument is that “arguing for the historical reliability of the Bible”, just as arguing for the historical reliability of
anything, is not a case of 100.0% accuracy, but rather “mostly” accurate or “probably most accurate.” Using due caution, that could be anything from about 60 to 70% accurate, to 90%, 95%, or 98% accurate. But 100.0% accurate, though theoretically possible, is not particularly likely; it can’t be assumed, whether it be for the Bible, or Rousseau’s Confessions (the story of his life), or an account of Caesar’s campaigns in Gaul.
that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded.
This is not a slam dunk, either. Let’s take that line in Matthew – “you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of heaven will not prevail against it.” If we agree that the Bible is “generally reliable, historically” we still do not know with 100% certainty that this particular line was actually spoken by Christ. It could very well have been, but it would be more certain if this line appeared in all 4 gospels, or 3 of the 4, or even 2 of them. As it is, it only appears in one. There is an element of subjective judgment in determining – from a purely historical perspective – whether these words were spoken.
Further, there is an element of subjectivity in interpreting what he
meant by those words (enter the Protestants
). Remember, at this point, an infallible Church has not yet been agreed upon; it hinges upon the interpretation of this sentence, and others. Therefore, there is still “room” for differences in interpretation; no one party can
yet set itself up as an authority, and claim that it is vindicated. Whether it is vindicated depends on one’s
interpretation of the text, even if both parties agree that it is a reliable historical document.
But
if you could prove that the Bible is 100% historically reliable (but I’m not even sure the New York Times even achieves that, in printing a full page of obituaries! ;-); we’ve all seen the “editorial corrections” that appear in the next issue, and I’m sure they don’t always catch them) and
if you could prove that the only reasonable way to interpret the Biblical text is in inferring an infallible Church, and – furthermore – inferring that it is
the infallible Church of Rome, then you could indeed now turn around and say, “by the way, the Bible is inspired by God.”
The problem I see is that, without
already claiming the Bible to be inerrant, I don’t think it would be “reasonable” to stake a claim to 100.0% historical accuracy, assuming 0.0% factual errors or distortions. An infallible Church
can determine that; but the problem is, “historical Biblical inerrancy” cannot reasonably be inferred from the more general term “historical reliability.”
Where I think Protestants can use the spiral argument is that they can seize upon the fact that it doesn’t take the
church to argue for the historical reliability of the gospels. They can do that independently of the authority of any Church. Further, all they have to do then is interpret that line about “Peter and the rock” differently than the Catholics do.
Where I think
their spiral runs into difficulties is in finding anywhere in the Bible that says that the text is
inspired. There is nothing in the text that ever explicitly states this but, then again, neither is there is anything in the text that explicitly states that the Bible is
factually inerrant which, again, is a leap from ordinary standards of historical reliability.
