Models For Scripture

Written by John Goldingay Reviewed By Paul A. Barker

The endorsement by Richard Bauckham highlighted on the front cover of this book says: ‘This is a book that will make all who think they know what they are reading when they read the Bible think again.’ Without doubt, this is certainly a substantial and thought-provoking book. Though less in the United Kingdom than in the United States, the doctrine of Scripture remains contentious among evangelicals. Goldingay’s volume contributes to this debate.

One of the most refreshing things about this work is that it comes from a biblical commentator rather than a systematician. This is reflected in the author’s sensitivity to the variety of biblical genres which gives rise to the four models Goldingay expounds. ‘Different genres such as narrative, law, wisdom and prophecy indeed suggest different models for understanding scripture’ (p. 9). Goldingay rejects the usefulness of old models such as inspiration, authority and revelation ‘because they were stretched to provide answers to different and broader questions than the ones they originally addressed’ (p. 13). In their place, Goldingay suggests four models: the witnessing tradition, ‘the special characteristic of the narrative books with their concern to pass on testimony’ (p. 18); the authoritative canon, which is most appropriate to the instructional material of the Pentateuch; the inspired word, the special characteristic of prophecy; and, finally, experienced revelation, in particular relating to poetry, epistles and apocalypses. Each of these models is applied to its major appropriate genre with further comments on its applicability to Scripture as a whole.

Goldingay is not troubled by fictional or imaginative elements, and hence historical error, in biblical narrative, for fiction ‘can be the best way to represent historical truth about the past’ (p. 67) and ‘fictional’ stories can be true in the sense that ‘they give us accurate insight into the actual Jesus’ (p. 69). Certainly Goldingay is not dismissive of the historical reliability of the major events of Scripture. His concern is to argue that truth, and hence reliability and even authority, need not be bound to historical accuracy. So, for example, people such as Jonah, Daniel, Job and Esther were not totally fictional creations but their portrayal in the Bible probably goes ‘far beyond anything that the people themselves were’ (p. 73). Thus, in biblical narrative, fiction and truth are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps some readers will be more anxious about historical accuracy than Goldingay. Nonetheless, his argument repays reading.

The second model explores the notion of authority. Three chapters are devoted to the issue of the development and canon of each Testament and the bounds of the canon. On the issue of authority, Goldingay notes the Bible’s appeal not to itself as authoritative but to God, Jesus and the gospel, an authority which is not legalistic but liberating. In particular, the notion of authority is more at home with ethics than with belief, that is orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy (p. 97). If Christianity’s concern were primarily about behaviour, then the notion of authority would be more central (p. 98).

The third section deals with issues of inspiration and inerrancy. The notion of inspiration applies mostly to the prophets. Goldingay considers that one of the reasons the issue is contested today is that what is specific for the prophets is not so for Scripture as a whole (p. 205). So Goldingay goes on to discuss various forms of inspiration, none of which applies to all of Scripture. So, for example, ‘dictation is not an appropriate model for understanding the origin of the whole of scripture, but it is one form of inspiration to which the prophets testify’ (p. 229). At times, Goldingay appears very conservative; at others not at all so. Yet, to be fair, he is demonstrating the rich variety of Scripture and noting, rightly, that often in the past, attempts to be dogmatic about inspiration are too specific to embrace all the Bible. When he applies the model of inspiration to the rest of the Bible, it seems that inspiration boils down to Scripture’s ‘certainty to be effective in achieving God’s purpose and in its promise to be full of significance beyond its original context’ (p. 253). This left me uneasy about the uniqueness of Scripture. Inspiration is not confined to Scripture, says Goldingay (p. 258). Following Barth, the authority of Scripture lies in its link with the gospel events. Yet this does not necessarily define its uniqueness as Goldingay implies (p. 259). He argues that Calvin made a novel theological move in making the inspiration of Scripture the basis for its unique authority (p. 258). I am not yet convinced that Barth is to be preferred to Calvin at this point. His treatment of Warfield, in the chapter ‘Inspiration and Inerrancy’, was very stimulating, though I am not so much at ease with the effect historical error in Scripture may have for its reliability as Goldingay is. He is satisfied that Scripture is ‘broadly accurate’ (p. 279) and ‘adequately factual’ (p. 282) rather than being inerrantly accurate. So God is content to speak through error, through ‘the kind of historiography that [the biblical writers] would write’, and ‘God knew [errors] were there but was prepared to work through them’ (p. 281).

The final section, on experienced revelation, includes brief discussions on the relation of the Testaments and an implicit appeal to final form interpretation within a context of the whole of Scripture. Perhaps some of these ideas will be expanded in the next volume on interpretation. There was an intriguing statement that books such as Proverbs and Ecclesiastes ‘have no plot, denouement, or revelation’ (p. 332). There was no sustained discussion of the wisdom literature, though many occasional mentions throughout.

Throughout, Goldingay adopts Sanders’ helpful suggestion of the terms ‘First’ and ‘Second’ Testament. The book concludes with 30 pages of bibliography, reflecting Goldingay’s extensive and wide reading, and two indices of author and of references to scriptural and other ancient writings. The protective coating of my copy began to peel within two months. I noticed very few typographical errors.

Bauckham is right in saying this book will make the reader think. Most readers will disagree in places and agree in others. Yet Goldingay’s argument warrants attention and thought. I found the first and third sections the most stimulating and engaging. Inevitably this book ventures into issues of interpretation. We can eagerly await its forthcoming companion volume, Models for Interpretation of Scripture, to expand these areas further.


Paul A. Barker

Paul A. Barker
Malaysian Theological Seminary
Seremban, Malaysia