Skip to content

Course 17 · Lesson 8.2

Building a response from context and tradition

11 minute read

Lessons in this course

Course 17 outline

Module 1: What Christians Mean by Scripture

  1. Revelation and inspiration: two different ideas
  2. Models of inspiration across the traditions
  3. Inerrancy and infallibility: what each term claims
  4. Reading in historical and literary context

Module 2: How the Canon Was Formed

  1. The formation of the Old Testament canon
  2. The formation of the New Testament canon
  3. The Apocrypha and the deuterocanonical books
  4. Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox canons compared

Module 3: The Text and Its Transmission

  1. How manuscripts were copied
  2. Variants and how scholars weigh them
  3. The Old Testament text: Masoretic text, Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint
  4. What the manuscript evidence shows and does not show

Module 4: Apparent Contradictions

  1. A method for testing a claimed contradiction
  2. Numbers, names and parallel accounts
  3. Differences among the Gospel accounts
  4. Tensions that remain and how traditions handle them

Module 5: Difficult Old Testament Passages

  1. Reading difficult passages honestly
  2. The conquest narratives and the question of violence
  3. Slavery in the ancient world and in the Bible
  4. How Christians have read hard texts: the church fathers to today

Module 6: Archaeology and Chronology

  1. What archaeology can show
  2. The limits of archaeological evidence
  3. Dating events: kings, exile and the exodus debate
  4. Genealogies, ages and calculations

Module 7: Scripture and Science

  1. Ancient cosmology and the opening chapters of Genesis
  2. Approaches to Genesis and science among Christians
  3. Augustine, accommodation and caution in interpretation

Module 8: Writing a Response

  1. Choosing and framing a problem
  2. Building a response from context and tradition
  3. Admitting what remains unresolved

All courses

Program / Course 17: Defending Scripture / Lesson 8.2

What you will learn

  • Organize a response in a clear sequence: the objection, the text in context, the readings, the tradition and an assessment.
  • Use biblical context, historical evidence and the voices of the church fairly and in proportion.
  • Distinguish the kinds of claim in a response: what is certain, probable, possible and speculative.
  • Revise a draft by checking it against the standards of the course.

The big idea

A response to a difficult text is an argument, and an argument needs a structure. A workable structure begins with the objection, goes to the text in its context, sets out the possible readings, brings in how the churches have read the passage, and ends with an assessment that says how confident the writer is and why. The response should use each kind of evidence for what it can show. It should not treat a quotation from a Father as proof, or a harmonization as certain because it is possible, or an objection as decisive because it is clever.

Key terms

Argument
A set of reasons offered in support of a conclusion.
Warrant
The link between a piece of evidence and the claim it is used to support. Weak warrants are a common problem in arguments about the Bible.
Degrees of confidence
A scale for stating how strongly a claim is held: certain, probable, possible or speculative.
Appeal to authority
Using the opinion of an expert or a tradition as support. It is strong when the authority is competent on the point and weak when it is not.
Anachronism
Reading modern ideas, standards or categories into an ancient text.
Revision
The process of rereading and improving a draft, which is where much of the learning occurs.

Background

Having chosen and framed a problem, the writer must now decide what to say and in what order. A common mistake is to begin with the answer one wants and then collect support. A better practice is to begin with the evidence and to follow where it leads, while allowing that the conclusion may be modest. Honest writers revise their thesis during the work.

The structure in this lesson is not the only one. It suits a response of 800 to 1,500 words, written for your own notebook. It has been used in the course throughout, and you may recognize it from the method of Lesson 4.1. Following it consistently helps the writer notice what is missing.

Step-by-step explanation

Step 1: Open with the objection

Begin by stating the problem and the strongest form of the objection, in a paragraph or two. Quote the key texts with references. Make clear what is claimed: that two passages cannot be reconciled, that a command is immoral, that an archaeological finding contradicts a text, or that a scientific result conflicts with a reading. Do not move to the reply until the reader can see why the objection has force.

State also what the objection assumes. A claim of contradiction assumes that both texts are speaking of the same thing in the same sense. A moral objection assumes a standard of judgment. A scientific objection assumes that the evidence has been read correctly. Making the assumption visible does not refute the objection, but it shows where a reply might begin.

Step 2: Place the text in context

Next, present the passage or passages in their literary and historical setting. Say who wrote it, when and to whom, as far as this is known, and say where scholars disagree. Identify the genre. Look at the passage within the chapter and the book. Compare translations and note any significant variant in the manuscripts. Use comparative evidence from the ancient world where it helps, and say what it does and does not show.

Context often changes the question. The apparent conflict may dissolve, or it may sharpen. Either result is useful. If you find that the context supports the objection, say so. A response that cannot concede a point is not credible.

Step 3: Set out the readings

List the main ways the passage has been read, including the reading that the critic proposes. For each, state the evidence for it and the cost of holding it. For example, a harmonization may explain the facts but require an unstated detail. A figurative reading may relieve a moral difficulty but seem to ignore the historical sense. A reading that finds an error in the text may fit the evidence but conflict with a doctrine of inerrancy.

Give each reading its due. A fair presentation allows the reader to see why intelligent people hold each view. It also allows you to explain your own choice without hiding the alternatives. Use plain terms for the degree of confidence: this explanation is possible, this is probable, this is the most natural reading of the words.

Step 4: Bring in the tradition

Then ask how the churches have read the passage. Look for at least one voice from the Fathers or medieval writers, one from the Reformation or after, and, where you can, voices from Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant traditions. Quote briefly and accurately, and cite the work. Use these voices to show the range of readings, to supply arguments, and to place your question in a long conversation.

Be careful about the weight you give them. A Father who read a passage allegorically is evidence for one way of reading, not proof that the allegory is right. A confession states what a church teaches, and a church’s teaching is a different kind of claim from a scholarly conclusion. Say which kind of claim you are making.

Step 5: Assess and revise

Close with an assessment: which reading or readings you find most persuasive, why, and how confident you are. State what would change your view. Say what remains unresolved, a step that the next lesson treats at length. Then revise. Read the draft as the critic would. Ask whether the objection has been answered or only avoided, whether any claim is stronger than the evidence, whether any quotation is out of context, and whether the tone is fair.

Check also for common faults: appeals to authority where an argument is needed, vague words like some scholars or most people, a harmonization offered as fact, and a quick dismissal of an uncomfortable reading. Cut anything that does not advance the argument. A clear 800 words is better than a muddled 2,000.

  1. What is the strongest objection to your chosen problem, and what does it assume?
  2. What does the context of your passage add that the verse alone does not show?
  3. How many readings of your passage can you list, and what does each one cost?
  4. Which voices from the tradition have you consulted, and what kind of weight does each deserve?
  5. How confident are you in your conclusion, and what words would you use to say so?
  6. What did you find in revision that you did not see in the first draft?

Examples

A short outline for Judas

Objection: Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18 give different accounts of Judas’s death and of who bought the field. Context: different authors, genres and purposes. Readings: he hanged himself and later fell; the traditions were separate; the accounts reflect different emphases. Tradition: Augustine’s approach and modern commentators. Assessment: a reconciliation is possible but not certain, and the tension remains.

A claim with a confidence level

Poor: The census of Quirinius has been explained. Better: Several proposals have been made, and the suggestion that Luke’s Greek means before Quirinius was governor is possible but strained, so the question should be classed as an unresolved tension.

Use of an authority

Writing that Augustine says the days of creation are not ordinary days overstates his view. Writing that Augustine held that God created all things at once and that the days present the order of creation is more accurate. The first uses the authority to settle a question, and the second reports what he said.

Different perspectives

Catholic

Catholic teaching asks that Scripture be read in the unity of the whole, within the living Tradition of the church and in light of the analogy of faith. A Catholic response uses these three principles from Dei Verbum alongside historical study, and cites the Fathers and councils where relevant.

Orthodox

An Orthodox response places the passage in the life of the church, citing the Fathers and the liturgy, and values humility before the mystery of Scripture. It resists a purely analytic treatment and asks for spiritual discernment alongside argument.

Protestant

A Protestant response begins with the grammatical and historical sense, compares Scripture with Scripture, and consults the Fathers and the confessions as subordinate guides. Evangelical handbooks such as Fee and Stuart supply a method that closely resembles the one here.

Jewish

A Jewish approach to a text values the line of commentary, the weighing of opinions and the connection of passages across the Bible. The practice of recording minority opinions is an example of how to be fair to the other side.

Scholarly

Academic writing requires a clear thesis, evidence, engagement with alternatives and open acknowledgment of limits. Reviewers look especially for strong claims resting on weak evidence, and for failure to engage with scholars who disagree.

Why it matters

The structure in this lesson is also a way of thinking. It trains you to move from the objection to the evidence, to the options, to the tradition and to a conclusion held with the right degree of confidence. These habits are useful beyond this course, in discussing any claim about the past or about the faith. They also make a response more useful to a reader, who can see the reasoning and test it.

Common misunderstandings

Misunderstanding: A good response proves that the objection is wrong.

Correction: Often the best response shows what the objection gets right and where it overreaches. Showing that a difficulty is smaller or different than claimed is a legitimate result.

Misunderstanding: Quoting the Fathers and the confessions settles the question.

Correction: They are valuable witnesses, but they differ among themselves and are not all of the same kind. Use them to show readings and arguments, and be clear about the weight you give them.

Misunderstanding: Admitting uncertainty weakens a response.

Correction: Honest statements of confidence make a response more credible. A reader trusts a writer who says what is possible, what is probable and what is unknown.

Misunderstanding: Revision is only about style.

Correction: Revision is where you test the argument: whether claims are supported, whether a fair alternative has been ignored, and whether the conclusion follows.

Knowledge check

List the five parts of the response structure in this lesson.

The structure opens with the objection stated in its strongest form, then places the text in its literary and historical context, then sets out the possible readings with the cost of each, then brings in how the traditions have read the passage, and ends with an assessment that states the writer’s confidence and what would change it. Revision follows.

Why should a response state what the objection assumes?

Every objection rests on assumptions, such as that two texts speak of the same thing in the same sense, that a moral standard applies, or that scientific evidence has been read correctly. Stating the assumption shows where a reply might begin and gives the reader a fair view of the argument without refuting it unfairly.

How should a writer use a Father or a confession?

As a witness to a way of reading and to the arguments that support it, with an accurate description of what the author said and where. It should not be used as proof that a reading is correct. The writer should also note that the voices differ among themselves, and that a church’s teaching is a different kind of claim from a scholarly conclusion.

What are four degrees of confidence the writer can use?

A claim may be certain, probable, possible or speculative. Using these terms consistently helps the reader judge how much weight to give a proposal. For example, a harmonization that requires an unstated event is possible at best, while a reading that follows the plain sense of the words may be probable.

Think it through

  1. Where in your draft are you most tempted to claim more than the evidence allows?
  2. Which part of the structure do you find hardest, and why?
  3. How would a friend who disagrees with you read your response? What would they say?

Independent assignment

Write the response

In your own notebook, write the response to the problem you framed in Lesson 8.1, in 800 to 1,200 words, following the five parts. Mark each major claim with a degree of confidence. Then reread it as a critic would, and write 100 words listing the revisions you made. Do not send this to anyone or post it anywhere.

Further study