The Vocality of Scripture

I've been seeing a lot of discussion recently suggesting that those who have a high view of the authority  and accuracy of Scripture assert its "univocality." Frequently this is asserted without defining the term, but when it is defined, it is often defined as if it essentially means "inerrant" or "infallible." I find this deeply problematic on multiple levels, at least for those who want to have an open and honest conversation about the concept of Biblical authority and what that entails. I want to make a case here that, even for those with the strongest convictions of Biblical inerrancy, there is absolutely no reason to simultaneously assert its univocality. These are entirely different concepts - in principle, the Bible could be inerrant and multivocal; it could also be errant and univocal. We need to begin with a good definition of "vocality."[1]

The term "vocality" has to do with what we should expect of the Scriptures if we assume them to be of divine origin. That is, if all of Scripture has its origins in God alone, then some believe that there should be consistency in Biblical vocality, meaning that the Bible will always speak of the same kinds of things in the same way. In this view, the Bible speaks with a singular voice, or with univocality. This position assumes what I consider to be an indefensible view of inspiration. It essentially assumes that the vocality of God swamps the diversity of Biblical authors. But it's pretty easy to see that the Bible speaks with an incredible amount of diversity, and we cannot both assume univocality of Scripture and interpret individual books and passages of Scripture correctly on their own terms. If we were to try, we would have to redefine the clear meaning of many Biblical books and passages to conform to language used in the rest of Scripture.

For instance, there is diversity in the presentation of Jesus' life:

• If you were to try to recover a chronology of Jesus' life from the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) you would would decide that (after the birth narratives), Jesus' ministry essentially takes place in Galilean regions with journeys farther north, then Jesus travels to Jerusalem. The final "holy week" occurs after arriving in Jerusalem.
• If on the other hand you to try to recover a chronology of Jesus' life from John, you would decide that Jesus ministered for three years and traveled back and forth from Jerusalem to Galilee frequently. 

You would also find that some events (like the cleansing of the temple) happened during different times of Jesus' ministry. For John, the temple cleansing happens early in Jesus' ministry while for the Synoptics, it happens at the beginning of the holy week. Likewise, there is diversity in the presentation of the gospel message:

• If you were to summarize the gospel from the Johannine literature, you would describe the gospel in terms of participating in the divine, being born again into a new manner of living.
• If you were to summarize the gospel from the Pauline corpus, you would describe the gospel more in terms of justification. Our sin is reckoned to Jesus so that we can be found righteous in him.

Now certainly there is language in the Johannine literature that overlaps with the Pauline corpus, but the meaning of these terms are not always identical. There are different Christian traditions found in Scripture, and they use their own distinctive voices even when describing the same things. The Synoptics, the Johannine literature, the Pauline corpus, and the general (or so-called "catholic") epistles speak with different voices on a large number of topics, and this has long been recognized and is not controversial in Biblical studies. In other words, there is good reason why most theologians and Biblical scholars reject the univocality of Scripture, even among those who affirm the full authority and inerrancy of Scripture. 

Now certainly there are those who try to flatten the terrain of Scripture, if you will. This can be particularly problematic among systematic theologians. But most theologians, at least those I read, do their best to avoid this. You'll see careful distinctions made between the ways Paul used the term "justified" and the way James made use of the same term, for instance. In fact, one important way to resolve apparent tensions between these traditions is to reject univocality, let each book speak on its own, and then compare the ideas conveyed in one tradition to the ideas conveyed in another. Those who reject  the univocality of Scripture and accept the inerrancy of Scripture would claim that while Scripture speaks with many different voices (since it's inspired through the writing of many different authors) these different voices are (ultimately) compatible with each other, even if we cannot always identify how they are compatible. But for those asserting that these theologians assume univocality, this appears to be a bit of a strawman attack, and it indicates a superficial understanding of those with whom they disagree.

Notes and references:

[1] In Biblical studies, the term "vocality" is often used to distinguish between different views of quotations in the Gospels and Acts. That is, some have asserted that the Gospels preserve the exact words of Jesus, a view called ipsissima verba - or the very same words. I find this to be an indefensible position to take, given the evidence we have in the Gospels. Others say that while we do not have translations of the exact words of Jesus, we co have the very same voice, a view called ipsissima vox. This view of course is widely disputed among Biblical scholars, but it is in my view a defensible position to take. However, this is not the sense of vocality that is intended in this discussion.