|
|
|
|
Biblical inerrancy
|
| |
|
| |
Biblical inerrancy is the doctrinal position that in its original form, the Bible is totally without error, and free from all contradiction; "referring to the complete accuracy of Scripture, including the historical and scientific parts."
History of the Doctrine of Inerrancy
According to an article in "Theology Today" published in 1975, "There have been long periods in the history of the church when biblical inerrancy has not been a critical question.
Discussion
Ask a question about 'Biblical inerrancy' Start a new discussion about 'Biblical inerrancy' Answer questions from other users |
Encyclopedia
Biblical inerrancy is the doctrinal position that in its original form, the Bible is totally without error, and free from all contradiction; "referring to the complete accuracy of Scripture, including the historical and scientific parts."
History of the Doctrine of Inerrancy
According to an article in "Theology Today" published in 1975, "There have been long periods in the history of the church when biblical inerrancy has not been a critical question. It has in fact been noted that only in the last two centuries can we legitimately speak of a formal doctrine of inerrancy. The arguments pro and con have filled many books, and almost anyone can join in the debate."
In the '70s and '80s, however, the ancient debate amongst theological circles, which centered on the issue of whether or not the Bible was infallible or both infallible and inerrant, came into the academic spotlight. Some notable Christian seminaries, such as Princeton Theological Seminary and Fuller Theological Seminary, were formally adopting the doctrine of infallibility while rejecting the doctrine of inerrancy.
The other side of this debate focused largely around the magazine "Christianity Today" and the book entitled "The Battle for the Bible" by Harold Lindsell. The author asserted that losing the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture was the thread that would unravel the church. Conservatives rallied behind this idea, agreeing that once a man disregards the ultimate truthfulness of the Bible, then anything can become justifiable.
Textual tradition of the New Testament
There are over 5,600 Greek manuscripts containing all or part of the New Testament, as well as over 10,000 Latin manuscripts, and perhaps 500 other manuscripts of various other languages. Additionally, there are the Patristic writings which contain copious quotes, across the early centuries, of the scriptures.
Most of these manuscripts date to the Middle Ages. The oldest complete copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus, dates to the 4th century. The earliest fragment of a New Testament book is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52 which dates to the mid 2nd century and is the size of a business card. Very early manuscripts are rare.
The average NT manuscript is about 200 pages, and in all, we have about 1.3 million pages of text. No two manuscripts are identical, except in the smallest fragments, and the many manuscripts which preserve New Testament texts differ among themselves in many respects, with some estimates of 200,000 to 300,000 differences among the various manuscripts. According to Ehrman,
In the 2008 debate series, noted NT scholars Bart Ehrman and Daniel B. Wallace discussed these variances in detail. Wallace mentioned that understanding the meaning of the number of variances is not as simple as looking at the number of variances, but one must consider also the number of manuscripts, the types of errors, and among the more serious discrepancies, what impact they do or do not have.
For hundreds of years, biblical and textual scholars have examined the manuscripts extensively. Since the eighteenth century, they have employed the techniques of textual criticism to reconstruct how the extant manuscripts of the New Testament texts might have descended, and to recover earlier recensions of the texts. However, KJV-only inerrantists often prefer the traditional texts (i.e., Textus Receptus which is the basis of KJV) used in their churches to modern attempts of reconstruction (i.e., Nestle-Aland Greek Text which is the basis of Modern Translations), arguing that the Holy Spirit is just as active in the preservation of the scriptures as in their creation. These inerrantists are found particularly in non-Protestant churches, but also a few Protestant groups hold such views.
KJV-only inerrantist Jack Moorman, in his book Missing In Modern Bibles - Is the Full Story Being Told? found that at least 356 doctrinal passages are affected by the differences between the Textus Receptus and the Nestle-Aland Greek Text.
Some familiar examples of Gospel passages in the Textus Receptus thought to have been added by later interpolaters and omitted in the Nestle Aland Greek Text include the Pericope Adulteræ (John 7:53 - 8:11), the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7–8), and the longer ending in Mark 16 (Mark 16:9-20).
Many modern Bibles have footnotes to indicate areas where there is disagreement between source documents. Bible commentaries offer discussions of these.
Inerrantist response
Evangelical inerrantists
Evangelical Christians generally accept the findings of textual criticism, and nearly all modern translations, including the popular New International Version, work from a Greek New Testament based on modern textual criticism.
Since this means that the manuscript copies are not perfect, inerrancy is only applied to the original autographs (the manuscripts written by the original authors) rather than the copies. For instance, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy says, We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture
Less commonly, more conservative views are held by some groups:
King James Only inerrantists
A faction of those in the "The King-James-Only Movement" rejects the whole discipline of textual criticism and holds that the translators of the King James Version English Bible were guided by God, and that the KJV thus is to be taken as the authoritative English Bible. However, those who hold this opinion do not extend it to the KJV translation into English of the Apocryphal books, which were produced along with the rest of the Authorized Version. Modern translations differ from the KJV on numerous points, sometimes resulting from access to different early texts, largely as a result of work in the field of Textual Criticism. Upholders of the KJV-only position nevertheless hold that the Protestant canon of KJV is itself an inspired text and therefore remains authoritative. The King-James-Only Movement asserts that the KJV is the sole English translation free from error.
Textus Receptus
Similar to the King James Only view is the view that translations must be derived from the Textus Receptus in order to be considered inerrant. As the King James Version is an English translation, this leaves speakers of other languages in a difficult position, hence the belief in the Textus Receptus as the inerrant source text for translations to modern languages. For example, in Spanish-speaking cultures the commonly accepted "KJV-equivalent" is the Reina-Valera 1909 revision (with different groups accepting, in addition to the 1909 or in its place, the revisions of 1862 or 1960).
Logic for arriving at the doctrine of inerrancy
A number of reasons are offered by Christian theologians to justify Biblical inerrancy.
Norman Geisler and William Nix (1986) claim that scriptural inerrancy is established by a number of observations and processes, which include:
- the historical accuracy of the Bible
- the Bible's claims of its own inerrancy
- church history and tradition
- one's individual experience with God
Daniel B. Wallace, Professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary, divides the various evidences into two approaches - deductive and inductive approaches.
Deductive Reasoning to arrive at Inerrancy
The first deductive justification is that the Bible claims to be inspired by God (for instance "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16 NIV), and because God is perfect, the Bible must also be perfect, and hence free from error. For instance, the statement of faith of the Evangelical Theological Society says, "The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs."
A second reason offered is that Jesus and the apostles used the Old Testament in a way which assumes it is inerrant. For instance in Galatians 3:16, Paul bases his argument on the fact that the word "seed" in the Genesis reference to "Abraham and his seed", is singular rather than plural. This (it is claimed) sets a precedent for inerrant interpretation down to the individual letters of the words. Similarly Jesus said that every minute detail of the Old Testament Law must be fulfilled (Matthew 5:18), indicating (it is claimed) that every detail must be correct.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matthew 5:18, KJV
Although in these verses Jesus and the apostles are only referring to the Old Testament, the argument extends to the New Testament writings, because 2 Peter 3:16 accords the status of Scripture to New Testament writings also: "He (Paul) writes the same way in all his letters... which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:16, NIV).
Another deductive argument would be the strength of falsifiability. The argument is that Biblical inerrancy is a falsifiable stance (it can be proven false), therefore if it were false it would be proven false. It has not been proven false; therefore it is not false.
Inductive Reasoning to arrive at Inerrancy
Wallace describes the inductive approach by enlisting the Presbyterian theologian B. B. Warfield:
In his , Warfield lays out an argument for inerrancy that has been virtually ignored by today’s evangelicals. Essentially, he makes a case for inerrancy on the basis of inductive evidence, rather than deductive reasoning. Most evangelicals today follow E. J. Young’s deductive approach toward bibliology, forgetting the great articulator of inerrancy. But Warfield starts with the evidence that the Bible is a historical document, rather than with the presupposition that it is inspired.
Some Clarifications of the Doctrine of Inerrancy
Inerrancy as Accurate v. True
Harold Lindsell points out that it is a "gross distortion" to state that people who believe in inerrancy suppose every statement made in the Bible is true (opposed to accurate). He indicates there are expressly false statements in the Bible which are reported accurately (for example, Satan is a liar whose lies are accurately reported as to what he actually said).
Limitations of inerrancy
Many who believe in the Inspiration of scripture teach that it is infallible but not inerrant. Those who subscribe to infallibility believe that what the scriptures say regarding matters of faith and Christian practice are wholly useful and true. Some denominations that teach infallibility hold that the historical or scientific details, which may be irrelevant to matters of faith and Christian practice, may contain errors. Those who believe in inerrancy hold that the scientific, geographic, and historic details and of the scriptural texts in their original manuscripts are completely true and without error, though the scientific claims of scripture must be interpreted in the light of its phenomenological nature, not just with strict, clinical literality, which was foreign to historical narratives.
Proponents of biblical inerrancy generally do not teach that the Bible was dictated directly by God, but that God used the "distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers" of scripture and that God's inspiration guided them to flawlessly project his message through their own language and personality.
Infallibility and inerrancy refer to the original texts of the Bible. And while conservative scholars acknowledge the potential for human error in transmission and translation, modern translations are considered to "faithfully represent the originals".
Criticisms of biblical inerrancy
Scientific and historical criticism
Biblical inerrancy has been criticized on the grounds that many statements, including, but not exclusively, history or science that are found in Scripture, if taken literally, rather than , are untenable or contradictory. Inerrancy is argued to be a falsifiable proposition: if the Bible is found to contain any mistakes or contradictions, the proposition of strict inerrancy has been refuted. Many inerrantists have offered explanations of why these are not errors.
Theological criticisms
Theological criticisms refers to criticisms which are that the Bible does not teach, or require, its own inerrancy.
Proponents of biblical inerrancy often prefer the translations of that render it as "all scripture is given by inspiration of God,", and they interpret this to mean that the whole Bible is inerrant. However, critics of this doctrine think that the Bible makes no direct claim to be inerrant or infallible. C H Dodd argues the same sentence can also be translated "Every inspired scripture is also useful..." nor does the verse define the Biblical canon. In context, this passage refers only to the Old Testament writings understood to be scripture at the time it was written. However there are indications that Paul's writings were being considered, at least by the author of the Second Epistle of Peter , as comparable to the Old Testament.
The idea that the Bible contains no mistakes is mainly justified by appeal to prooftexts that refer to its divine inspiration. However, this argument has been criticized as circular reasoning, because these statements only have to be accepted as true if the Bible is already thought to be inerrant. None of these texts say that because a text is inspired, it is therefore always correct in its historical statements.
According to Bishop John Shelby Spong, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy has been a historical substitute for papal infallibility. "When Martin Luther countered the authority of the infallible pope, he did so in the name of his new authority, the infallible Scriptures. This point of view was generally embraced by all of the Reformation churches. The Bible thus became the paper pope of Protestantism."
Meaning of "Word of God"
Much debate over the kind of authority that should be accorded biblical texts centers on what is meant by the "Word of God". The term can refer to Christ Himself as well as to the proclamation of his ministry as kerygma. However, biblical inerrancy differs from this orthodoxy in viewing the Word of God to mean the entire text of the Bible when interpreted didactically as God's teaching. The idea of the Bible itself as Word of God, as being itself God's revelation, is criticized in neo-orthodoxy. Here the Bible is seen as a unique witness to the people and deeds that do make up the Word of God. However, it is a wholly human witness. All books of the Bible were written by human beings. Thus, whether the Bible is - in whole or in part - the Word of God is not clear. However, critics argue that the Bible can still be construed as the "Word of God" in the sense that these authors' statements may have been representative of, and perhaps even directly influenced by, God's own knowledge.
There is only one instance in the Bible where the phrase "The Word Of God" refers to something "written". The reference is to the "Decalogue" which many Christian denominations consider "passed away". However, most of the other references are to reported speech which is preserved in the Bible. The New Testament also contains a number of statements which refer to passages from the Old Testament as God's words, for instance Romans 3:2 (which says that the Jews have been "entrusted with the very words of God"), or the book of Hebrews, which often prefaces Old Testament quotations with words such as "God says". The Bible also contains words spoken by human beings to God, such as Eliphaz(Job 42:7) and the prayers and songs of the Psalter. That these are God's words addressed to us was at the root of a lively mediaeval controversy. The idea of the word of God is more that God is encountered in scripture, than that every line of scripture is a statement made by God.
While the phrase "The Word Of God" is never applied to the modern Bible within the Bible itself, supporters of inerrancy argue that that is simply because the Biblical canon was not closed. In I Thessalonians 2:13, the apostle Paul wrote to the church in Thessaly "when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God." He also wrote in Ephesians 2:20 that the church was built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, which is generally understood to mean that the teaching and writings of the New Testament and the Old Testament are what the Bible elsewhere calls the word of God.
Practical objections
Practical objections refers to arguments which do not seek to disprove inerrancy per se, but which attempt to demonstrate that the Bible is irrelevant or meaningless.
Translation
One point that has been argued is that, even if the text were guaranteed inerrant in its original language, this no longer holds true after translation, because there is no such thing as a perfect translation. The original texts were primarily written in Hebrew and Greek with translations in several ancient languages - Hebrew, Koine Greek, Coptic and Syriac. Translators from one language to another are often faced with several ways in which a phrase may be translated, particularly in the case of poetic passages, and the language into which the Bible is being translated is constantly evolving and changing. Mistaken translations of the Bible are occasionally proposed or discovered. For instance, scholars write that an early messianic prophecy (Isaiah 7:14) did not require that the Messiah's mother be a virgin, only young.
Some biblical passages are conventionally treated as verse, and others as different kinds of prose: this has not always been the case. Some of the prose contains many linguistic forms that indicate poetry. The two forms have a certain mutual overlap. Inerrancy as a doctrine itself provides no clear hermeneutic for discovering how the literal communications found in prose can be distinguished from the symbolic and metaphorical elements of poetry.
See also
External links
Classification
- , Walter B. Murfin, David F. Beck, 13 April 1998, hosted on website
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- (from the viewpoint of the LCMS)
- (from the viewpoint of the WELS)
Supportive links
- to articles on scripture from a conservative Calvinist perspective
- by B. B. Warfield
- by Gary Habermas
- by Gary R. Habermas
- by Dave Miller (see Farrell Till below)
- by Anastasios Kioulachoglou (The Journal of Biblical Accuracy)
- by R. A. Torrey
- by N.T. Wright
Critical links
- Farrell Till's rebuttal to Dave Miller's defense (see above)
-
|
| |
|
|
