Content deleted Content added
→History: expanding on the early history of inerrancy |
|||
Line 34:
== History ==
The first formulations of the doctrine of inerrancy had not been established according to the authority of a council, creed, or church, until the post-[[Reformation]] period.<ref name="hendel">Hendel, Ronald. "The Dream of a Perfect Text: Textual Criticism and Biblical Inerrancy in Early Modern Europe," in e.d. Collins, J.J., ''Sibyls, Scriptures, and Scrolls: John Collins at Seventy'', Brill, 2017, 517-541. On pg. 592, Hendel writes "The doctrine of uniform inerrancy in the literal sense across all details is an innovation of the Catholic-Protestant polemics after [[Council of Trent|Trent]]."</ref> [[Origen of Alexandria]] thought there were minor discrepancies between the accounts of the Gospels but dismissed them due to their lack of theological importance, writing "let these four [Gospels] agree with each other concerning certain things revealed to them by the Spirit and let them disagree a little concerning other things. (''Commentary on John'' 10.4). Later, [[John Chrysostom]] was also unconcerned with the notion that the scriptures were in congruence with all matters of history unimportant to matters of faith.
<blockquote>But if there be anything touching time or places, which they have related differently, this nothing injures the truth of what they have said … [but those things] which constitute our life and furnish out our doctrine nowhere is any ofthem found to have disagreed, no not ever so little (''Homily on Matthew'' 1.6)</blockquote>
Line 40:
In his ''Commentary on Galatians'', [[Jerome]] also argued that Paul's rebuke of Peter in Galatians 2:11-14 for acting like a Jew around the Jewish faction of the early Church was an insincere "white lie" as Paul himself had done the same thing.<ref>Cohen, Shaye J.D. ''The beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, varieties, uncertainties. Vol. 31.'' University of California Press, 1999, 368.</ref> In response, [[Augustine]] rebuked Jerome's interpretation and affirmed that the scriptures contained no mistakes in them, and that admitting a single mistake would shed doubt on the entire scripture.<ref>Woodbridge, John. “Evangelical Self-Identity and the Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy, in ''Understanding the Times: New Testament Studies in the 21st Century: Essays in Honor of D. A. Carson on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday'', Crossway, 2011, 111.</ref>
<blockquote>It seems to me that the most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books: that is to say that the men by whom the Scripture has been given to us, and committed to writing, did put down in these books anything false. . . . If you once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement .
During the 18th and 19th centuries, various episodes of the Bible (for example the [[Genesis flood narrative|Noahide worldwide flood]],<ref>Plimer, Ian (1994), ''Telling Lies for God: Reason vs Creationism'', Random House</ref> the [[Genesis creation narrative|creation in six days]], and the [[Adam and Eve|creation of women from a man's rib]]) began increasingly to be seen as legendary rather than as literally true. This led to further questioning of the veracity of biblical texts. 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".<ref name="infallible">{{cite journal|last=Coleman|journal=Theology Today| volume = 31|issue = 4|year=1975|title=Biblical Inerrancy: Are We Going Anywhere?|doi=10.1177/004057367503100404|first1=R. J.|pages=295}}</ref>
| |||