Content deleted Content added
Various adjustments, changes and corrections, sometimes minor, were made (especially in the section "Terms and Positions") in an attempt to introduce some order into this very messy article. Much still remains to be done. (See Talk page) |
|||
Line 4:
{{Bible related}}
'''Biblical inerrancy''' is the [[belief]] that the [[Bible]] "is without error or fault in all its teaching";<ref>Geisler, NL. and Roach, B., ''Defending Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy of Scripture for a New Generation, Baker Books, 2012.</ref> or, at least, that "Scripture in the original [[manuscript]]s does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".<ref name="Grudem90">{{Cite book |first=Wayne A. |last=Grudem |author-link=Wayne Grudem |title=Systematic theology: an introduction to biblical doctrine |publisher=[[Inter-Varsity Press]] |location=[[Leicester]]|year=1994|page=90 |isbn=978-0-85110-652-6 |oclc=29952151}}</ref> Some equate inerrancy with [[biblical infallibility]]; others do not.<ref>McKim, DK, ''Westminster dictionary of theological terms'', Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.</ref><ref>Geisler, N. L. (ed), ''Inerrancy'', Zondervan, 1980, p. 22. "The trouble is that such a distinction is nowhere to be found in Jesus' own teaching, and seems to be precluded by His testimony both to the unqualified historical accuracy and the inspiration of the Old Testament ... The attempt to discriminate ... seems to be a product of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries".</ref>
The belief in Biblical inerrancy is of particular significance within parts of [[evangelicalism]], where it is formulated in the "[[Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy]]". A formal statement in favor of biblical inerrancy was published in the ''[[Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society]]'' in 1978.<ref>"Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", ''[[Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society]]'' vol. 21 no. 4 (December 1978), 289–96.[http://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_1.pdf]</ref> The signatories to the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" admit that, "Inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture." However, even though there may be no extant original manuscripts of the Bible, those that exist can be considered inerrant, because, as the statement reads: "The autographic text of Scripture, ... in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy."<ref name="ChicX">''Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy'': "Article X. We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original. We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant".
</ref>
The "doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture"<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.scotthahn.com/download/attachment/2516|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120508175506/http://www.scotthahn.com/download/attachment/2516|url-status= dead|title=Cardinal Augustin Bea, "Vatican II and the Truth of Sacred Scripture"|archivedate=May 8, 2012}}</ref> held by the [[Catholic Church]], as expressed by the [[Second Vatican Council]], is that "The books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."<ref name=DV11/>▼
Inerrancy has been much more of an issue in [[Evangelicalism in the United States|American evangelicalism]] than in [[Evangelicalism#Great Britain|British evangelicalism]].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Crisp |first1=Oliver D. |title=A British Perspective on Evangelicalism |url=https://fullermag.fuller.edu/british-perspective-evangelicalism/ |website=Fuller Magazine |publisher=[[Fuller Theological Seminary]] |access-date=18 April 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160328014642/https://fullermag.fuller.edu/british-perspective-evangelicalism/ |archive-date=2016-03-28 |url-status=dead}}</ref> According to Stephen R. Holmes, it "plays almost no role in British evangelical life".<ref>{{cite book |last1=Holmes |first1=Stephen R. |title=The Cambridge Companion to Evangelical Theology |chapter=British (and European) Evangelical Theologies |date=2007 |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |page=254 |isbn=9781139827508 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vlmXBe0RPxYC&pg=PA254 |access-date=18 April 2016}}</ref>
Line 15 ⟶ 13:
A minority of biblical inerrantists go further than the Chicago Statement, arguing that the original text has been perfectly preserved and passed down through time. "''[[Textus Receptus]]'' onlyism" holds that the Greek text of this name (Latin for received text) is a perfect and inspired copy of the original and supersedes earlier manuscript copies. The [[King James Only movement]] ascribes inerrancy only to the [[King James Version|King James English translation]] made from the ''Textus Receptus''.
▲The "doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture"<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.scotthahn.com/download/attachment/2516|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120508175506/http://www.scotthahn.com/download/attachment/2516|url-status= dead|title=Cardinal Augustin Bea, "Vatican II and the Truth of Sacred Scripture"|archivedate=May 8, 2012}}</ref> held by the [[Catholic Church]], as expressed by the [[Second Vatican Council]], is that "The books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."<ref name=DV11/>
== Terms and opinions ==▼
{{see also|Biblical inspiration|Biblical infallibility|Biblical literalism|Biblical authority|Criticism of the Bible|Internal consistency of the Bible|The Bible and history}}
'''Inerrancy'''. The word ''inerrancy'' comes from the [[English language|English]] word ''inerrant'', from the Latin ''inerrantem'', (parsable as ''in-'' + ''errantem'' - the accusative singular present participle of ''errāre'' - "to err" or "wander"). The [[Oxford English Dictionary]] defines ''inerrant'' as "That does not err; free from error; unerring."<ref>{{oed | inerrant}}</ref>
'''Complete and restricted inerrancy'''. Some literalist or conservative Christians teach that the Bible lacks error in every way in all matters: chronology, history, biology, sociology, psychology, politics, physics, math, art, and so on.<ref name="inerrancy" /> Other Christians believe that the scriptures are always right (do not err) only in fulfilling their primary purpose: revealing God, God's vision, God's purposes, and God's good news to humanity.<ref name="Tolerance"> Robinson, B.A. "Inerrancy: Is the Bible free of error? All points of view". Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, 2008-SEP-01. Web: 25 January 2010. [http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant.htm Inerrancy: Is the Bible free of error?'] </ref>▼
According to H. Chaim Schimmel, [[Judaism]] had never promulgated a belief in the literal word of the [[Hebrew Bible]], hence the co-existence of the [[Oral Torah]].<ref>Schimmel, H. Chaim, ''The Oral Law: The rabbinic contribution to Torah Shebe'al Peh'', 2nd, revised ed., Feldheim Publishers, Jerusalem, 1996, pp. 19–21</ref> Within [[Christianity]], some mainstream [[Evangelical]] and [[Protestant]] groups adhere to the inerrancy of the [[Biblical canon|canon]] of [[scripture]] as it reads today. However, the ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' says that "Evangelical scholars ... doubt that accepting the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is the best way to assert their belief in biblical authority".<ref>''Encyclopædia Britannica'', "Evangelicalism".</ref>▼
'''Inerrancy and Infallibility'''. Some authors use “inerrancy” and “infallibility” interchangeably, while others limit the term “inerrancy” to complete inerrancy and use “infallibility” to refer to the more limited view that the Bible is without error in conveying God's self-revelation to us.<ref>McKim, DK, ''Westminster dictionary of theological terms'', Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.</ref><ref>Geisler, N. L. (ed), ''Inerrancy'', Zondervan, 1980, p. 22. "The trouble is that such a distinction is nowhere to be found in Jesus' own teaching, and seems to be precluded by His testimony both to the unqualified historical accuracy and the inspiration of the Old Testament ... The attempt to discriminate ... seems to be a product of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries".</ref> Still others understand "infallibility" differently. Citing dictionary definitions, Frame (2002) claims 'infallibility" is a stronger term than "inerrant": "'Inerrant' means there are no errors; 'infallible' means there ''can be'' no errors".<ref>Frame, John M. "Is the Bible Inerrant?" IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 4, Number 19, May 13 to May 20, 2002 [http://reformedperspectives.org/files/reformedperspectives/theology/TH.Frame.inerrancy.html]</ref> Yet he acknowledges that "modern theologians insist on redefining that word also, so that it actually says less than 'inerrancy.{{'"}} [[Harold Lindsell]] states: "The very nature of inspiration renders the Bible infallible, which means that it cannot deceive us. It is inerrant in that it is not false, mistaken, or defective".<ref>[[Harold Lindsell|Lindsell, Harold]]. ''The Battle for the Bible.'' Zondervan, 1978, p. 31. {{ISBN|978-0-310-27681-4}}</ref>
The [[Second Vatican Council]] authoritatively expressed the [[Catholic Church]]'s view on biblical inerrancy. Citing earlier declarations, it stated: "Since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."<ref name=DV11>{{Cite web|url=https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140531175312/https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html|url-status= dead|title=Dei verbum|archivedate=May 31, 2014|website=www.vatican.va}}</ref> The Council added: "Since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words."<ref>''Dei verbum'', 12</ref>▼
▲'''Judaism'''. According to H. Chaim Schimmel, [[Judaism]] had never promulgated a belief in the literal word of the [[Hebrew Bible]], hence the co-existence of the [[Oral Torah]].<ref>Schimmel, H. Chaim, ''The Oral Law: The rabbinic contribution to Torah Shebe'al Peh'', 2nd, revised ed., Feldheim Publishers, Jerusalem, 1996, pp. 19–21</ref>
▲Some literalist or conservative Christians teach that the Bible lacks error in every way in all matters: chronology, history, biology, sociology, psychology, politics, physics, math, art, and so on.<ref name="inerrancy" /> Other Christians believe that the scriptures are always right (do not err) only in fulfilling their primary purpose: revealing God, God's vision, God's purposes, and God's good news to humanity.<ref name="Tolerance">
▲'''Catholic Church'''.The [[Second Vatican Council]] authoritatively expressed the [[Catholic Church]]'s view on biblical inerrancy. Citing earlier declarations, it stated: "Since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."<ref name=DV11>{{Cite web|url=https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140531175312/https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html|url-status= dead|title=Dei verbum|archivedate=May 31, 2014|website=www.vatican.va}}</ref> The Council added: "Since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words."<ref>''Dei verbum'', 12</ref>
Some Judaic and Christian traditions hold that [[Moses]] — rather than God himself — physically wrote the [[Torah]] or Pentateuch of the [[Hebrew Bible]], although in the process of transcription many thousands of times copyists have allowed errors, or (some suggest) even forgeries in the text to accumulate.<ref>
Tov, Emanuel, ''Textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible'', Uitgeverij Van Gorcum, 2001, p. 213</ref> According to this position, God originally spoke through a select person to reveal his purpose, character and plan for humanity. However, the Bible does record some direct statements from God (i.e.,"Thus says the Lord...", "And God said...", etc.).
Within [[Christianity]], some mainstream [[Evangelical]] and [[Protestant]] groups adhere to the inerrancy of the [[Biblical canon|canon]] of [[scripture]] as it reads today.
The ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' says that "Evangelical scholars ... doubt that accepting the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is the best way to assert their belief in biblical authority".<ref>''Encyclopædia Britannica'', "Evangelicalism".</ref>
== History ==
"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."<ref name="infallible">{{cite journal|last1=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=295–303|s2cid=170389190}}</ref> The first formulations of the doctrine of inerrancy
'''Early Church''' [[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 of them found to have disagreed, no not ever so little (''Homily on Matthew'' 1.6)</blockquote>
Line 40 ⟶ 50:
<blockquote>For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the Ms. is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of in truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason (''Letters of St Augustine'' 82.3).</blockquote>
'''Reformation Era'''
By the time of the [[Reformation]], there was still no official doctrine of inerrancy.
During the 18th and 19th centuries and in the aftermath of the [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] critique of religion, 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|last1=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=295–303|s2cid=170389190}}</ref>▼
For [[Martin Luther]] (1483–1546), for example, "inspiration did not insure inerrancy in all details. Luther recognizes mistakes and inconsistencies in Scripture and treated them with lofty indifference because they did not touch the heart of the Gospel."<ref name="cambible">Bainton, "The Bible in the Reformation," in e.d. Greenslade, S.L., ''The Cambridge History of the Bible Vol 3: The West from the Reformation to the Present'', Cambridge University Press 1963, 12-13.</ref> When Matthew appears to confuse [[Book of Jeremiah|Jeremiah]] with [[Book of Zechariah|Zechariah]] in Matt. 27:9, Luther wrote that "Such points do not bother me particularly."<ref name="cambible" />
The [[Christian humanism|Christian humanist]] and one of the leading scholars of the [[northern Renaissance]], [[Erasmus]] (1466–1536), was also unconcerned with minor errors not impacting theology, and at one point, thought that Matthew mistook one word for another. In a letter to [[Johannes Eck]], Erasmus wrote that “Nor, in my view, would the authority of the whole of Scripture be instantly imperiled, as you suggest, if an evangelist by a slip of memory did put one name for another, Isaiah for instance instead of Jeremiah, for this is not a point on which anything turns.”<ref name="wood" />
The same point of view held true for [[John Calvin]] (1509–1564), who wrote that "It is well known that the Evangelists were not very concerned with observing the time sequences."<ref name="hendel" />
The doctrine of inerrancy, however, began to develop as a response to these Protestant attitudes. Whereas the [[Council of Trent]] only held that the Bible's authority was "in matters of faith and morales", [[Jesuit]] [[Cardinal (Catholic Church)|cardinal]] [[Robert Bellarmine]] (1542–1621) argued in his 1586 ''De verbo Dei'', the first volume of his multi-volume ''Disputationes de controversiis christianae fidei adversus hujus temporis haereticos'' that "There can be no error in Scripture, whether it deals with faith or whether it deals with morals/mores, or whether it states something general and common to the whole Church, or something particular and pertaining to only one person." Bellarmine's views were extremely important in his condemnation of Galileo and in Catholic-Protestant debate, as the Protestant response was to also affirm his heightened understanding of inerrancy.<ref name="hendel" />
▲During the 18th and 19th centuries and in the aftermath of the [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] critique of religion, 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.
== The modern Protestant discussion ==
Line 65 ⟶ 85:
[[Daniel B. Wallace]], Professor of New Testament at [[Dallas Theological Seminary]], divides the various evidences into two approaches: deductive and inductive approaches.<ref>[http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4200 My Take on Inerrancy], [http://www.bible.org/ bible.org] website</ref>
==== <u>Deductive justifications</u> ====
The first deductive justification is that the Bible says it is inspired by God (for instance "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness"{{Bibleref2c|2Tim|3:16|NIV|2 Tim 3:16}}) 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".<ref>[http://www.etsjets.org/?q=about About the ETS], [[Evangelical Theological Society]] web site</ref>
Line 86 ⟶ 106:
Although in these verses, Jesus and the apostles are only referring to the [[Old Testament]], the argument is considered by some to extend to the [[New Testament]] writings, because {{Bibleref2|2Peter|3:16|NIV|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".{{Bibleref2c|2Peter|3:16|NIV|2 Pet. 3:16}}<ref>[http://beta.biblestudytools.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=library&contentid=88104&category=REF Bible, Inspiration of] {{Webarchive|url=https://archive.today/20120707082535/http://beta.biblestudytools.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=library&contentid=88104&category=REF |date=2012-07-07 }}, by Nigel M. de S. Cameron, in "''Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology''", Edited by Walter A. Elwell, Baker, 1996</ref>
==== <u>Inductive justifications</u> ====
Wallace describes the inductive approach by enlisting the [[Presbyterian]] theologian [[Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield]]:
<blockquote>In his ''Inspiration and Authority of the Bible'',<ref name="Warfield 48">{{cite book|last1=Warfield|first1=Benjamin|author-link=Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield|editor1-last=Craig|editor1-first=Samuel|others=with introduction by [[Cornelius Van Til]]|title=The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible|edition=1st|publisher=Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company|location=[[Phillipsburg, New Jersey|Phillipsburg]], [[New Jersey]]|isbn=978-0-87552-527-3|oclc=223791198|year=1948|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/inspirationautho0000warf}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://bible.org/article/my-take-inerrancy|title=My Take on Inerrancy|author=Daniel B. Wallace|publisher=bible.com|access-date=17 November 2010| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20101120210148/http://bible.org/article/my-take-inerrancy| archive-date= 20 November 2010 | url-status= live}}</ref></blockquote>
Line 106 ⟶ 126:
{{bibleverse|2|Timothy|3:15-17|31}}, {{bibleref2|John|5:39|31}}, {{bibleref2-nb|John|17:20|31}}, {{bibleref2|Psalm|19:7-8|31}}, {{cite book|last=Engelder|first=Theodore E.W.|url=https://archive.org/details/MN41551ucmf_1|title=Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture|page=[https://archive.org/details/MN41551ucmf_1/page/n57 28]|location=Saint Louis, MO|publisher=Concordia Publishing House|year=1934}}</ref> and there are no deficiencies in scripture that need to be filled with [[sacred tradition|tradition]], pronouncements of the Pope, [[Revelation (Latter Day Saints)|new revelations]], or present-day [[development of doctrine]].<ref>{{cite book|last=Graebner |first=Augustus Lawrence |url=http://showcase.netins.net/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt |title=Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology |page=13 |location=Saint Louis, MO |publisher=Concordia Publishing House |year=1910 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070807135035/http://showcase.netins.net/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt |archive-date=August 7, 2007 }}, {{cite book|last=Engelder|first=Theodore E.W.|url=https://archive.org/details/MN41551ucmf_1|title=Popular Symbolics: The Doctrines of the Churches of Christendom and Of Other Religious Bodies Examined in the Light of Scripture|page=[https://archive.org/details/MN41551ucmf_1/page/n57 28]|location=Saint Louis, MO|publisher=Concordia Publishing House|year=1934}}</ref>
==== <u>Some clarifications</u> ====
=====Accuracy ''vs'' truth=====
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 (as opposed to accurate).<ref name="Lindsell">Lindsell, Harold. ''The Battle for the Bible'', Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan (1976), p. 38.</ref> He says there are expressly false statements in the Bible, but they are reported accurately.<ref name="Lindsell" /> He notes that "All the Bible does, for example in the case of Satan, is to report what Satan actually said. Whether what he said was true or false is another matter. Christ stated that the devil is a liar".<ref name="Lindsell" />
Line 124 ⟶ 144:
{{See also|Criticism of the Bible|Internal consistency of the Bible|The Bible and history}}
==== <u>Theological criticism</u> ====
Proponents of biblical inerrancy often cite {{bibleverse|2|Timothy|3:16|9}} as evidence that scripture is inerrant. For this argument, they prefer translations that render the verse as "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," and they interpret this to mean that the whole Bible must therefore be 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]] to which "scripture" refers.<ref>Dodd, C. H. ''The Authority of the Bible'', London, 1960. p. 25.</ref>
In addition, Michael T. Griffith, the [[Mormon]] apologist, writes:
Line 151 ⟶ 171:
While the phrase "the Word of God" is never applied to the modern Bible within the Bible itself, supporters of inerrancy argue that this is because the biblical canon was not closed. In {{Bibleref2|1Th|2:13|NIV|1 Thessalonians 2:13}}, the [[apostle Paul]] wrote to the church in [[Thessalonica]], "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."<ref>Nürnberger, K., ''Biblical Theology in Outline: The Vitality of the Word of God'', Cluster Publications, 2004, p. 65.</ref>
==== <u>Translation</u> ====
{{Original research|date=January 2022|part=section}}
{{See also|Bible errata|Bible translations|English translations of the Bible|Virgin birth of Jesus}}
Line 166 ⟶ 186:
Those who hold the inerrancy of the Bible do not all agree as to whether inerrancy refers to modern Bibles or only to the original, autographic texts. There are also disagreements about whether, because the autographic texts no longer survive, modern texts can be said to be inerrant.<ref>Cowan, SB. and Wilder, TL., ''In Defense of the Bible: A Comprehensive Apologetic for the Authority of Scripture'', B&H Publishing Group, 2013, p. 55.[https://books.google.com/books?id=ChpkAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA55]</ref> Article X of the Chicago statement agrees that the inspiration for the words of the Bible can only strictly be applied to the autographs. However, the same article asserts that the original text "can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy", so that the lack of the originals does not affect the claim of biblical inerrancy of such recovered, modern texts.<ref name="ChicX"/> [[Robert Saucy]], for instance, reports that writers have argued that "99 percent of the original words in the New Testament are recoverable with a high degree of certainty."<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SqL8-Gg96KUC&pg=PT130|title=Scripture|first=Robert|last=Saucy|date=June 9, 2001|publisher=Thomas Nelson|isbn=9781418557478|via=Google Books}}</ref>
==== <u>Textual tradition of the New Testament</u> ====
{{See also|Biblical canon|Bible translations|Textual criticism}}
There are over 5,600 Greek [[manuscript]]s 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 from across the early centuries of the scriptures.
Line 193 ⟶ 213:
|isbn=0-06-065548-8 }}</ref>
==== <u>Inerrantist response</u> ====
[[Evangelical Christians]] generally accept the findings of [[textual criticism]],<ref>Bacote, VE., Miguélez, LC. and Okholm, DL., ''Evangelicals & Scripture: Tradition, Authority and Hermeneutics'', InterVarsity Press, 2009.</ref> and nearly all modern translations, including the New Testament of the [[New International Version]], are based on "the widely accepted principles of ... textual criticism".<ref>''Today's new International Version: New Testament'', Introduction.</ref>
Line 212 ⟶ 232:
=== Before Vatican II ===
For Catholics as for Protestants, the challenge to inerrancy became serious when the Bible began to come into conflict with science
The reaction came from pope [[Leo XIII]] in his 1893 encyclical ''[[Providentissimus Deus]]'':<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html|title=Providentissimus Deus (November 18, 1893) | LEO XIII}}</ref>
<blockquote>20. [...] It is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, [...] cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and [...] that inspiration [...] is essentially incompatible with error. [...] This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church.</blockquote>
Fifty years later (1943), pope [[Pius XII]] in ''[[Divino afflante Spiritu]]''<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu.html|title = Divino Afflante Spiritu (September 30, 1943) | PIUS XII}}</ref> agreed:
<blockquote>1. [...] When [...] some Catholic writers [...] ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as "obiter dicta" and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter 'Providentissimus Deus' [...] justly and rightly condemned these errors.</blockquote>
But Pius XII did allow that not everything in the Bible need be understood literally, since the Bible contained different literary ''genres'': in addition to the narration of events, there was poetry and metaphor and imagery, none of which needed be interpreted literally.
Line 226 ⟶ 243:
The [[Second Vatican Council]] (1962–65), a gathering of the world's [[bishops]] called together to "update" Catholic teaching and practice, issued doctrinal documents on a number of topics, including one on [[Revelation]]. The first draft, prepared by a predominantly conservative commission, was traditional, including its position on inerrancy:
<blockquote>11. Since God himself by the inspiring Spirit is the Author of all Holy Scripture and, as it were, the writer of everything produced in it by the hagiograph's hand it follows that all and each of the parts of the sacred books, even the slightest parts, are inspired. Therefore everything stated by the hagiograph must be considered to have been stated by the Holy Spirit.</blockquote>
<blockquote>12. Because divine Inspiration extends to everything, the absolute immunity of all Holy Scripture from error follows directly and necessarily. For we are taught by the ancient and constant faith of the Church that it is utterly forbidden to grant that the sacred writer himself has erred, since divine Inspiration of itself as necessarily excludes and repels any error in any matter, religious or profane, as it is necessary to say that God, the supreme Truth, is never the Author of any error whatever.</blockquote>
After a week's debate, 62% of the assembled bishops voted to reject the draft on Revelation.<ref>{{cite book|author=John W. O'Malley|title=What Happened at Vatican II|publisher=Belknap Press of Harvard University Press|year=2008|page=150}}</ref> Five other drafts would follow in the course of the next 3 years, the fruit of negotiations among various groups at the Council resulting in language broad enough to attract votes from a wide spectrum of bishops. The last draft was approved by a vote of 2081 to 27, and on 18 November 1965 became the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, known as ''[[Dei verbum]]'' from its first Latin words.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html|title=Dei verbum}}</ref> The document's teaching on inerrancy is found in a single sentence:▼
▲After a week's debate, 62% of the assembled bishops voted to reject the draft. Five other drafts would follow in the course of the next 3 years, the fruit of negotiations among various groups at the Council resulting in language broad enough to attract votes from a wide spectrum of bishops. The last draft was approved by a vote of 2081 to 27, and on 18 November 1965 became the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, known as ''[[Dei verbum]]'' from its first Latin words.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html|title=Dei verbum}}</ref> The document's teaching on inerrancy is found in a single sentence:
<blockquote>11. [...] Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.</blockquote>
The crux of the matter was the phrase “for the sake of our salvation”. It
▲The crux of the matter was the phrase “for the sake of our salvation”. It could be understood as limiting inerrancy to matters of salvation, but some insisted it had no effect on the traditional view that the Bible was completely inerrant.
Since Vatican II, there has been no official pronouncement on the meaning of this phrase. Article 107 of the [[Catechism of the Catholic Church]] (1992) simply quotes the sentence from ''Dei verbum'' without any further explanation:<ref name="vatican.va">{{Cite web|url=https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PP.HTM|title = Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText}}</ref>
<blockquote>107. The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." (DV 11)</blockquote>
Nor is any explanation to be found in pope [[Benedict XVI]]'s 2010 apostolic exhortation ''Verbum Domini'' summarizing the discussion at the [[Synod of Bishops]] on the Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church held in Rome in 2008.<ref name="vatican.va"/> Once again, the sentence from Vatican II is quoted without further clarification:
<blockquote>19. [...] The Synod Fathers also stressed the link between the theme of inspiration and that of the truth of the Scriptures. A deeper study of the process of inspiration will doubtless lead to a greater understanding of the truth contained in the sacred books. As the Council’s teaching states in this regard, the inspired books teach the truth: “since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures [...]”</blockquote>
The Church's current teaching on the inerrancy of the Bible is therefore to be found in this one sentence from ''Dei verbum'', a sentence whose interpretation is contested.
===
For the very first time, a doctrinal document of the highest authority contained a phrase which could be interpreted as teaching limited biblical inerrancy. It was up to the Church at large to interpret it.
Line 269 ⟶ 278:
* The ''instrumentum laboris'' (working paper) for the 2008 Synod of Bishops on the Word of God:<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20080511_instrlabor-xii-assembly_en.html|title = The Word of God in the life and mission of the Church}}</ref><ref>The English translation on the Vatican website has been corrected to bring it in line with the official Latin text</ref>
<blockquote>15. [...] even though all parts of Sacred Scripture are inspired, inerrancy applies only to ‘that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation’ (DV 11).</blockquote>
== See also ==
| |||