Wikipedia

Biblical inerrancy: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MDJH (talk | contribs)
280 edits
The existing article was essentially about the Protestant debate concerning biblical inerrancy. A new section was added about the Catholic debate.
Line 45:
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>
 
== The Modern Protestant Discussion ==
In the 1970s and 1980s, however, the debate in theological circles, which centered on the issue of whether or not the Bible was infallible or both infallible and inerrant, came into the spotlight. Some notable Christian [[seminary|seminaries]], such as [[Princeton Theological Seminary]] and [[Fuller Theological Seminary]], were formally adopting the doctrine of infallibility while rejecting the doctrine of inerrancy. Fuller, for instance, explains:<blockquote>Where inerrancy refers to what the [[Holy Spirit in Christianity|Holy Spirit]] is saying to the churches through the biblical writers, we support its use. Where the focus switches to an undue emphasis on matters like chronological details, precise sequence of events, and numerical allusions, we would consider the term misleading and inappropriate.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://fuller.edu/About/Mission-and-Values/What-We-Believe-and-Teach/|title=What We Believe and Teach|website=Fuller Theological Seminary|language=en|archive-url=https://perma.cc/7QDT-R7ZM|archive-date=21 October 2017|url-status=live|access-date=21 October 2017|df=dmy-all}}{{cbignore}}</ref></blockquote>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.<ref>Lindsell, Harold. ''The Battle for the Bible. '' Zondervan, 1978. {{ISBN|978-0-310-27681-4}}</ref> The author asserted that losing the doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture was the thread that would unravel the church and [[Christian fundamentalism|Conservative Christians]] rallied behind this idea.
 
In the 1970s and 1980s, some notable Protestant [[seminary|seminaries]], such as [[Princeton Theological Seminary]] and [[Fuller Theological Seminary]], heretofore defenders of total inerrancy, formally adopted inerrancy restricted to theological matters (what some authors now call "infallibility"). Fuller, for instance, explained:<blockquote>Where inerrancy refers to what the [[Holy Spirit in Christianity|Holy Spirit]] is saying to the churches through the biblical writers, we support its use. Where the focus switches to an undue emphasis on matters like chronological details, precise sequence of events, and numerical allusions, we would consider the term misleading and inappropriate.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://fuller.edu/About/Mission-and-Values/What-We-Believe-and-Teach/|title=What We Believe and Teach|website=Fuller Theological Seminary|language=en|archive-url=https://perma.cc/7QDT-R7ZM|archive-date=21 October 2017|url-status=live|access-date=21 October 2017|df=dmy-all}}{{cbignore}}</ref></blockquote>
This was among the controversies during the [[Southern Baptist Convention conservative resurgence]]; ultimately the SBC adopted the position that the Bible is both inerrant and infallible as outlined in their 2000 edition of the ''[[Baptist Faith and Message]]''.
 
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.<ref>Lindsell, Harold. ''The Battle for the Bible. '' Zondervan, 1978. {{ISBN|978-0-310-27681-4}}</ref> The author asserted that losing the doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture was the thread that would unravel the church and [[Christian fundamentalism|Conservative Christians]] rallied behind this idea.
== Inerrancy in autographic texts and modern versions ==
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>
 
This was among the controversies during the [[Southern Baptist Convention conservative resurgence]]; the 2000 edition of the ''[[Baptist Faith and Message]]'' states that “all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy” while avoiding the use of the terms "inerrant” or “infallible”.
== Textual tradition of the New Testament ==
{{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.
 
Most of these manuscripts date to the [[Middle Ages]]. The oldest complete copy of the New Testament, the [[Codex Sinaiticus]], which includes two other books<ref>The [[Epistle of Barnabas]] and [[The Shepherd of Hermas]]</ref> not now included in the accepted NT canon, dates to the 4th century. The earliest fragment of a New Testament book is the [[Rylands Library Papyrus P52]] which dates from 125–175 AD,<ref>{{Cite book|title=Orsini, Pasquale and Clarysse, Willy (2012) "Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Dates; A Critique of Theological Palaeography", Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 88/4, p. 470}}</ref> recent research pointing to a date nearer to 200 AD.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/search-resources/guide-to-special-collections/st-john-fragment/what-is-the-significance/|title=What is the significance of this fragment? by the University of Manchester}}</ref> It has the size of a business card. Very early manuscripts are rare.
 
The average NT manuscript is about 200 pages, and in all, there are about 1.3 million pages of text. No two manuscripts are identical, except in the smallest fragments, and the many manuscripts that preserve New Testament texts differ among themselves in many respects, with some estimates of 200,000 to 300,000 differences among the various manuscripts.<ref>See Ehrman, ''Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew'', p. 219</ref> According to [[Bart D. Ehrman|Bart Ehrman]]:
 
{{blockquote|Most changes are careless errors that are easily recognized and corrected. Christian scribes often made mistakes simply because they were tired or inattentive or, sometimes, inept. Indeed, the single most common mistake in our manuscripts involves "[[orthography]]", significant for little more than showing that scribes in antiquity could spell no better than most of us can today. In addition, we have numerous manuscripts in which scribes have left out entire words, verses, or even pages of a book, presumably by accident. Sometimes scribes rearranged the words on the page, for example, by leaving out a word and then reinserting it later in the sentence.<ref>See Ehrman, ''Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew'', p. 220</ref>}}
 
In the 2008 Greer-Heard debate series, New Testament 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.<ref>{{Cite book|editor-first= Robert B.|editor-last= Stewart|year= 2011|title= The Reliability of the New Testament: Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace in Dialogue|location= Minneapolis, Minnesota|publisher= [[Fortress Press]]|isbn= 978-0-8006-9773-0|oclc= 646121910}}</ref>
 
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 [[recension]]s of the texts. However, [[Authorized King James Version|King James Version (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., [[Novum Testamentum Graece|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.<ref>White, JR., ''The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations?'', Baker Books, 2009, p. 24.</ref>
 
KJV-only inerrantist Jack Moorman says that at least 356 doctrinal passages are affected by the differences between the ''Textus Receptus'' and the Nestle-Aland Greek Text.<ref>Moorman, Jack, ''Missing In Modern Bibles – Is the Full Story Being Told?'', Bible for Today, 1989, 83 pages</ref>
 
=== Arguments in Favour of Inerrancy ===
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]]'',{{Bibleref2c|Jn|7:53–8:11}} the [[Comma Johanneum]],{{Bibleref2c|1Jn|5:7–8|NIV|1 Jn 5:7–8}} and the longer ending in [[Mark 16]].{{Bibleref2c|Mk|16:9–20}}
 
Many modern Bibles have footnotes to indicate areas where there is disagreement between source documents. Bible commentaries offer discussions of these.<ref>See e.g. ''The HCSB Student Bible'', B&H Publishing Group, 2007, p. iv.</ref><ref>{{cite book
|editor-last = Mays
|editor-first = James
|title = Harper Collins Bible Commentary
|publisher = Harper Collins
|edition =Revised
|year =2000
|isbn=0-06-065548-8 }}</ref>
 
=== Inerrantist response ===
 
==== Evangelical inerrantists ====
[[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>
 
Since textual criticism suggests that the manuscript copies are not perfect, strict inerrancy is only applied to the original autographs (the manuscripts written by the original authors) rather than the copies. However, challenging this view, evangelical theologian [[Wayne Grudem]] writes:<blockquote>For most practical purposes, then, the current published scholarly texts of the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament are the same as the original manuscripts. Thus, when we say that the original manuscripts were inerrant, we are also implying that over 99 percent of the words in our present manuscripts are also inerrant, for they are exact copies of the originals.<ref name="Grudem90"/></blockquote>
 
The "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" says, "We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture". However, it also reads: "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>{{cite web |url=http://www.churchcouncil.org/ICCP_org/Documents_ICCP/English/01_Biblical_Inerrancy_A&D.pdf |title=Chicago Statement on Biblical Innerancy |access-date=2010-11-15 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130826055225/http://churchcouncil.org/ICCP_org/Documents_ICCP/English/01_Biblical_Inerrancy_A%26D.pdf |archive-date=2013-08-26 |url-status=dead}}</ref>
 
Less commonly, more conservative views are held by some groups.
 
==== ''Textus Receptus'' ====
{{main|Textus Receptus}}
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. This is sometimes called "''Textus Receptus'' Onlyism", as it is believed the Greek text by this name (Latin for received text) is a perfect and inspired copy of the original and supersedes earlier manuscript copies. This position is based on the idea that only the original language God spoke in is inspired, and that God was pleased to preserve that text throughout history by the hands of various scribes and copyists. Thus the ''Textus Receptus'' acts 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). The [[New King James Version]] was also translated from the ''Textus Receptus''.
 
==== King James Only inerrantists ====
A faction of those in 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. One of its most vocal, prominent and thorough proponents was [[Peter Ruckman]], whose followers were generally known as Ruckmanites. He was generally considered to hold the most extreme form of this position.
 
== Justifications ==
A number of reasons are offered by Christian theologians to justify biblical inerrancy. [[Norman Geisler]] and William Nix (1986) say that scriptural inerrancy is established by a number of observations and processes, which include:<ref name="inerrancy">{{cite book
| last=[[Norman Geisler]] and William Nix
Line 117 ⟶ 73:
[[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>
 
==== Deductive justifications ====
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>
 
Supportive of this is the idea that God cannot lie. W. J. Mcrea writes:<blockquote>
Line 124 ⟶ 80:
Because God cannot lie and because scripture is inspired by God, the Bible must be wholly true. This syllogism may be valid for establishing inerrancy, but it cannot define the concept.<ref>Grenz, SJ, ''Theology for the community of God'', Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000</ref></blockquote> Also, from Geisler:<blockquote>Those who defend inerrancy are deductivists pure and simple. They begin with certain assumptions about God and the scriptures, namely, that God cannot lie and the scriptures are the Word of God. From these assumptions, inerrantists deduce that the Bible is without error.<ref name="Geisler1980">{{cite book |first = Norman L. |last=Geisler |title=Inerrancy |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=e6IlzfPztMUC&pg=PA271 |year=1980 |publisher=Zondervan |isbn=978-0-310-39281-1 |page=271 }}</ref></blockquote>
 
A '''second''' reason offered is that [[Jesus]] and the apostles used the [[Old Testament]] in a way that assumes it is inerrant. For instance, in {{Bibleref2|Galatians|3:16}}, [[Paul the Apostle|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 (as stated) sets a precedent for inerrant interpretation down to the individual letters of the words.<ref name="Bible 1984">"Bible, Inerrancy and Infallibility of", by P. D. Feinberg, in ''[[Evangelical Dictionary of Theology]]'' (Baker, 1984, Ed. W. Elwell)</ref>
 
{{blockquote|Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds", as (referring) to many, but (rather) to one, "And to your seed", that is, Christ.{{Bibleref2c|Gal|3:16}}}}
Line 134 ⟶ 90:
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>
 
==== Inductive justifications ====
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>
 
'''Inspiration'''. In the [[Nicene Creed]] Christians confess their belief that the Holy Spirit "has spoken through the prophets". This creed has been normative for Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans and all mainline Protestant denominations except for those descended from the non-credal [[Stone-Campbell movement]]. As stated by [[Alister E. McGrath]], "An important element in any discussion of the manner in which scripture is inspired, and the significance which is attached to this, is 2 Timothy 3:16–17, which speaks of scripture as 'God-breathed' (''theopneustos'')". According to McGrath, "the reformers did not see the issue of inspiration as linked with the absolute historical reliability or factual inerrancy of the biblical texts". He says, "The development of ideas of 'biblical infallibility' or 'inerrancy' within Protestantism can be traced to the United States in the middle of the nineteenth century".<ref>McGrath, Alister E., ''Christian Theology: An Introduction'', Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1994; 3rd ed. 2001. p. 176.</ref>
==== Inspiration ====
In the [[Nicene Creed]] Christians confess their belief that the Holy Spirit "has spoken through the prophets". This creed has been normative for Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans and all mainline Protestant denominations except for those descended from the non-credal [[Stone-Campbell movement]]. As stated by [[Alister E. McGrath]], "An important element in any discussion of the manner in which scripture is inspired, and the significance which is attached to this, is 2 Timothy 3:16–17, which speaks of scripture as 'God-breathed' (''theopneustos'')". According to McGrath, "the reformers did not see the issue of inspiration as linked with the absolute historical reliability or factual inerrancy of the biblical texts". He says, "The development of ideas of 'biblical infallibility' or 'inerrancy' within Protestantism can be traced to the United States in the middle of the nineteenth century".<ref>McGrath, Alister E., ''Christian Theology: An Introduction'', Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1994; 3rd ed. 2001. p. 176.</ref>
 
People who believe in inerrancy think that the Bible does not merely contain the Word of God, but every word of it is, because of verbal inspiration, the direct, immediate word of God.<ref>
Line 147 ⟶ 102:
{{blockquote|That the Bible is inspired is, indeed, a primary Christian conviction; it is from this that certain consequences have been drawn, such as infallibility and inerrancy, which retain their place in Christian thought because they are held to be bound up with the affirmation of inspiration. But the deductions can be rejected without any ambiguity as to the fact of inspiration. Neither 'fundamentalists' nor sceptics are to be followed at this point... the Bible is inspired because it is the adequate and indispensable vehicle of revelation; but inspiration does not amount to dictation by God.<ref>Mozley, J.K., "The Bible: Its Unity, Inspiration, and Authority", in W.R. Matthews, ed., ''The Christian Faith: Essays in Explanation and Defense'', Harper and Bros., 1936. pp. 58-59.</ref>}}
 
'''Divine authority'''. For a believer in biblical inerrancy, Holy Scripture is the Word of God, and carries the full authority of God. Every single statement of the Bible calls for instant and unqualified acceptance.<ref>{{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/n56 27] |location=Saint Louis, MO |publisher=Concordia Publishing House |year=1934 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090306230810/http://www.archive.org/details/MN41551ucmf_1 |archive-date=March 6, 2009 }}</ref> Every doctrine of the Bible is the teaching of God and therefore requires full agreement.<ref>{{cite book|last=Graebner |first=Augustus Lawrence |url=http://showcase.netins.net/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt |title=Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology |pages=8–10 |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 }}</ref> Every promise of the Bible calls for unshakable trust in its fulfillment.<ref>{{cite book|last=Graebner |first=Augustus Lawrence |url=http://showcase.netins.net/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt |title=Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology |pages=8–9 |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 }}</ref> Every command of the Bible is the directive of God himself and therefore demands willing observance.<ref>{{cite book|last=Graebner |first=Augustus Lawrence |url=http://showcase.netins.net/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt |title=Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology |pages=8–11 |location=Saint Louis, MO |publisher=Concordia Publishing House |year=1910 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060712193848/http://showcase.netins.net/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt |archive-date=July 12, 2006 }}</ref>
==== Divine authority ====
For a believer in biblical inerrancy, Holy Scripture is the Word of God, and carries the full authority of God. Every single statement of the Bible calls for instant and unqualified acceptance.<ref>{{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/n56 27] |location=Saint Louis, MO |publisher=Concordia Publishing House |year=1934 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090306230810/http://www.archive.org/details/MN41551ucmf_1 |archive-date=March 6, 2009 }}</ref> Every doctrine of the Bible is the teaching of God and therefore requires full agreement.<ref>{{cite book|last=Graebner |first=Augustus Lawrence |url=http://showcase.netins.net/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt |title=Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology |pages=8–10 |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 }}</ref> Every promise of the Bible calls for unshakable trust in its fulfillment.<ref>{{cite book|last=Graebner |first=Augustus Lawrence |url=http://showcase.netins.net/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt |title=Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology |pages=8–9 |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 }}</ref> Every command of the Bible is the directive of God himself and therefore demands willing observance.<ref>{{cite book|last=Graebner |first=Augustus Lawrence |url=http://showcase.netins.net/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt |title=Outlines Of Doctrinal Theology |pages=8–11 |location=Saint Louis, MO |publisher=Concordia Publishing House |year=1910 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060712193848/http://showcase.netins.net/web/bilarson/bibliology.txt |archive-date=July 12, 2006 }}</ref>
 
'''Sufficiency'''. According to some believers, the Bible contains everything that they need to know to obtain salvation and live a Christian life,<ref>
==== Sufficiency ====
According to some believers, the Bible contains everything that they need to know to obtain salvation and live a Christian life,<ref>
{{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>
 
==== Some Clarifications ====
 
'''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" />
=== Accuracy ===
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" />
 
'''Inerrancy vs Infallibility'''. 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 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 [[Phenomenology of religion|phenomenological]] nature, not just with strict, clinical literality, which was foreign to historical narratives.<ref name="inerrancy" />
=== Limitations ===
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 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 [[Phenomenology of religion|phenomenological]] nature, not just with strict, clinical literality, which was foreign to historical narratives.<ref name="inerrancy" />
 
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 [[Biblical inspiration|God's inspiration]] guided them to flawlessly project his message through their own language and personality.<ref>[[s:Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy|"Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy"]], Article VIII</ref>
Line 166 ⟶ 117:
Infallibility and inerrancy refer to the original texts of the Bible. Scholars who are proponents of biblical inerrancy acknowledge the potential for human error in transmission and translation, and therefore only affirm as the Word of God translations that "faithfully represent the original".<ref>"[http://www.churchcouncil.org/ICCP_org/Documents_ICCP/English/01_Biblical_Inerrancy_A&D.pdf Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy]", Article X ([https://web.archive.org/web/20130826055225/http://churchcouncil.org/ICCP_org/Documents_ICCP/English/01_Biblical_Inerrancy_A&D.pdf Archive])</ref>
 
'''Metaphor and literalism''' Even if the bible is inerrant, it may need to be interpreted to distinguish between what statements are metaphorical, and which are literally true. [[Jeffrey Burton Russell|Jeffrey Russell]] writes that "Metaphor is a valid way to interpret reality. The 'literal' meaning of words – which I call the overt reading – is insufficient for understanding reality because it never exhausts reality." He adds: <blockquote>Originating in Evangelicalism, the Fundamentalists affirmed that the Bible is to be read "literally" or overtly, leading some to reject not only physicalist evolution but even evolution science and to deny that life developed over billions of years. Evangelicals tended to believe in the "inerrancy" of the Bible (though they defined that term variously), a view that sometimes could unhelpfully turn the Bible into an authority on science and history.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://archive.org/details/paradisemislaidh00russ_0|title=Paradise mislaid|date=November 19, 2006|publisher=Oxford University Press|via=Internet Archive}}</ref></blockquote>
=== Metaphor and literalism ===
Even if the bible is inerrant, it may need to be interpreted to distinguish between what statements are metaphorical, and which are literally true. [[Jeffrey Burton Russell|Jeffrey Russell]] writes that "Metaphor is a valid way to interpret reality. The 'literal' meaning of words – which I call the overt reading – is insufficient for understanding reality because it never exhausts reality." He adds: <blockquote>Originating in Evangelicalism, the Fundamentalists affirmed that the Bible is to be read "literally" or overtly, leading some to reject not only physicalist evolution but even evolution science and to deny that life developed over billions of years. Evangelicals tended to believe in the "inerrancy" of the Bible (though they defined that term variously), a view that sometimes could unhelpfully turn the Bible into an authority on science and history.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://archive.org/details/paradisemislaidh00russ_0|title=Paradise mislaid|date=November 19, 2006|publisher=Oxford University Press|via=Internet Archive}}</ref></blockquote>
Also, figures such as [[Scot McKnight]] have argued that the Bible clearly transcends multiple [[genre]]s and Hebrew prose [[Poetry|poems]] cannot be evaluated by a reader the same as a science [[textbook]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/05/05/how-do-we-know-when/|title=When is the Bible metaphorical?|work=Jesus Creed}}</ref>
 
=== Criticism of Inerrancy ===
{{See also|Criticism of the Bible|Internal consistency of the Bible|The Bible and history}}
 
==== Theological criticism ====
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 186 ⟶ 136:
{{blockquote|The doctrine of biblical inerrancy seems inherently improbable, for two reasons. Firstly, the Scriptures contain what seem to be evident errors and contradictions (although great ingenuity has been applied to explain these away). Secondly, the books of the Old and New Testaments did not gain their place within the "canon", or list of approved books, as soon as they were written. The Old Testament canon was not closed until late in the Apostolic age, and the New Testament canon was not finally closed until the fourth century. If all the Bible's contents were inerrant, one would have thought that this would have become apparent within a much shorter period.<ref>Montefiore, Hugh. ''Credible Christianity: The Gospel in Contemporary Society'', London: Mowbray, 1993; Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1994. p. 5. {{ISBN|0-8028-3768-9}}</ref>}}
 
'''Liberal Christianity'''. [[William John Lyons]] quoted [[William Wrede]] and [[Hermann Gunkel]], who affirmed: "Like every other real science, New Testament Theology's has its goal simply in itself, and is totally indifferent to all dogma and Systematic Theology ... the spirit of historical investigation has now taken the place of a traditional doctrine of inspiration".<ref name="Lyons2002">{{cite book|first=William John|last=Lyons|title=Canon and Exegesis: Canonical Praxis and the Sodom Narrative|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=bVqvAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA17|date=1 July 2002|publisher=A&C Black|isbn=978-0-567-40343-8|page=17|quote=On the relationship between the results of his work and the task of Christian theology, Wrede writes that how the 'systematic theologian gets on with its results and deals with them—that is his own affair. Like every other real science, New Testament Theology's has its goal simply in itself, and is totally indifferent to all dogma and Systematic Theology' (1973: 69).16 In the 1920s H. Gunkel would summarize the arguments against Biblical Theology in Old Testament study thus: 'The recently experienced phenomenon of biblical theology being replaced by the history of Israelite religion is to be explained from the fact that the spirit of historical investigation has now taken the place of a traditional doctrine of inspiration' (1927-31: 1090-91; as quoted by Childs 1992a: 6).}}</ref>
==== Doctrine of biblical inspiration in liberal Christianity ====
 
[[William John Lyons]] quoted [[William Wrede]] and [[Hermann Gunkel]], who affirmed: "Like every other real science, New Testament Theology's has its goal simply in itself, and is totally indifferent to all dogma and Systematic Theology ... the spirit of historical investigation has now taken the place of a traditional doctrine of inspiration".<ref name="Lyons2002">{{cite book|first=William John|last=Lyons|title=Canon and Exegesis: Canonical Praxis and the Sodom Narrative|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=bVqvAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA17|date=1 July 2002|publisher=A&C Black|isbn=978-0-567-40343-8|page=17|quote=On the relationship between the results of his work and the task of Christian theology, Wrede writes that how the 'systematic theologian gets on with its results and deals with them—that is his own affair. Like every other real science, New Testament Theology's has its goal simply in itself, and is totally indifferent to all dogma and Systematic Theology' (1973: 69).16 In the 1920s H. Gunkel would summarize the arguments against Biblical Theology in Old Testament study thus: 'The recently experienced phenomenon of biblical theology being replaced by the history of Israelite religion is to be explained from the fact that the spirit of historical investigation has now taken the place of a traditional doctrine of inspiration' (1927-31: 1090-91; as quoted by Childs 1992a: 6).}}</ref>
 
In general, [[liberal Christianity]] has no problem with the fact that the Bible has errors and contradictions.<ref name="Chryssides 2010 p. 21">{{cite book | last=Chryssides | first=George D. | title=Christianity Today: An Introduction | publisher=Bloomsbury Academic | series=Religion Today | year=2010 | isbn=978-1-84706-542-1 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4FSGhhjtU-UC&pg=PA21 | access-date=30 August 2020 | page=21}}</ref> Liberal Christians reject the dogma of inerrancy or infallibility of the Bible,<ref name="Chryssides 2010 p. 21"/> which they see as the idolatry (fetishism) of the Bible.<ref name="Dorrien 2000 p. 112">{{cite book | last=Dorrien | first=Garry J. | title=The Barthian Revolt in Modern Theology: Theology Without Weapons | publisher=Westminster John Knox Press | year=2000 | isbn=978-0-664-22151-5 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=K2l0sc8wekwC&pg=PA112 | access-date=30 August 2020 | page=112}}</ref> [[Martin Luther]] emphatically declared "if our opponents allege Scripture against Christ, we allege Christ against Scripture."<ref name="Dorrien 2000 p. 112"/>
Line 194 ⟶ 142:
[[John Shelby Spong]], author and former bishop of the US Episcopalian Church who is well-known for his [[Post-theism|post-theistic]] theology, declared that the literal interpretation of the Bible is [[heresy]].<ref name="Chellew-Hodge 2016">{{cite web | last=Chellew-Hodge | first=Candace | title=Why It Is Heresy to Read the Bible Literally: An Interview with John Shelby Spong | website=Religion Dispatches | date=24 February 2016 | url=https://religiondispatches.org/why-it-is-heresy-to-read-the-bible-literally-an-interview-with-john-shelby-spong/ | access-date=19 June 2021}}</ref><ref name="Spong2016">{{cite book|first=John Shelby|last=Spong|title=Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy: A Journey into a New Christianity Through the Doorway of Matthew's Gospel|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wuH1CQAAQBAJ|date=16 February 2016|publisher=HarperOne|isbn=978-0-06-236233-9|page=22|chapter=Stating the Problem, Setting the Stage|quote=To read the gospels properly, I now believe, requires a knowledge of Jewish culture, Jewish symbols, Jewish icons and the tradition of Jewish storytelling. It requires an understanding of what the Jews call ‘midrash.’ Only those people who were completely unaware of these things could ever have come to think that the gospels were meant to be read literally.}}</ref>
 
'''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 [[Logos (Christianity)|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.<ref>James Barr, ''Fundamentalism'' pp. 72ff, SCM 1977.</ref> 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.<ref>James Barr, ''Fundamentalism'' pp. 218–19 SCM 1977</ref> All books of the Bible were written by human beings. Thus, whether the Bible is—in whole or in part<ref>[[Book of Exodus|Exodus]] claims of the [[Ethical Decalogue]] and [[Ritual Decalogue]] that these are God's word.</ref>—the Word of God is not clear. However, some 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.<ref>Brown, RE., ''The Critical Meaning of the Bible'', Paulist Press, 1981.</ref>
==== 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 [[Logos (Christianity)|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.<ref>James Barr, ''Fundamentalism'' pp. 72ff, SCM 1977.</ref> 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.<ref>James Barr, ''Fundamentalism'' pp. 218–19 SCM 1977</ref> All books of the Bible were written by human beings. Thus, whether the Bible is—in whole or in part<ref>[[Book of Exodus|Exodus]] claims of the [[Ethical Decalogue]] and [[Ritual Decalogue]] that these are God's word.</ref>—the Word of God is not clear. However, some 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.<ref>Brown, RE., ''The Critical Meaning of the Bible'', Paulist Press, 1981.</ref>
 
There is only one instance in the Bible where the phrase "the Word of God" refers to something written. The reference is to the [[Ten Commandments|Decalogue]]. However, most other references are to reported speech preserved in the Bible. The New Testament also contains a number of statements that refer to passages from the Old Testament as God's words, for instance {{Bibleref2|Romans|3:2}} (which says that the Jews have been "entrusted with the very words of God"), or the book of [[Epistle to the Hebrews|Hebrews]], which often prefaces Old Testament quotations with words such as "God says". The Bible also contains words spoken by human beings ''about'' God, such as [[Eliphaz (Job)|Eliphaz]] ({{Bibleref2|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 medieval controversy.<ref>Uriel Simon, "Four Approaches to the Book of Psalms" chap. 1</ref> 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.<ref>Alexander Ryrie, "Deliver Us From Evil", DLT 2004</ref>
Line 201 ⟶ 148:
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>
 
==== Translation ====
{{See also|Bible errata|Bible translations|English translations of the Bible}}
Translation has given rise to a number of issues, as the original languages are often quite different in grammar as well as word meaning. Some believers trust their own translation to be the accurate one. One such group of believers is known as the [[King James Only movement]]. For readability, clarity, or other reasons, translators may choose different wording or sentence structure, and some translations may choose to paraphrase passages. Because some of the words in the original language have ambiguous or difficult to translate meanings, debates over the correct interpretation occur.<ref>See Encyclical Letter of 1893 quoted in Schwarz, W., ''Principles and Problems of Biblical Translation: Some Reformation Controversies and Their Background'', CUP Archive, 1955, p. 11.</ref>
Line 207 ⟶ 154:
Criticisms are also sometimes raised because of inconsistencies arising between different translations of the Hebrew or Greek text, as in the case of the virgin birth.
 
==== The virgin birth ====
{{Original research|date=January 2022|part=section}}{{See also|Virgin birth of Jesus}}
One translation problem concerns the New Testament assertion that Jesus Christ was [[virgin birth of Jesus|born of a virgin]]. If the Bible were inerrant, then this would be true. However, critics have suggested that the use of the word ''virgin'' may have been merely a translation error.
Line 215 ⟶ 161:
 
Another writer, [[David Strauss]] in ''The Life of Jesus'', writes that the question "ought to be decided by the fact that the word does not signify an immaculate, but a marriageable young woman". He suggests that Isaiah was referring to events of his own time, and that the young woman in question may have been "perhaps the prophet's own wife".<ref>Strauss, D. F. ''The life of Jesus'', Calvin Blanchard, New York, 1860, p. 114.</ref>
 
=== Autographic texts and modern versions ===
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>
 
==== Textual tradition of the New Testament ====
{{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.
 
Most of these manuscripts date to the [[Middle Ages]]. The oldest complete copy of the New Testament, the [[Codex Sinaiticus]], which includes two other books<ref>The [[Epistle of Barnabas]] and [[The Shepherd of Hermas]]</ref> not now included in the accepted NT canon, dates to the 4th century. The earliest fragment of a New Testament book is the [[Rylands Library Papyrus P52]] which dates from 125–175 AD,<ref>{{Cite book|title=Orsini, Pasquale and Clarysse, Willy (2012) "Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Dates; A Critique of Theological Palaeography", Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 88/4, p. 470}}</ref> recent research pointing to a date nearer to 200 AD.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/search-resources/guide-to-special-collections/st-john-fragment/what-is-the-significance/|title=What is the significance of this fragment? by the University of Manchester}}</ref> It has the size of a business card. Very early manuscripts are rare.
 
The average NT manuscript is about 200 pages, and in all, there are about 1.3 million pages of text. No two manuscripts are identical, except in the smallest fragments, and the many manuscripts that preserve New Testament texts differ among themselves in many respects, with some estimates of 200,000 to 300,000 differences among the various manuscripts.<ref>See Ehrman, ''Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew'', p. 219</ref> According to [[Bart D. Ehrman|Bart Ehrman]]:
 
{{blockquote|Most changes are careless errors that are easily recognized and corrected. Christian scribes often made mistakes simply because they were tired or inattentive or, sometimes, inept. Indeed, the single most common mistake in our manuscripts involves "[[orthography]]", significant for little more than showing that scribes in antiquity could spell no better than most of us can today. In addition, we have numerous manuscripts in which scribes have left out entire words, verses, or even pages of a book, presumably by accident. Sometimes scribes rearranged the words on the page, for example, by leaving out a word and then reinserting it later in the sentence.<ref>See Ehrman, ''Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew'', p. 220</ref>}}
 
In the 2008 Greer-Heard debate series, New Testament 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.<ref>{{Cite book|editor-first= Robert B.|editor-last= Stewart|year= 2011|title= The Reliability of the New Testament: Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace in Dialogue|location= Minneapolis, Minnesota|publisher= [[Fortress Press]]|isbn= 978-0-8006-9773-0|oclc= 646121910}}</ref>
 
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 [[recension]]s of the texts. However, [[Authorized King James Version|King James Version (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., [[Novum Testamentum Graece|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.<ref>White, JR., ''The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations?'', Baker Books, 2009, p. 24.</ref>
 
KJV-only inerrantist Jack Moorman says that at least 356 doctrinal passages are affected by the differences between the ''Textus Receptus'' and the Nestle-Aland Greek Text.<ref>Moorman, Jack, ''Missing In Modern Bibles – Is the Full Story Being Told?'', Bible for Today, 1989, 83 pages</ref>
 
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]]'',{{Bibleref2c|Jn|7:53–8:11}} the [[Comma Johanneum]],{{Bibleref2c|1Jn|5:7–8|NIV|1 Jn 5:7–8}} and the longer ending in [[Mark 16]].{{Bibleref2c|Mk|16:9–20}}
 
Many modern Bibles have footnotes to indicate areas where there is disagreement between source documents. Bible commentaries offer discussions of these.<ref>See e.g. ''The HCSB Student Bible'', B&H Publishing Group, 2007, p. iv.</ref><ref>{{cite book
|editor-last = Mays
|editor-first = James
|title = Harper Collins Bible Commentary
|publisher = Harper Collins
|edition =Revised
|year =2000
|isbn=0-06-065548-8 }}</ref>
 
==== Inerrantist response ====
 
[[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>
 
Since textual criticism suggests that the manuscript copies are not perfect, strict inerrancy is only applied to the original autographs (the manuscripts written by the original authors) rather than the copies. However, challenging this view, evangelical theologian [[Wayne Grudem]] writes:<blockquote>For most practical purposes, then, the current published scholarly texts of the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament are the same as the original manuscripts. Thus, when we say that the original manuscripts were inerrant, we are also implying that over 99 percent of the words in our present manuscripts are also inerrant, for they are exact copies of the originals.<ref name="Grudem90"/></blockquote>
 
The "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" says, "We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture". However, it also reads: "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>{{cite web |url=http://www.churchcouncil.org/ICCP_org/Documents_ICCP/English/01_Biblical_Inerrancy_A&D.pdf |title=Chicago Statement on Biblical Innerancy |access-date=2010-11-15 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130826055225/http://churchcouncil.org/ICCP_org/Documents_ICCP/English/01_Biblical_Inerrancy_A%26D.pdf |archive-date=2013-08-26 |url-status=dead}}</ref>
 
Less commonly, more conservative views are held by some groups.
 
{{main|Textus Receptus}}
'''Textus Receptus'''. 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. This is sometimes called "''Textus Receptus'' Onlyism", as it is believed the Greek text by this name (Latin for received text) is a perfect and inspired copy of the original and supersedes earlier manuscript copies. This position is based on the idea that only the original language God spoke in is inspired, and that God was pleased to preserve that text throughout history by the hands of various scribes and copyists. Thus the ''Textus Receptus'' acts 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). The [[New King James Version]] was also translated from the ''Textus Receptus''.
 
'''King James Only inerrantists'''. A faction of those in 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. One of its most vocal, prominent and thorough proponents was [[Peter Ruckman]], whose followers were generally known as Ruckmanites. He was generally considered to hold the most extreme form of this position.
 
== The Modern Catholic Discussion ==
 
=== Before Vatican II ===
 
For Catholics as for Protestants, the challenge to inerrancy became serious when the Bible began to come into conflict with science, first astronomy (heliocentrism), then geology (the age of the earth) and finally biology (the evolution of species). By the 19th century, some Catholic thinkers were suggesting the same solution as some Protestants: inerrancy is restricted to matters of doctrine and morality.
 
The reaction came from pope [[Leo XIII]] in his 1893 encyclical ''Providentissimus Deus'':<ref>https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html</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>https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu.html</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.
 
=== The Teaching of Vatican II ===
 
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. 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>https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html</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 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>https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PP.HTM</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>https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PP.HTM</ref> 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.
 
=== The Discussion after Vatican II ===
 
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.
 
Some theologians and apologists defend the view that total inerrancy is still the Church's teaching. For instance, articles defending this position can be found in the 2011 collection ''For the Sake of Our Salvation''.<ref>{{cite book|editor=Scott Hahn|title=For the sake of our Salvation|series=Letter and Spirit Journal #6|publisher=Emmaus Road|year=2011}}</ref>
 
On a more popular level, at ''Catholic Answers'' (https://www.catholic.com), a website and podcast with a strongly apologetical bent that calls itself “the world's largest database of answers about the beliefs and practices of the Catholic faith” there is no lack of articles defending the same position, with titles such as “Is Scripture Inerrant?”<ref>https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-scripture-inerrant</ref>, “The Accuracy of Scripture”<ref>https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-accuracy-of-scripture</ref>, “Is everything in the Bible True?”<ref>https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-everything-in-the-bible-true</ref> and “Is the Bible's Inerrancy Limited to Matters Pertaining to Salvation?”<ref>https://www.catholic.com/qa/is-the-bibles-inerrancy-limited-to-matters-pertaining-to-salvation</ref>
 
But the majority view among today's Catholic theologians and Scripture scholars is that ''Dei Verbum'' has indeed replaced total inerrancy with inerrancy limited to matters of salvation.
 
For instance, [[Raymond Brown]], arguably the most important Catholic Scripture scholar of the second half of the 20th century, writes:<ref>{{cite book|author=Raymond Brown|title=The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus|publisher=Paulist Press|year=1973|page=8-9}}</ref>
 
<blockquote>In the last hundred years we have moved from an understanding wherein inspiration guaranteed that the Bible was totally inerrant to an understanding wherein inerrancy is limited to the Bible's teaching of "that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation." In this long journey of thought the concept of inerrancy was not rejected but was seriously modified to fit the evidence of biblical criticism which showed that the Bible was not inerrant in questions of science, of history, and even of time-conditioned religious beliefs.</blockquote>
 
Similarly, Scripture scholar R. A. F. MacKenzie in his commentary on ''Dei Verbum'':<ref>{{cite book|editor=Abbott|title=The Documents of Vatican II|year=1967|page=119 note 31}}</ref>
 
<blockquote>The Bible was not written in order to teach the natural sciences, nor to give information on merely political history. It treats of these (and all other subjects) only insofar as they are involved in matters concerning salvation. It is only in this respect that the veracity of God and the inerrancy of the inspired writers are engaged.</blockquote>
 
These views are shared by many Church officials and as a result appear in some Church documents. For instance:
 
- The ''instrumentum laboris'' (working paper) for the 2008 Synod of Bishops on the Word of God: <ref>https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20080511_instrlabor-xii-assembly_en.html</ref>:
 
<blockquote>15. [...] The following can be said with certainty: [...] even though all parts of Sacred Scripture are inspired, inerrancy applies only [''stress added''] to ‘that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation’ (DV 11).</blockquote>
 
- An official report (1999) on theological conversations between the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Southern Baptist Conference, to be found on the website of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops: <ref>https://www.usccb.org/resources/Report-on-Sacred-Scripture.pdf</ref>
 
<blockquote>For Roman Catholics, inerrancy is understood as a consequence of biblical inspiration; it has to do more with the truth of the Bible as a whole than with any theory of verbal inerrancy. Vatican II says that "the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation" (Dei Verbum 11). What is important is the qualification of "that truth" with "for the sake of our salvation."</blockquote>
 
- A 2005 “teaching document” issued by the Bishops’ Conferences of England and Wales, and of Scotland, entitled The Gift of Scripture <ref>https://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/Scripture/GoS.pdf</ref>
 
<blockquote>14. [...] The books thus declared canonical and inspired by the Spirit of God contain ‘the truth which God wished to be set down in the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation’ (Dei Verbum 11). It is important to note this teaching of the Second Vatican Council that the truth of Scripture is to be found in all that is written down ‘for the sake of our salvation’. We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters. We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision.</blockquote>
 
== See also ==
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy"