Content deleted Content added
(44 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown) | |||
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 name="McKim, DK 1996">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's 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]]". 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>{{Globalize inline|date=June 2024}}
The [[Catholic Church]] also holds belief in biblical inerrancy. 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>
== Terms and positions ==
Line 18:
{{term|Complete and restricted inerrancy}}
{{defn|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">
{{term|Inerrancy and Infallibility}}
{{defn|Some theologians speak of the "infallibility" of the Bible. This can be understood in one of three ways.
* Some authors use "inerrancy" and "infallibility" interchangeably.
* For others, "inerrancy" refers to complete inerrancy and "infallibility" to the more limited view that the Bible is without error in conveying God's self-revelation to humanity.<ref name="McKim, DK 1996">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's own teaching, and seems to be precluded by His testimony both to the unqualified historical accuracy and the inspiration of the Old Testament{{nbsp}}[...] The attempt to discriminate{{nbsp}}[...] seems to be a product of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries".</ref> On this understanding, "infallibility"
* Citing dictionary definitions, Frame (2002) claims "infallibility" is a stronger term than "inerrant": "'Inerrant' means there are no errors; "infallible" means there {{em|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>}}
{{glossary end}}
Line 29:
===Positions===
* [[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> The significance of most phrases, their parts, grammar, and occasionally individual words, letters and even [[Hebrew cantillation|pronunciation]] in the Hebrew Bible are the subject of many rabbinic [[Baraita of Rabbi Ishmael|discussions]] in the [[Talmud]].
* [[Catholic Church]]: the [[Second Vatican Council]] (
* [[Evangelical Christianity]]: Evangelicals generally affirm that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is inspired by God and is the final authority on matters of faith and practice. However, there is an ongoing debate between two primary factions:
#The inerrant view - the Bible is absolutely inerrant on all matters that it affirms.
Line 35:
== History ==
According to Coleman (1975), "[t]here 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 were not established according to the authority of a council, creed, or church, until the post-[[Reformation]] period.<ref name="hendel">Hendel, Ronald. "The Dream of a Perfect Text: Textual Criticism and Biblical Inerrancy in Early Modern Europe," in e.d. Collins, J.J., ''Sibyls, Scriptures, and Scrolls: John Collins at Seventy'', Brill, 2017, 517-541, esp. 524-531. On pg. 529, Hendel writes "The doctrine of uniform inerrancy in the literal sense across all details is an innovation of the Catholic-Protestant polemics after [[Council of Trent|Trent]]."</ref>
=== 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:
{{
John D. Woodbridge disputes this claim about Chrysostom writing, "In fact, Chrysostom apparently believed in biblical infallibility extended to every detail. He does not set forth a comprehensive discussion of the subject, but scholars who have surveyed the corpus of his work usually affirm that this is case."
In his ''Commentary on Galatians'', [[Jerome]] also argued that Paul's rebuke of Peter in Galatians 2:11–14<ref>{{bibleverse|Galatians|2:11–14}}</ref> for acting like a Jew around the Jewish faction of the early Church was an insincere "white lie" as Paul himself had done the same thing.<ref>Cohen, Shaye J. D. ''The beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, varieties, uncertainties. Vol. 31.'' University of California Press, 1999, 368.</ref> In response, [[Augustine]] rebuked Jerome's interpretation and affirmed that the scriptures contained no mistakes in them, and that admitting a single mistake would shed doubt on the entire scripture:<ref name="wood">Woodbridge, John. "Evangelical Self-Identity and the Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy", in ''Understanding the Times: New Testament Studies in the 21st Century: Essays in Honor of D. A. Carson on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday'', Crossway, 2011, 111.</ref>
{{
{{
However, [[John D. Hannah]] argues that Jerome did indeed affirm the historical nature of the Bible. For example, Jerome believed in the historicity of the book of Jonah.<ref name=Hannah>Hannah, John. "The Doctrine of Scripture in the Early Church", in ''Inerrancy and the Church'', Moody Press, 1984, 35.
Biblical inerrancy adherents say that the Early Church Fathers did hold to biblical inerrancy, even if it was not articulated that way. In particular, Shawn Nelson cites [[Clement of Rome]], Papias, Ignatius of Antioch, [[the Shepherd of Hermas]], the [[Didache]], and the [[Epistle to Diognetus]] as examples of those whom held to inerrancy.<ref name=Nelson>Nelson, Shawn. "A Voice from a New Generation: What's at Stake?", in ''Vital Issues in the Inerrancy Debate'', Wipf and Stock, 2015, 28.
[[Clement of Rome]] said to his readers:<ref name=Brannan>Brannan, Rick, trans. "1 Clement", in ''The Apostolic Fathers: Greek-English Interlinear'', Logos Bible Software, 2011, 45:2-3.
{{
=== Medieval era ===
Some scholars suggest the medieval church fathers held to the divine origin of scripture and believed there could not be any error in scripture.
{{
Another theologian, [[Hugh of St. Victor]], is known for stressing the importance of the historical and literal senses of the Bible.<ref name=Johnson>Johnson, John F. "Biblical Authority and Scholastic Theology" in ''Inerrancy and the Church'', Moody Press, 1984, 76.
{{
=== Reformation era ===
By the time of the [[Reformation]], there was still no official doctrine of inerrancy. Although the term was not used, some scholars argue the Reformers did believe in the concept of inerrancy.<ref name=geis>Geisler, Norman L., ''Decide for Yourself: How History Views the Bible'', Zondervan, 1982, 39.
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 ed. 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 Matthew 27:9,<ref>{{bibleverse|Matthew|27:9}}</ref> Luther wrote that "Such points do not bother me particularly."<ref name="cambible" /> However, other Luther scholars have pointed out that Luther, in other places, said the Scripture cannot contradict itself.<ref name=Preus>Preus, Robert D. "Luther and Biblical Infallibility," in ed. Hannah, John D., ''Inerrancy and the Church'', Moody Press, 1984, 134-135.</ref> Luther said in regards to whether the Bible had errors or not, "the Scriptures cannot err."<ref name=Luther>Luther, Martin ''Sämtliche Schriften, herausgegeben von Johann Georg Walch, 2. Auflage'', Concordia, 1818-1930, 19:1073.</ref> Other statements made by Luther seem to contradict that, e.g. he stated that he found numerous errors in the Bible, and lambasted a couple of books of the [[Protestant Bible]] as worthless; he also stated that his idea of Christ trumps the letter of the Scripture, especially when the Scripture is cited in order to give the lie to his idea.<ref name="Dorrien 2000 p. 112">{{cite book | last=Dorrien | first=Gary J. | authorlink=Gary Dorrien | 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>
Line 77:
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" /> However, Calvin also said that Scripture is the "certain and unerring rule."<ref name=Geisler>Geisler, Norman L. ''Decide for Yourself: How History Views the Bible'', Zondervan 1982, 45-48.
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 {{lang|la|De verbo Dei}}, the first volume of his multi-volume {{lang|la|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" />
=== Post-Reformation ===
In the 17th century, [[Quakers|Quaker]] apologist [[Robert Barclay]] took a step away from Biblical Inerrancy while continuing to affirm [[Biblical inspiration]] and the Bible's place in Christian doctrine. Barclay said that "errors [in the Bible] may be supposed by the injury of the times to have slipped in", but that because of inspiration from the Holy Spirit, all necessities remained.<ref>Robert Barclay. "Apology for the True Christian Divinity". 1676. Proposition 3: Concerning the Scriptures. §VI</ref>
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.
Line 86 ⟶ 89:
The [[Fuller Theological Seminary]] formally adopted inerrancy restricted to theological matters (what some authors now call "infallibility"). It explained:
{{
A more comprehensive position was espoused particularly in the magazine ''[[Christianity Today]]'' and the book entitled ''The Battle for the Bible'' by Harold Lindsell. Lindsell asserted that losing the doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture was the thread that would unravel the church and [[Christian fundamentalism|
=== Arguments in favour of inerrancy ===
Line 111 ⟶ 114:
Supportive of this is the idea that God cannot lie. W. J. Mcrea writes:
{{
[[Stanley Grenz]] states that:
{{
Also, from Geisler:
{{
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 Galatians 3:16,<ref>{{Bibleverse|Galatians|3:16}}</ref> [[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>
Line 127 ⟶ 130:
{{blockquote|For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.|Matthew 5:18 KJV<ref>{{Bibleverse|Matthew|5:18|KJV}}</ref>}}
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 2 Peter 3:16<ref>{{Bibleverse|2 Peter|3:16|NIV}}</ref> 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".<ref>[http://beta.biblestudytools.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=library&contentid=88104&category=REF Bible, Inspiration of] {{Webarchive|url=https://archive.today/
==== Inductive justifications ====
Wallace describes the inductive approach by enlisting the [[Presbyterian]] theologian [[Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield]]:
{{
=====Inspiration=====
Line 154 ⟶ 157:
=====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" />
=====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 [[Literal and figurative language|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:
{{
Figures such as [[Scot McKnight]] have also 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|date=5 May 2012}}</ref>
Line 172 ⟶ 171:
Proponents of Biblical inerrancy often cite 2 Timothy 3:16<ref>{{bibleverse|2 Timothy|3:16}}</ref> 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:
{{
The Catholic [[New Jerusalem Bible]] also has a note that this passage refers only to the Old Testament writings understood to be scripture at the time it was written.<ref>New Jerusalem Bible, study edition, p. 1967, DLT 1994</ref> Furthermore, the Catholic Veritas Bible website says that "Rather than characterizing the Old Testament scriptures as required reading, Paul is simply promoting them as something useful or advantageous to learn.{{nbsp}}[...] it falls far short of a salvational requirement or theological system. Moreover, the four purposes (to teach, correct, etc.) for which scripture is declared to be 'profitable' are solely the functions of the ministry. After all, Paul is addressing one of his new bishops (the 'man of God'). Not a word addresses the use of scripture by the laity."<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.veritasbible.com/resources/sacred_scripture_shortcuts/categories/Scripture+%26+Tradition/Sacred+Tradition |title=''Veritas Bible'' Sacred Tradition |access-date=2014-07-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714162709/http://www.veritasbible.com/resources/sacred_scripture_shortcuts/categories/Scripture+%26+Tradition/Sacred+Tradition#906-profitable--i-e---ot-is-useful-- |archive-date=2014-07-14 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Another note in the Bible suggests that there are indications that Paul's writings were being considered, at least by the author of the [[Second Epistle of Peter]],<ref>{{Bibleverse|2 Peter|3:16}}</ref> as comparable to the Old Testament.<ref>New Jerusalem Bible, p. 2010, footnote (i) DLT 1985</ref>
Line 186 ⟶ 185:
[[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{{nbsp}}[...] 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"/> [[Martin Luther]] emphatically declared: "if our opponents allege Scripture against Christ, we allege Christ against Scripture."<ref name="Dorrien 2000 p. 112"/>
[[John Shelby Spong]], author and former bishop of the Episcopal Church who was 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>
Line 193 ⟶ 192:
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 the 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 Romans 3:2,<ref>{{Bibleverse|Romans|3:2}}</ref> d (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]] (Job 42:7)<ref>{{Bibleverse|Job|42:7}}</ref> and the prayers and songs of the Psalter. That these are God's words addressed to humanity 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>
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 1 Thessalonians 2:23<ref>{{Bibleverse|1 Thessalonians|2:13|NIV}}</ref> 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>
Line 202 ⟶ 201:
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>
▲On this point, Browning's ''A Dictionary of the Bible'' states that in the Septuagint (dated as early as the late 2nd century BCE), "the Greek {{transliteration|grc|parthenos}} was used to translate the Hebrew {{transliteration|hbo|almah}}, which means a 'young woman{{'"}}.<ref>Browning, WRF, ''A dictionary of the Bible'', Oxford University Press, 2004. Entry for ''virgin birth''.</ref> The dictionary also says that "the earliest writers of the [New Testament] (Mark and Paul) show no knowledge of such a virginal conception". Furthermore, the ''[[Encyclopedia Judaica]]'' calls this "a two-millennium misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14", which "indicates nothing concerning the chastity of the woman in question".<ref>Skolnik, F., ''Encyclopedia Judaica'', 2nd Edition, 2006, Volume 20, p. 540.</ref>
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>
Line 215 ⟶ 210:
==== Textual tradition of the New Testament ====
{{See also|Biblical canon|Bible translations|Textual criticism of the New Testament}}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 (the [[Epistle of Barnabas]] and [[The Shepherd of Hermas]]) 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>
▲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 (the [[Epistle of Barnabas]] and [[The Shepherd of Hermas]]) 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]]:
Line 230 ⟶ 222:
KJV-only inerrantist Jack Moorman says that at least 356 doctrinal passages are affected by the differences between the {{lang|la|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>
▲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
Line 246 ⟶ 236:
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:
{{
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>
Line 257 ⟶ 247:
=====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]]
=====Michael Licona
In 2010, [[Michael Licona]] published a book defending the resurrection of Jesus called, ''The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach''. In one part of the book, Licona raised questions about the literal interpretation of the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27:51-53. He suggests the passage of scripture is an apocalyptic genre.<ref name=licona>Licona, Michael. ''The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach'', Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010. 34.
== Modern Catholic discussion ==
=== Before Vatican II ===
[[St. John Henry Newman]], writing in 1884, acknowledged the "human side" of biblical inspiration which "manifests itself in language, style, tone of thought, character, intellectual peculiarities, and such infirmities, not sinful, as belong to our nature, and which in unimportant matters may issue in what in doctrinal definitions is called an obiter dictum (said in passing).” In this view, the Bible contains many statements of a historical nature that have no salvific content in themselves and so need not be inerrant.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://wherepeteris.com/biblical-inerrancy-for-catholics-dei-verbum-chapter-3/|title=Biblical inerrancy for Catholics: Dei Verbum, chapter 3}}</ref> Often called the “absent father of Vatican II” (absent because he died 72 years before it began), the wording of [[Dei Verbum]] recalls Newman’s position. The theologians who wrote it knew and positively appreciated his views.<ref>Juan Velez Giraldo, “Newman’s Influence on Vatican II’s Constitution Dei Verbum,” Scripta Theologica 51 (2019): 711-40</ref>
Pope [[Leo XIII]], in his 1893 encyclical {{lang|la|[[Providentissimus Deus]]}}, addressed attacks on the inerrancy of the Bible regarding descriptions of physical phenomena.<ref name=":0" /> He explained that descriptions of physical events in the Bible are meant to manifest religious truths, and not to describe the physical events themselves.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last=Belmonte |first=Charles |url=https://fsubelmonte.weebly.com/uploads/1/9/7/1/19715887/fsu1.pdf |title=Faith Seeking Understanding |publisher=Studium Theologiae Foundation, Inc. |year=2006 |isbn=971-91060-4-2 |editor-last=Belmonte |editor-first=Charles |edition=2nd |volume=I |location=Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, Philippines |pages=
Another controversy with regard to the inerrancy of the Bible
Some of the theories proposed regarding the inerrancy of the Bible with regard to the historicity of events narrated in it are the theory of "history according to appearances", which posits that the Bible describes events according to popular versions of them; and the "theory of implicit quotations", which posits that in writing the Bible, the hagiographers were only quoting what they thought somebody else said.<ref name=":2">{{Cite book |last=Belmonte |first=Charles |title=Faith Seeking Understanding |publisher=Studium Theologiae Foundation |year=2006 |isbn=971-91060-4-2 |editor-last=Belmonte |editor-first=Charles |edition=2nd |volume=I |location=Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, Philippines |pages=123}}</ref> These theories are contrary to the Catholic teaching that the events narrated in the Bible are truly historical.
=== Vatican II ===
{{More citations needed section|date=May 2023}}
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 {{lang|la|[[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:
{{
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 {{lang|la|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>
{{
=== Present-day Catholic teaching ===
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, on the apologetic website ''[[Catholic Answers]]'' there is no lack of articles defending the same position.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-scripture-inerrant|title=Is Scripture Inerrant?}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-accuracy-of-scripture|title = The Accuracy of Scripture}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-everything-in-the-bible-true|title = Is Everything in the Bible True?}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.catholic.com/qa/is-the-bibles-inerrancy-limited-to-matters-pertaining-to-salvation|title = Is the Bible's inerrancy limited to matters pertaining to salvation?}}</ref>
For instance, [[Raymond E. Brown]], "perhaps the foremost English-speaking Catholic Biblical scholar",<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituary-the-rev-raymond-e-brown-1172611.html|title=Obituary: The Rev Raymond e. Brown|website=[[Independent.co.uk]]|date=18 August 1998}}</ref> writes:<ref
{{
▲For instance, [[Raymond E. Brown]], "perhaps the foremost English-speaking Catholic Biblical scholar",<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituary-the-rev-raymond-e-brown-1172611.html|title=Obituary: The Rev Raymond e. Brown|website=[[Independent.co.uk]]|date=18 August 1998}}</ref> writes:<ref>{{cite book |last1=Brown |first1=Raymond E.. |editor1-last=Brown |editor1-first=Raymond E. |editor2-last=Fitzmyer |editor2-first=Joseph A |editor3-last=Murphy |editor3-first=Roland E |title=The New Jerome Biblical Commentary |publisher=Prentice-Hall |year=1989 |chapter=Church Pronouncements}}</ref>
▲{{quote|On inerrancy Vatican II made an important qualification as our italics indicate: "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.''" Some have tried to interpret the italicized phrase to cover everything the human author expressed, but pre-voting debates show an awareness of errors in the Bible. [...] Thus, it is proper to take the clause as specifying: Scriptural teaching is truth without error to the extent that it conforms to the salvific purpose of God.}}
And also:<ref>{{cite book|author=Raymond Brown|title=The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus|publisher=Paulist Press|year=1973|pages=8–9}}</ref>
{{
Similarly, Scripture scholar R. A. F. MacKenzie<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/roderick-andrew-francis-mackenzie|title = Roderick Andrew Francis MacKenzie | the Canadian Encyclopedia}}</ref> in his commentary on {{lang|la|Dei verbum}}:<ref>{{cite book|editor=Abbott|title=The Documents of Vatican II|year=1967|page=119 note 31}}</ref>
{{
In a speech to German Bishops during the [[Second Vatican Council]], the future [[Pope Benedict XVI]] described inerrancy as referring to everything which scripture intended to affirm, but not necessarily in how it is expressed, saying:<ref>[[Joseph Ratzinger]], ''On the Schema On the Sources of Revelation: Address to the German-Speaking Bishops'' (10/10/62), tr. Jared Wicks in “Six Texts by Prof. Joseph Ratzinger as Peritus Before and During Vatican Council II,” Gregorianum 89, no. 2 (2008): (233-311) 280.</ref>
{{blockquote|"It is not surprising that according to a practically irrefutable consensus of historians there definitely are mistakes and errors in the Bible in profane matters of no relevance for what Scripture properly intends to affirm."}}
And that:<ref>[[Joseph Ratzinger]], ''On the Schema On the Sources of Revelation: Address to the German-Speaking Bishops'' (10/10/62), tr. Jared Wicks in “Six Texts by Prof. Joseph Ratzinger as Peritus Before and During Vatican Council II,” Gregorianum 89, no. 2 (2008): (233-311) 280.</ref>
{{blockquote|Scripture is and remains inerrant and beyond doubt in everything that it properly intends to affirm, but this is not necessarily so in that which accompanies the affirmation and is not part of it. As a result, [. . .] the inerrancy of Scripture has to be limited to its vere enunciata [what is really affirmed].}}
These views are shared by many Church officials and as a result are taken for granted in some Church documents. For instance:
* An official report (1999) on theological conversations between the [[US Conference of Catholic Bishops]] and the [[Southern Baptist Convention]], to be found on the website of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops:<ref>{{Cite web |date=September 10, 1999 |title=Report on Sacred Scripture |url=https://www.usccb.org/resources/Report-on-Sacred-Scripture.pdf |website=United States Conference of Catholic Bishops}}</ref>{{pb}}{{
* A 2005 "teaching document" issued by the Bishops' Conferences of England and Wales, and of Scotland, entitled ''The Gift of Scripture'':<ref>{{Cite
* The {{lang|la|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>{{pb}}{{
== See also ==
Line 345 ⟶ 337:
* Norman Geisler and William E. Nix., ''A General Introduction to the Bible'', Moody Publishers; Rev&Expndd edition (August 1986), {{ISBN|0-8024-2916-5}}
* [[Norman Geisler]], ed. (1980). ''Inerrancy''. {{ISBN|0-310-39281-0}}.
* Walter C. Kaiser, Peter H. Davids, [[F. F. Bruce]], Manfred T. Brauch. (1996). ''Hard Sayings of the Bible''
* [[B. B. Warfield|Warfield, B. B.]] (1977 reprint). ''Inspiration and Authority of Bible'', with a lengthy introductory essay by [[Cornelius Van Til]]. {{ISBN|0-8010-9586-7}}.
Line 352 ⟶ 343:
==Further reading==
* J. Benton White (1993). ''Taking the Bible Seriously: Honest Differences about Biblical Interpretation''. First ed. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press. xii, 177 p. {{ISBN|0-664-25452-7}}
{{Christian theology}}
{{Creationism topics}}
{{Modernism in the Catholic Church}}
{{Evangelical Protestantism in the United States}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Biblical Inerrancy}}
|