Biblical inerrancy: Difference between revisions

{{Bible related}}

 

 

 

 

== Terms and positions ==

 

{{term|Complete and restricted inerrancy}}

 

{{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.

* 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}}

===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]].

* [[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.

 

== History ==

 

=== Early Church ===

 

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:

 

 

 

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>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

=== Medieval era ===

 

 

 

 

 

=== Reformation era ===

 

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>

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 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" />

The [[Fuller Theological Seminary]] formally adopted inerrancy restricted to theological matters (what some authors now call "infallibility"). It explained:

 

 

 

=== Arguments in favour of inerrancy ===

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>

{{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>}}

 

 

==== Inductive justifications ====

Wallace describes the inductive approach by enlisting the [[Presbyterian]] theologian [[Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield]]:

 

 

=====Inspiration=====

=====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>

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>

[[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>

 

 

[[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>

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>

 

 

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>

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>

 

 

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>

 

==== Textual tradition of the New Testament ====

 

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]]:

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>

 

|editor-last = Mays

|editor-first = James

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>

 

=====King James Only inerrantists=====

 

 

== Modern Catholic discussion ==

 

=== Before Vatican II ===

 

 

 

=== 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 ===

 

 

 

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 &#124; 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>

 

 

These views are shared by many Church officials and as a result are taken for granted in some Church documents. For instance:

 

== See also ==

* 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}}.

==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}}

 

{{DEFAULTSORT:Biblical Inerrancy}}