Biblical inerrancy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Please see the discussion on the talk page. |
Biblical inerrancy is the doctrinal position [1] that in its original form, the Bible is without error; "referring to the complete accuracy of Scripture, including the historical and scientific parts". [2] Inerrancy is distinguished from Biblical infallibility (or limited inerrancy), which holds that the Bible is inerrant on issues of faith and practice but not history or science.
Contents |
[edit] Inerrancy in context
Many denominations believe that the Bible is inspired by God, who through the human authors is the divine author of the Bible.
Many who believe in the Inspiration of scripture teach that it is infallible. 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 and of the scriptural texts in their original manuscripts are completely true and without error. [2]
Many religions include texts other than the Bible under various categorizations of inspiration. For example, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) consider the teachings of Joseph Smith and The Book of Mormon along with the Bible as being the "word of God", but recognize translation issues[3].
On the other hand, the Roman Catholic Church considers some teachings of the Church, such as solemn definitions issued by an Ecumenical council or the Pope, to be infallible in the sense that they are preserved from error. However, the Roman Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility is limited in application and is subject to contingencies. Since the doctrine was formally defined at the first Vatican Council in 1870, it has been invoked once, in 1950. [4] [5]
[edit] Basis of belief
The theological basis of the belief, in its simplest form, is that as God is perfect, the Bible, as the word of God, must also be perfect, thus, free from error.
Proponents of biblical inerrancy also teach that God used the "distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers" of scripture but that God's inspiration guided them to flawlessly project his message through their own language and personality. [6](See biblical inspiration).
Infallibility and inerrancy refer to the original texts of the Bible. And while conservative scholars acknowledge the potential for human error in transmission and translation, modern translations are considered to "faithfully represent the originals" [7].
In their text on the subject, Geisler & Nix (1986) claim that scriptural inerrancy is established by a number of observations and processes, which include:
-
- the historical accuracy of the Bible,
- the Bible's claims of its own inerrancy,
- church history and tradition, and
- one's individual experience with God, etc.
"Prima Facie" refers to evidence and claims from the Bible itself. "The Witness of the Spirit" is cited as proof to the person to whom God speaks. The "Transforming Ability" of scripture is cited as yet another supernatural proof to an individual. The "Unity of the Scripture" despite its myriad of authors, cultures, and topics, the "Historicity of the Bible" and how the archaeological record is interpreted to confirm the Bible, the "Testimony of Christ", "fulfilled prophecies", "apparent indestructibility" of the scriptures, and the "integrity of its authors" are all commonly taught as ways reliability is established. [2]
[edit] Textual tradition of the New Testament
- See also: Bible canon and Bible translations
There are over 5,600 Greek manuscripts containing all or part of the New Testament. Most of these manuscripts date to the Middle Ages. The first complete copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus, dates to the 4th century. The earliest fragment of a New Testament book is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52 which dates to the mid 2nd century and is the size of a business card. Very early manuscripts are rare.
No two manuscripts are identical, except in the smallest fragments [8] and the many manuscripts which preserve New Testament texts differ among themselves in many respects, with some estimates of 200,000 to 300,000 differences among the various manuscripts[9]. According to Ehrman,
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.
Some familiar examples of Gospel passages thought to have been added by later interpolators include the Pericope Adulteræ (John 7:53 - 8:11), the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7–8), and the longer ending in Mark 16 (Mark 16:9-20).
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 recensions of the texts. Many inerrantists believe that the authorial recensions of New Testament texts are not only accessible, but accurately represented by modern translations[citation needed]. Though some inerrantists often prefer the traditional texts used in their churches to modern attempts of reconstruction, arguing that the Holy Spirit is just as active in the preservation of the scriptures as he was in their creation. These inerrantists are found particularly in non-Protestant churches, but also a few Protestant groups hold such views.
[edit] Major religious views on the Bible
[edit] Roman Catholics
Roman Catholic Church teaching holds that the resurrection of Jesus affirms his divinity, and Jesus in turn appointed the Pope, and the body of Bishops led by the Pope, guided by the Holy Spirit, to offer guidance on questions of faith and morals. Catholics believe this guidance has allowed the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture (the Bible), to be preserved and passed down to the present day. Speaking from the claimed authority granted to him by Christ, Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu[10], denounced those who held that the inerrancy was restricted to matters of faith and morals:
The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solemn decree that "the entire books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical." [...] When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the "entire books with all their parts" as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, 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[11], [...] justly and rightly condemned these errors. [1][12]
The Roman Catholic position on the Bible is further clarified in Dei Verbum, one of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council (Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, n. 11 & 12) This document states the Catholic belief that all scripture is sacred and reliable because the biblical authors were inspired by God. However, the human dimension of the Bible is also acknowledged as well as the importance of proper interpretation. Careful attention must be paid to the actual meaning intended by the authors, in order to render a correct interpretation. Genre, modes of expression, historical circumstances, poetic liberty, and church tradition are all factors that must be considered by Catholics when examining scripture. The Roman Catholic Church holds that the authority to declare correct interpretation rests ultimately with the church through its magisterium.
The Bishops' Conferences of England and Wales has recently published a teaching document called "The Gift of Scripture". According to this document, the Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, but it continues to say that: “We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.” As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing. Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation, the last book of the Christian Bible, in which the writer describes the work of the risen Jesus, the death of the Beast and the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb. [2]
[edit] Eastern Orthodox Christians
The Eastern Orthodox Church also believes in unwritten tradition and the written scriptures, but it has rarely sought to clarify the relationship between them. Contemporary Eastern Orthodox theologians debate whether these are separate deposits of knowledge or different ways of understanding a single dogmatic reality. Father Georges Florovsky, for example, asserted that tradition is no more than "Scripture rightly understood". Because the Eastern Orthodox Church emphasizes the authority of councils, which belong to all the bishops, it stresses the canonical uses more than inspiration of scripture. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, most Eastern Orthodox theologians also recognize that a final seal of authenticity or ecumenicity is that the body of the church receives the councils. Since the acceptance of the Septuagint and New Testament by leading regional bishops of the second century was based on those texts' faithfulness to the same apostolic teaching to which the church traditions are also faithful. The Eastern Orthodox Church emphasizes that the scriptures can only be understood according to a normative rule of faith (the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, in short) and way of life that has continued from Christ and the Apostles to this day, and beyond.
[edit] Protestant views
[edit] The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
In 1978 a large gathering of American Protestant churches, including representatives of the Conservative, Reformed and Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Baptist denominations, adopted the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. The Chicago Statement does not necessarily imply that any particular traditional interpretation of the Bible is without error. Instead, it gives primacy to seeking the intention of the author of each text, and commits itself to receiving the statement as fact depending on whether it can be determined or assumed that the author meant to communicate a statement of fact. Of course, knowing the intent of the original authors is impossible. Acknowledging that there are many kinds of literature in the Bible besides statements of fact, the Statement nevertheless reasserts the authenticity of the Bible in toto as the word of God. Advocates of the Chicago Statement are worried that accepting one error in the Bible leads one down a slippery slope that ends in rejecting that the Bible has any value greater than some other book. "The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the church."
[edit] Evangelicals
Evangelical churches, unlike Eastern and Roman churches, reject that there is an infallible authoritative tradition that is held over, or on a par with, scripture. Some Evangelicals hold that the Bible confirms its own authority, pointing out that Jesus frequently quotes scripture as his final "court of appeal". (See for example Matthew 4:4,6 & 10; 21:13; Mark 9:12) The reasoning is that if the Bible is assumed to be inerrant and the only form of God's word, then that implies that the Bible is fully reliable. Tradition on the other hand is seen to be subject to human memory, and may have many versions of the same events/truths, some of which may be contradictory.
[edit] King James Only
Another belief (King James Only) holds that the translators of the King James Version were guided by God, and that the KJV thus is to be taken as authoritative. However, those who hold this opinion do not extend it to the KJV translations of the Apocryphal books, which were produced along with the rest of the Authorized Version. Modern translations differ from the KJV on numerous points, sometimes resulting from access to different early texts. Upholders of the KJV would nevertheless hold that the Protestant canon of KJV is itself an inspired text and therefore remains authoritative. The King James Only movement asserts that the KJV is the sole English translation free from error.
[edit] Textus Receptus (non-English speaking cultures)
Similar to the King James Only view is the view that translations must be derived from the Textus Receptus in order to be considered inerrant. As the King James Version is an English translation, this leaves speakers of other languages in a difficult position, hence the belief in the Textus Receptus 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).
[edit] Wesleyan and Methodist view of scripture
The Wesleyan and Methodist Christian tradition affirms that the Bible is authoritative on matters concerning faith and practice. The United Methodist Church does not use the word "inerrant" to describe the Bible, but it does believe that the Bible is God's Word, and as such, is the primary authority for faith and practice.
What is of central importance for the Wesleyan Christian tradition is the Bible as a tool which God uses to promote salvation. The Bible does not itself effect salvation; God initiates salvation and proper creaturely responses consummate salvation. One may be in danger of bibliolatry if one claims that the Bible secures salvation.
With this focus on salvation, Wesleyans need not make claims about inerrancy in the original autographs, subsequent translations, or particular interpretations. And yet Wesleyans affirm the Bible to be principally authoritative for faith and practice, and the Bible is often a principle means for God to promote salvation in the world.
[edit] Lutheran views
The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the Lutheran Church - Canada, the Evangelical Lutheran Synod and many other smaller Lutheran bodies hold to Scriptural inerrancy, though for the most part Lutherans do not consider themselves to be "fundamentalists". The larger Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada do not officially hold to biblical inerrancy, though there are those within the ELCA and ELCIC who are Inerrantists.
[edit] Criticisms of biblical inerrancy
Bible scholars who hold to Biblical inerrancy interpret 2 Timothy 3:16, which states that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God," to mean that the whole Bible is inerrant. Other theological interpretations may conclude that the Bible makes no direct claim to be inerrant or infallible. The same sentence can be translated "Every inspired scripture is also useful...", with equal validity.
Several books of the Bible are usually interpreted as identifying their authorship in their titles, especially the Gospels. However, critics of this view 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. Thus, whether the Bible is - in whole or in part - the Word of God is less clear than in the case of the Koran, which explicitly claims both full authorship by Allah alone and total inerrancy. (Note: Exodus claims of the Ethical Decalogue and Ritual Decalogue that these are God's word.) This is why it has been suggested by many Islamic scholars that, whereas the notion of Christian Fundamentalism is well-defined as belief in biblical inerrancy, Islamic Fundamentalism could only be defined analogously if it is taken to be a label applicable to all observance of Islam.
Biblical inerrancy has also been criticised on the grounds that the Bible gives no indication of authorship by anyone less fallible than ordinary humans, it frequently contradicts itself, and some claims it makes about history or science can nowadays be demonstrated within these disciplines to be untenable. One counterargument is that any Christian approach to the Bible that does not assume inerrancy must be selective, and could not defend the basis on which such selection was achieved. Typical examples of justifications that are in fact advanced pertain to whether a passage is literal or symbolic, and whether specific sections were more susceptible during the history of the Bible's assemblage to effects that create doubt over inerrancy than others. Opinions are divided over which parts of the Bible, if any, are trustworthy in the light of such considerations. There is the additional problem with any holy text being claimed as inerrant that this tends to encourage not only resistance to modern discoveries, but also circular justification for religious faith.
Finally, one point that has been argued with regard to a text's inerrancy is that, even if it were guaranteed of the text in its original language, this is no longer true after translation, because direct translation is a bit of a myth. To limit the consequences of this, the Koran is only ever translated in to a new language from the original Arabic text. In the case of the Bible, the original texts were in several ancient languages, which few are now familiar with. Translation errors of the Bible and Koran are occasionally proposed or, in less controversial circumstances, discovered. For instance, it is currently being argued among scholars that the original messianic prophecy did not require that the Messiah's mother be a virgin, only young. It has been proposed that the Gospels' description of the Virgin Mary were manufactured to fit with a prophecy they themselves read in a mistranslated version.
Some have argued that the Bible need not be inerrant even if it is entirely the Word of God, because God is capable of lying, and may even have purpose for this.
[edit] See also
- Biblical hermeneutics
- Biblical literalism
- Bibliolatry
- Calvin's view of Scripture
- Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
- Internal consistency of the Bible
- Religious skepticism
- Higher criticism
[edit] Notes
- ^ http://www.dts.edu/about/doctrinalstatement/
- ^ a b c Geisler & Nix (1986). A General Introduction to the Bible. Moody Press, Chicago. ISBN ISBN 0-8024-2916-5.
- ^ See the Eighth and Ninth Article of Faith
- ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5355758.stm
- ^ http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,909531,00.html?iid=chix-sphere
- ^ http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/chicago.htm
- ^ http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/chicago.htm
- ^ See Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, p. 219
- ^ See Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, p. 219
- ^ "Divino Afflante Spiritu".
- ^ "Providentissimus Deus".
- ^ Free From All Error: Authorship, Inerrancy, Historicity of Scripture, Church Teaching, and Modern Scripture Scholars. ISBN "0913382515".
[edit] References
- Gleason Archer, 2001. New Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. ISBN 0-310-24146-4
- Kathleen C. Boone: The Bible Tells Them So: The Discourse of Protestant Fundamentalism, State Univ of New York Press 1989, ISBN 0-88706-895-2
- Ethelbert W.Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1970.
- Bart D. Ehrman, 2003. Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford University Press, Inc. ISBN 0-19-518249-9
- Norman Geisler, ed. (1980). Inerrancy. ISBN 0-310-39281-0.
- Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, (1999) When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties.
- Norman Geisler and William E. Nix., A General Introduction to the Bible, Moody Publishers; Rev&Expndd edition (August 1986), ISBN 0-8024-2916-5
- Walter C. Kaiser, Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce, Manfred T. Brauch. (1996). Hard Sayings of the Bible
- Charles Caldwell Ryrie (1981). What you should know about inerrancy. ISBN 0-8024-8785-8
- Sproul, R. C.. Hath God Said? (video series).
- John Walvoord (1990). What We Believe: Understanding and Applying the Basics of Christian Life. ISBN 0-929239-31-8
- Warfield, B. B. (1977 reprint). Inspiration and Authority of Bible, with a lengthy introductory essay by Cornelius Van Til. ISBN 0-8010-9586-7.
- Dei Verbum Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (1965)
[edit] External links
[edit] Supportive links
- Wesleyan Church beliefs of the Holy Bible
- Monergism.com links to articles on scripture from a conservative Calvinist perspective
- The Authority and Inspiration of the Scriptures by B. B. Warfield
- Why I believe the NT is historically reliable by Gary Habermas
- Recent Perspectives on the Reliability of the Gospels by Gary R. Habermas
- Why I Believe in the Inerrancy of the Scriptures by Dave Miller (see Farrell Till below)
- Scholarly articles on Inerrancy from the Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary Library
- FAQ about the Bible by Anastasios Kioulachoglou (The Journal of Biblical Accuracy)
[edit] Critical links
- How Can The Bible Be Authoritative? by N.T. Wright
- Dissolving the Inerrancy Debate (a postmodern view)
- Bible Inerrancy: A Belief Without Evidence Farrell Till's rebuttal to Dave Miller's defense (see above)
