A Possible Error in the Bible?

Just want to clarify that in post #42 when I spoke of God preserving the text, I was referring to the original text in the autographs. God’s preservation of the text in the manuscript copies despite of (or through!) the textual variants is an interesting issue, but not the one I was intending.

“I also can’t help but notice that NONE of the ancient statements of faith, or creeds, felt a need to include a statement about scripture. Inerrancy is the new kid on the block, an overswing of the pendulum in response to 19th century liberalism, and that alone means we should examine it closely to make sure we’re keeping the baby only and not the bathwater.

(Stifling a yawn).

If for the sake of argument, this were a modern development, so what? It’s not as if critics of inerrancy are traditionalists.

Secondly, deeper thought would have caused one to reflect that ancient statements of faith or creeds did not have to include inerrancy because the truthfulness and trustworthiness of Scripture was generally not under attack.

Third, let’s take a look at what prominent Christians in the Early Church said about Scripture:

Clement of Rome, writing around the time of the apostles, comments:

“Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Observe that nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them.” (First Clement, 45)

Justin Martyr wrote:

“if you have done so because you imagined that you could throw doubt on the passage [of scripture], in order that I might say the Scriptures contradicted each other, you have erred. But I shall not venture to suppose or to say such a thing; and if a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind be brought forward, and if there be a pretext for saying that it is contrary to some other, since I am entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, I shall admit rather that I do not understand what is recorded, and shall strive to persuade those who imagine that the Scriptures are contradictory, to be rather of the same opinion as myself.” (Dialogue With Trypho, 65)

(To be continued)

(continued from #53 above)

Irenaeus wrote:

“the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit…If, therefore, even with respect to creation, there are some things the knowledge of which belongs only to God, and others which come within the range of our own knowledge, what ground is there for complaint, if, in regard to those things which we investigate in the Scriptures (which are throughout spiritual), we are able by the grace of God to explain some of them, while we must leave others in the hands of God, and that not only in the present world, but also in that which is to come, so that God should for ever teach, and man should for ever learn the things taught him by God?…If, therefore, according to the rule which I have stated, we leave some questions in the hands of God, we shall both preserve our faith uninjured, and shall continue without danger; and all Scripture, which has been given to us by God, shall be found by us perfectly consistent; and the parables shall harmonize with those passages which are perfectly plain; and those statements the meaning of which is clear, shall serve to explain the parables; and through the many diversified utterances of Scripture there shall be heard one harmonious melody in us, praising in hymns that God who created all things.” (Against Heresies, 2:28:2-3)

Tertullian:

“The statements, however, of holy Scripture will never be discordant with truth.” (A Treatise On The Soul, 21)

Methodius:

“there is no contradiction nor absurdity in the Holy Scriptures” (From The Discourse On The Resurrection, 1:9)

Gregory Nazianzen comments:

“We however, who extend the accuracy of the Spirit to the merest stroke and tittle [Matthew 5:18], will never admit the impious assertion that even the smallest matters were dealt with haphazard by those who have recorded them, and have thus been borne in mind down to the present day: on the contrary, their purpose has been to supply memorials and instructions for our consideration under similar circumstances, should such befall us, and that the examples of the past might serve as rules and models, for our warning and imitation.” (Oration 2:105)

Augustine wrote:

“For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my…

(continued from #54)

… judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason. I believe, my brother, that this is your own opinion as well as mine. I do not need to say that I do not suppose you to wish your books to be read like those of prophets or of apostles, concerning which it would be wrong to doubt that they are free from error.” (Letter 82:1:3)

P.S. FWIW, I don’t understand how churches or denominations can ordain people who believe Scripture teaches error.

I don’t believe scripture teaches error. I don’t even wonder if it contains error. I’d almost say I dont care. The Spirit still speaks with power and authority. God’s ability to communicate is not held hostage to inerrancy.

I am not unaware of the quotes you provide. I would point out that many of those you quote accepted books that we DO NOT believe are inerrant, such as The Shepherd. In the same vein, the canon was not finalized, so the extent of what they called scripture is uncertain at best.

And the point remains that the ancients did not insist on making the veracity of scripture a central tenet in ANY ancient creed. Yawn as much as you like.

I think CMP had a post or two about doctrinal development. Something like: How aberrant teaching in later and later years will then spur later doctrinal development to correct the new errors that have crept in.

Elementary, really.

I find this satisfying:

http://www.tektonics.org/tsr/abby.html

I don’t disagree with that. And I think 19th century liberal attempts to portray the Bible as a simply human book had to be dealt with. I just think the pendulum swung too far. As if evangelical believers said “Not only is the Bible trustworthy, it’s…it’s…INERRANT!

Mind you, I am rejecting neither the authority or trustworthiness of scripture, nor am I trying to “get around” some doctrine I don’t like. I just think inerrancy is unnecessary. Remember that well-respected, conservative, evangelical believers such as James Orr did not hold to inerrancy.

And to tell the truth, my issue is more with verbal plenary inspiration. If God inspired the Bible verbally – to the very word choice, as Grudem and Erickson, for example believe, it’s dictation, plain and simple. And I cannot accept dictation. I believe that when Paul says, “I have no command from the Lord,” he means just that. He adds his judgment, which is just that, his judgment. When he asks Timothy to bring his cloak, it’s a personal request, not direct words from God.

My take is more like what Roger Olson calls “dynamic inspiration.” God inspires the content which the writers express in their own words.

Really, I don’t think language is exact enough to fully express the details of God’s thought. Look at this blog. Virtually everyone has tremendous respect for the Bible, yet we don’t agree on what the words mean. And we disobey Paul when he warns, not once, but twice about quarreling over words. ” it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.”

Dang, now I feel a little guilty abouty posting.

Bethyada… “And I can’t resolve the 3 Peter denials yet.”

They aren’t contradictions. There’s nothing to resolve.

Peter was lying. 😉

Bethyada, remember that Mark is traditionally seen as the recollections of Peter. It seems reasonable that he would take the time to give a fuller account of his failings than the other gospel writers. Brutal honesty about their own weaknesses seemed to be a characteristic of the early Christians.

Including unnecessary details just adds to the amount of papyrus you have to buy.

By the 3 denials problem I mean that the persons questioning Peter seem to be more than 3 if all the gospels are taken together.

I think Dave Z had the key insight:

This leads to what I think is a point almost of disrespect to God in most evangelical statements of faith – typically the first point in the statement is “We believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible, inerrant in the autographs…” Second point – “Oh yeah, we believe in God too.” We have placed the product above the source. I understand the reasoning, but it still seems backwards. My own denomination changed that last year.

Someone quoted Iranaeus, and we should also remember that there were heretics exposed in “Against the Heresies” who were taking the scriptures far too “literally” and reductively, reading scripture into the exact numerical position of the characters. They, too, would defend their practice by citing Revelation’s admonishment to “not change or remove one character” as proof that the character position was imbued with significance and could not be overlooked (i.e. changed) as being less relevant.

IMO, someone who insists on missing the point of that scripture by nattering over the name of the high priest, when there are multiple plausible explanations, is committing the same error as those heretics that Iranaeus exposed.

IMO, someone who insists on missing the point of that scripture by nattering over the name of the high priest, when there are multiple plausible explanations, is committing the same error as those heretics that Iranaeus exposed.

“nattering”?

I haven’t heard or read that word since Spiro T. Agnew uttered it. In fact, I never heard it before Agnew, nor have I heard it since. Thanks for resurrecting it! 😀

(Public speeches since Agnew have lost their “bite.” Though he was a crook, he always helped increase one’s vocabulary, and he had a great way with words and phrases, even though his remarks were negative or derogatory.)

One of the problems I have had with most inerrancy statements, such as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, is the continual emphasis on inerrancy only applying to the original autographs. We see this in Article 10 of the Chicago Statement:

WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

The thing is that we will probably never have these originals, and at least the reality is that we don’t have them now. So why keep talking about something we don’t have and will probably never have? Why not get on with stating the copies that we do have are God-breathed and knowing they are reliable.

Also, a question I have pondered is, if the originals were to be without error in every jot and tittle, why didn’t God sovereignly preserve the originals? I know any mistakes in the copies we have do not change any major doctrinal issue about our faith. But if we want to keep emphasising God’s desire to make sure every jot and tittle was perfect in the originals, why wouldn’t He preserve these perfect originals rather than letting us deal with less than perfect copies?

I don’t suppose we can answer such questions, but I ponder them. I just don’t know if we are being too anal about Scripture like the Muslims are with the Koran or how Mormons teach the Book of Mormon came about. It seems over the top.

The thing is that we will probably never have these originals, and at least the reality is that we don’t have them now. So why keep talking about something we don’t have and will probably never have? Why not get on with stating the copies that we do have are God-breathed and knowing they are reliable.

In view of the fact that the early Christians and the apostles and the authors of the New Testament considered the Greek translation of the Old Testament – which differed at times in wording and meaning from the Hebrew text and was not in any sense of the term the OT autograph (nor pretended to be) – to be the inspired and authoritative Scriptures, I wonder how they would have regarded Evangelicals’ view of and belief in “inerrancy,” and their insistence that inspiration only applied, strictly speaking, to the original autographs?

I have just skimmed through much of the postings and I am probably going to post somewhere along the lines of what some others are saying here.

Norm Geisler in his When Critics Ask has a good point to bring into the discussion on this passage (Mark 2:26),

First Samuel is correct in stating that the high priest was Ahimelech. On the other neither was Jesus wrong. When we take a closer look at Christ’s words, we notice that He used the phrase “in the days of Abiathar” which does not necessarily imply that Abiathar was high priest a the time that David ate the bread.”

If we look back at 1 Samuel 22:17-19, King Saul killed Ahimelech and Abiathar escaped and went to David (1 Sam. 22:20). Abiathar later is made the high priest. Even though Abiathar was made the high priest after David ate the bread, it is still correct, because Abiathar was alive when David did this, and soon following he became the high priest after his father’s murder. Therefore it was during the TIME of Abiathar, and not during his TENURE in the position of the high priest

Eric –

That is another question I have had. If inerrancy applies to the original autorgraphs, but the NT authors generally quoted from the Greek OT translations instead of the original Hebrew manuscripts, then are we making too much of the originals?

I would say we are putting too many eggs in the basket of the originals. If God was so focused on the originals, I somewhat sense He would have preserved them.

ScottL:

I think a problem for the popular Evangelical view of Scripture and some Evangelicals’ adherence to and insistence on the historical-grammatical method/hermeneutic is that one finds the inspired authors of the New Testament at times apparently differing with them.

Hopefully, no one is obsessed with the priestly status of Abiathar, so we’re discussing this specific issue as one example illustrating deeper principles of scriptural interpretation and authority. That’s not nattering, is it? (I am not a nabob!)

It’s helpful to remember why inerrancy became such a focus in recent church history. Regardless of our opinions of how changes were handled in the Southern Baptist Convention, they were fighting an encroaching liberalism and it was tied to certain views of Scripture that denied aspects of its authoritative nature. Many of my Episcopalian friends tell me the problems they are currently suffering actually began years ago with a loosening of views on the Bible. So there were serious problems being addressed.

I see our present conversation differently, as more of a fine-tuning of what exactly we mean by Scripture being authoritative and how the presence of errors may or may not affect this authority. As Dave Z warned, I think we need to avoid a mere quarrel over words. But I think we can still challenge each others’ thinking and sharpen our understanding of just what the role is that Scripture plays in our faith.

The use of the Septuagint by the apostles can be a challenge to the overly technical way that we sometimes interpret Scripture. This could also call into question the dictation form of inspiration that I think most of us would reject. But do any of you see this usage as making the Bible fallible rather than infallible? And, if so, how?

[Side note to Dave Z: I haven’t read Roger Olson on his view of “dynamic inspiration,” but your description doesn’t sound incompatible with my earlier description of plenary verbal inspiration through the thoughtflow and language of the human writers. Maybe I might tweak your description by adding editing by God where necessary to maintain the integrity of the message. What do you think?]

Regarding the inerrancy of the autographs and the imperfect manuscripts: Some would argue that God has used the incredible number of manuscripts to preserve (at least to a large degree) the integrity of the text. We can be certain of the original reading of most of the New Testament. And where we’re not certain, we all can know what the exact issues and options are. This actually gives me a lot of confidence in the integrity of the text. (Much more so than if one church institution had “preserved” an official “pure” version.)

But I fail to see how this situation would militate against a view of Scripture as infallible or inerrant. Why would our current inability to arrive at a perfectly pristine edition of the NT mean that God probably didn’t care if some errors were communicated in the original? As someone wrote earlier in this thread, it goes back to intent. Did God intend to give us Scripture that contained some error, or did He intend to communicate through human writers in such a way that the resulting Scripture perfectly communicated His message without error? I don’t see anything in Scripture or the writings of the early church that shows an acknowledgment of error in the Bible. So which understanding is the innovation?

Dave Z gave an example of Paul in 1 Corinthians 7. Exegetically, I would say that Jesus had previously addressed a specific part of the issue, but not the rest. So Paul is no longer making a direct reference to Christ’s previous teaching, but giving additional, authoritative instruction as His apostle. But let’s assume Dave Z’s interpretation. Does that mean we should weigh Paul’s opinion the same way we would a pastor/teacher today? Could Paul be wrong in this passage? If he could be wrong, in what way is such Scripture authoritative? And if we say ‘no, it’s infallible, authoritative Scripture’ on the basis of his status as apostle (or author of Scripture), what’s the difference between this view and inerrancy?

Let me go back to the Mike’s original post where he mentioned Dan Wallace’s five possible reasons for the problem of Mark 2:26. I am not going to sum all of them but just bring out the one that caught my attention. That was #2, the hermeneutical, where the interpretation is wrong and it needs to be amended.

I was listening this morning to a past podcast with Greg Koukl and Ben Witherington, and if I were to apply the discussion on textual interpretation and transmission, a hyper-Fundamental interpretation of Mark 2:26 would no doubt create a tenacious headache for 1 Samuel 21 and vice versa. However with a good look at the original language, it would be easy to understand how a small pronoun’s interpretation (i.e., “epi”) brings about a broad understanding of how phrases about time periods could be broad, given their context and word usage and all the other hermeneutical stupf that goes into understanding the text. Time period in the general sense is the understanding and not Abiathar’s tenure as high priest. (my posting at #67).

One of the biggest problems for me is when Paul says “I wish all men were as I am,” meaning single. If God inspired every word, then that is God’s wish too. That creates a problem with the creation account and the ability of humanity to be “fruitful and multiply.” If that’s God’s wish, then he should have specially created every individual into a sexless, marriageless world.

If, OTOH, God created and blessed sexuality and ordained marriage, then the statement must be Paul’s personal opinion, different than God’s and without the weight of inspiration.

I opt for Paul’s opinion, which has the added benefit of being the most obvious and sensible reading of the words “I wish.”

I also think that is made clear by the rest of the sentence. Paul basically says, “I wish, but that’s not how it is.” Would God say that?

God did inspire every word, but I don’t think God is wishing to be single. He is ONE already in His nature. I see a problem in the logic here Dave, unless I am missing something. Are you saying that because God inspired every word there is an equivocation with Paul. If that is Paul’s wish then it is God’s wish too? We need to understand inspiration here. God inspired the words, and allowed the personalities of the writers to stay in tact. That being said, God is allowing the wish of Paul, but it is not the same in other contexts of the Bible. One can wish something and not be a participant in the fulfillment of the wish.

I would agree if the passage was reporting what someone else said, but in this case, the words are the writer’s. If God inspires each and every word (verbal plenary), as most evangelicals believe (at least on a practical level, though they pay lip service to the writer’s contribution), then the opinion of an individual writer should not be in the mix. What’s more, Paul’s opinion seems to be at odds with God’s.

So, I agree with you that in that verse, Paul, not God, is speaking. But I do not think most evangelicals would be comfortable with that. They would be concerned that if we take that verse as Paul’s opinion, why not others? For example, Paul’s teachings on women in the church. Complemetarians exist because they believe that Paul wrote God’s words, not his own opinion.

In post 59, I raised a similar point:

I believe that when Paul says, “I have no command from the Lord,” he means just that. He adds his judgment, which is just that, his judgment.

or his opinion.

Curt sees it this way in post 71:

Does that mean we should weigh Paul’s opinion the same way we would a pastor/teacher today? Could Paul be wrong in this passage? If he could be wrong, in what way is such Scripture authoritative?

I might agree with Curt more easily if Paul had issued a command, but he did not. He offered a judgment.

How many of us obey Paul or would even agree with Paul on this: “But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is– and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.

Do we all agree widows are happier if they stay single? Or that that is God’s perspective?

How about this: 7:29 What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none;”

I know that if I tried that, I wouldn’t have to live as if I had none for very long…

How many of us preach that verse?

Please understand, I’m just trying to muddle my way through this stuff and arrive at a position that seems to make sense without too many hermeneutical gymnastics. As of now, I’m at “dynamic inspiration” and pretty comfortable with it, in spite of some who would pronounce me a heretic.

Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth. And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man. And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee. Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly. Matthew

And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest: And when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and said, And thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth. But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch; and the cock crew. And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them. And he denied it again. And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilaean, and thy speech agreeth thereto. But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak. And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept. Mark

Then took they him, and led him, and brought him into the high priest’s house. And Peter followed afar off. And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down among them. But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man was also with him. And he denied him, saying, Woman, I know him not. And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not. And about the space of one hour after another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with him: for he is a Galilaean. And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew. And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And Peter went out, and wept bitterly. Luke

Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man’s disciples? He saith, I am not… They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not. One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him? Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew. John

So we have a maid first in all four accounts, location varying somewhat, which is expected in oral accounts particularly in the Ancient Near Eastern form of story telling. A maid secondly in three accounts and an unspecified “they” in John. Thirdly an unspecified “they” in Matthew and Mark, and an unspecified “another” in Luke, whilst John identifies his accuser as a kinsman of the man Peter injured.

Bethyada, I really don’t see the problem.

Aaron Rathburn Michael wrote, “…God is perfect and without error…the Bible is God’s word. Conclusion? The Bible is perfect and without error.”

While this sounds like a tidy syllogism, it actually is logically invalid.

You logic is reasonable, but there are probably unsaid premises in this syllogism. And even so, there are other reasons for thinking that inerrancy is true. 2 Timothy 3:16 is a strong contender for inerrancy. There is also good reason to think that Jesus believed in inerrancy; see, for example, the discussion with the Sadducees.

ScottL That is another question I have had. If inerrancy applies to the original autorgraphs, but the NT authors generally quoted from the Greek OT translations instead of the original Hebrew manuscripts, then are we making too much of the originals?

ScottL, inerrancy applies to copies and to translations in general. The mention of the originals isn’t to say that we need the originals, or only defend the originals, or that copies or translations are incorrect. I defend inerrancy from the English translations because I don’t speak Hebrew or Greek.

The mention of the originals is because at times copies or translations make mistakes. If someone points out an error in the Bible but the error is due to poor translation there is no need to defend the translation because that is not actually what was written.

Take clearblue’s comment#45. Let’s say that clearblue’s solution happens to be the correct one. If this is the case then the contradiction occurs because translations use the term highpriest when the term is actually chief priest. Thus the original is not in error, but the translation introduces error.

The comment about originals is not to focus on those particular manuscripts, rather to focus on what the Bible actually says.

Concerning the apostles use of the Septuagint, it is not that simple. At times the quotes resemble the Septuagint, at times they resemble the Masoretic (which is 1000 years post Christ) and at times neither. I have heard about a third each but I am not certain. At other times the quote is paraphrased, and there are many allusions.

This is not a problem if the versions agree on the point being made, that is if one changes the version and the point is still valid, there is no conflict.

Now that is not always the case, but the Hebrew of the first century and before is not fully known. The Dead Sea Scrolls (Hebrew) at times are similar to the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic.

Unless one is going to insist that the Masoretic is the closest to the original Hebrew (which I am not convinced of), I don’t think the use of variant Hebrew or the Septuagint is a problem.

I would be interested in Daniel Wallace weighing in on these issues.

bethyada –

ScottL, inerrancy applies to copies and to translations in general. The mention of the originals isn’t to say that we need the originals, or only defend the originals, or that copies or translations are incorrect. I defend inerrancy from the English translations because I don’t speak Hebrew or Greek.

The mention of the originals is because at times copies or translations make mistakes. If someone points out an error in the Bible but the error is due to poor translation there is no need to defend the translation because that is not actually what was written.

This is where I feel we are trying to force a nice and neat package in regards to Scripture and the nature of inerrancy. In the end, I feel we are having to do a little dance to make inerrancy work and fit. In the end, we find ourselves saying, ‘Well, what that means is this and what that means is that.’ Maybe there is too much dancing with our explanations.

And you cannot defend inerrancy in regards to our English translations, at least if you want to stay within the bounds of the more stringent evangelical view as expressed in places like the Chicago Statement. So I don’t know how we can say that inerrancy applies to the copies and manuscripts ‘in general’. Inerrancy, at least by most evangelical views (as summarised in the Chicago Statement) is quite stringent and applies to the autographs. So to say the copies are ‘generally’ inerrant will lead down the slippery slope path that most evangelicals won’t like.

In the end, I believe God’s word is perfect, faithful, true and God-breathed. The Scripture testifies to this. But I want to understand what those terms mean from the author’s perspective who penned the words, and from God’s intent when He knew He would be communicating through humanity. I am afraid we are reading a modern understanding of inerrancy into Scripture.

And 2 Tim 3:16 does not teach inerrancy, well unless you try and say ‘God-breathed’ means ‘inerrant’. But the God-breathedness points to it coming by His Spirit (theopneustos), not that the autographs are stringently inerrant, since Paul didn’t have the autographs when he wrote those words to Timothy.

I have to ask How popular to the group Jesus was speaking to was Abiathar?

I also would have to state that it doesn’t say that he was High Priest at that time just that during his life was when the incident happened.

This is where I feel we are trying to force a nice and neat package in regards to Scripture and the nature of inerrancy. In the end, I feel we are having to do a little dance to make inerrancy work and fit. In the end, we find ourselves saying, ‘Well, what that means is this and what that means is that.’ Maybe there is too much dancing with our explanations.

Touché!

When or if you have to define and qualify and nuance and explain what you mean by “inerrant/inerrancy” beyond the straightforward and simple “without error – period – in every way, shape and form,” then you are no longer talking about or dealing with “inerrancy,” but with an errant definition of inerrancy, or with something that might largely look like inerrant/inerrancy, but is not in fact inerrant/inerrancy.

A light is either on or off.

You are either pregnant or not pregnant.

Period.

Of course, you can define “Biblical inerrancy” as being something different than what the term “inerrancy” means when applied to other things.

Any debate over the NT author’s use of the OT need to bear in mind the 1st-century context. The apostles did not abide by 21st-century standards of MLA citation. Their hermeneutic is deeply shaped by Second Temple Judaism, which would be considered a joke to post-Enlightenment scholars. However, this is the means through which God chose to work, so we need to understand their hermeneutic and not impose our own.

The Septuagint, to everyone interested by the way, is not merely a translation of the Hebrew. It comes from a completely different textual tradition, which is why Esther has more chapters, and there are various passages in psalms, prophets, etc., that have completely different text. Moreover, the OT canon was not closed or defined by the time of the NT.

So which scriptures are God-breathed? Certainly 2Tim3:16 isn’t talking about the New Testament. And it certainly isn’t talking about the Protestant Old Testament, either.

bethyada,

Genesis 2:7, “then the lord Yahweh formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life”

I am God-breathed. Does this make me inerrant?

Here’s a compelling example: Psalm 82 was written by Asaph, with no qualifying “Thus saith the Lord.” But in John 10:35, Jesus refers to this as Scripture, appeals to one specific word (“gods”), and insists that the Scripture cannot be broken. Any other word in the original passage other than “gods” would render His point meaningless. This sounds very similar to verbal, plenary inspiration.

Does that mean that every statement in Scripture can equally be attributed to God? Obviously not. We have statements from Satan and other ungodly comments recorded in the Bible. This view would only mean that the statements are recorded accurately.

But what of the examples that Dave Z has given where Paul may or may not be giving his personal opinion. Does that mean that this is also the opinion of God because Paul is writing infallible Scripture under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? I don’t see any reason why it must, and this is really not an issue for only those who hold to inerrancy but for anyone who holds to the inspiration of Scripture? (Is it all inspired, or only the “spiritual” parts? And who gets to judge which is which?)

I think Dave Z got to the heart of this issue in post 75 when he said:

I might agree with Curt more easily if Paul had issued a command, but he did not. He offered a judgment.

Without debating any specific passage, I think that is precisely the point we would need to examine. Where Paul is writing his personal opinion, we can have confidence that this opinion was infallibly recorded, and then process it as his personal opinion. When he is giving instruction (which is not always labeled as such), we accept it as infallible instruction from Christ though one of His apostles. When we have a passage where there may be some uncertainty whether it’s opinion or instruction, then we have an exegetical issue to work through. It’s not a question of the passage being infallible or inerrant, but whether it’s intended to be instruction from God.

A second issue is the hermeneutical question of how we apply the passage to us today. But, again, this is not just a problem for inerrantists, but for all inspirationists. (Is that a word? I guess it is now!) Did Paul write 2 Timothy under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? What about 2 Timothy 4:13?

The claim that the Bible is infallible or inerrant doesn’t mean that each passage is going to be equally significant or applicable. It just means that everything taught and recorded in Scripture is perfectly and consistently reliable. This doesn’t alleviate the need for good biblical interpretation.

Aaron Rathburn on 09 Jul 2009 at 9:24 am # bethyada, Genesis 2:7, “then the lord Yahweh formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” I am God-breathed. Does this make me inerrant?

You are God-breathed? I thought your name was “Aaron,” not “Adam.”

Did Paul write 2 Timothy under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? What about 2 Timothy 4:13?

A larger question: Did Paul write 2 Timothy? It’s not a totally proven and accepted conclusion. From Wikipedia:

Many modern biblical scholars argue that 2 Timothy, along with the other Pastoral Epistles, was not written by Paul but by an anonymous follower of the Apostle in the first century AD after Paul’s death, who also wrote 1 Timothy and Titus.[1] However, the ideas and language of this epistle is notably different from the other two Pastoral letters yet similar to the later Pauline letters, especially the ones he wrote in captivity. This has led at least some scholars to conclude that the author of 2 Timothy is a different person from 1 Timothy and Titus. Raymond E. Brown proposed that this letter was written by a follower of Paul who had knowledge of Paul’s last days.[2]

Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, however, would go further than Brown. He noted that a number of pseudepigraphic letters attributed to the Apostle were rejected in antiquity, indicating that there was not “a climate of acceptance, which would make it easy for the forged Pastorals to enter the mainstream of church life.” Murphy-O’Connor continues,

Realistically, the only scenario capable of explaining the acceptance of the Pastorals is the authenticity of one of the three letters. Were one to have been long known and recognized, then the delayed “discovery” of two others with the same general pattern could be explained in a variety of convincing ways.[3]
Murphy-O’Connor then argues, based in part on recent research on the style of this work, that 2 Timothy was the authentic one of the trio. It was not widely known due to its private nature, but eventually published for the benefit of the church. Using it as a model, O`Conner suggests one of Paul’s followers then wrote the other two Pastorals and was able to persuade his fellows that they were also previously unknown letters of Paul.[4]

It should be noted that the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia takes an opposite point of view, affirming Paul’s authorship and documents the fact that a vast majority of the early church fathers attest to Paul’s authorship of all the pastoral epistles.

bethyada clarified:

The mention of the originals is because at times copies or translations make mistakes. If someone points out an error in the Bible but the error is due to poor translation there is no need to defend the translation because that is not actually what was written.

And ScottL responded:

This is where I feel we are trying to force a nice and neat package in regards to Scripture and the nature of inerrancy. In the end, I feel we are having to do a little dance to make inerrancy work and fit. In the end, we find ourselves saying, ‘Well, what that means is this and what that means is that.’ Maybe there is too much dancing with our explanations.

I don’t see this as dancing around anything. bethyada isn’t creating the difference between the autographs and manuscript copies out of whole cloth—this is a fact we all have to deal with. And bethyada’s comments are not core to the understanding of the inerrancy of Scripture, but simply working out the technicalities of how the inerrancy of the original autographs would apply to later copies. This is a related technical issue that was thrown out by others, and to then accuse bethyada of “doing a little dance” by responding to such a related issue is not really fair.

EricW adds:

Touché!

Period.

Again, this is unfair to comments addressing a related, more complex issue. But regardless, this approach seems very simplistic and reductionistic. Would you take the same approach to a discussion of the Trinity? If such a discussion involved definition, qualification, nuance and explanation, would you therefore assume that the viewpoint is faulty? Is every teaching of Scripture and point of theology perfectly obvious without any need for serious study and deep reflection?

Over-complicating something can be a problem for any viewpoint, whether it’s right or wrong. Yes, it can sometimes reveal that the view in question can’t be discussed at a simple level and may therefore be questionable. This is just not the case for inerrancy. It can be presented very simply. But there is an equal danger of over-simplifying deep and significant issues. And any issue, whether it’s simple or not, will usually lead to other questions, implications, applications, etc. Exploring such things is not “dancing around” anything.

Curt –

Read bethyada’s comments. I am not trying to be nasty, but I point out that she is trying to apply inerrancy to the copies. She is not trying to do it legalistically, but she said it works in a general sense. But the copies are not inerrant in the way we try and use the word (as usually seen in places like the Chicago Statement). So why try and use the word to describe the copies? If we do try and use inerrancy to describe the copies and translations we have, then we have to re-explain what that means, tying in the originals and other such stuff. I can’t see God really being that bothered that we go through the whole rig-a-ma-roar every time we explain what inerrancy means (at least what it means in the 21st century).

Still, I believe the copies, and even our translations today, are God-breathed and reliable and faithful to being God’s Word to humanity. And this is why I don’t think we need to begin making inerrancy statements about the autographs that we will never ever have. If God was so focused on inerrancy, especially in regards to the autographs, I suppose He would have made the effort to preserve them, at least so our modern day evangelical definition could be satisfied. But the manuscripts and translations we have do not take away from God’s perfection as God or the God-breathed nature of the Scriptures. When I read my ESV copy, the God-breathedness of the Spirit comes out of the words. That is the point and purpose of the Scriptures.

Curt Parton: ‘Did God intend to give us Scripture that contained some error, or did He intend to communicate through human writers in such a way that the resulting Scripture perfectly communicated His message without error?’

Perhaps God didn’t intend to give us scripture at all. Jesus could have written something authoritative, but He didn’t. Jesus told us to spread the gospel and the gospel is a living idea, not a written word. No written word can be inerrant in the sense of a perfect representation of truth because it’s subject to the vagaries of human language and to all the kinds of things that can create errors over time.

I agree with Dave Z that certain passages I Corinthians 7 are Paul’s own judgment, and I would say that Paul was wrong there for the reasons Dave gave. Certainly this part of scripture isn’t inspired in the same way as other parts where Paul does claim to have a command from the Spirit. Paul is actually saying that these parts are not divinely inspired, yet we want to ignore that in order to uphold a principle of total inspiration. We’re saying that here Paul was inspired to write an uninspired personal judgment.

God’s message to us cannot be given perfectly in any single language. That may be why Jesus didn’t write anything, and why at Pentecost people heard the message each in his own language. The writing of scriptures and assembling of the canon are largely a human effort produced according to the best understanding of devout men guided by the Spirit. The way that the Spirit guided them (and guides us) is by the idea of the gospel of Jesus, not by the words themselves. Note that in his teaching Paul never refers to the words of Jesus.

Scott,

I questioned the fairness of your argument, but I didn’t mean to make you sound nasty! I’m sorry if I did. But your original complaint is something I hear at times regarding many different kinds of issues. Questions and complications will be thrown out as challenges, and then when they’re addressed the responders are accused of over-complicating the issue.

I do think that you’re taking bethyada’s comment about inerrancy applying in general (her emphasis) out of the context of how she explains and applies what she means. You write:

Still, I believe the copies, and even our translations today, are God-breathed and reliable and faithful to being God’s Word to humanity.

I wouldn’t argue with that (with bethyada’s caveat regarding translational or transmissional error), and I suspect neither would bethyada. I think a big part of our problem may be semantics. I don’t see a whole lot of difference between “God-breathed and reliable and faithful” and inerrant.

If God was so focused on inerrancy, especially in regards to the autographs, I suppose He would have made the effort to preserve them, at least so our modern day evangelical definition could be satisfied.

Not to beat this to death, but many would argue that by the sheer number of manuscript copies we have available and the great degree of certainty we enjoy regarding the actual reading of the NT, He has in fact done this to the extent necessary.

As far as I’m concerned, the King James Version of the holy scriptures are the only true and inerrant English scriptures, and God’s providence guided the translators to perfection.

Moreover, as Protestants, we can technically ignore the original King James Version, because it included the Apocrypha. It is safest to cut out the parts of the Bible that we used for the first 1,500 years, and use our miniature version from the past 500 years.

There’s a reason it’s known as the “Authorized” version. If it was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me.

Not to beat this to death, but many would argue that by the sheer number of manuscript copies we have available and the great degree of certainty we enjoy regarding the actual reading of the NT, He has in fact done this to the extent necessary.

Can this be said about the OT text as well?

Rayner,
Even though God’s message may not be able to be expressed perfectly through language, I reject the idea that it cannot be communicated adequately and sufficiently. Obviously, there is much more than words to God’s truth and the life He calls us to live. Still, when Christ sent out the apostles, He sent them with a message. Regardless of when these things were written down, there was verbal content from the very beginning. Even Jesus Himself went about preaching the gospel of the Kingdom—again verbal content.

Actually the profundity of the spoken word is all through Scripture, going back to the beginning when God is depicted as speaking everything into being. And this emphasis on content continues through the NT where teachings are passed on and expected to be passed on to others (e.g. 2 Timothy 2:2).

My guess is that many in this thread who have problems with the concept of inerrancy would also strongly disagree with your understanding concerning the inspiration of Scripture.

Can this be said about the OT text as well?

EricW,
That’s a good question. I’m not a textual scholar, so hopefully others will give more information. My understanding is that the OT text is not as well-attested as the New (which is unsurpassed in its integrity compared to any other ancient document), but still very well-attested. The Jewish scribes had much more exacting standards in their copying of the texts, and the Dead Sea Scrolls bear out their success (in some books). But again, even where there are uncertainties, or differences between the LXX and the Masoretic texts, we are well aware of them and able to interpret accordingly.

In a very real sense, because of the way the Scriptures have been transmitted through multiple copies, they are self-correcting. This is very different from alleged errors in the actual text of Scripture as originally recorded. These have no way of self-correcting but, if legitimately errors, put us in the unenviable position of correcting Scripture ourselves. That’s not a responsibility I care to take on.

Aaron said:

“So which scriptures are God-breathed? Certainly 2Tim3:16 isn’t talking about the New Testament. And it certainly isn’t talking about the Protestant Old Testament, either.”

So what is it talking about then? And what is Scripture, but sacred authoritative writing? Would you also say that the holy men spoken about in 2 Peter 1:21 were only Old Testament prophets and not applicable to the apostolic eyewitnesses in the process of receiving inspiration?

Your statement denies the propheticity of Scripture and God’s superintending inspiration.

I haven’t looked into this angle, but could we be misreading the O.T.? This is similar to asking if Jesus is correcting the O.T. Perhaps Jesus and the O.T. are both correct, yet we read the O.T. the wrong way. For instance, the KJV has “Ahimelech the priest” instead of “Ahimelech the high priest” in I Samuel 21. Mark 2:26 tells us that the high priest was Abiathar. David went in and saw a priest named Ahimelech, who may or may not have been high priest at the time, and Jesus tells us from Jewish history who the high priest was at the time David went in. Just because David spoke with a team member doesn’t mean he spoke with the team captain.

Lisa, it gets tricky because Paul would almost certainly have meant the LXX, which included portions we would reject. Did he mean to include NT books which would not be written for years? The whole canon, which would not be finalized for centuries? And which canon? Our 66, or the somewhat different canons of the RC church, the Greek Orthodox church, the Ethiopian Orthodox or (I think) the Armenian church?

In an earlier post I pointed out that to the Fathers, their inerrant scriptures would often have included The Shepherd and Barnabas, and they’d have considered 2 Tim. 2:16 to include those books.

At some point I copied this from religion-online.org. To me, it explains very well the difference between inerrant and infallible. I’m liking infallible more and more. (BTW, this is excerpted from an article that ran 20-some pages – a long read, but good)

“Inerrant” and “infallible” are both strong adjectives describing Scripture’s total authority and trustworthiness. But though the words are often considered synonymous in English usage, there are important nuances theologically that should not be overlooked. “Inerrant” implies that the theological text under consideration is without mistake in all that it affirms. “Infallible” suggests that the text is incapable of teaching deception. One emphasizes precision and accuracy; the other, trustworthiness. The one stresses freedom from error; the other emphasizes indefectible authority. The one stresses the original purity of the text; the other, its continuing, life-giving power. “Inerrant” easily bogs down in minor detail; “infallible” seeks to validate the central truths of the gospel. “Inerrant,” when qualified hermeneutically, seems to die the death of a thousand qualifications. “Infallible,” on the other hand, invites all interpretive procedures which allow for a full reading of the author’s intention in his communication, understood in the historical situation from which and to which he speaks. The one leads the evangelical toward a defensive apologetic; the other, to a more confident proclamation.