On Inerrancy

[Vance]

Vance,

I wrote:

I get my doctrine of biblical inerrancy from Jesus Christ.

You replied:

See my opening post in the thread from earlier this year, cited above in my reply to maklelan.

Sorry, but your OP in the other thread is a big FAIL in response to the CFR.

You have not provided and can not provide ANY statement of Jesus in support of inerrancy.

[Vance]

(The fact that Rob is required to create a complex argument regarding Jewish beliefs and implications of Christ quoting scriptures to argue his claim surely indicates that there is not, in fact, any explicit scriptural statement on inerrancy.)

A good and valid point.

Oops there goes "sola scriptura" under the bus.

[volgadon]

I will copy something I posted on that earlier thread regarding rabbinic attitudes to scriptural inerrancy.

We read in the BT, Yebamoth 79a, that, "R. Hiyya b. Abba reported in the name of R. Yohanan: It is better that one letter be removed from the Torah than that the Divine name be publically profaned... R. Yohanan said in the name of R. Shimeon b. Yehotzodak: It is preferable to have one letter removed from the Torah so that thereby the Divine name may be publically hallowed."

Also, on pg. 301-302 of Urbach's "The Sages" there is reference to Eliezer b. Hyrcanus (a notorious conservative in halachic matters) teaching that prophets have the authority to temporarily abrogate a commandment of the Torah, even command its transgression. Also, the final authority in deciding adherence to the law rests in the hands of heaven and its prophets.

[Bill Hamblin]

1- The Septuagint (LXX), which is radically different from the Masoretic text (MT) in a large number of ways.

2- The Targums, which are even more different from the MT than the LXX.

3- The DSS which are also different from the MT in a number of ways.

4- The way the Old Testament quotes itself--and other forms of OT intertextuality.

5- The way the New Testament quotes the Old.

I forgot to add #6:

6- New Testament intertextuality.

This is especially the case with the use of Mark by Matthew and Luke. If Mark is scripture, and therefore inerrant, why did Matthew and Luke feel free to change Mark in all sorts of ways?

[maklelan]

I will copy something I posted on that earlier thread regarding rabbinic attitudes to scriptural inerrancy.

We read in the BT, Yebamoth 79a, that, "R. Hiyya b. Abba reported in the name of R. Yohanan: It is better that one letter be removed from the Torah than that the Divine name be publically profaned... R. Yohanan said in the name of R. Shimeon b. Yehotzodak: It is preferable to have one letter removed from the Torah so that thereby the Divine name may be publically hallowed."

Also, on pg. 301-302 of Urbach's "The Sages" there is reference to Eliezer b. Hyrcanus (a notorious conservative in halachic matters) teaching that prophets have the authority to temporarily abrogate a commandment of the Torah, even command its transgression. Also, the final authority in deciding adherence to the law rests in the hands of heaven and its prophets.

I would also point out the rather significant difference between authority and inerrancy. Inerrantists, it seems, presuppose their semantic equivalence, but I've yet to see a defense of that equivalence when pressed for it.

[Bill Hamblin]

In Jeremiah 36, Jeremiah dictates a prophecy to Baruch, who is ordered to read it in the temple, since Jeremiah has been "excommunicated" and is forbidden to enter the temple, even though he is a priest (36.5). The king gets the scroll and burns it (36.23), after which the Lord commands Jeremiah to rewrite the scroll (36.28). Jeremiah does so, as described in 36.32:

Then Jeremiah took another scroll and gave it to sBaruch the scribe, the son of Neriah, who twrote on it at the dictation of Jeremiah all the words of the scroll that Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire. And many similar words were added to them.

So, if Jeremiah's original scroll was inerrant, why did he add "many similar words" to his second edition? It seems to me the only possible explanation is that Jeremiah did not believe his first scroll was inerrant. There was room for clarification and expansion, something that would not be necessary if his first scroll had been inerrant.

[Bill Hamblin]

I would also point out the rather significant difference between authority and inerrancy. Inerrantists, it seems, presuppose their semantic equivalence, but I've yet to see a defense of that equivalence when pressed for it.

Nor have I.

[ElfLord]

In Jeremiah 36, Jeremiah dictates a prophecy to Baruch, who is ordered to read it in the temple, since Jeremiah has been "excommunicated" and is forbidden to enter the temple, even though he is a priest (36.5). The king gets the scroll and burns it (36.23), after which the Lord commands Jeremiah to rewrite the scroll (36.28). Jeremiah does so, as described in 36.32:

Then Jeremiah took another scroll and gave it to sBaruch the scribe, the son of Neriah, who twrote on it at the dictation of Jeremiah all the words of the scroll that Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire. And many similar words were added to them.

So, if Jeremiah's original scroll was inerrant, why did he add "many similar words" to his second edition? It seems to me the only possible explanation is that Jeremiah did not believe his first scroll was inerrant. There was room for clarification and expansion, something that would not be necessary if his first scroll had been inerrant.

If we take the standard Evangelical misinterpretation of...

Rev 22

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book

and...

Deut 4:2

2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Jeremiah violated the law and was cursed.

[BCSpace]

Inerrancy. The doctrine of inerrancy doesn

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

Of course "substantially intact" is hardly inerrant. There are, in fact substantial variants between manuscript traditions in both NT and OT, and between the LXX and MT of the OT. And on Canon issues. Etc. Etc. Surely you are aware of these, Rob. If so, how can you make such a claim? If not, how can you make such a claim?

Evangelical theologians and scholars have defined what they mean by biblical "inerrancy," and by their definition, variants among the manuscripts does not undermine inerrancy. See the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics. Variations in the precise books included in the MT or LXX also does not undermine inerrancy, since inerrancy does not claim that every "Bible" has the same, correct corpus of books. Inerrancy is a claim about the lack of error in the original inspired writings themselves, not about our knowledge of those writings.

[Rob Bowman]

maklelan,

I asked how you know that Jesus never suggested that the scriptures were inerrant. You replied:

Because I've read the entire Bible, much of it several times through in the original languages, and quite a bit of secondary literature on the topic, and so far no such text has ever been unearthed. Additionally, a closed canon precludes the possibility of such a text ever being discovered.

On your view of scripture, you cannot assert that Jesus never suggested that the scriptures were inerrant, because you have no way of reliably stating what Jesus believed. You can say that you don't see any such claim attributed to Jesus in the Bible as we have it, but you cannot reasonably assert that Jesus never suggested the idea if you don't have what you consider any reliable source of information about Jesus.

Of course, I think Matthew 5:17-18 and John 10:35 do "suggest," at the very least, that Scripture is inerrant, though this depends on the definition of inerrant. So I disagree with your premise.

[Rob Bowman]

David,

The evangelical doctrine of inerrancy does not affirm the inerrancy of all variants. Nor does it affirm the inerrancy of our knowledge of which variants is correct. That having been said, virtually all evangelicals would say that in the two examples you gave, the MT is the correct text while the LXX paraphrases the text to put some "distance" between God and Moses.

Indeed, and the variants between manuscripts that I personally find most interesting are those that are clearly a case of theological exegesis regarding descriptions of God.

Ex. 4:24: "And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him." (The Masoretic Text)

Ex. 4:24: "And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the angel of the Lord met him, and sought to kill him" (Septuagint)

Or how about:

Ex. 19:3: "And Moses went up to God" (The Masoretic Text)

Ex. 19:3: "And Moses went up to the mountain of God" (Septuagint)

Clearly these are not trivial discrepancies to a supposedly inerrant scriptural text. Anyone like to cast a vote as to actual words featured in the original autograph? And what about the various ancient biblical manuscripts that include midrashic additions? It's not just the Targumim that feature this sort of addition to the text, this type of exegesis is also found in the Septuagint and the Vulgate. The issue gets even more complicated in terms of New Testament textual criticism. Hence, I echo Bill's well-crafted sentiment, "Surely you are aware of these, Rob. If so, how can you make such a claim? If not, how can you make such a claim."

[Bill Hamblin]

Evangelical theologians and scholars have defined what they mean by biblical "inerrancy," and by their definition, variants among the manuscripts does not undermine inerrancy. See the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics. Variations in the precise books included in the MT or LXX also does not undermine inerrancy, since inerrancy does not claim that every "Bible" has the same, correct corpus of books. Inerrancy is a claim about the lack of error in the original inspired writings themselves, not about our knowledge of those writings.

Yes, I know. The implication of this claim is that, in fact, the Bible as we have it is not inerrant, since we don't have the original manuscripts. Inerrancy is at best a hypothetical, but it has no real-world applicability.

However, you said:

I don't need access to the autographs to have good reason to think that the text of those autographs has come down to us substantially intact.

So, which is it? Do we have a fundamentally sound knowledge of the original Bible manuscripts or not?

At any rate, what I'm talking about is not textual variants, but texts that make substantial changes in wording and meaning the process of quoting or translating.

[ELF1024]

Of course, I think Matthew 5:17-18 and John 10:35 do "suggest," at the very least, that Scripture is inerrant, though this depends on the definition of inerrant. So I disagree with your premise.

Matthew 5:17-18

17

[maklelan]

Bill,

You wrote:

Evangelical theologians and scholars have defined what they mean by biblical "inerrancy," and by their definition, variants among the manuscripts does not undermine inerrancy. See the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics. Variations in the precise books included in the MT or LXX also does not undermine inerrancy, since inerrancy does not claim that every "Bible" has the same, correct corpus of books. Inerrancy is a claim about the lack of error in the original inspired writings themselves, not about our knowledge of those writings.

That's fair and good, but it overlooks some critical issues that I can't imagine it will stop overlooking any time soon. As I pointed out in my other thread, Acts 15 appeals to an erroneous LXX translation of Amos 9:11-12. The original sense of the underlying Hebrew, as found in the MT (which very clearly underlies the LXX translation), cannot be asserted to be original to Acts 15, since it is completely unrelated to the author's point about bringing the nations to the Lord. Did Luke feel that we didn't need to go back to the autographs to find an inerrant text? Did he believe the LXX was inerrant? If he did, was he wrong? If he didn't, why not? If Acts 15 was ever inerrant, why does it quote a mistaken translation and view it authoritatively enough to call it "the words of the prophets"?

[Bill Hamblin]

David,

The evangelical doctrine of inerrancy does not affirm the inerrancy of all variants. Nor does it affirm the inerrancy of our knowledge of which variants is correct. That having been said, virtually all evangelicals would say that in the two examples you gave, the MT is the correct text while the LXX paraphrases the text to put some "distance" between God and Moses.

I think the point here is not what the original text said, but that the LXX translators obviously did not believe in inerrancy, since they were willing to make fundamental changes in the meaning of the text when translating it. If they believed the Hebrew text was inerrant, why did they change it when translating? Therefore, your claim that Jews in the time of Jesus believed in inerrancy is undermined.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Rob,

David,

The evangelical doctrine of inerrancy does not affirm the inerrancy of all variants. Nor does it affirm the inerrancy of our knowledge of which variants is correct. That having been said, virtually all evangelicals would say that in the two examples you gave, the MT is the correct text while the LXX paraphrases the text to put some "distance" between God and Moses.

I felt that Michael Grisanti did quite well at setting forth the evangelical approach to biblical inerrancy in his article "Inspiration, Inerrancy, and the OT Canon: The Place of Textual Updating in an Inerrant View of Scripture" published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 44 (2001): 577-598 (not that I agreed with the arguments).

Grisanti maintains that subsequent to the initial writing of a biblical book, a "God-chosen individual under the superintendance of the Holy Spirit could adjust, revise, or update pre-existing biblical material in order to make a given scripture passage understandable to ensuing generations [and that] those revisions . . . are also inspired and inerrant' (p. 582).

This is no different than the view most Latter-day Saints maintain for changes to the Book of Mormon. So if the Bible qualities as an "inerrant" book according to this premise, so could the Book of Mormon. Yet of course this is not at all how you defined the doctrine of inerrancy in your criticism of the Book of Mormon. Here is your quote:

"First, we can ask whether the Book of Mormon is inerrant. That is, we can ask if it is completely free of historical, scientific, and other factual errors."

So this statement presupposes that as an "inerrant" work, the Bible is "completely free of historical, scientific, and other factual errors." Do you honestly believe that the Bible can truly live up to this claim? If not, why should the Book of Mormon?

[Bill Hamblin]

That's fair and good, but it overlooks some critical issues that I can't imagine it will stop overlooking any time soon. As I pointed out in my other thread, Acts 15 appeals to an erroneous LXX translation of Amos 9:11-12. The original sense of the underlying Hebrew, as found in the MT (which very clearly underlies the LXX translation), cannot be asserted to be original to Acts 15, since it is completely unrelated to the author's point about bringing the nations to the Lord. Did Luke feel that we didn't need to go back to the autographs to find an inerrant text? Did he believe the LXX was inerrant? If he did, was he wrong? If he didn't, why not? If Acts 15 was ever inerrant, why does it quote a mistaken translation and view it authoritatively enough to call it "the words of the prophets"?

Exactly. Alas, I have never seen an Evangelical engage these types of problems. And there are many other examples.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

Your reasoning is specious because you fallaciously assume that these "uses" of the biblical text reflect a disbelief in the inerrancy of the text. Let me illustrate. Imagine 2000 years from now, scholars debating whether evangelicals of the late 20th and early 21st centuries believed in the inerrancy of the Bible. One scholar no doubt will reason as you do:

"We, in fact, have a wide range of evidence from the early 21st century concerning how sacred texts were used, that runs strongly counter to the claim that evangelicals of that period believed in biblical inerrancy:

1. Evangelical publishers published numerous translations of the Bible that differed markedly from one another, from the NASB and ESV at one extreme to The Message at the other extreme.

2. Evangelicals also used various "study Bibles," to which all sorts of notes, comments, and other elements were freely added; and these elements often disagreed from one "study Bible" to another.

3. Evangelicals debated among themselves whether such passages as the Long Ending of Mark or the Woman Caught in Adultery passages should be in the New Testament. They also debated among themselves whether to accept a "Majority Text" or an "Eclectic Text" or some other approach to New Testament textual criticism.

4. Evangelical pastors routinely paraphrased biblical texts in their sermons and writings, often embellishing the details of the biblical narratives with apocryphal elements not found in any text. This suggests that evangelicals accepted an oral tradition in addition to Scripture as sources for Christian proclamation and teaching.

5. Evangelicals espoused very different theories about intertextuality in biblical studies.

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera."

Yet despite all of the above, it is a plain fact that these same evangelicals do adhere to biblical inerrancy.

So, for your first claim in that earlier text--that Jews in the age of Jesus believed in scriptural inerrancy--you in fact cite an article discussing later rabbinic theories of scriptural inerrancy. That, of course, shows Jewish views from several centuries after the time of Jesus.

We, in fact, have a wide range of evidence from the time of Jesus concerning how sacred texts were used, that runs strongly counter to your claim.

1- The Septuagint (LXX), which is radically different from the Masoretic text (MT) in a large number of ways.

2- The Targums, which are even more different from the MT than the LXX.

3- The DSS which are also different from the MT in a number of ways.

4- The way the Old Testament quotes itself--and other forms of OT intertextuality.

5- The way the New Testament quotes the Old.

What we find is that the way that scriptural exegesis is actually practiced in the century or two before and after Jesus is radically different from the hypothetical theories of Jewish scholars centuries after the the time of Jesus.

The result of examining how the biblical texts were actually treated at the time of Jesus indicates that there was no practical sense of inerrancy.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Bill,

You wrote:

Evangelical theologians and scholars have defined what they mean by biblical "inerrancy," and by their definition, variants among the manuscripts does not undermine inerrancy. See the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics. Variations in the precise books included in the MT or LXX also does not undermine inerrancy, since inerrancy does not claim that every "Bible" has the same, correct corpus of books. Inerrancy is a claim about the lack of error in the original inspired writings themselves, not about our knowledge of those writings.

OK, let me get this straight. You believe that the original autographs are inerrant?

[Vance]

I'm not following your logic.

I can.

It goes like this.

1) Assume that any loss or corruption of the texts of "the law, or the prophets" constitutes destruction thereof.

2) Assume that "to fulfil" said law and prophets REQUIRES the availability of an accurate or inerrant copy thereof.

3) Assume that "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" can ONLY take place with the availability of an accurate or inerrant copy thereof.

4) Conclusion: The Bible is inerrant.

See how easy it is?

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

In Jeremiah 36, Jeremiah dictates a prophecy to Baruch, who is ordered to read it in the temple, since Jeremiah has been "excommunicated" and is forbidden to enter the temple, even though he is a priest (36.5). The king gets the scroll and burns it (36.23), after which the Lord commands Jeremiah to rewrite the scroll (36.28). Jeremiah does so, as described in 36.32:

Then Jeremiah took another scroll and gave it to sBaruch the scribe, the son of Neriah, who twrote on it at the dictation of Jeremiah all the words of the scroll that Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire. And many similar words were added to them.

So, if Jeremiah's original scroll was inerrant, why did he add "many similar words" to his second edition? It seems to me the only possible explanation is that Jeremiah did not believe his first scroll was inerrant. There was room for clarification and expansion, something that would not be necessary if his first scroll had been inerrant.

Ah, I'm glad someone brought up Jeremiah 36. Please see my article on this very subject, entitled "A Tale of Two Scrolls."

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You asked:

OK, let me get this straight. You believe that the original autographs are inerrant?

Were inerrant, yes.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

Your reasoning is specious because you fallaciously assume that these "uses" of the biblical text reflect a disbelief in the inerrancy of the text. Let me illustrate. Imagine 2000 years from now, scholars debating whether evangelicals of the late 20th and early 21st centuries believed in the inerrancy of the Bible. One scholar no doubt will reason as you do:

"We, in fact, have a wide range of evidence from the early 21st century concerning how sacred texts were used, that runs strongly counter to the claim that evangelicals of that period believed in biblical inerrancy:

1. Evangelical publishers published numerous translations of the Bible that differed markedly from one another, from the NASB and ESV at one extreme to The Message at the other extreme.

2. Evangelicals also used various "study Bibles," to which all sorts of notes, comments, and other elements were freely added; and these elements often disagreed from one "study Bible" to another.

3. Evangelicals debated among themselves whether such passages as the Long Ending of Mark or the Woman Caught in Adultery passages should be in the New Testament. They also debated among themselves whether to accept a "Majority Text" or an "Eclectic Text" or some other approach to New Testament textual criticism.

4. Evangelical pastors routinely paraphrased biblical texts in their sermons and writings, often embellishing the details of the biblical narratives with apocryphal elements not found in any text. This suggests that evangelicals accepted an oral tradition in addition to Scripture as sources for Christian proclamation and teaching.

5. Evangelicals espoused very different theories about intertextuality in biblical studies.

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera."

Yet despite all of the above, it is a plain fact that these same evangelicals do adhere to biblical inerrancy.

Straw man alert. You obviously don't get my argument.

Let me simplify.

If the Gospel or Mark is inerrant, why do Matthew and Luke change it in all sorts of ways when they quote it in their gospels? The fact that they make substantial changes to Mark in all sorts of ways indicates that they did not believe the Gospel of Mark to be inerrant.

[maklelan]

maklelan,

I asked how you know that Jesus never suggested that the scriptures were inerrant. You replied:

On your view of scripture, you cannot assert that Jesus never suggested that the scriptures were inerrant, because you have no way of reliably stating what Jesus believed.

The Spirit reminds us of all the things Jesus has taught. However, my statement was very clearly addressing the extant traditions regarding Jesus. No assertion of inerrancy exists in the Bible, spuriously attributed to Christ or otherwise. Are you in a position to defend your implication that Christ may have asserted it in a text that is no longer extant, or that he asserted it but it was never recorded?

You can say that you don't see any such claim attributed to Jesus in the Bible as we have it, but you cannot reasonably assert that Jesus never suggested the idea if you don't have what you consider any reliable source of information about Jesus.

No matter how close I can come to confidence in Jesus' words, I can very confidently list all the suggestions of inerrancy from that time period:

[there are none]

Inerrancy is a thoroughly modern ideology. It existed nowhere in the ancient world. There is no rational reason to accept the notion that Jesus suggested inerrancy.

Of course, I think Matthew 5:17-18 and John 10:35 do "suggest," at the very least, that Scripture is inerrant, though this depends on the definition of inerrant. So I disagree with your premise.

Matthew 5:17-18 and John 10:35 are discussing the texts' authority. Authority is not inerrancy, as I've stated. This is clearly evidenced in the Ketiv/Qere readings in MT. The Masoretes recognized the authority of the text. Not one jot or tittle could be violated. They also recognized that portions of the text were in error, so they provided accurate (as far as they concluded) readings in the margins. They respected the text's authority, exactly as Jesus stated, but they also respected the fact that it had errors. Inerrancy is nowhere to be found in the ancient world.

Additionally, I would venture to guess that you don't believe Jesus' statement in Matt 5:17-18. He states that not one jot or tittle of the law or the prophets will pass away until heaven and earth pass away. Jesus is not there to make the law of Moses go away, he's there to see that it is obeyed. He states that anyone who breaks one of the least of the commandments therein will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. The church abolished virtually the entire law, and heaven and earth have not passed away. It appears the scripture is "undone," as it says in John 10. Luke, a Gentile, had a different take from Matthew, a Jew, on the role of the law of Moses in the gospel. He rearranges Matthew's statement: "But it is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for a single stroke of a letter in the law to be cut out" (Luke 16:17). It's thus difficult for the law of Moses to become null and void, but not impossible. In fact, in the verse previous he states that the law was in effect "until John came." Matthew, writing after the Jerusalem council, asserts that the law of Moses would never be unnecessary, siding with the Judaizers in that controversy. Luke, siding with Paul, asserts that the law of Moses had been null and void since John the Baptist. Two different sides to the debate, and certainly of absolutely no aid to the notion of inerrancy.