Biblical Inerrancy
January 13, 2013 120 Comments
Is the Bible, the Christian Holy Scriptures, infallible? That is, is the Bible we take to church, read, and study free from all error? Some claim it isn’t.
From my perspective, I believe that all Scripture is “God-breathed” [2 Tim 3:16] and is, hence, inerrant. My Statement of Faith expounds on this:
The Holy Bible, in its original form, is the Holy Spirit-inspired [2 Tim 3:16], inerrant, and infallible Word of God [Prov 30:5; 2 Peter 1:20-21], complete unto itself. The Bible will never be superseded or supplemented by any other teaching [Prov 30:6] and nothing should be subtracted from it [Deut 4:2; Matt 5:17; Rev 22:18-19]. Its full counsel provides the way to live a complete Christian life [2 Tim 3:16-17]. [Emphasis added.]
However, I submit the following for consideration. Craig A. Evans’ book Fabricating Jesus [2006, InterVarsity, Downers Grove, IL] is an apologetic against those who would claim the Gnostic “Gospels” (so-called) are a (or THE) form of authentic Christianity. Bart Ehrman is one such individual adhering to this belief. Ehrman lost faith in the inerrancy of Scripture by studying the text of Mark 2:25-26 (among other things).
Here’s the passage in the NASB:
25 And He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry; 26 how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?”
While each translation/version of the Bible differs a bit (naturally, as some are more literal, such as the NASB and ESV, while others are more dynamic, such as the NIV), each one contains the essence of the above. Evans comments:
Jesus has alluded to the story of David’s receiving consecrated bread…from Ahimelech the priest (1 Sam 21:1-10). David was fleeing from Saul, and when Saul learned that Ahimelech had assisted David and his men, he murdered Ahimelech and most of his family. Abiathar escaped and eventually succeeded his father as priest (1 Sam 22:1-10). Because Ahimelech – not his son Abiathar – was the priest when David and his men ate the consecrated bread, we have a mistake, technically speaking, either made by Jesus himself or by Mark (or perhaps by someone who passed on the story). [p 31]
Now let me state quite clearly that I don’t think for a nanosecond that Jesus made a mistake! And, I don’t think Evans does either. Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe [Making Sense of Bible Difficulties 2009 (1992), Baker, Grand Rapids, MI] explain how to understand this passage in the following:
First Samuel is correct in stating that the high priest was Ahimelech. On the other hand, neither was Jesus wrong. When we take a close look at Christ’s words, we notice that He used the phrase “in the days of Abiathar” (v. 26), which does not necessarily imply that Abiathar was high priest at the time David ate the bread. After David met Ahimelech and at the bread, King Saul had Ahimelech killed…Abiathar escaped and went to David (v. 20) and later took the place of high priest. So even though Abiathar was made high priest after David ate the bread, it is still correct to speak in this manner. After all, Abiathar was alive when David did this, and soon following he became the high priest after his father’s death. Thus, it was during the time of Abiathar, but not during his tenure in office. [Pp 175-176. All emphasis in original.]
I don’t know about you dear reader, but this explanation does not seem satisfactory to me. This would be akin to saying “in the days of Herod Antipas” while referring to a particular time, say 10BC, which was actually during the reign of his father Herod the Great. Sure Antipas was alive, but he was not yet Herod.
In any case, this does not destroy my faith in Holy Writ as my faith is in Jesus Christ and His Atoning death, burial and Resurrection, which are verifiable historical facts (just ask former skeptic Lee Strobel). I can only guess why the Markan account is written as such. Perhaps it is a scribal error which was replicated in both the Textus Receptus (Latin for “received text”, the Greek text undergirding the KJV and the NKJV) and the Critical Text (the Greek text from which most, if not all, other modern Bible versions are largely based), which has been carried forth to this day?
We do not have any of the original NT documents. We do not have any of Paul’s original letters from his pen (or the pen of any of those who acted as a scribe for Paul from his dictation) or any of the original Gospels from the Gospel writer’s own hand. Consequently, we have copies – hand-scribed copies – of these precious documents. Most likely we have copies of copies, thus increasing the likelihood of changes from the original texts due to copyist error or even by a scribe’s misguided attempts at “correcting” the original. It is for all these reasons that my Statement of Faith has the qualifying phrase “…in its original form…” in the selected portion used above, referring to the inerrancy of Scripture.
However, rest assured; we have more copies and fragments of the New Testament than any other literary work from this period. In fact, many more. This is where the importance of the ongoing research known as NT Textual Criticism1 – an art as much as a science – comes into play. These multitudes of NT documents enable the textual critic to arrive at what is most likely the original text in the large majority of cases. However, there are differences of opinions as to just what is the original text among textual critics on some Biblical passages. A basic overview of the process of textual criticism and its ramifications will be discussed in future articles here on CrossWise.
1 J. Harold Greenlee [Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism (Revised Edition). 2010, sixth prtng (© 1964 Eerdmans; © 1995 Hendrickson), Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, MA] defines textual criticism as, “the study of copies of any written work of which the autograph (the original) is unknown, with the purpose of ascertaining the original text” [p 1]. An easier read as an introduction to NT Textual Criticism is Greenlee’s The Text of the New Testament: From Manuscript to Modern Edition [2008, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, MA].
Just1ofhis – I agreeth with William Tyndale. Thanx, that’s good information.
…They will say it cannot be translated into our tongue it is so rude….
OK, so it was translated from the original Greek into Latin for the Vulgate, yet it is “so rude” to translate into English? The Vulgate itself is not an entirely faithful translation of the original Koine Greek. This is why textual criticism is so very important: We must first determine, to the best of our abilities, just what IS the original Koine Greek NT texts, and from there do as faithful a translation into the desired language – whether English, French, etc. – as possible.
I agreeth too!
An interesting thing for me, and Phyllis would be much more knowledgeable here, is the development of language in Europe (England in particular, as our native tongue developed there).
“Beowulf” was written between the mid 7th century to the end of the 10th:
And yes, this is English (unfortunately, I don’t know how to put all the symbols in, but you’ll get the idea):
“Gegrette oa gumena gehwylcne, hwate helm-berend hindeman side, swaese gesioas: ”
(Then he addressed each dear companion one final time, those fighters in their helmets, resolute and high-born:)
(don’t be impressed, I have a translation)
While men and times and languages change, God is the same yesterday, today, and always. Where men were desiring to share the truth of the gospel with others, God faithfully provided a way and will continue to.
The RCC’s greatest evil in the days of the Reformers was keeping the Holy Word of God out of the vernacular. Once men have the Bible in their native tongue, what they do with it is a matter of heart. Jesus told us that the Pharisees diligently studied the scriptures. He never questioned the validity of the scriptures they were studying. They were a pit of vipers, because they walked the earth with uncircumsized hearts and were always resisting the Holy Spirit of God.
We see those same perversions across the church spectrum today, for the same reason. Kenneth Copeland, Bill Johnson, the Pope, Rick Warren, and all their kind HAVE the Word of God in front of them. They are a pit of vipers, because they resist the Holy Spirit of God and pursue their own agendas. In this way, they, like the RCC of Tyndale’s day, work to keep the truth of the Word of God out of the “vernacular”. They do this by muddying the waters with all their false teachings and pointing their followers to everything but the truth.
“Why then have these people turned away? Why does Jerusalem always turn away? They cling to deceit, they refuse to return. I have listened attentively, but they do not do what is right. No one repents of his wickedness, saying, “What have I done?” Each pursues his own course, like a horse charging into battle.
Even the stork in the sky knows her appointed seasons, and the dove, the swift and the thrush observe the time of their migration.
But my people do not know the requirements of the LORD. How can you say, ‘We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,’ when actually THE LYING PEN OF THE SCRIBES HAS HANDLED IT FALSELY?” (Jer 8: 5-8)
Craig, I thought this was “pro” translating it into English. Jerome translated it into Latin because the Catholics were trying to say it was the easier, better language. And yet English is a easier language. The ordinary folks were responding against this move, wanting an English translation instead. I thought.
I’m confused.
My understanding is that Jerome translated into Latin because Latin was spoken in certain areas; therefore, it was translated in order to make it understandable to those who didn’t speak Greek. Though I believe he may have had good intentions, it wasn’t a perfect translation. Later, when Latin was no longer common, some wanted to keep the Bible in the Latin as it was said (by current leadership) to be in ‘God’s language’ or something of the sort. This effectively, kept the Word of God away from the common person as it was unintelligible to them. This is where Tyndale came in.
The Douay-Rheims is the English version of the Latin Vulgate, i.e., instead of going back to the Greek for an English translation, it was translated directly from the Vulgate. That’s not the way it should be done as any errors in translation from the Greek to the Latin are replicated into the Douay-Rheims. Some Catholics today still prefer the D-R instead of the newer RCC New American Bible.
Carolyn,
Jerome made his translation from “old Latin” into a “common Latin” in the 4th Century. Tyndale’s translations come in 1000 years later. In Tyndale’s day, the RCC was holding out the notions that Latin was a superior language and that English was too vulgar in an effort to keep the Bible under their control (and out of the vernacular). As Tyndale rightly stated, they were lies.
In the 4th Century, “English” (anglo-saxon) was very much a developing language, completely unrecognizable to you and I. By Tyndale’s day, it was close to it’s current form.
Not sure if that clears it up, but you are looking at two very different time periods.
Craig said, “My understanding is that Jerome translated into Latin because Latin was spoken in certain areas; therefore, it was translated in order to make it understandable to those who didn’t speak Greek.”
I’m no expert in this, but I also understand it that way also. There were “Old Latin” translations of scripture in Jerome’s day, and he was put to the task of translating a “common Latin” which would have been his spoken language (or at least one of them).
Thanks for the clarification guys. I think I got it now.
Jeremiah 8:5-8 really makes sense in this context, Just1ofhis…
I just finished reading “Holy Enigma: Bible verses you’ll never hear in Sunday school.”
It is a good read by author Steve Ward – http://books.google.com.au/books?id=agIDkpt3oYMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=holy+enigma&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UH0MUavhIIaKkwXL8IDYDA&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA
The author is a committed Christian from an evangelical perspective, who spends 3 years in his retirement prayerfully reading the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, every verse – and takes copious notes of passages that are internally contradictory or portray God in an evil light.
He finds that by and large he can stick with his belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God – overall. But he honestly and courageously gives away absolute Biblical Inerrancy in his prayerful journey – and he feels with God’s blessing too.
For example – the biblical genocides – there’s around 40 of these as far as I can count, wherein the Hebrew tribes wipe out another nationality. Invariably they claim God’s command to do so, and even God’s participation in the battles and smiting and slaughter. The worst would seem to be the conquest of the Midianites – end of book of Samuel. The army of the Hebrews spares the civilians, Moses is very angry and says God commands the killing of all the Midianites – men, women and children – apart from virgin girls/young women – who are to be “used” by the Hebrew army. i.e. the typical sociology of genocide – kill all the males and older women and rape the young women and girls.
This divinely approved of act (along with the 40 odd other genocides, strange and at times cruel laws in Leviticus etc, sexism of both OT and NT, strong support for slavery, a few weird stories e.g. God trying to kill Moses as he is walking along so Moses quickly gets circumcised, and internal contradictions – including Jeremiah 7 where God says to the prophet that he didn’t inspire the laws of Moses anyway and the weirdness of the Book of Revelation) – all lead Ward to abandon biblical inerrancy.
What he realises is that the Bible is a combination of the dialogue between God and humanity and written by both parties, increasingly getting it right in the narratives about the real true Word of God – who is not a book but as pointed out in John ch. 1 – the eternal Word who dwelt among us, Jesus the Christ.
ruckrover,
There are hyper-conservatives who will contend that the KJV – or more accurately the Textus Receptus (“received text”) as it is called, which is the Greek text underlying the KJV – is wholly without error. There are the hyper-liberals who contend that the whole thing is some grand conspiracy by men of old made up in order to control the masses. And there are views in between.
My position is way on the conservative end (without the “hyper-” prefix) of this spectrum, with the view, similar to what Steve Ward states about Josh McDowell, that God didn’t want us to have the original autographs, as these would be idolized. I agree we should be asking the kinds of questions such as Ward’s on page 3: “Were the ancient Scriptures referred to by Jesus the very same words we read in our English translations? Would the New Testament, penned decades after the Resurrection, also be inerrant?”
To the first of these, the answer is “no” because we do not have the original autographs; we have copies of copies which have man-made errors. To the second one, the answer is an absolutely unequivocal “YES!”. The original letters, the autographs, were Holy Spirit inspired and hence absolutely inerrant and infallible. The thing is, we don’t HAVE the autographs, as, once again, we have copies of copies.
It seems Mr. Ward is a bit to the left of my position of the Bible as the absolute inerrant and infallible Word of God; it’s the copies of copies which make up our current Bibles which makes them less than perfect. This reality does not diminish the fact that the Bible we hold (generally, with The Message and others like it excepted) is the Word of God given to men such that
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
I hold to the view of plenary verbal inspiration [see here]:
The word plenary means “full” or “complete”. Therefore, plenary verbal inspiration asserts that God inspired the complete text(s) of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, including both historical and doctrinal details. The word verbal affirms the idea that inspiration extends to the very words the writers chose. For example, in Acts 1:16 the Apostle Peter says “the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake” (KJV). Paul calls all scripture “God-breathed” in 2 Timothy 3:16 (referring to the Old Testament). Thus, the Holy Spirit guided the writers along (cf. 2 Peter 1:20-21) while allowing their own personalities and freedom to produce the Bible we have today. This view recognizes and asserts both the human and divine element within Scripture.
But, I believe this is speaking strictly of the autographs, which we do not have. So, the real point of this blog post is to get the reader to see the importance of the ongoing discipline of NT textual criticism.
I’m curious if Ward is aware of and understands textual criticism and its implications on Scripture.
Here’s an interesting discussion on textual criticism and inerrancy between Bart Ehrman and Daniel B. Wallace. OK, it IS two hours long; so, I’m not expecting all, if any to listen to the whole thing:
http://www.ehrmanproject.com/
I have Ehrman’s book Misquoting Jesus (a misnomer really, but it’s the publisher who changed Ehrman’s original “Lost in Transmission”), which I’ve mainly skimmed. Here’s Wallace’s review of the book:
http://bible.org/article/gospel-according-bart
Here’s a Wallace response to some insensitive blog comments in which the commenter apparently didn’t quite understand his stance on inerrancy, taking Wallace’s words beyond his intentions:
http://bible.org/article/my-take-inerrancy
It IS difficult at times to plainly state one’s meaning fully considering the potential for another’s possible misinterpretation of your words.
I like this, “…I believe it is disrespectful to my Lord to not ask the Bible the tough questions that every thinking non-Christian is already asking it….” We HAVE to be ready “in season and out of season” to attempt to answer non-believers.
In doing some further research on the ‘net, I see that there are different interpretations of the words “infallible” and “inerrant” with respect to Scripture. Some put “infallible” over “inerrant” as anything with error would then be fallible, and anything infallible could not include any error. That appears to be the Reformed position. That is not my own definition. Following is a portion of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy which more closely follows my beliefs. It must be noted that this has become the current standard in Evangelical circles (bolding mine, except for section title):
http://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_1.pdf
INFALLIBILITY, INERRANCY, INTERPRETATION
Holy Scripture, as the inspired Word of God witnessing authoritatively to Jesus Christ, may properly be called infallible and inerrant. These negative terms have a special value, for they explicitly safeguard crucial positive truths.
Infallible signifies the quality of neither misleading nor being misled and so safeguards in categorical terms the truth that Holy Scripture is a sure, safe, and reliable rule and guide in all matters.
Similarly, inerrant signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions.
We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of his penman’s milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise.
So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: since, for instance, non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.
So far, I agree with everything. Going a bit further is a section on Transmission and Translation:
Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appear to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.
Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autographa. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit’s constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader “wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2Tim.3:15).
I wholeheartedly concur!
I will divide this into two parts as it is a bit lengthy
From: http://bible.org/article/gospel-according-bart
Daniel Wallace says, “Unfortunately, the average layperson will leave Misquoting Jesus with far greater doubts about the wording and teachings of the NT than any textual critic would ever entertain. A good teacher doesn’t hold back on telling his students what’s what, but he also knows how to package the material so they don’t let emotion get in the way of reason. The irony is that Misquoting Jesus is supposed to be all about reason and evidence, but it has been creating as much panic and alarm as The Da Vinci Code. Is that really the pedagogical effect Ehrman was seeking? I have to assume that he knew what kind of a reaction he would get from this book, for he does not change the impression at all in his interviews. Being provocative, even at the risk of being misunderstood, seems to be more important to him than being honest even at the risk of being boring. But a good teacher does not create Chicken Littles.74″
How much do we value our faith? The precious faith that God gave us. It is opposite of our life on this earth. It is the hope, the promise of life after death…the seed for new life, not just transformation but actual, tangible, eternal life, peace with God, perfection, union with our Creator. God gave us this tiny planting of evidence in our heart that he is truth itself. I believe we have a sense that we must guard and protect that precious faith at all costs because if we lose that, we lose our connection with God.
This is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, in my opinion,…showing irreverence and disregard for the precious faith that he has given us and instead esteeming our own life above the evidence of faith, whether it be through our thinking, our works(religion), cares of this life, pleasures or preferences. In this case it was pride…
I disagree with Daniel Wallace that Bart lost faith because of a dependent belief to inerrancy rather than to Christ because the opposite position can also be proved lethal to our faith. If we send people back to the Catholic Church, for instance, thinking “no harm, no foul” as Billy Graham has done…faith gets choked out by tradition and the Church/Pope/Mariology trumps faith in Christ.
Whether we remain faithful (full of faith) to the end, will depend on how highly we regard and esteem this precious gift of faith that God has put in our hearts. If we nurture it and fortify it with nutrients (prayer and the Word) then it will grow. For that reason, I declined to go and see The Da Vinci Code when it came out. My faith does not need to be choked out by doubt.
I believe that going down the path of textual criticism is not the best idea for the average person…and in this I do agree with Daniel Wallace, because the average person does not have the need to know and a little knowledge in this area of study is probably worse than no knowledge. It is the same with the Da Vinci Code…if you have the knowledge and the grounding to resist the lies, to uncover the deception for the sake of exposing the error of it, fine, but to begin with that point of view and work backwards will probably never happen for the average person. Their faith, being still small will be trampled or devoured by the wolves.
So I am back to my illustration of the person who has never learned to swim and gets tossed into the deep end of Textual Criticism. He will sink like a stone. I believe we should start with the tools that God has given us, the revealed Word and the Holy Spirit in us to bring knowledge, understanding and wisdom of the Creator to life. Once we get fully persuaded that nothing can separate us from the love of God, and the Truth rather than the Text becomes central…then we might be a candidate for the strong winds and inevitable tides of what comes with the whole study of Biblical “origins”.
Another paragraph from Daniel Wallace:
“It strikes me that something like this may be what happened to Bart Ehrman. His testimony in Misquoting Jesus discussed inerrancy as the prime mover in his studies. But when a glib comment from one of his conservative professors at Princeton was scribbled on a term paper, to the effect that perhaps the Bible is not inerrant, Ehrman’s faith began to crumble. One domino crashed into another until eventually he became ‘a fairly happy agnostic.’ I may be wrong about Ehrman’s own spiritual journey, but I have known too many students who have gone in that direction. The irony is that those who frontload their critical investigation of the text of the Bible with bibliological presuppositions often speak of a ‘slippery slope’ on which all theological convictions are tied to inerrancy. Their view is that if inerrancy goes, everything else begins to erode. I would say rather that if inerrancy is elevated to the status of a prime doctrine, that’s when one gets on a slippery slope. But if a student views doctrines as concentric circles, with the cardinal doctrines occupying the center, then if the more peripheral doctrines are challenged, this does not have a significant impact on the core. In other words, the evangelical community will continue to produce liberal scholars until we learn to nuance our faith commitments a bit more, until we learn to see Christ as the center of our lives and scripture as that which points to him. If our starting point is embracing propositional truths about the nature of scripture rather than personally embracing Jesus Christ as our Lord and King, we’ll be on that slippery slope, and we’ll take a lot of folks down with us.
Scary thought. He said in the above paragraph: “Their view is that if inerrancy goes, everything else begins to erode.” I don’t think that’s the real problem. People have believed in the inerrancy of the Bible from the beginning to the end of their lives and they have weathered the storms just fine. To believe in inerrancy is not the problem. To take our lives more seriously than our faith is the problem. To esteem our own learning, theology, study, knowledge apart from the Spirit of Truth, is our folly.
I don’t agree with either of the positions presented here…inerrancy across the board or concentric circles with the most important doctrines at the centre, although if we are talking theory alone, I would take the second option, and having read the whole article, I know that Daniel Wallace esteems his relationship with the Lord as central to everything else. However, many do not. They want to think things through and their faith is too fragile to begin at the wrong end of the pool.
Without the Spirit’s revelatory power, the Word is just a dead manuscript, a text open for criticism. There’s no power or relationship inherent in the text itself. It does not come to life or bring to life without the Holy Spirit’s living/abiding illumination. So without an proper regard for our living faith, we will end up with an empty faith and a hollow theology as has been demonstrated by Bart Erhmann. His faith in God is dead. But mine is not…nor ever shall be because errancy or inerrancy isn’t the thing.
“Jude :21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.”
And this Craig, is what I believe you is your heart through bringing this subject to light….to preserve genuine faith…
Carolyn,
Very well put.
I’d say we can’t definitively know Ehrman’s motivations as to how/why he lost faith – even if he himself expresses it, as the heart is deceptive.
I know of more than one individual who start from the premise that the Bible is 100% infallible and as such cannot have any error whatsoever. With this view, even differences in translation, say the NASB to the NIV (let alone modern version to KJV), can become a BIG DEAL. Even if this ‘stumbling block’ is overcome, when presented with very difficult Scriptures, they will look frantically for ANY possible explanation even if said explanation doesn’t adequately answer the issue; because if one ‘error’ can be found then their entire faith in Christianity would crumble.
Now, we should start from the premise that the Scriptures are error-free; so, that if an ‘error’ is found, all efforts should be made in order to find an answer to this ‘discrepancy’. Moreover, when an ‘error’ is found, we should not automatically assume that is as a result of copyists’ error. And, worse, using the example in this article, we shouldn’t assume that it’s the fault of the NT writer, or worse yet, that Jesus Himself made the mistake.
Again, using the example in the article, I’ve no problem if someone wishes to accept Geisler’s answer. However, in all intellectual honesty, I cannot. The Chicago Statement above mentions that in Biblical times, speakers weren’t as precise with details. But, I don’t see how this would allow for an outright error (as I see it) as in Mark 2:25-26. Had the text NOT included “the high priest” I’d see no problem. Alternatively, if we can determine that epi could be understood to be akin to “around the time just before” – or something like that – Abiathar would be high priest, I’d accept it without hesitation.
Therefore, I’m inclined to believe this particular Scripture is a scribe error; and, for me that’s no big deal at all. I’m 100% convinced the originals, the autographs are infallible and inerrant; therefore, given the limitations of the way the NT was handed down to us, it’s quite understandable that some erors may well be found AND that our manuscripts do not (yet) reflect the 100% inerrant Word of God. To clarify: Wallace has stated, if I understand him correctly, that the infallible and completely error-free Word of God is somewhere amongst all the manuscript evidence; however, using Mark 2:25-26, as but one example, I don’t see that as being true.
But, again, to reiterate, this in no way lessens my faith, nor should it lessen the faith of another. In fact, I’d argue that this sort of thing is God-ordained such that He wants us to love Him by faith in HIM, rather than in a perfect copy of the Holy Word He gave us through His chosen vessels. Any ‘error’ is not of the type that would alter major, let alone minor doctrine.
Yes, I agree. Thanks for your input.
For my part, this little side trip of exploration has only served to relax my textual concerns and see where the real emphasis of my faith needs to be placed.
Happily agnostic is an oxymoron. Faithful unto death…now there’s a worthy bent….
So I am back to my illustration of the person who has never learned to swim and gets tossed into the deep end of Textual Criticism.
My only problem here is that this is exactly what was done to me. For real! I was thrown in the deep end and told to swim and I did out of preservation…. granted there was someone there to save me if I didn’t… but I did and I swam the whole length of the pool.
My point…???? (I am giggling at my self) I’m not sure!
Well, I’d say there is an apt analogy there. For those who are already His, diving deeper into the waters of textual criticism will not result in a crisis of faith to the point the individual is ‘lost’. On the contrary, it is precisely because we believe in the Savior that we’ll not drown while going deeper into textual criticism.
The mere fact that we have upwards of 6000 Greek NT manuscripts (from scraps to entire NTs) provides an astounding amount of evidence and material to get us very close to the autographs, especially when compared to the scanty amount of extant manuscripts, e.g., of works by Plato and Homer from near the same era. Moreover, these manuscripts of Plato and Homer are very late, nearly a thousand years beyond the initial writings; whereas, the NT is extant in about as many manuscripts within 200 years of initial writing as the TOTAL amounts of Plato’s Republic and Homer’s Illyiad. And, in rough figures, there are over a thousand NT manuscripts from 1000 years after intitial NT writings compared to less than 20 of Plato’s and Homer’s.
Pingback: Literary Criticism as a path forward for Textual Criticism? | Unsettled Christianity
Stand to Reason blog has just posted an article titled “Investigating Bart Ehrman’s Top Ten Troublesome Bible Verses”:
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2013/02/investigating-bart-ehrmans-top-ten-troublesome-bible-verses.html