Here is a presumed evangelical scenario and three questions (the main question being at the end) for your thoughts.
First the milk:
PLEASE DO NOT READ THIS SCENARIO OR ITS THREE QUESTIONS IF YOU ARE STRUGGLING WITH DOUBTS ABOUT THE INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE!!!
This scenario and its questions are designed to make one ponder their faith and their relationship with God in Christ. Too many believers have such a struggle with uncertainty concerning the theology of the Faith that they are often fearful of either asking or even considering particular questions about our Faith. Many believers are so unsure of the intellectual side of the Faith that they treat theology like a glass bowl so delicate that the slightest question could forever smash it.
While I myself see the Faith and its theology as an indestructible castle built upon the foundation of God in Christ, individual believer’s faith is not so indestructible. Therefore, if you are struggling with doubts, disregard all of this but pray to God to help you with your doubts.
Now to the meat:
Amongst learned evangelicals it is common knowledge that only the original autographs of the New Testament are inerrant. Every single copy of the NT that we currently possess contains errors in the text which change the meaning of what we believe to be some aspect of the Scripture. Hypothetically, only the original documents written by the apostles are free from error. Let it be known that none of the known errors in the various ancient NT manuscripts alters any significant doctrine in any way. One of the points of significant doctrines being significant is that they are repeated by the author numerous times in a book, numerous times in the author’s various books and numerous times in various books by various authors.
But two points:
1) With specific reference to the autographs, nowhere does the Bible claim inerrancy for itself either as a whole or with an individual book. The idea of inerrancy is a logical corollary to the doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures but it is a foreign idea in the Scriptures. In truth, it was a doctrine formulated by at Princeton Theological Seminary in the latter half of the 19th century.
2) The inerrancy of the autographs is a hypothesis that cannot be proven due to the fact that we do not have the original autographs and we never will. They have long since been destroyed by time and there is no way to recreate them.
The apostle and/or his secretary wrote down the original Scripture on an original scroll, parchment, etc. This original scroll is the original autograph and is the document or version which is deemed by all learned evangelicalism to be THE inerrant copy.
Now for the three questions:
1) If the apostle and/or his secretary made copies of this original inerrant document, were these copies made by the apostle and/or his secretary inerrant?
2) If we agree that the original autographs are inerrant, if we agree that the subsequent copies contain errors, then which copy of the original autographs contained the first error? The first copy, the second copy, the third or fourth?
3) Since we do agree that only the first editions of the autographs are inerrant and all the other editions contain errors, then there are only 27 inerrant editions of the NT documents and 100s of millions of errant editions. There could only be one complete inerrant version of the entire NT which was very early on completely lost to history and the Church while there are 100s of thousands of subsequent editions that we still have and have never been lost. Thus, we can practically presume that God has had no problem at all giving all the believers of the Church for two thousand years for all faith and practice documents that have errors in them. If this scenario is indeed the case, then why would God not mind giving all the believers of the Church for two thousand years for all faith and practice original autographs with original errors in them?
4 comments:
PC,
I too have thought much about what you are blogging about. However, your opposers would probably claim you are building a straw man argument in claiming that inerrant holders believe the Scriptures we have today are with error. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe there claims are logical, but nonetheless this is what they would claim. Nonetheless, if one does claim that the Bible is only inerrant in the originals, then this naturally implies that the subsequent manuscripts are with error. This seems logical to me, otherwise one would just claim that all Scriptures are inerrant which no one claims because of that .5% of Scriptures that are questionable. What would amaze me is to see anyone (myself included) actually obey and practice the 99.5% that is without question.
Travis
I agree with you.
I believe the Scriptures are inerrant in their original manuscripts. In this view, I would agree with conservative evangelicals and disagree with most moderate and liberal Christians. The odd part is that I both acknowledge and agree with the same objections and concerns that are raised by most moderate and liberal Christians who disagree with inerrancy. However, since I treat the Bible as more of a literature book than any sort of historical or scientific textbook, I don’t see any of these noticeable objections as “errors.” And even if I did acknowledge these objections as original “errors” it would not in any way change the meaning of the Scriptures for me or alter the practice of my faith. I suppose this is why I am somewhat tolerant of those believers who really are “errantists” though there are many out there so mislabeled.
Yes, I believe the Scriptures are inerrant in their original manuscripts. I also know that the textual variations among the NT documents are relatively few and that they do not alter any major or minor doctrine of the Faith. At most, these variations alter metaphors or give meaning or such. And it is reasonable to believe this is true because a major doctrine would not be found in ONE book and in ONE sentence that would be subject to scribal error. I remember reading in college that of all the ancient Hellenistic literature whose manuscripts we now have, we have more ancient copies of the NT than of Homer, Sophocles, Plato and all the other ancient writings. Also, even with all of the various versions of the NT, those versions agree far more often than the relatively few versions of Homer, Plato, etc. Yes, the works of the Greek philosophers and authors have their textual variations as well but their various versions differ more widely that the NT.
My purpose for this little exercise (yes, there was a point) was to raise questions and viable scenarios which explore what the Scriptures are and how we relate to them. That’s it.
So, would you say that you are believe the Bible is inerrant for "faith and practice"? as I've heard...
Travis
Yes, that is what I believe. I believe that the purpose of the Bible is for faith and practice, and I believe that it has been inspired by the Holy Spirit to reflect and that when it is properly understood and properly applied in the proper context that is is authoritative, infallible and inerrant in its teaching on that matter of faith and practice.
Post a Comment