Redefining biblical inerrancy
Christianity is at a crossroads with secularism and we need to consider redefining some of our terms and ways of thinking. It is a 2nd Copernican Revolution in many ways. In order to be not just credible, but to be true to our faith and the Scriptures God has given us, I am suggesting critical dialog about some of our historical terms. Today I’ll consider inerrancy.
Inerrancy:For the past hundred years plus, we have assumed that biblical innerrancymeant that every thing we read in the Bible is without errors. That is, everything in Scripture is accurate. We have been taught to think that if the Bible said it, then it’s true. Everything should be taken at face value. But here’s the problem with that approach — it’s devoid of cultural context and analysis. Our epistemology (way of knowing something) is very different today than it was in ancient Palestine.
You and I read something and evaluate it using linear, logical, obvious thinking. But to the people who wrote and read what we now call the Bible, their way of knowing was very different. It was pre-scientific, so the idea of creating and testing a hypothesis was unknown. It was driven by what we might call superstition. The cause of something was not logical, like we might think today, but was mysterious and required a mysterious explanation.
For example, if you or I get a stomach ache, we believe it’s because we ate some bad food or maybe we picked up a bug of some kind. Ancient people would never have thought that. They may have believed that I did something to offend God and my stomach ache was punishment for that. It’s a very different way of knowing.
So, what does a stomach ache have to do with inerrancy? If people in “Bible times” as we are taught to call it, believed that stomach aches were punishment from God, then how much of what we read in the Bible should be attributed to a more mystical and pre-scientific worldview? Isaiah did not write with the 21st century physicist in mind. Matthew did not write with the modern Christian business owner in the back of his head. They both wrote in a style that reflects their own cultural realities and epistemology, not ours.
So, does the Bible have errors? In our face value, English language, 21st century reading of it, you bet it has errors. Did it have errors according to it’s original authors and readers? No, it was just their way of knowing and understanding the world around them. The Bible is not a science book, history book (as we define it), or ancient wikipedia. It conveys God’s story to whomever will hear it. It is inerrant in that sense.
Tags: inerrancy
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
June 11, 2009 at 10:08 am
“They may have believed that I did something to offend God and my stomach ache was punishment for that. It’s a very different way of knowing.”
Well, if you’ve been watching I’m a “Celebrity Get Me Out of Here”, you would notice that Heidi and Spencer (stalwart bastions of contemporary evangelicalism they are) have similar beliefs regarding their maladies.
Does the Bible itself ever claim inerrancy for itself?
June 13, 2009 at 8:27 am
Certainly not in the sense we use the term. It claims to be breathed out by God, and to be useful for several things. It also claims to be evidence for knowing and believing truth.
June 13, 2009 at 11:19 am
Consequently, the Bible also affirms that the stars are “God-breathed”
June 11, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Hey Dan-
Good post. Thought provoking.
In the middle of all these debates, I hope inerrantists and errantists don’t forget that the biblical witness about itself (and the witness I wish would get stated far more often) is that it is massively powerful, powerful enough to rend us, to unmake us, more powerful than weapon known in that pre-scientific time.
June 12, 2009 at 5:17 am
for those of us raised in “fundamentalist” environments the thought the Bible may not be inerrant in the scientific mindset is troubling. it shakes the roots of our core beliefs. however, you are right about needing new ways of knowing and new ways of expressing knowing. you and i both know people who will disagree with your premise, but i think it is safe to say we’re OK with that since we can accept biblical authority without having to use terms like inerrancy. let the dialogue continue!
June 12, 2009 at 7:11 am
I like where this is going, Dan. It is adding to some things I’ve been thinking about of late. So here is a question for us non-theologians: what resources would I need to get myself into the mindset of the original writers of the text? It seems that just having the Hebrew/Greek translation might not be enough for this kind of understanding. Please advise as I am open to new ways of looking at Scripture.
June 13, 2009 at 8:32 am
There are several texts that attempt to do this Shelly. One fairly recent book is Robert VanVoorst’s Jesus Outside the New Testament. It discusses extant writings referring to Jesus that are extrabiblical and evaluates their historicity.
June 13, 2009 at 8:39 am
Resources of the “non-thelogians” out there – Two book suggestions are “Jesus for the Non-Religious” or other books by John Shelby Spong. Another book is “American Jesus” by Stephen Prothero.
June 13, 2009 at 7:00 am
You said this, Dan:
It was pre-scientific, so the idea of creating and testing a hypothesis was unknown.
If I can demonstrate to you that this is categorically false, would you be willing to reconsider your complaint here?
June 13, 2009 at 8:34 am
If you have evidence, I would love to know it. That would be counter to what almost every historian and scientist believes, though. Yes, please share what you have. Thanks!
June 13, 2009 at 9:41 am
I must admit that I get frustrated when biblical scholars appear to hide behind the majority opinion. As Frank provides evidence that may “counter to what almost every historian and scientist believes” I have to wonder if this is once again what fails Christianity – the importance of majority rule. It’s the same problem that I have with the canoncity process. Just because a majority of people see it a certain way doesn’t make it authoritative. New Testament Seminar class… I remember being drawn to black and white perspectives and I’m glad there’s more room in my mind now because I’ve learned all I could about Christianity and it got boring ;0) Needed a challenge so that’s why I picked a different faith. I think I defend the notion that we don’t need to be in the majority to be legitimate. Looking forward to what Frank will share…
June 13, 2009 at 10:37 pm
That’s an interesting way to phrase a “yes”, Dan — by claiming that no one has ever believed such a thing about the ancient world. However, I think that those who say that are using such a narrow definition of the phrase “creating and testing a hypothesis” that they cannot draw the broad conclusions they usually seek to carve out.
The first test case in ancient Greece — which undoubtedly developed the basic epistemology of the West between the 6th century BC and the 4th century BC. Heraclitus’ influence of Aristotle and Plato, and the spread of Aristotelian and Platonic ideas throughout the near east, northern Africa, and of course the infant west can hardly be disputed — and these epistemological systems cannot be said to be without the essential process of hypothesis and test.
But one may dismiss 6th-century BC Greek philosophy as far too western and too recent to be applicable to the texts of Israel from 1000 BC and before. It’s wise, then, to consider the Egyptian civilization — particularly their extraordinary systems of math and astrology. Of particular interest is their development of the method of false position by which to do division and achieve a wholly-accurate result. It is mirrored in their method of multiplication where, in order to discover the correct answer to some multiplication problem, they doubled and halved known numbers to approximate their results until, but iterative testing, they achieved the right answer. And that method was developed and used extensively c. 2700 BC, pre-dating the writings of Moses and of Israel.
Moreover, in spite of the religious meanings ascribed to their extensive knowledge of astrology, there is simply no way to characterize Egypt’s understanding of the motion of the bodies in the heavens as somehow “pre-scientific”. Clearly, observation, recording test results, and testing predictions played a significant role in the depth of Egyptian astronomy — which, again, dates back to a millennium before the writing of the Bible.
And that’s the extra-biblical evidence for “the idea of creating and testing a hypothesis”. If we delve into the OT texts, I think we’re going to find that the demands made in scripture for examining a prophet, of relying on the promises of God, are plainly re-western examples of reasoning that says, “to test ‘A’, consider ‘B’ and ‘C’”.
Because this is a foundational idea for where you’re going, Dan, I hope you will consider this information — and the light is casts on the assumption that somehow the Enlightenment was a radical departure from the intellectual history of the world. Because this information about pre-western cultures is actually widely understood and accepted, it seems to me that those from whom you have received the idea that “no one believes this” may have an ulterior motive in demanding a historical falsehood.
My thanks for your invitation to come and see your blog, and for your open-minded permission to submit ideas counter to your theses. I hope you’re still as hard-core for the steps at JBU as you were when I still lived in Siloam.
June 13, 2009 at 8:35 am
The only comment I have here is that in other religions (such as those that are meditation focused) even the common stomach pain is to be interpreted as a chance to be thankful and mindful of health… for example, Thich Nhat Hanh writes that we are to make peace with our ill health. Now, this is where Christianity fails us… we ask if it’s really a stomach ache… we ask if it is caused by something greater. We seek to define it and give it meaning… when it could simply exist and our application of it can be to find peace. The writers of the Bible didn’t write about this kind of spirituality very often and I think that’s what leads to these kind of questions about inerrancy. What’s sad isn’t that it was out of our cultural context but rather, it’s sad that it didn’t completely reflect the culture of the WORLD during their time which did include lines of thought like modern day Buddhist monks. They could have tapped into that but chose rather to seek black and white answers in their faith development and new found religion (yes, picking on the NT again.) So, it isn’t the text itself that it is errant – it’s the intention of the writers. Seeking black and white answers and inerrancy is in itself, errant.
June 13, 2009 at 9:09 am
The way in which fundamentalism didn’t allow for any mystery seems to have become promblematic for Xians of my generation, and rightly so. Reading the blog (http://whynateleft.wordpress.com/) of a former youth pastor, who graduated from a reputable Bible college, this is part of his reasoning for leaving the faith. He suggests the premise of Evangelical Xianity to be such:
“The words in the Bible are inspired by God. Therefore, they cannot be wrong and can always be resolved through diligent thought and study.”
I’ve learned the latter part of this statement is not true (we cannot resolve and know everything in our fallen and fallible nature), but the sentence seems to be a very good representation of the fundy point of view.
I’m an artist and, as such, have no problem with things being mysterious or oblique or symbolic (not to suggest all artists are this way, but seems to me it’s not that much of a leap). Other people’s minds don’t work in the same way though, and — whether they are a Xian or not — have trouble with the idea that scientific process cannot answer all of our questions.
June 13, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Great questions! I’m actually writing about this over on my site. I found some interesting views (or lack there of) from some Staff at a Camp I was out with my kids this past week about the Bible.
I am finding it very interesting from talking with men and women from my generation how quickly they are willing to dismiss some things from the bible and hold so strongly to others. I know its the case probably with every generation. But what I found odd is how many don’t trust or believe the bible, because of the violence that is in it, the fact ‘only men’ wrote it, its not culturally relevant with our society… what ever the reasoning it is startling to me. why it startles me is that if you don’t trust the bible… then we can also not trust the Truth of the Cross and Resurrection, The Grace and Love of God! and if that’s the case we have nothing…
I don’t have any answers, just my convictions and my thoughts… I agree the certainties and convictions of previous generations of Christendom are being challenged for a deeper truth… a deeper certainty i guess you could say.
either way I love what your getting started here Dan
June 14, 2009 at 8:23 am
Mr. Lambert, I must say that you are completely leaving out the sufficiency of God. He is all powerful. Do you not think that a God who could cause a world wide flood, bring down the walls of Jericho , create the entire universe, and to top it off become a man and still be God; do you really think that a God like that is incapable of making His love letter to the world perfect? In order for you to believe this view you must be discounting how powerful our Holy God really is. I plead with you to read the scriptures not with a culturally affected mind but rather with a mind that is prayerfully considerate of who God is. The world will take any reason at all to try and discredit the Bible so that they do not have to give their lives to a purpose that is not their own. Please sir, do not give the culture a reason to deny and reject the salvation that the Bible offers.
June 14, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Hi Jessica,
I really appreciate the passion of your plea. I can assure you that I trust 100% in the Truth of God’s Word and the salvation it offers. I believe that the Bible is perfect in every way and absolute Truth. What I am asking all of us to consider is the possibility that God inspired Truth differently that how we in most evangelical churches typically assume He did. Is it not possible that God inspired the Truth of Scripture using stories, legends, and myths? We know Jesus did this in His ministry (that’s what parables are).
I disagree, Jessica that I am “completely leaving out the sufficiency of God.” In fact, I am trying to re-infuse our discussion with His sufficiency. It’s the insufficiency of our traditional human understanding that I am questioning.
June 14, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Dan –
One of the assumption I made when I started this, btw, was that when we used the term “biblical inerrancy”, we were talking about the same thing. I have a suspicion we are not.
Here’s the seminal statement of contemporary, conservative belief in biblical inerrancy:
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/chicago.htm
Which part(s) of that document (if any) would you deny Dan? If you don’t deny any, what are you actually redefining?
June 18, 2009 at 8:03 am
Hey Dan,
Good post. Have you looked into Leslie Newbiggin’s thinking on inerrancy? I have found it quite helpful. I can’t do his arguments justice, but his view basically hinges around a “bigger” conception of the divinely human existence that all Christians live (progressive sanctification, if you will) and the role of the community in proclamation. In other words, we are God’s ambassadors … his indwelt community, etc. etc.
In any case, read The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. It will be worth your time.
June 14, 2009 at 1:31 pm
It is very true that in aspects of math, engineering, and architecture that many ancient societies were much more advanced than we have traditionally given them credit for. This is not the same thing, however, as the scientific method of observation and hypothesis testing that was popularized in fields such as biology, physics, and astronomy during the enlightenment. If it had been widely used and accepted by people, then the Copernican Revolution would never have been needed and Darwin’s On the Origin of Species would never have been so controversial.
So yes, there were small groups of people in ancient times who employed variations of the scientific method (most noteably recorded by Aristotle), it did not gain wide acceptance among the educated until after Roger Bacon wrote about it in tghe late 13th century. The Enlightenment brought the idea to the masses who were slow to accept it in some aspects and quick to accept in others.
It would be inaccurate to believe that bibical writers, and certainly the typical ancient Jew or Christian, would have been famliar with it or have employed. I would recommend A History of Science in Society: From Philosophy to Utility by Lesley Cormack and Andrew Ede for a good reference on this.
June 14, 2009 at 4:39 pm
I think that confusing a lack of advanced biological investigation (for example) with “[lacking] the idea of creating and testing a hypothesis” is itself a category error. If what you’re saying is that some (if not all) areas of materialistic inquiry have advanced in the last 4000 years, I’d say you’re right — but I don’t think that fact impacts inerrancy in the least.
You know: the writers of the OT meant what they meant when they wrote thinks like the abhorrance of the rabbit as a food animal because it “chews a cud”. But what they meant by that was a phenomenological description of the thing in question, and not something meant to give us a key to unlocking comparative biology or morphology. Further, if they -did- mean that, we have to scrap inspiration entirely because a god which would give us that kind of gross error as fact would not be a god worth trusting for anything, no matter how powerful it was.
I don’t think you’d deny any of that last paragraph, Dan — because what’s at stake is our hermeneutical approach to any text, and the bedrock of our interpretive grid has to be the intention of the original author.
But in that sphere of things, inerrancy doesn’t suffer one iota if we admit that much of the Bible is not written as a scientific text. You haven’t said any of this yet, but I suspect that what you want to compensate for is 150 years of fundamentalist super-biblical overstatement of the scientific value of the Bible. A great example is the age of the Earth, which in my view of the text is probably not really determinate, Luke 3 and Creationism notwithstanding. The demand that the Earth be about 6,000 years old was never very tenable, and it’s a fight with zero apologetic or theological value — like striving for the perfection of the KJV.
But the more-challenging claims of the OT — like ex-nihilo creation is 6 days, or the sun standing still for the sake of Israel’s victory — have to be taken at face value as actions of a God who is both sovereign and omnipotent, and who is also the active creator and sustainer of all things.
I can’t be any more straight up about that point than this: there is nothing more fantastic about a 6-day creation than there is about a man who was beaten and crucified laying dead in the tomb for 3 days and then walking out in perfect, transfigured health, able that very day to walk the 7 miles to Emmaus and teach a survey of the OT which explains why the Christ had to suffer those things which the disciples did not understand.
The miracle of the resurrection is not more incredible/unbelievable than the miracle of 6-day creation. But it is the one which, if it is true, makes me inclined to believe the other.
And I say all that to say this: strident and careless claims about inerrancy from people who aren’t very good reader of the Bible — particularly of the OT — shouldn’t obstruct us from being ardent lovers of the inerrancy of the Bible and serious advocates for the inspiration of Scripture. But our apologetic approaches for inerrancy and inspiration ought to be compelling in three areas which (it seems to me) the modernist/post-modernist cannot really ever get to:
[1] It must be corrective to our weaker brothers in a way which builds up their faith. Implicitly conceptualizing fundamentalists and creationists as intellectual hicks (even if we never say such a thing) will drive them deeper into their bad presuppositions and away from evangelism. That’s damaging to their faith, adn we should have a care for building them up with love rather than a wrecking ball.
[2] We must embrace the supernatural. We have a faith in a God who is creator and sustainer of all things, and that means that if He chooses to demonstrate His role in things by exception rather than by rule, that’s His prerogative. In fact, that’s His right — which any “pre-modern” society would grant in an instant. Moreover, the existential matters of our faith, such as the nature of man and the method and mode of God’s reconciliation of our sinful selves to Him, are at their root supernatural. If we abandon that, we are abandoning the real offense of the cross.
[3] We must reject in ourselves the modernist/post-modernist pride in intellectual conformity to some standard of intellectual or academic propriety. If Paul could be a fool for proclaiming the resurrection and for preaching good news to men who thought Jesus died in disgrace, we can stand to be a little foolish. We should be foolish for the things God has already declared we should be foolish for, but we shouldn’t love being peculiar so much that we make asses out of ourselves.
Again, thanks for being generous with your blog space and time.
June 19, 2009 at 8:40 am
If I might venture a small comment, Mr. Turk. You have clearly demonstrated the use of logic in ancient epistemologies. However I would suggest that the “scientific” breakpoint for us is not Roger Bacon, who was arguing against Medieval anti-intellectualism. Instead it is Renee Descartes, who circumscribed science to exclude the possibility of the supernatural causes. No one would argue that Aristotle was illogical. He understood cause and effect incredibly well. But when we read Aristotle, his deductions are of an entirely different sort than ours would be. I think that is the essential difference between the ‘pre-scientific’ and ’scientific’ ages.