Philip Hilton scribbles,
I have long been disillusioned with the idea that Scripture speaks for itself. It does not. Like all literature, it is interpreted by men to say what they want it to say. This involves all sorts of logical contortions and difficult readings, yet is never questioned. The heroes of the faith, by ignoring the text, find miraculous ways in which Scripture can be scientifically, internally, and historically correct.
Yet nobody in my circle has ever considered the possibility that Scripture, rather than the interpretation of Scripture, is in error, because they are all convinced that the Gospel is true, as am I. And that Scripture is infallible is supposedly a doctrine upon which the foundations of the Gospel rest. When asked why they believe in the Scripture’s infallibility, they quote 1st Timothy. Logically, however, evidence for the rightness of something must come from outside it. Scripture’s infallibility cannot be proved by Scripture. So what proves Scripture’s infallibility?
The purpose of this essay is to say, first, that Scripture is not infallible, and second, that the Christian faith does not depend upon the inerrancy of Scripture.
Scripture is not infallible. The canon* of Scripture was determined by men, and is fallible, as is all else that man decides upon. The text of Scripture was written by men, and in copying, was corrupted by men. The original manuscript of any Scriptural book, was, in any case, written by men, who are subject to forgetfulness and error, and limited by the perspective of their own time.
1.1) The principle point on which any question of Scripture’s infallibility must revolve, is that of canonicity. That a book is “Scripture” is not immediately self-evident to the average man. For instance, the Church Fathers, who first considered the question in 393 AD, considered the book of Hebrews worthy of inclusion, based on the counsel of St. Jerome, who vouched that Paul was the book’s author. Very few modern scholars now agree with St. Jerome (for cogent reasons), yet Hebrews remains in the canon. Surely this is worth a question.
More notably, Old Testament books such as the Book of Wisdom were accepted until the Reformation, fairly universally. The fact that they were then accepted by the Roman Catholics, and ignored by the Protestants only illustrates my point: the choice of canonical books is arbitrary, human, and fallible.
The decision to include any book in the canon of Scripture is a human one, and like all else that man decides, is fallible. The process might be compared to that of building a car. If the calculation of the engineer is fallible, then the car may be said to be fallible. Similarly, if the decision to include any book in the canon of Scripture is fallible, then the whole canon may be fallible.
1.2) The modern text of Scripture is also fallible. If pressed, any New Testament Greek scholar will admit that the modern text of Scripture is not perfect. The reason for this is simple and compelling. Because there were no printing presses in antiquity, any book which was to be read had to be hand-copied, and recopied every two hundred years if you wished to keep reading it. Naturally, among the 5,000 copies of the Greek New Testament, many errors crept in. Modern textual criticism has made great leaps in identifying and correcting these errors, but they cannot be completely eliminated.
That the text of Scripture is not completely infallible leads us to the conclusion that the content of Scripture cannot be completely infallible, either. There really is no other conclusion that can possibly be drawn. You may argue that Scripture is so nearly infallible that all these textual problems do not really matter; but the fact remains that nearly infallible will never equal “infallible”.
1.3) Finally, the original manuscript, even if we grant that it is really Scripture, is subject to various qualifications. The ancient authors were not scientists. They could not foresee future scientific discoveries; they were not privy to every scientific fact known at the time. Nor were they perfectly informed about the world, and they did not know God’s mind perfectly. Why, therefore, do we have to assume that everything they write is perfect?
There is a certain ridiculousness to the idea that every Biblical author “meant” what modernity believes. When Moses talks about the manner in which Jacob reared Laban’s sheep to be all speckled, are we to suppose, that, while relating Jacob’s methods as if they caused the sheep to become speckled, Moses is all the time harboring secret reserves about it, nowhere evinced in the text? My belief is beggared every time someone suggests this idea.
In sum, the authors of Scripture were not right in every particular detail. The question of which authors deserve to be included in the canon of Scripture is subjective. Even if the canon were right in every detail, and if we knew certainly which authors were Scripture, the decay of the texts over time would still prohibit infallibility of Scripture.*
2.1) Nevertheless, this has little effect, I maintain, on the faith of any Christian. In fact, it is liberating. Inerrant Scripture has always implied certain contortions for the serious scholar. The eradication of all apparent contradictions within Scripture, and in modernity, the eradication of all contradictions between Scripture and science, has been a central point of conservative scholarship. The result is simply this: a Scripture distorted by interpretation, made to fit the philosophic scheme of each scholar.
The point of the Gospel is Christ and his message. It is not dependent on many minor details. Unless we believe in Scriptural inerrancy, we are unlikely to be worried by minor discrepancies within Scripture. Is Christ’s gospel really affected by the manner of Judas’ death? Does the precise route which Christ took through Galilee affect my salvation? Amidst the greater teaching of Christ, and his death on the cross, these details are puny. The theory of fallible Scripture reduces such questions to their proper category: trivia.
To sum up briefly, the Gospel of Christ does not depend on the infalliblity of Scripture, only the reliability of Scripture. Nothing proves the infallibility of Scripture, whereas there is every indication that Scripture is reliable. Reading Scripture as if it were a fallible, but reliable text corresponds better to the truth of the matter, and satisfies our spiritual needs just as well.
* Canon — the list of the books of the Bible
* Briefly, I would like to note that I have exaggerated the extent of the fallibility of Scripture for the purposes of proof. I admit that there is a high probability that the current canon is correct. The problems of the Scriptural texts are not extremely significant. The errors of the original writers are not many, and not egregious. The point is not that Scripture is worthless. The point is that it is not absolutely, impeccably, indubitably perfect.
|
Posted at 11:02 am EST on the 9th of October 2008 by P. B. Hilton. Under Essays, Literary and Cinematic Criticism There are 10 replies. |
 |
| Pontification Ad Nauseam | ||
Is a blog of developing Christian writers, their minds, and their ideas.
Copyright MMIX. All Rights Reserved by Pontification Ad Nauseam And Its Respective Contributors. Powered by Wordpress. Pontification Ad Nauseam uses advanced web technology. For the best user experience please use Safari or Firefox 3.5+. |
Incredibly well thought out and extremely well written & presented.
In essence I agree with that you say. The problem is that once one begins walking down the road of “The Scriptures Are Not Infallible” it almost inevitably leads to an extreme, and very soon heresies are born.
I agree that the Scriptures cannot be absolutely infallible because of the various reasons you presented. However, I do not believe it is our place to say which parts are correct and which are erred. Therefore, we should accept it as if it were infallible and inerrant and not worry about the small possible discrepancies, because they are not essential to one’s salvation, and arguing over them is futile and in vain.
Thank you, my friend. Thank you very, very much.
Like I said this morning, you scare me.
1.1) If the Scriptures themselves were divinely inspired, why can’t the canon be inspired?
As for Wisdom, suppose it does belong. If we took out another book from the Bible, would that automatically discredit the ones we leave in?
1.2) I think you, in a lot of your writings, actually, forget about a very important thing: God’s grace.
1.3) This point simply does not matter. The Bible is history. Do we discredit any other history book if it tells about people believing in a faulty practice? Genesis never actually says that Jacob’s bizarre method caused the sheep to have speckled kids. It says that God was gracious to Jacob.
I’ve heard people complain about the definition of pi in the temple (or was it tabernacle?) instructions too. But they are forgetting that the Bible is not a mathematical handbook, it is telling what the people of the time did.
I have also heard people complain about somewhere in Leviticus some non-insectian bug being classified as an insect. Well, apparently according to the naming system of that day, they were. ^_^
I hate to say this, but all you philosopher types strike me as nothing but sad and terribly arrogant. Who are you, oh man, to contend with God? And what’s so special about YOUR reason? You say “Logically, however, evidence must come from something outside of it.” That is a very dangerous thing to say, and I pray for you guys (I’m sorry, I really do) that one day you don’t go off the deep end and become rationalist atheists.
It’s me again. Let me also suggest that you go take a good read through Psalm 119.
Vicki —
1.1 — How do you propose that the canon become inspired? Somebody fallible made it, you know. So are you saying that, say, St. Augustine’s authority makes it infallible? or that the council of Hippo’s authority does that? or that its general popularity proves that it is inspired?
1.2 — So do you think that the Nestle New Testament Greek text is perfect by a special act of God’s grace? Or should I switch back to the Textus Receptus?
1.3 — Fwiw, Vicki, I didn’t say we discredited the Bible. I just said, I don’t think there is any reason to simply assume that the Biblical writers are always right.
Finally, who indeed am I to contend with God? But who said in the first place that the idea of the inerrancy of the Scripture was God’s? To me, it seems stupid to keep believing in a doctrine that is obviously wrong.
I’m going to write this out a bit more thoroughly when I get the time, but your position, as lucidly as presented, is vulnerable to a facile reductio ad abusrdum, which is that we have no place to draw the line and cannot tell those who deny the bodily resurrection, or the Trinity, or the Incarnation, or the deity, or humanity, what have you, that they are being heretical. That’s a potential problem. I think it was Warwick Montgomery who pointed out that inerrancy can never be displaced, only relocated. In this case, relocated into the hands of post-moderns.
Oh, and Vicki, if us philosophers ever did get a grip on rationality, we quite patently wouldn’t become atheists.
Contrary to Luke’s opinion, I don’t think this position is argued very well.
You say: “Logically, however, the rightness of something must come from outside it.”
How is that? Can you explain this? You’ve got the assertion but no identifiable support. How do you know you’re alive? Because you pinch yourself and feel it? But you can’t trust your senses — they’re your own (potentially fallible) system of perception. Get someone else to pinch you, then. Ah, but it’s still your senses seeing them pinch you and feeling them pinch you. What if your senses are wrong? What if you’re not reading this? What if I’m not writing this?
Prove to me that logic exists — without using logic.
The core tenet of Christianity is Belief. Not proof. God could have designed a logically provable religion, but He did not. Believe in Jesus, and you will be saved.
Christianity is not “If premise #1, and also if premise #2, then — WHAMMO! — I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.
More importantly, you call upon rational argument to make your claim of Scriptural fallibility — but retain adherence to the principles of the Gospel. On what grounds? John 3:16 came out unscathed? That part these human writers got right? Well, at the end of the day, we can at least celebrate that the good parts of the Bible (the part about Jesus dying for us and the parts about God’s Grace) are true, and that’s what counts, right?
Wrong.
If you honestly believe the Scriptures are fallible, then you have no basis on which to claim any Scriptural authority — even the core of the Gospel.
A syllogism might do well here:
Premise #1 (yours): Scripture is fallible.
Premise #2: The Gospel (John 3:16) is Scripture.
Conclusion: The Gospel is fallible.
So much for Christianity.
As non-tidy as it is, you have to believe in Jesus. You have to believe in the Bible. You have to believe in Scriptural infallibility. Yes, these are beliefs, from an outside perspective. But these are necessary beliefs; in other words, the entire viability of the Gospel hinges on these beliefs.
Scripture is indeed “God-breathed.” Subsequent translations are prone to error, most certainly. Not the original, though. “God-breathed” means God wrote it. God. A few blokes penciled it down (in the physical sense), but the Words were God’s.
So this is not a question of what is logically provable. This is rather a question of what is logically necessary, given belief in Christ. And Scriptural infallibility is a logical necessity.
Awesome, Nate.
and Awesome, Vick.
Philip, If God is in control as the Bible says, then of course he could arrange the men determining the canon. The men were not deciding the canon based on their own, they were considering the Word of God by the Holy Spirit, so of Course God would lead them to decide the true canon. It was not Augustine of hippo, it was God guiding Augustine and Athanasius to pick the right choice. It was God leading redemptive history.
If Scripture is fallible, God is not in control, because God says it’s infallible so the only way for it to be fallible is for God to not be in control of the events of history to make Canon and the translators not translate the Bible in truth.
Besides, once you start going down that path, where do you draw the line? Homosexuality is ok, because Paul was just writing in reaction the Roman emperors. Women isn’t inferior to man because after all, Moses wasn’t there when man was created and there are two different stories about it and one is more right then the other. Christ wasn’t human because the translators didn’t translate this one passage the way the Greek could be translated.
Yeah. If you say that the scriptures are in fallible, everything comes up to question.
And, basically, I agree with everything Nate and Vick said. Bravi!
Philip, my mom says you’re defining terms differently. I assume she meant fallibility. How do you define it. The same way we seem to be?
Nate — Logically, the evidence of the rightness of something must come from outside it, and I quote Jesus on this point: if a man bears witness about himself, he is not believed. It’s a basic tenet of logic.
Second, yes, I agree the core tenet of Christianity is belief. But if you notice, none of the people whom Christ converted just believed without evidence. First, he showed them a miracle, or explained the ways in which he fulfilled the Messiah-ship. AFTER he did that, they believed. And followed him loyally to the end, believing in whatever he said after that. So really, there has to be some inducement to make that leap of faith.
Thirdly, with all your talk about the final effect of my argument, you have actually sidestepped the whole thing. From what logical evidence are you suggesting that the Scripture could be infallible? Yes, I believe that Scripture is fallible. But when we talk about Thucydides being fallible, we do not really mean we disbelieve him. We sure do believe him.
Fourthly — a quick reminder about what Paul referred to would be appropriate. Scripture may be God-breathed. However, at that time, as you will recall, the New Testament was not considered precisely Scripture. Go figure.
Erin — Yes, he could control the canon’s formation. Could, however, is so different from “Did” that it’s not funny.
Second, who says that God says that it’s infallible? The press? Scripture? If so, I’ve explained already: a man cannot bear witness about itself; Scripture cannot bear witness about itself.
Thirdly, I admit — bad people will use this the way they want, just like bad people already do. That doesn’t prevent good, honest people from puzzling out God’s will for them.
Finally, I define fallibility, briefly, simply as “non inerrancy”, or, “the possibility of erring”.
[...] responding here to Mr. Hilton’s post arguing for the fallibility of Scripture. It was, in my humble opinion, a very good post. The [...]