gstafleu

The idea of some xians that the bible is inerrant is a strange one, because it leads to so much fun and games for the rest of us.

Even at a superficial glance the bible is full of contradictions. Dealing with that as the result of fallible humans trying to interpret the deity's will makes sense, dealing with it as if the mass of contradictions is the deity's will just sets you up for ridicule. So why do it?

What I'd like to ask the learned participants of this forum is hence the following: is it known when the idea of inerrancy first popped up? Perhaps from that we can come up with some sort of reasoning as to why people thought it was a good idea at the time.

Was it for example something Constantine's crowd developed so that they could browbeat the other heretics into there camp? I suppose that would make some sort of sense, as long as the herd of believers could be kept at a safe distance from the contradictions. Which might explain why the bible for a long time was allowed in Latin only.

Or possibly inerrancy only arrived with the age of reason? As has been pointed out in other threads, the development of scientific reasoning was quite a sea change in the culture's mode of thinking. Perhaps before enlightenment (in)errancy was not really an issue?

Anyway, I'd be interested to know who set up xianity when for the shooting-fish-in-a-barrel situation that inerrancy has created.

Atheos

I think that the concept inerrancy may have originated long before christianity. Pious Jews venerated their scriptures and took great pains to ensure the integrity of the copying process. I believe that for the most part monotheists have always believed that any message coming directly from their god was, by definition, "perfect".

The real question is, "which messages came directly from god"? With lots and lots of candidates it was up to certain people, generally of wealth, power and influence, to arbitrate which documents to canonize and which ones to toss.

Specific to christianity, whoever wrote II Timothy 3:16 made the claim "pasa graphe theopneustos" (All scripture is god-breathed). Assuming a perfect, non-lying god, by extension this claim alleges inerrancy for anything that is "scripture".

-Atheos

gregor

Let me posit another option (albeit with no research on my part).

I seem to recall Crossan stating in the PBS production "From Jesus to Christ" and others in difference venues affirming the notion that while the Catholic Church might have established orthodoxy in terms of theology, that Biblical inerrancy was not a big deal until the 19th(?) century. I think the statement was that conflicts in texts (e.g. the Easter appearances) didn't bother people who didn't feel the need to explain gospel differences.

Atheos

That's certainly a worthy point. I guess what I was opining, as it certainly didn't come from rigorous research, is that inerrancy was more or less 'assumed' by religious folks for many years.

But there certainly would have been a point at which the dogma that "The bible, properly interpreted, is without contradiction or error" became a basic creed. The Nicene creed only specified that they believed in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as well as one baptism for remission of sins.

An interesting page that references this subject is at http://www.ancient-future.net/bible.html. An exerpt from it says the following:
-Atheos

RED DAVE

This is religious trivia I picked up somewhere, but I remember reading that the modern doctrine of inerrancy arose with the Plymouth Brethren, in England, and that they spread the infection to this country.

By the way, Aleister Crowley apparently came out of a Plymouth Brethren family, which figures.

RED DAVE

Atheos

Again, looking into the matter further, and from a "christian" perspective, I was reading an article by James Dawson, wherein he wrote:
That's a mighty bold statement to make. There just aren't many "universal creeds" in christianity, and there are those who believe that god talks directly to them without need for "the bible".

He also writes...
This tendency to turn a blind eye to the hypocrisy involved in this kind of "scholarship" never ceases to amuse me. "It's okay if we do it because we're right". Following our supposition of truth -- in other words, we're never going to consider the possibility that the bible could be wrong, but we're still being scholarly about it. This selective choosing of truth is the exact opposite of scholarship and research, and should be insulting to anyone wishing to persue TRUTH.

To put this kind of scholarship in perspective consider this illustration: Let's say I went to a doctor because I was sick. The doctor then puts on a blindfold, sits on a piano stool with a dart in his hand, spins himself around, then while spinning he throws the dart at a random wall in his office. When the dart lands he gets off the stool, removes the blindfold and locates the dart. Thousands of diseases are listed on the walls of his office. His dart lands on one. He proceeds to diagnose my illness by ignoring any symptom I have that would suggest I have any other problem than the one the dart landed on. Similarly, he places great emphasis on any symptom I have that might suggest that particular illness. Eventually he proudly proclaims that he has determined that I have that disease.

Is it so difficult for inerrantists to see that they're doing the exact same thing in the name of scholarship in this area? Like other "holy" books, the ancient writings canonized in the Judaeo Christian bible are riddled with absurdities, contradictions, outright errors and even lies. It is impossible to obtain any other conclusion from purely objective scholarly analysis. One can only come to another conclusion by this method:
I also find it ingratiating that the writer leaves no "middle ground" for objective scholarship. Either they're claiming to be "omniscient" about the bible or they don't know anything about it.
He seems to be arguing that if a contradiction exists for which we don't have a reasonable answer it doesn't mean such an answer doesn't exist. We still assume the answer exists and anyone who disagrees with that is claiming to know everything. That's just unmitigated bullshit in my opinion. If the contradiction appears real, there's no known solution to it and smart people have tried to find one for over 1,700 years it's pretty safe to take the position that there is a contradiction. It's the assumption that the contradiction doesn't exist that is hindering the discovery of truth.

Is this horse dead yet? :wave:

-Atheos

Roger Pearse

It's always a good sign when specific references are given (and vice versa).
This quote is from Holmes' translation.

Evans' translation of book 4:

"It matters not that the arrangement of their narratives varies, so long as there is agreement on the essentials of the faith—and on these they show no agreement with Marcion."

"Viderit enim si narrationum dispositio variavit, dummodo de capite fidei conveniat, de quo cum Marcione non convenit." (Latin of IV:2.2).

English text here.

I think that it would be unwise to oppose the testimony of the fathers to a modern definition of inerrancy; both intend the same, and neither would regard their own formulations as matters of creed.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

gstafleu

So do I understand correctly that you are sayng that both the concept of inerrancy of the church fathers and the modern one is something like "the information in the bible is correct except when..." I think that is what Tertullian is saying. He is leaving leaway for human fallibility in the transcription. Weasel room as well, probably. After all, what falls under capite fidei? Whether Jesus was born <4BC under Herod or 6CE under Qurinius apparently doesn't come under that heading.

So is my impression that many xians today have a much stronger interpretation of inerrancy wrong? Could be. But then why is it a subject that receives so much attention? It even has its own web site! Is that just a response to what is essentially a straw man: a non-existing concept of strong inerrancy?

Dargo

Was it that late? I would have thought that 18th century Christians would have gotten highly offended when freethinkers started pointing out the numerous errors in their precious scriptures. Maybe they simply declared all critics to be liars and ignored their arguements at first.

Johnny Skeptic

Just to make sure, Roger, you are not an inerrantist, right? If you aren't an inerrantist, how do you choose which parts are inerrant? How about the Bible's comments on homosexuality?