Category Archives: Scripture

The Life Wars (part V): Exodus 21:22 – 23, An English Translation of this Text Supports Abortion?

04 Monday Jul 2022

Posted by in Abortion, Biblical Interpretation, Difficult Texts, Inerrancy, Infallibility, Scripture

≈ Comments Off on The Life Wars (part V): Exodus 21:22 – 23, An English Translation of this Text Supports Abortion?

Tags

, , , , ,

Exodus 21:22 – 23 bears on the abortion discussion. What happens when an unclear version of an Old Testament text is used in preference to clear versions? In a word, bias happens. Being biased of course is an inescapable part of being human; the contention here is that using a hugely unclear version represents abject bias. That bias comes through any translation from Greek into English by the translators is unsurprising and simply a necessary part of a translator’s task. Some might even argue that the incorporation of certain human ‘bias elements’ is part of the Spirit of God’s good intent, similar to how the humanity of Jesus was incorporated and united to divinity. In this Exodus text, there is abject bias that directly influences the abortion debate born out of the New Revised Standard Version’s translation. Framing this is the first task; the second task is to investigate the organization responsible for this translation. Can it be the case that abject bias is driven by modern issues, using those issues to decide how to translate an OT text?

The ancient Hebrew text, the Masoretic Text, comes through this way in English. The translation is mine, but I have been careful to let the text be overly wooded with little interpretive liberty taken:

“If men are fighting and they smite a pregnant woman and her child(ren) come out and no harm is, he {the man who struck the woman} will be fined a fine as what the husband of the woman sets, and he will give it according to the judges. If, however, harm occurred to the child(ren) then you shall give life in place of life . . ..”

Here is how the New Revised Standard Version translates this text:

“When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life . . .”

There is blatant logical incoherence in the NRSV’s translation. The miscarriage is harmful and yet a fine should be punishment for causing the miscarriage while at the same time the text calls for “life for life” as punishment. Which is it? Someone might protest that the harm considered here is concerning the mother and not the child — starting to be framed strikingly like a modern abortion discussion.  The first line of the NRSV deals with maximum harm to the child (= miscarriage, death), but the Hebrew Masoretic text’s first line tells us the opposite, that “no harm is” to the child.

 . . . so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows . . . (NRSV)

. . . and her child comes out and no harm is . . . (MT)

The difference in meaning is a canyon sized gap. The NRSV instructs that a monetary fine suffices as punishment, for covering the death of the child. The MT teaches that only if the child is born prematurely with no harm to him does a monetary fine suffice as punishment. How do other modern English translations render this text?

When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life . . . (ESV)

If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life . . . (NASB)

If men fight and hit a pregnant woman and her child is born prematurely, but there is no serious injury, he will surely be punished in accordance with what the woman’s husband demands of him, and he will pay what the court decides. But if there is serious injury, then you will given a life for a life . . . (NET)

When men get in a fight and hit a pregnant woman so that her children are born prematurely but there is no injury, the one who hit her must be fined as the woman’s husband demands from him, and he must pay according to judicial assessment. If there is an injury, then you must give life for life . . . (CSB)

If some men are fighting and hurt a pregnant woman so that she loses her child, but she is not injured in any other way, the one who hurt her is to be fined whatever amount the woman’s husband demands, subject to the approval of the judges. But if the woman herself is injured, the punishment shall be life for life . . . (GNB)

And if men fight and they injure a pregnant woman, and her children go out and there is not serious injury, he will surely be fined as the woman’s husband demands concerning him and as the judges determine. And if there is serious injury, you will give life in place of life . . . (LEB)

If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life . . . (NIV)

And when men strive, and have smitten a pregnant woman, and her children have come out, and there is no mischief, he is certainly fined, as the husband of the woman doth lay upon him, and he hath given through the judges; and if there is mischief, then thou hast given life for life . . . (Young’s Literal Interpretation)

More differences prevail than this between these two texts, but is there another ancient version of this text that the NRSV might be using for its translation? Yes, there is, and it is the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament (most scholars date it to around 200 B.C. to 0 A.D.).

“Now if to men fight and strike a woman being pregnant, and her child might come out not having been fully formed, he will be punished with a fine according to whatever the husband of the woman might set: he will give in accord with what is decided, but if the child has been fully formed, he will give life for in place of life . . .”

The italics show a verb, ἐξεικονίζομαι (exeikonizomai), used twice in this passage but never used anywhere else ever in Greek literature. This is known as a hapax legomena, a word only used in one context. Because of its lack of use, determining its meaning is notoriously difficult — I put in a meaning for the word pulled from Lexicon on the Septuagint. I will offer a bit of insight but preface this by saying I am engaging in conjecture: the word is a compound word, likely the combination of ek and eikon potentially having the meaning of “resembling a deviated semblance.” Neither I nor anyone else knows what this word means: that is the larger point. The meanings of words are built out of contexts and situations; if we do not have enough contexts or situations for the word’s usage, locking down a determinate meaning is impossible. If my suggested meaning for the verb is used, we come out with a translation very similar in meaning to the ancient Hebrew (MT) text.

“Now if two men fight and strike a woman being pregnant, and her child might come out not resembling a deviated semblance, he will be punished with a fine according to whatever the husband of the woman might set: he will give in accord with what is decided, but if the child resembles a deviated semblance, he will give life in place of life . . . (trans. mine, from LXX)”

The contention here is that the NRSV’s translation is evidence of abject bias. Two major supports demonstrate this: (1) the ancient Hebrew text is considered more ancient and thus more authentic than the Septuagint, and (2) why bother using the Septuagint text (LXX for short) when it has a hapax legomena in it, whose meaning is impossible to decide? The LXX could very well have the meaning I have crafted for it, but why would I bother dealing with a meaning of a verb I have to guess about when I could just use an abundantly clear text like the MT? The answer is that a person would do so because they have an agenda.

The NRSV’s abject bias is on display, translating Exodus 21:22 – 23 to support that a monetary fine is all that is needed to cover the death of a child still in the womb. As a translator myself, I am baffled why the NRSV translators would use an unclear text (the LXX) when they have the clarity of the MT. The MT clearly equates a human life in the womb as to that of one out of the womb. They are equally valuable. This resoundingly puts this Old Testament text on the side of the pro-life movement. The NRSV’s manner of translation this text diminishes the value of human life in the womb by making the penalty for the child’s death so light. God said earlier in the OT that “whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image (Gen. 9:6).” Although it is fitting to allege that the NRSV’s version of the text advances the idea that a “fetus in the womb is not yet fully human,” it would be going too far to say that the NRSV’s version solidly supports abortion. The text is about the inadvertent death of a child caused by the violence of men. The child’s death is accidental. Still, suspicion is appropriate about the NRSV’s agenda given the abject bias of the translation.

In closing, there are broader scriptural themes that the NRSV’s version breaks away from: the lex talionis (law of retribution) of the Old Testament Law would require “life for life,” blood requires blood as retribution (Gen. 9:6), and God’s knowledge of a person predates or accompanies his or her time being formed in the womb (Ps. 139). That abject bias can make its way into translation of the Bible is clear. Modern issues may just cloud the judgment of translators, and that include me too. The influence of bias can only be managed well by an admission of one’s own biases, and that biases are inescapably a part of every person. Much of the translator’s work is unambiguous; we can be certain about what God has said. For those situations like Exod. 21:22 – 23, God instituted the professions of pastors and teaching, or elders and theologians.

Dr. Scalise

Infallibility of Scripture: Thinking about Truth

01 Monday Dec 2014

Posted by in Infallibility, Scripture, Trinity, Truth

≈ Comments Off on Infallibility of Scripture: Thinking about Truth

Tags

, , ,

Continuing on from the last post on Origen’s views, what can we say about truth? There are three criteria by which to judge whether something is true or not: 1) does a statement match the facts, 2) does a statement cohere with a web of other known truths or person’s characteristics, and 3) does the statement produce the results which it promises? These there criteria are called, respectively, 1) correspondence theory of truth, 2) coherence theory of truth, and 3) pragmatic theory of truth. Most Enlightenment thinkers, or those of us today influenced by modernism, focus on 1) often to the exclusion of the other two. Postmodern thinkers will tend to focus on 2). Those involved in the physical sciences will frequently focus on 3). Most will think in terms of the old adage, “Just the facts,” concluding that if a statement does’t match what actually happened, then it isn’t true. If this is you, then please be aware that this is to reduce truth down to just one theory of truth. I can’t see any reason to opt for solely one theory; I prefer to see the truth as a tri-dimensional reality because of my belief in God the Trinity. Therefore, the truthfulness of some statement need not be judged merely according to 1), but, instead, I argue that we should be discerning to the context in which we hear a statement to judge it according to the emphasis on 1), 2), or 3) that the context suggests.

Imagine with me for the moment that you have done something inconsistent with your character, say lie, and your significant other knows that you are taking this inconsistency really hard. He/she might say to you in order to console you, “That wasn’t true to who are you; that wasn’t really you!” Notice here that this consolation uses 2) in opposition to 1). What you did was violate 1) by lying about some fact, but what your significant other is saying (assuming he/she is truthful in her statement) that you are not that action, appealing to 2), which says that your overall character, proven in many many actions, is what is true about you. I see no reason why 2) isn’t just as valid, if not more so, than 1). Basically, your significant other has tallied up your actions in the past and sees that as a cohesive set of truths that characterizes you, diminishing the potency of this one failure (lying).

Now this same type of process occurs all the time when someone speaks of someone else as “a good girl or gal.” Clearly, all have done some evil in their life; thus 2) is being used when the statement that someone is good is issued. These theories of truth pertain to the discussion about the infallibility of Scripture, especially the Gospels.

We get disturbed when 1) is violated because we are so prone to just assume that truth has only one emphasis, but this seems potently at odds with the fact that God is Trinity. We think this mainly because we understand that the original writer (John, Peter, Paul, or what have you) to have written just one manuscript in just one certain way, allowing for no variation by later leading by the Spirit. And if there is any doubt that the Spirit does lead different authors to describe the same event with various foci and presentation, look at the four Gospels, which describe many of the same events but with differences of focus and presentational order. Can the Spirit inspire different men to present the life of Christ (one life lived in a specific way) in differing fashions? The answer to this better be yes no matter who you are if a viable theory of inspiration is going to be able to be maintained. Notice, too, that the inspiration of the OT books requires an original speaking or writing with later adaptation to those original speaking events or writing. Most of the Prophets, for instance, are giving oracles, not writing Books as we have those today that bear their names. Are the prophets responsible for writing down their own sermons? Maybe, but who can say. In the Pentateuch, the first five books of the OT, the reference is made, “from Dan to Beersheba,” before Israel settles those lands and gives those names to those places. Clearly, a later editor has written in these names that could not be known to the original human author at that time, unless of course we just claim that God imparted knowledge to the writer to know those places and what the names of those places represent. This is too easy, however, and goes against the non-prophetic nature of those passages of Scripture (violating the context). Sure, we can claim God just told them, but this does little to satisfy the mind’s desire for an understandable and explainable theory of OT inspiration. Instead, we should formulate a theory of OT inspiration that is “gritty,” so to speak,” that accounts for the human process of knowing things, that is, through partial knowledge growing ever more complete. Such a theory will emphasize the preservational work of the Spirit as much as His original inspiring of the OT books. Moreover, we humans use the tri-dimensional emphases about truth noted above, so shouldn’t we see all three of those emphases in books written by men? Moreover, since God is Trinity, there is a place for such differing emphasis in understanding truth since God the Father is the truth, God the Son is the truth, and God the Spirit is the truth, although Each emphasize difference aspects of God who is the Truth. I’ve offered enough to think on here.

Til next time, Dr. Scalise

Infallibility of Scripture: The Church Father Origen’s Thoughts

30 Sunday Nov 2014

Posted by in Infallibility, inspiration, Origen, Scripture

≈ Comments Off on Infallibility of Scripture: The Church Father Origen’s Thoughts

Tags

, , , ,

Continuing on with this discussion about infallibility, inerrancy, and inspiration, Origen has a bit to say about this. Although some of Origen’s theology and perhaps interpretive principles are less than applaudable, his work as a textual critic and biblical scholar is of highest praise. He worked from the late 2nd century A.D. to the mid 3rd century (roughly 185 – 250), and other immeasurably important Church Fathers admired Origen in respect to his great learning and copious understanding of biblical manuscripts and scribal practice of copying: Jerome, Athanasius, and Gregory Nazianzen are known to laud Origen at one place or another in this way. Origen may be best known for his Hexapla, a six column (or seven some speculate) Old Testament, laying out the various versions of the OT in Hebrew and Greek. The first column had Hebrew, the second was a transliteration of the Hebrew in Greek, the third and fourth were of Greek translations of the OT by two prominent Jews (and maybe one was a Christian), the 5th was the LXX (the early Church’s most respected version of the OT), and the 6th was another translation from Hebrew into Greek that was similar to the LXX. Origen certainly knew if there were textual variations among these, and he had the learning to speak about these things with authority, having spent twenty-seven years of his life creating the Hexapla.

Origen speaks about textual variations in detail in a letter he writes to Africanus. He writes, “But why should I enumerate all the instances I collected with so much labour, to prove that the difference between our copies and those of the Jews did not escape me? In Jeremiah I noticed many instances, and indeed in that book I found much transposition and variation in the readings of the prophecies. . . . And, forsooth [truly], when we notice such things, we are forthwith [immediately] to reject as spurious [counterfeit] the copies in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them, and to coax the Jews . . . to give us copies which shall be untampered with, and free from forgery [Origen is being sarcastic here]! Are we to suppose that that Providence which in the sacred Scriptures has ministered to the edification of all the Churches of Christ had no thought for those bought with a price, for whom Christ died. . .” (Letter to Africanus sec. 4, cf. 2 – 5; Origen, First Principles 4.1.15, 27).

This should strike us as an odd way to argue since Origen is not put off by the variations and admits their existence. He didn’t see the variations as an obstacle but as further evidence for Scripture’s inspiration, as seen in his phrase, “sacred Scripture.” He is calling the early church’s Scripture, which he admits has differences from the Scripture as kept by the Jews, “sacred” which means he understands the variations to be within the Spirit’s providential work of leading the Church. He took the slight differences in the manuscripts as part of God the Spirit’s inspiration because the slight changes allowed for more edification of the Church. To this Church Father, inerrancy would be a denial of this way of understanding inspiration — and he was writing in the 2nd century (around 240 AD) — since the variations, as he understood it, were part of God’s plan and God the Spirit’s preserving work. I do not recommend this way of understanding these matters, but I note Origen’s position because of his excellent scholarship and for the sake of laying out many options for us to consider. Origen effectively reverses the issue: the inclusion of variation among the manuscripts was evidence of God the Spirit’s activity, not His absence. We usually think the opposite, that the more variation, the less likely it is that God the Spirit is present in overseeing the copies of the manuscripts. This is a shocking change up for sure!

Dr. Scalise

Infallibility of Scripture: The Slippery Slope Fallacy

29 Saturday Nov 2014

Posted by in Infallibility, Scripture

≈ Comments Off on Infallibility of Scripture: The Slippery Slope Fallacy

Tags

,

Many think that if inerrancy is abandoned, then it is a slippery slope leading to the abandonment of the Bible altogether. The painful lack of training in logic is evident in our culture because there is a logical fallacy named “the slippery slope fallacy.” The logical conclusion, if there are errors in the Bible, would be to doubt just those texts or verses that are in question, not all of the Bible. And we would doubt to the extent of the magnitude of questionableness of the errors. For instance, John’s name in Greek in the NT is ἰωαννην, but some manuscripts make the so-called error of spelling it this way: ἰωανην. So there is only one “n” rather than two (a “v” in Greek is an “n” in English); this of course changes the meaning in no way.

Further, our understanding of “perfection” should be vetted in light of what we see in Jesus Himself. God made man, Jesus, took on the limitations of being a creature as Scripture teaches: “Therefore, He had to be made like His brothers in every respect . . .” (Hebrews 2:17; also cf. Phil 2:6 ff., Jn. 1:14). Being human means to be limited although in Jesus’ case it was only for a limited time and during those times that He was not led by the Spirit to use His divine capacities. To be human, however, means to be open to the travels of that limited capacity: Jesus got hungry, thirsty, and ultimately killed — God in heaven cannot die but God made man can. God is perfect, which means to be whole and self-sufficient, but God made man, Jesus, was dependent on food for a time: He “was made . . . a little lower than the angels” (Heb. 2:9). It would be blasphemy to say that Jesus was sinful or lacking His divinity in any way during His incarnation in this world, so I want to be clear that I do not mean this. His divinity is seen through His temporary limitation as a human, not in spite of Jesus’ humanity. The transfiguration (Mt. 17:2 ff.) is a case of the divinity shining through Jesus’ humanity while the rest of the time we have to see through His humanity to His divinity. Scripture itself teaches that “he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering” (Heb. 2:10). And again, “Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him . . .” (Heb. 5:8 – 9). We can be sure that it was the humanity of Jesus that was made perfect through His divinity working in and through it; the divinity has no need of perfection as it is the standard of all perfection itself. Some might be perplexed why I have spent this time on Jesus; I have done so because Jesus is a case of the divine and human united as is the case, more or less, with Scripture: God working through humanity to produce it. If Jesus, while human, had needs, being made lower than angels, and perfecting the humanity His divinity was united to, then what type of “perfection” should we attribute to Scripture that is the outcome of God using sinful men, unlike the sinless man, Christ? I am not prepared to offer a statement on this; indeed, this seems to be a lifelong goal in answering such a question, and better theologians them me have forged more than one path towards answering this complex issue. We nevertheless must consider how we should or should not understand the word “perfection.” This deserves arduous attention.

Dr. Scalise

Infallibility of Scripture: The Conflict between the 21st Century and the 1st Century

29 Saturday Nov 2014

Posted by in Anachronism, God Speaks, Infallibility, Scripture

≈ Comments Off on Infallibility of Scripture: The Conflict between the 21st Century and the 1st Century

Tags

, , ,

It has been said many times that we cannot impose our scientific concerns and methods on ancient persons, those who penned Scripture. I second this. It is anachronistic, arrogant, and lacks thoughtful sensitivity. The concerns and ways of our time (Greek: chronos) cannot be teleported back in time and imposed on ancient persons, and then, triumphantly find them deficient by our standards: this is being anachronistic, which word comes from two Greek words, ana (up) and chronos (time), taking our concerns that arose well downstream in history and placing those upstream in history. At this point, at least one person wants to object, “But God is the author, so he should be accurate!” This does nothing to what I have said, however: instead, what we see is our imposing 21st century standards on God Himself, ” . . . so He should be accurate like we are in this scientific 21st century.” God was speaking to people living in the bronze, iron, and classical ages, not to Enlightenment and Post-Enlightenment individuals. The concerns and methods of our age do not become the standards by which we judge what was important to all other ages: this is blatant hubris that has forgotten its own limited and temporal situation: the flower fades and the grass falls. The next generation full of pride will be along soon enough to speak about all of us as antiquated, infantile primates. The question is, do I want to be the current generation full of pride like this? Why do I say this lacks thoughtful sensitivity? I do so because we are after, if we are open inquirers, how God has spoken to humans at certain points in history. An important point to remember is that just because something is conceivable doesn’t mean that it is possible; many people confuse this. Therefore, just because it is conceivable that God could speak to iron age people with 21st century language, thought-modes, conceptualizations, concerns, and scientific frameworks, doesn’t mean it is possible. For God to communicate in such radically different language and developed knowledge (or undeveloped in some ways) demands us to ask the question of whether or not this would really communicate, or if it would just be God speaking at those iron age people without any real communication occurring. Communication, it must be remembered, always involves two persons: hence the “co-” on the front of “communication.” Someone might equally object: “God could teach them.” This is conceivable, but if it is possible is a real question. If God is interested in loving well, and have us freely love Him — as I believe — it may not be possible for God to “teach” man in this way since He would have to reveal Himself to such an extent that man’s freedom to choose love would no longer be an option. If God is too evident, the choice for God becomes one of survival, not love: of biological fitness, not moral desire. For instance, the laws of nature are evident, too evident certainly if I just off a 20 story building. It is not a moral desire in heart-felt devotion to choose to abide by the law of gravity; it is a choice aiming at my continuing biological fitness. Thus, I think having a thoughtful sensitivity to such matters as these requires openness, patience, humility, and endurance in pursuit of satisfactory answers, rather than that cliché dribble so frequently propagated, whether for or against wanting God to speak in 21st century language. We’ve all experience others trying to force their views on us, so let’s call this desire to impose our 21st century framework on all peoples at all times the “bigotry of temporalism.” If we impose our clearly passing frameworks of knowledge on all people at all times as though our way of thinking is absolute, we are the bigots who enforce our so-called superior views of the moment on all, as if God. This certainly is imperialistic: this forced submission of everyone to our present time’s way of seeing things. This point is yet another reason to know history; if we do not, we lock ourselves into slavery to the current moment’s way of framing things.

Dr. Scalise

Infallibility of Scripture: Distinguishing Infallibility from Inerrancy in an Example

29 Saturday Nov 2014

Posted by in Inerrancy, Infallibility, Scripture

≈ Comments Off on Infallibility of Scripture: Distinguishing Infallibility from Inerrancy in an Example

Tags

, , ,

Continuing from the last blog post on the long question asked there for me to answer:

If we hold to infallibility, then the question of inerrancy is avoided without much trouble. This position, in some of the ways it has been formulated, allows for some wiggle room; some would configure infallibility to mean that there could be errors in places in the texts that are not intending to teach something truthful and accurate. For instance, did Jesus just flip the tables in the Temple (Matt 21:12 ff.) or did He make a whip to drive everyone out (John 2:14 ff.) and flip the tables? If we hold to inerrancy, this may be problematic; if we hold to infallibility, in the way some configure it, then we simply say that our biblical author is more interested in presenting Jesus as an imposing and indignant figure than in reporting his precise actions. We still have the question at this point, “Is this a mistake or merely allowing for literary creativity of the biblical author?” The truthful and accurate point of the the Temple-cleansing narrative is that Jesus was intimidating and upset about how God’s house was being used, not about how precisely this played out. We must remember that deciding what is true or truthful has not always been judged in the same way. This is the point of studying the Greek literature during the time of writing of the NT; NT scholars have discussed the literature called ancient Graeco-Roman bios, or bioi. Bios is a Greek word during the time of the NT, and it means a “person’s manner of life,” or “life-style.” It is easy enough to see the common meaning between this Greek word’s meaning and our English word “Biography.” Looking at how historians around the time of the NT  handled reporting historical facts is important for understanding how they saw the world and how they went about reporting it. We trumpet accuracy today because of the marvels such scientific accuracy has given our world. Accuracy has allowed us to stop bleeding people to try to heal them and instead give them accurate antibiotics for their specific ailment. Accuracy made it possible to do math in such precision that man has walked on the moon. Of course, what we can’t forget is that scientific accuracy thought about in these ways is about what is produced from such accuracy; we deem accuracy “good” because it produced such incredible things. Science, however, is about observing impersonal realities that follow general laws that are relative to other influencing factors or laws. Bios and modern biography concern themselves with reporting a human life, which is personal and therefore volitional, active, and intelligent. Ask yourself this question: Have I even been accused of something that I did wrong, but it seems inaccurate without many other points that played into my action?” You might protest, “You have to consider this fact, and then there are all these little actions that had a cumulative effect that led to my actions!” Any husband and wife know about what I am mentioning here. Yes, I may wrong my wife, but when she gives me the opportunity to explain what led to it, I feel much better even if I still admit I committed the wrong. We all know that being human means being complex, and reporting one action accurately of a person apart from all other actions and influences around it makes us feel like an injustice has occurred. Hence, scientific accuracy is not a great method for reporting how humans act because humans cannot be reduced to impersonal entities like scientific laws and laboratory experiments.

Dr. Scalise

Infallibility of Scripture: Distinguishing Infallibility from Inerrancy

29 Saturday Nov 2014

Posted by in Inerrancy, Infallibility, Scripture

≈ Comments Off on Infallibility of Scripture: Distinguishing Infallibility from Inerrancy

Tags

, ,

The Question I was asked: “I know that the accuracy of the Bible far outweighs any other ancient text and that most of the errors are irrelevant to the meaning of Scripture, but it still bothers me that there are significant errors or uncertain additions (like the adulterous woman section). How many mistakes are there that we don’t know about? What does it say about God that He would allow mistakes in His Word? How are we to practically approach Scripture and its truth knowing our understanding must be checked against our own cultural biases, the historical context of the texts, and translation or copying errors? Overall, how can we ever know the Bible is infallible when our own understanding must clearly be fallible at some level?”

Here is a whole bunch of questions packaged as one, but these concerns are real and are often grouped like this. Please forgive the complexity of my response over the next few posts, but the sophistication of the question demands such. I originally wrote my response as one long essay, but it was entirely too long so you will have to read this response in parts to get at the whole. I have given specific subtitles that clarify what I am aiming at in each post, each subtitle under the broader domain of the title “Infallibility of Scripture.”

First, infallibility and inerrancy are not the same thing. Infallibility of Scripture is a stance that Scripture is accurate and truthful in all it intends to teach. Inerrancy is the position that there are no errors, i.e., no mistakes or misstatements, in the original documents — the original writings of Scriptural Books are called autographs. What is sometimes suppressed in these conversations is that we don’t have any autographs of the NT (or OT for that matter). Thus, inerrancy, as a confession found in many Universities, Churches, ParaChurch organizations, and Seminaries’ core values, is a statement of faith that cannot be proven or disproved in the sense of 100% accuracy either way. This does not mean that there isn’t a probability of inerrancy being true, or false; it just means that no one can say the original autographs are 100% certainly inerrant or errant. If someone does, he is prideful and a deceiver, at least at the current state of knowledge. It could be the case that we discover an original autograph, but that is not the case now; the earliest manuscript is just a fragment of the Book of St. John from sometime in the 120s AD (125 is typically agreed upon), only a few verses visible (John 18:31 – 33, 37 – 38). This manuscript is called the Rylands Papyri, which is written in shorthand as P52, the “P” standing for “Papyri” and the “52” refers to it being the 52nd Papyri cataloged. There has been some rumors of a 1st century manuscript of Mark that has been discovered, but it is being treated with a “hush-hush” attitude. We know little about it to date, but this discovery will be announced publicly soon enough. If it is corroborated by rigorous testing to be from the 1st century, then we will finally be able to say that we have a 1st century fragment of the NT. As the Church, we shouldn’t rush to use this evidence to support our faith claims about the Bible; we will be able to do this in time, but we must first wait, vet, and remain open about what each new discovered fragment or manuscript portends. Why shouldn’t we rush to do this? I think we show ourselves to be ideologues when we do so; an ideologue is a person who advances an agenda despite evidence or simply because of the agenda itself without concerns for other matters that could disconfirm that agenda. The best example of ideologues are political pundits, who will twist, use, or adopt just about anything to advance their ideas (hence, ideologues). Evidence and reason for ideologues are tools to be used to confirm their ideas, but evidence and reason are abandoned if or when it disconfirms ideologues’ ideas. The Church of the living God, however, is to be devoted to the truth, sincerity, and honesty; we cannot advance the agenda of the Church by misleading people about the textual evidence to date. What do we call people who intentionally mislead? The answer is not flattering.

Dr. Scalise