Should the word “inerrancy” be part of anyone's theology of Scripture?

[@mylord9340]

Wow. Excellent. Fascinating review of inerrancy!

[@jacobhawley8659]

So good, Dr. Doak. This is one of the factors in my move to Barthian Theology.

[@ReidPink]

I agree with all said but would add that the claim of inerrancy is also undermined by the fact that the authors of some Biblical texts have incompatible, irreconcilable views of God. There are multiple voices of God reflecting multiple schools of thought among the authors. One appears to be the product of human projections of a spirit of vengeance, whereas the other voice agrees with Jesus’ revelation of God’s mercy and forgiveness. These voices compete and attempt to refute one another, until the question is ultimately settled through the incarnation, ministry, passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus

[@briandoak]

Thoughtful response--you might be right, but I think what you call "incompatible" and "irreconcilable" I would call "different," and note that a broader theology of scripture could contain this difference within a larger category. Perhaps that sounds like sleight of hand, and engaging in the same circular process I criticized in the video here!? Where you end here, though, in the person of Jesus, is a point that I think all Christians must agree on.

[@ReidPink]

@@briandoak I agree that I may have overstated the case and there is a possibility that I’m missing a bigger picture, ironically even in my confidence that most approaches to biblical interpretation (especially in the circles of evangelicals or fundamentalists who tend to embrace concepts like inerrancy) are deficient in their christocentricity and therefore fail to grapple with the frequent descriptions of a very ostensibly un-Christlike God… and if they do recognize the dissonance, they often chalk it up to a different “dispensation”, and/or penal substitutionary atonement theory’s propitiation of the wrathful deity

[@billcook4768]

The Bible is 100% perfect and inerrant. Except when it’s not and we do some hand waiving.

[@RobJellyBean]

Nice analysis. Thankyou

[@briandoak]

Thank you!

[@ds61821]

Recent issues some of us are wrestling with include the unseen realm (so Michael Heiser). Walton dismisses as the reality of the unseen realm (divine council, et al) as not being affirmed but only referred to. That the Biblical writers believed in other gods (elohim) means that the existence of other gods is not being affirmed but only shared conceptual language for communicating what they really are affirming--only worship YHWH. That there is a line of conceptual worldview that affirms--though both testaments of the Bible--is what they authors seemed to have believed, but the Waltons think that we are not necessarily to believe what they. believe, unless they have *affirmed* such things.

[@briandoak]

Yes, I hear what you're saying

[@ds61821]

@@briandoak Interestingly too Walton said that the biblical writers were making *rhetorical* arguments and not syllogisms. He said rhetorical arguments use premises that don't have to be true (believed at the time to be true?) but only something that the audience would understand so as to persuade them to accept the message communicated (affirmation). So the conclusion that is communicated does not depend on the truth of the premises. Syllogisms on the hand require the truth of the premises for the conclusion to be true. One of our faculty members (U of Illinois) has his PhD in communication and rhetoric is his thing and told me Walton's characterization of rhetorical arguments was not helpful or useful. One would think that somehow the premises (references) should be believed by the Biblical author as true. I've met John Searle (Walton points to him for speech-act theory) and he's modern, so to speak.

[@kimberlyjahn2674]

Thanks Dr. Doak. 3 things. 1. I think Portland Seminary should require a Theology of Scripture class whereby we must write and defend our own ‘theory of the Case’... 2. the role of the Holy Spirit is such a problem =) 3. I think W&S’s section on The Role of the Holy Spirit on pages 288-289 is helpful, esp what they say about the role of the HS with the reader, in the perlocution.

[@briandoak]

Let's do it!!!! (I think there might be a "hermeneutics" type course which is kinda like this though?)

[@tiburd7]

1. “The Bible is inerrant, period.” …oops, we can see that’s not true; we need to do better. Therefore, 2. “The Bible is inerrant, except where it isn’t.” …oops, that doesn’t sound good; we need to do better. Therefore, 3. “The Bible is inerrant, when properly interpreted.” …oops, that sounds circular and ambiguous; we need to do better (especially since it’s admitted that our interpretations are imperfect). Therefore, 4. “The Bible is inerrant, when understood according to the intention of its original writers.” …but that’s just like #2 except with the additional unsupported assumption that the original writers knew more than we do (which we are progressively learning is not true in regard to increasing numbers of details and concepts). I don’t see any genuine progress in this sequence. How about, let’s just follow truth, wherever it comes from and wherever it leads?

[@briandoak]

You might be right; the challenge, as I think Walton sees it (in this book, and others who cling to "inerrancy" language) is to try to find the right key, the right mood, the right "love language," as it were, to elevate the Bible to some kind of very elevated place.

[@ds61821]

Is inerrancy a biblical concept or really only a modern notion anachronistically pressed onto the ancient texts? I've become suspicious of the illocution-locution-perlocution distinctions (modern speech-act theory) as being, well, modern. Walton in his recent book with his son on Demons and Spirits in biblical theology argues that only the affirmations and not the references count as "what the Bible affirms." They don't use the speech-act language in this latest book! But I think the affirmations connect to illocutions and references to the locutions. Btw, was Andrew Teeter at HDS when you studied there or were you gone by then (Teeter there 2008 to the present)? I mention Teeter as he has a different understanding of the Genesis locutions challenging the dome view.

[@briandoak]

Teeter was hired at HDS when I was finishing my exams and dissertation!

[@jonathansmiddy7224]

Mark 6:8 He ordered them to take nothing for their journey 👉 except a staff: no bread, no bag, no money in their belts, Luke 9:3 He said to them, “Take nothing for your journey: 👉 no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money-not even an extra tunic.

[@briandoak]

Totally, yes, things like this--this is the "locution," maybe, on Walton's terms, but the idea, to keep "inerrancy" on the table, in their view, is to read behind/beyond/through this sort of thing for the "illocution," the teaching (which is presumably something other than or larger than whether they bring a staff or a bag or whatever). I'm not trying to defend their view, but rather to explain what I think the solution is supposed to be, on their terms, to a problem like this.

[@michaelwright2986]

That's a good video, but I think it's a mistake to invoke "post-modernism" here. Speech-act theory is a product of the 1950s, as is the explanation of the fact that "authorial intention" is an extremely problematic notion. I suppose you can see these as the precursors of high post-modernism, but no philosopher is more comprehensible than J.L. Austin, and the New Critics speak to one's response to literature in the moment, as opposed to the increasingly abstract and obfuscated notions of the post-modernists (who seem to me to not actually like literature). I chuckled to see that conservative evangelicals, by the invocation of speech-act theory, are coming to terms with medieval allegorical interpretation, and liberal approaches to the Bible. I like the dictum of John Barton, Anglican priest and former professor of the interpretation of scripture: the Bible is not the word of God, but it is a witness to the word of God. In general, it seems to me that the doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture is like the doctrine of the infallibility (under very specific and restricted conditions) of the Pope: a search for certainty in a world of which we can not have certain knowledge.

[@BKNeifert]

The Bible's not inerrant--obviously--but it is a very accurate portrait of history and what actually happened. I usually tell people, it's being written at the exact times it's talking about, so its importance is in the fact that it's firsthand witness accounts of things like the Flood, Exodus and Jesus' life and ministry. Which is why it's important. Inerrant? No... but highly important because it gives us access to what people saw and God's interactions with the Hebrew People and the World, yes. Like, the Gospels are witness accounts, and the Torah is written by Moses. The evidence is overwhelming this is the case. Let's put it this way, scripture is a nuanced topic--considering what people are doing to it the past forever how long--but there's enough there to see the overarching meanings, as the core doctrines are all intact from its original. It's more important to extrapolate the Scripture's core meaning, than quibble about exact minutia, as Paul says quite prophetically, the letter kills but the Spirit gives life. In fact, I almost think the Bible itself has become an idol to many Christians. I think for the text to be useful in any way, is to have God's guidance in revealing to you the truth. Many Christians are in confusion about the basic basics, because they've elevated scripture to the status of God, and aren't actually familiar with the Religion as it was handed down through the Apostolic Faith.

[@billcook4768]

I would disagree that the evidence is overwhelming that Moses wrote the Torah. And even if he did, that’s far from being written at the time it happened for much of Genesis and the death of Moses.

[@BKNeifert]

@@billcook4768 You can disagree, but you'd be wrong. Everything about the Torah, shows it's written by someone of royal lineage of the 18th Egyptian Dynasty, so around 1300BC, including the Pattern of the Ark of the Covenant, the Language structure, and even Pi Ramses, which would have been the city the Jews were building, which appears at the exact time of the Exodus. And Genesis shows earlier source documents for the number of correct things it gets relating to the political and legal landscape of the years 2024-1950BC. Not to mention the story of Joseph relates to an actual phenomena in the Nile Delta.

[@tiburd7]

If the Torah was written by Moses, it must have been in Egyptian hieroglyphics, since the earliest archaeological evidence of written Hebrew, Paleo-Hebrew, or Aramaic was several hundred years after the time of Moses. Same goes for the stone tablets on the mountain.

[@BKNeifert]

@@tiburd7 Actually, no. The Wadi el hol is about from 1800bc, and that's in Egypt. And it's proto Canaanite script.

[@funnythat9956]

I thought the gospels were written well after the life of Jesus. Mark around 65 AD up to John 90 AD. Only the writer of John claims to be an eyewitness, the synpotic gospels do not claim this. Luke claims to have spoken to eyewitnesses. Paul claims to have spoken to eyewitnesses of the resurrection (I thought 1 Corinthians is dated to 55 AD; i.e., one of the earliest Christian writings). All of the gospels are anonymous; so we don't know who wrote them.