Yes, I agree that the word ‘inerrancy’ is perhaps more often than not understood in a somewhat misleading way. The world is different now than it was during the Patristic age and words used during the Patristic age do not necessarily mean the same as when someone uses them today. Better to use words that will not cause as much misunderstanding and are understood by modern people.
2 Likes
Maybe you should have attached a longer quote from Kelly’s book. Parts of pages 63-64 are quoted below:
In general, however, while influenced by Philo’s conceptions and freely likening the Scriptural writers to instruments, the orthodox tradition was careful to avoid the implication that their role was purely passive. Hippolytus, for example, explains that when the Word moves the prophets, the effect was to clarify their vision and instruct their understanding; and Origen, rejecting all comparison between the inspired authors and the ecstatic oracles of paganism, suggests that the Spirit’s function was to cause the former to apprehend divine truth more clearly without in any way suspending their free will. …
Unfortunately few, if any, of the fathers seem to have tried to probe the deeper problems raised by the doctrine of inspiration. With one or two exceptions we look in vain for any positive, constructive account …
[a comment: the exceptions are Augustine and Theodore of Mopsuestia]
As far as I understand, Philo valued Greek philosophy (the ‘science’ of that time) and tried to find links between the philosophy of Greeks, and the Hebrew teaching and tradition. In the OT, there are stories about prophets that experienced some sort of ecstasy when ‘the Spirit of God rushed upon’ them (1 Samuel 10). The interpretations of Philo may have been colored by these stories and an apparent lack of understanding of what it was all about. That may have lead to comparisons of the old Hebrew scriptures and the religious practices in the Greek world.
For this reason, I am a bit cautious when reading any texts originating from the school of Alexandria, even those of widely accepted church fathers. The school of Alexandria followed the tracks of Philo in the admiration of Greek philosophy (especially Platon). Those church fathers may have been careful when repeating commonly accepted orthodox doctrines but outside of that limitation, their writings about souls etc. reflected Greek philosophy.
1 Like
Most modern theologians do not take these accounts as prophecies or any sort of words from God. They are clearly drum and dance ecstasy… There is no record of what was said so there is no prophetic value. David is not a “prophet” in the conventional usage.
Richard
2 Likes
Recently I read a verse that impressed upon me how interesting it would be to have a liberal theologian make a top ten list of the verses they know to be unequivocally true about God.
Psalm 22 (by David) certainly seems to be a recorded prophecy, but it may not have been viewed that way until after the Calvary. The delayed understanding may render it unconventional prophecy.
I have always seen the Psalms as a unique form. There is such a mixture of hymnody and other literature. There may well be some prophecy but one healing does not make me a healer.
Richard
In a similar vein, Augustine considered both the Hebrew scriptures and the Septuagint (Greek) translation of them to have been inspired. Where they disagreed in meaning, God clearly intended both meanings.
2 Likes
That is interesting–I never thought of it that way. Thanks. I’m not sure I’d be able to take it that way, though.
Scripture has a strong tendency to critique and correct itself. Maybe this guided his thinking. But if we follow that logic what is to stop us from considering every diverse biblical manuscript and every translation past, present and future as inspired by God?
Mark 1:41 NRSV: 41 Moved with pity,[a] Jesus[b] stretched out his hand and touched him and said to him, “I am willing. Be made clean!”
Mark 1:41 NIV: 41 Jesus was indignant.[a] He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”
A leper in the hands of an angry or compassionate Jesus? I don’t know, both correct at the same time? Both inspired by God? I’m not buying what Augustine is selling.
Vinnie
To me, much easier to accept that factual errors crept in, but God preserved his message despite them. An example might be Goliath’s height, as per Wikipedia:
Goliath’s height
David with the Head of Goliath, circa 1635, by Andrea Vaccaro
The oldest manuscripts, namely the Dead Sea Scrolls text of Samuel from the late 1st century BCE, the 1st-century CE historian Josephus, and the major Septuagint manuscripts, all give Goliath’s height as “four cubits and a span” (6 feet 9 inches or 2.06 metres), whereas the Masoretic Text has “six cubits and a span” (9 feet 9 inches or 2.97 metres).[11][12] Many scholars have suggested that the smaller number grew in the course of transmission (only a few have suggested the reverse, that an original larger number was reduced), possibly when a scribe’s eye was drawn to the number six in line 17:7.[13]
The irony to me, is that the common children’s version taught in church goes with the 9 ft 9 height, and by exaggerating his height to make the story more exciting and David’s victory more impressive, ultimately diminishes the message, as it makes it seem more like a made up fable.
1 Like
David is the Jewish equivellent of Robin Hood.His exploits get exagerated with age and telling. In Samuel we read Saul complaining that David is asigned 10,000 while he is only assigned 1,000. It is probable that the figures are more related to popularity than actual conquests. It would be in keeping for the size of Goliath to increase with telling. What mattered was that he was big.
Richard
1 Like
Obvious Biblical evidence of evolution, I’d say.
1 Like
Good question. As a Christian, I do believe the Bible is “Inspired” in the sense that it contains the actual teachings of God. But when it comes to inerrancy (which seems to be where the conflict between the discoveries of science and biblical trustworthiness appear), I wanted to know what the arguments were for it and why people believe it.
I use to hate the book of Job. It seemed the arguments of Job’s friends were repetitive. I also did not like God’s response to Job’s question. He begins by asking Job a question. Some creation kind of questions. Of course Job is humbled and covers his mouth. I now really like this book. By the way, some of the most beautiful poetry of nature can be found in Job.
The beauty of inerrancy lies in greater trust in God’s word. The smarter we are, the less likely we are to question ourselves. The lower we sink, the more we are likely to question ourselves. I could be wrong in this.
I use to question the Bible a lot, especially before I read it. Now, 30 years in reading it I am amazed at the things I doubted and did not understand. Just, two last points. The most important is Jesus view of the scripture.
Years ago I was hiking in a national park and a ranger and I were there just at sunrise. She asked me about some difficult religious areas and I struggled with answering them. Later, I thought of Jesus and how he would have answered, but even more what he says about scripture. I ended up doing a study years ago which I have never regretted doing. Here are some verses of Jesus on scripture.
Mt 21:42
Mt 22:29
Mt 22:35
Mt 22:41
Mt 26:56
Jn 5:39
Jn 5:47
Jn 10:35
Lk 4:4
Lk 16:17
Lk 24:27
I keep them with me in case I ever run into that lovely park ranger again. Any one of these quotes made me fall more in love with the Bible, and doubt my own wisdom.
There is a second lesser reason. I have had so many disappointing experiences with the clergy. Many prayers have gone up for them, but one pastor who has been my pastor (figuratively) has always been a good guide. He gave some talks on what was then called, The Downgrade Controversy.
I think large errors begin with small errors. Early on he gave a sermon, “The Importance of Sound Doctrine”. I’ve read each of his sermons from 1855 and am up to 1866. Each one is a gift and many are gems.
I don’t know if he has ever addressed ‘inerrancy’ but would be curious what he has to say.
Anyway some foolish thoughts. Thank you for responding to my question.
1 Like
His explicit justification is the story about the 70 independent translators miraculously producing the same translation.
Not my position so I’m not going to attempt to defend it. On the other hand, inerrant translators makes at least as much sense to me as inerrant autographs that we don’t possess. A bit negligent of God to have made the texts the vast majority of humans will never see inerrant rather than the texts they will read or hear.
Since I find his interpretations of the Old Testament to range from the strained to the ludicrous, I’m not in the market either.
I suspect the tendency of religions to generate holy books to be a product of a period in human history during which books were rare, difficult to produce, and accordingly highly valued. Anything written tended to be treated as authoritative (hence the close genetic relationship between ‘authority’ and ‘author’). Coupled with a general respect for old ideas and beliefs, this makes old books the natural place to locate sacred truth. Post-Enlightenment (whether in a modern or a postmodern frame of mind), they’re a tougher sell.
1 Like
Ha! Any objective relationship, ie. covenant, with God is a tough sell in this market. After that it’s merely a line drawing contest and I’m eager to see how it settles out in the end… I’m also confident the next philosophical epoch is going to make Kant look a little shortsighted.
I have heard that tentatively interpreted as “pity for the man, anger towards the fallenness of the world”.
2 Likes
That’s what I saw too. If the word choice is anger, it is understood with respect to the world, and if pity, then it is directed to the individual. Really interesting translation issue to dig into. I skimmed one article that got into the contextual and external factors that bear on the word choice and there’s a lot to learn there.
I would certainly be more inclined towards ~6’ 9" (given variation in cubit size, anywhere from 6’ 1" to 7’ 10" would be theoretically possible for 4.5 cubits), given that almost no one over 7’ 6" can or has been able to walk without leg braces of some sort.
And still, 6’ 6" to 6’ 9" is very impressive for a culture where the average adult male height is about 5’ 3". I also at one point calculated about how likely his height would be, assuming that the width of the height bell curve was about the same, but with the center shifted down a bit, and that he had good nutrition growing up, and it came out to be in the 1 in a few hundred thousand range (very vaguely), which is totally plausible to show up at some point in the region. For a somewhat humorous comparison (that I happen to have dozens of pictures of), this is what 6’ 6" and 5’ 1" next to each other looks like:
From that, it should be obvious why a muscular stocky 6’ 6" to 6’ 9" would be frightening to your average soldier; or even to Saul, who might have been 5’10" to 6’ 2", say, and thinner.
1 Like