From: rhw@chaser.co.uk (RolandH.Watson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Inerrancy
Date: 16 Sep 92 03:34:22 GMT

May I chip in with my opinions on the matter of Biblical inerrancy.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I make a distinction between the
infallibility of the Bible and the inerrancy of it.

infallibility - the Bible cannot err when it speaks on matters pertaining
to faith and morals.

inerrancy - the Bible cannot err when it speaks on matters pertaining to
anything (science, history, geography).

If one believes in the providential preservation of scripture then the two
definitions apply not only to the autographs but to a certain subset of
copied manuscripts which some take to be the Textus Receptus and the Massoretic
Text.

If errors are claimed in e.g. the Authorised Version, they may be attributable 
to several possible causes:

1/ error in interpretation of the english text
2/ error in translation of the greek/hebrew text
3/ error in scribal transmission of the greek/hebrew text 
4/ error in penning of the autographical text
5/ error in translation of the aramaic to greek (e.g. some gospels)
6/ error in oral transmission

Most people would have no problems with 1 and 2. Option 3 is anathema to the
providential preservationists. Option 4 would rankle with even more Christians.
Options 5 and 6 are for those who hold to oral and aramaic gospels which formed
all or part of later greek renderings of certain gospels.

There seems to be much discussion on the theory but what about the practise? If
an error can be found beyond a reasonable doubt then inerrancy is disproved
beyond a reasonable doubt. May I take an example from Matthew 27:9.

Matthew 27:9

	"Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled:`They took
	 the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel
	 ...'"

Most commentators agree the quote is actually from Zechariah chapter 11:12-13
with a bit of paraphrase involved.

Using the six possible options above we come to different conclusions.

1/ error in interpretation of the english text:
   Several solutions are proposed:
   a/ Zechariah was also called Jeremiah.
   b/ Zechariah was quoting Jeremiah.
   c/ The Holy Spirit revealed to Matthew these previously unpublished
      words of Jeremiah.
   d/ Jeremiah often headed the roll of the prophets. So for "Jeremiah" read
     "the prophets".

   The first three are pure speculation with no proof that I am aware of. Anyone
   heard of the claim behind the fourth solution?

2/ error in translation of the greek/hebrew text
   Not applicable.

3/ error in scribal transmission of the greek/hebrew text 
   The only textual variant I know of is (I think) the Syriac Peshitta which 
   reads "the prophet" instead of "Jeremiah". But it is more likely that a
   Syrian scribe was indulging in textual harmonisation.

4/ error in penning of the autographical text
   If there are no textual variants then this is a distinct possiblity.

5/ error in translation of the aramaic to greek (e.g. some gospels)
   ??

6/ error in oral transmission
   ??

It seems more reasonable to take this to be an error penned somewhere along the
line. My Reformed forebears did not seem any more troubled than me about the
stark possibility of an error:

John Calvin:

	"How the name of Jeremiah crept in, I confess that I do not know, nor
	 do I give myself much trouble to inquire. The passage itself plainly
	 shows that the name of Jeremiah has been put down by mistake, instead
	 of Zechariah ..."


Matthew Henry:

	"How they are said to be spoken by Jeremiah is a difficult question;
	 but the credit of Christ's doctrine does not depend upon it; for that
	 proves itself perfectly divinely, though there should appear something
	 human as to small circumstances in the penmen of it ..."


I would also take the text of II Timothy 3:16-17 to prove errancy rather than
inerrancy.

II Timothy 3:16-17

	"All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,
	 correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God
	 may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

It seems to me here that Paul is declaring the scope of scripture - its useful
for these spiritual ends so that you may be a better Christian for it. This 
to me seems to exclude matters pertaining to the non-spiritual.

I think this is a defensible position that can be demonstarted from scripture.
I would take scripture therefore to be inerrant as far as it is infallible.
The Word of God has a much wider scope than the pages of the Bible and declares
itself also in creation and supremely in the Incarnation. I would also point
out that the Word of God in creation also displays errors (spherical aberration
of the eye, male nipples :) ). Whether the incarnate Word, the Lord Jesus 
Christ, spoke inerrantly on matters pertaining to history, science, etc., I 
would like to hear opinions on. I personally believe He did.


Yours in Christ,


Roland Watson (rhw@chaser.co.uk)