Upon immersing myself in a new found joy of NT scholarship, in particular the Synoptic Problem, I cant but help notice one thing - the way scholars would describe the texts makes feel that the infallibilty of the scriptures are totally ignored.
For example, in trying to demonstrate Matthew and Luke used Mark in the Triple Traditions, scholars appeal to evidence called “Editorial Fatigue”, I assume readers know what I mean, yet I will explain it, when copying from Mark, the redactor makes errors that results from the repetiveness of the task, specific quotations will not be mentioned here though.
How does this reflect on the inerrancy of the scriptures?
I hope someone can answer the Editorial Fatigue question in specific as well.
Re: NT Scholarship and inerrancy
Do you mean inerrancy or infallibility? There’s a world of difference. I don’t think that textual criticism causes too much trouble for the doctrine of infallibility (I hold to a fairly loose version of infallibililty anyway) but of course it will play havoc with inerrancy.
Heck, even the realisation that the Scriptures were given to fallible human beings and transmitted through particular cultural and social contexts will pay havoc with inerrancy.
But inerrancy is a very modern concept anyway.
Re: NT Scholarship and inerrancy
Yes, perhaps a good way to go forward on this question would be to define these terms and decide if/when we would want to use them. Has this been done here before? I can’t find a simple link…
Re: NT Scholarship and inerrancy
Hi Arkanis. As I understand it, you deplore the fact that scholars who work at understanding the origins of the Gospels do not assume scriptural inerrancy or infallibility. I do not see this as a problem.
There are times, granted, where ‘scholars’ come up with all sorts of hypotheses of origins on the basis, not of conflicting manuscripts, but on the sheer stylistic variations of the text (and here I am thinking more of certain Pauline epistles, rather than the Synoptics…). In situations such as these, theological insight (and this is not the same as the doctrine of infallibility) may be necessary to acheive the most coherent solution (see Tom Wright’s comments in ‘Paul’).
Most of the time however, the value of Scripture becomes apparent a posteriori. That is, a doctrine which would require us to posit something about the text we are studying before we even study it is an obstacle to understanding, not an aid. Andrew and others have commented elsewhere that inerrancy and infallibility sometimes have this effect (where the doctrine comes into conflict with the history of a certain manuscript, for example). Whatever is true about Scripture is true about Scripture, regardless of what we posit about it. What this means is that it may be best for certain types of scholarly research to ignore ‘inerrancy’ or ‘infallibility’, since it might impair their conclusion-drawing process.
Am I making sense?
Cheers,
-Daniel-
Re: NT Scholarship and inerrancy
Dear friends, I am terribly sorry for my mistake. I am aware (and was aware) that there is a radical difference, it was 2 am in the morning for me and, I just landed from a 9 hr flight without any sleep, and hardly recovered from my rest.
Anyway, I meant specifically inerrancy.
For example, in the narrative of Herod killing John.
Mark had the title King attributed to Herod.
This was a wrong title apparently, but was redacted by Matthew, and changed to Tetrarch.
Later in the verses, Matthew reverted back to King, supposedly because of editorial fatigue.
There are many instances of these, which i am sure can be found online.
It is not so much that the criticisms are bothering, or their method.
Now I know that my first post were indeed really confusing, upon seeing so many confused replies, particularily the last one, because I potrayed my sense of insecurity because of their methods, that I was worried about a “meta-Scripture” perspective.
However, what was really bothering me is all the errors that seems to be being exposed.
I will formally restate my question:
In NT scholarship, scholars as part of their methods, often exploits errors and inconsistencies within the text to find out what they want to find out. And this is what is bothering me, that there are so much errors and inconsistencies.
Again, I am terribly sorry for my inability to state a question well.
Re: NT Scholarship and inerrancy
Yes, there are inconsistencies. And this is only a problem if you have a doctrine of inerrancy. So now might be the time to wonder why, in the face of such inconsistencies, you still hold onto such a doctrine. :)
As I see it, inerrancy sets up the Bible to be something it isn’t and doesn’t claim to be. I wrote some long thoughts about this on my blog some time ago. I’d be interested in any comments from people here about those.
Re: NT Scholarship and inerrancy
It is indeed important to define "error" and "inerrant." Depending on how these are defined, the Bible has none, a few (perhaps explained by textual corruption), or many; there are books that do little more than list and try to explain discrepancy after discrepancy.
Although I am open to the idea that there may be errors in the Bible, the truth is that most of the time alleged errors depend on a most ungenerous attitude toward the Bible. Referring to Herod as a king, for example, could be considered an error, an anachronism, a euphemism or disphemism, or historical fact. To just label it an error is akin, in my thinking, to calling the meteorologist in error in reporting the time of sunrise and sunset tomorrow, when modern science has discovered that the sun actually neither sets nor rises—it is the earth that rotates and revolves around the sun.
Other times discrepancies in quotations are reported as error, when a different standard of writing or attribution may be applied by different cultures. How much of an error is it if one Bible quotes Jesus as saying "yes," another "uh-huh," and yet another just says "Jesus nodded"—especially since the gospels are written in Greek while Jesus was likely speaking in Aramaic.
In the same way there are different conventions for rounding numbers or measuring time, political boundaries change over time, and vocabularies shift. At the end of the day, I ask myself if such issues could be the best explanation for an apparant discrepancy (and I don’t always answer "yes").
At any rate, I’m content to let the Bible be attacked by some and defended by others, hopefully in an open forum (such as the academy) where all of us can weigh the evidence and judge for ourselves. One goal Christians at their best and secular scholars at their best share is to know the truth about why biblical writers wrote what they wrote (just as one goal other Christians and scholars share is to force everyone else to accept their own version of events).