Space For Doubt

A few years ago my wife and I went on an Alaskan Cruise with her family. The company we went with, Norwegian Cruise Line, had all of the things you’d expect to be on a modern cruise ship. One of these, the gift shop, eventually became a rolling joke among us.

It started on day one or two, when I wound up needing something (Tylenol or Advil, I can’t remember) and none of us happened to have any. I knew the gift shop would have it and made a quick trip there only to discover that 12 caplets had an astronomical price tag. I don’t remember the exact amount now but I remember it was marked up heavily. (Like 500+% of the price you’d expect to pay in a grocery store)

Later that day I was just mindlessly reading some pamphlets that Norwegian Cruise Line left on the dining tables. One of these was emphasizing why you should shop with them (I.E. on their boat) vs going and buying stuff when at port. Their case? They were voted as “Best Value”…….by Norwegian Cruise Lines. Yes you read that correctly. They themselves voted that they were the best value compared to anywhere else. We all had a good laugh at that one.

This story popped back into my head recently when thinking of the concept of scriptural inerrancy. How can a thing be used to prove that very same thing is correct? That’s partially what is happening with the extra-biblical concept of inerrancy. Some people say, “See, the bible claims (It doesn’t) everything in it is true (It’s not). Just read 2 Timothy 3:16! (I did)“

Ah yes. The favorite verse people use (incorrectly) as a proof text for inerrancy. I covered this in a previous post, but cliff notes: It’s not doing what inerrantists think it’s doing here. That is not what it is saying.

Go and find me another example where the bible makes this claim about itself. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

There is some element of faith when it comes to the scriptures. Please understand I’m not denying that plays a part. However to just say that everything is inerrant and above reproach is also quite silly and quite easily disprovable.

I know I bang this drum a lot on this blog, but this is a point that deserves to be deeply seared into the minds of bible readers. Scriptural Inerrancy IS NOT A BIBLICAL CONCEPT. It was created by an unsure, desperate-for-certainty humanity, that had an agenda to push. This concept of inerrancy was developed long after the last scripture was written.

That being stated, then when and where did it show up?

That’s kind of a hard question to answer. Not because there is not an answer, but because inerrancy has been hinted at and alluded to at various points in history. It’s only until recently (post-reformation) that this idea was given teeth and authority, and became what we know it as today. Before this, inerrancy (by the vast majority) was not a concept ever considered true or applicable in the first place. It just wasn’t important or necessary to the faith.

“The first formulations of the doctrine of inerrancy were not established according to the authority of a council, creed, or church, until the post-Reformation period.” – Ronald Hendel – Professor of Hebrew Bible and Jewish Studies at University of California, Berkeley

“There have been long periods in the history of the church when biblical inerrancy has not been a critical question. It has in fact been noted that only in the last two centuries can we legitimately speak of a formal doctrine of inerrancy.” – Richard J. Coleman – A graduate of Johns Hopkins University and Princeton Theological Seminary

Not only was it not a “thing” until the post-reformation period, but it also only became a “thing” here, in the United States.

“The doctrine of inerrancy is more post-biblical, even modern. And it has been particularly influential among U.S. evangelicals, who often appeal to the doctrine of inerrancy in arguments against gender equality, social justice, critical race theory and other causes thought to violate the God’s infallible word.”

“The doctrine of inerrancy took shape during the 19th and 20th centuries in the United States. A statement crafted in 1978 by hundreds of evangelical leaders remains its fullest articulation. Known as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, the statement was a response to emerging “liberal” or nonliteral interpretations of the Bible. According to the statement, the Bible speaks with “infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches.” – Geoffrey Smith, Associate Professor, Department of Religious Studies, The University of Texas at Austin College of Liberal Arts

“The American inerrancy tradition is not an essential facet of the faith, because most of us outside of North America get on with our mission without it, and we are none the worse for not having it! Our churches uphold Scripture as the inspired Word of God. We therefore study it, teach from it, and preach it, but without the penchant to engage in bitter divisions over which nomenclature best suits our theological disposition.” – Michael F. Bird, Australian New Testament scholar, theologian and Anglican priest

Inerrancy seems to be a simplistic position adopted to avoid having to take responsibility for, or put effort into, considering moral and ethical implications of the Bible’s text. It has also been a convenient vehicle for a specific agenda to get pushed.

Here’s a few biblical reasons why the bible is yelling at the top of its lungs “don’t read me as inerrant!”

• The numerous doublets of various stories in the bible. Creation, the flood story, the killing of Goliath, the introduction of David to Saul, stories around the timeline of baby Jesus, etc.
  • The fact that the bible compilers themselves felt comfortable with two coexisting yet conflicting stories.
• The failed prophecies
• The inferred or directly stated faulty science
• The actual altered or added texts (and there are many)
• Examples of New Testament authors using improper Greek translations of the original Hebrew texts in their New Testament writings. (Yes this is actually a thing! I’ll cover it in another post)

This book was not written with the intent of, or even the idea of, inerrancy being applied to it. The biblical authors were fine with conflicts. When a conflict existed that they weren’t fine with, they altered the bible itself to correct the conflict into one that suited their agenda. (See story of Goliath’s killing as an easy example. I’ll write a post on this one too)

We certainly don’t find an inerrancy doctrine in Jewish culture, at least not like ours. In Judaism it’s common to doubt, debate, and reinterpret the meaning of scripture. It’s not this untouchable object that American Evangelicalism makes it out to be.

Even the Catholic church has a less stringent view on inerrancy. (Although I guess that’s kind of a “duh” one)

“Since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.” – Second Vatican Counsel (1962-1965)

When you’ve lost the Jews, the Catholics, and the majority of the rest of the protestant world, it might be worth having a rethink on what exactly you’re promoting and why.

Peace.