Two friends were discussing the nature of Charlie the square over a coffee one afternoon. Both had a picture of Charlie with them at the discussion. Charlie had four equal length sides that intersected at ninety degree angles. Both pictures of Charlie that each friend brought were congruent.
Friend 1: I wanted to ask you about the idea that Charlie is a circle without error called Lola. I am looking at my picture of Charlie and your picture of Charlie and I have to say that no matter how you look at it, Charlie is square. In fact, I have never seen any evidence that Charlie is a circle called Lola. Can you help me understand where you get the idea that Charlie is Lola?
Friend 2: I agree that what we both see is Charlie the Square. However, in order for us to trust Charlie's Squareness, that Charlie is reliable and has authority as a Square, you have to understand that in Charlie's original form, Charlie was a perfect circle without any error at all. In other words, if Charlie was never Lola the Circle without Error, then we cannot trust that Charlie the Square is reliable or has any authority with respect to Squareness.
Friend 1: That's the part I don't understand. Why must there be a Lola the Circle without Error in order for us to trust that Charlie the square is what we both agree it is; that it is reliable as a Square? First, we have never seen Lola and second, if Charlie faithfully represents Lola, why do we need to talk about Lola at all?
Friend 2: If Charlie the Square was never Lola the Circle without Error then we have to admit that there is no error-free source for Charlie the Square. If there is no source for Charlie that is without error, namely Lola the Circle, then how can we say that we can measure anything accurately with Charlie the Square? That makes no sense.
Friend 1: What makes no sense to me is that we need a Circle in order to say that the square we have by which to measure things is accurate and authoritative in matters of Squareness. Both of us have Charlie the Square and both of us use that Square in the essentially the same way to measure things accurately. Isn't it therefore a matter of faith that Charlie the Square is the best thing that we have to make the most accurate measurements? It doesn't mean that we should not keep trying to make Charlie the Square as accurate as possible by continuing to calibrate it, but it makes no sense to say that we need to imagine a Lola the Circle without Error in order to be sure that Charlie the Square is the most accurate tool with which to measure things, especially when we will simply never have access to Lola the Circle without Error with which to measure or re-calibrate Charlie!
Friend 2: I can see how you want to believe that, but Charlie the Square must have a source without error in order to be reliable much less authoritative. What you are saying is that anyone could have made Charlie the Square one day and if anyone made it, how do we know it has any authority? Even if we cannot access Lola the Circle without Error directly, it must have existed in order for us to continue to rely on Charlie the Square for any measurement. Further, we must therefore assume that Charlie is a faithful representation of that error-free source.
Friend 1: But aren't all representations by nature imperfect? Otherwise all representations would not actually represent anything, they would be the same exact thing as that which the represent! So how is the text we have inerrant as a representation of something?
Friend 2: Because it is a faithful representation of Lola the Circle without Error. Would you rather it represent something with error? Then what Charlie the Square has no authority or reliability with which to measure anything!
Let Charlie the Square be the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic manuscripts and fragments of the Old and New Testaments to which we currently have access. Let Lola the Circle without Error be the postulation of the Original Autographs. It is a contradiction in terms to suggest that there must be such innerrant/infallible autographs in order for the text to have authority while at the same time admitting that current manuscripts and translations "faithfully represent the original". However, any faithful representation is an admission that we are simply trusting that Scripture is inerrant not that it actually is. It is like admitting that we are all looking at a square, but trusting that this square faithfully represents a circle.
Related posts:
You convinced me.
Interesting concept, but I'm not sure the analogy works. For one, the difference between a (perfect) square and a perfect circle is quantifiable. But with the Bible everyone (regardless of one's position on inerrancy) is trying to minimize the difference between our texts and the autographs. A better analogy would really be between a perfect and imperfect circle, or a perfect and imperfect square. And I have to admit that I totally don't get naming the shapes. But that's just me.
Personally, I see the Bible more as a parallelagram. But that's just me.
I thought about an imperfect and a perfect shape, but since I think any assertion that a perfect shape ever existed is false without evidence, the difference in the shapes is just to heighted the idea that the notion of infallible original autographs is absurd.
The names is just for fun since people personify this stuff so much, e.g. "The Bible says…"
Ah,
But you are trying to refute circular logic with linear logic. its like trying to correct Swahili grammar using Latin. I think that the real problem is that those who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture do so as fundamental assumption, not as a conclusion. (ergo the term Fundamentalist)
(by the way, that geometry example problem looks nasty. should I have ever been able to solve it?)
You didn't convince me. However, this isn't the discussion that occurs. If someone wanted to argue that scripture had authority (big word that) and that they didn't care whether there were errors – or whether error free autographs existed – then we are not going to have an issue.
What happens is that Friend 1 says: "but according to scripture . . . " and Friend 2 answers: "that book is just a human book, set in another time, and is full of errors. "
After all, inerrancy is a theological construct (the Bible never says it is error free) from inspiration (would God inspire error?) which is not only a scriptural statement, but was the fundamental criteria by which a book was placed in the the Canon.
As opposed to what Jodie said, the term Fundamentalism came from a book called The Fundamentals which was a reaction to the anti-supernatural bias of Historical Criticism of particularly the German schools. The question really is: Does God reach into His creation and act in supernatural ways for His purposes? Is God limited by the natural laws He created when acting within that creation? One only has to have a discussion with the theologically liberal on the subject of the bodily resurrection of Christ or the virgin birth to get to some of the pivot points. Then, it is:
Friend 1: "No, there are not many roads to God – Christ said He was the road; and then proved His bona fides by walking around for 40 days after he was dead"
Friend 2: "Look, science knows that dead flesh cannot be reanimated. That is either a story made up by his disciples, or they suffered from a mass delusion or something. Besides, the only source we have for his resurrection is the Bible itself"
Now we get to authority. So, does the person believe the Bible is a human book written for another time and place citing superstitious supernatural happenings we know couldn't occur; or do they believe God reached into His creation for His purposes and that the Bible is the "God breathed" account of that action? Do they believe that the only events we can believe are true in scripture are the ones attested to by outside sources?
That is the real conversion that occurs – even between theologically conservative and theologically liberal Christians.
I think you are introducing something of red herring here. issue is a) does the bible have errors as we read it today. b) yes it does. c) then how is it therefore inerrant? Thoughts on resolving this argument with inerrancy?
To say that the manuscripts we have are without error (especially for the KJV only crew) is simply and ignorantly wrong. Christians differ from Muslims on this point, but many Christians err because they displace direct revelation from the being of God with the authority of scripture as a witness to what was revealed. Saying that it is an imperfect text transmitted by imperfect people but has its origin in a perfect being should be a stable enough assertion to confer authority. Doing much else (i.e. the Chicago statement) is simply overstating the case into utter absurdity.
The postulation of hypothetical texts called original autographs does nothing to resolve this problem. It is, as Jodie said, a fallacy of circularity.
JCHFleetguy:
The only reason to be concerned about the existence, or non-existence, of error-free autographs is exactly because people use "multiple errors" or "copyist errors" errors (etc) to discredit the authority of scripture. It is not as if there are large body of folks who claim they believe that the Bible is inspired ("God inspired"), authoritative in all it affirms, and is full of errors – and the errors do not matter. It is possible to say that. The Bible never says it is error-free – it says it is inspired. Inerrancy is theological construct from inspiration.
Frankly though, the folks who talk about the errors of scripture are looking for ways around its authority. They want to believe that it is a book written by humans, in another time and place, and that it does not reflect God's view of our actions in the world – and especially not our actions in 2008. They do not want to submit to its authority.
If they even know the difference, they are influenced by the historical critical school so prevalent in theologically liberal Christians; and tend to adopt its anti-supernatural bias as well. Again, a physically risen Christ gives authority to what he teaches that just doesn't exist if his body was stolen by his disciples and the story of his appearances for 40 days was either a lie; or some sort of mass delusion (because, after all, He couldn't have actually Risen)
Finally, what is the point of textual criticism attempting to drive back to those autographs if the autographs really have no greater meaning? Purely historical and/or academic interest? Certainly that would drive some folks, but for many it is to get closer to what the authors were inspired to write – rather than some copyist error or intentional theological change.
Sorry for the double post – I got a page not available and thought i didnt post. I like the 2nd statement better.
No, I do not believe the manuscripts are without error. That is bit of a red herring on its own – no one (maybe the KJV only folks) believes they are without error. Whether the originals were without error is a bit of an academic discussion, although I will agree with the text critic who said our manuscripts are well over 90% back to those autographs – and that no important doctrine is involved in the unclear sections. So, for folks who believe in the inspiration and authority of scripture – why even really talk about inerrancy? The pointing to, and concern about, the errors in text is largely the concern of those who wish to bash the inspiration and authority of the text.
There is no circular logic actually – the Bible never claims inerrancy. The Bible claims inspiration from which folks derive inerrancy. Now, if you want to talk about the reasons God might inspire error . . .
So, the question for someone who believes the text is inspired and authoritative is not a question of inerrancy – but a question of how to deal with the errors in a way that does not place ourselves as the authority instead of scripture. In other words, if you believe there is error how do you avoid using scissors on anything that is inconvenient to allow to rule your life.
Again though, as an apologist, my real world discussions are not with folks who believe the Bible is inspired and errant – it is with folks who believe it is neither inspired nor inerrant.
And, since I am not involved in textual criticism as a career, the process of driving the text back to the autographs is not really my problem.
My thoughts : "The Bible: Inspired or Inerrant?"
"There is no circular logic actually – the Bible never claims inerrancy. The Bible claims inspiration …"
Uh, no it doesn't. To say that it does is the circular logic.
An author of a letter said that all scripture was God breathed and "useful". Was that God breathed in the Hebrew sense (Adam was God breathed – i.e. made alive by the breath of God)? Or does it mean channeled, or dictated like the Greek poets used to claim of their poetry, that is was inspired by the Muses. Such an interpretation is really a pagan concept, adopted by the Romans even more so than the Byzantines.
(look at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and compare that to the Orthodox illuminations of ancient manuscripts that depict the text as a human writing offered up to Jesus as an offering)
And what does >> all << mean? The text that is being written and claims that all text is inspired is itself inspired in saying so? That later on when certain writings were bound together as canonical to form the Bible, that it spoke of itself in the future tense? That is the very definition of circularity.
"So, for folks who believe in the inspiration and authority of scripture – why even really talk about inerrancy? " My point exactly. yet they do and will argue tooth and nail against anyone who says that there are errors. And that is why I posted this and come back to inerrancy on occasion.
My pragmatic position is to look at the facts of what we currently know, and the bring those facts into harmony with what we believe. That might just mean that our beliefs will have to change. It might also mean that we will understand the facts better. Likely, and ideally both things happen in complementarity.
So the manuscripts we have are the best material available and by those we can get a good enough idea of what God wants of us without having to argue fine points of why inerrancy is necessary for authority even though it is fundamentally irrational to posit and then sift out supposed heresy with a flea comb.
Well, this threatens to be a circular discussion.
Paul would have been talking about the Hebrew scriptures to Timothy, and not the New Testament. I like this article discussing the actual meaning of qeovpneusto; and, of course, worrying over circularity is to say that someone other than an apostle or prophet of God should say what is inspired by God. That is – to me – a standard that can never be met.
Also, beyond the Old Testament scriptures being attested to by the apostles, and Christ, in the New Testament – we have Paul's writings (and others) attested to within the Canon as standing alongside those same Old Testament works as scripture.
There is no text – at least in the New Testament – that claims inspiration for itself. Paul claimed revelation from Christ/God; but not the inspiration of the letters he wrote that in. Peter did that. So, no circularity in that sense.
As the New Testament works were made part of the Canon there were questions that were asked about it:
1. Was the book written by a prophet of God? In the case of the New Testament, this meant Apostolic authorship
2. Was the writer confirmed by acts of God? The primary Biblical purpose of miracles was to confirm the Word of God given through a prophet of God to the people of God.
3. Did the book tell the truth about God?
4. Did the book come with the power of God? This refers to the ability to transform the lives touched by it. The presence of God's transforming power was an indication that God was behind it.
5. Was the book accepted by the people of God? Despite later discussions about canonization, when a book was recieved, collected, read and used by the people of God as the Word of God, it was considered canonical.
None of those include the books circular declaration about itself. These are also essentially the standards by which the Jewish people accepted the inspiration of the Old Testament canon.
However, you are helping make my point. It is the inspiration and authority ("an author of a letter") of scripture, and not its inerrancy that are truly the issue
We agree just as much as the various translations agree with each other – somewhere in the 90%'s
There is a theological point here. Would God inspire error? Does inspiration imply inerrancy in the autographs – at least within the bounds of what someone 2000 or more years ago could understand scientifically, or the bounds of progressive revelation? There is a tendency on the other side of the argument to say "if there are errors then there is no inspiration. Is God a liar?" I certainly have been "trained" primarily by those kind of discussions.
That is why the attachment – that and the silly "errors" folks arguing are likely to throw up. Of course, and the anti-supernaturalist lean of some of those "errors".
I agree though – if we agree the Bible is "God breathed" and that the manuscripts we have are not identical to the original writing then we have narrowed our differences to a point of near irrelevancy to any theological point I can think of offhand
I like 90%. 100% agreement is boring over a beer
To take your suggestion to the extent of the new atheist crowd… If we read Dawkins and the like they use text criticism as an argument to say that God is a liar. They can enjoy that if they wish. I personally don't care if people use scientific rationality to argue that a myriad of narrative traditions pulled together only confirm a fairy tale. It is all literature – but literature that points to experiences that my own experience and that of others in history is confirmation enough that the faith we share is not another fairy tale, but points to a sacred reality that the text cannot hold or contain.
I have been in dozens of arguments with atheists that go where you are saying – if you admit error in the text. Guess what happens. When I admit that there are errors in the text but continue to hold that my experience with the living God is something that would be irrational to simply deny, there is respect there. Ironically, trying to "out-logic" an atheist is like pounding a nail with a stick of butter and shuts it all down. But witnessing my own integration of what I read in Scripture is the most effective – as I have experienced.
This is the best thing I've seen since Left Behind Fridays over at Slacktivist. Thank you.
This is the best thing I've seen since Left Behind Fridays over at Slacktivist. Thank you.
[...] of others to be "Christians." I have argued the idolatry of this sort of hermeneutic in the past. This is another good moment to be [...]