"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:16 (NIV)
Since when did we get the idea that this passage meant that the canon that we now have is inspired?
While 2 Timothy was probably the last Pauline letter, the epistles of James, Peter, John, Jude, and Hebrews and Revelation were all written throughout the next 30-50 years. Do we also believe that Paul's statement in 2 Timothy is prophetic? That he is not only including his own letters into the canon of "Scriptures" but also letters that had not even been written yet?
If so, then what about the writings from that same time period that didn't make it? Shepherd of Hermas? Didache? 1 and 2 Clement? Many, many others? Was Paul also anticipating what would and would not be included into the canon almost 400 years later?
Maybe we can give Paul the benefit of the doubt that he is only talking about what we consider to be the Old Testament canon. This is more likely, since the word used for "Scripture" in the New Testament regularly refers to our Old Testament. But the Old Testament canon was completely "closed" when Paul wrote this.
Sadly, most Christians use this statement to argue for biblical inerrancy. How can a writing provide its own credibility? Even biblical scholars don't believe that - and shudder. Many writings include this kind of self-approval. John writes that no one should add or take away from his writings in Revelation. Since Revelation made it into the canon, we don't worry about this. But most writings from this time that didn't make it into the canon also have internal statements about their own inspiration.
Even canonical lists include statements about their own inspiration. Yet out of the 13 differing canonical lists at the time, the Church went with Athanasius' list from the late 4th Century. (I wrote my History Senior Sem paper on how Usage, above any other factor, was why the Church chose Athanasius' canonical list)
In closing, let me just say that everything I have written here is the truth and no one has the option of disagreeing with it. (Sounds stupid, doesn't it. I would actually appreciate any comments and disagreements)
3 comments:
One of the questions I have is this: If scripture were actually inerrant and God-inspired, how would you expect scripture to communicate that fact to you? Would you expect it to keep that fact to itself, and never speak of it?
I'm also interested to know if you are of the belief that it is impossible for God to inspire a human to write something that is infallible. Is it impossible for any human-written text to be perfect, or is it only impossible for certain texts to be perfect?
It doesn't make a lot of sense to continue the discussion until those points are nailed down.
In response to Josh,
First, the Bible could be God-inspired and yet not inerrant.
I guess the best way to deal with the bulk of questions in one shot is to lay my cards on the table. I find it hard to believe that the Bible is inerrant based on the fact that the text of the Bible has changed since the original text. Since our complete canon, even in the original biblical languages, is only a "best guess" as to which manuscripts are correct, we would have to assume (called "having faith" by some) that God has directed biblical scholars to choose the correct manuscripts, the correct phrases, and the correct words, sometimes even the correct letters or breathing marks. this would be fine if this had happened once in history and has been The Bible since that point. BUT, the text of the Bible as we know it has been almost constantly changing since its closure (all that canon closure has done is to include or exclude writings by title. It has not included or excluded segments of those titles or manuscripts, so the canon is only as closed as the titles in our table of contents.) Since the text is constantly changing (although, change happens less and less as time goes on - mainly because of a finite amount of manuscripts and a history of usage), we would have to assume that each change was not only God-inspired, but that the text was inerrant before the change and inerrant after the change. However, biblical scholars make the change because the text is MORE accurate after the change. We would have to assume that God had inspired different texts for different times, which I think would be way more difficult to believe.
However, I must point out that these counterarguments for inerrancy are not arguments (necessarily) against the inspiration of the original or against the authority of our canon, since the Bible does not need to be 100% inerrant, only to be more authoritative than other texts and to not be errant in certain truths. I do not claim to KNOW what those specific truths are.
I have my faith that the truths I need from the text will be revealed to me DESPITE any errors; others have their faith that the text has no errors.
Second, I think Tim is right that Paul's message is not one of inerrancy but of usefullness. One helpful thing to note on this topic is that, except for writers such as Luke the Historian (probable author of the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles), most of the biblcal authors were not concerned necessarily with the same historical accuracy with which we are now concerned. This is usually the argument (excuse?) given by NT scholars concerning the differences in the accounts of the synoptic gospels. The argument that each synoptic gospel author is looking at the story from a different point of view only goes so far when explaining factual differences in the accounts (such as differences in the words of Jesus. Expect a blog soon concerning Red Letter Bibles).
I'll stop for now. did that answer the questions?
Thanks for your answers Tom! And thanks for how candid you've been.
First off, I realize now that you're taking the concept of inerrancy differently than I was. I had assumed it was understood that the words on the actual pages we have (even before they're translated to English or some other non-original language) may not be 100% exactly the same as the words that the author originally wrote the first time. I believe what we currently have is extremely close to the original, if not exactly the same, but I understand there may be small differences. I choose to believe that those differences would not change the author's original intent (there's no proof one way or the other, really).
I had thought you were saying that the original intent and the original words were imperfect, but I see that's not the case. I think that saying the Bible is "constantly changing" is overstating it a bit, but yes, it does change.
And I think that the word "intent" gets to the core of what this is all about. Sometimes the writers may have fudged their facts a bit. Sometimes they got a phrase turned around or told something in the wrong order. To me, it seems the question is this: Does that difference change what we learn when we read it? Does the difference cause the author to say something else if a change is made? Do we have a conflict in intention? If we don't, I don't see a problem. If the writers are actually trying to teach conflicting lessons, then that would be a problem.
Am I copping out?
Post a Comment