See my response to Bob DeHaan's suggestion below.
Subject: Human origin of the doctrine of inerrancy?
>
> In a message dated 03/01/02 12:42:30 AM, PHSEELY@aol.com writes:
>
> << This is the heart of the Hydra.
>
> Where does the Bible teach that divine inspiration guarantees the
inerrancy
> of biblical history and science? I say it is a human tradition, not a
> biblical
> teaching. Let whoever will, show us from Scripture that this doctrine is
> really biblical.
>
> Paul >>
>
> Paul, I am in agreement with you; but on the other hand, more needs to be
> said than merely to declare, "I say it is a human tradition." Your
challenge
> works both ways, "Show from history that the doctrine of inerrancy is a
human
> tradition." Where did this doctrine originate? Where and when was it
first
> promulgated? Can the human origin of this doctrine be identified?
Surely,
> some church historian has written on this subject. Any suggestions?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob
The question of the nature of biblical inspiration appears in the writings
of the early churcht Fathers. Some argued for a "dictation" notion of
inspiration, others that the inspired authors played a more active role in
its composition. The issue arose in the context of translating the Bible.
Jerome and his contemporaries, in analysing both the Septuagint and the Old
Latin versions, had to address this question: should the rhetoric and
grammar of the translation adhere as closely as possible to the original
Hebrew of the OT and Greek of the NT--even to the point of preserving
grammatical infelicities and "barbarous" language? Or should the
translators used the language and style of their own time. Jerome and
Augustine both were put off (to put it mildly) by the crude language of the
Old Latin versions, Ciceronians that they were, and had to be converted to
the value of the language of the OL to convey the truth of revelation. For
an interesting study, see David Norton, _A History of the Bible as
Literature: Vol. I. From Antiquity to 1700_, 1993, chaps. 1-5.
While a multivalent notion about the truth of Scripture was common during
the middle ages (the fourfold sense of Scripture being the dominant model of
interpretation), the three spiritual modes of interpretation had the literal
as their base. With the Reformation, and the conflicts over doctrine, the
literal sense becomes the dominant, and the old doctrine of "verbal
inspiration" re-emerged strongly, and played a part in the Galileo affair.
By this time both Protestants and Catholics held to "the truth of biblical
statements not only in maters of history, doctrine, and ethics, but also in
cosmology and natural science." (_Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church_
(p. 199-200). Gerald Bray has a brief account of this period in _Biblical
Interpretation, Past and :Present_ (p. 195-197): "The use of the bible as an
infallible textbook suited the theologians and jurists of the later
sixteenth century, because it support their elaborate theological
constructions. In their minds infalliblility could only mean total
inerrancy; that is to say, there are no errors or discrepancies of any kind
of any matter whatsoever, in the biblical text." Bray refers to"the Swiss
Consensus Formula of 1675, where the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and
the infallibility of the Hebrew vowel points [!] received particular
attention," but a reaction to this set in and a number of churchs and
theologians, otherwise orthodox, refused to assent to the Consensus.
Bob Schneider
rjschn39@bellsouth.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 01 2002 - 10:25:30 EST