Friday, June 19, 2009

Defining inerrancy

1.It’s fashionable in some quarters to say the inerrancy of Scripture dies the death of a thousand qualifications. Critics insinuate that conservative Christians pile on ad hoc qualifications to shield the Bible from falsification.

However, there’s a basic problem with this allegation. The concept of inerrancy is obviously bound up with the concept of truth. What makes a statement a true statement? For example, what makes a statement about a historical event true?

The problem is truth is not self-defining. There are competing theories of truth. And theories of truth are bound up with other issues, like competing theories of meaning.

By the same token, inerrancy is not self-defining. If truth is not self-defining, then neither is inerrancy.

Inerrancy needs to be defined. It’s not as if there’s a ready-made definition of inerrancy which conservative Christians proceed to load down with additional, ad hoc qualifications.

These are not extraneous qualifications. Rather, these figure in the definition itself. Otherwise, you have no operating definition.

And, of course, unbelievers have their own definition of inerrancy. They, too, determine what feeds into the definition.

2.So what makes a historical statement true? There are at least three elements:

i) The statement must bear a certain relation to the event it describes.

But a statement is also a form of communication. As such:

ii) The statement must also bear a certain relation to the intent of the speaker or writer. What was he trying to convey? What did he mean to say?

iii) Likewise, the statement must also bear a certain relation to the audience. What expectations feed into their construal of the statement? What makes it meaningful to them?

These are complicated issues. Any definition of inerrancy which tries to be reasonably complete is bound to provide a number of conditions under which a statement is true or false.

Any definition will have to do something like this. We might disagree on the conditions, but there’s no simple way to define inerrancy.

3.Critics of inerrancy single out the allegedly suspect the motives of the inerrantist. According to them, the inerrantist is guilty of special pleading. He’s trying to rig the definition of inerrancy to shield the Bible from falsification.

But one of the problems with that accusation is that it cuts both ways. We could just as well say the critic is trying to define inerrancy in a way that makes it easy for him to falsify the Bible. It’s a set-up.

As such, the critic of inerrancy would be well-advised to refrain from impugning the motives of the inerrantist.

If he thinks the inerrantist is guilty of rigging the definition, then he needs to specify what, exactly, is wrong with the definition.

11 comments:

  1. It would be better for you to drop the term and stay with infallible rather than toy with a technical and scientific term such as inerrant. It is not a term that works well with relevancy. In other words, it is not subject to shifting definitions geared to meet whatever purpose one is trying to convey. Now, I realize fundamentalists are quick to embrace terms in absolute manner but they are easily confounded, especially when a stark "error", at least from a scientific perspective,is presented to them. It is a scientific fact that the mustard seed is not the smallest seed, not even in the region of Galilee whose Greek influences would have known of the orchid.Instead of being inerrant (which it clearly is not) the statement regarding smallest of seed is an infallible teaching.
    Of course, one can spit and howl, tear cloths and throw dirt in the air but it remains the orchid is smaller in seed than the mustard tree.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "But one of the problems with that accusation is that it cuts both ways. We could just as well say the critic is trying to define inerrancy in a way that makes it easy for him to falsify the Bible. It’s a set-up."

    That paragraph might be the best in the whole post.

    On this subject, I really do like "true in what it affirms" as either a short definition of inerrancy, or as an alternative phrase.

    Put that way, all the qualifications/clarifications of "inerrant" seem to flow naturally. It's fleshing out how to determine what is actually being affirmed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. A.M. MALLETT SAID:

    “It would be better for you to drop the term and stay with infallible rather than toy with a technical and scientific term such as inerrant.”

    i) There is nothing inherently scientific or technical about the term “inerrant.” It isn’t attuned to a particular type of precision.

    ii) If something is infallible, then it’s also inerrant. Infallibility includes inerrancy, for infallibility is a stronger term than inerrancy.

    “It is not a term that works well with relevancy. In other words, it is not subject to shifting definitions geared to meet whatever purpose one is trying to convey.”

    Why not? For example whether or not an author used the right number depends, in part, on whether he was trying to use the exact figure, a round number, or a symbolic number. Inerrancy takes that into account.

    “Now, I realize fundamentalists are quick to embrace terms in absolute manner but they are easily confounded, especially when a stark ‘error’, at least from a scientific perspective,is presented to them.”

    i) You’re the one who’s operating with the stereotypically wooden definition of truth and error which is popularly attributed to fundamentalists.

    ii) I’d add that sophisticated fundamentalists like Darrel Block don’t operate with your wooden definition.

    “It is a scientific fact that the mustard seed is not the smallest seed, not even in the region of Galilee whose Greek influences would have known of the orchid.Instead of being inerrant (which it clearly is not) the statement regarding smallest of seed is an infallible teaching.”

    No, it’s simply a proverbial, hyperbolic illustration.

    “Of course, one can spit and howl, tear cloths and throw dirt in the air but it remains the orchid is smaller in seed than the mustard tree.”

    i) Which is irrelevant to the intent of the speaker or cultural conventions of his Palestinian Jewish audience. Inerrancy makes allowance for all that.

    ii) Furthermore, it was chosen to illustrate the contrast between the size of the seed and the size of the mature plant–not to set up a contrast with other seeds, per se.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Steve,

    Sorry to go off-topic on you, but I was wondering if you know of any good responses to the argument from Cantor's Theorem against the existence of an omniscient being (by implying that there can be no set of all truths, and therefore no "knower" of the set of all truths)?

    As always, I'd appreciate any bones you can throw my way.

    ReplyDelete
  5. http://www.sunysb.edu/philosophy/faculty/pgrim/exchange.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. Steve,

    What do you think of those theologians, scholars, and Christians who use the phrase (or something like it), "The Bible is totally true and trustworthy in all that it affirms" as a way to get out of saying that the Bible is inerrant? I believe that they use this phrase so as to not get bogged down in discussions about inerrancy and its definitions.

    ReplyDelete
  7. TUAD,

    They still need to define their terms. Either the phrase is synonymous with inerrancy or it represents some form of "limited" inerrancy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. TUaD,

    Since I already used that terminology up above, I'll respond, too.

    Like Steve said, it's either synonymous with inerrancy, or it represents a more limited view of inerrancy.

    I like it as a shorthand way of expressing the standard evangelical definition of inerrancy. It's helpful for clarifying the discussion. As a complement to the term "inerrancy", not as a replacement. (I think Michael Patton falls into this category.)

    As for people who won't use the term "inerrancy" at all... It depends on whether they just dislike the term, or substantively differ with the definition. An argument over the best term is relatively unimportant.

    But if they're objecting to the actual definition, then they need to do a better job of expressing it. (I've asked iMonk about this, but I wasn't able to find clarity.)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jugulum: "But if they're objecting to the actual definition, then they need to do a better job of expressing it. (I've asked iMonk about this, but I wasn't able to find clarity.)"

    Agreed. BTW, were you surprised that you weren't able to find clarity from iMonk?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Not really. But then, I've had DJP bow out from answering my questions-for-clarification, too. So I wasn't going to necessarily put it down to general squishitude. (Maybe I ask too many questions?)

    ReplyDelete
  11. "But then, I've had DJP bow out from answering my questions-for-clarification, too."

    Really?? Now that surprises me.

    If you remember it, can you provide the link to your conversation with DJP so that I can read it too?

    ReplyDelete