What makes scripture inerrant, and the Apocrypha?

[M. Markewich]

Hello everyone. I want to start by saying what I believe biblical inerrancy means, of course open to criticism and correction. Biblical inerrancy means that the book you are reading is 100% accurate according to the reason it was made, according to the standards of the time.

In the book The Syrian Christ, we see that in the mind of the Middle Easterner (with the society being very similar to the Bible's culture),


There is much more of intellectual inaccuracy than of moral delinquency in the Easterner's speech. His misstatements are more often the result of indifference than the deliberate purpose to deceive. One of his besetting sins is his ma besay-il -- it does not matter. He sees no essential difference between nine o'clock and half after nine, or whether a conversation took place on the housetop or in the house. The main thing is to know the substance of what happened, with as many of the supporting details as can be conveniently remembered. (I found this quote here: http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatinspire.html)

How does this pertain to what I mean? Well, this principle reported by this Middle Easterner can be applied to places in the Bible. For example, different Gospels will record the same situation Jesus is in with slightly different details. (When Jesus healed the centurion's servant, did the centurion come or the Jews come? [Mat 8:5, Luke 7:3] Did Jesus heal the blind man leaving Jericho or going into Jericho? [Mat 20:29-30, Luke 18:35])

So when applied to Scripture overall, you could say Scripture is inerrant according to what the particular book you are reading is trying to say. Is it a book about history, like the Kings and Chronicles? Then it should be expected to be accurate historically (and not mathmatically, which is actually an issue in Chronicles!). Is it a book of songs and poetry, like Psalms? Then it should not be searched primarily for doctrinal statements (the verse in that famous psalm about David's repentance, "I was brought forth in iniquity and in sin my mother conceived me" is used in Western Christianity to say we are born sinful, for instance). To say books should be accurate in all accompanying details that they weren't originally written to address is to look for a definition of inerrancy unknown to those who wrote the Bible.

However, this is where I get to why I made this post in the first place. I love the Apocrypha (I thought Sirach was awesome, and all the Maccabees are great), and I do accept it as Scripture now. However, I struggle with in what way we can consider some of the books within it as inerrant. For example, Tobit is considered geographically off and Judith is considered historically unreliable, but what they're off on seem like key parts to the books. So does the principle of ma besay-il apply here? I also agree with Africanus in his discussion with Origen, that the addition to Daniel about Susanna and her trial is hard to swallow when you see the Aramaic speaking Daniel using Greek puns to argue with his opponents. So in what way is the Apocrypha inerrant?

Thanks in advance for any corrections I receive!

[AndyHolland]

Hello everyone. I want to start by saying what I believe biblical inerrancy means, of course open to criticism and correction. Biblical inerrancy means that the book you are reading is 100% accurate according to the reason it was made, according to the standards of the time.

In the book The Syrian Christ, we see that in the mind of the Middle Easterner (with the society being very similar to the Bible's culture),

(I found this quote here: http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatinspire.html)

How does this pertain to what I mean? Well, this principle reported by this Middle Easterner can be applied to places in the Bible. For example, different Gospels will record the same situation Jesus is in with slightly different details. (When Jesus healed the centurion's servant, did the centurion come or the Jews come? [Mat 8:5, Luke 7:3] Did Jesus heal the blind man leaving Jericho or going into Jericho? [Mat 20:29-30, Luke 18:35])

So when applied to Scripture overall, you could say Scripture is inerrant according to what the particular book you are reading is trying to say. Is it a book about history, like the Kings and Chronicles? Then it should be expected to be accurate historically (and not mathmatically, which is actually an issue in Chronicles!). Is it a book of songs and poetry, like Psalms? Then it should not be searched primarily for doctrinal statements (the verse in that famous psalm about David's repentance, "I was brought forth in iniquity and in sin my mother conceived me" is used in Western Christianity to say we are born sinful, for instance). To say books should be accurate in all accompanying details that they weren't originally written to address is to look for a definition of inerrancy unknown to those who wrote the Bible.

However, this is where I get to why I made this post in the first place. I love the Apocrypha (I thought Sirach was awesome, and all the Maccabees are great), and I do accept it as Scripture now. However, I struggle with in what way we can consider some of the books within it as inerrant. For example, Tobit is considered geographically off and Judith is considered historically unreliable, but what they're off on seem like key parts to the books. So does the principle of ma besay-il apply here? I also agree with Africanus in his discussion with Origen, that the addition to Daniel about Susanna and her trial is hard to swallow when you see the Aramaic speaking Daniel using Greek puns to argue with his opponents. So in what way is the Apocrypha inerrant?

Thanks in advance for any corrections I receive!

Maybe Experientially? We experience the Holy Scripture as inerrant in Church and understand it as unerrant in Church - Liturgically?

If someone designs a system, and does not allow for bending, then the system is brittle.

Holy Scripture are words of life from the living God conveyed by human beings. Therefore, if two Gospel witnesses remember Our Father with the 'for thine is the kingdom...' (Matthew) and another without it in Luke - who cares?

We experience the Our Father and we say Our Father as in Luke and the president says 'for thine is the kingdom....' and so we participate in both Luke and Matthew and they perfectly agree in the Liturgical setting and are therefore inerrant without deviation in the fullness of their respective experiences.

Of course, I am often wrong. Maybe that forgiveness - that we are allowed to remember things differently, is part of Grace. So that its inerrancy is complete by Grace, in Grace and faith and without Grace, it would not appear to be inerrant even to the faithful? (that is a hypothetical way of saying 'without Christ we can do nothing').

Then under those conditions, the supposed "errors" themselves are not "errors" but actually necessary. One needs flexibility and the Eastern mindset is not wrong to express things in a proximate manner - but rather reveals something interesting about our condition, Grace and forgiveness.

*

andy holland
sinner

*-----------------------------
Perhaps also the deviations are essential to provide a more exact meaning because the essential truth is not expressible otherwise. For example, we pray that 'in the name of the Lord will I destroy them' or they are 'thrown back' - so which is it? Maybe both are correct and necessary. They are essentially destroyed if thrown back - and if thrown back they are granted mercy not being utterly destroyed. Yet both expressions are true. Or perhaps because they are not utterly forgotten, being thrown back, they are ever destroyed. Or perhaps there is no 'or' and both are applicable, ever destroyed in eternal justice and mercy. So a full meaning is hinted at by the ambiguity that is otherwise inexpressible.

[Herman Blaydoe]

FWIW, what makes Scripture "inerrant" is the Church, it is only by participation in the Church that Holy Scripture can be properly understood, through experience and encounter with the Living God through His Body, the Church.

Holy Tradition is the Gospel in action, Holy Scripture is that part of Holy Tradition that was written down so that we know that our action is true through consistency with the written record. It was the Church that decided which writings best reflected Holy Tradition and codified those writings into the New Testament. That is why, outside the Church, there is error in "interpreting" what Scripture means. Without Holy Tradition we are no better than the Ethiopian reading Holy Scripture in Acts: "how can I understand it if nobody explains it to me?"

[AndyHolland]

FWIW, what makes Scripture "inerrant" is the Church, it is only by participation in the Church that Holy Scripture can be properly understood, through experience and encounter with the Living God through His Body, the Church.

Holy Tradition is the Gospel in action, Holy Scripture is that part of Holy Tradition that was written down so that we know that our action is true through consistency with the written record. It was the Church that decided which writings best reflected Holy Tradition and codified those writings into the New Testament. That is why, outside the Church, there is error in "interpreting" what Scripture means. Without Holy Tradition we are no better than the Ethiopian reading Holy Scripture in Acts: "how can I understand it if nobody explains it to me?"
A "What" does not make the Scripture inerrant.

The Scripture is inerrant because Holy God made the Holy Scripture, and God makes all correct interpretations of Scripture by Holy men (See II Peter). The Church is composed of Holy People, Holy by the Grace of God who correctly pray the Scriptures, sing the Scriptures, read the Scriptures and live the Scriptures by outdoing one another in showing honor, providing service, giving alms and loving all people, even their enemies.

andy holland
sinner

[M. Markewich]

Mr Holland, thanks for your reply. However, I do have trouble with what you said. It may be true that things become 'inerrant' through liturgical use, but for some reason I didn't find myself satisfied. I emailed the guys at Our Life and Christ, and for whoever reads this, I want to share it with you.


This is a pretty huge question, but I think the bottom line is on the definition of "bible inerrancy". The Orthodox Church does not hang its hat and existence and faith on the "inerrancy of the Bible". The protestants have backed themselves into a philosophical corner with sola scriptura: IF EVERYTHING hinges on the Bible ALONE, then if the Bible can be proven wrong on ONE iota, jot or tittle, then the whole house falls down.
But the Orthodox Church does not rely on the "bible alone" in the sense the Protestants do. The CHURCH came first and the Bible came out of the Church's life. The Bible is a witness to the faith that was delivered by the apostles it is not the faith itself. Christianity came before the Bible, the Bible is a witness to the Christian faith.
So, can the Bible err in matters historical, numerological, geographical, biological, chemical, astronomical, etc. etc. and still be "true". Absolutely. It is a witness to the truth of the Gospel written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit, not a witness to God's overriding man's intellect and limited knowledge of all subjects to prove a point with a book. He proved the only point He needed to make in the Word become flesh and crucified. That is the Word that is inerrant. So, in a word, the Orthodox Church does not need the Bible to be inerrant in the protestant sense for us to have faith, to know that the Church is true, that the Bible is true and that the Gospel has been preached faithfully for 2000 years. The Church has accepted the Bible both OT and NT to be the word of God without questioning the accuracy or lack thereof in every detail because its faith has never rested on the Bible alone. This is a huge paradigm shift for us protestants to make because we are so ingrained in the concept that if the Bible can be proven false in one small point then the whole of Christianity falls as a fairy tale and myth. It just ain't so, and never was until the Reformation and the rejection of the authenticity, authority and veracity of the Tradition of the Church.

This actually seems to be consistent with Scripture itself. The famous verses come to mind,

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. 2Ti 3:16-17

and this does not mention "historical accuracy". So while it can be my opinion that the non-apocryphal books + 1 Maccabees are inerrant historically, it cannot be my opinion that historical accuracy is necessary to be deemed scripture.

This seems to make sense in my mind of what Mr Holland and Mr Herman were saying. Now I can agree; the Church uses something as Scripture on the grounds that it will help a person's Christian journey, plain and simple. It is Scripture because the Church chooses.