“The Lutheran definition of the term “inerrancy,” in short laymen’s terms, simply means that the Scriptures do not teach falsehoods, but always teach the truth. Lutherans have always limited “inerrancy” to the autographs; it does not apply to the copies.”
Gary:
Dear Pastor Noland
Would this statement qualify as meeting the “Layman’s” Definition of Inerrancy as believed by orthodox Lutherans:
I accept the above LCMS “Layman’s” Definition of Inerrancy. But I would prefer to say that the “originals” were inerrant. Let me explain:
For at least the first 20 years of Christianity there was no Bible. Not one single book of the NT had yet been written. So was the Church without the Word of God? No. The Word of God was in oral form, and the oral form was just as much the Word of God as what was later written down on papyrus, then parchment, then paper out of a printing press.
So, in regards to the many “apparent” discrepancies between the six accounts of the Resurrection, the account of who bought the Potter’s Field, on which day of the week Jesus observed the Last Supper, the discrepant battle statistics between several books in the OT, and other discrepancies in our Bibles, I would say that even though harmonization is possible for the these apparent discrepancies, as is possible for practically any textual discrepancy between any two books of history, it is still possible that these discrepancies are true errors: Somebody copied the original incorrectly, or even, the original author wrote down some of the details incorrectly, not on purpose, but by simple human error.I would go so far as to say that in the case of the Gospel of Matthew, for example, I believe that most probably Matthew told the original story to a group or groups of early believers, under inspiration of God, sometime between 33 AD and 70 AD. As he promised, God preserved the central facts of the story that were eventually written down by whoever wrote down the story onto papyrus, possibly Matthew, but in my opinion, more likely someone else. The writer compiled the Gospel from the core story of Matthew, adding in information from other sources such as Mark, M, source Q, and maybe other sources.
Therefore, the original story as told by Matthew is inerrant, and the teachings
and doctrines as proclaimed by Matthew have been preserved intact, but some of the details may have been messed up; but they are inconsequential errors; they do not affect even one doctrine or teaching of the orthodox Christian Faith.
Pastor Martin Noland:
I think that what you have written (above) would qualify as an acceptable position by LCMS standards. There are a few details our theologians might disagree with, but I’d say “you’re in the ballpark.”
The reason that the orthodox Lutheran churches and their theologians accept the doctrine of the perfection and clarity of Scriptures is primarily because of the testimony of the Scriptures themselves. This is what is called the “self-attestation” of Scripture regarding its own qualities.
For the Old Testament, the chief passages in this regard are: Psalm 19:7 and Proverbs 30:5-6.
For the New Testament, the chief passages in this regard are: John 14:25-26, John 16:12-15, 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
I think I quoted to you previously the Bible passages that forbid adding or deleting anything from Scripture. This is another proof of its perfection, in the sense of not needing anything to be added to complete it, or not needing anything to be deleted to make it more true.
Jesus himself told the apostles “the Holy Spirit . . . will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you” (John 14:26). He also told them “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13). The verses which follow indicate that the same truth is coming from the Father and the Son, thus the Trinity is involved in the divine revelation and the writing-down of that revelation.
So orthodox Lutherans, and probably most orthodox or conservative Protestants, would not say that the “original” books of the New Testament had errors. You could say, in laymen’s terms, that the Holy Spirit served as an editor for the apostles while they were composing and writing. But, of course, once the originals were delivered and later copied, they could be subject to copyists errors–thus the whole point of textual criticism of the New Testament.
I think atheists and anti-Christians overplay the likelihood of copyists errors in the early centuries. I was recently reading: Lionel Casson, Libraries in the Ancient World (New Haven: Yale UP, 2001); and discovered that as early as the end of the fifth century B.C. the Greeks began collecting, selling, and buying books (i.e., papyrus scrolls, later parchment codices). This became possible because some of their cities had “scriptoria,” i.e., places where the well-to-do could have personal copies made of existing books.
At the speech Socrates gave at his trial in 399 B.C., he remarked that the works of Anaxagoras could be bought for, at most, a drachma (i.e., relatively cheaply) at the orchestra, which was a open air mall where all sorts of goods were sold, like a department store today. A consequence of the proliferation of copies, was that some were cheap and thus inferior. The Athenian government realized that this could lead to confusion, and even chaos, in the matter of authenticity (i.e., what is the original version written by the named author), so during the rule of Lycurgus (338-325 BC), a law was passed that the written versions of the tragedies of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides were to be kept in the city records office; and the city clerk was to make sure that all copies used by the actors of the plays were to correspond to the originals.
The philosopher Aristotle used the salary he received for tutoring Alexander, prince of Macedon, to collect his own personal library of scientific, historical, and other works. This library was the basis for his encyclopedic output of treatises and his own concern for authentic writings of named authors that he quoted.
This concern for authenticity was passed into the Hellenistic culture after Alexander’s conquests, i.e., the end of the 3rd century B.C. State libraries were established at Pergamum (Attalid Empire), Antioch (Seleucid Empire), and Alexandria (Ptolemaic Empire), in order to serve both as research centers and archives. These would be like our Library of Congress. The best copies of originals were sought, and these became the basis for all future copies made.
So there was a great concern in the general culture of the day to seek out and maintain authentic and correct originals–and this was two hundred years before Jesus appeared. The Jews also had their scribal guild in the pre-Christian era, with its own procedures and duties. Its origins date back to the existence of the Ark of the Covenant, which was the depository for the original books of the Old Testament as they were written (see Deuteronomy 31:24-29; 2 Chronicles 34:14-23; Nehemiah 8:1-18).
It would have been very strange if the Christians, with their love for the apostles and the care for their legacy (i.e., the New Testament Scriptures) did not carefully maintain the original text in the copies made. So the technology and motivation were there to produce nearly perfect copies from archived originals.
Regarding the source Q, that is a hypothetical source, which has been constructed artificially. No one has ever seen that text, nor is there any attestation to it in the early church or later. We do know that Luke consulted multiple sources (see Luke 1:1-3), mostly eye-witnesses like Mary, the Mother of Jesus, but that does not rule out written sources.
Your “layman‘s” summary is correct and without fault if you modify it this way: “Therefore, the original story as told by Matthew is inerrant, and the teachings and doctrines as proclaimed by Matthew have been preserved intact, but some of the words in the extant manuscripts may have been messed up due to copyists errors; but they are inconsequential errors. They do not affect even one doctrine or teaching of the orthodox Christian Faith.“
Gary:
Hi Pastor Noland,
Again, I very much appreciate of your assistance in understanding “Inerrancy”.
It seems like our sticking point is over the original “manuscripts”. Is it mandatory for me as a “good” orthodox Lutheran to believe that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were the persons who first wrote down on papyrus or parchment, the Synoptic Gospels? I have a really hard time with that concept. Sure, it is possible that these three stories, containing SO MANY very significant variations in details (discrepancies) can be harmonized so that there is complete resolution of the difficulties, but it seems like an incredible stretch of common sense to do so.
I cannot believe that two eyewitnesses (Matthew and John) and two associates of eyewitnesses (Mark and Luke) could tell such drastically different stories about the supernatural resurrection of their dead leader, his subsequent appearance(s) to them, and his ascension in front of their very eyes into heaven!
Matthew and John never mention an Ascension and never mention a meeting in Jerusalem. Mark and Luke never mention Galilee, and Luke, in his Gospel, certainly makes it sound as if Jesus’ ascension occurs the same day as his Resurrection, while in the Book of Acts, he says Jesus ascended forty days later! Can they be harmonized? Yeeees?? Maybe. But by this standard any discrepancy between any two texts (describing the same historical event) could be harmonized: If any resolution, no matter how outrageous and outlandish, harmonizes the apparent discrepancy, then no discrepancy exists.
I don’t buy it.
None of these three Gospels claim to be written by these three men, so I don’t believe that they were! Isn’t it just tradition to ascribe these men as the authors of these Gospels? So if the Bible doesn’t state that these three men wrote the Gospels, then there is no requirement under ANY definition of “inerrancy” that forces me to believe that they were the original authors of the autographs.
It seems to me that saying that the Synoptic Gospels had to be written by one eyewitness, Matthew, and two associates of eyewitnesses, Mark and Luke, thereby giving extra weight to their stories, is outside the realm of certainty, is not under the security of “inspiration”, making the concept purely speculative, therefore giving me the liberty to decide for myself that, based on my judgment, even the original written documents (manuscripts) could have contained error.
I believe, by faith, that these three Gospels contain God’s inerrant message and teachings. But, since they were not necessarily written by eyewitnesses, and since orthodox Lutherans do not believe that God dictated every word of the story, isn’t it then possible that the original ORAL GOSPEL, as told by the God-inspired author, such as Matthew, was inerrant, but subsequent re-tellings of the story, and eventually, the written form of the story, could, and most likely did, contain errors in the inconsequential details, thereby explaining the many discrepancies, large and small in these three accounts of the same, life-changing, earth-shattering event?
God preserved his message and his teachings. Period. None of the discrepancies/errors in the details affects any orthodox Christian doctrine!
It would be so much better, that when a skeptic says to me, “The six Resurrection accounts are so full of discrepancies, anyone with a brain, can see that this story was made up”, I can say, “the orthodox Christian Faith holds that the Bible contains God’s Word, his message to mankind, and his teachings for his Church. However, because God did not write the Book himself, instead using humans, inconsequential errors crept in, possibly even in the original written documents. But, we believe, by faith alone, that the original oral story was inerrant.
What do you think?
Gary
Escaping Christian Fundamentalism 
Dear Bro. Gary:
I didn't know whether to respond on your blog or email, due to the fact that Bro. Noland is doing such a superb job of answering your questions. I didn't want to interrupt what is clearly and excellent conversation between you and he.
At anyrate I wanted to briefly address the authorship of the Gospels with regards to the claim they are actually written by the said authors: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I'll try to be brief in my remarks and you can do with this information whatsoever you please.
The traditional titles for the four Gospels as a solid tradition that cannot be easily dismissed
First, the titles “according to Matthew”; “according to Mark”; “according to Luke” and “according to John” are “inscriptio” (to use the words of the textual critics) or the more common name “superscriptions” dating as far back as the second century. Clearly the tradition of the authorship of the four Gospels, written by two apostles (Matthew and John) and two apostolic associates (Mark and Luke) has a very strong pedigree, and should not be so quickly dismissed.
David Alan Black, a widely regarded expert in the field of New Testament Greek and textual criticism, as well as a tenured professor of Greek at South Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes in his book “Why Four Gospels?”, page 65: “In the period between 180 and 220, Matthew and John (who were apostles) and Mark and Luke (who were disciples of apostles) were everywhere regarded as the authors of the four gospels that, even as early as 150, were commonly called gospels (cf. Justin, Apology 1.66: “which are called gospels”). It was this tradition of the church regarding the apostolic composition of the Gospels that found embodiment in the Greek manuscripts and soon afterward in the Latin translations, even in the titles (i.e., superscriptions) of the separate Gospels.”
A quick scan at the Nestle Aland 28th edition of the Greek New Testament reveals evidence of this tradition in the manuscripts just as Dr. Black said. The tradition is so strong, and so wide spread, that Dr. Black later notes: “It follows, then, that the tradition associated with the four Gospels from the time when they began to circulate is based, noot upon learned conjectures but upon facts that at the time were incontrovertible.” (Black, why four Gospels, page 66)
Two reasons why it is good that the superscriptions were not part of the autographic text
So clearly the titles or “superscriptions” of “according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John” are traditional titles, with a strong pedigree. So why is that a good thing? Believe it or not, the superscriptions not being part of the autographic text combined with their immediate and widespread acceptance is actually a sign of their authenticity! How so? Two brief reasons.
First, a quick survey of the pseudipigraphical Gospels (Gospel of Peter, Phillip and so on) reveals two striking facts with regard to either their superscriptions or with claims to authorship itself. The early church knew they were dealing with a false Gospel when the author of that Gospel went out of his way to in a sense say: “look at me, I wrote this Gospel”. The marks of pseudipigraphic writing is that explicite claim of authorship by a well known person and tendencies toward embellishment.
LikeLike
For the Gospel genre at least, if any of the two apostles or two apostolic associates would had penned in their “John Hanncocks” at the beginning of their work, that would had sent up a red flag. Now epistles are a completely different genre and the inclusion of the author's name at the beginning was one of the signs that it was authentic. Obviously there can be exceptions (like Hebrews), however for epistles at least, the author's reference to himself is an indicator of authenticity, a common feature of 1st century epistolory (letter writting) genre.
However for Gospel literature, it works the opposite. Finding the clues to the authorship of the four Gospels is a combination of transcriptional probability (tracing common phrases, idioms and the like that are written by that author in the text); eyewitness details and hints by the author's themselves that they were either at the events (in the case of Matthew and John) or external testimony (we see both Luke and Mark mentioned and described in the Epistles). I'm sure there are other clues that other more learned people than myself could marshall.
The second thing to note why the absence of the superscriptions in the autographic text is good is that these four Gospels were immediately accepted (well within use by the mid-second century, in every church, all over the empire). The Pseudapigraphical gospels (or what are sometimes called the apocryphal gospels) were immediately rejected! Read Iranaeus' work “Against Heresies” to see his discussions about the Gnostic texts that cropped up by his day.
Closing thoughts
Those are some of the reasons why I have no problem with the titles for the four Gospels being “traditional titles”. We have got to remember too that the idea of “tradition” in antiquity included the notion of handing down the information from one generation to another, under specific guidelines. The ancient Jews and Christian also had their own method of “auditing” which information was embellishment versus which was authentic. I don't think we have any good reasons to reject the authorship of these four Gospels as being by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, both from a historic or theological perspective. Besides, the contents themselves, and the Jesus that each points to is what really matters. Blessings to you my friend.
Sincerely and for His glory
Mahlon
LikeLike
Interesting information, Pastor, but your position is still based on human tradition. I therefore am free to believe that the authors of the Synoptic Gospels were NOT eyewitnesses to the events described.
LikeLike
If faith is a work entirely of, from and by God then why do you need to be intellectually convinced before you believe? Does faith require intellectual acceptance of the subject? If it does then it's not faith which saves but knowledge since faith will now require a level of intellectual satisfaction before you can receive it or in your case retain it. This is becoming very confusing and frustrating.
LikeLike
It seems we have a very different definition of Faith. You seem to believe that Faith in Christ requires no evidence whatsoever; it is a complete leap for you.
I base my faith on a risen Jesus. As Paul says, if Jesus Christ is not risen, then we are without hope, and we are fools. I don't think that Paul would expect someone to believe in Jesus without giving them the first hand testimony, “Have I not seen him?”.
I am willing to believe by faith that I will be resurrected and saved, but I DEMAND at least some solid evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead.
LikeLike
I think faith is required for both sides. Since neither side can “prove” by satisfactory documentation, their belief system.
Gary, you said you are “free to believe . . . were NOT eyewitnesses.” Even you are admitting it can only be a “belief.” It requires faith for that supposition — it requires faith to discount all opposing “evidence” such as exists. No matter on which side of the horse one falls — it will be by faith.
There is no such thing as neutrality — an empty mind. It can't exist. Atheism is based on faith. Christianity is based on faith. Even Jesus said so. Count the words “believe” and “faith” in the Gospels — and then in the NT.
“By grace are you saved through faith, it is the gift of God, lest any man should boast.”
God bless,
Abby
LikeLike
Gary said: “It seems we have a very different definition of Faith. You seem to believe that Faith in Christ requires no evidence whatsoever; it is a complete leap for you.”
No that's not how I would define faith. It seems to me your definition of faith is nothing but evidence to satisfy intellectual desires. I would define faith as a gift from God, not something I obtain and maintain on my own like you are doing. You seem to be in control of your own faith here, you have to find out first if it is logical before you allow yourself to have faith. That is not faith, that is intellectual justification.
Gary said: “I base my faith on a risen Jesus.”
YOU base YOUR faith? So who is the author of your faith? You and your intellect or God?
Gary said: “I am willing to believe by faith that I will be resurrected and saved, but I DEMAND at least some solid evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead.”
This makes no sense at all from a Lutheran perspective. You are “willing” to believe but you “demand evidence”. How is this faith? You admit you are only willing to have faith once you have been intellectual satisfied it is reasonable. That is NOT faith in things not seen yet hoped for. Last time I checked the five solas did not include “evidence”. You cannot demand anything from God, Job tried that.
LikeLike
” I DEMAND at least some solid evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead.” [Gary]
What would that be? Jesus rose 2000+ years ago. If the golden nugget of a piece of “proof” existed (like an RCC relic, and even that would be doubted) — someone would have had it in their possession a long time ago.
The opposition could not produce Jesus' dead body — no matter how many times the Apostles were hauled into court and told to “stop preaching the resurrection.” But they did not obey. They kept preaching and being imprisoned and tortured and killed. The church grew under persecution. And it is still under persecution today.
It is still a matter of the supernatural — and the denial thereof. “In a court of law you are not necessarily going to prove the resurrection of Jesus — It's a religious claim — a claim that people don't necessarily want to believe. There are going to be people who reject the supernatural in a court of law who are going to reject the claims no matter what the evidence is. I don't think the question is, in a court of law are you going to prove Jesus rose from the dead, the question is does the evidence sufficiently show that Jesus rose from the dead. Some people are going to reject the supernatural claims altogether. And if the supernatural claims are rejected altogether, it doesn't matter what the evidence is.” Jordan Cooper
I'm not going to fight you. I could never. I don't have the scholastic tools. And even if I did, whatever I could put up would still be refuted. The true scholastics have put up their good deductive reasoning based on the available manuscripts already. The atheists use their deductive reasoning to discredit that research. (Though most of them are not deep enough in the field to actually have eyes and hands on the material that exists throughout the world.)
I do not believe an atheist — who already comes into the arena with a closed mind — can be talked into belief.
Love and peace in Christ,
~A
LikeLike
” . . . we believe, by faith alone, that the original oral story was inerrant.” [Gary]
If I were an atheist, I would use your phrase Gary — “I don't buy it.” Even more so do I not buy it that ONLY the oral story could be inerrant and none of the historic textual document. I would put more credence into the document.
~A
LikeLike
Dear Bro. Gary: The authorship of the Gospels I suppose is another discussion for another day. I think you can certainly be free to believe what you want, however with that alleged freedom comes reasons for denying the evidence we have.
The contents of the Gospels are what is most important in this whole discussion. Faith, as it has been understood throughout history and the scriptures, contains three elements:
Notitia = the contents; ascensus = the mental ascent to the contents, or what we would call agreement and then fiducia = the supernatural faith itself, the “firm persuasion”.
Hebrews 11:1 tells us that faith is both “substance” from God and with it comes the “firm persuasion”, i.e the evidence. Until a person has been supernaturally touched by God, all the proof in the world will never persuade anyone.
With that said, we must also recognize that faith is never in a vacuum, since God, in engaging the heart, also includes the mind in the process of persuading and then agreeing with what His Word states.
Too often we view faith as a “volitional” effort. When you look at how the Bible defines faith, it is more in the realm of “firm persuasion” and simply “trust”. When we look at the four Gospels, particularly the resurrection of Jesus and His appearances, Luke's sequel, Acts, tells us that He appeared to them, giving them “infallible proofs” of the reality of His resurrection. (Acts 1:3)
In that Acts passage we see all three elements of Biblical faith: the contents of the message, the notitia (Jesus raised from the dead). Second, we see the ascensus or intellecutal ascent to those facts. Those two elements, though a part of faith, are not by themselves faith until God's supernatural grace enters the picture.
In other words, if Jesus Himself had not engaged these disciples with those “infallible proofs” and His own Person, then no “fiducia”, no trust, no firm persuasion would had occured.
The Four Gospels that we have today connect us to the testimony of God incarnate. We are faced the reality of their assertions, claims, evidence, narratives, sermons, parables, and acts of Jesus. Tradition aside and theories of their composition aside, the question is: do we believe them? To me, this is the most important question. Only by God's grace can we affirmatively say: Yes Lord, I believe!
LikeLike
“Historical Methods of Biblical Interpretation
Since God is the Lord of history and has revealed Himself by acts in history and has in the person of His Son actually entered into man’s history, we acknowledge that the historical framework in which the Gospel message is set in Scripture is an essential part of the Word.
Furthermore, we recognize that the inspired Scriptures are historical documents written in various times, places and circumstances. We therefore believe that the Scriptures invite historical investigation and are to be taken seriously as historical documents. We affirm, however, that the Christian interpreter of Scripture cannot adopt uncritically the presuppositions and canons of the secular historian, but that he will be guided in his use of historical techniques by the presuppositions of his faith in the Lord of history, who reveals Himself in Holy Scripture as the one who creates, sustains, and even enters our history in order to lead it to His end.
We therefore reject the following views:
1. That the question of whether certain events described in the Scripture actually happened is unimportant in view of the purpose and function of Holy Scripture.
2. That methods based on secularistic and naturalistic notions of history, such as the following, may have a valid role in Biblical interpretation:
a. That the universe is closed to the intervention of God or any supernatural force.
b. That miracles are to be explained in naturalistic terms whenever possible.
c. That the principle of the economy of miracles may lead us to deny certain miracles reported in the Scriptures.
d. That the doctrines of Holy Scripture are the result of a natural development or evolution of ideas and experiences within Israel and the early church.
e. That the message of Scripture can be adequately measured by laws derived exclusively from empirical data and rational observation.
f. That man’s inability to know the future makes genuine predictive prophecy an impossibility.
3. That our primary concern in Biblical interpretation is not with explaining the meaning of the primary sources, namely, the canonical Scriptures, on the basis of the sources themselves.
4. That if the use of historical methods leads to conclusions at variance with the evident meaning of the Biblical text, sub-conclusions may be accepted without violating the Lutheran view of Scripture or our commitment to the Lutheran Confessions (for example, the claim that it is permissible to deny the existence of angels or a personal devil because of literary, historical or theological considerations).”
http://mercyjourney.blogspot.com/2014/05/which-historical-methods-of.html
LikeLike
For one thing — how often have you heard atheists use the “telephone” argument against Scripture. That case would be even stronger against an oral story only. The written word can always be studied, compared to, and matched to previous textual documents. And that is what happens. Nothing exists to verify an oral argument.
~Abby
LikeLike