Questions on the bible (inerrancy)

[Mythicalbio]

1. To what extent does authorial intent matter when it comes to inerrancy? What I mean is: none of the authors in the Bible could possibly mean the same things we mean with the same words. “Conceived a child” for them didn’t include female eggs, or knowledge of it as we mean when we say it. So if authorial intent absolutely mattere, then the bible must be filled with errors on every page. “Earth” doesn’t mean the same thkng, they had a different cosmology, and even if they thought it was round, what then did they think the stars were? How big sis they think things in the sky were, their limit, etc? what about continents they didn’t know of? By default they did not include these things in their definition of “earth”. The authorial intent behind the same words we use that are in the bible is different every time. So how much should we even care about it? Do errors in understanding of the author make an error in the bible?
2. Following the first question, is the theology of the bible in all places considered perfect? We know views on the afterlife changed, what the soul is, etc, on the pages. If those views could change, and it is considered orthodox to say they did, then can views on who and what God is change? Can we say the Israelites were henotheist, did not consider God to have the traits of classical theism, etc. Do deficiencies of theology hurt inerrancy or not, when taking in authorial intent?
3. If authorial intent doesn’t really matter, then whose interpretation matters? How do we determine the meaning of passages? If the original authors and their communities had errors in their interpretations, then who doesn’t?
4. On the NT Pauline epistles, if some of them aren’t written by Paul, despite claiming to be, does this harm inerrancy? The author would know he was deceiving a community of Jesus followers. Does this factor into the meaning of his false attribution?
5. If not everything said of Jesus in the gospels happened exactly, what genre are they?

I have others but these are the most pressing ones. It would be nice hear from someone who is involved with biblical scholarship but also holds to inerrancy. Total inerrancy that is, not partial. Whenever I say inerrancy I mean total, not only in faith and morals, aka partial

 

[Seekingthetruth]

To begin, I’ll only answer what i can, being someone who affirms “partial” inerrancy.

On the NT Pauline epistles, if some of them aren’t written by Paul, despite claiming to be, does this harm inerrancy? The author would know he was deceiving a community of Jesus followers. Does this factor into the meaning of his false attribution?

This is still pretty contested, the ones most often questioned are Ephesians, sometimes Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus.

However Irenaeus (a student of Polycarp) Wrote in Against Heresies quotes from Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy. So we know that they were at least important to the church by 180 AD. Most likely earlier because Irenaeus most likely would continue the teachings of Polycarp so we can estimate that those scriptures were accepted by 69 ad (most likely earlier). So in the end, if these scriptures were malicious forgeries then someone in the early church would be close enough to know. Its most likely someone who Paul discipled (if not Paul himself) wrote them. Does it harm inerrancy? No, I would say not.

A question for you, have you read any books or resources on the matter? Not being condescending, just a honest question.

If not everything said of Jesus in the gospels happened exactly, what genre are they?

Would the genre really be important? It would also depend on what was in error. Do you have a most specific example?

 

[Montrose]

Is the Bible's inerrancy limited to matters pertaining to salvation? | Catholic Answers Q&A

Is Scripture Inerrant? | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[Mythicalbio]

I have read some resources, which usually go on about how Paul couldn’t have been concerned with the things in the pastorals for instance. I don’t consider it to be malicious forgeries in the connotation, but it is ultimately false ascriptions. They are inspired nonetheless, so that’s part of the reason why I am trying to see if authorial intent matters at all in defining inerrancy, if it doesn’t then issues like that can be smoothed out instantly. Some things I am looking at include Forgery and Counterforgery, and the New Jerome Commentary.

With the Gospel bit, this would not be an error, but the community interpreting Jesus in their context, using Him as a mouthpiece. I don’t think it is erroneous or bad at all, just wanted to know what genre it would be considered, since I take it for granted that some content in the Gospels is like that (and I consider it a good thing that it is). An example of a possible constructed narrative of this sort might be the woman at the well.

 

[Seekingthetruth]

Paul couldn’t have been concerned with the things in the pastorals for instance

My only issue with this is that they would be his concern. In most cases he assisted or started these churches. Plus he took his place as a minister to the gentiles.

but it is ultimately false ascriptions

I’ll agree it may be possible they are false ascriptions, but its also very possible that Paul used amanuenses for his pastoral epistles which can account for differences in language, syntax, etc… For example let’s look at Romans. The letter begins by stating, “Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God” (Romans 1:1). However, at the end of the letter, one reads, “I Tertius, who wrote this letter, greet you in the Lord” (Romans 16:22). Here we see Paul didn’t “write” Romans, but he did dictate it. You see something similar in Ephesians 6:21 “Now, so that you also may know ⌊my circumstances⌋, what I am doing, Tychicus, my dear brother and faithful servant in the Lord, will make known to you all things“. Is this definitive proof? No, not really but it does seem to me that while Paul may not have physically wrote every epistle, he did at least have a hand in their writing, if it someone else wrote it.

authorial intent matters at all in defining inerrancy

I believe that divine authorial intent matters, let me unpack that a little more. Let’s assume the worse case, Paul’s pastoral epistles and 1st and 2nd Peter are forgeries, I would argue they are still completely inspired and inerrant. The Holy Spirit would still guide the authors in truth.

Some things I am looking at include Forgery and Counterforgery, and the New Jerome Commentary.

Ahhhh… good ole Bart Ehrman. Personally I’ve never read Forgeries and Counterforgeries. However, whenever I see something that he writes, I just remember that in his book misquoting Jesus he even admits that anything he writes about doesn’t affect the core message of Christianity, just minor points in between.

but the community interpreting Jesus in their context, using Him as a mouthpiece. I don’t think it is erroneous or bad at all, just wanted to know what genre it would be considered,

Honestly if that were the case I would still keep them as Roman Greco biographies, that’s just a personal opinion.

An example of a possible constructed narrative of this sort might be the woman at the well.

I see where you’re coming from. A similar one would be the woman caught in adultery. However, I’d still keep my original opinion.
———————————————————————
Just a side thought. At the end of the day 90% of the bible would be considered “forgeries” if by forgeries you mean writing something in someone elses name. that doesn’t retract from their inerrancy and we can be completely sure that whoever wrote whatever book was guarded and guided by the divine author, the Holy Spirit.

 

[Gorgias]

To what extent does authorial intent matter when it comes to inerrancy? What I mean is: none of the authors in the Bible could possibly mean the same things we mean with the same words.

When Catholics talk about the “literal sense” of Scripture, we mean “what the author intended.” Does it matter that his knowledge of human reproductive biology was different than ours? No; if he was talking about ‘conception’, it means conception, even if our ideas of the science differ. So, we don’t look at his scientific knowledge as “inerrant”; only the intent from his point of view (and God’s from His as divine author of Scripture).

The authorial intent behind the same words we use that are in the bible is different every time.

I would disagree. His understanding of science was different, but his intent in writing Scripture seems clear.

is the theology of the bible in all places considered perfect? We know views on the afterlife changed, what the soul is, etc, on the pages.

Not every word of Scripture is a commentary on doctrine. Often, it’s a commentary on what the people of the day believed. There’s talk of bigamy, and child sacrifice, and divorce in the OT. Do we then suggest that these are theologically sound doctrines? Of course not!

Do deficiencies of theology hurt inerrancy or not, when taking in authorial intent?

They help us understand what the context of the author’s day was, rather than stand as doctrine for us to follow. So, no… no problems with inerrancy there.

If authorial intent doesn’t really matter, then whose interpretation matters? How do we determine the meaning of passages? If the original authors and their communities had errors in their interpretations, then who doesn’t?

Authorial intent matters. The Church has the authority to teach and to interpret Scripture.

The author would know he was deceiving a community of Jesus followers.

No. The use of others’ names in one’s own writing, in antiquity, wasn’t meant to deceive ; it was meant to assert authorial credibility to the work. Today, we might just splash a banner on the book proclaiming “three years on the NYT best-sellers list!” or including glowing recommendations from well-known figures. In those days, though, they ascribed the writing to another known figure.

If not everything said of Jesus in the gospels happened exactly, what genre are they?

What would we suggest didn’t happen as presented in the Gospels?

I don’t think it is erroneous or bad at all, just wanted to know what genre it would be considered

Dr Brant Pitre asserts that the Gospels are written in the genre of Greco-Roman biography, following the conventions of the style in those days.