The doctrine of inerrancy holds that the original manuscripts of Scripture were inspired by God, and thus inerrant. Both Christians and skeptics alike have questioned the rationality and utility of the doctrine in light of the fact that we do not possess those manuscripts, and the manuscripts we do possess contain errors.
Regarding the rationality of the doctrine, why God would extend His power to inspire every word down to the very case and voice only to immediately allow some of those words to be garbled by the first few scribes who copied the inerrant text? Why extend your power to create an inerrant text if you’re not also going to extend your power to preserve it in the same inerrant fashion?
Regarding the utility of the doctrine, what value does inerrancy have if it only applies to texts we do not have?
I haven’t come across many attempts to answer these questions, and those few attempts were less than satisfactory in my opinion. While I do not claim to have worked it all out to my own satisfaction, here are my current thoughts on the matter.
The first point I should make is that the doctrine of inerrant originals is not a doctrine based in utility, but a logical conclusion based on the teaching of Scripture itself. If God was superintending the writers (inspiration) to write precisely what He wanted to convey, then it follows that what they wrote must be without error. After all, God does not make mistakes, and since He was superintending the authors as they wrote it guaranteed that they would not mistakes either. The original autographs perfectly conveyed the spiritual truths God wanted to communicate with 100% accuracy.
That may explain why God inspired the original writers, but if God was so concerned about eliminating error in the original autographs, why didn’t God superintend each and every copyist of those texts to ensure that the copies would preserve the inerrant text for each and every reader throughout the ages? I don’t pretend to know the mind of God, but I do know the past, and given how the text has fared without God’s superintendence of every copyist, I would venture to say that God did not deem it necessary to do so. He could foresee that while copyists would make mistakes, the great spiritual truths God superintended the original writers to write would be preserved in every generation. None of the errors introduced by copyists would obscure the text to such a degree that those truths would be lost. The errors that have been introduced are mostly inconsequential. Less than 1% of the errors are both viable and meaningful[1], and none of those affect any major Christian doctrine.
Consider this. If God had not inspired the original autographs, the original Gospel of Mark may have contained 80% truth and 20% error because its accuracy would depend on the finite mind of Mark himself. In such a situation, we would be left wondering how to sift the truth from the error. The situation would only worsen through the copying process over time. God’s involvement, however, ensured that all of it was true. While an errant copying process may mean that we are uncertain today regarding the exact wording of some parts of the text, we are only questioning 2-3% of text, not 20% or more. And when we consider that less than 1% of the viable errors even affect the meaning, and none of those affect any Christian doctrine, it’s not difficult to see why God did not find it necessary to superintend the copying process. God ensured that the spiritual truths He wanted to communicate to us were communicated to us via inspiration of the original writings, and those truths have been preserved even through the errant copying process.
While we may like to have 100% certainty regarding the exact wording of the original autographs, and while we may think that God should have inspired the copyists to preserve His inerrant Scriptures, apparently God did not share our concern. A text that is 99% accurate can still accomplish His purposes.
__________________
[1]Meaning that they (1) have a decent change of reflecting the original and (2) affects the meaning of the text to some degree.
Thinking to Believe 
February 10, 2017 at 2:28 pm
T.R. I agree with you, but it certainly is unfortunate that at least one significant (IMO) doctrinal issue falls within that 1%, such as is the case with Mat 28:19 vs Acts 2:38? or perhaps I should ask you, what are your thoughts on Eusebius of Cesarea’s numerous quotations of Mat 28:19 from a manuscript presumably older than the Textus Receptus, which state “My name” vs the triune titles?
LikeLike
February 10, 2017 at 5:33 pm
TR:
“……………the spiritual truths …………… communicated to us were communicated to us via inspiration (of the original writings)……………., and those truths have been preserved through inspiration is every generation. Whether or not the original writings are lost, missing or destroyed is irrelevant because truth is communicated to significant others via inspiration.
Inspiration first, then writings, not writings then inspiration. Writing is the effect of a cause. Although inspiration through the written word is an important way to attend to the masses, truth depends on inspiration and inspiration depends on no materialistic necessity for its inception or for its communication.
LikeLike
February 11, 2017 at 3:03 am
Don, technically it doesn’t fall into the 1% category because there is no textual variants in any NT manuscripts. So what do I make of it? I’m not convinced for the following reasons:
1. Eusebius makes no mention of baptism either, always quoting it to the effect: “Go, make disciples of all nations in my name, teaching them to observe…,” so if we are to believe his manuscripts of Matthew said “in my name” rather than “F,S,HS,” then we must also believe that they lacked any reference to baptism. It’s more likely that Eusebius was summarizing rather than quoting from any manuscript.
2. Why would the church/scribes change Matthew 28:19, but not Luke 24:46-47 and all the references in Acts?
3. No extant Greek manuscript contains the shorter reading. It seems unlikely that no Greek manuscript would contain the reading if it were original (if it is true, this has far reaching implications for God’s involvement in the preservation process and the reliability of the rest of the NT, though this practical consideration alone is not sufficient to dismiss the idea).
4. All early translations such as the Syriac contain the traditional wording.
5. It is quoted by many church fathers in the form we have it today, prior to the Council of Nicea:
• The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians, in Chapter 2 (see here) says, Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to “baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost….”.
• Tertullian, c. 200 AD (see here writes in On Baptism, Chapter XIII: “For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: “Go,” He saith, “teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” and in Against Praxeas, chapter 2 says, “After His resurrection ..He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost”.
• Hippolytus (170-236 AD says in Fragments: Part II.-Dogmatical and Historical.–Against the Heresy of One Noetus,”gave this charge to the disciples after He rose from the dead: Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
• Cyprian (200-258AD) in The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian says, And again, after His resurrection, sending His apostles, He gave them charge, saying, “All power is given unto me, in heaven and in earth. Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” and alludes to the same passage in other places as well.
• Gregory Thaumaturgus (205-265 AD) in A Sectional Confession of Faith, XIII (see here says, “….the Lord sends forth His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?”
6. If the traditional reading is not original it would seem that the conspirators would have been more likely to use the plural “names” rather than the singular “name.” The fact that the grammar is difficult, and that no Fathers felt the need to correct or amend it later (which they often did to what they thought were copying errors) argues for its authenticity. To use the singular “name” rather than the plural “names” is a hard reading that does not readily accord itself to a human invention.
LikeLike
February 13, 2017 at 1:10 pm
I was going to suggest that 99% was a bit generous but then I realized I was confusing inerrancy with literalism. I did a Google search to compare the two, tossing in infallibility for good measure, and found the entire discussion to be less than satisfying. Rather than explanations based on logical arguments, there is too much “because I said so” for what is and isn’t valid, subject to interpretations of textual translations and the rigidity of one’s Protestant belief system. But then, maybe that’s the point. Such ambiguities leaves one is free interpret scripture to meets one’s personal needs and beliefs, a luxury you don’t have when reading an article in Scientific American or the Journal of Molecular Biology.
LikeLike
February 14, 2017 at 1:19 am
Bob, comparing exegesis to science is not a fair comparison. But I would also say that if you think scientists and the scientific discipline are objective, I couldn’t disagree more. That’s why scientists disagree among themselves over many issues, very much like you see in religion.
LikeLike
February 14, 2017 at 5:22 am
To clarify, I’m not impugning the value of exegesis. While I don’t believe it is necessary to acknowledge the existence of a supernatural being in order to lead a moral life, I do believe society benefits from the explanations of the moral lessons taught by scripture and the direction those interpretations provide for individual and group behaviors. It took be a while to fully comprehend the tentative nature of scientific truth and even longer to understand the interpretative nature of religious truth. If it weren’t for a small minority of vocal, absolute literalists on both sides I suspect there could be a great deal of comity between the opposing worldviews. But I digress and am getting off topic.
LikeLike
February 16, 2017 at 4:13 am
Bob, you are correct, it is not necessary to believe in a supernatural being in order to lead a moral life. If that is what you have been led to believe then you have been listening to the religious and not those that preach the real gospel.
Staying on topic, we don’t need 100% accurate copies of the scriptures, we need the proper understanding of what these writings are communicating and that does not come from Man’s intellect but from the Holy Spirit. Only then can we understand the gospel and not be led into false notions.
Cheers !
Naz
LikeLike
February 16, 2017 at 5:03 am
A good question to consider is why God would allow errors in the copies, would that not hinder our understanding ? Would that not possibly lead us to incorrect doctrine ? I thought God was supposed to lead us into all truth, don’t the errors lead us away from the truth ?
The answer to the above is an emphatic NO ! It is not the errors in the copies that has been the problem over the centuries but as Peter wrote, there are those that twist the scriptures to their own destruction. It’s the twisting and misinterpreting of scriptures that is the problem. Sure the errors don’t help, but as Jason pointed out, the errors only effect a small percentage of the totality of the writings. We don’t have so many denominations because of the textual errors, it’s because of how the scriptures are interpreted and in some cases severely twisted.
We don’t need to be scholars and have degrees in theology to correctly understand the scriptures, so I don’t want to imply that only a choice few “get it” and the rest don’t, that’s not what I’m implying at all. I think there is a simplicity to the gospel, which is the culmination of all scripture, that every person can understand regardless of their social or educational background.
Naz
LikeLike
February 16, 2017 at 10:52 am
Naz:
“………Jason pointed out, the errors only effect a small percentage of the totality of the writings……….”
How would Jason or you or anybody know the extent of the errors, from scriptural twisting, misinterpretation, misrepresentation, deletions, revisions or simply to match-up in order to conform to religious (Church) dogma? Remember this is hundreds of centuries in the past when scripture was chiseled in stone, etched on papyrus or parchment made from animal hides and handed down written by hundreds of Scribes much of which would have been word of mouth accounts, hearsay.
And remember also when you talk about the Holy Spirit operating in man are you talking about the Spirit before or after Pentecost? IMO the Holy Spirit, so called, has always been operating in humanity but not adhered to or practiced sufficiently because of evolutionary infancy self preservation and the egoic mind before we invented the wheel, made tools, knew how to communicate in cave wall symbols and eventually the written word.
So when you become aware of your mind, you are not identified with your mind anymore. A new dimension of consciousness has come in. The madness is caused by thinking without awareness, and thinking without awareness is how the ego keeps us in its grip.
LikeLike