Questions on Inerrancy-Chicago Statement

[gluadys]

Not sure in light of recent discussions whether this thread is welcome, but I am not getting the response I hoped for in Origins Theology and I hope regulars here can help me.

I am really interested in exploring--NOT DEBATING--this issue. My own education in Christianity did not include the concept of an inerrant scripture, and I was recently challenged to learn more about it.

I want to draw attention to three posts in particular from the original thread:

Post 3
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=42057004&postcount=3

I don't think any discussion of this is required. I just took note of the many articles in which the Chicago Statement re-iterates the scope of inerrancy. Nothing is excluded. Scripture is inerrant in all that it addresses. That much I had already gleaned, and I see it strongly confirmed here.

Post 11
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=42068203&postcount=11

Question 3 here has not been answered yet. And question 2 only partially.

Post 24
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=42126936&postcount=24

This summarizes the partial answer to question 2 in post 11. And raises the further clarifying question.

If grammatical-historical exegesis only means respect the grammar and use the most historically reliable text, what distinguishes this exegesis from that used by other responsible exegetes who do not come to the same conclusions?

I can understand why the New World Translation of John 1:1 (used by Jehovah's Witnesses) is inadmissible because it distorts the grammar of the original Greek. I can understand that one cannot build a responsible exegesis on the basis of later glosses, emendations, or comments added to the original text.

What I am having difficulty understanding is why this particular exegesis is specified in a statement on inerrancy. What is the resonance between grammatical-historical exegesis and inerrancy?

Can anyone shed light on this, or are the framers of the Chicago statement simply stating the obvious here?

btw, if anyone wants to read the whole original thread, it is here:
http://christianforums.com/t6646031

 

[FallingWaters]

I think the theologians are out in the general theology area.
I believe they might some knowledge in the area of inerrancy.

Have you tried doing a Google search and looking for Christian sites which explain inerrancy?

 

[gluadys]

I think the theologians are out in the general theology area.
I believe they might some knowledge in the area of inerrancy.

Have you tried doing a Google search and looking for Christian sites which explain inerrancy?

The sites don't deal with the kind of question I asked. But I will try General Theology. I so seldom go there I forget it exists.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

What I am having difficulty understanding is why this particular exegesis is specified in a statement on inerrancy. What is the resonance between grammatical-historical exegesis and inerrancy?

Grammatical-historical exegesis largely assumes the inerrancy of the text. It thoroughly takes into account the language of the original documents word for word, and also takes into account their historical context.

However, it is differentiated from higher critical exegesis in that it takes a fuller account of the supernatural, and leans toward a more historical (contra metaphorical) reading of the text. In the first instance, this means that Isaiah 40 could really be talking about Cyrus hundreds of years before the god-king's birth, whereas higher critical exegesis would assume on that basis that Isaiah 40 was written after the return from exile.

In the second case, texts that appear literal are given the benefit of the doubt inasmuch as they seem possible. For instance, a historical-grammatical exegete would take the passages concerning Noah and assume that since it is a historical-sounding narrative, it must be historical (although they might allow that a global flood did not happen, since the text never says the water necessarily covered the entire globe, but merely an ambiguous 'land'). This, of course, stems from their high view of textual inspiration.

This does not mean they are literalists. Many grammatical-historical exegetes recognize metaphors, including extended metaphors, within Scripture. For many, especially conservatives among the Reformed, this includes Genesis 1. In fact, the framework interpretation of Genesis 1 (the ruler-realms paring of days 1-3 with 4-6) was pioneered by inerrantist, grammatical-historical exegetes within the Reformed tradition like Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, Archibold Alexander, B.B. Warfield, Geerhardus Vos, and Meredith G. Kline (Warfield and Kline, in particular, were pioneers of contemporary inerrancy and also theistic evolutionists). Modern grammatical-historical exegetes entirely eschew literalistic exegesis, especially as found within dispensationalist interpretations of prophecy.

Does that help or hinder?

 

[gluadys]

Grammatical-historical exegesis largely assumes the inerrancy of the text. It thoroughly takes into account the language of the original documents word for word, and also takes into account their historical context.

However, it is differentiated from higher critical exegesis in that it takes a fuller account of the supernatural, and leans toward a more historical (contra metaphorical) reading of the text. In the first instance, this means that Isaiah 40 could really be talking about Cyrus hundreds of years before the god-king's birth, whereas higher critical exegesis would assume on that basis that Isaiah 40 was written after the return from exile.

In the second case, texts that appear literal are given the benefit of the doubt inasmuch as they seem possible. For instance, a historical-grammatical exegete would take the passages concerning Noah and assume that since it is a historical-sounding narrative, it must be historical (although they might allow that a global flood did not happen, since the text never says the water necessarily covered the entire globe, but merely an ambiguous 'land'). This, of course, stems from their high view of textual inspiration.

This does not mean they are literalists. Many grammatical-historical exegetes recognize metaphors, including extended metaphors, within Scripture. For many, especially conservatives among the Reformed, this includes Genesis 1. In fact, the framework interpretation of Genesis 1 (the ruler-realms paring of days 1-3 with 4-6) was pioneered by inerrantist, grammatical-historical exegetes within the Reformed tradition like Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, Archibold Alexander, B.B. Warfield, Geerhardus Vos, and Meredith G. Kline (Warfield and Kline, in particular, were pioneers of contemporary inerrancy and also theistic evolutionists). Modern grammatical-historical exegetes entirely eschew literalistic exegesis, especially as found within dispensationalist interpretations of prophecy.

Does that help or hinder?

It helps somewhat. I did notice the absence of the term "literal" in the statement and was going to ask about that. I have read Kline's framework thesis and also the article "Because it had not rained..." and found them both insightful.

Still it seems a bit circular for a statement on inerrancy to specify an exegesis that presumes inerrancy as if any other exegetical principle is looking for error.

I find most interpreters want to interpret what scripture says, not find fault with what it says.

Mind if I ask another question?

In the same article (Article XVIII) it says that "Scripture is to interpret Scripture."

I am wondering about the scope of this, because I have often seen it interpreted as "only Scripture is to interpret Scripture". IOW one is not to appeal to any extra-biblical evidence from ancient culture or scientific study to shed light on the meaning of scripture.

Is that overreaching the intent of inerrancy?

 

[CaDan]

The intent is to eliminate source and form criticism. 'Cause to recognize those is to recognize that real people wrote the books of the Bible.

 

[gluadys]

The intent is to eliminate source and form criticism. 'Cause to recognize those is to recognize that real people wrote the books of the Bible.

LOL!

But what is ungrammatical or unhistorical about source and form criticism?

Is it also the intent to say that an exegesis which is grammatically correct and historically appropriate cannot possibly conclude that a biblical narrative is a story?

Does "inerrancy" have a problem with literature?

I have come across people who seem to think that "narrative" implies "factual narrative" as if a poem or a legend is not a narrative.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Mind if I ask another question?

In the same article (Article XVIII) it says that "Scripture is to interpret Scripture."

I am wondering about the scope of this, because I have often seen it interpreted as "only Scripture is to interpret Scripture". IOW one is not to appeal to any extra-biblical evidence from ancient culture or scientific study to shed light on the meaning of scripture.

Is that overreaching the intent of inerrancy?

The rule 'scripture interprets scripture' is also known as analogia fide, the analogy of faith.

It's more a hermeneutical principle than an exegetical rule. It doesn't (or, if shouldn't) have anything to do with using extra-biblical texts or sources to provide context. Rather, it centers on the debate over interpretive subjectivity and the Protestant lack of an infallible, ecclesial context. Catholics responded that without an infallible church to interpret the Scriptures, the infallibility (to say nothing of the inerrancy) of the Scriptures was really worth nothing. The reformers responded that it is not the fallible exegete, but the Holy Spirit working in and through the Scriptures themselves that provide an objective source and norm for interpretation. It is very much related to the reformation doctrine of biblical perspicuity (clarity).

And as example, it has been very successfully redeployed by mainstream Protestant theologians going after the dispensationalists. As we see from one book by former DTS president John Walvoord, no less an obscure text than Daniel is the 'key to biblical prophecy.'

Analogia fide firmly rejects this nonsensical form of interpretation. The more obscure parts of the Scripture should be interpreted first as a framework (in eschatology, 1 and 2 Thessalonians), and then those form the key by which we unlock Daniel 9, Mark 13, and Revelation.

And yet, these same interpreters are perfectly comfortable looking at this literature as embedded within its cultural context. For instance, they have no problem thinking that Daniel 9 refers to the tyranny of Antiochus Epiphanes, the Seleucid ruler and enemy of Judaism that provoked the Maccabean revolt in the second century (although, they would take Daniel as being actually written during the Babylonian exile, unlike historical critics who would view Daniel as written after the Maccabean revolt). And they would have no problem viewing Revelation in light of intertestamental apocalyptic literature and the persecution of the church under Nero.

By 'literal,' they do not mean the literal meaning of the text. Luther and Calvin also often spoke of the 'literal' meaning of a text, but this was not literal vs. metaphorical, but the literal sense vs. the only three 'senses of Scriptures' that dominated medieval scholastic exegesis: the allegorical sense (how a verse refers to the Christ-event), the ethical sense, and the anagogical sense (how a verse refers to eschatology). The literal sense here means 'the plain sense,' or the actual intended meaning of the author within the author's cultural context.

They also rely on Augustine's rule that where science and our interpretation of the literal or plain sense contradict, we should reevaluate our interpretation. However, if we cannot yield a reasonable interpretation of the plain sense that makes sense in the author's cultural and historical context, the inerrantist, grammatical-historical exegetes would fall back to the contradictory meaning. Thus, if M.G. Kline did not solidly prove the framework hypothesis, the inerrantist, grammatical-historical exegetes would hold firmly to creationism (but thankfully, he did).

That help?

 

[FallingWaters]

... The literal sense here means 'the plain sense,' or the actual intended meaning of the author within the author's cultural context.

They also rely on Augustine's rule that where science and our interpretation of the literal or plain sense contradict, we should reevaluate our interpretation. However, if we cannot yield a reasonable interpretation of the plain sense that makes sense in the author's cultural and historical context, the inerrantist, grammatical-historical exegetes would fall back to the contradictory meaning. Thus, if M.G. Kline did not solidly prove the framework hypothesis, the inerrantist, grammatical-historical exegetes would hold firmly to creationism (but thankfully, he did).

That help?

This is my approach to understanding the scriptures as well.

Thank you for explaining such a complex subject so succinctly.

 

[CaDan]

The rule 'scripture interprets scripture' is also known as analogia fide, the analogy of faith.

It's more a hermeneutical principle than an exegetical rule. It doesn't (or, if shouldn't) have anything to do with using extra-biblical texts or sources to provide context. Rather, it centers on the debate over interpretive subjectivity and the Protestant lack of an infallible, ecclesial context. Catholics responded that without an infallible church to interpret the Scriptures, the infallibility (to say nothing of the inerrancy) of the Scriptures was really worth nothing. The reformers responded that it is not the fallible exegete, but the Holy Spirit working in and through the Scriptures themselves that provide an objective source and norm for interpretation. It is very much related to the reformation doctrine of biblical perspicuity (clarity).

And as example, it has been very successfully redeployed by mainstream Protestant theologians going after the dispensationalists. As we see from one book by former DTS president John Walvoord, no less an obscure text than Daniel is the 'key to biblical prophecy.'

Analogia fide firmly rejects this nonsensical form of interpretation. The more obscure parts of the Scripture should be interpreted first as a framework (in eschatology, 1 and 2 Thessalonians), and then those form the key by which we unlock Daniel 9, Mark 13, and Revelation.

And yet, these same interpreters are perfectly comfortable looking at this literature as embedded within its cultural context. For instance, they have no problem thinking that Daniel 9 refers to the tyranny of Antiochus Epiphanes, the Seleucid ruler and enemy of Judaism that provoked the Maccabean revolt in the second century (although, they would take Daniel as being actually written during the Babylonian exile, unlike historical critics who would view Daniel as written after the Maccabean revolt). And they would have no problem viewing Revelation in light of intertestamental apocalyptic literature and the persecution of the church under Nero.

By 'literal,' they do not mean the literal meaning of the text. Luther and Calvin also often spoke of the 'literal' meaning of a text, but this was not literal vs. metaphorical, but the literal sense vs. the only three 'senses of Scriptures' that dominated medieval scholastic exegesis: the allegorical sense (how a verse refers to the Christ-event), the ethical sense, and the anagogical sense (how a verse refers to eschatology). The literal sense here means 'the plain sense,' or the actual intended meaning of the author within the author's cultural context.

They also rely on Augustine's rule that where science and our interpretation of the literal or plain sense contradict, we should reevaluate our interpretation. However, if we cannot yield a reasonable interpretation of the plain sense that makes sense in the author's cultural and historical context, the inerrantist, grammatical-historical exegetes would fall back to the contradictory meaning. Thus, if M.G. Kline did not solidly prove the framework hypothesis, the inerrantist, grammatical-historical exegetes would hold firmly to creationism (but thankfully, he did).

That help?

Does it reject the Origenist system of interpretation as well?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Does it reject the Origenist system of interpretation as well?

Yup.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

This is my approach to understanding the scriptures as well.

Thank you for explaining such a complex subject so succinctly.

Sure thing.

By the way, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm not an inerrantist, and I would fall somewhere between the grammatico-historical and higher critical exegetical methods. But I hope I'm doing justice to the idea.

 

[CaDan]

Sure thing.

By the way, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm not an inerrantist, and I would fall somewhere between the grammatico-historical and higher critical exegetical methods. But I hope I'm doing justice to the idea.

You're doing fine.

I just have to decide which of your posts in here to rep.

 

[gluadys]

By 'literal,' they do not mean the literal meaning of the text. Luther and Calvin also often spoke of the 'literal' meaning of a text, but this was not literal vs. metaphorical, but the literal sense vs. the only three 'senses of Scriptures' that dominated medieval scholastic exegesis: the allegorical sense (how a verse refers to the Christ-event), the ethical sense, and the anagogical sense (how a verse refers to eschatology). The literal sense here means 'the plain sense,' or the actual intended meaning of the author within the author's cultural context.

That is how I understand it, too, and I have often commented that many people who self-identify as "literalists" don't really understand what "literal" means.

That help?

It does and it doesn't. From what you have said so far, I could call myself an inerrantist.

But judging from your explanations, many of those who call themselves inerrantists (at least those who appeal to inerrancy to support young-earth creationism) are seriously misinterpreting the doctrine of inerrancy as presented in the Chicago Statement. Yet they point to this statement as the gold standard of what is meant by inerrancy.

So, if anything I am more confused than ever by the whole idea.

I'm going to read the statement again and come back with more questions.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

t does and it doesn't. From what you have said so far, I could call myself an inerrantist.

But judging from your explanations, many of those who call themselves inerrantists (at least those who appeal to inerrancy to support young-earth creationism) are seriously misinterpreting the doctrine of inerrancy as presented in the Chicago Statement. Yet they point to this statement as the gold standard of what is meant by inerrancy.

So, if anything I am more confused than ever by the whole idea.

I'm going to read the statement again and come back with more questions.

Well I suppose my posts have concentrated more on the grammatico-historical exegesis instead of actual inerrancy.

When it comes to inerrancy, lets take Mark 6 as an example. In Mark 6, the text says that Herod Antipas' wife had previously been married to Herod Philip. However, we know from Josephus that she was not married to Herod Philip, who was tetarch of the Golan, but was instead married to another Herod whose name we do not know, though he's known in academic historical circles as Herod 'Boethes' (after his maternal grandfather).

The inerrantist believes that the text of Scripture is, word for word, absolutely true. That means that if Mark 6 is historical in genre, then either Josephus is wrong about Herodias' previous marriage or Herod named two of his sons Philip. However, since both of these options seem unlikely, the inerrantist will use grammatico-historical exegesis will try and demonstrate that Mark 6 is not strict history.

However, if it becomes clear that the author did intend to write the pericope as history, then the inerrantist will have to assert that the Scriptures have to be factually correct on this minor historical point.

Thus the historical and scientific facts (incorrectly) reported in Scripture can be ignored by an inerrantist working through the grammatico-historical method, but only if it is shown to be non-scientific or non-historical reporting. If in the text, the author intended to convey historical or scientific facts, then those facts have to be accepted despite any contrary rational or empirical evidence.

As an aside, as a 'moderate' infallibilist, I believe that the Scriptures are true in all their theological exposition including all historical and scientific reporting that bears directly on God's redemptive-historical plan. Thus the resurrection, because it effects a theological truth within human history, must be true.

I would definite the 'strong' or 'radical' infallibilist as someone who thinks that only the trascendent, non-historical and non-scientific theological and ethical truths in the Scriptures are necessarily true. I think Rudolf Bultmann is a good example of this position if you want to look him up.