Uncertainty about what the original autographs said is no argument against inerrantism about what the original autographs said, not just because whether the original has errors is independent of whether we know what the original said. Kenny Pearce offers some Bayesian probabilistic reasons for concluding that a doctrine of inerrancy might still make a difference epistemically about particularly propositions despite uncertainty about whether the original autographs teach those propositions. He applies this to doctrinal issues that inerrantists who accept some principle of sola scriptura might nevertheless dispute, and then he applies it to science and evolution. I don't really know any Bayesian probability, so I can't really evaluate this in those terms, but what he's saying seems right to me in general.
Technorati Tags: bayesian probability, autographs, sola scriptura, uncertainty, pearce, evolution, science, nevertheless
Technorati Tags: bayesian probability, evolution science, sola scriptura, autographs, technorati, uncertainty, pearce, nevertheless
This objection to inerrancy always struck me as a misunderstanding of inerrancy. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy directly ascribes inerrant authority to the author’s intent in Scripture, and only indirectly to the autographs. We don’t have autographs for Plato, Aristotle, or Cicero; for these gentlemen the lack of autographs is a problem for the highly specialized study of textual criticism, but no one suggests that missing the autographs is a serious barrier to getting at the author’s intent.
When objectors to inerrancy single out Scripture as being a rare text where missing autographs is a problem for knowing original meaning, I feel like they have to be doing one of two things.
Maybe it’s a double standard, saying it’s a problem for Scripture but not for Shakespeare or Cicero that we don’t have the autographs. But piecing together the original text from surviving manuscripts should be no more difficult for Scripture just because the content of the original text has a certain quality.
Maybe they are thinking that inerrancy is directly attributed to the autographs, that it’s some mystical doctrine about the autographs that is meaningless if there are no autographs. But the Chicago Statement says little if anything about the content of the author’s intent, saying only that that content is without error. There is something mystical in the idea that God kept the authors from error while they were writing about these things, but inerrancy says nothing mystical about the location of the author’s intent. I always got the feeling (from a teacher and mentor William Bell, who was part of the original International Council on Biblical Inerrancy) that the Chicago Statement mentions the autographs in order to avoid the problem of treating the Biblical text with the wrong kind of mysticism. The Chicago Statement assumes that there is an author’s intent in Scripture, says that it is accessible in the same way it would be accessible in comparable literature (such as the genres of first-century letter-writing and the ancient near-Eastern history), and leaves us with the idea that the author’s intent is a necessary part of understanding the Biblical text; moreover, it is relevant to all understanding of the Biblical text. Only given this basic realism about authorial intent does inerrancy say something mystical, namely that the author’s intent in this book is unique among author’s intents for being outside of error.
Mark, one of the reasons for mentioning the autographs is to contrast with the current state of manuscripts, where there are clearly errors.
One problem with talking just about intent is the ambiguity with two authors. If it's possible that God's intent goes beyond the human author's, then you can't just take it to be the human author's intent.
I don't think either problem is a problem with the view. They're just problems in stating the view. But they do make it harder to say it exactly the way you did without bringing in misunderstandings on the opposite end from the ones they would be trying to avoid.
"If it's possible that God's intent goes beyond the human author's, then you can't just take it to be the human author's intent."
Indeed. And I think you are right that most of these thigns are "just problems in stating the view."
Now, the following is probably just commentary on what you said, but I think the misunderstanding that inerrancy claims texual meaning is limited to authorial intent doesn't follow from anything I've said or from what the Chicago Statement says. Bell, for instance, always said that the one "meaning" (the authorial intent) had many "applications." And the Ch St on Biblical Hermeneutics specifically says that OT authors were not aware of the full significance of their words. A lot of people think inerrancy limits textual meaning to authorial intent, and it makes sense psychologically because inerrancy talks so much about author's intent. But it doesn't follow logically. Ch St types shy away from "meaning" and prefer words like "significance" and "application," but I think that the spiritual sense of the text is not fully excluded here.
I've written a little bit about how the Chicago Statement's claims about authorial intent can be reconciled with Marion's God Without Being and the way textual meanign isn't limited to author's intent. Sadly, I'm a lowly grad student and haven't published anything anywhere yet. I did take it to the SCP conference at Notre Dame, though.
(I think that inerrancy and an attitude of not limited textual meaning to authorial intent, taken together holistically, actually look a lot like Confessions XII and some other Patristic and Medieval texts.)