So the originals are inspired, but not the copies?
The theory goes something like this. Long ago, God inspired the writing of the original documents (also called autographs) of the Bible. Meaning, copies (also called manuscripts) of those original documents are not what God inspired. It was the original documents only.
The problem is that we don’t have the original documents. Any of them.
Bible Colleges, Seminaries and Churches
It is common for churches, Bible colleges, Christian universities and seminaries to include statements of faith on their websites and in writing. In higher education institutions, these statements of faith help future students and professors know what the Christian institution believes which then informs their decision to attend as students or work there as staff or faculty. In the case of churches, it has the same effect on future members, pastors and staff. One area that statements of faith include is an affirmation of their belief in the doctrine of Biblical inspiration. The doctrine nearly always refers to their belief that God inspired all of the writings that we have come to know as the books of the Bible.
Some of these Christian institutions simply write that they “believe all Scripture is inspired by God,” while other institutions qualify their belief by saying they “believe all original autographs of Scripture are inspired by God.” In other words, those who qualify their belief are asserting they do not believe the manuscripts (or copies) of the Bible to be inspired. In either case, these affirmations of Biblical inspiration usually end with some mention of Biblical inerrancy. For them, Biblical inspiration causes Biblical inerrancy. We would not have the latter without the former.
There’s a bit of history as to how this practice began in qualifying which documents are inspired.
The man who began this practice in the United States was a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary. He was attempting to answer critics who pointed out that the many manuscripts we have of the Bible include errors. His solution was that when Paul told his protege Timothy that “all Scripture is inspired by God,” Paul was referring to the original documents.
Grasping at straws
Let’s make sense out of why people and institutions qualify that the doctrine of Biblical inspiration refers to the original documents (or autographs). First, they begin with Biblical inspiration (God inspired all the books of the Bible). Second, they then draw the connection of Biblical inspiration to Biblical inerrancy (the view that the Bible is without error). Since God inspired all the books of the Bible, all of them must be true and without error. Third, they acknowledge that Bible scholarship has proven that there is a large enough number of copies (or manuscripts) which include errors and inconsistencies. Since, however, they have already affirmed the Biblical inerrancy view and are inclined to continue embracing it, they are then forced to provide an adequate explanation and justification for their conflicting views. In other words, how can the Biblical inerrancy view be taken seriously if there are clearly errors in multiple manuscripts? Fourth, the solution, or work around that some Christian institutions and individuals take is to say that the doctrine of Biblical inspiration applies not to the copies (manuscripts) of the Bible, but to the original documents (or autographs). Problem solved, right? Well, not so fast.
Let’s take this line of reasoning a step further, shall we? If the Biblical inerrancy view is correct, then why didn’t God miraculously preserve the original documents? Yes, we have many copies, and that’s a good thing. But why not make sure the original documents survived? Since they did not survive, why is there a perceived need to assert that they (as opposed to the copies) were inspired by God?
At one level, at least some Christian institutions and individuals acknowledge there are errors in the copies. Honesty is important. Some Christian churches and universities won’t even do that. But to then assert that God only inspired the original documents (and not the copies) as a work around in order to keep and hold onto the Biblical inerrancy view when none of those original documents even exist anymore is a bit telling. It demonstrates the powerful propaganda behind the Biblical inerrancy view and the lengths to which Christians go to hold onto it. For many Christians, they need (or at least think they need) to have an error-free Bible or their faith will literally fall apart.
But that view of Biblical inspiration is fortunately not the only one that exists.
The beauty of Biblical inspiration
Ironically, truth be told, like many Christians around the world, I also believe the entire Bible is inspired by God. But I don’t assume that in order for the Bible books to be inspired, they must not have errors, inconsistencies or contradictions. I believe that in the loving providence of God, the very large library of books we call the Bible is both inspired by God and very human. We find traces of God and God’s beauty in it’s pages, but we also find lots of traces of incompleteness, human immaturity and even human depravity. The Bible is, in this sense, incarnational. God’s inspiration of the Bible does not necessitate or preclude that it must be inerrant. God seems to be perfectly ok with human beings messing with the story quite a bit. As humans often do, we sometimes get things amazingly right, and sometimes we get things horribly wrong. The Bible doesn’t shy away from this tension. It’s all over the place.
Resources on this topic:
For a deeper dive into the topic of Biblical inspiration that critiques the Biblical inerrancy view many evangelicals have and offers an alternative view rooted in the Bible’s incarnational nature see Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the problem of the Old Testament by Peter Enns and Inspired Imperfection: How the Bible’s problems enhance it’s divine authority by Gregory Boyd.
_____________________________________________________________
Next post: Bible Myth 4: Rejecting Biblical inerrancy leads us down “the slippery slope” to losing our faith
Previous post: Bible Myth 2: The Bible doesn’t contradict itself
_____________________________________________________________
To contact me: email peter@faithrethink.com
To read other blog posts and articles I’ve written, check out “Recent Posts,” visit the “Archive” or look up topics under “Categories” at https://faithrethink.com/blog/
To watch or listen to my short talks go to: https://faithrethink.com/media/
