NICHOLAS S SELBY

Biblical Inerrancy

Posted on May 28, 2020

Cole, Thomas. The Garden of Eden. 1828. Oil on canvas. Amon Carter Museum of American Art, Fort Worth, Texas.
Cole, Thomas. The Garden of Eden. 1828. Oil on canvas. Amon Carter Museum of American Art, Fort Worth, Texas.

Contents

Motivation: What is the Bible?

I grew up believing that everything written in the Bible was literally true. I imagined God delivering His Word to authors, slowly revealing Himself throughout history via an autobiographical textbook/love letter of history, law, poetry, and prophecy. The Bible was the sole, infallible authority for my faith. Correctly interpreted, it alone could lead me to live a love-filled life and choose salvation.

The particularities of my faith caused some social awkwardness in my adolescence. In middle school, I helped lead a Bible study group nominally focused on Christian apologetics, but which primarily featured my friends and I making fun of other religions. In high school biology, I got permission from my teacher to give an impassioned speech to my class about the flaws in evolutionary biology and how we should all be biblical literalists.

I no longer see the Bible through this lens. I still read the Bible and find value in its teachings. I still consider myself a Christian. No monumental event changed my mind or caused me to "stray from the faith." In this essay, I aim to guide a similar deconstruction of biblical inerrancy and provide an alternative view in which I have found freedom. To do this, I will first join the chorus of amateur scholars and attempt to find a contradiction in the Bible. Next, I will follow the inerrantist response to my alleged contradiction. This will motivate an exploration of the justification for biblical inerrancy, beginning with claims of a scriptural justification and leading to a historical investigation of the doctrine's origin. Having thoroughly examined historical and contemporary expressions of the doctrine, I will then provide an alternative proposition.

Potential Inaccuracies in the New Testament

First, I argue that the Bible contains contradictions. I recognize that I am not the first to make this claim. Apparently different side-by-side creation narratives in Genesis, histories in the Books of Kings and Chronicles, and genealogies listed in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, as well as many other alleged contradictions, have been debated by scholars of various beliefs for centuries. I would like to focus on one alleged contradiction to use as an example: the differing dates of Jesus' birth in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

Matthew 2:1 reads, "Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king." Matthew's "Herod the king" is thought to be Herod the Great, the first of a dynasty of Herods who ruled in Judea, because the author later refers to "Herod the tetrarch" in Matthew 14:1. Because only Herod Antipas, the son of Herod the Great, bore the title of tetrarch,[1,2,3] the Gospel's "Herod the king" was most likely Herod the Great. A corroborating argument can be made using Luke 1:5 and 3:1. Scholars estimate Herod the Great's death in either 4 or 1 BCE,[4] so the author of the Gospel of Matthew dated Jesus' birth before 1 BCE.

The Gospel of Luke presents a disjoint range of possible dates. Luke 2:1-2 reads, "Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria." This is problematic for a few reasons. First, the Census of Quirinius did not take place until 6 CE.[5] The author of the Gospel of Luke therefore dated Jesus' birth significantly after the author of the Gospel of Matthew did. Furthermore, there was no single census of the entire empire under Augustus, no Roman census required people to travel from their own homes to those of distant ancestors, the census of Judea would not have affected Joseph and his family living in Galilee, there is no time in the known career of Quirinius when he could have served as governor of Syria before 6 CE, and the Romans did not directly tax client kingdoms.[6,7,8,9] For these reasons, many scholars have concluded that the account in the Gospel of Luke is an error. Much of the scholarship on this subject is based on Antiquities of the Jews, a historiographical work by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus written circa 93 or 94 CE.[10]

Rejecting Empiricism for Biblical Inerrancy

Despite the evidence, it remains simple to reject modern scholarship's interpretation that the birth narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are not coherent. For example, perhaps Quirinius was governor of Syria multiple times,[11] or perhaps the translation of the Gospel of Luke should be rendered "procurator" instead of "governor,"[12] implying that the author of the Gospel of Luke was simply not being clear about the date of Jesus' birth. All of the explanations I have read defending biblical inerrancy in light of this or other apparent contradictions contain the following theme: the authors of the Bible should be considered more trustworthy than other records that contradict their details.

This view, sometimes rejected as "exegetical acrobatics,"[13] should actually be respected. Today, most people take for granted the philosophical theories of rationalism and empiricism. We are trained to propose a hypothesis like "the Bible is inerrant" and then test that hypothesis with data, like comparing statements in the Bible against other sources in an unbiased manner. Many critical scholars interpret the doctrine of biblical inerrancy as a universal quantification[14] equivalent to "Given any statement P in the Bible, P is true." Formally, the disproof of such a statement can be as easy as finding a single counterexample statement, P', that both exists in the Bible and is false. One way to do this is by finding two statements in the Bible, P and Q, and demonstrating a contradiction via P → ¬Q. The possibility of discovering a simple proof that undermines the world's largest religion is enticing—at least until one examines the history of the debate.

Belief in biblical inerrancy offers an alternative philosophy to the empiricism of critical scholars: assume the Bible is inerrant, so any contradicting evidence is, per the transitive property, false. In discussing the above example of the apparent error in the Gospel of Luke, Christian apologist Luke Wayne[15] summarizes this argument well: "I'm not aware of anyone who thinks that Josephus is an infallible, inerrant source. Neither Christians nor skeptics think so. So why assume that Josephus must automatically be the one who got it right?"

Critical scholars test the hypothesis of biblical inerrancy against historical evidence. Believers in biblical inerrancy use the assumption of their doctrine to dismiss contradictory evidence. Calling such arguments "acrobatics" misunderstands the terms of the debate. Belief in biblical inerrancy is, in its own way, beautifully self-consistent, but I argue that many Christians who accept the Bible as literal fact need to examine their reason for doing so.

The Foundation of Biblical Inerrancy

When asked why I believed the Bible to be inerrant, I pointed to two key verses:

  1. 2 Timothy 3:16: "Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness."
  2. 2 Peter 1:21: "For no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

In retrospect, using verses from the Bible as confirmation of its own inerrancy is circular reasoning and further evidence that empiricism and rationalism were not primary tenants of my faith. Nonetheless, the philosophy remains self-consistent.

What scripture did the author of 2 Timothy find so useful, and to what prophecy did the author of 2 Peter refer? Both γραφὴ, the Greek word translated as "scripture" in 2 Timothy 3:16,[16] and προφητεία, "prophecy" in 2 Peter 1:21,[17] are used several times throughout the New Testament, all referring to various passages in the Old Testament.

Most scholars date the writing of 2 Timothy between 90 and 140 CE[18] and that of 2 Peter between 60 and 160 CE.[19] Considering the four gospels in the New Testament were likely written between 70 and 200 CE[20] and were not assembled into the biblical canon until 382 CE at the Council of Rome,[21] the notion that the authors of the New Testament referred to the gospels or any of the epistles using the same word as the centuries-old Jewish scriptures is unlikely.

Some conservative scholars argue for a "conscious narrative" view of the New Testament: God could have provided the New Testament authors with an awareness that they were writing for canon.[22] Toward that point, the author of 1 Timothy does appear to cite Luke 10:7: "For Scripture says, 'Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,' and 'The worker deserves his wages.'"[23] However, this apparent equivocation is likely a product of translation. As author William Mounce writes, "The problem of calling the citation 'Scripture' is accounted for by recognizing that 'Scripture' need only apply to Paul's first citation from the OT. This is similar to Mark 1:2-3 where the formula 'as it is written in Isaiah the prophet' introduces three citations from Exod 23:20, Mal 3:1, and Isa 40."[24] Alternatively, it is also possible that both the Gospel of Luke and 1 Timothy, not necessarily independently, were citing Deuteronomy 24:14-15: "Do not take advantage of a hired worker...Pay them their wages each day before sunset." To summarize, the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges writes of the author of 1 Timothy, "Doubtless he may have been aware that our Lord had used it, but the saying was probably proverbial."[25]

Other scholars treat New Testament mentions of the word εὐαγγελίῳ,[26] translated "gospel," as evidence that New Testament authors considered the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John scripture. However, this word, literally translated "good news,"[27] was used at the time primarily to refer to political events like military victories.[28] Father Ernesto Cardenal argues that the reason for the authors' use of the word "gospel/good news" is actually more revolutionary: "In the time of Christ the word was a political term associated above all with the cult of the emperor, who was considered a god and a savior. Just by using this word, Christ was indicating that his announcement was the announcement of a new kingdom."[29] There is no evidence Paul was referring to the capital-G Gospels we know today, nor are there any examples of other authors at the time who believed any of the writings that would later be incorporated into the New Testament were inerrant.

This is not to say the authors of the New Testament books thought little of their writings. Armin Baum has argued that the historical books of the New Testament were intentionally written anonymously "in the tradition of Old Testament historiography."[30] After scolding the early Corinthian church for believing the word of God originated with them, Paul even writes, "the things I am writing to you are...of the Lord."[31] In the context of the letter, it becomes clear Paul is juxtaposing the poor behavior of the Corinthians with the dozens of quotes from and allusions to Old Testament commands from God he writes in his letter. Paul is likely not calling himself a Christian Muhammad, writing down new commandments literally dictated from above. There is no textual evidence to suggest these rhetorical choices are meant to project some form of divine unity among the books or authors of the New Testament.

Indeed, even the idea of a unified Old Testament is suspect. In the words of Chaffee Viets,[32]

God's Word was given to mankind neither: 1) in a single leather, hardcover or paperback volume; 2) nor fully in English, Greek or Latin. Nor was it given directly to Moses, to King James, to Simon Peter, or to Martin Luther in one neat, well-bound book. Rather, the Lord allowed its divinely inspired content to be developed over many centuries using many people as instruments in its development…. God revealed Scripture originally to His chosen people, being the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. These Hebrews/Israelites/Jews began writing down the inspired words of God in the second millennium BC and finalizing the various "books" during the late first millennium BC (here I am only referring to the Old Testament).

You may not have thought about it, but Jews at the time of Jesus did not refer to what we Christians call the "Old Testament" by that name since to them it was the only testament. Instead a three-part set of inspired Scripture existed known as the "Law," the "Prophets" and the "Writings" (Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvim in Hebrew). The "Law" comprises the books of Genesis through Deuteronomy. The "Prophets" included Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings and all the prophetic books (accounts of God's prophets sharing revealed truth with the Israelites and Jews) except Daniel. Remaining books were listed as "Writings" (including Daniel). Jesus and other New Testament writers referenced all three Old Testament sections, sometimes by name and sometimes using the catchall Greek word graphai, or "writings" (Luke 24:27, 44), or logos, "Word" (Acts 6:2, 4). Thus, ordinary Jews understood Scripture as groupings of inspired texts because they were rarely circulated as a single book such as we have today….

Two collections of Old Testament books existed before Jesus' crucifixion and Resurrection, and...there were different views of which books were inspired by God. Each collection was based on a different authoritative list.

The two collections of Old Testament books to which Viets refers, one accepted by Jews in Israel and the other by Jews in the Mediterranean, were incorporated into the Old Testaments of the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles, respectively. Over one millennia later, Martin Luther began the Protestant Reformation by redacting seven of the books in the Catholic Bible he labeled the Apocrypha.[33]

The New Testament does not claim its own inerrancy. Instead, the authors of the epistles were likely referring, in the abstract, to scriptures they heard orally from Jewish teachers in the Temple who had nearly exclusive access to some version of the written collections of Jewish law, prophets, and other writings. Furthermore, nothing in the New Testament, including 2 Timothy and 2 Peter, directly states that scripture does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact. This causes me to ask, what is the origin of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy?

The Origin of Biblical Inerrancy

The first formulations of the doctrine of inerrancy had not been established according to the authority of a council, creed, or church until the post-Reformation period. The belief seems to have originated with counter-reformationist Robert Bellarmine, perhaps most known for delivering Pope Paul V's order to Galileo "to abandon completely...the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the Earth moves."[34] In "The Dream of a Perfect Text: Textual Criticism and Biblical Inerrancy in Early Modern Europe,"[35] Professor Ronald Hendel documents the rise of biblical inerrancy. This section relies heavily on his chapter.

The origin story of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is deeply intertwined with both the Council of Rome and the Protestant Reformation. The Council of Rome selected which books should be included in the Catholic Bible, but it did not specify which versions of the texts to include. Pope Damasus I, a member of the Council, commissioned his protégé, Saint Jerome,[36] to revise the Old Latin Gospels then used by the Roman Church into a single canon. Upon receiving this commission, Jerome complained that, "there were almost as many types of texts as there were [texts]."[37] After completing the translation of the Gospels, Jerome continued to select and translate his preferred versions of almost every book in the new biblical canon, relying especially heavily on a particular Hebrew text known as MT for his translation of Old Testament books. His Latin translations, combined with the work of at least one unknown translator responsible for the books Jerome left untranslated, came to be known as the Vulgate, from the Latin vulgata, meaning the "commonly used."[38]

Despite its prominence, the Vulgate was not immediately canonized by the Catholic Church. Which versions of the canonical books from the Council of Rome to use and how they should be translated remained an active debate in the Church, especially after the Renaissance introduced a new model of textual criticism.

Around the time Martin Luther wrote his 95 theses, the Catholic Church was divided into two camps: those who believed the Vulgate to be a perfect representation of the biblical authors' intent, and those who strove to further improve the translation. In an effort to project unity and assert the authority of the traditional Church against the Protestant splinter groups, leaders in the Catholic community assembled the Council of Trent, which decreed that the Vulgate was to be taken as authentic. In justifying its decision, the Council focused on the popularity of the translation rather than discussing its textual merits.

This decision angered Catholic and Protestant leaders alike. Cardinal Alessandro Farnese of Rome argued in a letter that the Church should look for ways to tone down the authenticity of the Vulgate. John Calvin published a pamphlet that concluded, "the spirit of Trent wished...that Scripture should only signify to us whatever dreaming monks might choose." In response, defenders of the Vulgate began to radicalize. Bishop William Damasus Lindanus argued that differences in a prominent Hebrew version of Psalm 22:17 from the Vulgate were added by "rabbis maddened by hatred of Christ" to corrupt Christian reading of the Bible. Ironically, the Hebrew text cited by Lindanus as having been corrupted by Christ-hating Jews was MT, the same version Jerome had attempted to translate when he wrote the Vulgate.

Enter Bellarmine. In response to growing antisemitic opinion among Catholics loyal to the Council of Trent, Bellarmine wrote:

The Hebrew Scriptures have not been generally corrupted by the efforts or malice of the Jews; nor, however, are they absolutely intact and pristine. Rather, they do contain some errors, which crept in partly through the negligence or ignorance of the copyists, especially since in Hebrew it is easy to make errors in some similar letters, such as ב and כ.

While Bellarmine was likely correct on this point, his position was politically motivated. To quote Hendel directly:

This position, however, was aimed against the Protestants; for if the Hebrew Bible was sometimes unreliable, then the Protestant principle of sola scriptura was flawed. One needed a theological authority behind the text. For Bellarmine, this authority was the Church. The problem of textual errors can only be resolved by an inerrant Church.

Perhaps surprisingly, Bellarmine raised the stakes in this debate by investing the contents of the Bible with more, not less, perfection. This perfection heightened the necessity of the Church's interpretive power. Whereas the Council of Trent had repeatedly referred to the Bible's authority in rebus fidei et morum ("in matters of faith and morals/mores"), Bellarmine argued that the Bible was without error in all matters: "There can be no error in Scripture, whether it deals with faith or with morals/mores, or whether it states something general and common to the whole Church, or something particular and pertaining to only one person." This expands the traditional concept of biblical authority, which previously—both in Catholic and Protestant tradition—was focused on fides et mores.

Bellarmine anticipates the objection to his novel expansion by arguing as follows: "In Scripture there are many things which of themselves do not pertain to the faith, that is, which were not written because it is necessary [for salvation] to believe them. But it is necessary to believe them because they were written...In the Scriptures not only the opinions expressed, but each and every word pertains to faith. For we believe that not one word is useless or not used correctly."

While Bellarmine's new doctrine was rejected or ignored by early Protestant leaders like Luther and Calvin, other influential Protestants, like William Whitaker, affirmed biblical inerrancy while rejecting the interpretive authority of the Church. Whitaker rebutted Bellarmine's defenses of the Vulgate's translation of the Hebrew texts word-for-word. Whitaker agreed with Bellarmine's statement that "there can be no error in Scripture," but disagreed on the definition of scripture.

Again, the Hebrew text defended by Whitaker as absolutely superior to the Vulgate was MT, the very text Saint Jerome had endeavored to translate one millenium prior. The Protestant inerrantists needed MT to be perfect in order for an inerrantist interpretation of sola scriptura to be valid, but MT contained clear copy errors. Inversely, the Catholic inerrantists needed the MT to be flawed and the Vulgate to be perfect to justify their view of the broad authority of the Church, but their justification for the Vulgate's superiority in the Council of Trent's decree was, in its entirety, the Vulgate had "been approved for use in the Church for so many centuries."

Hendel summarizes this well:

For the Reformers the Bible's inerrancy is where it needs to be—on matters of faith and doctrine, and on historical events basic to the history of salvation. The doctrine of uniform inerrancy in the literal sense across all details is an innovation of the Catholic-Protestant polemics after Trent.

Armed with this extreme doctrine, Bellarmine and the Church tried to assert their authority against Galileo, but the science of the following centuries brought about even greater skepticism toward biblical inerrancy. Noah's worldwide flood, the creation in six days, and the creation of women from a man's rib began increasingly to be seen as legendary rather than as literally true. The progression of natural science and the dismissal of inerrancy by leaders in both Catholic and Protestant communities made the reign of the inerrantists seem to end before it began.

Biblical inerrancy saw a resurgence in the late 19th century with the rise of Christian fundamentalism, which viewed the doctrine as fundamental to Christianity.[39] In the words of authors Robert D. Woodberry and Christian S. Smith:[40]

Following the Civil War, tensions developed between Northern evangelical leaders over Darwinism and higher biblical criticism; Southerners remained unified in their opposition to both...Modernists attempted to update Christianity to match their view of science...Conservatives resisted these changes. These latent tensions rose to the surface after World War I in what came to be called the fundamentalist/modernist split.

This, interestingly, rhymes historically with the conditions in which inerrancy arose as a doctrine in the period after the Reformation; i.e., as a cornerstone of a larger reactionary program.

In the second half of the 20th century, Billy Graham's evangelical flagship magazine, Christianity Today, and its sister publications published articles defending the doctrine alongside his assertions that "real womanhood" was the role of wife, mother, and homemaker; homosexuality was "a sinister form of perversion;" and other views based in scripture and aligned with the new Christian fundamentalist faction within the American conservative movement. In 1978, Graham helped write the Lausanne Covenant,[41] which includes, "We affirm the divine inspiration, truthfulness and authority of both Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety as the only written word of God, without error," and in 2013 signed The Bible Petition:[42] "I affirm that the Bible alone, and in its entirety, is the infallible written Word of God in the original text and is, therefore, inerrant in all that it affirms or denies on whatever topic it addresses." Harold Lindsell's 1976 book, The Battle for the Bible,[43] also famously argued for the necessity of biblical inerrancy. His work is credited with boosting conservative efforts to convert the Southern Baptist Convention to the doctrine.[44] However, while inerrancy is a crucial tenet of fundamentalist belief, it is rarely invoked by other branches of Christianity.

Alternative Views within the Church

Despite the efforts of Christianity Today, Lindsell, and the post-Reformation polemics, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy seems mostly absent from the history of Christian religion. Wikipedia[45] has a useful summary of Church leaders throughout history dismissing the belief:

Modern theologians also have presented alternatives to biblical inerrancy I find helpful:

Conclusion

Turning a critical eye to my childhood belief in biblical inerrancy brought me to question its origin. First, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is not biblical. While we can demonstrate this with a rhetorical and thematic analysis of the epistles, it is perhaps easier to point to the fact that the books in the New Testament were written significantly before the assembly of the New Testament. Via this simple observation, claims that Jesus, Paul, or any other New Testament figures advocated the inerrancy of the New Testament, can be dismissed as non-causal. If that argument seems glib, we can instead look to the dearth of evidence that any writers at the time held that the New Testament books were inerrant, including the authors of the books themselves. No one in the time of the Apostles is recorded as having believed that God used humans as His tools to purposefully give humanity exactly the New Testament.

Without a sola scriptura basis for biblical inerrancy, we turn to church tradition. Here, the doctrine seems to be a relatively modern creation and rife with political motivations for both the polemics who invented it and the fundamentalists who espouse it today.

In light of church history, being a Protestant inerrantist is not a simple task. It requires one believe God dictated literal words to every author in the Bible, guided the copying of every rabbi and monk, told the Council of Rome which books to select for the canon, presented the correct versions of the Hebrew and Greek texts to whichever assembler and translator you deem authentic, and changed His mind about the canon when He instructed Luther to remove the Apocrypha. To me, this seems especially arbitrary considering many inerrantists then scoff at the notion that Joseph Smith's addition of The Book of Mormon to the canon could be considered authentic.

For these reasons, I have chosen to replace my belief in biblical inerrancy with a faith much closer to those of Lewis, Rohr, Cone, and Enns. Do I believe the comparison of a prostitute's client's ejaculate to that of a horse in Ezekiel 23:20 was "God-breathed"? No, I do not. Initially, this transition caused me great discomfort. If the Bible is allowed to have errors, where does one draw the line between authoritative and non-authoritative scripture? Most Christians, including many self-described inerrantists, seem to assign less authority to biblical regulations forbidding usury,[61] Paul's directives on masculine hairstyle,[62] and Jesus' condemnation of accumulating wealth.[63] However, there remains a significant moral gray area. Cone's quote, above, summarizes this beautifully: "This is the risk of faith."

I avoid concerns surrounding the bright-line/slippery slope argument by admitting I may be wrong. It is possible—though I would argue unlikely—that the same god who continually sides with the oppressed in Exodus and the Gospels and preaches Love would condemn those He created for how He created them. If the inerrantists' doctrine is accurate, I am not sure I would want to spend eternity with their god.

I am not particularly concerned about that possibility. I recognize that, by rejecting biblical inerrancy and embracing a wrestling with the text, I join in a rich tradition of debate with great Jewish and Christian theologians that is millenia old. The elegance I once found in the uniformity of biblical inerrancy I now see in a Bible that is a collection of works by people, like me, striving with everything they have to understand the divine and live lovingly. Throughout millennia of a changing world, the authors of the Bible humbly offer their artfully flawed perspectives, and the Holy Spirit thrives in communicating truth through their stories. If you find yourself wrestling with biblical inerrancy, I hope this document helps you find this alternative philosophy as beautiful as I do.

Works Cited

  1. ^ Perowne, Stewart. The Life and Times of Herod the Great. Sutton, 2003.
  2. ^ Marshall, Taylor. The Eternal City: Rome and the Origins of Catholic Christianity. Saint John Press, 2012.
  3. ^ Josephus, Flavius. Antiquities of the Jews. Project Gutenberg.
  4. ^ Steinmann, Andrew. "When Did Herod the Great Reign?" Novum Testamentum 51.1 (2009): 1-29.
  5. ^ Bowman, Alan K., Edward Champlin, and Andrew Lintott, eds. The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 10. Cambridge University Press, 1996.
  6. ^ Wikipedia contributors. "Census of Quirinius." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 25 May 2020. Web. 28 May 2020.
  7. ^ Novak, Ralph Martin. Christianity and the Roman Empire: Background Texts. Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2001.
  8. ^ Brown, Raymond Edward. The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Doubleday, 1993.
  9. ^ Brown, Raymond Edward. An Adult Christ at Christmas: Essays on the Three Biblical Christmas Stories. Liturgical Press, 1978.
  10. ^ Freedman, David Noel, and Gary A. Herion. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Eds. David F. Graf, and John David Pleins. Vol. 3. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
  11. ^ Finegan, Jack. The Handbook of Biblical Chronology. Hendrickson Publishers, 2015.
  12. ^ Ramsay, Sir William Mitchell. "Quirinius the Governor of Syria." Bible Hub.
  13. ^ Vermes, Geza. The Nativity: History and Legend. Crown Publishing Group, 2010.
  14. ^ Wikipedia contributors. "Universal quantification." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 25 May 2020. Web. 28 May 2020.
  15. ^ Wayne, Luke. "Was Luke wrong about the census of Quirinius?" CARM.org, 21 Dec. 2018.
  16. ^ "γραφὴ." Bible Hub.
  17. ^ "προφητεία." Bible Hub.
  18. ^ Harris, Stephen L. Understanding the Bible. McGraw-Hill, 2003.
  19. ^ Bauckham, Dr. Richard. Jude-2 Peter, Volume 50. United States, Zondervan Academic, 2017.
  20. ^ Selby, Nicholas S. "Gospel Authorship." Nicholas S Selby, 15 Apr. 2018.
  21. ^ Cross, Frank Leslie, and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, eds. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford University Press, USA, 2005.
  22. ^ Akin, Jimmy. "Did the Authors of the New Testament Know They Were Writing Scripture?" Jimmy Akin, 26 Sept. 2012.
  23. ^ 1 Timothy 5:18
  24. ^ Mounce, William D. Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 46, Pastoral Epistles. Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2000.
  25. ^ "Luke 10." Bible Hub.
  26. ^ Mark 1:15, Romans 1:9, Romans 10:16, 1 Corinthians 9:12, 2 Corinthians 8:18, and others
  27. ^ "2098. euaggelion." Bible Hub.
  28. ^ Davis, Glen. "Pre-Christian Uses Of 'Gospel.'" Glen Davis, 25 Feb. 2010.
  29. ^ Cardenal, Ernesto. The Gospel in Solentiname. Orbis Books, 2010.
  30. ^ Baum, Armin. "The Anonymity of the New Testament History Books: A Stylistic Device in the Context of Greco-Roman and Ancient Near Eastern Literature." Novum Testamentum 50.2 (2008): 120-142.
  31. ^ 1 Corinthians 14:37
  32. ^ Viets, Chaffee. "Why the 'Holy Bible' Varies Across Christian Traditions." Interdenomination, 28 Jul. 2011.
  33. ^ Bruce, Frederick Fyvie. The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1988.
  34. ^ Heilbron, J. L. Galileo. OUP Oxford, 2012.
  35. ^ Baden, Joel, Hindy Najman, and Eibert JC Tigchelaar, eds. Sibyls, Scriptures, and Scrolls: John Collins at Seventy. Brill, 2016.
  36. ^ Williams, Megan Hale. The Monk and the Book: Jerome and the Making of Christian Scholarship. University of Chicago Press, 2008.
  37. ^ Plater, William Edward and Henry Julian White. A Grammar of the Vulgate: Being an Introduction to the Study of the Latinity of the Vulgate Bible. Clarendon Press, 1926.
  38. ^ Lewis, Charlton T. and Charles Short. "vulgo." A Latin Dictionary.
  39. ^ Sandeen, Ernest Robert. The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism; 1800-1930. Baker Book House, 1978.
  40. ^ Woodberry, Robert D. and Christian S. Smith. "Fundamentalism et al: Conservative Protestants in America." Annual Review of Sociology (1998): 25-56.
  41. ^ "The Lausanne Covenant." Lausanne Movement.
  42. ^ "The Bible Petition." Defending Inerrancy.
  43. ^ Lindsell, Harold. The Battle for the Bible. Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.
  44. ^ "Harold Lindsell: Evangelical Scholar, Editor, Author." Los Angeles Times, 22 Jan. 1998.
  45. ^ Wikipedia contributors. "Biblical inerrancy." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 1 May 2020. Web. 28 May 2020.
  46. ^ Origen of Alexandria. Commentary on the Gospel of John (Book X). New Advent.
  47. ^ Fincham, David Gerald. "St. Augustine answers the biblical literalists." Religion :: Science :: Peace, 3 Sept. 2012.
  48. ^ Augustine. Genesi Ad Litteram. Newman Press, 1982.
  49. ^ "Augustine vs. Literalism." Christianity Today.
  50. ^ Augustine. On Genesis: Two Books on Genesis Against the Manichees and On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis: An Unfinished Book. Catholic University of America Press, 2001.
  51. ^ Augustine. "From Augustine to Jerome (A.D. 394 or 395)." New Advent.
  52. ^ Chrysostom, John. "Homily 1 on Matthew." New Advent.
  53. ^ Bainton, Roland H. "The Cambridge History of the Bible, Volume 3: The West from the Reformation to the Present Day." (1963).
  54. ^ J. Calvin, Commentaires sur le Nouveau Testament. Tome I: Sur la concordance ou harmonie composée de trois évangélistes (Paris, Meyrueis, 1854), 319 (at Luke 8:19): "on sçait bien que les Evangélistes ne se sont pas guères arrestez à observer l'ordre des temps." Cited in W. J. Bouwsma, John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 121–22.
  55. ^ Johnson, David H. "Understanding the Times: New Testament Studies in the 21st Century, Essays in Honor of DA Carson on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 55.2 (2012): 452.
  56. ^ Ryken, Philip. "Inerrancy and the Patron Saint of Evangelicalism: C.S. Lewis on Holy Scripture." Desiring God, 28 Sept. 2013.
  57. ^ "Second Naiveté." Center for Action and Contemplation, 2 Oct. 2016.
  58. ^ Cone, James H. A Black Theology of Liberation. Orbis Books, 2010.
  59. ^ Enns, Peter. The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It. HarperOne, 2014.
  60. ^ Comstock, Gary David. Gay Theology without Apology. Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2009.
  61. ^ Ezekiel 18:13
  62. ^ 1 Corinthians 11:14
  63. ^ Matthew 6:1

Appendix: Comments from Friends

Below are selected comments from my friends who helped me edit this document. Most comments were incorporated directly into the text as edits and further explanations. I felt these stood well on their own. As above, brackets [ ] indicate my additions.

The recent emphasis on biblical literalism is pretty much a reaction to the historical critical movement and the rise of science. I've been amazed at the increasing popularity of the movement...the public has such an appetite for certainty in matters of faith and they're much more skeptical of science. The Creation Museum is an example of its spread, and of course the Hobby Lobby folks have been there leading the way with their Bible Museum in Washington. There are millions of dollars being funneled into the support of this movement and I find it disconcerting.

For me it's so much easier to take the bible seriously when I understand that it is totally the product of human efforts...and it's a beautiful story! Each part of the bible was crafted by some human for a reason, always in reaction to what was happening in their historical context. I love imagining what that context might have been like...often I can find parallels to the time in which I am living. Were those writers inspired by God? They weren't inspired to write scripture...only Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard have done that. Rather they were simply giving voice to the Spirit or the Christ that inhabited their DNA...later others took what had been written and called it holy. A few years ago I led a book study of "How the Bible Became Holy," by Michael Satlow. It's a wonderful read...It primarily deals with the Hebrew Scriptures but it lays out exactly how I believe the bible developed. The New Testament likely had a similar origin.

Context is everything in studying the bible. Paul began his ministry after his Christ encounter on the road to Damascus....as you indicated he used the Hebrew scriptures as his guide. He believed that what had happened in Jesus was simply a continuation of what God had been doing all along. It wasn't something made up or new, it's only that the audience was expanded to include the whole world. His first letter, around 50 CE, predated the gospels by several years. The early church was established and directed by the Spirit and not by any book. It was present all across the empire by the time the first gospels were written. Paul's letters provide a remarkable window into the life of that community....and they didn't have any New Testaments!

Primary to what I believe is my conviction that the bible is NOT the word of God! Jesus is! I also distinguish between Jesus and the Christ. Jesus died on the cross...Christ rose from the dead and lives within the heart of every human...no exceptions!

Faith precedes scripture. Humans began believing in God long before anything about God was written down.

The Scriptures are the end product of a long editorial process that took hundreds of years. Histories and stories and legends were gathered from many sources by those Biblical editors.

Just as Jesus is completely human, born of a woman, the Scriptures are thoroughly human in their origin. The writers reflect the prejudices, knowledge, and worldview of the time in which they lived. They did not write these documents with the intention of writing Scripture. The documents were affirmed as Scripture at a much later date.

Each portion of Scripture arises out of a particular historical context. Each author had an audience in mind and a purpose in writing.