Special Lesson: Biblical Inerrancy

It is the doctrine that the Bible, in its original manuscripts, is entirely free from error, including historical, scientific, and theological matters. As Christians it is (unfortunately) an assumed practice to take the Bible at face value and not ask questions about why or how the Bible came to be. But as responsible Christians and skeptics I believe understanding how the Bible was formed in the Old Testament and established in the New Testament is profitable to everyone. This study will investigate the Bible and its establishment both in the Old and the New Testaments and what was understood as Scripture and major reasons why. I do want to preface this by also saying that I am by no means a scholar and I have not read everything there is to know on this subject, this is simply to give the spark notes (cliff-notes, gist, basic) understanding of what is known in church history.

The Bible was (essentially) canonized at the Councils of Carthage in the late 300s early 400s. Canonization is the process by which the early church recognized, collected, finalized the specific books inspired by God as authoritative Scripture. However, unlike what many people may think or potentially have been told, the canonization of the Bible was more of a confirmation of what was already widely accepted by the Christian community at the time. There was not a “buffet” of books being decided upon cafeteria style until that had slapped all the books they wanted together. The Bible that was (essentially) canonized by the early church contained 73 books whereas the Bible that we use now only has 66. This is because of a selection of books called the Apocrypha or Deuterocanon. The Catholic Bible has 73 books because it considers these books as inspired Scripture, but the “Protestant” Bible contains only 66, without the Apocrypha.

So why the difference? If they decided 1600 years ago that the Bible should contain 73 books then why would we change that?

In order to avoid a very lengthy conversation on church history of which I have no credibility we will stick to big ideas. In answering this question it's important to note that Christianity came from Judaism so we find that the Old Testament and the Hebrew Bible are identical. This is extremely important to remember because Jesus made sure to let us know that His coming did not mark the end of the Law. (Matthew 5:17-19) So in determining what is and isn't scripture we have to make sure that we are adhering exactly to what scripture Jesus was referring to.

This means that the first step in answering why there is a difference between the Catholic Bible and the Bible we are using now (there are other Bibles too, Orthodox, Ethiopian, etc. but the Catholic Bible is by far the most popular of them all) is establishing what the Hebrew Bible is. Thankfully this is fairly easy and can be done by a simple google search. However, both the Catholic and Protestant Bibles have the exact same Old Testament, the only difference between the two is this 7 book Apocrypha. This is another great opportunity to get lost in the weeds but I will do my best with my limited scope. The Apocryphal books were written by Jewish sources between 300 BC until 70 AD. These books were never accepted as scripture by the Pharisees or Sadducees at any point in Jewish history. The only groups that accepted or elevated any books of the Apocrypha to an authoritative level were fringe, or outcast groups like the Qumran who had very little influence around the time of Jesus.

So if the Jews didn’t accept the Apocrypha as scripture why would early Christians even entertain the idea of adding them into canonization?

This is a tiny tangent but good context for anyone that may run into a catholic claiming we are removing scripture from our Bibles.

The Septuagint was originally written as a word for word translation of the Jewish Torah from Ancient Hebrew into Koine Greek which at the time in the early to mid 3rd century BC was necessary as Hebrew was less and less common. Over the course of the next 150ish years many books and writings were added to the Septuagint for it to be used as more of a way for the Jewish community to keep knowledge of the Torah commonplace. Over the next 250 years passages were added to the Septuagint for a variety of reasons and of a variety of interpretations (literal translations or paraphrases). Included in these books are all of the Apocryphal books and the rest of the Hebrew Bible (with a few differences). However around 100 AD the vast majority of Jews rejected the Septuagint as authoritative due to there being a large amount of differences and error compared to the Hebrew texts. The Septuagint contained all of the Apocryphal books as well as many other books never considered scripture by any sects, Jewish or Christian. 

So we can see fairly clearly that although the Apocryphal books were a source of knowledge they were really never considered Scripture by the Jews at any point in their history. So to answer the question of why our Bibles do not contain the Apocrypha (in a very short answer) is because at no point in Jewish history were they ever considered scripture.

This is where things get really interesting and arguably more complicated. Before we dive into this section, are there any questions or comments? Cool lets begin.

To tackle this massive question of how we can know that the books in the New Testament are inspired by God, I am going to take you on a journey. So we know that the Old Testament was given to the Jews by God over the course of around 1200 years by many different authors. The Jews were tasked with painstakingly keeping accurate copies through the generations, so much so that if there were even 3 mistakes or errors in an entire book (the Jewish books were much longer than the books we have, they lumped all of the minor prophets into one book, there was no 1 and 2 Samuel, just the Book of Samuel, etc.) the entire thing would have to be started from the beginning. Knowing this the bar for the New Testament is set pretty high, especially when you have verses like 2 Peter 1:20-21, and 2 Timothy 3:16. 

First we have to understand that the leaders of the church near the end and within 1 generation of the apostles (100-150 AD) were very familiar and attentive of what was authentically written by the apostles and what was not. We can see that during this time and up until the mid 300s (and even still today) people would write and advocate for new books and letters claiming apostolic authority or divine inspiration. As I said at the beginning of the lesson, the early church had already decided what books were and were not Scripture much before the Councils of Carthage. Different church fathers during this time also helped curate what was and wasn’t Scripture. 

The simple answer is whatever the church agreed on immediately after the apostles. For some context, the last written New Testament book was penned between 90-96 AD near the end of the apostle John’s life. A small codex was found in the 1700s dating back to the year 180 AD, only 90 years after the writing of Revelation, containing a list of canonized books written by an unknown author. The list contained 23 books of the 27 book New Testament we have today. This means that in only 90 years 23 of the 27 books of the New Testament had been copied and circulated well enough for a church in Rome for them to become established Scripture. You have to remember that all of these letters and books and Gospels had to be hand copied and delivered and during this time the church was experiencing severe persecution as well as language barriers. Furthermore, in the same year, 180 AD, one of the earliest church fathers by the name of Irenaeus of Lyons (who was born in the ancient Turkish city of Smyrna) wrote a book against a new heretical group of pseudo-christians called the Gnostics. They claimed to have a secret knowledge only allowed to them by God, and wrote several false gospels such as the Gospel of Thomas, Judas, Mary, and Philip. Irenaeus wrote a book called “Against Heresies” specifically to call this group out as heretical and false as the way to salvation was made clear and public to the churches that the apostles started. He was aware of the discrepancy because he already had a reference to what was scripture and this new Gnostic belief contradicted the established scripture. 

Fast forward to 250 AD we meet another church father by the name of Origen of Alexandria. He writes that the widely accepted New Testament is the exact New Testament we have now and that it had been this way for quite some time (he was born in 185 AD so this could very well be within only a couple decades after the Muratorian Fragment was written). However, Origen is very aware that there are people that are debating whether different books be added or taken away from what was widely accepted at the time. 

In short, the New Testament books were penned by people who were either apostles themselves or close to apostles. Also these people were aware that they were writing not on their own behalf, but by the Holy Ghost and each one of the books that are written in the New Testament work in tandem with the Old Testament and each other flawlessly. In a phrase the New Testament was not discovered, it was defended. We see this even within the Scripture itself in 2 Peter 3:14-17. Peter puts all of Paul’s epistles on the same caliber as the Old Testament, or “other scriptures.” Also we hear from Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:6-7 He is asking permission to speak about something in a letter. Who would have authority over what he is saying? Additionally this actually gives the rest of his writing far more legitimacy and power that in order for him to tell the people of Corinth that being single is ok, he had to ask permission from God. We can see who he is under command to write at the end of the chapter in 1 Corinthians 7:40. The word “think” is not meant to be uncertain, when we look back into the Greek we find that the word translated to “think” means “to show, to seem or be accounted for.”

Finally all of the books of the Bible support all of the other books. Whenever Apocryphal books or non-inspired books were presented to add to the canon, they would contradict a theological idea proclaimed or present a theological idea that was not supported by pre-established Scripture.

In conclusion there is a treasure trove of information to flush out the whole topic of Bible Inerrancy that I was not able to delve into, but we can see that there are many reasons to believe and understand that the Bible is as it should be. In addition I hope that I can show everyone here that, as evidenced by this study, the Bible is able to withstand questioning and scrutiny. 

2 Timothy 2:14-16 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightfully dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase into more ungodliness. 

2 Timothy 3: 14-17 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of who thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.