Inerrancy Issues

This video by Michael Kruger is from the EhrmanProject.com, a site dedicated to answering Bart Ehrman's allegations against Christianity. The video addresses the charge that the Gospels contain errors. Dr. Kruger responds by explaining some key principles of ancient biographical writing.

[01:14] Dr. Kruger states, "Dr. Ehrman spends a lot of time in Jesus, Interrupted explaining where there are discrepancies in what Jesus says in one account compared to what he says in another account. The problem with his argument is that once you understand the way ancient historiographies worked, you realize those discrepancies are in fact not discrepancies at all, but the normal way things were done back in the ancient world. One example is the account of Jesus cleansing the temple. It is well known that in the synoptic Gospels Jesus cleanses the temple at the end of his life during the Passion Week. But John takes that very same event and shares it at the beginning of his Gospel. The question is “Is John telling something that is contradictory to the Gospels because he has Jesus cleansing the temple at the beginning of his ministry, and the Synoptics have Jesus cleansing the temple at the end of his ministry?” Again, when you understand ancient historiography, often authors take a story from a particular individual’s life and do not put it in chronological order; but for thematic reasons, topical reasons, and other various reasons, put it in different places. That seems to be exactly what John is doing. He wants to tell the story of Jesus cleansing the temple at the very beginning of his Gospel for his own reasons – one particular reason being that John has a great emphasis on the temple, and on Jesus being the new temple and the one who would replace the temple. So there is no doubt that John has rearranged things outside their strict chronological order for thematic reasons. Does that mean it is unhistorical? No, it just means you have to understand the way ancient biographies actually worked."

Dr. Kruger's view is important because it exemplifies one position taken by inerrantists regarding this passage. Which can be contrasted with the treatment found in the ESV Study Bible note for John 2:13-22, which states in part, "(The Synoptic Gospels record a second, later temple clearing, just prior to the crucifixion; see Mark 11:15-19 par.)"

So, the ESV Study Bible harmonizes John and Mark by interpreting two cleansings - one at the beginning of Jesus ministry and one at the end. And Dr. Kruger, and other notable conservative scholars, interpret Mark as reporting a single historical cleansing, that John "rearranged" placing it at the beginning of Jesus ministry. 

However we elect to treat this passage - it seems important that we be aware of this issue.

This is an excellent treatment from a reliable source, addressing Luther and Calvin's understanding of the Bible's perspective on a scientific issue that these theological giants clearly got wrong due to their interpretation of Scripture. It appears their a priori views were not sufficiently nuanced to account for the Bible's use of phenomenological language. Given the stature of these men, their oversight should be highly instructive to us.

"Both Calvin and Luther rejected Copernicus as a heretic in the 16th century. I don’t know anybody in orthodox Christianity today who’s pleading for geocentricity. Do you? Do you know anybody? In that case the church has said, 'Look, we misinterpreted the teaching of the Bible with respect to the solar system, and thank you scientists for correcting our misunderstanding.'" -- R.C. Sproul

"Geocentricity, however, is not the main point. The main point Dr. Sproul is making by pointing out these past mistakes Christians have made in the interpretation of general and special revelation is to remind us of the possibility of contemporary mistakes. Theologians and biblical scholars have not developed the attribute of infallibility since the time of Luther and Calvin." -- Keith Mathison

This video will be easier for those who have some familiarity with the compositional devices frequently used by ancient biographical writers—specifically the ones Mike Licona treats. But even without any background this video also will demonstrate the difference between Licona's view of 'Flexible Inerrancy' and Howe's view of inerrancy based on his understanding of the Chicago Statement. Here again, this content is presented to shine a light on the important issues it raises.

[01:50:42]: Dr. Howe explains that because of what can be "demonstrated by reason about what God is like" (specifically that God is omniscient and infallible), it follows that His breathed-out word is "incapable of having an error." 

[01:52:27] Dr. Licona argues that believers must accept Scripture as God gave it rather than "insisting that it conform to a model that's shaped by how we think he should have [given it]."

With the a priori aproache that Howe seems to take towards Scripture, it seems very close to how the Church, Luther and Calvin seemed to think about scripture at the beginning of the Copernican Revolution (see the Ligonier paper above).

Here is a short treatment by James White where he discusses some critical issues that both sides of the Licona v. Howe debate appear to be missing. Dr. White seems to critique Howe for failing to recognize that the way God has used men involves their individual characteristics more than Howe acknowledges.

Conversely, White seems to critique Licona for lacking a category for God being able to sovereignly ensure that the Scriptures are sufficiently inspired to be exactly what God intended—without resorting to divine dictation. I don’t believe Licona is Reformed, which could explain the issue White raises.