Концепции непогрешимости и безупречности Библии мешают правильному пониманию священных текстов

Bad theology manufactures an artificial conflict between faith and reason, and biblical infallibilism is bad theology. In English, the term infallibilism derives from the First Vatican Council’s assertion that papal ex cathedra (with the full authority of the office) teachings on faith and morals are infallible, or without mistakes. A few decades later, American Christian fundamentalists applied it to the Bible, asserting that the Bible is uniformly inspired by the Holy Spirit, should be interpreted as literally as possible, and is applicable to all realms of human life, including history and science. Similarly, inerrantism is the belief that there are no errors in the Bible.  Within American Christian fundamentalism, the terms inerrant and infallible hold a spectrum of definitions and ascribe to the Bible varying degrees and arenas of authority. Since there is no universally accepted definition of the relationship between the two, we will be using them more or less interchangeably.  That being said, for a relatively recent, widely distributed, and broadly accepted statement of scriptural authority, consider the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978). In abbreviation, its authors assert:  Holy Scripture, as the inspired Word of God witnessing authoritatively to Jesus Christ, may properly be called infallible and inerrant. These negative terms have a special value, for they explicitly safeguard crucial positive truths.... Infallible signifies the quality of neither misleading nor being misled and so safeguards in categorical terms the truth that Holy Scripture is a sure, safe, and reliable rule and guide in all matters. Similarly, inerrant signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions. The concepts of infallibility and inerrancy are modern words that arose under duress. The Roman Catholic Church adopted the doctrine of papal ex cathedra infallibility as it was losing its papal states in the late 1800s. American fundamentalism adopted the doctrine of biblical infallibility as its traditional beliefs were being challenged by the rise in historical and scientific knowledge in the early 1900s. Without irony, Roman Catholics and American Protestants ascribed tremendous authority to traditional authorities that were losing authority, in different times and different places for different reasons.  Alas, they overreached. Although they believed themselves to be defending tradition, they were actually innovating, and they weren’t innovating well. One hundred years earlier, Thomas Howell Horne had published his influential Introduction to the Critical Study of Holy Scriptures. In the seventh edition of that work, and in one of the earliest usages of the word “inerrancy,” he had asserted, “Absolute inerrancy is impracticable in any printed book” (vol. II.ii.81).  Horne wasn’t writing during mass immigration, technological development, scientific breakthroughs, and pervasive uncertainty. He didn’t need to offer his readers a panicked response to rapid change. But in the early 1900s, conservative American Protestants believed that they did. So they offered an authoritative Bible, a sure foundation when so many foundations seemed to be crumbling. As they offered their new doctrine of biblical infallibility, many of their contemporaries saw the danger in this response and argued that it was not only untraditional, it was also unhelpful. William Boyd Carpenter taught preaching at Cambridge in the late 1800s. He wanted his students to love scripture, but not to idolize it: “I would not have any of you... climb into the seat of smug and self-satisfied infallibilism” ( Lectures on Preaching, 1895, 200).  Jesus could have been an “infallibilist,” but chose not to. Regarding scriptural interpretation, while no one in first-century Judaea would have used such terms as “inerrantist” or “infallibilist,” analogous options for interpreting the Hebrew Bible did exist, options that ascribed eternality and demanded literalism. Jesus did not use them. Instead, he preferred more wide-ranging and creative strategies that better manifested agape —the unconditional, universal, celebratory love of God for the world.  Why didn’t Jesus define his own scriptures as inerrant and infallible? Why didn’t he point to the written word as his movement’s unchanging rule? In the following essays we will analyze how Jesus of Nazareth interpreted his own scriptures. This investigation proceeds on the premise that Christ’s method of interpretation is appropriate for Christians, so if Christians want to know how to interpret and enact Scripture, then we should study how Christ interpreted and enacted Scripture. The concepts of inerrancy and infallibility are not helpful in this process. Indeed, they hinder it. Fortunately, we have a better, more loving option, given us by Jesus. (adapted from Jon Paul Sydnor, The Great Open Dance: A Progressive Christian Theology, pages 246–247) ***** For further reading, please see:  Carpenter, William Boyd. Lectures on Preaching. London: Macmillan and Co., 1895. Gray, James M. “The Inspiration of the Bible—Definition, Extent and Proof.” From The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, edited by R. A. Torrey. Chicago: Testimony, 1910. https://www.godrules.net/library/torrey/NEWtorrey_b2.htm. Horne, Thomas Hartwell. An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. Vol. 1. London: T. Cadell, 1818. Lawlor, F. X., et al. “Infallibility.” In New Catholic Encyclopedia, edited by Berard L. Marthaler, 7:448–53. 2nd ed. Detroit: Gale eBooks, 2003. Johnston, Robert K. Evangelicals at an Impasse: Biblical Authority in Practice. Atlanta: John Knox, 1979.