Critiquing: Is It a Bad Sign if a Church Says the Bible Is Inerrant “in the Original Manuscripts”?

July 3, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Original manuscripts claim — Manuscript variations — Gospel of Mark ending — Complementary Gospels — Textual inerrancy

---

Introduction

This critique evaluates the logical coherence of the content discussing whether it’s problematic for a church to claim that the Bible is inerrant “in the original manuscripts.” The analysis focuses on identifying logical inconsistencies, unsubstantiated claims, logical fallacies, and cognitive biases while emphasizing the need for evidence-based beliefs.

The Claim of Original Manuscript Inerrancy

The primary claim is that the Bible is inerrant in its original manuscripts but not necessarily in the copies we possess today. The content asserts:

“There’s nothing to worry about that statement because that is the standard classical way of stating a commitment to full inerrancy of scripture.”

Analysis

1. Logical Coherence:
   • The content argues that errors in copies do not undermine the inerrancy of the original manuscripts. This stance is logically consistent within its framework but relies on the assumption that the originals were perfect, an untestable premise since the originals are unavailable.
2. Unsubstantiated Claims:
   • The claim that the originals were inerrant is unsubstantiated. Without access to these originals, it is impossible to verify their inerrancy. This raises questions about the validity of asserting their perfection.

Manuscript Variations

The content acknowledges the existence of numerous manuscript variations:

“There are tens of hundreds of thousands of variants throughout the New Testament.”

Analysis

1. Cognitive Bias:
   • Confirmation Bias: The acceptance of the original manuscripts’ inerrancy despite variations in existing copies suggests a bias toward preserving the belief in inerrancy.
2. Evidence-Based Belief:
   • The degree of belief in the inerrancy of the original manuscripts should be proportional to the evidence available. Since the originals cannot be examined, a high degree of certainty in their perfection is unwarranted.

The Ending of the Gospel of Mark

Regarding the contested ending of Mark (16:9-20), the content states:

“What happens though because there’s this debate and they find older manuscripts that just don’t include some of the things more recent… it’s pretty clear that that’s the case.”

Analysis

1. Logical Inconsistency:
   • The acceptance of later additions to Mark while maintaining its inerrancy creates a contradiction. If parts of the text are acknowledged as later additions, the claim of the entire text being inerrant becomes problematic.
2. Testing the Claim:
   • One method to assess the inerrancy would be to compare the doctrinal consistency of the contested passages with uncontested ones. However, this approach still hinges on unverifiable assumptions about the originals.

Complementary Gospels

The content suggests that the Gospels are meant to be complementary rather than identical:

“These guys were trying to do different things… they weren’t trying to repeat exactly what the other ones were saying.”

Analysis

1. Logical Fallacy:
   • Special Pleading: The argument that differences among the Gospels enhance their overall reliability is a form of special pleading. This rationale selectively excuses inconsistencies by attributing them to intentional complementarity.
2. Obligation to Substantiate:
   • Claims about the complementary nature of the Gospels need empirical substantiation. Historical and textual evidence should support assertions about their intended harmony.

Textual Inerrancy

The concept of textual inerrancy is addressed with an emphasis on the non-physical nature of the biblical text:

“The text of the Bible is a non-physical thing… it’s a message, a worded message that’s preserved through many manuscripts.”

Analysis

1. Abstract Nature of Text:
   • While the abstract nature of the text is acknowledged, the reliance on imperfect physical copies to access this abstract message undermines the claim of inerrancy. Variations in manuscripts affect the fidelity of the message.
2. Logical Fallacy:
   • Equivocation: The shift between discussing the abstract “text” and the physical “manuscripts” can be confusing and may obscure the issue of textual reliability. Clear distinctions are necessary to avoid misleading conclusions.

Conclusion

The content reviewed presents a logically coherent argument within its framework but faces significant challenges regarding unsubstantiated claims and logical inconsistencies. The primary issues include:

• The unverifiable nature of the original manuscripts’ inerrancy.
• The presence of numerous manuscript variations.
• Contradictions arising from accepting later additions to texts while claiming overall inerrancy.
• Logical fallacies such as special pleading and equivocation.

For beliefs to be robust, they must be proportional to the evidence available. In this case, the degree of certainty claimed about the inerrancy of original manuscripts is not sufficiently supported by available evidence. Assertions should be carefully scrutinized, and a commitment to evidence-based reasoning is essential for a coherent and rational belief system.

---

I invite further discussion on these arguments in the comments section.