01.07 - Errors of Scripture

(7) Errors of Scripture This brings us to remark upon that somewhat difficult and vexed question the “ infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture.” In the discussion of this question both in this country and America it is asserted “ that the Scriptures are perfectly infallible in every part, both in thought and expression “: that the spirit of truth so “ presided over the writers in their writing as to secure an errorless record of the matters they had to communicate.” Dr. A. A. Hodge, of America, says: “ The divine influence exercised upon the writers secured the perfect infallibility of the Scriptures in every part as a record of faith and doctrine, both in thought and verbal expression “, that “ their natural faculties were so directed in the choice of subject and expression that the writings produced by them were infallible and divinely authoritative.” Again: “ A proved error in Scripture not only disproves our doctrine, but the claims of Scripture, and its inspiration in making these claims.” 1 The above view is declared to be the only adequate and proper view of the Scriptures that they are perfect, “errorless and infallible” that “they say all they ought to say and only what they ought to say.” Further, that this is the true, proper, and Scriptural idea of inspiration that divine inspiration secures “ perfect infallibility,” an “errorless record”;

1 See “Inspiration and Inerrancy,” pp. 9-12. Also, “Presbyterian Review “; the Drs. Briggs, Evans, and Smith Controversy: also, the discussion in the British Weekly, September, 1893. and any proved error in Scripture is sufficient to destroy its authority as “ the Word of God “ and the rule of faith and conduct. Notwithstanding these strong assertions it is boldly maintained by the opponents of this school that the Scriptures, so far from being infallible, and inErrant, everywhere “ bear the marks of human imperfection, and contain discrepancies, variations, and mistakes in matters of detail.” That while no error of a serious kind enters into the revelation of the character of God, or the gracious purposes of redemption and salvation, or of an> moral and spiritual truth, yet in details of narrative, of science, chronology, and history, there are mistakes of the kind that may be found in most, or all, human writings. The following are adduced as instances: the numbers given in 2 Samuel 24:9, and 1 Chronicles 21:5; Acts 7:1-60, and Genesis 23:1-20, Genesis 33:1-20, etc. There are discrepancies in the double narratives, and the genealogical tables given in both Testaments; also in the gospel nar ratives of the sayings and works of the Lord Jesus.

Prof. Gardiner, reviewing these, says: u It is undeniable that the Scriptures, as we have them, do contain certain errors.” The qualifying clause “as we have them,” if intended to mean that “ the original autograph copies,” as some have said, “ if found, would be free from errors and mistakes “ does not count for much: because, in the first place, we have no such copies, and are not very likely to have; and, in the second place, the vast number of MSS. and Versions we have contain errors of the kind similar to those found in our own Version. Nor is it clear that the Scriptures claim for themselves infallibility and inerrancy in all particulars; nor that God, in giving us the written revelation of His will, designed to guard author, translator, and printer, against all possible errors and mistakes; nor is it according to the method of God in natural providence and history, to deal with us on the ground of infallibility and absolute certainty and perfection of detail, but rather on the basis of adequacy, sufficiency, and clearness of meaning and purpose. In all His ways and works God deals with men as rational and responsible beings; beings capable of judging and knowing, understanding and doing. So, instead of giving us fixed, mechanical rules, requiring undeviating exactness, or asking of us rigid conformity to a fixed order, and acting with absolute sameness and infallibility in every detail, God has placed us under general laws, a divine order characterised by that moral flexibility essential to freedom of action and responsibility of conduct. So in the written revelation God has given us an adequate, and trustworthy revelation of His will, a sufficient rule of faith and conduct, a sure guide to truth and salvation, which, if any man follow, “ he shall not walk in darkness “and uncertainty, “ but shall have the light of life.” But while we admit the Scriptures are not infallible and inerrant in every detail, and that, as a revelation of God’s will, a guide of life, and a rule of faith, they are sufficient and authoritative and more sure and authoritative than are the text-books men accept and follow on most other subjects: yet in respect of the so-called “ mistakes and errors of Scripture “ we do not regard them as being of that magnitude and importance rationalistic critics declare them to be. In many cases they are not so much errors of fact and truth as differences of expression and language; they are not perversions of truth with intent to deceive, but adaptations and accommodations to times and circumstances, views and conceptions, the conditions and needs of men. Hence in respect of science, the names of authors of books and writings, etc, the terms and names used are popular, not strictly scientific and literally accurate yet not misleading but are in accordance with the ideas, and conceptions of their time, and such as the people would be able to understand. In respect of the quotations from the Old Testament given in the New, it must be remembered these are not all taken from the Hebrew Scriptures, but some are from the Septuagint, and in other cases are given from memory. As such these quotations may be supposed to differ in expression and phraseology from the Hebrew record, and yet be true to fact and the spiritual meaning of revelation. Those instances of grave difference in ethics and moral teaching between the Old and New Testaments belong to different stages of ethical development and the progress of divine revelation; and in some instances we are expressly told that things were allowed out of divine condescension and regard to human conditions, infirmities, and defects, and were not according to the requirements of the mind and will of God, as evidenced by the higher revelations and purer morality and righteousness current as exhibited in the completed revelation of Christ and His Apostles. Even the varying accounts in the Gospels of the teaching and works of Jesus Christ are not so much contradictions or mistakes on the part of the writers as they are amplifications and modifications in detail, to suit time and circumstance. Each narrative is strictly true in fact and reality, while in one instance a deeper spiritual significance of idea and purpose is named by one Evangelist that another takes no note of. Variations and differences there are, but not “ errors and mistakes “ in the sense which we ordinarily attach to those terms. The use made of the Old Testament Scriptures, and the way in which they are quoted in the New, is sufficient to show that the writers did not regard and use them from the standpoint of verbal accuracy; that they were concerned more with the spirit and meaning of Scripture than with the word and letter; that they had regard more to the truth and substance of the teaching than to the form of expression; that the reality, authority, and value of Scripture lies not in its verbal infallibility and literal inspiration, but in its spiritual meaning, character, and teaching as a Divine Revelation.