The Errors of Errancy, Part II: Misunderstanding the Purposes of Language and Literature in Detailed Errancy

Due to the fact that Errantists make the assumption that an inerrant Scripture equates to omniscience reflected in its details, the idea is often assumed that literature must convey its inerrant message(s) through factually inerrant details.

As argued previously, this is not true if the details are not the message. What I will argue here, therefore, is that labeling details as "errant" or "inerrant" misunderstands that language and literature purposely communicates with details irrespective of whether they accord with reality or not, precisely, because the speaker/writer has no purpose to teach his audience about the factual or non-factual nature of those details.

For instance, when one person agrees to meet for a hike "at sunrise tomorrow," the factual message that they intend to communicate is the specific time the sun will be visible from their geographical location. When the sun is visible from any geographical point varies, and so can be refuted by someone in another geographic location as being a time that is not completely true, and the actual language used assumes that the sun is moving around the earth rather than vice versa. These are factual errors if taken out and examined as individual propositions that the speakers intended to communicate as true. However, given that most of us have used this language, we know the minds of the speakers did not intend to communicate whether the sun revolves around the earth or whether the time the sun was visible is factually correct for the entire globe. In fact, the speaker, and the recipient, of the language know that what is said does not intend to say anything about the truth or falsehood of the detail at all. They merely have used the technically incorrect language to communicate successfully.

This is true even in contexts where each individual may actually believe that the sun moves around the earth. The intention of the statement remains the same. In fact, because both participants in the conversation already believe that the sun moves around the earth, there is no reason to attempt to communicate the truth or falsehood of that idea to the other anyway. It is merely assumed by the language that is used to communicate something else entirely.

I have used this example numerous times, but let's return to it once more. When a mother reads the story of the Three Little Pigs to her children, the children might object that it is riddled with factual errors. Pigs don't build advanced shelters, wolves are not so powerful as to be able to blow them over, and animals don't talk. We are left with two ideas, therefore, about the author. One who does not understand the above, and therefore, does not understand how literature conveys truth, might conclude that the author is either ignorant or a deceiver. He either mistakenly believes that pigs talk and wolves blow over houses like superman, or he may simply be a liar who wants his culture to believe myths that are verifiably untrue. However, most of us realize that the author intends to communicate something else entirely from the details he uses as merely a means to communicate them. The story clearly means to say that one should build his life out of things that will last its trials, perhaps, including death itself. If asked whether the story of the Three Little Pigs is true, therefore, every Christian should answer in the affirmative. This can only be true, however, if one understands what the author intends.

This is also true in variations within literature. When two conversations have different details, the immediate question of the reader should be, "What is the author doing? What does he intend to convey with the change he has made?" rather than, "Looks like these accounts contradict one another so that the author made a mistake."

Imagine evaluating whether West Side Story was accurate by comparing details to Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. If details are to be evaluated by comparing the later version with the former, one would have to conclude that the author of West Side Story was mistaken. Yet, this is the usual schtick of modern scholarship when it evaluates biblical books that contain variation in their details.

As an example, Luke has Christ saying, "Blessed are the poor" in his account whereas Matthew has Christ saying, "Blessed are the poor in spirit." One is in the sermon Jesus gives on a plain and one on a mount/hill. Although the latter can be worked out in various ways to literally be true in their details, such is not necessary. Luke has a plain because he wants to communicate throughout his Gospel how Christ comes down to the poor and lowly. Matthew has a mountain to communicate Christ's Messianic Kingship who speaks with authority and needs to be obeyed by anyone claiming to be His disciple. Luke's "Blessed are the poor" contributes to the message he wants to communicate in his Gospel. Matthew's "Blessed are the poor in spirit," i.e., those who humble themselves to the teaching of Christ, contributes to the message he wants to convey in his Gospel. What Jesus actually said on that particular occasion, or where He actually said it, is not the point of the message, and so the details are used by authors as a means to communicate the larger inspired message that takes from Jesus' words given on a specific occasion, or many different specific occasions, in order to teach what Jesus taught, or now teaches, to and through His disciples.

The Gospels do not contain variation because they are making mistakes. I have tried to point out numerous times that these authors usually have these texts right in front of them and are purposely reappropriating them in order to expand or explore one of the facets of Jesus' teaching in terms of its applications.

This is also true when speech is placed in narrative. Although some may think inerrancy requires God to zap the conversations into the head of the author, this again assumes omniscience and may be counterproductive toward the purpose of the narrative message. This is often why there is variation when speech is repeated or recorded a second time. The point is not to relate the details, since that is not often the purpose in communication unless one is attempting to write a strict and literal history of the events, but rather to use details and occasions for conversations as ways to contribute to the overall story or message of the narrative.

Calling such things "error," yet again, is a category error itself. Language cannot be in error, and so if the author intends to communicate larger ideas or historical events through variation and change of the details, then he merely uses a common convention to all well written literature, and should be commended for his artistry in crafting the details around the message(s) he actually desires to communicate. It is up to the audience to refrain from getting caught up in questions concerning the details that the author never sought to address.

What this all means is that details that the author does not intend to communicate are merely a part of the language he uses to communicate whatever he does intend to say. As such, the position of detailed errancy has nothing to do with whether the Scripture is inerrant at all.