Biblical Inerrancy: Does the Bible Have Mistakes?

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

Few topics stir as much debate within Christian theology as the question of whether the Bible is completely without error. But what exactly qualifies as an “error”? Are we talking about contradictions, historical inaccuracies, or theological missteps? Which errors in the Bible matter most? And how have Christians throughout history understood these supposed flaws?

Understanding biblical inerrancy isn’t just about theology; it also touches on how we read ancient texts, approach questions of truth, and navigate the relationship between faith and reason. In this article, we’ll grasp what’s really at stake, exploring how the idea of biblical inerrancy developed and why it still matters today.

What Does Biblical Inerrancy Mean?

Inerrancy simply means without mistakes. The most basic definition of biblical inerrancy, then, is the notion that the Bible is entirely without errors. But what kind of errors? Do we mean untruths, contradictions, grammar mistakes, all of the above? It may seem like a simple point, but defining what is meant by errors in a biblical context is crucial for understanding the definitions of biblical inerrancy.

Unsurprisingly, there are many definitions of what qualifies as an error in a biblical context. But to understand these different ideas, we need to look at a little history.

By the way, perceived errors in Scripture come from many different causes. For example, ancient writers’ scientific knowledge was very limited, leading to errors of fact about natural phenomena. Additionally, since ancient writings were copied by hand, scribes could inadvertently (or sometimes purposely) make changes to an original writing. Finally, events could not be recorded as they were happening, as they often are now. So, writing about an occurrence long after it happened depended on memory and word of mouth, which we know to be unreliable at least some of the time. 

History of the Idea of the Inerrancy of Scripture

A New Testament verse that would become key to the notion of biblical inerrancy can be found in 2 Timothy 3:16, which says “All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness…” First of all, keep in mind that “Scripture” for the earliest Christians was simply the Hebrew Bible. Now let’s unpack this verse a little.

While the word “inspired” is a standard English translation of the original Greek, it turns out that the author, who claims to be Paul but was actually a later author writing in Paul’s name, used a Greek word that was a little more obscure than the English word “inspired.” That word was theopneustos.

This word is an adjective which literally means “God-breathed” and occurs only once in the entire Bible. How is this different from the usual understanding of the verse? When some  Christians say that the biblical writings and/or writers were inspired by God, they seem to think it was either a process of dictation, with God telling them exactly what words to write, or that the biblical authors were somehow guided by God to write what they did. This idea certainly implies that Scripture is without error since God is assumed to be incapable of making mistakes.

However, “God-breathed” probably had a different meaning for the author of 2 Timothy. Recall the second creation story from Genesis 2:7 where Adam is created:

Adam was formed from lifeless earth, only coming to life when God formed him and filled him with his divine breath. This is likely what the author of 2 Timothy was referring to, the notion that God’s breath breathes life into something. For this reason, John Poirier, in his book The Invention of the Inspired Text: Philological Windows on the Theopneustia of Scripture, argues that a better translation of theopneustos would be “life-giving.”

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

Given this translation, could we still say that Scripture was error-free? Yes, but it may seem less mandatory given that the words themselves did not necessarily come from God but can nevertheless be filled with life in which the reader can partake.

Origen of Alexandria, a 3rd-century Christian philosopher, freely admitted that there were discrepancies in the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life, with details often contradicting each other. However, rather than argue that they could all be explained away, he discounted these differences which he believed had no great theological significance. 

As he writes in his Commentary on the Gospel According to John, "let these four [Gospels] agree with each other concerning certain things revealed to them by the Spirit and let them disagree a little concerning other things."

Similarly, 4th-century bishop John Chrysostom wrote in his Homilies on Matthew that while there were errors of fact in the Gospels, they were not important:

However, it was foundational bishop and theologian Augustine of Hippo who seems to have laid the groundwork for the modern idea of biblical inerrancy. In a letter to Jerome, Augustine outlined his reasoning:

In other words, Augustine believed that if Christians admitted that there was even one error of any kind in the Bible, the whole book would cease to be authoritative. To see how this idea would catch on, we need to jump ahead to the rise of Protestantism and beyond.

Protestant reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin seem to have agreed with Origen and Chrysostom that discrepancies related to history in the Bible were common and completely unimportant. That is, they did not affect the theological matters on which they agreed the Bible had no errors.

However, with the rise of science and biblical criticism in the 18th and 19th centuries, Bible stories such as the biblical flood began to be seen by many as fables rather than facts. This would lead to a stern reaction by conservative Christians in the 20th century.

Modern Biblical Inerrancy

In 1978, at a meeting of 200 conservative evangelical leaders, a broad statement, The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, was produced. Among many articles of affirmation and denial, the statement contains the following assertions:

In other words, the Bible is absolutely correct about everything it addresses, including matters of history. This, of course, disagreed with prevailing scholarly views on the Bible, which was, in many ways, the whole point. Unlike Origen, Chrysostom, Luther, and Calvin, the evangelical leaders who produced the statement wrote that errors of any kind in the Bible are literally impossible. I say literally, because this virtually did away with any notion of allegorical or metaphorical readings, which had been common in Christianity since ancient times.

In Defending Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy of Scripture for a New Generation, Norman Geisler and William Roach explain inerrancy as the notion that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching." Meanwhile, evangelical author Wayne Grudem in his book Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine adds that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact." But do we have those original manuscripts?

One thing that these two books and the Chicago Statement have in common is that they refer specifically to the original manuscripts of the Bible, the texts first inspired by God and written by their authors before being copied through the centuries. The problem, however, is that we don’t have a single original manuscript of any biblical book. 

We have, as you might expect, copies of copies of copies, ad infinitum. Biblical inerrantists, however, are comfortable with this, confident that the original meanings “in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy.” This may or may not be entirely true, but it has become an important article of faith among those who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

What larger effect can belief in the total inerrancy of the Bible have? One big example will suffice to show the impacts.

The Scopes Trial

In 1925, a Tennessee high school teacher named John T. Scopes was accused of violating a state law known as the Butler Act, which prohibited teaching evolution in schools because it contradicted the creation story in the Bible. Scopes had apparently defied the act purposely in order to mount a legal challenge against the Butler Act. He was defended in court by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The very public trial pitted modernist Christians, who claimed one could believe in science and evolution and still be a Christian and value the Bible, against fundamentalist Christians who insisted on the literal truth of every fact in the Bible, defending inerrancy. Keep in mind that the Butler Act, and thus the trial itself, could never have happened had not some Christians come to believe in the perfect inerrancy of the Bible on all matters.

Ultimately, since the law had already been passed and Scopes had knowingly violated it, the judge ruled against him, fining him $100. However, in his post-trial statement to the judge, Scopes said this:

This example simply goes to show that beliefs do real work in the world, for good or for ill. By the way, while many evangelicals and other conservative Christians still affirm biblical inerrancy, not every denomination does. Let’s take a look at other views on the inerrancy of Scripture.

Differing Christian Views on Biblical Inerrancy

The Catholic Church, for example, teaches that matters of history in the Bible need not be inerrant, although matters of theological significance are. For that reason, Pope Paul VI in his dogmatic constitution on divine revelation known as Dei Verbum, writes that although the Bible is without error in regard to its teachings on salvation, narrative histories and depictions of natural occurrences are not held to be inerrant, instead merely replicating the language and understanding ancient writers.

Similarly, in his book Credible Christianity: The Gospel in Contemporary Society, Anglican Bishop Hugh Montefiore writes that since modern people can see evident errors in the Bible and since the biblical canon took so long to form and finally close, it seems unlikely that it could be without errors. Moreover, he notes that the various books of the Bible were not written to recount events but to “promote a higher truth — the relationship of one people and their God.”

Finally, in his book The Barthian Revolt in Modern Theology: Theology without Weapons, Gary Dorrien says that the notion of biblical inerrancy can be seen as idolatry, worshipping the Bible above its supposed divine source. Instead, Dorrien recommends taking the Bible, mistakes and all, for what it is and keeping the focus on God.

Conclusion

Biblical Inerrancy is the doctrine which insists that the Bible is completely free from errors. However, it’s clear that throughout the history of Christianity, some errors have mattered more than others.

The verse from 2 Timothy which affirms that “all Scripture is inspired by God” is often seen as the basis for a concept of biblical inerrancy. How could God have made mistakes? However, the word usually translated as “inspired” literally means “God-breathed” and likely was meant to mean “life-giving.” If so, this idea says nothing about whether there can be errors of any kind in Scripture.

Some of the earliest Christian authors said that errors of history in the Bible, including major discrepancies between Gospel stories, were unimportant, the theological and spiritual material taking precedence. With the exception of Augustine of Hippo, this seems to have been the majority position until the modern era.

However, in the 20th century, conservative Christians began to assert, with ever-growing vehemence, that even the history and depictions of natural phenomena in the Bible had to be literally true. This ultimately produced the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, a document which is held sacred by many evangelicals and other conservative denominations.

Despite this position, many other Christian denominations do not insist on the inerrancy of the Bible, freely admitting contradictions and mistakes while still remaining faithful to its messages on salvation and other topics.