Armin Baum on Inerrancy and Canon

Armin Baum on Inerrancy and Canon August 12, 2014

Congrats to my friend Armin Baum (Freie Theologische Hochschule, Geissen) who has had a couple of decent articles come out in JETS and BBR which are worth checking out.

“Is New Testament Inerrancy a New Testament Concept? A Traditional and Therefore Open-Minded Answer,” JETS 57.2 (2014): 265-80.

A good piece on whether the NT teaches anything like “inerrancy.”  Baum thinks inerrancy is rooted in an inerrant God, an inerrant Jesus, and in the apostles who taught the truth. Though he carefully nuances it in a way many inerrantists would reject: ‘It must be recognized, however, that the Church Fathers did not define the inerrancy of the NT documents according to absolute standards of truth and error but were convinced that minor imprecision and slips of memory did not call into question the truth of the NT” (p. 280).

“Does the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) Have Canonical Authority?” An Interconfessional Approach,” BBR 24.2 (2014): 163-78.

Baum provides a good defence of a “criteria” approach to canonicity (against ecclesial and pneumatic approaches). He argues that (1) the pericope is historically plausible and has not been disproved; (2) it is orthodoxy; (3) the pericope meets the criteria for canonicity; (4) it should be placed at the end of John’s Gospel as a kind of appendix; (5) Those who hesitate to accept the PA can remove it without fear of any serious loss.



"Find this a little fascinating in that it seems biased toward one particular cultural perspective. ..."

Is Nothing Sacred? The Contemporary Practice ..."
"Gen.1:31 says all that God created was "very good". This only means that when God ..."

Paul and Supersessionism
"Christopher,Send me your thoughts at"

Paul and Supersessionism

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Patrick

    Unless we find a 1st century text, we won’t know for sure, the pericope may have been there and then removed. But, James DG Dunn’s view expressed in the book about “The Gospel and Oral Tradition” makes a case that the pericope was added later legitimately.

    Another strain of oral tradition that was not present when John was first circulated.