Biblical Inerrancy

[Pete_Holter]

The following is taken from an interview with Cardinal Levada:

I know you don’t want to prejudge the results of any study the congregation might do, but in a nutshell, what can we say to people who wonder what the Catholic church teaches about the inerrancy of the Bible?

I think Dei Verbum has stated a very clear and effective position, which is the teaching of the church.

As you know, however, there’s been a debate for forty years over the precise meaning of Dei Verbum. Some say it means that inerrancy applies only to those things in the Bible that concern our salvation, while others say all of scripture is inerrant, even if not always in the literal, factual sense.

I would say that’s a minor distinction compared to the major point, which is that the teaching of the Bible is a teaching about what God wants us to know for our salvation. How that teaching is proposed, with all of its human clothing, and, sometimes, its lovely language – what you might call its warts – doesn’t take away, I don’t think, from the central point of how Dei Verbum summed up the teaching of the church, and I think did so very well. A [new] document might have to try to tease out some of the implications of that, but I don’t think that’s a major point. I would call it a minor one.

Full interview found here.

 

[Pete_Holter]

The final list of propositions from the Synod of Bishops ended up not including a statement on inerrancy, but rather a request for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to put out its own clarifying statement:

**Proposition 12 **

Inspiration and Truth of the Bible

The synod suggests that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith clarify the concepts of inspiration and truth of the Bible as well as their reciprocal relationship so as to better understand the teaching of Dei Verbum 11.

For the unofficial Italian text, see Bulletin No. 37.

May the debates continue in all charity for one another and with a love for God’s truth.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I believe your logic is seriously at odds with the current teachings of the Church. The phrase “…for the sake of salvation” is a necessary and essential part of the Church’s teachings on the bible. You may disagree with an eminent scholar of the Church such as Father Witherup but he has more magisterial approval than you or I and, writing under the imprimatur and nihil obstat, he states:

*We should note that despite some tendencies toward fundamentalism in its history, the Catholic Church has resisted using the terminology of “inerrancy” applied to the Bible. To the best of my knowledge, the word has never been used in official Church doctrine at the level of an ecumenical council. The word comes loaded with considerable baggage - a world view, we might say - that tilts toward an overly literal interpretation of the Bible. Vatican II uses the expression “without error” rather than the word “inerrancy” to avoid the innuendo of historical and scientific accuracy of the Bible (see Dei Verbum, the Constitution on Divine Revelation, 41’11; also quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1O7). *

Although I will say more about this distinction below, we should note that the Catholic Church’s position on lack of error in the Bible embraces only doctrinal and moral teaching, not scientific or historical. Furthermore, it allows for growth in the moral perspective in the Bible, recognizing that moral insight deepened over time. Not every moral teaching in the Bible carries the same weight.

I don’t see how he can reconcile his last paragraph with the doctrine - for it certainly appears to be doctrine - of Leo XIII & Pius XII. They:​

• teach the Bible’s absolute immunity from error
• explicitly condemn any limitation of its inerrancy to matters of faith & morals; in fact, Providentissimus in 1893 was occasioned by exactly such a limitation, which was set going by an essay of Cardinal Newman in 1884. Neither Pope could have been much more explicit in rejecting the position Fr. Witherup seems to accept
  So what’s going on ? It would be very interesting to know how he squares postions that seem impossible to reconcile.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

This doctrine has been solemnly defined, therefore it is infallible and inreformable:

When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the “entire books with all their parts” as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.
(Pius XII, DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU, n. 1)

This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. (Leo XIII, PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, n. 20).

It is not an open question, but a required belief, therefore, it is not the role of scholars to express an opposing opinion, nor is it reasonable to think that the Magisterium will overturn this dogma and teach its opposite.

Where does any of those Councils define that the Bible is free from all error ?​

IIRC, they define (or re-iterate) the extent of the Canon - but say nothing of the total inerrancy of the books in the canon. These Councils define that the Books are:

• inspired
• sacred
• canonical
• authoritative

• but not, AFAICR, that they are totally inerrant. Maybe that was taken for granted ?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

When a Council or Pope teaches by a solemn definition, that teach is infallible, irreformable, and a required belief. One cannot refute or contradict such a required belief by saying that the dogma is incomplete.

If Sacred Scripture makes an assertion of a truth about history, science, geography, or any other subject, then that assertion is true and without error. The approach of calling any assertion that one thinks is false a mere figure has the result that any truth asserted by Scripture that falls under doubt for any reason is made null and void by being called a figure, not because it is a figure, but because it was judged to be false.

Examples of assertions of Scripture on topics such as geography, history, science, etc., which are not figures:

1. Scripture says that Jesus was born at Bethlehem. Some scholars claim that he may have been born elsewhere.
2. Scripture says that the teaching of John chapter 6 was taught when Jesus was at Capernaum. Some scholars say that Jesus never taught the full passage from John 6, and that it was added later.
3. Numerous passages stating who is descended from whom. Some scholars reject these geneologies completely, claiming that they are merely making a point about the individual by a false claim of who his ancestors were.
4. The passage in Joshua where the sun and moon stood still:
   {10:13} And the sun and the moon stood still, till the people revenged themselves of their enemies. Is not this written in the book of the just? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day.

This cannot be claimed as a mere figure without basing that figure on a falsehood. Nor is it tenable to say that this was an eclipse or some other natural event, for there is no natural event that causes the sun and moon to stand still. But scholars claim that the event was an eclipse or a mere figure.

Hmm…​

• Alternative 1 - the entire solar system is knocked out of synch, so that a battle somewhere on the third sun can be won by the right people
  or
• Alternative 2 - the solar system is left intact, as the disturbance of the sytem is legend.
  Why is an inspired legend so impossible to accept ? At this rate, Jonah’s “prepared fish” (as the book calls it) will be a special creation, purely for the sake of getting the prophet to Nineveh (presumably by way of the Tigris). Is God to create special stars, special fishes, & special astronomical phenomena of every kind, purely to salvage & satisfy the literal accuracy of a book ? At this rate, people 3,000 years hence are going to believe that whenever the rain fell down, so did cats & dogs: it would be in vain that they are told that people said such words, but not mean such things.

1. The passage on Adam and Eve. Certainly, there are figurative elements, but the claim that no two such persons, a man and a woman, the progenitors of the human race, ever existed, is contrary to the assertions of Scripture in both the old and new Testaments.

That’s crazy - of course the NT writers thought that: they knew no better. Jesus was not a lecturer in palaeobiology, but the Saviour: why should they think otherwise than they did ? How is accuracy in palaeolobiology required in speaking of human sin ? It’s not.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Can someone with a good knowledge of Catholic biblical studies help me out here? I am not even sure if this is the best thread for my question.I have recently downloaded “Biblia Clerus” which apparently comes from the Vatican. The main commentary claims that St Peter did not write the second epistle, St John did not write Revelations, and (which I find most worrying ) the author of the fourth Gospel put words into the mouth of Our Lord because of the contemporary rivalry between the synagogue and the Church. Apparently negative statements about the Jews were not made atall by Christ, but were made up by the author for his own purposes, and dishonestly attributed to Christ.

There would be nothing dishonest in that - authors of that period constantly compose speeches which they put in the mouths of characters. The author of that gospel is doing no more than the Roman historian Tacitus (for instance) did. When Tacitus makes the Scottish chieftain Calgacus say of the Romans that “they make a desert, and they call it peace”, he is not quoting Calgacus, nor would he have been understood to do so - he is writing as himself, and also making a character speak appropriately to the occasion: which is an harangue before a battle (which the Romans won BTW). The author of the fourth gospel is doing the same: making his characters speak appropriately.​

As to the positions on authorship - these are anything but unusual or unorthodox. In no case is the Divine Authorship of the books affected.

I am not a fundamentalist, and I am aware that the question of authorship may be more complicated than was once thought; I am also aware that the Gospel writers adapted certain details and speeches for perfectly good reasons, but my own belief ( for what it’s worth) is that if the Gospels say Our Lord said or did something , then he said or did it ( not necessarily in those precise words or in that precise way). If we are to believe that the Gospels do not give us an accurate account of Jesus’ life and teaching then are we not at the mercy of exegetes who will interpret the bIble any way they wish?
Is this really the teaching of the Catholic Church?And if not, why was it allowed into this document?Any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Accuracy is also a bit more complex than is sometimes realised. The words “Jesus said” do not necessarily mean He did - if they did, a lot of the NT Apocrypha would be genuinely His words. Even though what is said in them is mostly very unlike anything in the gospels.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Thank you for replying to my post. Whilst I am well-informed about liturgy and have a little knowledge of theology I am pig ignorant regarding biblical studies. I am in correspondence with another poster ( Pete Holter ) who is helping me along.

As my knowledge is so poor, I am reluctant to engage with you on this topic, but, if you will have the patience to listen to someone who is determined to understand what it’s all about, I would be grateful.

May I just point out some problems with one or two of your statements, from my point of view?

If Tacitus can be allowed to reveal character through speech in that way, why can’t St. John ?

My answer to this question would be “Because Tacitus is not an inspired author.”

How is lack of inspiration relevant to his method as an author ? It’s not.​

so why is it so unacceptable to suggest that they relied on some of the same conventions used in composing books as men of their time used

Is it really that obvious that the Evangelists “made up” whole swathes of material, and that their contemporaries understood this? Why then do the Church Fathers not say this; they seem convinced on the whole that the speeches are authentic.

​

If that is the only response the scholars get for all the trouble they take to investigate the Bible, they ought really to give up trying to benefit such ungrateful people as other Catholics. Fundacatholics ought to stop maligning those whose work they show they are uncapable of understanding​

I would hate to think that you are referring to my self as an "ungrateful person ". Some people would say that more humility is required from exegetes ,

That is usually said by the very people who lack humility. It is is not exegetes who lack humility, but those of their critics who cannot be bothered to acquaint themselves with what in fact the exegetes do, & why - but instead, deny that that the exegetes are genuinely Catholics. This goes on all the time here, & I’m sick of it. That’s why I stay away; there’s no point in arguing with Fundamentalists.​

who, unlike the Holy Father and the bishops ( no mater how unworthy many of them may be) they have no promise of divine assistance.

God has blessed them in other ways - is that not Divine assistance " ? Your POV is too limited (if I may say so). Theology does not depend on the Pope, but on Christ.​

Also, many people would feel that insulting the opposition is the last refuge of the guy with a poor argument.

It’s interesting you say that, because the sort of people I have in mind are those who, rather than reading the scholars, simply malign & vilify them as “liberals”, & almost always slander one or two in particular. I don’t usually bother coming here for that reason. If people are ignorant, fair enough - but if they are, they have no business finding fault with those who are not.​

It’s in that document because it is perfectly orthodox to adopt such positions, & because there are sufficient reasons to justify such positions.

Are you sure about this? My friend Pete seems to think otherwise and his arguments appear to be backed up by the magisterium.

I’m sure. Quoting old positions does not mean they must be true - this is one reason why Biblical scholarship is ecumenical & why no position can be treated as irreformable. It is probabilistic - not dogmatic.​

Scholarship cannot be in hock to orthodoxy or dogma, but must go where the truth seems to lead.

Are you saying that “scholarship” is more definitive than defined dogma? So if your studies led you to believe that the Virgin Birth is not a historico-biological event, would you deny that infallible teaching of the Church?

I believe it in great part because of those devil-worshipping scholars “true Catholics” despise so much. Fundamentalism almost caused me to lose faith entirely - critical scholarship saved it. Scholarship cannot be mugged & beaten up until it consents to be “orthodox” - if it leads to “unorthodox” positions, so be it. The problem is with a Church that tries to shrink God to its own size. ​

I don’t know how to make what I said any clearer

All these quesitons assume that you are an orthodox catholic. If you are a liberal who does not believe in revealed doctrine then obviously my comments are useless.

At any rate, thanks for listening

You see ? “Liberals” are apparently everything in the CC that is evil. It is possible to be liberal, without believing that revealed doctrine is a meaningless thing.​

 

[CathPhilosopher]

I’ve just started reading the May 11, 2008, *Instrumentum Laboris *for the XII Synod of Bishops and it says that “the following can be said with certainty: …] with regards to what might be inspired in the many parts of Sacred Scripture, inerrancy applies only to ‘that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation’ (DV 11)” [emphasis added].

If the way this document is worded here concerns you, please let your priests and bishops know before the bishops meet in October.
Pete

I arrived to this thread from a Google search. On the assumption that others might as well, I think it well to point out that some of those present also had concerns with the proposition, and the decision was made to pass the question on to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
synod:

Proposition 12: Inspiration and truth in the Bible

The synod proposes that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith clarify the concepts of “inspiration” and “truth” in the Bible, along with their reciprocal relationship, in order to better understand the teaching of Dei Verbum 11. In particular, it’s necessary to emphasize the specific character of Catholic Biblical hermeneutics in this area.

Text may be found (among other places) on Zenit

The Congregation hasn’t given an answer yet, but we can suppose it will be in line with the previous teaching of the Church.

On the Inerrancy of Scripture

 

[joemccarron]

Thanks for posting the link to that article I read through some of it but not all of it. The article is pretty one sided. For example it doesn’t address Where Jesus suggests Deuteronomy was written by Moses and not God. Nor does it address passages by Tertullian that we discussed in a different thread here.

Moreover the reasoning is bad. That author tries to imply that since some fathers like St. John did argue that some minor parts of the gospel were not in error he therefore must have felt it was impossible that they would be in error. This is bad logic.

As far as the section on reason, I haven’t finished reading it but it seems to be one logical leap after another. First he leaps from the scripture being inspired by God to it being authored by God. Well that’s a logical stretch. People have inspired me to write certain things but they did not author what I write.