Biblical Writers: Infallible or Inerrant?

[Veritas6]

In the comments section of this Strange Notions article, Brandon Vogt makes the following statement:

We [Catholics] don’t maintain the biblical authors were infallible (i.e., incapable of error), only that the specific biblical texts they authored are inerrant (i.e., they don’t contain errors.) This is a crucial distinction. From the Vatican II document “Dei Verbum”:

“Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.” (DV, 11)

How do we understand historical errors that may arise from studying Scripture? Such as the timing of the Census of Quirinus and Jesus’ birth. I’ve read from NT Wright that Luke 2:2 might have originally been read: “This census took place before the time when Quirinius was governor of Syria” (emphasis mine). Regardless, I myself do not believe historical blunders would take away from the theological inerrancy of Scripture. How do we Catholics understand this? Thank you.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Encyclical by Pope Leo XIII on Holy Scripture:

http://www.vatican.va/content/leo-x...-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html

 

[EndTimes]

We [Catholics] don’t maintain the biblical authors were infallible (i.e., incapable of error), only that the specific biblical texts they authored are inerrant (i.e., they don’t contain errors.) This is a crucial distinction. From the Vatican II document “Dei Verbum”:

Yes. Infallibility is presented in Vatican I

Those with Faith don’t trip over potentially uncrossed “t”'s -
with the emphasis upon Faith…

With Faith - God’s very Spirit becomes our Primary Guide…

_+

 

[Veritas6]

How do we understand that the Biblical writers were inerrant and not infallible? What can they be fallible or “capable of error” on but at the same time “contain no errors” in their writings?

It is not clear to me if they actually can have historical errors or embellishments while maintaining theological inerrancy?

 

[EndTimes]

Infallibility - has a very specific understanding and applies specifically to the pope, and, to him with an assembly of bishops gathered in council - and only when Teaching on Faith and Morals… Doctrines…

 

[JSRG]

The definitions of “infallible” and “inerrant” in the original post are different from how I’ve normally seen them used in regards to the Bible. According to the usual definitions I’ve seen used, biblical infallibility is the belief that the Bible is free from error in regards to faith, but not necessarily history and science. Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible is free from error entirely.

 

[Veritas6]

According to the usual definitions I’ve seen used, biblical infallibility is the belief that the Bible is free from error in regards to faith, but not necessarily history and science. Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible is free from error entirely.

Thanks for the clarification, I’ve read it that way as well. Would you agree that the Bible is infallible - free from error in faith, but not necessarily from history and science?

 

[EndTimes]

Thanks for the clarification, I’ve read it that way as well. Would you agree that the Bible is infallible - free from error in faith, but not necessarily from history and science?

Infallible … is never applied to the Bible…

Sacred Scriptures - are solid as a Rock…

History? Where does any get that notion…

Science?

The only area ever discussed - connects with the understanding of the word “day” in Genesis.

Infallibility

That the Church is infallible in her definitions on faith and morals is itself a Catholic dogma, which, although it was formulated ecumenically for the first time in the Vatican Council, had been explicitly taught long before and had been assumed from the very beginning without question down to the time of the Protestant Reformation. The teaching of the Vatican Council is to be found in Session III, cap. 4, where it is declared that “the doctrine of faith, which God has revealed, has not been proposed as a philosophical discovery to be improved upon by human talent, but has been committed as a Divine deposit to the spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted by her”; and in Session IV, cap. 4, where it is defined that the Roman pontiff when he teaches ex cathedra “enjoys, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith and morals”.

 

[JSRG]

JSRG:

According to the usual definitions I’ve seen used, biblical infallibility is the belief that the Bible is free from error in regards to faith, but not necessarily history and science. Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible is free from error entirely.

Thanks for the clarification, I’ve read it that way as well. Would you agree that the Bible is infallible - free from error in faith, but not necessarily from history and science?

I would assert that, yes. I am undecided on the issue of absolute inerrancy.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

It’s my understanding that “inerrancy”, as Vogt said and as Dei Verbum said, related to teaching without error the truths of the faith. It did not mean that Scripture had no minor errors in spelling, dates, “uncrossed T’s” etc.

A spelling error, a minor date error etc does not take away from the teaching of the truths of the faith. There is also scholarly debate over things like the Census, and a number of possible explanations that would make such things historically correct. We don’t know everything about history; I seem to recall that until a relatively recent time, there was debate over the historicity of King David’s existence, for example, until some archaeologist found an inscription proving he did in fact exist.

So this is really not a big deal to Catholics.

 

[EndTimes]

a minor date error etc does not take away from the teaching of the truths of the faith.

That never stops those who’ve dedicated their entire lives futily attempting to disprove what is true.

 

[Veritas6]

Along the lines of Bible inerrancy, what do you make of interpretations of the Gospels, such as Dennis MacDonald’s “Dionysian Gospel” which relates a lot of similarities between the god Dionysos and St. John’s Gospel?:

“John sounds themes that would have instantly been recognized as proper to the Greek god Dionysos (the Roman Bacchus), not least as he was depicted in Euripides’s play The Bacchae. A divine figure, the offspring of a divine father and human mother, takes on flesh to live among mortals but is rejected by his own. He miraculously provides wine and offers it as a sacred gift to his devotees, women prominent among them, dies a violent death—and returns to life. Yet John takes his drama in a dramatically different direction: while Euripides’s Dionysos exacts vengeance on the Theban throne, the Johannine Christ offers life to his followers. MacDonald employs mimesis criticism to argue that the earliest evangelist not only imitated Euripides but expected his readers to recognize Jesus as greater than Dionysos.”

“Numerous and dense parallels rise to the level of highly probable to certain indications of dependence on the Bacchae of Euripides.

• Like Dionysus, Jesus is a god who comes to earth in mortal disguise
• He has a champion heralding him
• The people’s leaders reject him
• His symbolic names abound
• Jesus’s first, stage-setting miracle is clearly a Dionysian one; both bring forth wine miraculously
• Yet that is only one of numerous, identity-establishing miracles that the two share in common. Jesus and Dionysus both make old men move as if they are young again
• Both prompt devotion from old men in spite of competing family loyalties
• The Johannine Jesus provides his own miraculous supply of water and attracts women followers known for their promiscuity, just as Dionysus was famed to do
• Both vex their initiates/disciples with the requirement of eating the god’s raw flesh and drinking his blood
• Iesus Dionysos is harshly interrogated as to his provenance and paternity
• He is the liberator of slaves
• He is the one whom his opponents cannot see but the formerly blind clearly can
• He is the one who can miraculously escape arrest
• He is the one whose initiates travel safely into the underworld and are brought back to life
• Jesus and Dionysus are similarly opposed by god-fighters
• Yet both are equally acclaimed by many groups of people
• Jesus imitates Dionysus even as he rivals him as the true grapevine
• Both willingly meet their own arrest
• Though the ignominy of the crucifixion and lack of vengeance are uncharacteristic of Dionysus, the Johannine Jesus still plays a Bacchae-inspired role in his imitation of Pentheus, the murdered king
• The Johannine resurrection interweaves characteristics of Dionysus and Pentheus in its depiction of the defiled, royal corpse being raised within a garden and women followers who surround him but also do not initially recognize his body
• The disembodied apotheosis of the first edition of John is hallmark Dionysus” (bold mine)

He also covers Homeric influences of the Bible including the Acts of the Apostles. Thoughts?

 

[dejj]

There is space and time, and similarities or differences from humanity in civilization occur through time.

So, an example: errors in time change the meaning of words. Therefore, in English, we have gone from the King James Version to the gender-neutral NIV, etc.

 

[Gorgias]

How do we understand that the Biblical writers were inerrant and not infallible? What can they be fallible or “capable of error” on but at the same time “contain no errors” in their writings?

NFL referees aren’t “infallible” – they can make mistakes.

NFL referees can, however, work in a particular context in which they don’t err in their calls. That is, they can have a game in which their calls were inerrant.

Does that help?

It is not clear to me if they actually can have historical errors or embellishments while maintaining theological inerrancy?

Does theological inerrancy require precise historical accuracy?

Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible is free from error entirely.

Nope.

Some do make that claim; however, that’s not the definition from a Catholic perspective. Rather, it’s “[t]he books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.”

I am undecided on the issue of absolute inerrancy.

I suspect that this is because you’re defining “Scriptural inerrancy” differently than the Church defines it.

Dennis MacDonald’s “Dionysian Gospel” which relates a lot of similarities between the god Dionysos and St. John’s Gospel?:

“John sounds themes that would have instantly been recognized as proper to the Greek god Dionysos (the Roman Bacchus), not least as he was depicted in Euripides’s play The Bacchae. A divine figure, the offspring of a divine father and human mother, takes on flesh to live among mortals but is rejected by his own. He miraculously provides wine and offers it as a sacred gift to his devotees, women prominent among them, dies a violent death—and returns to life.

I’m confused. Of all the examples you say he relates, the only one that’s distinctly Johannine is the Wedding at Cana. All the rest of the examples are found in the Synoptics. Why is he laying his case at the feet of the Gospel of John, then? It’s like saying, “well, n similarities aren’t important, but hey – we have n+1 similiarities! Now that’s significant !!!”

MacDonald employs mimesis criticism to argue that the earliest evangelist not only imitated Euripides but expected his readers to recognize Jesus as greater than Dionysos.”

“The earliest evangelist”? Doesn’t he mean “the final evangelist”?!?

 

[Veritas6]

I’m confused. Of all the examples you say he relates, the only one that’s distinctly Johannine is the Wedding at Cana. All the rest of the examples are found in the Synoptics. Why is he laying his case at the feet of the Gospel of John, then? It’s like saying, “well, n similarities aren’t important, but hey – we have n+1 similiarities! Now that’s significant !!!”

What do you make of the similarities written out in the bullet points?

 

[Veritas6]

Does anyone have thoughts on the idea of a progression of an early to a high Christology, meaning “Jesus gets more and more divine the later the writings get [?] The New Testament also shows stages going from Jesus being exalted as the son of God after his crucifixion (speeches given to Peter and Paul in Acts), to being adopted as the son of God at his baptism (Mark) then at birth (Matthew and Luke) and ultimately eternally preexistent (prologue of John). This is a progression that would be expected from legendary accretions to a real person.” (bold mine).

 

[Gorgias]

What do you make of the similarities written out in the bullet points?

I think he’d still have to answer why he thinks that the Synoptics – which were composed earlier than John – are not examples of copying the Dionysos story, but the Gospel of John is, even though the majority of items he notes are found also in the Synoptics.

It’s kinda like saying that my Mom and Dad aren’t related to Abraham Lincoln, but I am (because I’m also tall, skinny, and have a stovepipe hat).

At best, he might claim that the features of the Gospel of John which are unique to that Gospel – and which also have correspondences to the Dionysian story – are indications that John nuanced his Gospel to fit that story. That’s a much weaker claim, since it only points to the following parts of the Gospel of John:

• the wedding at Cana
  • except for the fact that Jesus didn’t “offer sacred win to his devotees”
• the “living water” discourse
  • except for the fact that Jesus doesn’t “provide his own supply of water”; rather, he makes a figurative reference to water, which is understood as being related to the Spirit
• “Jesus vexes his disciples with the requirement of eating flesh and drinking blood”?
  • here’s the problem: those who read the Gospel aren’t “vexed”, since they already know the institution narrative of the Synoptics
  • and if the claim is merely that the characters in the Gospel are “vexed”, then we’d have to point to the fact that the disciples in the Synoptics are likewise vexed by the problem of Jesus’ identity, which is the point of the Bread of Life narrative (i.e., “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”)

So, do you think that these features, distinctive to John, are sufficient to demonstrate that John took an already-existing set of Gospels and nuanced them to match the story of Dionysos? I’m not convinced.

 

[Gorgias]

Does anyone have thoughts on the idea of a progression of an early to a high Christology, meaning “Jesus gets more and more divine the later the writings get

What’s problematic with this notion is that it seemingly ignores the assertions that Jesus makes in the Synoptics regarding His divinity; these are assertions that would have been recognized by Jews who understand the references He made. (Moreover, we see that the high priest understands the references, too, in the ‘trial’ narrative.)

The New Testament also shows stages going from Jesus being exalted as the son of God after his crucifixion (speeches given to Peter and Paul in Acts), to being adopted as the son of God at his baptism (Mark) then at birth (Matthew and Luke) and ultimately eternally preexistent (prologue of John). This is a progression that would be expected from legendary accretions to a real person."

Wait – the progression is: Acts → Mark → Matthew/Luke → John ??
That’s problematic:

• it’s out of order: Mark, Matthew and Luke precede Acts
• it presumes Markan priority
• it doesn’t show a progression in Luke, with respect to Matthew, but merely a correspondence between them
• it ignores the Luke → Acts temporal ordering

If he wants to demonstrate “legendary accretions”, then the features in Acts should be more pronounced than Luke, not to mention Mark and Matthew, and not less pronounced. Moreover, he’s positing that the Evangelist Luke makes claims of Jesus’ divinity at His birth (in the Gospel of Luke) but only after his crucifixion (in Acts). This is a nonsense claim, on a couple of counts: Acts doesn’t deal with narratives that are earlier in Jesus’ life than those in Luke, so it can’t be evidence of “progression”. In addition, having asserted Jesus as divine at his birth (in the Gospel of Luke), a later assertion of divinity (in Acts) is merely a repetition of the same claim.

 

[Veritas6]

Moreover, we see that the high priest understands the references, too, in the ‘trial’ narrative

Yeah I remember that, where is the narrative located in the Gospels? That’s the most convincing to me.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Moreover, we see that the high priest understands the references, too, in the ‘trial’ narrative

Yeah I remember that, where is the narrative located in the Gospels? That’s the most convincing to me.

Matthew 26:

the high priest said to him, “I order you to tell us under oath before the living God whether you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”

Jesus said to him in reply, “You have said so. But I tell you: From now on you will see ‘the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power’ and ‘coming on the clouds of heaven.’”

Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need have we of witnesses? You have now heard the blasphemy; what is your opinion?” They said in reply, “He deserves to die!”