Could the Bible have been written any better or is as good as it can be given its inspiration?

[fisherman_carl]

Now, what I think our fine 1920s priests who wrote the Cathlic Encyclopedia are getting at is the idea that the art is not what was inspired in a theological sense. although (as Soussa and Dostoevsky and others have said) all great art is kinda inspired by God in a sense.

That it is inspired in a theological sense is different from a dictation or from writing it while possessed by some angel or something.

And I think that’s what they are getting at. That the truths the authors were meant to communicate were given to them by the Holy Spirit, and these truths and the Holy Spirit guided their writing to ensure these truths’ communication, as God can guide all things.

Note that this distinguishes inspiration from infalliblity; infallibility is purely negative and does not necessarily require any special communication between God and Man really. A rock is infallible. Inspiration is more.

Yes, something of the human author must be in the work if it has his style of writing. That doesn’t mean that it is a bad thing. It just means that style changes with the human author. If it was an outright dictation then there would be no human element in the style of writing. We wouldn’t be able to recognize the difference between St. Paul writing or St James.

One of the things the article mentioned is that the human authors are like God’s instuments. And when you think of different instruments you realize they all make different sounds regardless of who is playing them. A tuba sounds like a tuba, not a flute. So while the instruments are capable of playing the same song in an orchestra they each have distinctive sounds. Similarly, if we think of the human authors as instruments in God’s hands they will each have their distinctive style while still conveying the message of the principle author, God. Somehow God is inspiring them to write what they did while giving them freedom to write it according to their own style. Otherwise God might has well of written it like he did the ten commandments.

Now if there was a defect in the instrument that would not fault the musician. Perhaps that is what they meant by imperfection. If the tuba had a slight rattle in it because it is slightly misshapen it is not because the musician is playing it wrong. But because the instrument is dammaged.

 

[fisherman_carl]

That’s not to take away the greatness of the literary or artists accomplishment that the Bible is, especially when you consider it as a whole. Imperfections if any in any great work such as the Bible will be small,perhaps negligible or unnoticeable by most. Or perhaps the error may be in the one who is reading it, unable to grasp its message. But still given any artistic work is often not appreciated the same by everyone. This may come down personal taste which can change. For instance,you mentioned classical music. When I was young I didn’t like it that much. Nor did I like Shakespeare. However, in my mid to late 20s I started to appreciate both. I came to appreciate classical music buying the music and listening to it on my own. I think when I was younger I was more influenced by the music of my generation unable to appreciate other forms. And with Shakespeare I was able to appreciate it through watching productions of it. I probably wouldn’t have appreciated it through just reading it through. It was after all a play, not a novel.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Also, I should just clarify that when speaking of imperfections in the article they may not have had in mind actual imperfections, but may have been thinking in theoretical terms. Thus, in this view, theoretically speaking, if there were imperfections these may be attributed to the instrument, not to the principle author God. Just as an imperfection in a musical instrument does not fault the musician playing it. But, it is not clear that there are actual imperfections that they have in mind, or are speaking theoretically to help us discern the human author from the principle author in terms of cause and effect.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I should also clarify one thing that is bothering me. I did not ask this question to denegrate the Bible in any way. I feel a bit foolish for asking it in hindsight because it could be interpreted in that way. But, actually I think it is a good honest question about what the inspiration of Scripture entails and to what extent the human authors are involved. If I would have preferred a particular Scripture to have been written slightly different to help me better understand that does not mean that Scripture was poorly written or imperfect. It just means that I am limited in my understanding of it. The fault lies with me, not Scripture. And, also the particular translation I am reading plays a role in this. I wish I could understand the original language.

Now of course Scripture is limited. It doesn’t tell us everything about everything. It doesn’t tell us everything about Jesus even. Thankfully we also have the historical Church and the Magisterium to help us interpret Scripture and fill in some of those blanks.

 

[fhansen]

The catechism sheds light here on this I believe, as it should:

**106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75**

I think its important to keep in mind also that the Church is not dependent solely on Scripture but on Tradition as well; she held and professed the faith before a word of the New Testament was written.