Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
I have seen many people use Dei Verbum to support the notion that Scripture only applies to matters of faith and morals and not also to matters of history and science. I have even seen this view promoted on this forum. I don’t think this view of limited inerrancy has any grounding in the actual text if read critically (much less in the context in which it was written, but more on that another day). The relevant text is from the 11th section.
Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.
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 sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).
Some interpret this text to be limiting inerrancy to a subset of Scripture. For example, the New Jerome Bible Commentary states,
On inerrancy Vatican II made an important qualification as our own italics indicate: “The Books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.” Some have tried to interpret the italicized phrase to cover everything the human author expressed; but pre-voting debates show an awareness of errors in the Bible. Thus, it is proper to take the clause as specifying. Scriptural teaching is truth without error to the extent that it conforms to the salvific purposes of God.
However, can such a reading of the conciliar texts stand up to scrutiny? The controversy over supposed errors in the Bible has no bearing on the discussion anymore than a proposal of inequality between the Son and the Father have any bearing on our doctrine of the Trinity. We have to consider what the Council actually taught rather than what was discussed and not taught. Let’s compare the English and Latin texts of the second paragraph of section 11:
Cum ergo omne id, quod auctores inspirati seu hagiographi asserunt, retineri debeat assertum a Spiritu Sancto, inde Scripturae libri veritatem, quam Deus nostrae salutis causa Litteris Sacris consignari voluit, firmiter, fideliter et sine errore docere profitendi sunt.
Translated more literally into English than the rendering on the Vatican website, it reads,
Since, therefore, each thing, which the inspired authors and holy writers asserted, ought to be be held as asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be professed to teach truth, which God willed to be consigned to the Sacred Letters for the sake of our salvation, firmly, faithfully and without error.
There are a couple of grammatical points that jump out.
(1) In the English translation, truth is qualified as “that truth” as if it were only extending inerrancy to a subset of the truths of Scripture. However, there is no word corresponding to “that” in the Latin. The text is saying that the books teach truth without error. Of course, it is nonsense to suppose that the Bible teaches any kind of truth with error because that would be teaching falsehood, not truth.
(2) There are commas present in the Latin which are not present in the English. What is rendered, “God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation,” is surrounded by commas in the Latin. This gives an unfounded bias to the reading that it is limiting the scope what is true in Scripture rather than qualifying the motivation with which God inspired the truth of Scripture.
Both of these choices of translation obscure the intended meaning of the text. More significant, however, is the argument in which the statement is situated. The Council declares that the Scriptures were inspired in their entirety by God, and more strongly, “God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.” In the controversial statement, it begins by asserting that each thing (omne id) that the human authors say is said by the Holy Spirit. Then it says, “it follows that.” The meaning of the second part must follow from first part. Why would the Council repeat that Scripture is inspired in all its parts over and over if it did not intend the statement about inerrancy, which is sandwiched in there, to also apply to all the parts of Scripture? The correct reading of the sentence is that the Holy Spirit asserted every single thing in Scripture so Scripture teaches only truth and not error.
I will post some external sources later.
Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.
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 sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).
Some interpret this text to be limiting inerrancy to a subset of Scripture. For example, the New Jerome Bible Commentary states,
On inerrancy Vatican II made an important qualification as our own italics indicate: “The Books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.” Some have tried to interpret the italicized phrase to cover everything the human author expressed; but pre-voting debates show an awareness of errors in the Bible. Thus, it is proper to take the clause as specifying. Scriptural teaching is truth without error to the extent that it conforms to the salvific purposes of God.
However, can such a reading of the conciliar texts stand up to scrutiny? The controversy over supposed errors in the Bible has no bearing on the discussion anymore than a proposal of inequality between the Son and the Father have any bearing on our doctrine of the Trinity. We have to consider what the Council actually taught rather than what was discussed and not taught. Let’s compare the English and Latin texts of the second paragraph of section 11:
Cum ergo omne id, quod auctores inspirati seu hagiographi asserunt, retineri debeat assertum a Spiritu Sancto, inde Scripturae libri veritatem, quam Deus nostrae salutis causa Litteris Sacris consignari voluit, firmiter, fideliter et sine errore docere profitendi sunt.
Translated more literally into English than the rendering on the Vatican website, it reads,
Since, therefore, each thing, which the inspired authors and holy writers asserted, ought to be be held as asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be professed to teach truth, which God willed to be consigned to the Sacred Letters for the sake of our salvation, firmly, faithfully and without error.
There are a couple of grammatical points that jump out.
(1) In the English translation, truth is qualified as “that truth” as if it were only extending inerrancy to a subset of the truths of Scripture. However, there is no word corresponding to “that” in the Latin. The text is saying that the books teach truth without error. Of course, it is nonsense to suppose that the Bible teaches any kind of truth with error because that would be teaching falsehood, not truth.
(2) There are commas present in the Latin which are not present in the English. What is rendered, “God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation,” is surrounded by commas in the Latin. This gives an unfounded bias to the reading that it is limiting the scope what is true in Scripture rather than qualifying the motivation with which God inspired the truth of Scripture.
Both of these choices of translation obscure the intended meaning of the text. More significant, however, is the argument in which the statement is situated. The Council declares that the Scriptures were inspired in their entirety by God, and more strongly, “God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.” In the controversial statement, it begins by asserting that each thing (omne id) that the human authors say is said by the Holy Spirit. Then it says, “it follows that.” The meaning of the second part must follow from first part. Why would the Council repeat that Scripture is inspired in all its parts over and over if it did not intend the statement about inerrancy, which is sandwiched in there, to also apply to all the parts of Scripture? The correct reading of the sentence is that the Holy Spirit asserted every single thing in Scripture so Scripture teaches only truth and not error.
I will post some external sources later.
only joking there, but what do you think?
to the rest of your post.