Here’s my evidence for the historical church position on inerrancy.
Religious Tolerance Organization:
The term “inerrancy” is rarely used by the Roman Catholics church. However, the concept of inerrancy is present in many of their beliefs about the Bible.
The teachings of the Church have evolved over the years. Various Catholic sources have given apparently conflicting views on the nature of biblical inerrancy:
Code:
**Some claim that, in its original autograph version, the Bible is inerrant -- without error. This belief developed naturally from their conviction that God inspired the authors of the Bible. If God was influencing the writers, then he would not have led them into error. This appears to be the consensus of the popes, and most of the Catholic scholars and other church leaders until the mid 20Hometh century.**
Other Catholics teach a more recent concept: that of limited inerrancy. This views the Bible as being without error in certain matters such as faith, morals and the criteria for salvation. However, the Bible contains errors when describing other matters, such as scientific observations and historical events. This belief had its origins in the church with the writings of Richard Simon (1638 - 1712) who rejected Moses as author of the Pentateuch. He partly inspired the literary-criticism method of analyzing biblical passages which became influential among 19Hometh century Christians.
Still other Catholic theologians and scholars have agreed with liberal Protestants by rejecting the inerrancy of the Bible. They interpret it as containing much legend, myth, historical and scientific inaccuracies, religious propaganda, etc. Of these intellectuals, Dominic Crossan is one of the most popular writers among the general public.
I would particularly draw your attention to the organization’s statement that the scripture being error free, or inerrant, was the “consensus of the popes, and most of the Catholic scholars and other church leaders until the mid 20th century.”
This does not mean that there weren’t non-literal interpretations prior to the 20th century.
In the early days of the Church, according to my research, there were two main schools of scriptural interpretation, the schools of Antioch and Alexandria. The school of Antioch interpreted the scripture primarily literally, and, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, “The literal interpretation of Scripture had its beginnings in the early church in school of Antioch.”
The school of Alexandria, on the other hand, focused upon metaphor and typology. Origen, according to Terence Keegan’s book, “Interpreting the Bible: A Popular Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics,” believed that, “biblical texts can be read according to their literal, historical sense, but this sense provides only a shadow of the reality that the Scriptures are intended to communicate” (p. 16).
Keegan continues, saying that, “the allegorical method continued as the dominant methodology for biblical interpretation until the thirteenth century.” In the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas changed perspectives a lot. St. Thomas Aquinas, according to Keegan, “did not deny that the Old Testament prefigured the realities of Christ and Christian existence, nor that there were indeed spiritual or mystical senses of passages that went beyond the literal sense. He did maintain, however, that these other senses contained nothing that could not be found elsewhere in Scripture in the literal sense, and that only the literal sense could be used in theological argumentation.” Keegan writes that, “Scholastic theology left the Christian world with a singleminded concern for the literal, historical sense of Scripture, a concern that remains manifest among most Christians right up to the present day.” So St. Thomas Aquinas brought a literal emphasis back, but acceptance of the literal inerrancy of the Bible has always been a part of church tradition. The differences between the schools of Antioch and Alexandria are described in my sources as a matter of emphasis, not conflict. The Bible was always seen as inerrant. Alexandria simply did not emphasize this. Instead, it emphasized the typological and allegorical. This emphasis should not be seen as a rejection of the literal interpretation the School of Antioch pressed for.
Origen, also, one of the primary leaders of the School of Alexandria, did not object to a literal interpretation at all. In his view, according to Keegan, “Biblical texts can be read according to their literal, historical sense, but this sense provides only a shadow of the reality that the Scriptures are intended to communicate. The real world of the biblical texts is the world of faith which can be attained wheen one recognizes that the literal, historical sense of the Scripture symbolizes the real world of faith” (p. 16). This does not mean that the literal sense is at all invalid. Indeed, a literal interpretation is perfectly acceptable and reveals truth. Origen’s emphasis was simply different from that of Thomas Aquinas, not his message.
Here’s a quotation from St. Augustine in a letter to Jerome: “On my own part I confess to your charity that it is only to those books of Scripture which are now called canonical that I have learned to pay such honor and reverence as to believe most firmly that none of their writers has fallen into any error. And if in these books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand.”
Clement of Rome, the founder of the School of Alexandria, wrote, “The holy Scriptures which are given through the Holy Spirit…nothing iniquitous or falsified is written.”
religioustolerance.org/inerran1.htm
Irenaeus said that, “The Scriptures are indeed perfect.”
truthsaves.org/articles/inerrant.shtml
The original Protestant reformers got their views on scriptural inerrancy from their Catholic upbringing. Here’s what they had to say:
truthsaves.org:
Luther states with respect to Scripture, “He who adheres to the Scriptures will find that they do not lie or deceive” (Preus, 379). Again, he states, “Scripture cannot err” (Preus, 379). And again, “The Scriptures have never erred” (Preus, 179). As stated by Robert Preus, “That the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant and of supreme divine authority, was a conviction held by all Christians and Christian teachers through the first 1700 years of church history” (357). Calvin called Scripture an “inerring standard” (Gerstner, 391).
truthsaves.org/articles/inerrant.shtml
Here is a quotation from the Catholic Encyclopedia about Origen’s views of scriptural interpretation:
The principal passages on the inspiration, meaning, and interpretation of the Scriptures are preserved in Greek in the first fifteen chapters of the “Philocalia”. According to Origen, Scripture is inspired because it is the word and work of God. But, far from being an inert instrument, the inspired author has full possession of his faculties, he is conscious of what he is writing; he is physically free to deliver his message or not; he is not seized by a passing delirium like the pagan oracles, for bodily disorder, disturbance of the senses, momentary loss of reason are but so many proofs of the action of the evil spirit. Since Scripture is from God, it ought to have the distinctive characteristics of the Divine works: truth, unity, and fullness. The word of God cannot possibly be untrue; hence no errors or contradictions can be admitted in Scripture (In Joan., X, iii). The author of the Scriptures being one, the Bible is less a collection of books than one and the same book (Philoc., V, iv-vii), a perfect harmonious instrument (Philoc., VI, i-ii). But the most Divine note of Scripture is its fullness: “There is not in the Holy Books the smallest passage (cheraia) but reflects the wisdom of God” (Philoc., I, xxviii, cf. X, i). True there are imperfections in the Bible: antilogies, repetitions, want of continuity; but these imperfections become perfections by leading us to the allegory and the spiritual meaning (Philoc., X, i-ii).
newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm
The key sentence, here, is, “The word of God cannot possibly be untrue; hence no errors or contradictions can be admitted in Scripture.” Inerrancy is espoused. Origen, however, did not emphasize the literal meaning. He emphasized, and I expect preferred, the allegorical or typological interpretation of passages.
I read elsewhere, I’m not sure where, that Origen believed every verse of the Bible had at least one true allegorical or typological interpretation.
There are several passages in the Bible itself that suggest that it is inerrant. In my view, Matthew 5:18, of all the various inerrancy supporting scriptures, most strongly affirms this.
Keegan, Terence J., Interpreting the Bible: A Popular Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, Paulist Press, New York, N.Y./Mahwah, N.J., 1985.
.
