Did Vatican II Reverse the Teaching on Inerrancy of Scripture?

[JReducation]

Are you saying that regardless of the copying over and over, the words are still without error? or are you saying that the general theological teaching is without error? the second I can ascribe to.

Error implies that someone made a mistake. The Church teaches that no mistake has been made. That the changes are very deliberate.

I would disagree in part. All of what we term the NT was written not in anticipation of being collected in a book form. They were written individually. There is not a lot of evidence that suggests for instance that Mark wrote anticipating his work would be disseminated outside his community to which it had been very much tailored. Additionally, Paul certainly did not anticipate it would seem that his letters would be declared as “scripture”. You seem to be reducing things to faith and morals…and I don’t disagree with that much either. What came to be scripture was the story of the group of Jesus followers that gained the upper hand, and I would certainly not disagree that they had the correct views, but some of the textual matters were altered to address heresy or perceived heresy during their time. As to theologtical truths, I too believe they did so without error.

**It is true that none of the wirters anticipated that their writing would go beyond their intended audience. When I speak about putting them together into one book, I’m referring to what took place during the first 150 years of the Church. I hope that’s clearer. **

I don’t know as you can prove that having Catholic scholars engage with non-Catholic scholars makes conclusions “legitimate” and again, I are hard pressed to see why we allow biblical scholarship as you describe if we have error free texts, as you claim.

This was a decision made by the Council Fathers, after consulting with biblical scholars in the Catholic community. Though it had been in practice long before, as we had done a great deal of work on the OT with Rabbinical scholars.

If we can believe anything we want about scholarly findings about scripture, then you have yielded on your claim of inerrency I would argue. I see scripture as revealing God’s revelation in its theological statements, not necessily in its factual allegations.

Be careful, I did not say that we believe ANYTHING. I said that the Church encourages biblical scholarship and does not discourage any finding that draws us closer into the mystery of God.

Again, I tend to think a lot of this is just knee jerk reaction to the words, error, mistake, inerrency, etc as meaning the bible is just a book. That is not at all true, IMO.

Vatican II was not a knee-jerk reaction, though it may often seem that way. It was carefully thought through. Each statement underwent very careful scrutiny before publication.

Im not inclined to say that everything we know about God through the Church is 100% true. Augustine said whatever we think God is, is what God is not. We are not capable through human language, I would contend, in defining God but by reflection, and poorly even then.

This was Augustine’s opinion. However, it is not the official teaching of the Church in Lumen Gentium. The Church restates that the fullness of revelation resides with the Church and nowhere else.

Mostly I think we are stuck in a semantical ditch…lol…I rather think we aren’t really disagreeing in activity, rather we are stuck with bad wording.

This may be true.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

As to the writing of Mt’s gospel, it cannot take place before 70 AD, probably closer to 80 AD or later. From what we know about Lk from the early fathers, he was a second-generation Christian, a Syrian from Antioch. He was writing for non Palestinian Christians. Non-Palestinian Christians became a larger community during the second generation of the early Church. He also substitutes Greek names for Aramaic and Hebrew names used by Mk. There is a more modern quality to his writing than that of Mk. In addition, in Lk1; 1-3 he makes reference to writings that came before his and to the fact that he has received this message from someone older than he. In Lk 13; 35, 19; 43-44, 21;20, and 23; 28-31 Luke alludes to the destruction of Jerusalem. The Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD. By the time that Lk writes his gospel, he knows of the destruction of the temple.

I keep reading that Matthew and Luke refer to the destruction or Jerusalem, and so they must be written after 70AD. But they quote Jesus prophesying about the destruction of Jerusalem. If Jesus really did predict this event, why couldn’t those gospels have written those prophecies before 70AD?

 

[JReducation]

I keep reading that Matthew and Luke refer to the destruction or Jerusalem, and so they must be written after 70AD. But they quote Jesus prophesying about the destruction of Jerusalem. If Jesus really did predict this event, why couldn’t those gospels have written those prophecies before 70AD?

The way that Biblical scholars arrived at this was by putting together several elements. There are the references to the destruction of the temple. There is also the fact that Luke is a second generation Christian. This means that he would have been born when Jesus was an adult, which would make him about 30 years younger than Jesus. Luke was not a Jew, but a Syrian. The Christian message didn’t arrive in Syria until Paul took it there, which was about 40 AD. Luke was converted by Paul.

He was a physician before he became an Evangelist, which means that he did not begin to write as a young adult. As a young adult he was a medical student at the University of Tarsus. We know from the early Church Fathers that he had an extensive career in medicine, especially military medicine before he met Paul. He was probably middle-age. At that time, middle-age was about 30. It is likely that he began writing long after age 30. The average life-span was from 50-60 of our years. Assume that he was born around 30 AD, becomes a Christian around 60 AD and begins to travel with Paul for several years. At the earliest he wrote at 60 AD. But he did extensive research before writing. He tells us this in his gospel prologue. So, it is unlikely that he began to write the day he converted.

Then you have the fact that Luke changes words from Aramaic and Hebrew to Greek. Greek was not introduced into the early Church until the Diaspora, when the Jews were dispersed throughout the known world. Luke also makes very specific references to his sources in the prologue of his first book. In the Greek translation, he speaks about them in the past tense, giving the reader the impression that they were either old or gone.

In Acts, we see a transition in Luke’s focus from the Church in Jerusalem to the Roman Church. He begins with a strong focus on the first Christian community and ends with Paul preaching to the Jews in Rome. The Jews migrated to Rome as a result of the Diaspora which began about 70 AD. When Paul gets to Rome, the Jews are well established. This means that Paul arrives at the earliest in 70 AD. That would be quite a stretch to think that the Jews went to Rome at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and became a settled and well-established community immediately. Add another 10 years for that to happen. Paul probably arrived between 70-80 AD. This places Luke’s writings at the earliest, 80 AD.

Add to all of this data the fact that Luke’s writings are longer than all of Paul’s letters put together. They were not written overnight. His style is very Hellenistic and scientific. This was not common in the first generation of the Church. John is a first generation writer, while he is Hellenistic, he is philosophical and mystical, not scientific. For example, John is not concerned with Jesus’ birth and parentage. Luke goes into great details regarding this. This is very typical of medical writing. Physicians are very interested in family histories as they begin the study of their subjects. This scientific style is common in a later era of the Church, after it expands beyond Judea and begins to interact with its Greek and Roman surroundings closer to the end of the first century.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I thought Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome under Nero around 64AD?

In Acts, we see a transition in Luke’s focus from the Church in Jerusalem to the Roman Church. He begins with a strong focus on the first Christian community and ends with Paul preaching to the Jews in Rome. The Jews migrated to Rome as a result of the Diaspora which began about 70 AD. When Paul gets to Rome, the Jews are well established. This means that Paul arrives at the earliest in 70 AD. That would be quite a stretch to think that the Jews went to Rome at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and became a settled and well-established community immediately. Add another 10 years for that to happen. Paul probably arrived between 70-80 AD. This places Luke’s writings at the earliest, 80 AD.

 

[JReducation]

I thought Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome under Nero around 64AD?

Under the old calendar, Peter and Paul’s deaths took place around 68 AD. However, the calendar has been modified and adjusted several times due to advances in astronomy. It is generally believed that the current calendar is approximately 6 to 7 years ahead. That would make 68 AD in Jerome’s and Euzebius writings 74 to 76 AD in our calendar.

That was a good question and an important one. Because we tend to forget that there were several calendars in use at that time: Roman, Greek, Hebrew etc, not to mention that the Christian calendar has been revised several times.

We know that they died during the reign of Nero, but we have no fixed date. The early Fathers referred to their deaths using different calendars.

I hope this helps.

 

[JReducation]

Under the old calendar, Peter and Paul’s deaths took place around 68 AD. However, the calendar has been modified and adjusted several times due to advances in astronomy. It is generally believed that the current calendar is approximately 6 to 7 years ahead. That would make 68 AD in Jerome’s and Euzebius writings 74 to 76 AD in our calendar.

That was a good question and an important one. Because we tend to forget that there were several calendars in use at that time: Roman, Greek, Hebrew etc, not to mention that the Christian calendar has been revised several times.

We know that they died during the reign of Nero, but we have no fixed date. The early Fathers referred to their deaths using different calendars.

I hope this helps.

Here’s a PS to really blow your mind. Depending on which calendar you use, either Jesus was born in 6 AD or he may have been 39 years old when he was crucified. OK, so the calendar business is a mess.

Hey, I told you that I majored in Mystical Theology, not astronomy. LOL

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Under the old calendar, Peter and Paul’s deaths took place around 68 AD. However, the calendar has been modified and adjusted several times due to advances in astronomy. It is generally believed that the current calendar is approximately 6 to 7 years ahead. That would make 68 AD in Jerome’s and Euzebius writings 74 to 76 AD in our calendar.

That was a good question and an important one. Because we tend to forget that there were several calendars in use at that time: Roman, Greek, Hebrew etc, not to mention that the Christian calendar has been revised several times.

We know that they died during the reign of Nero, but we have no fixed date. The early Fathers referred to their deaths using different calendars.

I hope this helps.

Wow I’ve never heard that before.

But we know that Nero died before the destruction of Jerusalem, right? And Paul was martyred under Nero, so Paul must have been in Rome before the prophecies in Luke’s gospel were fulfilled…

 

[JReducation]

Wow I’ve never heard that before.

But we know that Nero died before the destruction of Jerusalem, right? And Paul was martyred under Nero, so Paul must have been in Rome before the prophecies in Luke’s gospel were fulfilled…

Tacitus places Nero’s death around Jun 68 AD on the Roman calendar. With the adjustments made to the calendar over the centuries, it looks like he died the same year as Peter and Paul, before the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem.

This would make sense, as neither Peter nor Paul focus on this in their writings.

The Synoptic evangelists did see it happen and they tied it into Jesus’ eschatology.

John doesn’t bother with it, as eschatology was not his focus. His focus was Christology.

This creates a beautiful flow between the gospels. While the Synoptics focus on Jesus’ saving work, John speaks to Jesus’ identity. They all tie in as both Jesus’ saving work and his identity feed off of each other. He saves because he is the Logos. On the other hand, the Logos is he through whom all things are created and in whom all things exist and come to life, ergo . . . salvation enters into human history.

Isn’t it beautiful!

 

[TOME]

JR,
I think you pointed out something in your last post that touches on the original question of this thread. I am refering to the “Beautiful Flow” among the gospels. I think here we see in its application what is meant by inerrancy of scripture as understood in Dei Verbum and earlier encyclical letters which steadily allowed more biblical scholarship which allowed for a greater understanding of all that went into the gospel formulations and from this the ontological truth of the gospels which is the inerrant true of which the Church teaches.