Did Vatican II Reverse the Teaching on Inerrancy of Scripture?

[TMC]

I have just begun reading The Meaning of Jesus by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright. They make an interesting point (I think it was Borg’s), which is that the truly “modernist” idea that colors and inhibits our ability to understand the inerrant nature of Scripture is that in this age of scientific reason most people believe that Truth = Facts. Scripture was written by people that not only understood that Truth is much more than facts, but that facts are often not even a very important part of the truth. On one level they mean that Scripture is inerrant on matters of faith and morals. But on another level the point, if I understand it properly, is that there is a deeper truth to Scripture that transcends historical truth, scientific accuracy, and so forth. I realize that the authors, especially Borg, are not what you would call orthodox, but I’m finding their thoughts on the topic interesting.

 

[JReducation]

I have just begun reading The Meaning of Jesus by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright. They make an interesting point (I think it was Borg’s), which is that the truly “modernist” idea that colors and inhibits our ability to understand the inerrant nature of Scripture is that in this age of scientific reason most people believe that Truth = Facts. Scripture was written by people that not only understood that Truth is much more than facts, but that facts are often not even a very important part of the truth. On one level they mean that Scripture is inerrant on matters of faith and morals. But on another level the point, if I understand it properly, is that there is a deeper truth to Scripture that transcends historical truth, scientific accuracy, and so forth. I realize that the authors, especially Borg, are not what you would call orthodox, but I’m finding their thoughts on the topic interesting.

Actully, their thesis is very orthodox. Truth is very different from historical facts. If you take Systematic Theology or Christology, you find that many of the “facts” in scripture are missing, obscure or out of sequence. The writers were not scientists, anthropologists, historians or journalist. Maybe journalists are not a good example. LOL

Nonetheless, they are men and women who received a message or witnessed events that conveyed truths that transcend the limits of human disciplines. Sometimes it was very difficult to convery such truths by narrating facts.

For example, if the author of the creation story had simply written, God created the world and he is the author of life. This is a truth. However, to his audience it would have sounded like a half-baked idea. The world that they lived in was polytheistic. The author had to drive home the point that God is not only Creator, but the ONLY creator. He weaves a lengthy hymn that conveys this mystery in a language that left no doubt in the reader’s mnd of a transcendent reality. It was also a language that they could remember and pass on to the following generations.

Unfortunately, contemporary thinking seems to be that anything and everything has to be measureable and observable or it’s not fact. The problem is not that the transcendent cannot always be measured or observed, the problem is that the definiton of fact has been rewritten to include truths that do not fall under the available disciplines that we have to work with.

Therefore, if something cannot be explained using our available disciplines, they are often discarded as false. Also, the word “myth” has a different meaning in the lay person’s world than it does in the world of academics.

We can explain much of what is in the scripture using the term myth, but we must use it the way that academic biblical scholars use it. In the world of academics a myth is not a fairy tale or a fantasy. It is a story that rises above the common experience. By saying that it rises above the ordinary experience, we do not deny its veracity. On the contrary, we are making a statement of faith. We are saying that the truth about Creation or the truth about Christ, is beyond our ability to explain using human language and human tools. Therefore, we will do the best we can with what we have. The rest of the effort has to come from the reader who must, as the Church teaches, give an assent of faith. We accept and believe that which we know impacted human history, without a full understanding of the details (the facts). In the end, what we really want to know, is that something happened, such as the creation of the universe or the Christ event. We really don’t need each detail, because the details will not add anything to the truth. In fact, we can often get so caught up in the details that we miss the message.

 

[TMC]

Actully, their thesis is very orthodox. Truth is very different from historical facts. If you take Systematic Theology or Christology, you find that many of the “facts” in scripture are missing, obscure or out of sequence. The writers were not scientists, anthropologists, historians or journalist. Maybe journalists are not a good example. LOL

I agree, what I meant was that neither are Catholic theologians. Also, some here may be familiar with Borg’s work on the Jesus Seminar (which was not super popular with some Catholics), and wanted to defuse a string of “don’t read that man” warnings.

Nonetheless, they are men and women who received a message or witnessed events that conveyed truths that transcend the limits of human disciplines. Sometimes it was very difficult to convery such truths by narrating facts.

For example, if the author of the creation story had simply written, God created the world and he is the author of life. This is a truth. However, to his audience it would have sounded like a half-baked idea. The world that they lived in was polytheistic. The author had to drive home the point that God is not only Creator, but the ONLY creator. He weaves a lengthy hymn that conveys this mystery in a language that left no doubt in the reader’s mnd of a transcendent reality. It was also a language that they could remember and pass on to the following generations.

Unfortunately, contemporary thinking seems to be that anything and everything has to be measureable and observable or it’s not fact. The problem is not that the transcendent cannot always be measured or observed, the problem is that the definiton of fact has been rewritten to include truths that do not fall under the available disciplines that we have to work with.

This bolded part is exactly what they are getting at.

Therefore, if something cannot be explained using our available disciplines, they are often discarded as false. Also, the word “myth” has a different meaning in the lay person’s world than it does in the world of academics.

We can explain much of what is in the scripture using the term myth, but we must use it the way that academic biblical scholars use it. In the world of academics a myth is not a fairy tale or a fantasy. It is a story that rises above the common experience. By saying that it rises above the ordinary experience, we do not deny its veracity. On the contrary, we are making a statement of faith. We are saying that the truth about Creation or the truth about Christ, is beyond our ability to explain using human language and human tools. Therefore, we will do the best we can with what we have. The rest of the effort has to come from the reader who must, as the Church teaches, give an assent of faith. We accept and believe that which we know impacted human history, without a full understanding of the details (the facts). In the end, what we really want to know, is that something happened, such as the creation of the universe or the Christ event. We really don’t need each detail, because the details will not add anything to the truth. In fact, we can often get so caught up in the details that we miss the message.

I agree.

 

[Pete_Holter]

I have just begun reading The Meaning of Jesus by Marcus Borg and N.T. Wright. They make an interesting point (I think it was Borg’s), which is that the truly “modernist” idea that colors and inhibits our ability to understand the inerrant nature of Scripture is that in this age of scientific reason most people believe that Truth = Facts. Scripture was written by people that not only understood that Truth is much more than facts, but that facts are often not even a very important part of the truth. On one level they mean that Scripture is inerrant on matters of faith and morals. But on another level the point, if I understand it properly, is that there is a deeper truth to Scripture that transcends historical truth, scientific accuracy, and so forth. I realize that the authors, especially Borg, are not what you would call orthodox, but I’m finding their thoughts on the topic interesting.

This bolded part is exactly what they are getting at.

Good evening TMC!

As far as I can remember, I don’t think it’s accurate to say “they” since the authors hold opposing viewpoints on the subject matter. I’m thinking that this is Borg’s position that you’ve just posted, and one with which Wright disagrees.

Sorry, it’s been a few years since I’ve read this book and I don’t own it myself. So maybe I’m not remembering correctly.

Thank you for any clarification you might be able to provide!

 

[Pete_Holter]

So, is it acceptable to say that Luke made a historical error?

Although there are defenses for the difficulties raised by the traditional rendering, I thought you might like to see an alternative translation for the verse in question that also removes the difficulty:

“This was the registration before Quirinius was governor of Syria” (Luke 2:2).

This alternative is provided by the translators of the English Standard Version in a footnote.

Have a good night Neil!

 

[JReducation]

After reading this, I’m still not 100% sure whether you’re saying that scripture is inerrant in truth relevant to salvation, or inerrant in every way. Would you mind looking at an example to explain what you’re saying?

Some people think that there is a contradiction in Luke about what year Jesus was born. But the year Jesus was born, or who was governor of Syria when he was born does not affect what the bible teaches about salvation, faith, or morals. So, is it acceptable to say that Luke made a historical error?

Can I try this?

Let’s take the Gospel of Luke one step at a time.

1. Luke writes his Gospel around the year 90 AD.
2. Luke is not an eye-witness to the events in his gospel. He borrows heavily from Mark and another source that scholars call “Q”.
3. Luke is not a Palestinian and is not familiar with Paletinian geography and politicis.
4. Luke makes little effort to study Palestinian social studies, because he’s not writing his gospel for the Jews. He’s writing it for Theophilus.
5. Because he writes his gospel for the gentiles he deliberately changes names of people and places for those that are familiar to the gentiles.
6. Since the changes that he makes are deliberate, they are not errors. They serve a purpose, to convince the gentile community that Jesus is Saviour.
7. This is called literary license.
8. Luke is writing about the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, which is the ultimate truth, in a manner that is understandable to his target audience.
9. Luke is trying to shift the focus from an iminent second coming to a focus on the mystery of Christ himself.

Does Luke make a mistake? No. Everything he writes and how he writes it has a purpose, to reveal the truth of Christ to the gentiles.

Was Luke dumb? On the contrary. Literary critique of his two works, the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles suggest that he was well versed in hellenistic literature and literary techniques.

How do we know this? He uses those techniques in his writing.

Finally, he was a physician, a man of science. As a man of science, he knows how people think and how to sell a message. The message is the good news (Evangelium) that he had received from first century Christians.

There is no error in his proclomation. The technique is just that, technique. Even the technique is free of error, because it was well thought out with a goal and a target audience.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Can I try this?

Let’s take the Gospel of Luke one step at a time.

1. Luke writes his Gospel around the year 90 AD.
2. Luke is not an eye-witness to the events in his gospel. He borrows heavily from Mark and another source that scholars call “Q”.
3. Luke is not a Palestinian and is not familiar with Paletinian geography and politicis.
4. Luke makes little effort to study Palestinian social studies, because he’s not writing his gospel for the Jews. He’s writing it for Theophilus.
5. Because he writes his gospel for the gentiles he deliberately changes names of people and places for those that are familiar to the gentiles.
6. Since the changes that he makes are deliberate, they are not errors. They serve a purpose, to convince the gentile community that Jesus is Saviour.
7. This is called literary license.
8. Luke is writing about the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, which is the ultimate truth, in a manner that is understandable to his target audience.
9. Luke is trying to shift the focus from an iminent second coming to a focus on the mystery of Christ himself.

Does Luke make a mistake? No. Everything he writes and how he writes it has a purpose, to reveal the truth of Christ to the gentiles.

Was Luke dumb? On the contrary. Literary critique of his two works, the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles suggest that he was well versed in hellenistic literature and literary techniques.

How do we know this? He uses those techniques in his writing.

Finally, he was a physician, a man of science. As a man of science, he knows how people think and how to sell a message. The message is the good news (Evangelium) that he had received from first century Christians.

There is no error in his proclomation. The technique is just that, technique. Even the technique is free of error, because it was well thought out with a goal and a target audience.

I agree with your post. The problem is, many of the things you and I consider given, are not to some here. Many will not agree that Luke was written in the 80’s CE or that he used a Q. There is a confusion between apologetics and academia and most arguments conflate the two in argument. I only say this from past threads where the mere posit of a Q is met with ridicule because certain conservative writers argue the minority position. Unfortunately they often do not so state it as the minority position. I’ve commented on two blogs correcting the posters on this. One is a biblical studies prof and so has no excuse for such lazy lack of professionalism. I have tried to discuss this head on before but it isn’t very successful given that some react rather emotionally about this.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Can I try this?

Let’s take the Gospel of Luke one step at a time.

1. Luke writes his Gospel around the year 90 AD.
2. Luke is not an eye-witness to the events in his gospel. He borrows heavily from Mark and another source that scholars call “Q”.
3. Luke is not a Palestinian and is not familiar with Paletinian geography and politicis.
4. Luke makes little effort to study Palestinian social studies, because he’s not writing his gospel for the Jews. He’s writing it for Theophilus.
5. Because he writes his gospel for the gentiles he deliberately changes names of people and places for those that are familiar to the gentiles.
6. Since the changes that he makes are deliberate, they are not errors. They serve a purpose, to convince the gentile community that Jesus is Saviour.
7. This is called literary license.
8. Luke is writing about the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, which is the ultimate truth, in a manner that is understandable to his target audience.
9. Luke is trying to shift the focus from an iminent second coming to a focus on the mystery of Christ himself.

Does Luke make a mistake? No. Everything he writes and how he writes it has a purpose, to reveal the truth of Christ to the gentiles.

Was Luke dumb? On the contrary. Literary critique of his two works, the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles suggest that he was well versed in hellenistic literature and literary techniques.

How do we know this? He uses those techniques in his writing.

Finally, he was a physician, a man of science. As a man of science, he knows how people think and how to sell a message. The message is the good news (Evangelium) that he had received from first century Christians.

There is no error in his proclomation. The technique is just that, technique. Even the technique is free of error, because it was well thought out with a goal and a target audience.

Thanks for all of those points. I agree with them, but I’m not sure exactly which point covers the problem with Luke’s dating of Jesus’ birth. Would your point “3. Luke is not a Palestinian and is not familiar with Paletinian geography and politicis.” cover a possible error by Luke in saying who was governor in Syria at the time of Jesus birth? If so, wouldn’t it still be an error?

 

[JReducation]

Thanks for all of those points. I agree with them, but I’m not sure exactly which point covers the problem with Luke’s dating of Jesus’ birth. Would your point “3. Luke is not a Palestinian and is not familiar with Paletinian geography and politicis.” cover a possible error by Luke in saying who was governor in Syria at the time of Jesus birth? If so, wouldn’t it still be an error?

St. Luke does not assert that a census took place all over the Roman Empire before the death of Herod but that a decision emanated from Augusts that regular census to be made. Whether they were carried out in general, or not, was no concern of St. Luke’s.

Today’s biblical scholars believe that it was not Luke’s intention to assert that a census took place all over the Roman Empire, but that Augustus decided to order the regular census. Whether that census was carried out or not, Luke didn’t seem to have the full details nor was he particularly concerned about it, as it had nothing to do with his mission.

newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm#III

This being the case, there is no error in Luke. He is simply using the information that he receives from his sources, which are the Apostles and other eye-witnesses, as it is given to him. He is not overly concerned with explaining the details of who ruled what and who held what positions at the same time.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Today’s biblical scholars believe that it was not Luke’s intention to assert that a census took place all over the Roman Empire, but that Augustus decided to order the regular census. Whether that census was carried out or not, Luke didn’t seem to have the full details nor was he particularly concerned about it, as it had nothing to do with his mission.

newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm#III

This being the case, there is no error in Luke. He is simply using the information that he receives from his sources, which are the Apostles and other eye-witnesses, as it is given to him. He is not overly concerned with explaining the details of who ruled what and who held what positions at the same time.

Another difficulty is that Luke says Quinirius was governor when Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem. But Herod died before Quinirius was governor. :

The Gospel of Luke links the birth of Jesus to the census taken by Quirinius when he was governor of Syria, as part of a census of the “whole world”. However Luke and the Gospel of Matthew date the birth to the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC, nearly ten years before Quirinius became governor. Most historians argue that Luke is in error.

So are you saying that its not an error because the historical details were just a presumption from others that Luke rather than being something Luke wanted to assert? So the error lies in the historical details that he assumed correct, rather than in what Luke wanted to assert?

 

[krew555555]

ROMANS 1:19 “What can be known about God is clear to them because he has made it clear to them.”

CLEAR?,MANIFEST?,countless factions of the church,prederists,futurists,postmillennialism,premillennialism,dispensationalism,Lutherans,7th day,presby,prodestants,ect.,ect…this the BIBLE causes ENDLESS debating and quibbling.

It is a book of confusion,and chaos. To call this book chalked full of errors “GOD BREATHED”, makes about as much sense as the cut and paste geneolgy of the Gospel writers in regaurds to J.C., to first you have Jacob as Josephs’ father,then Heli,then Heli is supposed to be Marys’ dad,which would track the line through Nathan not Solomon. All of this makes ZERO sense . 1st Chronicles 3 :11-12,gives names which Matthew deletes in order to have his 14 x 3= 42 decendants to the throne of David,however if you count them ,are only 41, 41,41. This is just the tip of the iceberg, I believe in the message of Christ,but to literalize the bible is asking for trouble…as Roman 1:19 goes,it really doesnt seem very clear to many,many believers. Simple mathmatics is why the Vatican declares some of the bible myth-based. We know the diameter of the earth, equator to equator 7,926 miles, we can draw a straight line to any star via telescope. All is left is a simple calculation of the triangle. We have had the technology to measure the small angles since the 1700’s. We also know the speed of light…the universe,its stars and planets are not even close to THOUSANDS of years old!

 

[JReducation]

Another difficulty is that Luke says Quinirius was governor when Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem. But Herod died before Quinirius was governor. :

So are you saying that its not an error because the historical details were just a presumption from others that Luke rather than being something Luke wanted to assert? So the error lies in the historical details that he assumed correct, rather than in what Luke wanted to assert?

The historical error regarding who was in power when Jesus was born was less an error and more of what I will call a very confusing way of identifying people. Names were often used in two ways, as the name of a person and as the title. For example, Caesar. Most people think of Julius Caesar when you say this. However, we know that he was not the only Caesar. If a person writing in acient times wrote Caesar and someone reading it centuries later picked up the writing, they might assume that it referred to Julius.

I would refer you to link that I posted in previously. It’s really quite good in explaining this problem.

But your conclusion is good too. The error is a historical error due to the confusion in the details, not a theological error.

I’ll offer another example. Mark’s gospel seems to be more oriented toward Christology than history. He seems to gather a collection of teachings regarding Jesus and strings them together for the purpose of proclaiming the Good News that Jesus is the Son of God. He selected those narratives that most strongly supported this doctrine. Luke and Matthew seem to piggy-back on Mark. However, John writes a very different gospel with many accounts that are not in the other three and omits accounts in the other three. John’s focus is the theology of the Logos. He wants his readers to know that Jesus is the eternal Word of the Father.

Both are true. Jesus is the Son of God and he is the eternal Word of the Father. But the first three gospels never mention the Logos and John doesn’t focus as much on Jesus’ sonship as he does on his humanity and divinity. The sonship is obviously important to John, but most important to John is that this is a human and divine Son who has power over all things.

If you can imagine four people walking into a room. Three step over to the left and announce the Good News that they have found the Son of God.

The fourth steps over to the right and announces the Good News that he has found the God-Man.

Is there an error on one side of the room? No. Why not? Because they are speaking about the same person who is what both sides of the room are saying.

That’s the fascinating way in which the scriptures were written. They were proclamations of Good News.

 

[JReducation]

ROMANS 1:19 “What can be known about God is clear to them because he has made it clear to them.”

CLEAR?,MANIFEST?,countless factions of the church,prederists,futurists,postmillennialism,premillennialism,dispensationalism,Lutherans,7th day,presby,prodestants,ect.,ect…this the BIBLE causes ENDLESS debating and quibbling.

It is a book of confusion,and chaos. To call this book chalked full of errors “GOD BREATHED”, makes about as much sense as the cut and paste geneolgy of the Gospel writers in regaurds to J.C., to first you have Jacob as Josephs’ father,then Heli,then Heli is supposed to be Marys’ dad,which would track the line through Nathan not Solomon. All of this makes ZERO sense . 1st Chronicles 3 :11-12,gives names which Matthew deletes in order to have his 14 x 3= 42 decendants to the throne of David,however if you count them ,are only 41, 41,41. This is just the tip of the iceberg, I believe in the message of Christ,but to literalize the bible is asking for trouble…as Roman 1:19 goes,it really doesnt seem very clear to many,many believers. Simple mathmatics is why the Vatican declares some of the bible myth-based. We know the diameter of the earth, equator to equator 7,926 miles, we can draw a straight line to any star via telescope. All is left is a simple calculation of the triangle. We have had the technology to measure the small angles since the 1700’s. We also know the speed of light…the universe,its stars and planets are not even close to THOUSANDS of years old!

**What on earth did you just try to say?

English please!**

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The historical error regarding who was in power when Jesus was born was less an error and more of what I will call a very confusing way of identifying people. Names were often used in two ways, as the name of a person and as the title. For example, Caesar. Most people think of Julius Caesar when you say this. However, we know that he was not the only Caesar. If a person writing in acient times wrote Caesar and someone reading it centuries later picked up the writing, they might assume that it referred to Julius.

Who does this apply to? Are you saying that the two Herod’s confused things? Or that there was more than one Quinirius?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

But your conclusion is good too. The error is a historical error due to the confusion in the details, not a theological error.

Thanks. Although I haven’t reached a conclusion yet. But would you say that this conclusion is in line with Church Teaching on scriptural inerrancy? That Luke made a historical error, but no theological errors?

I guess beggers can’t be choosers, but if you can, a yes or no answer would be most helpful to me. Of course I have no business telling you how to answer, but the long answers tend to just be more confusing to me.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Thanks. Although I haven’t reached a conclusion yet. But would you say that this conclusion is in line with Church Teaching on scriptural inerrancy? That Luke made a historical error, but no theological errors?

I guess beggers can’t be choosers, but if you can, a yes or no answer would be most helpful to me. Of course I have no business telling you how to answer, but the long answers tend to just be more confusing to me.

My answer to this is no. I do not see how a form of literary criticism that draws such conclusions can escape the following corrective applied to an exegesis called “symbolic or spiritual” that draws the same conclusions:

“Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church’s vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual. By means of this new exegesis of the Old Testament, which today in the Church is a sealed book, would finally be thrown open to all the faithful. By this method, they say, all difficulties vanish, difficulties which hinder only those who adhere to the literal meaning of the Scriptures. Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical ‘Providentissimus Deus,’ and Benedict XV in the Encyclical ‘Spiritus Paraclitus,’ as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical ‘Divino Afflante Spiritu’” (Humani Generis).

That Luke included erroneous second-hand material seems prohibited by these words (referring in context to the first eleven chapters of Genesis) taken from the same encyclical:

“If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.”

Further, it it not theological truth only that is free from all error. The exegete “should never forget that the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit when they preached the good news; that the Gospels were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who preserved their authors from every error” (The Historicity of the Gospels, PBC).

Making such a claim also separates historical facticity from the transcendental elements asserted in Scripture. This also does not seem to fit with the Catholic faith:

The Christian faith has its specificity, primarily in that it refers to historical events, or better to a coherent history, which actually took place as history. In this sense, the question about the fact, the reality of the event, is essential to it, and must make room for the historical method. But these historical events have meaning for the faith only because it is certain that in them God Himself acted in a specific way and the events contain something which surpasses simple historical facticity, something which comes from elsewhere and gives them meaning for all times and for all people. This surpassing element must not be separated from the facts, it is not a meaning which is subsequently added to them from without, but rather it is present in the event itself, and yet it transcends the purely factual aspect. The meaning of the entire biblical history is found precisely in this transcendence inherent in the fact itself. " (Doctrinal Relevance of the Catechism, CDF).

Finally, to assert that Luke included historical error is at contrariety with our Lord. Jesus asks Nicodemus, “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” (John 3:12). In other words, Jesus gives people a reason to believe Him when speaking of heavenly things by always speaking the truth concerning earthly things, things that can be verified by the carnal man. The view that limits Biblical inerrancy seems to be out of step with the pedagogy of our Lord and the one who holds to it should rather expect Jesus to have said something more like, “Even though I am sometimes wrong when I tell you earthly things, you should still believe me when I tell you heavenly things.”

“Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” (Rom. 11:33).

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Finally, to assert that Luke included historical error is at contrariety with our Lord. Jesus asks Nicodemus, “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” (John 3:12). In other words, Jesus gives people a reason to believe Him when speaking of heavenly things by always speaking the truth concerning earthly things, things that can be verified by the carnal man. The view that limits Biblical inerrancy seems to be out of step with the pedagogy of our Lord and the one who holds to it should rather expect Jesus to have said something more like, “Even though I am sometimes wrong when I tell you earthly things, you should still believe me when I tell you heavenly things.”

“Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” (Rom. 11:33).

Jesus was not inerrent in what he said, but Luke may have been in reporting it. To pretend that there are no errors in the text is to simply put your head in the sand. It does nothing to encourage people to listen to the message. The oldest transcripts we have date to no earlier than the 2nd century. By then, every gospel had been copied and recopied innumberable times. Error and mistakes crept in. some by simple human error, some deliberate attempts to correct “errors” they found. There is a long history on this issue, replete with statements by Church fathers and others lamenting the unreliability of the text. In one manuscript there is even a threat to the next scribe to copy it correctly.

I continue to believe that the Church teaches that the bible is without error as to all material necessary to teach salvation and morals. In that respect God saw to it that the writer correctly explained the relevant theological lesson. The writers were fallible humans who did not always know “history” or science. That is not the issue.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Another difficulty is that Luke says Quinirius was governor when Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem. But Herod died before Quinirius was governor.

Luke calls Pilate governor, even though his actual title was Procurator. So Luke meant the term as a descriptor, not as a title. Therefore, Quirinius need not have had the title of governor; he need only have had authority over Syria and Israel for the purpose of the census. Quirinius was one of two Roman consuls during the time when there was a census, while Herod was still alive, during the reign of Augustus.

Jesus was inerrant in all that He said and did, because He is God Incarnate.

The opinion that Scripture only is inerrant concerning the things of faith and morals, and salvation has already been condemned by the Magisterium.

“But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.” (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

“Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text…” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n.21)

“…they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, n. 22).

Pope Pius X published a Syllabus of Errors, in which he condemned the idea that “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.” (Lamentabili Sane, n. 11).

“everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit” (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, n. 11)

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Jesus was not inerrent in what he said, but Luke may have been in reporting it. To pretend that there are no errors in the text is to simply put your head in the sand. It does nothing to encourage people to listen to the message.

This must be a case of different psychologies having different needs when it comes to scripture. Because I know that for me, the way liberals talk about scripture really shakes my faith. I bet a lot of people are like that, which would explain reactions on this forum. But I suspect that for a different group of people, all the talk of inerrancy and miracles must seem like nonsense, and be a stumbling block to them. Perhaps its best if the two sides just dont talk?

 

[Dauphin]

Leo XIII clearly said that scriptural inerrancy is not limited to just matters of faith and morals:

But Vatican II seemed to limit inerrancy to matters which are related to our salvation:

So did the Church change its mind? Does scriptural inerrancy only apply to matters of faith and morals?

As is typical of documents from the Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum is vague. It can, however, be interpreted in an orthodox fashion, and does not redefine biblical inerrancy.