The answer is no.
I think you could be right. Most of us are not experts in magisterial matters and are not equipped to say this this or that document says anything really. We mostly don’t know what other documents must be factored in. The Church has a large and busy bible scholarship going on and they use all the normal tools that other literature scholars use. It is rare that any writing by a scholar is condemned yet certainly they point out the discrepancies. St. Jerome railed at the poor condition of the manuscripts known at his time. They were so full of error that he wrote his translation in an attempt to clear up the mess. It was well known to all writers of that time. Since the Church condemns a fundamentalist way of looking at scripture, I cannot believe that at the same time it calls for reading text literally. I think many here confuse what is meant by literal vs literality. It can be confusing. There are simply no reliable texts today. The best we can do is surmise what in fact the writer of our various books actually said. We hope and believe we have something close, but we KNOW we don’t have it accurately. There is just so much evidence to the contrary that to claim the book inerrent is simply not possible. It remains as always very correct in the theology expressed. I maintain that is the critical factor.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?
I do not agree. There are serious errors which are very well known. This does not necessarily mean that the Holy Spirit permitted error. Time and again the Church has cautioned that the bible was not meant to convey science or history. It was meant to convey theological truths. To be incorrect about an historical fact yet correctly convey the teaching meant is what is important. What you suggest means that there is virtually no point to biblical exegesis and the Church allows and promotes such work for no reason. I recognize that some feel that to show that any aspect of the bible is in error is to directly threaten their faith. That is a problem no doubt, but not the fault of scholarship but faith. One need not throw out the baby with the bath water as has been stated often. The Church does not support a fundamentalist itnerpretation.
I thought the point of exegesis was to help explain away errors by understanding the literary conventions. Many things that looked like errors to an all-or-nothing literalist don’t look wrong anymore once we understand that parts of the bible were myth, or that the gospel stories were preserved individually through oral tradition until they were written down, and that it was understood that the writer had to provide the social context and a background chronology for the events.
There is something about this viewpoint that has always troubled me. For those that believe in the historical inerrancy of Scripture, how do you reconcile the inconsistencies between the Gospels (and also Acts)? Matthew and Luke give completely different accounts of Judas’ death. John and the Synoptics disagree on the timing of almost everything. The two geneaologies given for Jesus are hard to reconcile (although I know attempts have been made.) If these writing are inerrant in factual details, how did Judas die? Who bought Potter’s Field? When did Jesus cleanse the temple? Which son of David is Joseph descended from?
Indeed perhaps we are not sufficiently clear on terms yet, or at least I may not be. All I know is that from day one I’ve understood the way the Church teaches about the bible has been the same, until I got to this place…lol…I just think it drives some insane to see the word error used. They take it to mean that the book is a lie by definition. It just means that the writers were fallible humans who made some mistakes about things that were of no especial import, since that was not what was important to them. It’s pretty hard to argue inerrancy to my mind when we have not one single original writing, but only copies that were several copies deep and we have literally hundreds and sometimes thousands of manuscripts and fragments and the divergence while never major is very real. It’s a major scholarly work just to figure out which manuscript reflects the earliest reading, and often they can’t agree. As I pointed out, the ECF’s spoke from time to time about the poor quality of manuscripts and the constant variance that was found. Writers sometimes warned in the margins the copiest to not change the text upon penalty of some curse or other.
Where did you learn about scripture that led you to think that scripture contains error? Was this in catholic school, catechism classes? I’ve certainly never heard a priest give a sermon where he said that the readings we just listened to had an error. I wonder if your text books actually said there was error, or was that just your own wording for what they were teaching about literary genres etc?
I don’t think anyone here has suggested that the bible was dictated word for word… that would be ridiculous. And just because someone changed something when copying manuscripts doesn’t have to mean that error was introduced.
Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is the author of scripture? If this is the case, as I believe, then the Bible cannot contain error of any kind. The Holy Spirit does not make errors.
I make no attempt to reconcile anything. Instead of picking through the Bible for apparent errors and contradictions, I simply place my faith in the teaching of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Only it has the authority to teach me things about scripture, and it has taught me that scripture is inerrant. That’s all I need. I’m perfectly content to place my faith in the Church.
Gottle
I think I understand what you mean now when you say “corrupt” texts; but correct me if I’m wrong.
As I read your post you develop two theses. Let’s see if I got this right. Help me here.
First, the books of the Bible are written by multiple authors. For example, Issaiah didn’t sit down and type up his prophecies. This is compounded by the fact that we do not have the original manuscripts. The compound is complicated by the third fact, that centuries later scholars had to fill-in the blanks by working on such elements are grammar, vowel sounds etc. You fear that all of these elements may compromise the original message. Did I get that part right?
- the notion of originals has to account for the possibilty of more than one writer at the very beginning. If a compsition is dictated to more than one amanuensis or scribe: which written text is “the original” ?
For the moment, I just need to know if I correctly understood what you mean. In addition, I want you to know that I took the time to read and try to dissect your post as best I could. If I did get it right, I MAY be able to shed some light, no guarantees.
Thanks
I got my start in RCIA, but I was also in a Master’s program at a Catholic College. No one taught unerrancy in the sense that there were not historical errors in the various texts. Again, I’m not sure we aren’t still quibbling about semantics. I certainly was told that there was no error in matters relating to salvation and I was told as well that God protected the theological truths he wanted conveyed. This makes perfect sense to me since the factual statements about who was king, or a misstatement as to a particular reference to scripture, or the fact that some verses are later additions do not bother me one whit and are not necessary to my understanding the lessons to be learned. The last problem, that of changed or added, deleted verses which were done intentionally by scribes who either perceived errors or were attempting to forestall unorthodox arguments is more troublesome. They do change in some cases the text rather dramatically and convey sometimes contradictory theological truths or at the least different ones.
Oh I know this. But you see when you are trying to convince an atheist for instance of someithing in the bible, it does little good to try to split hairs in this way by calling a spade a clover.
I know that no one is saying that God dictated word for word, but of course when you then claim that the bible is without error, you do have difficulty in explaining the difference in a way that makes sense to all but the most expert students. Oftent he copying was no doubt a corrective that returned the text to what it had said. But I’ve seeming some that in fact change the text quite severely in terms of meaning. Simply saying that what we read today, is not likely was was said. And frankly what we think was actually said, makes more sense. Like I said, none of this shakes my faith in any way. In fact, in some ways its strengthens it mightily. I’m always sorry when others find this stuff scary.
No. quite simply I don’t. I believe God GUIDED the individual original writers to write down the truths which God wanted understood about Jesus and his ministry. I believe they did just that. Now there have been literally thousands of copiests who have rewritten these texts hundreds of times over. Were they all similarly “guided”. They could have been if God Guides rather than authors. If he authors, then the copiests were definitely not inspired because there are hundreds of thousands of variations at this point crossing close to I believe well in excess of 5,000 manuscripts or fragments.
Agreed. The more copies you deal with the more tenuous the issue of “inspired” becomes. Did the scribes who added new stuff or deleted others, or attempted to harmonize something else do so by inspiration? Then what can be said of those that he copied from? We also know that there were a number of competing views of Jesus in the region during that time, each was writing and disseminating its writings. Were those who chose the canon, either in the early 2nd century or at Nicea also inspired to pick the right ones? I assume so. But what of material found since that time? For me at least, the goal is to reconstruct the most original text we can. That is the closest we can come I believe to what God wished us to learn. Then again, he knew no doubt of the diffiiculties we would encounter in transmission for another 1500 years or so, so who knows…lol…
- this:Everything I’ve ever learned about scripture has emphasized how amazingly accurate our modern versions are compared with the originals. This kind of stuff is what I’ve always heard from people who oppose the faith, pagans and atheists trying to disprove Christianity.
I have to warn you, I did not read all the replies to your question so if someone has made the point I’m about to then I apologize.
It depends on how you are defining “accurate”. I would agree that the themes and lessons of the texts is probably very accurately handed down copiest to copiest. That after all is the most important point. Thousands of the 'variants" are regarding quite minor matters such as words transposed, word omitted or added, lapses in place and restating problems. Still there were back in 1700 30,000 variants in around I believe 100 manuscripts examined. Today the number of manuscripts and fragments numbers well over 5,000 and the variants are estimated at somewhere between 300,000 and half a million. Many of course can quite easily be resolved. You must remember that the earliest scribes were not scribes at all but simple church members who copied the letters so they could be passed on to others. They were not professional. Added to the problem of mistakes, they sometimes “corrected” the text…sometimes wrongly and sometimes not.
Are you referring to someone? Or is there some specific allegation you wish addressed?
I’m not sure what you are suggesting here. Are you simply claiming that you don’t agree that there are any variations in the text? And that you consider those that say there are to be “pretend Christians?” Am I understanding you correctly?
