Does God-breathed Scripture contradict itself?

[Cachonga]

This is a takeoff of another discussion that was going into how (what the Catholic Churchhas dogmatically declared to be) God-breathed Scripture contradicts history (specifically in regard to the Book of Judith). I thought that maybe, by changing the the topic a bit, I might (hopefully) get some better responses.

Now to the question - Does God-breathed Scripture contradict itself? Compare 2 Kings 24:1 (“In his days** Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon **came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years; then he turned and rebelled against him.” RSV emphasis mine) with Judith 1:1 (“It was the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Assyriansin the great city of Nineveh. At that time Arphaxad ruled over the Medes in Ecbatana.” NAB emphasis mine). Where did Nebuchadnezzar reign - Assyria or Babylon? If this is not a contradiction, please explain why not? I would greatly appreciate the official explanation offered by the Roman Catholic Church, if one has ever been given. If there is no official explanation, then please include how you know your explanation is (to use a term I hear a lot from Catholics) infallible (or at least why your interpretation should be accepted). Keep in mind, I do not accept the argument “Because the Church says so”.

 

[UnworthyApostle]

I did a little research, and found that both titles apply to Nebuchadnezzar, Sometime in his life, he went to war with the king of Egypt and he conquered Assyria and then Lebanon, and Israel. So, Judith addressing Nebuchadnezzar as King of Assyria fits with
the historical data because he had conquered Assyria, specifically the western provinces as he already has the eastern provinces under Babtlonian control, and thus would be known as it’s king. This happened circa B.C. 606. Hope this helps.

 

[Cachonga]

UnworthyApostle:

I did a little research, and found that both titles apply to Nebuchadnezzar, Sometime in his life, he went to war with the king of Egypt and he conquered Assyria and then Lebanon, and Israel. So, Judith addressing Nebuchadnezzar as King of Assyria fits with the historical data because he had conquered Assyria, specifically the western provinces as he already has the eastern provinces under Babtlonian control, and thus would be known as it’s king. This happened circa B.C. 606. Hope this helps.

First, does Scripture (other than Judith) ever identify Nebuchadnezzar as the king of Assyria? Second, was he the king of Assyria, ruling from Ninevah in the 12th year of his reign? I find plenty of Scripture that identifies him as the king of Babylon, but not the king of Assyria. I also find no reference whatsoever of him ever ruling from any place other than Babylon. Finally, is this explanation what the Church has given, or is it based on your study (and if so, why should I trust it more than the Scriptures themselves)?

 

[simspt]

This is a takeoff of another discussion that was going into how (what the Catholic Churchhas dogmatically declared to be) God-breathed Scripture contradicts history (specifically in regard to the Book of Judith). I thought that maybe, by changing the the topic a bit, I might (hopefully) get some better responses.

Now to the question - Does God-breathed Scripture contradict itself? Compare 2 Kings 24:1 (“In his days** Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon **came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years; then he turned and rebelled against him.” RSV emphasis mine) with Judith 1:1 (“It was the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Assyriansin the great city of Nineveh. At that time Arphaxad ruled over the Medes in Ecbatana.” NAB emphasis mine). Where did Nebuchadnezzar reign - Assyria or Babylon? If this is not a contradiction, please explain why not? I would greatly appreciate the official explanation offered by the Roman Catholic Church, if one has ever been given. If there is no official explanation, then please include how you know your explanation is (to use a term I hear a lot from Catholics) infallible (or at least why your interpretation should be accepted). Keep in mind, I do not accept the argument “Because the Church says so”.

to equate inspiration and inerrancy denies human limitation to the biblical word of God. If the biblical writers were limited in their knowledge of science and history then what about with religious limitations. Job 14:13-22 denies an afterlife. he brought up the possibility of an afterlife and rejected it while other writers accepted it. The a priori view of inerrancy you seem to be arguing against that forbids any type of error scientific, historical or religious has potential disastrous effects including highly implausible explanations being given which it seems you have rightly rejected. The better alternative to me seems to be the a posteriori approach, trying to figure out what the human author meant with all his limitations while accepting the belief in inspiration. How can we be so sure what God must do when everything he has done so far has been such a surprise. It seems quite plausible that God is willing to work with humans and all their limitations and each author’s contribution is part of a larger presentation of biblical truth. Job had one view of the afterlife, the other OT writers another view and finally this book was combined with the NT writings that unanimously accepted an afterlife. This is when Job became “Biblical”. Many would argue that this is only but one meaning of the Word of God. Quite naturally in the past my own insecurity on dealing with the issue of inerrancy has resulted in me looking for absolute answers that admittedly was possibly misguided. This topic reminds me of many believers who regard the fully human as incompatible with the fully divine nature of Christ. To “without sin” so many other without etc are added. If you havent already read this book I found it interesting on the topic of inerrancy.
amazon.com/Inerrancy-Scripture-Other-Essays-Collected/dp/0941037207/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277686932&sr=1-21

 

[Cachonga]

simspt:

to equate inspiration and inerrancy denies human limitation to the biblical word of God. If the biblical writers were limited in their knowledge of science and history then what about with religious limitations. Job 14:13-22 denies an afterlife. he brought up the possibility of an afterlife and rejected it while other writers accepted it. The a priori view of inerrancy you seem to be arguing against that forbids any type of error scientific, historical or religious has potential disastrous effects including highly implausible explanations being given which it seems you have rightly rejected. The better alternative to me seems to be the a posteriori approach, trying to figure out what the human author meant with all his limitations while accepting the belief in inspiration. How can we be so sure what God must do when everything he has done so far has been such a surprise. It seems quite plausible that God is willing to work with humans and all their limitations and each author’s contribution is part of a larger presentation of biblical truth. Job had one view of the afterlife, the other OT writers another view and finally this book was combined with the NT writings that unanimously accepted an afterlife. This is when Job became “Biblical”. Many would argue that this is only but one meaning of the Word of God. Quite naturally in the past my own insecurity on dealing with the issue of inerrancy has resulted in me looking for absolute answers that admittedly was possibly misguided. This topic reminds me of many believers who regard the fully human as incompatible with the fully divine nature of Christ. To “without sin” so many other without etc are added. If you havent already read this book I found it interesting on the topic of inerrancy.

It sounds as if you believe God did His best with the humans He had to work with, but just couldn’t always get His message across clearly. Paul describes the Scriptures as God-breathed, and as God is the author of Scripture, I believe the original autographs were inerrant and infallible (since they were from God). While we have had textual variations creep in, there is plenty of evidence that we have every word from the originals preserved within the many different manuscripts. This is not a thread on textual variants, and since this is a very wide topic, I will not respond to any more issues on textual variants (unless this is the official explanation of the Catholic Church for the discrepancies I mentioned). If you wish to add possible discrepencies from Job, please be specific with those (giving chapter & verse, and where and how they contradict Scripture, also giving chapter and verse). If you beleive that Job “became” Biblical sometime after it was written, then you must not believe God inspired it. I would assert that Job was God-breathed Scripture as soon as the first letter of the first word was written (it may have taken time for it to be recognized as God-breathed, but it has always been God-breathed).

Finally, I would ask - is this the official explanation of the Catholic Church, or is it just your interpretation? If it’s just your interpretation, why should I (or anyone else) trust it? (Or is this just a smoke screen to take away the focus from the real topic?)

 

[davidv]

It sounds as if you believe God did His best with the humans He had to work with, but just couldn’t always get His message across clearly.

This has been true from the beginning. Humans are limited creatures, prone to error.

Paul describes the Scriptures as God-breathed, and as God is the author of Scripture, I believe the original autographs were inerrant and infallible (since they were from God).

I don’t believe infallibitity (in the context of Church teaching) can apply to a text.

While we have had textual variations creep in, there is plenty of evidence that we have every word from the originals preserved within the many different manuscripts. This is not a thread on textual variants, and since this is a very wide topic, I will not respond to any more issues on textual variants (unless this is the official explanation of the Catholic Church for the discrepancies I mentioned). If you wish to add possible discrepencies from Job, please be specific with those (giving chapter & verse, and where and how they contradict Scripture, also giving chapter and verse). If you beleive that Job “became” Biblical sometime after it was written, then you must not believe God inspired it. I would assert that Job was God-breathed Scripture as soon as the first letter of the first word was written (it may have taken time for it to be recognized as God-breathed, but it has always been God-breathed).

Finally, I would ask - is this the official explanation of the Catholic Church, or is it just your interpretation? If it’s just your interpretation, why should I (or anyone else) trust it? (Or is this just a smoke screen to take away the focus from the real topic?)

Have your read Dei Verbum?

 

[Cachonga]

davidv:

This has been true from the beginning. Humans are limited creatures, prone to error.

Are you saying that the official Church position is that God, the creator of all things, just wasn’t able to get His message across to the people He chose to write His God-breathed Scriptures with clarity? It’s true that we are limited, but God is not. If God chose to use someone to write His inspired Words, then I would assert that God has the ability to make His word clear, in spite of the limitations of the human writer!

I don’t believe infallibitity (in the context of Church teaching) can apply to a text.

Are you saying God’s Word is fallible? That it could contain errors? If this is the case, why bother with the Bible at all? I will readily admit that there are some highly questionable translations, but the Scriptures themselves, as found in the original languages (Hebrew, Greek and some Aramaic) are infallible in the original autographs, and we have sufficient evidence to believe we have the originals found within the many different manuscripts available.

Have your read Dei Verbum?

There’s a lot to read. Which part, specifically, are you referring to?

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

You ask us what the Church teaches about God-Breathed Scripture then tell us that “because the Church said so” is not good enough? I’m not sure how to respond, but I will give it a shot. I believe there are seven passages that were defined at the Council of Trent. In other words, in these seven passages the Church specifically said that the passage had a particular meaning. For example, Romans 5:12 refers to original sin. The passages you cite are not included. The Church has given us some very reasonable guidelines for interpreting scripture and because of them we don’t run into the contradictions that literalists do (those who interpret all passages literally, except John 6 it seems)

Some important notes about scripture from the Catholic Church:

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.” 111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. “Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.”

Additionally, the Church teaches that there are two senses of Scripture saying in CCC 115 “According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.”

Thus, there need not be a contradiction if one interprets the Scripture as the Holy Church has taught. The explanation is that one verse may be interpreted in the literal sense and the other in the spiritual sense.

This is sort of like the name “Babylon” being used in place of “Rome” in 1 Peter 5:13 “The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark.” Babylon was toast at this time, so this is not literally true, but Babylon was being used as a code name for Rome, which is where Peter was writing from.

 

[davidv]

Are you saying that the official Church position is that God, the creator of all things, just wasn’t able to get His message across to the people He chose to write His God-breathed Scriptures with clarity? It’s true that we are limited, but God is not. If God chose to use someone to write His inspired Words, then I would assert that God has the ability to make His word clear, in spite of the limitations of the human writer!

These limitations can only be overcome with the gift of infallibility which is only given to the Church. This thread is pretty good proof the that ordinary folks can get wildly divergent meanings from Scripture.

Are you saying God’s Word is fallible?

No. Why do you think I did?

That it could contain errors?

No. Infallibility is not the same as inerrancy.

If this is the case, why bother with the Bible at all?

Because it is beneficial and inspiring for those who read it in light of Church teaching.

I will readily admit that there are some highly questionable translations, but the Scriptures themselves, as found in the original languages (Hebrew, Greek and some Aramaic) are infallible in the original autographs, and we have sufficient evidence to believe we have the originals found within the many different manuscripts available.

Using infallibility to describe a document is a category error. Infallibility applies to teaching. Persons teach, books do not. Books contain errors, or not.

There’s a lot to read. Which part, specifically, are you referring to?

All of it.

 

[RedClay]

Cachonga,

When speaking of infallibility, technically that word is used with people. Therefore it’s not entirely accurate to use that term with Scripture. The technically proper term for Scripture is inerrant. In other words, a person can be infallible, but Holy Scripture is inerrant.

 

[Cachonga]

Prayer_Warrior:

You ask us what the Church teaches about God-Breathed Scripture then tell us that “because the Church said so” is not good enough? I’m not sure how to respond, but I will give it a shot. I believe there are seven passages that were defined at the Council of Trent. In other words, in these seven passages the Church specifically said that the passage had a particular meaning. For example, Romans 5:12 refers to original sin. The passages you cite are not included. The Church has given us some very reasonable guidelines for interpreting scripture and because of them we don’t run into the contradictions that literalists do (those who interpret all passages literally, except John 6 it seems)

But does the Catholic Church allow for Scriptures to contradict themselves? I know there are apparent errors within Scripture (such as the 2 different genealogies of Jesus), but these can be explained (He had 2 parents, hence 1 genealogy belonged to Joseph, and the other belonged to Mary. In a commentary by Victorinus from the 3rd or 4th century, I find evidence that it was believed the genealogy in Matthew was that of Mary). Either the contradiction in the example I gave is real or apparent. If it’s just an apparent error, then the Church must have offered an explanation for it. If it’s a real error, how can you trust anything in what the Church has defined as Scripture? Simply stating “It’s not a real contradiction because the Church says it’s not a real contradiction”, is not an answer.

Some important notes about scripture from the Catholic Church:

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.” 111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. “Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.”

And how does this explain the contradiction of Scripture with itself?

Additionally, the Church teaches that there are two senses of Scripture saying in CCC 115 “According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.”

And how does this explain the contradiction of Scripture with itself?

Thus, there need not be a contradiction if one interprets the Scripture as the Holy Church has taught. The explanation is that one verse may be interpreted in the literal sense and the other in the spiritual sense.

You still have not explained the contradiction presented (in any sense, literal or spiritual).

This is sort of like the name “Babylon” being used in place of “Rome” in 1 Peter 5:13 “The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark.” Babylon was toast at this time, so this is not literally true, but Babylon was being used as a code name for Rome, which is where Peter was writing from.

Actually, Babylon was still a city with a considerable Jewish population when this was written. And even if it wasn’t, that still does not explain how Nebuchadnezzar (the king of Babylon) supposedly ruled Assyria in the 12th year of his reign (and from the Assyrian capital of Nineveh).

 

[Cachonga]

davidv:

These limitations can only be overcome with the gift of infallibility which is only given to the Church. This thread is pretty good proof the that ordinary folks can get wildly divergent meanings from Scripture.

Assuming you’re statement is correct, then please give the “infallible” explanation for this contradiction. If the Church has not given any such “infallible” explanation, then I would suggest it either doesn’t care about the truth or doesn’t know the truth. In either case, they disqualify themselves as teachers of the Truth of God’s Word.

No. Why do you think I did?

Because you apparently accept contradictions in what the Church has “infallibly” declared to be God-breathed Scripture.

No. Infallibility is not the same as inerrancy.

Does inerrancy allow for contradictions in the God-breathed Scriptures?

Because it is beneficial and inspiring for those who read it in light of Church teaching.

There are a lot of writings that are “beneficial and inspiring” that are not Scripture. That does not answer the question of contradictions of Scriptuer with itself (as dogmatically defined by the Council of Trent in 1545).

Using infallibility to describe a document is a category error. Infallibility applies to teaching. Persons teach, books do not. Books contain errors, or not.

Sounds like you believe there are errors in the Bible.

All of it.

As I said, there is a lot to read. Which part, specifically, is related to the topic?

 

[Cachonga]

RedClay:

When speaking of infallibility, technically that word is used with people. Therefore it’s not entirely accurate to use that term with Scripture. The technically proper term for Scripture is inerrant. In other words, a person can be infallible, but Holy Scripture is inerrant.

I stand corrected. Any thoughts on why there are contradictions within the pages of what the Catholic Church has “infallibly” defined as inerrant Scripture?

 

[fhansen]

Assuming you’re statement is correct, then please give the “infallible” explanation for this contradiction. If the Church has not given any such “infallible” explanation, then I would suggest it either doesn’t care about the truth or doesn’t know the truth. In either case, they disqualify themselves as teachers of the Truth of God’s Word.

I don’t think you quite understand the Church’s role in these matters. The Church claims to be infallible on her teachings regarding faith and morals. She does *not *claim to infallibly interpret every last verse of Scripture. In fact, there have been only a couple of verses which she’s commented on in such a way, from my understanding.

And Scripture, alone, is not her sole source of understanding Gods will. Scripture and Tradition, both parts of her own history, are the resources from which she, given authority to do so, explicates, explains, and defends her teachings.

 

[NHInsider]

Cachonga;6787873 (emphasis added):

and as God is the author of Scripture, I believe the original autographs were inerrant and infallible (since they were from God).

While we have had textual variations creep in, there is plenty of evidence that we have every word from the originals preserved within the many different manuscripts.

If you beleive that Job “became” Biblical sometime after it was written, then you must not believe God inspired it. I would assert that Job was God-breathed Scripture as soon as the first letter of the first word was written (it may have taken time for it to be recognized as God-breathed, but it has always been God-breathed).

If God chose to use someone to write His inspired Words, then I would assert that God has the ability to make His word clear, in spite of the limitations of the human writer!

** I will readily admit** that there are some highly questionable translations, but the Scriptures themselves, as found in the original languages (Hebrew, Greek and some Aramaic) are infallible in the original autographs, and we have sufficient evidence to believe we have the originals found within the many different manuscripts available.

Finally, I would ask - is this the official explanation of the Catholic Church, or is it just your interpretation? ** If it’s just your interpretation, why should I (or anyone else) trust it**?

I find it interesting that you can, apparently without irony, claim for yourself the charism of infallibility that you deny has been given to the Church.

You believe that you can determine which books are Scriptural and which are not, which bits and pieces are “original” (and presumably by implication, which are not), and what terms such as “inerrancy” and “infallibility” mean. Yet you ask why (on what authority) you should accept anyone else’s interpretations or positions?

To your original question, as has been pointed out, the Church has not attempted to render an infallible explanation of why the tale of Judith contains what appears to be an inaccurate historical reference. There are any number of possible reasons, at least one of which has been offered here. It’s also possible that there was another ruler named Nebuchadnezzar to which Judith is referring (we do not have perfect historical records for every local or even regional potentate in the ancient world, and we certainly have plenty of examples in the modern world of rulers in different nations with the same name). And it is possible, although I know it doesn’t meet your criteria for what inspired (eg God-breathed) means, that the story of Judith is a parable, a story used to teach a lesson or frame a teaching, like Job, in which case the linking of the name of one famous pagan ruler with a different oppressive nation may be part of the set-up that lets the listener know the story is, in fact, a story.

One of the things that must be taken into account when interpreting the literal sense of a passage of Scripture is its genre. And yes, that is “official Catholic teaching” - from the Catechism, quoting Dei Verbum

107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”

Finally, you are surely aware that there are other, similar apparent contradictions in the Scriptures which you DO accept as canonical (name of father of St. Joseph, father-in-law of Moses, etc.). If you are going to use the Nebuchadnezzar glitch as “proof” that Judith should not have been included in the canon, how will you defend the books you do believe are inspired against the identical claim?

 

[simspt]

It sounds as if you believe God did His best with the humans He had to work with, but just couldn’t always get His message across clearly. Paul describes the Scriptures as God-breathed, and as God is the author of Scripture, I believe the original autographs were inerrant and infallible (since they were from God). While we have had textual variations creep in, there is plenty of evidence that we have every word from the originals preserved within the many different manuscripts. This is not a thread on textual variants, and since this is a very wide topic, I will not respond to any more issues on textual variants (unless this is the official explanation of the Catholic Church for the discrepancies I mentioned). If you wish to add possible discrepencies from Job, please be specific with those (giving chapter & verse, and where and how they contradict Scripture, also giving chapter and verse). If you beleive that Job “became” Biblical sometime after it was written, then you must not believe God inspired it. I would assert that Job was God-breathed Scripture as soon as the first letter of the first word was written (it may have taken time for it to be recognized as God-breathed, but it has always been God-breathed).
Finally, I would ask - is this the official explanation of the Catholic Church, or is it just your interpretation? If it’s just your interpretation, why should I (or anyone else) trust it? (Or is this just a smoke screen to take away the focus from the real topic?)

I agree that it was inspired from the beginning. It would be hard to argue that only the final author was inspired in many of the OT writings that seem to have had multiple contributers and redactors. No smoke screen was intended. There seems to be some abiguity in the official Catholic explanation or else why would there be so many centrist and traditionalists arguing over the interpretation of the Church’s official statements in relation to this topic.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

The same God that breathed Scriptures also taught verbally to the people in parables that they did not understand, and which they were not meant to understand (not on their own that is.)

God’s Scriptures were NEVER intended as a way for his children to AVOID or CIRCUMVENT authority. Yet that is the fundamental principle of Scripture alone or sola scriptura. It is a hydra that also brought us private judgment. None of these things were innovated by the Protestants. No. They existed all the way back to the time of St. John the evangelist with Cerinthus and his followers, St. Peter and Simon Magus, Jesus and the Scribes and Pharisees, just the names change down through the ages.

 

[Cachonga]

fhansen:

I don’t think you quite understand the Church’s role in these matters. The Church claims to be infallible on her teachings regarding faith and morals. She does not claim to infallibly interpret every last verse of Scripture. In fact, there have been only a couple of verses which she’s commented on in such a way, from my understanding.

I am aware of this. My point is that the Catholic Church has “infallibly” declared at least one book (Judith) to be Scripture, even though it contradicts other Scriptures. If the Catholic Church is really interested in God’s truth, surely they would have an explanation for why Judith was “infallibly” declared as Scripture. If you want to argue that the canon is not an infallible dogma of the Church, then why claim that Protestants removed books from the Bible? On the other hand, if your Church has declared a book to be Scripture that contains contradictions with other Scriptures, then what is their explanation for these contradictions (and there are many more than the one I originally posted)? If the Catholic Church will not explain the contradictions, then why should it be believed when it declares this to be Scripture?

And Scripture, alone, is not her sole source of understanding Gods will. Scripture and Tradition, both parts of her own history, are the resources from which she, given authority to do so, explicates, explains, and defends her teachings.

This is obvious from the extra-biblical dogmas that the Church has made over the years. But this is not the topic, and it still does not explain the contradictions in Judith with other Scripture.

 

[Cachonga]

NHInsider:

I find it interesting that you can, apparently without irony, claim for yourself the charism of infallibility that you deny has been given to the Church.

Excuse me, but where, in anything you presented, did I make any kind of “infallible” declarations? Also, can you show that I am wrong about the original autographs being inerrant (I have accepted the correction on the use of “infallible” already offered by RedClay).

You believe that you can determine which books are Scriptural and which are not, which bits and pieces are “original” (and presumably by implication, which are not), and what terms such as “inerrancy” and “infallibility” mean. Yet you ask why (on what authority) you should accept anyone else’s interpretations or positions?

Where did I indicate that I had that ability?

To your original question, as has been pointed out, the Church has not attempted to render an infallible explanation of why the tale of Judith contains what appears to be an inaccurate historical reference. There are any number of possible reasons, at least one of which has been offered here. It’s also possible that there was another ruler named Nebuchadnezzar to which Judith is referring (we do not have perfect historical records for every local or even regional potentate in the ancient world, and we certainly have plenty of examples in the modern world of rulers in different nations with the same name). And it is possible, although I know it doesn’t meet your criteria for what inspired (eg God-breathed) means, that the story of Judith is a parable, a story used to teach a lesson or frame a teaching, like Job, in which case the linking of the name of one famous pagan ruler with a different oppressive nation may be part of the set-up that lets the listener know the story is, in fact, a story.

OK, the Church has not given any infallible explanation for Judith. Has it given ANY explanation, or are you just trying to defend your authority (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church) as best you can, with no clear answer to the question? Has the Church said that Judith is a parable? If not, on what basis do you make this claim? If so, what is the explanation of the parable by the Church? I know we do not have a perfect knowledge of all the rulers of the past, and I am very much aware that more than one person can have a particular name, that still doesn’t answer the question of the contradiction found in the Scriptures. If you want to assert that Assyria had a king by the same name, then you have additional problems added to this (not the least is explaining how an Assyrian king got a Babylonian name). To compare this with modern rulers is nothing less than eisegesis. And again, I would appreciate the explanation from the Church (the same teaching authority that declared Judith is Scripture). Comparing Judith with Job doesn’t work very well, since Job does not contradict any other Scriptures.

One of the things that must be taken into account when interpreting the literal sense of a passage of Scripture is its genre. And yes, that is “official Catholic teaching” - from the Catechism, quoting Dei Verbum

107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”

This still does not explain the contradictions with Judith and other Scriptures. In fact, it seems to me that since historical information is found within the book, how can it not be considered to be historical? But, since that is not the question, I will let that pass.

Finally, you are surely aware that there are other, similar apparent contradictions in the Scriptures which you DO accept as canonical (name of father of St. Joseph, father-in-law of Moses, etc.). If you are going to use the Nebuchadnezzar glitch as “proof” that Judith should not have been included in the canon, how will you defend the books you do believe are inspired against the identical claim?

Could you please give the specific verses you are referring to? I will point out that I have already addressed the genealogy of Jesus, which answers the question of Joseph’s father.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

But does the Catholic Church allow for Scriptures to contradict themselves? I know there are apparent errors within Scripture (such as the 2 different genealogies of Jesus), but these can be explained (He had 2 parents, hence 1 genealogy belonged to Joseph, and the other belonged to Mary. In a commentary by Victorinus from the 3rd or 4th century, I find evidence that it was believed the genealogy in Matthew was that of Mary). Either the contradiction in the example I gave is real or apparent. If it’s just an apparent error, then the Church must have offered an explanation for it. If it’s a real error, how can you trust anything in what the Church has defined as Scripture? Simply stating “It’s not a real contradiction because the Church says it’s not a real contradiction”, is not an answer.

The Church states that “all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

And how does this explain the contradiction of Scripture with itself?

I was simply giving you information on how the Church views Scripture.
You still have not explained the contradiction presented (in any sense, literal or spiritual).

Why would you be interested in my interpretation of the passage?I thought you wanted to know what the Church had to say about it? The answer is that the Church does not address individual scriptures with exception to the ones I mentioned before.

Actually, Babylon was still a city with a considerable Jewish population when this was written. And even if it wasn’t, that still does not explain how Nebuchadnezzar (the king of Babylon) supposedly ruled Assyria in the 12th year of his reign (and from the Assyrian capital of Nineveh).

You are right, I was thinking of another city.