Does the Bible have errors in it?

[twf]

Gottle of Gear: I am no expert (far from it), but I would entertain the possibility that the phrase ‘a thousand thousand men’ could be taken unliterally (even within the context of a historical narrative). This would not be an error in Scripture, but simply a form of expressing the Truth that MANY men came against Israel. Someone could perhaps back me up on this, but it seems to me that in the cultural context expressions such as this can simply mean ‘many, many men’, rather than always exactly one million.

I’m pretty sure the issue of the two genealogies of Christ came up earlier in this thread. There are a couple theories out there that attempt to reconcile the two contradicting records, but I think the simpliest theory is that which says that Matthew’s Gospel traces Christ’s heritage legally through St. Joseph (to prove that Christ is the valid heir of David), while St. Luke traces his lineage through Mary, as Christ received His humanity from her. One problem with this theory is that it would, at first glance, appear to contradict the tradition that St. Joachim was the father of Mary; however, the Catholic Encyclopedia (at newadvent.org) in its entry on “The Blessed Virgin Mary” states the following:
*Though few commentators adhere to this view of St. Luke’s genealogy, the name of Mary’s father, Heli, agrees with the name given to Our Lady’s father in a tradition founded upon the report of the Protoevangelium of James, an apocryphal Gospel which dates from the end of the second century. According to this document the parents of Mary are Joachim and Anna. Now, the name Joachim is only a variation of Heli or Eliachim, substituting one Divine name (Yahweh) for the other (Eli, Elohim). The tradition as to the parents of Mary, found in the Gospel of James, is reproduced by St. John Damascene [24], St. Gregory of Nyssa [25], St. Germanus of Constantinople [26], pseudo-Epiphanius [27], pseudo-Hilarius [28], and St. Fulbert of Chartres [29]. Some of these writers add that the birth of Mary was obtained by the fervent prayers of Joachim and Anna in their advanced age. As Joachim belonged to the royal family of David, so Anna is supposed to have been a descendant of the priestly family of Aaron; thus Christ the Eternal King and Priest sprang from both a royal and priestly family [30]. *

On the issue of Christ as a ‘copycat Messiah’ discussed up earlier in the thread, here is an indepth response to that charge (though please realize that the author is a Protestant):
christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html

In Christ,
Tyler

 

[patg]

itsjustdave1988:

However, you insist against the historicity of the Gospels, especially the infancy narratives.

I do not insist against the historicity of the Gospels - you insist on their absolute historicity with your fundamentalist approach. Yes, I do believe that the infancy narratives are proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be mostly fiction - thats what that type of literary form always was. And even if you ignored the literary form, it is impossible to reconcile the historical events with reality.

I’ve only been taking about the exceptions; you keep trying to make everything history.

Yet, Pope Paul VI disagrees with you.

I will determine whether or not he personally disagrees with me when I have had a real discussion with him; not when I have only read a few documents meant for general consumption.

So, knowing that literary forms are important is not in itself sufficient as a defense for claiming the virgin birth of Christ is not historically true, for example.

I never claimed that - I only said that one of the O.T. references used as part of the story is a mis-translation.

You want to wield Dei Verbum and literary forms in defense of your erroneous claims as if it refuted Paul VI’s position, who was the guy who promulgated *Dei Verbum *and used it to defend the historicity of the Gospels, especially the infancy narratives in his allocution of 1966 against your erroneous position.

Well, to put it simply, *Dei Verbum *says to consider the literary form, the birth stories are classic infancy narratives, and classical infancy narratives are mostly fiction. That’s the trouble with Dei Verbum - it admits the obvious and at the same time tries to leave everything unchanged. I suppose it is just too hard and dangerous to the masses in the pews to explain the depth and richness of the writings - it is easier to be superficial and say it all happened as written and and you’ll be tortured forever if you question it.

And yes, I am a reader of Raymond Brown (twice appointed a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, by Pope Paul VI in 1972 and by Pope John Paul II in 1996). Hopefully there will soon be a pope who is not afraid to update Dei Verbum.

 

[manualman]

Oh, I give up. I just can’t read it all. Forgive me if this has already been discussed, but I wanted to address Mr. Siscoe.

Have you considered the possibility that all the fine papal quotes you provided were responses to early modern attacks on scripture? That the attackers asserted that the portions of scripture not specifically related to “faith and morals” were not important or relevent. The quotes were not addressed to Biologists criticizing Scripture, they were addressed to theologians!

It seems to me that all of your quotes may ACTUALLY be papal reassurances that ALL of Scripture is Inspired. No part of it is there by accident, none of it is trivial or discountable. Even the historical and scientific accounts are inspired and not to be discounted as errors of the human authors. They contain valuable messages from God, profitable for more deeply understanding God and our relationship with Him.

However, I do NOT see that any of the quotes you so valiantly provided commit the catholic church to a policy of literal and rigid scientific and historical adherence to the ancient text. I see no problem with the theory that God himself participated in authoring a text that might contain incorrect dates, historical or scientific facts because those texts properly conveyed the message he wished to convey in a way that would be effective with His intended audience.

God is a smart guy. Do you really think He’d be dumb enough to give an extra scientific head start to a humanity that already develops technology much faster than the wisdom to use it properly?

The papal documents infallibly state that ALL portions of scripture, regardless of topic are inerrant, they are inspired by God and that they are NOT to be dismissed by ivory tower theologians as obsolete goof-ups by an ignorant, flea-bitten peasant author . However, that is NOT saying that every historical and scientific detail is binding upon historians and scientists. These are VERY different topics. Your quotes DO NOT fully say what you appear to think they do. Do you see the distinction?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I have denied one, non-dogmatic, papal teaching

A teaching affirmed by the popes since Providentissimus Deus. As such, you put yourself contrary to Catholic doctrine, which is sinful disobedience (cf. Humani Generis 20, *Lumen Gentium, *25, Code of Canon Law, canon 752, Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 892). Instead, Catholics are bound to “ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with [Catholic] doctrine. [canon 752].” You can certainly question, but your dissent is far from mere questioning.

I point this ought for your benefit, but more importantly for the benefit of others who may get the erroneous impression that Catholics can, without sin, dissent from Catholic doctrine.

Whether magisterial teaching is solemn or ordinary…

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, … **these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me” **(Pius XII, Humani Generis, 20)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I do not

insist against the historicity of the Gospels - you insist on their absolute historicity with your fundamentalist approach.
I’m not fundamentalists, but nor am I insisting upon something that the Church has condemned. You insist upon the writer of Matthew to have made an error.

You said:

Its also an example of an error in the gospels since Matthew uses this quote from Isaiah as a prophecy of the virgin birth.

Yet, Paul VI’s *Dei Verbum, *insists that the Gospel writers “speak the truth” (DV, 19)

What does Paul VI, who promulgated Dei Verbum state?

everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit (DV, 11)

Paul VI, quoting from Dei Verbum in its true and athentic interpretation:

“some] try to diminish the historical value of the Gospels themselves, especially those that refer to the birth of Jesus and His infancy. We mention this devaluation briefly so that you may know how to defend with study and faith the consoling **certainty **that these pages are not inventions of people’s fancy, but that they speak the truth… . The authority of the Council has not pronounced differently on this: ‘The Sacred Authors wrote… always in such a way that they reported on Jesus with sincerity and truth’ (Constitution on Divine Revelation n. 19).” *(Paul VI, *allocution of Dec 18, 1966, Insegnamenti di Paolo VI).

In Dei Verbum, Paul VI affirms,

“the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation.”

5. cf. St. Augustine, “Gen. ad Litt.” On the Literal Translation of Genesis] 2, 9, 20L 34, 270-271; Epistle 82, 3: PL 33, 277: CSEL 34, 2, p. 354. St. Thomas, “On Truth,” Q. 12, A. 2, C.Council of Trent, session IV, Scriptural Canons: Denzinger 783 (1501). Leo XIII, encyclical “Providentissimus Deus:” EB 121, 124, 126-127. Pius XII, encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu:” EB 539.

Footnote 5 is Paul VI’s intent in asserting the inerrancy of Scripture, affirming the prior teachings which are often dismissed by modernists.

From Enchiridion Biblicum 539, which cites the portion of Divino Afflante Spiritu referred to in footnote 5 of Dei Verbum:

The first and greatest care of Leo XIII was to set forth the teaching on the truth of the Sacred Books and to defend it from attack. Hence with grave words did he proclaim that there is no error whatsoever if the sacred writer, speaking of things of the physical order, “went by what sensibly appeared” as the Angelic Doctor says, speaking either “in figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even among the most eminent men of science.” For “the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately - the words are St. Augustine’s - the Holy Spirit, Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things - that is, the intimate constitution of visible things - which are in no way profitable to salvation”; which principle “will apply to cognate sciences, and especially to history,” that is, by refuting, “in a somewhat similar way the fallacies of the adversaries and defending the historical truth of Sacred Scripture from their attacks.” Nor is the sacred writer to be taxed with error, if “copyists have made mistakes in the text of the Bible,” or, “if the real meaning of a passage remains ambiguous.” Finally, it is absolutely wrong and forbidden “either to narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred,” since divine inspiration "not only is essentially incompatible with error but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and constant faith of the Church."

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Dj Roy Albert:

Do you really believe that anyone that denies the exsistance of God can know any type of truth whatsoever? Linking to an Atheist website…:nope:

Is God’s Life and Power and Goodness dependent on our acknowledging it ?​

If not - and it is not - why should God not be well able to grant much knowledge of truth to atheists ?

Purely as a matter of fact, He does. Deny this, and it becomes impossible for an atheist to be converted to Christ.

Is finding that 2 + 2 = 4 dependent on being a theist ?

Catholics do seem to believe in a tiny little God at times ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

vern humphrey:

That is correct – the interpretation of ANY written document (not just scripture) begins with a literal analysis. Not until we know what the actual words mean can we go farther.

Again, correct. But we must take into account the intent of the author. When Jesus tells us in the Gospel, “A man had two sons,” (Matt 21, 28) are we to take that literally? And if there was no such real man, with real sons, who had such a relationship as Jesus described, are we to consider that Jesus (or Matthew) “erred?”

Or are we to interpret this as it was meant – a story told for our edification, to illustrate the Divine Message?

Similarly, when we are told Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, are we to take that literally, or are we to interpret it as it was meant – a sign of divine influence in a matter of great import?

I find a lot of professed Catholics want to follow Protestant theology. Generally, these people fall into one of two categories – trolls, and people who are in doubt.

Good post.​

There is a third set of Catholics who read and learn from Protestant sources: those of us who are confident enough in our faith as not to feel threatened by other Christians.

I don’t for one moment believe that the Church “has all the truth”, because I believe that Truth is a Divine Person Who has elected, created, and adopted the Church for the Glory of His Name. The Church does nor contain Him, but at all times is contained in Him.

There is a vast amount to be to be learned from non-Catholic theologies - for God has been most gracious to others than Catholics; so why should we think that truth granted to Presbyterians is less true for being granted to them as well as to us ? The same God Who first loved us while we were His enemies, is the same God Who loves them. Does truth become a lie or error because it is not given to us ?

If I knew of a Catholic source which says what the Confession says about Scripture, and which says it in so satisfactory a manner, I would quote it - but I don’t know of such a Catholic source. It is not who says something good and pious and true that matters, but what is said. So I quoted the Confession. That is why I read the Puritans and other Protestants: there is no Catholic alternative. That is why I read C.S. Lewis - he seems to have been granted a very rich degree of insight into the mystery of Christ: more than most Catholics I’ve read.
I don’t see complaints about him - so why should there be complaints about the Westminster Confession ?

If Catholics have less insight than Protestants, is that the fault of Protestants ? If Catholics were less concerned to put down Protestants all the time, they might be as wise as some Protestants.

And don’t Catholics think other Catholics are able to be sufficiently critical readers to ignore what is not good in a book ?

Not arguing with you BTW - just thinking aloud ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

vern humphrey:

Where “obscure?”

The Chuch’s position is plainly laid out in paragraphs 101 through 141 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The idea that “The magesterium is rather split” is both false and reflects a failure to understand the Church. Despite what most Protestants (and many Catholics) believe, the Catholic Church is NOT a church of legalistic rules and regulation. There is wide lattitude in interpreting Scripture within the Church.

True, but legalism is a prominent failing. ​

Although the Catholic Church does have established dogma (as does every other church), the Church enourages study and debate within very wide limits.

True - but one would not know this, from EWTN for example. And some Catholics advocate a truly suffocating sort of Catholicism, one which looks on anything since 1950 with the deepest suspicion. However, they are as much Catholics as the rest of us - not that they return the compliment that often ​

I suspect that patg may have been alluding to two facts:

1. The Magisterium teaches in words that the Bible is free from all error
2. By their acts, the members of the Church who exercise teaching authority as one of their functions behave in a way suggesting that it is not free from all error. Floods of books by Catholics ignore or explicitly deny the Bible is free from all error - yet have the imprimatur. This is given as a certificate of orthodoxy - the book contains nothing contrary to the Faith, although this does not mean that the censor is formally approving, and making the Church’s mind, the opinions expressed in the book. The imprimatur is a guarantee that the book is free of doctrinal error - and guarantees nothing more than this. It does not guarantee that the reader won’t have to brush up his - or her - ideas. And orthodoxy is not a synonym for conservatism.

IOW, there is, as patg said, a split - between words and actions. This has been a constant motif of this pontificate: there have been oceans of words - and few or no actions to support them. So if inerrancy really is so hugely important - let the Pope act according to his words. If inerrancy is so important, books which treat it as a fiction or a dead belief should not be given the imprimatur. The Church cannot be healthy in teaching and conduct while the two are in contradiction; it’s extremely bad for the health of theological research. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

vern humphrey:

Where “obscure?”

The Chuch’s position is plainly laid out in paragraphs 101 through 141 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The idea that “The magesterium is rather split” is both false and reflects a failure to understand the Church. Despite what most Protestants (and many Catholics) believe, the Catholic Church is NOT a church of legalistic rules and regulation. There is wide lattitude in interpreting Scripture within the Church.

True, but legalism is a prominent failing. ​

Although the Catholic Church does have established dogma (as does every other church), the Church enourages study and debate within very wide limits.## True - but one would not know this, from EWTN for example. And some Catholics advocate a truly suffocating sort of Catholicism, one which looks on anything since 1950 with the deepest suspicion. However, they are as much Catholics as the rest of us - not that they return the compliment that often

I suspect that patg may have been alluding to two facts:

1. The Magisterium teaches in words that the Bible is free from all error
2. By some of their acts, the members of the Church who exercise teaching authority as one of their functions behave in a way suggesting that it is not free from all error. Floods of books by Catholics ignore or explicitly deny the Bible is free from all error - yet have the imprimatur. This is given as a certificate of orthodoxy - the book contains nothing contrary to the Faith, although this does not mean that the censor is formally approving, and making the Church’s mind, the opinions expressed in the book. The imprimatur is a guarantee that the book is free of doctrinal error - and guarantees nothing more than this. It does not guarantee that the reader won’t have to brush up his - or her - ideas. And orthodoxy is not a synonym for conservatism.

IOW, there is, as patg said, a split - between words and actions. This has been a constant motif of this pontificate: there have been oceans of words - and few or no actions to support them. So if inerrancy really is so hugely important - let the Pope act according to his words. If inerrancy is so important, books which treat it as a fiction or a dead belief should not be given the imprimatur. The Church cannot be healthy in teaching and conduct while the two are in contradiction; it’s extremely bad for the health of theological research. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

twf:

Gottle of Gear: I am no expert (far from it), but I would entertain the possibility that the phrase ‘a thousand thousand men’ could be taken unliterally (even within the context of a historical narrative). This would not be an error in Scripture, but simply a form of expressing the Truth that MANY men came against Israel. Someone could perhaps back me up on this, but it seems to me that in the cultural context expressions such as this can simply mean ‘many, many men’, rather than always exactly one million.

I’m sure you are right - but some inerrantists don’t make allowances for exaggerations - even though this is a common form of speech. So if the text says a thousand thousand, they want one to believe a million is meant.​

I’m pretty sure the issue of the two genealogies of Christ came up earlier in this thread. There are a couple theories out there that attempt to reconcile the two contradicting records, but I think the simpliest theory is that which says that Matthew’s Gospel traces Christ’s heritage legally through St. Joseph (to prove that Christ is the valid heir of David), while St. Luke traces his lineage through Mary, as Christ received His humanity from her. One problem with this theory is that it would, at first glance, appear to contradict the tradition that St. Joachim was the father of Mary; however, the Catholic Encyclopedia (at newadvent.org) in its entry on “The Blessed Virgin Mary” states the following:
*Though few commentators adhere to this view of St. Luke’s genealogy, the name of Mary’s father, Heli, agrees with the name given to Our Lady’s father in a tradition founded upon the report of the Protoevangelium of James, an apocryphal Gospel which dates from the end of the second century. According to this document the parents of Mary are Joachim and Anna. Now, the name Joachim is only a variation of Heli or Eliachim, substituting one Divine name (Yahweh) for the other (Eli, Elohim). The tradition as to the parents of Mary, found in the Gospel of James, is reproduced by St. John Damascene [24], St. Gregory of Nyssa [25], St. Germanus of Constantinople [26], pseudo-Epiphanius [27], pseudo-Hilarius [28], and St. Fulbert of Chartres [29]. Some of these writers add that the birth of Mary was obtained by the fervent prayers of Joachim and Anna in their advanced age. As Joachim belonged to the royal family of David, so Anna is supposed to have been a descendant of the priestly family of Aaron; thus Christ the Eternal King and Priest sprang from both a royal and priestly family [30]. *

On the issue of Christ as a ‘copycat Messiah’ discussed up earlier in the thread, here is an indepth response to that charge (though please realize that the author is a Protestant):
christian-thinktank.com/copycat.html

In Christ,
Tyler

There is however an error in Luke’s genealogy. He (or his source) has understood a title meaning “prince”, used of Zerubbabel, as a distinct person, and turned the title resh into a son named Rhesa. Rhesa is not mentioned in other genealogies containing information about the descendants of the last kings of Judah, in either Testament.​

The Gospel of James - or Protevangelium of James - is a second-century work in praise of Mary, of no historical value, condemned at Rome in 495, so I don’t bother with it. Even though it later became extremely popular and influential in Christian art. There is no reason to think that the “tradition” alluded to is any older than this charming but historically valueless composition. It does cast light on the history of devotion to Mary - but it is worthless as a history of the events it claims to relate. So if the Fathers are relying on a worthless source for information which (unbeknownst to them) is sheer fiction, all they will take from such a source will be sheer fiction. Unless they had a reliable source as well - but there is no trace of this. Repeating a fiction does not make it true, even if the repeaters are learned and Saints.

Besides, both Luke and Matthew claim to be giving the descent of Joseph, not Mary.

Please don’t take any of this as a snub - none is meant: on the contrary, I’m grateful fior your post ##

 

[twf]

Gottle: I was not aware that the Protoevangelium was considered that unreliable. Is this universally held? If it is, what of the veneration the Church accords to St. Joachim and St. Anna in virtue of being the parents of the Mother of God? If not for the account of the Protoevangelium, I find it difficult to explain Mary’s perpetual virginity in light of her married state. Do you have another possibility, besides what is conveyed in this work?

I can not answer your points on the genealogy you just brought up…but it has been my experience that the alledged ‘obvious errors’ liberals bring up have already been answered by conservatives at one time or another. How can you be certain that both Luke and Matthew intended to trace the lineage of Joseph? It is clear that Matthew did, but I do not think that it is so certain that Luke was doing the same thing. (Though if he was, there are other theories that explain the discrepancy). However, the fact that Heli and Joachim share the same name (for all intents and purposes) does support the idea that Luke was attempting to trace Mary’s line through Joachim. Again I’ll link to christian-thinktank.com/fabprof4.html. (It provides another possibilty besides the Joseph/Mary line theory).
St. Luke does add the clause “or so it was thought” in regards to Jesus being the son of Joseph. It is possible, I think, that he mentions Joseph as the legal father, but still traces the lineage through Mary’s father for biological accuracy. Based on the concept of levirate marriages, Joseph could have been considered (legally) Heli’s son (Mary’s father, if this interpretation is correct) if Heli had no sons of his own. (So that Joseph would continue the family line). If this is the case, Matthew trace the lineage through Joseph’s biological father, while St. Luke traced it through Mary’s father.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

twf:

Gottle: I was not aware that the Protoevangelium was considered that unreliable. Is this universally held?

Yes, it is. It has no more historical value than the even more delightful “History of the Kings of Britain” by Geoffrey of Monmouth.​

If it is, what of the veneration the Church accords to St. Joachim and St. Anna in virtue of being the parents of the Mother of God? If not for the account of the Protoevangelium, I find it difficult to explain Mary’s perpetual virginity in light of her married state. Do you have another possibility, besides what is conveyed in this work?

The parents of Mary must have had names - of the choices in various traditions, those are as likely as any. Ignorance of the details of her childhood does not affect whether she is fitly honoured; the same holds for them - of some saints, next to nothing is known; but God knows His own, and that is what counts ​

The only basis I know of for her perpetual virginity is the (rather uncertain, but old) interpretation of Luke 1.34. I would never base a doctrine on an apocryphal writing. ##

I can not answer your points on the genealogy you just brought up…but it has been my experience that the alledged ‘obvious errors’ liberals bring up have already been answered by conservatives at one time or another. How can you be certain that both Luke and Matthew intended to trace the lineage of Joseph?

Mat 1:1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Mat 1:2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers…
Mat 1:12 And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoni’ah was the father of She-al’ti-el, and She-al’ti-el the father of Zerub’babel,
Mat 1:13 and Zerub’babel the father of Abi’ud, and Abi’ud the father of Eli’akim, and Eli’akim the father of Azor…
Mat 1:16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.
Mat 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.

---

Luk 3:23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,
Luk 3:24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph…
Luk 3:27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri,…
Luk 3:38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Mary is not mentioned by Luke in this family tree - it is stated be that of Joseph, as is Matthew’s

Heli is a descendant of Judah, not of Levi - so this theory of Jesus being of Levite descent is unfounded. Both lines of descent meet in Joseph, Zerubbabel, David, Judah, & Abraham. ##

It is clear that Matthew did, but I do not think that it is so certain that Luke was doing the same thing. (Though if he was, there are other theories that explain the discrepancy). However, the fact that Heli and Joachim share the same name (for all intents and purposes) does support the idea that Luke was attempting to trace Mary’s line through Joachim. Again I’ll link to christian-thinktank.com/fabprof4.html. (It provides another possibilty besides the Joseph/Mary line theory).
St. Luke does add the clause “or so it was thought” in regards to Jesus being the son of Joseph. It is possible, I think, that he mentions Joseph as the legal father, but still traces the lineage through Mary’s father for biological accuracy. Based on the concept of levirate marriages, Joseph could have been considered (legally) Heli’s son (Mary’s father, if this interpretation is correct) if Heli had no sons of his own. (So that Joseph would continue the family line). If this is the case, Matthew trace the lineage through Joseph’s biological father, while St. Luke traced it through Mary’s father.

So why is nothing said of Mary’s father ? The only father who is named, is that of Joseph. “It’s possible”, true - but what support in the text is there for the idea? As for identifying Joachim and Heli, it is not even sure Mary’s father was called Joachim - there are alternative names for both of Mary’s parents, though AFAIR those in the Protevangelium are the best-known. One cannot build an argument for Mary’s descent on so many uncertainties.​

The ancestry and descendants of Zerubbabel ##

 

[patg]

Gottle of Geer:

IOW, there is, as patg said, a split - between words and actions. This has been a constant motif of this pontificate: there have been oceans of words - and few or no actions to support them. So if inerrancy really is so hugely important - let the Pope act according to his words. If inerrancy is so important, books which treat it as a fiction or a dead belief should not be given the imprimatur. The Church cannot be healthy in teaching and conduct while the two are in contradiction; it’s extremely bad for the health of theological research. ##

Well said - Divino Afflante Spiritu is truly the Magna Carta of modern biblical studies which directly produced the results we see today. People can find words in it to deny the results of historical analysis but at the same time, the actions of the church’s highest earthly authority are to TWICE appoint Raymond Brown a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (Pope Paul VI in 1972 and Pope John Paul II in 1996).

The words of the popes say one thing but their actions, and the words and actions of a tremendous number of biblical scholars, are taking us in a very different direction - a direction which I believe is healthier, deeper, and closer to an understanding og God.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

patg:

Well said - Divino Afflante Spiritu is truly the Magna Carta of modern biblical studies which directly produced the results we see today. People can find words in it to deny the results of historical analysis but at the same time, the actions of the church’s highest earthly authority are to TWICE appoint Raymond Brown a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (Pope Paul VI in 1972 and Pope John Paul II in 1996).

The words of the popes say one thing but their actions, and the words and actions of a tremendous number of biblical scholars, are taking us in a very different direction - a direction which I believe is healthier, deeper, and closer to an understanding og God.

I got your meaning correctly ? Great ​

TY for the kind remarks - I can what see dave and RSiscoe are concerned about: Pius XII does affirm inerrancy. But, AFAICS, what inerrancy ads up to in 1943, is not what it added up to in 1893 - though it’s possible the Popes did not altogether realise this: because if books change their genre, problems relating to them change; to name just one one shift of meaning.

So IMO, the whole concept of inerrancy needs to be re-examined, and on a critical basis.

I doubt I will be able to continue this discussion until the New Year (God willing) - in the meantime, A Holy and Happy Christmas to all ##

 

[RSiscoe]

manualman:

Oh, I give up. I just can’t read it all. Forgive me if this has already been discussed, but I wanted to address Mr. Siscoe.

Have you considered the possibility that all the fine papal quotes you provided were responses to early modern attacks on scripture? That the attackers asserted that the portions of scripture not specifically related to “faith and morals” were not important or relevent. The quotes were not addressed to Biologists criticizing Scripture, they were addressed to theologians!

It seems to me that all of your quotes may ACTUALLY be papal reassurances that ALL of Scripture is Inspired. No part of it is there by accident, none of it is trivial or discountable. Even the historical and scientific accounts are inspired and not to be discounted as errors of the human authors. They contain valuable messages from God, profitable for more deeply understanding God and our relationship with Him.

However, I do NOT see that any of the quotes you so valiantly provided commit the catholic church to a policy of literal and rigid scientific and historical adherence to the ancient text. I see no problem with the theory that God himself participated in authoring a text that might contain incorrect dates, historical or scientific facts because those texts properly conveyed the message he wished to convey in a way that would be effective with His intended audience.

God is a smart guy. Do you really think He’d be dumb enough to give an extra scientific head start to a humanity that already develops technology much faster than the wisdom to use it properly?

The papal documents infallibly state that ALL portions of scripture, regardless of topic are inerrant, they are inspired by God and that they are NOT to be dismissed by ivory tower theologians as obsolete goof-ups by an ignorant, flea-bitten peasant author . However, that is NOT saying that every historical and scientific detail is binding upon historians and scientists. These are VERY different topics. Your quotes DO NOT fully say what you appear to think they do. Do you see the distinction?

I would ask you to read Providentissimus Deus, of Leo XIII. Just read that last 1/4th of the encyclical. You can easily find it online. That will explain to you exactly what I believe and what I have been defending. It explains things much better than I can. He even gives a somewhat “balanced” view. What he wrote is EXACTLY what I believe.

After reading it, please respond back.

BTW, if you think God could be the author of any historical error (objective lie), you are totally wrong. God is all truth and cannot declare falsehood as truth. Since God is the primary author of the Bible, there is no possible way, there can exist a historical error in the Bible. If there is a historical error contained in the Bible, it means one of three things:

1.) God is not the primary author of the Bible (the Church says He is).

2.) God is the author of an objective lie (not possible)

3.) There was an error in the translation.

On the other hand, there certainly can appear to be an error where no error exists. I addressed one of these “historical errors” above, regarding who killed Goliath (see my posts from December 19th, at 8:17AM).

Also, I have never said that the Bible is a scientific text book; all I have said is that, since God is the author of the Bible, it contains no scientific errors. And, in response to one of your statements, I do not think God would need to state an objective lie (false history or wrong dae) so that He could properly communicate to us (or past generations). In fact, I would go further than that and claim that it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to lie. Now, according to your statement, you see no problem with God telling an objective lie. That would mean God Himself does not keep the 10 commandments.

Is that what you believe? If you say no, then explain to me how God could tell an objective lie, yet not be guilty of breaking the commandments.

I am very much looking forward to your response. And sorry it took me so long to get back with you.

 

[RSiscoe]

I’ll quote Providentissimus Deus here so everyone can read it. The following is about the last 1/4th of the encyclical. This forms part of the magesterium of the Church.

Leo XIII: "There has arisen, to the great detriment of religion, an inept method, dignified by the name of the “higher criticism,” which pretends to judge of the origin, integrity and authority of each Book from internal indications alone. It is clear, on the other hand, that in historical questions, such as the origin and the handing down of writings, the witness of history is of primary importance, and that historical investigation should be made with the utmost care; and that in this matter internal evidence is seldom of great value, except as confirmation. To look upon it in any other light will be to open the door to many evil consequences. It will make the enemies of religion much more bold and confident in attacking and mangling the Sacred Books; and this vaunted “higher criticism” will resolve itself into the reflection of the bias and the prejudice of the critics. It will not throw on the Scripture the light which is sought, or prove of any advantage to doctrine; it will only give rise to disagreement and dissension, those sure notes of error, which the critics in question so plentifully exhibit in their own persons; and seeing that most of them are tainted with false philosophy and rationalism, it must lead to the elimination from the sacred writings of all prophecy and miracle, and of everything else that is outside the natural order.
18. In the second place, we have to contend against those who, making an evil use of physical science, minutely scrutinize the Sacred Book in order to detect the writers in a mistake, and to take occasion to vilify its contents. Attacks of this kind, bearing as they do on matters of sensible experience, are peculiarly dangerous to the masses, and also to the young who are beginning their literary studies; for the young, if they lose their reverence for the Holy Scripture on one or more points, are easily led to give up believing in it altogether. It need not be pointed out how the nature of science, just as it is so admirably adapted to show forth the glory of the Great Creator, provided it be taught as it should be, so if it be perversely imparted to the youthful intelligence, it may prove most fatal in destroying the principles of true philosophy and in the corruption of morality. Hence to the Professor of Sacred Scripture a knowledge of natural science will be of very great assistance in detecting such attacks on the Sacred Books, and in refuting them. There can never, indeed, be any real discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his own lines, and both are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, “not to make rash assertions, or to assert what is not known as known.’’[51] If dissension should arise between them, here is the rule also laid down by St. Augustine, for the theologian: “Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so.”[52] To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost “Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation.”[53] Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers – as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us – “went by what sensibly appeared,”[54] or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.”

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

1. The unshrinking defense of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith – what they are unanimous in. For “in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,”[55] according to the saying of St. Thomas. And in another place he says most admirably: “When philosophers are agreed upon a point, and it is not contrary to our faith, it is safer, in my opinion, neither to lay down such a point as a dogma of faith, even though it is perhaps so presented by the philosophers, nor to reject it as against faith, lest we thus give to the wise of this world an occasion of despising our faith.”[56] The Catholic interpreter, although he should show that those facts of natural science which investigators affirm to be now quite certain are not contrary to the Scripture rightly explained, must nevertheless always bear in mind, that much which has been held and proved as certain has afterwards been called in question and rejected. And if writers on physics travel outside the boundaries of their own branch, and carry their erroneous teaching into the domain of philosophy, let them be handed over to philosophers for refutation.
2. The principles here laid down will apply to cognate sciences, and especially to History. It is a lamentable fact that there are many who with great labor carry out and publish investigations on the monuments of antiquity, the manners and institutions of nations and other illustrative subjects, and whose chief purpose in all this is too often to find mistakes in the sacred writings and so to shake and weaken their authority. Some of these writers display not only extreme hostility, but the greatest unfairness; in their eyes a profane book or ancient document is accepted without hesitation, whilst the Scripture, if they only find in it a suspicion of error, is set down with the slightest possible discussion as quite untrustworthy. It is true, no doubt, that copyists have made mistakes in the text of the Bible; this question, when it arises, should be carefully considered on its merits, and the fact not too easily admitted, but only in those passages where the proof is clear. It may also happen that the sense of a passage remains ambiguous, and in this case good hermeneutical methods will greatly assist in clearing up the obscurity. 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. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it – this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. These are the words of the last: “The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author.”[57] Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author…

continue

 

[RSiscoe]

"For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write – He was so present to them – that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture. Such has always been the persuasion of the Fathers. **“Therefore,” says St. Augustine, “since they wrote the things which He showed and uttered to them, it cannot be pretended that He is not the writer; for His members executed what their Head dictated.”[58] And St. Gregory the Great thus pronounces: “Most superfluous it is to inquire who wrote these things – we loyally believe the Holy Ghost to be the Author of the book. He wrote it Who dictated it for writing; He wrote it Who inspired its execution.”[59]

21. It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error**. And so emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error, that they labored earnestly, with no less skill than reverence, to reconcile with each other those numerous passages which seem at variance – the very passages which in great measure have been taken up by the “higher criticism;” for they were unanimous in laying it down, that those writings, in their entirety and in all their parts were equally from the afflatus of Almighty God, and that God, speaking by the sacred writers, could not set down anything but what was true.

**The words of St. Augustine to St. Jerome may sum up what they taught: “On my part I confess to your charity that it is only to those Books of Scripture which are now called canonical that I have learned to pay such honor and reverence as to believe most firmly that none of their writers has fallen into any error. And if in these Books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand.”[60]

**22. But to undertake fully and perfectly, and with all the weapons of the best science, the defense of the Holy Bible is far more than can be looked for from the exertions of commentators and theologians alone. It is an enterprise in which we have a right to expect the co-operation of all those Catholics who have acquired reputation in any branch of learning whatever. As in the past, so at the present time, the Church is never without the graceful support of her accomplished children; may their services to the Faith grow and increase! For there is nothing which We believe to be more needful than that truth should find defenders more powerful and more numerous than the enemies it has to face; nor is there anything which is better calculated to impress the masses with respect for truth than to see it boldly proclaimed by learned and distinguished men. Moreover, the bitter tongues of objectors will be silenced, or at least they will not dare to insist so shamelessly that faith is the enemy of science, when they see that scientific men of eminence in their profession show towards faith the most marked honor and respect. Seeing, then, that those can do so much for the advantage of religion on whom the goodness of Almighty God has bestowed, together with the grace of the faith, great natural talent, let such men, in this bitter conflict of which the Holy Scripture is the object, select each of them the branch of study most suitable to his circumstances, and endeavor to excel therein, and thus be prepared to repulse with credit and distinction the assaults on the Word of God. And it is Our pleasing duty to give deserved praise to a work which certain Catholics have taken up – that is to say, the formation of societies and the contribution of considerable sums of money, for the purpose of supplying studious and learned men with every kind of help and assistance in carrying out complete studies. Truly an excellent fashion of investing money, and well-suited to the times in which we live! The less hope of public patronage there is for Catholic study, the more ready and the more abundant should be the liberality of private persons – those to whom God has given riches thus willingly making use of their means to safeguard the treasure of His revealed doctrine.

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

1. In order that all these endeavors and exertions may really prove advantageous to the cause of the Bible, let scholars keep steadfastly to the principles which We have in this Letter laid down. Let them loyally hold that God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the Scriptures – and that therefore nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures. If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort should be made to remove it. Judicious theologians and commentators should be consulted as to what is the true or most probable meaning of the passage in discussion, and the hostile arguments should be carefully weighed. Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth cannot contradict truth, and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself; and if no such mistake can be detected, we must then suspend judgment for the time being. There have been objections without number perseveringly directed against the Scripture for many a long year, which have been proved to be futile and are now never heard of; and not unfrequently interpretations have been placed on certain passages of Scripture (not belonging to the rule of faith or morals) which have been rectified by more careful investigations. As time goes on, mistaken views die and disappear; but “truth remaineth and groweth stronger for ever and ever.”[61] Wherefore, as no one should be so presumptuous as to think that he understands the whole of the Scripture, in which St. Augustine himself confessed that there was more that he did not know, than that he knew,[62] so, if he should come upon anything that seems incapable of solution, he must take to heart the cautious rule of the same holy Doctor: “It is better even to be oppressed by unknown but useful signs, than to interpret them uselessly and thus to throw off the yoke only to be caught in the trap of error.”[63]
2. Such, Venerable Brethren, are the admonitions and the instructions which, by the help of God, We have thought it well, at the present moment, to offer to you on the study of Holy Scripture. It will now be your province to see that what we have said be observed and put in practice with all due reverence and exactness; that so, we may prove our gratitude to God for the communication to man of the Words of his Wisdom, and that all the good results so much to be desired may be realized, especially as they affect the training of the students of the Church, which is our own great solicitude and the Church’s hope. Exert yourselves with willing alacrity, and use your authority and your persuasion in order that these studies may be held in just regard and may flourish, in Seminaries and in the educational Institutions which are under your jurisdiction. Let them flourish in completeness and in happy success, under the direction of the Church, in accordance with the salutary teaching and example of the Holy Fathers and the laudable traditions of antiquity; and, as time goes on, let them be widened and extended as the interests and glory of truth may require – the interest of that Catholic Truth which comes from above, the never-failing source of man’s salvation. Finally, We admonish with paternal love all students and ministers of the Church always to approach the Sacred Writings with reverence and piety; for it is impossible to attain to the profitable understanding thereof unless the arrogance of “earthly” science be laid aside, and there be excited in the heart the holy desire for that wisdom “which is from above.” In this way the intelligence which is once admitted to these sacred studies, and thereby illuminated and strengthened, will acquire a marvelous facility in detecting and avoiding the fallacies of human science, and in gathering and using for eternal salvation all that is valuable and precious; whilst at the same time the heart will grow warm, and will strive with ardent longing to advance in virtue and in divine love. “Blessed are they who examine His testimonies; they shall seek Him with their whole heart.”[64]
3. And now, filled with hope in the divine assistance, and trusting to your pastoral solicitude – as a pledge of heavenly grace and a sign of Our special goodwill – to you all, and to the Clergy and the whole flock entrusted to you, We lovingly impart in Our Lord the Apostolic Benediction.

Given at St. Peter’s, at Rome, the 18th day of November, 1893, the eighteenth year of Our Pontificate.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

If inerrancy is so important, books which treat it as a fiction or a dead belief should not be given the imprimatur.

I agree. Yet, I think it’s also important to understand that the *imprimatur *from Bishop Thomas O’Keefe of NY to the works of Fr. Raymond Brown that assert biblical errancy is not infallible, nor is it to be implied that the ideas within the book are doctrinal, as it is not magisterial endorsement of these ideas.

For example, in Fr. George A. Kelly’s book, *The New Biblical Theorists, *describes how Fr. Brown’s assertions are erroneous in view of the teachings of Leo XIII, Pius XII, and Paul VI, and takes the exact opposite view of Fr. Raymond Brown. **It too has the imprimatur of Bishop Thomas O’Keefe of NY. **It seems to me that if this proves anything, it proves that the Most Rev. O’Keefe (RIP) was giving out imprimaturs with very little discernment. This says nothing with regard to the actions and doctrines of the magisterium, as an *imprimatur *is not magisterial act.

---

---