Errors in scripture

[Little_Les]

Is the following by Pope Leo XIII still considered to be true?

"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”

 

[Todd_Easton]

Yes, what the pope said is still considered to be true. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 105-107, on the Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture.

My :twocents: …
The books of the Bible, when they were originally written, were written without error under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. In your citation, the councils and the pope are talking about those originals. Unfortunately, none of those error-free originals survive.

What we do have are copies made by uninspired human copyists that contain the usual copyist errors, additions, and omissions.

It has been the difficult and continuous task of Bible scholars throughout the centuries to try to identify and correct those copyist errors and to produce accurate translations, as St. Jerome tried to do with his Latin Vulgate.

 

[wking]

I’m not sure what led Little Les to ask this question, but I’ve understood that the Church teaches that all things in scripture are true (on a spiritual and factual level). Leo XIII’s quote seems to say that as well. That doesn’t mean that some of the books or language may be figurative (e.g., the creation story).

However, I’m having trouble reconciling some of the facts in the Bible and wonder if any one knows of a good (preferably Catholic book) that explains some of the apparent inconsistencies in the facts in the Bible. E.g., in one gospel it says Peter will deny Jesus 3 times before the cock crows twice and in another it says before the cock crows. In the gospel where it says “twice” it notes the cock crowing for the first time before Peter has denied Jesus 3 times. (In other words, Peter didn’t deny Jesus three times before the cock crowed in this gospel).

I appreciate any responses.

 

[mrteachersir]

You kind of answered your own question:

That doesn’t mean that some of the books or language may be figurative (e.g., the creation story).

Each book of the Bible was written for a specific reason. Consider the Gospels. Historical evidence (like the Church Fathers) and some recent research (Jimmy Akin mentioned some of these once) indicate that Matthew wrote first (possibly in Aramaic and in the AD 40s) for Jewish Christians of the Diaspora, and to help clarify the Gospel for St. Peter’s flock in Rome, Mark wrote his gospel based on his hearing of St. Peter’s recollections. Luke compiled his book for the Greek converts of Paul, and used Matthew, Mark, and other sources to complete his narrative. John wrote much later and for a very different reason: to make it clear that Jesus was both God and Man (and thus apparently combat early Gnostics). Matthew, Mark, and Luke, although protected by the Spirit, are free then to give to their readers what they have learned to be true (in your example, that St. Peter, the earthly head of the Church, denied the Lord three times). It is quite possible that the details and chronology are mixed, but they tell the same True story. This view is upheld by Paul VI in the Dogmatic Constitution of the Divine Revelation.

 

[mrteachersir]

My :twocents: …
The books of the Bible, when they were originally written, were written without error under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. In your citation, the councils and the pope are talking about those originals. Unfortunately, none of those error-free originals survive.

What we do have are copies made by uninspired human copyists that contain the usual copyist errors, additions, and omissions.

It has been the difficult and continuous task of Bible scholars throughout the centuries to try to identify and correct those copyist errors and to produce accurate translations, as St. Jerome tried to do with his Latin Vulgate.

Many Bible scholars have determine that the despite the many thousands of years of translations, transcriptions and copying, 99% of the Bible we have in existence today is accurate. In fact, while we are missing complete copies of original texts, we have enough fragmented copies of parts of texts to accurately translate from the original text. The sheer volume of quotations from Church Fathers throughout the ages are an indication of the stability of transcription and translation. At least that is what I have heard and read.