Historical Accuracy of Scriptures

[francesco920]

I hear this a lot from Christians: “Whether or not the Scriptures are historically accurate…”

It is my understanding that the Church teaches that the Holy Bible is completely infallible, which to me means that it is completely historically accurate as well.

I guess my question is, Is calling into question the historical accuracy of Scriptures heresy?

I would say yes but then again I’m not a scholar or a theologian.

 

[patg]

I guess my question is, Is calling into question the historical accuracy of Scriptures heresy?

There are hundreds, if not thousands of posts in these forums debating this - do a simple search and you can read for weeks…but you won’t get an absolute answer.

Here is a link to a recent church document on this, Instruction Concerning the Historical Truth of the Gospels", Pontifical Biblical Commission (April 21, 1964):

catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_HistTruthFitzmyer.htm#PBCText

 

[puzzleannie]

I It is my understanding that the Church teaches that the Holy Bible is completely infallible, which to me means that it is completely historically accurate as well. .

people are infallible or fallible, books are either inerrant or capable of error. The bible is inerrant, it cannot teach or contain error on matters of faith or morals or in anything that is necessary for our salvation.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Francesco,

The Bible is God’s word (infallible) in human (fallible) form. We follow the rule of St. Augustine: read the Bible as written, unless it goes against reason or known facts.

Verbum

 

[Spirithound]

It is my understanding that the Church teaches that the Holy Bible is completely infallible, which to me means that it is completely historically accurate as well.

I guess my question is, Is calling into question the historical accuracy of Scriptures heresy?

The Bible is inerrant, as a PP corrected, not infallible, but that is a trifling sematics. The point is, the Bible is inerrant according to what is was meant to be.

For example, the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy are meant to be a faithful record of God’s laws for Israel. Judith, on the other hand, is meant to be an extended parable, and thus, the inerrant part of that book is the lesson that is to be gained from it. I believe that most of Genesis and Exodus are accurate historical books, as are the Gospels (with certain parts rearranged chronologically), and thus are truly what you mean by “inerrant”.
Peace,
Spirithound

 

[TOME]

I think one of the best works to help anyone on what the Church means that the bible is infallible and inerrant etc. is Pope Benedict XVI’s work, " ‘In The Beginning…’ ". Although the book is about the first three chapters of Genesis, it really gives one a good understanding of how the Church Magistreium approaches the bible and modern scriptural studies.

An in keeping with his Christmas Homily’s theme, the book is a short work.

 

[lak611]

I think one of the best works to help anyone on what the Church means that the bible is infallible and inerrant etc. is Pope Benedict XVI’s work, " ‘In The Beginning…’ ". Although the book is about the first three chapters of Genesis, it really gives one a good understanding of how the Church Magistreium approaches the bible and modern scriptural studies.

An in keeping with his Christmas Homily’s theme, the book is a short work.

Do you have a link so I can order this book?

 

[TOME]

lak611,

I apologize for not having a link for you, however, the copy of the Pope’s work I have is from the Ressourcement Series published by Wm. B. Eerdman’s Public Co.

(Please forgive me for this and take it in the spirit it is meant but…) My copy doesn’t have an Impirmatur nor Nihil Obstat but I think we can trust in its Orthodoxy.

 

[lak611]

lak611,

I apologize for not having a link for you, however, the copy of the Pope’s work I have is from the Ressourcement Series published by Wm. B. Eerdman’s Public Co.

(Please forgive me for this and take it in the spirit it is meant but…) My copy doesn’t have an Impirmatur nor Nihil Obstat but I think we can trust in its Orthodoxy.

Would I need to get the entire series, or is Pope Benedict’s book just part of the series?

 

[TOME]

lak611,
You can get the Pope’s book as a seperate work. It is actually a compliation of four homilies given by the Pope, I think in 1981 during Lent.

I think the series in general is important because reading the various authors of the series may help give us an insight into the theological movement that has influenced Benedict XVI and more important had been influcened by him.

 

[francesco920]

puzzleannie:

people are infallible or fallible, books are either inerrant or capable of error. The bible is inerrant, it cannot teach or contain error on matters of faith or morals or in anything that is necessary for our salvation

Thanks, I should have said inerrant.

Verbum:

Hi Francesco,

The Bible is God’s word (infallible) in human (fallible) form. We follow the rule of St. Augustine: read the Bible as written, unless it goes against reason or known facts.

Verbum

Spirithound:

The Bible is inerrant, as a PP corrected, not infallible, but that is a trifling sematics. The point is, the Bible is inerrant according to what is was meant to be.

For example, the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy are meant to be a faithful record of God’s laws for Israel. Judith, on the other hand, is meant to be an extended parable, and thus, the inerrant part of that book is the lesson that is to be gained from it. I believe that most of Genesis and Exodus are accurate historical books, as are the Gospels (with certain parts rearranged chronologically), and thus are truly what you mean by “inerrant”.
Peace,
Spirithound

Thanks to the both of you! That makes a lot of sense.

TOME:

I think one of the best works to help anyone on what the Church means that the bible is infallible and inerrant etc. is Pope Benedict XVI’s work, " ‘In The Beginning…’ ". Although the book is about the first three chapters of Genesis, it really gives one a good understanding of how the Church Magistreium approaches the bible and modern scriptural studies.

An in keeping with his Christmas Homily’s theme, the book is a short work.

Thanks for the suggestion!

 

[jbuck919]

It is my understanding that the Church teaches that the Holy Bible is completely infallible, which to me means that it is completely historically accurate as well.

The Catholic Church teaches no such thing, and anyone with an ounce of God-given intellect should flee in terror from any denomination or faction within the Church that does. Where people who call themselves Roman Catholics get this notion in the first place is beyond me.

Nobody is quite sure where the Old Testament stops being legendary or edifying-mythological and where it starts becoming historical, but no modern sane person who can look himself in the mirror in the morning and say “I am by the grace of God educated” thinks that God created Adam out of the clay of the earth in a literal sense. Somewhere later on (say the books of Chronicles) we probably do have a lot of real history (this is also the point where the Bible becomes annoyingly boring). Where the line is to be drawn in between is still pretty much anyone’s guess. Was Abraham a real person? Joseph? Moses? Are we asking the right question in wondering this? After all these generations, your guess is as good as mine.

 

[awalt]

Good article by Jimmy Akin asserting Church teaching

 

[patg]

The Catholic Church teaches no such thing, and anyone with an ounce of God-given intellect should flee in terror from any denomination or faction within the Church that does. Where people who call themselves Roman Catholics get this notion in the first place is beyond me.

Excellent! And the Church has a very consistent tradition of insisting on a literal interpretation of only a handful of scripture passages.

 

[Bishopite]

[jbuck919;1769786]
Nobody is quite sure where the Old Testament stops being legendary or edifying-mythological and where it starts becoming historical, but no modern sane person who can look himself in the mirror in the morning and say “I am by the grace of God educated” thinks that God created Adam out of the clay of the earth in a literal sense.

Huh? Couldn’t God have created Adam and Eve literally out of clay? Is that beyond Gods ability?

Somewhere later on (say the books of Chronicles) we probably do have a lot of real history (this is also the point where the Bible becomes annoyingly boring). Where the line is to be drawn in between is still pretty much anyone’s guess. Was Abraham a real person? Joseph? Moses? Are we asking the right question in wondering this? After all these generations, your guess is as good as mine.

Catholicism always takes the literal view of Scripture first and all of the other senses, spritual, anagogical, moral follow from the literal as the author intended.
CCC section 115

Abraham was (literally) a real person…
christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/profess2.html#Abraham

And Joseph, Moses, Mary were literal persons and most importantly Jesus WAS literally a person also literally God and literally died on the cross. There is more historical evidence for the Bible than any other historical book making it more reliable than any other historical document.

 

[francesco920]

Thanks everybody for your replies!

I’ve learned a lot.

 

[Bishopite]

I hear this a lot from Christians: “Whether or not the Scriptures are historically accurate…”

It is my understanding that the Church teaches that the Holy Bible is completely infallible, which to me means that it is completely historically accurate as well.

I guess my question is, Is calling into question the historical accuracy of Scriptures heresy?

I would say yes but then again I’m not a scholar or a theologian.

In the book “Radio Replies” Fathers Rumble and Carty answer this question…

"If the Bible is the Word of God, it should be perfect."

“If the Bible were miraculously produced by God without the use of human instruments, that is so. But since God made use of human instruments, it will be but relatively perfect. The human writers were living psychological instruments whose personal characteristics God respected, and whose traits are reflected in their writings. The ordinary writing of the same person will vary according to this use of a fine pen or of a broad pen. An imperfect instrument means secondary imperfections. The Bible is relatively perfect insofar as it gives us the revelation of God in accordance with limitations on human ideas and language, and in as good a way as the various individual human instruments were able to arrange their ideas and express them.” (Radio Replies, 1979, section 115, page 40)

 

[lak611]

Huh? Couldn’t God have created Adam and Eve literally out of clay? Is that beyond Gods ability?

Yes, He could have, and I believe He did.

Catholicism always takes the literal view of Scripture first and all of the other senses, spritual, anagogical, moral follow from the literal as the author intended.
CCC section 115

Abraham was (literally) a real person…
christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/profess2.html#Abraham

And Joseph, Moses, Mary were literal persons and most importantly Jesus WAS literally a person also literally God and literally died on the cross. There is more historical evidence for the Bible than any other historical book making it more reliable than any other historical document.

Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Mary, Adam and Eve were ALL real people!

 

[Bishopite]

Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Mary, Adam and Eve were ALL real people!

Yes you are correct and that’s my point. The problem with a number of liberal theologians both Catholic and Protestant (and I’m sure in Eastern Orthodoxy) is they end up abandoning much of the traditional interpretions of Scripture and some of them even end up questioning Jesus’ historicity and divinity; they end up loosing their faith. Many times these theologians fixate themselves on the spritual interpretation of Scripture because the’ve rejected the literal as being true; a number of priests present their homilies this way and it only confuses those who can’t see through their errors.