Historical Errors in Bible?

[Saint_Sinner]

Just recently found someone saying the following:

"Bible Texts Banned Due to Errors

The Book of Tobit is part of the Catholic canon but evangelicals do no recognize it as inspired. The book asserts that Tobit was alive in 722 BC, when Assyria conquered Israel, and also in 931 BC, when Jeroboam led his uprising against Judah. The book is heavy on Eastern mysticism and demon lore.

The Book of Judith is also part of the Catholic canon. It has several historic errors, the most glaring of which is the placement of Nebuchadnezzar II as king of Nineveh instead of Babylon."

Is this correct or are they missing something?

Thanks

 

[rep140]

The Church position is that the Bible is an inspired book that contains truths needed for salvation. That there is no claim for historical accuracy can be seen as early as chapter 2 of Genesis. The Creation story is different from chapter 1.

 

[kepha1]

This link Countering Bible Contradictions is useful, but it doesn’t deal explicitly with Tobit and Judith.

 

[NHInsider]

Just recently found someone saying the following:

"Bible Texts Banned Due to Errors

The Book of Tobit is part of the Catholic canon but evangelicals do no recognize it as inspired. The book asserts that Tobit was alive in 722 BC, when Assyria conquered Israel, and also in 931 BC, when Jeroboam led his uprising against Judah. The book is heavy on Eastern mysticism and demon lore.

The Book of Judith is also part of the Catholic canon. It has several historic errors, the most glaring of which is the placement of Nebuchadnezzar II as king of Nineveh instead of Babylon."

Is this correct or are they missing something?

Thanks

Well, to begin with, there aren’t any dates in the book of Tobit (or any other book of Scripture, so far as I can remember). So I don’t know where they’re getting that piece of “evidence” from.

As to the Judith comment, I don’t think the text refers to Nebuchadnezzar II per se at all - but if those kinds of misalignments are the basis for rejecting a book we’ve got big issues with some of the books that Protestants accept, including the Gospels. Anti-Christians are constantly coming up with these kinds of “errors” (History Channel, anyone?) If someone along the line confused the names of two great cities historically associated with opposition to God’s people, does that invalidate the whole account? Only if you want to read it that way. . . .

 

[buffalo]

The Church position is that the Bible is an inspired book that contains truths needed for salvation. That there is no claim for historical accuracy can be seen as early as chapter 2 of Genesis. The Creation story is different from chapter 1.

Genesis I and II are complementary. One is the order of creation, the other tells of the importance of man.

 

[ghym]

Genesis I and II are complementary. One is the order of creation, the other tells of the importance of man.

Exactly, Genesis I is the chronological order of creation (interesting note, this order lines up with the order evolutionists give) Genesis two is focusing on the creation of man and is not meant to be taken chronologically with each statement happening after the previous one.

They are not contradictory.

 

[GeorgeSword]

Just recently found someone saying the following:

"Bible Texts Banned Due to Errors

The Book of Tobit is part of the Catholic canon but evangelicals do no recognize it as inspired. The book asserts that Tobit was alive in 722 BC, when Assyria conquered Israel, and also in 931 BC, when Jeroboam led his uprising against Judah. The book is heavy on Eastern mysticism and demon lore.

The Book of Judith is also part of the Catholic canon. It has several historic errors, the most glaring of which is the placement of Nebuchadnezzar II as king of Nineveh instead of Babylon."

Is this correct or are they missing something?

Thanks

Nebuchadnezzar II was the king of the Chaldean Dynasty. Babylon and Ninevah were both under his control at the time, as well as Assyria and a great many other places. Look at the red area on this map:

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Neo_babylonia_empire_540_bc.svg

So it makes perfect sense to say he was the king of Ninevah - among many other things.

 

[Fidelis]

There is nothing in official church teachings requiring a Catholic to believe in the strict historicity of the Book of Tobit (or Esther, for that matter). This is in contrast to, say, the Gospels. The difference is that former is not required for our salvation, while the latter is.

This is not to say that there never was a person such as Tobit or that the the story has absolutely no historical foundation, only that it doesn’t make any difference whether the events related therein occured exactly that way or not. This is also the case with some of the parables of Jesus. Does it matter if there was really a man beat up on the road to Jericho that was helped by a Samaritan? Not really. It is the lesson that Jesus was trying to convey that is important, not whether it really happened or not. Same with books like Tobit and Judith.

Having said that, if someone thinks they have good reason or simply chooses to believe these are factual events, they are free to do so. It makes no impact on their (or our) salvation one way or the other.

What people are not free to do is to reject the canonicity of any book of the Bible because they have personal or intellectual issues with it. The only entity that has the authority (given by God) to define the canon is the Catholic Church. Are you listening Dr. Luther?

 

[hellopeople]

Genesis I and II are complementary. One is the order of creation, the other tells of the importance of man.

They might be complimentary, but they can’t both be literally true.

 

[davidv]

They might be complimentary, but they can’t both be literally true.

Why not?

From the Catechism:
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.
The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”

 

[srlucado]

They might be complimentary, but they can’t both be literally true.

True enough, which is why Catholics don’t claim that they are literally true.

(Next, I suppose someone will point out that the synoptics don’t agree in every detail–like nobody ever noticed that before.)

 

[Abu]

hellopeople
They might be complimentary, but they can’t both be literally true.

On Genesis Chapters I, II, a seeming contradiction as to when man was created is easily explained:
Answer by Fr. John Echert on Feb 18, 2008 (EWTN)
The first chapter most fully describes the order and sequence of creation, with man and woman last of all the natural world creatures. The second chapter describes the fashioning of the Garden of Eden for them, which is not the start of the order of creation but a Garden within what was already in existence.

Free From All Error
Msgr George A Kelly explains in The New Biblical Theorists – Raymond E Brown and Beyond: “The Council chose not to say that only the Bible’s ‘spiritual truth’ or its ‘religious truth’ is free from error. The actual sentence of Dei Verbum says that every assertion of the sacred writers – whether it be religious or moral or scientific or historical – is free from error, because God wanted these writers to convey to us unalloyed truth for the sake of our salvation. The Council makes no distinction between ‘religious’ and ‘secular’ truths to be covered by inerrancy, nor is inerrancy to be restricted to ‘essential religious affirmations’ as Brown avers.” (p 157).
[See also LT61 - THE ENCYCLICAL SPIRITUS PARACLITUS IN ITS HISTORICAL CONTEXT - Part II]

It is high time to think with the mind of the Church.

 

[twinc]

The Church position is that the Bible is an inspired book that contains truths needed for salvation. That there is no claim for historical accuracy can be seen as early as chapter 2 of Genesis. The Creation story is different from chapter 1.

of course creation is not a story so you must mean creation account and chapter 2 refers to the garden of Eden in particular where formed should be read and understood as had formed - twinc

 

[Ron_Conte]

There are two levels of meaning to Scripture:

1. literal
2. spiritual

However, the ‘literal’ level of meaning includes figures, so this could be termed:

1. literal/figurative
2. spiritual

The literal/figurative level of meaning need not be literally true – it can be true as a figure. For example, that Adam and Eve sinned by eating a piece of fruit; the fruit is a figure for their sin of pride in disobeying God. We need not hold that there was an actual piece of fruit involved. In another example, when Scripture says that God has a strong right arm, this is a figure for His operative power; we need not hold that He literally has a right arm.

The Bible is an historical account of the deeds of God and man in salvation history. The creation of the universe, the creation of mankind, the various events in the lives of the Patriarchs, the various events in the NT, are all historical events. These might be presented, especially the more ancient events in the OT, under the description of figures, but they are nevertheless historical events.

“When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the “entire books with all their parts” as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.” (Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu, n. 1)

 

[buffalo]

They might be complimentary, but they can’t both be literally true.

Why not?

One could be from God’s perspective, the other from man’s.

 

[NHInsider]

There are two levels of meaning to Scripture:

1. literal
2. spiritual

However, the ‘literal’ level of meaning includes figures, so this could be termed:

1. literal/figurative
2. spiritual

The literal/figurative level of meaning need not be literally true – it can be true as a figure. For example, that Adam and Eve sinned by eating a piece of fruit; the fruit is a figure for their sin of pride in disobeying God. We need not hold that there was an actual piece of fruit involved. In another example, when Scripture says that God has a strong right arm, this is a figure for His operative power; we need not hold that He literally has a right arm.

The Bible is an historical account of the deeds of God and man in salvation history. The creation of the universe, the creation of mankind, the various events in the lives of the Patriarchs, the various events in the NT, are all historical events. These might be presented, especially the more ancient events in the OT, under the description of figures, but they are nevertheless historical events.

Right. There really was a Creation, and God really was the Creator. de fide

“When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the “entire books with all their parts” as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.” (Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu, n. 1)

Magesterial explanation further developed here:

Dei Verbum Chapter 3
Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that 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. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)

 

[Abu]

NHInsider
Dei Verbum Chapter 3
Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that 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.

The above is misleading. A better translation is in CCC #107:
“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 [the] truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures.”

“The true sense of Dei Verbum, 11, then….covers those propositions he affirms (or teaches) as opposed to those which he merely “uses materially,” i.e., those in which what appears on paper, taken in isolation, or in its most superficially literal sense, does not express his own judgment in any way.
[See http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt59.html: Fr Brian Harrison refers to The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) of Vatican II, 1963-5].