Historical Errors

[octavian]

Genuine question (i.e no hidden agenda)!

Why are there historical errors in the Bible? And does it matter that there are?

 

[Scoobyshme]

Can you give us some examples of what you consider historical errors?

 

[StCsDavid]

First of all the Bible is not a history book in the sense that we understand history in Western culture. It’s hard to describe in just the few lines I limit myself to in the forum; however, investigate how history is written and viewed from an ancient middle-eastern mindset. You’ll discover that less importance gets placed on a linear progression of events and more emphasis gets placed on the significance of the event.

 

[Contarini]

Genuine question (i.e no hidden agenda)!

Why are there historical errors in the Bible?

Because it was written by humans (under divine inspiration).

And does it matter that there are?

Yes. If there were no errors it would indicate that the Bible was simply dictated by God, and that would reflect a very different pattern of divine interaction with humans than the one we find in reality. The “errors” are a very good thing. Just as it’s a good thing that (as a Muslim pointed out to me in a conversation many years ago) in the Christian view God went to the bathroom.

Edwin

 

[Rogerteder]

Because it was written by humans (under divine inspiration).

Yes. If there were no errors it would indicate that the Bible was simply dictated by God, and that would reflect a very different pattern of divine interaction with humans than the one we find in reality. The “errors” are a very good thing. Just as it’s a good thing that (as a Muslim pointed out to me in a conversation many years ago) in the Christian view God went to the bathroom.

Edwin

The Church’s infallible teaching is that there are no errors in scripture. Not even historical errors. If there seems to be an historical error there is an explanation. The author may have been using a different calendar or may be referring to something different than what the reader may interpret. Please see Father William Most’s book “Free from All Error.” It is an excellent read and it goes into specific refutations of arguments about errors in scripture. Also please read Pius XII’s Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. No one said it clearer than Pius XII when he condemned the assetion that one can say scripture erred in historical matters.

 

[MonkeyTape]

Genuine question (i.e no hidden agenda)!

Why are there historical errors in the Bible? And does it matter that there are?

The purpose of the Bible is not history or science, the purpose is Divine Revelation. Scripture reveals what God wills for us to know to help us on our way to salvation. Who was king of what and when is not necessary for our salvation so that things like this may be in error are of no consequence to our salvation.

Certain fundamentalist groups may feel that everything must be 100% accurate including history and science, but that does not make it so.

 

[Rogerteder]

I cant resist quoting Pius XII’s awesome words.

“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.”

 

[Contarini]

The Church’s infallible teaching is that there are no errors in scripture. Not even historical errors.

Most of your fellow Catholics interpret the Church’s teaching differently. Since I am not in full communion with the See of Rome, I will let those of you who are thrash this one out among yourselves!

Edwin

 

[BlestOne]

I would say that there are errors in our understanding or in our translating but things like historical errors? First it is not a history book exclusively… there are historic books that are good for reading to learn salvation history, but not the history of man or the history of the Roman empire for example. Consider this… the OT was written over 4000 yrs ago… how could they possibly know things that took us years to discover? Satellite pictures from where to confirm borders or lakes or mountains??? Of course there are going to be some error in geographics then aren’t there? KWIM? It only makes sense that there are going to be scientific error and possibly historic error then doesn’t it?

I think the bigger errors are with our understanding though. In some ways it was exceptionally wise for the OT and NT writers to be very vague about certain things… because we can look back and see that in the 1300’s we thought it meant X but in the 1900’s we understood it to mean Y and in the year 2000 it meant Z… This is where I appreciate the Catholic Church. We have the writings of theologians from every era… especially important to me are the ones that we consider the ECF. They clarified things for us that we might not ever understand from the teaching of the Apostles in person in some cases…

But this is just my opinion and I don’t count for anything…

 

[Rogerteder]

Just read Pius XII’s words and it is SO CLEAR. aNYONE WHO SAYS THERE ARE ERRORS IN SCRIPTURE IS GOING AGAINST THE cHURCH’S TEACHING. Again, go get Father Most’s book then come back and talk to me.

 

[Gamera]

Just read Pius XII’s words and it is SO CLEAR. aNYONE WHO SAYS THERE ARE ERRORS IN SCRIPTURE IS GOING AGAINST THE cHURCH’S TEACHING. Again, go get Father Most’s book then come back and talk to me.

No, it is not SO CLEAR. What is so clear is that the Catholic Church teaches that Scripture is inerrant with respect to that which God intended to convey through the inspired writers. Die verbum said it succinctly: “…we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully and without error teach that wtruth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.” (DV 11; CCC 107).

 

[Gamera]

I cant resist quoting Pius XII’s awesome words.

“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.”

Awesome words? Absolutely! But they don’t say what you seem to think they say. These awqesome words plainly state that the Bible is inerrant with respect to everything which the inspired writers wished to communicate – not just regarding faith and morals, but regarding history, science, etc. That is not even remotely what you claim they say, namely, “The Church’s infallible teaching is that there are no errors in scripture. Not even historical errors.” You’ve changed the awesome words quoted above, and by changing them, distorted their meaning.

 

[Gamera]

The purpose of the Bible is not history or science, the purpose is Divine Revelation. Scripture reveals what God wills for us to know to help us on our way to salvation. Who was king of what and when is not necessary for our salvation so that things like this may be in error are of no consequence to our salvation.

Die Verbum says that the Bible’s inerrancy is not limited to matters of faith and morals, but extends to all which the inspired writers intend to convey. Therefore, if the writer intended to accuratly recount a historical incident, the account is inerrant.

Certain fundamentalist groups may feel that everything must be 100% accurate including history and science, but that does not make it so.

The determining factor is whether the (name removed by moderator)ired writer intended to assert a certain fact. If so, then it is inerrant, even if it is about history or science. Often, the inspired writer didn’t intend to convey what a fundamentalist reader might take too literally, such as Elijah “stopping the sun,” but that isn’t the same as saying Scriptural inerrancy is limited to matters directly influencing salvation.

 

[Gamera]

No one said it clearer than Pius XII when he condemned the assetion that one can say scripture erred in historical matters.

That isn’t what he said.

 

[Rogerteder]

Awesome words? Absolutely! But they don’t say what you seem to think they say. These awqesome words plainly state that the Bible is inerrant with respect to everything which the inspired writers wished to communicate – not just regarding faith and morals, but regarding history, science, etc. That is not even remotely what you claim they say, namely, “The Church’s infallible teaching is that there are no errors in scripture. Not even historical errors.” You’ve changed the awesome words quoted above, and by changing them, distorted their meaning.

I didn’t change the words. I agree we have to get to the authors intentions. Just like we do with any piece of literature. We can’t assert that the author erred in a historical matter. You CANNOT SAY the author got a date wrong. You must conclude otherwise. I encourage you to read Most’s book. You cannot say scripture contains error. Every piece of literature you read you have to determine what the author intended. However those pieces of literature arent inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[TMC]

I am not sure what is meant by “historical errors” but if it means to get dates wrong, omit important events, misorder events, etc., then clearly the Bible contains historical errors. The Catholic teaching is that the

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

Dei Verbum 11.

The Bible correctly communicates that which is what written to communicate. The fact that the Gospels do not agree on certain “historical” details, such as the manner of Judas’ death, the date of the Last Supper, etc., says to me that historical detail is not the point being communicated.

For those that support historical inerrancy – what does that mean to you? How would you explain the potter’s field inconsistency, Judas’ death, the date of the Last Supper, or even the two creation timelines, do these fit in with historical inerrancy?

 

[Rogerteder]

I am not sure what is meant by “historical errors” but if it means to get dates wrong, omit important events, misorder events, etc., then clearly the Bible contains historical errors. The Catholic teaching is that the Dei Verbum 11.

The Bible correctly communicates that which is what written to communicate. The fact that the Gospels do not agree on certain “historical” details, such as the manner of Judas’ death, the date of the Last Supper, etc., says to me that historical detail is not the point being communicated.

For those that support historical inerrancy – what does that mean to you? How would you explain the potter’s field inconsistency, Judas’ death, the date of the Last Supper, or even the two creation timelines, do these fit in with historical inerrancy?

HELLOO!!! READ IN MY ABOVE POST PIUS XII’S WORDS----He said scripture contains " no error whatsoever" This has been stated throughout the Church’s teaching. I also suggest you get off your rear end and go get Father Most’s book. “Free From All Error.” Pius XII was simply repeating Benedict XV’s teaching, and Leo XIII’s teaching.
Father Most goes into deatail and refutes specific examples of how seemingly “contradictions” are not contradictions at all. He also shows how seeemingly “errors” are not errors at all. READ!!! PRAY!!! THROW YOUR RAY BROWN BOOKS AWAY AND READ MOST AND SUNGENIS!!!

 

[Contarini]

THROW YOUR RAY BROWN BOOKS AWAY AND READ MOST AND SUNGENIS!!!

Why would a Catholic throw away books by a recognized scholar honored publicly by several Popes, in favor of a relatively obscure, though interesting, maverick Dominican and a discredited, anti-Semitic, geocentrist, misogynistic rabble-rouser who has been censured by his own bishop and has no credentials whatsoever?

Note that I do not put Fr. Most and Mr. Sungenis in the same category at all. Fr. Most is well worth reading–I’m just not going to ditch Fr. Brown for him. (Of course, I’m not a Catholic–Catholics can answer this question for themselves.)

Edwin

 

[Gamera]

HELLOO!!! READ IN MY ABOVE POST PIUS XII’S WORDS----He said scripture contains " no error whatsoever" This has been stated throughout the Church’s teaching. I also suggest you get off your rear end and go get Father Most’s book. “Free From All Error.” Pius XII was simply repeating Benedict XV’s teaching, and Leo XIII’s teaching.
Father Most goes into deatail and refutes specific examples of how seemingly “contradictions” are not contradictions at all. He also shows how seeemingly “errors” are not errors at all. READ!!! PRAY!!! THROW YOUR RAY BROWN BOOKS AWAY AND READ MOST AND SUNGENIS!!!

You are incorrectly reading the quotation which you yourself provided. TMC is exactly right, the Catholic Church holds that Scripture is inerrant in all matters (faith, morals, history, science) with respect to that which the inspired authors intended to convey. Your quotation from Pious XII does not say otherwise. That is not the same as “free from all error.” Your own failure to see the difference doesn’t mean that those of us who adhere to the correct Catholic position are somehow intellectually lazy or disloyal. You are the one who is misreading the pope’s “awesome words” to make them say something different.

 

[TMC]

HELLOO!!! READ IN MY ABOVE POST PIUS XII’S WORDS----He said scripture contains " no error whatsoever" This has been stated throughout the Church’s teaching. I also suggest you get off your rear end and go get Father Most’s book. “Free From All Error.” Pius XII was simply repeating Benedict XV’s teaching, and Leo XIII’s teaching.
Father Most goes into deatail and refutes specific examples of how seemingly “contradictions” are not contradictions at all. He also shows how seeemingly “errors” are not errors at all. READ!!! PRAY!!! THROW YOUR RAY BROWN BOOKS AWAY AND READ MOST AND SUNGENIS!!!

I have not read Father Most, but I have read similar explanations of why the various contradictions in Scripture are not really contradictions. The only explanation that is convincing is the one provided by the Church, that the Scripture inerrantly conveys what it is meant to convey. Not to hijack this into a contradictions thread, but I don’t know how anyone can read this:

Then Judas, his betrayer, seeing that Jesus had been condemned, deeply regretted what he had done. He returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, “I have sinned in betraying innocent blood.” They said, “What is that to us? Look to it yourself.” Flinging the money into the temple, he departed and went off and hanged himself. The chief priests gathered up the money, but said, “It is not lawful to deposit this in the temple treasury, for it is the price of blood.” After consultation, they used it to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why that field even today is called the Field of Blood.

Matthew 27:3-8

And this:

During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said, "My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus. He was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry. He bought a parcel of land with the wages of his iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle, and all his insides spilled out. This became known to everyone who lived in Jerusalem, so that the parcel of land was called in their language ‘Akeldama,’ that is, Field of Blood.

Act 1:15-19

or these passages:

Then they crucified him and divided his garments by casting lots for them to see what each should take. It was nine o’clock in the morning when they crucified him.

Matthew 15:24-25

It was preparation day for Passover, and it was about noon. And he said to the Jews, “Behold, your king!”
They cried out, “Take him away, take him away! Crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your king?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.”
Then he handed him over to them to be crucified. So they took Jesus, and carrying the cross himself he went out to what is called the Place of the Skull, in Hebrew, Golgotha.
There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, with Jesus in the middle.

John 19:14-18.

and see no factual contradictions. The Gospel message is consisent, but historical details, such as the time of the crucifixation, who bought Potter’s Field, and how Judas died are inconsistent.