Historical Errors

[Gamera]

I have not read Father Most, but I have read similar explanations of why the various contradictions in Scripture are not really 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.

Inconsistencies are not contradictions, though. If I tell my wife that I worked today, and I tell you that I spent the day watching DVDs, my statements are inconsistent, but both can be true (I worked while watching DVDs). The statements are inconsistent (they don’t say the same thing), but they don’t contradict (it’s possible for both to be true). A contradiction would be if I told you I watched DVDs and told my wife I didn’t watch DVDs. The Bible difficulties of which I’m aware, including Judas’ death, are inconsistencies.

But you’re right, even a contradiction could be present in Scripture – inerrancy applies only to that which the author intended to communicate, not to collateral matters of expression.

 

[Rogerteder]

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.

The Pope said no error whatsoever. For example, you cant say the author erred in providing the wrong date. That would be a historical error. There must be another explanation. Pius XII’s words are quite clear. He specifically says and I quote “the sacred text contains no error whatsoever.”

 

[Rogerteder]

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:

Matthew 27:3-8

And this:

Act 1:15-19

or these passages:

Matthew 15:24-25

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.

They can all be reconciled. Read Sungenis and Most. Do yourself a favor.

 

[Gamera]

The Pope said no error whatsoever. For example, you cant say the author erred in providing the wrong date. That would be a historical error. There must be another explanation. Pius XII’s words are quite clear. He specifically says and I quote “the sacred text contains no error whatsoever.”

Really? Where? Here’s the quotation you yourself provided:

“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.”

First of all, the quotation doesn’t say “the sacred text contains no error whatsoever,” so again you’ve changed what you called “awesome words” into different words. If the Pope’s words were “awesome words,” why did you change them?

Second, the phrase you cite, “…freedom from any error whatsoever…” is part of an entire paragraph, the meaning of which says exactly what TMC and I said it did: that Scripture is free of error (historical, doctrinal, scientific) with respect to that which the inspired author intended to communicate. Your isolation of five words which change the paragraph’s meaning when taken out of context is precisly how fundamentalists read Scripture.

 

[Rogerteder]

In Humani Generis, Pius XII condemns the notion: “…immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.”

Leo XIII: “It is futile to argue that the Holy Spirit took human beings as his instruments in writing, implying that some error could slip in…For by his supernatural power he so stimulated and moved them to write, and so assisted them while they were writing, that they properly conceived in their mind, wished to write down faithfully, and expressed aptly with infallible truth all those things, and only those things, which He himself ordered; otherwise He could not Himself be the author of the whole of Sacred Scripture” (DS 3293)

Pope Pius XII, in Divino Afflante Spiritu, repeats Leo XIII decree: “It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Sacred Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.”

 

[Rogerteder]

If you are going to argue that “it is only what the author asserted is free from error” then you are going to have to say that there are statements in scripture that the author didnt intend to assert. But the teaching is clear from the above quotes that ALL of scripture is inspired and without error.

 

[Gamera]

If you are going to argue that “it is only what the author asserted is free from error” then you are going to have to say that there are statements in scripture that the author didnt intend to assert. But the teaching is clear from the above quotes that ALL of scripture is inspired and without error.

I’m not “arguing” so much as explaining Catholic doctrine. Of course ALL of Scripture is inspired. Nobody here disputes that. And yes, of course there are “statements in scripture that the author didn’t intend to assert.” That is exactly why the Church teaches as she does, that Scripture is inerrant with respect to all which the inspired author intended to assert.

Look, let’s examine an example. Matt. 27:9 attributes the quotation regarding throwing 30 pieces of silver into the potter’s field to “the prophet Jeremiah.” As you know, the prophet Jeremiah wrote no such thing. Rather, the quotation is from Zechariah 11:12-13.

By the Catholic Church’s standard, there is no problem. The inspired writer did not intend to assert that Jeremiah personally wrote the prophecy; rather, he was referring loosely to the Old Testament prophets in general. The error is wholly collateral. But by your standard (which is not the Catholic Church’s standard) there is no explanation.

 

[Gamera]

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

Interestingly, Most and Brown both are cited in the May-June 2008 “This Rock” article “Does the Bible Contain Errors?” According to the article, Father Most holds the correct position that Scripture is inerrant in all matters which the author intended to convey (which is not your position). Ray Brown holds the incorrect position that Scripture is inerrant only regarding matters of faith and morals (which is not what the Catholic Church teaches, nor is it what I have said).

Interestingly again, on page 28 the article quotes the precise “awesome words” of Pius XII which you quote above. In part the article states, “According to the Council fathers, everything the writers intended to assert, the Holy Spirit intended to assert … The principle of affirmation or assertion is important in considering the various so-called errors in Scripture, whether they be historical or scientific … the human authors, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, at times do not intend to affirm certain details to be factual or accurate,” (p. 26).

I urge you to read the “This Rock” article, which encompasses everything you’ve quoted above and shows how it correctly states the Catholic position on Scripture’s inerrancy. Inerrancy is not restricted to matters of faith and morals (Ray Brown’s incorrect position); rather, inerrancy extends to all matters which the inspired authors intended to convey (Father Most’s correct position).

 

[Rogerteder]

Interestingly, Most and Brown both are cited in the May-June 2008 “This Rock” article “Does the Bible Contain Errors?” According to the article, Father Most holds the correct position that Scripture is inerrant in all matters which the author intended to convey (which is not your position). Ray Brown holds the incorrect position that Scripture is inerrant only regarding matters of faith and morals (which is not what the Catholic Church teaches, nor is it what I have said).

Interestingly again, on page 28 the article quotes the precise “awesome words” of Pius XII which you quote above. In part the article states, “According to the Council fathers, everything the writers intended to assert, the Holy Spirit intended to assert … The principle of affirmation or assertion is important in considering the various so-called errors in Scripture, whether they be historical or scientific … the human authors, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, at times do not intend to affirm certain details to be factual or accurate,” (p. 26).

I urge you to read the “This Rock” article, which encompasses everything you’ve quoted above and shows how it correctly states the Catholic position on Scripture’s inerrancy. Inerrancy is not restricted to matters of faith and morals (Ray Brown’s incorrect position); rather, inerrancy extends to all matters which the inspired authors intended to convey (Father Most’s correct position).

No I do hold Most’s position. I have said that we have to “get” to what the writer intended to say. However, if the author intended to convey a specific date and that date appears to be wrong we cant conclude that is an error. There must be an explanation for it. I agree with Most 100000000000%.

 

[Rogerteder]

I’m not “arguing” so much as explaining Catholic doctrine. Of course ALL of Scripture is inspired. Nobody here disputes that. And yes, of course there are “statements in scripture that the author didn’t intend to assert.” That is exactly why the Church teaches as she does, that Scripture is inerrant with respect to all which the inspired author intended to assert.

Look, let’s examine an example. Matt. 27:9 attributes the quotation regarding throwing 30 pieces of silver into the potter’s field to “the prophet Jeremiah.” As you know, the prophet Jeremiah wrote no such thing. Rather, the quotation is from Zechariah 11:12-13.

By the Catholic Church’s standard, there is no problem. The inspired writer did not intend to assert that Jeremiah personally wrote the prophecy; rather, he was referring loosely to the Old Testament prophets in general. The error is wholly collateral. But by your standard (which is not the Catholic Church’s standard) there is no explanation.

No there you are proving my point. You cannot assert that the author intended to say that Jeremiah wrote that (30 pieces of silver) in his book(at least the book we have in the old testament) You must conclude otherwise. You cannot conclude that is an error. There are a number of solutions for this problem.

here are a few… READ SUNGENIS AND MOST!!!

i. This speaks prophetically of Jesus, who was contemptuously betrayed for thirty pieces of silver (Matthew 26:15 and 27:3) - the price of a slave.

ii. Matthew 27:9-10 says: Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel priced, and gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me.” This is a problem because clearly Zechariah records the passage mentioned in Matthew 27:9-10. There are generally three solutions offered for this problem:

· Some think it is an error but not by Matthew - an early copyist made a mistake. Perhaps Matthew wrote Zechariah, but an early copyist put Jeremiah instead

· Some think that Jeremiah spoke this prophecy and Zechariah recorded it. This may be the word spoken by Jeremiah, but recorded by Zechariah

· Some think that Matthew refers to scroll of Jeremiah, which included the book of Zechariah

tHE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT YOU CAN’T ASSERT THAT THE AUTHOR COMMITTED AN ERROR.

 

[Gamera]

No there you are proving my point. You cannot assert that the author intended to say that Jeremiah wrote that (30 pieces of silver) in his book(at least the book we have in the old testament) You must conclude otherwise. You cannot conclude that is an error. There are a number of solutions for this problem… tHE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT YOU CAN’T ASSERT THAT THE AUTHOR COMMITTED AN ERROR.

You keep changing it. This is what you said above.

If you are going to argue that “it is only what the author asserted is free from error” then you are going to have to say that there are statements in scripture that the author didnt intend to assert. But the teaching is clear from the above quotes that ALL of scripture is inspired and without error.

You just said two different things. In the first post you basically condede that not everything stated in Scripture is intended by the inspired author as an assertion. In the second (earlier) post, you essentially deny that there are statements in Scripture which the author didn’t intend to assert. That is not the Catholic position.

 

[Contarini]

I urge you to read the “This Rock” article, which encompasses everything you’ve quoted above and shows how it correctly states the Catholic position on Scripture’s inerrancy. Inerrancy is not restricted to matters of faith and morals (Ray Brown’s incorrect position); rather, inerrancy extends to all matters which the inspired authors intended to convey (Father Most’s correct position).

And you are welcome to hold this view. But it’s important to underline that there’s no evidence that recent Popes agree with you. Pope Benedict has spoken very highly of Brown’s scholarship.

Certainly the Church has not infallibly endorsed Brown’s ideas. But all the evidence indicates that the bishops in communion with Rome regard Brown’s ideas as respectable and legitimate options within Catholic biblical scholarship. If you know of evidence to the contrary–evidence relating specifically to Brown and in response to his work–please share it.

Edwin

 

[TMC]

They can all be reconciled. Read Sungenis and Most. Do yourself a favor.

I have not read Most or Sungenis’ books, but I have read Sungenis’ website and also some of what others claim are Most’s explanations. They are simply not convincing.

For example, as I understand it the reconciliation of Judas’ death goes like this: Matthew says Judas hung himself and the priests used the blood money to buy a field Luke says Judas fell and died on property he bought with the same blood money. Clearly the the two accounts differ on factual matters. The “explanation” is that the priests bought the field with Judas’ blood money but that Luke still considered it Judas’ purchase for some reason. Judas then hung himself on the property the priests bought as a foreigner’s cemetary (of course Judas was no foreigner). The hanging did not kill Judas, instead the rope broke and it was the fall from the rope that actually killed him (but for some reason Luke describes this as falling headlong, and doesn’t mention the hanging).

I really don’t care who bought the field, and I don’t think it makes one jot of difference, but I don’t see how this kind of “explaining” is helpful. Sungenis says “with a little work and imagination the alleged errors of Scripture can be explained.” This kind of imaginative work is not explanation, its rewriting. Ironically, this method abandons all pre-text of literal inerrancy in an attempt to salvage literal inerrancy.

I’ll stick with the Church’s viewpoint on this one.

 

[Rogerteder]

You keep changing it. This is what you said above.

You just said two different things. In the first post you basically condede that not everything stated in Scripture is intended by the inspired author as an assertion. In the second (earlier) post, you essentially deny that there are statements in Scripture which the author didn’t intend to assert. That is not the Catholic position.

I didnt say two different things. If the author writes something he is asserting that point. We have to get to what the author meant. There is no error once we arrive at the intended meaning.

Ok let’s keep it simple–yes or no—Can scripture give the wrong date as to when a historical event occured? Could the author say that, "King Jerome (just an example) reigned in 56 bc- 46 bc when he in fact reigned from 54 bc - 45 bc? Can we conclude that that is an error?

 

[Gamera]

I didnt say two different things. If the author writes something he is asserting that point. We have to get to what the author meant. There is no error once we arrive at the intended meaning.

Ok let’s keep it simple–yes or no—Can scripture give the wrong date as to when a historical event occured? Could the author say that, "King Jerome (just an example) reigned in 56 bc- 46 bc when he in fact reigned from 54 bc - 45 bc? Can we conclude that that is an error?

No, the dates cannot be wrong if the inspired author intended to assert them as historical fact. Yes, the dates can be wrong if it was not the inspired author’s intention to assert them as historical fact.

Great example, because it’s very similar to the example used in the May-June 2008 “This Rock” article I mention above. The example used there is Mark 2:26 (referring to David entering the house of God “when Abiathar was high priest,” when in fact 1 Sam 21:1 shows Abiathar was not the high priest, but his father Ahimelech). As the article explains, Mark’s intention is to refer to the general time period in question by the better-known Abiathar rather than the relatively obscure Ahimelech. It isn’t Mark’s intention to claim that Abiathar literally was the person occupying the office of high priest at the time, but rather, to make a familiar reference that would capture the audience’s attention. That is a superb example of how Scripture is inerrant (historically, scientifically, and doctrinally) only with respect to that which the inspired author intended to assert.

 

[MonkeyTape]

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.

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.

That sounds fair enough to me, I haven’t read Dei Verbum in a few years. I would say, however, that there are likely very few times when the writers concerned themselves with much by way of strict science and history.

 

[Rogerteder]

No, the dates cannot be wrong if the inspired author intended to assert them as historical fact. Yes, the dates can be wrong if it was not the inspired author’s intention to assert them as historical fact.

Great example, because it’s very similar to the example used in the May-June 2008 “This Rock” article I mention above. The example used there is Mark 2:26 (referring to David entering the house of God “when Abiathar was high priest,” when in fact 1 Sam 21:1 shows Abiathar was not the high priest, but his father Ahimelech). As the article explains, Mark’s intention is to refer to the general time period in question by the better-known Abiathar rather than the relatively obscure Ahimelech. It isn’t Mark’s intention to claim that Abiathar literally was the person occupying the office of high priest at the time, but rather, to make a familiar reference that would capture the audience’s attention. That is a superb example of how Scripture is inerrant (historically, scientifically, and doctrinally) only with respect to that which the inspired author intended to assert.

Ok I agree with that. That is what I have been saying. Once we arrive at the author’s intention there is no error.

 

[MonkeyTape]

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.

I haven’t had the chance to read Dei Verbum yet, however a question occured to me. If we accept that whatever the authors intended to convey is infallibly conveyed, then how does one determine what the author intended to convey? We can’t just say what historical facts we know to be correct were divinely inspired, they may afterall just be correct.

I suppose we would have Holy Mother Church, however, I can’t think of a particular historical fact that has been declared infallible myself. The Church has decalred that Adam and Eve were real individuals from which we are all descended, but this isn’t about historical fact it is about conveyence of Orginal Sin - etc.

Thoughts?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Genuine question (i.e no hidden agenda)!

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

St. Luke appears to have made a number of errors, but that is not a problem ​

Christian Faith is in Christ: not in the errorlessness of the Bible. If the Bible were pitted with blunders in every verse, it would not be any less the Word of God. When salvation is by the accuracy of St. Luke, I’ll begin to worry. But salvation is by Christ - so there is no need to worry

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

And you are welcome to hold this view. But it’s important to underline that there’s no evidence that recent Popes agree with you. Pope Benedict has spoken very highly of Brown’s scholarship.

Certainly the Church has not infallibly endorsed Brown’s ideas. But all the evidence indicates that the bishops in communion with Rome regard Brown’s ideas as respectable and legitimate options within Catholic biblical scholarship. If you know of evidence to the contrary–evidence relating specifically to Brown and in response to his work–please share it.

Edwin

Don’t hold your breath It’s very brave of you to get involved in this kind of thing, IMO ​