How do we understand Biblical Inerrancy?

[Windfish]

What does it mean for the Bible to be “without error?”

I will give you an example. In Luke’s Gospel, a paralytic is helped through a tile roof so that he could be healed by Jesus. However, there were no tiled roofs in Palestine in that time. They were, however, common in Rome and Greece. The Bible itself notes this - in Matthew’s Gospel, the roof is “opened up” as if it were made of straw, which is more historically accurate. The typical explanation is that Luke, being a Roman, accommodated his non-Jewish readers with language and imagery they could better understand. Fair enough, I suppose. But where does that leave Biblical Inerrancy? Luke is still in error, whether he intends it or not.

 

[Elizium23]

Sacred Scripture is infallible on the topic of faith and morals. That is as far as Catholic teaching goes. Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit and useful for teaching the faith, not as a scientific or historical document.

 

[JM3]

What does it mean for the Bible to be “without error?”

I will give you an example. In Luke’s Gospel, a paralytic is helped through a tile roof so that he could be healed by Jesus. However, there were no tiled roofs in Palestine in that time. They were, however, common in Rome and Greece. The Bible itself notes this - in Matthew’s Gospel, the roof is “opened up” as if it were made of straw, which is more historically accurate. The typical explanation is that Luke, being a Roman, accommodated his non-Jewish readers with language and imagery they could better understand. Fair enough, I suppose. But where does that leave Biblical Inerrancy? Luke is still in error, whether he intends it or not.

Luke is not in error. The material of the roof is not a part of the truth of the gospels. Read them again. Matthew 9:2 does not mention a roof. Mark 2:3 does not mention the material of the roof. So where did you come up with ‘straw’ and how is it ‘more historically accurate’?

 

[Windfish]

Sacred Scripture is infallible on the topic of faith and morals. That is as far as Catholic teaching goes. Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit and useful for teaching the faith, not as a scientific or historical document.

I do not know if this is, in fact, the Catholic teaching, but is it not true that our faith involves certain historical truths? It is a matter of historical fact, for example, that Jesus lived, died, and resurrected from the dead. Shouldn’t the Bible, which relays these facts, should be historically “infallible” (I think the correct word is “inerrant”)? Mind you, I am only trying to understand the teaching more clearly and honestly. I am not debating you.

 

[Windfish]

Luke is not in error. The material of the roof is not a part of the truth of the gospels. Read them again. Matthew 9:2 does not mention a roof. Mark 2:3 does not mention the material of the roof. So where did you come up with ‘straw’ and how is it ‘more historically accurate’?

Huh, I may be wrong about Matthew, then. I tried to find the verses I was talking about, but I couldn’t find them.

According to this link, though:

tektonics.org/harmonize/gospelculture.html

Tiled roofs were only a feature of Greek and Roman houses.

 

[JM3]

Huh, I may be wrong about Matthew, then. I tried to find the verses I was talking about, but I couldn’t find them.

According to this link, though:

tektonics.org/harmonize/gospelculture.html

Tiled roofs were only a feature of Greek and Roman houses.

6 of one, half dozen of the other. If 10 people see an event, you will have 10 different views of that event. If the 10 views do not exactly agree, does that mean the event did not happen as each saw it?

Does the material of the roof change the truth of the Bible?

 

[Apollos]

…there were no tiled roofs in Palestine in that time. They were, however, common in Rome and Greece…

Um … no, there are plenty of examples of Roman architectural engineering in Judea. And this was a big house, so probably Roman style. (Besides, *keramos *could be dried clay or tiles.)

 

[Pieman333272]

I always understood it as inspiration, not inerrancy, so stories can be allegorical or mythological if there’s some deeper meaning behind it, usually moral or spiritual. That which cannot possibly be allegorical (i.e. Jesus’ presence as a real man in Judea) are ruled as such through the Church.

 

[Windfish]

I always understood it as inspiration, not inerrancy, so stories can be allegorical or mythological if there’s some deeper meaning behind it, usually moral or spiritual. That which cannot possibly be allegorical (i.e. Jesus’ presence as a real man in Judea) are ruled as such through the Church.

Well, the doctrine of inerrancy follows from the doctrine of inspiration. I just would like to have a more fleshed out understanding of the former.

 

[thistle]

What does it mean for the Bible to be “without error?”

I will give you an example. In Luke’s Gospel, a paralytic is helped through a tile roof so that he could be healed by Jesus. However, there were no tiled roofs in Palestine in that time. They were, however, common in Rome and Greece. The Bible itself notes this - in Matthew’s Gospel, the roof is “opened up” as if it were made of straw, which is more historically accurate. The typical explanation is that Luke, being a Roman, accommodated his non-Jewish readers with language and imagery they could better understand. Fair enough, I suppose. But where does that leave Biblical Inerrancy? Luke is still in error, whether he intends it or not.

The Bible is inerrant with regard to the truths necessary for our salvation.
What type of roof is on a house is totally irrelevant and has nothing to do with our salvation.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Well, the doctrine of inerrancy follows from the doctrine of inspiration. I just would like to have a more fleshed out understanding of the former.

Greetings in the LORD, Windfish!

Inspiration of the Bible is a very helpful article on inspiration and inerrancy.

The Church has more than once rejected the notion that inerrancy is limited to treatments of faith, morals, religious matters, God, and salvation.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission is currently working on a document about inspiration and inerrancy, so you’ll want to keep an eye out for that. My guess is that it may be a couple of years before its release.

Sir William Ramsay discusses the roof issue in his book, , Ch. 3Was Christ Born in Bethlehem, and has this to say about it:

“Luke, although he interprets a single Semitic word occasionally, would not spare time and space enough for a more elaborate description of details, which were, in his estimation, unimportant. His readers were familiar with a different kind of house, covered with tiles, and having a hole (impluvium) in the roof of the principal chamber (atrium), where the company would be assembled. To turn aside from his proper subject and describe differences of architecture would have distracted attention from the really important facts. As has been often pointed out (e.g., St. Paul the Traveller, p. 17). Luke never describes such features, but leaves his readers to imagine for themselves from their own knowledge the surroundings amid which his story was enacted.”

And as was already pointed out in this thread, there may be better solutions.

But if, in the final analysis, the Biblical authors used words that describe two different types of architecture, then we would rightly believe that they did not intend for us to interpret their words to this level of specificity, but that they were simply using the words necessary to convey the basic message that a man was lowered through a roof. For a fuller explanation of this way of understanding the evangelists when they seem to differ on the fact, see Augustine’s concluding paragraph of , Bk. 2, Ch. 12The Harmony of the Gospels.

Your brother in the LORD,
Pete

 

[Pieman333272]

Here’s a question I’ve been having: How does God actually inspire people? I mean, if they got all the information they put in the Gospels by interviewing the Apostles, how did God do anything? Did he just tell them to write it down, or something else?

 

[lacivit]

The reference to “roof tiles” is a clear indication that the anonymous author of “Luke” isn’t actually from that area.

One of the major blunders by “Luke” is the claim for a census. 2 major errors.

1. There is no Roman record of ANY universal census taking place until the reign of Vespasian until 74 C.E.
2. There is no Roman record of any census requirement to go back to your hometown.
   “Everyone went to his own town to be registered” Luke 2:3

The purpose of a census was to collect taxes. Going back to your own town would be totally unnecessary. Also, any state that had it’s own King, would be responsible for collecting their own taxes and then subsequently handing over to Rome it’s share.
Judea was a client Roman state and therefore responsible for collecting it’s own taxes.

It is quite clear to this critical reader of the NT that the “census” as described was inserted to make the claim that “Jesus” was prophesied by the OT. In other words, “Jesus” had to be from Bethlehem.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Here’s a question I’ve been having: How does God actually inspire people? I mean, if they got all the information they put in the Gospels by interviewing the Apostles, how did God do anything? Did he just tell them to write it down, or something else?

Hello, brother!

Inspiration is usually taken to be a miraculous action of God. It is specifically the action of the Holy Spirit working in and around the person at the time of inscripturation that makes both the human author and the final written text “inspired” in such a way that the words written are not just human, but God’s very own words. 2 Timothy 3:16 says that Scripture itself is “Godbreathed” and 2 Peter 1:21 indicates that this Godbreathed Scripture is produced by the human authors as they are “carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

Peter said that “the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David” (Acts 1:16) and that “God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets long ago” (Acts 3:21). Again, the disciples prayed to “the Sovereign Lord… Who through the mouth of our father David, Your servant, said by the Holy Spirit, ‘Why did the Gentiles rage…’ ” (Acts 4:24-25). In these examples we see that what is spoken by God the Holy Spirit and what is preserved in the written text of Scripture are identifiable with each other. They help us to understand what Paul means when he says that “all Scripture is Godbreathed.”

Inspiration always has the same final result of something that has been dictated, although inspiration does not always employ the mode of dictation to arrive at that final result.

I hope that helps!

Your brother in the LORD,
Pete

 

[Pieman333272]

Hello, brother!

Inspiration is usually taken to be a miraculous action of God. It is specifically the action of the Holy Spirit working in and around the person at the time of inscripturation that makes both the human author and the final written text “inspired” in such a way that the words written are not just human, but God’s very own words. 2 Timothy 3:16 says that Scripture itself is “Godbreathed” and 2 Peter 1:21 indicates that this Godbreathed Scripture is produced by the human authors as they are “carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

Peter said that “the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David” (Acts 1:16) and that “God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets long ago” (Acts 3:21). Again, the disciples prayed to “the Sovereign Lord… Who through the mouth of our father David, Your servant, said by the Holy Spirit, ‘Why did the Gentiles rage…’ ” (Acts 4:24-25). In these examples we see that what is spoken by God the Holy Spirit and what is preserved in the written text of Scripture are identifiable with each other. They help us to understand what Paul means when he says that “all Scripture is Godbreathed.”

Inspiration always has the same final result of something that has been dictated, although inspiration does not always employ the mode of dictation to arrive at that final result.

I hope that helps!

Your brother in the LORD,
Pete

Thanks for the info, but maybe I should clarify, as I feel you missed one of my questions:

What implications would the Gospel authors receiving he information neither from their own eyes nor God’s dictations (such as a speech by Paul or “Q”) have on divine inspiration? The reason I ask is because a lot of mainstream scholarship suggests that at least one of the Gospels draws on a source besides memory or divine.

 

[Pete_Holter]

1. There is no Roman record of any census requirement to go back to your hometown.

It is quite clear to this critical reader of the NT that the “census” as described was inserted to make the claim that “Jesus” was prophesied by the OT. In other words, “Jesus” had to be from Bethlehem.

Hello, my friend!

Have you read Ramsay’s book that I mentioned above? It was written to address this topic.

I don’t understand why you would say that the author inserted a census into his narrative in order to get Jesus to Bethlehem when, according to you, such censuses as Luke described never took place. Why not just have Mary and Joseph start at Bethlehem if that’s what the author wanted to prove? If the objection to this is to say that Luke needs Jesus to be “of Nazareth,” I would respond by saying that Matthew doesn’t mention that Jesus’ parents were living in Nazareth before His birth, and yet this was no obstacle to Jesus being known as “of Nazareth” (Matthew 26:71; cf. 21:11) in his Gospel. Luke could have done the same. If families never moved back to their hometowns for Roman censuses, then why again use a census as the cause of the move? To do so would seem to create more problems than it solves.

The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible has a little article on this question. There is also an article in the old Catholic Encyclopedia that may help.

Why aren’t you Catholic, my friend? Is there something I can pray for?

In Christ,
Pete

 

[Pete_Holter]

Thanks for the info, but maybe I should clarify, as I feel you missed one of my questions:

What implications would the Gospel authors receiving he information neither from their own eyes nor God’s dictations (such as a speech by Paul or “Q”) have on divine inspiration? The reason I ask is because a lot of mainstream scholarship suggests that at least one of the Gospels draws on a source besides memory or divine.

Oh, I’m sorry.

If a biblical author copied from a noninspired source, inspiration would have its operation in the work of the author drawing from that source and in putting it down in his own writing. This is because it is not necessarily what is said that makes something inspired, but the process through which it is said that makes something inspired. Pius XII said that if “the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents” (Humani Generis).

With the love of Christ,
Pete

 

[lacivit]

Q, or “source” in German is the likely template for the gospel known as " Mark".
Matthew and Luke wrote to correct certain “errors” and add some different intrepretations to the story. “John” made “Jesus” into “God” since he clearly didn’t come back in the lifetime of those alive at the time.

In a nutshell, “Matthew” and “Luke” copied most of " Mark". The count in Matthew is about 600 verses out of 660 or so are virtually identical.

 

[Pieman333272]

Q, or “source” in German is the likely template for the gospel known as " Mark".

I’m agnostic towards Q, but if it were to exist, and I’m not saying it does, then it would have absolutely no effect on Mark. The Q Hypothesis, unless you are operating on some radical skeptic scholar’s view, is applied to Matt. and Luke, not Mark.

Matthew and Luke wrote to correct certain “errors” and add some different intrepretations to the story.

They added details. That’s all. Unless source criticism is wrong, of course, then your hypothesis shatters.

“John” made “Jesus” into “God”

Pauline Tradition is the oldest written record of Jesus as God('s Son). The Synoptics imply it and John makes it more clear, in part because it was written against unorthodox interpretation of scripture.

since he clearly didn’t come back in the lifetime of those alive at the time.

When did Jesus promise the second coming in the lives of the 12?

In a nutshell, “Matthew” and “Luke” copied most of " Mark". The count in Matthew is about 600 verses out of 660 or so are virtually identical.

So what? Your radical source criticism doesn’t have anything on Christianity.

 

[lacivit]

“Q” if there was a “Q” is the likely source for “Mark” the first gospel written. Matthew and Luke were written afterwards, using “Mark” as their source .

Matthew and Luke changed some things that were clearly in error in Mark. They were not original works but simply a “reworking” of Mark. Your hypothesis considers Matthew and Luke as eyewitnesses which they clearly were not. In fact, these gospels were likely written 10-20 years at least after Mark. John was likely written some 30-50 years after Mark. Mark is generally thought to have been written around 70-75 CE at the earliest, perhaps later.

“The Q Hypothesis, unless you are operating on some radical skeptic scholar’s view”

Radical scholar’s view? Perhaps you should substitute the word “unbiased” for “radical scholar”.

MARK 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Doesn’t get more clear and concise than this. “John” fixed this false prophecy by converting "“Jesus” into “God” himself.

Paul’s authentic letter’s do not say that Jesus is “God”. The “Son of God” doesn’t equate to “God” himself. There were plenty of other “Sons of God” in mythology. Paul being a diaspora Jew was very familiar with the pagan religion “sons of God”. His “Jesus” was simply a Jewish version of the same.

In my view, if there was an actual man behind the story, he was simply just another apocalyptic end times false preacher.