Inerrancy

[itsjustdave1988]

SaintJVMan,

Given the context of the above magisterial texts and the current teaching of the Church, as explained above, the following questions can be answered with moral certainty…

**Does inerrancy extend to the whole of the sacred text, including historical details when the sacred writer meant to give an historical account?
**
When the sacred writer intended to affirm history, then, yes, that which he affirmed is without error.

Does this apply only to the originals?

Only the “genuine passage of the sacred writings" ,”**the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error." (Providentissimus Deus). Such passages are referred to as “critically accurate.” The Catholic Church describes later manuscripts, such as the Latin Vulgate, as authentic as well. The Church does not mean that the Latin Vulgate exactly matches the original autograph, thus the Latin Vulgate is not asserted to be “critically accurate” in all its passages. Instead the Church intends that the Latin Vulgate is “juridically accurate.” That is, the Vulgate faithfully represents the original intent of the sacred authors, when the manuscript is authentically interpreted by the Catholic Magisterium, even though the manuscript may be inexact if one could compare them to the original autographs.

The notion of critical accuracy is a problem of Sola Scripturists who discount any authority excepting the Bible. It is not, however, a problem of Catholics, who accept the authority of the Church’s interpretation of Scripture, and are not so bound to critical accuracy of a particular manuscript, which is always rather speculative given that we do not have the original autographs extant.

**The claims by many that inerrancy extends only to faith and morals. **… Have been forever condemned by the Catholic Church.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Said alternatively, from *This Rock *(1991)…
newadvent.org/library/almanac_thisrock91.htm

I read a book by a scripture scholar who said the Bible is inerrant only in religious matters that pertain to our salvation. He quoted Vatican II as the source of this “limited inerrancy” doctrine.

The documents of Vatican II don’t limit biblical inerrancy to religious truths necessary for salvation or even to religious matters in general.

The Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum), states, “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 the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation” (no. 11).

Proponents of “limited inerrancy” claim this last clause is restrictive: Inerrancy extends only to things pertaining to our salvation. Whether or not this is the case (such a reading isn’t required by the Latin), the “limited inerrancy” position is still weak.

First, even granting (though not conceding) that Dei Verbum restricts inerrancy to matters of salvation, this isn’t the same as limiting it to religious or moral truths. Historical or scientific assertions made “for the sake of our salvation” would be inerrant too.

Second, the theological commission at the Council stated that the term salutaris (“for the sake of our salvation”) doesn’t mean only the salvific truths of the Bible are inspired or that the Bible as a whole isn’t the Word of God. (See A. Grillmeier’s “The Divine Inspiration and Interpretation of Sacred Scripture” in H. Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, vol. III, p. 213.)

If the whole of Scripture is inspired, and if what the biblical writer asserts the Holy Spirit asserts, then, unless error is to be attributed to the Holy Spirit or unless the biblical authors assert only religious truths (which isn’t the case–some make historical assertions, such as the historical existence of Jesus), inerrancy can’t be limited to religious truths.

Third, the language of Dei Verbum no. 11 is taken directly from previous conciliar and papal teaching on the subject. The footnotes to this section refer to Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus and Pius XII’s Divino Afflante Spiritu, documents which reject the idea that inerrancy is limited to religious matters. It seems unlikely the Council would be teaching a position contrary to these documents.

Although inerrancy isn’t limited to religious truths which pertain to salvation but may include non-religious assertions by the biblical authors, this doesn’t mean Scripture is an inspired textbook of science or history. Inerrancy extends to what the biblical writers intend to teach, not necessarily to what they assume or presuppose or what isn’t integral to what they assert. In order to distinguish these things, scholars must examine the kind of writing or literary genre the biblical writers employ.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

SaintJVMan:

For the past few days I’ve been in a dialogue with a number of Protestants, about inspiration, and Inerrancy, of scripture. To some extant I’ve been hindered by the apparent lack of an authoritative definition about the nature of Inerrancy./quote]

**## Protestant ? **

**Try the “Lausanne Declaration” - it’s long since I read it, but I think that is the name. **

A venerated pair of sources for Calvinists especially are:

B.B. Warfield
Charles Hodge

Their theologies of inspiration are major influences on Protestant Fundamentalist thinking on these matters. (Leo XIII and Warfield could almost have been cribbing from one another - their ideas are amost identical.)

I’ve found a large number of resources from Catholic sites, all claiming to represent authentic Catholic doctrine, all citing the same sources and quoting the same people but coming to very different conclusions. The best that I’ve been able to come up with, concerning the position that I’ve been arguing is that it may be insufficient. Since I of course will submit to any authoritative declaration from the Church, I would appreciate any help, particularly any thing that I can read online to provide clarification.

Some of the specific questions that have come up are:

Does inerrancy extend to the whole of the sacred text, including historical details when the sacred writer meant to give an historical account?

Does this apply only to the originals?

## Warfield would say “Yes” to both. ##

The claims by many that inerrancy extends only to faith and morals.

If inspiration extends to the complete text, how it is that inerrancy can pertain only to matters of faith and morals.

 

[patg]

itsjustdave1988:

When the sacred writer intended to affirm history, then, yes, that which he affirmed is without error.

But most of the time even the simplest examination of the literary form of the writing clearly indicates that the author did not intend history.

**

The claims by many that inerrancy extends only to faith and morals.

… Have been forever condemned by the Catholic Church.**Then what is condemned is nearly nothing since there are so few passages which are clearly literal history based on the process of historical and literary analysis promoted by the church documents you have referenced.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**## How does inerrancy apply to non-assertions ? Is “Oh, Absalom, my son, would to God I had died for thee, oh Absalom my son” covered ? What is inerrant about it ? A wail of grief is not a theological or other proposition. **

**IOW - where no assertion is made, no judgement of factuality - or of non-factuality - is made; and where there is no such judgement, there is no error or non-error. **

Besides, many such judgements are neither wrong nor right: “I think Loch Ness is beautiful” is aesthetic - not right or wrong. That does not make it a useless or meaningless judgement.

**Inerrancy is too rigid a notion to fit the Bible: Leo XIII’s notion of the Bible is too remote from what the Bible is, to be really useful, because it is too Platonising, too abstract from the gritty detail. **

So, inerrancy needs to be reconsidered, if it is to apply to the entire body of texts. ##

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Patg,

But most of the time even the simplest examination of the literary form of the writing clearly indicates that the author did not intend history.

You mean like the historicity of the infancy narratives? The Church clearly disagrees with you. Can it be that your “simple” examinations are untrustworthy? I go with Church teachings. It’s kind of a Catholic ‘oath’ thing.

Then what is condemned is nearly nothing …

Any “material limitation” to inspiration and inerrancy is clearly condemend by the Church. If it is “nothing” then I suggest you cease in asserting such a heretical view of Scripture.

Any view of inerrancy and inspiration, if it is to be authentically Catholic, cannot accept the notion that inerrancy is materially limited to matters of “faith and morals.” You keep pushing for a doctrine that has already been condemend by the Church, which indicates that you don’t understand Catholicism very well. Catholicism never re-asserts that which has been definitively condemned. That’s what the axiom, “Rome has spoken, the matter is finished” means.

Rejecting material limitation on inerrancy tells us positiviely, that it is not permissible to state, “The Bible has erred.” We can say that our understanding is erroneous, but never that the sacred writer has errored. This is significant, as it rejects the thesis that Matthew made a mistake in asserting the virginity of Mary based upon theories of mistranslated Septuagint passages. It doesn’t matter if the Jew centuries before the advent of Christianity mistranslated “young woman” to “virgin” when translating the Hebrew into Greek, because Matthew was not relying upon merely a manuscript, but was inspired to use the very word he infant used in Greek, which meant “virgin.”

The moment anyone arrogantly asserts the actual material of the Bible is mistaken, that the writer made a mistake, they assert heresy. So, Catholicism rejects the “Jesus Seminar” as it is based on an a priori view that the inspired words of Scripture may have not been apostolic teaching, or an a posteriori view that concludes “scientifically” this verse is a a later “interpolation” or corruption of the original teachings of Christ, while that verse is not. Such a view of inspiration and inerrancy is heretical.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

GottleofGeer,

How does inerrancy apply to non-assertions ? Is “Oh, Absalom, my son, would to God I had died for thee, oh Absalom my son” covered ? What is inerrant about it ? A wail of grief is not a theological or other proposition.

What was the sacred writer’s intent? To affirm to the reader of Holy Write that there was indeed a wail of grief? Was the writer in error when asserting that King David was grief stricken? The answers of exegesis are not positively fixed by Catholic dogma. Yet, the wrong answer often is positively condemned by Catholic dogma. The wrong answer in this an all “scientific” exegetical conclusions is that there are errors in the Bible.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

GottleofGeer,

Here’s another example of the wrong answer. Fr. Raymond Brown asserts that the sacred writer of Job made a “religous error.” Fr. Brown believes the sacred writer rejects the afterlife.

Yet, this is a false conclusion, in my opinion, which Fr. Brown seems to have arrived at because he rejects (against Catholic doctrine) the a priori view of the inerrant character of Holy Writ.

Where does the writer of Job reject the afterlife?

Seems to me the person Job questions it, but then later convincingly affirms that he will indeed see his Redeemer in the afterlife. Observe,

---

Consider the Catholic The Jerusalem Bible translation:

Job 14:10-14 "But Man? He dies, and lifeless he remains; man breathes his last, and then where is he? The waters of the seas may disappear, all the rivers may run dry or drain away; but man, once in his resting place, will never rise again. The heavens will wear away before he wakes, before he rises from his sleep. If only would hide me in Sheol, and shelter me there until your anger is past, fixing a certain day for calling me to mind–for once a man is dead can he came back to life?–day after day of my service I would wait for my relief to come."

From the Catholic New American Bible translation:

Job 14:12-14: “So men lie down and rise not again. Till the heavens are no more, they shall not awake, nor be roused out of their sleep. Oh, that you would hide me in the nether world and keep me shelteredtill your wrath is past; would fix a time for me, and then remember me! When a man has died, were he to live again, all the days of my drudgery I would wait, until my relief should come. "

Consider also the translation from the Catholic Douay-Rheims translation:

Job 14:10-14: "But man when he shall be dead, and stripped and consumed, I pray you where is he? As if the waters should depart out of the sea, and an emptied river should be dried up: So man when he is fallen asleep shall not rise again; till the heavens be broken, he shall not awake, nor rise up out of his sleep. Who will grant me this, that thou mayst protect me in hell, and hide me till thy wrath pass, and appoint me a time when thou wilt remember me? Shall man that is dead, thinkest thou, live again? all the days in which I am now in warfare, I expect until my change come. Thou shalt call me, and I will answer thee: to the work of thy hands thou shalt reach out thy right hand.

---

The commentary of the Douay-Rheims Bible states: “13 ‘That thou mayst protect me in hell’… That is, in the state of the dead; and in the place where the souls are kept waiting for their Redeemer.” Seems to me the author of Job is not denying the afterlife, but after questioning it, he affirms that man may live again after death, to descend into *limbus paternum *(“limbo of the fathers”) where the souls are kept awaiting their Redeemer.

According to Protestant historical-critical exegete Bruce Metzger, from his *New Oxford Annotated Bible, *commenting upon Job 14:13-14: "Job toys with the idea of respite in Sheol, hidden from Divine wrath that would eventually pass away. Finally God would call him and cover over his iniquity!"

to be continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued …

The hope expressed in Job 14:13-14 of an afterlife gradually becomes more absolute and, in Job 19:23-27, it takes the form of a definite certainty that he will see God, his Redeemer:

Job 19:25-26 (Jerusalem Bible): “This I know: that my Avenger lives, and he, the Last, will take his stand on earth. After my awaking, he will set me close to him and from my flesh I shall look on God”

Job 19:23-27 (NAB) "Oh, would that my words were written down! Would that they were inscribed in a record: That with an iron chisel and with lead they were cut in the rock forever! But as for me, I know that my Vindicator lives, and that he will at last stand forth upon the dust; And from my flesh I shall see God; my inmost being is consumed with longing. Whom I myself shall see: my own eyes, not another’s, shall behold him"

NAB commentary: [25, 27] The meaning of this passage is obscure because the original text has been poorly preserved and the ancient versions do not agree among themselves. It is certain that Job expresses his belief in a future vindication by God (called here in the Hebrew “Goel”), but the time and manner of this vindication are undefined. In the Vulgate Job is made to indicate a belief in physical resurrection after death, but the Hebrew and the other ancient versions are less specific.

And from the Douay-Rhiems Bible:

Job 19:23-27 "Who will grant me that my words may be written? Who will grant me that they may be marked down in a book? With an iron pen and in a plate of lead, or else be graven with an instrument in flint stone. *For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and in the last day I shall rise out of the earth. And I shall be clothed again with my skin, and in my flesh I will see my God. Whom I myself shall see, and my eyes shall behold, and not another: this my hope is laid up in my bosom. *From the commentary of the Douay-Rhiems Bible: “25 ‘I know that my Redeemer liveth’… Ver. 25, 26, and 27 shew Job’s explicit belief in his Redeemer, and also of the resurrection of the flesh, not as one tree riseth in place of another, but that the selfsame flesh shall rise at the last day, by the power of God, changed in quality but not in substance, every one to receive sentence according to his works in this life.”

And from Protestant historical-critical exegete Bruce Metzger’s *New Annotated Oxford Bible, *the commentary on Job 19:23-27: "Job makes an act of faith in a Redeemer … and that he claims he shall see God with his eyes (affirmed three times)… Job makes the magnificent affirmation that his justice will be recognized (therefore, ultimately by God) … the rendering of [verse 26] in the NRSV would allow the possibility of a resurrected Job."

It seems to me that Fr. Brown’s assertion that the sacred writer of Job made a “religious error” is itself heretical and entirely unproved by the Sacred Text, even in the opinion of other highly regarded historical-critical exegetes.

What did the sacred writer affirm? The answer is not always known with certainty for every verse of Scripture. However, the wrong answer is known and condemend with certainty by Catholicism. The sacred writer is inspired, and as such, all that he affirms is immune from every error. Views to the contrary are opposed to Catholic dogma, and as such are condemned as heretical.

 

[patg]

itsjustdave1988:

Patg, You mean like the historicity of the infancy narratives?

Yes, that is one of the many obvious examples of non-history.

The Church clearly disagrees with you…Any “material limitation” to inspiration and inerrancy is clearly condemend by the Church. If it is “nothing” then I suggest you cease in asserting such a heretical view of Scripture.

The actual teaching church today totally agrees with me. Yes, there are documents you can quote which disagree. But I can quote sections of the same documents to support my belief. I can also read any number of catholic books by catholic authors, published by catholic publishers which agree with me. I can take any number of catholic adult ed classes today - and they all agree with me.

You really don’t have a leg to stand on - the church has moved way beyond the literalist interpretations into real meaning - and I’ll take the real meaning anytime.

Any view of inerrancy and inspiration, if it is to be authentically Catholic, cannot accept the notion that inerrancy is materially limited to matters of “faith and morals.” You keep pushing for a doctrine that has already been condemend by the Church, which indicates that you don’t understand Catholicism very well.

It isn’t condemned… it is promoted and taught quite widely even in the ultra-traditional area I live in. The truth has set me free.

Catholicism never re-asserts that which has been definitively condemned. That’s what the axiom, “Rome has spoken, the matter is finished” means.

I assume Gallileo and Corpernicus would re-phrase this as “Rome has spoken on something it knows nothing about, they’ll come to their senses eventually.”

Rejecting material limitation on inerrancy tells us positiviely, that it is not permissible to state, “The Bible has erred.” We can say that our understanding is erroneous,

I agree that yours is…

…but never that the sacred writer has errored. This is significant, as it rejects the thesis that Matthew made a mistake in asserting the virginity of Mary based upon theories of mistranslated Septuagint passages. It doesn’t matter if the Jew centuries before the advent of Christianity mistranslated “young woman” to “virgin” when translating the Hebrew into Greek, because Matthew was not relying upon merely a manuscript, but was inspired to use the very word he infant used in Greek, which meant “virgin.”

I’ve never argued with that; I’ve merely pointed out the seldom discussed fact that the verse cited is an incorrect translation.

The moment anyone arrogantly asserts the actual material of the Bible is mistaken, that the writer made a mistake, they assert heresy.

Then I definitely assert your definition of heresy and I will continue at every opportunity.

So, Catholicism rejects the “Jesus Seminar” as it is based on an a priori view that the inspired words of Scripture may have not been apostolic teaching, or an a posteriori view that concludes “scientifically” this verse is a a later “interpolation” or corruption of the original teachings of Christ, while that verse is not. Such a view of inspiration and inerrancy is heretical.

Of course, I disagree. I know we aren’t going to get anywhere with this; all we can do is keep looking for any post asking about scripture, pull out our arguments once again, and leave it to the others to decide for themselves.

I would like to know if there is any single passage which, even though it sounds like history, you would admit may not be history…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

patg,

The actual teaching church today totally agrees with me.

I’m sure you believe so. But that doesn’t make it so. Of the two of us, I am the only one who has quoted from a pope on the matter. Paul VI asserts the historicity of the infancy narratives (Allocution of Dec 18, 1966, Insegnamenti di Paolo VI). All opinions contrary to the See of Peter, notwithstanding.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Pope Paul VI (Insegnamenti *di Paolo VI *[1972], p. 1325):

“St. Luke, as if to indicate the authentic source of that night at Bethlehem, concludes it with this precious testimony: ‘And Mary kept all these things, pondering them in her heart (Luke 2:19).’”

Pope Paul VI again affirms (Insegnamenti *di Paolo VI *[1974], pp. 24-25):

“Very probably Mary was the genuine and direct source of information for Luke, the evangelist who wrote this.”

Pope John Paul II:

“To identify the source of the infancy narrative one must go back to St. Luke’s remark: ‘Mary kept all these things, pondering them in her heart’… Mary ‘who kept these things in her heart’… could bear witness, after Christ’s death and resurrection, in regard to what concerned herself and her role as Mother, precisely in the apostolic period when the New Testament texts were being written, and when the early Christian tradition had its origin.” (General Audience, January 28, 1988)

"As the infancy Gospels enable us to grasp, the first Christian communities themselves gathered together Mary’s recollections about the mysterious circumstances of the Savior’s conception and birth. In particular, the Annunciation account responds to the disciples’ desire to have the deepest knowledge of the events connected with the beginnings of the risen Christ’s earthly life. In the last analysis, Mary is at the origin of the revelation about the mystery of the virginal conception by the work of the Holy Spirit.

This truth, showing Jesus’ divine origin, was immediately grasped by the first Christians for its important significance and included among the key affirmations of their faith." (General Audience, 13 September 1995)

The Second Vatican Council said that Scripture faithfully records "what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation."

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Pope John Paul II on the “historical fact” of the census:

***The Census ***

1. ***Journeying to Bethlehem for the census in obedience to the orders of legitimate authority, Joseph fulfilled for the child the significant task of officially inserting the name “Jesus, son of Joseph of Nazareth” (cf. Jn 1:45) in the registry of the Roman Empire. ***This registration clearly shows that Jesus belongs to the human race as a man among men, a citizen of this world, subject to laws and civil institutions, but also “savior of the world.” Origen gives a good description of the theological significance, by no means marginal, of this historical fact: “Since the first census of the whole world took place under Caesar Augustus, and among all the others Joseph too went to register together with Mary his wife, who was with child, and since Jesus was born before the census was completed: to the person who makes a careful examination it will appear that a kind of mystery is expressed in the fact that at the time when all people in the world presented themselves to be counted, Christ too should be counted. By being registered with everyone, he could sanctify everyone; inscribed with the whole world in the census, he offered to the world communion with himself, and after presenting himself he wrote all the people of the world in the book of the living, so that as many as believed in him could then be written in heaven with the saints of God, to whom be glory and power for ever and ever, Amen.”(28) (*Redemptoris Custos, *9)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Pope John Paul II on the historicity of the nativity at Bethlehem, to which Joseph and Mary were historical eyewitnesses.

Joseph, together with Mary, is a privileged witness to the birth of the Son of God into the world on Christmas night in Bethlehem. … Joseph was an eyewitness to this birth, which took place in conditions that, humanly speaking, were embarrassing … Joseph also witnessed the adoration of the shepherds who arrived at Jesus’ birthplace after the angel had brought them the great and happy news (cf. Lk 2:15- 16) . Later he also witnessed the homage of the magi who came from the East (cf. Mt 2:11). (Redemptoris Custos, 10)

Does Pope John Paul II not understand the supposedly “true” Catholic teaching that the infancy narratives are not really historical? It doesn’t appear that this is his position.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

itsjustdave1988:

GottleofGeer,

Here’s another example of the wrong answer. Fr. Raymond Brown asserts that the sacred writer of Job made a “religous error.” Fr. Brown believes the sacred writer rejects the afterlife.

**## Whose do you see to be the error ? **

• Father Brown’s ?
• God’s ?
• **The author(s) of the text’s ? **
• **Job’s ? **

What struck me immediately, is that the text is many-layered. Which complicates talk of error a good deal - but is quite usual with the Bible. IOW, when there is an assertion, who is asserting what ? The Bible contains a lot of literature; and what a character says in a piece of literature - for example - may not always be what the author of the piece is asserting. The same is true of much other writing: such as Plato’s Dialogues. Is Dickens to be answerable for every sentiment uttered in “Oliver Twist” as though it must necessarily be his own sentiment? Or more recent writers ? It is impossible to agree with Job and with his friends - especially when three of them are judged unfavourably by God (as presented at the end of the book).

**And how can a book of which the text is in certain places uncertain, or corrupt, be inerrant ? Inerrancy presupposes that the text perfectly communicates the entirety of the meaning intended by the human author(s) - and this communication is damaged, if the text that expresses the meaning to be communicated is corrupt. And the idea takes no account of textual revisions - maybe a piece of inerrant text has been lost; possibly a large amount. That is one only of the difficulties which the doctrine, as at present framed, does not attend to. **

**The Bible is far more than a body of infallibly inerrant assertions. Assertions are all very well for books on maths and geometry - but the Bible is not a geometry text, and should not be approached as though it were. **

And in what, precisely, does the error - whether it be error or not - consist ? ##

Yet, this is a false conclusion, in my opinion, which Fr. Brown seems to have arrived at because he rejects (against Catholic doctrine) the a priori view of the inerrant character of Holy Writ.

**## The passage discussed and quoted is difficult to interpret, because of uncertainties in the text. **

See the discussion in the NICOT Job, pp. 234-7. ##

[continued…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…continued, ended]

Seems to me the person Job questions it, but then later convincingly affirms that he will indeed see his Redeemer in the afterlife. Observe,

Consider the Catholic The Jerusalem Bible translation:

Job 14:10-14 “But Man? He dies, and lifeless he remains; man breathes his last, and then where is he? The waters of the seas may disappear, all the rivers may run dry or drain away; but man, once in his resting place, will never rise again. The heavens will wear away before he wakes, before he rises from his sleep. If only would hide me in Sheol, and shelter me there until your anger is past, fixing a certain day for calling me to mind–for once a man is dead can he came back to life?–day after day of my service I would wait for my relief to come.”

From the Catholic New American Bible translation:

Job 14:12-14: "So men lie down and rise not again. Till the heavens are no more, they shall not awake, nor be roused out of their sleep. Oh, that you would hide me in the nether world and keep me shelteredtill your wrath is past; would fix a time for me, and then remember me! When a man has died, were he to live again, all the days of my drudgery I would wait, until my relief should come. "

Consider also the translation from the Catholic Douay-Rheims translation:

Job 14:10-14: "But man when he shall be dead, and stripped and consumed, I pray you where is he? As if the waters should depart out of the sea, and an emptied river should be dried up: So man when he is fallen asleep shall not rise again; till the heavens be broken, he shall not awake, nor rise up out of his sleep. Who will grant me this, that thou mayst protect me in hell, and hide me till thy wrath pass, and appoint me a time when thou wilt remember me? Shall man that is dead, thinkest thou, live again? all the days in which I am now in warfare, I expect until my change come. Thou shalt call me, and I will answer thee: to the work of thy hands thou shalt reach out thy right hand.

The commentary of the Douay-Rheims Bible states: “13 ‘That thou mayst protect me in hell’… That is, in the state of the dead; and in the place where the souls are kept waiting for their Redeemer.” Seems to me the author of Job is not denying the afterlife, but after questioning it, he affirms that man may live again after death, to descend into *limbus paternum *(“limbo of the fathers”) where the souls are kept awaiting their Redeemer.

According to Protestant historical-critical exegete Bruce Metzger, from his New Oxford Annotated Bible, commenting upon Job 14:13-14: “Job toys with the idea of respite in Sheol, hidden from Divine wrath that would eventually pass away. Finally God would call him and cover over his iniquity!”

to be continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

**## Whose do you see to be the error ?
**

• Father Brown’s ?
• God’s ?
• **The author(s) of the text’s ? **
• **Job’s ? **

---

It is most certainly Fr. Brown who is in error. He asserts that the writer of Job has erred in religious matters. That is as contrary to Catholic dogma as asserting the Jesus never rose from the dead.

We know that Fr. Brown is in error, because the magisterium of the Catholic Church has taught everywhere and always by an exercise of its universal ordinary magisterium (which is infallible), that the sacred writer is inspired, and that whatever the sacred writer asserts is asserted by the Holy Spirit, and therefore is immune from error. Contrary opinions notwithstanding, Pope John Paul II has expressly affirmed the **“the permanent validity” ** of the “old documents” of Providentissimus Deus and Divino Afflante Spiritu.

---

*The person Job *most certainly made an error, when he, like his friend insisted that only the wicked suffer. Through most of the Book of Job, this is the theme: only the wicked suffer. Job’s friends insist upon it, and so does Job. Because of this faulty doctrine, Job’s friends believe Job is somehow wicked, although they know him very well and can’t really explain in what way his is wicked. They simply assert that Job must be wicked, because if he was not wicked, he wouldn’t be suffering such punishment. Job himself is faulty in his understanding that only the wicked suffer, which is precisely why he cannot understand his suffering and wishes to make his case before God. In the end of the Book of Job, the sacred author makes clear that both Job’s friends and Job himself were wrong, and God rebukes all of them. Lesson learned: sometimes even the just suffer by the providence of God.

The sacred writer did not make a mistake by rejectting the afterlife, because the sacred writer never did reject the afterlife. This is neither the conclusion of Protestant historical-critical exegetes such as Bruce Metzger, nor 2000 years of Catholic tradition. Exegetes, Catholic or otherwise, who draw conclusions based upon their rather dubiously characterized “scientific” interpretations of Scripture, in so far as they are contrary to the ancient and constant faith of the Catholic Church, are in error. The orthodoxy or heterodoxy of the conclusions drawn by biblical theorists are judged by the formal and authoritative teachings of the Catholic magisterium, not the other way around.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

As for the difference between critical accuracy and juridical accuracy, I think I already explain that in a prior post above. Translators and copyists are not immune from error. Yet, the Church does not need critical accuracy of manuscripts as compared to non-extant original autographs, as the Church has never asserted sola scriptura as it’s rule of faith. The Word of God is not merely present in the manuscripts of sacred scripture, but also in the Sacred Tradition of the Church.

 

[patg]

itsjustdave1988:

patg,
I’m sure you believe so.

Its not a matter of belief - I have taken the classes, read the books, and had discussions with theologians and bible scholars and so I know what is being taught by the church.

But that doesn’t make it so.

Yes, it does. Because where the “rubber meets the road” - that is, when the catholics today get their education, the message is clearly one of literary form, cultural environment, and historical-critical analysis. You imply that I am personally coming up with heretical ideas - everything I profess has been gathered from catholic authors and teachers.

Of the two of us, I am the only one who has quoted from a pope on the matter. Paul VI asserts the historicity of the infancy narratives (Allocution of Dec 18, 1966, Insegnamenti di Paolo VI). All opinions contrary to the See of Peter, notwithstanding.

A pope is not here teaching the adult ed or university classes, he is not writing the books used in those classes, and he is not preaching daily to the people. The scholars and leaders who are doing this have moved far from the “literal history” mode and making full use of the non-historical thrust of the papal writings you quote from. As has been noted before, there is a serious disconnect here and no quoting from papal documents will get the genie back in the bottle.

 

[patg]

itsjustdave1988:

patg,
I’m sure you believe so.

Its not a matter of belief - I have taken the classes, read the books, and had discussions with theologians and bible scholars and so I know what is being taught by the church.

But that doesn’t make it so.

Yes, it does. Because where the “rubber meets the road” - that is, when the catholics today get their education, the message is clearly one of literary form, cultural environment, and historical-critical analysis. You imply that I am personally coming up with heretical ideas - everything I profess has been gathered from catholic authors and teachers.

Of the two of us, I am the only one who has quoted from a pope on the matter. Paul VI asserts the historicity of the infancy narratives (Allocution of Dec 18, 1966, Insegnamenti di Paolo VI). All opinions contrary to the See of Peter, notwithstanding.

A pope is not here teaching the adult ed or university classes, he is not writing the books used in those classes, and he is not preaching daily to the people. The scholars and leaders who are doing this have moved far from the “literal history” mode and making full use of the non-historical thrust of the papal writings you quote from. As has been noted before, there is a serious disconnect here and no quoting from papal documents will get the genie back in the bottle.