Innerant for salvation truth only?

  • Thread starter Thread starter miguelmorin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

miguelmorin

Guest
Hi,

I would like to have your advice of scripture inerrancy. I listen a lot to catholic answers and I like it very much. I think that the vast majority of guests of that show think that the Bible is inerrant not just in matter of faith and moral, but in all subject. I remember a guest in a previous show explaining the word of Dei verbum “ it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation” that the phrase “for the sake of salvation” was not a restriction but a description of those truth.

This is my opinion too, but several times I find the opinion that only truth related to salvation (or faith and moral) are inerrant. I usually think that those who make that kind of statement are mistaken with the papal infallibility doctrine. Last night, I was reading the book “Catholic principles for interpreting scripture A study of the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s The interpretation of the Bible in the Church” from P. Williamson. I found this statement : “
Third, the human authors and editors of the biblical books possessed limited capacities and resources (I.F.d), which were not eradicated by the activity of the divine Author in producing the Bible. These limited capacities and resources might be manifest in an erroneous human memory (Mark 2:26 erroneously affirms that David entered the house of God and ate the loaves of the presence when Abiathar was high priest), mistaken views of scientific matters reflecting the age in which they lived, or historical inaccuracies in their sources. It is therefore a mistake to claim inerrancy regarding historical details or scientific facts (I.F.e), or to force harmonizations of differing narrative accounts or to feel the need to defend biblical cosmology (I.F.h). The minor differences in the accounts of the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, for instance, do not vitiate the overall testimony of the New Testament to the resurrection.

Usually I would not pay too much attention to this kind of statement (which I perceive to be an error), but coming from the pontifical commission, I think I must go deeper on that.

So this is my question: Is the biblical inerrancy limited on things relative to our salvation or not? If not, why this trend of thinking (those for salvation truth only) is so popular? It is a subject on which Catholic can disagree?

Sorry if my English is poor, my native language is French (I’m from Quebec in Canada)

Thanks in advance for your help.

Miguel Morin
Foi, Bible et Apologétique Catholique : www.foicatholique.com
 
I think the Vatican council inserted those words about salvation into that statement to avoid difficult problems that we find in scripture.

the issue of innerancy is not a simple or obvious one. Dr. Scott Hahn has this website called www.salvationhistory.com. He devoted an entire issue of a journal to discussing what innerancy is and what it’s limitations are.

to condense an entire book of about 500 pages into 25 or 30 words is impossible. The fist thing the book points out is that innerancy is a limited statement. It’s really a negative statement, that generally goes like what you said.

Innerancy is not a positive statement about the historical, scientific, cultural, etc. aspects of scripture.

The Bible was not written in the mindset of modern people like you and me, for example. This is another point brought out in the document you refer to, from the Pontifical Biblical commission, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.

I read about half of that document earlier this evening. It makes many important points, including the one that says that any reading or interpretation of the Bible which tends to destroy the faith is an incorrect interpretation (or words to this effect). And, the Commission said someplace else that you always have to take into account the fallible nature of the people who wrote and edited the bible and the limitations of the original languages and translations. You shouldn’t “jump the gun” in judging scripture.
 
You can investigate the issue of inerrancy directly, by referring to the book and paper that I mentioned in the previous post.

You can also (and should) look at major commentaries to get insights into scripture. The same Pontifical Biblical Commission in the “Interpretation” document says that Jewish commentaries on scripture are being used more and more in Catholic research on scripture. In fact, Jewish scholars have been studying the Old Testament (“The Hebrew Bible”) for over 20 centuries, and have collected a lot of useful information from study of the language of the Bible, other Near East languages, cultural studies, archeology, etc.

For example, one such Jewish commentary I have read is The Jewish Publication Society Commentary on the Torah: Genesis, by Nahum Sarnu.

Modern Jewish scholars are well-aware of modern scientific information about the theories about the origin of the universe. Their study of language and culture shed a lot of light on the Genesis account of scripture. To the ancient author and to the ancient listeners (readers) of Genesis, an even like creation would “naturally” have to be recorded as a seven-day event. All big events like weddings, funerals, regal coronations, etc. were seven day events. The story of the creation would not have been credible if it was depicted as a longer or shorter period of time.

I would point out to you that the Genesis account shows the creation or establishment of the seventh day of rest, which would much later (according to the account) become to be established as the Sabbath day of observance.

So, the account of creation in Genesis was written in a particular way for a particular teachign purpose. Sarnu points out that the words of the seven-day creation all have seven Hebrew words or a multiple of seven words in each “verse” (the original scroll of Genesis was not written with chapter and verse numbers), which further puts an emphais on the number seven. throughout Genesis, there are lists of things, and the lists are almost always of seven of these things or seven of those things. The number is conspicuously emphasized throught the book, and not just in the most obvious example of the “days” of creation.

You don’t have to, but you ought to simply forget about any objections to the seven-day account of creation based on historical or scientific or astronomic considerations. Geneis was not written to address any of those things.

this is a link to hahn’s volume that I think you need to look over:
amazon.com/Letter-Spirit-Vol-Salvation-Humility/dp/1931018685/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1332223842&sr=8-1
 
There is a wealth of solid information and discussion at:
LIVING TRADITION – ORGAN OF THE ROMAN THEOLOGICAL FORUM
including:

No. 145-146 - Mar-May 2010: ** Does Vatican Council II Allow for Errors in Sacred Scripture?** ** Brian W. Harrison**

No. 64 - May 1996: Contradictions in Scripture? by Brian W. Harrison

No. 59 - Jul 1995: The Truth and Salvific Purpose of Sacred Scripture According to Dei Verbum Article 11 by Brian W. Harrison
 
Greetings in Christ!

I try to demonstrate the Church’s teaching on inerrancy here: (4 Posts)Dei Verbum.

I think that Peter Williamson is incorrect in the paragraph that you quoted. Peter Williamson and Edward Sri both write for the same Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture series, but Edward Sri does not agree with Peter Williamson on this point, as can be gathered from reading Sri’s short article, “Taking God at His Word: A Catholic Understanding of Biblical Inerrancy.”

I wanted to write to Peter Williamson about this a couple of years ago, to see if I might persuade him otherwise, but I never got around to it. 😦 He faults Mark with an “erroneous human memory” concerning Abiathar and says that he “erroneously affirms…”; but John Chrysostom provides a very simple solution: “Mark says, ‘In the days of Abiathar the High Priest’ (Mark 2:26): not stating what was contrary to the history, but implying that he had two names” (Homily 39 on Matthew). It’s that simple. Or it’s something else just as simple. 🙂 Dr. Williamson also faults those who seek to harmonize the resurrection accounts. But this is what Augustine did in his Harmony of the Gospels, and Jerome provides several such solutions in his Letter to Hedibia. The document from the Pontifical Biblical Commission does not explicitly take things as far as Dr. Williamson does in what he says in this book. I would not follow his opinion in this regard. His opinion does not agree with the faith of our fathers. I follow Dr. Sri. 🙂

With love in Christ,
Pete
 
Hi,

Thanks your all your great responses.

Abu: The article Does Vatican Council II Allow for Errors in Sacred Scripture? by Brian W. Harrison is a great resource.

Pete: I agree with you. I am not impress with those contradictions anymore since I discovers the many ways to reconcile the biblical texts with science or internal “contradiction”. In my research I discovered various answers in the tradition of the Church. Really, the question is now more what is the “correct” solution than to find if there is a solution.

Personally, I think that most people that deny inerrancy for certain parts do it because they do not want to answers all the questions that usually follow. But, I think that this is a position that many persons in the church have and we’ll have to deal with this tendency, even if we think they are wrong…

Even the French Wikipedia page on biblical innerancy state the catholic position wrongly when they say : Le concept est aussi employé par l’Église catholique romaine dans un sens restreint : les Saintes Ecritures ne contiennent pas d’erreur en matière de foi.
… And they even don’t mention moral… just faith! :confused:

I think we still have works to do on this subject…

Thank again,
Miguel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top