H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
In Catholic Answer’s magazine, Fr. Brian W. Harrison writes a thoughtful article about the meaning of scriptural inerrancy in the church.
In several years of studying scripture and primary sources I have had to grapple with this question; and I don’t hold to the same view as Fr. Brian seems to, and I am curious if others can find definitive church teaching to clarify a point.
I often see this idea mentioned in the article by Fr. Brian assumed in apologetic debates about scripture’s truth, and I find it grossly dissonant with the teachings of Trent concerning the truth contained in the Latin Vulgate:
“* It is only the original texts of the inspired books, none of which is now available to us, that are guaranteed to be free from error. (Hebrew numbers, in particular, were written in a way that made it easy for ancient scribes to slip up when copying them, and this may well account for certain numerical discrepancies between our existing texts of parallel historical accounts in the books of Chronicles and Samuel-Kings.)”
The church holds that the bible, and in particular a non-original translation (The Vulgate) are “free from error”.
In effect, I find Fr. Brian’s analysis to be pragmatic fallibility of the bible – and only theoretical lack of error. In struggling with this question, myself, I have come to a different view of “authorship” than appears to be held by Fr. Brian; and I would appreciate anyone who could poke some holes in my view in favor of Fr. Brians:
Authorship does not need to mean a single person; and in effect, our scriptures have been edited or “redacted” in various ways throughout the ages. If one adheres to the “orginial author” argument, strictly, then the compilation and editing of scripture in the Babylonian exile becomes a difficulty that I think is nearly insurmountable.
Although the Vulgate and the Greek “originals” differ in wording in places, the doctrine of inerrancy (of teaching) applies to both. I haven’t ever found in Catholic Teaching a requirement to believe that any of the scriptures were written totally in one time period; and thus that any book can be traced to a single “original” that hasn’t been modified (by God, in my opinion) throughout the ages with more than one author, compiler, redactors, etc. And although we need to speak of the “authentic” meaning of the first writings and all their pieces, I don’t think it proper to focus apologetic attention on these first writings as if they are the sum total of God’s intention in “writing”.
I am not a fan of many of the historical-critical theories which are prevalent in academia today; but none the less, studying the history of the scriptures leads me to understand that there is some fluidity in the exact wording of passages throughout the ages. This living or changing fluidity, ought not – by definition – be allowed to be equated with “error” in some manuscripts in preference to others. (Although there are DEFINITELY errors in some texts inserted by heretics on purpose…)
However, I’d like to consider the organic nature (living) of the scriptures in analogy to how God wrote his image into our bodies; physically.
The human body, which is alive, has an immune system designed to correct errors in transcription; and to vindicate the original plan of the body even when disease is present.
I would say (by analogy) that the whole body of scripture, even with its minor ailments, is not to be read on a standalone basis – but with cross checking of parallel texts to identify where the meaning God authored has been distorted by accident, or change of meaning of words with time, or deliberated mutilation by heretics opposed to God’s message. God’s message, I am thinking, bears idiosyncrasies of it’s warfare with the devil that are themselves part of the message.
No evil can triumph ultimately over God’s consistent logic (logos).
So, I am going to take a position slightly against Fr. Brian’s article, and where he says “There is no room here for the idea that some statements made by biblical authors are merely human in origin” is in fact false. For in order to take his position seriously, I must argue that God failed in providing us such a scripture today.
I want to know what others think Fr. Brian’s article means in light of the Vulgate which changes throughout the ages, but is still “inerrant”. The council of Trent had no need to define the Greek manuscripts as “inerrant” for that was not contested before the Protestant Revolt / Reformation / deformation.
Many points made in his article are very worthwhile in studying; but it seems that the original apologetic point about “originals” will not stand up to cross examination in my understanding of the council of Trent and that of the Vulgate. Perhaps I have missed a subtle point, and someone interested in this topic can fill me in…
In several years of studying scripture and primary sources I have had to grapple with this question; and I don’t hold to the same view as Fr. Brian seems to, and I am curious if others can find definitive church teaching to clarify a point.
I often see this idea mentioned in the article by Fr. Brian assumed in apologetic debates about scripture’s truth, and I find it grossly dissonant with the teachings of Trent concerning the truth contained in the Latin Vulgate:
“* It is only the original texts of the inspired books, none of which is now available to us, that are guaranteed to be free from error. (Hebrew numbers, in particular, were written in a way that made it easy for ancient scribes to slip up when copying them, and this may well account for certain numerical discrepancies between our existing texts of parallel historical accounts in the books of Chronicles and Samuel-Kings.)”
The church holds that the bible, and in particular a non-original translation (The Vulgate) are “free from error”.
In effect, I find Fr. Brian’s analysis to be pragmatic fallibility of the bible – and only theoretical lack of error. In struggling with this question, myself, I have come to a different view of “authorship” than appears to be held by Fr. Brian; and I would appreciate anyone who could poke some holes in my view in favor of Fr. Brians:
Authorship does not need to mean a single person; and in effect, our scriptures have been edited or “redacted” in various ways throughout the ages. If one adheres to the “orginial author” argument, strictly, then the compilation and editing of scripture in the Babylonian exile becomes a difficulty that I think is nearly insurmountable.
Although the Vulgate and the Greek “originals” differ in wording in places, the doctrine of inerrancy (of teaching) applies to both. I haven’t ever found in Catholic Teaching a requirement to believe that any of the scriptures were written totally in one time period; and thus that any book can be traced to a single “original” that hasn’t been modified (by God, in my opinion) throughout the ages with more than one author, compiler, redactors, etc. And although we need to speak of the “authentic” meaning of the first writings and all their pieces, I don’t think it proper to focus apologetic attention on these first writings as if they are the sum total of God’s intention in “writing”.
I am not a fan of many of the historical-critical theories which are prevalent in academia today; but none the less, studying the history of the scriptures leads me to understand that there is some fluidity in the exact wording of passages throughout the ages. This living or changing fluidity, ought not – by definition – be allowed to be equated with “error” in some manuscripts in preference to others. (Although there are DEFINITELY errors in some texts inserted by heretics on purpose…)
However, I’d like to consider the organic nature (living) of the scriptures in analogy to how God wrote his image into our bodies; physically.
The human body, which is alive, has an immune system designed to correct errors in transcription; and to vindicate the original plan of the body even when disease is present.
I would say (by analogy) that the whole body of scripture, even with its minor ailments, is not to be read on a standalone basis – but with cross checking of parallel texts to identify where the meaning God authored has been distorted by accident, or change of meaning of words with time, or deliberated mutilation by heretics opposed to God’s message. God’s message, I am thinking, bears idiosyncrasies of it’s warfare with the devil that are themselves part of the message.
No evil can triumph ultimately over God’s consistent logic (logos).
So, I am going to take a position slightly against Fr. Brian’s article, and where he says “There is no room here for the idea that some statements made by biblical authors are merely human in origin” is in fact false. For in order to take his position seriously, I must argue that God failed in providing us such a scripture today.
I want to know what others think Fr. Brian’s article means in light of the Vulgate which changes throughout the ages, but is still “inerrant”. The council of Trent had no need to define the Greek manuscripts as “inerrant” for that was not contested before the Protestant Revolt / Reformation / deformation.
Many points made in his article are very worthwhile in studying; but it seems that the original apologetic point about “originals” will not stand up to cross examination in my understanding of the council of Trent and that of the Vulgate. Perhaps I have missed a subtle point, and someone interested in this topic can fill me in…
