The Bible,Copyist Errors and Catholicism

[NormalBeliever]

One of the questions I have is this…

Let’s take a look at Uzzah’s death.The Bible says in 1 Chronicles 13:9 that he was killed at Childon.While 2 Samuel talks about Nachon.

Now,this is supposedly a Bible contradiction.I have seen many apologetics websites try to explain this.

They explain this by saying that Childon is the most likely answer, and Nachon is likely a …later textual corruption.

‘‘Translators are not certain whether to understand “Nachon” as a proper name or an adjective and the manuscriupt tradition varies which is suggesting that something went amiss in the copying process.’’

Now,they do believe that the Bible is the Word of God,but not as a straightforward a magical fax from Heaven.

These apologists can accept there being copying errors in the Bible.

But I do not know if Catholics can accept there being copyist errors in the Bible.And that is what is troubling me.

If Catholics cannot accept copying errors being in the Bible,then what is the Catholic explanation for the Nachon and Childon contradiction problem?

 

[Della]

I know of no Church teaching that says the Bible has to be free of coypists errors. Indeed, if you look at the notes in many Catholic Bibles, it cites the discrepency and says it may be a copyist error. The Bible is error free in matters of faith and morals. We know that there are such minor discrepencies that human fraility caused. But we have to ask: “Does it change the deposit of faith given to us by Christ and the Apostles?” If the answer is “No,” then what difference does it make? We don’t worship a book, no matter how sacred. We worship God, after all.

 

[WordHeavy]

I know of no Church teaching that says the Bible has to be free of coypists errors. Indeed, if you look at the notes in many Catholic Bibles, it cites the discrepency and says it may be a copyist error. The Bible is error free in matters of faith and morals. We know that there are such minor discrepencies that human fraility caused. But we have to ask: “Does it change the deposit of faith given to us by Christ and the Apostles?” If the answer is “No,” then what difference does it make? We don’t worship a book, no matter how sacred. We worship God, after all.

well said

 

[Neofight]

One of the questions I have is this…

Let’s take a look at Uzzah’s death.The Bible says in 1 Chronicles 13:9 that he was killed at Childon.While 2 Samuel talks about Nachon.

Now,this is supposedly a Bible contradiction.I have seen many apologetics websites try to explain this.

They explain this by saying that Childon is the most likely answer, and Nachon is likely a …later textual corruption.

‘‘Translators are not certain whether to understand “Nachon” as a proper name or an adjective and the manuscriupt tradition varies which is suggesting that something went amiss in the copying process.’’

Now,they do believe that the Bible is the Word of God,but not as a straightforward a magical fax from Heaven.

These apologists can accept there being copying errors in the Bible.

But I do not know if Catholics can accept there being copyist errors in the Bible.And that is what is troubling me.

If Catholics cannot accept copying errors being in the Bible,then what is the Catholic explanation for the Nachon and Childon contradiction problem?

Over the centuries, with the many hand transcriptions of text made, there are bound to be a few transcription errors, but the overall revelation of God’s Salvation Plan is not diminished or brought into question.

If these errors bother you, 2 Samuel 21:19 when compared to 1 Samuel 17:49-50 must drive you right up the wall!

 

[fhansen]

One of the questions I have is this…

Let’s take a look at Uzzah’s death.The Bible says in 1 Chronicles 13:9 that he was killed at Childon.While 2 Samuel talks about Nachon.

Now,this is supposedly a Bible contradiction.I have seen many apologetics websites try to explain this.

They explain this by saying that Childon is the most likely answer, and Nachon is likely a …later textual corruption.

‘‘Translators are not certain whether to understand “Nachon” as a proper name or an adjective and the manuscriupt tradition varies which is suggesting that something went amiss in the copying process.’’

Now,they do believe that the Bible is the Word of God,but not as a straightforward a magical fax from Heaven.

These apologists can accept there being copying errors in the Bible.

But I do not know if Catholics can accept there being copyist errors in the Bible.And that is what is troubling me.

If Catholics cannot accept copying errors being in the Bible,then what is the Catholic explanation for the Nachon and Childon contradiction problem?

The Church did receive revelation directly from heaven, via Jesus Christ. She was preaching the gospel before a single word of the New Testament was written. Copyist errors present no great problem because her knowledge of God is living, and her authority to interpret Scripture, as well as Tradition, is part of her divinely ordained role. Quite different from Protestant claims and methods.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Interestingly, Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus, while teaching that the Bible cannot be said to err, gives copyist errors as a possible cause of mistakes in the Bible: “It is true, no doubt, that copyists have made mistakes in the text of the Bible; this question, when it arises, should be carefully considered on its merits, and the fact not too easily admitted, but only in those passages where the proof is clear.”

However, in this case I don’t see why such a conclusion is necessary. The explanation that they are two names for the same person seems plausible and more likely.