The inerrancy of scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hegesippus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hegesippus

Guest
My friend has a scripture class and his prof. is a priest who uses historical criticism. I understand historical criticism has its benefits and can help us understand scripture in a clearer sense, but when people start doubting that Moses existed (like my friends prof.) is that not taking it too far. What do I have to believe about scripture as a Catholic. Do I have to believe it is free from all error, including historical, scientific, and other non-faith and moral issues? It is my current understanding that I must because of that is what the Magisterium has always taught. Do I have to believe Adam and Eve actually existed and that I am a descendent of him? Is not all scripture inspired? Does that mean it is free from all error?
 
The definitive word for our time from the Church regarding Sacred Scripture is contained in the Vatican II document Dei Verbum. Here is an appropriate excerpt:
  1. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.
Click to expand...
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 sacred writings for the sake of salvation. **Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
Click to expand...
Having said this, one can acknowledge that there are a number of literary forms used in the Scriptures, not all of them meant to be taken literally, and not all of which must be taken literally. The story of Jonah may or may not be a literal story (I happen to believe it could be). The point is, if it wasn’t meant to be a literal story, it is not necessary to our faith and salvation if it were or not.

On the other hand, it IS necessary to believe that Adam and Eve were real persons, because the Bible is clear that, in some manner, our first parents failed in a test of faithfulness to God, and in doing so were representing all who came after. The literary details may or may not be true, but those parts of the story aren’t vital to our salvation – only the fact that man is fallen because Adam and Eve failed.

The Moses-is-not-a- historical-person angle is another story. The Exodus is an event that happened within the historical memory of man (only about 4000 years ago) and archeology has increasingly been able to show the plausibility of his story as described in the Bible. I think your friend’s prof is a little over the top on this.
 
Hegesippus said:
I understand historical criticism has its benefits and can help us understand scripture in a clearer sense … What do I have to believe about scripture as a Catholic. Do I have to believe it is free from all error, including historical, scientific, and other non-faith and moral issues?
Click to expand...
JMJ + OBT​

The following may be helpful to you and your friend:

Free From All Error: Authorship, Inerrancy, Historicity of Scripture, Church Teaching, and Modern Scripture Scholars

The Consciousness of Christ
(for the purposes of understanding and defending the inerrancy and reliability of Sacred Scripture, you will want to read the Introduction and the Appendices of this book; the rest of the book deals with an important but different subject)

Basic Scripture

Authors of the Gospels
(also see the separate introduction to this work, The Gospels are Historical)

Why, How and When the Gospels?

What does Section 7 of Dei Verbum teach?

In Christ.

IC XC NIKA
 
Here are some of my favorite quotes on the inerrancy of Scripture:

“But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.” (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

“Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text…” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n.21)

“…they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, n. 22).

Pope Pius X published a Syllabus of Errors, in which he condemned the idea that “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.” (Lamentabili Sane, n. 11).

“everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit” (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, n. 11)
 
Ron_Conte said:
Here are some of my favorite quotes on the inerrancy of Scripture:

“But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.” (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, n. 20).

“Divine inspiration extends to every part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can occur in the inspired text…” (Pope Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, n.21)

“…they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, n. 22).

Pope Pius X published a Syllabus of Errors, in which he condemned the idea that “Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.” (Lamentabili Sane, n. 11).

“everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit” (Vatican II, Dei Verbum, n. 11)
Click to expand...
It is quotes like these that the Magesterium has always taught that seem to be contrary to current biblical Catholic scholarship. Can you reconcile the teachings of the Magesterium with today’s scholarship.
 
Hegesippus said:
It is quotes like these that the Magesterium has always taught that seem to be contrary to current biblical Catholic scholarship. Can you reconcile the teachings of the Magesterium with today’s scholarship.
Click to expand...
The burden is on scholars to reconcile their teaching to the Magisterium. I realize that sounds glib, but this is a huge question requiring a great deal of study. My point is that one must start out correctly and that is trusting the Magisterium rather than whatever and whoever happens to be fashionable in academia this year.

There are plenty of scholars faithful to the Magisterium; unfortunately their views are not currently popular in the ivory towers and ivied halls.

JSA
 
Fidelis said:
Having said this, one can acknowledge that there are a number of literary forms used in the Scriptures, not all of them meant to be taken literally, and not all of which must be taken literally. The story of Jonah may or may not be a literal story (I happen to believe it could be). The point is, if it wasn’t meant to be a literal story, it is not necessary to our faith and salvation if it were or not.
Click to expand...
Jesus’ words in Matt 12:40 would seem to support your belief about Jonah

“Just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, 29 so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.”
 
Hegesippus,

If there is a contradiction between modern scholarship and the Magisterium, it’s a pretty safe bet that the modern scholars will change their minds. A look through the “modern scholarship” of a century ago can be extremely instructive. For example, astronomers a century ago had “proven” that the universe had no beginning and no end, geologists had “proven” the same thing about the earth, and physicists had established that the universe ran like the workings of a giant clock or mechanism that did not need a God to keep things running. Then came the Big Bang Theory, modern geology, and quantum mechanics.
  • Liberian
 
blackrobe said:
The burden is on scholars to reconcile their teaching to the Magisterium. I realize that sounds glib, but this is a huge question requiring a great deal of study.
Click to expand...

Very true​

My point is that one must start out correctly and that is trusting the Magisterium rather than whatever and whoever happens to be fashionable in academia this year.

There are plenty of scholars faithful to the Magisterium; unfortunately their views are not currently popular in the ivory towers and ivied halls.

JSA
Click to expand...

IOW, it’s the kind of issue which cannot really be adequately dealt with in a post, or even a thread, because for every question that is answered, five more suggest themselves. This is all the more awkward, because this particular issue is a live one for people’s spiritual & intellectual well-being, & a very vexed one, which has given rise to a lot of heat because of its pastoral & doctrinal & canonical implications - to name only a few 😦​

People often want quick & easy & short answers - but with some things, that is simply not possible. This is one of them.

For instance - what is meant, by attributing total freedom from all error to the texts of the Bible ? Total inerrancy, as a quality of the Bible, is not as straightforward a concept as it might seem. Does it guarantee that a passage expressing a curse, as in Psalm 137, is compatible with “Love your enemies” in Matthew 5 ? And what of the inerrancy of passages - such as much of the Book of Job - in which God rejects what a speaker whose utterances are part of the text has said ? If Scripture’s total inerrancy is to function as total inerrancy, any doctrine of the total inerrancy of Scripture has to take such passages with the seriousness they call for (the doctrine must be big enough, as it were, to deal fairly with the facts of the Bible as it is, rather than forcing the Bible to fit a preconceived doctrine). ##
 
Hegesippus said:
My friend has a scripture class and his prof. is a priest who uses historical criticism. I understand historical criticism has its benefits and can help us understand scripture in a clearer sense, but when people start doubting that Moses existed (like my friends prof.) is that not taking it too far. What do I have to believe about scripture as a Catholic. Do I have to believe it is free from all error, including historical, scientific, and other non-faith and moral issues? It is my current understanding that I must because of that is what the Magisterium has always taught. Do I have to believe Adam and Eve actually existed and that I am a descendent of him? Is not all scripture inspired? Does that mean it is free from all error?
Click to expand...
I think all of your questions are addressed by the Vatican II documend Dei Verbum, from which Fedelis quoted and provided a link to above.

Another excerpt from Dei Verbum reads

“It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”

Although historical criticism can be helpful in understanding the Bible, most of today’s scholars use it without regard to sacred tradition or the magesterium. The extreme use of this method was condemned by Leo XIII (Providentissimus Deus) and also in writings of Cardinal Ratzinger before he became pope.
 
For instance - what is meant, by attributing total freedom from all error to the texts of the Bible ?
Click to expand...
Everything asserted as true by the text is an assertion by the Holy Spirit and therefore must be true. It can be difficult, sometimes, to determine what is being asserted, since not every passage is literal and simple to understand.
Does it guarantee that a passage expressing a curse, as in Psalm 137, is compatible with “Love your enemies” in Matthew 5 ?
Click to expand...
Yes, those are compatible, because St. Paul also expressed a curse:
{1 Cor 16:22} If anyone does not love our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranatha.

There is a modern idea that God is always about love, but never about justice, and which therefore avoids the truth that evil is condemned by God. But the Bible does not teach that modern error. Still, some persons, measuring the truths of the Bible with the standard of modern ideas, claim that it is the Bible, not modern society, which is in error.
And what of the inerrancy of passages - such as much of the Book of Job - in which God rejects what a speaker whose utterances are part of the text has said ?
Click to expand...
Assertions of particular sinful individuals in dialogue is not the same as an assertion by the text. One must look at the passage or book as a whole to understand what Scripture is asserting.

I honestly have not found any errors in the Bible itself. Although I understand that God does permit errors particular to a manuscript, printing, translation, or edit. Even so, He never permits the errors particular to one edition to become so extensive in other editions that any truth is lost.

Ron
 
I believe it is, I was taught the theory of Q in an Archdiocese course on the Scriptures…
 
Hegesippus said:
Is the Q theory compatible with Catholic teaching?
Click to expand...
Only as long as it keeps it’s place as a general theory and one does not enrapture one’s self to it to such an extent that they draw speculative implications of it that contradict Church teaching. In other words, it’s an interesting tool, but one cannot build a theology around it.
 
Fidelis said:
Only as long as it keeps it’s place as a general theory and one does not enrapture one’s self to it to such an extent that they draw speculative implications of it that contradict Church teaching. In other words, it’s an interesting tool, but one cannot build a theology around it.
Click to expand...
For the Q theory to be correct, does that not mean that the writers of the Gospel were not inspired, but rather Q is inspired. Does that not follow if one suscribes to the Q theory.
 
Hegesippus said:
For the Q theory to be correct, does that not mean that the writers of the Gospel were not inspired, but rather Q is inspired. Does that not follow if one suscribes to the Q theory.
Click to expand...
No, that does not seem to follow. Let’s say that Q is simply an historically accurate document, and that the Gospel writers used it under the inspiration of the HS. Does their inspiration necessitate that the historically accurate document have God as the primary author? It doesn’t seem to be a logical necessity.

Do you agree?

God Bless,
RyanL
 
RyanL said:
No, that does not seem to follow. Let’s say that Q is simply an historically accurate document, and that the Gospel writers used it under the inspiration of the HS. Does their inspiration necessitate that the historically accurate document have God as the primary author? It doesn’t seem to be a logical necessity.

Do you agree?

God Bless,
RyanL
Click to expand...
Ryan L, that makes some sense, but at times it makes it more confusing. It seems that for this to happen, one must negate the teachings of the Fathers, and makes the authors of the Gospels not first hand witnesses of Christ’s life. Does this thoery seem to take out the faith part of the scripture too much?
 
Hegesippus said:
Ryan L, that makes some sense, but at times it makes it more confusing. It seems that for this to happen, one must negate the teachings of the Fathers, and makes the authors of the Gospels not first hand witnesses of Christ’s life. Does this thoery seem to take out the faith part of the scripture too much?
Click to expand...
:confused: I don’t see how it does either one. As far as the Gospels go, it wasn’t necessary for each writer to be physically present at every event he relates. For example, none of the synoptic writers were on the Mount of Transfiguration or in Gethsemane, but they were still able to provide inspired accounts of each.
 
Fidelis said:
:confused: I don’t see how it does either one. As far as the Gospels go, it wasn’t necessary for each writer to be physically present at every event he relates. For example, none of the synoptic writers were on the Mount of Transfiguration or in Gethsemane, but they were still able to provide inspired accounts of each.
Click to expand...
I agree now. Just one more question if scripture was written after the death of the last apostle, how does that fit in with that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top