The inerrancy of scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hegesippus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Gospel writers could have relied on pre-existing fallible source material. This does not contradict the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture, because the Holy Spirit guided the writers so that any errors did not make it into the first inspired form of each book.

The mere claim of a pre-existing written source material is not contrary to the Faith. However, the most common versions of the Q theory tend to treat Q as if it were a more accurate representation of Jesus’ teachings, and also tend to treat Scripture as if it were merely the work of men.

Also, I should point out that some of the Fathers of the Church taught that Matthew was written first, not Mark. And there is no support among the Fathers or in the Living Tradition for this very modern and dubious hypothesis.

Ron
 
Hegesippus said:
Dave do you believe in the Q theory? And doesnt the Q theory date the Gospels well after the death of the last one? So how can one hold this view?
Click to expand...
JMJ + OBT​

One of the (not so) subtle reasons for late dating the synoptics is the bias of many modern scholars who hold that supernatural phenomenon don’t exist at all or should only be considered to be truly supernatural when no other possibility is feasible.

Case in point: in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus predicts the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70; it is hard for many skeptical modern scholars to believe that a man could really make a prophecy – which would be a supernatural phenomenon – so it’s easier for them to assume that these words were atrributed to Jesus after the Temple’s destruction, i.e. the composition of the Gospels wasn’t completed until after A.D. 70.

Does that make sense?

In Christ.

IC XC NIKA
 
Hegesippus said:
Dave do you believe in the Q theory?
Click to expand...
Which version? And is there a compelling reason that I should?
And doesn’t the Q theory date the Gospels well after the death of the last one? So how can one hold this view?
Click to expand...
The version of the Q theory I was taught in my bachelor’s studies by the fine Jesuits of Gonzaga University many moons ago did not present it as necessarily including a post-1st century authorship of the canonical writings of the NT. In fact, in my NT course, it was taught that most Bible scholars held that all of the NT was written by at least AD 95.

Whether or not the sacred authors had before them some source of written tradition is irrelevent, in the final analysis. That source was not canonized, therefore it is not part of the deposit of faith once and for all delivered from the apostles to the Holy Apostolic Church. If it were important enough to care about, I figure it would have been better preserved by the Church, in accordance with the will of God.

If you get a chance, I recommend you read the following article by C.S. Lewis regarding his opinion of such modern biblical theories. Many literary critics have used the same techniques to dream up theories about writings by C.S. Lewis, giving their “learned” opinion as to his motives and sources, and they have been 100% wrong, according to Lewis. This should make us quite suspicious about the veracity of these methods.

Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism
by C.S. Lewis
 
Now I want to know if a Catholic can believe in the Q theory because the theory dates the Gospels after the death of the last apostle. So in short, can a Catholic believe the Q theory and if they do, must they say that the Q source was around before the death of the last apostle?
 
itsjustdave1988 said:
Which version? And is there a compelling reason that I should?

The version of the Q theory I was taught in my bachelor’s studies by the fine Jesuits of Gonzaga University many moons ago did not present it as necessarily including a post-1st century authorship of the canonical writings of the NT. In fact, in my NT course, it was taught that most Bible scholars held that all of the NT was written by at least AD 95.

Whether or not the sacred authors had before them some source of written tradition is irrelevent, in the final analysis. That source was not canonized, therefore it is not part of the deposit of faith once and for all delivered from the apostles to the Holy Apostolic Church. If it were important enough to care about, I figure it would have been better preserved by the Church, in accordance with the will of God.

If you get a chance, I recommend you read the following article by C.S. Lewis regarding his opinion of such modern biblical theories. Many literary critics have used the same techniques to dream up theories about writings by C.S. Lewis, giving their “learned” opinion as to his motives and sources, and they have been 100% wrong, according to Lewis. This should make us quite suspicious about the veracity of these methods.

Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism
by C.S. Lewis
Click to expand...
Dave, thanks for the response, I did not know that there was more than one Q theory, so please excuse my ignorance. I do not know if there is a compelling reason to believe in such a theory.
 
whosebob said:
JMJ + OBT​

One of the (not so) subtle reasons for late dating the synoptics is the bias of many modern scholars who hold that supernatural phenomenon don’t exist at all or should only be considered to be truly supernatural when no other possibility is feasible.

Case in point: in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus predicts the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70; it is hard for many skeptical modern scholars to believe that a man could really make a prophecy – which would be a supernatural phenomenon – so it’s easier for them to assume that these words were atrributed to Jesus after the Temple’s destruction, i.e. the composition of the Gospels wasn’t completed until after A.D. 70.

Does that make sense?

In Christ.

IC XC NIKA
Click to expand...
I would like to thank you and yes that makes a lot of sense. This discussion with my friend is ongoing about scripture, and what we have to believe, as Catholics, about scripture. My friend I believe is influenced by a heterodox priest, yet really smart. I am sure I will have more questions as the discussion continues.
 
As for Catholic teaching, the Pontifical Biblical Commission has described the “documentary hypothesis” and the “two-source hypothesis” in the following manner: “In their essential features, these two hypotheses retain their prominence in scientific exegesis today—though they are also under challenge.” (Interpretation of the Bible in the Church).

The above document (link provided) is lengthy, but it should bring you up to speed on what the Church teaches with regard to Biblical interpretation.

Consequently, the Church is clear that this is a “hypothesis” and as such, is in the field of free opinon.
 
Hegesippus said:
Now I want to know if a Catholic can believe in the Q theory because the theory dates the Gospels after the death of the last apostle. So in short, can a Catholic believe the Q theory and if they do, must they say that the Q source was around before the death of the last apostle?
Click to expand...
Since it’s a theory, one is free to hold some of it and discard the rest, especially where it contradicts, or might lead you to contradict, official Catholic teaching. Theories are not doctrines, and they are only as strong or valid as the data behind them (speculation doesn’t count). The good thing about theories is that you can pick and choose what’s useful and what’s not – kind of “cafeteria theoretics.”

If one is unable in their mind to seperate the useful aspects of a theory from it’s un-useful (or harmful) aspects, it’s better to jetison the whole thing.
 
That Clementine Tradition is very interesting to read. I wonder what percentage of scholars holds this view as opposed to the Markan Priority?
 
The “Q theory” is just a theory. No documents have been found to support it. I believe that Matthew wrote his Gospel inspired by the Holy Spirit and as an eyewitness (being an apostle) as did John. Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit and also was a companion of Peter. Luke was inspired by the Holy Spirit and also was a companion of Paul (who, although was not a witness of Christ’s earthly ministry, did encounter Christ in His glorified state). Q does not need to exist in order for the Gospels to be true. The Scripture is inerrant. There is nothing in the Scripture that contradicts the Tradition of the Church. I did not understand the Tradition of the Church until after I read the Scripture.
 
ferdie said:
I am disturbed by what I read in “Bismarck and the 4 Gospel”. Is what the author saying true, that Markan priority gained respect because of the anti catholic position of Bismark?
Click to expand...
JMJ + OBT​

I suppose only someone well versed in that period of history with regard to those same persons, places, and events could tell us if the author is misleading us or misinterpreting the events. The material is well footnoted and his sources seem to be in order, so someone would need to provide solid counter-evidence if we’re to believe the author’s analysis and conclusions are unwarranted. Like you, I find it disturbing; but there are lots of true things in the history of mankind which are disturbing …

In Christ.

IC XC NIKA
 
This may take a little bit, I was brought up in a fundamentalist Protestant church where I was taught to beleive that the Bible was written by, dictated by God to human robots who were like automatic writting machines, God according to the fundie teachers protected his WORD from a single error in all matters, not only theological, but also historic, and scientific.

I was taught that God created by the process of zapping, that God zapped everything into existence instantly from nothing, all within 6 twenty-four hour periods of literal time.

In the over thirty years that have passed since I have abandoned this approach, I no longer belive that God literally wrote the Bible through human robots. I no longer beleive that inspired means the same thing as dictated. Everything I am reading here makes it sound like Catholics are as literal as Southern Baptists or members of the so called “church of Christ”. If this is true then perhaps I am in the wrong church, maybe I should have become Episcopal instead, becuase I sure don’t worship the Bible as God like the fundies who raised me do.

Am I wrong, are we as Catholics supposed to be fundie bible worshippers as well?
 
boppysbud said:
This may take a little bit, I was brought up in a fundamentalist Protestant church where I was taught to beleive that the Bible was written by, dictated by God to human robots who were like automatic writting machines … Am I wrong, are we as Catholics supposed to be fundie bible worshippers as well?
Click to expand...
Not at all … Look, I would start with the following three documents, keeping in mind that the first two are “straight from the top” with regards to the Magisterium; and the third one, though not as authoritative as the others, is still a strong “official” Catholic guide to intepreting the Holy Bible:

Divino Afflante Spiritu
Encyclical letter or Pope Pius XII, pub. 1943

Dei Verbum
Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, pub.1965

Interpretation of the Bible in the Church
A document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, pub. 1994

You may find the following website helpful as well:

A Catholic Guide to Biblical Interpretation
by Dr. John Gresham

Please also see those written works by Fr. William Most which I linked to earlier in this thread.

In Christ.

IC XC NIKA
 
I think Q is one big lie!

You could take any events seen by four different wirtnesses and state as a hypohesis that they came from a single source–

That doesn’t mean that they did–maybe they sound that way bwecause each writer of the gospels had seen the same events and

probably many times before writing the gospels they had talked about those events with one another.

The Holy Spirit CAN instruct us DIVINELY through means other than JUST personal verbal dictation!

Moast of the Q people really don’t believe that the RESURRECTION really happened.

Don’t listen to them!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top