RESPONSE:
One should not “accept this dogma of total inerrancy” if the bible can be shown to contain errors. I’ve point one out above. There are many more. Perhaps another example would prove helpful.
Dear JP Marat:
Sorry, not sure if you are a male or a female. However, that is not really important. The question is how do you define “total inerrancy.” As been pointed out by myself and several other posts, the claim by Mr. Conte that inerrancy is absolute and includes EVERYTHING in the Bible is incorrect. That is NOT what has been asserted by Pope Leo or other subsequent documents. What is inerrant is what is asserted by the Holy Spirit. The Church through the Catechism, Dei Verbum and other recent statements states that what is asserted by the Holy Spirit can be found in the literal sense of scripture. This sense elucidates the central point of the story. It does not matter Who killed Saul. That is not the point of the story. The point is to highlight God’s aid to Israel, and how Saul lost his blessed and chosen position as God’s chosen king through his unrepentant sin. He abandoned God so God abandoned him and chose David in his stead. David also committed terrible sins but did not remain in sin. He is consistently portrayed as a man after God’s own heart - Why? Because he acknowledged his sinfulness and asked for forgiveness. He proved his repentance through his changed behavior. These are the essential details. Who killed whom, when, at what place are non-essential details. They do not change the central message of the story.
Your posts show why it is important to interpret Church teaching in light of the whole teaching not just one or two documents. In actuality, there are very few interpretations of Scripture that are viewed as infallible. One is Matthews use of Is 7 describing the virgin birth of Jesus. By Matthew using the Greek word parthenos for alma (the Hebrew in Is 7 which can mean just a young woman who could be a virgin or not a virgin, Matthew is proclaiming the virgin birth as a matter of faith.
As you say, there are many things relating to historical, geographical, scientific details that current scientific research has shown to be in error. Where do these errors come from? Most, certainly, in my opinion at least, can be dismissed as transmission errors. The inerrancy of Scripture rests in the original text in the original language written by the original author. This is the legitimate part that historical criticism of the biblical text plays. Through modern, scientific use of its techniques, scholars can make substantial progress in determining the original form of the text and issue corrections. This is not a simple process however and requires consensus among scholars - something that is not easily reached - just look at the controversy the Dead Sea Scrolls have engendered since their discovery sixty-two years ago.
Another form of “error” is not an error at all but shows the specific purpose of the author. An example of this is the different day of Jesus’ crucifixion. St. John locates it on Passover, while the synoptic Gospels place it on the day after Passover. When you realize that John specifically teaches that the crucifixion of Jesus is the fulfillment and perfection of the Jewish feast of Passover and the centrality of that position in the Church’s understanding of the Eucharist, the “error” falls away.
To apply inerrancy to the entire scriptures in the sense that every word is literally true, only holds Christians to ridicule. Just as those who reject evolution and teach a literal six day creation, six thousand year old earth are justifiably dismissed with derision.
Yet there are claims of modern “experts” that are incorrect and need to be rejected. For example, many secular scholars who still make the claim that there is not historically accurate details in Scripture and the New Testament claims about Jesus represent the 4th century church reading back it’s faith about Jesus to Jesus’ day and the days of the first century Church. In fact, the apostles and the early church fathers such as Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Justin Martyr and others show that the Church’s claims about the authority of the apostles and their successors, the position of leadership of Peter, the sacraments, etc. DO date back to Jesus and the apostles. The revelation of who God is and of His intervention in man’s history in order to offer us salvation are true and reliable and infallible. Analysis of the senses of scripture through the methods of modern (post 1940’s) techniques of scriptural criticism and submitting one’s interpretation of Scripture to the mind and teaching of the Church Magisterium shows what is essential to the story. It is these essential elements that are asserted by the Holy Spirit and thus are infallible, not all the details of history, geography, etc that have no impact on the meat of the story (not that ALL the words used in scripture are not important but that there ARE things in scripture that if changed, or not exactly how/where things happened, would not change the central meaning of the story). While much of these supposed contradictory details can be easily explained through errors in transmission, translation, direct authorial intent, etc.; it is ultimately not important to the impact of Scripture on our lives and relationship to God whether they exist or not.
Corry
