Does the Bible have errors in it?
There are some Christians, influenced by modernist Biblical scholarship, who assert that there are errors in Sacred Scripture. Although some recent liberal Catholic Bible scholars often take this view as well, the official doctrine of the Catholic Church teaches that everything the sacred writer asserts in Sacred Scripture is free from all error.
Here is the view from new Biblical theorists:
Here is the view from new Biblical theorists:
"[C]ritical investigation points to religious limitations and even errors [in Scripture.]" (Brown, R., The Critical Meaning of the Bible, Paulist Press, NY, 1981, pg. 16, Imprimatur: Bishop O'Keefe, NY).In contrast, MSgr. George A. Kelly, whose book also ironically carries the Imprimatur of the same Bishop O'Keefe of NY, asserts:
"Well, critical investigations also point to religious errors in the Bible, for example, Job's denial of an afterlife." (Brown, R., Theological Studies, March 1981, pgs. 18-19).
"If the Bible can err on truths that pertain to God's revelation of himself and to man's salvation, then Christianity itself comes across to modern-minded people as incredible.... This subject--the inerrancy of scripture--is probably the chief area of disagreement between the Catholic Church and her new biblical theorists [such as Raymond Brown]. ... Like the Church, scripture cannot be wrong about what God has revealed. ... " (Kelly, G., The New Biblical Theorists - Raymond E. Brown and Beyond, Servant Books, MI, 1983, P. 153-154, Imprimatur: Bishop O'Keefe, NY).Taking the position opposed to Fr. Raymond Brown, MSgr. George Kelly quotes from Vatican II peritus Cardinal Augustin Bea:
"'In fact, we declare in general that there is no limit set to this inerrancy, and that it applies to all that the inspired writer, and therefore all that the Holy Spirit by his means, affirms' .... Certain scholars do not accept this. ... Brown insinuates a denial of inspiration and inerrancy as the Church definesThe Vatican II Constitution on Divine Revelation is called Dei Verbum (1965). It seems to me that in context with footnote 5 of Dei Verbum par. 11, Paul VI shows the intent of Vatican II's teaching on inerrancy, by which he cites and affirms the teachings of Pius XII's Divino Afflante Spiritu:
both" (ibid., 155).
"it is absolutely wrong and forbidden ... to admit that the sacred writer has erred.... This is the ancient and constant faith of the Church." (Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu, 1943)
posted by itsjustdave1988 at 9:53 AM
5 Comments:
If one were able to show an inconsistancy between one passage in the Bible and another, or to absolutely prove a particular passage wrong, would this unravel Catholicism as we know it?
If part of the answer to this question is, "Any apparent inconsistancy is part of a mystery too large for us to understand," can we understand Christianity to such a degree that we can unhesitatingly declare the the Bible is absoltely inerrant, and the matter is closed to discussion?
Wray,
Your question simply begs of another, can the meaning of Scripture be absolutely proven scientifically? That's much like attempting to prove faith, no? Moreover, is everything, including such things as what books are included in the canon of Scripture always "up for further discussion" and revision? Is Protestantism never-ending revision of Christianity, resurrecting ancient heresies already condemend the way to go, or are we to hold fast to the traditions, both oral and written that have been handed on since apostolic times?
The Bible is an ancient document written in ancient languages imperfectly understood, in a historical context not perfectly understood. Scriptural "science" it not a true science that offers its hypothesis for real experimental validation. Such soft sciences are really a distortion of the word "science," as the hypotheses produced necessarily remain speculative without some real universal authority on earth that can definitively determine orthodoxy from heterodoxy (as did the Council of Jerusalem regarding the errors of the circumcision party).
The problem is likened to the question in the U.S. as to whether a law is or is not Constitutional. Without a governing body to decide definitively on the matter, one man's opinion is no more certain than another's, and will only result in many "schools of thought", which is how I view Protestantism. The Protestant theory of perspicuity seems unconvincing given the wildly variant schools of though among "sola scritpura" communities.
Without a governing body vested with authority by the one who can give such authority, vested with the Divine gifts and duty to decide upon the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of theological opinions, the best one can do is offer their personal reasons for their beliefs. There is not such thing as a strict scientific "proof" of matters of faith, otherwise, there would be no need for faith.
As for the inerrancy of Scripture, it is believed and taught dogmatically by the Catholic Church based upon the constancy of the teaching in the past 2000 years, and the authority of the teachers, and just like any other article of faith.
The following article shows the constancy of this authoritative teaching in the history of Christianity, all novel opinions to the contrary notwithstanding...
Free from all error
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/noerror.htm
Hi, Dave! Thanks for such thorough and speedy replies to my comments!
You write:
"Your question simply begs of another, can the meaning of Scripture be absolutely proven scientifically?"
That wasn't the direction I meant to take my question, though I understand your meaning. The direction I meant to take was more along the lines of your following comment:
"The Bible is an ancient document written in ancient languages imperfectly understood, in a historical context not perfectly understood."
I agree entirely. To me, however, relying on single source of inspiration (the papal seat) as the authority on orthodoxy seems worrisome; it requires faith in the concept that God has selected a single man to be his ultimate voice after Christ ascended - I don't see any biblical reason to support such a belief. I also have a hard time lending credance to the divine support of the papal seat after the political machining of the Popes of the middle ages, the Crusades, the Inquisition, and things of that type.
That the interpretation of the Bible can be unclear because of its nature, and the fact that different Protestant sects (and even groups in the same sect) can produce different interpretations only echoes the situation of the 12 apostles to me; they seemed to come to different conclusions from Jesus' sayings. If the message of the gospel is too great for anyone to completely and fully understand, I would be wary of anyone who claims to have the final word on it.
Also, you said:
"Without a governing body vested with authority by the one who can give such authority, vested with the Divine gifts and duty to decide upon the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of theological opinions, the best one can do is offer their personal reasons for their beliefs."
Isn't that the ideal situation? Shouldn't beliefs have personal reasons as justifications if they are in fact beliefs? I understand that not everyone has the time to devote to deep theological discussion in order to thoroughly dissect and fortify their beliefs, but I am worried by attempts to stifle such discussion that does not lead to previously defined results.
"Moreover, is everything, including such things as what books are included in the canon of Scripture always "up for further discussion" and revision?"
Perhaps. We have to be willing to adjust to new truths as they become apparent. We do this in other aspects of life, and God is not dead - I don't suspect He's said his final word. David's Psalms were not available to Moses when he laid out the law, yet they are a fundamental part of the Biblical understanding the human nature.
We can't question gravity at every step, and we can't worry about the sun coming up every morning, but if we learn that the Earth goes around the sun and not the opposite, we have to be willing to adjust.
Nice blog dave. Your polemics are refreshingly thoughtful.
To fuel the debate, and extend WD's last point further, I believe the assumption in your question strikes at the heart of the matter (or as close to it as possible):
"Moreover, is everything, including such things as what books are included in the canon of Scripture always "up for further discussion" and revision?"Absolutely. In fact, my response would exceed WD's recommendation that we be willing to adjust. There is no discourse and no canon that is not inherently up for revision. This is not a recommendable feature of liberal society; it is a historical and inevitable necessity.
I find the discussion of "error" rather misleading. In the sense that apologists tend to use it (inconsistency, contradiction, pieces to excise), the notion of error seems not only to beg the question but to miss the point. Human discourses (which include theologies and scriptures as they are read and interpreted) are never stable and lucid, and they are never fixed.
There simply is not orthodoxy without heterodoxy, in any language that we know of. You ask:
Is Protestantism never-ending revision of Christianity, resurrecting ancient heresies already condemend the way to go, or are we to hold fast to the traditions, both oral and written that have been handed on since apostolic times?Whether it's the "way to go" or not, what else is there on either side of Martin Luther's monastary door? In its best moments, Protestantism recognizes this explicitly.
THe point is that orthodoxy (papal or otherwise) is always already as varied and volatile as its other. The difficulty with the arguments against Biblical error is not, in my view, a technical difficulty (the Bible has perhaps never been so easily assumed to be authoritative as it is in our post-modern world) but a theoretical one.
It is easy to imagine that language can stop; but one cannot accomplish such a thing without more language than one had already -- without making some changes to what came before.
Instead of continuing to comment here, I replied as a separate blog as it seemed to be more appropriate as another topic.
God bless,
Dave
Post a Comment
<< Home