Biblical Inerrancy
Recently discussing biblical inerrancy, I noticed a good number of the conversing Catholic folk ruling out the possibility of “error” in the Bible on the grounds that divine involvement in the process of composition would protect the human from erring.
To put my cards on the table, I view this as untenable.
May I offer two possible aids to this discussion, encountered in Aidan Nichols’ The Shape of Catholic Theology:
First, genre or literary form has some relevance in distinguishing between real and supposed error. The Creation narratives, if intended literally, no doubt expose the error of their authors. However, to the extent that authorial intention was spiritual and ethical, rather than factual and descriptive (as you find Ratzinger arguing), then what appears to be error isn’t really.
Thus, a consciousness of genre and literary form (not always an easy determination) can promote the Scriptures as free from error in the sense that the meaning intended is free from error.
However, this does not exhaust the types of alleged error, and so such a conclusion is insufficient. Perhaps a second aid compensates. The measure of biblical truth, the Second Vatican Fathers seem to argue, lies in the economy of salvation. Paragraph 11 of Dei Verbum states: “The books of Scripture teach firmly, faithfully and without error that truth which God willed to be put down in the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.”
And so, someone like Raymond Brown challenges a reader to discern beyond simply what authors intend to communicate, and move towards a discernment of what God does communicate for our salvation. Brown’s view, and that of a good many, is that the inspiration of the Scriptures has the effect of rendering Scripture inerrant when relevant to human salvation. When relevant to human salvation is also not always an easy determination…
Has God protected the human author from every form of error? This seems untenable. Jesus Christ is God’s Revelation. To the extent that a certain testimony of such revelation messes up on the geography of one of Jesus’ travels, seems to me not what needs safeguarding (although I do not mean to suggest that only errors of a geographical nature exist).
K.
Kelly Wilson is a Seminarian for the Archdiocese of Winnipeg (Manitoba). Besides Vox Nova he writes at his blog Musings.
Comments are closed.
Kelly, this is quite timely, as the question of inerrancy will soon be addressed by the PBC:
“VATICAN CITY, 14 APR 2011 (VIS) – The Pontifical Biblical Commission will hold its annual plenary session from 2 to 6 May in the Domus Sanctae Marthae (Vatican City), under the presidency of Cardinal William Joseph Levada. Fr. Klemens Stock, S.J., secretary general, shall direct the work of the assembly.
According to a communique issued today, “during the meeting the members will continue their reflections on the theme ‘Inspiration and truth in the Bible’. In the first phase of study the Commission will attempt to examine how the themes of inspiration and truth appear in the Sacred Scriptures. Subsequently, on the basis of their individual competences, each Member shall present a report which shall then be discussed collectively in the Assembly”.
Jimmy Akin comments here on the inerrancy debate, wonder if you find this interesting:
“the Second Vatican Council’s constitution Dei Verbum contains a passage (see section 11) that is ambiguous on the subject. At first glance it might appear to restrict the scope of inerrancy only to truths having to do with our salvation. On other subjects, the Bible might be chocked full of errors.
“But a closer reading reveals that it contains principles which would seem to be incompatible with that interpretation. According to Dei Verbum, the human authors of Scripture recorded everything that the Holy Spirit wished them to and no more. Consequently, whatever is asserted by the Scriptures is asserted by the Holy Spirit. Since the Holy Spirit is omniscient, infallible, and all holy, any assertions made by him are true.
“Even if one allows maximal room for non-literal readings of various passages Scripture, it seems that Scripture contains at least some assertions that are not directly related to our salvation—for example, that Andrew was the brother of Peter according to some accepted first century usage of the term “brother.” But if Scripture makes assertions that aren’t directly related to our salvation, and if those are asserted by the Holy Spirit and therefore guaranteed to be true, then one can’t reduce Scripture’s inerrancy to just truths connected with our salvation.”
Dei Verbum’s statement that
“everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit” (section 11)
seems to mean that the Holy Spirit allows the human authors to assert their own worldviews and limited historical and scientific knowledge. I don’t think that Dei Verbum is actually asserting that everything the sacred authors wrote in the bible is actually historic or scientific fact.
Indeed, the clause from which I quote goes on to conclude that
“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.”
The two qualifications ” that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings” and “for the sake for salvation” are pretty big qualifications !
The Holy Father said recently in Verbum Domini that the question of inerrancy is not yet settled :-
God Bless
You’re right Mark. The topic is somewhat timely, and funny you should mention Akin’s post, because this is what alerted me to the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s approaching treatment of the subject. I am looking forward to reading more about their reflection on this subject.
Now Akin is right insofar as he recognizes some ambiguity in Dei Verbum about inerrancy (although perhaps a better way of putting this would be to say that the Vatican Fathers did not squarely confront the problem). But Akin’s counter interpretation (parts of which you refer VoxNova readers to) is not a valid one.
Chris, thank you also for the comments. In general I agree with your reading.
There is no ambiguity in Dei Verbum as long as it is read in the context of the teachings of previous Popes and Councils. Although certain questions on this topic are open, it is a grave error to treat the entire subject as if nothing has yet been taught definitively. Seven Words on the Inerrancy of Sacred Scripture
There was an interesting discussion on First Things in which Joe Carter maintained that Noah had to be a historical figure not necessarily because the story of Noah itself was clearly historical in nature, but because
John W. Martens on the America blog discussed the issue at length in posts named Lies, Deception, and the Bible and Historicity and Truth in the Bible.
Three things, Ron:
First, before anything else, any Second Vatican Council text should be read in the context of the discussion which surrounded it, and in the development of the text (for example, with reference to the schemas that came before it). That is the way we more accurately ascertain what the Vatican Fathers intended.
Second, regarding ambiguity, there is most definitely ambiguity, or as I have suggested as a better way of articulating, there is most definitely a failure to squarely confront the problem posed by inerrancy. Do we say, as an earlier schema did, that the Bible teaches unfailingly “truths which belong to (promote or effect) salvation”? Well, that was rejected. Do we limit inerrancy to religious and moral statements? Well, that was rejected too. The phrase that was eventually accepted (and almost unanimously, because, as we can see, it can be interpreted favourably by competing parties), was “truth that, for the sake of our salvation, God wanted to be put in writing.”
Cardinal Konig argued at the Council that the Bible most definitely did contain errors, and the best interpretation of Dei Verbum allows this possibility, insofar as it poses an absolute, unconditional inerrancy in a formal (but NOT material) sense.
Third, your reference to previous Popes and Councils, I find a bit odd. I’m not sure what bearing this has on the discussion. Also, “definitively” holds a certain significance as a term in ecclesiology, and your “seven words” do not hold the weight that something presented as “definitively” would. In any event, this isn’t even how theology is done: Theology is not a catalogue of whatever past statements you can find to support your case (and a reinterpretation of whatever does not, in light of what does…).
Thanks for the Links, David. I’m sure people will enjoy checking them out. Very briefly, I am not sure what relevance, for example, Noah’s existence, would have for a debate on inerrancy.
Here is a bit of an exchange:
The idea of inerrancy is taken to the point that if the Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to write that Jesus said some specific words, then we may rely on Matthew and the Holy Spirit to have reported faithfully to us something that Jesus in fact said. In other words, if you are in search of the ipsissima verba Jesu, get a red-letter edition of the New Testament and read the quotes in red.