Did Vatican II allow us to say Scripture contains errors?

The Church has always insisted there is no error at all in Scripture. Thus Pius XII wrote (Divino afflante Spiritu), "In our age, the Vatican Council [I], to reject false teachings about inspiration, declared that these same books [of Scripture] must be considered 'as sacred and canonical' by the

Church, 'not only because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and as such have been handed down to

the Church.' But then, when certain Catholic authors, contrary to this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine ... dared to restrict the truth of Holy Scripture to matters of faith and morals.... our Predecessor of Immortal memory, Leo XIII, in an Encyclical, Providentissimus Deus ... rightly and

properly refuted those errors."²⁶⁰

The statement is forceful. It is not enough to say the books of Scripture are sacred because the Church later approved works made merely by human labor; nor is it enough to say they contain revelation free of error. No, the basic reason is that "they have God as their author" and of course

contain no error. Further, Pius XII called this teaching of Vatican I a "solemn definition." Then he

complained that in spite of that definition, some Catholic writers "dared to restrict the truth of Holy Scripture to matters of faith and morals," and to consider scientific or historical matters, or "obiter

dicta" (things said incidentally and in passing) as not guaranteed. This claim, said Pius XII, is wrong. We may not say there are errors in scientific or historical matters, or in things said

incidentally and in passing. Such a claim goes against a solemn definition.

We need, then, to consider the implications of two things (1) God is the author of Scripture, and (2) We cannot dismiss things on the claim that they are not part of the faith, but are just said in

passing.

What does it mean to say God is the author? It means there are two authors of Scripture, God and the human author. God, since He is transcendent (above and beyond all our categories) can employ

the human author as a free instrument, and do it in such a way that the human remains free, but yet the human writer will write down what God wants him to write, and write it without error of any

kind. Does this mean that God will give the human author new information by revelation which he did not have otherwise? God can do that, and at times does, but inspiration as such is something

different from revelation. It may or may not include the added data that God can reveal.

What of the literary style, or even grammatical habits a human has? Does God change them? He could, but inspiration is aimed at truth, not at style or even grammar. And so it happens that some lines in St. Paul, for example, are written in beautiful style, such as the chapter on love in 1 Cor. 13,

while other lines can be a bit clumsy in expression, as Phil. 2:1-2. But as we said, inspiration protects truth, not literary quality.

Pius XII complained that some scholars were trying to limit this freedom from error to religious matters, so that they admitted error in matters of science or history. Today, many not only claim errors of science and history, but even errors of religion, ruling out only things needed for salvation.

They even say that Vatican II reversed previous teaching which includes, according to Pius XII, a

"solemn definition" and lets us think there are religious errors in Scripture! Here is the text of Vatican II to which some appeal: "Since all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers assert should

be regarded as asserted by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished

to be confided to sacred Scripture."²⁶¹

Some say the above italicized words are ambiguous.²⁶² That is, the clause could be either restrictive or descriptive. If restrictive, it would mean that only things needed for salvation would be free of

error. If descriptive, it simply describes the Scriptures as for our salvation.

We admit that the words are ambiguous, provided that we ignore the context-which is something no scholar should ever do with any document.

1) If Vatican II had really wanted to make that clause clearly restrictive, there is an unambiguous Latin construction that would have made it clear called qui quidem with the subjunctive.²⁶³ The

Council did not use that structure.

2) Vatican II added a note to the sentence in italics, which refers us to the statements of Vatican I, Leo XIII, and Pius XII, all of whom insisted that there is no error, not even scientific or historical

error, in Scripture.²⁶⁴

3) Pius XII, as we saw, said the statement of Vatican I that there is no error at all in Scripture was a

"solemn definition."

So can we suppose the Church reversed a solemn definition in language that is ambiguous if we ignore the context, but clearly meaning the same as the past if we consider the context? And that it added a note referring us back to the very statements it would supposedly contradict? If there ever

was a case of strained pleading, the objectors are giving it here. Of course, they think they can prove errors in Scripture, and mention some alleged errors, chiefly Job 14:13ff. We will examine

those later in this Appendix (in 1.c.).

Before going ahead we had better deal with a possible objection: How can the Church declare Scripture inerrant, when the Church needs Scripture as a basis for its own claims? Is there a vicious

circle?

The reply is basically the same as that which we saw early in this book. The claims of the Church to teach with providential protection are established, before we look on Scripture as inspired, and so,

before we depend on the Church to declare Scripture inerrant. Only the six simple facts were needed to prove the teaching mission of the Church; these we established without appealing to the

help of the Church at all. They were such easy things to show. There was a man called Jesus, who claimed to be a messenger from God, who proved it by miracles done in special frameworks. He had an inner circle of followers to whom He spoke more, whom He told to continue His teaching; and He promised that God would protect that teaching. We established these by showing that the writers of

the Gospels lived early enough to have the facts, that they had ample chance to get them, that their concern for their own eternity would make them tell things honestly. We saw special new

evidence of even meticulous care on the part of St. Luke.

So there is no vicious circle. Now we can go ahead to check claims of error in three areas: science, history, and religion.

a) Claims of errors in science

The basic answer, which is sufficient in itself, is very simple for one who understands the approach by way of genres (Chapter 8 and Appendix I.6). Scripture does not assert scientific data. Nor do

people today, for that matter, assert that the sun rises in the east. They know it does not really rise; rather, that the earth is revolving on its axis and going around the sun. We are just using popular speech in saying the sun rises in the east. Even if we did not know the scientific facts, we still would be just using normal expressions of the day. Similarly pope Leo XIII wrote, "There is no

error when the sacred writer, speaking of physical things, 'follows what appears to the senses' as St. Thomas says."²⁶⁵

b) Claims of errors in history

These too are easily answered. Many of them need only an application of the approach via literary genres. For example, some say that in Daniel 1:1 we read that King Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in the third year of King Jehoiakim, which seems to be 607 B.C. But, from the Chronicle

of King Nebuchadnezzar, we know that the siege must have been three years later.

Before having recourse to genres, we must notice that the chronology of the kings of Judah presents problems. Some would suggest that Jehoiakim became king in 608 B.C. according to Palestinian reckoning, but the Babylonian system, used by Daniel who resided there, would make

605 the third year of Jehoiakim.²⁶⁶

Further, we must notice with Leo XIII that scholars seem strangely confident that all secular chronicles are accurate, and would rather doubt the Biblical records.²⁶⁷

Also, some things about ancient kings that seemed insoluble in the past have been resolved with new discoveries. Thus the book of Daniel calls Belshazzar the last king of Babylon, while the Babylonian records say it was Nabunaid. However a recently found tablet tells us that Nabunaid gave his son royal power, went to Arabia, and never really reassumed the throne.²⁶⁸ So a future

discovery may unravel this question about Daniel 1:1. However, we do not really need any of the above at all. We ask in what genre the book of Daniel is written. All admit that there are two

genres. One of them is apocalyptic, evidenced in the strange visions. The other is still being discussed. It is known that at least by the fifth century B.C. a genre of edifying narrative, with a didactic purpose, became popular, as seen in the Ahikar story. This genre somewhat resembles a

romance or historical novel. It is an edifying story in which there is some fact, especially in the setting, but is a free fictional handling of many things, especially those not needed for the purpose of the work. In such a setting, the dates and names are unimportant. Yes, the writer may have put down what he happened to think about dates, but he did not mean to assert these were accurate,

for accuracy was not needed for his purpose.

Another example of an historical problem. For example, in Mark 2:26 we seed that David entered the house of God, "under Abiathar the high priest" and ate the bread of the presence. But 1 Sam

21:1 says it was not under Abiathar, but under his father Abimelech.

The solution is very easy. The Greek has: epi Abiathar archiereos. Now Greek epi with the genitive of the person easily takes a generic meaning, i.e., "in the days of...."²⁶⁹ So the phrase really means,

"in the times of Abiathar." Both were alive at the time. The reason for using Abiathar's name rather than Abimelech is that he was much more prominent and better known to readers of the Old Testament than his father, in view of his close association with David, under whom he became chief

priest along with Zadok.

One further example: In Matthew 27:9 we read that a prophecy of Jeremiah was fulfilled in the fate of Judas. Yet some say the quote is from Zech. 11:12 ff. We reply that the note in the non-conservative New American Bible explains well, "Matthew's free citation of Jer. 18:2 f; 19:1 f;

32:6-15 and Zech. 11:13 shows that he regards Judas' death as a divine judgment." So we gather that Matthew really put together passages from both Jeremiah and Zechariah. The rabbis used to do such things, and when they did, they put the name of the best-known author on the combination.²⁷⁰

We already saw, in Chapter 10, the answer to still another historical problem, the agreement of Paul and Acts on the Council of Jerusalem. There are more problems, all easily solved. At the end of

Appendix II, we will explain the most prominently raised difficulties.²⁷¹

c) Claims of religious errors in Scripture

Many today are claiming that there are numerous errors in Scripture, even religious errors. For example, Thomas A. Hoffman, in Inspiration, Normativeness, Canonicity and the Unique Sacred Character of the Bible dismisses the term inerrancy: "The term inerrancy is dropped in this paper as

having no positive theological contribution to make."²⁷² He adds that to try to refute all charges of error is "basically patching holes on a sinking ship." Bruce Vawter even says the terms "infallible"

and "inerrant" are even "anti-biblical."²⁷³ Because these claims are so very important, before taking up some specific examples, it will be worthwhile to examine the underpinning, as it were, of the

claims.

Confusion is injected at once, by the common assertion that the Word of God is "human and time-conditioned."²⁷⁴ This statement is true but potentially misleading. The Bible is human in that there is

a human as well as a divine Author, the Holy Spirit.²⁷⁵ The Holy Spirit uses the human author in such a way that the human author retains his own literary style, but yet he writes without any error

what the Holy Spirit wills that he write. It can be called time-conditioned in that the kinds of expressions used by the human author will be affected by the culture of his own time.

There is a certain parallel in the case of official documents of the Church. On the one hand, Paul VI, in Mysterium fidei insisted, "The rule of speaking, which the Church with long labor over the centuries, not without the protection of the Holy Spirit, has arrived at and has confirmed by the authority of Councils ... must be preserved as holy, nor should anyone at his own wish or on pretext

of new knowledge presume to change it."²⁷⁶ Yet it is to be admitted that there is a sort of time conditioning, such as we just described, and so language may be capable of improvement. Hence

the Doctrinal Congregation, by order of Paul VI, on June 24, 1973, told us, "With regard to this historical condition.... it sometimes happens that some dogmatic truth is first expressed incompletely (but not falsely), and at a later date ... receives a fuller and more perfect expression."

Yet, "it must be stated that the dogmatic formulas of the Church's Magisterium were from the very beginning suitable for communicating revealed truth, and that as they are, they remain forever suitable ... to those who interpret them correctly...."²⁷⁷ In the same spirit, Vatican II, in its Decree

on Ecumenism, wrote, "If the influence of events or times has brought deficiencies in conduct, in ecclesiastical discipline, or even in the expression of doctrine-which is to be carefully distinguished

from the deposit itself of faith-these things ought to be suitably rectified at the proper time."²⁷⁸

Today some try to distinguish three stages in the meaning of Scripture: the sense originally intended by the inspired author, the changed sense it may acquire when a book of Scripture is put

into the canon, and the various senses the Church may give the same text.

As to the second stage, the meaning given by insertion into the canon, we turn to what is called canonical criticism. This method goes back to James Sanders, in Torah and Canon, in 1972.²⁷⁹

According to T. J. Keegan, "Canonical critics agree ... that it is the reader who produces the meaning of the text, but insist as one of their fundamental presuppositions, that it is only the believing community that is capable of reading and interpreting the Bible."²⁸⁰ But this does not simply mean that the Church can authentically interpret the Bible, and give us its true meaning in a

final statement. No, canonical critics think every work of literature has many meanings.²⁸¹ So the Church-as in stage three mentioned above-is said to give many different interpretations, which need

not necessarily agree with each other.

This is the same as saying that the Church does not tell us the real meaning of Scripture, and that various Church statements may contradict each other. Of course this is not the case. The Church, under divine protection promised to Her by the Divine Messenger we saw in the first part of this book, can and does interpret Scripture correctly. Vatican II, in its Constitution on Divine Revelation,

declared, "The task of authoritatively interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on [Scripture or Tradition] has been entrusted exclusively to the living Magisterium of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."²⁸² Note the word exclusively-Scripture scholars have no authority at all. Their work is described thus: "It is the task of Scripture scholars

to work according to these rules for the deeper understanding and presentation of the sense of Sacred Scripture, so that by as it were preparatory study, the judgment of the Church may mature."²⁸³ The sentence just before our quotation explained "these rules": "Since Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted according to the same Spirit by whom it was written, no less attention

must be devoted to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture, taking into account the Tradition of the entire Church and the analogy of faith."²⁸⁴ Scholars today often ignore this teaching of Vatican II. They note that each Evangelist has his own special scope and intention which is true-but they go on to assert that one Evangelist can even contradict another (we will see below a strong

instance of a claim that Mark and Luke contradict each other). Of course this cannot be true, since, as Vatican II insists, it is one and the same Holy Spirit who is the author of all parts of Scripture.

The Council adds that the scholars must look to "the analogy of faith," that is they must never interpret a text in such a way that the meaning would clash, even by implication, with any official

teaching of the Church.

We admit that Church statements at times may use what is called an "accommodated sense" of Scripture. That is, a text is applied to something, in a fitting way, even though the sense proposed

was not the one intended by the inspired author. St. Paul himself, in view of his rabbinic training,

often enough does this sort of thing. But the Church does not always do this. By careful study we can find out whether or not the Church is giving us an accommodated sense of Scripture. For example, the Council of Trent wrote: "If anyone says that by the words, 'Do this in memory of me'

Christ did not make the Apostles priests, or did not ordain that they and other priests should offer His body and blood, let him be anathema."²⁸⁵ The context, of opposing Lutheran errors, makes clear

that in this instance Trent was defining the sense of Luke 22:19 and 1 Cor. 11:24.

that in this instance Trent was defining the sense of Luke 22:19 and 1 Cor. 11:24.