Msg Base:  AREA 3  - ASK FATHER (AMDG)
  Msg No: 180.  Sat 12-12-92 12:06  (NO KILL)
    From: Father Mateo
      To: James Osborn
 Subject: biblical inerrancy

JO|I often get into discussions with non-Catholic friends regarding whether
  |the Bible can be considered fully, literally true. I myself recognize that
  |the six days of creation are not literal science, but how do we deal with
  |inconsistencies in the New Testament? To cite one example, in the synoptic
  |gospels Jesus enters and clears the Temple very late, after his triumphal
  |entry. But in John's gospel, he clears the Temple in the second chapter!
  |One study Bible, in an attempt to "harmonize" the accounts, claims that
  |Jesus cleared the Temple twice! This sounds crazy to me. Anyway, what is
  |the position of the Church on biblical inerrancy?
 
 
Dear James,
 
The Second Vatican Council made the freedom of the Bible from error
the subject of a conciliar decree: "Since all that the inspired
authors or sacred writers assert must be considered as the assertion
of the Holy Spirit, the books of Scripture must be maintained to teach
unhesitatingly, faithfully, and without error the truth which God in
view of our salvation wished to be committed to sacred writings"
(Decree on Revelation, 11).
 
The Catholic Dictionary of Theology article on inerrancy says
(vol. 3, p.99: "Leo XIII, by citing the sentence of Augustine that the
Holy Ghost did not intend to teach men the inner constitution of
matter as it was in no way profitable to salvation, had marked out a
line of solution which could be followed in questions of physical
science. The inspired writers were not miraculously brought up to
date with their science but spoke according to the knowledge
available at the time."
 
In his encyclical DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU, 42, Pius XII wrote:
"In many cases in which the sacred authors are accused of some
historical inaccuracy or of the inexact recording of some events ...
a knowledge and careful appreciation of ancient modes of expression
and literary forms and styles will provide a solution to many of the
objections made against the truth and historical accuracy of Holy
Scripture."  In these words the Pope implied the necessity and
validity of the work of textual criticism and the observance of
literary genera.
 
In Letter 82:1, Augustine remarks: "If I come upon anything in the
Scripture which seems contrary to the truth, I will shall not
hesitate to consider that it is no more than a faulty reading of the
manuscript, or a failure of the translator to hit off what his text
declared, or that I have not managed to understand the passage."
 
Pius XII (D.A.S., 47) is not afraid to suggest that some absurities
may remain forever. And Augustine (Letter 149:34) humorously
remarksmthat God put these obscurities in the Bible to make the work
of scholars meritorious!
 
Was there only one, or were there two cleansings of the Temple?  There
are weighty arguments on both sides -- none of them can be called
"crazy" -- but a fairly sensible suggestion is made by W. Leonard:
"(The Cleansing of the Temple) did indeed occur ... where John
places it.  The reason why the synoptic gospels place it at the end
may be that may be that Mk and Lk in general follow the arrangement
of Mt which is logical rather than chronological, and which
accordingly groups all incidents connected with Jerusalem under the
last Jerusalem visit.
 
Scott Hahn has produced a six-tape series on biblical inerrancy,
entitled "Can You Trust the Bible?" (#5254, St. Joseph Communications,
P.O. Box 720, West Covina, CA 91793.) The price is $29.95 plus $3.00
postage and handling. CA residents add 8.25% sales tax.
 
                                        Sincerely in Christ,
                                                Father Mateo