Content deleted Content added
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Alter: template type. Add: website, title, date, isbn. Changed bare reference to CS1/2. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by BrownHairedGirl | Linked from User:BrownHairedGirl/Articles_with_bare_links | #UCB_webform_linked 1116/2843 |
|||
Line 120:
=====Metaphor and literalism=====
Even if the bible is inerrant, it may need to be interpreted to distinguish between what statements are metaphorical, and which are literally true. [[Jeffrey Burton Russell|Jeffrey Russell]] writes that "Metaphor is a valid way to interpret reality. The 'literal' meaning of words – which I call the overt reading – is insufficient for understanding reality because it never exhausts reality." He adds: <blockquote>Originating in Evangelicalism, the Fundamentalists affirmed that the Bible is to be read "literally" or overtly, leading some to reject not only physicalist evolution but even evolution science and to deny that life developed over billions of years. Evangelicals tended to believe in the "inerrancy" of the Bible (though they defined that term variously), a view that sometimes could unhelpfully turn the Bible into an authority on science and history.<ref>{{Cite
Also, figures such as [[Scot McKnight]] have argued that the Bible clearly transcends multiple [[genre]]s and Hebrew prose [[Poetry|poems]] cannot be evaluated by a reader the same as a science [[textbook]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/05/05/how-do-we-know-when/|title=When is the Bible metaphorical?|work=Jesus Creed|date=5 May 2012}}</ref>
=== Criticism ===
Line 216:
For Catholics as for Protestants, the challenge to inerrancy became serious when the Bible began to come into conflict with science, first astronomy (heliocentrism), then geology (the age of the earth) and finally biology (the evolution of species). By the 19th century, some Catholic thinkers were suggesting the same solution as some Protestants: inerrancy in the Bible is restricted to matters of doctrine and morality. ([[Galileo]] had already said something similar in the early 17th century when, quoting Cardinal [[Caesar Baronius]], he had said: "The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.")
The reaction came from pope [[Leo XIII]] in his 1893 encyclical ''[[Providentissimus Deus]]'':<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html|title=Providentissimus Deus (November 18, 1893) | LEO XIII}}</ref>
<blockquote>20. [...] It is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, [...] cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and [...] that inspiration [...] is essentially incompatible with error. [...] This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church.</blockquote>
Fifty years later (1943), pope [[Pius XII]] in ''[[Divino afflante Spiritu]]''<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu.html|title = Divino Afflante Spiritu (September 30, 1943) | PIUS XII}}</ref> agreed:
<blockquote>1. [...] When [...] some Catholic writers [...] ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as "obiter dicta" and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter 'Providentissimus Deus' [...] justly and rightly condemned these errors.</blockquote>
Line 231:
<blockquote>12. Because divine Inspiration extends to everything, the absolute immunity of all Holy Scripture from error follows directly and necessarily. For we are taught by the ancient and constant faith of the Church that it is utterly forbidden to grant that the sacred writer himself has erred, since divine Inspiration of itself as necessarily excludes and repels any error in any matter, religious or profane, as it is necessary to say that God, the supreme Truth, is never the Author of any error whatever.</blockquote>
After a week's debate, 62% of the assembled bishops voted to reject the draft. Five other drafts would follow in the course of the next 3 years, the fruit of negotiations among various groups at the Council resulting in language broad enough to attract votes from a wide spectrum of bishops. The last draft was approved by a vote of 2081 to 27, and on 18 November 1965 became the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, known as ''[[Dei Verbum]]'' from its first Latin words.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html|title=Dei verbum}}</ref> The document's teaching on inerrancy is found in a single sentence:
<blockquote>11. [...] Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed 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 see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.</blockquote>
Line 237:
The crux of the matter was the phrase “for the sake of our salvation”. It could be understood as limiting inerrancy to matters of salvation, but some insisted it had no effect on the traditional view that the Bible was completely inerrant.
Since Vatican II, there has been no official pronouncement on the meaning of this phrase. Article 107 of the [[Catechism of the Catholic Church]] (1992) simply quotes the sentence from ''Dei Verbum'' without any further explanation:<ref name="vatican.va">{{Cite web|url=https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PP.HTM|title = Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText}}</ref>
<blockquote>107. The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed 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 see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." (DV 11)</blockquote>
Line 252:
Some theologians and apologists defend the view that total inerrancy is still the Church's teaching. For instance, articles defending this position can be found in the 2011 collection ''For the Sake of Our Salvation''.<ref>{{cite book|editor=Scott Hahn|title=For the sake of our Salvation|series=Letter and Spirit Journal #6|publisher=Emmaus Road|year=2011}}</ref>
On a more popular level, at ''Catholic Answers'', a website and podcast with a strongly apologetical bent that calls itself “the world's largest database of answers about the beliefs and practices of the Catholic faith” there is no lack of articles defending the same position, with titles such as “Is Scripture Inerrant?”,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-scripture-inerrant|title=Is Scripture Inerrant?}}</ref> “The Accuracy of Scripture”,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-accuracy-of-scripture|title = The Accuracy of Scripture}}</ref> “Is everything in the Bible True?”<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-everything-in-the-bible-true|title = Is Everything in the Bible True?}}</ref> and “Is the Bible's Inerrancy Limited to Matters Pertaining to Salvation?”<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.catholic.com/qa/is-the-bibles-inerrancy-limited-to-matters-pertaining-to-salvation|title = Is the Bible's inerrancy limited to matters pertaining to salvation?}}</ref>
But the majority view among today's Catholic theologians and Scripture scholars is that ''Dei Verbum'' has indeed replaced total inerrancy with inerrancy limited to matters of salvation.
For instance, [[Raymond E. Brown]], "perhaps the foremost English-speaking Catholic Biblical scholar",<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituary-the-rev-raymond-e-brown-1172611.html|title=Obituary: The Rev Raymond e. Brown|website=[[Independent.co.uk]]|date=18 August 1998}}</ref> wrote:<ref>{{cite book|author=Raymond Brown|title=The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus|publisher=Paulist Press|year=1973|pages=8–9}}</ref>
<blockquote>In the last hundred years we have moved from an understanding wherein inspiration guaranteed that the Bible was totally inerrant to an understanding wherein inerrancy is limited to the Bible's teaching of "that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation." In this long journey of thought the concept of inerrancy was not rejected but was seriously modified to fit the evidence of biblical criticism which showed that the Bible was not inerrant in questions of science, of history, and even of time-conditioned religious beliefs.</blockquote>
Similarly, Scripture scholar R. A. F. MacKenzie<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/roderick-andrew-francis-mackenzie|title = Roderick Andrew Francis MacKenzie | the Canadian Encyclopedia}}</ref> in his commentary on ''Dei Verbum'':<ref>{{cite book|editor=Abbott|title=The Documents of Vatican II|year=1967|page=119 note 31}}</ref>
<blockquote>The Bible was not written in order to teach the natural sciences, nor to give information on merely political history. It treats of these (and all other subjects) only insofar as they are involved in matters concerning salvation. It is only in this respect that the veracity of God and the inerrancy of the inspired writers are engaged.</blockquote>
Line 269:
<blockquote>14. [...] The books thus declared canonical and inspired by the Spirit of God contain ‘the truth which God wished to be set down in the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation’ (Dei Verbum 11). It is important to note this teaching of the Second Vatican Council that the truth of Scripture is to be found in all that is written down ‘for the sake of our salvation’. We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters. We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision.</blockquote>
* The ''instrumentum laboris'' (working paper) for the 2008 Synod of Bishops on the Word of God:<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20080511_instrlabor-xii-assembly_en.html|title = The Word of God in the life and mission of the Church}}</ref><ref>The English translation on the Vatican website has been corrected to bring it in line with the official Latin text</ref>
<blockquote>15. [...] even though all parts of Sacred Scripture are inspired, inerrancy applies only to ‘that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation’ (DV 11).</blockquote>
| |||