The Accuracy of Scripture

Catholic Culture ^ | 12/05 | James Akin

[bdeaner]

The Catholic blogosphere was recently set on fire by word of a document issued by the bishops of England, Wales, and Scotland entitled The Gift of Scripture.

The firestorm was triggered by an October 5 article in The Times of London carrying the inflammatory headline "Catholic Church no longer swears by the truth of the Bible."

The Times article contained a number of errors and distortions, but it also contained a number of quotes from the British bishops' document that were of concern to faithful Catholics.

For example, the document is quoted as saying that "we should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision" and that, while the Bible is reliable when expressing truths connected to salvation, "we should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters."

Such statements are common these days from catechists, theologians, and biblical scholars. They are trying to express something important — that there are certain things we should not expect from Scripture — but they have not used the right language in expressing these facts.

The Traditional View

Scripture presents itself to us as the very word of God, and the Christian Church has always honored it as such. Historically, Christians have held that the Bible is absolutely free of error, or inerrant.

Yet it has also been clear that there are many difficult and perplexing things in the Bible. This has led some to entertain the idea that Scripture may be protected from error in a way different than previous generations of Christians have held. Instead of being totally free of error, these thinkers have said, perhaps it is only free from error on certain matters.

For example, some have said that the Bible is meant for teaching us faith and morals, so perhaps it is inerrant on faith and morals but not on other matters. Other have suggested that Scripture is oriented toward our salvation, so maybe it is inerrant only on matters of salvation.

This might be called the limited or restricted inerrancy view, as opposed to the total or unrestricted inerrancy position.

As attractive as limited inerrancy may be, it faces significant problems.

Some Problems

It does not seem that the Bible understands itself in these terms. When the authors of Scripture quote each other, they speak in a way that suggests that every single word is authored by God.

The authors of the New Testament, for example, regularly quote the Old Testament with introductions such as "The Holy Spirit says" (Heb. 3:7), and Jesus himself said that "not an iota, not a dot" would pass away from the law of Moses before it was fulfilled (Matt. 5:18).

In the last couple of centuries the Church has weighed in on this question and rejected limited inerrancy. The First Vatican Council taught:

"These books [of the canon] the Church holds to be sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author" (De Fide Catholica 2:7).

Pope Leo XIII stated that "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" and condemned "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" (Providentissimus Deus 20).

Pius XII stated that the Vatican I passage cited above was a "solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the 'entire books with all their parts' as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever." He repudiated those who "ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals" (Divino Afflante Spiritu 1).

And then came Vatican II.

Vatican II

The Vatican II decree Dei Verbum taught:

"In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things that he wanted. Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully, and without error that truth that God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation (DV 11).

The last phrase of this passage — "for the sake of salvation" — has become a sticking point, and many have argued that it restricts the scope of scriptural inerrancy to just those things that have to do with our salvation.

There was actually an intense behind-the-scenes controversy at Vatican II over this clause, which ended up being appealed to Pope Paul VI, and there is no doubt that some at the Council wanted the phrase understood as allowing restricted inerrancy. In fact, some wanted a formula that would even more clearly allow for restricted inerrancy.

But ultimately this position did not prevail. The text as it stands continues to affirm that the Bible contains all and only what God wanted written — that everything asserted by the human authors is asserted by the Holy Spirit.

There are countless instances where Scripture is clearly making an assertion that is neither of faith and morals nor connected in any direct way with our salvation. For example, the Bible clearly asserts that Andrew was the brother of Peter in some accepted first-century understanding of the word brother.

Dei Verbum thus teaches the unrestricted inerrancy of Scripture, and the "for the sake of our salvation" clause is thus most plausibly read as a statement of why God put his truth into Scripture, not a restriction on the scope of his truth.

What to Do?

That leaves us with the problem of how to explain the limits of what Scripture can be expected to do and how we can go wrong if we approach it the wrong way. How can these limitations be explained to the faithful in a way that does not charge Scripture with error?

Dei Verbum has given us an important tool for doing this. The Council spoke of those things "asserted by the inspired authors" as asserted by the Holy Spirit and thus protected from error. So we need to determine what the inspired author is trying to assert, for that is what is protected from error.

What a person asserts is not the same as what he says. Suppose someone says, "It's raining cats and dogs out there today." What he has said is perfectly obvious, but he is not asserting that cats and dogs are falling from the sky. Instead, he is asserting that it is raining hard.

His assertion may well be true. It may indeed be raining hard, and if so then he should not be charged with error.

Native English-speakers are familiar with the phrase "raining cats and dogs" and recognize what is meant. But non-native English-speakers could be perplexed by the statement. It's the same with Scripture.

The Example of Genesis

We don't come from the same culture that authored Scripture. We aren't ancient Israelites, and we don't have a native's feel for how their literature works. When people from our culture read the Bible they are particularly liable to miss symbolism that the text may be using. We know that God can do amazing, miraculous things, and if we don't know how ancient Hebrew literature worked, we can read perplexing things as miracles rather than symbols.

Throughout history many have taken the six days of creation in Genesis as six literal twenty-four-hour periods, but there are clues that this may not be what is meant. For example, the sun is not created until day four, though day and night were already in existence on day one. The ancients knew that it's the sun that causes it to be day as well as we do, and so this may mean that the passage is not to be understood literally.

By asking ourselves what it does mean — what the inspired author is asserting — then we see that he is asserting that the whole of the material world was created by God — the true God and not a bunch of pagan deities.

One could look at the passage and conclude that the inspired author is not trying to give us a scientific account of the creation of the world. The magisterium has recently favored this view (CCC 337, 283).

So would it be right to say, as The Gift of Scripture does, that "we should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy"?

Finding the Right Words

Because Genesis is not making scientific assertions, it is wrong to charge Genesis with scientific error. If someone draws erroneous scientific conclusions from a misreading of Genesis, the error belongs not to Genesis but to the person who has misread it.

Therefore we should not say that Genesis does not have "full scientific accuracy" — a statement that is bound to disturb the faithful and undermine their confidence in Scripture. Instead we should say that Genesis is not making scientific assertions and that we will draw erroneous conclusions if we treat the text as though it were.

The same applies to statements such as "We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible." In fact we should, for everything asserted in Sacred Scripture is asserted by the Holy Spirit, and he does not make mistakes.

The burden is on us to recognize what the Spirit is and is not asserting, and we may stumble into error if we make a mistake in doing this.

This applies to science or history or faith or morals or salvation or any other subject. The error belongs to us as interpreters, not to the Holy Spirit and not to the Scripture that he inspired.

[Nosterrex]

The problem is the employment of Higher Criticism rather than the Historical-Grammatical approach. The problem you raise about Genesis is compounded by the fact that Jesus and St. Paul believed in the historicity of Genesis. In fact, the whole institution of marriage is determined by Jesus’ reference to the marriage of Adam and Eve. St. Paul refers to the hierarchy of man and woman based upon Genesis. If you are puzzled by how we should interpret Genesis, maybe following Jesus’ approach would be best.

[Salvation]

Very good article. I’m sure I will re-read it several times to digest all the information.

Thanks.

[Salvation]

The Accuracy of Scripture
US Conference of Catholic Bishops recommendations for Bible study

CNA unveils resource to help Catholics understand the Scriptures
The Dos and Don’ts of Reading the Bible [Ecumenical]
Pope to lead marathon Bible reading on Italian TV
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Books of the Catholic Bible: The Complete Scriptures [Ecumenical]

Beginning Catholic: When Was The Bible Written? [Ecumenical]
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
U.S. among most Bible-literate nations: poll
Bible Lovers Not Defined by Denomination, Politics
Dei Verbum (Catholics and the Bible)

Vatican Offers Rich Online Source of Bible Commentary
Clergy Congregation Takes Bible Online
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: Mary's Last Words
A Bible Teaser For You... (for everyone :-)
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: New Wine, New Eve

Return of Devil's Bible to Prague draws crowds
Doctrinal Concordance of the Bible [What Catholics Believe from the Bible] Catholic Caucus
Should We Take the Bible Literally or Figuratively?
Glimpsing Words, Practices, or Beliefs Unique to Catholicism [Bible Trivia]
Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?

Church and the Bible(Caatholic Caucus)
Pope Urges Prayerful Reading of Bible
Catholic Caucus: It's the Church's Bible
How Tradition Gave Us the Bible
The Church or the Bible

[kosta50]

"The error belongs to us as interpreters, not to the Holy Spirit and not to the Scripture that he inspired."

Provided the a priori dogmatic assertion that God authored the Bible is correct, which is by no means a proven fact.

[GOP Poet]

bookmark

[presently no screen name]

assertion that God authored the Bible is correct, which is by no means a proven fact.

Believe that at your own risk. Calling God a liar is not wise. Read about the rich ruler - he thought he knew it all. Luke 16:19-31

[bdeaner]

Jesus and St. Paul believed in the historicity of Genesis.

Chapter and verse, please, and let's discuss it.

In fact, the whole institution of marriage is determined by Jesus’ reference to the marriage of Adam and Eve.

Yes, but Adam and Eve are in the second Creation narrative, which taken on a literal level, contradicts the first Creation narrative.

In the first account of Creation (Genesis 1:25-27), the humans were created after the other animals. But in the second account (Genesis 2:18-19), humans were created before the other animals.

Also, in the first account of Creation (Genesis 1:27), the first man and woman were created simultaneously. But in the second account (Genesis 2:18-22), man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.

Obviously, these passages were not meant to be taken literally, or else they would not contradict each other when taken literally.

I do however believe in Adam and Eve. In fact, research in genetics traces all DNA back to a single man and woman living in Africa. We actually have scientific proof that all of humanity originates from the same two people. This scientific, empirical evidence, in addition to the narrative of Adam and Eve, do not contradct Jesus' teachings on Genesis, nor St. Paul's, but rather supports it.

[Nosterrex]

There is not a contradiction between the two chapters. The first gives an overview of creation, but second focuses upon the creation of Adam and Eve. It’s late here, so I’ll discuss it more tomorrow, and I will give you the verses for which you asked although they are not hard to find.

[bronxville]

Bookmark for an enjoyable read tomorrow. Thanks bdeaner.

[bdeaner]

I realize there are ways to interpret the Creation stories so that they don't seem to be so contradictory, but the fact remains, they do appear on first glance to not quite square up together. And there are other Scriptures outside of Genesis that directly contradict the Creation account, if taken literally -- again, we can touch on this tomorrow with further conversation. But those contradictions are more serious and more difficult to explain away.

I am not worried about these criticisms, however, because I think the literary style of the Creation story in Genesis lends itself to a non-literal, symbolic and allegorical interpretation moreso than a literal one, and taken as such, is completely harmonious with contemporary physical sciences. Indeed, the physical sciences overwhelmingly support the belief in a Creation, and in ways that are in complete comformity with the infallible teachings of the Church.

Moreover, the Intelligent Design argument, which flows from a non-literal reading of Genesis, can be shown to provide very difficult problems for atheists such as Dawkins, as is demonstrated in books such as Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker's Answering the New Atheism and the Barr text I already cited, among others. Catholicism can hold its ground against science on the very terms of science. And this shows me, in a very convincing way, that we should probably let theology be theology -- and that means a more deductive approach -- and let science be science -- which takes a more inductive approach -- and they will round each other out, and come together harmoniously in the end if we can have the patience to let them do their thing on their own terms.

[bdeaner]

I realize there are ways to interpret the Creation stories so that they don't seem to be so contradictory, but the fact remains, they do appear on first glance to not quite square up together. And there are other Scriptures outside of Genesis that directly contradict the Creation account, if taken literally -- again, we can touch on this tomorrow with further conversation. But those contradictions are more serious and more difficult to explain away.

I am not worried about these criticisms, however, because I think the literary style of the Creation story in Genesis lends itself to a non-literal, symbolic and allegorical interpretation moreso than a literal one, and taken as such, is completely harmonious with contemporary physical sciences. Indeed, the physical sciences overwhelmingly support the belief in a Creation, and in ways that are in complete comformity with the infallible teachings of the Church.

Moreover, the Intelligent Design argument, which flows from a non-literal reading of Genesis, can be shown to provide very difficult problems for atheists such as Dawkins, as is demonstrated in books such as Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker's Answering the New Atheism and the Barr text I already cited, among others. Catholicism can hold its ground against science on the very terms of science. And this shows me, in a very convincing way, that we should probably let theology be theology -- and that means a more deductive approach -- and let science be science -- which takes a more inductive approach -- and they will round each other out, and come together harmoniously in the end if we can have the patience to let them do their thing on their own terms.

[Iscool]

I do however believe in Adam and Eve. In fact, research in genetics traces all DNA back to a single man and woman living in Africa.

Africa??? Well I thought Eden included the area around the Fertile Crescent...Who'd a thought Adam and Eve were Africans...

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“In the first account of Creation (Genesis 1:25-27), the humans were created after the other animals. But in the second account (Genesis 2:18-19), humans were created before the other animals.”

That’s not how it comes across to me. It seems to me that the Divine Author is simply reminding the reader that He created animals out of the earth. It doesn’t say anything about time.

“Also, in the first account of Creation (Genesis 1:27), the first man and woman were created simultaneously. But in the second account (Genesis 2:18-22), man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man’s rib.”

Again, to me it doesn’t come across that way. In Gen. 1:27 we are merely told that God created man and woman. In Gen. 2, we have a more detailed description of that creation. We do this in conversation all the time. If I say, “I was born in New York, went to grad school in California and married in Canada,” someone can say you married when you were born? You went to graduate school when you were a baby? No one says that, however, because we know how conversational comments work in reality according to time.

“Obviously, these passages were not meant to be taken literally, or else they would not contradict each other when taken literally.”

I don’t see any contradiction there. It seems to me that Genesis 2 was just a greater detailed version of Genesis 1.

[bdeaner]

The fertile crescent in the Near East is not all that far from Africa. Current evidence has traced human ancestry all the way back to a single Eve which they trace to Ethiopia.

We'll have to see how the data unfolds.

Theology is deductive -- we start with basic, immutable principles, and then we draw inferences. Science is inductive: we start with the evidence and see if it matches current theories, or see if we need to modify our current theories. These are two different ways of thinking, but can and do converge on a single Truth. But that takes patience to work out, and to some extent much is still a mystery.

[Tax-chick]

If you are puzzled by how we should interpret Genesis, maybe following Jesus’ approach would be best.

Jesus, St. Paul, St. Peter ... I find their example persuasive, myself.

[bdeaner]

I should be clear that in Genesis there are in fact no contradictions, only apparent contradictions. The question is whether those apparent contradictions are more consistently resolved by reading the text in a literal way only, or by seeing reading it allegorically and/or symbolically. Or, there is a third option, which is that the text can be read on all of these levels.

Ronald Witherup gives the example of Genesis 1-2, which most scholars view as two separate stories of creation written by different authors in different time periods. "Most biblical scholars accept Genesis 1 as originating around the sixth century B.C. with a group of scribes who were concerned about the preservation of the liturgical traditions of the Jews (thus the concern for the seven-day schema of creation and the notion of the sabbath). Genesis 2, on the other hand, originates from an earlier, more primitive tradition dated to around the tenth century B.C. Fundamentalists, however, do not view the two stories as separate, the first one (Gen 1:1-2:4) being poetic and the second one (Gen 2:4-25) being more anthropomorphic, i.e., describing God in very human terms as a divine sculptor who forms the first human being out of dust. For fundamentalists, this is not a second story of creation but merely 'further detail' about the story of creation. This makes the differences in the accounts only apparent rather than substantive." (Biblical Fundamentalism: What Every Catholic Should Know, p. 26).

These narratives, dating back to the times that they do, were written in a style the people of that time could understand. If those accounts had been written, for example, in terms of modern physics, no one could have believed it, nor grasped it cognitively, because it would have been far too alien to the culture of that time.

For example, in Genesis 4:9, God asks Cain about the whereabouts of his brother, and then in Genesis 18:20,21, God goes to see what is happening. Yet, later Scriptures from a more mature civilization, teach us that God is everywhere and sees everything (Proverbs 15:3, Jeremiah 16:17, 23:24). Are these contradictions? Absolutely not. God is everywhere and does see everything, but for earlier civilization, it was necessary for cognitive understanding, that the narrative include a more anthropomorphic depiction of God, because they could use analogies to other human beings in order to understand what is in principle a mystery. I do believe in an actual Cain and Abel, but also believe that the account of the story should not be read as an exact account of history, as for example a textbook on the Civil War we read in school. It's a different kind of storytelling which the people of that time could comprehend, which contains immutable, theological truths. Historical writing as such did not yet exist.

[bdeaner]

2 Peter 3:8
8But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Taking Peter on his authority, we should be cautious about interpreting Creation as being a sequence of seven 24-hour days.

[Tax-chick]

I was referring to St. Peter’s discussion of the Flood.

However, statements such as the one you’ve quoted are one reason I don’t bother to get overly worked up about the question. I choose to take a certain interpretation, but I’m not going to have a cow if I find I’m wrong, and it doesn’t bother me that people disagree.

[Iscool]

"Most biblical scholars accept Genesis 1 as originating around the sixth century B.C. with a group of scribes who were concerned about the preservation of the liturgical traditions of the Jews (thus the concern for the seven-day schema of creation and the notion of the sabbath). Genesis 2, on the other hand, originates from an earlier, more primitive tradition dated to around the tenth century B.C.

I haven't done the math but the 'scholars' I read claim that if you add the numbers up; ages of the people in the genealogical record in the scriptures, it puts Adam and Eve on the earth about 6000 years ago...