The inerrancy of
Sacred Scripture is a tenet of faith that is firmly rooted in Catholic teaching
and tradition.[1] This belief flows from the
understanding of biblical inspiration, that the scriptures are authored by the
Holy Spirit, using human writers as His “instruments”.[2] Despite these teachings, the scriptures
nevertheless seem to contain incoherencies.
In the critical tension brought on by the progress of science, the last
century has seen much hostility toward the content of truth in Sacred Scripture
and has influenced many to question the validity of the historical events
therein portrayed. The authority of the
Church has nevertheless continually insisted that Scripture be considered true
in every sense. Though holding fast to the Tradition of the
Church, the question “is the Bible
inerrant,” which those of faith already find answered in the affirmative, makes
way for the question “how is the
Bible inerrant,” which demands a nuanced explanation. An answer to the latter becomes yet more
difficult in regards to the literal sense of Scripture. However, by examining the recent pertinent
writings of Church authority and the saintly authors they draw from, one may
see the ways inerrancy extends to every ‘sense’
of scripture without becoming a barricade to reason. It then becomes evident that an apparent
literal incoherency does not compromise truth, but merely reveals a
misunderstanding of the literal significance in question.
It has
traditionally been an essential practice to read Sacred Scripture with respect
to four different but unified ‘senses’. The
Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms the distinction of the four senses,
recalling the words of Augustine of Dacia: “The Letter speaks of deeds;
Allegory of faith; the Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.”[3] St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologiae, arguing against the
notion that these distinctions bear any duplicity of meaning, explains how the
allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses all compose what is termed the
‘spiritual sense’ of Scripture. He
emphasizes the unity of meaning in Scripture by asserting that the three
spiritual senses are founded on and draw their meaning from the literal.[4] The post-synodal apostolic exhortation Verbum Domini recalls and affirms the
same four senses and St. Thomas’ demarcation of them into the literal and
spiritual.[5] Verbum
Domini further expounds on these two senses, insisting that, although distinct,
they must not be read in a dualistic manner, which threatens to place the
literal and spiritual understanding of Scripture in opposition.[6] The literal and spiritual sense of Scripture,
therefore, are as closely connected as body and soul; the one being absurdly meaningless
without the other.
Taking into
account these two senses, it may seem permissible to suggest that the inerrancy
of scripture extends to the deeper, spiritual sense which contains matters of
faith, hope, and morals, while the literal sense, concerning historical events,
is in major part safe from the challenges of historical contradiction as it does
not seem to bear any significance in relation to salvation. For example, it is clear that to confess the
Catholic Faith is to admit of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. These concrete events thus compose a sure
portion of the historical truth of the Bible.
Some, however, would suggest the presence of error in accounts found in
both the Old and New Testaments which are at best unlikely.[7]
This judgment is
often based on a proposed interpretation of the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine
Revelation Dei Verbum. It is thus stated in section 11 of Dei Verbum, concerning the inspiration and
interpretation of Scripture:
…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 which God wanted
put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.[8]
It seems plausible to interpret
this passage to mean that that which God put into Scripture concerning
salvation is inerrant; i.e. that inerrancy applies only to events significant to salvation. This could not be held in light of the
preceding statement that “...everything
asserted by the inspired authors” has come from the Holy Spirit, which clearly
defines the extent to which God’s truth can be found.[9] Furthermore, such a misinterpretation cannot be
held in respect to the teaching of the Church which has addressed such and
similar views prior to the promulgation of Dei
Verbum.
In Pope Leo XIII’s
encyclical Providentissimus Deus, on
the study of Holy Scripture, he addresses the issue of interpretation and
scriptural inerrancy in regards to scientific or historical opposition. He recalls the words of St. Augustine:
…I must say
briefly that in the matter of the shape of heaven the sacred writers knew the
truth, but that the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, did not wish to
teach men these facts that would be of no avail for their salvation.[10]
Pope Leo XIII explains that the
sacred writers often wished only to describe things in a figurative sense and
in ways of speaking as was common to their time.[11] It is apparent that the Bible was not
intended by its authors (human or divine) to be a scientific treatise but
merely portrays how the human authors perceived the world around them. Augustine, however, as stated above, also
claims that the sacred writers knew the truth, suggesting that, although they
merely spoke of their immediate perception, their knowledge of material things
reflected the truth as well. Leo XIII,
alluding to Augustine, warns “…not to depart from the literal and obvious sense
[of Scripture], except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity
requires.”[12] This is a counsel to cling to the literal sense
and form interpretations as closely as possible to the original meaning of the
text. It is not permission to discredit
a passage of Scripture simply because it does not make immediate rational sense
or is in opposition to some current historical or scientific standpoint. He later in his encyclical makes this clear:
…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, because
(as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage,
we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose
which He had in mind in saying it – this system cannot be tolerated.[13]
It is therefore imperative to give
full credibility to what is written in Sacred Scripture, with the allowance of
reason to guide our understanding, but certainly not in a way which compromises
what is being communicated to us, in any sense, through Scripture.
This strict limit
to interpretation may seem to some as some kind of quasi-fundamentalism. Pope Benedict XV, however, in his encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus, seems to set even
further limits by taking an even stronger position with inerrancy. He recalls the words of his predecessor
(quoted above) and takes ‘certain parts’ of scripture to mean not only passages
in the text but also the different senses therein contained.[14] He states that those who fail to recognize
the “absolute truth” of Scripture’s “historical portions” place themselves in
opposition to Church teaching.[15] Throughout his encyclical, he strongly
emphasizes the necessity of keeping faith in the historical truth of
Scriptures; most especially in the Gospels.
Pope Pius XII, in
his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu,
continues in the same spirit as his above mentioned predecessors in his
treatment of Scriptural inerrancy. He recalls
the words of Leo XIII and affirms his position that Sacred Scripture cannot be
restricted solely to matters of faith and morals, rebuking those who posit the
concept of ‘obiter dicta’ (things
said on passing) as inapplicable to salvation and therefore not necessarily
inerrant.[16] He continues throughout his encyclical to
describe the importance of historical and critical exegesis and the study of
original texts in their respective languages.
Lest one think
that the teaching of the Church throughout the last century has been one of fundamentalist
leanings, with a phobia of science and honest historical inquiry, it should
perhaps be noted that faith in the truth of Scripture is coupled by a
familiarized need for its rational understanding. To say that Scripture is in every way
inerrant is not to say that all knowledge which comes to us must be cast aside
if it seems in opposition to Holy Writ.
The key to forming an understanding of literal inerrancy is humility. As Leo XIII has helped to express, referencing
St. Augustine, one cannot think to understand the whole of Scripture, but if
something should arise as to bring up some issue concerning its truth which
cannot seem to be reconciled both with faith and reason, one must regard it
ultimately as a fault of his own understanding.[17]
How does one thus improve
his understanding of Sacred Scripture? In
regards to faithful literal interpretation, the Church deems the
historical-critical method (i.e. seeking to understanding the meaning intended
by Scripture’s human authors in their own contexts) not only greatly useful but
even necessary. A clear promotion of
this method is found namely in Divino
Afflante Spiritu and further emphasis is given to its importance in the
Historical Biblical Commission’s The
Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (1993). The latter specifically states that it is to
be used in achieving the true literal sense of Scripture.[18] When reading a text which has been written
centuries in the past and in a culture greatly different from one’s own, the
“face value” of the text does not convey the same meaning as its author
originally intended. Thus there are many
nuances involved in understanding the text which the average modern reader
could not grasp without proper guidance.
For example, whether the evangelists considered it necessary to portray
the story of Christ’s life with chronological precision or to transmit His
words verbatim does not often factor into a common understanding of the text’s
primary meaning. Yet such considerations
greatly affect the interpretation of both the literal and spiritual sense. Indeed, one cannot think to understand just
what the literal sense means without properly understanding its meaning as the
author did.
 |
| The day the sun stood still |
Even in
considering the author’s intention, it may seem an issue as to whether the
author decided to portray events in ways differing from how they actually took
place. The Pontifical Biblical
Commission, in Sancta Mater Ecclesia
(1964), helps by clarifying the apparent discrepancy which comes from ‘unfaithful’
historical accounts. If the Gospels, for
instance, do not portray the events of Christ’s life in the order which they
actually took place (e.g. inconsistencies are often pointed out between the
order of events in John and Mark), this would not in any way affect the truth
which the Gospels contain.[19] The Commission explains that each evangelist
was occupied with the task of writing for a particular community with a
particular culture and with particular emphases to communicate. The truth of the Gospels is not therefore
compromised if one or more of their authors decided to portray the events less
as a strict record of events but more in light of their evangelical purposes.[20] Furthermore, God is not to be forgotten as
the one who inspired the writers of scripture to give their account in whatever
manner they did.[21]
Does not the text
itself then lack truth by not portraying what is taken literally? As Verbum
Domini attests, the Holy Spirit continues to speak through Scripture even
in modern contexts.[22] The spiritual sense of Scripture is, as it
were, living and breathing; transcending cultural and temporal limitations in articulating
matters of faith, hope, and morals. The
literal sense, upon first inspection, seems to be dead in comparison. The text signifies an action or event, be it
historical or metaphorical, which either was or was not the case at the time of
its composition. Once a text is written,
the literal form does not change; i.e. the first ‘layer’ of meaning becomes
static. The text then, as it would seem,
either expresses the factual character of the things signified or it does not
represent things as they actually are and is thus in error. It is thus easy to see how, with such an
approach, one can be brought to question the inerrancy of Scripture’s literal
sense. This is often a seemingly
commonsense way of evaluating the meaning of a text, given the analytical and
scientific tendencies of modern thinking, but it does not consider the meaning intended
behind the words themselves.
Furthermore, there
is meaning intended behind every word
in Scripture and as such, nothing written down can be discounted as
insignificant. As words are used to
signify events, so also do the events signify even deeper realities which share
their meaning with these events. In the
words of St. Paul, “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in
vain and your faith is in vain.”[23]
So too does every truth in Scripture bear significance to the Faith. God inspired his hagiographers to portray
the truth he intended and they must have been aware of this truth insofar as
they assented to His inspiration. Thus,
as the authors have recognized the significance of the events they portrayed,
we must recognize them in faith. There
is no hope without the Resurrection and there is no Savior without the
Incarnation, but less-climatic events also contribute meaning to the Faith. God made a covenant with the real person Abraham,
a real Moses who led Israel out of Egypt, and a real prophecy that foretold the
Messiah. Had not the coinciding events
of the Gospels actual taken place and fulfilled those actual events of the Old
Testament, what significance can we place on them? If the reality signified by the written text
does not coincide with actual events then what meaning can really be ascribed
to it?
This is a point at
which the nuances of historical fact, truth, and actual events must be fully expounded
upon and understood. Events as they are
portrayed in Scripture have a crucial significance in the history of
salvation. Throughout the Old Testament,
for example, God’s plan is revealed over the course of time to His chosen
people. His presence is known throughout
history. History, however, is understood today as the record of facts precisely
as they happened. So, when one attempts
to read the Old Testament from a modern perspective, there is a temptation to read
the literal sense as a record of facts for facts’ sake. This is perpetuated by a poor understanding
of the significance of historical events.
The events
portrayed in Scripture are significant insofar as they are expressions of the
relationship between God and His people: Creation, the fall, The Tower of
Babel, The Deluge, the Covenant with Abraham, the flight from Egypt, and the
conquest of the Hebrews are all historical events. However, whether these events happened as
they were written was not necessarily the intended message of the
hagiographers. This is not to say that
such events did not take place as
they were written. This is only to say
that the proper understanding of the text must be informed by reason and what
is known of the author’s purpose and intent as was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
[1]
Providentissimus Deus, Leo XIII, 20.
[2]
ibid. (Leo XIII expounds this in his
encyclical and cites the First Vatican Council, St. Augustine, and St. Gregory
the Great)
[3]
CCC, 118
[4]
Summa Theologiae, I, q. 1, art. 10
[5] Verbum Domini, 37
[6] op. cit. 35
[7] cf. Gn 5.8, Gn 7.23, Js 10.13, Mt 2.16,
Mt 27.9
[8]
Dei Verbum, 11.
[9]
ibid. (emphasis added)
[10]
De Gen. ad Litt. II, ix., 20
[11]
Providentissimus Deus, 18
[12]
op. cit. 15.
[13]
op. cit. 20
[14]
Spiritus Paraclitus, Benedict XV, 21
[15]
op. cit. 22
[16] Divino Afflante Spiritu, Pius XII, 1
[17]
Providentissimus Deus, 21
[18]
The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church,
Pontifical Biblical Commission (1993), II, B. 1
[19]
The Instruction on the Historical Truth
of the Gospels, Pontifical Biblical Commission (1964), 9
[20]
ibid.
[21]
ibid.
[22]
Verbum Domini, 35.
[23]
1 Corinthians 15.14
No comments:
Post a Comment