1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Robert Sungenis responds

The following are a series of discussion which took place within the last two years on the subject of biblical inerrancy. Jorge Adams (whose name has been changed to preserve his identity) argues for the liberal position that the Bible contains errors of history, science, mathematics, etc, and is only inerrant when it speaks on matters of salvation. Jorge claims that Vatican II taught his view. Robert Sungenis (whose name has not been changed) represents the traditional position which maintains that the Bible is inerrant in history, science, mathematics, and any other area of fact, including matters of salvation.

The first dialogue is not available, but excerpts from it can be seen in the statements of Robert Sungenis in the second dialogue, which are prefaced with "RS." We begin with the second dialogue, which concerns how Vatican II handled the issue of biblical inerrancy.

Dialogue 2

RS: But it really makes no difference what the prior discussions at Vatican II were, since the only thing that matters is what the final document says. Previous councils always had volumes of discussion, and much dissent, prior to the final draft approved. The point in fact remains that Vatican II did not change any prior teaching on the inerrancy of Scripture. Do you claim that they did?"

JA: Change is the wrong word. Develop is much more precise. There is no doubt that the teaching developed. The developed teaching must be read in light of Mysterium Ecclesia as well. Are you familiar with this teaching? If not, I can provide you with an excellent synopsis of it as it relates to this issue.

RS2: Granting that the proper word is "develop," it seems to me that if you believe there are historical errors in Scripture, then "develop" for you means that the traditional Church, although it condemned the idea that there were historical errors in Scripture (as late as Pius XII's Humani Generis in 1950 - condemning the notion that "...immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.") did so without really having a full understanding of the issue, and that since Vatican II, just 10 years down the road from Humani Generis, we now have a better understanding of both history and error, so that it is safe to say, with our "developed" knowledge, that Scripture does indeed contain historical errors. Isn't that what your "development" really means?

As for Mysterium Ecclesia, I don't see how this is going to help you. What specifically in it do you think vindicates your position?

RS: "The problem with Raymond Brown is that he takes the preliminary discussions of Vatican II as if they were the dogmatic conclusions of Vatican II. That is highly irresponsible, especially when one considers the history of discussion in Councils."

JA: Oh, he doesn't do that at all. I completely disagree. The discussions and various forms of the schema are merely evidence of the developed teaching that came forth from VatII and the more nuanced understanding of prior teaching.

RS2: But Jorge, we don't base Catholic dogma on what the "discussions" contained. There are always pros and cons to every Church dogma in the "discussions" of a Council. Vatican Council 1 had numerous "discussions" prior to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, and many of them were not too congenial. That's what the discussion are for -- to bring out all the issues, pro and con, so that a final decision can be made. But it is only the final decision which means anything. If the final decision can't bear the weight of what you put on it, then you really don't have a case. As it stands, Vatican II did not say that there were historical errors in Scripture, so whatever you think "for the sake of our salvation" means, it can't mean that Vatican II was teaching that there are historical errors in Scripture, especially since the phrase in question can be understood in a completely different and legitimate way than you are proposing.

RS: For example, on page 1169 of Raymond Brown's New Jerome Biblical Commentary it states: "...of Dei Verbum....debates show an awareness of errors in the Bible. Thus...Scriptural teaching is truth without error to the extent that it conforms to the salvific purposes of God."

JA: Exactly as I have been saying. The Church does not now teach that scripture contains error, but it is clear from the debates that the vast majority at the council understood that to make a claim for 100% historical inerrency of the Bible is contradicted by evidence, history, and logic.

RS2: First of all, you don't know it was a "vast majority." Even Brown only says "an awareness of errors." That can mean any amount. Second, if there were a "vast majority" that felt there were errors in Scripture, don't you think they would have been compelled to spell it out in the Vatican II documents? What would have held them back from divulging such an important "developed" understanding about Revelation if it was so important for the Church to know this information, especially since 450 years since Trent the Church was under the impression that there were no historical errors in Scripture?

RS: "First of all, everyone who knows anything about Vatican II knows that there were SOME prelates there who felt that there were errors in the Bible. They thought that long before Vatican II. Yet Fr. Brown treats such opinions as if they were the conclusions of the Council when he says, "Thus...Scriptural teaching is truth without error to the extent that it conforms to the salvific purposes of God." in his New Jerome Biblical Commentary.

JA: There were more than some prelates. The majority agreed as they soundly defeated form C of the schema on inerrency which proposed the type of inerrency you are arguing for.

RS2: Even if that is true, it would make absolutely no difference, for you have no way of proving that "schema C" was rejected because the Council believed there were errors in Scripture. For all you know, "schema C" was rejected because Vatican II did not think it was the responsibility of Vatican II to address the issue of inerrancy in any detailed way, especially since there is hardly anything in Vatican II that DOES address inerrancy, and since there are numerous statements prior to Vatican II that dealt very specifically with the issue of inerrancy, and thus there was no need to go into it again at Vatican II. That is just as viable an interpretation as yours. END

If you feel otherwise, then the burden of proof is on you to show:

"1) That previous popes and councils who spoke on inerrancy agreed that inerrancy does not apply to historical details.

2) Accepting your meaning of "for the sake of our salvation," you must show from other statements in Vatican II that historical details are not part and parcel with salvation, or to use Fr. Brown's words, you must show that historical details do not "conform to the salvific purposes of God."

3) That if there is an apparent historical contradiction between two statements of Scripture, you must prove, not just assert, that this is indeed a genuine contradiction without resolution. Do you have any such absolute evidence?"

JA: First of all, I can tell by the three statements above that you are not familiar with Mysterium Ecclesia. This is fundamental to understanding how the Church treats prior pronouncements. I don't have to show that "prior popes and councils who spoke on inerrancy agreed that inerrancy does not apply to historical details." This is precisely why you need to read Mysterium Ecclesia.

RS2: Jorge, I am familiar with the debate on how to understand previous church documents, and I don't think Mysterium Ecclesia is going to help you, but if you want to show me the specific language that you think will make your case I'll be more than willing to give it a look. Until then, the burden is on you to prove your case, especially since just 10 years earlier in Human Generis Pope Pius XII condemned your interpretation of "for the sake of our salvation."

JA: Number 3 is quite easy to do and I have done so many times with Michael. Did Jesus cleanse the temple early in his ministry (as in John's Gospel) or late in his ministry (as in Matthew's). It is no answer to say that he did it twice. Both are asserted by the evangelists and only one can be historically accurate.

RS2: Just the fact that you have to pose this as a question (ie., "Did Jesus cleanse the temple early in his ministry (as in John's Gospel) or late in his ministry (as in Matthew's)?" means you don't know the answer to the question, do you? Obviously, if you don't know the answer to your own question, then how can you say that either John or Matthew are in error? All you see is an apparent contradiction. But do you really think you have all the facts at your disposal about these two instances to firmly, resolutely, and forever conclude that one of the evangelists made an historical error? I don't think so, Jorge.

As for dealing with the two cleansings, although Jn 2:13 portrays a similar cleansing of the temple, it is a prior cleansing to the one recorded in the Matthew' gospel. Because of the pervasive corruption in Judea, the first cleansing did not last, requiring a second. Since Jews were required to pay the temple tax each Passover (Ex 30:11-16; 17:24), the moneychangers would also be present precipitating annual episodes of illicit buying and selling. The two cleansings are distinguished as follows: (a) in John's account, Jesus is confronted by opposition (Jn 2:18), whereas the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark and Luke) have no such description; (b) in John's account, Jesus issues a command (Jn 2:16), which is not in the Synoptics; (c) in John's account, Jesus uses his own words, not Scripture (Jn 2:16), which is not the case in the Synoptics; (d) in John's account, the disciples reflect on Ps 69:9 (Jn 2:17), which they do not do in the Synoptics. The spiritual reason the NT contains two accounts is to fulfill the "two or three witnesses" precedent for conviction of sin (cf., 2Co 13:1; Dt 17:6; Hb 10:28; 1Tm 5:19).

JA: Did Jesus instruct his Apostles on the Lord's prayer at the sermon on the Mount (as in Matthew) or on the road to Jerusalem (as in Luke)? Which wording is correct? IT is no answer to say that he taught them twice - because you really wouldn't argue that they forgot and he had to teach them again. The Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels (and the Catechism) makes clear that the Gospels had three stages of development. They are written logically, not chronologically. We don't know precisely when Jesus taught his disciples how to pray or when and where he did it. What we do know is that he did it. The evangelists place the teaching at a particular point in the Gospel for different reasons (This is a separate issue and one I could spend hours writing on). I can provide literally dozens of such historical contradictions (they really aren't when you realize that they were not intended by the writer to be understood as asserting the precise historical place and time that they occurred.

RS2: I was in a very lengthy email debate with someone this past Spring on the assertion you made about "...historical contradictions (they really aren't when you realize that they were not intended by the writer to be understood as asserting the precise historical place and time that they occurred"). I will say this, Jorge. You have no way of knowing what the "intention" of the author is. You cannot read the mind of an evangelist who lived in the first century. All you know is what the text gives you, and almost everyone will agree that it doesn't give us very much. Unless you can prove what the "intention" of the biblical writer is, then you really have no basis for saying that he made a particular historical error. For all you know, he knows historical facts about the situation that he chose not to reveal to you, but that if he did reveal them it would show that there is no contradiction between the authors.

RS: Brown, on the other hand, though some of what he says is worthy, is a very slippery eel, especially in his treatment of the infancy narratives. The reason, as you say, he has never been accused of rejecting Catholic doctrine is that he says everything BUT his formal rejection of some traditional Catholic doctrine. He knows how to play the game. He just makes strong suggestions that these traditional doctrines are wrong, but then, if cornered, claims that he never said they weren't correct.

JA: Not true and I will address this in my later email.

"RS: I don't know about "required," since that implies sanctions if not implemented, but I would agree that biblical criticism has some merit, even though the above documents were written by Raymond Brown."

JA: Written by him and approved by the Pope. This is Catholic teaching. The precise wording is "required", although I agree that there would be no sanction. The key is that this is an approved and necessary part of Biblical Interpretation in the Church.

RS2: Pius XII already said that the Church could use higher criticism, but neither he nor John Paul II ever said we had to accept the conclusions of higher criticism. Higher criticism is just a tool of hermeneutics. It is not the last word in the meaning of Scripture, especially when it begins to conclude that there are historical errors in Scripture. In fact, for all the allowance that the last five popes have given to higher criticism, not one of them has ever said that there are historical errors in the Bible. Isn't that a curious lacuna in your theory?

RS: Many a Protestant scholar lost his faith due to higher criticism, since they thought that they proved the Bible wrong on many points.

JA: But that is silly and unnecessary. I will address this later.

RS2: Silly? Sure. Unnecessary? Sure. But it still happens, and to those who thought it would never happen to them.

RS: "And once you think you've proved the Bible wrong in one place, its not to long until you think you've proved the Bible wrong in many places."

JA: There is no problem here at all and I fail to see what the problem is.

RS2: Here's the problem. How do you separate historical teaching from salvation teaching? The Protestants tried to do this for years with "The Search for the Historical Jesus" (Schweitzer, Bultmann, et al) and it was an utter failure. They discovered that you could not separate the history from the salvation, at least with any measure of accuracy. And who is to say that if the Bible is wrong on an historical detail that it is not wrong on a soteriological detail? Perhaps one can say that the "intent" of the author was not to give us factual soteriological details but merely to give us general soteriological truth (e.g., God is good, the Devil (if he exists) is bad, Jesus was a good example of perserverance, etc)?

RS: "But this assumes that they have all the facts at their disposal to make such lofty conclusions, and invariably they don't, but their pride makes them think they do."

JA: Ditto. I will address this later today.

RS: "Tell me, Jorge. Do you think Fr. Peter has ALL the facts at his disposal to make such an absolute conclusion?"

JA: This is a non-sequitor Robert and doesn't address the key issue we are discussing. I will address this later.

RS2: Perhaps, but answer the question anyway, just to humor me. Does Fr. Peter have all the facts to make such a conclusion or not? I think that's a pretty simple question to answer.

RS: "If he can't figure out the apparent contradiction within one minute of analyzing the verse, then he concludes that it is no longer an apparent contradiction but a genuine contradiction."

JA: Whoever said that really needs to go back to school. :)

RS2: Okay, Jorge, I'll let him know that.

"RS: I'm sorry to say, Jorge, that unless you have adequate answers for the questions above, I hold with Michael that anyone who says there are historical errors in Scripture is teaching heresy, and is going against the teaching of the Church."

JA: Keep in mind Robert that only the Church can tell us who is a heretic, just as only the Church is qualified and assigned the role to tell us what is dogmatically defined, the scope of what is defined, and what runs afoul of it. My views are completely consistent with Catholic teaching. I have more on this later.

RS2: I didn't say you were a heretic, Jorge, for, as you say, only the Church can make that determination, since it is based on the intent of the individual. I said your view of Scripture is heretical, as did all the Popes and Councils who spoke on this issue.

Here is a sampling:

Pius IX in Syllabus of Errors, condemned the following notion: "The prophecies and miracles set forth and recorded in the Sacred Scriptures are the fiction of poets, and the mysteries of the Christian faith the result of philosophical investigations. In the books of the Old and the New Testament there are contained mythical inventions..."

Pope Leo XIII, in Providentissiums Deus, "It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Sacred Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred."

Pope Pius X, in Lamentabili Sani, condemned the notion: "Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error."

Pope Benedict XV, in Spiritus Paraclitus: "...the divine inspiration extends to all parts of Scripture without distinction, and that no error could occur in the inspired text."

Pope Pius XII, in Divino Afflante Spiritu, repeats Leo XIII decree: "It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Sacred Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred."

In Humani Generis, Pius XII condemns the notion: "...immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters."

Pontifical Biblical Commission, in 1964, states: "...that the Gospels were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who preserved their authors from every error."

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in 1998, states in Professio Fidei: "...the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts..."

Leo XIII: "For the sacred Scripture is not like other books. Dictated by the Holy Spirit, it contains things of the deepest importance, which, in many instances, are most difficult and obscure" (Prov. Deus, I, B, 2, b). He also says: "For all the books in their entirety...with all their parts, have been written under the dictation of the Holy Spirit" (DS 3292).

Vatican Council 1 says: "Further, this supernatural revelation....is contained in the written books...from the apostles themselves by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and have been transmitted as it were from hand to hand" (DS 3006).

The Catholic Catechism: "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit" (Para 81). "God inspired the human authors of the sacred books...it was a true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more" (Para 106).

Leo XIII: "It is futile to argue that the Holy Spirit took human beings as his instruments in writing, implying that some error could slip in...For by his supernatural power he so stimulated and moved them to write, and so assisted them while they were writing, that they properly conceived in their mind, wished to write down faithfully, and expressed aptly with infallible truth all those things, and only those things, which He himself ordered; otherwise He could not Himself be the author of the whole of Sacred Scripture" (DS 3293)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9