1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

JA: As Dei Verbum stated, the Bible is inerrant in "that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures." In other words, in matters in the Bible not dealing with our salvation there is not the same degree of inerrancy.

RS: Where does the Church make the conclusion: "In other words, in matters in the Bible not dealing with our salvation there is not the same degree of inerrancy"? Nevertheless, I couldn't help but notice your shift to "the degree of inerrancy" rather than just plain "errant." If by this shift you are trying to say that the Bible doesn't always speak in the most precise terminology, we can accept that. But if you are saying flat out that the Bible makes errors, that is unacceptable. I hope you see the difference.

JA: A maxim surfaced after the Galileo controversy, 'The Bible is meant to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go'. The people who wrote the Bible had knowledge as limited as other people in their time. Inspiration gave them greater religious knowledge, but did not educate them about other matters. They cannot be expected to know more about the formation of the universe than anybody else at that time. But the Bible is free of error in salvific truth.

RS: I've got news for you, Jorge. The Galileo-type controversy is not over, and neither is the Evolution controversy. You will see in the next few decades that these items are going to be brought to the fore all over again, for it is the very science you take such pride in that is helping destroy the myths of science perpetuated over the last few hundred years.

JA: Perhaps we are saying the same thing in different ways. Perhaps we are hopelessly lost in semantics. I don't know. What is clear is that rational human beings who are of the 21st century no longer believe in the absolute inerrancy of the Bible. Nor, does the Catholic church teach that such a belief is necessary, although I would suspect that one is free to believe so if one chooses.

RS: Jorge, if you want to say the Bible uses sensible language, fine, but when you say that one of the evangelists made a mistake, that is not fine. Leo and Pius were only talking about the former, but you are talking about the latter, and therein lies the difference, and as long as it lies there, we will be against you.

Further Comments on the Seventh Dialogue:

R. Sungenis: This is typical of the liberal distortion of both Scripture and Church documents.

Here is what Dei Verbum 19 actually said:

"Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven. Indeed, after the Ascension of the Lord the Apostles handed on to their hearers what He has said and done. This they did with that clearer understanding which they enjoyed after they had been instructed by the glorious events of Christ's life and taught by the light of the Spirit of truth. The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which has been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches, and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus. For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who 'themselves from the beginning were eye-witnesses and minsters of the Word' we might know 'the truth' concerning those matters about which we have been instructed."

Now, here's what Mr. Adams wrote as his understanding of Dei Verbum 19:

"...while the historical character of the Gospels is asserted, it is recognized that what Jesus said and did underwent several stages of modification. It was preached by the apostles; then it was selected, synthesized, and explained by the evangelists. Obviously such a process means that we do not always have the ipsissima verba of Jesus. No other conclusion is tenable and the Church has reaffirmed this position many times."

Notice his conclusion: "Obviously such a process means that we do not always have the ipsissima verba of Jesus. No other conclusion is tenable and the Church has reaffirmed this position many times." This is not the conclusion of Dei Verbum, for it nowhere states what Mr. Adams stated. As the liberal-minded scholars do with many statements from Vatican II, they read into them what they would like to find. I've even heard many people say, and I agree with them, that these liberal scholars made the language of Vatican II "ambiguous" so that they could, indeed, read into the documents what they would like to see. If that is the case, then God has wisely set a trap for them, for they will read into the documents all the wish to see, but upon close examination, the documents simply do not say what they claim.

To understand Mr. Adams's claims, we must realize that he has bought into the Higher Critical theory about the origin of the Gospels. This theory was introduced by liberal Protestant scholars as far back as the 18th- 19th centuries, and continued on in the 20th centuries. One of the Higher Critical theories holds, for example, that Mark was the literary basis for Matthew and Luke. Yet because Matthew and Luke have more material, Higher Critical theories postulate that there was another document, they call Q, which was the source for the extra material. (They've never found a "Q" document - - its all a theory). Then there are more complicated Historical Criticism theories, such as those proposed by the Protestant Streeter, claiming that there were additional sources to Q. In fact, there are about five major "Source" theories in all. Each of them conflicts with the others. In each theory it is claimed that the Gospels were redacted, synthesized, modified, or what have you, so that in the end we do not have the actual words of Jesus, we have only the essence of what Jesus said, an essence that is then written down as, more or less, a paraphrase form by the evangelist.

Thus, when you read in the Gospels that Jesus said: "Get thee behind me Satan," you can never be sure whether He indeed said those words, but what you do know for sure from Historical Criticism theory is that Matthew wrote down, in conjunction with whatever source he had (Q or M or L), only what he thought Jesus meant, or only what he thought would be good for you to know "for the sake of your salvation," so the liberal scholars claim.

Suffice it to say, all of this is pure speculation. It has not the slightest bit of proof whatsoever. It is all theory, yet a theory these liberal theologians hold on to with such tenacity, since it takes the sting out of the Gospel message and makes Scripture just like any other book. You have to understand that they have a different concept of God. Their God is a distant, far off, being, in virtual incommunicado with the earth, and when He did speak, it wasn't in a form we would understand, and thus the evangelists wrote only their impressions of what occurred when Jesus was on earth. It is no surprise that most liberal theologians do not believe Jesus was God, but was merely a highly intelligent and moral man who was closer to God than the average Joe. On the Catholic side, Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Fr. Karl Rahner were two of the major proponents of this kind of thinking, and, not surprisingly, they also believed that Scripture was errant. On the Protestant side are such figures as Albert Schweitzer, Rudolph Bultman, Karl Barth, et al.

Now let's get to Dei Verbum 19. It reads: "...that the four Gospels just named...faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught." Notice that Dei Verbum says that the Gospels were "faithfully handed on." It says that the Gospels record what Jesus "REALLY did and taught." The word "really" shows us that the Gospels contain no made up stories or made up words. "Did" and "taught" show us the two components of what the Gospels record, that is, Jesus' actions and words. In other words, the Gospels record what Jesus REALLY SAID, for that is what "really...taught" means. You can't have something "taught" without saying it, and therefore "said" and "taught" are synonymous.

Dei Verbum confirms that the words are synonymous in the very next sentence: "Indeed, after the Ascension of the Lord the Apostles handed on to their hearers what He has said and done." Notice the clause "what he has said and done," which is the very same thought in the wording of the previous sentence, "what Jesus really did and taught."

Thus, combining the two sentences we have the proposition that the Gospels: "faithfully hand on what Jesus really said and did." There is simply no indication whatsoever in these statements that Dei Verbum entertained the idea that Jesus' words were modified such that we do not have the verbatim words of Jesus. Anyone who claims the contrary is just reading into Dei Verbum what he would like to see.

Now, people of Mr. Adams's persuasion will object that Dei Verbum's next statement says something different. The next sentence is:

"The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which has been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches, and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus."

But as is usually the case, liberal-minded people read into these sentences what they would like to see.

As for "selecting some things from the many" (in reference to Mr. Adams's citation of "selected"), it has been a common understanding of the Church since the time of the Fathers that not EVERYTHING Jesus said and did was recorded in the Gospels. John 21:25 testifies to this fact itself. So there is nothing about this "selection" process that is going to support Mr. Adams's contention that in the Gospel record of Jesus' sayings we may not possess the verbatim words of Jesus.

Regarding the words "reducing some of them to a synthesis," this also does not prove or support Mr. Adams's contention that we do not possess the verbatim words of Jesus. It has been commonly understood since the time of the Fathers that certain of the four evangelists recorded shorter renditions of various events and sayings of Jesus. At times, the words of Jesus may be slightly different from one evangelist to another. Because of this slight change, the liberal-minded scholar, due to the tenets of Higher Critical theory, will be predisposed to conclude that one or more of the evangelists did not record the exact words of Jesus (that is, the evangelist is just paraphrasing). The liberal-minded scholar will not entertain the idea that the sayings were said on two different occasions or at different times during the same occasion, or some other mollifying explanation that preserves the verbatim integrity of both Jesus and the evangelist. We maintain that if, according to John 21:25 and other Scriptures, the volume of Jesus' deeds and sayings would fill a multitudinous number of books, we can imagine that Jesus said the same thoughts on many different occasion, and may have done so, on occasion, by using slightly different words. One evangelist would have recorded one occasion, while the other evangelist recorded another, yet both are similar. But liberal scholars don't want to hear of "explanations" of any apparent discrepancies, for they have already concluded, based on their theological presuppositions, that there ARE discrepancies which have no explanation other than that someone made a mistake, made up what he wrote, or just spoke in general thoughts but not verbatim words.

When people such as Mr. Adams see the word "synthesis" they automatically think that whatever is "synthesized" means that one or more of the evangelists have reduced the deed or saying of Jesus down to such a point that the original deed or saying cannot be known as it exactly occurred. For example, they would claim that Luke may have seen an account recorded in Mark, "Q" and Matthew, and then decided that he was going to take from each source what he thought would be good for us to know, and as he wrote it down, he may have changed a word or action, here or there, to conform to Luke's literary intent, whatever they propose that "intent" might be. But this is all theory, and it is not what Dei Verbum said, nor has any other Church document. A "synthesis," in keeping with what the Fathers, Popes and Councils have stated on inerrancy, is merely the effort by an evangelist to take out some actions or sayings of an historical account that another evangelist recorded, or vice versa. But this does not mean that the final product the evangelist "synthesized" is not the actual actions and words of Jesus. The evangelist merely chose to exclude certain actions or sayings, or include them, as the case may be.

Why do liberal-minded scholars do this? Because their intent is to make Scripture, primarily at the historical level, just like any other book. This was the intent of Higher Criticism from the beginning, according to its Protestant originators. Its founders all admit that they were going to critique the Bible as if they were looking at the Illiad and the Odyssey, or Shakespeare. In their view, the only thing "divine" about Scripture is that it contains divine thoughts and principles but not necessarily divine words. To them, Inspiration does not mean that God condescend to the level of giving us a verbatim recording of what was actually said and done by Jesus, or any biblical character, rather, men were inspired to write only their general impressions of what was said and done. Thus, if we are left only with "general impressions," the liberal scholar thinks that he has found the perfect antidote to deal with the discrepancies of the Bible. But in reality, he has undermined all of divine revelation, for now we cannot be sure of the real content of anything we read in Scripture, be it a theological truth or an historical truth.

This is why people like Mr. Adams can also claim that there are "religious" errors in Scripture. For example, he claimed that the book of Job teaches that there is no resurrection. (After I answered him by citing Job 19:25-26, he gave no reply. Upon asking him for further "religious" errors, he did not reply).

Now let's examine the next clause in Dei Verbum 19: "...and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus." When people of Mr. Adams's persuasion see the words "form of proclamation," they probably think of the tenets of Form Criticism, another Higher Critical twist originating with liberal Protestants. But notice that Dei Verbum does not cite any such theories. And even if there were any allusion to form criticism, Dei Verbum negates any of the false conclusions of form criticism by stating quite plainly that what was recorded was "always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus." Notice the qualifier "honest" in front of "truth," conveying the instruction to us that we can, indeed, trust that what we are reading about Jesus is the truth and nothing but the truth.

But the liberal-minded scholar will still raise an objection. Like Pilate he will inquire: "What is truth?" By this he means to say: Is 'truth' necessarily the exact wording of Jesus, or is it just the meaning of what Jesus said? He will, of course, say that 'truth' in Scripture refers only to the latter, not the former. He does not have any proof from Dei Verbum that such is the case, but he will give himself the license to make such an interpretation due to his understanding of what the "intent" of Vatican II was, and that "intent," according to him, was to change our view of biblical inerrancy. You will see the word "intent" appear profusely in the liberal-minded understanding of the Bible. For some odd reason they claim to be able to penetrate the thought process of the biblical writer. When you ask them how they know the "intent" of the writer they will only refer you to their Higher Critical theories, and thus we are inundated with the vicious circle of question-begging.

But all this is the wishful thinking for a crowd who has long-lost faith in God. Dei Verbum made no such conclusions. In fact, in order to allow us to know the "intent" of Vatican II, the Council fathers cited all the significant and traditional teachings on biblical inerrancy, from such decrees as the Council of Trent, the First Vatican Council (which used the word "dictation" to describe how the Bible was inspired); the encyclicals Providentissimus Deus by Leo XIII; Humani Generis by Pius XII, Spiritus Paraclitus by Benedict XV; who all said, among other things, that there were no theological or historical errors in Scripture, and which, in citing them, Vatican Council II endorsed all their teachings; the 1915 Biblical Commission; St. Augustine; St. Thomas Aquinas; St. John Chrysostom; St. Irenaeus, none of which held to the liberal-minded views of biblical inerrancy.

In fact, let me quote from St. Augustine on this issue. In his letter to Jerome he writes:

"For I confess to your charity that I have learned to

regard those books of Scripture now called canonical - and them alone - with such awe and honor that I most firmly believe none of their authors erred in writing anything. And if I come across anything in those Writings which troubles me because it seems contrary to the truth, I will unhesitatingly lay the blame elsewhere: perhaps the copy is untrue to the original; or the translator may not have rendered the passage faithfully; or perhaps I just do not understand it."

But even more important than the former teachings on biblical inerrancy were the then current teachings of Paul VI. He declared, unequivocally, to Cardinal Ottaviani in a letter of 1965 that he did not want the phrase "saving faith" (Latin: veritatis salutaris) in Dei Verbum 11 due to its inherent suggestibility that Scripture was inerrant only in matters of salvation. Thus we know the "intent" of the papacy in this matter, yet, consistently ignoring this fact of history, liberal-minded scholars claim that it was the express intent of Vatican II to limit inerrancy to matters of salvation. Accordingly, they continue to distort the phrase that Paul VI did allow (i.e., "for the sake of our salvation") into the very meaning that Paul VI would not allow for "saving truth." Why? Because they are bent on changing our view of biblical inspiration to match their pitiful view of God.

You'll notice Mr. Adams's claim that "the Church has reaffirmed this position many times"? But, as usual, Mr. Adams makes many such ipsi dixit statements but doesn't cite any magisterial source for his strong opinions. In the end, Mr. Adams doesn't have any proof for his claims, and they are to be rejected.

Robert Sungenis

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9