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 which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.¹⁵

To the casual reader, this paragraph may not seem problematic, but it has been interpreted in two diametrically opposed ways since Vatican II closed its doors in 1965. The traditional way to read the passage, of course, would be to understand that: (a) Scripture is without error in all that it says, and (b) all that it says is put there for the sake of our salvation. The modernists, however, read it quite differently. They claim it teaches that: (a) not all Scripture is without error, since (b) only things in Scripture written for the sake of our salvation are without error. The material that is not dealing with salvation, so says the modernist, can indeed contain error, things such as history, culture, science, mathematics, chronologies, genealogies or even religious ideas.¹⁶

Seizing on what appeared to be an ambiguity in Dei Verbum 11, Brown and the modernists have made considerable in roads into Catholic academia in the last 40 years, practically rewriting the Catholic teaching on biblical inerrancy, and all with little concern or admonishment from the Vatican hierarchy. To see how Fr. Brown and his liberal colleagues arrived at their interpretation we should take a peak behind the scenes at Vatican II.

There were actually three versions or "schemas" of Dei Verbum's paragraph which now contains the clause "without error...for the sake of salvation" prior to the one finally decided upon. The original version stated quite plainly

"...it follows directly and necessarily that the whole Bible is absolutely immune from error...by its very nature, necessarily prevents and excludes every error in any subject-matter whatever, religious or profane."¹⁷

Franz König, a liberal cardinal from Vienna, objected to this wording and led a majority of bishops to reject it. A second version stated that the Bible was "completely immune from all error," and relegated the issue of "subject-matter, whether religious or profane" to a footnote. Countering the König party, the conservative bishops objected to schema #2, since it tended to limit biblical inerrancy to faith and morals. A third version was produced which, by including a footnote to paragraph 124 from Pope Leo's Providentissimus Deus, restored the fact that Scripture was inerrant even in statements beyond faith and morals.¹⁸

Cardinal Meyer of Chicago then made what at first appeared to be a neutral recommendation. He suggested that the final draft should include a positive statement about Scripture's purpose to effectuate our salvation. To satisfy this dimension, a quote from 2 Timothy 3:16 was added to the wording (and still remains in the final version). But Meyer's suggestion unfortunately opened up a new controversy. Prior to the quote from 2 Timothy, the words "salvific truth" were added in regards to the material in Scripture that was inerrant, which once again implied that Scripture was inerrant only in regards to truths about salvation. Interestingly enough, the record of deliberations reveals that "salvific truth" was finally rejected precisely due to its heterodox implications. Note the words of Archbishop Paul Philippe, a consultor to the Holy Office, who spoke to the council Fathers:

Therefore it should not be said that the sacred books 'teach' salvific truth without error, because this insinuates a distinction among the scriptural affirmations themselves, as if some of them taught without error truths pertaining to salvation, while others had no such content and were thus not necessarily immune from error...I request that we restore the expression 'without any error,' as in the previous draft, since the documents of the Magisterium...always express themselves in such a way as to exclude completely from the sacred Scriptures error of every kind.¹⁹

The decision to excise "salvific truth" came as follows. Pope Paul VI was approached on this matter in October 1965, just a few months before the council came to a close. After studying the issue, the pope wrote a letter to Cardinal Ottaviani, head of the theological commission. The Pope specified that he was "deeply hesitant" about the meaning engendered by the words "salvific truth." The pope warned that such wording is highly controversial, thus it would be "premature" for the council to make a declaration on "such a doubtful question." He finally stated: "...the Fathers might not perhaps be able to form an adequate judgment as to the gravity of this matter, nor as to the abusive interpretations which may arise from it."²⁰

At the request of the Pope, the commission reconvened. Seventeen of twenty-eight members voted to follow his advice to omit the words "salvific truth." Since the vote did not reach a two-thirds majority, a group of Fathers suggested they use the phrase "for the sake of our salvation" ( Latin: nostrae salutis causa), which led to a two-thirds vote of 19 to 9, and the vote was approved by the pope.

These series of events tell us clearly Paul VI had an acute sensitivity to the issue of biblical inerrancy, and did not wish the doctrine to be altered by wording suggesting Scripture was only inerrant on matters of salvation. Indeed, in 1970, Paul VI reiterated his resolve in the words of his July 1 allocution: "For the Church, Sacred Scripture is the Word of God, inspired by Him and therefore guaranteed by divine inerrancy in its own authentic meaning."²¹ Never, at any time, did Paul VI hint that inerrancy was in any way limited to matters of salvation, and neither did the popes before him nor the two popes after him.

True to form, the modernists were not about to give up that easy. Cardinal König and the German bishops now sought to excise the words "without error" from the text, claiming that literary genres of Scripture "demonstrate that the Bible's references to matters of history and natural science sometimes fall short of the truth." Based on what he called "current oriental studies," König gave three examples of "errors" in Scripture: (a) in Mark 2:26, Jesus says "in the time of Abiathar the High Priest," but 1 Sam 21:1 says that Ahimelech was the high priest at that time; (b) in Matt 27:9, Matthew assigns Jeremiah to a prophecy spoken by Zechariah (Zech 11:12-13). (c) Daniel 1:1's statement that Nebuchadnezzer besieged Jerusalem in the "third year" of Jehoiakim should be the sixth year of Jehoiakim. To make a long story short, the council rejected König's allegations of Scriptural errors, since there was no definitive and irrefutable evidence to prove his case.

In actuality, these and many other alleged Scriptural errors were well-known among the church's Fathers and medieval theologians, and each anomaly was given a plausible solution. At the least, it can be safely said that no reputable Catholic in the history of the church had ever suggested that internal anomalies within Scripture proved that Scripture was in error.

The interesting thing about König's examples of error is that each of them has a simple explanation - at least an explanation worthy enough to forestall accusations of error. For example, in the case of Jesus saying that Abiathar was the high priest instead of Ahimelech, the particular way in which Mark worded the statement eliminates any possible way of proving that either he or Jesus erred. The Greek genitive "epi Abiathar archiereos" means "at the time of Abiathar the high priest." This fits the Old Testament timing very well, since after Saul had Ahimelech murdered, Abiathar, his son, fled to David and served as his priest, and was appointed high priest when David actually became king. Under these circumstances, it would be perfectly legitimate for Jesus to refer to Abiathar as the high priest.

As for Matthew referring to Jeremiah instead of Zechariah, the fact is that Matthew 27:9 is a combination of both prophets' words (cf., Jeremiah 18:2; 19:2, 11; 32:6-9; Zech 11:12-13), since no single passage contains all the details found in Matthew's quotation. Moreover, the mere fact that Jeremiah is the more prominent prophet, and was always at the top of the list when the Jews catalogued the prophets (as appears in the Babba Bartha), it would not be out of place to refer to him over Zechariah. The same kind of preference is noted in Mark's choice of Isaiah over Malachi in Mark 1:2-3 (cf., Mal 3:1; Is 40:3).

As for Daniel using the "third year" as opposed to the "sixth year" of Jehoiakim, this is due merely to the differing methods of calculation between Jewish and Babylonian calendars. Daniel, since he was in captivity for seventy years in Babylon, followed the Babylonian calendar, which had a three-year discrepancy with the Jewish calendar that Jeremiah used, a calendar which was further complicated by the fact that it was based on the differences between the regnal and accession years of Judah's kings.

It is not hard to see that, with a little work and imagination the alleged errors of Scripture can be explained. In fact, König's examples of biblical error were unproblematic, to say the least. There are others that are more difficult, and some might not even be answerable since we don't have all the necessary information to make a firm decision. But noticing apparent contradictions in Scripture is nothing new. Cornelius Lapide, a late middle age Catholic theologian catalogued hundreds of supposed "errors" in Scripture, along with hundreds of explanations he gathered from various patristic and medieval exegetes. What is "new" are those in the Catholic church today who claim that these apparent contradictions are irrefutable evidence of Scripture's errancy. Modern exegetes have become so conditioned to expect errors in Scripture that they hardly even bother trying to find explanations; rather, they immediately boast and advertise them as proof of the merits of historical-critical theory. Monsignor John McCarthy has joked that they should be called "the one minute scholars." That is, if they can't figure out a solution to the apparent contradiction within one minute, they resign themselves to call it an error.

In the face of all this is the constant and abiding teaching in Catholic history that Scripture contains no errors, for it is the voice of God who cannot lie. Obviously, to say that a certain part of Scripture is in error, and at the same time hold that the Holy Spirit inspired that Scripture, is tantamount to saying that God lies. This was the bottom line for the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, Popes and Councils who spoke on the issue of biblical inerrancy - God cannot lie (Titus 1:2).

The same arguments that are used today by Fr. Brown and his modernists colleagues were some of the same used by a few "historical critics" outside the early church. In fact, one of St. Augustine's opponents, Faustus the Manichean, has an uncanny resemblance to the arguments of Fr. Brown. We could easily replace Faustus' name with Fr. Brown in Augustine's following letter. He writes:

But Faustus [Fr. Brown] finds contradictions in the Gospels. Say, rather, that Faustus [Fr. Brown] reads the Gospels in a wrong spirit, that he is too foolish to understand, and too blind to see. If you were animated with piety instead of being misled by party spirit [liberal theology from Vatican II], you might easily, by examining these passages, discover a wonderful and most instructive harmony among the writers....Who, in reading two narratives of the same event, would think of charging one or both of the authors with error or falsehood, because one omits what the other mentions, or one tells concisely, but with substantial agreement, what the other relates in detail, so as to indicate not only what was done, but also how it was done? This is what Faustus [Fr. Brown] has done in his attempt to impeach the truth of the Gospels; as if Luke's omitting some saying of Christ recorded in Matthew implied a denial on the part of Luke of Matthew's statement.²²

Augustine maintains that God willed the apparent contradictions in Scripture, to test man's faithfulness and make him seek God in humility:

Be not wanton to accuse either the obscurity or seeming contradiction of Scripture. There is nothing in it contradictory: somewhat there is which is obscure, not in order that it may be denied you, but that it may exercise him that shall afterward receive it. When then it is obscure, that is the Physician's doing, that you may knock. He willed that you should be exercised in knocking; He willed it, that He might open to you when you knock.²³

Of course, no lesson on biblical inerrancy would be complete without Augustine's famous letter to Jerome, written after many years of personal Bible study. He writes:

I have learned to hold those books alone of the Scriptures that are now called canonical in such reverence and honor that I do most firmly believe that none of their authors has erred in anything that he has written therein. If I find anything in those writings which seems to be contrary to the truth, I presume that either the code is inaccurate [faulty manuscripts], or the translator has not followed what was said [wrong sense], or I have not properly understood it [misunderstanding on the part of the reader]. I think that you, dear brother [Jerome], must feel the same way. And I say, moreover, that I do not think that you would want your books to be read as if they were the books of Prophets or Apostles, about whose writings, free of all error, it is not lawful to doubt.²⁴

The other Fathers were just as adamant as Augustine about the total inerrancy of Scripture. Here is just a small relative sampling of some of the major Fathers:

Clement of Rome: "You have studied the Holy Scriptures, which are true and of the Holy Spirit. You know well that nothing unjust or fraudulent is written in them."

Irenaeus: "If, however, we are not able to find explanations for all those passages of Scripture which are investigated, we ought not on that account seek for another God besides Him who exists....Things of that kind we must leave to God...knowing full well that the Scriptures are certainly perfect....The true knowledge is the doctrine of the Apostles...and the very complete tradition of the Scriptures, which have come down to us by being guarded against falsification, and are received without addition or deletion; and reading without falsification..."²⁵

Justin Martyr: "If a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind be brought forward, and there be a pretext for regarding it as contradictory, since I am totally convinced that no Scripture is contradictory to another, I shall admit instead that I do not understand what is spoken of..."²⁶

Athanasius: "Now it is the opinion of some, that the Scriptures do not agree together...but there is no disagreement whatever, far from it, neither can the Father, who is truth, lie; 'for it is impossible that God should lie,' as Paul affirms."²⁷

Gregory Nanzianzus: "We who extend the accuracy of the Spirit to every letter and serif will never admit, for it is impious to do so, that even the smallest matters were recorded in a careless and hasty manner by those who wrote them down."²⁸

Epiphanius: "And nothing of discrepancy will be found in Sacred Scripture, nor will there be found any statement in opposition to any other statement."²⁹

Chrysostom: "'But the contrary,' it is said, 'has come to pass, for in many places they are found to disagree with each other.' Yet, this very thing is a great proof of their truthfulness. For if they had agreed exactly in all respects, even as to time and place and to the using of the same words, none of our enemies would believe that they had not met together and had not written what they wrote in accord with some human compact....But as it is, the discord which seems to be present in little matters shields them from every suspicion and clearly vindicates the character of the writers."³⁰

Jerome: "I am not, I say it again, so ignorant as to suppose that any of the Lord's words are either in need of correction or not divinely inspired. But the Latin codices are proved to be faulty by the discrepancies which they all exhibit among themselves; and it was my desire to restore them to the form of the Greek original, from which my detractors do not deny that they have been translated."³¹

The Popes and Councils continued the tradition of the Fathers, without hesitation. Here are some of the more pertinent papal and conciliar statements:

Pope Leo XIII: Providentissimus 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: Lamentabili Sani: Condemns the following 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: 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: Divino Afflante Spiritu, repeats Pope Leo XIII's 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;"

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

Pope Pius IX: Syllabus of Errors: Condemns 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."

Even the Pontifical Biblical Commission, an authoritative arm of the Church in 1964, reiterated the historic teaching of the popes and councils, stating: "...that the gospels were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who preserved their authors from every error," restoring the very word "every" that Vatican II had compromised. (See below).

The Church was so adamant against the idea that the human authors of Scripture could allow an error to slip into Scripture that they spoke of Scripture being "dictated by the Holy Spirit."

Vatican Council 1: "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" (Denz. 3006).

Pope Leo XIII: Providentissimus Deus (I, B, 2, b): "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....For all the books in their entirety...with all their parts, have been written under the dictation of the Holy Spirit" (Denz. 3292).

1 2