Catholic Apologetics International

Does the Bible Contain Errors?

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)

The Third Dialogue

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 previous 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...?"

JA: Not without an understanding of the issue, but certainly not the issue they were addressing.

RS3: But the precedent for interpreting Dei Verbum 11 had already been set by Pius XII’s 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." Looks like your interpretation was thought of previously, but was rejected.

"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."

JA: I am basing it on the form that they rejected and the one they approved. If they rejected 100% historical inerrancy and approved something else, what does that tell you.

RS3: You’re making a lot of assumptions, Jorge. There’s nothing in Vatican II that said they were rejecting 100% inerrancy. Granted there were a few like Konig who were pushing for it, but it was never accepted. END

JA: Keep in mind they didn't approve a form that teaches that there is historical error.

RS3: Well, Jorge, you seem to want your cake and eat it too. If Vatican II thought there were errors in Scripture, as Fr. Brown does today, then they would have said so. The point you need to address is that Fr. Brown says that THERE ARE errors in Scripture, not MAYBE. How can he say such a thing if, as you admit, Vatican II did not say there were errors in Scripture? It is not up to Fr. Brown to make the conclusions for us. He says himself, on other occasions, that such doctrinal decisions are to be left to the Church, not to the individual (at least that’s what he says in his "Historico-Critical Exegesis of the Bible in Roman Catholicism"). So why in this instance has he overstepped his bounds to make a final and resolute conclusion that there are errors in Scripture? It seems to me, Jorge, that Fr. Brown had already made up his mind, and is then reading into Dei Verbum 11 what he would like it to say.

JA: In fact, the commentary on the documents of Vat II make clear that they have left the issue of historical errors open for more exegetical and theological study.

RS3: We can always study the issue, Jorge, but that doesn’t mean that the Church is going to change its mind and conclude that there are errors in Scripture. My conclusion, Jorge, is that you either don’t have enough information about what went on at Vatican II and afterward, or you are reading into the document what you would like to see, just as Fr. Brown did.

JA: The one thing that is certain is that the Church doesn't teach 100% historical inerrancy.

RS3: Name the Church document that says that, Jorge. Unless you have one, then it is not “certain.” Vatican II certainly doesn’t say it. Do you know of any other documents?

JA: Because they have left this open, it is not heresy to suggest that there is historical error, not in the least. Thus, I am not basing my position on the discussions at Vat II. I am basing it on what they rejected and what they approved. Mysterium Ecclesia speaks to this quite nicely.

RS3: Unless you can find a statement in Vatican II that says something to the effect that "we are leaving the issue of inerrancy open, since we are not convinced that there are no errors in Scripture," then you’re simply speculating and/or reading into Vatican II what you would like to see. I’m going to hold your hand to the fire on this, Jorge, because you are making an inordinate amount of assertions that you simply have not proven or even shown the slightest evidence to support your contentions.

JA: The fact that Form C (the one that contained the 100% historical inerrancy language was defeated soundly by a vast majority indicates, and I find it the only reasonable inference, that they understood there were historical errors.

RS3: Well, here is where you are distorting what actually happened. There are several important facts that you are either missing or have chosen to ignore:

1) There was already a division in the Council over Schema 1. The N. European fathers, headed by Frings and Konig, were pushing for the excision of Schema 1 against the Morcillo and Diamentina groups. Finally, Augustine Bea said the language of Schema 1 was too defensive and negative, and should be rejected on that basis, but not because it was wrong, per se. In that case, the vote against Schema 1 was 62% (but hardly a "vast" majority, as you claimed, and it was not based on the fact that Schema 1 was wrong, in itself).

2) Schema 2 stated, in much less negative terms, the proposition that Scripture was "completely immune from all error." Schema 2 left out the words "any subject-matter whatever, religious or profane" that was in Schema 1, but the issue of "subject-matter" was addressed in the footnote which referenced the statement of Pius XII from Leo XIII stating that Scripture was free from error, i.e., "...it is absolutely wrong and forbidden ‘either to narrow inspiration to certain parts of Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred...").

3) Some Fathers reacted against the excessive reduction of Schema 1, and suggested that language be added that did not restrict inerrancy to "religious" affirmations (matters of faith and morals). In answer to this, the Council decided to add an entire paragraph from Providentissimus Deus, along with a paragraph from Divino Afflante Spiritu. This formed Schema 3. One of the sentences from the paragraph from Leo XIII read: "Equally intolerable is the theory of those who, in order to unburden themselves of these difficulties, have no hesitation in maintaining that divine inspiration pertains to nothing more than matters of faith and morals..."

4) But Schema 3 had some other language problems. It said that inerrancy is guaranteed only to what is "affirmed" by the sacred writers, as opposed to, for example, what was expressed, said or written by them ("Therefore, since everything affirmed by the inspired authors, or sacred writers, must be held as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must accordingly acknowledge that the books of Scripture - entire and with all their parts - teach the truth without error"). Cardinal Henriquez suggested that there was a difference between the "formal teaching" and the "material" propositions of Scripture, such that the latter may be erroneous and not something the writer wanted to "teach." It was understood that Henriquez wanted to avoid such problems as that presented in Judith, which says that Nebuchadnezzer was the king of Assyria, not Babylon, so that the material information about Nebuchadnezzer was not understood as "formally" taught.

5) Then, some Fathers expressed hesitation that Schema 3's ambiguity might be taken as a license by some to limit inerrancy to ways which had already been condemned, e.g., Pius XII’s statement in Humani Generis 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, among others. At this point, Cardinal Meyer of Chicago suggested that the Council should not limit the discussion of inerrancy to the negative aspects, but should bring out its positive salvific purpose. This was in keeping with the goal of Vatican II to put a non-creedal, non-anathema type format in its teachings. He suggested adding the words of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to the text, and changing the word "inerrancy" to "truth." From this, Schema 4 was developed, but it contained the same footnotes as Schema 3 (i.e., quoting Leo XIII and Pius XII).

6) Schema 4 presented a problem, however, because some bishops objected to the addition of the word "salvific" (salutarem) to qualify the word "truth" (veritatem). The other bishops tried to explain the word order by saying that it referred to the "facts which are linked to the history of salvation in Scripture." But the opposing bishops wondered whether this implied that there was factual material in Scripture not linked to the history of salvation, and thus that Scripture may contain errors. Archbishop Philippe stated: "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."

7) The doctrinal commission replied with a statement that maintained the continuity with the doctrine expressed in previous papal encyclicals: They stated: "By the term ‘salvific’ it is by no means suggested that Sacred Scripture is not in its integrity the inspired Word of God...This expression does not imply any material limitation to the truth of Scripture, rather, it indicates Scripture’s formal specification, the nature of which must be kept in mind in deciding in what sense everything affirmed in the Bible is true - not only matters of faith and morals but facts bound up with the history of salvation. For this reason the Commission has decided that the expression should be retained."

8) Some Fathers still had reservations, however. So they approached Pope Paul VI in October 1965. Paul VI wrote a letter to Cardinal Ottaviani, President of the theological Commission. The Pope considered the issue of the word "salvific" (salutarem) in Schema 4 of the "greatest importance" and was "deeply hesitant" on its presence. The Pope said he was advised that this wording would be highly controversial, and thus it would be "premature" for the Council to make a declaration on "such a doubtful question." He states: "...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." This shows what the Pope’s own convictions were. His was more in line with Schema III (i.e., "to teach the truth, without...error").

9) At the request of the Pope, the Commission reconvened. 17 of 28 members voted to follow his advice to omit the word "salvific" (hardly the "vast" majority you claimed previously, Jorge). Since this was not two-thirds, a compromise was suggested. 73 Fathers suggested "for the sake of our salvation" (nostrae salutis causa), which led to a two-thirds vote of 19 of 28 and was approved by the Pope. This tells us clearly that the Pope did not intend to have the phrase in question suggest any limitations to biblical inerrancy. Indeed, in 1970 Pope Paul VI stated: "For the Church, Sacred Scripture is the Word of God, inspired by Him and therefore guaranteed by divine inerrancy in its own authentic meaning" (July 1, allocution).

10) After this, Cardinal Konig and the German bishops wanted to excise the words "without error" from the text, claiming that literary genres of Scripture "also demonstrate that the Bible’s references to matters of history and natural science sometimes fall short of the truth." Based on "current oriental studies," Konig gave three examples: (a) In Mark 2:26, Jesus says "in the time of Abiathar the High Priest," the alleged error being that Aminelech was the High Priest (1 Sam 21:1f); (b) In Matt 27:9, in which Matthew allegedly errs in assigning the prophecy to Jeremiah a prophecy spoken by Zechariah (11:12-13). But these anomalies were not discovered by "oriental studies," since they were well-known from the patristic age and were given various plausible solutions (Cornelius Lapide catalogued them). (c) Konig’s third example was the claim that Dan 1:1's statement that Nebuchadnezzer besieged Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim was wrong. It should be the sixth year of Jehoiakim. But Konig’s conclusion was based on a chronology of which all scholars did not agree, since there are differing methods between Jewish and Babylonian calendars.

11) Reacting against Konig, 151 Fathers wanted the words "without any error" kept in the text, and presented this to the Commission. The Commission responded by denying Konig’s request, but without the word "any," so as to read "without error." This was inconsequential for the 151 Fathers, since there is no middle ground between the presence and absence of error, and thus the words "without error" held up the traditional doctrine that Scripture was without error, with no distinctions.

12) To show the continuity of Vatican II’s teaching with previous Papal and Conciliar statements, six more references were added to footnote number 5, which comes at the end of the sentence affirming the Bible’s freedom from error. One of the references is a citation from the Council of Trent’s "The Canon of Scripture," which, ironically, highlights the salvific purpose of Scripture. It states, referring to both Scripture and Tradition, that it is "as the source of all saving truth" (DS 1501), which is not unlike, "for the sake of our salvation," yet Trent never entertained the notion that its words meant that Scripture contained errors.

13) Footnote 5 also added more statements from Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus, one section including comments from Augustine regarding the essential harmony between science and Scripture, showing that Vatican II’s respect of Scripture’s inerrancy extended to its affirmations about the physical creation, even though the Bible is not to be considered a scientific textbook.

14) The most important note added to Footnote 5 was the teaching of Providentissimus Deus that since the sacred writers wrote only what the Holy Spirit wanted them to write, everything which they assert has Him for its author, and is therefore necessarily true, which coincided with the Commission’s previous conclusion that the word "salvific" (salutarem) in Dei Verbum 11 did not imply and "material limitation" of the truth of Scripture. Since the quote from Providentissimus Deus includes Leo’s words about the Fathers and Doctors who "labored with no less ingenuity than devotion to harmonize and reconcile those many passage which might seem to involve some contradiction or discrepancy," this shows that Vatican II agreed that the same labors to preserve the inerrancy of Scripture should be maintained in the Church.

Thus, Jorge, in light of these events, Vatican II was far from believing that there were errors in Scripture, especially in light of Paul VI’s intervention into the intended meaning.

RS2: What would have held them back from devulging 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?

JA: This question misses the point. The Church isn't teaching explicitly that there are any errors in scripture. The point is that they aren't teaching that there aren't.

RS3: As you can see from the above events that happened at Vatican II, you simply have no basis to make that assertion, and you certainly don’t have any proof for it. Schema 3 was not rejected for the reasons you claim.

"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."

JA: The vote came immediately on the heels of the debates wherein many errors were pointed out specifically by (I forget his name).

RS3: His name was Konig, but his alleged Scriptural "errors" were not errors at all, and his request to delete "without error" was voted down by the Commission. Doesn’t that tell you something? Here the Commission had the perfect opportunity to push for limited inerrancy, yet they voted Konig’s idea down. Not only that, but Paul VI intervened to make sure it was not limited. END

JA: VatII spent a great deal of time on this issue. They addressed it in a detailed and very nuanced way. Again, Mysterium Ecclesia speaks volumes about this.

RS3: Yes, they did address every detail, and even then they did not choose to teach that Scripture contained errors. You said it yourself, Jorge.

RS2: Jorge, I am familiar with the debate on how to understand previous church documents, and I don't think ME 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 gander. Until then, I do still feel 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: See, this is the problem. You are making an assumption that previous teachings on this subject mean a particular thing. I don't concede to such an assumption. This is the essence of Myterium Ecclesia as it bears on this issue - time-conditioned teachings, human beings expressing those teachings in human language, and the role and duty of the Church to both interpret and clarify previous teachings.

RS3: Jorge, if you can tell me where the Church ever taught that there were errors in Scripture, and you have a case. If you can’t, then you don't, especially since there is very little "time-conditioning"between Humani Generis in 1950 and Vatican II in 1965. Vatican II did interpret previous teachings, and as you admitted yourself, they did not conclude there were errors in Scripture, so you’re simply barking up the wrong tree.

JA: It is not for you or me to interpret Church teachings so as to bind each other. That is the role of the Church. Pius XII did not condemn "for the sake of our salvation". I don't agree.

RS3: Look at what you’re doing, Jorge. You’re basing your argument that "for the sake of our salvation" means that there are historical errors in Scripture. You don’t know that, since Vatican II did not say that. And of course Pius XII didn’t condemn "for the sake of our salvation," rather, he condemned the notion that inerrancy was limited to matters of faith and morals.

JA: In fact, it was Pius XII that was one of the biggest fans of historical-critical exegesis and who gave Catholic exegetes the freedom to do what they do.

RS3: Not so. It is one thing to allow historical-critical exegesis, but it is quite another to say that there are errors in Scripture. Actually, what you just did Jorge is admit to us that historical-critical exegesis concludes that there ARE errors in Scripture, and that you’re just waiting for the Church to catch up to you and Fr. Brown. But it didn’t happen at Vatican II, Jorge, and I think you know that it will never happen.

"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, and I will admit there 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."

JA: Robert, the question was rhetorical. It is obvious that he didn't cleanse it twice or teach the Lord's prayer twice. It is equally obvious, once you read and study (the research and findings of Meier, Brown, Fitzmyer, etc.) that the evangelists placed the events where they did for theological reasons and not for historicity purposes. In that respect they are not historical errors because the writers didn't intend it to be read as an historical fact (i.e., where it occurred in the ministry, the precise words used, the people who were there, etc.). The Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels makes this abundantly clear.

RS3: Jorge, I’m all for seeing the "theological" reasons why a particular narrative was placed in Scripture, but that doesn’t mean that the historical event is not true. You simply do not have enough information to make such conclusions. And please, don’t try to smooth it over by saying that "the writer didn’t intend it to be read as an historical fact," since you simply do not know what was in the writer’s mind, and neither does Fr. Brown. If you base things on intent, you are simply guessing, since intent is a subjective issue. We can’t even be sure of someone’s intent when we’re talking to them face to face, let alone separated by 2000 years. The only thing I’m a little bit certain of regarding "intent" is that it seems your intent to find errors in Scripture to support the presupposition you have about Scripture. I suggest you take a cue from Augustine in his letter to Jerome (the very letter that Vatican II referenced in Footnote 5 when they cited Leo’s citation of Augustine, by the way). 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"

JA: Precisely, as I stated above. But, who is qualified to say what was intended by the author? You? Me? or the historical-critical exegetes who serve the Church. The Church Herself makes no such findings.

RS3: Jorge, the Church has never taught the idea that an historical narrative has errors, nor that the theological import of the narrative has precedence over the historicity of the narrative, nor that historical errors are not really errors if we understand the intent of the author. Only the historical-critical exegetes are saying that stuff. If the Church thought these were such cogent ideas they would have officially endorsed them, but she hasn’t, and you know it. My goodness, you treat Fr. Brown almost as if he were a church in himself. But you simply have no proof or documentation for your claims.

RS2: "I will say this, Jorge. You have no way of knowing what the "intention" of the author is. You cannot read the mind of evangelist 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."

JA: I am not qualified but people like Brown, et. al. are.

RS3: Oh? Can Fr. Brown read the minds of the first century evangelists? Can he be so certain of his conclusions that he can resolutely, without any doubt, say that there are definitely errors in Scripture? Fr. Brown is not omniscient, Jorge. He cannot prove what the "intent" of the author was, because he wasn’t there. This stuff is precisely what the Protestants gave up on 100 years ago, and your now wallowing in their vomit. Believe me, Jorge, I was a Protestant for 18 years. None of this stuff is new to me. It’s the same old arguments, just a different venue. I guarantee you this: it will not get you any closer to God. I’ve seen it happen over and over again. Those who retreat to biblical errancy eventually end up losing their faith.

RS2: "In fact, for all the allowance that the five last 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? END"

JA: Not in a Church teaching no. Don't you find it curious that VatII rejected 100% historical inerrancy?

RS3: I find it curious that you are really not that familiar with what went on at Vatican II, yet you seem bent on making definitive conclusions. Vatican II rejected Schemas 1-3 for reasons other than what you claim. In keeping with the positive slant the Father’s wished for Vatican II, Schemas 1-2 were rejected because of the harsh, negative language, not because Vatican II suddenly believed there were errors in Scripture.

JA: The list of historical errors that were pointed out at VATII and the ones identified by other scholars make it clear that there are historical errors.

RS3: If Konig’s "errors" are the best you can do, then you really don’t have a case. You seem to think that you’re the first person to have discovered these biblical discrepancies. I suggest you read Cornelius Lapide. He’ll give you volumes of apparent discrepancies in Scripture seen by the Fathers and Medievals, yet not one of them concluded that there were errors in Scripture, not one.

JA: There are even "religious" errors. Which OT writer asserted that there is no afterlife? I forget who it is but it is there.

RS3: Religious errors? Jorge, I thought you believed that Scripture was inerrant in matters of salvation. Isn’t the fact that there might not be an afterlife a significant, big error in a matter of salvation? And here you conclude that there ARE "religious" errors, yet you can’t even tell us where Scripture makes such a claim! Jorge, your gun is cocked too tight. It seems you have an agenda, and it is not good.

JA: Biblical books, in and of themselves, are NOT the Bible. They are the Bible taken as a whole. They are canonical taken as a whole.

RS3: I suggest you read Pius X and Benedict XV, et al, who say that you can’t do that with Scripture, Jorge. They say that "each and every part is without error." They’re way ahead of you.

JA: The Babylonian archeological findings of the last few decades makes it clear that there are historical errors. How does this effect salvific truth? (or as they discussed at VatII, "those locating truths" that also are free from error)? It doesn't.

RS3: Jorge, I remember that last time archeologists claimed that the Bible was in error. It was when they said that there was no archeological evidence for the Hittites. For 50 years they claimed the Bible was in error. Lo and behold, they eventually found the remains of the Hittites, and the Bible was vindicated once again. So what "evidence" do you have this time that the Bible is in error?

"RS2: Here's the problem. How do you separate historical teaching from salvation teaching?"

JA: Does it matter whether their was star that guided the magi? What if there wasn't? Does this effect salvation? Not in the least.

RS3: The issue is not whether it effects salvation. That is YOUR issue, based on YOUR distorted interpretation of Vatican II. Salvation doesn’t depend on Scripture, or Tradition, or even the Magisterium. If not, then Abel wouldn’t have stood a chance. What matters is truth. If something or someone claims to be true, and yet we find error in it, then EVERYTHING it says is suspect of being untrue. That’s what happens when you attack Scripture’s veracity -- you open it up to attack from every angle. That is why many of your historical-critical exegetes reject the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the Eucharist, and many more traditional dogmas. You even did so yourself above when you posited that the Scripture contains "religious" errors, because you think there is a verse (although you don’t know where) that says there is no afterlife. You are on a slipperly slope, Jorge.

RS2: "And who is to say that if the Bible is wrong on an historical detail that it is not wrong on a soteriological detail?"

JA: The Bible isn't, per se, a doctrinal, book. It is a love story, a collection of faith histories, a collection of books written by authors to help strengthen their belief and to help them cope with persecution, dissent, problems, etc.

RS3: I suggest you read Dei Verbum 11 again, for there they quote 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which states: "16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

JA: The NT is based upon tradition and it is the living Church that developed doctrine. There is no one soteriology in the Bible. There is no ONE view of the Eucharist in the NT.

RS3: Perhaps you can tell us where the Church has taught that there is "no one soteriology in the Bible" or "no ONE view of the Eucharist in the NT," or are they just the conclusions of Jorge Adams?

JA: How many heresies have developed because someone thought they could read the Bible by themselves and tell others what doctrine they should believe? Arius was a big time sola scriptura advocate. The Bible, by itself, is not a doctrinal statement.

RS3: How many heresies have developed because some Catholic thought that he could jump ahead of the Church and declare something to be true when in fact that Church had not declared it to be true? Yes, among many others, I’m talking about Fr. Brown’s conclusion that there ARE errors in Scripture, as opposed to your admission that Vatican II did not teach that there ARE errors in Scripture.

"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 pretty simple."

JA: I don't know what facts he has so I can't answer it.

RS3: No, you can answer, because you already did. If you don’t know what facts he has, then you’ve admitted that he can’t have all the facts, since you would have to admit that in order for Fr. Peter to make such a conclusion he would have to know all the facts of the case. For if he doesn’t know all the facts, then he should only be making guesses, not absolute conclusions. But you and Fr. Brown are not guessing. You have both made absolute conclusions (there ARE errors in Scripture) yet neither of you have all the facts, since it is impossible to have all the facts. Since it is impossible to know all the facts, then the only way we can be dogmatic about any errors in Scripture is if the infallible Magisterium tells us. So far, by your own admission, they have not told us. Therefore, we have no right to make such conclusions about Scripture. So you have overstepped your bounds, Jorge, and so has Fr. Brown. I implore you to retreat.

"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."

JA: Nope. You are providing "infallible" interpretations of what the Church has taught. I don't agree with your interpretations. My view isn't heretical and only the Church can say that it is. You can say, for instance, that you believe that it is heretical or in your opinion it is heretical. But, you shouldn't say, definitively, that it is. That is a usurpation of the role of the Church.

RS3: Fine, we’ll let the Church judge you. Far be it from me. But since you’ve already admitted that the Church has not taught that there are errors in Scripture, but you say there ARE errors in Scripture, sounds like you and the Church are not on the same wavelength. And since we it seems that Vatican II, by itself, is not clear enough to settle the issue for you, could you perhaps provide documentation from previous popes and councils that will give some credibility to your interpretations of Vatcian II? Or do you believe that Vatican II operates in a vacuum or can contradict previous Church teaching?

RS2: "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...""

JA: Oh goodie. Brown deals with this. I will provide you an excerpt from his book Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine (a book I highly recommend you get and read).

RS3: Please do.

RS2: "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.""

JA: Again, Mysterium Ecclesia addresses this.

RS3: Please share that one, too.

RS2: 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."

JA: No one is disputing inspiration.

RS3: Jorge, Pius is combining inspiration and inerrancy in that statement, as many of the Popes did.....note, "so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error."

RS2: "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.""

JA: There is not error with respect to salvific truth. Paraclitus doesn't even address the issue.

RS3: That’s because it does not address issues that have never been an issue of inerrancy, i.e., "salvific truth." And as I said above, Paul VI specifically requested that "salvific truth" be taken out of Dei Verbum, and it was.

RS2: "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.""

JA: Mysterium Ecclesia again.

RS3: How is that, exactly, when Vatican II put this quote in its footnotes, while Mysterium Ecclesia was only a gleam in the Pope’s eye?

RS2: "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.""

JA: Likewise, VatII rejected inerrency as to only faith and morals. There is no conflict. "Salvific and locating Truth" is not the same thing as merely faith and morals.

RS3: Oh? So what is "salvific and locating truth" Jorge, and where did Vatican II say that "salvific and locating truth" was not "faith and morals"?

RS2: "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.""

JA: There is no conflict here.

RS3: No conflict? I suppose you are planning to say that it’s not REALLY an historical error, because the writer didn’t INTEND to write history? Is that it? Well, as I said above, before you rest on that position, you have to prove to us that you know the INTENT of the biblical writer. Perhaps you can call him up from the dead and ask him, because that’s the only way you’re going to know for sure.

RS2: "The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in 1998, states in Professio Fidei: "...the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts...""

JA: There are no errors in salvific truth.

RS3: Begging the question again, Jorge. "Salvific truth" (veritatem salutarem) was rejected by Vatican II.

RS2: 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).

JA: You are doing precisely what the Church tells us not to do. You are making yourself the infallible interpreter of what the Church teaches.

RS3: Pardon me, Jorge. I didn’t give any interpretation of the passage. I just quoted it to you. Apparently you don’t like the quote. Is it something about that word "dictation" I wonder?

-----------------------------

Fourth Dialogue:

RS: Okay, have it your way: Fr. Brown maintains a conclusion about Scripture that was not maintained at Vatican II. Besides, you're begging the question. Vatican II, the official documents, made no distinction between historical error and salvific error. That is your invention.

JA: And he is free, under the official documents from VatII to maintain that conclusion as the council shifted the inquiry away from a priori conclusions about inerrency to an a posteriori approach. In addition, the council most certainly did make a distinction between historical error and salvific. A simple reading of the chosen language in Dei Verbum (and the language rejected) makes this clear -- that truth which God wanted put into Scripture for the sake of our salvation. This language, couple with post-conciliar teaching, the praise of Brown by the Pope, etc., leaves no room for doubt as to the Church’s position.

RS3: Jorge, I suggest you consult my email "Biblical Inerrancy, Parts 1, 2, 3. I suggest, sincerely, that you are distorting Vatican II's will. END

RS: Jorge, you haven't yet recognized the distinction between SOME people who claimed there were errors as opposed to the COUNCIL saying there were errors. An "awareness" of errors doesn't say anything, especially since the one interpreting it, Raymond Brown, has already decided that he thinks there are errors in Scripture. His judgment is, or may be, totally biased. As for Schema III, I will be addressing that in my next email.

JA: I have clearly recognized what the Church taught at VatII and what is permissable to say about scripture.

RS3: Again, read my email.

JA: No serious scholar of theologian seriously doubts there are non-salvific errors in scripture.

RS3: Since when is truth established by a head count? By that measure, you would have stood against St. Athanasius and with the Arians. As it stands, the Church has made no official teaching that there are errors in Scripture. That is the bottom line.

JA: For goodness sakes Robert, Job asserts that there is no after-life! That, in and of itself, is religious error.

RS3: So much for no error in matters of salvation. But of course, that's what inevitably happens on the slippery slope. As for Job, try Job 19:25-26 to find out about Job's belief in the Afterlife.

JA: The Babylonian Chronicles have demonstrated numerous historical errors. This is not disputed anymore.

RS3: So, you are saying that the Babylonian Chronicles are inerrant and the Bible isn't?

JA: Why are you clinging to 19th century notions that 95% of Catholic exegetes and theologians have abandoned?

RS3: That's false. Up until the 1950's, our beliefs were in the main for 20 centuries. Your beliefs about Scripture come from Protestants who were advocating errors in Scripture long before you were on the trail. And for all your "95%," the Church still hasn't endorsed your teachings, because she has made no official statement that there are historical errors in Scripture. And until she does, then the Church is on my side, not yours.

RS:It is clear that, if Vatican II, as you say, did not teach that there were errors in Scripture, and yet Fr. Brown DOES believe there were errors in Scripture, then the two are at odds, are they not?

JA: No, because it is clear from the teachings at VatII and post-conciliar teachings on exegesis and scripture that he has the freedom to inquire into this area and make conclusions based upon his research. He is not at odds in the least. You have missed the import of Mysterium Ecclesia and The Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels. Perhaps you should read the 12 pages I sent to you.

RS3:I read them, Jorge. And in them I read where Fr. Brown says that the individual should not be making dogmatic conclusions about Scripture ahead of the Church, yet that is precisely what Fr. Brown does with inerrancy. Fr. Brown has no right to teach as Catholic doctrine something the Church has not officially taught, especially in an area as highly sensitive as biblical inerrancy.

RS:The latter has CONCLUDED that there are errors, the former has not made any such conclusion. Thus, it seems Fr. Brown has gone out on a limb by making the conclusion in his NJBC that Scripture contains historical errors (or that inerrancy only applies to matters of salvation). Did Vatican II say that inerrancy applies only to matter of salvation? No, you yourself said they didn't.

JA: No, I said they rejected inerrancy as to matters of faith and morals and endorsed inerrancy as to salvific (and locating) truth.

RS3: You've got that wrong. "Salvific truth" was rejected. Read my last email. You are not aware of what went on at Vatican II.

RS: So what gives Fr. Brown the right to conclude that inerrancy only applies to matters of salvation?

JA: See above and my previous 12 page missive.

RS3: I saw it and read it, but it doesn't tell me from where Fr. Brown's right to make such conclusions comes.

RS: Jorge, I think you're trapped by your own devices, since Vatican II did not distinguish between matters of history and matters of salvation.

JA: Clearly they held to inerrancy only as to "that truth which God wanted put into sacred Scripture for the sake of our salvation." This is the plain language of the teaching.

RS3: No, neither the Council nor Pope Paul VI ever said that "for the sake of our salvation" limited biblical inerrancy. Paul VI specifically denied it.

As an aside, here’s something to think about: Dei Verbum 11 continues after "for the sake of our salvation" with "Thus," and then quotes 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The word "thus" shows that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is explaining or corroborating the statement which immediately preceded it "without error...for the sake of our salvation." But how could Paul’s insistence on the salvific value of all Scripture explain or corroborate that preceding sentence if the latter had meant to imply that not all Scripture has salvific value? If so, the use of "thus" would be meaningless.

Moreover, there are different translation of Dei Verbum 11. The Abbott edition places "for the sake of our salvation" at the end of the sentence, while Flannery places it in the middle. Other suggested translations, from the Latin (and including its comma placement) have: "...we must acknowledge that in the books of Sacred Scripture the truth, which by God’s will was recorded for the sake of our salvation, it taught firmly, faithfully, and without error." This translation, which is more accurate, clearly shows that "for the sake of our salvation" has no bearing on inerrancy.

RS: Past Popes and Councils have clearly stated that there is no distinction between the history of revelation and the salvific content of relvelation.

JA: I have already addressed this See, Mysterium Ecclesia and my 12 page email.

RS: As it stands, without any further delineation, when the Church says, "for the sake of our salvation" it means that everything in Scripture is for the sake of our salvation.

JA: Clearly, it does not and no serious exegete or theologian believes this.

RS3: Prove it. Show us where the Church has specifically said so, rather than just make glib references to Mysterium Ecclesia or your 12 page paper.

RS: If you disagree, then I challenge you to show us from any Papal or Concilar statement, including Vatican II and Pope Paul VI, or John Paul II, where biblical revelation is separated into "history" and "salvation."

JA: See, Dei Verbum and the post-conciliar documents of the Catholic Church.

RS3: Obviously, you don’t know where it says such, Jorge, otherwise you would direct me to a specific statement.

RS: The Church has made no official endorsement of Fr. Brown's ideas. As for praise, the Pope's praise of Fr. Brown is a general commendation, as the Pope usually gives to his underlings, not a wholesale endorsement to everything Brown said.

JA: Says who? The Church twice appointed him to the Pontifical Biblical Commission. The Church is well aware of the positions he has taken AND HAS PRAISED HIM FOR THOSE POSITION. THE POPE HIMSELF, NOT HIS UNDERLINGS! Sorry, this is a fact.

RS3: Show us where John Paul II, or any Pope, has officially endorsed the teaching of Raymond Brown that there are historical errors in Scripture. If you can’t find it, Jorge, then you simply don’t have a leg to stand on. Fr. Brown is not the Pope, although it seems that you treat him as such.

RS:As it stands, no Pope after Vatican II has endorsed the idea that there are historical errors in Scripture. If the idea that there were historical errors was true, as Brown contends, don't you think that the Pope would rush to his side and confirm such? The fact that the Pope has NOT specifically endorsed Brown's thesis of historical errors in Scripture should tell you something.

JA: The Church left this issue for exegetes and theologians to explore. As the Church doesn’t affirm absolute historical or secular inerrancy there is no reason to say more at this time. This tells me plenty.

RS3: The Church never leaves final decisions to exegetes and theologians. But Fr. Brown has made a final decision, that is, that there ARE errors in Scripture. Sounds like he thought he was his own Magisterium.

JA: The key thing you have to remember Robert is that it is the Church who determines who is in error, not me, you, or any other Catholic apologist. This is the CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS teaching of the Church. Moreover, it is the CHURCH, not me, you, or anyone else’s duty to interpret current and past Church teachings and documents. You are substituting your private interpretation and understanding of these teachings for that of the Church and then using that interpretation to label and condemn this (and other) good, honest, faithful Catholics. Brown himself, contrary to what you said, was praised for, his faithfullness and loyalty to Catholic teaching and the Magisterium. Who are you or Michael Smith to say otherwise?

RS3: Neither Michael nor I said that Fr. Brown wasn’t to be praised for the Church doctrines he held to. We are critiquing him for his conclusion that there are errors in Scripture in the face of the Church who has never said there are errors in Scripture. We have that right. And until you find a papal statement that praises Fr. Brown for believing that there are errors in Scripture, you have no case. If you like, I can provide you with statements by JPII which praise Martin Luther and other heretics and heretical beliefs. Do you believe his and their theology was thus all sound, too?

JA: This is Protestantism disguised as Catholicism.

RS3: Let me remind you Jorge that the Protestants were down your trial of biblical errancy before you and Fr. Brown were born. If anyone is embracing Protestantism here, it is you and Fr. Brown.

JA: Sorry, you’re wrong on this one Robert and if you go on record in this upcoming book taking this position, you won’t be taken seriously by any serious scholar or theologian, although I suspect you’ll make a bunch of money. I am leaving to go on vacation and won’t have time to write anymore for the next two weeks. I don’t think we will resolve our differences on this as they are too fundamental to resolve. So, let’s leave it here. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me. Take care.

RS3: Jorge, I am glad to expose people like Fr. Brown, and believe me, I will do a good job of it in the book. And as for not being "taken seriously by any serious scholar or theologian," as Jesus said, "Let the dead bury their dead." You are a dying breed.

Fifth Dialogue, which gets into the finer details:

"RS3: Religious errors? Jorge, I thought you believed that Scripture was inerrant in matters of salvation. Isn't the fact that there might not be an afterlife a pretty big error in a matter of salvation? And here you conclude that there ARE "religious" errors, yet you can't even tell us where Scripture makes such a claim! Jorge, your gun is cocked too tight. It seems you have an agenda, and it is not good."

JA: See my previous emails. I make clear what I mean here.

RS4: Jorge, it wasn’t very clear at all. As it stands, I have you on record saying that there are not only historical errors in Scripture, but also "religious" errors, about the very essence of salvation, the "afterlife."

"RS3: I suggest you read Dei Verbum 11 again, for there they quote 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which states: "16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

JA: Again, you confuse inspiration with inerrancy which you did in the VatII materials as well.

RS4: No, Jorge. I know the difference between the two. Nevertheless, you missed the point, which is: if Dei Verbum quotes 2 Tim 3:16-17 to explain its previous statement ("for the sake of our salvation"), yet 2 Tim 3:16-17 contains nothing about Scripture containing truth only in areas of salvation, then its obvious that the council was not endorsing a view of biblical inerrancy in Dei Verbum 11. If they were endorsing limited inerrancy, then they would not have quoted 2 Tim 3:16-17, for that verse simply doesn’t say anything in regards to inerrancy. Again, you’re caught in the quicksand, making claims without any proof.

"RS3: How many heresies have developed because some Catholic thought that he could jump ahead of the Church and declare something to be true when in fact that Church had not declared it to be true?"

JA: Approach Robert, approach. A priori vs. a posteriori - what did VatII leave open Robert? Do you know? Do you care? Did they depart from prior teaching? Of course they did but you can't see it. Is your faith so shallow that you need absolute inerrency? Absolutely amazing to see this type of fundamentalism in the 21st century - AND IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!!!!! Scary!.

RS4: Jorge, the number of exclamation points conveys your emotionalism, not the strength of your argument. Tell us where Vatican II said they were "leaving open" the issue of biblical inerrancy. If you can’t, then that means you are ‘reading into’ Vatican II what you would like to see. The only thing that is "scary" is to watch you so blithely make these self-serving conclusions about things that Vatican II didn’t even address. As it stands, you’ve admitted that Vatican II didn’t depart from previous teaching, and we all know what the "previous teaching" taught, don’t we Jorge? And the reason we know it is because Vatican II didn’t change any of it, nor did they tell us they were still "thinking about" the issue.

JA: See Mysterium Ecclesia - you know, Robert, one day you are going to have to come to grips with that teaching. You can't ignore it forever.

RS4: Jorge, I promise on my grandmother’s grave that I will not ignore it, really! Just tell us the parts of Mysterium Ecclesia that you think support your case. Cite them and send them, and give us your reasons. You made the challenge, now back it up with action. Give us your interpretation.

"RS3: Jorge, Pius is combining inspiration and inerrancy in that statement, as many of the Popes did."

JA: Oh, is he? You know that how? You are starting to get it. Just don't deny where it leads you. Keep your mind open.

RS4: Okay, Jorge, tell us what you think “inspiration” is.

"RS3: Oh? So what is "salvific and locating truth" Jorge, and where did Vatican II say that "salvific and locating truth" was not "faith and morals"?" JA: I could have sworn you said you had read all this material. Apparently not. I apologize for presuming you had.

RS4: Jorge, if you want to throw in a little ad hominem to your rhetoric, fine, but at least answer the question, too. You can’t show us where Vatican II said "salvific and locating truth" was not "faith and morals" so you opt to make me look like I haven’t read the material.

RS3: No conflict? So, is where you say that its not REALLY an historical error, because the writer didn't INTEND to write history? Is that it? Well, as I said above, before you rest on that position, you have to prove to us that you know what the INTENT of the biblical writer is. Perhaps you can call him up from the dead and ask him, because that's the only way you're going to know for sure.

JA: Wow, I knew you didn't understand exegesis, but this is ridiculous. Scary.

RS4: More ad hominem without substance, Jorge? Its only scary when you can’t prove how you know the writer’s intent, yet make all kinds of absolute conclusions based on what you think he intended. This is the big farce of higher-criticism that I will be more than happy to expose.

"RS3: Begging the question again, Jorge. "Salvific truth (veritatem salutarem) was rejected by Vatican II. END"

JA: And the language they approved meant almost exactly the same thing (but included locating truth) and was phrased more passively. This is disingenuous.

RS4: Jorge, check your comments just a few sentences ago. There you said: "I could have sworn you said you had read all this material. Apparently not. I apologize for presuming you had." Now you admit that "salvific truth" is not in Vatican II. Looks like you’re the one who didn’t read Vatican II, rather, you ‘read into’ Vatican II what you wanted to see. And as far as it meaning the "same thing," that’s not what Paul VI said when he read it. It was his specific objection, based on the advice he received that such a phrase would be used by some to claim that Scripture is only inerrant on matters of salvation, that he recommended it be changed, and it was changed. You don’t know your history. "RS3: Jorge, I didn't give any interpretation of the passage. I just quoted it to you. Apparently you don't like the quote. Is it something about that word "dictation" I wonder?"

JA: Just like a Protestant. "I didn't interpret it, I only quoted it." Yeah, you quoted it IN SUPPORT OF YOUR INTERPRETATION OF IT. Please Robert, this is amazingly unscholarly. You are engaging in sola ecclesia and it is scary.

RS4: I only quoted it, Jorge. I did not interpret it. Its quite unscholarly of you not to recognize the distinction.

RS3: Is that why you didn’t know the "salvific truth" was not in Vatican II?

JA: I know the teaching is new and adopts a new approach and allows exegetes freedom to explore these issues and draw logical conclusions. No serious scholar disputes it anymore. You emails are apologetical, not exegetical. It is the stuff John Meier warned me about. He was right.

RS4: No one here is denying you the right to use the historical-critical approach. All we are doing is saying that your conclusions must be circumscribed by what the Church has taught. Since there is no Church teaching which says that there are errors in Scripture, then anyone, whether it based on historical-critical approach or not, who says that there are errors in Scripture, has made claims the Church has never taught. That’s all there is to it, Jorge. So you can complain all you want, and call me all the names you want, but it doesn’t persuade me in the least, and isn't likely to persuade any objective obsever, either. I’ve already been where you are so I know what I am talking about.

JA: I just went back and reread my copy of ? Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II? (the extended treatment on inerrency and inspiration) and I must say that you have confused these two issues in your account of what went on at the council. This is a serious mistake and will undermine your book. Do you have a copy of this 5 volume set? If not, you should go to a library that does and read this information. You are setting yourself up to be soundly refuted. If you want, I could send you photo copies of the pertinent sections by mail (my copies are marked up but still legible). I really think you need to read this stuff. The letter you mentioned in one of your email (Ottavani) is telling, as is the Theological Commissions actions, etc. You are confusing actions taken that addressed inspiration, not inerrancy. This is clear as a bell and fatal to your position. You really need to read this stuff. I am trying to save you from embarrassment, but if you don’t want to read it, I understand. Please let me know if you want this information. I don’t know where you are getting your information, but whoever is providing it has left out critical detail and clarifying information. If you are interested in the truth, you won’t overlook this information.

RS4: Jorge, anything you have I’ll be willing to look at. That’s a promise. Send me whatever you think is relevant.

JA: Robert, more from the council commentaries for you to ponder:

A number of observations are important if one is to estimate the theological value of this final position of the Theological Commission: 1) we must note the different points at which the modi were aimed which called for the removal of the words veritas salutaris and which the Theological Commission chose in its answer: the complaint of the modi (like the memorandum submitted to Paul VI, which probably has the same authors as the modi) was that veritas salutaris limited "inerrancy" of scripture to matters of faith and morals. Against this the Commission reject the limitation of "inspiration" of Scripture which might follow from this formulation, on the basis of the pronouncements of the teaching office in the nineteenth century and later. For at that time it was proposed that the solution of the pressing questions of inerancy should be the limitation of inspiration. [footnote omitted]. This was not an avoidance of the issue, but a clarification of the chief interest of the documents cite and also of the mind of the Council. There can be no doubt that all the books of Scripture in all their parts are inspired. (emphasis mine) But since the Commission now approaches the question of the "truth" of Scripture, it starts with a quotation from Providentissimus Deus ("Deeum ipsum per sacros auctores elocutum nihil admodum a veritate alienum ponere potuisse": EB, 127). This statement is, however, immediately explained in relation to veritas salutaris, with reference to Eph 1:13 and, one might say, authentically explained. Thus the Theological Commission as well as clearly emphasizing the universal extent of inspiration keeps the way open for a new interpretation of inerrancy. (emphasis mine).

RS4: No, the statement "keeps the way open for a new interpretation of inerrancy" is this commentator’s interpretation of Vatican II, but it is not stated by Vatican II. Vatican II nowhere says that they have not come to a resolution on the issue of inerrancy, and therefore have left the issue open to a "new interpretation." Paul VI’s words to the Commission were clear: "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." Paul VI’s admonition is especially noteworthy since it was known that Jan van Dodeward, Bishop of Harlem, Holland, submitted the word salutaris, and according to Francesco Spadafora: "with no previous discussion, so as to launch the ‘new doctrine,’ which was opposed to absolute inerrancy, by stealth, and without the knowledge of the voting Fathers themselves" (Leone XIII). Its no secret, Jorge, that the liberals were trying to get Vatican II to say that inerrancy was limited. Once that is understood, then it should become painfully obvious to those of your persuasion that, since Vatican II made no specific statement that inerrancy was limited, they therefore agreed with all previous papal and conciliar statements that inerrancy was NOT limited. If they thought it was limited, they would have said so, but they did not, and that is the cold reality you must face.

JA: IT was firmly of the opinion that veritas salutaris could remain. Only in order to avoid a misuse of this expression in the direction of a limiting of inspiration a new formula is chosen.

RS4: Not quite the way it happened. The commentator is speaking in the passive ("Only in order to avoid a misuse of this expression") and leaves out the fact that Paul IV specifically asked for veritatis salutaris to be removed due to the confusion it would cause, and due to the advice he received from a "highly competent authority" that it would be used to support limited inerrancy. Paul VI said he was "deeply hesitant" about using veritatis salutaris, and considered its removal of the "greatest importance" due to the "abusive interpretations" it might receive. Thus, the above commentary is not telling the whole story, and thus the conclusion is immediately suspect. And since in Dei Verbum 11 "inspiration," because it is a long distance away in the sentence, is not the focal point of the clause "for the sake of our salvation," then the matter is not merely "in the direction of a limiting of inspiration" but more of limiting inerrancy, unless, of course, this commentator sees no difference between inspiration and inerrancy, which, if it is the case, goes against what you are saying, Jorge.

JA: Veritas salutaris, thus becomes veritas, quam Deus salutis nostrae causa litteris sacris consignari voluit. At the same time the material submitted by the 73 fathers was significantly altered by the Commission, as was their right. Instead of veritatem, quam Deus, nostrae salutis causa, libris sacris consignare voluit it reads: Nostrae salutis causa, in apposition with Deus, became a final adverbial qualification of consignari, which moreoever, was conceived passively and not actively, [sound familiar Robert] in accordance with the Constitution’s conception of inspiration (in order to put more stress on the human authorship under inspiration).

RS4: "Sound familiar" to what, Jorge? Whether passively or actively, nostrae salutis causa is an adverbial phrase which replaced the previous adjectival phrase veritatis salutaris. This indicates even more clearly that the "salvific" concept is to be taken as referring to the purpose or finality which God had in mind in giving us the Bible. Paul VI certainly did not understand the phrase as a adjectival one, since he specifically asked for the removal of the phrase veritatis salutaris. Further, litteris sacris consignari is in the ablative case, which means that God used the Sacred Writings as a means or instrument in which he wanted his saving truth to be expressed. Since we have Paul VI’s intervention on this matter, it is easy to see that Scripture is to be understood as on par with the saving truth, not as a larger body which would also contain "non-salvific" material as well.

JA: Here the Theological Commission has followed a particular aim in opposition to the marked activity of a particular group in the Council and the attitude of Paul VI to it namely presenting the doctrine of inerrency of Scripture in a way that was in harmony with the concept of Chapters I and II of the Constitution on Revelation and took more account of the modern difficulties than was possible in the strict formulation of the papal encyclicals on Scripture, and especially the schema of 1962. But the resistance of the fathers mentioned and the reservations of the Pope undoubtedly had their effect; for the formula that was found is a much happier one than the hotly contested veritas salutaris. This will be seen when we come to its theological interpretation.

RS4: Not only is this the commentator’s first mention of Paul VI’s intervention, but notice how glibly the commentator refers to the Pope’s intervention as merely "the reservations of the Pope," treating him as if he is just a bystander with a strong opinion who just happened to influence the Council. As I said above, it is a fact that Paul VI was "deeply hesitant" about using veritatis salutaris, and considered its removal of the "greatest importance" due to the "abusive interpretations" it might receive. That is not just "reservations," rather, it is the most telling piece of evidence we have from the Supreme Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ, showing us that limited inerrancy would not be tolerated, and that the phrase was not appropriate, and which was the very reason the Commission removed it.

JA: From an earlier portion of this section:

"The expression salutaris should in no way imply that Scripture is not, in its totality, INSPIRED and the word of God: cf. what was stated in the text"(of 1964, Form II) in the spirit of the encyclical Providentissimus (emphasis mine).

RS4: That goes without saying. But the Council is clear in Dei Verbum 11 that Scripture is held as affirmed by the Holy Spirit. And thus, the task for you, Jorge, is to tell us how, then, the Holy Spirit can err when He gives us historical details, and even “religious” details.

JA: And again:

"Thus, before the letter to Cardinal Ottaviani, the previous version of the doctrine of inerrancy was defended. It was realized that in the question of inerrancy 'truth' had a different meaning according to whether it was a statement of salvation or a 'secular truth,' without affecting the unlimited extent of inspiration." [Ouch to your position Robert].

RS4: Jorge, read the sentence, slowly and accurately. It says "BEFORE the letter to Cardinal Ottaviani" they had the opinion that 'truth' had a different meaning...salvation or a secular truth," not AFTER. The letter being spoken about is the letter Paul VI wrote to Ottaviani, the head of the Commission, which specifically stated that veritatis salutaris could not be used because it could lead to the mistaken position of limited inerrancy. So yes, prior to the letter, some of the bishops may have been working under the impression that there were two different definitions of truth (which is openly known by everyone), but their opinion was forestalled by Paul VI. That’s what the Pope’s job is, Jorge. To clear up incorrect presumptions of the bishops.

As for "secular" truth, Vatican II discounted your notion of it by quoting from a section of De Veritate in Aquinas. In that quote, Aquinas considers the question of whether scientific conclusions can be the subject-matter of prophetic inspiration. Aquinas’ answer is that indeed they can be. He agrees that prophecy is given for the salvation of souls, but adds that many things proved by science can be useful for salvation, that is, for building up our faith or for our moral formation (Q. 12, art 2, c).

JA: And again:

"It was still desired to make a distinction in the statements of the sacred writers, by saying that the sacred books contained the truth, but in different ways, according to the particular character of the statement of the sacred writer. So that the secular truths also perhaps, in 'their way,' would share as it were in inerrancy at one remove."

RS4: There you have it. "Secular" truth was to share in inerrancy, not be designated to the category of the errant.

JA: And again:

"The final text contains there references, in note 5 of Chapter III [Robert, here the quotations to which they are referring are the ones you have provided from Providentissimus Deus and Divino afflante as well as from Augustine and Trent) supplemented by a quotation from St. Thomas. Yet the collation of these quotations, which have different tendencies, presents a special problem of interpretation" [sound familiar Robert].

RS4: “Sound familiar” to what, Jorge?

JA: The interpreters of the conciliar text would have had to face this problem, with or without explicit quotation. Thus we must ask how the new conciliar text is to be interpreted against the background of the earlier statements of inerrancy. [if there was no change in the teaching, Robert, what is there to interpret? Again, a big time ouch to your position].

RS4: Jorge, you’re making something out of nothing. The commentator gives himself away here, since he admits that they would have faced the problem without the quotations. But the fact is, the quotations were given precisely to address "the problem." If there were no quotations to previous papal documents, he would have a case about an indecisive interpretation. But they ARE quoted, and this makes us turn back to them for clarification. And you as well as I know that those previous documents did not support limited inerrancy. Even in the commentator’s own opinion, he doesn’t offer any suggestions as to a new interpretation. He is just muddying the water suggesting that there MAY BE a new interpretation. We don’t make teaching based on "may be". . We base them on what Vatican II said, not on what someone wishes they said.

JA: And again:

"That was why the wish was repeatedly expressed that this rich concept of truth shojld be expressed, as against the intellectualistic formulation of the defensive doctrine of inerrancy of the 19th and early 20th centuries. We can see that the old account of inerrancy did not fit in with the general trend of the whole Constitution."

RS4: Jorge, again, read the statement. The commentator bases the difference on the DEFENSIVE posture of earlier doctrine, not on the fact that they were wrong or somehow deficient in their truth content. The GENERAL TREND of the whole Constitution is precisely what I told you previously, and precisely what Bishop Meyer suggested, that is, that Vatican Council II had a "positive" flavor (no dogma, no anathemas) in the spirit of aggoranimento. If you’re trying to use the above commentary as support for your position, this just proves that you see things the way you want to see them.

JA: and again:

"From the process of growth of the text, as described above, it emerges that it was the clear will of the Council to formulate more openly its teaching on the inerrancy of Scripture also under the influence of the irrefutable results of modern research. It should be noted that this very research in many respects also counters liberal criticism and thus has made the problem of inerrancy in the area of the secular truths less pressing."

RS4: Not surprising. The greatest enemy of liberal research is the very research they discover, for it invariably supports the conservative position.

JA: At the same time, however, it has made possible a fuller picture of the historical and human conditionedness of Scripture. A purely a priori and "absolute" doctrine of inerrancy, as the text of 1962 sought to present, is scarcely compatible with the facts.

RS4: What "facts"? Where has the Church stated officially that there are "facts" now available to us which will negate the traditional doctrine of inerrancy? Doesn’t it strike you as odd that the commentator doesn’t cite any "facts." He knows there has been no assessment of the so-called "facts" by any Pope or Council subsequent to Vatican II. What we have is Paul VI’s intervention, which specifically countermanded limited inerrancy, as well as his statement in 1970 upholding the inerrancy of Scripture without qualification. We have no statement from John Paul, as voluminous as his writings are, that he has endorsed any "facts" which go against the traditional view of inerrancy, nor do we have a statement from him which endorses limited inerrancy. You simply have no evidence, Jorge, and the more you dig into this the more you expose what little evidence you have. Scriptural anomalies were known long before Fr. Brown came along, but NO ONE ever concluded that those anomalies cast a doubt on the absolute inerrancy of Scripture. Those are the facts, Jorge.

JA: The Council has not solved the problem by undertaking a purely material investigation, but endeavoured to achieve a solution by pointing out THE REAL MEANING OF SCRIPTURAL INERRANCY AND FINDING A POSITIVE EXPRESSION FOR IT.Teaching on inerrancy was to be formulated more positively and given a new emphasis. Hence instead of merely saying sine (ullo) errore it speaks of the "truth" that "God has written down in Scripture for the sake of our salvation."

RS4: Jorge, this doesn’t say anything for your side. The only thing he says is that the issue was to be treated more positively than before. He does not say, contrary to your position, that the Council reasoned that there were errors in Scripture. He specifically says that they did not want to get into a "material investigation," which apparently was for the express purpose of not having to give a detailed assessment of the issue of inerrancy. If they didn’t want to get into the "material investigation," then it follows that they had no impetus, as Paul VI suggested they didn’t, to make conclusions on the material issues of inerrancy. Thus, they had to settle merely for a positive affirmation WITHOUT addressing any material issues. In effect, this summation by the commentator actually destroys your position, since he has admitted that Vatican II did not wish to make material judgments on inerrancy, and more or less by-passed the issue by making a theologically innocuous statement about inerrancy being "for the sake of our salvation," but everyone already knows that Scripture is for our salvation. As a consequence of this commentator’s admission, "for the sake of our salvation," simply cannot bear the weight you and Fr. Brown, and the rest of your liberal theologians are trying to put on it.

JA: The modus on which this was based was somewhat differently phrased and expressed less clearly the intention of the fathers who sere seeking for a new solution. There is a conscious strengthening of the final text. To have truth written down for the sake of our salvation is stated to be, not merely here but throughout the whole Constitution, the purpose of the origin of Scripture and its inspiration.

RS4: Who would argue with that? The purpose of all of Scripture is for the sake of our salvation.

JA: These words, "for the sake of our salvation," mean the same thing as the deleted phrase "truth of salvation" (veritas salutaris).

RS4: Again, he ignores what Paul Vi said about veritatis saluraris.

JA: But the new formulation is more felicitous and goes further than the one first suggested. The words salutis sausa remove the possibility of the misinterpretation that veritas salutaris was exposed to: namely that Scripture was materially divided into inspired (and inerrant) part on the one hand, and non-inspired parts (and thus from the start liable to error) on the other. The main point to note is that inspiration and inerrancy are to be understood primarily from the will of God, who desires to communicate to men his saving truth, and this in such a way that this truth is taight "firmly, faithfull and without error."

RS4: So how does this help your position, Jorge? The commentator is admitting that veritatis salutaris would have divided Scripture into inspired/inerrant on the one hand, and non-inspired/errant on the other. Thus, if veritatis salutaris is removed because of creating such a division, then there is only one position left, the position of inspired/inerrant, for the commentator makes no division between inspiration and inerrancy, something you were trying to do a while back. For him they are dependent on one another, something that you have not yet affirmed.

JA: And again:

At the same time, in this fuller view inerrancy is a particular expression of fidelity to the covenant and of the permanent saving will of God. The "truth" and "truthfullness" of God are inseparably bound up with each other. The new version of the inerrancy of Scripture seeks to avoid the danger of intellectualization (this is what you are doing Robert).

RS4: Jorge, I can speak about the "positive" aspects of inerrancy probably better than you can, but the previous admission by this commentator separates you from him, since he sees no separation between inspiration and inerrancy.

JA: Hence, the emphasis on its full saving function in the words firmiter-fideliter. It seeks to give back to this doctrine its true content: the significance of the inerrancy of Scripture is that it is a special guarantee of the permanent existence and effectiveness of the saving truth or God among men [not, Robert, the guarantee of the historical inerrancy of each and every detail].

RS4: Jorge, from that inserted comment I can see why you are so misled. "True content" does not mean that previous definitions had "false content," otherwise, Vatican II would be saying that previous popes and councils made an error in their definition. "Content" here refers to what inerrancy does for us as opposed to what, in the estimation of previous popes and councils, it does not give us (i.e., does not give us error). Previous popes and councils didn’t spell out the merits of inerrancy, per se. The language is now positive instead of negative, but the definition and extent of inerrancy has not changed, for Vatican II did not make any specific statement that either had changed.

JA: And again:

"We know today too much about the way in which the sacred books were conditioned by the time in which they were written to be able to apply the 19th-century conception of historical truth to them. But both the opponents and the defenders of the inerrancy of Scripture had done this. The authority of Scripture today is no longer threatened from the quarter. On the contrary; the ever fuller knowledge of the way in which the saving statements of Scripture are embedded in history shows their truly genuine character.But there are also parts of scripture which have only an auxiliary function in relation to these direct truths of salvation. Here, from the point of view of the secular sciences, [here it is Robert] SOMEWHAT LESS THAN THE TRUTH CAN BE EXPRESSED. HERE WE MUST ACCEPT FACTS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT ANXIETY. THE QUESTION OF INERRANCY IS NOT TO BECOME A MATTER OF A BAD CONSCIENCE OF FALSE ATTITUDES BUT SHOULD OPEN ONE’S EYES TO THE FULL NATURE OF SCRIPTURE.

RS4: You’re reading into it what you want to see, again, Jorge. The clause "SOMEWHAT LESS THAN THE TRUTH CAN BE EXPRESSED" does not mean Scripture contains error, for Vatican II did not say the Scripture contained error, as you yourself admitted. What this commentator is trying to say (although not very well) is that the propositions of Scripture, whether in science, history, mathematics, the cosmos, etc, may not be in the exact and calculated language that we use today. For example, Pi is 3.14, yet Leviticus affirms that an equilateral triangle traverses a circle, which would make Pi more equal to 3. But that is not an error; it is a rounding off of a number for simplicity and brevity. It is less than the exact truth, but it is not an error. If Scripture said Pi was 2 or 4, that would be an error.

As for science, I asked you before, and I’ll ask you again. Name just one proven, indisputable fact of science that contradicts the Bible. If you can show me one, then I promise to accept it without "prejudice and anxiety."

JA: The question of inerrancy of Scripture has passed into a new stage. The questions of criticism are no longer directed so much at the veritates profanae, but at the validity of the way in which Scripture understands salvation itself, about the justification of the scriptural ideals and moral demands. We are now wrestling with the theological content of Scripture, with the reality of the deeds performed by God for the sake of our salvation, as, for example, the resurrection of Jesus in particular.

RS4: I hope to God he is not suggesting that Jesus did not literally rise from the dead (that is, if you had a video camera there you would not have seen Jesus rise). By the way, Jorge, what is your own view of the Resurrection of Christ. Was it actual or was it myth?

JA: It is a question of the interpretation of the person, the mission, the work, the whole life and death of Jesus and his story. We are also concerned with the facts connected with the foundation of the Church and with its nature AND NO LONGER WITH A GIVEN HISTORICAL DATE, OR GIVEN GEOGRAPHICAL OR SCIENTIFIC DETAILS. The question of the nature of biblical Christianity is asked in a particularly radical way.

RS4: "Radical way"? Compared to what? What does this mean to you, Jorge?

JA: Thus the Constitution rightly emphasizes that Scripture teaches the TRUTH OF SALVATION "surely, faithfully, and without error."

Robert, these words and the introduction to this section of the commentaries were written by Joseph Ratzinger and Alios Grillmeier. What does THAT tell you. Please read this material. I will be glad to send you all of it. Don’t ignore it.

RA4: It tells me just what we already know about Ratzinger. Sometimes he’s liberal, sometimes he’s conservative, but all in all, I think he did a good job, considering that he is surrounded by a preponderance of liberals on the Pontifical Biblical Commission as well as the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. But I think Ratzinger has done more damage to your position than to mine, Jorge. It is obvious that you and he have different views on some very crucial aspects.

JA: Michael, that is not the old or the new teaching. I realize this is nuanced, but it is understandable with a little more careful reading. The developed teaching doesn't teach that there is "error". It clarifies previous teaching (which itself doesn't mean what you and Robert claim for it). To understand the nuance you have to understand "time-conditioned" teachings (as taught in Mysterium Ecclesiae) and understand that it is The Church, not the individual who interprets the meaning of previous teachings. It is also crucial that you understand that it is a new approach that VatII took to inerrancy - from an a priori intellectualism of the past to an a posteriori approach that allows exegetes and theologians freedom to investigate and bring the fruits of their research to the Church. This is Ratzinger et. al. who are saying this, not me.

RS4: No one, including Michael and I, ever said they could not bring their "fruits" to the Church, but what you’re forgetting, Jorge, is that the Church doesn’t have to accept all the "fruits" (and nuts) of historical-criticism. She is the great fruit-inspector. And apparently, for all the fruit of the limitation of biblical inerrancy that Protestants and Catholics had mustered in the 200 years prior to Vatican II, the Church decided that she would not make any statement favoring limited inerrancy, as you said so yourself. The problem with the historical-critical people is that your system requires you to make conclusions, and you think that just because you have reached these conclusions that they are necessarily true, and that the Church, either now or later, is going to accept your conclusions, and until then, you’ll go right along teaching your conclusions. But producing fruit and having the fruit accepted are two totally different things.

Sixth Dialogue:

"RS: Because historical-critical scholarship was in vogue then, having been introduced by the Protestants, and gaining momentum due to the ecumenicity between the two faiths."

JE: That doesn't answer the question. By the way, it is still very much in vogue.

RS2: Perhaps, but it hasn't changed the Church's mind on inerrancy, and that's all we are discussing.

RS: "Pius XII was clear that he would allow Historical Criticism to be used in order to see if it could add anything worthwhile to what we already knew."

JE: And it has added so much worthwhile information and continues to do so. Thank God for Pius XII. He was very wise.

RS2: Yes he was, for Historical Criticism has given us some good information, but neither Pius nor Paul nor John Paul has accepted Historical Criticism’s conclusion on inerrancy.

RS: "but neither Pius XII, nor any other Pope after him, said that Historical Criticism’s view that there were errors in Scripture was going to be accepted by the Church."

JE: Not explicitly, but it is very clear from the rejection of the doomsdayers at Vatican II (and their proposal to use the EXACT language from previous documents), the promulgation, and subsequent acceptance, of the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels, the language of Dei Verbum, and every other post-conciliar document, that the Church no longer feels compelled to defend the literal and 100% historical inerrancy of scripture.

RS2: A change in language does not mean they are rejecting previous concepts of inerrancy. It only means they wish to promulgate the doctrine in different language. You have no proof to the contrary, especially in light of Paul VI's judgment against limited inerrancy.

JE: It is clear that the Church has matured and moved past this ridiculous position. I am thankful they have. The church is wise and has distanced itself from a fundamentalist position.

RS2: Really? Show us where any pope has said that he wishes to "distance" us from previous concepts of inerrancy.

RS: "That is the cold, hard fact you seem unwilling to accept. If the HC discovery that there were errors in Scripture were an accurate and needed truth, we would expect at least one Pope to make it official, in an encyclical or some other statement."

JE: Change occurs slowly and cautiously in the Church. By adopting the a posteriori approach and leaving open these issues, the Church is proceeding with caution. This is wise and I understand why this is occurring. But, the handwriting is on the wall.

RS2: The Church gave no statement saying it was thinking about changing the view on inerrancy, or that it was leaving the issue open. You keep putting words into the mouth of the Church, but in reality all you are doing is regurgitating the sentiments of Meier and Fitzmyer.

"RS: There is nothing in Vatican II, the Catechism or any post-conciliar teaching that says that the Gospels do not contain the original words of Jesus. You are making quite a bold claim here, Jorge. I suggest you not make it unless you have the citations that support your position."

JE: I quote from the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels (which was adopted by the Pope and cited in the Catechism):

"For the truth of the story is not at all affected by the fact that the Evangelists relate the words and deeds of the Lord in a different order, [23] and express his sayings not literally but differently, while preserving (their) sense."

RS2: Jorge, stop playing the cat-n-mouse game. We don't base our doctrine on what Fr. Brown wrote in The Historical Truth of the Gospels, just as we don't base what Fr. Brown said about an errant Scripture in his New Jerome Biblical Commentary. If you can find Fr. Brown's words in Vatican II, the Catechism, or any post-conciliar Papal teaching, then you win, but you know you can't find any, so you keep quoting your mentor, but he has absolutely no authority.

JE: Interestingly, this in not a new understanding as the Instruction itself references Augustine. Now, do you see what the Church teaches: NOT LITERALLY, BUT DIFFERENTLY, WHILE PRESERVING THEIR SENSE! This is dispositive and conclusive.

RS2: Show me any place where Augustine believed in an errant Scripture, Jorge. I'm not interested in a twisting of Augustine’s words, or taking his words out of context, as your liberal friends did with "for the sake of our salvation." For that matter, show me any other Father that believed in an errant Scripture.

"RS: This was already explained to you, Jorge, but you choose to keep asking the question as if it was never answered."

JE: Because I don't agree with your interpretation of the events that occurred.

RS2: Then say you don't agree, but don't keep asking the question.

JE: It is clear they paid lip service to the prior documents to appease the ultra-conservatives.

RS2: I wouldn’t call Paul VI’s rejection of "saving truth" lip service. In any case, the liberals have boxed themselves into a corner, since all we are left with is Vatican II's citation of previous teaching. One hundred years from now, that's all people will see, and so we've already won the battle, we just have to win the war.

JE: It is likewise clear, that the Instruction (written and approved DURING THE COUNCIL) set the stage for the final language of Dei Verbum and the documents that followed. Sorry Robert, I just don't agree with you.

RS2: But the final language was instigated by Paul VI who denied limited inerrancy and would not allow the Council to teach it. That is very clear.

"RS: What errors, Jorge? The ones you merely assert as errant? The ones you purport in Daniel? When I get done with my research on Daniel you will see that HC doesn't have a leg to stand on. Do you have any other "non-salvific" errors you want to bring to the fore?"

JE: Robert, you can concoct all the "harmonizations" and "explanations" that you want to, but it doesn't change the fact that no serious Biblical scholar or theologian holds to the 100% historical inerrancy position anymore.

RS2: Unfortunately, you rely on a headcount of liberal theologians to determine your beliefs, Jorge, rather than the evidence from Scripture that has plausible explanations. You show quite clearly that this is a political issue for you rather than a search for truth. Furthermore, you illustrate the perverse attitude of liberal "scholars", by making inspired, infallible Sacred Scripture the handmaiden of non-infallible, modern agendas at the expense of the historical teaching of the Church.

"RS: This is exactly the pompous attitude I find with most liberal scholars."

JE: Moderate scholars Robert, not liberal. Moderate scholars who continue to be honored and praised by the Church for being "faithful to the Magisterium and the teachings of the Church".

RS2: So who is liberal in your view?

"RS: These self-serving comments really don't make you look any better, Jorge. The point in fact remains that Paul VI, himself, thwarted your liberal agenda on inerrancy."

JE: Nonsense and revisionist. No one but fundamentalists and ultra-conservatives believes this Robert.

RS2: Actually read what happened, Jorge. Paul VI took out "saving truth" for the express purpose of deposing the idea of limited inerrancy.

"RS: Jorge, if you're going to throw out this kind of stuff, then at least name the person and give us the citation. Otherwise, its just hearsay, and you know what the judge does with that."

JE: This isn't disputed Robert. I'll let you research and discover this for yourself. I don't think you will because I think you may be afraid that I am right.

RS2: Obviously, Jorge, you don't have the citation, so don't try to turn the tables on me.

"RS: Because except for their views on inerrancy, they are respectable scholars."

JE: This is really weak. So, two Popes would simply look the other way and ignore their "errors on inerrancy" and appoint them anyway. Robert, this isn't even a remotely reasonable answer.

RS2: The Pope makes appointments on who is recommended. The ones who recommend Brown and company have the same liberal bent as Brown does. Everyone knows that. And again, the Pope has had many wonderful things to say about Cardinal Mahoney, Martin Luther, and Islam (and plenty of others lately). Does that mean they have the Church's stamp of complete approval?

RS: "And since no pope has endorsed your thesis that Scripture contains historical errors, you simply don't have a case. All you have are voices that, like the flower, fade into the recesses of history. END"

JE: Robert, it is merely a matter of time before the Church explicitly says this.

RS2: Well, it's been 40 years (actually, about 2000, really) Jorge. Looks like time is on my side.

JE: Even if it never does, it is clear from Vatican II and post-conciliar teaching that the Church has moved beyond this type of a priori position and sees Scripture in a deeper and more meaningful way. The old debates about 100% historical inerrancy just aren't meaningful anymore in light of the fruits of modern H-C exegesis. I don't blame the Church for not making explicit pronouncements in this regard. She never does when she changes and develops teachings.

RS2: Sure. Like the alleged "errors" Cardinal Konig brought forth at Vatican II? Those examples are so weak, it is no wonder the Council wasn't moved by them. If those alleged errors had any weight with the Council they would have decided, then and there, that Scripture contained errors. As it stands, none of your liberal friends could find one example of an absolute error in Scripture.

"RS: And I just learned (actually I knew it before) that you keep taking the most innocuous evidence and try to make a case for your side of the issue. So what if Pius XII lifted them. That doesn't mean that Pius XII or any other pope was obligated to accept the conclusions of Historical Criticism. The fact that Paul VI did not accept limited inerrancy, and told the Biblical Commission so, means that he was the first indication that the views of Historical Criticism were not going to rule the Church. Live with it, Jorge, for that is the fact."

JE: I'm not arguing for "limited" inerrancy and never have. That's YOUR term. Robert, what you have to come to terms with is that the old formulations were rejected and for a good reason. Sorry Robert, history will prove me right and you wrong.

RS2: Jorge, you keep changing your colors. Limited inerrancy means that you believe there are historical errors in Scripture. So let's stop playing word games.

"RS: I assume that one of the above gentlemen wrote the reply to you on Daniel? All I ask is: why aren't they man enough to give their name if they feel so strongly about their views?"

JE: Because at the time I solicited the response for him he wasn't aware that I desired to provide it to you (that was my fault for not telling him that). When I subsequently asked for his permission to forward the response to you, he wrote back asking that I either (1) summarize it for you, or (2) allow him to re-write it, add footnotes and references, etc. I told him I didn't want him to go to al that trouble and that I would just send it on and not use his name. He agreed. Nothing sinister here Robert.

RS2: Fine. Then give me his name and address. He and I can dialogue about it.

"RS: Jorge, let me say this loud and clear to you. Don't worry about us. We are going nowhere. Stop patronizing yourself. You are a dying breed. You will go the way of the Protestants on this issue. Most of them are dying off, and I will help with the funeral. That you can depend on. END"

JE: This is simply untrue. Catholics and Protestants are working side by side and the fruits of their labors are drawing us closer together and aiding our respective Churches and ecclesial communities in a deeper and more meaningful understanding of Scripture. I'm not patronizing myself or you Robert. And you are wrong if you think we are a dying breed. You are the dying breed. No serious scholars buy any of this anymore. Only the uninformed lay Catholic and fringe conservative scholars hold to these views.

RS2: In don’t think anyone would call me, Scott Hahn, James Akin, Gerry Matatics, and the rest of the scholarly converts "uniformed," including the Fr. Most’s and Fr. Harrison’s in our midst. The fact is, we have a greater and more welcomed scholarly army than you. As for CUA, all its going to take is a wave of the Pope’s wand and the liberal element is going to be shut down, and it is already happening with their new president.

"RS: Please don't muddy the water with the Feeney and Lefevbre issues. The church has already made her judgment. The issue here is inerrancy, and the fact remains that there is no papal or conciliar document that says there are errors in Scripture."

JE: That isn't muddying the waters at all. It is precisely the point. You and Michael believe you can pass judgement on who is "modernist", heterodox" and "heretical". You can't. That is for the Church and none of the scholars that I read have had these labels applied to them. In fact, just the opposite is the case - they have been honored and praised as loyal and faithful to the Church and Her teachings. Feeney and Lefevbre are precisely the issue because they, like you guys, seem to believe that you can interpret Church documents and teachings definitively and use those interpretations to label others.

RS2: Jorge, you’ve called me and Michael "conservatives," "Traditionalists," and many other labels. We all have labels for our opponents. It just so happens that the people who believe in limited inerrancy (or that the Bible has historical errors) come from the more progressive or liberal strains of Catholicism. And until the Church says there are errors in Scripture, and considering that every past pope and council who spoke on the issue of inerrancy said that it was wrong to say there are errors in Scripture, and since Vatican II quoted from these very sources, then it follows that anyone who CONCLUDES that there are errors in Scripture, as you and Meier, Fitzmyer and Brown do, then you have overstepped your bounds, and we who are in this business of teaching and defending Catholic truth must call a spade a spade. The best you can say, and I’ll even accept it, is that the Church has been discussing the issue of inerrancy but has made no alternative conclusions, and as of this date there is no change from previous teaching. If you guys would just admit that, I wouldn’t have to write a book refuting you.

JE: I never claimed that there is a Church teaching that states explicitly that there are errors on Scripture. You keep making this statement as if I have made this claim for the Church. Over and over again you make this statement. Please Robert, try to be a little more honest in this discussion. I made and make no such claim.

RS2: Okay, Jorge, with some reservation, I’ll take your word for it that you didn’t say this "explicitly," but if that’s the case, then don’t you think it is beyond your judgment to claim that the Church has said this implicitly? If Paul VI deliberately shot down the limited inerrancy position by getting rid of "saving truth," what other magisterial evidence do you have to even make an "implicit" judgment? All you have are general praises for Ray Brown, but even I can do that. And the Church today has praises for everyone, but that doesn’t mean they endorse everything a person says. You’ve been around long enough to know the system.

JE: I simply stated that the Church has recognized that the pronoucements of the past no longer accurately reflect the knowledge that we have. The Church now teaches that inerrancy is only guaranteed with respect to "that truth....". This is clear. The Church has adopted an a posteriori approach and left the issue open so that theologians and exegetes can continue their work and aid to the Church. It's only a matter of time Robert before the explicit pronouncement comes.

RS2: Where does the Church say that "the pronouncements of the past no longer accurately reflect the knowledge that we have"? You keep reading into Dei Verbum what you want to see. You have no proof for your interpretation, since Dei Verbum, nor any pope, gave you that interpretation. It is precisely this kind of presumptuousness that deeply bothers me. There will be an in-depth section in our book regarding how your crowd has taken it upon themselves to interpret magisterial documents and make conclusions for the rest of us.

"RS: Jorge, there are a lot of Catholics with aberrant views that remain in good standing. Unless it is extreme, the Church hardly follows up on these things. But rest assured that the Church has never censored any person who maintained the total inerrancy of Scripture."

JE: Nor would they ever in my opinion. Catholicism is big enough to accommodate more than one point of view.

RS2: She certainly is, but it goes way beyond "accommodation" when the side who has the burden of proof (but doesn’t have any magisterial statement supporting its position) concludes that their position is the only correct one. When you guys can show us a magisterial statement that says, in effect, "we have examined previous understandings on biblical inerrancy and have concluded that they are inadequate, and that indeed Scripture contains historical errors (and gives examples as Konig tried to do), and that we are no longer required to say that Scripture, as a whole is inerrant in all it says" then you will have a case, and this argument will cease. Until then, you’re just shooting in the dark, and my book will point that out very forcefully.

"RS: Just remember, Jorge (and I will make this very clear in the opening pages of my book) no pope or council has ever endorsed the idea that there are errors in Scripture, of any kind. All you have is wishful thinking. I have the facts on my side."

JE: Nor have I ever claimed that the Church did any such thing. Again you erect a strawman to knock down. Why do you keep doing that?

RS2: Because you keep talking out of both sides of your mouth. One day you claim the Church does believe there are errors in Scripture, the next day you say she hasn’t said so. One day you claim "for the sake of our salvation" means that the Church has accepted limited inerrancy, the next day you say the Church has never said she believes in limited inerrancy. So which is it?

Seventh Dialogue: In this dialogue, Jorge enlists the help of well-known liberal theologian (but without telling me his identity. I only found out later in an email Jorge sent to another person that was forwarded to me. Although I previously listed this theologians name, Jorge has asked me to remove his name, and I have done so).

Liberal Theologian: It appears that your private interpretations of the encylicals you have continually cited do not seem to comport with the language of the documents themselves (keep in mind that what follows is not my interpretation, but merely the language of the documents, much like you posted before). Here, however, I have included an excerpt that you seemingly weren't aware of or didn't see fit to include. These seem to support Raymond Brown's understanding of prior teachings. Note that in the excerpt from Divino Afflante, what is being quoted is Providentissimus.

"3. The first and greatest care of Leo XIII was to set forth the teaching on the truth of the Sacred Books and to defend it from attack. Hence with grave words did he proclaim that there is no error whatsoever if the sacred writer, SPEAKING OF THINGS OF THE PHYSICAL ORDER "WENT BY WHAT SENSIBLY APPEARED" as the Angelic Doctor says, [5] speaking either "in figurative language, or IN TERMS WHICH WERE COMMONLY USED AT THE TIME, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even among the most eminent men of science." For "the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately -- the words are St. Augustine's [6] -- the HOLY SPIRIT, Who spoke by them, DID NOT INTEND TO TEACH MEN THESE THINGS -- that is the essential nature of the things of the universe -- THINGS IN NO WAY PROFITABLE TO SALVATION"; which principle "will apply to COGNATE SCIENCES, and ESPECIALLY TO HISTORY," [7] that is, by refuting, "in a somewhat similar way the fallacies of the adversaries and defending the historical truth of Sacred Scripture from their attacks."

JA: Notice that he excludes from inerrency (although he is really talking about inspiration per se) things in no way profitable to salvation, namely cognate sciences and ESPECIALLY TO HISTORY. WOW! Does that sound familiar or what?

RS: Jorge, this is precisely the problem I see over and over again in your summations. The word "inerrancy" isn’t even mentioned above, yet you insist that he is talking about inerrancy. The only thing he is speaking about is the sensible language of Scripture in regards to the cosmos. That’s all. If the earth goes around the sun, yet the Bible says the sun rises, that is the "sensible" way Scripture gives us the information, but it has nothing to do with inerrancy, and it is the very reason neither Leo nor Pius referred to it as a matter of inerrancy. Scripture did not get into the "essential nature" of the cosmos, and thus it doesn’t speak about atoms and molecules, per se, since its main goal is to teach us things necessary for salvation. But that does not mean, and every pope and council has backed this up, that WHEN Scripture touches upon an historical fact, its words are not to be taken as propositional truth regarding that historical fact, and in this sense there is no separation between history and salvation, because at that point history is salvation. END

JA: And, it was written before Vatican II in documents you two have been quoting for the proposition of absolute inerrancy!! Notice also the ramifications of the language "went by what sensibly appeared" and "in terms that were commonly used at the time". Boys, this opened the door to allowing exegetes the freedom to conclude (not as a matter of doctrine mind you, but purely from an exegetical viewpoint) that the Bible does contain inaccuracies of a scientific nature or historical nature.

RS: No, Jorge. You can say the Bible speaks in sensible language all you want, and we will agree with you, but the moment you cross that line and you claim that Scripture contains unqualified historical errors, you have entered a whole other realm. We can understand when Scripture speaks in figures of speech, but that is a far cry from saying that Scripture made an error on a particular historical point it was attempting to detail for us. There is a difference between deciding whether Scripture is speaking literally or allegorically, but there is no room for someone who says that of one or two blind men on the way to Jericho either Matthew or Luke made a mistake.

JA: Notice this from Divino Afflante as well:

47. "Let all the other sons of the Church bear in mind that the efforts of these resolute laborers in the vineyard of the Lord should be judged not only with equity and justice, but also with the greatest charity; all moreover should abhor that intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected. Let them bear in mind above all that in the rules and laws promulgated by the Church there is question of doctrine regarding faith and morals; AND THAT IN THE IMMENSE MATTER CONTAINED IN THE SACRED BOOKS -- LEGISLATIVE, HISTORICAL, SAPIENTIAL, AND PROPHETICA - THERE ARE BUT FEW TEXTS WHOSE SENSE HAS BEEN DEFINED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH, nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous. There remain therefore many things, and of the greatest importance, in the discussion and exposition of which the skill and genius of Catholic commentators MAY AND OUGHT TO BE FREELY EXERCISED, so that each may contribute his part to the advantage of all, to the continued progress of the sacred doctrine and to the defense and honor of the Church."

Where have I heard this before? Then, we move to Vatican II (and our understanding of Mysterium Ecclesiae) where the first draft on inerrancy read: Draft A: "the entire Sacred Scripture is absolutely immune from error" and the final version read: Draft G: "the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures." Hmm. Interesting.

RS: Jorge, no one disagrees with the words of DAS 47 above, but none of that deals specifically with inerrancy. It is dealing with interpretation. When he talked about inerrancy, Pius XII was clear that it DID NOT pertain only to matters of faith and morals, which is clear in Humani Generis, just 15 years prior to Vatican II. And we’ve already gone over the reason Draft A was rejected - because the language was too negative, and Vatican II wanted to put a positive, not because they believed there were errors in Scripture. Paul VI already stated in 1965 that Dei Verbum 11’s language should not be interpreted as limiting inerrancy, and thus the case is closed.

JA: Note what it says the Bible teaches, ‘the truth’. See CCC 107. The truth in the Bible is not to be equated with scientific or historical facts.

RS: Show us where the Church has said that biblical truth does not include areas of science or history. Show us where the Church has said that Scripture makes errors when it speaks about science or history. Show us where the Church has said that scientific and historical truth do not contain salvific truth. If you can’t show us any of these, Jorge, then you don’t have a case, and you’re building everything on your own opinion. END

JA: The truth in the Bible is religious truth, what God wants us to know for our salvation.

RS: Show us where the Church has taught that the Bible is only for religious truth. And please tell us how the Bible, as you claimed previously, can have "religious" errors, and show us where these "religious" errors are so we can investigate them.

JA: Since Vatican II "inerrant scriptural ‘truth’ has not received primary emphasis in Roman Catholic circles, a change resulting from a more adequate understanding of the nature of the Scriptures."

The Bible is a document of faith, not meant to be read as a scientific treatise or historical document although it does refer to historical persons and events.

RS: Show us where the Church has taught this exact statement, Jorge. You can’t, because they haven’t. You’re overstepping your bounds.

JA: The Bible is inerrant in matters dealing with our salvation, but not in all scientific or historical details.

RS: Show us where the Church has made such a statement, Jorge. Your assertions are gratuitous without such.

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

Ninth Dialogue:

JA: Typical Problems Faced by Inerrantists in Defending the Bible

Errantist: Let’s look at just a few of more than a thousand serious problems that "inerrantists" face when forced to address specific scriptural texts.

First, there is the one just cited in the example above. The inerrantists are faced with the difficulty of showing how the intentional killing of infants is not murder, that what happened to the Amalekites was not genocide, and that the land of the Amalekites was not stolen (1 Samuel 15:3).

RS: It is not murder because God says its not. It is a divine principle that when the sin of the society reaches an abominable height, the children of the society will also suffer in the calamity is a God-ordained edict. It does not, however, mean that the children cannot be eternally saved, since each individual will be judged by God pertaining to what they know and what they did. As for the booty, it was not "stolen" since it is regarded as the spoils of God’s righteous judgment upon wicked people. What this really shows is Jorge’s mistrust in what God decrees, setting himself up as the judge of what is moral.

JA: Errantist: They need to explain how the same God commanded people not to murder and to murder (Ex. 20:13 and 1 Sam. 15:3);

RS: The command not to murder in Ex 20:13 refers to a man, who without authorization from God to kill, takes the life of another man. The command in 1 Sam 15:3 refers to God commanding man to kill other men as a punishment to the latter for sin.

JA: Errantist: not to steal and to steal (Ex 20:15 and Ex. 3:21-22); not to lie and to lie (Rev. 22:15 and Ex. 3:18-20).

RS: This shows the difference between unauthorized taking of another’s goods, and the God-ordained taking of booty as spoils of God’s judgment. It has nothing to do with inerrancy. Rather, it shows that Jorge has an acute misunderstanding about what inerrancy actually is.

JA: Errantist: They have to defend the wisdom and fairness of prohibiting males with wounded testicles, or bastards and their children down to the tenth generation, from entering the congregation of the Lord (Deut. 23:1-2).

RS: Its fair because God said it was. In fact, if Jorge doesn’t accept this edict, he is rejecting the inspiration of Scripture, not its inerrancy, per se. To understand the reasons such commands were given one has to understand two things: (1) after the grievous sin of worshiping the golden calf (Exodus 32), God gave Israel many tedious and confining laws, as a punishment for their sin (Ezekiel 20:24-25). (2) As regards the Ammonites and Moabites, as verse 4 states, they were to be punished for their sin of trying to destroy Israel. Again, these are God’s prerogatives to do as He wishes in punishment of evil doers, and it has nothing to do with inerrancy. It has to do more with Jorge’s limited concept of who God really is.

JA: Errantist: They have to defend the wisdom and fairness of prohibiting those with defects in vision from approaching the altar (Lev. 21:16-23, see esp. v. 20).

RS: Those with defects were disallowed, since the priest was a symbol of the unblemished victim needed for sacrifice. The disallowance was not saying that the individual himself had any moral defect. We do the same when we reject flat-footed people for military service. But the fact that Jorge brings up such questions shows his basic distrust in God and the Scripture.

JA: Errantist: They have to explain how the inerrant word of God could say both: 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1(Who caused David to number Israel, the Lord, or Satan?);

RS: Anyone familiar with Scripture knows that this gives us an insight into the fact that God, in His infinite strategy, uses Satan to do his bidding even though Satan thinks that he is upsetting God’s plans. The most outstanding example of this is the book of Job, in which God allows Satan to tempt Job so that God could prove to Satan that Job was a true man of God.

JA: Errantist: 2 Sam. 24:13 and 1 Chron. 21:11-12 (Was it seven years of famine, or three years of famine?)

RS: 2 Samuel 24 records the first approach to David in which the initial punishment was seven years; 1 Chron 21 gives the second approach to David. David’s prayer moved God to reduce the second offer.

JA: Errantist: 2 Chron. 36:9 and 2 Kings 24:8 (Was Jehoiachin eight years old, or eighteen years old, when he began his reign?);

RS: This is obviously a copyist error. The LXX of 2 Chr says Jehoiachin was 18, and thus matches 2 Kings 24:8, so it is the copyist’s error of the Masoretic text of 2 Chr 36:9 that is the culprit. This can be expected since the numerical notation in use during the fifth century BC has a horizontal stroke ending in a hook at its right end as the sign for 10. Two of them would make the number 20. The digits under ten were indicated by rows of little vertical strokes, usually in groups of three. Thus, what was originally written as a horizontal stroke over one or more of these groups of short vertical strokes would appear as a mere "eight" instead of "eighteen."

JA: Errantist: and 2 Samuel 10:18 and 1 Chron. 19:18 (Was it seven hundred chariots, or seven thousand chariots?).

RS: Obviously, another copyist error. The number in 1 Chronicles is probably the correct one, since it is closer to the agreed upon cavalry number of 40,000.

JA: Errantist: They have to defend the death penalty for unruly children (Deut. 21:18-21),

RS: Defend it? We have to do no such thing. It defends itself, because it was an edict from God, just as God’s command to execute the man who presumptuously sinned by picking up sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32). There’s no problem with inerrancy here, but there is a problem with Jorge’s knowledge and understanding of God.

JA: Errantist: adulterers (Lev. 20:10), homosexuals (Lev. 20:13), and those who pick up sticks on the Sabbath (Num. 15:32-36).

RS: We don’t have to defend this either, since adultery and homosexuality were capital crimes against the society. The man executed for picking up sticks on the Sabbath met that fate due to his “presumptuousness,” as stated in Numbers 15:30-31 right before the incident.

JA: Errantist: They have to explain why women who have given birth (even Mary, who gave birth to the divine Jesus (see Luke 2:22) need ritual purification,

RS: Because they were ritually unclean, according to the ceremonial law -- the law that was no longer required of Christians in the New Covenant.

JA: Errantist: and why women who give birth to girls are unclean twice as long as women who give birth to boys (Lev. 12:2-5).

RS: How does this relate to inerrancy? Again, all it shows is Jorge’s obstinance to accept the facts of the Old Testament even when they are given to him in a straightforward manner, without any hint of error. Jorge’s problem is with the ancient cultus of the Old Testament.

JA: Errantist: They have to explain the morality of the law that says, when the rapist of a young virgin girl is discovered, the rapist shall pay the father fifty shekels and the girl shall be forced to live with the rapist as long as he lives (Deut. 22:28-29).

RS: The passage doesn’t say he’s a "rapist," for there is no indication that the girl was resisting the sexual advance. This is especially significant since the text stresses the need for the girl to "cry out" in case of rape (verses 24, 27).

JA: Errantist: They have to explain why it was okay to possess slaves, both male and female, provided they were purchased from neighboring nations (Lev. 25:44).

RS: Because there is nothing wrong with having hired help that is treated well. The "slaves" of Israel were not like the black slaves of America. The former were well-treated according to Jewish law.

JA: Errantist: They have to explain why it was okay for a father to sell his daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7).

RS: See above.

JA: Errantist: They have the difficulty of explaining why, in the story of David and Goliath, King Saul hears of Jesse (David’s father) and David, sends for David to serve as a harp player to calm his nerves (1 Sam. 16:16-19), likes David very much and makes David a personal armor-bearer (1 Sam. 16:20-21), continues in personal contact with David (1 Sam 16:22-23), speaks lengthily to David concerning Goliath (1 Sam 17:30-39), offers David his own armor when David is about to go out and face Goliath (1 Sam. 17:38-39), and then does not know who David is after David returns from slaying Goliath (1 Sam. 17:57-58).

RS: Up until the contest with Goliath, David had shown to King Saul only his artistic side; and then David had been permitted to return home to Bethlehem. After the Goliath incident, it would be natural for Saul to see David in a new light and to show a keen interest in his background. Apparently Abner had no previous acquaintance with David except as a harp player and thus was not even aware of Jesse’s name (1 Sm 17:55). Abner had not been involved in David’s earlier introduction to the palace as the soothing harp player (1 Sm 16:18); rather, one of Saul’s ‘young men’ had mentioned Jesse’s name to Saul. After the Goliath incident, Saul’s new interest in David went far beyond David’s father, even though that was his initial question. It is obvious that Saul wanted to know whether there were any more at home like David, which was in line with his standard policy recorded in 1 Sm 14:52. In David, Saul saw a promising lead to obtaining more soldiers like David. In 1 Sm 18:1 there is a more extensive conversation with Saul, which went far beyond the giving of David’s father’s name. Thus, there is no discrepancy.

JA: Errantist: They have to explain why God’s word would contain dozens of failed prophecies, prophecies of events that either (1) never occurred, or (2) did not occur when they were prophesied to happen, or in the way they were supposed to happen.

RS: Like what? Perhaps Jorge can enlighten us to a few examples.

JA: Errantist: They need to explain, for example, why Isaiah 17:1 predicts that Damascus would cease to be a city and become a heap of ruins. Damascus, though it has been sacked, NEVER stopped being a city and is a city today. The present day city of Damascus includes the area of the ancient city of Damascus to which Isaiah 17:1 referred. (Incidentally, Straight Street, the only street named in the Bible, still exists in the same place as it did when it was mentioned in Acts 9:11.) [Be cautious about which version of the Bible you use in studying Isaiah 17:1.]

RS: Isaiah is relating what happened when Assyria, under Tiglath-Pileser, conquered Syria, a known fact of history. The Hebrew words mosar meyir for "departed city" matches in assonance the words meyi mapalah "a heap of ruin" for a poetic effect. The term mosar does not necessarily mean that Damascus would no longer be physically standing, but only that its populous would depart, and, according to Isaiah 17:3 it is the "sovereignty" of Damascus which is taken away. *********************************** ******************************** ******************* ****************'

JA: Errantist: As another example, they need to explain why Ezek. 26:7-12 predicts that Tyre would be defeated by Nebuchadnezzar, and that Nebuchadnezzar would enter the city, plunder it, and slay its citizens. As historians know (and as Ezek. 29:18-20 admits), Nebuchadnezzar’s thirteen-year siege of Tyre failed. No ancient historian, and no modern historian of any credibility, has ever claimed that Nebuchadnezzar defeated, plundered, and destroyed the city of Tyre. The city of Tyre was not taken until hundreds of years later (by Alexander the Great), and no Nebuchadnezzar was involved.

RS: Ezekiel is already aware of the less-than-successful campaign of Nebuchadnezzer against Tyre by showing us that the attack on Tyre was in two stages, first by Nebuchadnezzer and then by Alexander. Ezek. 26:3-4 says that "MANY nations would come against Tyre," meaning more than Nebuchadnezzer. Ezek. 26:7-11 refers to Nebuchadnezzer’s campaign, while 26:12 refers to an unspecified new attacker by the plural "they," most likely referring to Alexander.

JA: Errantist: Also, Ezek. 26:14, 21 and 27:36 predict that the destroyed city of Tyre would never be rebuilt and re-inhabited. But you can see from Matthew 15:21, Mark 3:8, Mark 7:24, Mark 7:31, Acts 12:20, and Acts 21:3,7, that Tyre was a city in NT times, and it is still a city. The island (which had contained the walled city) became attached to the mainland after silt deposited around the remains of Alexander’s wooden mole [there is some debate over the actual mechanism], but all the original land of Tyre is inhabited today. If you wish to check it out, you can fly to an airport just outside the city.

RS: Tyre had a mainland city and an island city. Ezekiel is referring to the island city, which was never rebuilt after Alexander destroyed it.

JA: Errantist: In another example requiring some explanation from the inerrantists, Ezek. 29:9-16 predicts that the land of Egypt would become a desolate wasteland, a ruin from Migdol to Aswan, as far as the border of Cush. It says that no foot of man or animal will pass through it, and that no one will live there for forty years. It says the Egyptians will be dispersed throughout other lands, and that after forty years they would be gathered and restored to Upper Egypt, the land of their ancestry. Egypt would be the lowliest of nations and never again exalt itself above other nations. Egyptian history is extremely well known, and scholars of Egyptian history know of no forty-year period when Egypt was a wasteland with cities uninhabited by people and animals. There was never a forty-year period of forced dispersion or captivity, and (of course) never a re-gathering following such. Egypt never became the lowliest of nations. The nations that attempted to conquer Egypt militarily: (1) were not entirely successful (usually only northern Egypt was even affected), (2) did not destroy its cities making Egypt a wasteland, and (3) never had the long-lasting affects on Egypt predicted in verses 15 and 16.

RS: Josephus (Antiquities 10.9.5-7) refers to Nebuchadnezzer’s conquest of Egypt around 582 BC. Cuniform tables discovered by Pinches and translated by Pritchard (Ancient Near East Text, p. 308) dates one of Nebuchadnezzer’s invasions in this thirty-seventh year (569 or 568 BC). A biographical funerary stela housed in the Louvre, the Nes-Hor, the commander in the reign of Uah-ib-Ra, speaks of an invasion of the Nile Valley by an "army of northerers." Thus, there is plenty of evidence that Nebuchanezzer did what Ezekiel says (Ezek 29:15). After Nebuchanezzer, Cambysys, son of Cyrus, annexed Egypt in 525 BC, showing that Egypt had no power to resist. The Egyptians remained vassals of the Persians up to 332 BC, after which they were subservient to Alexander the Great. The Ptolemies ruled Egypt until Cleopatra’s navy was defeated by Augustus at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC. From that point onward, the Romans retained control through the Byzantine era, until the Arabs overwhelmed the Nile Valley in 630 AD. Thus, it is easily seen that there was no strong or enduring native Egyptian dynasty from the time of Nebuchadnezzer until the present.

JA: Errantist: As In Jer. 34:4-5 it is said that the Lord promised Zedekiah that he would die a peaceful death, and that he would be honored by a funeral pyre in the same way the earlier kings were honored. But later we read of Zedekiah’s actual fate. After being captured in battle, he was forced to watch his sons being slain. Then Zedekiah himself had his eyes removed and he was bound in chains and placed in a prison in Babylon until he died (Jer. 52:10-11). No funeral pyre in Babylon to honor him is mentioned, but, in the extremely unlikely event there was one, there is still no rational way in which the death of Zedekiah can be called peaceful.

RS: There is no contradiction between the two accounts. The fact that Jeremiah 52:10-11 says that Nebuchadnezzer killed all of Zedekiah’s sons and all the princes of Judah, but did not kill Zedekiah, shows that God had spared Zedekiah’s life, as promised in Jeremiah 34:4-5. In fact, the account in Jeremiah 34:4-5 could also be taken as God mocking Zedekiah, assuring Zedekiah that he would be buried with spices like his fathers and be in peace until his death, yet all the while planning to have his eyes gouged out and have him put in prison in order to fulfill the prophecy. In the face of outright apostasy, it is not unusual for God to act in this way (cf. Numbers 11:20).

JA: Errantist: Inerrantists are quite positive that the OT authors were accurate in reporting the word of God, despite their obvious partiality. They are so sure of themselves they are even willing to condone the Israelites’ intentional slaughter of infants, claiming it wasn’t murder, but just a good deed. Do they think that the infamous Son of Sam should have been found innocent of his murders in New York City? After all, he said God spoke to him through a dog. The Son of Sam was no more biased in telling his story than the Israelites were in telling theirs.

RS: This shows the distortion biblical errantists try to create in order to confuse the issue. The Son of Sam has absolutely nothing to do with the God-ordained slaughter of the infants of wicked nations in the OT It shows that the biblical errantist not only thinks there are errors in Scripture, but that the Scriptures are merely the thoughts of the ancient Jews without the benefit of divine inspiration. Thus, the errors of the biblical errantist run much deeper than simply claiming the Bible has errors. They don’t believe the Bible is divinely inspired; that God wrote the Bible through men and put His thoughts and desires on paper. The biblical errantist thinks that the Jews merely passed off their own thoughts as God’s thoughts. This is totally false. No Pope, Council, or Theologian of Catholic history has ever held to such an aberrant idea.

Tenth Dialogue:

JA: This ought to get you started gentlemen.

Let's look at the Book of Daniel for starters.

RS: Here is Augustine’s letter to Jerome:

"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 has 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."

JA: Oh, by the way, here are some of the answers I came up with to your questions:

Darius the Mede is called the son of Xerxes in Daniel 5:31 and 9:11, but both are wrong: Darius was not a Mede but a Persian and the father of Xerxes.

RS: They are two different Darius's, Jorge. Darius 1 was a Persian by birth, a cousin of King Cyrus; he was not a Median. Darius was a young man when he assassinated the imposter Guamata in 522. Darius did not precede Cyrus as king of Babylon, rather, he began his reign seven years after the death of Cyrus the Great (as opposed to the higher-critical theory that alleges that the author supposed that he came before Cyrus).

Confusion over the nationality and time sequence of Darius the Great would have been unthinkable in the second-century BC Hellenistic world. Every school boy was required to read Xenophon, and probably Herodotus, and other Greek historians from the fifth and forth centuries BC. Even in Hellenistic Palestine, these authors were widely read and admired. It is from Xenophon and Herodotus that we gain our information concerning Cyrus and Darius. Any Greek-writing author who attempted to put Darius before Cyrus would have been laughed off the stage. Thus, Darius the Mede and Darius the Persian are not the same, and the confusion is in the minds of higher-critical theorists rather than in the mind of Daniel.

Now, someone may object that no reference to "Darius the Mede" has been discovered in archaeology, but there is evidence nonetheless. There are several indications in Daniel that Darius was not a king in his own right but had been temporarily appointed to the throne by a higher authority. In 9:1 it is stated that Darius "was made king." The passive Hebrew stem (the hophal stem) is used in the verb homlak, rather than the usual malak ("became king"). Malak would have been used had he obtained the throne by conquest or by inheritance. In 5:31, Darius "received" (Hebrew qabbel) the kingship, as if it had been entrusted to him by a higher authority. Subordinate or vassal kings were similarly appointed by Cyrus according to the Behistun Rock inscription set up by Darius 1 in the late sixth century. (Thus, Darius's own forebear, Hystaspes, is said to have been "made king" during the time of Cyrus the Great). As the incumbent to the throne of Babylon, it was only a matter of protocol for Cyrus's appointee to assume in official decrees the same titles as had always attached to that title. Thus, the decree of 6:25 is addressed to the inhabitants of "all the earth" or "land." A traditional title going back to the time of Hammurabi (18 th century BC) was Sar Kissati ("king of the universe"). Therefore, this phrase need not be construed as implying that Darius was claiming to be king over all the inhabited world, including Persia itself, as some higher-critics have assumed.

Darius the Mede, in accord with the titles given historically to underlings put in key positions, comes from the Persian Darayawush ("the royal one"), and is related to the word Dara, which appears in Avestan as a term for "king." Like "Augustus" among the Romans, Darayawush may have been a special honorific title, which could also be used as a proper name (just as "King" may be a name in English).

Right after the fall of Babylon to the Medo-Persians, Cyrus's presence was urgently needed on another front of his expanding empire. He therefore found it expedient to put Gabaru-Darius in charge, with the title King of Babylon, to rule for a year or so until Cyrus could return in person and celebrate a formal coronation as king in the temple of Marduk. After his year of rule as regent, then, Darius was retained as the governor of Babylon, but with the crown transferred to his overlord, Cyrus, who had his son, Cambyses, crowned king of Babylon. It is clear from Daniel's lack of mention of any date later than Darius's "first year" (Daniel 9:1) that his reign must have been very brief.

Lastly, Daniel 5 relates the episode of the divine handwriting on the wall. The third term in that inscription is PERES, which Daniel interprets as "your kingdom has been divided and given over to the Medes and Persians." This means that the author of the book believed that kingdom #1 (the Babylonians) passed immediately into the control of the Persians, allied with the Medes, as kingdom #2. This leaves no room for the higher-critical theory of an earlier and separate Median empire as that intended by Daniel. The author must have believed that kingdom #2 was Persian (that is, Medio-Perisian), and that kingdom #3 was the Macedonian-Greek, and that kingdom #4 would overthrow and replace the Greek. The only power that ever overthrew the Greeks was the Roman empire. Therefore, the prophetic import of Daniel, which actually predicted the fall of the Greeks to another power, cannot be negated by higher-criticism.

JA: Belshazzar is called the king of Babylon in Chapter 7 and the son of Bebuchadnezzar in chapter 5. He was neither: he was only crown prince under his father Nabonidus.

RS: Quite the contrary. The biblical information has been strikingly confirmed by archaeological evidence. During previous centuries, many scholars mistakenly assumed that "Belshazzar" was a legendary figure because none of the Greek historians, from Herodotus onward, knew anything about Belshazzar or referred to his name. While it is true that Nabonidus was the king of Babylon at the demise of the Babylonian empire, it has now been well established that he was quartered at Tema in North Arbia at the time of Cyrus's invasion of Babylonia. It was therefore his son, Belshazzar, who was in charge of Babylon itself and who had been crowned as viceroy several years earlier during his father's reign.

Excavations at Ur turned up an inscription of Nabunaid containing a prayer, first for himself, then for his firstborn son, Bel-shar-usur (i.e., Belshazzar). Such prayers were offered only for the reigning monarch. Other cuniform documents record how Belshazzar presented sheep and oxen at the temples of Sippar as "an offering of the king." Since the name of Belshazzar had been forgotten by the time of Herodotus (450 BC), it is clear that the author of Daniel 5 must have written his work earlier than 450 BC. He was well aware that Belshazzar was only the #2 king of Babylon in 539 BC, for all he could offer Daniel as a reward for deciphering the inscription of the wall of the banquet hall was "the third place in the kingdom."

JA: In Chapter 6 Cyrus succeeds Darius as king of the Persians. This, too, has history backward, since Cyrus was the founder of the Persian dynasty.

RS: Jorge, refer to the answer I gave on Darius.

JA: The author seems to be quite confused about his facts. Have fun rewriting history. As soon as you have solved these (i.e., created a solution out of whole cloth) I have many more. These are the easy ones. I won't be so kind next time. :)

RS: Well, Jorge, I hope you understand now that the writer of Daniel was not confused at all. Like Augustine said above in his letter to Jerome, put the blame for the biblical difficulties somewhere else, but don’t blame them on the inspired, inerrant word of God.

Robert Sungenis
Catholic Apologetics International
April 21, 2003