Biblical Inspiration and Inerrancy: A Brief Introduction
What the Church teaches about the Inspiration, Inerrancy, and Authorship of Sacred Scripture
Introduction
In this essay I will discuss the doctrine of Biblical Inspiration. I will show that there has been a continuity and development of the the Church's teaching regarding Biblical Inspiration. I will begin by examining Magisterial texts that define and expound upon the doctrine, all of which culminate in the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution, Dei Verbum. From there, I will turn to contemporary writings and theologians, that are faithful to the Magisterium, who discuss in more detail the particular parts of the doctrine of Biblical Inspiration, especially dual authorship and the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy.
Newman and the Magisterium
In an essay published in 1884, St. John Henry Newman wrote extensively on the doctrine of Biblical Inspiration. His main purpose was to answer the claims of the French scholar Ernest Renan. At the conclusion of his statements regarding Biblical Inspiration, Newman writes
I conclude by reminding the reader that in these remarks I have been concerned only with the question—what have Catholics to hold and profess de fide about Scripture? that is, what it is the Church 'insists' on their holding; and next, by unreservedly submitting what I have written to the judgment of the Holy See, being more desirous that the question should be satisfactorily answered, than that my own answer should prove to be in every respect the right one.1
Two things are important to note here. Newman submits his own writings to the authority of the Holy See for judgment, meaning that the issues surrounding the doctrine of Biblical Inspiration were not clearly defined at the time and second, that his own answer may not be the correct one.
A response from the Holy See came in the form of Pope Leo XIII's encyclical, Providentissimus Deus published in 1893. This was the first major encyclical to be written about the study of Sacred Scripture. It was to be followed by Pope Benedict XV's Spiritus Paraclitus (1920), and Pope Pius XII's Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943). Each one helped to develop many of Leo's teachings on Sacred Scripture, the greatest of which is Biblical Inspiration.
Citing the First Vatican Council on Revelation, Leo XIII writes that “This supernatural revelation, according to the belief of the universal Church, is contained both in unwritten Tradition, and in written Books, which are therefore called sacred and canonical because, 'being written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author and as such have been delivered to the Church.'”2 Continuing, he notes that the basis for this doctrine is the testimony of the Holy Spirit Himself citing 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” (NAB) The foundations for this doctrine, then, come not only from Scripture itself, but also from previous Ecumenical Councils.
A further point Leo XIII makes is that of dual authorship, meaning that both the Holy Spirit and Man are to be considered true authors of Sacred Scripture. While Leo does not go into detail on the dual authorship of Scripture, Pope Benedict XV does, using St. Jerome as his guide. Instead of seeing Inspiration of the human authors as a mere dictation, he notes that “the individual authors of these Books worked in full freedom under the Divine afflatus, each of them in accordance with his individual nature and character.”3 He further states “In each case Jerome shows us how, in composition, in language, in style and mode of expression, each of them uses his own gifts and powers...”4 What Benedict XV highlights is that the human authors played a significant role in the authorship of Scripture. They used different styles and personal talents and gifts, all freely under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This explains why the grammar is sometimes more sophisticated in some books rather than in others. Thus, the human authors are true authors of Scripture, along with the Holy Spirit and not merely His stenographers.
A final issue that Leo resolves is that of the Inerrancy of Scripture. The Inerrancy of Scripture is intimately linked to its Inspiration. In Leo's time, it was commonly thought that Sacred Scripture could contain errors or that the errors came not from the Holy Spirit but from the human authors that He Inspired. Thus, only matters of faith and morals and not historical matters would be considered inerrant. This position is typically called partial, or limited inerrancy. Leo, however, saw things differently. He wrote
For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.5
Leo makes it clear that error is incompatible with Sacred Scripture and that this has been the teaching of numerous councils. Nor can error lie in the human authors of Scripture, for that would mean that God could lie in His Inspiration:
Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write-He was so present to them-that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture.6
If the Scriptures contain error, as some Biblical scholars claim, then God's credibility would be called into question. The First Vatican Council, however, noted that “we believe that the things revealed by Him [God] are true, not because of their intrinsic truth discerned by the natural light of reason, but by the authority of God Himself the revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.”7 As was seen above, the Inspiration of Scripture is divinely revealed by Scripture itself and subsequent teachings of Ecumenical Councils.
Lest one should think that the teaching of Plenary Inerrancy is simply a fundamentalist position, Pope Pius XII adds an important instruction for the biblical scholar in his determination of a given text. It is worth quoting at length:
Hence the Catholic commentator, in order to comply with the present needs of biblical studies, in explaining the Sacred Scripture and in demonstrating and proving its immunity from all error, should also make a prudent use of this means, determine, that is, to what extent the manner of expression or the literary mode adopted by the sacred writer may lead to a correct and genuine interpretation; and let him be convinced that this part of his office cannot be neglected without serious detriment to Catholic exegesis. Not infrequently - to mention only one instance - when some persons reproachfully charge the Sacred Writers with some historical error or inaccuracy in the recording of facts, on closer examination it turns out to be nothing else than those customary modes of expression and narration peculiar to the ancients, which used to be employed in the mutual dealings of social life and which in fact were sanctioned by common usage.8
Here, Pius XII is telling the Catholic exegete that he must look to the literary mode in which a text has been written. For instance, Wisdom Literature has a lesser claim to laying down historical fact compared to the Pentateuch and Historical Books because the authors of Wisdom Literature are not trying to necessarily write down historical events.
All of the teachings of the three popes listed above culminate in the teaching on Revelation from the Second Vatican Council. Dei Verbum recognizes the plenary, or full Inspiration of Scripture, “For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles, holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”9
It holds that Scripture is without error and has both God and man as its author: “Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.”10 This topic will be discussed in more detail below.
Finally, it agrees with Pius XII regarding the importance of understanding literary genres: “To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to 'literary forms.' For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse.”11
Modern Scholarship
In more recent times, modern scholars have continued to uphold the teachings of the popes and the Second Vatican Council in regards to the Inspiration of Scripture. A few of these scholars will be viewed below in more detail.
A prime example is Dr. Mark Zia. After examining the best scholarship of Jewish, Protestant, and Catholic scholars on Biblical Inspiration, Zia offers a modern definition of the doctrine that remains faithful to the teachings of the Magisterium while at the same time taking into account their important contributions: “In its most technical sense, the charism of biblical inspiration pertains to a free gift of the Holy Spirit given to selected, individual human persons in the past for the purpose of consigning the Word of God to a written form, that it could be known, preserved, and passed down to all generations.”12 Continuing, he further notes the dual authorship of Scripture as well as the mode used by the Holy Spirit: “This gift of God is wholly unmerited by the recipients, it is ordered toward the good of the Church at large, and it directly acts upon the human faculties by elevating them and rendering them capable of receiving and understanding supernatural revelation.”13 He emphasizes that the Inspiration was a gift and not something that was merited by the holiness or intelligence of the human author. Moreover, the purpose of this gift was to pass on the Word of God to all the generations of the Church so that they might always have access to this central part of Revelation.
After the Second Vatican Council, controversies arose regarding the interpretation of the text of Dei Verbum. Many biblical scholars thought that it had drastically changed the Church's teaching about the truth of Scripture, especially in regards to its Inerrancy. In an essay written on Inerrancy, Zia noted the disagreements among the council fathers regarding the terms employed at the Council. He especially cites Cardinal Franz König, who thought that the language used by the Council should be changed. Zia summarizes his view: “König's intention was not to limit the scope of inspiration, but to limit the scope of inerrancy from 'everything' asserted by the inspired author to 'the truth' or 'the truth of Sacred Scripture,' which he designated as teachings regarding faith and morals.”14 Many of the council fathers, however, disagreed with König. Zia writes
It became evident that the Council fathers did not agree with the manner in which König proposed to strike a balance between the limitations of the Bible and its inerrant portions. They clearly wanted to maintain the full inerrancy of the Bible, but in a non-Fundamentalist way that would take into consideration the literal sense of the passage as communicating the intention of the inspired author.15
Zia also notes that Dei Verbum specifically cites St. Augustine, Providentissimus Deus, and Divino Afflante Spiritu in a footnote with regard to the truth of Sacred Scripture. He also explains that both Pope St. Paul VI and the Theological Commission that reviewed the modi, had to intervene in order to preserve the Church's teaching on Biblical Inerrancy. He continues to note that even after all that has been presented, showing the continuity and development of the Church's teaching, there are those, such as the great scholar Raymond Brown who do not hold to the Plenary Inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. Zia concludes by writing “In reading this final and approved formulation of the Council's teaching on the relationship between biblical inspiration and inerrancy, it becomes clear that the phrase 'for the sake of our salvation' is descriptive of the activity of God, and not a restrictive clause meant to limit the scope of inerrancy of the Bible.”16
Another representative is the Scripture scholar Fr. William G. Most, who greatly strove against the error in Raymond Brown's thought regarding the Inerrancy of Scripture. He dedicates a great deal of ink to refuting Brown's writing in his work, Free From All Error. He writes,
Some writers had said that matters of natural science or history, or things said in passing, are not protected by inerrancy. Only things pertaining to faith and morals, they said, are so protected. Pius XII pointed out the obvious: that if God is the author, there can be no error whatsoever, of any kind. And he spoke of the teaching of Vatican I on this point as “a solemn definition.” Raymond Brown, however, insists there can be errors, even in religious matters!17
Fr. Most continues to note that the position of Plenary Inerrancy will take work and effort if it is to be upheld. He distinguishes between the “fact” and the “how” of Biblical interpretation. He presents the ideal method for dealing with difficulties in the Bible:
The fact that there is no error in Scripture, we know from the teachings of the Church. But how to explain certain difficulties requires additional work. However, and this is the vital point, even if we were not able at present to find the how that will solve particular problems, that should not blind us to the fact that there is an answer.18
We should come to Scripture with Faith, then, and not with an inherent suspicion that errors exists in it. St. John Henry Newman could also be cited here: “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt...”19 Just because a Biblical text may present many difficulties to the reader, does not, and cannot mean that the human author(s) or the Holy Spirit erred in writing it down. It is something that must be wrestled with and not ignored by simply saying there are errors in the Bible.
Yet another brief example is Dr. Scott Hahn. In his Catholic Bible Dictionary, he defends plenary or what he calls, “unlimited” Inerrancy. He goes into specific details on the issue at the Second Vatican Council and shows how it's teaching is in line with previous magisterial texts. He concludes by writing:
In all probability, then, given the history of the doctrine and the points considered above, the official Catholic teaching remains one of unlimited inerrancy. Vatican II has issued no repeal of this teaching, neither has it given us signs of a real departure from the solemn decrees of the modern popes. One can legitimately speak of a new emphasis introduced by the Council, but not a new understanding of the doctrine.20
A final illustration is Dr. Brant Pitre, who offers one of the most articulate and detailed defenses of Biblical Inspiration and Inerrancy in an article for the journal Letter and Spirit. He offers a number of important points to keep in mind regarding the doctrine of Inspiration. The first is what he calls the “Incarnational Analogy.” The Incarnational Analogy refers to the dual authorship of Scripture. Just as Jesus Christ had both a human nature and a divine nature, so too does Scripture in a certain sense. It has two authors, God and man, the divine and the human. Pitre writes
By means of this analogy it affirms in the strongest possible terms both the divine authorship of Scripture as well as the free, full, and reasonable human authorship of the sacred texts. Like the mystery of the incarnation itself, the mystery of dual authorship is a testament to both the truth and the humility of the Word incarnate and the Word inspired.21
In a similar vein as Fr. Most, Pitre writes on the “Hermeneutic of Trust” in regards to Biblical Inerrancy. He juxtaposes trust and skepticism, noting that the Modern period is rife with skepticism which has led many to distrust the Scripture and leads to views of partial inerrancy. Trust, is ultimately what is needed according to Pitre: “From an interpretative posture of trust, the truth of the biblical text is presumed and the Scripture is always given the benefit of the doubt. Such a hermeneutic is not uncritical naivete, but rather an eminently reasonable response to the divine authorship of Scripture.”22 He goes on to note that it is far easier to accuse Sacred Scripture of error than it is to engage in difficult passages. Proper exegesis of Sacred Scripture “calls for the exercise of the virtues of patience and humility on the part of the biblical scholar.”23
Conclusion
In this essay we have seen that there has been continuity in the Church's teaching regarding the doctrine of Inspiration of Scripture. From the single verse in St. Paul's letter, there has stemmed teachings regarding the dual authorship, inerrancy, and proper interpretation of the Sacred Scripture. The Second Vatican Council summed up the magisterial teaching on these topics with the Dogmatic Constitution, Dei Verbum. We have also seen that numerous Scripture scholars who are faithful to the Magisterium have defended and elucidated the doctrine, especially in defending the Inerrancy of Scripture, which is so closely tied to it's Inspiration, from fundamentalist tendencies. The true scholar of the Word of God, if he wishes to be faithful to the teachings of the Magisterium, would do well to approach Scripture with humility, patience, trust, and faith.
Notes
1John Henry Newman, “On the Inspiration of Scripture,” (The Newman Reader. The Nineteenth Century, Vol. 15, No. 84, Feb. 1884), 28. https://newmanreader.org/works/miscellaneous/scripture.html.
2Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus (The Holy See, November 18, 1893), 1. https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l- xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html.
3Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus (The Holy See, September 15, 1920), 8. https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xv/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xv_enc_15091920_spiritus-paraclitus.html.
4Benedict, Spiritus Paraclitus, 8.
5Leo, Providentissimus Deus, 20.
6Leo, Providentissimus Deus, 20.
7Pius IX, Dei Filius (The Holy See, April 24, 1870), Ch. 3. https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/la/documents/constitutio-dogmatica-dei-filius-24-aprilis-1870.html.
8Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu (The Holy See, September 30, 1943), 38. https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p- xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu.html.
9Paul VI, Dei Verbum: Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (The Holy See, November 18, 1965), 11. https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html.
10Paul, Dei Verbum, 11.
11Paul, Dei Verbum, 12.
12Mark J. Zia, What Are They Saying About Biblical Inspiration (Paulist Press, 2011), 83.
13Zia, What Are They Saying, 83.
14Mark J. Zia, “The Inerrancy of Scripture and the Second Vatican Council,” Catholic Culture, 2006. https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8441.
15Zia, “The Inerrancy of Scripture.”
16Zia, “The Inerrancy of Scripture.”
17William G. Most, Free From All Error: Authorship, Inerrancy, Historicity of Scripture, Church Teaching, and Modern Scripture Scholars (The Franciscan Marytown Press, 1985), 34.
18Most, Free From All Error, 34.
19John Henry Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua (Newman Reader, 1865, revised in 2001), Chapter 5. https://www.newmanreader.org/works/apologia65/chapter5.html.
20Scott Hahn, Catholic Bible Dictionary (Doubleday, 2009), 389.
21Scott Hahn and David Scott, eds. Letter & Spirit Vol. 6: For the Sake of Our Salvation: The Truth and Humility of God’s Word (Emmaus Academic, 2010) 51.
22Hahn and Scott, Letter & Spirit, 60.
23 Hahn and Scott, Letter & Spirit, 60.