Evolution & Creation

Lecture #3
Inspiration & Inerrancy1
1. The Doctrine Of Inspiration
The Problem
elements
what we have—an “inspired” book which, along with the rest of
Tradition, and read with the guidance of the Church, is an inerrant
source of wisdom
its source—an “inspired” writer
i.e., two authors—an inspired human being and God, the inspirer
the problem itself—what exactly does it mean to say that the text is
inspired?
or, what is the role of man and God in the creation of these texts?
(cf. Pope Gregory the Great’s auctor/scriptor distinction)
General Comments
inspiration is (in the strict sense) a theological mystery
there is no single Catholic position on inspiration
rather, there is a range of positions consistent with Catholic doctrine
and certain limits
Some Extreme Views (all except dictation explicitly rejected by Church)
views which deny genuine human authorship
Mantic Theory—no active human role
“played upon by the Spirit as a fluter plays upon his flute”—
Athenagoras
possible grounds—“no prophecy ever came by the impulse of
man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”—2
Peter 1:21 (also, see Acts 4:25)
expositors—Philo, late Tertullian
opponents
human writer has an active role in preparing the text
cf. St Cyril of Alexandria and St Augustine
verdict of the Church
“To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all
the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their
own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and
by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing
whatever he wanted written, and no more.”2
Dictation Theory—minimal active human role

1 Source: Smith, "Inspiration & Inerrancy" in Jerome Biblical Commentary (pp. 499-517)
2 Vatican II, Dei Verbum 11

Source: “Inspiration & Inerrancy,” The Jerome Biblical Commentary

Evolution & Creation February 05, 2001
Lecture #3 Page 2
expositors—Bañez3 and Billuart4
verdict of the Church
abandoned, but never formally condemned
is an emanuensis a “true author” as Vatican II requires?
views which deny genuine divine authorship
Negative Assistance Theory—minimal active divine role
J. Bonfrère—applied to some texts only
J. Jahn—applied to the entire Bible5
inspiration = infallibility (mere protection from error)
Subsequent Approbation Theory—no active divine role
Sixtus of Siena—books would be no less trustworthy for having
only subsequent approbation
Lessius—subsequent approbation would be a possible form of
genuine revelation
D. Haneberg—some Biblical books written this wayp6 6
verdict of the Church—views of Jahn & Haneberg condemned
“These books are held to be sacred and canonical by the Church,
not on the grounds that they were produced by mere human
ingenuity and afterwards approved by her authority; nor on the
mere score that they contained revelation without error. But they
are held to be sacred and canonical because they were written as a
result of the prompting of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their
author, and as such they were entrusted to the Church.”7
Some Moderate Views
sources—2 Mc 2: 23-3 & 15:38; Lk 1:1-4
distinctions intended to illuminate divine and human roles
(1) form (= ideas, content) vs. matter (= words)
pro—Cardinal Franzelin
contra—L. Billot8
(2) intellect vs. will
authorship requires both …
intellect—the knowledge which the book contains
inspiration allows human writer to see truth more clearly
will—decisions about how to say what needs to be said
illuminationalism:
inspiration concerned primarily with illumination (speculative)
secondarily with transmission (practical)

3 In Summam1.1.8.3 1 concl. & 3 concl.

4 Summa S. Thomas, tractatus de regulis fidei, diss. 1, a. 2
5 Einleitung in die göttlichen Bücher des alten Bundes (Vienna, 1802), pp. 91-108.
6 Geschichte der biblischen Offenbarung (Regensburg, 1850), p. 714.
7 Vatican I
8 De inspiratione Sacrae Scripturae theologica disputatio (4th ed.: Rome, 1929), pp. 63-66.
Evolution & Creation February 05, 2001
Lecture #3 Page 3
inspiration provides the writer with the knowledge to be
transmitted, but leaves to the writer decisions about how to
transmit it
proponents—Franzelin & Lagrange
directionalism:
inspiration directs the writer’s decisions about how to transmit
material which he learned independent of inspiration (whether by
natural or by supernatural means)
inspiration not concerned with acquisition of truth (illumination)
only with transmission
proponent—Levesque
compromise position (Benoit)
“I propose, therefore, that all the acts of speculative knowledge
elicited by man under the supernatural impulse of the Holy Spirit
should be grouped under the charism of revelation…. Clearly
distinct from the preceding, the charism of inspiration directs all the
practical activity involved in the communication of truths received
in revelation….Inspiration is logically rather than chronologically
subsequent to revelation, for both are intimately bound up in the
same concrete activity of the mind.”
Evolution & Creation February 05, 2001
Lecture #3 Page 4
2. The Doctrine Of Inerrancy
the teaching of the Church
“The books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly,
faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted to put into the
sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.”9
the problem as seen by a contemporary scholar10
why should the Bible be considered inerrant when it contains what would
be considered errors in any other text?
putative examples
(1) internal contradictions
Gen 7:17—“The flood lasted forty days on earth.”
Gen 7:24—“The waters maintained their level on earth for one
hundred and fifty days.”
(2) conflicts with natural science
e.g., universe enwrapped in waters of Gen 1
(3) conflicts with history
e.g., Dan 5
Bel-shar-usur was never actually king
Nebuchadnezzar was ancestor of Bel-shar-usur, but not his
father
Darius the Mede is not known to historians
the Persian king Cyrus conquered first the Medes, then
Babylon
(4) conflicts with morality
e.g., herem of Jos 11:11—“In compliance with the curse of
destruction, they put every living creature there [sc. at Hazor] to
the sword.”
comment—is the problem here somewhat exaggerated?
even if so, any single case would still represent a problem
antiquity of the problem
Rabbinic tradition that one of blessings of return of Elijah would be
explanation of apparent discrepancies between Ezekiel & the Torah
solutions
(1) early Christian neglect of literal for allegorical sense for just this reason
(2) full appreciation of presence of metaphor and importance of seeking
out the meaning of the metaphor
cf. Augustine’s determination to find a literal sense de Genesis ad
litteram on science
0A Commentary on Genesis: Two Books against the Manichees11
(388)—An attempt to find a literal meaning when possible, with a
proposed allegorical interpretation when necessary.

9 Dei Verbum 3:11

1 0 Smith, “Inspiration & Inerrancy” in The Jerome Biblical Commentary.
1 1 On Genesis Roland J. Teske, SJ, translator (CUA Press, 1991)
Evolution & Creation February 05, 2001
Lecture #3 Page 5
The Literal Meaning of Genesis: An Unfinished Book(393-4)
Confessions (397-401), Books 12-13—A literal and allegorical
interpretation of Genesis 1.
The Literal Meaning of Genesis12 (401-415)—A search for the literal
meaning of Genesis 1-3.
The City of God (413 ff.), Book 11—Further thoughts on creation.
St Thomas’ insistence on the literal sense as foundational and the
appropriateness of metaphor in Scripture (Summa theol., Ia, Q. 1, a.
9)
(2) relevance of genre
error is false assertion
where there are not assertions, there is no error
e.g., if Gen 1 does not assert six days or waters above the
heavens, but merely uses a poetic device or conforms to
contemporary Babylonian cosmology, then it does not teach
error
where there is accommodation of everyday description and
understanding, there is not assertion
(4) restriction on scope—inerrancy on all matters relevant to salvation
all statements inerrant to the extent they are relevant to salvation
Church’s verdict—concentration on ##2-3
caution about #1 & #4—are there in addition to quote that truth which
God wanted to put into the sacred writings for the sake of our
salvation” other assertions put in their for some other reason?

1 2 John Hammond Taylor, translator, Newman, 1982