Biblical Inerrancy

Biblical Inerrancy is the divinely revealed truth that Sacred Scripture, because God is its author, teaches without error everything the inspired authors truly assert.

In Christian theology, biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible, in its original form, is entirely free from error.^[16][17]

The belief in biblical inerrancy is of particular significance within parts of evangelicalism, where it is formulated in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. In contrast to American evangelicalism, it has minimal influence on contemporary British evangelicalism.^[18][19] Some groups equate inerrancy with biblical infallibility or with the necessary clarity of scripture; others do not.^[20][21]

The Catholic Church also holds a limited belief in biblical inerrancy,^[22] affirming that the original writings in the original language, including the Deuterocanonical books, are free from error insofar as they convey the truth God intended for the sake of human salvation.^[23] However, descriptions of natural phenomena are not to be taken as inspired and inerrant scientific assertions, but reflect the language and contemporary understanding of the writers.

Critics argue that total biblical inerrancy conflicts with empirical science by treating ancient texts as authoritative on natural phenomena, despite contradictions with observable evidence, such as the age of the Earth or the historicity of Noah’s Ark. In contrast, many Christian scholars and the Catholic Church emphasize interpretive flexibility, viewing certain biblical accounts as allegorical or contextually framed, allowing for revision and alignment with modern knowledge while maintaining the spiritual authority of scripture.

Terms and positions

• Some authors use "inerrancy" and "infallibility" interchangeably.
• For others, "inerrancy" refers to complete inerrancy and "infallibility" to the more limited view that the Bible is without error in conveying God's self-revelation to humanity.^[20][24] On this understanding, "infallibility" claims less than "inerrancy".
• Citing dictionary definitions, Frame (2002) claims "infallibility" is a stronger term than "inerrant": "'Inerrant' means there are no errors; "infallible" means there can be no errors".^[25] Yet he acknowledges that "modern theologians insist on redefining that word also, so that it actually says less than 'inerrancy.'" Harold Lindsell states: "The very nature of inspiration renders the Bible infallible, which means that it cannot deceive us. It is inerrant in that it is not false, mistaken, or defective".^[26]

Positions

• Judaism: according to H. Chaim Schimmel, Judaism had never promulgated a belief in the literal word of the Hebrew Bible, hence the co-existence of the Oral Torah.^[27] The significance of most phrases, their parts, grammar, and occasionally individual words, letters and even pronunciation in the Hebrew Bible are the subject of many rabbinic discussions in the Talmud.
• Catholic Church: the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) authoritatively expressed the Catholic Church's view on biblical inerrancy. Citing earlier declarations, it stated:^[23] "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." But theologians disagree as to whether the words "for the sake of our salvation" in that sentence represent a shift from complete to limited inerrancy.^[28]; The Council did not endorse the necessary clarity of scripture: "Since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words."^[29]; The Church interprets the Scripture as part of the Deposit of Faith with Sacred Tradition, and not in an apostolic vacuum: interpretations of Scripture which contradict magisterial teaching to that extent fail to capture the inerrant meaning.
• Evangelical Christianity: Evangelicals generally affirm that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is inspired by God and is the final authority on matters of faith and practice. However, there is an ongoing debate between two primary factions:

1. The inerrant view - the Bible is absolutely inerrant on all matters that it affirms.
2. The infallible but not inerrant view - while the Bible is infallible in that it does not fail believers when trusted to do what God inspired it to do, it is not absolutely inerrant in all matters it affirms, especially in some of its tangential scientific and historical statements.^[30]

History

According to Coleman (1975), "[t]here have been long periods in the history of the church when biblical inerrancy has not been a critical question. It has in fact been noted that only in the last two centuries can we legitimately speak of a formal doctrine of inerrancy."^[31] The first formulations of the doctrine of inerrancy were not established according to the authority of a council, creed, or church, until the post-Reformation period.^[32]

Early Church

Origen of Alexandria thought there were minor discrepancies between the accounts of the Gospels but dismissed them due to their lack of theological importance, writing "let these four [Gospels] agree with each other concerning certain things revealed to them by the Spirit and let them disagree a little concerning other things" (Commentary on John 10.4).

Later, John Chrysostom was also unconcerned with the notion that the scriptures were in congruence with all matters of history unimportant to matters of faith:

But if there be anything touching time or places, which they have related differently, this nothing injures the truth of what they have said [...] [but those things] which constitute our life and furnish out our doctrine nowhere is any of them found to have disagreed, no not ever so little

— Homily on Matthew 1.6

John D. Woodbridge disputes this claim about Chrysostom writing, "In fact, Chrysostom apparently believed in biblical infallibility extended to every detail. He does not set forth a comprehensive discussion of the subject, but scholars who have surveyed the corpus of his work usually affirm that this is case."^[33]

In his Commentary on Galatians, Jerome also argued that Paul's rebuke of Peter in Galatians 2:11–14^[34] for acting like a Jew around the Jewish faction of the early Church was an insincere "white lie" as Paul himself had done the same thing.^[35] In response, Augustine rebuked Jerome's interpretation and affirmed that the scriptures contained no mistakes in them, and that admitting a single mistake would shed doubt on the entire scripture:^[36]

It seems to me that the most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books: that is to say that the men by whom the Scripture has been given to us, and committed to writing, did put down in these books anything false. [...] If you once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement [...] there will not be left a single sentence of those books which, if appearing to any one difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away, as a statement in which, intentionally, [...] the author declared what was not true

— Letters of St Augustine 28.3

For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of in truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason

— Letters of St Augustine 82.3

However, John D. Hannah argues that Jerome did indeed affirm the historical nature of the Bible. For example, Jerome believed in the historicity of the book of Jonah.^[37] He further argues that while Origen resorted to allegorical interpretation, he held a high view of inerrancy.^[38]

Biblical inerrancy adherents say that the Early Church Fathers did hold to biblical inerrancy, even if it was not articulated that way. In particular, Shawn Nelson cites Clement of Rome, Papias, Ignatius of Antioch, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and the Epistle to Diognetus as examples of those whom held to inerrancy.^[39]

Clement of Rome said to his readers:^[40]

You have looked into the holy scriptures, which are true, which were given by the Holy Spirit. You know that nothing unrighteous or falsified is written in them.

— First Epistle of Clement 45:2-3

Medieval era

The medieval church fathers held to the divine origin of scripture and most believed there could not be any error in scripture as interpreted by the Church.^[41] The most prominent theologian of the Medieval era was Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas wrote:

It is heretical to say that any falsehood whatever is contained either in the Gospels or in any canonical Scripture.

— In John 13. Lect. 1

Another theologian, Hugh of St. Victor, is known for stressing the importance of the historical and literal senses of the Bible in the face of the strong allegorizing tendency of the age.^[42] He wrote:

The mystical sense is only gathered from what the letter says, in the first place. I wonder how people have the face to boast themselves teachers of allegory, when they do not know the primary meaning of the letter. "We read the Scriptures," they say, "but we don't read the letter. The letter does not interest us. We teach allegory." How do you read Scripture then, if you don't read the letter? Subtract the letter and what is left?

— De Scripturis V 5:13-15

Philosopher John Wycliff proposed an extreme version of inerrancy, that meant that even parables must have been factually true, in the book De Veritate Sacrae Scripturae (On the Truthfulness of Holy Scripture, c.1378). Wycliffe's dictum omnis veritas est ex scriptura, et ut necessarior est expressior says that all truths necessary to faith are found clearly and expressly in the Bible, and the more necessary, the more expressly.^[43], p. 67 This later influenced Martin Luther.

Scholar Erasmus of Rotterdam, who published the first Latin-Greek New Testament in print, believed not only that translation between languages was always imperfect, that transmission errors had occurred by scribes, and that Scripture was sometimes deliberately obscure, but also that "the sayings of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) were slightly different in each. He suggested that the Holy Spirit had not bothered to correct the faulty memories of the evangelists."^[44]

Reformation era

By the time of the Reformation, there was still no official doctrine of inerrancy. Although the term was not used, some scholars argue the Reformers did believe in the concept of inerrancy.^[45]

For Martin Luther (1483–1546), for example, "inspiration did not insure inerrancy in all details. Luther recognizes mistakes and inconsistencies in Scripture and treated them with lofty indifference because they did not touch the heart of the Gospel."^[46] When Matthew appears to confuse Jeremiah with Zechariah in Matthew 27:9,^[47] Luther wrote that "Such points do not bother me particularly."^[46] However, other Luther scholars have pointed out that Luther, in other places, said the Scripture cannot contradict itself.^[48] Luther said in regards to whether the Bible had errors or not, "the Scriptures cannot err."^[49] Other statements made by Luther seem to contradict that, e.g. he stated that he found numerous errors in the Bible, and lambasted a couple of books of the Protestant Bible as worthless; he also stated that his idea of Christ trumps the letter of the Scripture, especially when the Scripture is cited in order to give the lie to his idea.^[50]

The Christian humanist and one of the leading scholars of the Northern Renaissance, Erasmus (1466–1536), was also unconcerned with minor errors not impacting theology, and at one point, thought that Matthew mistook one word for another. In a letter to Johannes Eck, Erasmus wrote that "Nor, in my view, would the authority of the whole of Scripture be instantly imperiled, as you suggest, if an evangelist by a slip of memory did put one name for another, Isaiah for instance instead of Jeremiah, for this is not a point on which anything turns."^[36]

The same point of view held true for John Calvin (1509–1564), who wrote that "It is well known that the Evangelists were not very concerned with observing the time sequences."^[32] However, Calvin also said that Scripture is the "certain and unerring rule."^[51] Calvin scholars are divided on whether Calvin actually held to inerrancy or not. Some scholars such as Jack B. Rogers and Donald McKim said Calvin "was unconcerned with normal, human inaccuracies in minor matters" in Scripture.^[52] Other scholars such as John D. Woodbridge and J.I. Packer said Calvin did adhere to a position equivalent to biblical inerrancy.^[53][54]

The doctrine of inerrancy, however, began to develop as a response to these Protestant attitudes. Whereas the Council of Trent only held that the Bible's authority was "in matters of faith and morals", Jesuit cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621) argued in his 1586 De verbo Dei, the first volume of his multi-volume Disputationes de controversiis christianae fidei adversus hujus temporis haereticos that "There can be no error in Scripture, whether it deals with faith or whether it deals with morals/mores, or whether it states something general and common to the whole Church, or something particular and pertaining to only one person." Bellarmine's views were extremely important in his condemnation of Galileo and in Catholic–Protestant debate, as the Protestant response was to also affirm his heightened understanding of inerrancy.^[32]

Post-Reformation

In the 17th century, Quaker apologist Robert Barclay took a step away from Biblical Inerrancy while continuing to affirm Biblical inspiration and the Bible's place in Christian doctrine. Barclay said that "errors [in the Bible] may be supposed by the injury of the times to have slipped in", but that because of inspiration from the Holy Spirit, all necessities remained.^[55]

During the 18th and 19th centuries and in the aftermath of the Enlightenment critique of religion, various episodes of the Bible (for example the Noahide worldwide flood,^[56] the creation in six days, and the creation of women from a man's rib) began increasingly to be seen as legendary rather than as literally true. This led to further questioning of the veracity of biblical texts.

Theological criticism

Proponents of Biblical inerrancy often cite 2 Timothy 3:16^[57] as evidence that scripture is inerrant. For this argument, they prefer translations that render the verse as "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," and they interpret this to mean that the whole Bible must therefore be in some way inerrant. However, critics of this doctrine think that the Bible makes no direct claim to be inerrant or infallible. C. H. Dodd argues the same sentence can also be translated "Every inspired scripture is also useful", nor does the verse define the Biblical canon to which "scripture" refers.^[58] In addition, Michael T. Griffith, the Mormon apologist, writes:

Nowhere within its pages does the Bible teach or logically imply the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy. [Concerning] 2 Timothy 3:16 [...] this passage merely says that "all scripture" is profitable for doctrine, reproof, etc. It says nothing about scripture being "perfect", or "inerrant", or "infallible", or "all-sufficient". If anything, Paul's words constitute a refutation of the idea of scriptural inerrancy [...] What it does say is that scripture is useful, profitable, for the needs of the pastoral ministry. The only "holy scriptures" Timothy could have known from childhood were the Hebrew scriptures, the Old Testament. And yet, would any Christian assert that in Paul's view the Old Testament was the final and complete word of God to man? Of course not. In any event, verse 15 makes it clear that in speaking of "all scripture" Paul was referring to the Jewish scriptures and perhaps to some of his own epistles. The New Testament as we know it simply did not exist yet. Furthermore, it is fairly certain that Paul's canon included some Jewish scriptures no longer found in the Old Testament, such as the book of Enoch.^[59]

The Catholic New Jerusalem Bible also has a note that this passage refers only to the Old Testament writings understood to be scripture at the time it was written.^[60] Furthermore, the Catholic Veritas Bible website says that "Rather than characterizing the Old Testament scriptures as required reading, Paul is simply promoting them as something useful or advantageous to learn. [...] it falls far short of a salvational requirement or theological system. Moreover, the four purposes (to teach, correct, etc.) for which scripture is declared to be 'profitable' are solely the functions of the ministry. After all, Paul is addressing one of his new bishops (the 'man of God'). Not a word addresses the use of scripture by the laity."^[61] Another note in the Bible suggests that there are indications that Paul's writings were being considered, at least by the author of the Second Epistle of Peter,^[62] as comparable to the Old Testament.^[63]

The view that total Biblical inerrancy can be justified by an appeal to prooftexts that refer to its divine inspiration has been criticized as circular reasoning, because these statements are only considered to be true if the Bible is already thought to be inerrant.^[64]

In the introduction to his book Credible Christianity, Anglican Bishop Hugh Montefiore, comments:

The doctrine of biblical inerrancy seems inherently improbable, for two reasons. Firstly, the Scriptures contain what seem to be evident errors and contradictions (although great ingenuity has been applied to explain these away). Secondly, the books of the Old and New Testaments did not gain their place within the "canon", or list of approved books, as soon as they were written. The Old Testament canon was not closed until late in the Apostolic age, and the New Testament canon was not finally closed until the fourth century. If all the Bible's contents were inerrant, one would have thought that this would have become apparent within a much shorter period.^[65]

Liberal Christianity

In general, liberal Christianity has no problem with the thought that the Bible has errors and contradictions.^[66] Liberal Christians reject the dogma of inerrancy or infallibility of the Bible,^[66] which they see as the idolatry (fetishism) of the Bible.^[50] Martin Luther emphatically declared: "if our opponents allege Scripture against Christ, we allege Christ against Scripture."^[50]

William John Lyons quoted William Wrede and Hermann Gunkel, who affirmed: "Like every other real science, New Testament Theology has its goal simply in itself, and is totally indifferent to all dogma and Systematic Theology [...] the spirit of historical investigation has now taken the place of a traditional doctrine of inspiration".^[67]

John Shelby Spong, author and former bishop of the Episcopal Church who was well-known for his post-theistic theology, declared that the literal interpretation of the Bible is heresy.^[68][69]

Meaning of "Word of God"

Much debate over the kind of authority that should be accorded biblical texts centers on what is meant by the "Word of God". The term can refer to Christ himself as well as to the proclamation of his ministry as kerygma. However, total biblical inerrancy differs from this orthodoxy in viewing the Word of God to mean the entire text of the Bible when interpreted didactically as God's teaching.^[70] The idea of the Bible itself as the Word of God, as being itself God's revelation, is criticized in neo-orthodoxy. Here the Bible is seen as a unique witness to the people and deeds that do make up the Word of God. However, it is a wholly human witness.^[71] All books of the Bible were written by human beings. Thus, whether the Bible is—in whole or in part^[72]—the Word of God is not clear. However, some argue that the Bible can still be construed as the "Word of God" in the sense that these authors' statements may have been representative of, and perhaps even directly influenced by, God's own knowledge.^[73]

There is only one instance in the Bible where the phrase "the Word of God" refers to something written. The reference is to the Decalogue. However, most other references are to reported speech preserved in the Bible. The New Testament also contains a number of statements that refer to passages from the Old Testament as God's words, for instance Romans 3:2,^[74] d (which says that the Jews have been "entrusted with the very words of God"), or the book of Hebrews, which often prefaces Old Testament quotations with words such as "God says". The Bible also contains words spoken by human beings about God, such as Eliphaz (Job 42:7)^[75] and the prayers and songs of the Psalter. That these are God's words addressed to humanity was at the root of a lively medieval controversy.^[76] The idea of the word of God is more that God is encountered in scripture, than that every line of scripture is a statement made by God.^[77]

While the phrase "the Word of God" is never applied to the modern Bible within the Bible itself, supporters of total inerrancy argue that this is because the Biblical canon was not closed. In 1 Thessalonians 2:23^[78] the apostle Paul wrote to the church in Thessalonica, "When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God."^[79]

Translation

Translation has given rise to a number of issues, as the original languages are often quite different in grammar as well as word meaning. For readability, clarity, or other reasons, translators may choose different wording or sentence structure, and some translations may choose to paraphrase passages. Because some of the words in the original language have ambiguous or difficult-to-translate meanings, debates over the correct interpretation occur. Some believers trust their own translation to be the accurate one. One such group of believers is known as the King James Only movement.^[80]

Autographic texts and modern versions

Those who hold the total inerrancy of the Bible have a variety of views as to whether inerrancy refers to modern Bibles or only to the original, autographic texts. There are also disagreements about whether, because the autographic texts no longer survive, modern texts can be said to be inerrant.^[81] Article X of the Chicago statement agrees that the inspiration for the words of the Bible can only strictly be applied to the autographs. However, the same article asserts that the original text "can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy", so that the lack of the originals does not affect the claim of biblical inerrancy of such recovered, modern texts.^[82] Robert Saucy, for instance, reports that writers have argued that "99 percent of the original words in the New Testament are recoverable with a high degree of certainty."^[83]

For the Catholic church, the Latin Vulgate translation has been declared "authentic", meaning that where the Latin Vulgate diverges from the original languages, for example by translator or scribal error, it is either not significant for faith or morals or is true in its own right.

Textual tradition of the New Testament

Most of these manuscripts date to the Middle Ages. The oldest complete copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus, which includes two other books (the Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas) not now included in the accepted NT canon, dates to the 4th century. The earliest fragment of a New Testament book is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52 which dates from 125–175 AD,^[84] recent research pointing to a date nearer to 200 AD.^[85]

The average NT manuscript is about 200 pages, and in all, there are about 1.3 million pages of text. No two manuscripts are identical, except in the smallest fragments, and the many manuscripts that preserve New Testament texts differ among themselves in many respects, with some estimates of 200,000 to 300,000 differences among the various manuscripts.^[86] According to Bart Ehrman:

Most changes are careless errors that are easily recognized and corrected. Christian scribes often made mistakes simply because they were tired or inattentive or, sometimes, inept. Indeed, the single most common mistake in our manuscripts involves "orthography", significant for little more than showing that scribes in antiquity could spell no better than most of us can today. In addition, we have numerous manuscripts in which scribes have left out entire words, verses, or even pages of a book, presumably by accident. Sometimes scribes rearranged the words on the page, for example, by leaving out a word and then reinserting it later in the sentence.^[87]

In the 2008 Greer-Heard debate series, New Testament scholars Bart Ehrman and Daniel B. Wallace discussed these variances in detail. Wallace mentioned that understanding the meaning of the number of variances is not as simple as looking at the number of variances, but one must consider also the number of manuscripts, the types of errors, and among the more serious discrepancies, what impact they do or do not have.^[88]

For hundreds of years, Biblical and textual scholars have examined the manuscripts extensively. Since the eighteenth century, they have employed the techniques of textual criticism to reconstruct how the extant manuscripts of the New Testament texts might have descended, and to recover earlier recensions of the texts. However, King James Version (KJV)-only inerrantists often prefer the traditional texts (i.e., Textus Receptus, which is the basis of KJV) used in their churches to modern attempts of reconstruction (i.e., Nestle-Aland Greek Text, which is the basis of modern translations), arguing that the Holy Spirit is just as active in the preservation of the scriptures as in their creation.^[89]

KJV-only inerrantist Jack Moorman says that at least 356 doctrinal passages are affected by the differences between the Textus Receptus and the Nestle-Aland Greek Text.^[90]

Some modern Bibles have footnotes to indicate areas where there is disagreement between source documents. Bible commentaries offer discussions of these.^[91][92]

Inerrantist response

Evangelical Christians generally accept the findings of textual criticism,^[93] and nearly all modern translations, including the New Testament of the New International Version, are based on "the widely accepted principles of [...] textual criticism".^[94]

Since textual criticism suggests that the manuscript copies are not perfect, strict inerrancy is only applied to the original autographs (the manuscripts written by the original authors) rather than the copies. However total inerrantists usually claim that imperfect manuscripts have a negligible effect on our ability to know what the autographs said. For example, evangelical theologian Wayne Grudem writes:

For most practical purposes, then, the current published scholarly texts of the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament are the same as the original manuscripts. Thus, when we say that the original manuscripts were inerrant, we are also implying that over 99 percent of the words in our present manuscripts are also inerrant, for they are exact copies of the originals.^[17]

The "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" says, "We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture". However, it also reads: "We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant."^[95]

Less commonly, more conservative views are held by some groups.

Textus Receptus

A minority of total biblical inerrantists go further than the Chicago Statement, arguing that the original text has been perfectly preserved and passed down through time. This is sometimes called "Textus Receptus Onlyism", as it is believed the Greek text by this name (Latin for received text) is a perfect and inspired copy of the original and supersedes earlier manuscript copies. This position is based on the idea that only the original language God spoke in is inspired, and that God was pleased to preserve that text throughout history by the hands of various scribes and copyists. Thus the Textus Receptus acts as the inerrant source text for translations to modern languages. For example, in Spanish-speaking cultures the commonly accepted "KJV-equivalent" is the Reina-Valera 1909 revision (with different groups accepting, in addition to the 1909 or in its place, the revisions of 1862 or 1960). The New King James Version was also translated from the Textus Receptus.

King James Only inerrantists

A faction of those in the "King James Only movement" rejects the whole discipline of textual criticism and holds that the translators of the King James Version English Bible were guided by God and that the KJV thus is to be taken as the authoritative English Bible. One of its most vocal, prominent and thorough proponents was Peter Ruckman.

Michael Licona

In 2010, Michael Licona published a book defending the resurrection of Jesus called, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. In one part of the book, Licona raised questions about the literal interpretation of the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27:51-53. He suggests the passage of scripture is an apocalyptic genre.^[96] Scholars such as Norman Geisler accused Licona of denying the full inerrancy of the Bible in general and the Gospel narratives in particular.^[97] As a result, Licona resigned from his position as research professor of New Testament at Southern Evangelical Seminary and apologetics coordinator for the North American Mission Board.^[98]

Modern Catholic discussion

Before Vatican II

St. John Henry Newman, writing in 1884, acknowledged the "human side" of biblical inspiration which "manifests itself in language, style, tone of thought, character, intellectual peculiarities, and such infirmities, not sinful, as belong to our nature, and which in unimportant matters may issue in what in doctrinal definitions is called an obiter dictum (said in passing)." In this view, the Bible contains many statements of a historical nature that have no salvific content in themselves and so need not be inerrant.^[99] Often called the "absent father of Vatican II" (absent because he died 72 years before it began), the wording of Dei Verbum recalls Newman’s position. The theologians who wrote it knew and positively appreciated his views.^[100]

In 1907, Pope Pius X condemned historical criticism in the 1907 Lamentibili sane exitu.^[101] However, around the time of the mid-twentieth century, attitudes changed. In 1943, Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu, making historical criticism not only permissible but "a duty".^[101] Catholic biblical scholar Raymond E. Brown described this encyclical as a "Magna Carta for biblical progress".^[102]

Vatican II

After several years discussion and numerous drafts, on 18 November 1965 the Vatican II Council adopted the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, known as Dei verbum from its first Latin words.^[103] The document's teaching on inerrancy is found in a single sentence:

11. [...] Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that 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.

The first draft schema on the Sources of Revelation included "inerrancy" within one chapter heading but this word was dropped in later drafts in favour of the term "without error", used with specific reference to the truth necessary for salvation.^[104]

Since Vatican II, there has been no official pronouncement on the meaning of this phrase. Article 107 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) simply quotes the sentence from Dei verbum without any further explanation:^[105]

107. The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that 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." (DV 11)

Present-day Catholic teaching

Some theologians and apologists defend the view that total inerrancy is still the Church's teaching. For instance, articles defending this position can be found in the 2011 collection For the Sake of Our Salvation.^[106] On a more popular level, the apologetic website Catholic Answers hosts several articles defending the same position.^{[107][108][109][110]} Yet, Catholic Answers also hosts articles that advance the view that inerrancy applies only to that which the author aimed to assert as true, and consequently some matters of history or science may contain error.^[111]

However, there are many Catholic scholars who do not adopt the view of total inerrancy. For instance, Raymond E. Brown, "perhaps the foremost English-speaking Catholic Biblical scholar",^[112] writes:^[28]

On inerrancy Vatican II made an important qualification as our italics indicate: "The Books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation." Some have tried to interpret the italicized phrase to cover everything the human author expressed, but pre-voting debates show an awareness of errors in the Bible. [...] Thus, it is proper to take the clause as specifying: Scriptural teaching is truth without error to the extent that it conforms to the salvific purpose of God.

And also:^[113]

In the last hundred years we have moved from an understanding wherein inspiration guaranteed that the Bible was totally inerrant to an understanding wherein inerrancy is limited to the Bible's teaching of "that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation." In this long journey of thought the concept of inerrancy was not rejected but was seriously modified to fit the evidence of biblical criticism which showed that the Bible was not inerrant in questions of science, of history, and even of time-conditioned religious beliefs.

Similarly, Scripture scholar R. A. F. MacKenzie,^[114] in his commentary on Dei verbum, said:^[115]

The Bible was not written in order to teach the natural sciences, nor to give information on merely political history. It treats of these (and all other subjects) only insofar as they are involved in matters concerning salvation. It is only in this respect that the veracity of God and the inerrancy of the inspired writers are engaged.

Also commenting on Dei Verbum, specifically paragraph 11 discussing Scripture's protection from error, Ronald D. Witherup, a Sulpician priest and biblical scholar, gives the following explanation:

This affirmation of Dei Verbum, then, is more nuanced than some might think. This is not a blanket approval of literal inerrancy but acknowledgement of the lack of errors regarding the essentials for salvation. From a modern perspective, it is well known that the Bible contains some scientific and historical errors, but none of these endanger the faith of delimit the truth of the Scriptures. The fact is that God, as the ultimate author of Scripture, had to rely on the human authors.... None of this in any way dilutes the truth of God's word.^[116]

In a speech to German bishops during the Second Vatican Council, Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) described inerrancy as referring to everything which scripture intended to affirm, but not necessarily in how it is expressed, saying:^[117]

It is not surprising that according to a practically irrefutable consensus of historians there definitely are mistakes and errors in the Bible in profane matters of no relevance for what Scripture properly intends to affirm.

And that:^[118]

Scripture is and remains inerrant and beyond doubt in everything that it properly intends to affirm, but this is not necessarily so in that which accompanies the affirmation and is not part of it. As a result, [...] the inerrancy of Scripture has to be limited to its vere enunciata [what is really affirmed].

Ratzinger, according to scholar Matthew Ramage, also argued that inerrancy is best understood with respect to the totality of Scripture.^[119] In 2002, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:

It follows straightaway that neither the criterion of inspiration nor that of infallibility can be applied mechanically. It is quite impossible to pick out one single sentence and say, right, you find this sentence in God's great book, so it must simply be true in itself ^[120]

These views are shared by many Church officials and as a result are taken for granted in some Church documents. For instance:

• An official report (1999) on theological conversations between the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Southern Baptist Convention, to be found on the website of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops:^[121]For Roman Catholics, inerrancy is understood as a consequence of biblical inspiration; it has to do more with the truth of the Bible as a whole than with any theory of verbal inerrancy. Vatican II says that "the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation" (Dei verbum 11). What is important is the qualification of "that truth" with "for the sake of our salvation."
• A 2005 "teaching document" issued by the Bishops' Conferences of England and Wales, and of Scotland, entitled The Gift of Scripture:^[122]14. [...] The books thus declared canonical and inspired by the Spirit of God contain 'the truth which God wished to be set down in the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation' (Dei verbum 11). It is important to note this teaching of the Second Vatican Council that the truth of Scripture is to be found in all that is written down 'for the sake of our salvation'. We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters. We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision.
• The instrumentum laboris (working paper) for the 2008 Synod of Bishops on the Word of God:^[123]15. [...] even though all parts of Sacred Scripture are divinely inspired, inerrancy applies only to 'that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation" (DV 11).^[124]