By whom and when was scripture written?

[LittleLes]

The Encyclical
"Providentissimus Deus"

Given by His Holiness Pope Leo XIII
November 18, 1893

(1) INERRANCY NOT LIMITED TO ONLY MATTERS OF FAITH AND MORALS: para 20.

"But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated. 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."

(2) USE OF APT WORD AND NO ERROR BY SCRIPTURE AUTHORS:

" 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. Such has always been the persuasion of the Fathers. "Therefore," says St. Augustine, "since they wrote the things which He showed and uttered to them, it cannot be pretended that He is not the writer; for His members executed what their Head dictated."

(3) NO ERRORS AT ALL, para 21

"It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error."

IN SHORT:

"And St. Gregory the Great thus pronounces: "Most superfluous it is to inquire who wrote these things-we loyally believe the Holy Ghost to be the Author of the book. He wrote it Who dictated it for writing; He wrote it Who inspired its execution. "

Here we have the God directly dictated scripture assertion.

LittleLes

[LittleLes]

DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU

ENCYCLICAL LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS PIUS XII BY DIVINE PROVIDENCE POPE

(1) RECOURSE TO ORIGINAL TESTS: (para 14)

"In the middle ages, when the Scholastic Theology was at the height of its vigor, the knowledge of even the Greek language had long since become so rare in the West, that even the greatest Doctors of that time, in their exposition of the Sacred Text, had recourse only to the Latin version, known as the Vulgate. 15. On the contrary in this our time, not only the Greek language, which since the humanistic renaissance has been, as it were, restored to new life, is familiar to almost all students of antiquity and letters, but the knowledge of Hebrew also and of other oriental languages has spread far and wide among literary men."

(2) IMPORTANCE OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM: (para 17)

" In the present day indeed this art, which is called textual criticism and which is used with great and praiseworthy results in the editions of profane writings, is also quite rightly employed in the case of Sacred Books, because of that very reverence which is due to the Divine Oracles. For its very purpose is to insure that the sacred text be restored, as perfectly as possible, be purified from the corruptions due to the carelessness of the copyists and be freed, as far as may be done, from glosses and omissions, from the interchange and repetition of words and from all other kinds of mistakes, which are wont to make their way gradually into writings handed down through many centuries."

(3) AVOID FIGUATIVE SENSE: (para 27)

"Let Catholic exegetes then disclose and expound this spiritual significance, intended and ordained by God, with that care which the dignity of the divine word demands; but let them scrupulously refrain from proposing as the genuine meaning of Sacred Scripture other figurative senses. It may indeed be useful, especially in preaching, to illustrate and present the matters of faith and morals by a broader use of the Sacred Text in the figurative sense, provided this be done with moderation and restraint; it should, however, never be forgotten that this use of the Sacred Scripture is, as it were, extrinsic to it and accidental, and that, especially in these days, it is not free from danger, since the faithful, in particular those who are well-informed in the sciences, sacred and profane, wish to know what God has told us in the Sacred Letters rather than what an ingenious orator or writer may suggest by a clever use of the words of Scripture."

SEVERAL ADDITONAL REMARKS:

(para 31) "Quite wrongly therefore do some pretend, not rightly understanding the conditions of biblical study, that nothing remains to be added by the Catholic exegete of our time to what Christian antiquity has produced; some, on the contrary, these are times have brought to light so many things, which call for a fresh investigation and a new examination, and which stimulate not a little the practical zeal of the present-day interpreter."

(para 33) " Let the interpreter then, with all care and without neglecting any light derived from recent research, endeavor to determine the peculiar character and circumstances of the sacred writer, the age in which he lived, the sources written or oral to which he had recourse and the forms of expression he employed."

(para 47) " 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 prophetical--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."

Sorry for the long post!

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jun 22 2005, 03:15 AM']
oh, and btw, scripture is inerrant and the Catholic Church still teaches that and the Vulgate is infallibly without doctrinal error and completely inspired by the Holy Spirit, [/quote]

RESPONSE:

Not really. For example:

Douay Rheims, English Translation of Latin Vulgate:

Tobias 8:4 "Then Tobias exhorted the virgin, and said to her: Sara, arise, and let us pray to God to day, and to morrow, and the next day: because for these three nights we are joined to God: and when the third night is over, we will be in our own wedlock."


New American Bible:

Tobias 8:4-8 "When the girl's parents left the bedroom and closed the door behind them, Tobiah arose from bed and said to his wife, "My love, get up. Let us pray and beg our Lord to have mercy on us and to grant us deliverance." She got up, and they started to pray and beg that deliverance might be theirs. He began with these words: "Blessed are you, O God of our fathers; praised be your name forever and ever. Let the heavens and all your creation praise you forever. You made Adam and you gave him his wife Eve to be his help and support; and from these two the human race descended. You said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone; let us make him a partner like himself."


Jerome interpolated Tobias making him wait three days to consumate his marriage to Sarah so that Jerome could argue the exclusively procreative purpose for marriage. The original Hebrew texts have Tobias consumating his marriage on the first night saying "It is not good for man to be alone..." Jerome omited this in his Vulgate.

Divino Afflante Spiritu, Pius XII, para 16:

"In like manner therefore ought we to explain the original text which, having been written by the inspired author himself, has more authority and greater weight than any even the very best translation, whether ancient or modern; this can be done all the more easily and fruitfully, if to the knowledge of languages be joined a real skill in literary criticism of the same text. "

LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 22 2005, 04:20 AM']RESPONSE:

Not really. For example:

Douay Rheims, English Translation of Latin Vulgate:

Tobias 8:4 "Then Tobias exhorted the virgin, and said to her: Sara, arise, and let us pray to God to day, and to morrow, and the next day: because for these three nights we are joined to God: and when the third night is over, we will be in our own wedlock."
New American Bible:

Tobias 8:4-8  "When the girl's parents left the bedroom and closed the door behind them, Tobiah arose from bed and said to his wife, "My love, get up. Let us pray and beg our Lord to have mercy on us and to grant us deliverance." She got up, and they started to pray and beg that deliverance might be theirs. He began with these words: "Blessed are you, O God of our fathers; praised be your name forever and ever. Let the heavens and all your creation praise you forever. You made Adam and you gave him his wife Eve to be his help and support; and from these two the human race descended. You said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone; let us make him a partner like himself."
Jerome interpolated Tobias making him wait three days to consumate his marriage to Sarah so that Jerome could argue the exclusively procreative purpose for marriage. The original Hebrew texts have Tobias consumating his marriage on the first night saying "It is not good for man to be alone..."  Jerome omited this in his Vulgate.

Divino Afflante Spiritu, Pius XII, para 16:

"In like manner therefore ought we to explain the original text which, having been written by the inspired author himself, has more authority and greater weight than any even the very best translation, whether ancient or modern; this can be done all the more easily and fruitfully, if to the knowledge of languages be joined a real skill in literary criticism of the same text. "

LittleLes
[right][snapback]618847[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Psssssssssssttttttttt.......

Why are you drudging this up again? We already discussed this a loooooooooooooongggg time ago. And we proved you wrong a loooooooooooooonnnnggggg time ago.

Why do you insist upon bringing up these issues again? Honest injun.....

Do you really think that we might change our answer? Do you think that maybe we will change our position? Do you think that you are going to single handedly prove the Church wrong? Do you think that by incessently posting this trype we will convert to LittleLes' version of Christianity...ooops, I mean Catholicism?

Part of being a "true believer" is that we believe the truth. We don't believe in those things that are untrue......so, stop stating things that we have proven untrue.....

Oh, I know, your stock answer......"You have provided no evidence, blah, blah, blah..." WRONG-O BOY-O....

Wanna know why we are all being coy? Because we don't have anything new to add.....we have already proven you wrong and now we are simply having fun.

Perhaps if you try something new and do it in an authentic way, LittleLes, we will take the posts seriously, but until you do that, we really don't need to restate our position......You are not a challenge....never have been.

Good Luck and God Bless.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 22 2005, 06:52 AM']Psssssssssssttttttttt.......

Why are you drudging this up again?  We already discussed this a loooooooooooooongggg time ago.  And we proved you wrong a loooooooooooooonnnnggggg time ago.

Why do you insist upon bringing up these issues again?  Honest injun.....

Do you really think that we might change our answer?  Do you think that maybe we will change our position?  Do you think that you are going to single handedly prove the Church wrong?  Do you think that by incessently posting this trype we will convert to LittleLes' version of Christianity...ooops, I mean Catholicism?

Part of being a "true believer" is that we believe the truth.  We don't believe in those things that are untrue......so, stop stating things that we have proven untrue.....

Oh, I know, your stock answer......"You have provided no evidence, blah, blah, blah..."  WRONG-O BOY-O....

Wanna know why we are all being coy?  Because we don't have anything new to add.....we have already proven you wrong and now we are simply having fun.

Perhaps if you try something new and do it in an authentic way, LittleLes, we will take the posts seriously, but until you do that, we really don't need to restate our position......You are not a challenge....never have been.

Good Luck and God Bless.
[right][snapback]618866[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Yes, I believe this came up in another thread, but Aloyious has made an erroneous assertion in this thread to which I responsed with clear evidence by comparing the Douay(Vulgate) and the New American Bible pointing out Jerome's interpolation, and I have provided a quote from Afflante.

On the other hand, you have proven nothing, despite your assertion that you have.

But I can understand where you are coming from. St. Augustine had the same mindset.

Pope Leo XIII quotes him in Providentissimus (para 18) thus:

"Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so." (De Gen. ad litt. i, 21,41).

In other words, he is compelled to believe something to be so in spite of all evidence to the contrary. That's the '"true believer" philosophy in a nutshell!

P.S. Despite biblical quotations to the opposite, the earth really does move.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 22 2005, 08:58 AM']RESPONSE:

Yes, I believe this came up in another thread, but Aloyious has made an erroneous assertion in this thread to which I responsed with clear evidence by comparing the Douay(Vulgate) and the New American Bible  pointing out Jerome's interpolation, and I have provided a quote from Afflante.

On the other hand, you have proven nothing, despite your assertion that you have.

But I can understand where you are coming from. St. Augustine had the same mindset.

Pope Leo XIII quotes him in Providentissimus (para 18) thus:

"Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so." (De Gen. ad litt. i, 21,41).

In other words, he is compelled to believe something to be so in spite of all evidence to the contrary.  That's the '"true believer" philosophy in a nutshell! 

P.S. Despite biblical quotations to the opposite, the earth really does move.
[right][snapback]618930[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Yes it does move, just not in the way you'd like.....

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 22 2005, 04:01 AM']RESPONSE:

Please specifically state what you claim I am "making up."  I will endeavor to give you a more complete reference.

On the other hand, if this is an assertion without evidence, please withdraw your assertion. :angry:
[right][snapback]618835[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The question below is based on a false assertion:
[quote]But what about the Council of Trent's probibition on possessing and reading the Bible?[/quote]
Please withdraw your request that I withdraw my assertion.

[Mateo el Feo]

First[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 22 2005, 03:58 AM']RESPONSE:

Thank you. I prefer short to the point responses , not excessively long ones. If they are too long, I suspect the poster really doesn't have any clear ideas and is just rambling.

Ditto, the heavy cut and pasters or those who merely refer to long articles without stating their assertion

LittleLes
[right][snapback]618834[/snapback][/right][/quote]

Then:
[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 22 2005, 04:15 AM']To avoid too long a post, I'll present the salient passages of each separately.[/quote]

Finally:
[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 22 2005, 04:54 AM']Sorry for the long post![/quote]

OK, let's see. You think people who make long posts don't have any clear ideas and that they ramble. Then, for fear of making a long post, you split your post into multiple posts. Finally, you apologize for making a long post.

I get the feeling that you would never want to debate yourself. You'd tear yourself to shreds!

Did you ever get the feeling that you have so focused your energies on disbelief that you really don't positively believing in anything?

[Didacus]

From Qoheleth link:

"In the end, one no longer learns what the text says, but what it should have said, and by which component parts this can be traced back through the text.1"

I just love the way Ratzinger now Benedict XVI writes. He uses the terminologies appropriately, and intertwines his thoughts with a vocabulary that can be difficult to follow, but then sums things up in simple ways that everyone can understand. ARRRGGHHH, so much to read, so little time...thanks for the link Qoheleth.

I just wanted to say that..don't want to take part in the debate as such....carry on.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Jun 22 2005, 09:15 AM']The question below is based on a false assertion:

Please withdraw your request that I withdraw my assertion. 
[right][snapback]618945[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

The following can be found at a number of different websites. This is pasted from the Fordham University's history department website:

Modern History Sourcebook:
Council of Trent: Rules on Prohibited Books

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

TEN RULES CONCERNING PROHIBITED BOOKS DRAWN UP BY THE FATHERS CHOSEN BY THE COUNCIL OF TRENT AND APPROVED BY POPE PIUS[1]

IV

"Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them."

The document being quoted is Trent XXV, decree concerning the index of books.

Your apology is accepted.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Jun 22 2005, 09:43 AM']First

Then:
Finally:
OK, let's see.  You think people who make long posts don't have any clear ideas and that they ramble.  Then, for fear of making a long post, you split your post into multiple posts.  Finally, you apologize for making a long post.

I get the feeling that you would never want to debate yourself.  You'd tear yourself to shreds!

Did you ever get the feeling that you have so focused your energies on disbelief that you really don't positively believing in anything?
[right][snapback]618954[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

I believe in fact, not fiction. Although some fiction is amusing!

[jezic]

define fact

[Cam42]

[quote name='jezic' date='Jun 22 2005, 10:20 AM']define fact
[right][snapback]618981[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

that is a relative term


:rotfl:

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Jun 22 2005, 09:43 AM']OK, let's see.  You think people who make long posts don't have any clear ideas and that they ramble.  Then, for fear of making a long post, you split your post into multiple posts.  Finally, you apologize for making a long post.

[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Please note that the postings were papal writings, not mine. Popes tend to be wordy.

I would never write such long statements. At least I hope not.

[Didacus]

Again, from the text of Ratzinger:

"But what one exegete takes as definite can only be called into question by other exegetes. This is a practical rule which is presupposed as plainly and self-evidently valid"

LittleLes... are you an exegate? I don't htink I need to ask the question to Cam...