Michael Lofton's Middle Inerrancy

So Are There Errors in the Bible or Not?
MICHAEL LOFTON • 9/29/2022
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/so-are-there-errors-in-the-bible-or-not

I will presume that Seraphim is the more or less spokesperson for Michael Lofton. Michael being an Archangel and "Seraphim" (in the Hebrew) also being a class of Angels.

He very correctly states that § 11 of Dei Verbum, while it has lent itself to the interpretation "partial inerrancy" certainly does not teach that.

What does "partial inerrancy" mean? It means an inerrancy limited to truths necessary for our salvation. Bible being inerrant on the Trinity consisting of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, on Christ rising for the dead and the things related to the "six things everyone has to know and believe in order to be saved" but not being inerrant on the rest.

The cue to this misinterpretation is:

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

The correct meaning is, all of the Bible are without error, since all of it was put into sacred writings on some level for the sake of salvation. The number of generations between Noah and Abraham (second part of Genesis 11) may not be the most needed truth for the conversion of Cornelius, but it may for instance play some role in these endtimes by telling us that the story of the Flood is reliable history, there were so many overlaps in them that Abraham could hear the story without any significant distortion, even on the natural level.

However, Seraphim wants to exclude also "total inerrancy" (even if limited to original autograph of the hagiographer), preferring Ratzinger's "middle inerrancy" ...

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. . . . The inerrancy of Scripture has to be limited to its vere enunciate.

As a Latinist, I correct "vere enunciate" to "vere enunciata" ... the things that are really enounced, affirmed, said, claimed etc. by the hagiographer.

There is in fact a Medieval writing that is called "Postilla in libros Geneseos" variously attributed or denied being of St. Thomas Aquinas* where the genealogy of the Vulgate is followed and the fact Luke (in all manuscripts the author - presumably St. Thomas - knew) has the Second Cainan is put down to St. Luke following the LXX. So, if you spell it out, the LXX has a scribal error, on this view, the thing St. Luke wanted to do was attach a genealogy Jesus back to Adam at "being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph,"** and not understanding Hebrew used a Greek translation of the OT, and therefore even the autograph of St. Luke transmits a scribal error from the LXX.

In this case, the reason St. Thomas was going against the Gospel of St. Luke is, he stuck to another Bible text as ... inerrant. I am thankful for the knowledge I owe to CMI that there are manuscripts of St. Luke without this person, so, if the standard LXX has an error, it is not necessary to presume the autograph of St. Luke contained it.

Ratzinger gives the example of Abiathar in Mark 2:26:

One can point out small matters, like the fact that Mark speaks of the High Priest Abiathar (Mark 2:26) instead of his father, Achimelech.

One can say Our Lord meant "under Achimelech the then high priest and Abiathar the future high priest" - or Our Lord had a slip of the mind. Or St. Peter had one when telling this to St. Mark. I would arguably prefer the first option. Here is Haydock's:

Ver. 26. Under Abiathar. The priest from whom David had these loaves, is called Achimelech, 1 K. xxi. The most probable answer to this difficulty is, that the priest had both these names of Achimelech and of Abiathar, as also his father had before him. For he that (1 K. xxii.) is called Abiathar, the son of Achimelech, is called 2 K. viii. 17, Achimelech, the son of Abiathar. See also 1 Par. xviii. 16. Wi. — Others say that Abiathar, son of Achimelech, was present, and sanctioned the deed of his father, thus making it his own. Dion. Carth.

Wi = Bishop Witham
Dion. Carth. = I can't find one Dionysius of Carthage. So, I don't know.

It is worth noting that biblical scholars have offered explanations to resolve this apparent error. Nevertheless, the above example should suffice to illustrate the position.

I am thankful Michael Lofton notes this about biblical scholars offering explanations. So, as you can see, do I.

So, the position is illustrated with smaller matters. Unfortunately, Seraphim goes beyond this, after Elijah (the interlocutor) asking if he admits Genesis is historical, then if he means everything in it is parabolical:

Seraphim: Not exactly. I’m not saying we should read everything in Genesis as a parable, and I’m also not denying that it could be communicating real history. I’m simply saying that it is possible for the sacred author to propose something as true without intending to propose that something happened historically. Perhaps the sacred author did propose some of the events in the book of Genesis as historically true, and perhaps he didn’t. We don’t have to dismiss the book of Genesis as merely a myth filled with errors, nor do we have to assume some crass form of scriptural fundamentalism. Just because Joshua 10:13 says the sun stood still, that doesn’t mean the Bible must be interpreted as meaning the sun revolves around the earth.

In fact - Cardinal Robert Bellarmine did that. Galileo's book was judged. Later on, by other judges, he was judged himself.

In fact, verse 12 is even more clear. The words "sun, stand thou still" are not part of the prayer, since Joshua wasn't praying to the sun. They are therefore something coming after the prayer. Here is for another Jesus (or Joshua) also praying before a miracle:

[41] They took therefore the stone away. And Jesus lifting up his eyes said: Father, I give thee thanks that thou hast heard me. [42] And I knew that thou hearest me always; but because of the people who stand about have I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me. [43] When he had said these things, he cried with a loud voice: Lazarus, come forth.

Could the words "Lazarus, come forth" contain any error? Would it be possible that Jesus had been misled about the identity of the corpse and raised someone else, when thinking He was raising Lazarus? No, of course.

Well, that should give a hint about Joshua (or Jesus Nave) 10:12, as it says:

Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon.

The speaking to the Lord and the saying before the children of Israel are two distinct things. Even for this Joshua, the Lord did not allow the words coming after his public prayer to contain an error.

And what he definitely did not say is "earth, quit that rotation for some while" which would have been more correct if the daily motion is normally that of the earth around itself, rather than of the Sun around Earth.

So, what Michael Lofton wants to call "crass fundamentalism" is previsely the correct option for Christians, at least in big things.

And obviously, it is vapid guesswork, unsupported by the Church Fathers to say significant parts of Genesis (outside the 7 cows that actually are a parable and actually do get interpreted) are parable.

In Trent, Session IV, we are not just told to stay with the inerrancy of the Bible, but more specifically, when interpreting it, with whatever the Church hath held and holds*** and the consensus of the Church Fathers.

No Church Father said "genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 as well as their mirroring in Luke 3 are parables without factual relation to time." None. You can find words "not in time" applied to "the beginning" (Genesis 1:1) and - rarely - to the six days. Never ever to these genealogies. The precise same St. Augustine who nearly "denies" creation took place over as much time as six days also clearly upholds the historicity of these chapters.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Nahum
1.XII.2022

Sancti Nahum Prophetae, in Begabar quiescentis.

* If it was, it was arguably from his youth in the Naples region, and he got more classic and less Romance in his Latin when he came to Paris.
** Luke 3:23 reads in entirety And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years; being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Mathat,
*** Not just what the Church holds, well remarked just in case one were to imagine the Church changing its mind - such changes of mind do not bind!