Unless you mean errors in one specific or even more than one specific manuscript of the Bible.
Tumblar House | 11.III.2018
- 3:47 Are there Church Fathers saying there are real discrepancies or such saying there are apparent ones?
I'd like to see you point to a specific text in this selection:
The Fathers of the Church (NewAdvent site)
Meanwhile, here is one saying there are apparent ones but no real contradictions:
The Harmony of the Gospels (St. Augustine)
- 4:01 "Biblical inspiration does not mean everything was dictated by the Holy Ghost."
Depends on which book. But even in cases the hagiographer was a historian, making a human effort to know history, like arguably Moses for most of Genesis (though he was direct prophet for 1:1-2:4), like definitely St Luke, we can depend on the Holy Ghost not letting any factual errors slip through either in the autograph or in all preserved versions.
Suppose Emmaus was not just politically and socially but also geographically same place as modern Amwaz. Now, Amwaz is 160 stades or 32 km from Jerusalem, Emmaus is 60 stades or 12 km from Jerusalem in St Luke ... most preserved versions. But there is a Syriac manuscript which actually says 160 stades. This could be the one trace of the autograph.
On the other hand, there are other possibilities, Emmaus was arguably destroyed in year 70 AD and then rebuilt when Christians came back from Pella (in Jordan, not in Macedonia, to clarify). Now, for St Cleopas, Roman Martyrology says he is buried in Emmaus. If he has a grave in Amwaz, it could have happened like this, St Cleopas was martyred outside Emmaus as to its pre-70 location, and then Emmaus (modern Amwaz) was rebuilt around his grave. By Christians. Hailing from old Emmaus, which had been 20 km or 100 stades closer to Jerusalem.
I mean, for a papal definition, you will hold it is free from error, and yet you do not consider the Holy Ghost actually dictates it, reducing the Pope to his secretary. Why? Bc you believe in providence. While a Pope and while St Luke had free will, they also had an intention to say the truth, now, with that intention, saying sth untrue would have been praeter intentionem. This being so, God can have simply preserved either of them from stumbling praeter intentionem. This involves no violation of their freewill, as they were not intending to teach error either of them.