## Sources and Bibliography: Sources used in article: #STS - [[Sacrae Theologiae Summa]] (Ib, treatise IV, chs. I-III); STS (1a, t.II,b.II (pp. 193 -294)); - *St. Thomas [[Aquinas]]*: I.1.10; Quodlib 7 a.14-16; - [[Ripperger]], Chad. "The Role of the Theological Virtue of Faith in Scriptural Interpretation," 2006 General Bibliography: - *Doctrine of the Church* - *Lamentabili,* 1 - 38, 61 - Benedict XVI, *Verbum Domini,* (particularly §19) - Pontifical Biblical Commission, *The Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture* (2014). - Makes no claim of being authoritative (Fr. Avila). # Introduction: ## *Scripture:* books which having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit have God for their author. (T . 4 C .l A.1 T H . l n . 8 - 1 3 et reliqua) - "Inspiration of the Holy Spirit" and "God for their author" are *formally* different but in the *objective* and *ecclesiastical* sense they are equivalent. - "Inspiration" has *ontological* priority. - "Author" has *logical* priority. - *Contra:* - *[[Rationalism]]: denying any supernatural intervention of God, also deny this intervention of God in writing books. - *[[Modernism]]: attribute to the notion of divine inspiration/authorship excessive simplicity and ignorance; only admit the divine inspiration of the sacred books to the extent that even naturally poets are said to be set on fire by God. - *[[Manichaeanism]]:* a good principle was the author of the N.T., an evil principle was the author of the O.T. ## *Scripture and Faith:* From Ripperger, "The Role of the Theological Virtue of Faith in Scriptural Interpretation," 2006. See "Faith" under Fundamental Theology, Notion and Division of Theology. - *Object of Scripture and Faith:* - *God as the cause of Scripture:* 1) *Every science is knowledge of a thing through its causes*, therefore, any science of Scripture must take into account in its methodology God as the cause of Scripture 2) *Only the virtue of faith makes it possible for someone to give assent to the proposition that God is the author of Scripture*, i.e. only the virtue of faith gives one the knowledge of one of the causes of Scripture. 3) *Therefore*, since a science investigates all of the causes, *only faith makes it possible to investigate scientifically the causes of Scripture.* - *The truths in Scripture:* It is only by the virtue of faith that one is able to *see whether the actual contents of Scripture are true or not.* - *Supernatural propositions in Scripture:* Only the supernatural virtue of faith will provide one with the ability to see *whether a particular proposition contains something supernatural (i.e. containing a dogmatic, spiritual, or moral meaning) or not.* - *Magisterium and Scripture*: Since the Magisterium is the proximate rule of faith, *the science of Scripture must depend upon the declarations of the Church in order to know with certitude the truth about certain particular propositions in Scripture.* - While the Church does not always declare every meaning of a particular proposition in Scripture, when one scientifically interprets a particular proposition in Scripture, *he must ensure that his interpretation does not contradict the declaration of the Church.* - see *[[Lamentabili]]*, 1 - 4, 9, 23, 24, and many others. - *Method and Faith*: Any valid scientific method for the study of Scripture must adhere to (at least) these principles: - *Proportionality of method to object*: *It is faith that makes the use of any sound methodology proportionate to the object of faith*. Only a supernatural virtue is proportionate to a supernatural object. To use a methodology which is not guided and dependent upon the virtue of faith is to employ a methodology which is not proportionate to the object of study of the science of Scripture. - *Faith determines the method in particular circumstances:* it is the virtue of faith that will determine when a method suits the particular passage or proposition contained in Scripture. This flows from the fact that only the virtue of faith will indicate what supernatural content is contained in the passage. - e.g. the various ways in which the term "father" is used. Only faith will indicate that the meaning of the term in a particular case may refer to God the Father rather than some particular figure in the Old Testament, such as Solomon whose father was King David. - the term "father," when taken through the whole of the Scriptures is understood to be an analogical term since faith tells us that Christ's Father was God and not a mere man. - *Faith determines the meanings of the terms in Scripture:* only by the light of faith can one know what the terms in a proposition from Scripture actually mean, if they are univocal, analogical, etc. - e.g. term "father" from above. - Even if a syllogism is validly drawn from propositions in Scripture, only faith will tell one whether the conclusion in fact follows from the propositions and is therefore true. - e.g. 1) All fathers beget their son by physical generation; 2) God is the Father of Christ. 3) Therefore, God begot Christ by physical generation is *false* because faith tells us that "Father" in is used analogically. - *Faith tells us of the unique status of inspiration as a cause:* Inspiration is a *specific mode of causation different from the natural modes of causation* with respect to the conservation of the being of a created thing and movement of the secondary cause on the part of the primary cause. - The Sacred Writer writes all those things, and only those things, which God bids him write without the Sacred Writer adding or subtracting from them. (See Inspiration and Authorship of God below). - Due to the adoption of Cartesian and Humean perspectives on the nature of the sciences, many deny or intentionally ignore the primary cause either in theory or in practice and/or they have denied the specific mode of causation on the side of the primary cause by denying the nature of inspiration. - *If one does not have faith or if he has a corrupt faith and approaches the Scriptures:* 1) he will not interpret the Scriptures scientifically since he will not understand the terms of the propositions that contain supernatural content. 2) He will not engage the Scriptures scientifically since he will not use the faith by which he grasps God as the cause of the Scriptures. 3) If a man has the faith but approaches the Scriptures denying the use of faith, his methodology will not be proportionate to the object of this science, nor will all of his conclusions be valid or true. - The denial of the use of faith in the study of Scriptures is not only clearly contrary to the doctrine of the Church, but logically entails the denial of the dogma of Church's right to being the sole interpreter of the Scriptures ([[Trent]], [[Vatican I]]). # **Inspiration** **and Authorship of God** --- ## *Authorship of God:* God is the author (in the literary sense) by antonomasia or simply; *God is the principal cause* of the writing (*causa efficiens principalis*). - human author is the *instrumental cause* (*causa efficiens instrumentalis*). - it is necessary that God, by his supernatural and positive influence, *subordinates to himself, elevates and applies all those faculties of the hagiographer necessary for the writing of* *the book*. For this is what belongs to a principal cause with respect to the instrumental cause. (t.4 c . l a.4 th.4 n.84-89) - *the whole effect is from the principal cause, and the whole is from the instrumental cause,* but according to different formalities. - from this variety of the used instrument, the differences in the form of the books can be explained. - *Contra:* Late [[Karl Rahner]]: God is the *originator* (*Urheber*), not the *author* (*Verfasser*) of Scripture. Scripture is God's Word because God in some way effects the Church's objectification or expression of her faith experience. - See "God Speaks: Divine Authorship of Scripture in Karl Rahner and Pierre Benoit" Bernhard Blankenhorn, *Angelicum,* 93.3 (2016.) - "he does not therefore have to be understood as the literary author of these writings." *The Foundations of Christian Faith*, 374. - See [[1- GLOSSARY/Terms/Modernism|Modernism]]. ## *Inspiration*: - Two senses: - *Broad*: supernatural impulse of God, whereby a man is moved to the things that pertain to salvation. - *Precise:* a supernatural impulse by which a man is moved to communicate with others the things that God wants to be communicated. - Two kinds: - *Prophetic:* takes place through speaking. - *Biblical:* takes place through writing. - *[[Vatican I]]:* "If anyone does not receive as sacred and canonical the complete books of Sacred Scripture with all their parts, as the holy Council of Trent listed them, or denies that they were divinely inspired : let him be anathema." (Canon 2.4) ## *Moments of inspiration:* - Considered in three ways: - *Actively*: the action itself of God inspiring; it is an action outside of God and therefore common to the three persons of the Trinity, but *appropriated to the Holy Spirit.* - *Passively:* the reception of this action of God in the mind and in the faculties of the human writer. - *Terminative:* in the written book. ## *Inspiration is an extraordinary charism:* (t . 4 c . l A . 4 t h .3 n . 7 5 - 7 8) - *charism:* a supernatural gift of grace, which therefore no one can require or merit, pertaining to the order of freely given grace (gratia gratis data). - given primarily for the good of the community. - *extraordinary:* it is not a permanent habit, but only a passing act - *requires a special motion from God*: with the natural concurrence alone of God or with the ordinary assistance of graces the human author would remain the principal author of the book nor would God be the author by antonomasia. ## *Inspiration of the hagiographers:* Consists of the supernatural enlightenment of the intellect to correctly conceive the ideas and the essential nature of the book; in the movement of the will to write all those things and only those things which God wills to be written; in divine assistance to carry out the work fittingly (t.4 c . l a.4 th.4 n.84-89). - Three principles: - a) *in the supernatural enlightenment of the intellect* to correctly conceive the ideas and the essential nature of the book; - *essential element*: *end* which is intended in the book and the *internal disposition* of things in general. (t . 4 c . l a . 4 t h . 4 n . 8 9 - 9 2) - it is certain that the hagiographer must conceive the *theoretical or speculative judgments* which God wants to be communicated to men, that is, what must be said and with what grade of certitude. - if he already knows naturally what must be said, then by the divine light his intellect is strengthened “to judge according to the certitude of divine truth the things which can be known by human reason.” (S.Th. II-II, q. 174, a. 2 ad 3.) - *e.g.* St. Luke gathering information by his own efforts before he wrote the Gospel. - Moreover, to write a book the intellect must be determined by *practical judgments*: i.e. *this* should be written. - The influence of God on these judgments is thought to be either *immediate*, that is, by elevating the intellectual power itself, or *in a mediated way* by a theoretical judgment already elevated, but the influence is always internal. - it is necessary that God move the hagiographer *to the choice of the external form and to the mental activity whereby the external form becomes a book.* - preserving this aptitude, the determination of the individual literary elements can be left to the proper activity of the hagiographer. - The *acceptance of things from God in the mind of the hagiographer is not necessary* for biblical inspiration (unclear; needs elaboration. Latin original does not clarify). - God can remain the author of ideas which a man by his own efforts knew or investigated, *provided that afterwards he supernaturally illumines his intellect in order to pass judgment on them.* - Because of this supernatural illumination in the mind of the hagiographer, *Scripture does not have errors and has a singular excellence.* - *Scripture has a fuller sense*, which the hagiographer explicitly and clearly understood and intended. - This sense to be determined not just by the literary criteria of hermeneutics. - b) *in the movement of the will* to write all those things and only those things which God wills to be written; - It is indeed *required that God*, the principal author, *induce the hagiographer to write.* - If God merely communicated ideas, God would remain the author of the *ideas* only and not the *book.* - see 2 Pet. 1:21: "No prophecy ever came by the impulse of men, but *men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke* from God." - the motion is *to communicate all those things and only those things that God wishes to be communicated;* - therefore it is not a vague or general motion, but a definite one. - his motion is *infallibly efficacious.* - proceeds from the *absolute* will of God, not merely *ordinary* will. - This influence by God is either: - *mediated* and *moral.* - i.e. through angels, prayers, words of others. - less probable opinion - *immediate and physical* - purely internal - more probable opinion - more openly and obviously satisfies the documents of the Church which speak about the stirring up and movement of the will of the hagiographer - does not exclude presence of external influence, only that these would not be the primary cause for the writing. - *Ecstasy, alienation from the senses, or hindering of free will is not necessary for influence.* - Common opinion of the Fathers. - The *sacred authors* speak about their own work in writing, or about the full possession of their faculties, or about the fruits of their labor. - see Luke 1:3; 2 Macc. 2:24-32; Rom. 15:15-17; 2 Cor. 7:8-12; 13:10. - *Contra:* [[Montanism]], [[Tertullian]], the [[Philo of Alexandria]]. - c) *in divine assistance* to carry out the work fittingly. - Emphasized God's *continual influence* until the finishing of the book. - In the production of a book: - a) the psychological and physiological acting faculties of the hagiographer *participate in the supernatural influence of God on the intellect and will* of the hagiographer. - God gives his assistance lest the authors stray from the right way (*negative assistance*). - *If the hagiographer uses a secretary* for the external form of the book, then inspiration affects also the intellectual acts of the secretary which contribute to the writing of the book. - e.g. St. Paul in the Letter to the Hebrews. - *If the hagiographer uses an amanuensis* (one who copies down what is spoken) , it is not necessary to assert the need of special help from God for the actual writing - the divine assistance given to the hagiographer suffices, according to which he can watch over the work of the amanuensis. - e.g. Jer. 36; Rom. 16:22. - *Scholium I:* Whether the hagiographers were always aware of their inspiration? (t . 4 c . l a . 4 t h . 4 n . 101). - Not necessarily, *however,* since the inspiration of the sacred books is a fact pertaining to faith, *it was certainly necessary that the teachers of the faith*, the Apostles, *at least afterwards knew this fact and made it known to us.* - *Scholium II:* How inspiration and revelation are different? - Revelation: the *speaking of God.* - In us, there is *consciousness of the fact that God is speaking.* - Inspiration: the *action of God acting principally in the writing of a book.* - In us, there is not *necessarily* consciousness of the action of God. - *Scholium III:* The relation between inspiration and definitions of the Church? - In inspiration: God is the author of the books. - the positive influence of God is certainly required. - Definitions of the Church: The Church is the author. - positive intervention of God is not required (if the matter proceeds well). - Papal approbation: (t.4 c . l a.4 th.4 n.87) - *[[Leo XIII]] ([[Providentissimus Deus]]): "(The Holy Spirit) by supernatural power so moved and impelled them (the hagiographers) 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: (and the reason is added) otherwise, it could not be said that he was the Author of the entire Scripture." - *[[Benedict XV]] ([[Spiritus Paraclitus]]): "if we ask how we are to explain this power and action of God, the principal cause, on the sacred writers we shall find that St. [[Jerome]] in no wise differ from the *common teaching* of the Catholic Church. For he holds that *God through his grace, illumines the writer's mind regarding the particular truth which, "in the person of God," he is to set before men; he holds moreover, that God moves the writers will--nay, even impels it, to write; finally, that God abides with him unceasingly in unique fashion, until his task is accomplished*." - *Theological Note:* theses are not only *common and certain*, but also *to be held with internal religious assent.* Can be said to be *Catholic doctrine.* (see t.4 c .l a.4 th.4 n.88.) ## *False explanations of inspiration:* (t . 4 c . l A . 4 t h .3 n . 7 5 - 7 8) - *By defect:* - 1) *subsequent approbation:* [[Leonard Lessius]], S.J. (1554-1623): *possibility* (not the fact) that a book *written by human industry because of divine instigation* may become Holy Scripture, *if the Holy Spirit afterwards publicly bears witness that there is nothing false in it*. - "This method, although de facto I think it is not found in any book of canonical Scripture, nevertheless is not impossible." - [[Daniel Haneberg]] (+1876): touches on the question of fact, and said that subsequent approbation suffices for inspiration regarding relations or empirical-historical books. Retracted opinion after decree from [[Vatican I]]. - *Rejected by [[Vatican I]]:* "These books the Church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error." (chapter 2, *de revelatione*). - 2) *mere assistance:* [[Johan Jahn]] (+1816): inspiration consists in divine assistance whereby errors in writing are prevented (*concomitant inspiration*). - [[Richard Simon]] (1638-1712): One of the fathers of modern historical-critical method. Placed inspiration in the “direction” of the Holy Spirit, lest the sacred authors fall into error. He does not explain clearly the nature of that direction. - *Rejected by [[Vatican I]]:* see citation above. - *Critique:* No one only by correcting errors, like a censor, or merely by preventing errors from a book is rightly called "author." - *By excess:* (see ***Mechanical Dictation*** below). - *Others:* *Historical criticism and the Old Testament,* [[Marie-Joseph Lagrange]]. - " From the Church's definitions we may conclude that *God's help is antecedent and not consequent*, that it is an impulse, and so necessarily a light bestowed upon him, for man is no mere machine, and his will does not determine anything without a corresponding light in the intellect. Now since this help is antecedent to the whole operation, it must extend to the whole work, and consequently even to the very words; but since the sacred writer used his ordinary faculties, *it impressed nothing ready-made upon the mind — not even the thoughts*." (p. 91) ## *The Extension of Inspiration*: The inspiration of the sacred books is extended to all the statements of the hagiographer, even to things mentioned in passing (*obiter dicta*). (t.4 c.1 a.5 th.5 n. 103-106) - With regard to the “obiter dicta” there is not an express definition by the Church, but based on the Doctrine of the Church (see below) it is certain that it is *at least certain and Catholic doctrine*. (t.4 c.l a . 5 t h .5 n . 113) - These “obiter dicta” are of *divine faith*, but not *articles of faith* (i.e. principal truths in the body of dogma) (t.4 c.l a.5 th.5 n. 120.15). - *Extension:* not only in *length* (regarding absolutely all thought), but also *profundity* (regarding the elements, words in the individual sentence). Includes not just matters of *faith* and *morals*, but also *historical*, *things said in passing*, and *purely scientific* matters. - *Things mentioned in passing:* those which are mentioned only accidentally and do not seem to be important. - e.g. *2 Tim. 4:13*: that Paul left his cloak at Troas; or *Tob. 11:4*: the dog of Tobias went along behind them. - This is *not to claim* that everything in the sacred books has the same importance by reason of the matter, but that *everything is equally divine by reason of the origin*. - Can distinguish between things revealed *because of themselves* (*revelatas propter se*; faith and morals) and *because of something else* (*revelatas propter aliud*; their connection with other things). - This applied to only to the *original texts.* About the apographa and the versions, like the Vulgate, only *equivalently*, inasmuch as they faithfully render the original meaning (t.4 c. l a.5 th.5 n.120). - *Contra*: - *[[Gnosticism]]*, *[[Manichaeanism]]: reject OT as coming from evil principle. - *[[Anomoeanism]]:* Reject St. Paul and OT. - *[[Erasmus]]* (1466-1538): some slight errors can be found in scripture (evangelists quoting OT from memory); therefore Scripture not inspired in all it's parts. - opinion *[[Erasmus]]* explicitly rejected by St. [[Robert Bellarmine]] (De verbo Dei 1.1 c.6n,16f.) - *Henry Holden* (1596-1662): inspiration extends to purely doctrinal elements and those things that have a proximate or necessary relation to the purely doctrinal elements; in other matters a certain common assistance present. - Rejected by *Trent* (see below, *Doctrine of the Church, Council of Trent*) - *St. John Henry Cardinal Newman* (1801-1890): excepted from inspiration the statements in passing *(obiter dicta*), that is, matters of pure fact and of less importance which do not seem to be connected with matters of faith and morals. - e.g. 2 Tim. 4:13; Judith 1:5; Tob. 11:9. - Held before *Proventissimus Deus* (1893). - *Some "orthodox" Protestants* (Gore, Danday): inspired author was filled with the Holy Spirit, but in the writing of the book he necessarily included his own fallible human elements; therefore inspiration does not cover everything. But the divine elements are discerned with the help of the Holy Spirit. - e.g. St. Paul's teaching on women; Our Lord's posture toward women, Samaritans. - *[[1- GLOSSARY/Terms/Modernism|Modernism]]*: claimed that divine inspiration does not extend to the whole of sacred Scriptures in such a way that each and every one of its parts is protected from all error (see below *Doctrine of the Church, [[Pius X]]*) - *Doctrine of the Church:* - *Council of Trent:* all the books must be accepted as sacred and canonical...“in their entirety, with all their parts, as they are being read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the ancient Latin vulgate editions” (D 1504). - preserving the natural sense of the word “part” or *in virtue of the word*, opinion of [[Henry Holden]] rejected. - *doubt* still remains as to whether these words of the Council refer to matters in passing (*obiter dicta*) from the end which the Council formally intended (defending some pericopes or *parts*, not necessarily profane statements). - *Vatican Council I*: adds nothing to Tridentine definition on matter of extension. - Merely from *Trent* and *VI*, it is not determined whether a part is also the minutest profane expression - Explicitly anathematizes the Tridentine definition: "If anyone does not receive as sacred and canonical the books of Holy Scripture, entire and with all their parts, as the sacred Council of Trent has enumerated them or denies that they have been divinely inspired, let him be anathema" (D 3029). - [[Leo XIII]], *[[Providentissimus Deus]]* (1893): speaking about very small sentences, said: “... it is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture or to admit that the sacred author 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...” (D 3291) - the will of [[Leo XIII]] is certain of requiring assent to those things which he taught in the Letter “Providentissimus.” - see Pius XIII, *[[Humani generis]]* (1950): “...Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in encyclical letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such letters the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority... But if the supreme pontiffs in their official documents officially pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians” (D 3885). - [[Pius X]], *[[Lamentabili]]* (1907): Condemned the proposition that: "Divine inspiration does not extend to the whole of sacred Scriptures in such a way that each and every one of its parts is protected from all error” (D 3411) - *[[Biblical Commission]]* (June 18, 1915): “all that the sacred author asserts, enunciates, and suggests must be held to be asserted, enunciated, and suggested by the Holy Spirit” (D 3629) - [[Benedict XV]], *[[Spiritus Paraclitus]]*: confirms previous teaching (D 3652) - [[Pius XII]], *[[Divino afflante]]* (1943): confirms previous teaching (Enchridion Biblicum 538) - *Theologians of the Church:* - *St. Thomas [[Aquinas]]:* - "A thing is of faith indirectly, if the denial of it involves as a consequence something against faith; as for instance if anyone said that Samuel is not the son of Elkanah, *for it follows that the divine Scripture would be false.*" (*ST* I.31.4) - “But this is to be held that whatever is contained in Holy Scripture is true; and whoever disagrees with this is a heretic.” (Quodlib. 12 q.17 a.26 ad 1) - “There cannot be an error in the divine Scripture handed on by the Holy Spirit, just as there can be no error in the faith which is taught by it.” (Depotent. Q.4 a.1 c.) - *St. [[Robert Bellarmine]]:* recounts among the heresies the opinions mentioned above of *[[Erasmus]]* and of those who thought that in the letters of St. Paul not everything was written at the guidance of the Holy Spirit - See *STS* for minor 19th-20th century theologians. - *Scripture:* - Christ and the Apostles never distinguish between important and minor things when citing scripture. - 2 Tim. 3:16: "All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice," - if “all scripture” is *taken in a distributive way*, that is, whatever falls under the name of Scripture (which more probably is meant, since the Greek does not have the article), *but not if it is understood in a collective way*: the whole collection taken in a complex way; *then it is asserted for the individual parts of Scripture that they are divinely inspired.* - Rom. 15:4: "Whatever was written, was written for our instruction..." - *Tradition:* (t.4 c.1 a.5 th.5 n.113-117) - *Church Fathers:* - teach: - a) there is *no error* and *no contradiction* can be found - b) nothing in it is *useless* - c) even in the “*obiter dicta*” they are looking for the mystical meanings. - [[Leo XIII]], *Proventissimus Deus*: "(the Fathers) were unanimous in laying it down that those writings in their entirety and in all their parts were equally of divine inspiration and that God himself, speaking through the sacred writers, could not set down anything but what was true" (D 3293). - Even [[Alfred Loisy]] admits the consensus of the Fathers, the Scholastics, and the whole Church. - *say:* - *St. [[Augustine]]:* "I have learned to pay (the Scriptures) such honor and respect as to believe most firmly that *not one of their authors has erred in writing anything at all."* - *St. [[Jerome]]:* “I am not so dull-witted nor so coarsely ignorant... as to suppose that any one of the Lord’s words is either *in need of correction or is not divinely inspired*..."; "“He will approve the whole body and back full of eyes (alluding to Ezek. 1:18), who sees that there is nothing in the Gospels that is not shining and illumines the world with it splendor, so that *also those things thought to be small and worthless shine with the majesty of the Holy Spirit"*; "*...the individual words*, syllables, long marks over vowels and periods in the divine Scriptures are full of meaning." - *St. John [[Chrysostom]]:* "and those words of the Scriptures, *which are thought to be unimportant*, we do not ignore, *for they also are from the grace of the Spirit*...."; “*not the smallest saying, not one syllable contained in the divine Writings should be passed over.” - *St. [[Basil]]*: “These things were said by me... it is certain that in the divinely inspired words *not even one syllable is unimportant*." - *St. [[Gregory Nazianzen]]*: “We however, *who extend the accuracy of the Spirit to the merest stroke and tittle, will never admit the impious assertion that even the smallest matters were dealt with haphazardly by those who have recorded them*, and have thus been borne in mind down to the present day.” - [[Origen]]: “the divine wisdom touches every scripture divinely *given even as far as one small letter*..." - *Contra:* *Celsus, Porphyry,* and *Julianus. - They claimed there is a disagreement in Scripture with history or science. - *St. [[Augustine]]*: wrote *De consensu evangelistarum* contra *[[Porphyry]]*. - *Theological Proof:* - *Maj.*: The writing and inspiration of the sacred books proceed in a parallel way from the words of *[[Vatican I]]*: “... having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit....” - *Min.:* But the author or writer of a book writes the individual sentences, even the smallest; and this at least pertains to the concept of a book. - *Concl.:* Therefore also the inspiration of the sacred books extends to the individual or smallest sentences. Moreover, it would be absurd to say that inspiration ceases or is interrupted when the “obiter dicta” are written down; and there would be no obvious criterion to discern such an interruption. - see t.4 c.1 a.5 th.5 n.120 for objections and responses. ## *Mechanical Dictation:* Verbal inspiration in the sense of a “mechanical dictation” is not generally to be admitted (t . 4 c . l a.5 t h . 6 n . 1 2 6 - 1 3 0). - *Theological Note: certain* and *common*. - *Mechanical dictation:* a quasi revelation or determination or suggestion of each and every word. Thus the hagiographer would be an amanuensis writing down what God would dictate. - still, there could be determination of the words sometimes in individual cases, *if it is proved*. *In general*, it is not to be admitted as a rule. - *Contra:* *[[Tertullian]]* (after becoming a Montanist), *Philo, Flavius Josephus*, *A. Quenstedt,* *Helvetian Formula of Consent.* - *The old Rabbis*: affirmed the determination of the individual words, and also the shape of the letters by God. - *The older Protestants:* say that the syllables, letters and punctuation in the sacred writings come from God. - *Islam*: restricts even the possibility of translating the Koran into another language (Ketch) - *Doctrine of the Church:* - *[[Vatican I]]:* the Church accepts the books as sacred “not because, having been carefully composed by *mere human industry*, they were afterward approved by her authority...” (D 3006). Therefore some human industry is implied in their composition. - *Leo XII, Proventissimus:* describes this human and rational work of the hagiographer (D 3293). - *[[Benedict XV]]*, *[[Spiritus Paraclitus]]:* explains the teaching of St. [[Jerome]] contrary to mechanical dictation, who “moreover has no doubt but that each one of those authors (of the sacred books), depending on his own nature and talent, freely worked under the divine inspiration...” Endorses the explanation of [[Leo XIII]] concerning the human work of the hagiographer - *Scripture:* - the authors often conducted themselves not merely passively in writing a book, but worked and sweated, and attributed any defects to their own work. - cf. Lk. 1:3; 2 Macc. 2:24-32, 15:39. - difference of style in the different books imply a different influence on the book from the instrument used. - *Church Fathers:* inculcate the value of the sentences in the Scriptures, not precisely of the syllables and letters, unless they are for emphasis and oratorical effect. - *St. [[Jerome]]:* "Some chase after syllables and letters, you should concentrate on the sentences."; "And let us not think that the Gospel is in the words of the Scriptures, but it is in the meaning; not in the surface, but in the innermost part; not in the flow of words, but in root of reason." - *St. [[Augustine]]:* "(There was an accidental difference in the evangelists) so that at the same time also, in what pertains especially to faithful doctrine, we would understand that the truth must be sought or embraced not so much because of the words but because of the things, when those speak who do not use the same way of speaking, since they do not disagree on the things and the ideas, we see that they are firm in the same truth.''; it is useful for the faith to have different forms of expression in the Gospels, “lest we think as it were with consecrated words in order to protect the truth, rather than with a variety of words to express the truth as God knows it, and his angels in him." - *Theological Proof:* - *Maj:* *The dictation and determination of the words by God is not required in order for God to be the principal author of Scripture*. For he is thought sufficiently to be the principal author of a book or letter, who induces someone else to write his own ideas and only those, and he takes care lest they be expressed with inept words. - *Min:* This point is confirmed from the responses of the [[Biblical Commission]], according to which Moses can also be considered the author of the Pentateuch, if others gave faithful expression to the ideas, conceived by Moses himself and approved by him after the writing. - *Concl:* *Therefore God can be the principal cause of a sacred book, without determining the exact words to be written*. But this fact of the determination of the words should not be asserted, which would be a supernatural fact, unless there is real certainty about it; for beings are not to be multiplied without necessity. ## *Psychological Verbal Inspiration:* The theory of “psychological” verbal inspiration seems to be preferred (t .4 c.l a.5 th.7 n.136 - 140). - *Theological note:* the *more probable* and *more fitting explanation*. There is no document of the Church’s Magisterium that theologically requires this explanation or theory. - *all admit that inspiration in a certain way extends to the words*. But this influence extends not only to the mental words whereby the ideas and sentences are represented internally, *but also to the material words of the imagination*. - *Contra:* - *L. Lessius* (1554-1623): it is not required that the inspiring action of God is extended to the material words themselves. Molinist Jesuit. - *Cardinal [[Franzelin]]* (1816-1886): distinguishes between the *formal part of a book* (the matter and the thoughts) and the *material part* (the words, external grammatical and literary form). the words that pertain to the material part. Hence this author derives the reason for the extension of inspiration to the words from the guiding *of the infallible choice of the apt words*, which choice is made *and comes from the hagiographer himself.* - shared by F. Schmid, G.J. Crets, Cardinal Mazzella, J. Knabenbauer, Ch. Pesch, R. Comely, VanLaak, Ae. Dorsch. - there is nothing preventing one from being able to embrace the opinion of Cardinal [[Franzelin]]. - some responses of the [[Biblical Commission]] seem to favor this opinion. - See citation for various proofs. - *The Church Fathers:* - *[[Origen]]:* “With the greatest care and zeal the Holy Spirit through the ministers of the word presented those words, lest the reason should ever be hidden from you according to which the divine wisdom influences every scripture given by God even so far as one small letter... We are thinking about everything written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, like the great providence, which hands on wisdom superior to the human, and through the divine letters introduced salutary documents to the human race, and impressed signs o f wisdom even, so to speak, on the individual letters according as each one is able to understand them." - *St. [[Gregory Nazianzen]]*: “We however, who extend the accuracy of the Spirit to the merest stroke and tittle, will never admit the impious assertion that even the smallest matters were dealt with haphazardly by those who have recorded them, and have thus been home in mind down to the present day." - *St. John [[Chrysostom]]*: “What is the meaning of this short saying: But to Adam? Why does he add the conjunction? Was it not sufficient to say, To Adam? It is not without reason, and our reason for inquiring into such things is not for the sake of curiosity, but as trying diligently to interpret everything for you, we are teaching you that no small saying, nor even one syllable contained in the divine writings should be passed over. *For, they are not just any kind of words, but the words of the Holy Spirit, and therefore it is possible to find there a large treasure, even in one syllable.”* - *St. [[Jerome]]*: "... individual words, syllables, strokes, points in the divine Scriptures are full of meaning." - *Scholium:* However, you should not think of this influence of God on the words as if it were necessarily always determining the words themselves; for, that would be a mechanical dictation or a suggestion of the words. But this determination of the words and of the external form can be left, under the influence certainly of the principal cause, to the proper efficiency of the instrument; and of course to this instrument and its deficient power are to be attributed the grammatical mistakes, anacolutha, solecisms... and imperfections of style, which we see in the sacred writings, and the sacred authors themselves admit this (see 2 Macc. 15:38). For just as the incarnate Word of God assumed our miseries without sin (Heb. 4:15), so the written word of God contains the literary imperfections of men "without error." - to this proper power of the instruments is to be attributed the variety, which is recognized in the style of the sacred authors, and which the holy Fathers acknowledged. ## *Inspiration According to the O.T.:* (T . 4 C .l A . 1 T H . l N. 1 9 - 2 5) - David: "The spirit of the Lord speaks through me, his word is upon my tongue..." (2 Sam. 23:2). - the prophets are said to be the “mouth” of Yahweh (Jer. 15:19) and *they utter the words of the Lord*. - (see citation above for more examples). ## *Inspiration according to the Church Fathers*: (T . 4 C . l A. 1 T H . l N . 3 0 - 3 3) (see citation for more quotations. Selected according to relationship between human and divine author.) - *General*: the human author is *the lyre* or *the reed-pipe* in the hand of God, or *a secretary sending messages from God.* - *[[Justin Martyr]]*: "...using righteous men *as an instrument like a harp or lyre*, might reveal to us the knowledge of things divine and heavenly" - *[[Athenagoras]]*: "...we have for witnesses the prophets, who have pronounced concerning God and the things of God, *guided by the Spirit of God*. And you too will admit... that it would be irrational for us to cease to believe in the Spirit of God, *who moved the mouths of the prophets like musical instruments*, and to give heed to mere human opinions." - *[[Athenagoras]]*: "(The Prophets) lifted in ecstasy above the natural operations of their minds by the impulses of the divine Spirit, uttered the things with which they were inspired, the Spirit making use of them as a flute player breathes into a flute." - *[[Theophilus]]*: "And Moses, who lived many years before Solomon, *or, rather, the Word of God by him as by an instrument says*: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." - *[[Hippolytus]]*: "For these Fathers were moved by the spirit of prophecy and worthily honored by the Word Himself, by whom surely *like a string instrument they always have in themselves the Word as a pick*; by his motion and inspiration, these prophets announced what God wills; for they did not speak from their own ability, lest your are in error about this, nor did they preach what came from their own thinking." - *[[Clement]] of Alexandria*: "I could adduce then thousand Scriptures of which not one tittle shall pass away without being fulfilled; *for the mouth of the Lord, the Holy Spirit, has spoken these things*." - *[[Origen]]:* "With exquisite care and application *the Holy Spirit through the ministers of the word wrote things down*, lest it be possible that you ever forget the reason why the divine wisdom touches every Scripture given by God, including even the smallest letter..." - *[[Chrysostom]]*: "“...but when Paul was writing, *or rather not Paul, but the grace of the Spirit* the Letter to the whole city and all the people, and through them to the whole world...." - *[[Chrysostom]]:* "therefore when he wanted to renew his friendship towards them, *he sends them letters, as it were from far away*, wishing to reconcile with himself the whole nature of men. *And so God sent the letters, but Moses delivered them.*" - *[[Augustine]]*: “Therefore, when those disciples (the evangelists) have written matters which He declared and spoke to them, it ought not by any means to be said that he has written nothing Himself; since the truth is, that His members have accomplished only what they became acquainted with by the repeated statements of the Head. For all that he was minded to give for our perusal on the subject of His own doings and sayings, He commanded to be written by those disciples, whom he thus used as if they were his own hands." - *[[Gregory the Great]]:* "Who wrote this (the book of Job) is a very useless question, since it is faithfully believed that the author of the book is the Holy Spirit. Therefore the one who wrote it is the one who decreed that it should be written. He wrote it who is both the inspirer of the book, and through the voice of the writer hands on to us what must be imitated. If we were to read the words of some great man in a letter sent to us, and we were to ask what kind of pen he used in the writing, it would surely be ridiculous to know the author of the letter and to understand its meaning, but ask what kind of pen was used to write the words..." - *[[Gregory the Great]]:* "But what is Holy Scripture, except a Letter of almighty God to his creature?" ## *Criterion of Inspiration:* The universal criterion for recognizing the inspired books is the authentic and traditional Magisterium of the Church, based on divine revelation about this matter (*De Fide*). (t . 4 c . l a . 2 t h . 2 n .4 2 - 4 5) - Two kinds: - *Universal:* that which can be used in order to recognize all the inspired books and generally for all men, so that they can, with certainty, recognize all the inspired books. - this authentic and traditional Magisterium of the Church constitutes the *immediate and proximate criterion.* - *Particular*: used for some books (v.gr. the testimony of Holy Scripture), or for some men (v.gr. the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit). - *mediated and ultimate criterion* in order to know the inspired books. The authentic Magisterium of the Church relies on this criterion when she hands on the received tradition. - *Contra:* [[Protestantism]] - *Calvin:* relies on the *internal testimony of God* (i.e. internal inspiration of the Holy Spirit; cf. t.4 c. l a.2 th.2 n.52). - *Luther:* selects the criterion from the intensity with which “Christ is preached,” really according to his doctrine on justification by faith alone; The Letter of James cannot be said to be inspired because James says: *Faith by itself, if it has not works, is dead* (James 2:17). - *Later (non-liberal) Protestants:* *internal light, as a principal criterion*, other subsidiary criteria which are either internal or external. # **Canon of Scripture** --- ## *Canonical book:* a book that is found in the canon or in the rule or in the ecclesiastical catalogue of the Holy Scriptures. ## *Canon of the sacred books:* the collection of the sacred books or a catalogue of them, by which it is determined or regulated which books have been entrusted to the Church and are the rule of inspired truth. (t .4 c . l a . 3 t h .2 n . 57+) - *Protocanonical books*: those about whose canonicity there has been no doubt in any Church; that is, *never and nowhere has there been any doubt about them*. - *Deuterocanonical books:* those books about whose inspiration *at some time or somewhere* there has been doubt. - *O.T.:* Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, certain fragments from Esther (in the Vulgate 10:4—16:24), likewise from Daniel (3:24-90; 13; 14) - *N.T.*: Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, Revelation. - *Apocryphal books:* similar to the inspired books because of the content and title but which the Church refused to accept. - Protestants call these books *pseudepigraphous*, and they reserve the name “apocryphal” for the deuterocanonical books. - *[[Vatican I]]:* "If anyone does not receive as sacred and canonical the complete books of Sacred Scripture with all their parts, as the holy Council of Trent listed them, or denies that they were divinely inspired: let him be anathema." (Canon 2.4) ## *O.T. canon among the Jews:* - No catalogue of sacred books before Christ. But some books began to be collected at different times and be held as sacred. - *The collection regarding the Law*: indicated in Deut. 31:9-13, 24-26; 1 Sam. 10:25; 2 Kings 23:1-3; 2 Chron. 34:29-32; Neh. 8:8f. (see citation above for more examples from scripture). - Already before the Babylonian exile there was a collection of the sacred books. - *Canon of Ezra (Palestinian Canon)*: made at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. - *Council of Jamnia*: (100 years after Christ) defined and closed the canon. - Lacks deuterocanonical books. - *Alexandrian Canon:* Comes from Alexandrian Jews. Hellenist Jews, reading Holy Scripture in the LXX version, accepted the deuterocanonical books along with the protocanonical, without making any distinction about their authority. - The Alexandrian canon really must be admitted. (t . 4 c . l a . 3 t h . 2 n . 6 0 - 6 3) ## *O.T. canon among the Apostles:* (t . 4 c . l a . 3 t h . 2 n . 6 0 - 6 3) - *The Apostles* certainly approved and handed on to Christians the canon of the books of the O.T., which they often cite under the formula it is written. - cannot be said directly about the deuterocanonical books, since they never cite them under the formula *it is written*. - there is no doubt that they handed on to Gentiles, who did not know Hebrew, and to the Hellenistic Jews, Alexandrian copies of Holy Scripture which contained the deuterocanonical books - for the most part the citations from the O.T. were made by the Apostles from the Alexandrian version. - it is not to be said that the Church learned from the Jews which were the sacred books, but from Christ the Lord himself and from the Apostles directly. ## *O.T. canon among the Church Fathers:* - *Early Church Fathers*: (ca. 2nd/3rd centuries): Almost no doubts in the Church concerning the inspiration of the deuterocanonical books. - *Roman Church:* Pope St. Clement, Hernias and St. [[Hippolytus]] give testimony to them. - *Gallican Church:* St. Irenaeus. - *West African Church:* [[Tertullian]] and St. Cyprian. - *Oriental Church*: St. Polycarp and St. [[Athenagoras]]. - *First indications of doubts:* St. Melito of Sarda (+before 195); [[Origen]]. - Thus [[Origen]] and St. Melito of Sarda sometimes handed on an incomplete canon of the Old Testament. - Reason: since the Jews denied the authority of the deuterocanonical books, the Christians could not use them as arguments - *Later Church Fathers:* without doubt recognize the deuterocanonical books. - cite them under the formula of *it is written*, or to *prove the dogmas*. - no one *with certainty and always* denied the inspiration of the deuterocanonical books. - *Contra:* [[Protestantism]] - concede that the opinion of the Fathers favors Catholic dogma; but they claim that those Fathers selected their arguments without diligence. - *False:* it is known that the Fathers had to act with great care in polemical matters. - *[[Jerome]]:* after the year 389, as his *private opinion* denied the inspiration of the deuterocanonical books. - Influenced by Palestine (since books not found in Hebrew codices) - did acknowledge that the western Church favors the inspiration of the deuterocanonical books. - *However*, he did write in 396: “Ruth and Esther and Judith are of such glory that their names are included in the sacred volumes” - *[[Carthage IV]] (called III by Denzinger):* (397) Attended by St. [[Augustine]]. Confirms Catholic canon. ## *O.T. canon in Middle Ages:* - *Orient*: doubts disappear. - *West:* No doubts until 10th cent. - *Junilius Africanus:* (ca. 550) rejects Catholic canon. - St. [[Jerome]]'s opinion and other ancient doubts remain not unknown. - *[[Florence]]* (1431-1449): sanctioned common Catholic doctrine - *St. Anthony of Florence* (+1459) and *[[Cajetan]]* (+1534) (the famed commentator on St. Thomas) surprisingly follow St. [[Jerome]]'s opinion. ## *O.T. canon from 16th cent. to now:* - *Luther:* Rejects based on agreement with his doctrine on justification. Tended to exclude the deuterocanonical books (perhaps with the exception of 1 Macc.), but also Esther, Chronicles, Ecclesiastes from the protocanonical books. - In his German version (1534) he did translate the deuterocanonical books, but separated from the others and under the title of “apocrypha”. - *The Council of [[Trent]]:* at the very beginning (Feb. 8 to April 8, 1546) determined which are the canonical Scriptures, by receiving the canon of the Council of Florence - no controversy about accepting the deuterocanonical books - *B. Lamy* (+1715), and *Io. Iahn* (+ 1816), and *A. Loisy* (1890): tried to distinguish in the sacred books various levels of authority. - *[[Vatican I]]:* renewed the decree of [[Trent]]. - Among *Protestants*: after rationalism, having rejected supernatural inspiration, the canon of the O.T. now only has the meaning of a certain fortuitous collection of national Hebrew literature. - Among the *Orthodox Greeks:* opinion of the old Protestants about not accepting the deuterocanonical books has prevailed. ## *N.T. canon:* (see t . 4 c . l a . 3 t h . 2 n . 6 3 - 6 7). ## *On the Imprecations:* It is necessary to pay attention to the hyperbolic tendency of the Orientals and to the symbols and to the poetically exaggerated descriptions; but cannot be explained according to the hardness of morals of the ancients, because the O.T. is not less perfect than the N.T. in the area of moral good and moral evil (t.4 c.l a.5 th.5 n.125). - Understood in four ways (*ST* II-II, q. 83, a. 8 ad 1; q. 25, a. 6 a 3): - 1) According to the custom of the prophets to foretell the future under the veil of an imprecation. According to prediction, not wish. - *May the wicked be*, that is, *the wicked shall be, turned into hell*. - 2) certain temporal evils are sometimes inflicted by God on the wicked for their conversion. - “If a man commands or desires another’s evil under the aspect of good, it is lawful; and it may be called cursing, not strictly speaking, but accidentally, because the chief intention of the speaker is directed not to evil but to good.” (II-II, q. 76, a. 1 c.) - 3) they are understood to be pronounced, not against the men themselves, but against the kingdom of sin. - 4) by way of conformity of our will to the divine justice with regard to the damnation of those who are obstinate in sin. # **Translations of Scripture** --- ## *History of the Vulgate*: - (to be completed when reading 1a) ## *Authenticity of the Vulgate*: (t .4 c . l a . 6 n . 147-151) - *Authentic:* From Greek = with force, I have authority. Signifies to have value or the power to *demand assent* or to *produce faith*. - It is said about a book, inasmuch as it either really contains what it is said to be or to contain it. - Two kinds: - *Original:* found in the autographs themselves or in the original texts; and this is *full and primary authenticity*. - *Conformity:* consist in conformity with the original authentic thing. - Two kinds: - *Internal:* consisting of the formal agreement of the text with the original. - *External:* according as it is recognized externally as correct, and presupposes the internal agreement. - Two Kinds: - *Private* or *scientific:* critically proved. - *Public* or *juridical*: declared by the authority of a society. rightly has value for argumentation and to demand faith. - *Declarations of [[Trent]]:* - Two kinds: - *indirect*: In laying down the foundation of the profession of faith declared that it would examine, besides the traditions of the Apostles, all the books with all their parts, “*as they are being read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the ancient Latin Vulgate editions.*" (D 1504-1505). - This dogmatic decree, as is certain from its language, is also an indirect declaration of the authenticity of the Vulgate. - *direct*: the Council “declares and decrees: *This same ancient Vulgate edition* which has been preserved in the Church for so many centuries *is to be regarded as authentic in public readings, disputations, sermons, and expositions, and let no one dare or presume to reject it on any grounds*” (D 1506). - *Nature of the decrees:* *formally disciplinary*, not dogmatic. - 1) the decree is looking at practical things and agendas, not merely theoretical. - a) the usefulness to be gained against abuses occurring from the diversity of versions. - b) the statute is restricted to public readings... (why is it not also extended to private reading, if the decree is dogmatic?) - c) it is decreed that no one should dare to reject it. - 2) The custom of the Council was that, in the individual matters successively, both dogmatic questions and questions of disciplinary reform would be treated - However, this second (direct) decree *can be said to be dogmatic*, inasmuch as it has its foundation in the preceding dogmatic decree; and *also inasmuch as from it some dogmatic consequences are inferred* - *Contra:* Certain older authors claimed the decree to be dogmatic. - *Public and Juridical Authenticity:* can be used for argumentation and to demand faith in public readings, disputations and sermons. - *supposes the internal authenticity of conformity* - *a positive privilege granted to the Vulgate* - *The right of the Church to make this decree:* In virtue of her mission the Church has the right and the duty of guarding and proposing infallibly the word of God; and this word or revelation is contained not only in the traditions, but also in the sacred and canonical books. *Therefore* the Church evidently has the right of defining the canon and infallibly declaring whether what is shown in the editions as the word of God really is such or has the authenticity of conformity. - otherwise the guardianship of the written word of God and its correct exposition would turn out to be impossible. - *The doctrinal (dogmatic) inferences from this decree:* - 1) The Vulgate cannot have any errors regarding faith and morals. - a) since for many centuries it has been approved by its use in the Church, *God could not permit that it be contaminated with dogmatic and moral evils.* - b) Since the Tridentine decree is *disciplinary for the whole Church*, *the infallibility of the Church in making this decree is certain.* - c) That there are no errors of faith and morals in the Vulgate is indicated in the preceding decree. - The presiding legates at the Council said that “the ancient vulgate edition has never been suspected of heresy...” - 2) The Vulgate has at least *substantial conformity* with the original text. - because it has internal authenticity of conformity; and this, even if not in some accidentals, must be present at least in the substantial. - *Therefore:* - a) in the Vulgate there are all and only the sacred books. - b) the totality of the sentences, or *the Vulgate as a whole*, which has been preserved by the Church for so many centuries, is the same and contains the same things as the totality of sentences of the original texts. - *This applies not to just any text of the Vulgate:* - 1) those that are purely profane and are not closely connected with the things pertaining to faith and morals (although they certainly are inspired, if they agree with the inspired original), are not declared authentic by the Council. - 2) Those texts of the Vulgate, although they are dogmatic, about which there were critical doubts in the Church, and therefore have not been preserved by the long use of the Church—they also are not declared to be authentic. - pertains to: 1 Cor. 15:51 which in Latin does not agree with the original Greek text; 1 John 5:7 (the famous Johannine comma), which does not seem to have been in the original text. - From the declaration of the authenticity of the Vulgate greater force is not being attributed to texts previously considered to be doubtful from a critical point of view; for, the Vulgate is to be preferred or declared to be authentic only insofar as it has been preserved for long time in the use of the Church. - *Discrepancies in Vulgate and other versions:* - These are *modal:* - regarding the more or less clarity with which the truth is proposed - the same dogma is handed on under a different aspect and formal reason. - e.g. Gen. 3:15: Vulgate has she will crush your head, while according to the TM and according to the LXX it says he {he who is the seed of the woman)../, therefore one text expresses directly the triumph of the woman, but the other text expresses directly the triumph of the seed of the woman; but there is really no opposition, because truly she triumphed through her Son and because of her Son. - *In the Tridentine decree it is not said that not even the smallest accidental error is found in the Vulgate:* - Refers only to dogmatic statements (faith and morals). - purely historical or purely scientific things, like chronology, the names of plants, etc. errors may be present. - *The Fathers at the Council acknowledged these errors in the Vulgate:* - when the decree was sent to Rome for approval, *the Roman theologians objected*: “it seems to be surprising that the Vulgate is not allowed to be rejected in those places in which the common sense of the Hebrew text and of the LXX does not agree with the Vulgate or it is not well expressed in the Latin translation" and that these differences cannot be attributed to the amanuenses alone or to the typographers. - *legates responded*, not by denying that, but, by insisting on the things that pertain to faith and morals, “that the old and vulgate edition was never suspected of heresy, and that this is the most important in the sacred books; and in accordance as the better Greek and Hebrew texts are used in that same way they prove the reading of the Vulgate, as anyone can see; and with regard to the other passages in the Vulgate, which may seem to be obscure, inept, barbarous, scarcely intelligible, no one is prevented from explaining and illustrating them whether with interpretations or annotations, or also with a new translation.... ” - *Eminent theologians agree with these statements:* - Andreas Vega, Aloysius Legionensis, Arias Montano, Ioannes Mariana, Lalnez, Salmeron, St. [[Robert Bellarmine]] - Ioannes Morin: " ... I think that St. [[Jerome]] composed that version under the special inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and that it was free from all error because of the direction and movement of the same Spirit; and none of the obscurities and ambiguities of the original text, or any errors that had crept into the Hebrew text, or any errors that had invaded the Greek and the Latin, were corrected by him when he compared the ancient translation of the New Testament with the Greek, so he could not be deceived into committing any error, even the slightest, in his translation. Therefore, even though sometimes he follows a reading different from the Septuagint interpreters, the Holy Spirit authorized both canons through both inter­preters... Hence it follows that the vulgate version according to all of its parts per se and by its own nature is true and is independent of every approbation and decree of the Church, since it derives its origin from a divinely inspired author... " ## *Authenticity of other texts:* (. 4 c . l a . 6 n . 1 66+) - *Septuagint (LXX)*: Not inspired and the translators knew that. - cf. St. [[Augustine]], *City of God,* 18.43 (Ketch: St. [[Augustine]] appears to favor that it was inspired, but without coming down on one side definitively. "For the same Spirit who was in the prophets when they spoke these things was also in the seventy men when they translated them" *ibid.*). - *In favor of inspiration of LXX:* [[Tertullian]], [[Augustine]], author of "Cohortatio ad Graecos" (possibly [[Justin Martyr]]) - *Against inspiration of LXX*: [[Jerome]]. - *Has public authority because:* - 1) The Apostles often cite the Old Testament from the LXX, even when the Hebrew text disagrees. - probably they transmitted that version of the LXX to the Hellenist, extra-Palestinian churches. - 2) The Greek church remained united in the possession of this version. - 3) Sixtus V in the Vatican edition of the LXX, made by his authority (1586), decreed in the introductory Letter “that the Old Testament according to the Septuagint, now revised and corrected, is to be received and retained by all.” - Whether the Bull "Aeternus ille" of Sixtus V, in which the authenticity of the edition of the LXX was said to have been made by him, was properly published so that it would obtain full juridical force, is doubtful. - Has not be *solemnly* approved but certainly it is *approved indirectly*, because the whole Greek church uses this text. - its internal conformity and certitude are very great, and therefore authentic. - *Hebrew text:* *critically proved internal authenticity*; but the Church does not use it in the liturgies and in the definitions, etc. - Before Christ the text was not corrupt. For, Christ or the Apostles never make such an objection to their adversaries, but fully supposed the authenticity of the text then in use. # **Inerrancy of Scripture** --- *Source:* t.4 c.l a.7 th.8 n.168+ ## *All the sentences of Scripture are infallibly true:* - *Theological note:* divine and Catholic faith (*de fide*). - cf. *Biblical Commission* speaks about "*the Catholic dogma* regarding the inspiration and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures...." (D 3629). - *Infallibility:* Absence of error. Impossibility of error in an intelligent subject, or in his words or writings. - *Inerrancy:* Fact of the truth of all sentences of Holy Scripture. - Applies only to the original autographs. Inerrancy of the apographa and translations is affirmed inasmuch as they are in agreement with the original text. - *Contra:* - *[[Erasmus]]*: there could be present in Holy Scripture slight errors, especially because of the memory lapse of the authors (e.g. chs. 2 and 27 of Matt.). - *[[Rationalism]]* and *[[Modernism]]:* not admitting the fact of inspiration, say that the sacred books, since they have a natural origin, are fallible. - *Doctrine of the Church:* - *[[Vatican I]]*: solemnly defined that the inspiration of Scripture, and *implicitly its inerrancy and infallibility*, extends to matters of faith and morals and to the parts that are at least of greater importance (D 3029). - *[[Clement VI]]*: taught that there is absolutely no error in Scripture, writing (in 1351) about the errors of the Armenians: We ask “Whether you have believed and do believe that the New and Old Testaments in all their books, which the authority of the Roman Church has given to us, contain undoubted truth in all things” (D 1065). - [[Leo XIII]], [[Providentissimus Deus]]: "... 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* ... " (D 3292). - cf. [[Benedict XV]] (“[[Spiritus Paraclitus]]”: D 3652) and [[Pius XII]] (“[[Divino afflante]] Spiritu” and “[[Humani generis]]”: D 3887). The condemnations of [[Modernism]] in the Decree “[[Lamentabili]]” (D 3411), and in the Encyclical “[[Pascendi]]” and the Response of the [[Biblical Commission]] (in 1915), on the mind of the Apostles concerning the Parousia (D 3628). - *Scripture*: Christ and the Apostles, when they cite Holy Scripture under the formula “it is written” or with similar words, quote the words as having absolute authority, to which error is wholly repugnant. - *Tradition*: (see t.4 c.l a.7 th.8 n.174 for Fathers). - cf. *[[Alfred Loisy]]*: openly admits this consensus of the Fathers: “If we proceed from the data of tradition, there is no place for error in the Bible.” ## *On the absolute truth of Holy Scripture and on the literary Forms:* (t . 4 c.l a . 7 t h . 8 n . 176+) - *Absolute truth:* opposed to *relative truth.* Some did not deny to Scripture truth and inerrancy, but only *relative*. - Two schools: Traditional (absolute truth) and liberal (relative truth). - cf. *[[Alfred Loisy]]:* distinguished between religious truth (what Scripture wanted to teach) and economic truth (the clothing in which religious truth is expounded). - *Others:* distinguish between what is *taught* and *what is simply asserted.* Others speak about *apparently historical narrations* (i.e. fables and legends). - ex. described by [[Biblical Commission]], June 30, 1909 (on Gen. 1-3). - See citation for more descriptions of various opinions (n. 176) - *Doctrine of the Church* - *Condemnation of [[Modernism]]:* [[Pius X]], *[[Pascendi]]*: "Truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him, and through him," (D 3458). - [[Benedict XV]], [[Spiritus Paraclitus]] and [[Leo XIII]], [[Providentissimus Deus]]: no distinction is to be made between the *religious element as primary* and *secondary or profane element* and no one is to claim that inerrancy extends only to the religious element (D 3652). - [[Leo XIII]], [[Providentissimus Deus]]: "those who fancy that when it is a question of the truth of certain expressions we have not got to consider so much *what* God said as *why* he said it" (D 3291). - [[Benedict XV]], [[Spiritus Paraclitus]]: distinction between *absolute* and *relative truth* for historical matters is rejected (D 3653). - [[Benedict XV]], [[Spiritus Paraclitus]]: "(Others) take too ready a refuge in such notions as 'implicit quotations' or 'pseudo-historical narratives'..." (D 3654). - On not easily admitting implicit citations was dealt with by the Responses of the [[Biblical Commission]] (D 3372), the Encyclical "[[Pascendi]]" (D 3490-3491) and the Encyclical "[[Spiritus Paraclitus]]" (D 3654). - On not transferring to history the things which [[Leo XIII]] said about the apparent truth of the senses was treated authentically by [[Benedict XV]] ("[[Spiritus Paraclitus]]": D 3652f.) and [[Pius XII]] ("[[Divino afflante]]"). - *On particular sacred writings*: - *Pentateuch:* [[Biblical Commission]]: Has authenticity and substantial historicity. (D 3394-3397) - Not necessary to hold that Moses wrote each and every thing by his own hand or dictated them to copyists. He could have used sources or afterward approved minor changes in the text. It is possible to maintain some minor modifications after death of Moses. - *Gospel of John*: historically true (D 3416-3418). - See more in citation (n. 179). - On a nuanced view of the questions above by the Church, see more in citation (n. 180). - *Literary forms of Gen. 1-11:* see citation. - *Scripture:* - *Christ and the Apostles:* *cite many things from Scripture as absolutely true*, even with regard to singular historical points, taken from those books, which some say do not contain critical history. - [[Spiritus Paraclitus]]: "Whether teaching or disputing He (Christ) quotes from all parts of Scripture and takes his examples from it. He quotes them as an argument which must be accepted. He refers without any discrimination of sources to the stories of Jonah and the Ninevites, of the Queen of Sheba and Solomon, of Elijah and Elisha, of David and of Noah, of Lot and the Sodomites, and even of Lot's wife" (see Matt. 12:3.39-42; Luke 17:26-29.32). - *St. Peter:* speaks about Noah building the ark and about the flood (1 Pet. 3:20; 2 Pet. 2:5); on the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and of Lot (2 Pet. 2:6-7). - *St. Paul:* speaks about the miraculous events in the exodus of the sons of Israel sojourning in Palestine 1 Cor. 10:1-10); and he narrates many wondrous things during the course of time which were done because of faith (Heb. 11:4-40). - *Fathers and Theologians:* does not favor those "who, if they are restrained within certain limits, so abuse right principles indeed that they cause the foundation of the truth of the Bible to totter, and undermine the Catholic doctrine handed down by the Fathers in common. Among these Fathers Jerome, if he were still alive, would surely hurl the sharpest weapons of his speech, because, neglecting the sense and judgment of the Church, they take too ready a refuge in such notions as 'implicit quotations' or 'pseudo-historical narratives,' or they claim that certain literary genres are found in the Holy Books that cannot be reconciled with the entire and perfect truth of God's word, or they speculate about origins of the Bible in such a way that would inevitably weaken-if not destroy-its authority" ([[Spiritus Paraclitus]]). - *More notes:* - *That the inerrancy of Scripture is not derived precisely from the purpose of the writer, only from that which he intended to teach*; but it is derived from the nature of inspiration, from all the things that are asserted in virtue of this influx. - *Sometimes a religious truth doubtless can be taught under the form of a fictitious narration or fashioned according to a parable* (v.gr., Luke 10:30-37 on the good Samaritan); these indeed have a relative, not an absolute value. But that must be proved by solid arguments; and in this one must not proceed casually or rashly, but according to the tradition of the Church. - In this matter one must be on his guard *lest too much is conceded to merely apparent arguments*, that is, to those that have not yet really been proved. - Sometimes the matter, even after having consulted the tradition of the Church, remains doubtful, as in the case of Hosea 1-3; and that should not seem to be surprising - see “*[[Divino afflante]]*.” - *On indirect quotations:* the sacred author must be thought to be speaking in his own *name, unless the contrary is proved for certain* (D 3372). ## *Literary genres of the Orient:* (t . 4 c . l a . 7 t h . 8 n . 1 8 8+) - It is absolutely necessary to investigate the literary genre in which a book or pericope was written, so that in this way the true mind of the author can be known. - *St. Thomas:* "In Scripture divine things are presented to us in the manner that is in common use among men" (Comment. ad Heb c.3 lect.4). - All literary genres can be reconciled with inspiration (except by nature immoral, like some classical "poetry"). - *Myth*: in the sense of *a false religious fable* cannot be admitted. These cannot be reconciled with inspiration, unless cited in Sacred Scripture merely as a literary ornament (intended to be purely metaphorical). - *Fictious narrations:* can be admitted, provided they can be known as such and that historical truth (in the proper sense) is not ascribed to the words of narration. - *Allegorical way of speaking:* is admitted. - ex. Canticle of Canticles (mystical union between Yahweh and his people). - *Criterion for knowing a literary genre:* The external form which men are accustomed to use in the respective literary form unless something else is proved *solidly.* - the *tradition of the Church* must be considered if something universal is to be affirmed. - ex. Canticle of Canticles, both from internal construction and tradition, is an allegorical song. - ex. it would be contrary to the dignity of God, if a book, which according to its external form for centuries has been universally thought to be historical, in the final analysis were found to contain only fictitious narrations. - *Objections*: See citation (n. 191) regarding various passages in Sacred Scripture. - *Obj. 9*: God has condescension in the Bible, according to St. John Chrysostom... Therefore, it is not surprising if he willed to use popular, non-critical legends in composing the sacred books. - *Reply:* God has condescension with error, *denied.*.. This condescension has a place with regard to the style and way of speaking, *not with regard to a certain abuse of popular legends*, in which false things are mixed together with true things with no way of distinguishing one from the other. - *Obj. 10:* *Reply:* the testimony of the Fathers does not force us to accept their scientific interpretations, but it does to accept their way of acting with regard to Scripture as the word of God with absolute authority. ## Hermeneutics: From the Greek, "to interpret." the discipline, and at the same time the art and science, which hands on the norms of the correct interpretation of the sacred books (t.4 c.2 n. 191-193). - Difficulty of interpretation comes from: diversity of language, time, morals, and remote places. Also from the material treated (religious, supernatural) and from its divine origin. - *[[Leo XIII]], [[Providentissimus Deus]]* "it must be recognized that the sacred writings are wrapped in a certain religious obscurity, and that no one can enter into their interior without a guide. God so disposing, *as the holy Fathers commonly teach*, in order that men may investigate them with greater ardor and earnestness, and that what is attained with difficulty may sink more deeply into the mind and heart; *and, most of all*, that they may understand that God has delivered the Holy Scriptures to the Church, and that in reading and making use of his Word, they must follow the Church as their guide and teacher." - *Proper object:* the sense of Scripture. - *Sense:* the concept of the mind which someone expressed with his own word, while paying attention to the circumstances. - ex. when someone uses the word “gallus,” depending on the circumstances he intends to signify either a man from a definite country (Gaul) or a definite animal (a rooster). - *Signification:* every idea that can be present in the words independently of the intention of the one speaking, as they can be found in dictionaries. - ex. the word “colere” can have the meaning of the work of “agriculture,” and the action of “divine worship.” - *Division of Hermeneutics:* - Three parts: - *Noematics* (understanding): treats in general the senses of Sacred Scripture. - *Heuristics* (discovering): considers the way of finding the sense of Sacred Scripture. - *Prophoristics* (explaining): studies the way of proposing the sense of Sacred Scripture. ## *The sense of Sacred Scripture:* (t . 4 c . 2 a . 1 t h . 9 n . 1 9 3 - 1 9 9) - *Literal sense:* that which the words immediately signify (see ***Literal sense*** below). - *Real* or *typical sense*: that which the thing signified by the words in its turn signifies something else (see ***Typical sense*** below). - ex. *the eating of the paschal lamb* by the Israelites is what is signified by the words of the narration in Exod. 12:46f. and Num. 9:12; but this matter, signified immediately by the words, in turn signifies something else, according to John 19:36; actually it refers to the sacrifice of the Lord on the Cross. - The first usage pertains to the literal sense of the passage; the second one pertains to the real or typical sense. - *St. Thomas [[Aquinas]]*: Calls this sense the Spiritual sense. See Quodlib 7 a.15. - *Literal* and *real* senses further divided into: - *Literal*: - *Historical*: if the argument refers to history or to an event. - *Real (Spiritual) (Biblical):* - *Tropological* or *moral*: if it refers to morals. - *Anagogical*: if it refers to the future (or eternal) life. - *Allegorical* or *Prophetic*: if it looks to the future or to what must be believed. - *Other Divisions:* - *Grammatical (philological)* and *logical:* according as it is determined by the grammar or by the logic of the context. - *From the assent of the mind which it requires:* - *Certain* - *Probable* - *Doubtful* - *By reason of its truth:* - *True* - *False* - *From nature of phrase or words:* - *Proper*: if the words are taken in the proper sense. - *Transferred (metaphorical)*: if the words are taken tropologically (morally). - The metaphorical or tropological sense is also the literal sense; for, when someone speaks with a trope, the words themselves immediately signify something, that is to say, not what the words materially signifies, but that which is meant by the words. - ex. "arm of God" intending to signify immediately his divine power. - *Fuller, consequent, and accommodated sense:* - see below (STS 1b n. 218). - see *St. Thomas [[Aquinas]]:* *Quodlib* 7 a.14-16 *resp*: "Sacred Scripture has been handed over from heaven so that through it the truth necessary for salvation might be manifested to us. Yet the manifestation or expression of some truth can happen in two ways: by things and by words, namely, inasmuch as words signify things and one thing can be a figure of another. Yet the author of Scripture, namely, the Holy Spirit, is not only the author of words but also of things. Hence not only can he accommodate words to signify something, but also he can arrange things to be the figure of something else. And according to this, *truth is manifested in two ways in Sacred Scripture: one way is how things are signified through words, and in this consists the literal sense; another way is how things are figures of other things, and the spiritual sense consists in this*. And thus, many senses apply to Sacred Scripture." ## *Literal Sense*: In Sacred Scripture the literal sense must be acknowledged (t . 4 c . 2 a . 1 t h . 9 n . 1 9 9+) - *Theological note:* divine and Catholic faith (*de fide*). - *The doctrine of the Church:* - [[Benedict XV]], [[Spiritus Paraclitus]]: St. Jerome "urges us to consider the words themselves of Scripture very diligently, so that it is established for certain what the sacred author said... And then he teaches us to inquire into what signification and meaning there is in the words... Therefore, in the first place we must direct our mind to the *literal and historical explanation...*” - [[Pius XII]], [[Divino afflante]]; [[Humani generis]]. - *Objection:* [[Origen]] seems to have denied the literal sense. - *Reply:* he only denies *for some passages* the *obvious and proper sense which appears at the first look.* - One must first find the literal sense of the passage before finding the other senses. - see [[Divino afflante]]; [[Spiritus Paraclitus]]; [[Humani generis]]. ## *Uniqueness of the Literal Sense:* the literal sense of Sacred Scripture is unique (t .4 c .2 a . 1 t h . 1 0 n . 1 9 9 - 2 0 5) - *Theological note:* certain. - *State of the question:* not whether there are two or more interpretations (which is given), but whether there are two or several meanings, and indeed different from each other and completely diverse: not therefore that one is fuller or cumulative, or that one is implicit and the other is explicit. - *Contra:* [[Suarez]], [[Vazquez]], [[Bonfrerius]], [[Zannecchia]]. - Due to equivocation of terms, difficult to determine predominant opinion of 16th and 17th cent. theologians. - *Doctrine of the Church:* - The uniqueness of the literal sense seems to be simply supposed in the documents of the Church, which exhort all primarily to search eagerly for that. - cf. *[[Spiritus Paraclitus]], [[Divino afflante]]*. - See citation for *Theological proof.* - *St. Thomas [[Aquinas]]*: ST I.1.10 ad 1: "*The multiplicity of these senses does not produce equivocation or any other kind of multiplicity*, seeing that these senses are not multiplied because one word signifies several things, but because the things signified by the words can be themselves types of other things. Thus in Holy Writ no confusion results, for all the senses are founded on one—the literal—from which alone can any argument be drawn, and not from those intended in allegory, as Augustine says (Epis. 48). Nevertheless, nothing of Holy Scripture perishes on account of this, since nothing necessary to faith is contained under the spiritual sense which is not elsewhere put forward by the Scripture in its literal sense." - see *Quodlib*. 7 a.14-16; I, q. 1, a. 10 ## ***Typical (Spiritual) sense:*** In Holy Scripture a typical sense must be acknowledged. - *Theological note:* divine faith (*de fide*), because it is contained clearly in Scripture. - *Typical sense:* that which things themselves, or the events signified by the words, in turn signify - Since things or events of themselves can have a similitude with many other things, and therefore an aptitude for signifying several things, from the positive ordination of God they have the power *de facto* to signify something determined; - for this reason *the typical sense can be known by revelation alone.* - *[[Pius XII]],* *[[Divino afflante]]*: "Wherefore the exegete, just as he must search out and expound the literal meaning of the words intended and expressed by the sacred writer, so also must he do likewise for the spiritual sense, *provided it is clearly intended by God. For God alone could have known this spiritual meaning and have revealed it to us.*" (D 3828) - Also called the "Spiritual" (in St. Thomas; cf. I.1.1) or "Biblical" sense. - *Type:* A thing signifying something. - Three kinds: - *messianic:* prefigures the messianic kingdom. - *anagogic:* prefigures the heavenly fatherland. - *tropologic:* prefigures the soul of the just person. - e.g. in Rom. 5:14 Adam is called a 'túpos' of a future man. - *Antitype:* The other things signified. - e.g. in 1 Pet. 3:21 baptism is said to be the 'ántítupou' of salvation in the ark by water - *Symbolic action:* differs from a *type*; is wholly ordered to signifying something and would not exist by itself alone. - *Allegory:* differs from a *type;* has only a literal sense, although it is expressed through a trope. - e.g. *Canticle of Canticles.* - not saying that in all, even the unimportant sentences of Scripture, a typical sense is always to be found; but in some of them. - *Contra*: - By defect: [[Rationalism]], [[Modernism]] - By excess: [[Origen]], figurists (17th cent. Protestant movement). - *Doctrine of the Church:* - *[[Florence]],* *Decree for the Jacobites:* the legal prescriptions of the Old Testament were said to have been instituted to signify something in the future, although it was said indirectly and given as a reason (D1348). - *[[Benedict XV]], [[Spiritus Paraclitus]]*: refers to and teaches the doctrine of St. Jerome, who “once he has firmly established the literal or historical meaning, goes on to seek out deeper and hidden meanings, as to nourish his mind with more delicate food...” as if he were alluding to the spiritual, mystical sense..., that is, to the typical sense. - *[[Pius XII]], [[Divino afflante]]*: affirms the existence of this typical sense and exhorts Catholics to search for it eagerly (see D 3828). - *Letter of the [[Biblical Commission]] to the Italian Bishops*, August 20,1941: it is a proposition of faith, to be held as a fundamental principle, that Sacred Scripture contains, besides the literal sense, also the spiritual or typical sense, as the praxis of our Lord and of the Apostles taught; but not that this typical sense is contained in every sentence or narration (D 3792-3796). - *Proof from Scripture:* see citation. - *Proof from Tradition:* see citation. - *Scholium 1-3*: see citation. ## *Fuller sense* (sensus plenior): that meaning which God intends through the same words of the hagiographer that is richer or clearer than the one which the hagiographer himself understands by his own words and wishes to say. (t .4 c .2 a . 1 th .11 n . 218) - it is not a meaning completely different and disparate with relation to the literal sense obvious to the hagiographer; but in the same line it is a deeper sense, more distinct, fuller, which the hagiographer perceives in a certain vague or confused way, inasmuch as it is expressed with the words of the hagiographer. - e.g. the outlines of the individual prophecies about the Messiah and his messianic kingdom are understood more fully after the described complete image or after the fulfilled prophecy; the teaching about divine wisdom in Proverbs, Sirach and Wisdom (v.gr., 8:1f.), where the personal nature of this Wisdom is adumbrated and by which the mystery of the Holy Trinity is hinted at and afterwards is to be known more fully. - Analogous to difference of knowledge different individuals have of the same object (a child in catechism vs. the theologian). - The fuller sense of Holy Scripture is known from the collation of other texts of Scripture, whether of the Old or of the New Testament, or from the tradition of the Church. - This sense cannot be called *plural*, because it is the unique sense with the obvious literal sense, although more profound and more distinct in the same line. - *Contra:* R. Bierberg, G. Courtade - *Doctrine of the Church*: - *[[Leo XIII]]*, *[[Providentissimus Deus]]*: *appears* to admit of the *sensus plenior*: "There is sometimes in such passages a fullness and a hidden depth of meaning which the letter hardly expresses and which the laws of interpretation hardly warrant" - See citation for fuller discussion of the topic. - See citation n. 219 - 225 for defense of the *sensus plenior*. # Heuristics --- ## Heuristics deals with the way and the criteria in order to find the meaning of Scripture. - Two kinds of criteria: - *Literary*: examine carefully the native power of words and expressions, both the grammatical power and the rhetorical power. - [[Pius XII]], [[Divino afflante]]: study of and recourse to the original languages is especially recommended and the importance of textual criticism is extolled in the same place. - Considers: - meaning of words and sentences according as they are found in a definite place. - the nature of the context (grammatical and logical, psychological and visual). - poetic form (parallelism, rhythm). - parallel passages where the same argument is being presented. - though different human authors, the link is the authorship of God. - unity and progressive nature of revelation. - the teachings of Scripture illustrate each other. - author (his times, culture, etc.) - *what the explanation is of the same text in the Fathers and in Catholic tradition, what the "analogy of faith" demands, what finally the Magisterium of the Church says about that text.* - To accomplish this it is necessary both to know and to love all of sacred Theology. - see [[Biblical Commission]], Instruction (May 13 1950). - *Dogmatic*: All interpretation is to be rejected which supposes even the slightest error in the hagiographer - if there is some difficulty, one must pay careful attention to what the genuine intention of the author was. - Both correspond to the human and Divine author. ## The Church and judgement of Sacred Scripture It belongs to the Church “to judge about the true meaning and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.” - *Theological note:* divine and Catholic faith (*de fide*) - *Doctrine of the Church:* - *[[Trent]]:* "I likewise accept Holy Scripture according to that sense which Holy Mother Church has held and does hold, to whom it belongs to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures." (Tridentine Profession of Faith). - This same idea is also expressed in the decree of Trent on the Vulgate (D 1507). *This latter* decree is *formally* disciplinary and negative. Regardless, even this decree is *fundamentally* dogmatic and positive, because it proposes dogma as the foundation. - *[[Vatican I]]*: "In matters of faith and morals, affecting the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which Holy Mother the Church has held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of Holy Scriptures." - the right of the Church is asserted in these documents *concerning matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine*, that is, when it is dealing with matters by their own nature religious, not profane. - i.e. matters which are revealed because of themselves, because they are for their own sake intended in revelation, not for the sake of something else - i.e. things that are per se credible because they are per se the substance of faith, not something accidental - *However,* this formula does not exclude positively other things from the interpretation of the Church (that is, things not pertaining to faith or morals), but it *prescinds* from them (*sed praescindere ab iis*). - *Proof:* - A. From Scripture: 2 Pet. 1:20; Luke 24:45; Acts 8:31. - B. If the sacred books have been entrusted to the Church, just as the whole deposit of faith and the complete revelation, which must be preserved and guarded by her, while she explains it as the teacher of revelation established by the Lord: doubtless it will belong to the Church to judge concerning the true meaning and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures. - C. The praxis of the Church always was and still is, that she claims for herself this right of proposing authentically the meaning of Scripture. - D. The principle of the Protestants of private interpretation leads to complete subjectivism, as the history itself of Protestantism shows from the very beginning. - *Scholium I:* On the right of the Church of interpreting things which do not pertain to faith and morals. - Concerning things that do not pertain to faith and morals, but which are contained in Scripture, the Church also has the right of interpreting them authentically; because all the sentences of Scripture are inspired, and therefore the word of God, which has been entrusted to the Church in order to guard it. And the proposition of the Modernists was condemned, according to which "...the Church has no right to pass judgment on the assertions of the human sciences" (D 3405). - This right is *indirect,* since there are some things in Scripture which *indirectly* touch on the eternal salvation of man. - it is certain that the Church can reject *any* interpretation in *any* place in Scripture. - *Contra:* [[Rationalism]], [[Modernism]], [[Protestantism]], exegetes mentioned in [[Humani generis]] who "take no account of the analogy of faith and the tradition of the Church." ## How the meaning is known “which Holy Mother the Church has held and holds” (t . 4 c . 2 a . 2 t h . 1 2 n . 2 3 7 - 2 4 4) - See Denzinger 1507, 1863, 3007. - I. Known first of all from the *definitions of the Councils and of the Roman Pontiffs*. - found in four ways: - *Directly and positively*: the meaning of a biblical text is the direct and formal object of a definition, and by declaring positively its true meaning. - ex. on John 3:5: true water is necessary for Baptism, and therefore the words *Unless one is born of water...* are not to be distorted into a metaphor (D 1615). - *Directly and negatively*: some meaning is excluded by a direct declaration. - ex. on John 6:53: in the words *Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood...* is not a precept of the Lord for communion under both species (D 1727). - *Indirectly and positively*: the biblical text is adduced as an argument of some doctrine, which itself is directly mentioned and defined. - ex. on Rom. 5:12: on original sin in all men, because a denial would contradict the Apostle saying *Sin came into the world through one man...* (D 1512). - *Indirectly and negatively:* when a doctrine is excluded and condemned which its advocates want to prove by some biblical text. - ex. on the errors of Theodore of Mopsuestia who denied the substantial unity of the Word of God with Christ by appealing to Eph. 5:31 (Gen. 2:24): *The two shall be in one flesh*; he also said that Christ by the words in John 20:22 *Receive the Holy Spirit...* did not give them the Holy Spirit, but only breathed on them figuratively; and also that Thomas in John 20:28 did not say the words about God *My Lord and my God*, but because he was struck by the miracle of the resurrection (D 434). - If the biblical text is mentioned only indirectly, it will have to be considered whether it is cited for a mere illustration, *in which case the meaning of the text would not be defined*; or whether it is cited for a proof, so that from the way of speaking it is certain that the Fathers positively are affirming the meaning of that cited text (as in D 1512), or are declaring in this way that it has always been understood in the Church in this way (as in D 1514): because from the fact alone that a text is cited as proof, a definition is not necessarily given to it, as it is given to the doctrine confirmed by that proof. - Texts directly defined are very few; but there are many which have been declared indirectly (according to footnote, A. Durand says there are twelve directly defined. Actually, the source says "does not exceed twelve"; Durand does not list what these twelve are). - II. *The meaning of the Church is known also from the Decrees of the Sacred Congregations and of the Pontifical [[Biblical Commission]]*. - Catholics are bound to submit themselves with an internal assent to the decrees of these organs of the Holy See from a motive of religious obedience which is morally certain. - External obsequious silence is not sufficient, but internal assent is required. - However, decisions of this kind are not absolutely infallible nor irrevocable; therefore the assent due to them, although anyone rightly assents to them without a prudent fear of being in error (i.e., morally certain), still it is not absolute nor absolutely irreformable. - This authority of the decrees of the Biblical Commission is certain from the Motu proprio of [[Pius X]] “*[[Praestantia Scripturae]]*” - "by this our act we do declare and decree that *all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine*, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; *nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions*, and this besides the scandal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradictions." - Also recommended by [[Pius XII]], [[Spiritus Paraclitus]]. - *On the Pontifical [[Biblical Commission]] since its restructuring*: (Ketch) - [[Ratzinger]], *The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church*, Preface: "The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its new form after the Second Vatican Council, *is not an organ of the teaching office*, but rather a commission of scholars who... know that for this task they enjoy the confidence of the teaching office." - Restructured by Pope [[Paul VI]] with the motu proprio *Sedula Cura* (June 27, 1971). The status of the Pontifical Biblical Commission was changed from that of a distinct organ of the Magisterium to that of an advisory body under the direct authority of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. - It appears that none of the [[Biblical Commission]]'s studies or decisions *after 1971* carry any weight *per se*, as it is no longer a magisterial body, but would only carry weight by the *internal* truth of what is taught or by agreement with previous, magisterial teaching. - *III. The sense of the Church is known also from the unanimous consent of the Fathers.* - a) the sense of the Church is the unanimous consent of the Fathers, who are an important part of the teaching Church. - b) such unanimous consent of the Fathers in matters faith and morals is a criterion of divine tradition - b) c) from the decrees of [[Trent]] (D 1507) and [[Vatican I]] (D 3007) no one can, according to the sense of the Church, interpret Scripture contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. - *The required unanimity is not physical but moral*; - v.gr., if the outstanding Fathers of several churches agree, who are seen then, as it were, to represent the others. - it does not suffice that they propose the matter merely as an opinion; rather, *they must assert the matter as pertaining to faith or actually related with the faith*: not precisely that they are treating the dogmatic interpretation of some text, *but that they propose an interpretation as pertaining to the faith, or as necessary in order to preserve Catholic unity*, etc. - *Purely scientific texts:* such are not the object of the dogmatic tradition, but only inasmuch as they are found in the Scriptures; therefore concerning these there is no authentic interpretation of the Fathers, unless the Fathers explain it as pertaining to the purpose of the Church; in this case it should not be considered as something purely scientific. But even as private doctors the Fathers are to be held in high regard. - [[Leo XIII]], [[Providentissimus Deus]]: - "The holy Fathers ‘to whom, after the Apostles, the Church owes its growth—who have planted, watered, built, governed, and cherished it,’ the holy Fathers, We say, are of supreme authority, whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith. *The opinion of the Fathers is also of very great weight when they treat of these matters in their capacity of doctors*, unofficially; not only because they excel in their knowledge of revealed doctrine and in their acquaintance with many things which are useful in understanding the apostolic Books, but because they are men of eminent sanctity and of ardent zeal for the truth, on whom God has bestowed a more ample measure of his light. *Wherefore the expositor should make it his duty to follow their footsteps with all reverence, and to use their labors with intelligent appreciation*.” - The same argument is given in “[[Divino afflante]].” - *But not everything is to be received in the same way*: “The unshrinking defense of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, *in their* *interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging* *to faith, or as intimately connected with faith—what they are unanimous* *in.* For in those things that do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are, according to the saying of St. Thomas.” - *[[Pius XII]], [[Divino afflante]]*: Note also "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. There remain therefore many things, and of the greatest importance, in the discussion and exposition of which the skill and genius of Catholic commentators may and ought to be freely exercised...” - cf. [[Leo XIII]], *Vigilantiae*; - *[[Benedict XV]],* [[Spiritus Paraclitus]]: approves the counsel of those “who with the assistance of critical methods, seek to discover new ways of explaining the difficulties in Holy Scripture, whether for their own guidance or to help others. *But we remind them that they will only come to miserable grief if they neglect our predecessor’s injunctions and overstep the limits set by the Fathers*.” - *On the authority of the Fathers and of Tradition in determining the author of a sacred book.* - If the authors of the sacred books are given in the sacred books themselves it is a matter of *faith* (*de fide*) because question of the author of the book has been revealed to us by God or at least it is connected with faith. - Authorship given in two ways: - *Explicitly:* e.g. St. Paul and St. Peter in the dedications and salutations of the letters. - *Implicitly* or *virtually*: e.g. St. John the Apostle in the gospel named for him where there is an internal argument for its genuineness. - *essentially* (and speaking speculatively): the name of the author does not seem to be of great importance regarding the substance of what is said. - [[Gregory the Great]]: “Who wrote this (the book of Job), is a question that is very superfluous, since the author of the book is faithfully believed to be the Holy Spirit... If we read the words of some important man in a letter received from him, and we ask what kind of pen was used to write it, it would be really ridiculous to know the author of the letter and to understand its meaning, but to inquire with what kind of pen the words of the letter were written with..." - [[Theodoret]]: “They said that all of the Psalms were not by David, but some were by others...What do I care...since all of them were written by the divine inspiration of the Spirit.” - *But the Magisterium of the Church has often determined positively what must be held regarding the authors of the sacred books:* - From various responses of the [[Biblical Commission]]: - Pentateuch (D 3394-3397; EB 181-184 (174-177)), - On John as the author of the fourth gospel (D 3398f.; EB 187f. (180f.)), - On the author of the book of Isaiah (D 3507-3509; EB 293-295 (289-291)), - On the authors of the Psalms (D 3521-3527; EB 344-350 (340-346)), - On the authors of the first gospel (D 3561, 3564; EB 388 (408)), - Of the second and third gospels (D 3568; EB 395 (408)), - Of the book of the Acts of the Apostles (D 3581f.; EB 406f. (419f.)); - On the author of the pastoral epistles (D 3587-3589; EB 412-414 (425-427)), - Of the letter to the Hebrews (D 3591f.; EB 416f. (429f.)). - In order to argue from the Fathers dogmatically, it will be necessary to demonstrate: - 1) the unanimity of the consent of the Fathers - 2) of those asserting the matter as dogmatic or as necessarily connected with dogma. - but not at all if only on the *occasion* of some dogmatic explanation they mention the name of an author who is thought to be the correct one. - But even then their human authority, although it is not dogmatic, should not be rejected or thought light of. - *On the authority of the Fathers in determining the literary genre of the sacred books.* (T.4 C.2 A.2 TH.12 N.258-264) - The literary genre of a book is connected essentially and intrinsically with the true sense of the sentences of the book. For the sentences have a completely different meaning, if it has another literary genre. - Accordingly, if the Church and the Fathers can judge rightly about the true sense of the Holy Scriptures, they ought to be able to judge concerning the literary genre of the sacred books. - *The position of the Magisterium on literary genres of different Scriptural books:* - See [[Biblical Commission]] on Gospel of John, Isaiah, first chapters of Genesis, Psalms, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts (D 3416 - 3584). - surely a sign that the questions about the literary genre of the sacred books is wholly contained within the area of the Magisterium of the Church, and so of the Fathers. - *On the authority of the Fathers in determining the messianic places in the O.T.*: - if the Fathers agree unanimously, so that they consider a passage to be messianic, the passage will have to be considered messianic, at least in a typical way. - this does not prevent the Fathers from developing different interpretations of the texts which means we do not have to accept them, since they are diverse and do not have a unanimous consensus. - ex. on Isa. 53:7. - *IV. The meaning of the Church is known also from the agreement of a doctrine with other revealed doctrines or from the analogy of faith:* - [[Leo XIII]], [[Providentissimus Deus]]: ""for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter. Hence it follows that all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the second writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church" - See [[Pius X]], [[Lamentabili]] - [[Augustine]]: "But when the words seem to make Scripture ambiguous, the first thing to do is to see whether a false distinction or pronunciation has been made. Therefore if after paying careful study it remains uncertain, he will examine how it should be distinguished and how it should be pronounced; *then let him consult the rule of faith, which he can find in the clearer places in Scripture and in the authority of the Church*..." - *V. On the authority of interpreters*: - [[Leo XIII]], [[Providentissimus Deus]]: “The study of Scripture has always continued to advance in the Church, and, therefore, these commentaries also have their own honorable place, and are serviceable in many ways for the refutation of assailants and the explanation of difficulties. But it is most unbecoming to pass by, in ignorance or contempt, the excellent work which Catholics have left in abundance, and to have recourse to the works of non-Catholics—and to seek in them, to the detriment of sound doctrine and often to the peril of faith, the explanation of passages on which Catholics long ago have successfully employed their talent and then labor. For although the studies of non-Catholics, used with prudence, may sometimes be of use to the Catholic student, he should, nevertheless, bear well in mind—as the Fathers also teach in numerous passages—that the sense of Holy Scripture can nowhere be found incorrupt outside of the Church, and cannot be expected to be found in writers who, being without the true faith, only gnaw the bark of the Sacred Scripture, and never attain its pith” - See Clement of Alex., *Stromata* 7,16; [[Origen]], *De principiis* 4,8; *In Lev*. hom.4,8; [[Tertullian]], *De praescrip­tione* 15f.; St. Hilary, *In Matt*. 13,1. # On the Values of Holy Scriptures --- Treats of the values or usefulness of Sacred Scripture. Not dogmatic *per se*, but a *kerygmatic* consideration. *Source*: STS 1b, treatise IV, chapter III, articles I-III. ## On the Literary Value: - [[Leo XIII]], [[Providentissimus Deus]]: "indeed, all those who have a right to speak agree that there is in the Holy Scripture an eloquence that is wonderfully varied and rich, and worthy of great themes. This St. Augustine thoroughly understood and has abundantly set forth. This also is confirmed by the best preachers of all ages, who have gratefully acknowledged that they owed their repute chiefly to the assiduous use of the Bible, and to devout meditation on its pages." ## On the Supernatural Values in Holy Scripture: - *From Holy Scripture itself*: see T.4 C.3 A.2 N.269-275 for Scriptural support. - the usefulness and efficacy of the sacred books are abundantly clear. - See 1 Tim. 4:13; 2 Tim. 3:15 - 16 - In Holy Scripture there is a light shining on all the paths of life. - In Scripture there is comfort during this mortal life. - There is nothing surprising concerning the *efficacy of the Word of God*. - *From the Church Fathers*: see above for quotations. - Some select quotations: - [[Augustine]]: "A man speaks more or less wisely as he is more or less proficient in the Holy Scriptures." - [[Jerome]]: "Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ"; "'Therefore whoever is very strong in disputation, and has been fortified with the testi­monies of the sacred Scriptures, he is a defender of the Church"; "If there is anything, Paula and Eustochium, that preserves a wise man in this life, and helps him to maintain a peaceful soul amidst the pressures and trial of this world, I think it is above everything else meditation on and knowledge of the Scriptures ...."; "Love knowledge of the Scriptures and you will not love the sins of the flesh"; "The conversation of a priest should be based on the reading of the Scriptures"; "Love the holy Scripture and wisdom will love you; love her and she will serve you; honor her and she will embrace you." - *From the Sovereign Pontiffs:* See above. # On the Reading of Holy Scripture T.4 C.3 A.3 N.284-288 ## On the regulation by the Church: - *The reading of the Bible is regulated by the Church.* - It is not needed by all without distinction. - The reading of some passages by youths is not lacking in a certain danger. - to prevent a dangerous subjectivism in the private interpretation of individual readers - *de facto* the free reading of Scripture is the cause of division among the Protestant sects. - This has caused not an increase in *love* for the Holy Scriptures, but rather has diminished it. - *Contra:* - *Pasquier Quesnel:* Clement XI (in 1713) condemned in the constitution *Unigenitus Dei Filius* these errors (D 2479-2485): - "The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all" - "The sacred obscurity of the Word of God is no reason for the laity to dispense themselves from reading it." - "The Lord’s Day ought to be sanctified by Christians with readings of pious works and above all of the Holy Scriptures. It is harmful to wish to restrain a Christian from this reading." - "It is an illusion to persuade oneself that knowledge of the mysteries of religion should not be communicated to women by the reading of sacred books. Not from the simplicity of women, but from the proud knowledge of men has arisen the abuse of the Scriptures and have heresies been born." - "To snatch away from the hands of Christians the New Testament or to hold it closed against them by taking away from them the means of understanding it is to close for them the mouth of Christ." - "To forbid Christians to read Sacred Scripture, especially the Gospels, is to forbid the use of light to the sons of light and to cause them to suffer a kind of excommunication." - *Synod of Pistoia*: (D 2667) - "The doctrine that asserts that only a true incapacity can dispense from the reading of Sacred Scripture and that adds that the obfuscation of the first truths of religion that has developed because of the negligence of this precept continues to spread, (is) false, rash, disturbing to the peace of souls, and condemned on another occasion in Quesnel." ## The Church has never general forbade the the reading of Holy Scripture - They are frequently used in Mass and the Divine Office. - They have always been recommended for the private reading of monks and others (also nuns), as various synods and monastic rules directed. - it is not surprising if they are found in such abundance in the ecclesiastical libraries of the Middle Ages. ## The Church at times restricted the reading of Holy Scripture in the ver­nacular languages. - i.e. at the synods of *Toulouse* (1229), *Tarragona* (1234) and *Oxford* (1408). - *History of Church law:* - 1559: *Index of Paul IV*: reading of the Bible depended on permission from the Roman Inquisition. - 1564: *Index of Pius IV (according to fourth rule of Trent):* anyone could receive permission from his Bishop or the inquisitor at the recommendation of his pastor or confessor. - 1585-1590: *Index of Sixtus V:* the Apostolic See gave permission - 1596: *Index of Clement VIII*: approval of the Roman Inquisition was required. - 1757: *Benedict XIV*: permitted the approved versions containing notes from the holy Fathers. - 1831-1846: *Gregory XVI*: published the decrees of Trent and of Clement VIII. - 1897: *Leo XIII*: made his own without restrictions the norms given by Benedict XIV. - 1917: *Canon Law:* requiring for versions in the vernacular language notes and at least the permission of a bishop (cn. 1391). generally forbade editions and versions of the sacred books produced by non-Catholics; the use of them "is permitted only for those who are involved in some way in theological or biblical studies, provided that the same books have been edited faith­ fully and completely, and that the dogmas of the Catholic faith are not attacked in their introductions or notes" (cn. 1399-1400). ## The Church recommends the reading of Holy Scripture also in the vernacular language: - [[Benedict XV]], [[Spiritus Paraclitus]]: recommended the daily reading of Holy Scripture, following the example of St. Jerome, who also urged mothers and virgins to do such reading; and in the same place is praised the proposal "to put into the hands of as many people as possible the Gospels and Acts, so that every Christian family may have them and become accustomed to reading them... " - [[Pius X]]: strongly approved the sodality of St. Jerome, which promoted the habit of reading and meditating on the holy Gospels. - [[Pius XII]], [[Divino afflante]]: “Let them (Bishops) favor therefore and lend help to those pious associations whose aim it is to spread copies of the Gospels, among the faithful, and to procure by every means that in Christian families the same be read daily with piety and devotion; let them efficaciously recommend by word and example, whenever the liturgical laws permit, the Sacred Scriptures translated, with the approval of the ecclesiastical authority, into modem languages...” ## On how to read Holy Scripture: - *The Imitation of Christ*, I.5: “All Holy Scripture ought to be read with that spirit with which it was made. We must rather seek for profit in the Scriptures than for subtlety of speech.” - *Praxis:* - 1) Read Holy Scripture with that reverence with which the Church listens to the reading of the Gospel in a Solemn Mass. - [[Leo XIII]], [[Providentissimus Deus]]: "Finally, We admonish with paternal love all students and ministers of the Church always to approach the sacred Writings with reverence and piety; for it is impossible to attain to the profitable understanding thereof unless the arrogance of 'earthly' science be laid aside, and there be excited in the heart the holy desire for that wisdom 'which is from above.'" - 2) Listen to the Lord *speaking to you*, as Mary Magdalen at the feet of Jesus listened to him speaking to her. - 3) Study plan proposed by St. [[Jerome]]: 1) Psalter; 2) Proverbs; 3) Ecclesiastes; 4) Job; 5) Gospels; 6) Acts and Epistles; 7) Prophets; 8) Heptateuch; 9) Kings and Chronicles; 10) Ezra and Esther; 11) Canticle of Canticles. - 4) Read the sacred books using the liturgical cycle (Mass and Divine Office).