|
C l a s s i c A p o l o g e t i c s
THE TRUTH OF SCRIPTURE
By C. LATTEY, S.J.
|
This Rock
Volume 5, Number 1
 January 1994 
|
|
|
THIS essay is not concerned with the truth
of Scripture merely in the same way that one might test the trustworthiness
of any other books. In the case of non-biblical works, one would usually
try to discover whatever other evidence there was bearing upon the
subject in hand and, after considering it carefully, examine the particular
book in question with a view to discovering how far it squared with
all that other evidence now available.
The result might be to convince the student that the work was thoroughly
reliable, or else that it was thoroughly unreliable, or again that
its historical value lay somewhere between these extremes, perhaps
nearer the one, perhaps nearer the other.
But the conclusion would always be made a posteriori--that
is to say, it would be the direct result of an investigation made
into all or most of the statements involved and would depend upon
the investigator having been able to satisfy himself that all or most
or some definite proportion of them were false or true. Such is (speaking
roughly) the purely human and historical method of estimating the
truth of any human writing.
Now, when it comes to assuring ourselves of the full extent of the
truth of Holy Scripture, we rest our conclusion upon totally different
grounds. We believe with the certainty of faith that it can contain
no formal error.
This is an a priori conviction; we might have it before we
ever read a word of Scripture, and very many have it who have never
studied Scripture seriously. It is based upon the fact that Almighty
God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived, is the principal author
of Holy Writ. This is the Catholic doctrine of inspiration, which
is the foundation of what is to be said here about the truth of the
Scriptures.
Inspiration
The definition runs as follows:
"Biblical inspiration is a charismatic enlightening of the intellect
and motion of the will and divine assistance bestowed upon the sacred
writer, to the end that he may write all those things and only those
things which God wishes to be written in his name and to be delivered
as such to the Church."
"Charismatic." This convenient word is taken from
the so-called charismata (or "gifts") of
1 Corinthians 12, which bear some likeness to inspiration, though
inspiration itself is not discussed there. Two points should particularly
be noticed.
l. The word implies that inspiration is not given for the benefit
of the individual inspired, at all events primarily, but for the sake
of the Church; the Old Testament was written for the sake of the Jews
as well.
2. It also implies that inspiration is a transient action, in this
resembling actual graces. It does not last beyond the time during
which God is having written what he wishes written. It is liable to
interruption, since a work would not usually be completed in one sitting.
Later copies or translations of the inspired work are not themselves
inspired in the strict sense of the term.
"Divine assistance." This, as distinguished from
the motion of intellect and will, includes all the outward circumstances
needed for the writing of the work. Inspiration is not merely a spiritual
action upon the soul; it is not complete until the work intended by
God is actually written, for which a supply of writing materials and
many other outward circumstances are necessary.
"Delivered as such to the Church." This means in
the main that biblical inspiration is revealed by God to the Church
and that at the same time he gives to the Church the right and duty
of teaching the fact of that inspiration. This fact of inspiration
is part of the deposit of faith, which was closed with the end of
the apostolic age. Almighty God may have inspired other books, but,
if so, he has not entrusted the Church with the right and duty of
proclaiming this fact, nor can she put forth any infallible teaching
to that effect.
If anyone thinks that such a book as the Imitation of Christ
must have been inspired, he is free to do so, and his opinion is not
contrary to the Catholic faith, but nobody else is bound to follow
his opinion, which would rest purely upon such arguments as he could
bring up in his favor. The Church would not be very likely to interfere,
unless an individual contended for the inspiration of a book quite
unworthy in some way or other of Almighty God, so that there would
be cause to prevent disrespect to the divine majesty.
For clearness also, it may be repeated that antecedent revelation
is not necessary for inspiration; Almighty God can guide the intellect
and will of the sacred writer without a revelation properly so called--indeed
the writer may not even be conscious that he is being inspired. But
the inspired book, when completed, may truly be said to contain consequent
revelation--that is to say, revelation that is the essential consequence
of inspiration, because the statements come to us in the name and
with the authority of God himself.
It may be well also to remind the reader that this biblical inspiration
is not at all the same thing as prophetic inspiration, which latter
does not necessarily involve any writing at all, but does involve
a revelation, together with a mission from God to communicate that
revelation to some other person or persons, usually (in the Old Testament)
to the Chosen People.
Inerrancy
So far there has been mention only of the truth of
Scripture, but we must now turn our attention to the more technical
term "inerrancy," which is far too convenient to be left
out from these explanations. By inerrancy is meant the absence of
formal error, a definition which now calls for comment.
In the first place we notice that it is a negative term, like infallibility,
to which we shall shortly be comparing it; it is the absence of something.
This way of treating the subject is far simpler and clearer and indeed
is often adopted in other connections also, when the object is to
vindicate the truthfulness of persons or statements. What finally
destroys the claim to truth is the proof of error. Again, in a certain
sense, error is something more tangible than truth.
To illustrate this, we may take the case of many a poem or novel;
we might be puzzled to say exactly where was the truth in it, but
if somebody said that the author was a liar, we should be prepared
at once and with certainty to repudiate the charge. And so it is with
Holy Writ. "Who hath understood the mind of the Lord?" So
Paul cries twice over (Rom. 11:34; 1 Cor. 2:16; cf. Isa. 40:13), and
we ourselves have far better reason than he for eschewing such presumption.
We cannot always give the exact sense and force of a passage of Holy
Scripture and at the same time prove it to be true, but, if someone
claims to prove positively that there is a real mistake in Holy Scripture,
we generally have no great difficulty in finding a flaw in his argument.
Even if we did have great difficulty in so doing, we should still
believe that the flaw was there.
It must be borne in mind, though, that it is God's meaning that is
in question, not that of the human writer who is God's instrument;
he too cannot always "understand the mind of the Lord" and
indeed, like the rest of us mortals, may be said never to understand
it fully. All that we can hope for is that it may be understood better
and better as time goes on. In particular, the New Testament has helped
greatly to a deeper understanding of the Old, according to the saying,
Novum in Vetere latet: Vetus in Novo patet ("The New
Testament lies hidden in the Old; the Old lies revealed in the New").
Two illustrations may be offered of the above principle. The Epistle
to the Hebrews opens with the truth that of old God spoke through
the prophets (translating quite literally) "in many portions
and in many ways." As an example of one of these "many ways"
we may take the prophecy by Caiaphas in John 11:50.
He speaks with all the rudeness said by the Jewish historian Josephus
(Jewish War, 2:8:14) to be characteristic of the Sadducees,
to which party the high-priestly families largely belonged (cf. Acts
4:1, 5:17). "Ye know nothing at all," he says, which is
equivalent to saying, "You are talking nonsense"; he goes
on to say, "neither do you consider that it is expedient for
you that one man should die for the people, and the whole nation not
perish." If we had no further guidance from the Evangelist in
the matter, we should be inclined to say simply that he had the wrong
idea that our Lord would stir up the Jews to rebellion and therefore
had better be put to death himself beforehand, because otherwise the
Romans would cause the whole nation to perish.
But we know from John's comment that Caiaphas was unwittingly delivering
a message from God, inasmuch as it was in the divine plan that Christ
should offer himself in sacrifice for the redemption of the Jews (and,
as John adds, of "the scattered children of God" also).
It was through Christ's atoning death that all the Jews who were to
go to heaven should be saved, whether in the time of the Old or New
Testament.
The above is an example taken from prophetic, not biblical, inspiration;
we may turn to the latter for an example of God speaking "in
many portions"--that is to say, revealing often only a part
of the truth, for which the Jews were more ready. In the Book of Malachi
it is prophesied that the Old Testament sacrifices are to be rejected
by God: "For, from the rising of the sun, even unto the going
down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there
is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation"
(Mal. 1:11).
The objection has been raised that the prophet did not foresee the
sacrifice of the Mass. That may well be true, though it cannot be
proved; but even if it is true, it is no less true that the above
lines contain a true prophecy, which is found to be fulfilled only
in the Mass. Almighty God, for his own good reasons, revealed only
a part of the truth, but this should have been enough to prevent Protestants
from saying that the Mass is contrary to Holy Scripture. Indeed, they
cannot give a satisfactory explanation of the lines.
Formal error
At the beginning of the previous section inerrancy
was defined as "the absence of formal error," a definition
which now demands a fuller explanation. By formal error is meant a
mistake or untruth in the objective meaning of the words, an expression
which again calls for some explanation.
The truth of Holy Scripture is so much attacked nowadays that it is
necessary to be very careful and precise in its defense. By the "objective"
meaning we intend to exclude any subjective ideas of their own that
some rationalists may try to read into the text, although they are
not really there. We may be faced, for example, with an airy remark
that the writer of the book of Genesis obviously had quite wrong ideas
about scientific matters. Well, possibly he had, but that does not
convict him of formal error.
Our only inference would be that, if his ideas were wrong, the Holy
Ghost kept him from committing himself to them when he was writing
the book of Genesis. And many passages of Scripture are quoted as
being wrong which can be justified, once we examine them with care
and reverence. Within the space of this essay, it is only possible
to speak in rather general terms and lay down some important principles.
The "objective" meaning, then, is the meaning truly contained
in the words. This meaning will usually, of course, be fairly obvious,
but sometimes careful reading will be needed to discover it--sometimes,
indeed, but only rarely, prolonged study and accurate scholarship.
There are cases, in fact, where it has not proved possible to attain
to absolute certainty, at all events up to the present time.
The Biblical Commission, it may be noticed, has evidently not thought
the time ripe as yet for determining the method of interpretation
to be applied to some books of Scripture. In 1905 it dealt with two
methods of meeting difficulties, chiefly in the historical books;
in neither case did it prohibit them, but merely required safeguards
that the methods were justified by the objective meaning of the words.
The first proposal was to treat some passages as "implicit quotations";
that is to say, the sacred writer would be supposed merely to be quoting
documentary sources, without committing himself to them, so that it
would not matter if there were errors in such passages. He would merely
be reporting the errors of others.
The Biblical Commission in its answer required (1) that there should
be solid proof that the writer really was making a quotation and (2)
that he was not approving the words or making them his own, so as
to be committing himself to them. If, that is to say, the objective
meaning of the biblical words clearly implies the objective truth
of what is supposed to be quoted, then there must be no formal error
in the quotation.
The other answer dealt with a question of literary form. In the case
of books usually looked upon as historical, may it be accepted as
a principle of correct interpretation that sometimes either in whole
or part they are narrating, not history properly so called and objectively
true, but what bears the appearance only of history, in order to signify
something other than the strictly literal or historical meaning of
the words?
The answer is negative, except in the case, not easily or rashly to
be admitted, where it is proved by solid arguments that the sacred
writer wished to present not true history properly so called but,
under the appearance and form of history, a parable or allegory or
some meaning different from the strictly literal or historical meaning
of the words, always supposing that such an exception and interpretation
is not against the mind of the Church and with proper submission to
her judgment. An obvious parallel from modern English literature would
be the historical novel, a mixture of fact and fiction of which there
are many examples, such as some of the works of the late Msgr. Robert
Hugh Benson.
The scope of inerrancy
It will be understood from what has gone before that
the scope of inerrancy is universal; wherever a statement is made
in Holy Scripture, there the objective sense of the words is true.
Toward the end of last century a few Catholic writers wished to limit
unduly the scope of inerrancy, the most distinguished among them being
Cardinal Newman.
In the Nineteenth Century for February, 1884, he wrote an
article, "On the Inspiration of Scripture" (pp. 185-199),
wherein he suggested that obiter dicta, casual and parenthetic
remarks, need not be inspired and need not be true; he even seemed
to suggest that truth, necessary and infallible, may be considered
to be limited to matters bearing on faith or morals. He wrote, however,
"unreservedly submitting what I have written to the judgment
of the Holy See," and the adverse judgment of the Holy See on
the main issue is clearly expressed in Providentissimus Deus.
To Providentissimus Deus, the great encyclical of Pope Leo
XIII upon biblical studies, we shall have occasion to return. It may
be said at once, though, that it insists strongly upon the fundamental
principle of divine authorship. The essential question to ask is,
who has written the Bible, not why he has written it. The mere fact
that a statement does not directly touch upon faith or morals is no
reason for doubting its truth, when it comes to us as a statement
from Almighty God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived. Nor is
it possible (if one may reverently write in this way) that he should
have produced some obiter dicta without adverting to the fact
that they were untrue.
It may be asked and has been asked, what does it matter, if some sentences
that bear no relation to faith or morals should prove untrue? Why
bother about these unessential and irrelevant matters? To this it
must be answered that the essential and relevant fact about such sentences
is that they have God for author; deny that, and then they are Scripture
no more, and we have nothing left us but purely human documents, and
incidentally in that case the Church could only be considered a purely
human society, herself without divine authority or truth, because
she would be wrong in respect of a fundamental article of faith.
In the second place, we must say once again, "Who hath understood
the mind of the Lord?" We must not be in such a hurry to measure
God's purposes by our own shortsighted guesswork; if it may be said
so reverently, we might be more ready to give him the benefit of the
doubt.
Though, on the other hand, we must beware of calling "mystery"
too often and too easily, often we can understand something of the
divine plan if we meditate upon it well. What seem irrelevant details
may be found, for example, to give us a more vivid picture of the
background of the prophetic preaching, and the history of the Chosen
People is full of lessons for us if we will but attend to them. What
does Paul say? "Whatsoever things were written aforetime [that
is, in the Old Testament] were written for our instruction, that through
patience and through the comfort of the scriptures we may have hope"
(Rom. 15:4).
Words reported
In the discussion of formal error mention has been
made of an answer of the Biblical Commission dealing with the suggestion
that some passages might be treated as "implicit quotations";
a difficulty arising from such a passage might be met by assuming
that the writer was merely reporting the words (right or wrong) of
others. Such a suggestion was based on what is certainly the right
way to treat explicit quotations, recognized for such beyond all doubt.
The principle here involved needs some further explanation, which
will be best understood if it takes the form of concrete examples.
Let us take an extreme case, which will make the matter all the clearer.
John reports in his Gospel that many of the Jews said of Our Lord,
"He hath a devil and is mad" (John 10: 20). Now, it is clear
that the mere fact that this sentence occurs in Scripture does not
make it true; what is true is that many of the Jews uttered the sentence.
And so we come to an important distinction: Where the words of some
person or persons are reported in Scripture, inerrancy is to be found,
not necessarily in the words reported, which may be true or false,
but in the accuracy of the report. In such a case we are sure of the
truth of the narrative (veritas narrationis), but not of the
words narrated to have been spoken (veritas narrati).
This is obvious in the instance just given, but is not always so readily
realized where the words themselves are not palpably false. Thus,
in the note upon Acts 7:16 in the Westminster Version of the Sacred
Scriptures it is said that "Stephen seems to confuse the cave
of Machpelah, bought by Abraham from Ephron the Hittite (Gen. 50:13),
with the piece of ground at Shechem bought by Jacob from the sons
of Hamor (Jos. 24: 32)." A reference is given to Acts 7:24, where
a somewhat similar difficulty arises, and is discussed at some length.
A true report is given of Stephen's words, but there is no sufficient
reason to suppose that he was infallible, and his memory appears to
have been at fault.
It is the Catholic view that the apostles (differing in this from Stephen)
enjoyed a personal infallibility in the teaching of faith and morals,
not necessarily depending at all times upon an immediate revelation,
any more than papal infallibility is in need of such a revelation,
though Almighty God may at times use this means to guarantee it if
he chooses.
Our Lord's infallibility, on the other hand, was universal, because,
as the Nicene Creed says, he was "true God of true God."
The words which he is reported in the Gospels to have spoken are therefore
necessarily true, not in virtue of biblical inspiration and inerrancy,
which only guarantee a true report of them, but in virtue of his Godhead.
The point is worth noting in regard of such a book, for example, as
Dr. Cadoux's work, The Historic Mission of Jesus, in which
he denies our Lord's infallibility, without any attempt to make out
that the Gospels seriously misrepresent him in the crucial doctrines.
His chief objection appears to be to our Lord's doctrine of hell (pp.
344-345), although one would have thought that the divine government
of the world could hardly be vindicated without some appalling punishment
for the appalling crimes committed in these last years. It would be
out of place to discuss such an issue here; it is much to our purpose,
however, to notice that it is our Lord that is said to have erred,
not the Bible.
The dogma of inerrancy
Now that (as may be hoped) a fairly adequate idea
has been secured of the essential nature of inerrancy, it is time
to make it plain that the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is an article
of faith. It has already been explained that this doctrine follows
from the fact that Almighty God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived,
is the principal author of Holy Writ.
This is evidently true, but it is not quite the whole truth; it must
be added that biblical inerrancy is an article of faith in its own
right. This means to say that Almighty God has not left it to us to
draw the conclusion, obvious though it is, from the fact of inspiration,
but has himself revealed the truth. Hence we do not believe in biblical
inerrancy simply because we see with our human reason that it is logically
involved in the belief in another article of faith; but about inerrancy,
as about inspiration, we believe God directly. That is the essence
of an article of faith, taken absolutely in itself, apart from any
possible preliminaries or accompaniments: to believe simply upon the
authority of God revealing.
The doctrine of biblical inerrancy has never been in serious doubt
in the Church; there have been no controversies about it worth mentioning.
From the earliest times it has been so much taken for granted, even
by the Protestants, that not much attention has been paid to it until
quite recent times. It was with the advent of so-called Liberal Protestantism
and of agnosticism and of "the higher criticism" that the
truth of the Bible came to be called in question and that in consequence
the Catholic defense of the Bible came to receive increasing attention
and to be better organized.
In this country [England] the most important historical landmark was
probably the appearance in 1890 of Lux Mundi, edited by the
late (Anglican) Bishop Charles Gore. It ran through twelve editions
in little over a year, and the Encyclopedia Britannica truly
remarks in its article upon him that "it is largely due to its
influence, and to that of the school it represents, that the High
Church movement developed thenceforth on Modernist rather than Tractarian
lines." Gore abandoned the inerrancy of Holy Scripture, and the
next year, in his Bampton Lectures at Oxford on "The Incarnation,"
the infallibility of Christ also.
A full theological proof of the inerrancy of Scripture cannot of course
be attempted here. The serious student may be referred to the great
work, De Inspiratione Sacrae Scripturae, by Father Christian
Pesch, S.J., published by Herder in 1906, with an important supplement
published in 1926, bringing the treatment up to that date.
In the first place it may be noticed that the inerrancy of the Old
Testament is clearly set forth in the New. Fr. Pesch, in his Praelectiones
Dogmaticae (vol. I, ed. 3, no. 606; Herder, 1903) has calculated
that such phrases as, "It is written," or "The Scripture
saith," occur about 150 times in the New Testament with reference
to the Old and always with the implication of inerrancy. It may be
enough here to mention our Lord's own use of the expression in Matthew
4:4, 7, 10. He uses even stronger words in John 10:35, where, after
quoting the Old Testament, he remarks, to use the translation in the
Westminster Version, "the Scripture cannot be evaded."
Paul has an even stronger and quite surprising remark upon the
same subject, for, so far as words go, he attributes the divine foreknowledge
to the passage of Scripture itself which is based upon it. "The
Scripture," he writes, "foreseeing that it was through faith
that God would justify the Gentiles, foretold to Abraham that `in
thee shall all the nations be blessed'" (Gal. 3:8). In the
same way the divine purpose of salvation is imputed to "the Scripture"
in Galatians 3:22. This much must suffice for the New Testament.
The testimony of Catholic tradition to the doctrine could fill volumes,
but at least one striking passage may be quoted here, which has behind
it a manifold authority of the greatest possible weight. Thomas Aquinas,
in his Summa Theologiae (I:1:8 ad. 2), quotes a letter from
Augustine to Jerome (nowadays usually numbered 82) in which he writes,
"Only to those books of Scripture which are called canonical
have I learnt to pay awe and honor of such a kind that I believe most
firmly that no author of them has committed any error in writing them."
He goes on to express his belief that his view of the matter is also
Jerome's. Thus the greatest of the Latin Doctors takes it for granted
that "the greatest of Doctors in the exposition of the Sacred
Scriptures," as the Church calls Jerome upon his feast, will
agree with him upon the doctrine of inerrancy, and Thomas Aquinas,
who now possesses the greatest authority of any single Doctor of the
Church, likewise agrees with him so fully as to quote him, as do likewise
Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus and Pope Benedict XV
in Spiritus Paraclitus, both of which encyclicals now call
for mention.
In modern times Providentissimus Deus, the great biblical
encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, the Magna Carta of the study of Holy
Scripture, the golden jubilee of which falls into this year [1943],
has not only made fruitful provision for the advance of such study,
but has asserted more strongly and clearly than ever the fundamental
doctrines which underlie the whole subject. After insisting (as we
have already seen) that in the matter of inerrancy the essential question
is not why the Bible was written, but who wrote it, it proceeds to
lay down the principle that it is as impossible that error should
be in Holy Scripture as it is impossible for God to be the author
of any error.
In the dogmatic part of Providentissimus Deus Pope Leo is
defining the relevant doctrines for the whole Church, clearly intending
that his teaching should be accurately followed both in principle
and practice by all Catholics whatever in their treatment of Holy
Scripture.
The matter has not often been discussed at all fully, but to the present
writer it appears that all the conditions for papal infallibility
are here verified, so that this teaching must be held by all. A later
encyclical issued by Pope Benedict XV in 1920, Spiritus Paraclitus,
pressed home the doctrine of biblical inerrancy and closed the way
to some evasions, but, having regard to the limits of available space,
it must be enough here to have made respectful mention of it.
The Church and the Bible
It is indeed the doctrine of inerrancy that creates
the difficulty; it is there, if one may use the homely phrase, that
the shoe pinches. Consequently, it is there also that the vigilance
of the Church and the Holy See has most been needed. Many would have
no great difficulty in any abstract doctrine of biblical inspiration,
if it were not for the very practical and concrete applications which
the doctrine finds in biblical inerrancy, applications which for one
reason or another they feel unable to accept.
In the first place, it must be realized that the Church has the right
both to make such applications herself and to control the treatment
of Holy Scripture by her children. All that belongs to Catholic faith
and morals falls within her province, so that it is her right and
duty, not only to teach the doctrine of inerrancy in the abstract,
but to see that it is not violated in the concrete. This is quite
evident where the Scriptures themselves are dealing with faith and
morals; but even where they are treating with quite different topics,
such as facts of history or science, it is still the duty of the Church
to see that they are not interpreted in such a way as to involve formal
error.
In such cases the right of the Church to issue a decision upon the
interpretation is indirect and negative, being based, not upon the
nature of the questions themselves (seeing that they are not in themselves
questions of faith or morals), but upon the inspiration and inerrancy
of the passages involved. In this way the right to intervene is indirect;
it is also negative, because it remains true that it is not the function
of the Church to decide questions of mere history or mere science,
but only to rule out of court explanations which cannot be reconciled
with biblical inerrancy. Still by way of safeguarding inerrancy, the
Church may even lay down what is the true meaning of the passage or
the possible meanings, but (in matters, as has been said, which do
not directly concern faith and morals) without going beyond what belongs
to the interpretation of the passage. Ulterior questions of history
or science do not concern her.
It must not be inferred from this that the Church is always willing
and able to give an immediate and infallible answer to any difficulty
that may arise; she has received no promise that justifies such an
expectation. There has been a certain development in her doctrine,
as may be seen, for example, in Cardinal Newman's famous Essay
on the Development of Christian Doctrine, which in a sense brought
him into the Church.
Doctrines have taken time to mature; the doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception, to take an obvious case, could hardly be perfectly understood
until that of original sin had been clearly defined. And in much smaller
questions, including those of a biblical character, it is sometimes
through the tentative answers of Catholic theologians and scholars
that the full truth finally comes to be clearly and authoritatively
set forth. In other cases it may happen that such a satisfactory solution
is not quickly or easily found, and indeed there still are and doubtless
always will be biblical problems that have not yet found their definite
solution. But even so, it remains the right and duty of the Church
to forbid solutions which she sees to offend against Catholic faith
or morals and more particularly against biblical inerrancy.
It is not only the interpretation of the Bible, however, but the Bible
itself that falls under the care of the Church as the guardian of
Catholic faith and morals. It is for the Church to decide what is
Scripture, and this means that it is her right and duty, not merely
to determine and teach the canon of Scripture, as has been explained,
but also to safeguard the text of Scripture.
It is the function of textual criticism to make known the exact text
of Scripture, but this must be done with proper submission to the
authority of the Church, to whom it certainly belongs to prevent erroneous
omissions, additions, or changes. Speaking generally, she does not
carry this supervision into minute details, but only checks mistakes
of some importance. To her children who belong to the Latin rite she
offers the Latin Vulgate as a translation substantially faithful and
safe in faith and morals. In her Eastern rites Greek and Arabic and
other languages are used in the liturgy and for other sacred purposes.
Catholic apologetic
In all that has been said so far the purpose has
been to set forth the full Catholic doctrine in regard of biblical
inerrancy and in regard of any other subjects which it has been necessary
or useful to bring into the discussion. It is now time to explain
that there is also another way of treating Holy Scripture which is
very important for the proper proof and defense of the Catholic position.
This is usually said to be the apologetic way of treating it.
It does not mean to say that Catholics feel any need of apologizing
for Holy Scripture in the ordinary sense of the word (far from it),
but that this treatment of Holy Scripture is essential to Catholic
apologetic. The word apologia in Greek (as in Plato's Apologia)
means a speech or writing in defense of a person or cause, and this
meaning has been taken over into Latin (as in Cardinal Newman's Apologia),
and our word "apology" is also used in this sense. It is
this meaning, too, which must be given to the term "apologetic"
as used above: Catholic apologetic means the defense of the Catholic
position, but "defense" taken in a wide sense, involving
the proof of that position no less than answers to objections against
it.
The apologetic treatment of Holy Scripture, as we shall see, must
be adopted in answering certain objections, but it is chiefly necessary
in proving the divine mission of Christ and of the Church. This proof
is part of any course of scientific theology, but no Catholic can
be said to be properly instructed who does not understand something
about it. It represents the passage from reason to faith.
What can be known by the light of reason and is taught in the course
of Catholic philosophy is presupposed; it embraces such subjects as
the nature of human knowledge and the existence of the soul and of
Almighty God, so far as God and the soul can be known by reason. Nowadays
such truths as these need to be taught to all children at school,
together with the solid grounds for holding them; it is not easy to
bring them home to the young, or for that matter to their elders either,
but, in the present state of ignorance and indifference in the world
at large, Catholics are not safe in their faith without some grounding
in these fundamental truths of reason.
It is these truths which must be supposed as having been learnt, whether
in a scientific course of philosophy before the ecclesiastical student
comes to the scientific course of theology or in a more popular course
of instruction before a corresponding course of religious doctrine.
This popular course, again, may be one given to children at school,
or to Catholic adults who have the good sense and zeal to desire it
(as, for example, in the Catholic Evidence Guild), or to converts
who are practically learning these truths for the first time as the
foundation to the more strictly theological part.
This much then presupposed, we wish to show that Christ had a divine
mission from God. We cannot take it for granted that he is God or
that the Church is infallible, because by so doing we should involve
ourselves in the vicious circle of which we are so often accused;
we should be presupposing in our argument the very conclusion which
we are setting out to prove. What we really do is to proceed to show
(so far as the time and other circumstances allow) that the Gospels
are reliable historical documents, after which we proceed to use them
as such. The Gospels are chiefly needed, but some other writings,
both in the Bible and out of it, can usefully be included in the study
if this be reasonably possible.
It may be said shortly (since we are not dealing with Catholic apologetic
as such) that mainly from the Gospels, shown to be reliable documents,
we prove that our Lord claimed to have an absolute mission from God
which all were bound to accept and that he proved his claim in various
ways, but especially by his miracles. Upon the strength of that claim
he founded his Church and endowed it with the threefold power of teaching,
government, and ministry: It is infallible in teaching faith and morals;
it is a supreme society, subject in its own sphere to no earthly ruler;
it exercises a ministry of sacrifice and sacrament. A part of the
Church's infallible teaching, as we have sufficiently seen, is her
doctrine of biblical inerrancy.
The doctrine of biblical inerrancy thus supposes much already proved
and may not be presupposed in proving it. As has been explained above,
it would involve a vicious circle to suppose that the Gospels
cannot contain any formal error; such a claim could be justified only
if the doctrine of biblical inerrancy had been already proved. It
is not essential to prove even that the Gospels do not contain formal
error. It is not essential, for example, in order to prove Christ's
Resurrection, to show that there is absolutely no discrepancy in the
four Gospel accounts. Discrepancy in minor points between independent
accounts does not invalidate their testimony to some important event
in which they all agree.
In the same way, for apologetic purposes it is not necessary to prove
the absolute and entire infallibility of Christ; that follows only
from his divinity, which can be left out from the apologetic course
and left over for the dogmatic treatises. Some, indeed, prefer to
prove Christ's claim to divinity itself in apologetics, but this seems
unwise, because it hinders more than it helps; one must at once bring
in the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, in order to meet the Jewish
and Muslim objection that there cannot be two gods.
We can prove that Christ was worthy of absolute acceptance as a religious
teacher, but it is not necessary to show that even in remarks of no
religious import upon matters in themselves indifferent he was incapable
of formal error. It should be remarked, however, that the rejections
of Christ's infallibility already mentioned imply formal error in
his religious teaching and call for an apologetic as well as a dogmatic
refutation.
In conclusion, it may briefly be indicated that this apologetic treatment
of Holy Writ is approved by the Holy See. To give but one example,
the [Pontifical] Biblical Commission (May 29, 1907) lays it down that
the evidence is sufficient to prove that John was the author of the
Fourth Gospel, even "abstracting from the theological argument"--that
is to say, not appealing to the words of the Gospel precisely as inspired
or to the authority of the Church in various pronouncements which
would have some bearing on the question. It is the duty of the lecturers
in our Catholic seminaries, therefore, and of other Catholic teachers
to show that there is sufficient "apologetic" (that is,
merely literary and historical) proof that John wrote the Gospel which
passes under his name.
It has been said earlier in this section that the apologetic treatment
of Scripture must sometimes be adopted in answering difficulties.
If, for example, it were said that Paul taught the old Protestant
theory of merely imputed justification, without any inward transformation
of the soul by sanctifying grace, it would not be a very satisfactory
answer to bring up the decrees of the Council of Trent and to say
that the apostle's doctrine must square with them.
It is a poor compliment to Scripture to suppose that it can only be
defended a priori in this way; it is plain enough when read
carefully and under competent guidance and is meant in the main to
support Catholic doctrine, not to be supported by it. And to support
Catholic doctrine it must be treated apologetically, without the proofs
being drawn from Catholic doctrine itself.
Biblical interpretation
In the preceding sections the attempt has been made
to explain the Catholic doctrine of biblical inerrancy in its general
principles; in conclusion, something may be added about the application
of those principles. When we think of truth or inerrancy in connection
with the sacred books, we are apt to fasten our attention too exclusively
upon historical truth and even then to take too narrow a view even
of the narratives of events.
The Bible is an Oriental library, written, it is true, under divine
inspiration with a sacred purpose, but we can safely say that that
sacred purpose was not to produce scientific history in the modern
Western sense, nor yet to forestall the exact phraseology of modern
science, or the methods of up-to-date journalism, or the dry-cut argumentation
of scholasticism. The wider the literary experience of the reader,
especially in Oriental literature, the more easily he will find himself
in touch with Holy Writ.
Poetry to a large extent is the expression of human emotion and fancy,
rather than "a banquet of unmitigated fact." The Psalmist
desires the triumph of God's cause, which is the cause of Israel;
he prays for victory, which he depicts at times in all its horror,
but his cry for vengeance does not reach beyond the grave. He depicts
Jehovah in vivid imagery, which yet tells us much of the divine nature.
Natural phenomena the sacred writer describes as they strike him.
If we can speak of the sun rising and setting, without committing
ourselves in our words to a false physical theory, so also can he.
When therefore it is said that at Joshua's word "the sun stood
still in the midst of heaven" (Jos. 10:13), it is enough that
it appeared to do so, just as it is enough for us that the sun appears
to rise. More than one guess has been made as to what really happened,
but we are not told enough to be at all certain.
The inerrancy of Holy Writ extends to morality no less than to truth.
The history related in it is not always edifying, nor is it intended
to be so. We have in fact a terrible summary of Old Testament history
from our Lord himself in the parable of the householder who let out
his vineyard to husbandmen (Matt. 21:33-46); they maltreat or kill
the servants sent to receive his dues and finally murder his son.
No less terrible are the stories presented of the Jews by Stephen
in Acts 7 and of Gentiles and Jews in Romans 13. Other passages might
be mentioned. But the divine purpose, as Paul shows in the Epistle
to the Romans, was working itself out, and the record, as he says,
was written for our instruction and comfort and hope (Rom. 15:4);
there is another side to the story, and from the whole we can derive
much help.
It is impossible to speak here of more than a very few passages, whether
in regard of inerrancy or morality; it must be enough to say that
for a valid objection on the score of morality it would be necessary
to prove both that the deed was wicked and that the inspired writing
approved of it. Jephthah's sacrifice of his daughter in accordance
with his vow, to mention just one incident, is related without the
slightest praise (Judges 11:30-40) and was certainly wicked.
It is the doctrine of inerrancy that makes it possible for the devout
Catholic to read his Bible without misgiving. It is good that he should
advance in the understanding as in the love of it and read what is
easier first, without courting difficulties, but above all he should
never forget that it is a gift from our heavenly Father, coming to
us with the authority of him who can neither deceive nor be deceived.
C. Lattey, S.J., professor of Sacred Scripture at
Heythrop College (now Heythrop Pontifical Athenaeum) in Oxfordshire,
England, was president of the Society for Old Testament Study. He
contributed the articles on Wisdom, Jeremiah, and Philippians to the
1953 Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, This essay was
written in 1943.
|
