New Testament contains Christ's statements according to which He
founded an ever-living tribunal of doctrine which decided the question
of what books are, and what books are not inspired, whenever there is
any doubt about such books. Perhaps you will say: "But is this not
arguing in a circle--a vicious circle, as philosophers say? You prove
the existence of the Church as the tribunal to determine what books
belong to the Sacred Scriptures from the words of the Bible; and then
you turn about and prove the inspiration of the Bible from the
authority of the Church." Now mark the difference. When in my first
argument I refer to the Bible as containing Christ's statement and the
commission given to His Apostles, I am taking the testimony of the
Bible, not as an inspired or divine book, but simply as a trustworthy
historical record which tells us the fact, repeated by several
eye-witnesses and sincere men, such as the evangelists and apostolical
writers, that Christ, of whose divinity they were convinced, had said
and emphasized the fact that He meant to found a Church. And as that
Church was to have the divine spirit abiding in it, guiding its
decisions, it came naturally within the province of that Church to
define whether certain books were to be regarded as really inspired by
that Holy Spirit. Thus the Church placed upon these books the mark and
sign-manual of that commission which she had unquestionably received.
But I am constrained, for the sake of completing our present aspect of
the subject, to say something on the character and extent of that
divine element which Jews and Christians recognize when they accept the
Sacred Scriptures as the word of God.
VII.
THE SACRED PEN.
We have seen that the Biblical writings bear the unmistakable impress
of a divine purpose. The nature of that purpose is likewise clearly
enunciated on every page of Holy Writ. Man in his fallen condition
stands in need of law and example, of precept and promise. These God
gives him. We read in Exodus (Chap. iii.) that He first speaks to
Moses, giving him His commands regarding the liberation and conduct of
His people out of Egypt. Later on, in the desert on Mount Sinai,
"Moses spoke, and God answered him" (Chap. xix. 19); and "Moses went
down to the people and told them all" (Ibid. 25). Next we read (Chap.
xxiv. 12) that the Lord said to Moses: "I will give thee tables of
stone, and the law, and the commandments which _I have written, that
thou mayest teach them_."
Here God announces Himself as the writer of "the Law and the
Commandments," although we receive them in the handwriting of Moses.
Is Moses a mere amanuensis, writing under dictation? No. He is the
intelligent, free instrument, writing under the direct inspiration of
God. In this sense God is the true author or writer of the Sacred
Scriptures, making His action plain to the sense and understanding of
His children through the medium of a man whom He inspires to execute
His work.
How does this inspiration act on the writer who ostensibly executes the
divine work? We answer: _God moves the will of the writer, and
illumines his intellect, pointing out to him at the same time the
subject-matter which he is to write down, and preserving him from error
in the completion of his committed task_.
Looking attentively at this definition of Scriptural inspiration, a
number of questions arise at once in our minds. God moves the will,
enlightens the mind, and points out the subject-matter which the
inspired writer commits to paper. Is the writer under the influence of
the divine impulsion so possessed by the inspired virtue that he acts
without any freedom, either as regards the manner of his expression or
the use of previously acquired knowledge concerning the subject of
which he writes?
I answer: No. God moves the will of the writer; He does not annihilate
it or absorb it, unless in the sense that He brings it, by a certain
illumination of the intellect, to a conformity with His own. Hence the
manner and method of expression retain the traces of the individuality
of the writer, that is to say, of his views and feelings as determined
by the ordinary habits of life and the range of his previous knowledge.
The idea of the divine authorship of the Sacred Scriptures by no means
requires that the truths which God willed to be contained therein could
not or should not have been otherwise known to the inspired writers:
"Their use of study, their investigation of documents, their
interrogation of witnesses and other evidence, and their excuses for
rusticity of style and poverty of language show this only, that they
were not inanimate, but living, intelligent, and rational
instruments--that they were men, and not machines.... They were
employed in a manner which corresponded to, and which became the
nature, the mode, and the conditions of their being. Previous
knowledge of certain truths by men can be no reason why God should not
conceive and will such truths to be communicated by means of Scripture
to His Church.... Hence the idea of inspiration does not exclude human
industry, study, the use of documents and witnesses, and other aids in
order to the conceiving of such truths, so long as it includes a
supernatural operation and direction of God, which effects that the
mind of the inspired writer should _conceive_ all those truths, and
those only which God would have him communicate."[1] And herein lies
the difference between inspiration and revelation, the latter being the
manifestation of something previously unknown to the writer.
The second question, which naturally occurs in connection with the one
just answered, is whether we are to consider that the words, just as we
read them in the Bible, are inspired in such wise that we may not
conceive of the sacred text having any other meaning than that to which
its _verbal expression_ limits it.
There are many reasons why we need not feel bound to accept the theory
of literal or _verbal inspiration_ of the Bible, although such opinion
has been defended by eminent theologians, who wished thereby to defend
the integrity of the sacred volume against the wanton interference with
the received text on the part of innovators and so-called religious
reformers.
In the first place, the theory of verbal inspiration is not essential
to the maintenance of the absolute integrity of a written revelation.
That revelation proposes truths and facts, and whilst the terms
employed for the expression of these truths and facts must fit
adequately to convey the sense, they admit of a certain variety without
thereby in the least injuring the accuracy of statements. This is
applicable not only to single words, but to phrases and forms of
diction, and to figures of illustration.
Secondly, the sacred writers themselves abundantly indicate the freedom
which may be exercised or allowed in the verbal declaration of divinely
inspired truths. Many of them repeat the same facts and doctrines in
different words. This is the case even with regard to events of the
gravest character, such as the institution of the Blessed Eucharist, in
which there can be no room for a difference of interpretation as to the
true sense.
St. Matthew (xxvi. 26-28), for example, records the act of consecration
by Our Lord on the eve of His passion in the following words: "Take ye
and eat: This is My Body.... Drink ye all of this, for this is My
Blood of the new Testament, which shall be shed for many for the
remission of sins."
St. Mark (xiv. 22-24) writes: "Take ye. This is My Body.... This is
My Blood of the new Testament, which shall be shed for many."
St. Luke (xxii. 19-20) says: "This is My Body, which is given for
you.... This is the chalice, the new Testament in My Blood, which
shall be shed for you."
St. Paul (I. Cor. xi. 24-25) has it: "This is My Body, which shall be
delivered for you.... This chalice is the new Testament in My Blood."
These four witnesses cite very important words spoken by our Lord on a
most solemn occasion. St. Matthew was present at the Last Supper. He
wrote in the very language employed by our Lord, and we have every
reason to believe that he could remember and wished to remember exactly
what our Lord had said on so important a subject, especially when he,
with the other Apostles, was told to do the same act in remembrance of
their Master when He should be no longer with them in visible human
form. St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. Paul nevertheless vary the
expression of this tremendous mystery in all but the words: "This is My
Body." They drew their knowledge of the form of the institution of the
Blessed Sacrament from St. Peter; at least we know that St. Peter
revised and approved of St. Mark's Gospel,[2] and St. Paul and St. Luke
evidently obtained their knowledge of the Christian faith from a common
source, which the chief of the Apostles controlled. They had every
opportunity to consult St. Mark, and there might have been reason for
doing so since they wrote in Greek, whereas St. Matthew retained the
Hebrew idiom, but evidently neither they nor St. Peter deemed a literal
or verbal rendering of the sacramental form essential, provided the
true version of our Lord's action was faithfully given.
Furthermore, the claim of verbal inspiration implies a necessity of
having recourse to the original language in which the inspired writers
composed their works, since it is quite impossible that translations
can in every case adequately render the exact meaning conveyed by an
idiom no longer living. But the necessity of referring to the Hebrew,
Chaldee, or Greek text in order to verify the true sense of an
expression would place the Bible beyond the reach of all but a few
scholars, for whose exclusive benefit the generally popular style of
the Bible forbids us to think they were primarily intended.
Finally, we have the indication by writers of both the Old and New
Testaments that what they wrote was not conveyed to them by way of
dictation, but that the divine thought conceived in their own minds was
rendered by them with such imperfections of expression as belonged
wholly to the human element of the instrument which God employed, and
could in nowise be attributed to the Holy Ghost, who permitted His
revelation to be communicated through channels of various kinds and
degrees of material form. Thus the writer of the sacred Book of
Machabees (II. Mach. ii. 24, etc.) apologizes for his style of writing.
St. Paul (I. Cor. ii. 13; II. Cor. xi. 6) gives us to understand that
his words fall short of the requirements of the rhetorician, but that
he is satisfied to convey "the doctrine of the Spirit."
[1] Vid. "The Sacred Scriptures; or, The Written Word of God." By
William Humphrey, S. J.--London, Art and Book Co., 1894.
[2] Clement Alex.--Euseb., H.E., II. xv. 1; VI. xiv. 6; XX. clxxii.
552. Also Hieron., De Vir. Ill., VIII. xxiii. 621, etc.
VIII.
THE MELODY AND HARMONY OF THE "VOX COELESTIS."
But, you will say, whilst it is plain that we need not adhere to the
text of Holy Writ so strictly as to suppose that each single word is
the only exact representation of the thought or truth with which God
inspired the writer, it seems difficult to see where you can draw the
line between the teaching of God and its interpretation by man who is
not bound by definite words. In other words, if verbal inspiration is
not to be admitted, how far does inspiration actually extend in the
formation of the written text?
I should answer that inspiration extends to the _truths_ and _facts_
contained in the Bible, _absolutely_; that it extends to the terms in
which these truths and facts are expressed, _relatively_. The former
cannot vary; the latter may vary according to the disposition or the
circumstances of the writer. It may be allowable to express this
distinction by a comparison of Biblical with musical inspiration.
Taking music, not as a mechanical art, but as an expression of the
soul, or, as Milton puts it, of
"Strains that might create a soul,"
we distinguish between the conception of the melody and its
accompaniment of harmonious chords. The former constitutes, so to
speak, the theme, the truth, or motive of the artistic conception,
which the composer seizes under his inspiration. When he goes to
communicate the expression of this musical truth or melody through the
instrument he at once and instinctively avails himself of the chords
which, by way of accompaniment, emphasize the musical truth which his
soul utters through the instrument, according to the peculiar nature or
form of the latter. These chords of the accompaniment are not the
leading motive or truth of his theme, but they are equally true with
it. They may vary, even whilst he uses the same instrument, but the
melody must ever observe the exact distances between the sounds in its
finished form, and cannot be altered without changing the motive of the
piece.
The inspiration of the Sacred Text offers an analogy to that of the
artist musician. The divine melody of truths and facts is definitely
communicated to the inspired composer of the Sacred Books. Sometimes
he sings loud and with strong emphasis, sometimes he barely breathes
his heavenly tones, yet they are no uncertain notes; they allow of no
alteration, addition, or omission. But in the accompanying chords he
takes now one set, now another, remaining in the same clef, ever true
to the melody, yet manifold in the variety of expressing that truth.
Even the seeming discords, which, taken by themselves, look like
errors, prove to be part of the great theme; when rightly understood
they are but transition chords which prepare us for the complete
realization of the succeeding harmony into which they resolve
themselves.
IX.
THE VOICE FROM THE ROCK.
Does the Church indorse the definition of Scriptural inspiration which
has been given in the two preceding chapters? The Church has said very
little on the subject of the inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures, but
enough to serve us as a definition and as an expression of its
limitations. The Councils of Florence and Trent simply state that "the
Sacred Scriptures, having been written under the inspiration of the
Holy Ghost, have God for their author." How much may be deduced from
this was made clear by the late Vatican Council (Constit., _de Fide_,
cap. ii.), which holds that "the Church regards these books (enumerated
in the Tridentine Canon), as sacred and canonical, not because, having
been composed through the care and industry of men, they were
afterwards approved by the authority of the Church, nor simply because
they contain revealed truth without error, but because they were
written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost in such a way as to
have God for their author...."[1]
By this definition two distinct theories of inspiration are censured as
contrary to Catholic teaching. The first is that which has been called
_subsequent_ inspiration, according to which a book might be written
wholly through human industry, but receiving afterwards the testimony
of express divine approval, might become the written word of God. This
teaching is not admissible inasmuch as it excludes the divine
authorship of the Scriptures.
A second theory condemned by the above clause of the Vatican Council as
untenable on Catholic principles is that which is called _negative_
inspiration. Its defenders hold that the extent of the divine action
in the composition of the Sacred Scriptures is limited to the exclusion
of errors from the sacred volume. This would restrict the value of the
truth revealed in the Bible to a mere exposition of human knowledge
containing no actual misstatements of fact.
[1] See on this subject P. Brucker's recently published work
"_Questions Actuelles d'Ecriture Sainte_," _par le R. P. Jos. Brucker,
S. J.: Paris, Victor Retaux_, which treats admirably this part of our
subject.
X.
A SOURCE OF GENERAL INFORMATION AND CULTURE.
Among the many interesting letters which St. Jerome has left us there
is one to Laeta, a noble lady of Rome, regarding the education of her
little daughter, Paula. An aunt of the child was at the time in
Bethlehem, where, amid the very scenes where our Lord was born, she
studied the Holy Scriptures in the Hebrew and Greek tongues, as was
then the habit of educated Christian ladies. St. Jerome would have the
child Paula trained in all the arts and sciences that could refine her
mind and lead it to its highest exercise in that singularly gifted
nature. To this end he bids Laeta cultivate in the child an early
knowledge of the Sacred Scriptures. With a touching simplicity the
aged Saint enters into minute details of the daily training,--how the
childish hands are to form the ivory letters, which serve her as
playthings, into the names of the prophets and saints of the Old
Testament; how later she is to commit to memory, each day, choice
sayings, flowers of wisdom culled from the sacred writers, and how,
finally, he [Transcriber's note: she?] is to come to the Holy Land and
learn from her aunt the lofty erudition and understanding of the Bible,
a book which contains and unfolds to him who knows how to read it
rightly all the wisdom of ages, practical and in principle, surpassing
the classic beauty of those renowned Roman writers of whose works St.
Jerome himself had been once so passionately fond that they haunted him
in his dreams.
It must not be supposed, however, that the judgment of so erudite a man
as St. Jerome in placing the study of the Sacred Scriptures above all
other branches of a higher education was based upon a purely
_spiritual_ view. He realized what escapes the superficial reader of
the inspired writings: that they are _not only_ a library of religious
thought, but, in every truest sense of the word, a compendium of
general knowledge. The sacred volumes are a code and digest of law, of
political, social, and domestic economy; a book of history the most
comprehensive and best authenticated of all written records back to the
remotest ages; a summary of practical lessons and maxims for every
sphere of life; a treasury of beautiful thoughts and reflections, which
instruct at once and elevate, and thus serve as a most effective means
of education. That this is no exaggeration is attested by men like the
pagans of old, who, becoming acquainted with the sacred books, valued
them, though they saw in them nothing of that special divine revelation
which the Jew and Christian recognize. We read in history how, nearly
three hundred years before our Lord, Ptolemy Philadelphia, the most
cultured of all the Egyptian kings, and founder of the famous
Alexandrian University, which for centuries outshone every other
institution of learning by the renown of its teachers, sent a
magnificent embassy to the High-priest Eleazar at Jerusalem to ask him
for a copy of the Sacred Law of the Jews. So greatly did he esteem its
possession that he offered for the right of translating the Pentateuch
alone six hundred talents of gold ($576,000), and liberty to all the
Jewish captives in his dominion, to the number of about 150,000 (some
historians give the number at 100,000, others at 200,000).
There exists a spurious account, ascribed to Aristeas, one of Ptolemy's
ministers, who is said to have accompanied the royal embassy to
Jerusalem for the purpose of urging the king's request. According to
this story, which is in form of a letter written by Aristeas to his
brother Philocrates, six rabbis, equally well versed in the Hebrew and
Greek languages, were selected by the high-priest from each of the
twelve tribes. The seventy-two rabbis were invited to the palace of
the king, who, whilst entertaining them for some time, publicly asked
them questions relating to civil government and moral philosophy, so
that by this means he might test their knowledge and judgment. Many of
these questions, curious and quaint, have been preserved, and are
intended to show the wisdom of Ptolemy and his desire to raise his
government to a high level of moral and political perfection. Among
the guests who were present at the king's table we find Demetrius
Phalereus, the famous librarian, Euclid, the mathematician, Theocritus,
the Greek poet philosopher, and Manetho, the Egyptian historian,
together with other equally learned and illustrious scholars and
literary artists.
Later on the seventy-two translators, according to the same tradition,
which has come to us through some of the old ecclesiastical writers,
were brought to the island of Pharos, where they went to work in
separate cells, undisturbed and living according to a uniform rule,
until the entire work of translation had been accomplished. Then the
results were compared, and it was found that the translations of all
agreed in a wonderful manner, and the Jews accepted it as a work done
under the special protection of Jehovah.
Whatever we may hold as to the accuracy of the above account and its
pretended origin, it is certain that the story was current before the
time of Christ, it being credited by Philo, who repeats it in his Life
of Moses, and by Josephus, as well as by St. Justin Martyr and others
of the early Christian Fathers. All agree that the Septuagint
translation was made about the time of Ptolemy, and that the Jews of
Alexandria and Palestine held it in equal veneration as a faithful copy
of the Mosaic books, whilst the pagans regarded it in the light of a
wonderfully complete code of laws--civil, domestic, and moral.
Reference has already been made to the Sacred Scriptures as
constituting the oldest and best-authenticated record of ancient
history. From it we draw the main store of our information regarding
the beginnings of human society in the Eastern countries of
Mesopotamia, early Chaldea, Assyria, Persia, Arabia, and Egypt, all of
which are grouped around the common centre, Palestine, where the
principal scenes of the Old and New Testament narrative are laid.
But it is not only in the departments of history and geography that the
Bible represents the most extensive and reliable source of information
hitherto open to the student of mental culture. The sacred books,
although never intended to serve a purely scientific purpose, have
within recent years become recognized indicators which throw light upon
doubtful paths in the investigation of certain scientific facts. Sir
William Dawson, one of the leading investigators of our day, has lately
published his Lowell lectures, in which he shows how science at last
confirms and illustrates the teaching of Holy Writ regarding geology
and the creation of man.[1] Similar conclusions are being daily
reached in different fields of scientific research, and the words of
Jean Paul regarding the first page of the Mosaic record, as containing
more real knowledge than all the folios of men of science and
philosophy, are proving themselves true in other respects also. We may
be allowed to cite here from Geikie's "Hours With the Bible" the
testimony of the late Dr. McCaul, who gives us a legitimate view of the
latest results of science as compared with the Mosaic record of the
Bible.