Compendium Theologiae Dogmaticae Tomus I: De Christo Legato Divino, De Ecclesia Christi, De Fontibus Theologicis

PRELIMINARY REMARKS.

105. We have seen that divine revelation is possible. The question now is whether God actually gave human beings positive revelation. This question is partly historical and partly philosophical. Historically, we ask about the external fact of revelation; philosophically, we ask about the internal character of this fact, whether it bears the marks of divine revelation.

Among the revelations said to have occurred, for the reasons indicated above (n. 26), the one especially worthy of consideration is that for which Jesus Christ is the author. We must first ask, therefore, what is historically established about this revelation.

When we are concerned with establishing a historical fact from past centuries, first of all we must secure the authority of the documents on whose testimony we rely. Among the documents at issue here, the four Gospels are the most important, because it is chiefly from them that we draw what we know about the life, words, and deeds of Jesus Christ. We must therefore deal with the genuineness of these books, and with genuineness alone, not with their inspiration or canonicity, because for the present we are considering these books not as dogmatic sources but simply as historical sources, like any other historical sources. We shall use other books besides the Gospels as documents of the period to which, by the consensus of scholars, they are assigned.

A second necessary question is whether the genuine books have come down to us uncorrupted, or intact. A third question is whether their authors are worthy of belief. We must therefore proceed in order, dealing with the genuineness, integrity, and credibility of the Gospels.

The question of the genuineness of a book is a historical question, which must be resolved chiefly by external criteria, that is, by a sufficient number of suitable witnesses. Internal criteria, drawn from the character of the book, come second and serve to confirm the external criteria, especially insofar as they show that nothing stands in the way of the book's genuineness.

Historical arguments based on human testimony are moral arguments. They do not establish metaphysical certainty but moral certainty, which is nevertheless real, provided the conditions required for a good moral argument are fulfilled.

ARTICLE I.

ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS.

Cf. Cornely, Introduct. in libros N. T., and, in general, Introductiones in S. Script. N. T.; Meignan, Les évangiles et la critique au 19ᵉ siècle², Paris 1870; I. Schaefer, Die Evangelien und die Evangelienkritik², Freiburg 1911; Bougaud, Schanz, and others in the books already cited above, before n. 26.

Proposition X. The four Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are genuine.

106. Position of the question. Everyone knows what our four Gospels are. The word Gospel, which is prefixed only to Mark's book, here means “good news”; this good news is the announcement of the messianic salvation expected by the Jews (cf. Lc 4, 16 sqq). The Gospels are not biographies of Jesus Christ, but brief accounts of what seemed necessary to explain messianic salvation to various readers. For this reason, the books are not called the Gospel of Matthew, and so on, but the Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Matthew, and so on. Nevertheless, the names attached to them indicate the authors of the books. At first, the word Gospel did not mean a written book but the preaching of Christian doctrine (Rom 1, 1 9 16). Later, those four books, too, were called Gospels. St. Augustine observes that it is better to speak of “four books of one Gospel” than of “four Gospels” (In Ioan. tract. 36, n. 1). Nevertheless, from the first centuries onward, the custom of speaking of four Gospels prevailed.

The Gospels are genuine if they were truly written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Antiquity gives unanimous testimony on this matter; Matthew and John are understood to be two apostles, that is, two immediate disciples of Christ, while Mark and Luke are disciples of apostles. The precise time of writing is not certain. Nearly everyone now admits that the first three Gospels (“Synoptics”) were written between the years 40 and 80, and John's Gospel near the end of the first century of our era. The Gospel of Matthew has been transmitted to us only in a Greek translation, made in the first century. Nearly all the witnesses speak exclusively of this translation.

107. Argument 1. From the testimony of the universal Church existing in the second century.

If the Gospels came forth from the bosom of the ancient Church, they must be considered genuine if that Church universally and without doubt regarded them as genuine. But it did so. Therefore.

As to the major premise: It was of the greatest importance to the ancient Church to know and testify which writings were genuine sources from which knowledge of Christ's words and deeds could be drawn, because these writings were the rule of faith and morals. Christians would therefore undoubtedly have resisted if anyone had tried to impose spurious and doubtful writings on them as genuine and certain in this most serious matter. Moreover, in the earliest times oral tradition was very much alive, because at the beginning this was almost the only way to spread knowledge of Jesus Christ and his teaching. Therefore, if shortly after the Gospels were published the testimony of the universal Church, dispersed throughout the world, attested their genuineness, this is more splendid proof of genuineness than exists for any profane book of antiquity, because it is public testimony about a matter concerning the whole Christian society. Such testimony, however, is already found from the second century onward and continues through the following centuries in an uninterrupted succession of witnesses.

108. As to the minor premise. Against Marcion, who had separated from the Church around the year 150, Tertullian insists that one must stand by apostolic tradition: «Certainly it will be established that that was handed down by the apostles which was held sacred in the churches of the apostles… I say, then, that in those churches—not only the apostolic churches now, but all those united with them in the fellowship of the sacrament—the Gospel of Luke has stood from the beginning of its publication, and this is the Gospel we chiefly defend… The same authority of the apostolic churches will also protect the other Gospels, which we have through them and according to them: I mean those of John and Matthew, although what Mark published is also affirmed to be Peter's, Mark being his interpreter; for they also usually attribute Luke's account to Paul» (Adv. Marcion. 4, 4 5). In the same work (4, 2) he testifies that Matthew and John were apostles, while Luke and Mark were apostolic men. This testimony comes from the African Church.

In Gaul, St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, who had been a disciple of St. Polycarp in Asia Minor (Polycarp himself a disciple of the apostles), and who wrote a great work against heresies between the years 180 and 190, no less emphatically insists that one must adhere to the tradition of the apostles: «For we did not learn the plan of our salvation from others than those through whom the Gospel came to us. They first proclaimed it, and afterward, by God's will, handed it down to us in the Scriptures, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith… Thus Matthew published a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language… Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down in writing what Peter had preached. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel that Paul preached. Later John, the Lord's disciple who also reclined upon his breast, himself published a Gospel while living at Ephesus in Asia» (3, 1). «There can be neither more nor fewer Gospels in number than these» (3, 11).

In the Alexandrian Church, Origen testifies that he received by tradition the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, «which alone, without controversy, are accepted in the whole Church of God under heaven» (In Matth. tom. I; In Luc. hom. 1; In lib. Iesu Nave hom. 7, n. 1; M 12, 857; 13, 829 1803).

Before Origen, Clement of Alexandria wished to admit as the words of Christ only those that «we have in the four Gospels handed down to us» (Strom. 3, 13; M 8, 1194); and he reports «a certain tradition about the order of the Gospels, which he had received from the older presbyters» (quoted in Eusebius, H. E. 6, 14).

In the Roman Church, Hippolytus often cites «the fourfold Gospel» (cf. Bonwetsch, Studien zu den Kommentaren Hippolyts, Leipzig 1897, 19 sqq). From the same Church comes the Muratorian Fragment, that is, a catalogue of the books that the Roman Church either accepted or rejected in the second century. Its beginning is missing. «The third book of the Gospel according to Luke. This Luke, a physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken him with him as one eager for the journey [or, for the letters], wrote it down in his own name in order; he himself, however, had not seen the Lord in the flesh. And [or “therefore”] he begins to tell the story from the birth of John, just as he was able to ascertain it. The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, one of the disciples… And so, although different beginnings are taught in the individual books of the Gospels, this makes no difference to the faith of believers, since by one and the same principal Spirit all things concerning the birth, passion, and resurrection have been declared in all of them» (Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons II, 139 sq; cf. Kirch, Enchir. n. 134 sq).

Older than all these witnesses¹, Justin Martyr speaks of «the memoirs of the apostles (ἀπομνημονεύμασιν), which are called Gospels» (Apol. I, n. 66), and says that these memoirs were written partly by the apostles and partly by their disciples (Dial. cum Tryphone n. 103). He does not state the authors' names, but he cites many passages from these memoirs, from which it follows that he admitted our four Gospels and no others. He also testifies that at Christian gatherings on Sundays the Gospels were read along with the writings of the prophets (Apol. I, n. 67).

One may add to these testimonies Tatian's Diatessaron, that is, a harmony of the four Gospels. This work, written around the year 170, shows that our Gospels had already been in use for a long time by that period.

Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, was an immediate disciple of the apostles. Around the year 125, according to Eusebius (H. E. 3, 39), he wrote five books “On the Interpretation of the Oracles of the Lord,” of which only a few fragments remain. In one of these he says of Mark that «Mark, Peter's interpreter, carefully wrote down whatever he had committed to memory, but did not set out in order the things said or done by the Lord (τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα). For he himself had neither heard nor followed the Lord. But afterward, as I said, he was with Peter, who used to preach the Gospel for the benefit of his hearers, not, however, to compose a history of the Lord's words (λόγων).» Of Matthew he says: «Matthew wrote the divine oracles (τὰ λόγια) in the Hebrew language; each person, however, interpreted them (ἡρμήνευσε) as best he could.» Nothing is read about Luke in the surviving fragments. A testimony about John is reported in the prologue to John's Gospel (from a ninth-century manuscript): «The beginning of the argument according to John. The Gospel of John was revealed and given to the churches while John was still in the body, as Papias, called Hierapolitanus, a beloved disciple of John, related in the Exoteric, that is, in the last five books.» Learned people judge this fragment in different ways (cf. Funk, in Papiae fragmentum 17, and Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons I, 898 sqq).

Therefore, such splendid testimonies are available for the genuineness of the Gospels that, unless these suffice, the genuineness of no ancient book can be proved (cf. Praelect. dogm. I, n. 128). Whoever denies this genuineness cannot plausibly explain how a consensus so firm and universal arose already in the second century, with no one objecting or doubting, and in such a way that the witnesses reach back to the very times of the apostles.

109. There are also many other very ancient witnesses who cite various passages from the four Gospels. In the edition of the works of the Apostolic Fathers prepared by Funk or others, the indexes indicate the words cited from Sacred Scripture. Omitting the less clear passages, the following may be gathered. The Epistle of Barnabas cites Matthew three times; Clement of Rome, Matthew once and Luke once; Ignatius of Antioch, Matthew four times and John once; Polycarp, Matthew four times, Mark once, and Luke twice; Hermas, Matthew six times, Mark twice, Luke once, and John twice. In these citations the Evangelists' names are usually not added; instead, general formulas are used, such as “as Scripture says,” “it is written,” or similar expressions. For example, in the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (8, 2) we read: «Do not pray as the hypocrites do, but pray as the Lord commanded in his Gospel: Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name…» and so forth, as read in Matthew 6, 9 sqq. Or Polycarp (2, 3): «Mindful of what the Lord said as he taught: Do not judge, so that you may not be judged,» and other things read in Matthew 7, 1 sqq. Thus, even in those short writings of the Apostolic Fathers the Gospels are already cited. Much more extensive citations are found among the Fathers called the Apologists. Read, for example, Justin Martyr's Dialogue, n. 100 sqq: Christ «is written in the Gospel to have said: All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and: No one knows the Father except the Son,» and so on, as in Matthew 11, 27. So many passages are cited in the second century that almost the entire Gospels could be assembled from them.

Add this practical use of the Gospels to those theoretical testimonies, and you will see that the genuineness of the Gospels cannot reasonably be doubted.

110. Argument 2. From the testimony of heretics of the second century.

According to Irenaeus and other Fathers, there were in the second century heretics who had a very strong interest in denying the genuineness of the Gospels. But no one dared to do so. Therefore, the Gospels must be considered genuine.

As to the major premise. Irenaeus (Contra haer. 3, 11, 7) writes: «Such is the firmness of these Gospels that the heretics themselves bear witness to them, and each of them, going forth from them, tries to confirm his own doctrine. The Ebionites, indeed, use only that Gospel which is according to Matthew, and from that very Gospel they are convicted of not thinking rightly about the Lord. Marcion, however, mutilating the Gospel according to Luke, is shown by the passages he still retains to blaspheme against the one God who exists. Those who separate Jesus from Christ, saying that Christ remained impassible while Jesus suffered, can be corrected if, with a love of truth, they read the Gospel according to Mark, which they prefer. But those who belong to Valentinus, using most fully the Gospel according to John to display their pairings, will be exposed by that very Gospel as saying nothing rightly… Since, then, those who contradict us bear witness to these Gospels and use them, our demonstration concerning them is firm and true.»

111. As to the minor premise. Among the heretics of the second century, the Gnostic Basilides (d. c. 130), who maintained that Jesus received divine power for a time, recounts his life «as it is written in the Gospels.» So says Hippolytus (Philosoph. 7, 27), who reports various things Basilides took from the Gospels (ibid. 7, 22 26 27). Basilides' contemporary was Valentinus, who used chiefly, though not exclusively, the Gospel of John, as is clear from Hippolytus (6, 35) and Irenaeus (1, 7, 4; 1, 8, 2; 1, 8, 5; 3, 11, 7). Heracleon, a disciple of Valentinus, wrote a commentary on the Gospel of John, from which Origen preserved fragments for us in his Commentary on the Gospel of John (M 14). Marcion did not deny the genuineness of the four Gospels, but said that the apostles themselves had been infected with Judaism, that the true doctrine of Christ could be drawn only from the writings of Paul and Luke, and that even from these the remnants of Judaism had to be removed. Tertullian wrote chiefly against Marcion (cf. Praelect. dogm. I, n. 109).

Therefore, the heretics did not deny the genuineness of the Gospels; rather, they chose one or another Gospel that they thought they could use for their own ends, then partly mutilated its sayings, partly adulterated them, and partly twisted genuine texts into a false sense. Since the Gospels were already being corrupted in these ways frequently before the middle of the second century, they existed much earlier and were regarded as genuine.

It can also be added that in the second century pagan writers wrote against the Gospels, such as Celsus, who published in the year 178 a book entitled Ἀληθὴς λόγος. In this book he says that he is citing everything from the sacred books of the Christians, which the disciples of Jesus had written. So Origen testifies (Contra Celsum 2, 13 15 16 74), and from his words it is clear that Celsus cites our Gospels (cf. Praelect. dogm. I, n. 102 sqq).

112. Argument 3. From internal reasons.

A book is to be considered genuine on the basis of internal criteria if its language, ideas, and circumstances of time and place correspond to the age and people to which it is ascribed. But the character of the Gospels is such. Therefore, the Gospels must be considered genuine.

As to the major premise. This argument is concerned not so much with the individual authors by name—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—as with the time and place of origin; that is, it shows that the Gospels, according to their internal character, entirely fit the age and region in which the narrated events are said to have taken place. An author who merely pretends to have lived at a certain time and in certain places will often betray his fiction by anachronisms and other indications, and all the more so the more the external customs, internal ideas, inclinations, and dispositions of the age in which he writes differ from those of the age he describes. Therefore, if a book is a faithful image of the times and customs it describes, the presumption in favor of its genuineness is very strong, even though this argument, when separated from external testimony, is scarcely ever conclusive.

113. As to the minor premise. a) On the character of the language. Although our Gospels, except for Matthew's book, were written in Greek, they descend from a Hebrew (Aramaic) source, because they report what was said and done among the Jews several decades before the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and of Jewish political power. Since the Greek language differs greatly from Hebrew, one should expect a priori that the Gospels, if genuine, would bear the stamp of a Hebrew character in their language. In fact, they do. The whole manner of speaking is simple, without artificial constructions, and instead of periods the parts of speech are joined by the particle and (the connective waw). There are many expressions that Greeks never use and scarcely understand. Such are the words raka, rabbi, Boanerges, Kephas, abba, korban, gehenna, etc. (Mt 5, 22; 23, 7. Mc 3, 17. Io 1, 42 etc.); such are the expressions “son of peace,” “son of light,” “kingdom of heaven,” and the like (Mt 3, 2; 23, 15. Lc 10, 6; 16, 8 etc.); and such are constructions like this: «Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to you, you are Peter (kepha), and upon this rock (kepha) I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven» (Mt 16, 18 19). Consider each detail; it will immediately be clear that from beginning to end nothing in these words has a Greek character: everything is Semitic. Such things, however, are read so often in the Gospels and other books of the New Testament that special vocabularies and grammars of Greek had to be written. On the other hand, Latin words were adopted, as befits writers living among Romans: Κῆνσος = census (Mt 22, 17), Καῖσαρ = Caesar, κεντυρίων = centurion (Mc 15, 39), τίτλος = titulus (Io 19, 19).

b) On historical knowledge. The Evangelists mention many things about civil and ecclesiastical officials only in passing, making it clear that they did not deliberately devote themselves to studying these matters. Nevertheless² their knowledge of matters and persons is so exact and so well confirmed by other historical sources that it cannot be understood how the Evangelists knew all these things unless they themselves took part in them or received them from immediate witnesses. Thus, for example, what Matthew or Luke recount about the Herodian family and the political division of the land of Palestine, about Pontius Pilate and other persons, is confirmed by Flavius Josephus (Antiq. 1, 17; 14, 14, 4; 17, 8, 4; 18, 3, 1; 18, 5, 1 sq).

c) The whole social life of the Jews is depicted in vivid colors: the factions of the Pharisees and Sadducees, the scribes and teachers of the law, the Jews' hatred of the Romans and expectation of a great leader who would free them from the Romans, and the discord between Jews and Samaritans. All these things are also found in Flavius Josephus, who was an eyewitness (Antiq. 12, 1; 17, 2, 4; 18, 1, 2 sqq. De bello iud. 1, 33, 2; 2, 8, 1; 2, 12, 3; 6, 5, 4; 7, 8, 1).

The customs of the Jews are described, such as strict observance of the Sabbath, frequent washings, and so forth. Matthew speaks of these matters as familiar to his readers; Mark adds explanations for the benefit of Gentile readers (cf. e.g. Mt 15, 1 sqq and Mc 7, 1 sqq). Various coins were in use because of the mixture of peoples in Palestine: Roman coins were asses and denarii (Mt 10, 29. Mc 14, 5. Lc 7, 41); Jewish coins were shekels (Mt 26, 15); Greek coins were the δραχμή, μνᾶ (Lc 15, 8; 19, 16).

d) Furthermore, if you recall how minutely the Evangelists often describe people's faces, actions, and movements, not artificially but in a very simple manner (cf. e.g. Io 13, 4 sqq; 18, 3 sqq), you cannot rationally doubt that they themselves saw those things or received them from those who had seen them. For when facts reach writers through many intermediate witnesses, they lose such vivid colors. Since, then, forty years after Christ's death the whole Jewish commonwealth had been overthrown and the circumstances described by the Evangelists had been changed into an entirely different state, it would not have been possible for later writers to recount things in this way. Nevertheless, the Evangelists who came later did not care to avoid apparent contradictions with the earlier ones, but honestly wrote the things they had seen or heard from witnesses. Forgers do not usually act in this way. Therefore, the genuineness of the Gospels is supported by internal criteria.

114. Objection I. The ancient writers invoked as witnesses to the genuineness of the Gospels said many things that are not accepted (for example, about chiliasm), and they lacked critical art. Therefore, they cannot be considered suitable witnesses.

I answer. I distinguish the antecedent: one or another of them held certain opinions that others did not accept, and in these matters they are not witnesses to universal tradition, I concede the antecedent; they all unanimously taught something as handed down that in fact was not handed down, I deny the antecedent. Hence, I deny the inference, because the cases are not on a par. The very example of chiliasm illustrates the difference well. Justin and Irenaeus took literally certain statements about the happiness of the messianic kingdom, which they knew other Christians interpreted allegorically. Thus, they themselves testify that others thought differently, and in fact very many Fathers reject all chiliasm (cf. Praelect. dogm. IX, n. 695 sqq). But with regard to the genuineness of the Gospels, all the witnesses are in unanimous agreement.

The claim about critical art is conceded insofar as the Fathers did not possess a scientifically developed critical art. But it is entirely false that they lacked sound natural critical sense and blindly accepted everything recounted about Jesus Christ. Many more Gospels were rejected as spurious in that age than were accepted as genuine. When Serapion (bishop of Antioch, 190–211) heard that in the church of Rhossus in Cilicia another Gospel besides our four was being read under the name of Peter, he wrote to those faithful: «We, brothers, receive both Peter and the other apostles just as we receive Christ himself. But those that falsely bear their names inscribed upon them we reject, as people who know and understand, since we have learned that our ancestors did not receive them at all» (Eusebius, H. E. 6, 12). Likewise, Tertullian recounts that in Asia a presbyter who had composed a false writing was convicted and deposed (De bapt. 17). The use of criticism can also be seen in the Muratorian Fragment and other documents.

115. Objection II. The greatest and most singular men are usually celebrated after death by mythical or legendary narratives. Therefore, it must be presumed that not everything recounted about Jesus Christ is genuine.

I answer. The whole premise can be conceded, and yet it does not follow rightly that our Gospels are mythical writings. Apocryphal Gospels existed from the second century onward, some heretical, others serving only pious curiosity. St. Irenaeus says: Heretics «bring forward an unspeakable multitude of apocryphal and spurious [adulterated] writings, which they themselves have fabricated, to amaze the foolish» (Contra haer. 1, 20, 1 sq). Hegesippus, in a work published after the year 160, «writes that some of the books called apocryphal were composed in his own time by certain heretics» (Eusebius, H. E. 4, 22). Origen says: «So that you may know that not only four Gospels but many more were written, from among which these that we have were chosen and handed down to the churches, let us learn this from Luke's own prologue… The Church has four Gospels; heresies have many… Only four Gospels have been approved… In all these matters we approve nothing else than that the Church, that is, only four Gospels, are to be received» (Hom. 1 in Luc.). The principal rule for distinguishing genuine Gospels from apocryphal ones was apostolic tradition and, in this sense, the authority of the Church, as St. Augustine expresses very briefly in these words: «I would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me» (Contra epist. fundam. c. 5; M 42, 176). Eusebius, speaking of apocryphal books, says: «No one who taught in the Church through the continuous succession from the apostles ever deigned to mention these books in his writings» as historical or theological sources (H. E. 3, 25).

Therefore, if fabulous accounts about Jesus Christ necessarily arose, they exist in the apocryphal books; and if critical art was necessary to distinguish genuine books from spurious ones, the Church exercised it in rejecting the apocrypha. All fair-minded people now concede that the Church's judgment was sound, and no one contends that apocryphal books can in any way be compared with the genuine Gospels.

116. Objection III. If the four Gospels are so certainly genuine, why have so many learned men denied or called their genuineness into doubt?

I answer. Because those learned men denied a priori the possibility of truly supernatural events. But no one who acknowledges the Gospels as genuine can consistently deny supernatural events.

Formerly, some did indeed try to explain naturally all the events recounted in the Gospels; among them Gottlob Paulus easily carried off the palm (Exegetisches Handbuch 1830). His “natural” explanation is so violent that it was received with laughter by everyone, including rationalists.

David Friedrich Strauss ridicules that explanation (Das Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet I³ 24 sqq 41 sq), and himself resorts to the theory of myths. But since myths arise only after some time, they exerted every effort to show that the Gospels did not appear until around the middle of the second century and were certain pious frauds. The “Tübingen school,” headed by Ferdinand Christian Baur (Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evangelien 1847), stands out especially in this matter. But its theories so clearly conflict with historical facts that they have been abandoned by everyone (cf. Cornely, Introd. I, 743 sqq; La science catholique, Arras 1894, 906 sqq). Others then devised other theories, but the matter has come to this: it is almost a war of all against all. Because they refuse to hear historical witnesses and instead set up their prejudices as principles, they do not reach agreement, and their disagreement shows a sure sign of error. Adolf Harnack found another escape; for in his books Chronologie der altchristlichen Literatur, Lukas der Arzt, and others, he in many respects returns to the old tradition and wants the origin of the Synoptic Gospels and other books and institutions of early Christianity to be sought in Jerusalem between the years 40 and 70, and thus the events recounted to be admitted; but he says that the Evangelists' judgments and explanations of these events cannot be accepted by us, since the Evangelists were superstitious men and hunters of miracles.

Thus one returns to a natural explanation, but one that is less crude and artfully concealed. The terror of the supernatural order that occupies these men's minds is not a trustworthy guide to finding the truth (cf. Praelect. dogm. I, 75 115).

ARTICLE II.

ON THE INTEGRITY OF THE GOSPELS.

Cf. Cornely, Introd. I² 307 sqq; critical edition of the New Testament by Westcott-Hort 1882 and thereafter; Tischendorf⁸, 1869, with Prolegomena edited by Gregory 1864–1890, and his Textkritik des N. T. 1900–1902; H. v. Soden, Die Schriften des N. T. I, 1902.

Proposition XI. The Gospels have come down to us substantially intact.

117. Position of the question. The integrity of a book is the same as its freedom from corruption. A book is intact when nothing written by its author is missing, nothing not written by him has been added, and no words or sentences have been changed. Integrity is either substantial or accidental. This distinction does not apply in the same way to poetic or rhetorical books as to historical or doctrinal books. The force and dignity of a poetic or rhetorical book may depend so much on its external form of expression that, if this is lost, the book is substantially corrupted. But if a book is being evaluated as a historical or doctrinal source, a mere change of form that does not affect the matter itself leaves the book substantially untouched, so that in this respect it remains intact, even if only a faithful translation survives. Likewise, if parts of a work have been lost, the surviving parts can nevertheless be intact in the sense that they contain what the author wrote from the beginning and are free from falsification.

The Evangelists' autographs perished in the first centuries; the question, therefore, concerns only copies. From the time the art of printing was invented, an intact text could be preserved without great difficulty. The difficulty was greater as long as manuscripts had to be copied by hand. Hence the chief question is whether the text remained intact in manuscript codices. This can be judged more easily the more codices there are from various parts of the world and the farther back in antiquity they reach. Other aids to textual criticism are translations of the Gospels into other languages, especially if they are very old, and then quotations from the Gospels by the Fathers and later writers. All these, when compared with one another, make it possible to know what the primitive text was. For it is impossible for the same corruptions to have crept into all copies, all translations, and all quotations throughout the world. Therefore, what is found everywhere certainly remained intact. Where there are variant readings, however, one must discern according to the rules of criticism which readings are certainly or probably genuine, and which are certainly or probably false or doubtful. The integrity of the Gospels must therefore be established in the same way as that of other ancient books; but the Gospels surpass all other ancient books in the number and antiquity of their codices. Critical investigations, too, have often been made with great care, variant readings have been collected, and critical editions have been made by comparing them, so that we can judge this matter with certainty.

We therefore say that, although there is an immense number of variant readings (they are counted up to 120,000 in the entire New Testament), the text has remained substantially intact with regard to the facts and doctrine of Christ treated in this work. Most variant readings are obvious slips of the pen; others concern only spelling, grammatical forms, the omission or position of an article, word order, and other details that do not change the meaning. Westcott and Hort judge that, if one considers the sense, scarcely a thousandth part of the New Testament is uncertain (The New Testament, introd. p. 2). There are only four passages in the Gospels that are at issue with regard to the matter itself in textual criticism: Lc 22, 43 sq, where Christ's bloody sweat is discussed; Io 5, 4, about the angel descending into the pool; and Io 8, 1–11, about the woman caught in adultery. These three texts are not necessary for the apologetic treatise. The fourth passage is the end of Mark's Gospel (16, 9 sqq), which some maintain was added by another hand. This text is indeed of some importance in apologetics; nevertheless, what it says is also said in other certainly genuine passages of the Gospels. Moreover, even if those verses were added by someone else, they were written in the age of the apostles (some attribute them to Aristion or another disciple of the apostles) and are already cited by writers of the second century.

With these points premised, let us examine the reasons why the Gospels must be said to be substantially intact.

118. Argument. Those books are to be called intact whose integrity is proved by a great number of witnesses and was from the beginning the object of special care by those who had an interest in preserving them intact. This is true of the Gospels. Therefore, the Gospels must be said to be intact.

Proof of the minor premise. a) More than three thousand codices are known, some containing the whole New Testament, others only parts or fragments. The oldest are those written in uncial letters; of these, about 114 are older than the tenth century, and four are assigned to the fourth and fifth centuries: the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus contain complete Gospels. In the Alexandrinus nearly all of Matthew's Gospel is missing, and a few passages of John are missing. The sixth-century Codex Bezae contains nearly all the Gospels; critics consider it to exhibit the form of the text that was in use in most of the Church in the third century. The ninth-century Codex Sangallensis contains all the Gospels and is very close to Codex Bezae. Other Gospel codices are the Laudianus of the sixth or seventh century, the Rossanensis of the sixth century, the Basileensis of the eighth century, the Harleianus and Hamburgensis of the ninth or tenth century, and the Cyprius of the ninth century. To these are added several hundred Gospel codices written in minuscule letters.

We can more easily understand what this large number of ancient codices means if we remember how inferior in number and antiquity are the codices of ancient profane authors, both Greek and Latin. For example, there is one ninth-century codex of Caesar and a few from the tenth to twelfth centuries. A large part of Tacitus's Annals survives in only one codex. Fewer than three hundred codices survive for those writers who were read most often, and all of them are much farther removed from the age of their authors than Gospel codices are from the Evangelists. The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are about three hundred years removed from the Evangelists. The first complete codex of Caesar, however, is about 900 years later; that of Thucydides, 1,300 years later; and the same holds for other ancient profane historians. Only Livy's first codex (not at all complete) is separated by just 400 years. Therefore, if the integrity of profane writers is not called into question, the integrity of the Gospels must all the more be admitted.

b) Many translations of the Gospels exist in various languages, some of which, such as the Sahidic and Old Syriac, were made in the second or third century. The Latin version read in the Vulgate is an old version corrected by St. Jerome. These translations are of great help in critically judging the text, and a certain conclusion drawn from comparing them is once again the substantial integrity of the Gospels.

c) Finally, in the works of the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers of the first three centuries, so many extracts or quotations from the Gospels are found that the Gospels can almost be reconstructed from them. Let us also recall that public reading of the Gospels at Christian gatherings, already attested by Justin, was always in use. As a result, the faithful often had accurate knowledge of them and could immediately notice any corruption. St. Augustine relates that great commotion arose among the people because a certain bishop had read Jerome's new translation in church (Epist. 71, n. 5). The way in which the holy Fathers cite the Gospels also makes it clear that they often quote them from memory, rather than copying from books. The Gospels began to be cited soon after they appeared, and in this they differ from profane authors; for example, Herodotus is first mentioned by Aristotle a hundred years after his death, and next by Cicero, that is, after four hundred years. Thucydides is first cited by Cicero, that is, more than three hundred years later. The same holds for other writers.

d) We do not therefore deny that corruptions of the text occurred already in the first centuries (cf. Cornely, Introd. I, n. 111); but, as is clear from critical editions, such corruptions are of a kind that not even one important fact in Christ's life or any of his doctrine is called into doubt in the Gospels. Moreover, the bishops watched with the greatest care to prevent corruptions from spreading further, especially if they had been made with heretical intent. For example, they fought so vigorously against Marcion's adulteration of Luke's Gospel that Marcion's work disappeared entirely. St. Irenaeus already protests that the Valentinians had inverted the order of words in Mt 11, 27 (Contra haer. 4, 6), and appeals to “accurate and ancient copies” (ibid. 5, 30). This and similar facts show how difficult it was to change even one sentence without others noticing and resisting. Certain men, such as Hesychius and Lucian, and especially St. Jerome, also devoted special effort to restoring the sacred text to its integrity, even in accidental details; many learned men in the following centuries, down to our own time, undertook the same labor. One fruit of their labors is that we know with certainty that the Gospels have come down to us substantially intact through the course of the centuries. No one denies this except those unbelievers who, while attacking the truth of the Christian religion for entirely different reasons, are wholly unfamiliar with New Testament criticism.

119. Objection I. Even with all the aids of criticism employed, we arrive at most, perhaps, at the form of the Gospels that was in use in the second century. But before that time many things not written by the Evangelists could have crept into the Gospels. Therefore, the integrity of the Gospels is not established.

I answer. I concede the major premise. As to the minor premise, the following must be said:

a) Corruptions are not to be asserted or supposed without cause, but must be proved. No such proofs have been brought forward thus far; indeed, they are excluded, because it is wholly improbable that all Christians silently allowed the principal books of the Christian religion to be corrupted in this way.

b) It cannot be understood how such corruptions could have penetrated all codices everywhere so completely that no trace of the ancient text remained anywhere in the world. In fact, nothing has ever been heard about a text of the Gospels substantially different from ours, although the holy Fathers began in the second century to speak against accidental corruptions. The uniformity of the Gospel text from the end of the second century onward cannot be explained if a substantially different text had previously been read in the Church. Since there is no mention or suspicion of a different text even among the earliest Fathers, no such text existed. What was said above (n. 112 sq) about the internal criteria of genuineness also excludes a later substantial change that would not immediately have revealed itself as such.

120. Objection II. The Gospels recount the institution by Christ of the Church, the sacraments, and other things. But these things were not instituted by Christ; they arose gradually later. Therefore, those accounts are a corruption of the primitive Gospels.

I answer. I distinguish the minor premise: this is the theory of the Modernists (cf. Denz. n. 2015 sqq 2054 sqq 2088 2100), I concede the minor premise; this is a historical fact, I deny the minor premise. And I deny the inference.

ARTICLE III.

ON THE CREDIBILITY OF THE GOSPELS.

Cf. H. Wallon, De la croyance due à l'évangile², Paris 1866; H. Boese, Die Glaubwürdigkeit der Evangelien, Freiburg 1895; F. Vigouroux, Les Livres Saints IV, l. 5, who demonstrates the truthfulness of each Evangelist.

Proposition XII. The writers of the Gospels are worthy of belief.

121. Position of the question. Since the Gospels are genuine and substantially intact, one thing more is required for them to be sources of historical faith: their authors must be such people as we can safely trust. We must trust those who can and wish to tell the truth. Therefore, it must be demonstrated that the Evangelists are such witnesses.

Those who say that the Gospels were written with a desire to deceive, such as Reimarus, Ferdinand Christian Baur, and others, rather deny their genuineness and say that the Gospels were composed in the second century and falsely attributed to the Evangelists. The Modernists are not far from this position, such as Loisy (Les évangiles synoptiques), who assert that the Gospels already contain many things reported by the very writers themselves that do not agree with Christ's doctrine, and that until the canon was definitively established the Gospels were subject to continual changes, so that what appears in them is no longer “the Christ of history” but “the Christ of faith,” very different from the historical Christ (cf. Denz. n. 2013 sqq 2096). Several writers have written against these theories, such as M. Lepin (Les théories de M. Loisy, Paris 1908). The Modernists call into question the genuineness, integrity, or credibility of the Gospels, relying not on historical reasons but on a priori hypotheses that they want to treat as postulates of critical art. Having proved the genuineness and integrity of the Gospels, we ask here only whether their authors could and wished to tell the truth.

122. Argument. The writers of the Gospels are worthy of belief if they could and wished to tell the truth. But they could and wished to tell the truth. Therefore.

Proof of the minor premise. a) The Evangelists either expressly affirm or tacitly presuppose that they report true historical facts. St. Luke says: «It seemed good to me also, having followed everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in order, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth of the things about which you have been instructed» (1, 3 sq). St. John says: «Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ» (20, 30 sq). And at the end of the Gospel: «This is the disciple who bears witness to these things and wrote them, and we know that his testimony is true» (21, 24; cf. 19, 35 and 1 Io 1, 1 sqq). Matthew and Mark, too, write as people who report historical facts and wish to teach human beings what they should know or believe about Christ's deeds and words. In this way, and no other, not as fictional narratives, the Church received and understood their writings from the beginning and throughout all the following centuries, and held them as the rule of faith and morals.

b) The Evangelists were able to tell the truth about the things they recounted. For, according to what we heard above (n. 108), Matthew and John were disciples of the Lord; Mark wrote the Gospel that Peter preached; and Luke followed immediate witnesses in addition to Paul's preaching. For the most part, the things they recount took place publicly before many people, and these were not savage and uncultivated people but Jews, Greeks, and Romans. Nearly all the things recounted are such that any person endowed with sound senses could have seen or heard them. If certain things are exceptions, such as those recounted about Christ's infancy, these could have been learned from trustworthy people. For the rest, these matters are of less importance in an apologetic treatise. Many miracles, too, were sensible events that could easily be perceived: for example, when a man born blind or other sick people were suddenly cured, when five thousand people were fed with five loaves, when water was changed into wine, and when Christ walked on the water. Christ's teaching, too, was presented to the whole people, not to learned and select men. The Evangelists could therefore rightly receive and report this teaching, even if perhaps they did not immediately penetrate its full force. The matters were indeed sublime, but their form was simple. Therefore, there is no reason to suspect that the Evangelists were deceived in recounting Christ's deeds and teaching.

c) Nor could the Evangelists deceive. For many witnesses to the things they recount were present. Jesus himself said to Annas: «I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in the synagogue and in the temple, where all the Jews come together, and I have said nothing in secret. Why do you ask me? Ask those who heard what I spoke to them; behold, they know what I said» (Io 18, 20 sq). St. Peter said to the Jews: «Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God among you through mighty works, wonders, and signs that God performed through him in your midst, as you yourselves know, him… you killed» (Act 2, 22 sq). And St. Paul said to Festus: «The king [Agrippa] knows about these things… for I do not believe that any of these things is hidden from him, since none of them was done in a corner» (Act 26, 26). Since so many witnesses were still alive when the Gospels were written, they would not have been silent if the Evangelists had recounted falsehoods. For the rest, what can be gathered from the Acts of the Apostles and other writings of the New Testament about Christ's life and teaching agrees with the Gospels. It would be irrational to suppose that all those writers were deceived or deceivers, and that none of them detected the deception.

Nor could the Evangelists have invented a doctrine so alien to the ideas of the people of that age and imagined a man so outstanding in word and deed and at the same time so different from those who were then held in reverence by the common people. The life and teaching of Jesus Christ is a miracle of the moral order; if it had not occurred, the Evangelists themselves would have performed a miracle by inventing something the like of which had never existed in the world, either before or since. If Christ's life and teaching were invented by idle men, never was there a more wondrous fraud, nor one carried out with more successful results. For a most noble doctrine, the firmest faith, the outstanding virtues of Christians, the overthrow of pagan religion, intimately bound up with ancestral customs, and the propagation and firmness of the Christian religion, victorious over so many attacks and persecutions down to our own time—in short, the perfect transformation of the whole moral and social order—would have been brought about by the fiction of certain unlearned men. Anyone who admits this is endowed with far greater credulity than the Christian faith requires.

d) The Evangelists lacked a motive for deceiving. No one is to be presumed a liar without cause; rather, this must be proved. But not only is the fraudulent intention of the Evangelists unproved; it is rather excluded. For preaching Christ was a matter full of danger in those times. Prisons, punishments, and death were prepared for Christ's disciples, both by Jews and by Gentiles, and especially for the preachers of his doctrine (cf. Act 4, 1 sqq; 5, 17 sqq; 6, 1 sqq; 12, 1 sqq; 16, 19 sqq). Therefore, neither hope of temporal gain, nor of honor, nor of people's favor, nor anything similar could have moved the Evangelists to deceive people with false accounts. At the same time, by their fraud they would have deserved the gravest punishments from God. What St. Paul says about himself applies to all of them: if the doctrine we preach is false, «our preaching is in vain, and your faith is also in vain; we are also found to be false witnesses of God… If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are the most pitiable of all people… Why are we also in danger every hour? If I fought with beasts at Ephesus in a human way, what does it profit me?… Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die» (1 Cor 15, 14 sq 19 30 32). But because the apostles and their disciples were so firmly persuaded of the truth of the things they preached, they gladly underwent disgrace, suffering, and death for Christ. Deceivers do not act in this way.

e) Finally, the manner of narration shows that they were truthful men. For it is simple and free from all artifice. They write against the evil desires of human beings and demand contempt for the world and self-denial. They do not conceal what is a disgrace to themselves, their teachers, or the cause they commend: Matthew's occupation, detestable to the Jews; the apostles' imperfections; Judas's betrayal; Peter's denial; the flight of all the disciples; everything disgraceful that Christ suffered; the rejection of the people of Israel; and the future destruction of the city of Jerusalem. They recount even the things that are most wondrous or dreadful calmly, without emotional agitation, and without rhetorical declamation. Compare the manner in which Flavius Josephus speaks about the Jews with the manner in which the Evangelists speak; the great difference between an advocate and a sincere narrator of the truth will immediately appear.

Therefore, it is certain that the Evangelists both could and wished to tell the truth, and that the Gospel narratives are worthy of belief.

123. Objection I. Those writers are not worthy of belief who recount the same things in different ways. But the Evangelists narrate the same things in such a way that their accounts cannot be reconciled with one another. Therefore, they are not worthy of belief.

I answer. Since for the present the question is not about the Evangelists as inspired writers but simply as historians, I distinguish the major premise: writers are not worthy of belief, at least not all of them, if they recount the same things in such different ways that the facts and teaching turn out to be substantially different, I concede the major premise; they are not worthy of belief if they differ only in minute and accidental details that do not affect the substance of the matter, I deny the major premise. It scarcely ever, or perhaps never, happens that various writers recounting many particular details report everything in precisely the same way down to the smallest point, because each person has his own manner of conceiving things and expressing what he conceives, and because people who see the same event or hear the same words usually all perceive the substance of the matter, while one attends more to this accidental detail and another to that. Nevertheless, prudent people do not for this reason call their credibility into question. Indeed, if the Evangelists had wished to deceive, they would have carefully tried to avoid every appearance of disagreement with the accounts of the other Evangelists. Since they did not do so, their sincerity is all the more commended.

I distinguish the minor premise: the Evangelists disagree with one another about accidental and minor details, I grant the minor premise; about substantial and serious matters, I deny the minor premise. The different Evangelists do not recount a different life and teaching of Christ, but the same one; and even with respect to many secondary matters, apparent disagreement can be reconciled. If this cannot be done with certainty in every case, there are nevertheless at least probable solutions, and in historical questions this is often all that can prudently be required.

124. Objection II. At least John's Gospel differs so much from the Synoptic Gospels that Jesus Christ seems to be quite different in the fourth Gospel from the one in the first three. Therefore, at least the fourth Gospel does not seem to be a trustworthy historical source.

I answer. Since John presupposed different readers and wrote for a different purpose than the Synoptics, there is nothing surprising in his choosing different material and using a different style of speaking. For John, writing near the end of the first century for people who had already been Christians for a long time, warns them against the errors of certain heretics who denied Christ's divinity, as appears from John's first epistle and the testimonies of the Fathers: Irenaeus (Contra haer. 3, 11), Epiphanius (Haer. 51, 12; 69, 23), and Jerome (De vir. ill. 9). For this purpose John chose, unlike the Synoptics, not what Jesus said in Galilee to the common people, but what he disputed in Judea against the teachers of the law. It is understandable why Jesus would speak differently to the learned and the unlearned. The same difference is also apparent in the Synoptics when Christ speaks to the Pharisees (cf. Mt 12, 24 sqq; 15, 1 sqq; Mc 7, 1 sqq; 11, 27 sqq). Likewise, in John Christ speaks differently with Nicodemus than with the Samaritan woman (Io 3, 1 sqq; 4, 5 sqq). What rationalists have often said—that Christ's divinity is preached in John, whereas in the Synoptics Christ is nothing more than an outstanding human being—is manifestly false; even the rationalists themselves increasingly concede that the Christ of the Synoptics is a divine being (cf. Knabenbauer, Commentar. in Ioan.² 33 sqq).

How could St. John remember such long speeches of Christ as the ones he recounts? The answer is that St. John could retain in his memory the things contained in those speeches, because they were very important matters that Jesus impressed very strongly, so that they were firmly imprinted on the disciple's memory. But even if John faithfully reports Christ's meaning, the form and construction of the words are his own, as he renders in Greek what he had heard in Aramaic. Therefore, he does not always present Christ's words verbatim, although without doubt the Evangelist often also translated the Lord's very words exactly into Greek (cf. Knabenbauer, l. c. 54 sq).

As for the individual questions about reconciling John's Gospel with the Synoptic Gospels, see the Introductions to Sacred Scripture and the commentaries. However the individual questions are resolved, the life and teaching of Christ remain substantially the same, and that is entirely sufficient for us in this treatise.

125. Scholium. Testimonies of certain ancient non-Christian writers.

In the earliest times, the Christian religion had relatively few and obscure adherents, about whom outside writers took no notice. But as their number gradually grew and the new worship became an object partly of wonder, partly of hatred and persecution, writers who were not Christians also began to speak about it. Let us hear at least some of what they said.

The Jew Flavius Josephus (d. after 93) writes: «At this time there was Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is right to call him a man. For he was a worker of wonderful deeds, a teacher of people who gladly receive the truth, and he drew many Jews and many Gentiles to himself. He was the Christ. When Pilate, on the accusation of the leading men among us, had condemned him to the punishment of the cross, those who had first loved him did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them alive again on the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and a thousand other wondrous things about him. And the tribe of Christians, named after him, continues to this day» (Antiq. 18, 3, 3). There is no manuscript of Josephus in which these words are absent; all the ancient translations repeat them, and ancient writers, such as Eusebius (H. E. 1, 11), cite them. Therefore, the external criteria support their genuineness. It is objected that Josephus could not have spoken in this way. But this is asserted without reason (cf. Praelect. dogm. I, n. 138). There are also testimonies by Josephus about John the Baptist and James, the brother of the Lord (Kirch, Enchir. n. 6 sq).

T​​acitus (d. 119) says of Nero: «To suppress the rumor [that he was said to be the author of the fire that occurred in A.D. 64], Nero substituted defendants and inflicted the most exquisite punishments on those hated for their shameful acts, whom the common people called Christians. The author of that name, Christ, had been executed during the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate. The deadly superstition, suppressed for the moment, was breaking out again, not only in Judea, the origin of this evil, but also in the city, where all things atrocious or shameful from everywhere flow together and are celebrated» (Annal. 15, 44).

Pliny the Younger (d. 113), after conducting a judicial inquiry into Christians, writes to the emperor Trajan: «They affirmed that this was the sum either of their fault or their error: that on a fixed day they were accustomed to assemble before dawn and sing a hymn to Christ as if to a god, responsively, and to bind themselves by an oath not to commit any crime, but not to commit thefts, robberies, or adulteries, not to break faith, and not to deny a deposit when called upon to return it. When these things were done, it was their custom to depart and then gather again to take food, which was ordinary and harmless» (Epist. l. 10, ep. 96). Trajan's response is found in Kirch (Enchir. n. 25), where sayings of the emperor Hadrian (nn. 30 32 45 52) and of Suetonius (n. 33 sq) are also included. Cf. Wilmers, De religione revelata 319 sqq.

When the Christian religion had spread more widely, pagan writers began to publish larger works against it: Celsus in the second century, Porphyry and Hierocles in the third, and finally Proclus in the fifth (cf. Epiphanius, Haer. 51, 8).

Thus, the attitude of pagan writers toward the Christian religion was more or less what one would expect a priori³.