De inspiratione sacrae Scripturae: theologica disquisitio

That it can be understood in two ways that Scripture was written with the Holy Spirit dictating. In one way, indeed, by material or verbal dictation. In the other way, by a dictation of a far higher order, that is, by an interior motion or instinct to conceive mentally the sentences and propositions which God wished to direct to us through the hagiographers, and to commit them thus conceived to writing. And that the former mode of dictation is not necessary for God to be called the author of the books of Scripture, nor, generally speaking, is it in any way to be admitted. Whence the latter mode remains, as that in which the proper notion of inspiration is truly had, of which the Vatican Council says: « The Church, however, holds them (the books) as sacred and canonical because, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed down as such to the Church herself ».

I. — Verbal dictation would be that in which the hagiographer would provide no ministry, neither in conceiving nor in expressing the things he writes, but would receive from divine suggestion the words to be materially committed to the page. Thus a schoolmaster is accustomed to dictate lessons to his pupils; thus a writer his literary labours to an amanuensis. In this mode of dictation, indeed, it makes no difference at all whether the amanuensis understands the things that are dictated or not. And to this mode is reduced the prophetic instinct given to Caiaphas, when, as John XI-50 testifies, he said: It is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish. For Caiaphas did not understand the sense of his own utterance according as it was prophetic and inspired by God. There was therefore in that case a kind of verbal dictation, inasmuch as, when Caiaphas intended to express his own mind, such words were divinely suggested to him as were at the same time suited to express a plainly different mind of the Holy Spirit. Whence St. Thomas, 2-2, Q. 173, a. 4: « Sometimes he whose mind is moved to express certain words does not understand what the Holy Spirit intends by these words, as is clear in the case of Caiaphas, John XI ». Furthermore, whether the understanding of the things dictated be had concomitantly or not, the mode of dictation is always in itself the same and unvarying, namely by the material proposal of words, in which nothing is left to the activity of the instrument beyond the mere mechanical labour of transcribing or outwardly uttering.

Now the mere simple exposition of the matter itself shows clearly that this mode of dictation is not to be admitted with regard to the books of Sacred Scripture. And the reason is that in this way the books of Scripture would in no respect whatever be from the knowledge of the hagiographers, through whose ministry they were written. For certainly, whatever an amanuensis writes under verbal dictation is by no means drawn from his knowledge, formally speaking, since he stands to the dictator as a mere instrument of material writing. But such a thing is by no means admissible concerning the canonical books, nor can it even come into thought: both because it would destroy the truth of that utterance by which, as the apostle Peter testifies in the passage cited above, holy men of God spoke, and which must undoubtedly be understood of speech arising from interior knowledge, as befits rational men, especially those raised by the charism of the Holy Spirit to so high a summit of dignity; and because it is contrary to the things which the hagiographers themselves expressly assert about themselves. This is that disciple, says John, who testifies of these things, and wrote these things. And again: What we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life... and we testify... and we announce to you. And Luke in the proem of his Gospel: It seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, (namely from those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word), to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus. And the author of 2 Mach. II-27: And to ourselves also, who have undertaken this work for the sake of abridging, we have taken upon us no easy labour, but truly a task full of watchings and sweat. All of which things are certainly not the ways of simple amanuenses. For an amanuensis testifies nothing, has no need to attain a prior knowledge of the things which he sets forth in writing, does not take upon himself a task full of sweat and watchings, but the phantasms of the words which he receives within, he sets their outlines without.

Moreover, just as divine inspiration does not remove from the sacred historical books the formality of a human authority as well, which is common to all other monuments of past times, and which ought to be of use in the preambles of faith for founding the judgment of credibility: so neither does it take away from the apostolic epistles the true and proper character of epistles, whether of Paul, or of Peter, or of James, and so on. But if those sacred books had emanated from the hagiographers as from mere amanuenses of God, neither would the Gospels agree in anything with the customary documents of history, nor would the epistles truly be inscribed: the epistle of Paul to the Romans, the epistle of Peter to the elect strangers of the dispersion of Pontus, and so on concerning the others. Indeed, the epistle which a mere amanuensis writes is not his own epistle, but the epistle of the dictator alone.

A third consideration is added, which applies equally to all the books of Scripture, because the individual hagiographers have their own style according to the diversity of their temperament, education and origin. Certainly Jerome says of Isaiah: « And first, concerning Isaiah, it must be known that he is eloquent in his speech: as indeed a noble man, and of urbane eloquence, having nothing of rusticity mixed into his speech. Whence it happens that, more than the others, the translation could not preserve the flower of his speech »¹. Then of Jeremiah: « The prophet Jeremiah, in speech indeed among the Hebrews, seems to be more rustic than Isaiah and Hosea and certain other prophets, but he is equal in meaning, since he prophesied by the same Spirit. Moreover, the simplicity of his eloquence befell him from the place in which he was born. For he was an Anathothite, which is to this day a small village, three miles distant from Jerusalem »². Then of Ezekiel: « At the same time, though later, this one in Chaldaea and Jeremiah in Judaea prophesied. His speech is neither sufficiently eloquent, nor excessively rustic, but tempered in a middle way from both »³. Finally, who would not recognize even at first glance the proper and characteristic manner of Paul or of John, to say nothing of the rest, concerning whom the observation is likewise equal and the same by the consent of all? But now, on the hypothesis of verbal dictation, in which even all grammatical construction would be from God alone, and the hagiographer would have contributed nothing more than the mere ministry of a material pen, that diversity found in the sacred books—just as in all other literary works of men—would have no connatural explanation. There is added finally that it would be absurd to charge to the Holy Spirit the faults of grammar, such as solecisms, hyperbata, and other things of this kind which Jerome notes in c. 3 to the Ephesians, or the imperfection of speech which Paul confesses in himself in 2 Cor. XI-6, or possible defects for which, perhaps admitted, the author of 2 Mach. XV-39 asks excuse, saying thus: I also in these things will make an end of my speech. And if indeed well, and as is fitting for history, this I myself would wish. But if less worthily, pardon must be granted me.

It must therefore be concluded that that verbal dictation, asserted by some theologians, is inadmissible, and the more inadmissible the less it is shown to be necessary for God both to be called and to be the author of the sacred books with all propriety of words. For even without it He remains the sole principal cause of the composition and writing of the same books, as will appear more than sufficiently from those things which remain now to be explained in what follows.

II. — I say therefore that we must rise to a higher mode of dictating, and one most proper to God. And for the evidence of this matter we must consider that in the edition of any book two things are distinguished: first, the composition of the context of the sentences, or its mental conception and formation; then, the exterior writing, which is nothing other than the transposition of the formed context onto material pages by pen and ink. You may therefore imagine two ways in which someone is assumed as an instrument for producing a book. First, so that he is an instrument with regard to the external writing alone. Second, so that he is an instrument with regard also to the composition of the context itself. And there is no third mode that can be devised, as will immediately appear to anyone attentive.

In the first mode, therefore, there intervenes the verbal dictation just now declared, in which the whole receiving of the context is from the dictator, and the activity of the instrument begins to be exercised only subsequently, because then the instrument is moved purely and simply so that it may trace with the pen the words suggested to it from outside. And since it contributes nothing to the composition of the book, it places nothing in it from its own style or its own manner of conceiving. Whence finally, the materiality of the manuscript aside, it makes no difference whose is the ministry of the scribe or amanuensis employed. But it is not so in the other mode, where there intervenes a dictation which is no longer made through sounding words or their phantasms. Then the receiving of an already formed context is not from the dictator. Then the instrumental activity precedes the formation of the sentences, because it is ordered to those very sentences. Then not only the materiality of the writing, but also its formality, will retain impressed upon it its own instrumental character and characteristic manner. Now that dictation consists in an interior motion or instinct to conceive mentally the sentences and propositions which the principal author wills to be in the book, and to commit them thus conceived to writing. And since, as has been shown above, the former mode of dictation had no place in the sacred Scriptures, this latter remains to be admitted, as that in which the true and proper notion of scriptural inspiration is placed.

But lest we seem to be content with a confused and merely general notion, we must now come to its further elaboration or analysis, which we shall pursue in the following chapter, God helping, to the best of our ability.