Apologeticae sive Theologiae Fundamentalis, Tomus II (Pars Altera): Demonstratio Catholica

Here it is not asked which books of the Old and New Testament are inspired by God, or which books in particular belong to the canon of sacred Scripture. For the question of the canon of Scripture belongs to biblical Introduction. It is our task, however, to inquire how far the charismatic influence of God extends in the books themselves that are truly inspired: whether, namely, all the things said in Scripture are inspired, and whether all the words set down in Scripture are likewise inspired. Whence arises the bipartite question of real inspiration and of verbal inspiration.

Some Catholics, in order to solve more readily the difficulties raised against sacred Scripture, contended that certain things, or sentences or propositions, of sacred Scripture are not inspired. Holden, a Sorbonne professor († 1665), noted that inspiration extends "only to those things which are either purely doctrinal or have some proximate or necessary relation to doctrinal matters."¹ Rohling confines inspiration to matters of faith and morals.² Lenormant, a layman and an orientalist, restricts it to supernatural doctrines.³ Cardinal Newman thinks that "obiter dicta" are exempt from inspiration, i.e. statements which neither pertain to faith and morals nor cohere with them, e.g. that Nabuchodonosor was king of Nineveh,⁴ that Paul left his cloak at Troas,⁵ etc.⁶

Nevertheless, it must on the contrary be altogether maintained that inspiration extends to all the things or sentences which were written by the hagiographers.

Proof: 1. Christ and the apostles indiscriminately adduce any text whatsoever of the sacred books, and even the very smallest matters, under the solemn formula: "It is written; Scripture says." And indeed "under one and the same most solemn formula the books of sacred Scripture are cited, both legal and historical and poetic and didactic; not only are testimonies and sentences of the religious and doctrinal order cited, but also those of the historical order and those which, being wholly profane in themselves, enter into no connection with religion." Therefore all sentences of the sacred books indiscriminately are sacred Scripture, and therefore all are inspired.

2. The Fathers and the theologians profess by testimonies both theoretical and practical that all the particular passages of sacred Scripture are inspired. We have already reported several theoretical testimonies. Recall the words of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Jerome, Bonaventure."⁷ In practice, however, they manifest their faith by the manner in which they cite, defend, and interpret Scripture. For they cite as arguments texts of every kind, whether they pertain to matters of faith and morals, or to the historical and profane order, or even to "obiter dicta".⁸ They defend and protect with the greatest zeal⁹ whatever texts are attacked by adversaries. They interpret and treat exegetically all and each of the very smallest sentences of Scripture, everywhere seeking the divine sense. But all these things suppose that the Fathers and the theologians extended inspiration to all the sentences of the sacred books.

3. The councils and the popes, by the very decrees by which they explicitly teach the existence of inspiration, seem also implicitly to teach that the whole of Scripture is inspired.¹⁰ This holds above all for the decrees of the Councils of Trent and of the Vatican, professing that "the books themselves, entire, with all their parts" are canonical and sacred and therefore inspired. These words indeed refer proximately to the Latin Vulgate, but by the name of "parts" there are designated rather the larger segments than the single and very smallest particular passages of the books. Therefore they do not define peremptorily whether all the particular passages of the original Scripture are inspired. Nevertheless they most certainly exclude the adverse opinions of those who restrict inspiration either to "purely doctrinal matters" or "to matters of faith and morals" or "to supernatural doctrines", and thereby exempt from inspiration a great, or rather by far the greater, part of the sacred books. Indeed, the aforementioned decrees seem to exclude also the opinion of those who exempt "obiter dicta" or other very small matters from inspiration, since, once such a norm has been admitted, innumerable texts of Scripture are exposed to the subjective judgment of men and consequently Scripture is altogether imperiled.

Finally, Leo XIII forbade every restriction of real inspiration in the encyclical letter "Providentissimus",¹¹ in which we read: "It will be altogether unlawful to confine inspiration to only some parts of Scripture." And although that letter is not an infallible decree ex cathedra, nevertheless it gravely obliges all Catholics in conscience, as Pope Leo XIII himself expressly established.¹² Therefore no further question can arise among the faithful concerning the real inspiration of all the sentences of sacred Scripture. It remains for us to discuss verbal inspiration.

Following the lead of the rabbis, the older Protestants almost universally denied to the hagiographers the liberty of choosing their words, contending that God dictated all and each of the words, indeed every character and apex.¹ No Catholic seems to have championed such an external dictation. But many Scholastics assert that God inspired the hagiographers through an internal influx equivalent to external dictation. Thus among the older Scholastics Henry of Ghent; among the more recent, Bañez, Billuart, and most Thomists,² with many other authors dissenting. Since the end of the eighteenth century the opinion denying verbal inspiration has almost universally prevailed and still prevails.³⁴

In truth it seems that we must hold altogether that inspiration does not extend to all the words or constructions that were written by the hagiographers.

Proof: 1. From the fact and nature of inspiration it follows, indeed, that God inspired the material words at least in a generic way. For by the very fact that He inspired all the things of the sacred books, He had at least to take care that all those things be written in suitable material words (vocables, external signs). Nevertheless, from the fact and nature of inspiration it can be proved by no argument that God determined for the hagiographer all and each of the words in the individual. The selection, namely, of the words to be used in the individual, and the whole manner of speaking, inasmuch as they do not alter the ideas to be expressed, relate accidentally to the composing of the book. For the same ideas can be expressed now in one way, now in another, since various terms are usually available for rendering the same ideas. For this reason anyone can be called an author, even though he does not himself dictate and determine all the words or all the phrases of the book, or even though he has had a book first written by himself translated into another language. Therefore God also is the author of sacred Scripture, even though He did not supply all the words in the individual.

From this very fact, however, that verbal inspiration is not necessary de iure, it must be presumed that it did not in fact take place, but that "God, who disposes all things sweetly, permitted that men, already illumined by the divine meanings and supernaturally moved to write those things, should themselves, under divine assistance, find and select, according to the diverse character and erudition of each, the signs of the inspired ideas"⁵.

Furthermore:

2. From sacred Scripture it sufficiently appears that the hagiographers were for the most part not determined in selecting their words and in the grammatical and rhetorical manner of writing. The verbalists appeal, to be sure, to various texts where the hagiographers are commanded to write the "words of God". But the hagiographers were commanded to write the formal words of God, i.e., the things or ideas received from God through charismatic revelation; they do not, however, appear to have been commanded to write the material words of God, i.e., the vocables and sounds uttered by God. Or if perhaps they were commanded to write some material words, from this it is not lawful to conclude that all the material words were inspired to them. That the contrary happened, Scripture itself indicates by several reasons, namely:

a) Each hagiographer uses his own style, according as the character, education, and erudition of each carried him. But if God Himself had determined the style in the individual, there is no reason why He would have chosen now one style, now another, according to the character, education, and erudition of the hagiographers. Therefore the style is the hagiographers', not God's. On this point already St. Jerome: "Concerning Isaiah it must be known that in his speech he is eloquent, inasmuch as he is a noble man of urbane eloquence, having nothing of rusticity mixed into his eloquence ... Jeremiah indeed seems among the Hebrews to be more rustic in speech than Isaiah and Hosea and certain other prophets, but he is equal in meanings, inasmuch as he prophesied by the same Spirit. Moreover, the simplicity of his eloquence came to him from the place in which he was born. For he was an Anathothite, which is to this day a little village."⁶

b) Different hagiographers report the same things in different words. E.g., they narrate the discourses of Christ the Lord in words that differ from one another.

Thus the words with which Christ instituted the most holy Eucharist are reported by the four writers⁷ in a way somewhat different from one another, although the Lord spoke them in only one way. This diversity is not explained if the Holy Spirit dictated the words to the hagiographers; it is explained, however, if He left the words to be chosen by the hagiographers, the sense of the matter being retained.

c) Finally, the hagiographers themselves attribute to themselves the style and the elocution. Thus Paul: "For although I am unskilled in speech, yet not in knowledge."⁸ The author of the second book of Maccabees: "I too will make an end of my discourse in these matters. And if indeed it is well and as befits history, this I myself would also wish; but if less worthily, it must be conceded to me."⁹ Thus the hagiographers attribute the manner of writing, and consequently the material words of Scripture, to themselves, not to God.

3. From the holy Fathers some indeed say that all and each of the voices, syllables, and apices were dictated by the Holy Spirit. Yet in saying this they emphatically extol only the inspiration of all the formal words (i.e., of the things and sentences), not of the material words. For however much they attribute all the words of Scripture to God, still they trace the words of Scripture taken materially back to the choice of the hagiographers, not to the inspiration of God. Thus St. Augustine: "For as each one remembered, and as it was in each one's heart to explain the same sentence either more briefly or more at length, so it is manifest that they explained it ... It pertains above all to faithful doctrine ... that the truth is to be sought or embraced not so much of the words as of the things, when we approve that those who do not use the same locution, while they do not disagree in the things and sentences, have stood in the same truth ... Let us not think that the truth is so fortified, as it were, by consecrated sounds, as though God commended to us, just as the thing itself, so also the words that are to be spoken on account of it, whereas rather the thing that is to be spoken is so preferred to the speeches through which it is to be spoken, that we should not seek those at all if we could know it without them."¹⁰ Also St. John Chrysostom, although he preaches that all the words of Scripture are not "words simply, but words of the Holy Spirit",¹¹ nevertheless teaches that only some things were revealed to the hagiographers by God "word for word (ῥητῶς)", i.e., as regards the material words.¹² Therefore all other things were inspired not ῥητῶς, but only as regards the things. Finally:

4. From its absurd consequences verbalism has long since been refuted. For, once verbal inspiration is admitted, the literary, stylistic, and grammatical defects that are found in countless places of Scripture would have to be imputed to God. Moreover, if the words belonged to divine inspiration, several books of the present canon would not be inspired, since their original text has either perished (e.g., that of the Gospel of Matthew) or has been so changed in many places by the injury of times and of men that the individual primitive words are no longer certain. Finally, on the supposition of verbal inspiration, the versions cannot be called sacred Scripture, because their words are entirely alien to inspiration. But the Church has always held the authentic versions as sacred Scripture, and has used and uses them in councils, in worship, in daily reading. Therefore the inspiration of all the words or constructions of Scripture is not to be admitted.