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

In order that the doctrine of the inerrancy of sacred Scripture may be rightly understood and the difficulties opposing it may be readily resolved, the following points are to be observed.

The inerrancy of the sacred books does not mean that all the sayings of Scripture are true, however they may be taken and expounded, but that all the sayings of Scripture are true in that sense in which they were written by the hagiographers.

For since the Holy Spirit speaks through the hagiographers, only the sense of the books intended by the hagiographer is the sense of Scripture inspired by God and consequently infallibly true. Guided by this rule, exegetes inquire what in the concrete is the sense of the individual sayings; it is the apologists' part only to establish in the abstract certain norms with regard to doctrinal sayings in general, and also to physical and historical sayings in particular.¹

1. Doctrinal sayings in general. The utterances of the hagiographer himself are simply true, because in themselves and directly they are the formal utterances of God Himself inspiring. The utterances of other persons, however, although by the force of inspiration they are divinely written, are not on that account divinely spoken, since even open lies are sometimes cited in Scripture, e. g.: „The fool said in his heart: There is no God".² Therefore in itself and directly by the force of inspiration only the truth of the citation stands, by which we are made certain that the words cited were really uttered by the persons to whom Scripture attributes them. That internal truth moreover also belongs to the cited words is concluded only per accidens and indirectly, from the fact that they are either approved by Scripture or uttered by truthful persons.

The words of others that are approved by Scripture are shown to be true by that very approval. Thus the words of Peter: „You are Christ, the Son of the living God" were explicitly approved by Christ: „Blessed are you, Simon ...".³ Thus the words of Epimenides: „Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons" were cited by Paul and explicitly approved: „This testimony is true".⁴ Thus many words are implicitly approved by the fact that they are either adduced in confirmation of some assertion or set under the formula: „It is written, Scripture says". By the same reasoning, the words that are disapproved by sacred Scripture are by that very fact recognized as false, e. g.: „I do not have a demon".⁵

The words of others that are uttered by truthful persons are shown to be true by the condition of these persons. Thus the holy angels are always held to speak as messengers of God and consequently with divine authority and truth. The prophets, if they speak under the actual prophetic light, say infallibly true things; but if not, they can be deceived and can deceive, e. g. Nathan announcing false things to David.⁶ The apostles are infallible in matters of faith and morals, but not in uttering things not revealed. Sometimes even other men are shown to speak from divine instinct and consequently with divine infallibility, as the patriarch Jacob,⁷ Balaam,⁸ Zacharias⁹ and above all the Blessed Virgin Mary, queen of angels, prophets, and apostles.

2. Physical sayings. Concerning physical things God did not directly instruct men, as St. Augustine rightly notes: „It is not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: I send you the Paraclete, who will teach you about the course of the sun and the moon; for He wanted to make Christians, not mathematicians."¹⁰ Wherefore neither did He reveal the natural sciences to the hagiographers, but permitted them to write about physical things according to the vulgar manner of speaking founded on the external appearance of things. The sacred writers, says Leo XIII, „rather than straightway pursuing the exploration of nature, sometimes describe and treat the things themselves, either in a certain figurative manner, or as common speech carried in those times and today still carries in many things of daily life, even among the most learned of men".¹¹

Hence we read that the sun rises and moves around the earth;¹² that the earth stands forever;¹³ that the moon is a greater light than all the stars;¹⁴ that the firmament is a tent stretched out over the earth¹⁵ or a solid roof enclosing the waters;¹⁶ that bats are to be numbered among the flying creatures and hares among the ruminating animals¹⁷ etc.

To these sayings the internal nature of things does not indeed correspond, and therefore absolute truth does not belong to them; yet the external appearance of things corresponds to them, and therefore relative truth. And since the hagiographers intend to judge physical things not from internal reality or in a scientific manner, but from optical appearance or in a popular manner, they affirm nothing at all false. Even in our time the common people, indeed even the learned, are wont to speak of physical things according to external appearance. Hence they speak of the rising and setting of the sun, of the firmament of heaven, and of other such things, although they know that scientifically things are not so. A fortiori Scripture could and had to use the same popular manner of speaking, in order that it might be understood by those men to whom it was originally destined.

3. Historical sayings. Some theologians¹⁸ transfer the doctrine set forth concerning the vulgar manner of speaking of Scripture with regard to physical things also to historical accounts, contending that the hagiographers narrate the deeds according to vulgar opinions and popular traditions, to which objective truth does not necessarily belong.

But this opinion is altogether to be rejected, because it rests on a false supposition and leads to an absurd consequence.

The false supposition consists in this, that the popular description of physical things and the popular narration of historical things are deemed equal, although they differ by an essential difference. For when physical things are described according to the vulgar manner of speaking, the appearance of things perceived by the senses corresponds to the description, even though the objective reality of the things described does not correspond to it; but when historical deeds are narrated in a vulgar manner, the description, if it is not objectively true, acquires no truth at all for itself, but is simply false and mendacious. Moreover, by a popular description of physical things no one is deceived, since it is a matter of phenomena commonly known and manifest; but by a vulgar narration of a historical fact almost all are deceived, since it is a matter of knowledge of a past thing unknown and inaccessible to the readers. For all know what he means who speaks of the motion of the sun, of the firmament, of rain falling from heaven, etc.; on the contrary, all are ignorant of what the patriarchs, Moses, Christ did, unless they are instructed historically. If therefore false things are narrated about them, all are led into error. — Hence it follows:

The absurd consequence for the economy of salvation handed down in sacred Scripture.

The internal nature of physical things is of no moment for the economy of salvation; but on historical truth almost the whole economy of salvation depends. The whole revelation of the Old and New Testament has the character of history. Once the truth of sacred history is shaken, the whole supernatural revelation totters. Thus, if the historical fact of the fall of the first parents is denied, redemption totters; if the historical truth of the Gospels is denied, christology totters, indeed the whole Christian religion. Nor will you say that these fundamental facts have the character of true history, but other minor facts perhaps the character of legendary, mythical, popular history. For the character of all the facts is the same, and once the absolute truth of only one biblical fact is denied, the whole biblical history is endangered.

Although, however, the absolute truth of biblical history is to be maintained, three things are nevertheless to be noted, namely:

a) The hagiographers often use the historical form only in appearance, without wishing to narrate historical facts. Besides properly historical narration, there are also found in sacred Scripture fables, parables, allegories, poems, and other literary genres that are assimilated to history. Nevertheless, by these literary genres the hagiographers do not wish to hand down true and properly so-called history, but to illustrate moral truths under a historical form. In these texts and books of Scripture, therefore, historical truth is not to be sought; their truth consists in this, that they fittingly illustrate true doctrines. Thus nothing compels you to admit the things that Christ proposes in parables as historical facts; nothing hinders the book of Wisdom (poetico-didactic) celebrating the plagues of Egypt¹⁹ from adding several things that are lacking to the historical narration of the same matter in the book of Exodus; nothing forbids, on the part of inspiration, that the books of Ruth, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job be numbered among the poetic and didactic books, notwithstanding their historical form. It is the task of exegesis to investigate of what literary genre the individual sayings and individual books of sacred Scripture are. In the books, however, that are held to be historical, a literary genre alien to history is not to be sought, "except in a case not easily nor rashly to be admitted, in which, the sense of the Church not opposing and its judgment being safe, it is proved by solid arguments that the hagiographer wished to hand down not true and properly so-called history, but to propose under the appearance and form of history a parable, an allegory, or some sense remote from the properly literal or historical signification of the words."²⁰

b) The hagiographers commonly use the historical method customary to the ancients, not the critical-modern method. "The ancients, when e. g. they expressed what someone felt or intended, not rarely made him deliver speeches that he never gave. Examples are known from Caesar, Livy, Sallust. Because this literary custom was known, no sensible person was deceived. The Semites, since they almost lacked indirect speech, were driven by a certain necessity to such a manner of writing. Wherefore it is not permissible to suppose that all the speeches related in Scripture were actually given verbatim. Sometimes too it can be doubted whether it is a matter of external words or only of internal ones; wherefore it can happen that where we read: that one said this and this, it is to be understood: that one thought this and this. 'To say in the heart' among the Hebrews is the same as to think. When in Scripture we read that God said 'Fiat lux' etc., it is not to be supposed that sensible sounds were produced by God, since there was no one who would hear them, but by those words an internal divine command is expressed. Moreover, the sacred writers very often did not care to reproduce the very words, provided the sense was retained, just as e. g. the same discourses of Christ are reported by the other evangelists in other words. Not even the words of the institution of the Eucharist nor the title of the cross are materially the same in all the evangelists. Hence in sacred history we can distinguish those things that the historiographers intended per se, that is, the substance of the facts, and the material words, that is, the manner of proposing the things, which was not intended per se. But the question of what belongs to the substance of the narration intended per se, and what to the literary vesture not intended per se, is to be judged not simply according to grammatical and stylistic art, but also according to the literary customs of various times."²¹

But if the hagiographers conform themselves to the literary customs of their people and their age, they by no means deceive or lead into error. For they speak in such a way that they are rightly understood by the prudent, even though the manner of speaking is not perfectly conformed to the manner of the thing.

c) The hagiographers often use citations, that is, the words and writings of others, especially in historical matters, which are drawn only from older documents. What in general is to be held concerning the truth of citations, we have already set forth above.²² One thing only we may add: that all historiographers, and therefore also the sacred historiographers, approve the things that they draw from the sources and insert into their works, and make them their own, unless the contrary manifestly appears.

Hence the hypothesis of the 'broad' school collapses, which, in order to solve the difficulties raised against biblical history, maintained that the facts drawn by the hagiographers from sources are not necessarily to be admitted as historical. Indeed the supporters of this school went so far that, besides explicit citations, they admitted also many implicit or tacit citations, namely documents verbally adduced from older sources, without mention being made of the adduction or of the cited source. Concerning these implicit citations this question was proposed to the 'Commissioni biblicae': "Whether, in order to unravel the difficulties that occur in some texts of sacred Scripture which seem to relate historical facts, it is permissible for a Catholic exegete to assert that these concern a tacit or implicit citation of a document written by a non-inspired author, all of whose assertions the inspired author by no means intends to approve or make his own, and which therefore cannot be held immune from error?" The aforesaid Commission judged that it should answer: "In the negative, except in the case in which, the sense and judgment of the Church being safeguarded, it is proved by solid arguments: 1° that the hagiographer cites the sayings or documents of another; and 2° that he neither approves them nor makes them his own, so that he is rightly held not to speak in his own name."²³ Since, however, very rarely or perhaps never²⁴ are both of these conditions present at once, the question of implicit citations is not of great moment, nor can it in any way obscure the inviolate truth of sacred Scripture, concerning which St. Augustine: "For the authority of this Scripture is greater than all the capacity of every human mind"²⁵