Tractatus de divina traditione et Scriptura

On the twofold way in which the divine testimony concerning the inspired books has been preserved to us.

« The divine testimony concerning the inspiration of very many of those books » which are received among the Scriptures by Christians with common agreement, » has been preserved to us also in the apostolic writings; yet concerning the entire canon of the books which even the Protestants have retained, it can be established » only by the testimony preserved by Tradition alone. »

By the very fact that it is a question of the holy Scriptures to be received and believed by the whole Church, the divine testimony concerning these Scriptures certainly belongs to the deposit of Catholic revelation. But Catholic revelation was completed through Christ and through the Holy Spirit in the Apostles (on Tradition, th. XXII). This testimony, therefore, this revelation concerning the inspired Scriptures and the books of the Scriptures, could not have been handed down in a subsequent age of the Church, but must necessarily have come to the Church from the Apostles themselves. No books, therefore, can be inspired for the Church herself concerning whose inspiration, now in the New Testament with revelation already completed, the divine testimony either does not exist in the deposit of revelation, or did not already exist in the apostolic age; although, absolutely speaking, there could have existed in the Old Testament, when the deposit of faith was still to be completed and unfolded through new successive revelations (on Tradition, th. XXV), inspired books whose revelation of inspiration was finally made by Christ or by the Holy Spirit through the Apostles and handed down to the Christian Church (above, th. III, Coroll. 3).

On these suppositions, that divine testimony could not have been preserved to us except either in Tradition alone or, besides Tradition (taken in the strict sense, cf. on Tradition, th. II), also in the apostolic writings.

I. First, then, we say that the divine testimony concerning the inspiration of several books which we have in the canon has been preserved also in the apostolic writings. This is evidently established from what was said in the preceding theses I and II. For from them it is concluded that at least the whole Scripture admitted by the Synagogue in the time of Christ and the Apostles is confirmed and proposed as inspired by the testimony of Christ himself and of the Apostles preserved also in the evangelical and apostolic writings — that is, that the canon of the Jews existing at that time, insofar as it is affirmans, is confirmed by the written divine testimony.

Although it has been called into controversy which were all and the only books comprehended in the canon of the Jews, yet concerning many of these books which we have in the Christian canon there is and can be no doubt that they were in the canon of the Jews in the time of Christ and the Apostles; to these, therefore, certainly belongs the divine testimony preserved in the apostolic writings, proposing and confirming the sacred Scriptures of the Jews as inspired. This is so evident as to need no proof; for what else but certainly many of the books which are in our canon is indicated by the division into three classes, and the express appeal to individual books, and the citation of texts from them¹, which stands forth as made by Christ and by the Apostles in the apostolic writings?

Nay, since in the apostolic writings there stands an express testimony (2 Tim. III. 15. 16.) for the inspiration of the whole collection of books which at that time were acknowledged by the Jews as belonging to Scripture, it can be determined by name to which all books — though not for that reason already to which alone — that written testimony is certainly referred, if it is established which were the books comprehended at that time in the Scripture acknowledged by the Jews as divine. But it is established by historical arguments, sufficiently for the purpose, that in the collection of the Jews at that time there existed at least all those books which they still now have in their canon and which are commonly called protocanonical.

1°. From the Fathers of the second to the fifth century who describe one by one the books of the Jewish canon, as Melito (in Eusebius IV. 26.), Origen (Eusebius IV. 25.), Epiphanius (On Measures and Weights n. 4. 22. 23; Heresies VIII. n. 6.), Hilary (Prologue to the Psalms n. 15.), Jerome (Helmeted Prologue, and elsewhere); likewise from the Jewish writings of that time (see Buxtorf, Tiberias ch. 11.), it is most certain that at least from the second Christian century all these books were in the canon of the Jews. But it is incredible that the Jews, within the time that elapsed from Christ and the Apostles down to that age, should have received into the canon some books which they had not yet had in it in the time of Christ and the Apostles, without any trace of this fact surviving in history. This is incredible if one considers the extent of this change, which would have had to take place, with no one protesting, throughout the whole world where the Jews were dispersed; and it becomes much more unbelievable still if at the same time there is taken into account their exceeding veneration for the sacred books, in which to add or take away or change anything they deemed the greatest sacrilege².

2°. Thereto is added that this canon, as the Christian Fathers of the first centuries diligently inquired it out from the Jews, and as the Jewish masters themselves recount it, is easily shown to agree with that very canon which Josephus reports from the persuasion and faith of his nation shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem, and which he testifies had already remained unchanged for a long time (cf. above, th. I.). Josephus numbers twenty-two books: namely, five of Moses, thirteen of the prophets, four which contain hymns and precepts of morals. Now if one inspects the naming and division of the books among the Jews, as exhibited by Melito, Origen, Hilary, Jerome, Epiphanius, and the Talmudists, everywhere twenty-two books are numbered according to the number of the Hebrew letters, so that besides the five of Moses and the four moral books (of Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles) there remain thirteen of the prophets in this reckoning: 1. Josue, 2. Judges with Ruth, 3. Samuel (1 and 2 Kings), 4. Kings (3 and 4 Kings), 5. Chronicles (1 and 2 Paralipomenon), 6. Esdras (1 and 2 Esdras), 7. Esther³, 8. Isaias, 9. Jeremias with Lamentations, 10. Ezechiel, 11. Daniel, 12. the Twelve Minor Prophets⁴, 13. Job. Those who think that the two books of Paralipomenon, the two of Esdras, and Esther cannot be comprehended in Josephus among the thirteen books of the prophets, but that these five books were received later — bringing forward as the reason for their assertion that these books are not prophetic (Haneberg, History of Biblical Revelation, p. 696. cf. above p. 366.) — seem altogether to neglect the testimonies of the ancient Fathers and of the Jews, and fail to attend to the contrary reasons: namely, that Josephus uses these books no differently than the rest; that he takes the name of prophets in the biblical and theological sense, for inspired men; and, finally, that such a late insertion into the canon is shown false by ineluctable arguments. See th. IV. n. II.

This being so, it is sufficiently established that at least those books which still belong to the canon of the Hebrews were already comprehended in the collection of the Scriptures in the time of Christ and the Apostles. But Christ and the Apostles approved that collection as of inspired books by a testimony consigned also in the apostolic writings, as is clear from the testimonies adduced in theses I and II, and expressly from 2 Tim. III. 15. 16. (on which passage see th. II. n. II. 3°.). Therefore the divine testimony concerning the inspiration of very many books which we have in the canon has been preserved to us also in the apostolic writings. Cf. the distinguished Welte in the Tübingen Quarterly Review, 1855. pp. 68. ff.

II. By that written divine testimony it can indeed be established that those books of the Old Testament belong to the Scriptures and are therefore inspired (cf. th. II.); but the same testimony by no means makes us certain that they alone are inspired Scripture, nor does it teach anything concerning the inspired books of the New Testament.

1°. From that testimony it is not established whether Christ and the Apostles, in the completion and consummation of revelation, handed down still other Scriptures besides those; for the testimony is affirmans — that these books are inspired — but not excludens — that there are no other inspired books of the Old Testament. Hence from that written attestation it cannot be defined whether the canon of the Jews was complete and closed, or incomplete and to be supplemented by a new revelation from Christ and the Apostles. This matter can be deemed defined by the affirming testimony, so long as that alone is considered, all the less because a) all Christians, even the Protestants themselves, confess that the Apostles handed down to the Churches as inspired other books — namely, the Scriptures of the New Testament, though of these there is no mention in that testimony; because b) it is certainly established that among the Jews, besides those mentioned, there were other books held in great veneration, concerning which — because « the succession of the prophets was not sufficiently ascertained and continuous » (p. 319.) — they remained doubtful whether they were of the same character and authority as those former ones; nay, c) it must be deemed at least probable that the Hellenist Jews, whose Greek Bibles the Apostles are established to have used, had among the Scriptures other books besides those numbered. Therefore, in the first place, the Protestants, by the testimony consigned in the apostolic writings, cannot be certain whether their canon, in which they have retained only the protocanonical books of the Old Testament, is not mutilated, and whether thus some part of the revealed word — which they think is contained in the Scriptures alone — is not lacking to them. But of this canon more will be said below.

2°. The Protestants, and all Christians who vindicate this name for themselves on any plausible ground, have in their canon the books of the New Testament, at least the protocanonical ones ⁵. Concerning the inspiration of these, therefore, there must be established for us a divine testimony preserved down to us and proposed to us (th. VI.) which, as we have already said, can have been preserved only either by Tradition alone or at the same time also in the apostolic writings. But concerning the inspiration of these books — if inquiry is made not merely in a confused way about the existence of some Scriptures of the New Testament, but if the whole collection and all and each books determinately are considered — there exists no testimony in the apostolic writings. Therefore concerning the inspiration of all the Scriptures which even the Protestants have retained, nothing can be established except by the divine testimony preserved by Tradition alone.

Some books of the New Testament are mentioned in the apostolic writings as belonging to the Scriptures — and therefore (from what was demonstrated in th. I. and II.) as inspired — only once or at most twice. The more certain passage is 2 Pet. III. 16, where the epistles of Paul are numbered by Peter among the Scriptures. « Our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you (the Churches of Asia), as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things (that, awaiting the coming of the Lord, they should strive to be found immaculate, and should account the longanimity of the Lord as salvation), in which⁶ are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures (ὡς καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς γραφὰς), to their own perdition. » When Peter says that unlearned men wrest the things that are in the epistles of Paul as they do the other Scriptures, he plainly numbers those same epistles among the Scriptures; for such is the force of numbering implied by the partitive other. I shall grant, then, that the epistles of Paul written by that time (which were either plainly all of them or all except 2 Timothy) are numbered among the Scriptures by a divine testimony preserved in an apostolic epistle. But that this appellation of Scripture suffices to testify to inspiration can be gathered from the other scriptural testimonies and has been demonstrated above.

But a) who, pray, will persuade you that all the other books of the New Testament are numbered among the Scriptures by this testimony of Peter? Nay, it is quite evident that not all the books can be comprehended by those words, since not all had even been written yet. For Peter wrote this second epistle shortly before his martyrdom, in the year 66 or 67 of the vulgar era, whereas the writings of John — his Gospel, that is, as well as his epistles and the Apocalypse — did not appear until nearly twenty years later. Moreover, b) this very epistle of Peter is among those books whose genuineness and apostolic origin can be certainly proved and placed beyond controversy only from Tradition understood in the Catholic sense; whence the divinity itself and the value of the written testimony assumed for proving the inspiration of the other books — and consequently the inspiration itself of those other books — must ultimately be referred back to proof from Tradition. Hence, finally, c) those Protestants who have repudiated this second epistle of Peter are destitute even of this written testimony for proving the inspiration of the Scriptures of the New Testament.

The other written testimony could be 1 Tim. V. 18, where it is read as follows: « For the Scripture saith: Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn; and: the labourer is worthy of his hire. » The former sentence is taken from Deut. XXV. 4; the latter, which according to the interpretation of the Vulgate is the citation of some passage of Scripture, in the words as conceived occurs nowhere except in Luke X. 7. If this is so, and unless perhaps the Apostle is only applying as to the sense what is prescribed in Deut. XXIV. 14. concerning wages to be rendered to labourers, St. Paul here numbers the Gospel of Luke among the Scriptures. But this matter is not certain enough, and even if it is admitted, you will prove nothing from it for the inspiration of all the books of the canon of the New Testament. For proving this, therefore, no testimony is to be found in the apostolic writings; but it has come down to us in no other way than by Tradition alone.

Scholion. Unless what has been said is rightly understood, what we assert concerning the books of the New Testament will seem not sufficiently coherent with what we concede concerning the books of the Old Testament. To some, moreover, less attentive to the sense in which we here understand Tradition, we shall seem besides to have conceded too much and even to have written contradictions.

1°. As regards the books of the Old Testament, once the number and canon of the books which were of authority among the Jews in the time of Christ and the Apostles has been historically proved, we concede that the testimony of Christ and the Apostles concerning the whole collection in common, consigned in the apostolic writings, suffices so that from that written testimony itself the inspiration of all these books must be deemed revealed. Why, then, once the collection of the books of the New Testament has been historically proved, is not the testimony of Peter in the same way enough for demonstrating the inspiration of all the books of this collection?

The answer is not difficult. For both the written divine testimonies and the historical proof as regards the books of the Old Testament are very different from the history and the written divine testimony as regards the books of the New Testament. As regards those former books, express testimonies stand forth in the apostolic writings by which all the books existing at that time in the canon of the Synagogue are confirmed by Christ and by the Apostles as inspired, and are reckoned to inspired Scripture. Let the testimonies adduced in th. I. and II. be weighed, above all 2 Tim. III. 15. 16. Then, moreover, it is demonstrated with historical evidence that at least all those books which the Jews still have in their canon were already at that time in the same. Whence the written divine testimony evidently belongs to all these books. In this argumentation the historical demonstration is only the application of the revealed universal proposition to the singular objects which are demonstrated to be comprehended under the universal proposition. If such an application prevented the singular object from being revealed and from being sufficiently proposed as revealed, mediate revelation and faith universally would be subverted: « unless we had rational souls, we could not believe. » Thus in the universal proposition by which it is revealed that all the posterity of Adam contract original sin (excepting, of course, Christ, and excepting the most holy Mother of God), it is already revealed that individual determinate men have contracted sin. For the natural knowledge that these men too are men drawing their origin from Adam is only (as I have said) the application of the universal and revealed proposition to singular objects. By the written divine testimony it is revealed that all the books comprehended in the time of Christ and the Apostles in the collection of the Scriptures of the Synagogue are books of inspired Scripture; but in that collection there were evidently comprehended at least all these books which the Jews still have in their canon; therefore by the written divine testimony it is revealed that all these books are books of inspired Scripture. The conclusion of this syllogism is contained wholly in the major; the minor only evidently shows the comprehension of the consequent in the major. Nay, if the minor proposition is enunciated thus: but in that collection there were comprehended at least many of the books which are still in the canon, this very minor has for itself the written divine testimony, as is established from the citations made most frequently by Christ and by the Apostles.

But as regards the books of the New Testament, the written testimony of 2 Pet. III. 16. cannot be referred except to the books then already existing in the collection of the Scriptures. But a) some of the books of the New Testament which we have in the canon were at that time not even yet written; b) concerning several others it cannot be evidently proved by historical arguments alone, with Tradition understood in the Catholic sense set aside, that they were even then held in the census of the Scriptures. Therefore from that written testimony the inspiration of the whole collection of the books of the New Testament which we now have, and which even the Protestants have retained, cannot be proved.

2°. The other difficulty which can present itself is the following. We seem to concede that from the Scriptures themselves the inspiration of very many books can be proved, precision being made from Tradition; but how can this be done, since both the books to be proved and the books furnishing the proof have been preserved to us only by Tradition, and only by Tradition can their genuineness and integrity be established? Moreover, it might seem that greater force is here conceded to proofs from the Scriptures independently of Tradition than was conceded in the Treatise on Tradition. The answer to these points can be drawn from what we said on Tradition, th. XXI. n. II.

a) The preservation and proof of the genuineness and integrity of the books certainly cannot be understood except from Tradition, at least historical; yet this proof can be instituted, and as regards several books — among which certainly are the Gospels and the epistles of Paul — rendered evident, with precision made from authentic Tradition understood in the Catholic sense. But once the genuineness of these books is proved, there follows the truth and divinity of the doctrine consigned in them. Whence from the testimonies of Christ and of the Apostles, which from the proved genuineness of the books are proved to be true and divine testimonies, the inspiration of the other books can be proved with precision made from Tradition understood in the Catholic sense.

b) The books from which the testimonies are drawn are not, however, supposed necessarily as inspired; but it suffices that they be proved genuine, that is, written by the Evangelists and Apostles to whom they are attributed; for from this very fact the veracity and divinity of the doctrine is sufficiently established.

c) We do not say that this demonstration of the inspiration of the books from the written testimonies is suited to all, for all circumstances, for settling controversies, for all books. Here we only inquire whether there are written apostolic testimonies in which the inspiration of some books is demonstrated to be enunciated — for those who are capable of grasping the demonstration and who profess that they admit the apostolic doctrine as divine revelation without controversy. This we certainly concede; yet at the same time what was said in the Treatise on Tradition remains firm. Namely, just as generally with regard to other dogmas, so also with regard to this dogma concerning the inspiration and the number of the inspired books, the proposition necessary for preserving unity of faith in Catholicity is through authentic Tradition understood in the Catholic sense; and this is the ordinary economy instituted by Christ for the preservation and propagation of the faith. Nay more, as is established from what was said in this thesis, the inspiration of all the books — whether contained in the Catholic canon or even retained by the Protestants — is one of those heads of doctrine which are not written, but have been preserved to us by Tradition alone under the assistance of the Holy Spirit.