Tractatus de divina traditione et Scriptura

On the notion of authenticity, and on the dogmatic declaration of the authenticity of an edition of the Scriptures.

« Although the authenticity of Scripture taken universally, and the authenticity of some edition or version of the Scriptures, differ from each other; yet to the same office of guarding the deposit, to which belongs the definition of the canon of the Scriptures, belongs also declaring the authenticity of a determinate edition or version. The theological argument, moreover, which the Tridentine Fathers drew from the long use of so many centuries both for declaring the authenticity of the Latin Vulgate edition and for defining the canon of the sacred books, is in the end nothing else than an appeal to supernatural providence and the perpetual assistance of the Holy Spirit, under which the Church infallibly guards the deposit also insofar as it is contained in the written word of God. »

I. The name αὐθέντης signifies among the Greek writers him who has power or authority¹. In law, however, the name is transferred to writings and instruments, especially public ones, whose authenticity is the same as authority for making faith — not always of one mode, but that for the making of which they are adduced.

There may a) be question of the authority of an instrument in its very origin, and hence in the αὐτογραφῳ itself, which we may call original authenticity. This is referred back to the authority of him who is himself the author of the instrument; for an instrument has authority from nowhere else, but exhibits and represents that of its author. Hence, if there is certainty concerning the authority of him to whom the writing is attributed, the question of the original authenticity of an instrument supposed to have been duly drawn up coincides with the question of its genuineness. Hence it has come about that authenticity and genuineness (γνησιότης) of documents are often confused, although the notion of each is not altogether the same.

There may b), the original authenticity of which we spoke being supposed, be question of the authenticity of copies, whether they be ἀπογράφαι or versions. If the original writing has authority, as is supposed, copies transcribed and versions surely have the same at least intrinsically and in themselves, insofar as they are conformable to the original itself. Hence we may call this authenticity of conformity. This, therefore, the original authenticity being supposed, coincides with integrity (exclusion of interpolation and corruption) in copies, and with sincerity in versions (namely, that the sense of the original instrument be sincerely expressed). But if the original document itself has no authority, the integrity of copies and the fidelity of versions can be called authenticity only improperly, from mere conformity with a wholly unauthentic original. Thus Serarius in an improper sense took authenticity for mere conformity, when he wrote: « a version can be authentic, not the (original) writing... of which sort is the example, if one faithfully translated a false letter or a pseudepigraphic and lying book » Prolegom. Bibl. c. 19. q. 11. With this general signification of the names supposed, we deduce the special notions concerning the authenticity of sacred Scripture.

1°. The original authenticity of the Scriptures, or that divine authority which is vindicated for them, rises and is established from this, that the books are divinely inspired, and God is their author: « what is sacred Scripture but a kind of letter of almighty God to His creature? » s. Gregor. M. l. IV. ep. 31. See th. II. The demonstration of inspiration, therefore, is the demonstration of the divine original authenticity, and consequently the demonstration of the canon of the books pertaining to Scripture is the demonstration of at least the original authenticity of all these books.

But indeed the faith and definition of the Church, while it believes and proposes the canon of the sacred books, declares not only the primitive fact of inspiration, or that inspired books reckoned under these names primitively existed; but the faith and definition is referred to the Scriptures still now existing in the Church of God. Hence the definition of the canon, declaring that these determinate Scriptures are inspired, includes two things: namely, that the books known under these names were primitively inspired by God, and that the books which we have in the Church of God are the same as they were written with God inspiring primitively; i.e. the faith and definition of the Church has for its object both the original authenticity which we so called, and the authenticity of conformity.

In this definition, however, the declaration of the authenticity of conformity is not yet of itself applied to any determinate edition or version; but it is only declared that the primitively inspired books are still now had in the Church of God, at least so that in all recensions taken together the primitive word exists and can be discerned. For it is one thing to speak of conformity in a determinate edition, and another of conformity either indeterminately in some one of all existing editions, or as it could be constituted and had from all taken together.

We concede indeed, and indeed we also vindicate, that simply by the public and universal use itself of some edition or version in the Church its authenticity of conformity simply so called is already sufficiently proposed. This, however, does not prevent the declaration of the authenticity of a singular recension from being distinct from the declaration of the authenticity of Scripture taken universally; just as Scripture itself insofar as it is considered in all recensions taken together is distinguished from some singular edition or recension.

The original authenticity, therefore, can indeed be conceived abstractly of itself, without the authenticity of the Scripture now extant being included and understood; but the authenticity of the Scripture extant in the Church of God cannot be conceived without including both the original authenticity and the authenticity of conformity with the books primitively written with God inspiring. By this very fact the authenticity of a singular edition or version of Scripture also includes the same twofold authenticity, original and of conformity.

2°. Another distinction comes into use between internal and external authenticity. Internal authenticity is the authority itself which is in a writing or instrument from its origin and from conformity with the authentic original; external authenticity taken altogether generically may be called internal authenticity insofar as it is manifest. This, therefore, which is called external authenticity, presupposes and includes internal authenticity. Hence it is plain that both original authenticity and authenticity of conformity can be either merely internal, or at once internal and external; but there cannot be external authenticity without internal.

When the question is of the Scriptures, the internal original authenticity is constituted by inspiration itself; to be manifested, however, as is fitting, and so to become external authenticity, it cannot be otherwise than by divine testimony. Of these things we spoke above (th. V. seqq.).

Here, the original authenticity supposed, the question is of the authenticity of conformity in an edition or version. This internal authenticity of conformity is the very fact of conformity with the authentic primitive text, independently of manifestation or declaration; external authenticity of conformity taken generically is, from what has been said, conformity with the original text insofar as the conformity is manifested. This manifestation can itself also be twofold, private and public.

Wholly private writings, whose authors have no juridical authority but only scientific, have themselves internal authenticity only in the scientific sense, but are not valid in the juridical sense by public authority; thus even this, whatever it be, authority of theirs is manifested only scientifically through history and criticism. Of these we do not speak.

If instruments be public, which society itself uses, by which it is ruled, and in whose laws it is constituted, the internal authenticity of them can indeed also be manifested historically and critically. But such a manifestation does not yet constitute the external authenticity befitting instruments of this kind. For their authority must be public for the whole society; but such a manifestation of it is only private, pertaining to the few, insofar as individuals themselves understand it. The whole society is not ruled except by authority. Hence the external authenticity proper to public instruments is constituted only through a declaration, whether express or equivalent, made by the very public authority of the society.

Hence some edition or version of Scripture, which is a public instrument of the Church consigned to her by God, if it be conformable to the original primitively written under the inspiration of God, is intrinsically authentic. If this conformity is merely scientifically demonstrated and known by those competent for the demonstration, it may perhaps be called private external authenticity or critical authenticity; yet it will not be public external authenticity, which is constituted only through a declaration of conformity made by the Church herself, whether expressly or equivalently through constant public use.

3°. From the notions premised these theorems follow concerning authentic Scriptures in the Catholic Church on the one part and among Protestants on the other.

a) Just as the declaration of the Church does not effect the original authenticity or inspiration of Scripture, so neither the internal authenticity of conformity, but it supposes it and manifests it as already preexisting. b) An equivalent or express declaration of the Church effects public external authenticity. c) Although the external authenticity of some edition or version of Scripture already be constituted through the public use of the Church, and through it there publicly be certainty of the internal authenticity of conformity simply so called, prescinding from the degree of perfection, yet circumstances can render an express declaration of the authenticity and of its degree useful or necessary, just as not rarely circumstances render a solemn definition opportune or necessary concerning dogmas of which there was already long since sufficient certainty from ecclesiastical preaching. d) If some edition or version through a long time has ceased to be in the public use of the Catholic Church, and thus the custody of the Church no longer stands in the way of corruptions perhaps to be introduced, it can happen that concerning the external authenticity which had once been sufficiently constituted through public use, there no longer be certainty with equal dogmatic certitude. e) Since in the Protestant communion, from their principles, no ecclesiastical power and authority exists, and therefore there is no society except materially, while formally individuals must be ruled by private judgment (if they practically followed their own fundamental principles); hence no public external authenticity of Scripture can exist among them. For just as among them there can be no judgment of public authority concerning the true sense, so none concerning the authenticity of the Scriptures. Indeed, since from their principles no public authority, and by this very fact no formal ecclesiastical society, exists, the Scriptures cannot be public instruments of a lawful society; but they are only writings destined for individuals. Wherefore the judgment, as concerning the sense so concerning authenticity, can only be scientific, and consequently pertains to the school and to the few. Hence at least for the greatest part of men, who are not fit for scientific and difficult demonstrations, not only the understanding of the true sense, of which we spoke in the Treatise on Tradition th. XVIII. XIX, but also the knowledge of the authenticity of the Scriptures is, according to those same principles, impossible.

II. From the same right and office of guarding the deposit of revelation, from which the Church defines the canon of the sacred books, she also declares the authenticity of a determinate edition or version of the Scriptures.

1°. The promised assistance of the Holy Spirit for the infallible custody of the deposit of faith without doubt extends to the infallible proposition of the canonical books and of the written word of God, so that by the very charism of infallibility the danger be warded off, lest a human word ever be proposed to the faithful for the divine word, human books for divine books (above th. IX.). But in this very right and office of infallibly proposing the written word of God is included the office of infallibly judging whether what is exhibited as the written word of God under a certain form, in a certain edition or version, be the primitively inspired word itself, i.e. whether it be an edition or version conformable to its original prototype. For a human word would be handed to the faithful for the divine word no less if an edition or version simply difform from the books primitively written with God inspiring, or even some certain class of texts difform from the originals, were proposed as divine Scripture, than if books and texts written primitively by human aid alone were defined to be divinely written. Therefore to the same infallible office of custody of the deposit under the assistance of the Holy Spirit pertains, as the definition of the canon of the Scriptures, so the declaration of conformity in an edition or version with the primitive text. The same argument can be declared more distinctly.

To the Church, from the office enjoined by Christ of teaching all nations, belongs the right and office of proposing and handing down also the written word of God. This office comprises not only the tradition of abstract doctrine, that there exists some inspired word, but also the proposition of the written word itself in the concrete under a certain and determinate form, especially as to those things which in this word of themselves regard the edification of Christian doctrine. Hence in this office is contained also the right of designating some edition or version as genuine sacred Scripture, and consequently as conformable to the primitive text, especially in those things which of themselves pertain to the rule of faith and morals; or, if no one such existed, of effecting that from all recensions taken together such be restored, and of proposing it to the faithful. But in the office of teaching enjoined by Christ the charism of infallibility is promised to the Church: « teach all nations.... and behold I am with you all days » (de Tradit. th. V. sq.). Therefore both the right of declaring and the charism of infallibly declaring the authenticity of an edition or version of Scripture, especially as to those things which we have said and shall afterwards declare more distinctly as of themselves regarding faith and morals, is contained in the office and charism of infallibly teaching as the particular in the universal.

2°. Indeed, in the hypothesis that some one recension or version of Scripture be consecrated in the Church by public use through a long time in the way in which the Latin Vulgate edition was at the time of the Council of Trent, in the solemn definition of the canon of the Scriptures there is already contained an indirect definition of the authenticity of such a version and edition — a definition, I say, of sufficient authenticity and simply so called (for determining the degree of perfection in the authenticity of conformity is another question). Surely when the books pertaining to inspired Scripture are defined, by the names of the books no other Scriptures are designated than as they exist and are known by all in the public use of the Church. But in the public use of the Church known to all, from the hypothesis, the books exist only under the form of such a version. Therefore under this form they are declared to pertain to inspired Scripture, and consequently it is indirectly declared that under this form or version the books have remained identical as they had been primitively written with God inspiring. If, however, we speak expressly of the Tridentine definition of the canon, that hypothesis as to the Latin Vulgate edition not only held in fact; but the Council also expressly referred its definition of the canon to the books as they existed under the form of that edition: « if anyone shall not receive the books themselves entire with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and are had in the old Latin Vulgate edition, as sacred and canonical... let him be anathema. » Therefore at least indirectly the Latin Vulgate edition has already been declared authentic through the definition of the canon, under whose form the books and parts of books were commanded to be received as canonical. This authenticity the Council then proposed in the following paragraph also by direct declaration.

III. In the third part we treat of the argument which the Tridentine Fathers themselves indicated as the foundation of their definition².

Since the Church in her judgments is not ruled by new revelations but by the assistance of the Holy Spirit, hence the human element of inquiry and examination of the foundations for rendering judgments must be employed even by the Church herself (cf. de Tradit. th. XXV.). Now just as in the definition of the canon of the sacred books a twofold way lay open, either of a new historical inquiry into apostolic Tradition or of appeal to the manifest custom and preaching of the universal Church, which was itself a certain criterion of apostolic Tradition; so also in the decree concerning the authenticity of the Latin Vulgate edition a new critical examination could indeed have been instituted, which nevertheless was neither necessary nor deemed opportune by the Tridentine Fathers. For the public and solemn dogmatic, liturgical, polemic use of the whole Western Church obtaining from at least nine centuries supplied a foundation for judgment far more befitting the dignity and practice of the Church, intimately bound up with the very divine-human constitution of the Church and so certain that, an examination being instituted, no other conclusion — which indeed would be consonant with the truth — could have been reached than that very one which by that universal use of so many centuries already stood demonstrated.

The supreme reason why that constant use is a certain criterion, as for discerning the canonical books, so for discerning at least the simply-so-called authenticity of conformity in the edition of those same books, and hence the principle on which the Tridentine Fathers relied in the appeal to that use both in the definition of the canon and in declaring the authenticity of the Vulgate edition, is in the end referred back to the perpetual assistance of the Holy Spirit promised to the Church in teaching and proposing the word of God. The principle, namely, in each appeal was this, that under the promised assistance of the Holy Spirit it could not have come about that the universal Church theoretically and practically through many centuries received and proposed to all the faithful to be believed, as divine Scripture, books in reality human, and constantly used their testimonies as divinely written for expounding and confirming the doctrine of faith and morals. For this would have followed, as I said a little before, in the hypothesis that the version and edition which the Church constantly used had been simply difform from the inspired archetype, and consequently the books under this form had been diverse from the inspired and no longer books of God the author but of a human and fallacious interpreter, no less than if the books proposed as divine had in their origin already been human. Hence not only was the assistance of the Holy Spirit the active principle preserving the Fathers of the Council from error in rendering judgment; but the same assistance, insofar as it is perpetual in the Church, was for them also the objective principle of knowledge for judging concerning the authenticity of the Vulgate version.

For understanding the value of the criterion which the Tridentine Fathers used, the theory and practice of the universal Church regarding the Scriptures under this form of the Vulgate version demands a more distinct consideration.

In the first place practically, from the VIth century, or at least the VIIth³, in Councils whether of the Bishops of the West or of Westerners and Easterners united together, in the decrees of the Pontiffs and of all Pastors, in the sacred liturgy, in the confutation of heresies, in the instruction of the Christian people, in written books dogmatic, polemic, moral, in the schools, publicly and privately the Scriptures were used as sacred and canonical, and on their testimonies the confirmation and explication of the doctrine of faith and rule of morals rested, in the whole Western Church either solely or chiefly as the Scriptures exist in this form of the Vulgate version. This use, moreover, at least mediately — from the nature of the head of the Church and from the primacy and supreme magisterium in the Roman Church, and finally from the communion, consensus and approbation of all the Churches — pertained to the universal Church. Therefore certainly either a merely human foundation was for many centuries supposed in the universal Church as divine for the edification of faith and morals, or the Scriptures as they exist in the Vulgate version are the sincere written word of God at least as to the sum of the matter and in those parts which regard this chief scope of the Scriptures, and consequently at least in these the version is conformable to the primitive text of the inspired books. The former alternative evidently repugns the essential constitution of the Church and the perpetual assistance of the Holy Spirit promised by Christ; therefore that public and constant use is a certain criterion of the authenticity of conformity in the Latin Vulgate edition⁴.

Hence also theoretically, from the time of which we spoke, all the arguments by which the sacred books were proposed as divinely inspired Scripture, the canons of the sacred books, the demonstrations for the divinity of the Scriptures consequent upon solemn use and the citations of the Fathers and doctors, regarded immediately in the Western Church, mediately in the universal Church, the sacred Scriptures under this form of the Vulgate edition. For in the West the Scriptures were not in public use under any other form; while therefore the Scriptures were read, cited, enumerated, all that was immediately referred to the books as they are in the Vulgate edition. Mediately, moreover, this proposition of the Vulgate edition as inspired Scripture, from the reasons indicated a little before, was made by the universal Church. The same arguments, therefore, which exhibit the books as sacred and divine, exhibit them distinguished by this character insofar as they are under this form of the Latin Vulgate edition.

Corollary 1. The judgment concerning the canon of the sacred books in the Council of Trent was an explicit judgment concerning the revealed dogma that all these books are divinely inspired, and an implicit judgment concerning the dogmatic fact of conformity with the primitive text in this Latin Vulgate edition received by the public use of long centuries.

Wherefore also the second decree of sess. IV., in which the authenticity of the Vulgate edition is explicitly declared, must be deemed a dogmatic decree, defining namely the fact of the conformity of this version and edition with the original text, so that under this form holy Scripture divinely inspired has truly remained and is had in the Church of God. The truth of this fact is indeed intimately bound up with the dogmas themselves and with the divine documents themselves and (as is commonly said) fountains of the dogmas, or with the objective faith of the Church. This conformity, therefore, or internal authenticity of the Vulgate, is a fact in the eminent sense dogmatic. Wherefore I for my part do not understand how certain recent writers can say that the first decree indeed, concerning receiving the canonical books as they are had in the old Vulgate edition, is dogmatic, but this second one concerning the authenticity of the Vulgate is disciplinary. Just as the definition, e.g., that in the epistle of Cyril (read in the Council of Ephesus) orthodox doctrine is contained, in the writings of Nestorius heretical doctrine concerning the Incarnation, or that in the book of Jansenius, the « Augustinus, » five heretical propositions are contained, is a decree not disciplinary but dogmatic; so in a still stricter sense a dogmatic decree is that by which some version or edition of s. Scripture is declared authentic, i.e. to exhibit the sincere written word of God. That in the decree express mention is made of public lectures, disputations, preachings and expositions certainly does not take away its dogmatic value. It would be another thing if there were understood, for solemn acts of this kind, a use of the Vulgate prescribed in preference to other genuine texts, e.g. in preference to the originals; this could be called a disciplinary consequence deduced from the dogmatic decree. But the Council surely did not prescribe this use of the Vulgate in public lectures, disputations, preachings and expositions to the exclusion of the original texts, but in such a manner that the authenticity of the Vulgate be not called into question, but be retained whole, and that no one dare or presume to reject it on any pretext. Under this aspect, however, the prescription and prohibition is already not disciplinary, but is for determinate acts the application of the dogmatically declared authenticity.

Corollary 2. Since truth cannot contradict truth, a critical examination that is not fallacious will never confute the internal authenticity of the Vulgate edition within those limits by which the use and express declaration of the Church defined it, but will place it day by day in clearer light. Certain private opinions of theologians concerning the amplitude of the authenticity, however, will be able to be demonstrated false by such critical examination. Wherefore the declaration of authenticity in the sense which is demonstrated from certain principles to be in it must without doubt shine forth in critical examination as at least a negative norm, which not only does not impede the study of demonstrating and defending the truth, but even aids it by preserving from errors. The uncertain or even improbable opinions of some theologians, however, cannot be held as a norm.