 |
|
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
Sacred Scripture is one of the several names denoting theinspired writings which make up the Old andNew Testament.
The corresponding Latin wordscriptura occurs in some passages of theVulgate in the general sense of "writing"; e.g.,Exodus 32:16: "the writing also ofGod was graven in the tables"; again,2 Chronicles 36:22: "who [Cyrus] commanded it to be proclaimed through all his kingdom, and by writing also". In other passages of theVulgate the word denotes a private (Tobit 8:24) or public (Ezra 2:62;Nehemiah 7:64) written document, a catalogue or index (Psalm 86:6), or finally portions of Scripture, such as the canticle of Ezechias (Isaiah 38:5), and the sayings of the wise men (Sirach 44:5). The writer of2 Chronicles 30:5, 18, refers to prescriptions of the Law by the formula "as it is written", which is rendered by theSeptuagint translatorskata ten graphen; para ten graphen, "according to Scripture". The same expression is found inEzra 3:4 andNehemiah 8:15; here we have the beginning of the later form of appeal to the authority of the inspired booksgegraptai (Matthew 4:4, 6, 10;21:13; etc.), orkathos gegraptai (Romans 1:11;2:24, etc.), "it is written", "as it is written".
As the verbgraphein was thus employed to denote passages of the sacred writings, so the corresponding nounhe graphe gradually came to signify what is pre-eminently the writing, or the inspired writing. This use of the word may be seen inJohn 7:38 and10:35;Acts 8:32;Romans 4:3 and9:17; Galatians 3:8 and 4:30;2 Timothy 3:16;James 2:8;1 Peter 2:6;2 Peter 1:20; the plural form of the noun,ai graphai, is used in the same sense inMatthew 21:42;22:29;26:54;Mark 12:24;14:49;Luke 24:27, 45;John 5:39;Acts 17:2, 17 and18:24-28;1 Corinthians 15:3-4. In a similar sense are employed the expressionsgraphai hagiai (Romans 1:2),ai graphai ton propheton (Matthew 26:56),graphai prophetikai (Romans 16:26). The word has a somewhat modified sense inChrist's question, "and have you not read this scripture" (Mark 12:10). In the language of Christ and the Apostles the expression "scripture" or "scriptures" denotes the sacred books of theJews. TheNew Testament uses the expressions in this sense about fifty times; but they occur more frequently in theFourth Gospel and the Epistles than in thesynoptic Gospels. At times, the contents of Scripture are indicated more accurately as comprising the Law and the Prophets (Romans 3:21;Acts 28:23), or theLaw of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms (Luke 24:44). The Apostle St. Peter extends the designation Scripture also totas loipas graphas (2 Peter 3:16), denoting the Pauline Epistles;St. Paul (1 Timothy 5:18) seems to refer by the same expression to bothDeuteronomy 25:4 andLuke 10:7.
It is disputed whether the wordgraphe in the singular is ever used of theOld Testament as a whole. Lightfoot (Galatians 3:22) expresses the opinion that the singulargraphe in theNew Testament always means a particular passage of Scripture. But inRomans 4:3, he modifies his view, appealing to Dr. Vaughan's statement of the case. He believes that the usage of St. John may admit adoubt, though he does not think so, personally; butSt. Paul's practice is absolute and uniform. Mr. Hort says (1 Peter 2:6) that in St. John and St. Paulhe graphe is capable of being understood as approximating to the collective sense (cf. Westcott, "Hebr.", pp. 474 sqq.; Deissmann, "Bibelstudien", pp. 108 sqq., Eng. tr., pp. 112 sqq., Warfield, "Pres. and Reform. Review", X, July, 1899, pp. 472 sqq.). Here arises the question whether the expression of St. Peter (2 Peter 3:16)tas loipas graphas refers to a collection ofSt. Paul'sEpistles. Spitta contends that the termgraphai is used in a general non-technical meaning, denoting only writings ofSt. Paul's associates (Spitta, "Der zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas", 1885, p. 294). Zahn refers the term to writings of areligiouscharacter which could claim respect inChristian circles either on account of their authors or on account of their use in public worship (Einleitung, pp. 98 sqq., 108). But Mr. F.H. Chase adheres to the principle that the phraseai graphai used absolutely points to a definite and recognized collection of writings, i.e., Scriptures. The accompanying words,kai,tas loipas, and the verbstreblousin in the context confirm Mr. Chase in his conviction (cf. Dict. of the Bible, III, p. 810b).
Whether the termsgraphe, graphai, and their synonymous expressionsto biblion (Nehemiah 8:8),ta biblia (Daniel 9:2),kephalis bibliou (Psalm 39:8),he iera biblos (2 Maccabees 8:23),ta biblia ta hagia (1 Maccabees 12:9),ta iera grammata (2 Timothy 3:15) refer to particular writings or to a collection of books, they at least show the existence of a number of written documents the authority of which was generally accepted as supreme. The nature of this authority may be inferred from a number of other passages. According toDeuteronomy 31:9-13, Moses wrote the Book of the Law (of the Lord), and delivered it to thepriests that they might keep it and read it to the people; see alsoExodus 17:14;Deuteronomy 17:18-19;27:1;28:1;58-61;29:20;30:10;31:26;1 Samuel 10:25;1 Kings 2:3;2 Kings 22:8. It is clear from2 Kings 23:1-3, that towards the end of the Jewish kingdom the Book of the Law of the Lord was held in the highesthonour as containing theprecepts of the Lord Himself. That this was also the case after the Captivity, may be inferred from II Esdr., viii, 1-9, 13,14, 18; the book here mentioned contained the injunctions concerning theFeast of Tabernacles found in Lev., xxiii, 34 sq.;Deuteronomy 16:13 sq., and is therefore identical with the pre-Exilic Sacred Books. According to I Mach., i, 57-59, Antiochus commanded the Books of the Law of the Lord to be burned and their retainers to slain. We learn from II Mach., ii, 13, that at the time of Nehemias there existed a collection of books containing historical, prophetical, and psalmodic writings; since the collection is represented as uniform, and since the portions were considered as certainly of Divine authority, we may infer that this characteristic was ascribed to all, at least in some degree. Coming down to the time ofChrist, we find thatFlavius Josephus attributes to the twenty-two protocanonical books of theOld Testament Divine authority, maintaining that they had been written underDivine inspiration and that they containGod's teachings (Contra Appion., I, vi-viii). The HellenistPhilo too is acquainted with the three parts of the sacred Jewish books to which he ascribes an irrefragable authority, because they containGod's oracles expressed through the instrumentality of the sacred writers ("De vit. Mosis", pp. 469, 658 sq.; "De monarchia", p. 564).
This concept of Scripture is fully upheld by theChristian teaching.Jesus Christ Himself appeals to the authority of Scripture, "Search the scriptures" (John 5:39); He maintains that "one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of thelaw, till all be fulfilled" (Matthew 5:18); He regards it as a principle that "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35); He presents the word of Scripture as the word of the eternal Father (John 5:33-41), as the word of a writer inspired by the Holy Ghost (Matthew 22:43), as the word ofGod (Matthew 19:4-5;22:31); He declares that "all things must needs be fulfilled which are written in thelaw of Moses, and in theprophets, and in the psalms, concerning me (Luke 24:44). The Apostlesknew that "prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men ofGod spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21); they regarded "all scripture, inspired ofGod" as "profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct injustice" (2 Timothy 3:16). They considered the words of Scripture as the words ofGod speaking in the inspired writer or by the mouth of the inspired writer (Hebrews 4:7;Acts 1:15-16;4:25). Finally, they appealed to Scripture as to an irresistible authority (Romans,passim), they supposed that parts of Scripture have a typical sense such as onlyGod can employ (John 19:36;Hebrews 1:5;7:3 sqq.), and they derived most important conclusions even from a few words or certain grammatical forms of Scripture (Galatians 3:16;Hebrews 12:26-27). It is not surprising, then, that theearliest Christian writers speak in the same strain of the Scriptures.St. Clement of Rome (I Corinthians 45) tells his readers to search the Scriptures for the truthful expressions of the Holy Ghost.St. Irenæus (Against Heresies II.38.2) considers the Scriptures as uttered by theWord of God and His Spirit.Origen testifies that it is granted by bothJews andChristians that theBible was written under (the influence of) the Holy Ghost (Against Celsus V.10); again, he considers it as proven byChrist's dwelling in the flesh that the Law and the Prophets were written by a heavenly charisma, and that the writings believed to be the words ofGod are not men's work (De princ., iv, vi).St. Clement of Alexandria receives the voice ofGod who has given the Scriptures, as a reliableproof (Stromata I.2).
Not to multiply patristic testimony for the Divine authority of Scripture, we may add the officialdoctrine of theChurch on the nature ofSacred Scripture. The fifthecumenical council condemnedTheodore of Mopsuestia for his opposition against the Divine authority of the books of Solomon, the Book of Job, and the Canticle of Canticles. Since the fourth century the teaching of theChurch concerning the nature of theBible is practically summed up in the dogmatic formula thatGod is the author ofSacred Scripture. According to the first chapter of theCouncil of Carthage (A.D. 398),bishops before beingconsecrated must express theirbelief in this formula, and this profession offaith is exacted of them even today. In the thirteenth century,Innocent III imposed this formula on theWaldensians;Clement IV exacted its acceptance from Michael Palaeologus, and the emperor actually accepted it in his letter to theSecond Council of Lyons (1272). The same formula was repeated in the fifteenth century byEugenius IV in hisDecree for theJacobites, in the sixteenth century by theCouncil of Trent (Sess. IV, decr. de can. Script.), and in the nineteenth century by theVatican Council. What is implied in this Divine authorship ofSacred Scripture, and how it is to be explained, has been set forth in the articleINSPIRATION.
What has been said implies that Scripture does not refer to any single book, but comprises a number of books written at different times and by different writers working under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Hence the question, how could such a collection be made, and how was it made in point of fact?
The main difficulty as to the first question (quoestio juris) arises from the fact that a book must be Divinely inspired in order to lay claim to the dignity of being regarded as Scripture. Various methods have been suggested for ascertaining the fact of inspiration. It has been claimed that so-called internal criteria are sufficient to lead us to theknowledge of this fact. But on closer investigation they prove inadequate.
Other students of this subject have endeavored to establish Apostolic authorship as a criterium of inspiration. But this answer does not give us a criterium for the inspiration of theOld Testament books, nor does it touch the inspiration of the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke, neither of whom was an Apostle. Besides, the Apostles were endowed with thegift of infallibility in their teaching, and in their writing as far as it formed part of their teaching; butinfallibility in writing does not imply inspiration. Certain writings of theRoman pontiff may beinfallible, but they are not inspired;God is not their author. Nor can the criterium of inspiration be placed in the testimony of history. For inspiration is asupernatural fact, known only toGod and probably to the inspired writer. Hence human testimony concerning inspiration is based, at best, on the testimony of oneperson who is, naturally speaking, an interested party in the matter concerning which he testifies. The history of thefalseprophets of former times as well as of our own day teaches us the futility of such testimony. It istrue thatmiracles and prophecy may, at times, confirm such human testimony as to the inspiration of a work. But, in the first place, not all inspired writers have beenprophets or workers ofmiracles; in the second place, in order that prophecies ormiracles may serve asproof of inspiration, it must be clear that themiracles were performed, and the prophecies were uttered, to establish the fact in question; in the third place, if this condition be verified, the testimony for inspiration is no longer merely human, but it has become Divine. No one willdoubt the sufficiency of Divine testimony to establish the fact of inspiration; on the other hand, no one can deny the need of such testimony in order that we may distinguish withcertainty between an inspired and a non-inspired book.
It is a rather difficult problem to state withcertainty, how and when the several books of the Old and theNew Testament were received as sacred by thereligious community.Deuteronomy 31:9, 24 sqq., informs us that Moses delivered the Book of the Law to theLevites and the ancients ofIsrael to be deposited "in the side of theark of the covenant"; according toDeuteronomy 17:18, the king had to procure for himself a copy of at least a part of the book, so as to "read it all the days of his life".Josue (24:26) added his portion to the law-book ofIsrael, and this may be regarded as the second step in the collection of theOld Testament writings. According toIsaiah 34:16 andJeremiah 36:4, theprophets Isaias and Jeremias collected their respective prophetic utterances. The words of2 Chronicles 29:30, lead us to suppose that in the days of King Ezechias there either existed or originated a collection of thePsalms of David and of Asaph. FromProverbs 25:1, one may infer that about the same time there was made a collection of the Solomonic writings, which may have been added to the collection of psalms. In the second century B.C. the MinorProphets had been collected into one work (Ecclus., xlix, 12) which is cited inActs 7:42, as "the books of theprophets". The expressions found inDaniel 9:2, and I Mach., xii, 9, suggest that even these smaller collections had been gathered into a larger body of sacred books. Such a larger collection is certainly implied in the words II Mach., ii, 13, and the prologue of Ecclesiasticus. Since these two passages mention the main divisions of theOld-Testament canon, this latter must have been completed, at least with regard to the earlier books, during the course of the second century B.C.
It is generally granted that theJews in the time ofJesus Christ acknowledged as canonical or included in their collection of sacred writings all the so-called protocanonical books of theOld Testament. Christ and the Apostles endorsed thisfaith of theJews, so that we have Divine authority for their Scriptural character. As there are solid reasons for maintaining that some of the New-Testament writers made use of theSeptuagint version which contained the deuterocanonical books of theOld Testament, these latter too are in so far attested as part ofSacred Scripture. Again, II Pet., iii, 15-16, ranks all theEpistles ofSt. Paul with the "other scriptures", and1 Timothy 5:18, seems to quoteLuke 10:7, and to place it on a level withDeuteronomy 25:4. But these arguments for the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books of theOld Testament, of the Pauline Epistles, and of the Gospel of St. Luke do not exclude all reasonabledoubt. Only theChurch, theinfallible bearer of tradition, can furnish us invinciblecertainty as to the number of the Divinely inspired books of both the Old and theNew Testament. See CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
As the twodispensations of grace separated from each other by the advent ofJesus are called the Old and theNew Testament (Matthew 26:28;2 Corinthians 3:14), so were the inspired writings belonging to either economy of grace from the earliest times called books of the Old or of theNew Testament, or simply the Old or theNew Testament. This name of the two great divisions of the inspired writings has been practically common amongLatin Christians from the time ofTertullian, thoughTertullian himself frequently employs the name "Instrumentum" or legally authentic document;Cassiodorus uses the title "Sacred Pandects", or sacred digest of law.
The word "canon" denoted at first the material rule, or instrument, employed in various trades; in a metaphorical sense it signified the form of perfection that had to be attained in the various arts or trades. In this metaphorical sense some of the early Fathers urged the canon oftruth, the canon of tradition, the canon offaith, the canon of theChurch against theerroneous tenets of the earlyheretics (St. Clem.,I Corinthians 7; Clement of Alexandria,Stromata I.16;Origen,De Principiis IV.9; etc.). St. Irenæus employed another metaphor, calling theFourth Gospel the canon oftruth (Against Heresies III.11);St. Isidore of Pelusium applies the name to all the inspired writings (Epist., iv, 14). About the time ofSt. Augustine (Contra Crescent., II, xxxix) andSt. Jerome (Prolog. gal.), the word "canon" began to denote the collection ofSacred Scriptures; among later writers it is used practically in the sense of catalogue of inspired books. In the sixteenth century, Sixtus Senensis, O.P., distinguished between protocanonical and deuterocanonical books. This distinction does not indicate a difference of authority, but only a difference of time at which the books were recognized by the whole Church as Divinely inspired. Deuterocanonical, therefore, are those books concerning the inspiration of which some Churchesdoubted more or less seriously for a time, but which were accepted by the whole Church as really inspired, after the question had been thoroughly investigated. As to theOld Testament, the Books of Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, I, II, Machabees, and also Esther, x, 4- xvi, 24, Daniel, iii, 24-90, xiii, 1-xiv, 42, are in this sense deuterocanonical; the same must be said of the following New- Testament books and portions: Hebrews, James, II Peter, II, III John, Jude, Apocalypse,Mark 13:9-20,Luke 22:43-44,John 7:53-8:11.Protestant writers often call the deuterocanonical Books of theOld Testament the Apocrypha.
The prologue of Ecclesiasticus shows that theOld-Testament books were divided into three parts, the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (the Hagiographa). The same division is mentioned inLuke 24:44, and has been kept by the laterJews. The Law or the Torah comprises only thePentateuch. The second part contains two sections: the former Prophets (Josue,Judges, Samuel, and Kings), and the latter Prophets (Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, and the MinorProphets, called the Twelve, and counted as one book). The third division embraces three kinds of books: first poetical books (Psalms, Proverbs, Job); secondly, the five Megilloth or Rolls (Canticle of Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther); thirdly, the three remaining books (Daniel, Esdras, Paralipomenon). Hence, adding the five books of the first division to the eight of the second, and the eleven of the third, the entire Canon of the Jewish Scriptures embraces twenty-four books. Another arrangement connects Ruth with theBook of Judges, and Lamentations with Jeremias, and thus reduces the number of the books in the Canon to twenty-two. The division of the New-Testament books into the Gospel and the Apostle (Evangelium et Apostolus, Evangelia et Apostoli, Evangelica et Apostolica) began in the writings of theApostolic Fathers (St. Ignatius, "Ad Philad.", v; "Epist. ad Diogn., xi) and was commonly adopted about the end of the second century (St. Irenaeus,Against Heresies I.3;Tertullian, "De praescr.", xxxiv;St. Clement of Alexandria,Stromata VII.3, etc.); but the more recent Fathers did not adhere to it. It has been found more convenient to divide both theOld Testament and the New into four, or still better into three parts. The four parts distinguish between legal, historical, didactic ordoctrinal, and prophetic books, while the tripartite division adds the legal books (thePentateuch and the Gospels) to the historical, and retains the other two classes, i.e., the didactic and the prophetic books.
The catalogue of theCouncil of Trent arranges the inspired books partly in a topological, partly in a chronological order. In theOld Testament, we have first all the historical books, excepting the two books of the Machabees which were supposed to have been written last of all. These historical books are arranged according to the order of time of which they treat; the books of Tobias, Judith, and Ester, however, occupy the last place because they relate personal history. The body of didactic works occupies the second place in the Canon, being arranged in the order of time at which the writers are supposed to have lived. The third place is assigned to the Prophets, first the four Major and then the twelve MinorProphets, according to their respective chronological order. The Council follows a similar method in the arrangement of the New- Testament books. The first place is given to the historical books, i.e., the Gospels and the Book of Acts; the Gospels follow the order of their reputed composition. The second place is occupied by the didactic books, the Pauline Epistles preceding theCatholic. The former are enumerated according to the order of dignity of the addresses and according to the importance of the matter treated. Hence results the series: Romans; I, II Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians; Philippians; Colossians;I, II Thessalonians; I, II Timothy; Titus; Philemon; the Epistle to the Hebrews occupies the last place on account of its late reception into the canon. In its disposition of theCatholic Epistles the Council follows the so- called western order: I, II Peter; I, II, III John; James; Jude; ourVulgate edition follows the oriental order (James; I, II, III, John; Jude) which seems to be based onGalatians 2:9. The Apocalypse occupies in theNew Testament the place corresponding to that of the Prophets in theOld Testament.
The needs of liturgy occasioned a division of the inspired books into smaller parts. At the time of the Apostles it was a received custom to read in thesynagogue service of thesabbath-day a portion of thePentateuch (Acts 15:21) and a part of the Prophets (Luke 4:16;Acts 13:15, 27). Hence thePentateuch has been divided into fifty-four "parashas" according to the number ofsabbaths in the intercalary lunar year. To eachparasha corresponds a division of the prophetic writings, calledhaphtara. The Talmud speaks of more minute divisions,pesukim, which almost resemble our verses. TheChurch transferred to theChristian Sunday the Jewish custom of reading part of the Scriptures in the assemblies of thefaithful, but soon added to, or replaced, the Jewish lessons by parts of theNew Testament (St. Just., "I Apol.", lxvii; Tert., "De praescr.", xxxvi, etc.). Since the particular churches differed in the selection of the Sunday readings, this custom did not occasion any generally received division in the books of theNew Testament. Besides, from the end of the fifth century, these Sunday lessons were no longer taken in order, but the sections were chosen as they fitted in with theecclesiastical feasts and seasons.
For the convenience of readers and students the text had to be divided more uniformly than we have hitherto seen. Such divisions are traced back toTatian, in the second century. Ammonius, in the third, divided the Gospel text into 1162kephalaia in order to facilitate a Gospel harmony.Eusebius, Euthalius, and others carried on this work of division in the following centuries, so that in the fifth or sixth the Gospels were divided into 318 parts (tituli), the Epistles into 254 (capitula), and the Apocalypse into 96 (24sermones, 72capitula).Cassiodorus relates that theOld Testament text was divided into various parts (De inst. div. lit., I, ii). But all these various partitions were too imperfect and too uneven for practical use, especially when in the thirteenth century concordances (seeCONCORDANCES) began to be constructed. About this time, Card. Stephen Langton,Archbishop ofCanterbury, who died 1228, divided all the books of Scripture uniformly into chapters, a division which found its way almost immediately into thecodices of theVulgate version and even into somecodices of the original texts, and passed into all the printed editions after the invention of printing. As the chapters were too long for ready reference, Cardinal Hugh of St. Cher divided them into smaller sections which he indicated by the capital letters A, B, etc. Robert Stephens, probably imitating R. Nathan (1437) divided the chapters into verses, and published his complete division into chapters and verses first in theVulgate text (1548), and later on also in the Greek original of theNew Testament (1551).
Since Scripture is the written word ofGod, its contents are Divinely guaranteedtruths, revealed either in the strict or the wider sense of the word. Again, since the inspiration of a writing cannot be known without Divine testimony,God must have revealed which are the books that constituteSacred Scripture. Moreover,theologians teach thatChristian Revelation was complete in the Apostles, and that its deposit was entrusted to the Apostles to guard and topromulgate. Hence the apostolic deposit of Revelation contained no merelySacred Scripture in the abstract, but also theknowledge as to its constituent books. Scripture, then, is an Apostolic deposit entrusted to theChurch, and to theChurch belongs its lawful administration. This position ofSacred Scripture in theChurch implies the following consequences:
(1) The Apostlespromulgated both the Old andNew Testament as a document received fromGod. It is antecedently probable thatGod should not cast his written Word upon men as a mere windfall, coming from no known authority, but that he should entrust its publication to the care of those whom he was sending to preach the Gospel to all nations, and with whom he had promised to be for all days, even to the consummation of the world. In conformity with this principle,St. Jerome (De script. eccl.) says of the Gospel of St. Mark: "When Peter had heard it, he both approved of it and ordered it to be read in the churches". The Fathers testify to thepromulgation of Scripture by theApostles where they treat of the transmission of the inspired writings.
(2) The transmission of the inspired writings consists in the delivery of Scripture by theApostles to their successors with the right, theduty, and the power to continue itspromulgation, to preserve its integrity and identity, to explain its meaning, to use it in proving and illustratingCatholic teaching, to oppose and condemn any attack upon itsdoctrine, or any abuse of its meaning. We may infer all this from the character of the inspired writings and the nature of the Apostolate; but it is also attested by some of the weightiest writers of the early Church. St. Irenæus insists upon these points against theGnostics, who appealed to Scripture as to private historical documents. He excludes thisGnostic view, first by insisting on the mission of the Apostles and upon the succession in the Apostolate, especially as seen in theChurch ofRome (Haer., III, 3-4); secondly, by showing that the preaching of the Apostles continued by their successors contains asupernatural guarantee ofinfallibility through the indwelling of the Holy Ghost (Haer., III, 24); thirdly, by combining theApostolic succession and thesupernatural guarantee of the Holy Ghost (Haer., IV, 26). It seems plain that, if Scripture cannot be regarded as a private historical document on account of the official mission of the Apostles, on account of the official succession in the Apostolate of their successors, on account of the assistance of the Holy Ghost promised to the Apostles and their successors, thepromulgation of Scripture, the preservation of its integrity and identity, and the explanation of its meaning must belong to the Apostles and their legitimate successors. The same principles are advocated by the great Alexandrian doctor,Origen (De princ., Praef.). "That alone", he says, "is to be believed to be thetruth which in nothing differs from theecclesiastical and Apostolical tradition". In another passage (in Matth. tr. XXIX, n. 46-47), he rejects the contention urged by theheretics "as often as they bring forward canonical Scriptures in which every Christian agrees andbelieves", that "in the houses is the word oftruth"; "for from it (the Church) alone the sound hath gone forth into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world". That the African Church agrees with the Alexandrian, is clear from the words ofTertullian (De praescript., nn, 15, 19). He protests against the admission ofheretics "to any discussion whatever touching the Scriptures". "This question should be first proposed, which is now the only one to be discussed, 'To whom belongs thefaith itself: whose are the Scriptures'?. . .For thetrue Scriptures and thetrue expositions and all thetrueChristian traditions will be wherever both thetrue Christian rule andfaith shall be shown to be".St. Augustine endorses the same position when he says: "I should not believe the Gospel except on the authority of theCatholicChurch" (Con. epist. Manichaei, fundam., n. 6).
(3) By virtue of its official and permanent promulgation, Scripture is a public document, the Divine authority of which is evident to all the members of theChurch.
(4) TheChurch necessarily possesses a text of Scripture, which is internally authentic, or substantially identical with the original. Any form or version of the text, the internal authenticity of which theChurch has approved either by its universal and constant use, or by a formal declaration, enjoys the character of external or public authenticity, i.e., its conformity with the original must not merely be presumed juridically, but must be admitted as certain on account of theinfallibility of the Church.
(5) The authentic text, legitimatelypromulgated, is a source andrule of faith, though it remains only a means or instrument in the hands of the teaching body of theChurch, which alone has the right of authoritatively interpreting Scripture.
(6) The administration and custody of Scripture is not entrusted directly to the whole Church, but to its teaching body, though Scripture itself is the commonproperty of the members of the whole Church. While the private handling of Scripture is opposed to the fact that it is commonproperty, its administrators are bound to communicate its contents to all the members of theChurch.
(7) Though Scripture is theproperty of the Church alone, those outside her pale may use it as a means of discovering or entering theChurch. ButTertullian shows that they have noright to apply Scripture to their own purposes or to turn it against theChurch. He also teachesCatholics how to contest the right ofheretics to appeal to Scripture at all (by a kind of demurrer), before arguing with them on single points of Scripturaldoctrine.
(8) Therights of the teaching body of theChurch include also that of issuing and enforcing decrees for promoting the right use, or preventing the abuse ofScripture. Not to mention the definition of the Canon (seeCANON), theCouncil of Trent issued two decrees concerning theVulgate, and adecree concerning the interpretation of Scripture (seeEXEGESIS,HERMENEUTICS), and this last enactment was repeated in a more stringent form by theVatican Council (sess. III, Conc. Trid., sess. IV). The various decisions of theBiblical Commission derive their binding force from this same right of the teaching body of theChurch. (Cf.Stapleton, Princ. Fid. Demonstr., X-XI; Wilhelm and Scannell, "Manual of Catholic Theology", London, 1890, I, 61 sqq.; Scheeben, "Handbuch der katholischen Dogmatik", Freiburg, 1873, I, 126 sqq.).
The attitude of theChurch as to the reading of theBible in the vernacular may be inferred from theChurch's practice and legislation. It has been the practice of theChurch to provide newly-converted nations, as soon as possible, with vernacular versions of the Scriptures; hence the early Latin and oriental translations, the versions existing among theArmenians, the Slavonians, theGoths, theItalians, the French, and the partial renderings into English. As to the legislation of theChurch on this subject, we may divide its history into three large periods:
(1) During the course of the first millennium of her existence, theChurch did notpromulgate any law concerning the reading of Scripture in the vernacular. The faithful were rather encouraged to read the Sacred Books according to their spiritual needs (cf. St. Irenæus,Against Heresies III.4).
(2) The next five hundred years show only local regulations concerning the use of theBible in the vernacular. On 2 January, 1080,Gregory VII wrote to the Duke ofBohemia that he could not allow the publication of the Scriptures in the language of the country. The letter was written chiefly to refuse the petition of theBohemians for permission to conduct Divine service in theSlavic language. The pontiff feared that the reading of theBible in the vernacular would lead to irreverence and wrong interpretation of the inspired text (St. Gregory VII, "Epist.", vii, xi). The second document belongs to the time of theWaldensian andAlbigensianheresies. TheBishop ofMetz had written toInnocent III that there existed in hisdiocese a perfect frenzy for theBible in the vernacular. In 1199 thepope replied that in general the desire to read the Scriptures was praiseworthy, but that the practice was dangerous for the simple and unlearned ("Epist., II, cxli;Hurter, "Gesch. des. Papstes Innocent III",Hamburg, 1842, IV, 501 sqq.). After the death ofInnocent III, the Synod ofToulouse directed in 1229 its fourteenth canon against the misuse ofSacred Scripture on the part of theCathari: "prohibemus, ne libros Veteris et Novi Testamenti laicis permittatur habere" (Hefele, "Concilgesch", Freiburg, 1863, V, 875). In 1233 the Synod ofTarragona issued a similar prohibition in its second canon, but both theselaws are intended only for the countries subject to thejurisdiction of the respectivesynods (Hefele, ibid., 918). The Third Synod of Oxford, in 1408, owing to the disorders of theLollards, who in addition to their crimes ofviolence andanarchy had introduced virulent interpolations into the vernacularsacred text, issued a law in virtue of which only the versions approved by the local ordinary or the provincial council were allowed to be read by thelaity (Hefele, op. cit., VI, 817).
(3) It is only in the beginning of the last five hundred years that we meet with a general law of theChurch concerning the reading of theBible in the vernacular. On 24 March, 1564,Pius IVpromulgated in his Constitution, "Dominici gregis", the Index of Prohibited Books. According to the third rule, theOld Testament may be read in the vernacular bypious and learned men, according to the judgment of thebishop, as a help to the better understanding of theVulgate. The fourth rule places in the hands of thebishop or the inquisitor the power of allowing the reading of theNew Testament in the vernacular tolaymen who according to the judgment of their confessor or theirpastor can profit by this practice.Sixtus V reserved this power to himself or the Sacred Congregation of the Index, andClement VIII added this restriction to the fourth rule of the Index, by way of appendix.Benedict XIV required that the vernacular version read bylaymen should be either approved by theHoly See or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned andpious authors. It then became an open question whether this order ofBenedict XIV was intended to supersede the former legislation or to further restrict it. Thisdoubt was not removed by the next three documents: the condemnation of certainerrors of theJansenistQuesnel as to the necessity of reading theBible, by theBull"Unigenitus" issued byClement XI on 8 Sept., 1713 (cf.Denzinger, "Enchir.", nn. 1294-1300); the condemnation of the same teaching maintained in theSynod of Pistoia, by theBull "Auctorem fidei" issued on 28 Aug., 1794, byPius VI; the warning against allowing thelaity indiscriminately to read the Scriptures in the vernacular, addressed to theBishop ofMohileff byPius VII, on 3 Sept., 1816. But theDecree issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Index on 7 Jan., 1836, seems to render it clear that henceforth thelaity may read vernacular versions of the Scriptures, if they be either approved by theHoly See, or provided with notes taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learnedCatholic authors. The same regulation was repeated byGregory XVI in hisEncyclical of 8 May, 1844. In general, theChurch has always allowed the reading of theBible in the vernacular, if it was desirable for the spiritual needs of her children; she has forbidden it only when it was almost certain to cause serious spiritual harm.
The history of the preservation and the propagation of the Scripture-text is told in the articlesMANUSCRIPTS OF THE BIBLE;CODEX ALEXANDRINUS (etc.);VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE;EDITIONS OF THE BIBLE; CRITICISM (TEXTUAL); the interpretation of Scripture is dealt with in the articlesHERMENEUTICS;EXEGESIS;COMMENTARIES ON THE BIBLE; and CRITICISM (BIBLICAL). Additional information on the foregoing questions is contained in the articlesINTRODUCTION;OLD TESTAMENT;NEW TESTAMENT. The history of our English Version is treated in the articleVERSIONS OF THE BIBLE.
A list of Catholic literature on Scriptural subjects has been published in the American Ecclesiastical Review, xxxi (August, 1904), 194-201; this list is fairly complete up to the date of its publication. See also the works cited throughout the course of this article. Most of the questions connected with Scripture are treated in special articles throughout the course of the ENCYCLOPEDIA, for instance, in addition to those mentioned above, JEROME; CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES; CONCORDANCES OF THE BIBLE; INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE; TESTAMENT, etc. Each of these articles has an abundant literary guide to its own special aspect of the Scriptures.
APA citation.Maas, A.(1912).Scripture. InThe Catholic Encyclopedia.New York: Robert Appleton Company.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13635b.htm
MLA citation.Maas, Anthony."Scripture."The Catholic Encyclopedia.Vol. 13.New York: Robert Appleton Company,1912.<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13635b.htm>.
Transcription.This article was transcribed for New Advent by Robert B. Olson.Offered to Almighty God for Timothy and Kris Gray, and for a holy love and understanding of Sacred Scripture for all members of Our Blessed Lord's Church.
Ecclesiastical approbation.Nihil Obstat. February 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, D.D., Censor.Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmasterat newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.