Scripture

Sacred Scripture is one of the several names denoting the inspired writings which

make up the Old and New Testament.

I. USE OF THE WORD

The corresponding Latin word scriptura occurs in some passages of the Vulgate

in the general sense of "writing"; e.g., Ex., xxxii, 16: "the writing also of God was

graven in the tables"; again, II Par., xxxvi, 22: "who [Cyrus] commanded it to be

proclaimed through all his kingdom, and by writing also". In other passages of

the Vulgate the word denotes a private (Tob., viii, 24) or public (Esdr., ii, 62;

Neh., vii, 64) written document, a catalogue or index (Ps. lxxxvi, 6), or finally

portions of Scripture, such as the canticle of Ezechias (Is., xxxviii, 5), and the

sayings of the wise men (Ecclus., xliv, 5). The writer of II Par., xxx, 5, 18, refers

to prescriptions of the Law by the formula "as it is written", which is rendered by

the Septuagint translators kata ten graphen; para ten graphen, "according to

Scripture". The same expression is found in I Esdr., iii, 4, and II Esdr., viii, 15;

here we have the beginning of the later form of appeal to the authority of the

inspired books gegraptai (Matt., iv, 4, 6, 10; xxi, 13; etc.), or kathos gegraptai

(Rom., i, 11; ii, 24, etc.), "it is written", "as it is written".

As the verb graphein was thus employed to denote passages of the sacred

writings, so the corresponding noun he graphe gradually came to signify what is

pre-eminently the writing, or the inspired writing. This use of the word may be

seen in John, vii, 38; x, 35; Acts, viii, 32; Rom., iv, 3; ix, 17; Gal., iii, 8; iv, 30; II

Tim., iii, 16; James, ii, 8; I Pet., ii, 6; II Pet., i, 20; the plural form of the noun, ai

graphai, is used in the same sense in Matt., xxi, 42; xxii, 29; xxvi, 54; Mark, xii,

24; xiv, 49; Luke, xxiv, 27, 45; John, v, 39; Acts, xvii, 2, 17; xviii, 24, 28; I Cor.,

xv, 3, 4. In a similar sense are employed the expressions graphai hagiai (Rom., i,

2), ai graphai ton propheton (Matt., xxvi, 56), graphai prophetikai (Rom., xvi, 26).

The word has a somewhat modified sense in Christ's question, "and have you not

read this scripture" (Mark, xii, 10). In the language of Christ and the Apostles the

expression "scripture" or "scriptures" denotes the sacred books of the Jews. The

New Testament uses the expressions in this sense about fifty times; but they

occur more frequently in the Fourth Gospel and the Epistles than in the synoptic

Gospels. At times, the contents of Scripture are indicated more accurately as

comprising the Law and the Prophets (Rom., iii, 21; Acts xxviii, 23), or the Law of

Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms (Luke, xxiv, 44). The Apostle St. Peter

extends the designation Scripture also to tas loipas graphas (II Pet., iii, 16),

denoting the Pauline Epistles; St. Paul (I Tim., v, 18) seems to refer by the same

expression to both Deut., xxv, 4, and Luke, x, 7.

It is disputed whether the word graphe in the singular is ever used of the Old

Testament as a whole. Lightfoot (Gal., iii, 22) expresses the opinion that the

singular graphe in the New Testament always means a particular passage of

Scripture. But in Rom., iv, 3, he modifies his view, appealing to Dr. Vaughan's

statement of the case. He believes that the usage of St. John may admit a

doubt, though he does not think so, personally; but St. Paul's practice is

absolute and uniform. Mr. Hort says (I Pet., ii, 6) that in St. John and St. Paul he

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 (II, Pet.,

iii, 16) tas loipas graphas refers to a collection of St. Paul's Epistles. Spitta

contends that the term graphai is used in a general non-technical meaning,

denoting only writings of St. Paul's associates (Spitta, "Der zweite Brief des

Petrus und der Brief des Judas", 1885, p. 294). Zahn refers the term to writings of

a religious character which could claim respect in Christian 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 phrase ai

graphai used absolutely points to a definite and recognized collection of writings,

i.e., Scriptures. The accompanying words, kai, tas loipas, and the verb

streblousin in the context confirm Mr. Chase in his conviction (cf. Dict. of the

Bible, III, p. 810b).

II. NATURE OF SCRIPTURE

A. According to the Jews

Whether the terms graphe, graphai, and their synonymous expressions to

biblion (II Esdr., viii, 8), ta biblia (Dan., ix, 2), kephalis bibliou (Ps., xxxix, 8), he

iera biblos (II Mach., viii, 23), ta biblia ta hagia (I Mach., xii, 9), ta iera grammata

(II Tim., iii, 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 to Deut., xxxi, 9-13, Moses wrote the

Book of the Law (of the Lord), and delivered it to the priests that they might keep

it and read it to the people; see also Ex., xvii, 14; Deut., xvii, 18-19; xxvii, 1;

xxviii, 1; 58-61; xxix, 20; xxx, 10; xxxi, 26; I Kings, x, 25; III Kings, ii, 3; IV

Kings, xxii, 8. It is clear from IV Kings, xxiii, 1-3, that towards the end of the

Jewish kingdom the Book of the Law of the Lord was held in the highest honour

as containing the precepts 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 injuctions concerning the Feast of Tabernacles found in

Lev., xxiii, 34 sq.; Deut., xvi, 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 unifrom, 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 of Christ, we find that Flavius

Josephus attributes to the twenty-two protocanonical books of the Old Testament

Divine authority, maintaining that they had been written under Divine inspiration

and that they contain God's teachings (Contra Appion., I, vi-viii). The Hellenist

Philo too is acquainted with the three parts of the sacred Jewish books to which

he ascribes an irrefragable authority, because they contain God's oracles

expressed through the instrumentality of the sacred writers ("De vit. Mosis", pp.

469, 658 sq.; "De monarchia", p. 564).

B. According to Christian Living This concept of Scripture is fully upheld by

the Christian teaching. Jesus Christ Himself appeals to the authority of Scripture,

"Search the scriptures" (John, v, 39); He maintains that "one jot, or one tittle

shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matt., v, 18); He regards it as a

principle that "the Scripture cannot be broken" (John, x, 35); He presents the

word of Scripture as the word of the eternal Father (John, v, 33-41), as the word

of a writer inspired by the Holy Ghost (Matt., xxii, 43), as the word of God (Matt.,

xix, 4-5; xxii, 31); He declares that "all things must needs be fulfilled which are

written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning

me (Luke, xxiv, 44). The Apostles knew that "prophecy came not by the will of

man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost" (II

Pet., i, 21); they regarded "all scripture, inspired of God" as "profitable to teach,

to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice" (II Tim., iii, 16). They considered the

words of Scripture as the words of God speaking in the inspired writer or by the

mouth of the inspired writer (Heb., iv, 7; Acts, i, 15-16; iv, 25). Finally, they

appealed to Scripture as to an irresistible authority (Rom., passim), they

supposed that parts of Scripture have a typical sense such as only God can

employ (John, xix, 36; Heb., i, 5; vii, 3 sqq.), and they derived most important

conclusions even from a few words or certain grammatical forms of Scripture

(Gal., iii, 16; Heb., xii, 26-27). It is not surprising, then, that the earliest Christian

writers speak in the same strain of the Scriptures. St. Clement of Rome (I Cor.,

xlv) tells his readers to search the Scriptures for the truthful expressions of the

Holy Ghost. St. Irenaeus (Adv. haer., II, xxxviii, 2) considers the Scriptures as

uttered by the Word of God and His Spirit. Origen testifies that it is granted by

both Jews and Christians that the Bible was written under (the influence of) the

Holy Ghost (Contra Cels., V, x); again, he considers it as proven by Christ'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 of God are not men's

work (De princ., iv, vi). St. Clement of Alexandria receives the voice of God who

has given the Scriptures, as a reliable proof (Strom., ii).

C. According to Ecclesiastical Documents

Not to multiply patristic testimony for the Divine authority of Scripture, we may

add the official doctrine of the Church on the nature of Sacred Scripture. The fifth

ecumenical council condemned Theodore 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 the Church

concerning the nature of the Bible is practically summed up in the dogmatic

formula that God is the author of Sacred Scripture. According to the first chapter

of the Council of Carthage (A.D. 398), bishops before being consecrated must

express their belief in this formula, and this profession of faith is exacted of them

even today. In the thirteenth century, Innocent III imposed this formula on the

Waldensians; Clement IV exacted its acceptance from Michael Palaeologus, and

the emperor actually accepted it in his letter to the Second Council of Lyons

(1272). The same formula was repeated in the fifteenth century by Eugenius IV in

his Decree for the Jacobites, in the sixteenth century by the Council of Trent

(Sess. IV, decr. de can. Script.), and in the nineteenth century by the Vatican

Council. What is implied in this Divine authorship of Sacred Scripture, and how it

is to be explained, has been set forth in the article INSPIRATION.

III. COLLECTION OF SACRED BOOKS

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?

A. Question of Right

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 the knowledge of this fact. But on closer investigation they

prove inadequate.

Miracles and prophecies require a Divine intervention in order that they

may happen, not in order that they may be recorded; hence a work

relating miracles or prophecies is not necessarily inspired.

The so-called ethico-aesthetic criterium is inadequate. It fails to establish

that certain portions of Scripture are inspired writings, e.g., the

genealogical tables, and the summary accounts of the kings of Juda,

while it favours the inspiration of several post-Apostolic works, e.g., of the

"Imitation of Christ", and of the "Epistles" of St. Ignatius Martyr.

The same must be said of the psychological criterium, or the effect which

the perusal of Scripture produces in the heart of the reader. Such

emotions are subjective, and vary in different readers. The Epistle of St.

James appeared strawlike to Luther, divine to Calvin.

These internal criteria are inadequate even if they be taken collectively.

Wrong keys are unable to open a lock whether they be used singly or

collectively.

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 the Old 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 the gift of infallibility in their teaching, and in their

writing as far as it formed part of their teaching; but infallibility in writing does not

imply inspiration. Certain writings of the Roman pontiff may be infallible, 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 a supernatural fact, known

only to God and probably to the inspired writer. Hence human testimony

concerning inspiration is based, at best, on the testimony of one person who is,

naturally speaking, an interested party in the matter concerning which he

testifies. The history of the the false prophets of former times as well as of our

own day teaches us the futility of such testimony. It is true that miracles 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 been prophets or

workers of miracles; in the second place, in order that prophecies or miracles

may serve as proof of inspiration, it must be clear that the miracles 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 will doubt 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 with

certainty between an inspired and a non-inspired book.

B. Question of Fact

It is a rather difficult problem to state with certainty, how and when the several

books of the Old and the New Testament were received as sacred by the

religious community. Deut., xxxi, 9, 24 sqq., informs us that Moses delivered the

Book of the Law to the Levites and the ancients of Israel to be deposited "in the

side of the ark of the covenant"; according to Deut., xvii, 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 (xxiv, 26) added his portion to the law-book of Israel, and

this may be regarded as the second step in the collection of the Old Testament

writings. According to Is., xxxiv, 16, and Jer., xxxvi, 4, the prophets Isaias and

Jeremias collected their respective prophetic utterances. The words of II Par.,

xxix, 30, lead us to suppose that in the days of King Ezechias there either

existed or originated a collection of the Psalms of David and of Asaph. From

Prov., xxv, 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 Minor Prophets had been

collected into one work (Ecclus., xlix, 12) which is cited in Acts, vii, 42, as "the

books of the prophets". The expressions found in Dan., ix, 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 the Old-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 the Jews in the time of Jesus Christ acknowledged as

canonical or included in their collection of sacred writings all the so-called

protocanonical books of the Old Testament. Christ and the Apostles endorsed

this faith of the Jews, 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 the Septuagint version which contained the

deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, these latter too are in so far

attested as part of Sacred Scripture. Again, II Pet., iii, 15-16, ranks all the

Epistles of St. Paul with the "other scriptures", and I Tim., v, 18, seems to quote

Luke, x, 7, and to place it on a level with Deut., xxv, 4. But these arguments for

the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, of the

Pauline Epistles, and of the Gospel of St. Luke do not exclude all reasonable

doubt. Only the Church, the infallible bearer of tradition, can furnish us invincible

certainty as to the number of the Divinely inspired books of both the Old and the

New Testament. See CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.

IV. DIVISION OF SCRIPTURE

A. Old and New Testaments

As the two dispensations of grace separated from each other by the advent of

Jesus are called the Old and the New Testament (Matt., xxvi, 28; II Cor., iii, 14),

so were the inspired writings belonging to either economy of grace from the

earliest times called books of the Old or of the New Testament, or simply the Old

or the New Testament. This name of the two great divisions of the inspired

writings has been practically common among Latin Christians from the time of

Tertullian, though Tertullian himself frequently employs the name "Instrumentum"

or legally authentic document; Cassiodorus uses the title "Sacred Pandects", or

sacred digest of law.

B. Protocanonical and Deuterocanonical

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 of truth, the canon of tradition, the canon of

faith, the canon of the Church against the erroneous tenets of the early heretics

(St. Clem., "I Cor.", vii; Clem. of Alex., "Strom.", xvi; Orig., "De princip.", IV, ix;

etc.). St. Irenaeus employed another metaphor, calling the Fourth Gospel the

canon of truth (Adv. haer., III, xi); St. Isidore of Pelusium applies the name to all

the inspired writings (Epist., iv, 14). About the time of St. Augustine (Contra

Crescent., II, xxxix) and St. Jerome (Prolog. gal.), the word "canon" began to

denote the collection of Sacred 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 Churches doubted 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 the Old

Testament, the Books of Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, I, II,

Machabees, and alos 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, xiii, 9-20, Luke, xxii, 43-44, John, vii, 53-viii, 11. Protestant

writers often call the deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament the

Apocrypha.

C. Tripartite Division of Testaments The prologue of Ecclesiasticus shows

that the Old-Testament books were divided into three parts, the Law, the

Prophets, and the Writings (the Hagiographa). The same division is mentioned in

Luke, xxiv, 44, and has been kept by the later Jews. The Law or the Torah

comprises only the Pentateuch. The second part contains two sections: the

former Prophets (Josue, Judges, Samuel, and Kings), and the latter Prophets

(Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, and the Minor Prophets, 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 the Book 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 the Apostolic Fathers (St. Ignatius, "Ad Philad.", v;

"Epist. ad Diogn., xi) and was commonly adopted about the end of the second

century (St. Iren., "Adv. haer.", I, iii; Tert., "De praescr.", xxxiv; St. Clem. of

Alex., "Strom.", VII, iii; etc.); but the more recent Fathers did not adhere to it. It

has been found more convenient to divide both the Old Testament and the New

into four, or still better into three parts. The four parts distinguish between legal,

historical, didactic or doctrinal, and prophetic books, while the tripartite division

adds the legal books (the Pentateuch and the Gospels) to the historical, and

retains the other two classes, i.e., the didactic and the prophetic books.

D. Arrangement of Books

The catalogue of the Council of Trent arranges the inspired books partly in a

topological, partly in a chronological order. In the Old 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

Minor Prophets, 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 the

Catholic. 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 the Catholic Epistles the Council follows the so- called

western order: I, II Peter; I, II, III John; James; Jude; our Vulgate edition follows

the oriental order (James; I, II, III, John; Jude) which seems to be based on Gal.,

ii, 9. The Apocalypse occupies in the New Testament the place corresponding to

that of the Prophets in the Old Testament.

E. Liturgical Division

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 the

synagogue service of the sabbath-day a portion of the Pentateuch (Acts, xv, 21)

and a part of the Prophets (Luke, iv, 16; Acts, xiii, 15, 27). Hence the Pentateuch

has been divided into fifty-four "parashas" according to the number of sabbaths in

the intercalary lunar year. To each parasha corresponds a division of the

prophetic writings, called haphtara. The Talmud speaks of more minute divisions,

pesukim, which almost resemble our verses. The Church transferred to the

Christian Sunday the Jewish custom of reading part of the Scriptures in the

assemblies of the faithful, but soon added to, or replaced, the Jewish lessons by

parts of the New 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 the New 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 the ecclesiastical feasts and seasons.

F. Divisions to facilitate reference

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 to Tatian, in

the second century. Ammonius, in the third, divided the Gospel text into 1162

kephalaia 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 (24 sermones, 72 capitula). Cassiodorus

relates that the Old 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 (see

CONCORDANCES) began to be constructed. About this time, Card. Stephen

Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, who died 1228, divided all the books of

Scripture uniformly into chapters, a division which found its way almost

immediately into the codices of the Vulgate version and even into some codices

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 the Vulgate text (1548), and later on also in the Greek original of

the New Testament (1551).

V. SCRIPTURE

Since Scripture is the written word of God, its contents are Divinely guaranteed

truths, 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 constitute Sacred Scripture. Moreover,

theologians teach that Christian Revelation was complete in the Apostles, and

that its deposit was entrusted to the Apostles to guard and to promulgate. Hence

the apostolic deposit of Revelation contained no merely Sacred Scripture in the

abstract, but also the knowledge as to its constituent books. Scripture, then, is

an Apostolic deposit entrusted to the Church, and to the Church belongs its

lawful administration. This position of Sacred Scripture in the Church implies the

following consequences:

(1) The Apostles promulgated both the Old and New Testament as a document

received from God. It is antecedently probable that God 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 woth 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 the promulgation of Scripture by the Apostles where they treat

of the transmission of the inspired writings.

(2) The transmission of the inspired writings consists in the delivery of Scripture

by the Apostles to their successors with the right, the duty, and the power to

continue its promulgation, to preserve its integrity and identity, to explain its

meaning, to use it in proving and illustrating Catholic teaching, to oppose and

condemn any attack upon its doctrine, 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. Irenaeus insists upon these points against the Gnostics, who

appealed to Scripture as to private historical documents. He excludes this

Gnostic view, first by insisting on the mission of the Apostles and upon the

succession in the Apostolate, especially as seen in the Church of Rome (Haer.,

III, 3-4); secondly, by showing that the preaching of the Apostles continued by

their successors contains a supernatural guarantee of infallibility through the

indwelling of the Holy Ghost (Haer., III, 24); thirdly, by combining the Apostolic

succession and the supernatural 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, the

promulgation 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 the truth

which in nothing differs from the ecclesiastical and and Apostolical tradition". In

another passage (in Matth. tr. XXIX, n. 46-47), he rejects the contention urged by

the heretics "as often as they bring forward canonical Scriptures in which every

Christian agrees and believes", that "in the houses is the word of truth"; "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 of Tertullian (De praescript., nn, 15, 19). He protests

against the admission of heretics "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 the faith itself: whose are the Scriptures'?. .

.For the true Scriptures and the true expositions and all the true Christian

traditions will be wherever both the true Christian rule and faith 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 the Catholic Church" (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 the

Church.

(4) The Church 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 the Church 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

the infallibility of the Church.

(5) The authentic text, legitimately promulgated, is a source and rule of faith,

though it remains only a means or instrument in the hands of the teaching body

of the Church, 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 common

property of the members of the whole Church. While the private handling of

Scripture is opposed to the fact that it is common property, its administrators are

bound to communicate its contents to all the members of the Church.

(7) Though Scripture is the property of the Church alone, those outside her pale

may use it as a means of discovering or entering the Church. But Tertullian

shows that they have no right to apply Scripture to their own purposes or to turn

it against the Church. He also teaches Catholics how to contest the right of

heretics to appeal to Scripture at all (by a kind of demurrer), before arguing with

them on single points of Scriptural doctrine.

(8) The rights of the teaching body of the Church include also that of issuing and

enforcing decrees for promoting the right use, or preventing the abuse of

Scripture. Not to mention the definition of the Canon (see CANON), the Council

of Trent issued two decrees concerning the Vulgate (see VULGATE), and a

decree concerning the interpretation of Scripture (see EXEGESIS,

HERMENEUTICS), and this last enactment was repeated in a more stringent

form by the Vatican Council (sess. III, Conc. Trid., sess. IV). The various

decisions of the Biblical Commission derive their binding force from this same

right of the teaching body of the Church. (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.).

VI. ATTITUDE OF THE CHURCH TOWARDS THE READING OF THE BIBLE IN

THE VERNACULAR

The attitude of the Church as to the reading of the Bible in the vernacular may be

inferred from the Church's practice and legislation. It has been the practice of the

Church 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 the Armenians, the Slavonians, the Goths, the Italians,

the French, and the partial renderings into English. As to the legislation of the

Church on this subject, we may divide its history into three large periods:

(1) During the course of the first millennium of her existence, the Church did not

promulgate 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. Irenaeus, "Adv. haer.", III, iv).

(2) The next five hundred years show only local regulations concerning the use of

the Bible in the vernacular. On 2 January, 1080, Gregory VII wrote to the Duke of

Bohemia 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 the

Bohemians for permission to conduct Divine service in the Slavic language. The

pontiff feared that the reading of the Bible 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 the Waldensian and

Albigensian heresies. The Bishop of Metz had written to Innocent III that there

existed in his diocese a perfect frenzy for the Bible in the vernacular. In 1199 the

pope 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 of Innocent III, the Synod of Toulouse directed in 1229 its fourteenth

canon against the misuse of Sacred Scripture on the part of the Cathari:

"prohibemus, ne libros Veteris et Novi Testamenti laicis permittatur habere"

(Hefele, "Concilgesch", Freiburg, 1863, V, 875). In 1233 the Synod of Tarragona

issued a similar prohibition in its second canon, but both these laws are intended

only for the countries subject to the jurisdiction of the respective synods (Hefele,

ibid., 918). The Third Synod of Oxford, in 1408, owing to the disorders of the

Lollards, who in addition to their crimes of violence and anarchy had introduced

virulent interpolations into the vernacular sacred 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 the laity (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 the Church concerning the reading of the Bible in the vernacular.

On 24 March, 1564, Pius IV promulgated in his Constitution, "Dominici gregis",

the Index of Prohibited Books. According to the third rule, the Old Testament

may be read in the vernacular by pious and learned men, according to the

judgment of the bishop, as a help to the better understanding of the Vulgate. The

fourth rule places in the hands of the bishop or the inquisitor the power of

allowing the reading of the New Testament in the vernacular to laymen who

according to the judgment of their confessor or their pastor can profit by this

practice. Sixtus V reserved this power to himself or the Sacred Congregation of

the Index, and Clement VIII added this restriction to the fourth rule of the Index,

by way of appendix. Benedict XIV required that the vernacular version read by

laymen should be either approved by the Holy See or provided with notes taken

from the writings of the Fathers or of learned and pious authors. It then became

an open question whether this order of Benedict XIV was intended to supersede

the former legislation or to further restrict it. This doubt was not removed by the

next three documents: the condemnation of certain errors of the Jansenist

Quesnel as to the necessity of reading the Bible, by the Bull "Unigenitus" issued

by Clement XI on 8 Sept., 1713 (cf. Denzinger, "Enchir.", nn. 1294-1300); the

condemnation of the same teaching maintained in the Synod of Pistoia, by the

Bull "Auctorem fidei" issued on 28 Aug., 1794, by Pius VI; the warning against

allowing the laity indiscriminately to read the Scriptures in the vernacular,

addressed to the Bishop of Mohileff by Pius VII, on 3 Sept., 1816. But the

Decree issued by the Sacred Congregation of the Index on 7 Jan., 1836, seems

to render it clear that henceforth the laity may read vernacular versions of the

Scriptures, if they be either approved by the Holy See, or provided with notes

taken from the writings of the Fathers or of learned Catholic authors. The same

regulation was repeated by Gregory XVI in his Encyclical of 8 May, 1844. In

general, the Church has always allowed the reading of the Bible 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.

VII. OTHER SCRIPTURAL QUESTIONS

The history of the preservation and the propagation of the Scripture-text is told in

the articles MANUSCRIPTS 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 articles HERMENEUTICS;

EXEGESIS; COMMENTARIES ON THE BIBLE; and CRITICISM (BIBLICAL).

Additional information on the foregoing questions is contained in the articles

INTRODUCTION; TESTAMENT, THE OLD; TESTAMENT, THE NEW. The history

of our English Version is treated in the article VERSIONS 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.

A.J. MAAS

Transcribed 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.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIII

Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, D.D., Censor

Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

The Catholic Encyclopedia: newadvent.org