Basic Scripture

We already saw, in answering Cardinal Koenig's charges, an example of this use of the genre approach. It is highly likely that the narrative parts of Daniel were meant as the edifying narrative pattern. There is apt to be a core of history, but along with it go some rather free additions. Again, the key word is assert or claim. The writer does not assert or claim he is writing pure history. Part of it will fit with history, but he does not assert that the fill-ins are historical.

In using the literary genre technique we are not being unfaithful to Scripture. Rather, we are being completely faithful, and using a great means to defend Scripture against attacks. For it is clear that we should try to find out what the inspired writer really meant to say. To find that, we must ask: What did he mean to assert? To ignore that is to impose our own ideas on Scripture. That is being very unfaithful.

So the poor misguided Fundamentalists think they are respecting the sacred text, but actually they are not. They are imposing their own ideas on Scripture.

Genesis 1-11: When we looked at the first eleven chapters of Genesis we said the genre was that of an ancient story, which still conveys things that really happened. Pope John Paul II, in his series of audiences on Genesis, on November 7, 1979 called this narrative "myth". He explained: "The term myth does not designate fabulous content, but merely an archaic way of expressing deeper content." So we need not say God created in 6 times 24 hours. Still less need we say creation was 4000 years before Christ. That number was reached by adding up ages of patriarchs and others. Centuries ago, St. Augustine knew better. In his City of God 15.7 he noticed that Cain was said to have built a city, and named it for his son Enoch, at the time when Genesis listed only about three men alive. He replied that the purpose of the sacred writer was not to mention all humans, but only enough to show the line of descent of the two cities.

Exodus: The books that describe the departure from Egypt and the wandering in the desert very probably use something like an epic genre. That genre tells of the great beginnings of a people. The story is basically history, yet has some fill-ins which are a bit fictional, which the writer does not assert really happened. But in spite of this, it is clear that there was an exodus, and not just a revolt of peasants in Canaan who never left there. The story of a great people beginning in slavery is not likely to be invented.

But there are new discoveries. It is now certain that Sinai was in Midian--when Moses had to flee Egypt he went to Midian, married the daughter of a priest of Midian, and while watching sheep there saw the burning bush. Wyatt Archeological Research, Presentation of Discoveries went to the real Sinai, photographed the top of Sinai where the top rocks are still blackened from the fire at the time of the Ten Commandments. They also found and photographed the twelve pillars erected by Moses at the site. There are more remarkable things in this video (More controversial: at the start of the video we see the discovery by using radar that penetrates soil, of a large boat, right dimensions for the ark. The problem is that a high Pentagon officer told me he had been permitted to see the photos made by a U.S. satellite from space, on which the ark is in the open, partly covered with snow, farther up on Mt. Ararat). Also Larry Williams, in The Sinai Myth (Wynwood Press, NYC, 1990) visited the site of Mt. Sinai in Midian and photographed the blackened top of Sinai and saw the twelve pillars of Moses. He also engaged the services of George Stevens of Horizon Research who was able to study the photos taken by the French satellite with infrared. He was able to see the precise spot where Israel crossed the Gulf of Aqabah, and to trace other parts of their movements in the area. (Further comments below in chapter 10).

Joshua vs Judges: These two books seem to contrast. Joshua tells of a great triumphant sweep of conquest; Judges gives a lower key picture of much struggle. The answer lies in the genres: Joshua is part of the epic style; Judges is a more sober narrative on the whole.

Jonah: Another fascinating example is in the book of Jonah. God ordered Jonah to preach to Nineveh that He intended to destroy it - of course, if they did not repent. Jonah feared God would actually not destroy it, and thought that then he would seem to be a false prophet. So he boarded a ship headed out into the Mediterranean. Soon a great storm arose. The crew threw overboard much of the cargo to lighten the ship. But the danger was still great. Then one of the sailors remembered that Jonah when coming on board had said he was running away from his God. So the sailors came to Jonah and questioned him. Jonah replied that yes, he was the cause. So they should throw him overboard, and then the storm would cease. They did so, and the storm stopped. But a large fish - a whale? - swallowed Jonah, but threw him up on the shore on the third day. Then Jonah decided he had to preach to Nineveh. They all did penance at once in sackcloth and ashes. So God did not destroy the city.

What did the sacred writer intend - to write history, or a sort of extended parable? There are difficulties against an historical view. The matter of the fish swallowing Jonah is not too difficult. In February 1891 the ship Star of the East caught an 80 foot sperm whale. But a seaman, James Bartley was missing. After a search, he was presumed drowned. Yet the next day when the whale was being cut up, they found Bartley inside, still quite alive. (Cf. Wallechinsky & Wallace, People's Almanac,Garden City, NY (Doubleday, 1975, p. 1339).

Another inconclusive objection comes from the language of the text. It has some words that are later than the supposed date. But we know that the Jews sometimes deliberately updated the language of the ancient texts. So the objection is not strong.

But there are more serious difficulties: Jonah 3:3 says, "Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, three days' journey in breadth." The remains found there do not show a city that size. A. Parrott (Nineveh and the Old Testament,New York, Philosophical Library, 1971, pp. 85-86) suggests perhaps Nineveh could have referred to a 26 mile string of settlements in the Assyrian triangle. Or else, since people gathered at the city gates, Jonah would speak there. And since there were many gates there, and Jonah would talk much at each, it could have taken three days.

On the other hand, no matter what the genre of the book, it surely does teach two major lessons. First, the Assyrians then were considered the world's worst people, because of their deliberate terrorism in war. Yet God showed concern for them. So He must love everyone. Second - and this is not complimentary to us - when prophets went to the original people of God, they had a hard time, suffered much. But the pagan Nineveh welcomes Jonah readily. The Jews knew this: In the late 4th century Midrash, Mekilta de Rabbi Ishmael (tr. Jacob Lauterbach, Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia, I. p. 7) we read words imagined as said by Jonah: "Since the Gentiles are more inclined to repent, I might be causing Israel to be condemned [by going to Nineveh]."

In Jonah 4:11 God says there are more than 120, 000 people who do not know their right hand from their left. If one takes the expression to mean babies, it would imply a huge populace. But it could merely mean they did not know the basics of religion. Jonah 3:6 speaks of the king of Nineveh - not the usual Assyrian expression. He was called king of Ashur. But Jonah might not have used the Assyrian way of speaking. However, we do not know of a king living in Nineveh at the time supposed in the story. Nineveh became the capital under Sennacherib (704 - 681).

It may be objected that Jesus Himself referred to Jonah, and said He was greater than Jonah. But to refer to a well-known story does not amount to asserting the story happened. We could quote Alice in Wonderland to illustrate things, and not think that tale was historical. Actually, this literary use occurs elsewhere in the New Testament, e.g., in 1 Cor 10:4 and Jude 9.

Apocalyptic: Besides the narrative parts of the book of Daniel, there are parts in the apocalyptic genre. This genre first appeared in full-blown form about 2 centuries before Christ, had a run of three or four centuries. In it the author describes visions and revelations - not usually clear if he means to assert he had them, or is just using the account as a way of making his points. There are highly colored, bizarre images, secret messages. The original readers knew better than to take these things as if they were sober accounts. (Sadly, some today have taken some of the apocalyptic images about streams of fire etc. as proof there were ancient astronauts who overawed the simple people of the Hebrews. That was foolish, for we must recognize the genre). For a very strong example of apocalyptic, please read Daniel chapter 7.

Touches of Apocalyptic: Now it happens at times that a writer will use some touches of apocalyptic in a work that is on the whole of a different genre. Thus Isaiah 13:10 includes some definitely apocalyptic language in speaking of the fall of Babylon: "For the stars of the sky and their constellations will not show their light, the sun will be dark when it rises, and the moon will not give its light." In foretelling the judgment on Edom, Isaiah 34:4 said: "All the stars will be dissolved, the sky will roll up like a scroll and all the host of the skies will fall, like withering leaves from the vine, like shriveled figs from their tree." Ezekiel 32:7-8 uses much the same language to prophesy the judgment on Egypt: "When I blot you out, I will cover the skies and will darken their stars. I will cover the sun in a cloud and the moon will not give its light." We cannot help thinking of the language of Matthew 24:4. So we gather that while God surely could make such signs happen at the face value of the text, yet we cannot be sure that He intends to do it: the language of Isaiah and Ezekiel shows such expressions can be merely apocalyptic.

The "rapture": This brings us to the question of "the rapture". St. Paul in First Thessalonians 4. 13-17 is answering the concern of the people there: Would it not be too bad if we should die before the return of Christ - then the others would get to see Him before we would. Paul replies that it will be as follows: Christ will descend from the sky with a blast of a trumpet. Then the dead in Christ will rise, and after that, "we the living" will be taken to meet Christ in the air. Many fundamentalists say that this event must be different from the last judgment scene which we find in Matthew 25:21-46 in which Christ the Judge is seated on the earth, and has before Him the sheep and the goats. The fundamentalists say: the scene in First Thessalonians takes place in the air - the scene of the last judgment takes place on the earth. So there must be two separate events. So there is a separate rapture, when Christ will suddenly snatch out all good people from this world, leaving only the evil. The good will then reign with Him for 1000 years before the end.

The trouble is that they have neglected the genre, as usual. Both passages are clearly using some apocalyptic language. For in the judgment, all persons of all ages of the world must stand before Christ. The whole globe would not give standing room for that. So it must mean some sort of spiritual revelation of the just judgments of God at the final resurrection. In apocalyptic, we do not make close comparisons, for the whole is loose.

So the bumper sticker is wrong, which said: "In case of rapture, this car will be unmanned," and will crash into others. But no problem, only the bad people are left!

Just incidentally, many who are not fundamentalist err in thinking that the words "we the living", which come twice, show that Paul must have expected to be alive at the end. So they reject his authorship of Second Thessalonians, in which he very clearly shows he does not expect that. They do that contrary to all the ancient witnesses who say both are by Paul. They reject his authorship for the sake of an expression which is at most, ambiguous. Really, many teachers will often say I or we to make something vivid, without intending to give any information about themselves at all.

Wisdom literature: This genre is one the Hebrews had in common with other ancient near Eastern peoples. With most peoples it is basically a group of worldly wise counsels, especially for the young, on how to get along in this life. Egypt was specially famed for it, and the Jews may well have gotten ideas in their long stay there. The Egyptian Wisdom of Amenemopet has many parallels to the Old Testament. For example, Proverbs 22:17-18 says: "Incline your ear, and hear the words of the wise, and apply you mind to my knowledge; for it will be pleasant if you keep them within you, if all of them are ready on your lips." Amenemopet says: "Give thy ears. Hear what is said, give thy heart to understand them. To put them in thy heart is worthwhile (from ANET 421). Many texts of Proverbs and Amenemopet are given in parallel columns in J. Finegan, Light From the Ancient Past,2d ed. Princeton Univ. Press, 1974, pp. 124-25.).

We must keep in mind in reading the wisdom literature that only some things are meant as religious principles. Clement of Alexandria, head of the catechetical school at Alexandria in late 2nd century, tried to set up a counter attraction to the snob appeal of Gnosticism. So in books II and III of his Paidagogos,he tried for a deeper knowledge of the rules of morality, and gave very detailed rules for how a Christian should do everything: eat, drink, sleep, dress, use sex, and so on. He sometimes supports his injunctions from Scripture. He quotes Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 32:3 & 7, without understanding the genre: In Paidagogos 2. 7. 58: "I believe that one should limit his speech [at a banquet]. The limit should be just to reply to questions, even when we can speak. In a woman, silence is a virtue, an adornment free of danger in the young. Only for honored old age is speech good: 'Speak, old man, at a banquet, for it is proper for you... Speak [young man], if there is need of you, do it scarcely when asked twice."

Variant Traditions: There is another kind of seeming error that we can solve by the use of genre and determining what is asserted.

In Exodus 14:21-25 we find: "Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord drove the sea back by a strong wind all night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. And the people of Israel went into the midst of the sea on dry ground, the waters being a wall to them on their right and on their left."

We notice two different explanations: 1) a wind sent by God dried up the sea, 2) the water was like a wall on both sides of them. Clearly these two pictures do not fit. A sea dried up by the wind would be just shallow water - and after the drying, there would be no wall of water on left and right.

But we ask: What did the inspired writer really mean to assert? Let us picture him sitting down to write. He has on hand two sources - written or oral - and they do not fit. He has no means of knowing which is the right one. He decides: "I will let the reader see both." But that means he does not assert both. That cannot be done. What he does assert it this: I found two accounts, and do not know which is it. Here they are.

Another similar case concerns how David came to meet and know King Saul. In Chapter 16 of First Samuel, Saul is upset. He asks his servants to find a man skilled at playing a harp to soothe him. They bring David (16:18) "son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, who is skilled in playing, a man of valor, a man of war, prudent in speech. "So David enters his service, and becomes armor- bearer to Saul. Saul sends word to David's father saying he wants David to stay in his service.

But in chapter 17 the picture is very different. David is feeding his father's sheep. One day his father sent him to bring food to his brothers who were in the army of Saul. David hears of the giant Goliath, and the great reward the king offers to one who will kill Goliath. So David goes to Saul, boasts of having killed lions and bears, offers to fight Goliath. Saul gives David armor, but David is not used to wearing armor, and discards it. So he gets some stones from the brook and a sling, and kills Goliath.

In chapter 16 (verse 18), David is called a mighty fighter, a gibbor. But in chapter 17, after David has killed Goliath, Saul asks his captain Abner who that is. Abner says he does not know (though in chapter 16 David has previously been in the service of Saul). Abner takes David to Saul, holding the head of Goliath. Saul asks who he is.

Clearly, the two accounts do not fit together. But we ask again: What did the inspired writer mean to assert? He meant to assert only: I found these two, and do not know which is right. But you can see both of them. He asserts no more than that.

Poetic genre: In any culture, poetry is apt to use fanciful images and exaggerations. Scriptural poetry does the same. But if one does not recognize that a passage is poetic, mistakes can result.

St. Justin Martyr, in Second Apology 5, shows he believes angels have bodies. We do not blame lack of knowledge of genre for this: there was much hesitation in the patristic age on angels. But in Dialogue with Trypho 57 he says that angels have food in heaven since, "Scripture says that they [the Hebrews in the desert] ate angels' food." Justin does not understand Psalm 78:24 which speaks of bread from heaven, referring to the manna in the desert.

Isaiah 40:2 says Israel has received double for all her sins. Now of course God would not punish twice as much as what was due: We need to recognize Isaiah is a lofty poet, and/or take this as Semitic exaggeration.

Psalm 124. 3 has God saying: "All of them have turned, together they have gone astray. There is no one doing good, not one". One might imagine this could apply only to people of the time of composition, but St. Paul in Romans 3.10 cites it as meaning everyone. Again, we need to recall this is poetry. Paul had a different reason for citing it. He was out to prove that if one tries for justification by keeping the law, all are hopeless. To understand this, we need to know St. Paul at times uses a sort of focused view in which as it were he would say: The Law makes heavy demands, but gives no strength. To be under heavy demands without strength of course means a fall. In the focused view (a metaphor, as if one we were looking through a tube, and could see only what is framed by the circle of the tube) one does not see the whole horizon. Off to the side, in no relation to the law, divine help was available even before Christ. If one uses it, then the result is quite different. (More on focusing later on).

Isaiah 64:5 said: "All the deeds we do for justification are like filthy rags." Some, not seeing the poetic nature of the passage, thought all our good deeds are sinful. It is true, there is imperfection in most good things we do. Yet not everything is a mortal sin. St. Paul says in Philippians 3:6 that before his conversion he kept the law perfectly. Luke 1:6 says the parents of John the Baptist were keeping all the commandments without blame. 2 Timothy 4:6-8 looks forward to a merited crown from the Just Judge.

We saw from our sketch of how to find which books are inspired that it is the Church alone that can tell us. We commented too that we really would expect that a messenger sent from God, with such a mission and such powers as He displayed, would arrange to protect the teachings of those He sent out. He did it, e.g., "He who hears you hears me."

Some today are claiming that in order to find the truth, they must be free of any outside authority - including the Church. What impossible folly! They discard the very prime means of gaining the most absolute certitude of the truth, including the meaning of Scripture. They also claim "Academic Freedom." Really, it belongs only to a properly qualified professor teaching in his own field. Now among the things needed to be properly qualified is, of course, that the professor know and use the method that is correct in his field, as called for by the very nature of the material. Theology starts with the sources of revelation - Scripture and Tradition - but when something appears in them that is not obvious in meaning: How does he decide? If he is Catholic, the final word comes from the teachings of the divinely protected Church. Vatican II, in spite of misrepresentations of its teachings, did say in Dei Verbum #10: "The task of authoritatively interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on [Scripture or Tradition], has been entrusted exclusively [underline added] to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." We notice the Council appeals to precisely the same thing as we did in our sketch of apologetics, namely the authority given by the Divine Messenger, Jesus Christ.

Therefore, any professor who would not use the proper Catholic method is not a Catholic theologian and as such, has no claim at all to academic freedom. Imagine a professor of natural science who wanted to go back to the poor medieval methods of science. He would be laughed off the campus, not protected by academic freedom. He would be called a quack, and deserve it.

That same Magisterium has given us excellent guidelines, especially in Dei Verbum ## 11-12. We already saw the chief material from Dei Verbum #11.

Now for #12, which opens saying: "Since however in Sacred Scripture, God has spoken through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, to see what He intended to communicate with us, must investigate attentively what the sacred writer really intended to convey, and what it pleased God to manifest by their words." We underlined the word and because of its special importance. Some have argued that since two things are mentioned, namely, what the human writer meant to convey, and what it pleased God to manifest, therefore the text indicates that God might intend to say more than what the human writer saw. (This is the theory of the "fuller sense", sensus plenior). The Theological Commission at Vatican II (cf. Grillmeier, p. 220) reported that if the text had used the connector que instead of et, the Council would have settled the question in the affirmative, meaning: Yes, there is a fuller sense. (The connector -que is much closer than et. Both mean and).

Even though the Council at that point did not see fit to explicitly affirm the fuller sense, yet the Council itself, in Lumem Gentium # 55 actually used it: "These primeval documents [thinking chiefly of Genesis 3:15 and Isaiah 7:14], as they are read in the Church, and are understood in the light of later and full revelation, gradually bring before us the figure of the woman, the Mother of the Redeemer. She, in this light, is already prophetically foreshadowed in the promise, given to our first parents when they had fallen into sin, of victory over the serpent (cf. Gen 3, 25). Similarly, she is the Virgin who will conceive who will conceive and bear a Son whose name will be called Emmanuel (cf. Is 7, 14)."

It is clear that the Council did not want to say flatly that the human writer of Genesis and Isaiah saw all that the Church now, after fuller light, gradually has come to see. Hence, at the request of some Bishops, the two instances of cf were added, and hence we underlined them. So it was making use of the idea that the Holy Spirit could intend more than what the human writer saw - really, not a surprising thing.

Dei Verbum #12 continues: "To discover the intention of the sacred writers, among other things, one must look to the literary genres. For truth is proposed and expressed different ways in texts that are in different ways historical, or prophetical, or poetical, or other types of speaking. So it is necessary that the interpreter seek out the senses which the sacred writers wanted to express and did express in determined adjuncts, in accordance with the conditions of his time and culture, and by means of the literary genres used at that time. To rightly understand what the sacred writers meant to assert [underline added] in writing, one must pay due attention both to the usual native ways of thinking, speaking, and narrating, which were in use at the time of the sacred writer, and to those which in his age were commonly used in people's dealings with one another."

Here the Council strongly insisted that it is not just legitimate, but necessary, to check the literary genre. This needs to be done not just for each book of Scripture, but for each part of each book. For example, we already saw that in the Book of Daniel, we have both apocalyptic and edifying narrative genres.

We note with pleasure that the Council stressed the matter of what the writer mean to assert.

The Council indicated what Pius XII brought out still more clearly (Enchiridion Biblicum 558): Real research is needed into what genres were actually in use at the time of writing. It would be very wrong to just use our imaginations, and suppose we know. This is what the Biblical Commission also insisted on, as we saw before (in Enchiridion Biblicum 161).

It said we must pay attention to everything in the culture and conditions of the writer. So the interpreter really should know well the ancient languages, chiefly Greek and Hebrew, and the history and the culture.

Failure to know Hebrew could lead to horrid consequences, e.g., St. Paul who knew Hebrew, in Romans 9:13 quoted Malachi 1:2 in which God said: "I have loved Jacob, but hated Esau." But poor St. Augustine thought this meant God really hated Esau! and destined him to hell without even looking to see how he would live (Ad Simplicianum 1. 14). But at the bottom is a Hebrew way of speaking. Hebrew and Aramaic both lack the degrees of comparison, such as: good, better, best, or, clear, clearer, clearest. Not having such forms, when they have such ideas, they are forced to use other devices. One of them is to speak of hate vs. love. In our language we would say: I love one more than the other. In Luke 14:26 Jesus says we must hate our parents. But that is the same Semitic pattern. Matthew 10:37 softened it, using the western way of speaking, and said: "He who loves father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me." We recall that we saw earlier some striking texts from Isaiah 13:9-0 and 34:4 as well as Ezekiel 32:7-8 in which the apocalyptic way of speaking could be very misleading if one did not recognize the genre.

Another feature of the Hebrew way is this: they regularly attribute to the direct action of God things He only permits. Thus in 1 Samuel 4:3 (literal version of the Hebrew) after a defeat by the Philistines, the Hebrews said: "Why did the Lord strike us today before the face of the Philistines?" They knew of course it was the swords of the Philistines that did it. Again, in the account of the ten plagues in Egypt, at times we read that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. But we also read, and often, that God hardened his heart.

A study of the Targums and Rabbinic writings can contribute much. The Targums are ancient Aramaic versions of the Old Testament. We have them for nearly all the Old Testament, and in the Pentateuch, have more than one. They are mostly free versions with fill-ins, which show how they understood the text of Scripture. Unfortunately, many scholars today ignore the Targums - the New Jerome Biblical Commentary has a rather good essay on them in the back part of the volume, but fails to use them at all in explaining the Messianic prophecies one by one.

The plea is that we do not know the date of composition. But we do know that they were made without hindsight - without seeing them fulfilled in Christ. For they hated Christ when He came. Hence they surely reflect ancient Jewish understanding of the Messianic prophecies. Further, Jacob Neusner of Brown University, one of the greatest of Jewish scholars today, in his Messiah in Context (Fortress, Philadelphia, 1984) made an exhaustive study of all Jewish literature after the fall of Jerusalem up to and including the Babylonian Talmud (completed 500 to 600 A. D. ). He found that before the Talmud there was no interest in the Messiah. Within the Talmud, interest revives, but they take up only one of the classic prophecies: He will come of the line of David. Now the Targums see messianic prophecies in so many places. (For a fine study, cf. Samson Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation. Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, 1974), it is inconceivable that the parts on the Messianic prophecies could have been written in the centuries in which there was no interest in the Messiah. So the Targums must have been composed (at least orally) before the fall of Jerusalem. Some scholars think they go back to the time of Ezra.

Another example of the need of Hebrew is the way the translations deal with Hebrew hesed. It means the bond between those who have made a covenant, such that each has rights and duties, and should act as kinsmen toward each other. (We can see an implication for the sprinkling of the blood in Exodus 24:8. It meant the people were becoming kinsmen of God). Unfortunately, Greek had no word for hesed. So they usually translated by eleos, which means mercy. There is partial truth in that translation. For if we ask why God gives good things under the covenant, the answer comes on two levels. On the most basic level, He made a covenant and gives things under it out of unmerited, unmeritable generosity. No creature by its own power can establish a claim on Him. All is basically mercy. Yet on the secondary level, given the fact that He did make a covenant, if the people do what He prescribed, He owes it to Himself to give favor (or punishment for disobedience). Incidentally, this twofold sense explains the difficult text of Romans 2;6 where Paul says God will repay each one according to his works. That is part of a quote from Psalm 62:12 which says, in the full text: "You, O God, have hesed, for you will repay each one according to his works." Many English versions unfortunately render it to say: "You O Lord have mercy, for you will repay...." Mercy and repayment do not go together.

In a similar way, the beautiful little Psalm 117 (which used to be used at the end of Benediction) is hardly understood in the usual translations. It should be: "For His hesed [observance of His covenant] towards us is great, and the fidelity of the Lord [to His covenant] is forever."

Hebrew berith means only covenant, but the Greek version was diatheke, which had two meanings: covenant, or testament. A study of the ancient Hittite treaties reveals that they required the subordinate king to "love" his overlord. In context, it means obey. We see from John 14:15 & 21 that in practice, love towards God means obedience. For love towards all others besides God means willing good to them for their sake. We cannot wish that God have any good, He is infinite goodness. But yet Scripture pictures Him as pleased when we obey, displeased when we do not. It is not that He gains anything from our obedience. No, but for two reasons He wants us to obey: 1)He loves everything that is right and good. It is right that creatures should obey their Creator, children their Father. 2)He wants to give us good things - it is in vain if we are not open to receive. His commandments tell us how to be open. They also steer us away from the penalties for sin that lie in the very nature of things (cf. St. Augustine, Confessions 1. 2: "Every disordered soul is its own punishment"). Cf. also 2 John 6: "this is love, that we walk according to His commandments."

A study of Jewish literature of all periods - Old Testament, Intertestamental Literature, New Testament, and Rabbinic texts helps us understand the thought world of Scripture. St. Paul of course was trained as a Rabbi. Now an important concept in those writings is that sin is a debt, which the Holiness of God wants repaid. (Cf. Wm. G. Most, Our Father's Plan,chapter 4). Simeon ben Eleazar (Tosefta,Kiddushin 1. 14), writing about 170 AD., claiming to quote Rabbi Meir from early in the same century, said: "He [anyone] has committed a transgression. Woe to him. He has tipped the scale to the side of debt for himself and for the world." Pope Paul VI in the doctrinal introduction to his Indulgentiarum doctrina (Jan 9, 1967) affirmed the same truth. We need to think of this when we read that Christ has "bought" us, and of the "price" of redemption (cf. 1 Cor 6:20 and 7:23).

Often too, when we read a Greek word in St. Paul, we need to ask what is the Hebrew word in his mind. For example, know often reflects Hebrew yada,which is much broader than the English know, and takes in both mind and will. Justice reflects Hebrew sedaqah, which is the virtue inclining one to do all that morality requires.

Still another feature of that culture was approximation and hyperbole, as Pius XII (Divino afflante spiritu, Enchiridion Biblicum 559) points out. St. Paul in Galatians chapters 1-2 tells of his conversion and subsequent activities. He speaks of three years, and fourteen years, without making clear the point at which the periods begin to run. In 1 Cor 10:8, St. Paul says that 23, 000 fell in the incident described in Numbers 15:1-9. Numbers says 24, 000 fell. Approximation would not mind that difference.

The heart of the section is the following: "But since Sacred Scripture is to be read and interpreted by the same Spirit by which it was written, to rightly determine the sense of the sacred texts, one must look not less diligently to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture, taking into account the living Tradition of the whole Church, and the analogy of faith."

The expression in the first part which says Scripture must be interpreted "by (or :"in") the same Spirit by which it is to be written is open to more than one interpretation. It is certain that the Holy Spirit in giving faith, gives the context in which Scripture is to be read. We think too of the words of St. Paul in 1 Cor 2. 10-16 where he explains that just as only the spirit or soul of a person knows his depths, so only the Spirit knows the depths of God. And he adds: the merely natural man - the one who has not received the Spirit dwelling in him by grace - does not understand the things of the Spirit. But the spiritual man does. So one who does not have the Spirit dwelling in his soul by faith will fail to understand many things even though the words are there, and their sense, objectively, is at hand to be seen. It is true, further, that the farther one advances in the spiritual life and follows the lead of the Holy Spirit more fully, the greater is his understanding of spiritual things, by what we might even call a sort of connaturality.

In fact, sometimes even intelligent people fail to understand things which they could even recite. There may be a positive obstacle, a subconscious block within them, in that they perceive at last subconsciously that if they accept the faith, it will entail consequences for their living which they would not want to accept, e.g., in avoiding contraception and divorce. Then they will not accept, without knowing fully consciously why they are not accepting.

It is also certain that the words of Scripture seem to have a special kind of power, which ordinary explanations alone do not have.

Next the text of Dei Verbum # 12 tells us we must take into account the unity of all of Scripture. Since it all has the same chief Author, the Holy Spirit, there can be no contradictions. Some today, in noticing that one Evangelist, for example, may have a different scope and slant than another, have gone so far as to say that one contradicts another. For example, they will say that Mark 3. 21-35 paints Our Lady as not believing in Jesus, while the annunciation scene in Luke shows her as wonderfully believing. So such a contradiction is to be ruled out. Again, some love to say that Job 14. 13-22 raises the possibility of a survival after death, but then denies it. This of course contradicts so many things in Scripture, and so cannot be true (we will see details on these two passages later on).

Still further, we must consider the living Tradition of the whole Church. Again, the Church praises Our Lady for her faith, and would shrink in horror from a statement from a prominent scholar that at the annunciation she boldly opposed her human will to the will of God. So the statement that she did such a thing is terribly false. The Church follows, always has followed the words of Elizabeth at the visitation (Lk 1:45): "Blessed are you who have believed!"

In regard to following the "analogy of faith," the sense is similar. Pius XII in Divino afflante Spiritu had said (Enchiridion Biblicum 565) that there are few texts whose meaning the Church has declared, and similarly, few for which we have unanimous teaching of the Fathers. This is obviously true. But the same Pope also explained (Enchiridion Biblicum 551) that we must follow the analogy of faith. That is, any interpretation that we might consider accepting must be checked with the whole body of the truths of faith, with the teachings of the Church. If it would clash even by implication, it is to be dropped. So even though there are few explicit teachings on the sense of individual texts, yet indirectly, by means of this analogy of faith, we know exceedingly many things about the meanings of parts of Scripture. For example, the teachings of the Council of Trent against Luther's errors settle the sense of many things in St. Paul.

Some today have gone so far as to say, contrary to Pius XII that there are no texts whose meaning the Church has defined. They claim that where it seems we do have a definition, the text of Scripture is cited only to illustrate. But this is not realistic, if we examine individual texts of the Magisterium. For example, the Council of Trent gave us the following definition in Canon 2 on the Mass (Enchiridion Symbolorum 1752): "If anyone shall say that by those words, 'Do this in commemoration of me' Christ did not establish the Apostles as priests, or did not ordain them so that they and other priests might offer His flesh and blood, let him be anathema." It takes some strange mental contortions to say that the Council cited "Do this in commemoration of me" only to "illustrate." Not at all, it says that when Jesus said those words, He really did ordain the Apostles.

We have been speaking of definitions by the Church of the sense of parts of Scripture. We must not forget that there are other levels of teaching in addition to the solemn definition. There is a second level, of which Vatican II taught (Lumem Gentium # 25): "Although the individual bishops do not have the gift of infallibility, they can still teach Christ's doctrine infallibly, even when they are scattered around the world, provided that, while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with the successor of Peter, they agree on a teaching as the one which must be held definitively." If they can do this even when scattered, of course they can also do the same when gathered in a Council with the Pope, even if they do not put things in the form of a definition. The key word is definitively. Whatever mode of teaching may be used, if the Magisterium makes clear it is presenting something as definitive, that is infallible.

There is also a third level of teaching, of which Pius XII wrote in Humani generis in 1950 (Enchiridion Symbolorum 3885): "Nor must it be thought that the things contained in encyclical letters do not of themselves require assent of the mind on the plea that in them the pontiffs do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. These things are taught with the ordinary magisterium, about which it is also true to say, 'He who hears you, hears me. '(Lk 10:16)". This really means that the Pope alone, in as much as he speaks for the whole Church, can do alone what a Council can do, as described in the second level. He can bring something under the promise "He who hears you, hears me." Of course that promise of Christ cannot fail. So the teaching is infallible.

This does not mean that everything in an encyclical is infallible. No, Pius XII went on to specify the conditions in which this will come true: "If the supreme pontiffs in their acta expressly pass judgment on a matter debated until then, it is obvious to all that the matter, according to the mind and will of the same pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a matter open for discussion among theologians." For the Pope has shown he is making a definitive decision on something currently being debated. A special case of this came in the Encyclical on the Mystical Body by Pius XII. The modern discussion and tendency to claim ignorance in the human mind of Jesus began with P. Galtier in his book, L'unite de Christ in 1939. Precisely in that context, Pius XII taught, in that Encyclical of 1943, that the human soul of Jesus, from the first instant of conception, had the vision of God, in which all knowledge is available. As we recall his words in Humani generis, cited above, it is clear he intended to close the debate. But it did not close, so he complained about that in Sempiternus Rex of Sept 8, 1951 (Enchiridion Symbolorum 3905). Again, in Haurietis aquas of May 15, 1956 (Enchiridion Symbolorum 3924) he explicitly restated the teaching about that vision. Still further, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on July 14, 1966, with the approval of Paul VI, again complained of theologians in error in this point. Even the first text of 1943, as we said, showed the intention to settle the debate. And the repeated teachings by two Popes shows the repetition which by itself makes a teaching infallible.

We said that in that vision all knowledge is "available." The reason is this: the human soul of Jesus, being created, cannot as it were contain infinite knowledge. But it did know, as St. Thomas Aquinas said (III. 10. 2. c): "All things that in any way are, or will, or were done or said or thought by anyone, at any time. And so it is to be said that the soul of Christ knew all things in the Word."

There is also a fourth level of teachings of the Magisterium that are not definitive, but still provide moral certitude. Canon 752 of the New Code makes this aspect clear: "Not indeed an assent of faith, but yet a religious submission of mind and will must be given to the teaching which either the supreme pontiff, or the college of bishops [with him] pronounces on faith and morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by a definitive act." Vatican II in Lumem Gentium # 25 had said the same thing: "Religious submission of mind and of will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff even when he is not defining, in such a way, namely, that the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to according to his manifested mind and will, which is clear either from the nature of the documents, or from the repeated presentation of the same doctrine, or from the manner of speaking." [emphasis added]. We must, in other words, look to see if a thing is presented as definitive or not.

How can we believe something which is not infallible? In daily life we do it. Routine opening of a can will not detect Botulism, a deadly food poisoning. Yet we do not send each can to a lab to be checked. We know there is a remote chance, but take it. Life would be unworkable without doing so. The chances of an error on this level by the Church is even more remote. Only the Galileo case, in 2000 years, comes close. Even there, the Pope himself, Urban VIII, stated in 1624 as to the theory that the earth went around the sun, that "the Holy Church had never, and would never, condemn it as heretical, but only as rash."

Some scholars today dare to assert that the Church has very little ability to tell us what a text of Scripture meant originally - it can usually just tell us what it means to people today. To know the original sense, we must depend on scholars! This is a clear contradiction of Dei Verbum #10, cited above, which says that the task of interpreting belongs exclusively to the Magisterium.

On April 21, 1964, The Pontifical Biblical Commission issued an Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels. Left-wing scholars often quote only the parts they like, and omit other important things. We will try to give a broad coverage of the document.

The most important feature of the document is what it has to say about Form and Redaction Criticism.

Before looking at the comments in the Instruction,we notice something that is quite obviously true, which the Form and Redaction critics consider basic: in the production of the Gospels there were three stages:

1) The actions and words of Christ. We notice He would adapt His wording to the current audience. Any good speaker does that.

2) The way the Apostles and others of the first generation reported and preached what He did and said. Again, we would expect them to adapt the wording to the current audience. Therefore it is not necessary to suppose they used always the same words Jesus had used. But they would keep the same sense.

3) Some individuals within the Church, moved by inspiration, wrote down some part of what Jesus did and said. This became the Gospels.

Before going ahead, we inject the comment: In this way we see that the Church has something more basic than the Gospels, its own ongoing teaching. For the Gospels are just part of that teaching, written down under inspiration.

The critics would like to find at which of the three stages the text we now have took its present form. In this way they hope to find out some helpful things.

The study of the first two stages is called Form Criticism. The study of the third stage is called Redaction Criticism.

Thus far there can be no quarrel with this type of study. But problems begin to arise when we attempt to take the next steps.

The work begins with two things. First we try to classify each unit in the Gospels according to the literary form. This is much like literary genre, but attempts a more detailed classification. We might even speak of minigenres. The critics think each passage in the Gospels is made up of several of these units.

In the early days of Form Criticism, the critics commonly said the Evangelists were not authors at all. They were just "stringers of beads." Various people who had heard Jesus were reporting each just one thing He did or said. The Evangelists merely put these together in a string. Today the pendulum has swung far: now the critics see very remarkable artistry in the work of the Evangelists. (We recall that inspiration does not affect the literary style of an author one way or another).

The second thing the critics watch in order to separate out the various units is what they call Sitz-im-Leben. It merely means the life situation in which each form or unit arose, which called for the type of form. At this point already the critics begin to show their great subjectivity.

The two great pioneers who first applied this technique to the Gospels are R. Bultmann and M. Dibelius. (Still earlier, Hermann Gunkel [1862-1932] used the technique in the Old Testament).

First, Bultmann and Dibelius disagree on how to classify the minigenres. For Bultmann the two chief major forms are the Sayings and the Narratives. Sayings include apothegms and dominical sayings. The apothegms are brief sayings of some importance. They include controversy dialogues, scholastic dialogues (where the inquirers are sincere) and biographical sayings. Dibelius uses the name paradigms instead of apothegms. Dibelius thinks only eight out of eighteen paradigms are pure in form.

As to the so called controversy dialogues, Bultmann thinks they arose in the apologetic and polemic work of the Palestinian Church. He objects to calling these passages paradigms (examples of preaching) which is precisely what Dibelius does call them. For example, Bultmann says that the incident in Mark 2:1-12, the forgiveness and cure of the paralytic let down through the roof, is a controversy saying. But Dibelius says that such passages can't be described as disputes. Bultmann says the purpose was to enable the Church to trace its power to forgive sins back to Jesus. But Dibelius says the only point is the reality of the forgiveness.

It is remarkable to hear Bultmann admit explicitly:

"Naturally enough, our judgement will not be made in terms of objective criteria, but will depend on taste and discrimination" (R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition,tr. J. Marsh, N. Y., Harper & Row, 1963, p. 47).

The critics commonly assert that the primitive community was "creative." That is, it made things up. So Bultmann thought the controversy dialogues were creations of the Church. We could visualize it thus: two groups in the Church are disputing. Group A has no saying of Jesus to prove its point, so it makes one up. Group B does the same.

But on the contrary, the concern these Christians had for their own eternity would prevent such fakery. St. Ignatius of Antioch was sent to Rome to be eaten by the wild beasts, around 107 A. D. He was eaten. He wrote a heroic letter to Rome, which we still have, in which he says he wants to die for Christ. If one of the Christians there might have influence, and could get him off, Ignatius still wants to die! Now if anyone is tempted to think the community was creative, let him take a copy of Ignatius' letter to Rome to the zoo, and read it in front of the lions' den and ask himself if a man about to be eaten would be creative and indulge in fakery.

Not strangely, in view of the alleged creativity, the critics find it hard to be sure of anything. They propose four criteria to see if a thing is genuine: 1)Double dissimilarity or irreductibility: This means that if an idea is unlike the emphases of both ancient Judaism and early Christianity, it may come from Jesus; 2)Multiple attestation: if we find the same idea coming in different literary forms, it is more likely to be genuine; 3) Coherence: If the item fits with material we already know is authentic by other criteria, it is likely to be genuine. 4) Linguistic and environmental tests:. If the material does not fit with the languages spoken or the environment of Jesus we reject it. But if it does fit, it is not enough to prove it is authentic.

It is obvious that such criteria, especially the first, would rule out many things that are genuine. We saw earlier that we can make a bypass around these worries of critics by means of apologetics, using only six very simple things from the Gospels.

The leftists love to quote the fact that this 1964 Instruction does say Catholic scholars may use these techniques. This is correct, for the method can be used well and be helpful. But many like to forget the warnings in the Instruction: "Certain followers of this method, led astray by the prejudices of rationalism, [1] reject the existence of a supernatural order and the intervention of a personal God in the world as taught by revelation properly so called and, [2] they reject the possibility and actual existence of miracles and prophecies. [3] Others start with a false notion of faith, as if faith does not care about historical truth or is even incompatible with it. [4] Still others deny, as it were in advance, the historical value and character of the documents of revelation. [5] Others, finally, think little of the authority of the Apostles as witnesses of Christ, and of their role and influence on the primitive community, while they extol the creative power of this community. All these things are not only opposed to Catholic doctrine, but also lack a scientific foundation, and are foreign to the right principles of the historical method." [We added numbers for convenience in reference].

Of course persons like Bultmann have these prejudices. In regard to ##1 &2, Bultmann wrote that today "nobody reckons with direct intervention by transcendent powers" (Jesus Christ and Mythology, Charles Scribner's Sons, N. Y., 1958, p. 36). On p. 15 of the same book he says that the whole conception of the world supposed in the New Testament is mythological. In his Kerygma and Myth (ed. H. W. Bartsch, tr. Reginald H. Fuller, N. Y. Harper & Row, Torchbooks, 1961, 2nd ed. I. p. 5) he says that anyone who has seen electric light and the wireless cannot believe in spirits and miracles.

Some Catholics have taken similar attitudes today. Thus R. E. Brown once wrote (in: "The Myth of the Gospels without Myth" in St. Anthony's Messenger, May 1971, pp. 45-46) that to accept all the miracles in the Gospel would be fundamentalism, and adds that no respectable scholar, Catholic or Protestant would do that today. It is good to be able to say that now the New Jerome Biblical Commentary (pp. 1320- 21), which espouses some unfortunate views on errors in Scripture, still admits that extraordinary deeds like exorcisms and cures by Jesus were never denied in ancient times, not even by the enemies of Jesus - they would instead attribute them to magic or the devil.

The third criticism of the Instruction says that some start with a false notion of faith, as if faith would not care about historical truth. Patrick Henry, in a broad survey of conditions at the time of writing (New Directions in New Testament Study,Westminster, 1979, pp. 252-53) reports various views: "Much more important is the Bible's own portrayal of the 'piety of doubt', the 'faithfulness of uncertainty." And a writer in Catholic Biblical Quarterly (July 1982, pp. 447-69) after saying Scripture is full of errors, says that to want to answer charges of error shows a lack of faith, and is "a kind of idolatry that gives a certitude that trespasses upon the true Christian faith-relationship with God." Shades of Bultmann, who in the article cited from Kerygma and Myth said, on pp. 211 and 19 that it is illegitimate and sinful to want to have a basis for faith!

In regard to # 4, the denial of the historical character, we must of course, take into account the genre of any part of Scripture we are considering. But some insist that the Gospels are just preaching. In a way this is true they are preaching. We recall that the third stage mentioned above consists of writing down some part of the original preaching under inspiration. But we must still remember that concern for their eternity would mean that the preaching of the Apostles and others was the truth. Some writers today make statements that could be confusing. Thus Joseph Fitzmyer, in Christological Catechism (Paulist, 1981, p. 118, note 34) writes that it is not easy to define what a gospel is or to say in what "gospel truth" may consist. "In any case" he says ", it is not simply identical with 'historical truth' in some fundamentalistic sense."

In contrast, Dei Verbum #19 tells us: "Holy Mother the Church firmly and most constantly has held and does hold that the four Gospels mentioned, whose historicity it unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus the Son of God, living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation." Bede Rigeaux, in his commentary on this passage in the Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II (edited by H. Vorgrimler III, p. 259) explained that in this passage we see the clear intention of the Church to accept the value of the synoptic Gospels "as testimony to the reality of the events that they narrate and to the certainty with which they present us with the Person, the words, and the acts of Jesus."

The Instruction does grant what we said before, that the Gospels do not always use the same words, but adapt them to their audience: "The fact that the Evangelists report the words or deeds of the Lord in different order does not affect at all the truth of the narrative, for they keep the sense, while reporting His statements, not to the letter, but in different ways."

There has been confusion about a further statement in Dei Verbum # 19: "The Apostles after the ascension of the Lord, handed on to their hearers the things which He Himself had said and done, with the fuller understanding which they enjoyed since they were instructed by the glorious events of Christ and the light of the Spirit of truth." Cf. Jn 2:19-21; 3:22; 6:6; 12:16; 20:9.

Of course, this does not mean they invented things or falsified things. For example, the Gospels still portray the Apostles as slow to understand and weak in character. They had not understood His prophecies of His death and resurrection, since their minds were filled with the false notion that He would restore the kingship to Israel - just before the ascension one of them asked if that was the time for it (Acts 1:6). And after the multiplication of the loaves, they had not understood that either, as Mark 6:52 reports.

Again, they did not understand His predictions of His death and resurrection at the time they were given. Later, in the light of the glorious events, they did understand, and preached correctly and wrote appropriately in the Gospels, without, however, presenting themselves as having understood at the time.

So the Instruction did well to warn against considerable dangers, which Catholic scholars have not always avoided. But yet the technique is valuable, even though it can be used well or badly. Let us look at an example or two, both good and bad.

Reginald H. Fuller, one of the chief critics, in Foundations of New Testament Christology (Charles Scribner's Sons, N. Y. 1965, p. 109) made a very influential analysis of Mark 8:29-33. Jesus is up at Caesarea Philippi. He asks His disciples who people says He is. They report various views. Now we will number the units Fuller thought he found: 1) He asks the Apostles who they say He is. Peter replies: You are the Messiah. 2) Jesus tells them not to tell anyone about it. 3) He predicts His death and resurrection, and Peter objects to His death. 4) "Get behind me, satan."

Fuller found no objection to units 1 and 4. But He thought units 2 and 3 were faked by the Church. Jesus had never said He was Messiah. Later the Church was embarrassed, and so invented scenes in which the subject would come up, and Jesus would tell them to keep quiet about it. This notion is really the result of the work of Wilhelm Wrede, The Messianic Secret (tr. J. C. C. Greig, James Clarke Co., Cambridge and London, 1971, 3rd edition). Wrede gave several instances in the Gospels, in which this happened. He said his strongest case was the raising of the daughter of Jairus, after which Jesus called for silence. But, exclaimed Wrede: anyone could see the girl was alive. So this was faked by the Church.

The reply is extremely simple: Jesus went into the house with only the parents, and Peter, James and John. He raised the girl, and called for silence. If the crowds found out, they might seize Him and proclaim Him king Messiah, with a false notion of Messiahship. But how long did He need to keep it quiet? Just long enough for Him to slip out quietly and get on His way to the next village.

So Fuller and Wrede have failed to invalidate the second unit.

In the third unit Jesus predicts His death and resurrection. But, when these things happened, the Apostles acted as if they had never heard about them. So, the critics conclude: The Church faked this unit.

Again, the answer is simple: If someone has a fixed framework of ideas in his mind, and something that would clash tries to get in, it usually does not get in. For example, in the 19th century, one of the three discoverers of germs (along with Pasteur and Lister) was Dr. Semmelweis in Hungary. He therefore told the other Doctors to use antiseptic precautions - which they had never heard of. So they put him into an insane asylum for the rest of his life!. (Scientists can be rougher on science than the Church!).

Again, Norman Perrin of the University of Chicago said in his book, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (Harper & Row, N. Y., 1967, p. 16) that at one time he was inclined to believe the Gospels. But then, form criticism over and over again showed him he could not trust them. He gives his strongest example: Mark 9. 1, "There are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Kingdom of God come with power." Mt 16:28 is the same, except that they will see "the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." In Lk 9:27 they see merely "the Kingdom of God." Matthew and Mark, thinks Perrin, expect the end soon. But Luke has settled down to "the long haul of history." So there is a clash.

Again, the answer is easy. All three synoptics put this line just before the Transfiguration, so that could be what they would see. But better, many scholars admit (e.g., John L. McKenzie, Dictionary of the Bible,p. 481; R. E. Brown, in The Churches the Apostles Left Behind,p. 52 - cf. also his Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible,p. 12) that often in the Synoptics the Church is called the Kingdom of God. Thus in the end of the parable of the wicked tenants, Jesus says (Mt. 21:43): "The kingdom will be taken from you and given to a people who will bring fruit." It meant that the Pharisees would be out of the People of God, and others would take their place (the gentiles). The implication is similar in the parable of the net and the parable of the weeds in the wheat, as well as in other places.

So they will see the kingdom, the Church, and it will be coming with power. Power in the Greek is dynamis. That word in the plural means displays of power, i.e., miracles. So they will live to see the Church being spread with miracles. As to the form in Matthew, they will see the Son of Man, Christ, coming in His kingdom. It means visiting, taking care of His Church by His power (the concept of Hebrew paqad,taking care of it). Luke's reading, "the kingdom" is of course no problem, makes no clash. So Perrin was not really "forced" by form criticism to give up on the Gospels. He had a mental framework, in which there was no room for the facts on this text.

So Fuller's analysis fails since he did not succeed in showing units 2 and 3 to be false, faked by the Church. But if we, since it is interesting, imagine he had proved it, then he would read units 1 and 4: Jesus asks the Apostles who they say He is. Peter says: The Messiah. "Get behind me satan". He angrily rejects the title of Messiah.

This false analysis has been a large root of the claims of ignorance in Jesus.

Then there is the strange case of Teilhard de Chardin, who thought that just before the return of Christ at the end, most people would be joined together in a wonderful unity, like a totalitarian state, but not painful: it would be love that would bind them. He must have read Luke 18:8: "When the Son of Man comes, do you think He will find faith on the earth?" or 2 Thessalonians 2.3 which also predicted a great falling away from the faith. Or Matthew 24:12: "Because sin will reach its peak, the love of most people will grow cold. Chardin too had a fixed framework of ideas, and so could not see.

But as we said, this technique can be used well. For example, Mark 13:30 says: "This generation will not pass away before all these things take place." Form criticism helps us here, by pointing out that things are sometimes put into different settings, so that it is likely that the original context of this verse was one of the fall of Jerusalem. Still further, Hebrew dor can mean generation, but can also mean a time period - here - the Christian regime - and so the sense could be that the Christian regime is the last phases of God's dealings with our race. It is never to be replaced as the Old Testament was. Dei Verbum # 4 assures us this is the case.

One more example. When Jesus says that if anyone would come after Him, he must take up his cross. Now the cross in the literal sense was known to all the people of his land and time. But He meant it in a modified sense, in the sense of imitating him by self-denial and acceptance of providential sufferings. We gather then, that it is not very likely that Jesus used these words about taking up one's cross, though He expressed the same thought in another way. It would be only later, when the Church had meditated on this point, that such language would be understood by most persons.

Form and Redaction criticism today is under some attack. Reginald H. Fuller, a chief critic, and author of the analysis of the scene at Caesarea Philippi we just saw, has now charged that Form criticism is bankrupt, and that the bankruptcy should be overcome by feedback from the believing community! Fuller showed bad judgment twice. First there was bad judgment when he and others were so very confident they had scientifically proved things, when really the whole historical critical method (of which Form Criticism is a part, as also the approach via literary genres) seldom gives conclusive proof of anything, since it relies mostly on internal evidence (e.g., the claim that Luke wrote the prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem after 70 AD since he spoke of any army surrounding Jerusalem). Internal evidence by its nature seldom gives more than probability. Fuller shows bad judgment a second time in throwing out the baby with the bath, for these techniques really are useful if only one uses them with keen awareness of their limitations.

Further, the critics, as we saw, think it important to discover the life situation, the Sitz-im-Leben of each form. But there is heavy uncertainty about a very major case of this. The traditional view was that Mark wrote at Rome, from the preaching of St. Peter. Some major scholars still agree, e.g., Martin Hengel of Tubingen, in his Studies in the Gospel of Mark (tr. J. Bowden, Philadelphia, Fortress, 1985, p. 29). Hengel thinks Mark wrote to help Christians facing the persecution of Nero. But others, e. g, Wilfred Harrington (Mark, Wilmington, Glazier, 1979 p. xii) thinks it comes from a Christian community in Syria between 66 and 70 AD. R. E. Brown, in Antioch and Rome (Brown and Meier, Paulist, 1983, pp. 199-200) admits he cannot know what purpose Mark had in mind, and that we cannot be sure we know what is tradition and what is editing by Mark - a major step in Form Criticism. C. F. Evans, in The Cambridge History of the Bible (3 vols, Cambridge University, 1960-63, I, pp. 270-71) is almost in despair on this question about Mark.

In regard to the possible rearrangement of materials by the Evangelists, must we ask about retrojection? It consists in writing up something that really happened after the resurrection as if it happened before. Could this be legitimately done? Yes under some conditions, chiefly that the words attributed to Jesus were really said by Him, even if in different form. Otherwise retrojection is a lie, and contrary to inspiration. Today there is much ferment about the question of whether it was chiefly the Romans, or the Jews who were guilty of the death of Jesus. Vatican II, in Nostra aetate #4 said there is a special and a general guilt. All who sin have the general guilt. But only those Jews who were before Pilate screaming for His blood contracted the special guilt. We could add that even those Jews not present may have acquiesced or ratified it by their persecution which came very soon.

But to blame merely or chiefly the Romans is to make a lie of St. John's Gospel, and parts of Matthew as well. John pictured Pilate as knowing the innocence of Jesus and of trying to get Him off.

The retrojectors like to blame most of this on the Romans, and say that later in the century, when hostility between Jews and Christians became hot, the Christians invented, retrojected, the claims of His clash with the Jews.

To say that is to make the Gospels a lie. Sadly, not only some Jews but even some Catholics, even priests and Bishops, charge this retrojection.

Commentators on Daniel very often say that his book contains prophecies made after the event--that is, it was written after the time of Antiochus IV of Syria, and retrojected to the 6th century. Would such a retrojection be illegitimate? No in this special case, for the genre is apocalyptic, in which fanciful things can be said without deception.

Another fertile source of confusion is the use of the theologoumenon. In that pattern we find language changed very greatly, e.g., these commentators say she was not physically a virgin: to say that is just a way of expressing her holiness. How can we know if such a thing is being done in a concrete case? At least most of the time we must have recourse to the teachings of the Magisterium. Several early Councils, cited in Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution On the Church #57,have affirmed that physically she was a virgin. Lumem Gentium 57 itself said she showed her Firstborn to the shepherds and the Magi, He who did not diminish but consecrated her virginal integrity." That last word is of course a physical word.

In similar ways and by the abuse of form and redaction criticism, the pseudo-scholars are having a field day, vying as it were with each other to see who can say the most outrageous things. Then the media call them heralds of new knowledge. But those who follow what we have just explained need not be mislead.

We need to notice too that Semites are apt to use approximation, as Pius XII reminded us in his Encyclical. Especially is this the case on numbers. Thus the Hebrew of Jonah says God will destroy the city in 40 days. But the Greek LXX makes it 3 days. In Galatians 1-2 Paul says that after his conversion he went to Arabia, and then after three years went to Jerusalem. We do not know where to start counting the three years. Also he says in 2.1 that after 14 years he went to Jerusalem again-we do not know where to start counting the 14 years. And in Numbers 25.1 we read that 24,000 Jews fell--but Paul in 1 Cor 10.8 gives only 23,000.

Semites are not modern Americans.

In our sketch of apologetics in chapter 2, we said that the only way to be sure which books are inspired is to accept the decision of the Church. Actually, the Church was in no hurry to give definitive statements on this subject. Why?

We saw in chapter 6 that Form Criticism shows the Church has something more basic than the Gospels, its own ongoing teaching. Up to the time of Luther, people did not basically depend on Scripture, they simply followed the oral teaching of the Church, which, as we said, is primary. Jesus never told the Apostles: Write Some books, give out copies, tell people to figure them out for themselves. This is what the "Reformers" implied. It is foolish. Copies were very expensive, not everyone could read, and the study of Scripture is quite difficult, One should know the original languages, genres, history and culture among other things. In addition, the Second Epistle of Peter tells us (3:15- 16) that in the Epistles of St. Paul there are many things that are hard are hard to understand: the unlearned and unstable twist them to their own destruction. The "Reformers" surely proved that right.

Instead, we find in Second Timothy 1:13: "Hold to the form of sound teaching which you heard from me." And again in 2:2: "The things which you heard from me, through many witnesses, hand on to trustworthy men, who will be able in turn to teach others."

Not strange then that the Church saw no urgent need to draw up a canon, that is, a list of inspired books. St. Justin Martyr, in his defense of Christianity to the Jew Trypho (Dialogue,chapter 32, cf 68) says he will use only the Scripture that the Jews would accept - a natural move in such a dialogue.

There was an unofficial list in the Muratorian Fragment - which was found at Milan. It dates from late second century, and does give a list of books. However we see in it some early hesitations. Not mentioned are the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistles of James and Peter. It rejects some pseudo-Pauline letters to Laodicea, and Gnostic, Marcionite and Montanist writings in general. From this we gather that a stimulus to make a list came from the existence of heretical writings. Marcion rejected the entire Old Testament, and three Gospels, keeping part of Luke and some of St. Paul's Epistles.

While most of the books of Old and New Testament were accepted by the Church from the beginning, there were some hesitations, such as those about the so-called Deuterocanonicals, which are, in general those books that are found in the Septuagint (the ancient Greek version of the Old Testament) but not in the Hebrew Old Testament. (They include in general: Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith and additions to Esther and Daniel).

There were also other hesitations, for example, the Epistle to the Hebrews was accepted very early in the East, chiefly at Alexandria, but the west did not accept it until the fourth century. In reverse, the Apocalypse/Revelation was accepted early in the west, only later in the East. Many fathers - chiefly: Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian and Hippolytus believed the John who was its author was the Apostle John. Other fathers, chiefly: Denis of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen and John Chrysostom thought it was not the Apostle John.

St. Augustine accepted the longer canon (list - including the deuterocanonicals) and defended it in his De Doctrina Christiana 8. At the Council of Hippo, his diocese, in 393 AD the longer canon was accepted, and repeated and confirmed in the 3rd and 4th Councils of Carthage in 397 and 418. At the end of the decree was a request to Pope Boniface to confirm it. In 405 St. Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, wrote to Pope Innocent I, asking him for a ruling. The Pope wrote back to him, repeating the list drawn up by the Councils. As a result there was much unanimity in the west in the 5th century, though the East was slower to accept, waiting until the 7th century.

But even in the west there was some difficulty, especially under the influence of St. Jerome, who tended to favor the shorter canon (without the deuterocanonicals). So Pope Gregory I spoke of First Macchabees as useful for edification but not canonical. Cardinal Cajetan, about a thousand years later, expressed a similar view even after the Decree for the Jacobites of the Council of Florence (1441: Enchiridion Symbolorum 1335).

The really final settlement came from the Council of Trent, against the errors of Luther, in 1546 (Enchiridion Symbolorum 1501-05). It accepted the same list as the African councils.

Copied from EWTN with permission.
HTMLized by Luke Wadel, Acuity of Divine Love in the Intellect: How Eternity Matters.