I offer the following in response to a question concerning the author of the Fourth Gospel passed on to me by Lisa.It is important to know first that the Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC) although no longer invested with magisterial authority, was so invested throughout the earlier part of the twentieth century:
Pope Pius X, Motu Proprio Praestantia Scripturae, 18 Nov. 1907:
We now declare and expressly enjoin that all without exception are bound by an obligation of conscience to submit to the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, whether already issued or to be issued hereafter, exactly as to the decrees of the Sacred Congregations which are on matters of doctrine and approved by the Pope; nor can anyone who by word or writing attacks the said decrees avoid the note both of disobedience and of rashness or be therefore without grave fault.
Bearing in mind then that the PBC speaks here with the voice of the authentic magisterium of the Church, here are the answers of the PBC to two questions submitted to it, dated 29 May 1907:
I: Does the constant, universal, and solemn tradition of the Church dating back to the second century and witnessed to principally: (a) by the holy Fathers, by ecclesiastical writers, and even by heretics, whose testimonies and allusions must have been derived from the disciples or first successors of the Apostles and so be linked with the very origin of the book; (b) by the name of the author of the fourth Gospel having been at all times and places in the canon and lists of the sacred books; (c) by the most ancient manuscripts of those books and the various versions; (d) by public liturgical use in the whole world from the very beginnings of the Church; prove that John the Apostle and no other is to be acknowledged as the author of the fourth Gospel, and that by an historical argument so firmly established (without reference to theological considerations) that the reasons adduced by critics to the contrary in no way weaken this tradition? Answer: In the affirmative.
II: Should, further, internal reasons derived from the text of the fourth Gospel considered by itself, from the witness of the writer and the manifest relationship of the Gospel itself to the first Epistle of John the Apostle, be judged to confirm the tradition that unhesitatingly attributes the fourth Gospel to the same Apostle? And can the difficulties which arise from a comparison of the same Gospel with the other three, in view of the differences of time, aim, and hearers, for whom or against whom the author wrote, be given reasonable solutions, as has been done by the holy Fathers and Catholic exegetes in various works? Answer: In the affirmative to both parts.
Credit is due to Catholic Apologetics International for making the above and many more of the Replies of the Biblical Commission easily available.
16 comments:
Dear John,
Very interesting. An objection, however, arose in my mind as I read these statements, and I would like your opinion on it. The phrase "and no other" in the first question seems a little problematic and in need of clarification, as does--perhaps more importantly--the definition of "author" being used here. It seems like we can affirm the authorship of St. John the Apostle and the unbroken tradition of the Church, and still allow for the work of a "Johannine community" in the writing and editing of the Gospel, as in Karl Rahner's theory of social inspiration. Many texts in the ancient world have such a pedigree of authorship; for instance, the works of Aristole were written by Aristotle, and form the core of the Aristotelian philosophy, yet his ideas arose from the communal setting of the Academy, and were further redacted by his disciples in the Lyceum. Is this possible--both the preceding communal, tradition-based origin of the writing, and the subsequent communal redaction--in the case of the New Testament texts? Is this consonant with the PBC ruling here? Personally I think it is, but I would like to hear what you think. God bless,
Mark
Mark,
Interesting point. A face value reading of the PBC texts do seem to rule out such things as you mention.
I can't say there is no other way to understand it though (there might be). Or their answers might even simply be wrong (we're dealing with a non-infallible text here).
But I do think the burden of proof is squarely on the shoulders of anyone who does assert communal authorship / editing / redaction / etc.
For my part then, St. John personally wrote every word of the Gospel that bears his name, and I'd need to see some pretty damn good proof of it to be convinced otherwise. Ask for my opinion, and you'll get it ;-)
Pax!
HAPPY OPENING DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At YES retreat I had my Tigers shirt on and this girl came up to me and said "oh, you like the Tigers?" and I was like "yes I love them" and then she was like "Nate Robertson is my cousin"
What does it mean to be an author? I can't think of anyone who is properly called an author whose work couldn't also properly be understood as socially inspired (if only in the society of Jack Daniels). Of course, this understanding explains nothing, but what purpose is served by a different definition, beyond being a breeding ground for doctoral dissertations?
I keep being reminded of the insight (variously attributed, I've seen Chesterton and Samuel Butler named) that the purpose of the higher criticism is to prove that Homer was written not by Homer but by someone else with the same name.
I think that you're right, John, about the place of the burden of proof. I think it's an important problem, though. Historically, of course, we can't be one hundred percent certain as to the authorship (history being the sort of discipline in which absolute certainty is not to be sought, as Aristotle tells us). However, I think that theologically, it is important; that's why I brought up Rahner's theory of social inspiration: the question becomes where the Divine Inspiration occurs. Did John alone experience the inspiration? Or did a community along with him experience it? Or later editors? Did John physically move the pen to write the Gospel, or did he dictate it, or did he just begin a theological/historical tradition which eventually resulted in a Gospel written by others or another? In each of these scenarios, in what sense can John be called the author? In each case, is his status as author assured? These are the questions that need asking here, and I think that much of our theology of inspiration and revelation depends on the answers to these, as does, more indirectly, our ecclesiology and theology of communion. Raymond Brown, admittedly not always the most orthodox, has a surprisingly good essay in the Anchor Bible volume on John's Gospel defending the authorship of St. John.
Also: William Shakespeare translated the Douay-Rheims Bible. Spread the word.
Interesting questions to be sure, Mark. I wonder though, it seems to me absoluetly inconceivable that definitive answers could be found to them.
It seems utterly beyond the realm of the science of history, as you mentioned, to determine who experienced the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, in which case, the burden of proof being where it is, I don't see the advantage in speculating about these things.
I would be quite interested to hear more as to why you think it's an important problem.
Also: Shakespeare was a Catholic!
Me too. Not trying to be flip but serious: Is it not enough to hold that the Gospel was inspired and is Divine Revelation? What is the further good received by (or importance of) knowing who received the HS's inspiration?
It seems like, first of all, the area of inspiration is an under-explored area of theology, and so it seems that theologians ought to explore at least the limits of what we can know in that area, from a distinctly theological perspective rather than a historical view (although while taking into account historical matters.)
But more importantly the question of who received the experience of divine inspiration seems important for ecclesiology. If it was just the individual writers themselves (e.g. St. John, St. Paul, etc.) then it seems that a more hierarchical model of the Church is supported, whereas if it was the entire believing community which received the inspiration and the evangelists were just the spokesmen for the entire community and its traditions, then it seems a more communion style ecclesiology is supported. A combination of the two would support a different model of the Church, etc.
It seems to me that over the last fifty years (or more), many of the crises in the Church have hinged on different models of the Church. Accompanying these have been different theories of inspiration, revelation, etc. Thus I think it is an important area for qualified orthodox theologians, along with sound historians and literary critics to inquire into this area, so as to first discover the truth so far as it can be known, but furthermore support a sound ecclesiology, whatever that may turn out to be.
Also, I think that the question of who received the inspiration is an important question for developing a sound hermeneutic for Scripture. If people who actually saw the Lord actually wrote the Scriptures, it seems that they must be interpreted differently than if a community received a tradition, developed it, wrote it in varying stages and submitted it to various redactions. The latter would not necessarily be unfaithful to the actual events, but it would present these events with more interpretation already present in the text. Thus it seems that the question of authorship is important to determine the genre and manner in which it is proper to interpret the inspired texts.
Finally, on a more philosophical level, I find the question of authorship important as part of a broader theory of literary development, types of inspiration (from God, from society, from other texts, from traditions, even theories a little further out like the unconscious, etc.), and for its place in broader theories of texts, traditions and communities and their bearing upon all aspects of the human person (cognitive, religious, affective, etc.)
For these and other reasons which I could probably think of, I find the question important and needing to be investigated, if only to determine the limits to such an investigation. Of course it is also just interesting in itself, as are most speculative matters.
Also: Shakespeare /was/ a Catholic, which is why I am spreading the vicious rumor that he translated the Douay. Also, he made up words that are now in common usage, as did the translator of the Douay, so they /must/ be the same person!
On another note: we had our first official Extraordinary Form Mass on campus at Steubenville on Sunday, and it was very beautiful. It was long as the priest prayed everything slowly so as to do it very reverently and correctly. We were all pretty excited and happy about it. Thanks for the prayers in that regard!
I realize that I'm probably making a number of assumptions that I should make more explicit so that I am clearer:
I am assuming that God's actions in the world, His "oeconomic actions," are manifestations of His eternal Trinitarian actions. Thus the Holy Spirit's action in inspriring the sacred authors is in some way a manifestation of the Holy Spirit's eternal "immanent" action.
Based on this assumption, I am also assuming (and this move may be where I am going wrong) that the way in which the Holy Spirit dealt with the sacred authors has importance for understanding the way the Holy Spirit deals with us today. I understand that Scriptural-type inspiration ended with the death of the last apostle, but it still seems like we can say that the Holy Spirit's procession into the world (a worldly manifestation of his eternal procession from the Father and the Son) wherein He inspired the sacred writers, wherein he guides, for example, the development of the liturgical texts (which I take to be in some non-trivial way "inspired"), and wherein He continues to guide each of the baptized today are in some way "the same." For this reason I think it is possible and necessary to inquire into the Holy Spirit's actions in inspiring the sacred writers, and I think it is not just a vain curiosity, but an inquiry with important implications for our own relationships with God.
Congrats on the first EF Mass at FUS, we're definitely happy for you all there.
You've raised a few questions here that I've never considered enough to be able to offer intelligent thoughts on the matter. Certainly interesting though.
I wonder what you have in mind regarding theological (as opposed to historical) research into the nature of inspiration.
As for dogmatic theology, looking to the sources of revelation, I don't think you'll find anything in the Bible itself that would be grounds for thinking of inspiration otherwise than as personally received.
And in the tradition this would be even more marked - He has spoken through the prophets (not the communities, or the people). The papal statements emphasize dictation, which is hard to conceive of in relation to whole communities.
As for speculative theology I just confess I don't even know where one would begin, but perhaps that is just a lack of creativity on my part :)
On historical grounds of course, it seems that here especially the subject completely escapes the tools available. All one can do is assert the probability that more than one person has influenced the final shape of a certain text (even in the case of Aristotle there are those who dispute the "lecture notes" theory).
Clearly though you've given more thought to all this than I have, and I'd be interested to learn more about it.
Pax!
Yeah, they're really just questions that came to mind when you posed the question (also the PBC documents from the early part of the 20th century always make me a little annoyed; they sound so glib...but that is almost certainly my problem, not theirs). One might not be able to go too far in answering these questions. It's interesting to think about though.
It seems to me that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the authorship of the Scriptures is different from His inspiration in the Church's protection from error and in her binding and loosing. For understanding that direct revelation ceased on the death of the last apostle (John) means that the Church is the custodian of "the faith once delivered", and we can know with certainty that other revelations (Mohammed's and Joseph Smith's come prominently to mind) must not be accorded equal dignity. And this would make Scripture itself a part of that faith once delivered. This may complicate our understanding of inspiration as it applies to something like the gospel of Luke, who seems pretty clearly to have been not a direct observer of the events of Christ's life, but who also pretty clearly - from his introduction - understood himself to be writing a history as histories were understood in the first century.
Christ pretty clearly intended that He would be known and understood primarily through the preaching of the Gospel and the life of the Church, and not directly as the apostles had known Him. That is why our faith rests on the foundation of the apostles' teaching, and why we are blessed who have not seen and yet believe.
On the other hand, the last chapter of Isaiah has often struck me as similar to some prophecies I have heard in prayer meetings in which the speaker suddenly realizes that he's veering close to heresy and corrects himself. I'm thinking here of "as one whom his mother comforts so I will comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem." He gets that close to lapsing into mother-language for God and deflects it into the Church. Instead of introducing confusion in our understanding of God, the passage introduces profundity into our understanding of God's relationship to His people. But, to my ear at least, it makes the prophecy sound very similar to some that I have actually experienced. And it provides an example of St. Paul's insight that the prophet controls the spirit of prophecy.
This is offered merely to complicate your insights; you smart guys who are being paid to think about these things keep bantering and I'll just lob a grenade in now and then!
I'm afraid we're not being paid to think about these things, but rather quite the opposite!
Mark, you said: I understand that Scriptural-type inspiration ended with the death of the last apostle, but it still seems like we can say that the Holy Spirit's procession into the world (a worldly manifestation of his eternal procession from the Father and the Son) wherein He inspired the sacred writers, wherein he guides, for example, the development of the liturgical texts (which I take to be in some non-trivial way "inspired"), and wherein He continues to guide each of the baptized today are in some way "the same."
Upon which I would like to remark: Although I agree we can find some "likeness" in the Holy Spirit's action in inspiring Scripture, guiding the Church, and guiding individuals, inasmuch as these are all actions of the same Spirit, some precise distinctions must be made.
Inspiration refers to the Scriptures, and means that God Himself wrote them. Not only are they free from error, they say exactly what He wants them to say.
Infallibility refers to the Church and applies among other things to liturgical texts. But the Church may write what she wishes (be it in liturgical texts, papal documents, or decrees of councils), which may be other than God wishes, with the proviso that it they are protected from error. So the action of the Holy Spirit is quite different from his action in inspiring Scripture - in the latter it is a positive action, if you will, whereas in the former it is a negative protection.
With individuals of course the action of the Holy Spirit in our lives involves neither of these. A personal "inspiration" from the Holy Spirit would be best understood (I think) in terms of actual grace (I'm sure there's more to be said here as well, though).
To switch over to the point raised about Isaiah, the same point of biblical inspiration must be kept firmly in mind. Isaiah said exactly what God wanted him to say - no more, no less, and in no other way than God wanted. If there is an impression of a last minute "throw" from speaking about God to speaking about the Church, this was probably intended by God to teach us the real identity of Christ and the Church.
Whereas in non-inspired (in the precise theological meaning of the word) "prophecies" one may indeed suddenly realize that one is tending toward heresy and attempt a save.
Yes, I agree that the distinction you make is to be made between the inspiration of the Scriptures and the protection of the Church from error. However, I would qualify my comments by saying that while we can make the distinction from our end in terms of different kinds of grace, different experiences of God, a more positive action versus a more preventive action, the question can still be raised whether from one action of the Holy Spirit (e.g. His protection of the Church from error) we can safely reason to discover the nature of one of His other actions (e.g. His inspiration of Scripture).
If we think of Grace as a participation in God Who is personal and is "ever the same," it seems to me that we can make this move and at least have knowledge by analogy of these things. Furthermore, it seems to me that the Holy Spirit's action in the Church today is not just preventive, but that He actively guides the Church in some sense, both in terms of the hierarchy and in the "sense of the faithful," the development of tradition, doctrine, and liturgy. Thus, though it is not the same kind of radical intervention that we find in the case of the Scriptures, it is still an active inspiration of some sort. And while the two are distinct kinds of grace, the two are also both participations in (relationships with) the Holy Spirit; I think (and you may disagree with me here) that the theological/scholastic distinctions must be founded on an analysis of this actual relationship.
How are these actions of the Holy Spirit alike and how are they distinct?
The point I'm stressing is that we have from the traditions/doctrines of the Church a much clearer understanding of what the distinctions are than of what the likeness might be.
But this is not to deny a likeness. I agree that there ought to be one, and I'd be interested to learn more about it.
You're right too, I think, and I should have acknowledged this in my comment above, that the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church after the close of revelation is not just a preventative one of protection from error. Of course God guides the Church in every detail of her life. The problem here though is that we have very little means of distinguishing between which actions of the Church are "inspired" by God and which are merely allowed by him.
This is a question that pertains to God's Providence in general though. Is there a distinction to be made between God's providence for the Church and for the world in general?
Post a Comment