BY JOE SIXPACK
For non-Catholic Christians, the Bible is the sole rule of faith, which as we learned two weeks ago is called sola Scriptura. The question that immediately comes to mind is, why should anyone even consider the Bible inspired by the Holy Spirit, much less the sole rule of faith? How do we know the Bible is the inspired Word of God?
Ask anyone at random how they know the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit . . . even ask yourself or the person sitting next to you . . . and you’ll get all sorts of answers that are mere guesses. They will say things like, “Well, the Bible is so inspirational, which is how I know it’s inspired.” Or they’ll say, “I know the Bible is inspired because it says it’s inspired.” Neither answer is right nor even satisfying to the intellect.
Firstly, the Bible, while inspirational, is not inspired simply because it’s inspirational. The Star-Spangled Banner is inspirational, but that doesn’t make it inspired by the Holy Spirit. Many of the patristic writings of the Christians of the first several centuries (some written around the time the books of the New Testament were written) are inspirational, but that doesn’t make them inspired by the Holy Spirit either. We can’t rely on the fact that much of the Bible is inspirational to claim its inspiration by the Holy Spirit. Fact is, much of the Bible is as dry as military statistics, and indeed some of it is only military statistics. I don’t think any of us are inspired by military statistics.
And what of the assertion that the Bible itself claims to be inspired? With the possible exception of the Book of Revelation, none of the biblical writers — Old or New Testament — seemed to be aware they were writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. In fact, it really wouldn’t matter if any of the books of the Bible claimed to be inspired from the opening sentence, as that in itself would prove nothing. Muslims believe the Koran is inspired, but no Christian would agree with that. The same is true with Mormons and the Book of Mormon. Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, claimed her writings to be inspired, but the mere claim of inspiration isn’t sufficient to establish that the Holy Spirit had anything to do with it.
Other people, especially non-Catholic Christians, claim the Bible is inspired because the Holy Spirit tells them it’s inspired. Hmmm. This is also how all 40,000 plus denominations claim to be right in their doctrines, yet all are in disagreement with one another on key theological issues. Whomever they believe to be their Holy Spirit must be very confused.
So how do we know the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit? Here’s how.
The books of the Bible were first approached as any other ancient work, and there were indeed many “books” besides those included in the canon of Scripture considered for inclusion in the Bible. So these ancient writings were not automatically presumed to be inspired. We must begin by determining the accuracy and authenticity of an ancient manuscript, and this is done by a comparison of all the copies that have come down through the centuries.
For example, the earliest known manuscript of the poet Virgil was written some 350 years after his death. For the Roman historian Livy, the oldest extant manuscript is about 500 years after his death. For the poet Horace, it’s 900 years. For the Greek philosopher Plato, the oldest extant manuscript for most of his work is 1,300 years old. Yet, due to the numbers of manuscripts available and their agreement in content, no one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of their works. When it comes to books included in the Bible, we have far more extant manuscripts than for the classical writers mentioned above, and in many different languages — Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, et alia. This means we can be certain of the accuracy of these texts.
“Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, particularly the New Testament, and particularly the Gospels. We examine the account of Jesus’ life and death and his reported Resurrection. Using what is in the Gospels themselves, and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, and what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural theology, know of the divine nature), we conclude that Jesus either was just what he claimed to be, God, or was a madman,” according to Karl Keating in his Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), pp. 124-125.
“We are able to eliminate his being a madman not just from what he said — no madman ever spoke as he did; for that matter, no sane man ever did either — but from what his followers did after his death. A hoax (the supposedly empty tomb) is one thing, but one does not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they have no prospect of advantage. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead and that he was therefore God and, being God, meant what he said and did what he said he would do.
“One thing he said he would do was found a Church, and from both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not at this point in the argument as an inspired one) and other ancient works, we see that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of all we see in the Catholic Church today — papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, teaching authority, and, as a consequence of the last, infallibility. Christ’s Church, to do what he said it would do, had to have the note of infallibility.
“We thus have taken purely historical material and concluded that there exists a Church, which is the Catholic Church, divinely protected against teaching error. Now we are at the last part of the argument. That Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority (that is, one set up by God to assure us of the truth of matters of faith) that the Bible is inspired do we begin to use it as an inspired book.”
Acting in her capacity as the infallible teacher founded by God in His Second Person (Jesus Christ), the Catholic Church established the canon of the Bible at the Councils of Hippo (AD 393) and Carthage (AD 397), then reaffirmed them at the Council of Trent (AD 1546). No one disputed any part of the canon until Martin Luther began the Protestant Revolt in 1517, centuries after the canon had been established. He removed seven books from the Old Testament, as well as parts of Esther and Daniel, because they conflicted with his heretical theological theories. He wanted to remove the Book of James from the New Testament because it conflicts with his theory of salvation by faith alone, but instead spent the remainder of his life calling it “the epistle of straw.”
Consequently, Protestants accuse us of adding books to the Bible, when in reality it was Luther who removed them. So although non-Catholic Christians have a Bible that is incomplete, they owe what they do have to the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church.
If you have a question or comment you can reach out to me through the “Ask Joe” page of JoeSixpackAnswers.com, or you can email me at Joe@CantankerousCatholic.com.
Hey, how would you like to see things like this article every week in your parish bulletin as an insert? You or your pastor can learn more about how to do that by emailing me at Joe@CantankerousCatholic.com.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress