REVELATION AND

FAITH
Rev. Joseph R. Laracy, S.T.D.
EXISTENCE OF REVELATION AND ITS
CREDIBILITY
Historical Actuality of Revelation

▪ There is a logical distinction between the historical actuality and

the Divine origin of revelation.
▪ Were the doctrines revealed in the OT and NT actually
communicated to people?
▪ Are the events connected with their communication part of the
authentic history of that time?
▪ Is moral certitude possible here?
▪ Only if the genuineness and credibility of the sources is beyond
doubt, can the facts reported therein be accepted as certain.
Genuineness of the Bible

▪ We say a document is genuine if it actually is what it is commonly

believed to be.
▪ Was it written by the author whose name it bears?
▪ Was it written at that time?
▪ Historical authenticity vs Doctrinal Authenticity
Genuineness of the Bible

▪ The Biblical text has come down to us in copies and translations.

▪ Not all the ancient manuscripts agree on every minute detail.
▪ There is perfect agreement however on every essential detail.
▪ That the most ancient extant codices (2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries)
agree substantially with the originals is proved by the Scriptural
citations found scattered throughout the works of Philo, Flavius
Iosephus, and other ancient writers.
▪ The Bible has also been in constant, public use by the Church since
the very beginning.
Flavius Iosephus

▪ Flavius Iosephus was a first-century Romano-Jewish historian who

was born in Jerusalem to a father of priestly descent and a mother
who claimed royal ancestry.
▪ He initially fought against the Romans during the First Jewish–
Roman War as head of Jewish forces in Galilee, until surrendering
in 67 AD.
▪ He eventually defected to the Roman side and was granted Roman
citizenship.
▪ Josephus wrote Jewish history, with special emphasis on the first
century AD and the First Jewish–Roman War (66–70 AD).
Genuineness of the Bible

▪ Therefore, it is important to show that the book of the OT and NT

were written at the time to which they are commonly ascribed and
by the authors whose names they bear.
▪ The genuineness of the book of the Bible can be demonstrated by
▪ External testimonies, and
▪ Internal criteria.
Credibility of the Bible

▪ The credibility of a book is based on the character of its author.

▪ Does the author have a reliable knowledge of the topic discussed?
▪ Is the author inclined to tell the truth?

▪ When examining a historical narrative, we must ask,

▪ Was the author in a position to know the truth?
▪ If the author claims to be an eyewitness, did he live at the time of the event?
▪ Was he present when the event occurred?
▪ Was his position and environment favorable to accurate observation?
▪ Was the author willing to tell the truth?
▪ What is the moral character of the witness?
▪ Veracity is just as important as intellectual capacity.
Credibility of the Bible

▪ The soul of man is created for, and naturally strives after truth.
▪ Intentional deception cannot be assumed without weighty reasons.
▪ The veracity of a witness can be best ascertained from his life and
character.
▪ What was the attitude of the witness towards the facts?
▪ Even without deception, is prejudice, passion, partisanship,
selfishness, or other improper motive a factor?
Credibility of the Bible

▪ An account is usually deemed trustworthy if two or more mutually

independent sources agree.
▪ Two or more witness will likely not invent the same story
independently of each other or distort the truth in exactly the
same way.
▪ If two or more witnesses do not agree, the contradiction is often
only apparent and traceable to one-side observation.
▪ If the evidence cannot be harmonized, it may be necessary to
suspend judgment regarding the reliability of the sources.
Church Doctrine

▪ “…This supernatural revelation, according to the faith of the universal

Church, as declared by the holy synod of Trent, is contained ‘in the
written books and in the unwritten traditions which have been received by
the apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself; or, through the inspiration
of the Holy Spirit have been handed down by the apostles themselves,
and have thus come to us’ [Council of Trent]. And, indeed, these books
of the Old and New Testament, whole with all their parts, just as they
were enumerated in the decree of the same Council, are contained in the
older Vulgate Latin edition, and are to be accepted as sacred and
canonical. But the Church holds these books as sacred and canonical,
not because, having been put together by human industry alone, they
were then approved by its authority; nor because they contain revelation
without error; but because, having been written by the inspiration of the
Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and, as such, they have been
handed down to the Church itself.”
▪ Dei Filius, chap. 2.
Genuineness of the OT

▪ If the demonstration of the Divine origin of Christian revelation on

the basis of the Messianic prophecies of the OT is to have an
independent standing, the authenticity and credibility of the
writings contained in that portion of the Bible must be established
without regard to the NT.
▪ The genuineness of all the writings in the OT is established on
extrinsic testimonies and intrinsic criteria.
Genuineness of the OT

▪ Extrinsic Criteria
▪ Constant tradition of the Jews
▪ Extra-canonical sources, e.g., Flavius Iosephus

▪ Intrinsic Criteria
▪ The contents of many of the books allow us to identify their author and fix the
time of their composition.
Genuineness of the OT

▪ Examples
▪ Joshua
▪ Judges
▪ Kings
▪ Psalms
▪ Isaiah
▪ Jeremiah
▪ Daniel
▪ Micah
▪ Malachi
▪ Haggai
▪ Maccabees
▪ Etc.
Credibility of the OT

▪ The authors of these writings were in a position to know and tell

the truth.
▪ The OT writers were willing to tell the truth.
Genuineness of the NT

▪ Gospel of Matthew
▪ External Testimonies
▪ The most ancient and valuable attestation of the authorship of this Gospel is
that of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Prhygia (about 130 AD).
▪ St. Irenaeus († c. 202 AD) witness helps establish the date of composition.
▪ Intrinsic Evidence
▪ There are indications that seem positively to point to Matthew as the author.
▪ That St. Matthew wrote his Gospel before the year 70 is evidenced by the fact
that he mentions the destruction of the temple as a prophecy.
Genuineness of the NT

▪ Gospel of Mark
▪ External Testimonies
▪ Papias is again an ancient witness.
▪ St. Clement of Alexandria tells us that St. Mark wrote the Gospel in response to
a request from people after hearing St. Peter preach.
▪ Intrinsic Evidence
▪ If this Gospel is actually a report, compiled for Roman readers, of St. Peter’s
sermons, many of its peculiarities can be explained.
Genuineness of the NT

▪ Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles

▪ External Testimonies
▪ St. Luke, the collaborator of St. Paul, is unanimously designated by Tradition as the
author of this Gospel and the Acts.
▪ The Muratorian Fragment
▪ <[2] The third book of the Gospel [is that] according to Luke. [3] Luke, "the"
physician, [4] after the ascension of Christ, [5] when Paul had taken him with
him as a companion of his traveling, [6] [and after he had made] an
investigation, wrote in his own name — [7] but neither did he see the Lord in the
flesh — [8] and thus, as he was able to investigate, [9] so he also begins to tell
the story [starting] from the nativity of John.>
▪ The Muratorian fragment is a copy of perhaps the oldest known list of most of
the books of the New Testament.
▪ The fragment, consisting of 85 lines, is a 7th century Latin manuscript bound in a
7th- or 8th-century codex from the library of Columban's monastery at Bobbio
Abbey.
▪ It contains features suggesting it is a translation from a Greek original written
about 170 or as late as the 4th century.
Genuineness of the NT

▪ Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles

▪ Intrinsic Evidence
▪ Ancient tradition identifies St. Luke as a physician of Antiochian heritage.
▪ He employs the technical terminology of Greek medicine in describing diseases
and their symptoms.
▪ He focuses on the origin, duration, peculiarities, and cures of the maladies
healed by Jesus.
▪ Mark 5:26 says that a woman “had suffered greatly at the hands of many
doctors and had spent all that she had. Yet she was not helped but only grew
worse."
▪ Luke 8:43 does not use the word "doctors" but instead says that "she was
unable to be cured by anyone.“
▪ Acts must have been completed before the destruction of Jerusalem and death
of St. Paul because he never would have passed over those important events.
Genuineness of the NT

▪ Gospel of John
▪ External Testimonies
▪ Three mutually independent sources of the latter half of the second century,
▪ The writer of the Muratorian Fragment,
▪ St. Clement of Alexandria,
▪ And St. Irenaeus
▪ designate John, the beloved disciple, son of Zebedee, as the author
▪ Clement and Irenaeus write that John composed this Gospel after the Synoptics and
the Muratorian Fragment intimates as much.
▪ Intrinsic Evidence
▪ The author must have been a Jew by birth given the numerous Hebrew and Aramaic
words and phrases employed and the intimate knowledge of Jewish customs and
traditions.
▪ The author is very familiar with the Geography of the Holy Land.
▪ The author testifies that he has personally witnessed what he reports.
▪ John 21:20-23 allows us to infer that the Apostle was advanced in years and writing
toward the end of the 1st century.
Genuineness of the NT

▪ Pauline Corpus
▪ External Testimonies
▪ Muratorian Fragment, Peshitto (2nd century Syriac document), and Itala (2nd
century Latin document) identify Paul as the author of his epistles.
▪ Intrinsic Evidence
▪ All the epistles, except the Letter to the Hebrews, begins with the name of the
writer, “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ…”
▪ The time when the different epistles were written can be generally inferred form
their subject-matter.
▪ Beginning with 1 Thessalonians in 52 AD
Credibility of the NT

▪ The NT writers were able to ascertain and report facts.

▪ The NT writers wished to tell the truth.
▪ The NT writers’ statements are borne out by non-Biblical
authorities.
Credibility of the NT

▪ The NT writers were able to ascertain and report facts.

▪ Authors of the Gospels were close to the events.
▪ Paul’s missionary activities indicate that he was intimately familiar with Jesus’
teachings and the circumstances of Jesus’ life.
▪ The NT writers wished to tell the truth.
▪ The style of the Evangelists is objective.
▪ The circumstances under which the Evangelists wrote manifests their intentions to
tell the truth.
▪ The conversion of St. Paul
▪ The NT writers’ statements are borne out by non-Biblical authorities.
▪ The political situation of Palestine in 1st century AD
▪ The social condition of Palestine in 1st century AD
▪ Pagan Testimonies
▪ Jewish Testimonies (e.g., Testimony of the Talmud)
Introduction to 2 Peter

Daniel Keating, First and Second Peter, Jude, Catholic Commentary on Sacred
Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 127.
Second Peter is a fascinating and inspiring letter—it brims with interesting and
unique passages—yet it is among the most neglected writings in the New
Testament. This is nothing new. From its origin 2 Peter struggled for acceptance
in the apostolic canon. Though there are indications that 2 Peter was known and
used in the second century, it was only in the third century that it began to be
cited and not until the late fourth century that it was widely accepted as part of
canonical Scripture . Even today some prominent Christian scholars find fault with
2 Peter and consider it unworthy of a place in the Church’s canon. But these
charges are unfounded. As Richard Bauckham concludes, “What the church
actually recognized in 2 Peter was its apostolic content.… There is no reason why
2 Peter should not hold an honorable place in the canon of Scripture.
Authorship, Date, and Recipients

From ancient times until now 2 Peter has labored under doubts about its authenticity. Was it
really written by—or authorized by—the apostle Peter? Certainly the letter presents itself as the
work of “Symeon Peter” (1:1), who was an eyewitness to the glory of Christ revealed on the
mount of transfiguration (1:16–18) and is writing a “second letter” (3:1) to this audience, the
first letter presumably being 1 Peter. Why, then, are there doubts about Peter’s authorship of
the letter? The main objections can be listed in the following way:
▪ The Greek style and vocabulary are considered too sophisticated for someone of Peter’s
Galilean origins.
▪ An apostle of Peter’s stature would not have used material from the Letter of Jude in his
own work (see below for 2 Peter’s presumed use of Jude).
▪ The style, vocabulary, and themes are too different from 1 Peter to allow for common
authorship.
▪ The intense concern for the delay of Christ’s return best fits the era after the apostles had
died.
▪ The reference to Paul’s writings on a par with “scripture” (3:16) best fits a period after
Peter’s death, when Paul’s writings had been collected and were beginning to function as
authoritative apostolic testimony.
 Authorship, Date, and Recipients

When taken together these objections present considerable challenges to Peter’s authorship, and a majority of
scholars today conclude that 2 Peter was written in Peter’s name after his death by one of his disciples. Still,
some scholars continue to argue that Peter is most probably the author of the letter, and each of the objections
to Peter’s authorship can be answered.
▪ Many argue that over the course of twenty years of ministry Peter could have attained the level of
proficiency in Greek that we find in 2 Peter. Close analysis indicates that the author was not a native Greek
speaker.
▪ It is not implausible that Peter reworked material from another respected early Church figure (Jude).
▪ To account for the difference in style between 1 Peter and 2 Peter, St. Jerome proposed that Peter may have
used two different secretaries, each of whom had some latitude in word choice and literary style. Some
scholars continue to find this explanation persuasive.
▪ The concern about the delay of Christ’s return could also fit the late-apostolic period of the 60s when the
first generation of Christians as beginning to pass away. This does not rule out authorship by Peter.
▪ Some scholars argue that 2 Peter does not place Paul’s writings on a par with Scripture but simply asserts
that the false teachers are twisting Paul’s letters just as they twist the Scriptures.
For a defense of Peter’s authorship and answers to the objections, see Michael Green, The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude: An Introduction and
Commentary, TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 13–39; Gene L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 139–50; and Scott
Hahn and Curtis Mitch, The Second Letter of Peter, Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2008), 43–44.
 Authorship, Date, and Recipients

Whether or not Peter wrote or authorized the letter personally, 2 Peter remains part of the apostolic
testimony and serves as canonical Scripture. Given that Peter’s authorship of the letter is not
disproved, I will refer to the author as Peter throughout the commentary, which reflects the way the
Church has received this letter and the way the lectionary refers to it.

The dating of the letter depends entirely on how one judges authorship. If Peter himself wrote or
commissioned the letter, then it must come at latest from the middle 60s. Some scholars who reject
Peter’s authorship have pushed the date of 2 Peter well into the second century, but among the
majority of those who argue against Peter’s authorship today, the letter is dated to the immediate
postapostolic period (AD 70–95).

There is very little evidence to indicate who the recipients of the letter are, aside from the mention of
this being the “second letter” the author has written. If indeed the implied first letter is 1 Peter, then
the audience is most likely the churches of Asia Minor (see 1 Pet 1:1). While we cannot have any
certainty, the best presumption is that 2 Peter was written from Rome—by Peter or by one of his
disciples—and sent to the churches in Asia Minor.
 Authorship cont.

The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The New Testament (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2010), 459–460.

The writer of the letter identifies himself as “Simon Peter” (1:1). He claims to have been an
eye- and earwitness to the Transfiguration of Jesus (1:16–18); he presumes to speak on behalf
of the other apostles who witnessed the event (1:18); he alleges to have written an earlier
epistle to the same readers (3:1); and he regards himself a colleague of the apostle Paul (3:15).
Second Peter is thus presented as a composition of the Apostle Peter. Nevertheless, ancient
and modern scholars alike have raised questions about the reliability of these claims.
 Authorship cont.

In the early Church, there was much hesitation regarding the authenticity of the letter. Evidence shows
that a few prominent churchmen were quoting or alluding to 2 Peter in the early part of the third
century (Origen, St. Hippolytus), but it was not until the fourth century that the letter was widely
accepted as a canonical and apostolic writing of the New Testament. The reason for its delayed
acceptance is probably twofold. First, the letter differs in style and vocabulary from 1 Peter, inclining
many to think that the two epistles must have come from two different authors. Second, a number of
writings appeared in the second century under the name of Peter that were obviously pious forgeries
(e.g., Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, Acts of Peter). With the Church on guard against the
proliferation of such inauthentic works, it is understandable that a letter such as 2 Peter, which
displayed some notable differences from 1 Peter, would have to face an uphill battle on its way to
canonical recognition. Still, it is telling that 2 Peter, unlike those works that were falsely attributed to
the apostle, was never rejected as spurious. Its status was disputed by orthodox theologians, but the
Church never placed it in the same class as the apocryphal Petrine literature of the second century.
 Authorship cont.

Disputes about the authorship of 2 Peter erupted again with the advent of modern scholarship. Today a
majority of exegetes maintain that 2 Peter is a pseudepigraphical work, a letter written by an unknown
figure several decades after the apostle’s death in the mid-60s. Perhaps the author was a onetime
disciple of Peter, but this is uncertain. What is critically established, say advocates of this view, is that
he borrowed Peter’s name and reputation to add authority to his own pastoral instructions. Several
facts have been put forward to support this position, such as the stylistic differences between 1 and 2
Peter, as well as the hesitation of the early Church to accept the letter as apostolic. Beyond this, literary
analysis indicates that the author borrowed thoughts and expressions from two other New Testament
letters: 1 Peter and Jude. Inasmuch as scholars often date those two epistles in the late first century, 2
Peter could not, then, have been written within the lifetime of the apostle. Not only that, but some
scholars feel it is highly improbable that someone of Peter’s stature and authority would ever have
stooped to rely on the work of a lesser-known figure such as Jude. Finally, confirmation of the
pseudepigraphical hypothesis is said to come from 3:16, where the author refers to a collection of
Paul’s letters. Again, the argument goes, it is unlikely that all of the Pauline epistles were gathered
together and venerated as a collection of scriptural writings before the late first century, well after the
time of Peter.
 Authorship cont.

Despite the doubts that have historically surrounded the epistle, conservative scholarship continues to maintain the apostolic
authorship of 2 Peter. It is not that the difficulties of holding this position are minimized or ignored; rather, the historical and
literary evidence is evaluated differently.
(1) The divergence in style between 1 and 2 Peter is real but does not amount to proof that the two letters come from
different authors. There is reason to think that 1 Peter was penned by Peter’s associate Silvanus (1 Pet 5:12); in which
case, Peter may well have written the second letter himself, or perhaps he did so with the help of a different scribe. Either
way, this would provide a reasonable explanation for the different writing styles evident in the two letters.
(2) Acknowledgment of differences must be balanced by a consideration of the similarities between 1 and 2 Peter (compare 2
Pet 1:2 with 1 Pet 1:2; 2 Pet 1:20–21 with 1 Pet 1:10–12; and 2 Pet 2:5 with 1 Pet 3:20). Of course, one could explain these
points of contact as the literary borrowing of a later writer, but it is more natural to suppose that a single author wrote
both works in question.
(3) The dependence of 2 Peter on the letters of 1 Peter and Jude is fairly well established. However, the dates of these letters
are themselves disputed, so it is precarious to use them as fixed chronological points from which to make judgments
about the authorship of 2 Peter. Moreover, the assertion that Peter would think it below his dignity to utilize the work of
someone less prestigious than himself (Jude) lacks supporting evidence. Its working assumption—that Peter was more
controlled by pride and a sense of superiority than by a desire to communicate Christian truth in ways that had already
proven effective for other ministers of the gospel—is itself highly questionable.
(4) The author assumes in 3:16 that his readers are familiar with Pauline letters that were circulating in the early Church.
However, there is simply no historical evidence to substantiate the claim that such a collection could not have come
together before the late first century. In point of fact, Paul encouraged communities to exchange his letters even in his
own lifetime (Col 4:16).
 Authorship cont.

On balance, Peter’s authorship of 2 Peter has more in its favor than the modern
theory of pseudepigraphical authorship. It is not strictly impossible that an
unnamed and unknown author wrote the epistle posing as the Apostle Peter, but
neither is it likely. The fact that 2 Peter was included in the canon of Scripture shows
that the Church distinguished this letter from the corpus of pseudepigraphical
writings that were falsely attributed to Peter in the second century. The sound use
of literary and historical analysis can be used to confirm this distinction and to
support the Petrine authorship of the letter even today.
Credibility of Revelation

▪ If a person is aware that God has revealed something, the most

reasonable reaction will be to receive it with gratitude.
▪ One may understand well what is revealed (these are the mysteria late
dicta),
▪ not fully understand it (mysteria secundum quid), or
▪ remain completely ignorant of the innermost logic of the transmitted truth
(mysteria absoluta, also called mysteria stricte dicta).
▪ It is reasonable to accept a revelation when it meets certain criteria that identify
it as such, that is, as something said by God.
Credibility of Revelation

▪ “…in order that the ‘obedience’ of our faith should be ‘consonant with
reason’ [cf. Rom 12:1], God has willed that to the internal aids of the Holy
Spirit there should be joined external proofs of His revelation, namely:
divine facts, especially miracles and prophecies which, because they
clearly show forth the omnipotence and infinite knowledge of God, are
most certain signs of a divine revelation, and are suited to the
intelligence of all. Wherefore, not only Moses and the prophets, but
especially Christ the Lord Himself, produced many genuine miracles and
prophecies; and we read concerning the apostles: ‘But they going forth
preached everywhere: the Lord working withal and confirming the word
with signs that followed’ [Mk 16:20]. And again it is written: ‘And we have
the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a
light that shineth in a dark place’ [2 Pet 1:19].” Dei Filius, chap 3.
Credibility of Revelation

▪ “For, to the Catholic Church alone belong all those many and
marvelous things which have been divinely arranged for the evident
credibility of the Christian faith. But, even the Church itself by itself,
because of its marvelous propagation, its exceptional holiness, and
inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good works; because of its catholic
unity and invincible stability, is a very great and perpetual motive of
credibility, and an incontestable witness of its own divine mission.”
Ibid.
Motives of Credibility

▪ The principal motives of credibility are miracles, prophecies, and the

marvelous life of the Church.
▪ Motives External to Man
▪ Extrinsic to revealed truth itself
▪ Miracles
▪ Prophecies
▪ Intrinsic to revealed truth itself
▪ The sublimity of revealed doctrine
▪ The marvelous life of the Church

▪ Motives Internal to Man

▪ Common to all: The admirable satisfaction of human aspirations toward justice,
sanctity, and God
▪ Individual: The personal experience of a profound peace that the world cannot give
(cf. Jn 14:27)
Motives of Credibility (Dominic Koester, OP)

▪ Far from being contrary to reason, professing faith in Christ is a

quite reasonable thing to do; one could even allege that it’s most
reasonable.
▪ The motives of credibility help us to see this.
▪ Yet, it is important to note that faith is not caused and does not
rest on them.
▪ The motives of credibility prepare us and dispose us to faith in
Christ by showing that faith is reasonable.
Motives of Credibility

▪ However, ultimately we rely completely on the free gift of God’s

grace to actually have faith in Him.
▪ This supernatural faith is beyond what our human nature can
accomplish:
▪ It must be given from above.

▪ Thus, the motives of credibility allow natural reason to rest in

knowing that faith is reasonable, opening us to receiving the
supernatural gift that is faith in Christ.
Motives of Credibility

▪ “Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the

Church’s growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability ‘are
the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the
intelligence of all’; they are ‘motives of credibility’ (motiva
credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is ‘by no means a
blind impulse of the mind.’”
▪ (CCC 156)
Motives of Credibility (Feingold)

▪ Witness of Miracles
▪ Witness of Prophecies
▪ Witness of the People of God
▪ The Sanctity of God’s Revelation as a Motive of Credibility
▪ The Beauty of Christ and the Saints
DIVINE ORIGIN OF REVELATION
Introduction

▪ “The same Holy Mother Church holds and teaches that…it has
pleased His wisdom and goodness to reveal Himself and the
eternal decrees of His will to the human race in another and
supernatural way, as the Apostle says: ‘God, who at sundry times
and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the
prophets, last of all, in these days hath spoken to us by His Son’
[Heb 1:1 f]…Furthermore, this supernatural revelation, according to
the faith of the universal Church, as declared by the holy synod of
Trent, is contained ‘in the written books and in the unwritten
traditions which have been received by the apostles from the
mouth of Christ Himself; or, through the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit have been handed down by the apostles themselves, and
have thus come to us’ [Council of Trent].” Dei Filius, chap. 2
Divine Origin of OT

▪ The religion of the OT had its origin in Divine revelation

▪ Biblical Judaism is distinguished for its truth, purity, and sublimity.
▪ It is also confirmed by miracles and prophecies.
Religious Teachings of the OT

▪ Jews do not pronounce the Holy Name of God (‫)יהוה‬, nor do they
read aloud proposed transcription forms such as “Yahweh.”
▪ A common substitutions in Hebrew is Adonai (“My Lord”).
▪ Adonai is the one God of the OT and the Creator.
▪ The OT notion of creation is not found among the pagan nations or
philosophers.
▪ The doctrine of creation is intimately connected with belief in God’s
providence and Divine government of the world.
Religious Teachings of the OT

▪ The OT rejects the pagan notion of “fate.”

▪ Adonai governs with absolute freedom and unlimited power.
▪ Belief in Adonai expresses itself in Divine worship, i.e., sacrifice.
▪ Superstition, magic, and sorcery are forbidden by Adonai.
▪ The OT also teaches a clear moral code.
▪ Superior to the pagan religions
▪ Inferior to the NT
Religious Teachings of the OT

▪ Jewish tradition identifies 613 commandments in the Torah.

▪ These can be summarized as
▪ Love God with all your heart, mind, and soul;
▪ Love your neighbor as yourself.

▪ Jewish law is different from the gentiles, i.e., the nations.

▪ The Code of Hammurabi doesn’t teach anything close to “love your neighbor as yourself.”

▪ The 10 Commandments are essentially a simple expression of the moral law of

nature.
▪ OT religion is free of contradiction and transcends the pagan religions in purity
and perfection.
▪ All of these facts support the thesis of the Divine origin of the OT.
Religious Teachings of the OT

▪ Polygamy among the Patriarchs and the Israelites was not a Divine
institution, but an abuse that God tolerated.
▪ Monogamy is clearly God’s will from the creation of Adam and Eve
in the Garden Paradise.
▪ The moral weakness of Kings David and Solomon is a proof that
God’s can and does work through very defective instruments to
carry out His will.
Miracles in the OT

▪ Theophanies (a visible manifestation of God to mankind)

▪ Miracles performed through Moses
Miracles in the OT

▪ Genesis 2, 3, 6, 8, 15, 20, 28, etc. relates how God appeared to

people as lawgiver, judge, and prophet.
▪ These events
▪ Illustrated Monotheism clearly and intelligibly, and
▪ Revealed to mankind that God had spoken.
 Miracles in the OT

▪ Moses’ miracles can be placed in two categories:

▪ Those which have the express purpose of confirming his supernatural mission (e.g.,
casting his rod on the ground and turning it into a snake),
▪ 8 And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, 9 “When Pharaoh says to you, ‘Prove yourselves
by working a miracle,’ then you shall say to Aaron, ‘Take your rod and cast it down before
Pharaoh, that it may become a serpent.’” 10 So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did
as the Lord commanded; Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh and his servants, and it
became a serpent. 11 Then Pharaoh summoned the wise men and the sorcerers; and they
also, the magicians of Egypt, did the same by their secret arts. 12 For every man cast down
his rod, and they became serpents. But Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods. 13 Still
Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them; as the Lord had said.
(Exodus 7)
▪ Those which are connected with Moses’ Divine mission (e.g., water from the rock).
▪ 4 So Moses cried to the Lord, “What shall I do with this people? They are almost ready to
stone me.” 5 And the Lord said to Moses, “Pass on before the people, taking with you some
of the elders of Israel; and take in your hand the rod with which you struck the Nile, and go.
6 Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb; and you shall strike the rock,
and water shall come out of it, that the people may drink.” And Moses did so, in the sight of
the elders of Israel. 7 And he called the name of the place Massah and Mer′ibah, because
of the faultfinding of the children of Israel, and because they put the Lord to the proof by
saying, “Is the Lord among us or not?” (Exodus 17)
Miracles in the OT

▪ The signs wrought by Moses were intended to confirm His Divine mission.
▪ The signs wrought by Moses transcended the known powers of nature
▪ 16 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Say to Aaron, ‘Stretch out your rod and strike the
dust of the earth, that it may become gnats throughout all the land of Egypt.’” 17
And they did so; Aaron stretched out his hand with his rod, and struck the dust of
the earth, and there came gnats on man and beast; all the dust of the earth became
gnats throughout all the land of Egypt. 18 The magicians tried by their secret arts to
bring forth gnats, but they could not. So there were gnats on man and beast. 19
And the magicians said to Pharaoh, “This is the finger of God.” But Pharaoh’s heart
was hardened, and he would not listen to them; as the Lord had said. (Exodus 8)

▪ The signs wrought by Moses must be ascribed to Divine causation.

Prophecies in the OT

▪ The Divine origin of the OT is also confirmed by prophecies.

▪ Examples:
▪ Noah was informed of the upcoming flood.
▪ Abraham was informed of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the birth of
Isaac, 400 years of servitude of the people in Egypt, and their eventual conquest of
the land of Canaan.
▪ Moses correctly prophesied that, with the exception of Joshua and Caleb, none of
the men who were over twenty would enter the Promised Land. They would die in
the desert for murmuring against Moses and Aaron and doubting God.
▪ MANY more…
Sodom and Gomorrah
Sodom and Gomorrah

▪ Archeologists in 2015 confirmed that Sodom and Gomorrah were

literally destroyed by fire and brimstone falling from the sky.
▪ There is evidence that a meteor exploded in the sky above, raining
down superheated matter and raising temperatures to thousands of
degrees.
▪ According to the theory, the meteor exploded at low altitude with
the force of a ten-megaton atomic bomb at an altitude of about
one kilometer over the northeast corner of the Dead Sea, and
obliterated all of civilization in the 25-kilometer-wide circular plain.
Sodom and Gomorrah

▪ Evidence from radiocarbon dating indicates that a group of

civilizations flourished in the area for over two millennia, until
approximately 1700 BC, when the mud-brick walls of the buildings
in the region simultaneously disappeared and only the stone
foundations remained.
▪ The pottery in the settlements was heated into glass in the space
of milliseconds, according to the results of an analysis of the Zircon
crystals formed in the process, indicating that they were briefly
exposed to temperatures of approximately 4000 to 12000 degrees
Celsius, comparable to the temperature of the surface of the sun.
Sodom and Gomorrah

▪ The explosion rained down platinum as well as molten lava on the

region, according to two of the archeologists, and this further
confirms that a meteor was the source, given that platinum is found
in higher concentrations in meteors than on earth.
▪ Approximately 40,000 to 60,000 people living in the region were
killed, and a 500-square kilometer area was rendered uninhabitable
for 600 to 700 years, the researchers estimate.
▪ They believe that the area was stripped of its topsoil, and that salts
from the nearby Dead Sea were spread over the land, destroying its
fertility.
Sodom and Gomorrah

▪ Genesis 19:24, “The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah

brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven.”
▪ A statement that matches well the high temperatures and superheated
stones that would have rained from the sky in such an event.

▪ The Hebrew word for “brimstone” is normally applied to sulfur,

which is a stone that burns.
▪ Genesis 19 also seems to describe the general devastation in the
region, including the loss of plant life discovered by the
archeologists, stating in verse 25, “And he destroyed these cities,
and all the country about, all the inhabitants of the cities, and all
things that spring from the earth.”
Sodom and Gomorrah

▪ Genesis and other books of the Bible state that Sodom was
destroyed in retribution for the sexual perversion of the inhabitants,
particularly their desire for sexual relations with the same sex,
which the Scripture calls an “abomination.”
▪ The NT Letter of Jude likens fires that destroyed Sodom and
Gomorrah to the “eternal fire” of hell.
▪ For more information, see Steven Collins and Phillip Silvia, “The
Civilization-Ending 3.7KYrBP Event: Archaeological Data, Sample
Analyses, and Biblical Implications,” Near East Archaeological
Society.
Miracles and Prophecies of the Post-Mosaic Period

▪ Miracles and prophecy do not end with the death of Moses.

▪ Some Miracles:
▪ Joshua (e.g., Joshua predicted the destruction of Jericho)
▪ Judges (e.g., Gedeon and the wool fleece)
▪ 1 Kings (e.g., Elijah vs the 450 priests of Baal)
▪ Isaiah (e.g., Isaiah predicted for King Hezekiah that the Assyrian Army would
depart without harming the inhabitants of Jerusalem)
▪ Micah (e.g., Micah predicted the destruction of Samaria and Jerusalem as a
punishment for sin as well as the Babylonian Captivity)
Divine Origin of the NT

▪ The nature of the NT shows that it is based on Divine revelation.

▪ Catholic Christianity contains no contradictions
▪ It is in every respect worthy of God and responds to the needs of
mankind.
▪ The NT is necessary because the truths of Christianity cannot be
known accurately, completely, and with certitude except by
supernatural aid.
Dogmatic Teaching of Christianity

▪ The Church assimilates, develops, and perfects the doctrines found

in the OT.
▪ The idea of God is perfected by the revelation of the Holy Trinity in
the NT.
▪ The origin, goal, and mission of man also appears in brighter light.
▪ The means by which eternal salvation is attained (i.e., the
Sacraments) offer spiritual grace adapted to human nature.
Moral Teaching of Christianity

▪ The moral teaching of Christianity is intimately bound up with its

dogmas.
▪ Faith is the foundation of morality.
▪ The Divine law appears as the rule and norm of human conduct.
▪ Conscience and free will attain their full recognition and
development.
▪ The goal of moral conduct is the immediate possession of the
Triune God in the beatific vision and charity.
Moral Teaching of Christianity

▪ Perfect charity, which excludes no one, even one’s enemies,

constitutes the distinguishing mark of a disciple of Christ.
▪ The joys of paradise, the torments of hell, a grateful love of God,
the charm of a virtuous life, and the qualms of a wicked conscience
incite followers of Christ to lead a moral life.
Christian Worship

▪ The worship of God inculcated by the Christian religion is an internal

adoration of the Father in spirit and truth.
▪ The constant renewal of Jesus’ passion, death, and resurrection in the
Eucharist takes the place of the OT sacrifices, of which the Mass is the
perfect fulfilment.
▪ Christian worship, dogma, and moral teaching form one harmonious
whole.
▪ Thus, the religion of the NT occupies a unique place among the world’s
religions, transcending all others in sublimity and perfection.
▪ The Christian religion cannot be a mere human invention, but must have
a Divine origin.
Christ’s Own Testimony to His Nature and Mission

▪ To form a correct opinion of the Person, work, and doctrine of

Jesus Christ, we must enquire what He Himself thought of His
origin, nature, and mission.
▪ The faith of the Church rests on His testimony.
▪ Christ’s own testimony as to His nature and mission, together with
the wisdom and holiness of His person, constitute one of the
external criteria of Christian revelation.
▪ Recall that the Scribes and Pharisees refused to accept His
testimony.
The Substance of Christ’s Testimony of Himself

▪ Christ’s own testimony guarantees the Divine origin of His teaching.

▪ Jesus Christ is an extraordinary ambassador or minister of God.
▪ Jesus Christ is the consubstantial Son of God the Father.
▪ The teaching of Jesus was derived from Divine revelation.
The Truth of Christ’s Testimony of Himself

▪ Christ was not deceived with regard to Himself, but knew the truth and
therefore was able to tell it.
▪ Christ was not blinded by pride, ambition, or success.
▪ Christ’s testimony of Himself did not originate in a diseased mind.

▪ Christ did not intend to deceive men, but wished to speak the Truth.
▪ Christ is sinless.
▪ Christ is a sublime model of virtue and holiness.
The Miracles of Christ

▪ Christ employed miracles and prophecies not directly in order to

demonstrate the Divine origin of His doctrine, but to prove His Divinity
and the Divine character of His mission.
▪ Once these truths are established, the Divinity of His teaching follows as
a matter of course.
The Historical Reality of the Extraordinary Deeds of Christ

▪ Christ’s miracles may be divided into two classes:

▪ Anthropological, (connected with mankind) and
▪ Cosmological (connected with nature).

▪ 35 miracles are described in detail.

▪ In 23 cases sick persons are miraculously restored to health (including 7
possessed by demons).
▪ In 3 cases dead persons were recalled to life.
▪ In 7 cases the course of nature was affected.
▪ Interestingly, the historicity of the miracles of Christ was admitted even
by His enemies, as we read in the Gospels.
 The Miraculous Power of the Extraordinary Deeds of Christ

▪ The extraordinary deeds cannot be attributed to the forces of nature.

▪ Fever, leprosy, gout, paralysis, hemorrhages, blindness, dropsy, etc. cannot be healed by a single
word and mere act of the will.
▪ The cures of people possessed by a demon should be judged similarly.
▪ In all cases, Jesus healed the afflicted person by commanding the evil spirit to leave.
▪ This method manifests superhuman power, since mere human authority cannot influence the conduct of
pure spirits.
▪ Besides healing many, Jesus raised three people to life.
▪ Son of the widow of Naim
▪ Lazarus
▪ Daughter of Jairus
▪ The miracles wrought in connection with nature are also of a kind which transcends the natural
powers known to us.
▪ Eight of them were wrought by means of a single command or blessing
 The Miraculous Power of the Extraordinary Deeds of Christ

▪ The miracles of Christ cannot be ascribed to evil spirits.

▪ Such an assumption underrates the acumen of Satan and his minions.
▪ Jesus dedicated His whole ministry to promoting the glory of God and the salvation of mankind.
▪ One of his chief aims was to break the power of the devil.
▪ To assume that the miracles of Christ were wrought by the aid of evil spirits is incompatible
with the sanctity of the Redeemer.
▪ Jesus was all-holy and always did the will of the Father.
▪ The hypothesis in question is equally incompatible with the veracity and wisdom of God, who
could not permit the devil to deceive the human race by mean of pseudo-miracles.
▪ Christ always attributed the cause of His miracles to the power of God.
Christ’s Appeal to His Miracles

▪ Christ appealed to the ensemble of His miracles in a general way when

the disciples of John the Baptist came and asked Him if He was the One
or if they should look for another.
▪ Jesus responds, “Go and relate to John what you have heard and seen. The blind
see, the lame walk, the leapers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, the
poor have the Gospel preached to them.” Matthew 11:3

▪ At times Jesus made a special appeal to certain particular miracles.

▪ Jesus tells the crippled man that his sins are forgiven. The Scribes rebuke him for
blasphemy. Jesus responds, “But that you may know that the Son of Man has power
on earth to forgive sins, (then he said to the man), Arise, take up your mat, and go
home.” Matthew 9:6
The Prophecies of Christ

▪ The prophecies of Christ have for their objects:

▪ His own person,
▪ The fate of His disciples and that of the Jewish Nation,
▪ The preaching of the Gospel,
▪ The development and duration of the Church
▪ The end of the world.

▪ We maintain that Christ proved His Divine mission and the Divine origin of
His teaching by prophecies that actually came true.
Historicity of the Prophecies of Christ

▪ It is evident that Christ clearly and definitely foretold events which

depended wholly upon the free will of God and of men.
▪ He could not have foreknown these things by natural means.
▪ E.g., denial of Peter

▪ Christ frequently appealed to His prophecies as proofs of His Divine

mission.
▪ In general He appealed to His prophecies by pointing to the “works” which the Father
had commissioned Him to perform (John 5:36).

▪ In predicting His betrayal by Judas, Jesus emphasized the fact that this
prophecy had for its object the confirmation of His divine mission (John
13:19).
Resurrection of Christ

▪ The resurrection of Christ was a miracle as well as a prophecy.

▪ It is the most effective proof of the Divine character of His mission and
teaching.
Resurrection of Christ as a Miracle

▪ The reality of the death of Christ is proved by evidence:

▪ The unanimous testimony of all four Evangelists,
▪ By the conduct of the Roman officials present at the crucifixion, and
▪ The behavior of both his friends and enemies.

▪ The reality of the resurrection can be shown by:

▪ From the character of the witnesses who attest to it, and
▪ The nature of their testimony
▪ Empty tomb
▪ The Lord appeared at least 12 times (as recorded in the Bible)
▪ St. Mary Magdalen,
▪ St. Peter,
▪ Two disciples on the road to Emmaus,
▪ Etc.
Resurrection of Christ as a Prophecy

▪ Jesus clearly foretold that He would arise from the grave on the third day
after His death.
▪ Christ’s prophecy that He would rise again on the third day after His
death was fulfilled.
Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels

▪ This Instruction De Historica Evangeliorum Veritate was approved by Pope

Paul VI who ordered its publication on April 21, 1964.
▪ “The Catholic exegete, under the guidance of the Church, must turn to
account all the resources for the understanding of the sacred text which
have been put at his disposal by previous interpreters, especially the holy
Fathers and Doctors of the Church, whose labors it is for him to take up
and to carry on.”
 Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels

▪ “In order to determine correctly the trustworthiness of what is transmitted in the

Gospels, the interpreter must take careful note of the three stages of tradition by
which the teaching and the life of Jesus have come down to us.”
▪ “Christ our Lord attached to Himself certain chosen disciples who had followed Him
from the beginning, who had seen His works and had heard His words, and thus were
qualified to become witnesses of His life and teaching. Our Lord when expounding
His teaching by word of mouth, observed the methods of reasoning and of exposition
which were in common use at the time; in this way He accommodated Himself to the
mentality of His hearers, and ensured that His teachings would be deeply impressed
on their minds and would be easily retained in memory by His disciples. These latter
grasped correctly the idea that the miracles and other events of the life of Jesus were
things purposely performed or arranged by Him in such a way that men would thereby
be led to believe in Christ and to accept by faith the doctrine of salvation.”
 Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels

“The Apostles, bearing testimony to Jesus proclaimed first and foremost the death and
resurrection of the Lord, faithfully recounting His life and words and, as regards the manner of
their preaching, taking into account the circumstances of their hearers. After Jesus had risen
from the dead, and when His divinity was clearly perceived, the faith of the disciples, far from
blotting out the remembrance of the events that had happened, rather consolidated it, since
their faith was based on what Jesus had done and taught. Nor was Jesus transformed into a
‘mythical’ personage, and His teaching distorted, by reason of the worship which the disciples
now paid Him, revering Him as Lord and Son of God. Yet it need not be denied that the
Apostles, when handing on to their hearers the things which in actual face the Lord had said
and done, did so in the light of that fuller understanding which they enjoyed as a result of being
schooled by the glorious things accomplished in Christ, and of being illumined by the Spirit of
Truth. Thus it came about that, just as Jesus Himself after His resurrection had ‘interpreted to
them’ both the words of the Old Testament and the words which He Himself had spoken, so
now they in their turn interpreted His words and deeds according to the needs of their hearers.
‘Devoting (themselves) to the ministry of the word,’ they made use, as they preached, of such
various forms of speech as were adapted to their own purposes and to the mentality of their
hearers; for it was ‘to Greek and barbarian, to learned and simple,’ that they had a duty to
discharge. These varied ways of speaking which the heralds of Christ made use of in
proclaiming Him must be distinguished one from the other and carefully appraised: catecheses,
narratives, testimonies, hymns, doxologies, prayers, and any other such literary forms as were
customarily employed in Sacred Scripture and by people of that time.”
 Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels

“The sacred authors, for the benefit of the churches, took this earliest body of instruction, which had been
handed on orally at first and then in writing— for many soon set their hands to ‘drawing up a narrative’ of
matters concerning the Lord Jesus—and set it down in the four Gospels. In doing this each of them followed a
method suitable to the special purpose which he had in view. They selected certain things out of the many
which had been handed on; some they synthesized, some they explained with an eye to the situation of the
churches. painstakingly using every means of bringing home to their readers the solid truth of the things in
which they had been instructed. For, out of the material which they had received, the sacred authors selected
especially those items which were adapted to the varied circumstances of the faithful as well as to the end
which they themselves wished to attain; these they recounted in a manner consonant with those circumstances
and with that end. And since the meaning of a statement depends, amongst other things, on the place which it
has in a given sequence, the Evangelists, in handing on the words or the deeds of our Savior, explained them
for the advantage of their readers by respectively setting them, one Evangelist in one context, another in
another. For this reason the exegete must ask himself what the Evangelist intended by recounting a saying or a
fact in a certain way, or by placing it in a certain context. For the truth of the narrative is not affected in the
slightest by the fact that the Evangelists report the sayings or the doings of our Lord in a different order, and
that they use different words to express what He said, not keeping to the very letter, but nevertheless preserving
the sense. For, as St. Augustine says: ‘Where it is a question only of those matters whose order in the narrative
may be indifferently this or that without in any way taking from the truth and authority of the Gospel, it is
probable enough that each Evangelist believed he should narrate them in that same order in which God was
pleased to suggest them to his recollection. The Holy Spirit distributes His gifts to each one according as He
wills; therefore, too, for the sake of those Books which were to be set so high at the very summit of authority.
He undoubtedly guided and controlled the minds of the holy writers in their recollection of what they were to
write; but as to why. in doing so, He should have permitted them, one to follow this order in his narrative,
another to follow that—that is a question whose answer may possibly be found with God's help, if one seeks it
out with reverent care.’”
Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels

▪ “Those charged with the duty of teaching in Seminaries and similar

establishments must make it their first care to see . . . that the teaching
of Holy Writ is carried out in a manner thoroughly in keeping with the
importance of the subject itself, and with the requirements of the present
day.”
Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels

▪ “But it is those who instruct the Christian people by sacred preaching

who need the greatest prudence. It is doctrine above all that they must
impart, mindful of the admonition of St. Paul: ‘Pay attention to yourself
and to the doctrine which you teach; be persistent in these things. For by
doing so you will bring salvation to yourself and to your hearers.’”
▪ “Those in charge of biblical associations must observe inviolably the laws
already laid down by the Pontifical Biblical Commission.”