an indefinitely remote period, before the earth was the habitation of
man: Geology has lately discovered the existence of a long prehuman
period. A comparison with other Scriptures (_i.e._, those written
after the Pentateuch, or Mosaic account) shows that the "heavens" of
Moses include the abode of angels and the place of the fixed stars,
which existed before the earth: Astronomy points out remote worlds,
whose light began its journey long before the existence of man. Moses
declares that the earth was or became covered with water, and was
desolate and empty: Geology has found by investigation that the
primitive globe was covered with a uniform ocean, and that there was a
long azoic period, during which neither plant nor animal could live.
Moses states that there was a time when the earth was not dependent on
the sun for light or heat; when, therefore, there could be no climatic
differences: Geology has lately verifed this statement by finding
tropical plants and animals scattered over all places of the earth.
Moses affirms that the sun, as well as the moon, is only a light
holder: Astronomy declares that the sun is a non-luminous body,
dependent for its light on a luminous atmosphere. Moses asserts that
the earth existed before the sun was given as a luminary: Modern
science proposes a theory which explains how this was possible. Moses
asserts that there is an expanse extending from earth to distant
heights, in which the heavenly bodies are placed: Recent discoveries
lead to the supposition of some subtile fluid medium in which they
move. Moses describes the process of creation as gradual, and mentions
the order in which living things appeared: plants, fishes, fowls, land
animals, man: By the study of nature, geology has arrived independently
at the same conclusion. Whence did Moses get all this knowledge? How
was it that he worded his rapid sketch with such scientific accuracy?
If he in his day possessed the knowledge which genius and science have
attained only recently, that knowledge is superhuman. If he did not
possess the knowledge, then his pen must have been guided by superhuman
wisdom" (Aids to Faith, p. 232).
Some years ago much ado was made by certain sceptics about the
chronology of the Bible, as if the discrepancies of a few figures could
undo the manifest authenticity of the vast store of facts vouched in
the grand collection of Biblical books. These discrepancies are being
gradually explained. It may be that we err in properly understanding
the Oriental habits of counting genealogies, or that the method of the
first transcribers led to inaccuracy, despite the care used in the
copying and preservation of the text. When we remember that Hebrew
signs, very closely resembling each other, denote often great
differences, clear enough, no doubt, at first, but becoming indistinct
in the course of time, we cannot wonder that some words and expressions
present to the ordinary reader a mystery, or even seeming
contradiction. It is not necessary to understand the ancient tongue in
order to realize this fact. In the first place, the similarity of
Hebrew characters which represent great numerical differences must have
easily led to errors by the copyists, which caused difficulty to the
later transcribers unless they had a reliable tradition to correct the
mistake. Thus the letter [Hebrew: Beth] (_Beth_) represents _two_,
whilst [Hebrew: Kaph] (_Kaph_) represents _twenty_. By placing two
small dots above either of these two characters you multiply them by a
thousand, [Hebrew: Beth with two dots] representing _two thousand_ and
[Hebrew: Kaph with two dots] _twenty thousand_. The letter [Hebrew:
Vav] (_Vav_) is equivalent to _six_, another letter very like it in
form, [Hebrew: Zayin] (_Zayin_), is _seven_, whilst both of these
characters represent a variety of meanings: oftenest [Hebrew: Vav]
(_Vav_) is a copula, at other times it stands at the beginning of a
discourse, or introduces the apodosis, or is simply an intensive, or
adversative; sometimes it is prefixed to a future tense, and turns it
into an imperfect, etc. Again, there are special reasons why certain
combinations of letters stand for numerals, contrary to the ordinary
rule. Thus _fifteen_ is expressed by [Hebrew: vav, tet]=9+6, instead
of [Hebrew: tav, vav, he, yod], because the name of God commences with
the latter characters [Hebrew: ] (Jehovah), etc.
Furthermore, many of the signs used as numerals had fixed symbolical
significations, and were not meant to be taken as literal quantities.
Moreover, in all the old Hebrew writings the consonants only are
expressed. Thus it happens that the same written characters may denote
different things, sometimes contradictory, unless living tradition
could supply the true signification. Thus the word [Hebrew: resh, kaf]
means _son_ (Ps. ii. 12), or it may be an adjective signifying _chosen_
(Cant. vi. 9), or, again, _clear_ (Cant. vi. 10), or _empty_ (Prov.
xiv. 4). Besides these primary meanings it stands for _corn_ or
_grain_, for _open fields_ or _country_, for a _pit_, for _salt of lye_
(vegetable salt), and for _pureness_. The true signification in each
passage is not always clear from the context, and critics are
frequently at a loss to divine the sense intended by the writer.
But whilst these discrepancies and obscurities are a momentary source
of distraction, they arouse not only zeal for the study of the sacred
languages, by which means philological mysteries are frequently cleared
up, but they give us often an insight into the wonderful genius of the
Semitic languages, with their peculiar imagery, which associates ideas
and feelings apparently wholly distinct from each other according to
the use of modern terms.
The last-made reflection suggests another advantage, in an educational
point of view, which the study of the Sacred Scriptures opens to those
who possess sufficient talent and opportunity for its pursuit. I mean
the power of thought and reflection which comes with the study of a
foreign language. There are portions of the Old Testament which we
cannot rightly read and understand without _some_ knowledge of the
tongue in which they were originally written. This is one of the
several reasons which the Church has for not sanctioning, without
certain cautions, the indiscriminate reading of the Sacred Scriptures
in the form of translation. Let me give you a very good authority for
this.
About the very time when Ptolemy Philadelphus, of whom I have spoken in
the beginning, sent to Jerusalem in order to procure the Greek
translation of the Thorah, or Hebrew law (Pentateuch), a holy Jewish
scribe was inspired to write one of the later Scriptural books. It
appears that He was among the seventy learned scribes who had been sent
by the High-priest to Alexandria for the purpose of making the
translation for the king, and that afterwards, whilst still there, he
composed the sacred book known as _Ecclesiasticus_. This book he wrote
in the Hebrew tongue. Many years after, a grandson of this inspired
writer, who is called Jesus son of Sirach, came upon the book and
resolved to translate it into Greek, in order that it might be read by
many of his brethren in the foreign land, who no longer spoke the
Hebrew language, though they believed in the law of their forefathers.
To this translation he wrote a short preface which, though it does not
belong to the inspired portions of the text, has been preserved and is
found in our Bibles. Let me read it to you, because it demonstrates
the truth of what I have just said, namely, that our understanding of
the Bible is rendered difficult when we are obliged to depart from the
original language in which it was written. The younger Jesus Sirach,
who spoke both the Hebrew and Greek tongues equally well, at a time
when they were still living languages, writes as follows about the
translation of his grandfather's work:
"The knowledge of many and great things hath been shown us by the Law
and the Prophets, and others that have followed them, for which things
Israel is to be commended for doctrine and wisdom; because not only
they that speak must needs be skilful, but strangers also, both
speaking and writing, may by their means become most learned.
My grandfather Jesus, after he had much given himself to a diligent
reading of the Law and the Prophets, and other books that were
delivered to us from our fathers, had a mind also to write something
himself pertaining to doctrine and wisdom; that such as are desirous to
learn and are made knowing in these things may be more and more
attentive in mind, and be strengthened to live according to the Law. I
entreat you, therefore, to come with benevolence, and to read with
attention, and to pardon us for those things wherein we may seem,
_while we follow the image of wisdom, to come short in the composition
of words: for the Hebrew words have not the same force in them when
translated into another tongue. And not only these, but the Law also
itself, and the Prophets and the rest of the books, have no small
difference when they are spoken in their own language_. For in the
eighth and thirtieth year coming into Egypt, when Ptolemy Euergetes was
king, and continuing there a long time, I found these books left, of no
small and contemptible learning. Therefore I thought it good and
necessary for me to bestow some diligence and labor to interpret this
book; and with much watching and study, in some space of time, I
brought the book to an end, and set it forth for the service of them
that are willing to apply their mind, and to learn how they ought to
conduct themselves, who purpose to lead their life according to the Law
of the Lord" (Prologue to Ecclesiasticus).
[1] "Meeting-place of Geology and History," 1894. Fleming H. Revell
Co., New York.
XI.
THE CREATION OF NEW LETTERS.
It is a fact not generally known or realized that if it were not for
the Bible some of the richest and most beautiful languages of antiquity
would now be entirely lost to us; nay, more, there are whole nations
who would in all probability never have had a written language or
literature except for the Bible.
Of the ancient Semitic tongues only two remain living languages, that
is, the Arabian, and, in a modified form, the Syrian. The Chaldee, the
Samaritan, the Assyrian, the Phoenician, the Ethiopia are dead and
would hardly be known to us except for the remnants of them which we
trace through the sacred books of the Scripture. We have no relic of
the Hebrew tongue but the Bible; and this language, with all its
wondrous musical forms, its strange capacity of eliciting and
expressing the deepest feelings of the human heart, and its charming
touches of Oriental genius, would be entirely dead outs, if we had not
the Bible.
Our own English tongue bears the traces of another written language,
now entirely dead, but which was actually created by the study of the
Bible. I mean the Gothic, of which no other written document exists
to-day except some portion of the Holy Scriptures translated by Ulfilas
in the fourth century. When he came as a missionary among the Goths he
found them ignorant of the art of writing. In order to Christianize
the rude people he invented for them an alphabet, gathered their
children into Christian schools, and taught them to write and to read.
The first book, and the last, too, of that once powerful race was a
Bible. When the Goths had died out in the ninth century, their written
copy of the inspired word of God still continued to live, and we can
trace in our unabridged dictionaries to-day the original meaning of
many a Saxon word by reference to this solitary copy of a part of the
Sacred Scriptures.
What has been said of the Gothic is equally true of the written
language of the Armenians (for whom the anchorite Miesrop devised an
alphabet and translated the Bible); also of the Slavonic nations (for
whom SS. Cyril and Methodius made an alphabet and Bible translation);
and others--races who, like our own Indian tribes, lived only long
enough as representatives of a separate language to learn the rudiments
of Christianity.
All this must convince us that those who have the required means should
seek to master one or several of the Biblical languages, since the
ancient tongues, less subject to the caprice of political changes than
those of later ages, open to the mind avenues of original thought and
sentiment which modern literature and education have not been capable
of retaining without them.
You will say that it is impossible for most, or perchance nearly all of
you to give yourselves to the study of Hebrew or Greek or Latin in
order to gain that profit from the intelligent reading of the Bible
which it yields to the man of learning. Very well; if so, the fact of
our deficiency must caution us in reading and rashly interpreting
according to our fancy what can only be determined by the wisdom of
those who act the legitimate part of divinely-appointed judges. As in
the Old Law the High-priest and the great council of the Sanhedrin were
the infallible interpreters of the divine decrees, so the Church, which
is the continuation and perfection of the Synagogue, completes the
Messianic mission by interpreting for each succeeding generation the
meaning of the inspired words written in the sacred volume.
XII.
ENGLISH STYLE.
But there still remains for all of us the reading of the English Bible,
with the aids of interpretation which render it intelligible for a
practical purpose, and in so far as it is an expression of the natural
moral law. This of itself contributes very largely to the perfection
of our use of the mother tongue. For it is always true of this sacred
book, as Dryden says, that in
"... Style, majestic and divine,
It speaks no less than God in every line;
Commanding words! whose force is still the same
As the first _fiat_ that produced our frame."
(Dryden, _Relig. Laic._, i. 152.)
Yes, its frequent reading helps much to the formation of good English.
This is not simply fancy, but the verdict of those who have experienced
and proved the benefit of frequent use of the Bible as a means of
fashioning and improving a beautiful style of English writing. Some
years ago Mr. Bainton, a lover of English literature, requested the
best of living writers to give their opinion as to what class of
reading had most contributed to their attaining the elegance or force
of beauty for which their writings were generally admired. To the
surprise of many it appeared in the answers that the reading of the
Bible was considered the secret of a charming style, even by authors
who wrote in that lighter, sparkling vein which seems so remote from
the gravity and solidity of the sacred books. To give one example of
this let me quote the words of Mr. W. S. Gilbert, the author of the
delightful "Bab Ballads," and a long series of light operas and
sparkling plays. After referring to the advantage of studying the
English of the late Tudor and early Stuart periods, he adds: "But for
simplicity, directness, and perspicuity, there is, in my opinion, no
existing work to be compared with the historical books of the Bible."
Mr. Marion Crawford, much read of late, and criticized for fostering a
faulty ideal, but whose vigorous expression, power of analysis, and
correct delineation of character will hardly be denied by any one
capable of judging, gives his ideas of attaining to good English style
in the following words: "The greatest literary production in our
language is the translation of the Bible, and the more a man reads it
the better he will write English." He adds: "I am not a particularly
devout person, though I am a good Roman Catholic, and I do not
recommend the Bible from any religious reason. I distinctly dislike
the practice of learning texts without any regard to the context....
But if we were English Brahmans, and believed nothing contained
therein, I should still maintain that the Bible should be the _first
study_ of a literary man. Then the great poets, Shakespeare, Milton,"
etc. I have quoted Mr. Crawford because he is not merely a good
English writer, but a real scholar, familiar with many languages,
classic and modern, and therefore all the better qualified to judge of
our subject.
There are, of course, instances in the Bible when the grammatical rules
of Brown and Murray forbid satisfactory parsing. The reason of this is
the natural wish of the translators, anxious to preserve the literal
form of the original, not to sacrifice accuracy to the nicety with
which they might round their phrases. They were intent alone upon
truth; and it is precisely in this element that eloquence finds its
first and most powerful incentive. Beauty of language has two sources
of inspiration. One is that of truth, which arouses in the heart a
love lifting the mind with a burning enthusiasm into the regions of all
that is fair and chaste and grand; and the language of him who has
mastered it assumes the sound and form of these lofty emotions. There
is indeed another source of inspiration. It is that from which
emanates the brilliant but ephemeral beauty of the literature of the
day. It is not love of unchanging truth, but the captivating passion
of the hour, which, as someone has said, acts upon the brain "like the
foaming grape of Eastern France--pleasant to the sense of taste, yet
sending its subtle fumes to the brain, and stealing away the judgment."
Truth in literature possesses a power of eloquence of which fiction is
but a shadow at best, varying in size, and dwarfed or magnified in
proportion as it approaches and recedes from the object which occasions
it.
XIII.
FRIENDS OF GOD.
And with this study of truth there is added to knowledge and power and
beauty of expression another vital element, which gives these
acquisitions an infinite value: I mean the gift of wisdom as distinct
from knowledge. Read the Sapiential book of Solomon, and mark what he
there says. He had learnt all things that human industry could
suggest, but the science of things earthly was as nothing to the wisdom
which, as he says, "went before me; and I knew not that it was the
mother of all." And when he had learnt wisdom in listening to the
breathing of that sacred voice whose words he recorded for our
instruction, he describes it as a sacred fire of genius, "holy, one,
manifold, subtle, eloquent, active, undefiled, sure, sweet, loving that
which is good, quick, which nothing can oppose, beneficent, gentle,
kind, steadfast, assured--a breath of the power of God--making friends
of God, and prophets, for God loveth none but him that dwelleth with
wisdom--more beautiful than the sun" (Sap. vii. 22-29).
Surely, it makes us friends of God and prophets. But not only this.
It keeps high ideals before us, and we become like to the things we
love. Look on Abraham, whom the Arab calls even to this day by no
other name but _El Khalil Allah_--that is, "the friend of God"--chosen
the father of a holy race whence eventually was to spring the Messias;
look on Moses, the meekest of men, as he is called in Holy Writ, or on
David, the man "according to God's own heart;" look on the later
prophets, whose words set the nations aflame, and made kings tremble
who had never felt fear of men or God. We see Jeremiah, the youth at
Anathoth, "gentle, sensitive, yielding, yearning for peace and love,
averse by nature from strife and controversy," stepping forth at the
urging of motives such as speak to each of us from these pages of the
Bible. Boldly he announces the judgments of God to his faithless
people. "During that long ministry" of forty years, says Geikie, "no
personal interest, comfort, or ease, no shrinking from ridicule,
contumely, or hatred, could turn him from the task imposed upon him,
with awful sanctions, by the lips of the Eternal God."[1]
Or take the noble women with whose lofty virtue the inspired writers
fill the sacred volumes, and whose names some of the books bear.
There is the sacred Book of _Ruth_, she who is called "friend" or
"lover" in the Hebrew tongue, fair image of filial affection as she
walks beside the aged Noemi along the weary roads north from Moab, to
conduct her mother to her native land. There, at noon and eve, we see
her scan the fresh-mown fields for the gleanings which the law of Moses
allowed the poor, in order that she might honorably keep the humble
home of her widowed parent. Another sacred book we have which bears
the name of _Judith_, the woman who, strengthened in the loyal love of
her father's nation, by valiant deed set herself to defend the children
of Israel from ignominious captivity. In the Book of _Esther_ we have
the history of her whose name signifies "myrtle," symbol among the Jews
of joyous gratitude. Full of that modest wisdom of which
Ecclesiasticus tells us that it "walketh with chosen women" (i. 17),
her influence is typical of that which the Virgin Queen, fair Mother of
the Christ, in later day did exercise upon the children of Eve. Ah,
truly, "the word of God on high is the fountain of wisdom, and her ways
are everlasting commandments" (Ecclesiastic.).
But it would be a lengthy task to point out all the details of manifold
utility in the intellectual and practical, as well as the moral order,
which come from the study of the Sacred Scripture. We have seen in a
limited measure what it does for history, for language, for the science
of government, for the development of general knowledge, and the
cultivation of a graceful and vigorous style in writing. These books
hold the key to true wisdom. "All Scripture," writes St. Paul to the
young bishop Timothy, whom he himself had taught from the day he took
him to himself as a boy at Lystra, "all Scripture, inspired by God, is
profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct."
Yet there are those, the same Apostle says, "who, always learning,
never attain to the knowledge of truth" (II. Tim. iii. 7). Why?
Because they do not study rightly.
[1] Geikie, "Hours With the Bible," v. 134.
XIV.
PROSPECTING.
"Man is the perfection of creation, the mind is the perfection of man,
the heart is the perfection of the mind," says St. Francis de Sales.
Our aim is to become perfect in mind and heart, in character and
disposition. Books are the readiest means of study to this end. They
are at our command at all times. When we have discovered a beautiful
thought, a strong chain of reasoning, which, whilst convincing,
attracts and leads us into the domain of truth, however partial, we
ponder it and make it our own, and we feel stronger in the permanent
possession of it. We desire truth, and we look for it in books,
mostly. Yet we may be anxious for knowledge, and worry or dream out
our days in a course of reading without gaining any real advantage from
it. Perhaps we fail in the proper choice of books, or else we do not
observe the right method in reading and study.
Yet it is impossible for most men to go in search of and test
everything that is labelled "_truth_." Is there no remedy provided
against the danger of oft going wrong in order to find the right? Yes.
God has given us a compendium of everything that fosters true knowledge
and wisdom in a book consigned to the direction of an old, experienced,
and wise teacher. That book is the Bible, and the teacher is the
Church of Christ. In the book we find a store of great truths, of all
that is beautiful and ennobling, an infallible manual in the school of
human perfection, which leads us so high that, having mastered its
contents, we touch the very gates of heaven, where we may commune with
the Creator of wisdom and of all that our souls are capable of knowing.
There are many who are thoroughly convinced of this. They believe that
the Bible is the most perfect book on earth, that it is the book of
books, as it has been called from time immemorial; for the word _Bible_
means simply a book, _the_ book of all others by excellence, as if
there were none so worthy of study, and none which could not be
dispensed with rather than this. And so it is. It contains all
knowledge worthy of the highest aspirations and of the exercise of the
best talents.