the Bible is _not_ to be used. For though it furnishes most apt means
for imparting a knowledge and inciting to the further study of history,
languages, the principles of government and ethics, together with the
development of a graceful and withal vigorous style of English writing,
yet there are limits to its use in some directions. Thus the Bible
cannot be considered as replacing the exact sciences. We are quite
safe always in affirming that the Bible never contradicts science; that
where it does not incidentally confirm the results of scientific
research it abstracts from the teaching of science. Its language
relating to physical facts is popular, not scientific. There is no
reason to think that the inspired writers received any communication
from heaven as to the inward workings of nature. They had simply the
knowledge of their age, and described things accordingly. Leo XIII. in
his recent Encyclical on the study of the Sacred Scriptures strongly
reiterates this doctrine, advanced by many Doctors of the Church,
namely, that the _sacred writers_ had no intention of initiating us
into the secrets of nature or to teach us the inward constitution of
the visible world. Hence their language about "the firmament," and how
"the sun stood still," as we still say "the sun rises."[8]
If, then, we are confronted with some statement by scientists affirming
that there is a scientific inaccuracy in the Bible, we have no remark
to make but that the Bible was not meant to be a text-book of exact
science. If it is urged that there are contradictions between the
Bible and science, then the case demands attention. We know that truth
cannot contradict itself; but we know that we may err in apprehending
it, and that science may err in its assumptions of fact. Hence in the
matter of Biblical Apology, when dealing with science, it is of the
first importance that we render an exact account to ourselves of what
_science affirms_ and of what the _Sacred Scripture affirms_. It is
important to note here the distinction which P. Brucker points out;
namely, what _science affirms_, not what _scientists affirm_. "The
latter often mingle _conjecture_, more or less probable, with the
definitely ascertained results of scientific experiment; they often
accept as facts certain observations and plausible conclusions which
are not always deduced from legitimate premises nor in a strictly
logical method." The human mind is always prone to accept the
plausible for the true, the appearance of things for their substance,
the general for the universal, the part for the whole, or the probable
for the proved. This is demonstrated by the history of scientific
hypotheses in nearly every department of human knowledge.
In the next place, we must be quite sure to ascertain _what the Sacred
Scriptures affirm_. Apologists place themselves in a needlessly
responsible position when, in the difficult task of determining a
doubtful reading of the Sacred Text, they assume an interpretation
which may be gainsaid by scientific _proof_. The teaching of St.
Augustine and St. Thomas on this subject is that we are not to
interpret in any _particular_ sense any part of Sacred Scripture which
admits of a different interpretation. And here Leo XIII. in his
Encyclical gives us an important point to consider when he says that
the defenders of the Sacred Scriptures must not consider that they are
obliged to defend _each single_ opinion of isolated Fathers of the
Church.[9] There is a difference between a _prudent conservatism_ and
a timid and slavish repetition of time-honored views. Also between _an
intelligent advance_ of well-founded, though _new_ views, and an
excessive temerity, which rashly replaces the tradition of ages by the
suggestions of new science.
"Hence any attempt to prove that the statements of the Bible imply in
every case exact conformity with the latest results of scientific
research is a needless and, under circumstances, a dangerous
experiment; for although there are instances where (as in chap. i. of
Genesis) the Bible statements anticipate the exactest results of
scientific investigation by many centuries, yet it is not and need not
be so in all instances.
"Yet whilst we may not consider Moses as anticipating the
investigations of a Newton, a Laplace, or a Cuvier, there are cases
where the natural purpose and context of the sacred writers develop an
exact harmony with the facts of science of which former ages had no
right conception. Such are the creation by successive stages, the
unity of species, and origin of the human race, etc. But these facts
are _not proposed as scientific_ revelations."
In all important questions as to the agreement of the Bible with the
results of scientific research we may have recourse with perfect
confidence to the living teaching of the Church; where she gives no
decision there we are at liberty to speculate, provided the results of
our speculation do not conflict with explicit and implied doctrines of
truth, that is to say, they must be in harmony with the general analogy
of faith.
There is one other topic which I would touch upon in speaking of the
use and abuse of the Bible; it is a view which the late Oliver Wendell
Holmes is supposed to have advocated. The author of "The Professor at
the Breakfast Table" believed that it would be advantageous if the
Bible were, as he terms it, _depolarized_, that is to say, if the
translations or versions made from the originals were put in such form
as to appeal to the imagination and feelings of the present generation
by substituting modern terminology and figures of speech for the old
time-honored words of Scriptural comparisons. The aim would be, as I
understand it, to do for the written word of God what the Salvation
Army leaders are attempting to do for nineteenth century Christianity
in general.
In answer to this suggestion it may be said that the attempt has been
made in various ways, and seemingly always without result for the
better. As we have versions of St. Paul's Epistles in Ciceronian
Latin, so we have had travesties of the Gospels intended to popularize
the moral maxims they contain. If it is question of making the Bible
accessible to the people for the purpose of getting them to read it,
devices of this kind may succeed to a degree with those who look for
novelty. As to its essential form, the Bible is popular,--appeals to
all minds and conditions. This is proved by the experience of
centuries, in every clime and among all races.
Those parts which do not directly appeal to a popular sentiment are of
a nature to forbid depolarization as above suggested, since in changing
them they would necessarily lose their identity, the inherent proofs of
their origin, and their underlying mystic and spiritual meaning. So
far as they were written, the truths contained in the Bible were to
serve all time. To change their form is to tamper with the spirit of a
divine language, which, although it comes to us in human sounds,
variable according to nationality and time and place, still has an
unction, a breath of heaven accompanying it which would vanish as the
perfume vanishes from the transplanted flower. There are some truths,
some ideas and feelings, which cannot be expressed in popular fashion
without losing their essential qualities. One might urge the same
reasons in behalf of painting the old Greek statues, because the common
people would find it possible to admire them if gaudy coloring helped
their imagination to interpret the action of the figures in marble.
Some things in the Bible were not written for all, and appeal only to
refined and spiritual minds. Others can be easily understood and
assimilated, and there are preachers commissioned to make attractive
and intelligible that which of itself does not appeal to the rude.
There is such a thing as _accommodating_ the words of the Sacred
Scripture for the purpose of impressing a truth by analogy, and of the
use of this method we have beautiful illustrations in the writings of
the Fathers and in the Offices of the Breviary. But the sense _by
accommodation_, as it is called by writers on hermeneutics, does not
take liberties with the Sacred Text itself in the manner suggested by
the advocates of _depolarization_. For the rest there is a difference,
there always will be a difference, between the qualities that call upon
the senses and attract, perhaps, the larger circle of admirers, and
that choicer spirit which reaches the soul. You cannot substitute one
for the other; their domain is widely apart, though they may use the
same instrument.
One tunes his facile lyre to please the ear,
And win the buzzing plaudits of the town;
The other sings his soul out to the stars,
And the deep hearts of men.
You cannot depolarize, without destroying, Dante, or Milton, or any of
our great poets; no more can you depolarize the great masterpiece of
the Bible. Let us take it as we receive it under the guardianship of
the Church. Its apparent imperfections are like the surroundings and
exterior of its Founder: a scandal to the Greek, a stumbling-block to
the Jew, because they could not realize that a God was hidden in the
imperfect guise of poor flesh.
What we consider imperfections to be remedied in the Bible were
recognized by the Apostles, and by the chief of them, St. Peter, who
writes, II. Pet. iii. 16: "Our dear brother Paul, according to the
wisdom given him, has written to you; as also in all his Epistles; in
which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and
unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own
destruction." Here was room for depolarization, yet St. Peter did not
take it in hand, neither should we desire scholars of perhaps greater
knowledge but less wisdom to do so.
[1] Humphrey, "The Sacred Scriptures," _l.c._
[2] "Vie de Jesus," 1864, p. 426.
[3] "Three Essays on Religion," 1874, p. 258.
[4] "Hibbert Lectures," 1882, pp. 196, 197.
[5] Ibid., 1892, p. 551.
[6] "The Old Testament in the Jewish Church," 1892, p. 11.
[7] See _Dublin Review_, article cited above.
[8] See Humphrey, "The Sacred Scriptures;" also "_Questions Actuelles
d'-Ecriture Sainte_," by Brucker, S. J.
[9] See Appendix.
XX.
THE VULGATE AND THE REVISED PROTESTANT VERSION OF THE BIBLE.
In instituting here a comparison between the two approved and typical
English Versions of the Bible as in use among Catholics and Protestants
respectively, I have no intention to be aggressive or polemic. As from
the first we have taken what may be called the common-sense point of
view in judging the Bible as an historical work, which verifies its
claims to be regarded as an organ communicating to us divine knowledge,
so we proceed to make a brief suggestive examination of two English
Bibles: one found in the homes of Catholics, the other in those of our
Protestant friends and neighbors, many of whom believe with all
sincerity that among the various doubts and difficulties of life they
can consult no truer guide than that sacred volume.
Taking the two volumes as a whole, and considering only their general
contents, there is but little difference between them. I compared them
in a former chapter to the two American flags of North and South:
viewed in themselves, these are both of the same origin, copied from
the same pattern, and emblems, both, of American independence. Though
they differ only in some detail that might escape the superficial
observer, they nevertheless represent very widely different principles,
for which the men of the South as of the North were willing to stake
their lives. They might meet in friendly intercourse in all the walks
of daily life, but if you ask a Union soldier to carry the Southern
flag, he will say: No; for though it looks very much like my own, there
is a difference, and that difference constitutes a vital principle with
me.
Catholics have to make much the same answer when told that they might
accept the Protestant Bible in their public relations with those who do
not recognize the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has the old
Bible, as it came down the ages, complete and without changes. She has
no reason to discard it, and she has good reason not to accept another
Bible, though its English be sweeter and its periods fall upon the ear
like the soft cadences of Southern army songs. We cannot sing from its
tuneful pages, because it represents the principle of opposition to its
original source and parent-stock, and no union can be effected except
by the elimination of that principle.
Catholics claim that their Bible, in point of fidelity to the
original--and this is the _essential_ point when we speak of a
translation of such a book--Catholics claim that their Bible, in point
of fidelity to the original, is as superior to the Protestant English
Bible of King James as it is, we admit, inferior in its English. "The
translators of the Catholic Version considered it a lesser offence to
violate some rules of grammar than to risk the sense of God's word for
the sake of a fine period."[1]
What proof have we for such a claim? I answer that we have the
strongest proof in the world which we could have on such a subject
outside of a divine revelation, namely, the admission on the part of
the guardians and translators themselves of the Protestant Bible. Now,
when I say guardians and translators of the Protestant Bible, I do not
mean merely the testimony of a few great authorities in the past or
present who may have expressed their opinion as to the faults and
defects of the latest English Protestant translation. That would not
be fair. But I mean that the history itself of Protestant translations
made since the days of King James, not to go back any farther, is a
standing argument of the severest kind:
First, _against_ the correctness of the _Protestant_ English Versions;
and,
Secondly, _for_ the correctness of the _Catholic_ English Version.
For if we compare the first Protestant English Version (which departed
considerably from the received Catholic text of the Vulgate) with all
the succeeding revisions made at various times by the English
Protestants, we find that they have steadily returned towards the old
Catholic Version. This is not only an improvement as an approach to
the Catholic teaching, but it is also a confession, however reluctantly
made, of past errors on the part of former Protestant translators.
At the time of their separation from the Catholic Church the reformers,
so-called, had to give reasons for their defection. They found fault
with one doctrine or another in the old Catholic Church, such as the
supremacy of the Roman Pontiff, the jurisdiction of bishops, the Holy
Sacrifice, celibacy, confession, etc. To justify the rejection of
these doctrines they must appeal to some authority: if not to the
Pontiff, then to the king, or to the Bible, or to both simultaneously.
But though the king might favor their novelties of doctrine inasmuch as
they relieved his conscience of the reproach of disobedience to the
Pontiff, who knew but one law of morals for the prince and the peasant,
the Bible as hitherto read was against them. Now, Luther had given
distracted Germany an example of what might be done in the way of
whittling down the supernatural, and eliminating some of the irksome
duties imposed by the old Church. He had made a new translation of the
Bible, threw out passages, nay, whole books,[2] which did not meet his
views, and added here and there a little word which did admirable
service by setting him right with a world that for the most part could
neither read Hebrew nor Latin nor Greek, and trusted him for a learned
translator.
In similar fashion an English translation had already been attempted by
Wiclif about 1380, and almost simultaneously by Nicolas of Hereford.
There existed in England at the time of Luther an edition of the
Scriptures called the "great Bible." It was Catholic up to its fourth
edition, that of 1541. Then, as is generally supposed, it was revised
by the Elizabethan bishops in 1508, and in 1611, after a more
lengthened revision, it appeared as a King James "Authorized Version."
Since then various revisions and corrections of this Bible have been
printed, each succeeding one eliminating some of the previous errors.
Mr. Thomas Ward has made up an interesting book called "Errata--the
truth of the English translations of the Bible examined," or "a
treatise showing some of the errors that are found in the English
translation of the Sacred Scriptures used by Protestants against such
points of religious doctrine as are the subject of controversy between
them and the members of the Catholic Church." Dr. Ward's book embraces
a comparison between the Catholic English translation and the various
Protestant versions up to the year 1683, for since then no changes were
made in the English Protestant Bible called the authorized version
until 1871, when the work of a new revision, published between 1881-85,
was undertaken, which is not included in Dr. Ward's "Errata."
Why was this last revision made? Was not the King James version of
1611, for the most part, beautiful English? As to the rest, was it not
for every Protestant an absolute, infallible rule of faith? The
language was good, the truth still better; what need, then, was there
to revise?
The revisers of 1881 tell us that the language of the old English
version could be improved, and that they meant to improve it. The
older translators, they say, "seem to have been guided by the feeling
that their version would secure for the words they used a lasting place
in the language; ... but it cannot be doubted that the studied
avoidance of uniformity in the rendering of the same words, even when
occurring in the same context, is one of the blemishes in their work."
But are the changes of language or expression all that the reviewers of
this infallible text-book aim at? No. Listen to what Dr. Ellicott in
the Preface to the Pastoral Epistles says:
"It is vain to cheat our souls with the thought that these errors are
either insignificant or imaginary. There _are_ errors, there _are_
inaccuracies, there _are_ misconceptions, there _are_ obscurities, not,
indeed, so many in number or so grave in character as some of the
forward spirits of our day would persuade us; but there _are_
misrepresentations of the language of the Holy Ghost; and that man who,
after being in any degree satisfied of this, permits himself to bow to
the counsels of a timid or popular obstructiveness, or who,
intellectually unable to test the truth of these allegations,
nevertheless permits himself to denounce or deny them, will, if they be
true, most surely at the dread day of final account have to sustain the
tremendous charge of having dealt deceitfully with the inviolable Word
of God."[3]
So this book, the infallible voice of God revealing His ways, this sole
rule of faith for millions of Englishmen, and by which millions had
lived and sworn and died during more than two centuries, had to be
revised, not only as to the form, but in the matter also. Two
committees were formed, about fifty of the members being from England,
thirty from America--Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, etc.
Cardinal Newman and Dr. Pusey were invited, but declined to attend.
Mr. Vance Smith, a Unitarian, a distinguished scholar, but certainly no
Christian, received a place in the New Testament committee. These
gentlemen set to work in earnest to revise the Word of God and settle
the Bible of the future. They had to consider the advance made in
textual criticism represented by Lachmann, Scholz, Tregelles,
Tischendorf, and Drs. Westcott and Hort.
They labored ten years and a half, as Dr. Ellicott assures us, "with
thoroughness, loyalty to the authorized versions, and due recognition
of the best judgment of antiquity. One of their rules, expressly laid
down for their common guidance, was to introduce as few alterations as
possible into the text of the authorized version."
How many corrections, think you, were made in the New Testament alone?
About 20,000, of which fifty per cent. are textual, that is "9 to every
five verses of the Gospels, and 15 to every five in the Epistles."
Besides these changes, which must be a shock to many an English
Protestant who has accustomed himself by long reading of the Bible to
believe in verbal inspiration, there are a number of omissions in the
New Revised Text which in all amount to about 40 entire verses. It
appears, then, that the King James Bible of some years ago has not been
as most Protestants of necessity claimed for it--the pure, authentic,
unadulterated Word of God. And if not, what guarantee have we that the
promiscuous body of recent translators, however learned, withal not
inspired, have given us that pure, authentic, unadulterated Word of God?
Let us glance over a few pages of the New Testament to see of what
nature and of what importance, from a doctrinal point of view, are the
changes made by the late revisers of the "Authorized (Protestant)
Version."
In the first place, they have acknowledged the reading of I. Cor. xi.
27, regarding communion under one kind, by translating the Greek
[Greek: gamma] by _or_, and not by _and_, an error which had been
repeated in all the Protestant translations since 1525, and which gave
rise to endless abuse of the Catholic practice of giving the Blessed
Sacrament to the laity under only one species. "Whosoever shall eat
the bread _or_ drink the cup" is the reading in the Greek as well as in
the Latin Vulgate, and nothing but "theological fear or partiality," as
Dean Stanley expressed it, could have warranted this mistranslation,
which may be found in all the editions of 1520, 1538, 1562, 1508, 1577,
1579, 1611, etc.
But this is only one of many acts of justice which the learned revisers
have done to Catholics by restoring the true reading; they have given
us back the _altar_ which, together with the Holy Sacrifice and
confession and celibacy, had become obnoxious to the "reformers." We
now read, I. Cor. x. 18, that "those that eat the hosts" are in
"communion with the _altar_," where formerly they were only "partakers
of the temple."
Having restored the Catholic practice of Holy Communion under one kind,
and likewise the altar, we are not surprised that the "overseers" of
the King James version should have become _bishops_, as in Acts xx. 28,
although a good many of the _overseers_ have been left in their places,
possibly because the "elders" (Acts xv. 2; Tit. i. 5; I. Tim. v. 17 and
19, etc.) have not yet become _priests_, as they are in the Rhemish
(Catholic) translation. However, the "elders" are likely to turn out
priests at the next revision, because they are not only "ordained," but
also "appointed," whereas in the old English revisions of 1562 and 1579
they were ordained elders "by election in every congregation," which is
still done in Protestant churches where there are no bishops, and even
in some which have "overseers" with the honorary title of "bishop."
As to the celibacy question, the revisers have not thought fit to
endorse it by translating [Greek: _adelphen gynaicha_] a "woman," a
sister; but they adhere to the old "wife," as Beza, in his translation,
makes the Apostles go about with their "wives" (Acts i. 14).
In the matter of "confession" we have got a degree nearer to the old
Catholic version and practice likewise. The Protestant reformers had
no "sins" to confess; they had only "faults." Hence they translate St.
James v. 16 by "confess your faults." But the revisers of 1881 found
out that these "faults" were downright sins, and so they put it.
Accordingly we find that the Apostles have power literally "to forgive"
sins, whereas formerly, the sins being only faults, it was enough to
have them "remitted," which means a sort of passive yielding or
condoning on the part of the overseers in favor of repentant sinners,
but did not convey the idea of a sacramental power "binding and
loosening" in heaven as on earth.
Our dear Blessed Lady also receives some justice at the hands of the
new translators. She is not simply "highly favored" as in the times of
King James and ever since, but now is "endued with grace," though only
in a footnote.
"It was expected," says an anonymous writer in the above cited article
of the _Dublin Review_,[4] "that the revisers, in deference to modern
refinement, would get rid of 'hell' and 'damnation,' like the judge who
was said to have dismissed hell with costs. 'Damnation' and kindred
words have gone.... A new word, 'Hades,' Pluto's Greek name, has been
brought into our language to save the old word 'hell' from overwork.
The Rich Man is no longer in 'hell,' he is now '_in Hades;_' but he is
still 'in torment.' So Hades must be Purgatory, and the revisers have
thus moved Dives into Purgatory, and Purgatory into the Gospel. Dives
will not object; but what will Protestants say?"