Lord's Prayer. Protestants, for over three hundred years, have
concluded that prayer with the words: "for Thine is the kingdom and the
power and the glory forever." These words were to be found in St.
Matt. vi. 13 according to the Protestant text. They were certainly
wanting in St. Luke xi. 2, who also gives us the words of the "Our
Father" with a very slight change of form. Catholics were reproached
for not adding the 'doxology,' which proved to be a custom in the Greek
Catholic Church, very much like our use of the "Glory be to the Father,
and to the Son," etc., at the end of each psalm recited or sung at
Vespers. Examination showed that the phrase "for Thine is the
kingdom," etc., was to be found principally in versions made by and for
the Catholics of the Greek Church, and this explained how the same had
crept into the copyists' Greek version. This fact is recognized at
length in the late revision where the words are omitted from the text
of St. Matthew, whilst a footnote states that "many authorities, some
ancient, but with variations, add: 'for Thine is the kingdom and the
glory forever.'"
The American revisers had made a number of very sensible suggestions,
which would have brought the new Protestant version of the Bible still
nearer to the old Catholic translation of Rheims and Douay; but their
voice was not considered weighty enough, and Mr. Vance Smith openly
blames the English committee on this score, saying that "they have not
shown that judicial freedom from theological bias which was certainly
expected from them." On the other hand, the American revisers showed
their national spirit and liberality to a degree which must have
horrified the orthodox members of the Anglican Community. The
Americans "suggested the removal of all mention of the sin of
heresy--heresies in their eyes being only 'factions.' They desired
also that the Apostles and Evangelists should drop their title of
Saint, and be content to be called plain John, and Paul, and Thomas.
This resulted, no doubt, from their democratic taste for strict
equality, and their hatred of titles even in the kingdom of heaven."[5]
After all this the principle of faith in the Bible alone became
somewhat insecure, and we find the revisers making a silent concession
on this point by allowing something to the Catholic principle of a
living, perpetually transmitted _tradition_. St. Paul, who speaks of
the _altar_ and of _bishops_, and who allows _Communion under one
kind_, and who had no wife, and wanted none (I. Cor. vii.), praises the
Corinthians, not simply for keeping his "ordinances," as in the time of
King James, but for keeping the _traditions_ as he had delivered them
to the Greek churches before he found opportunity to write to the
Corinthians.
There is one other point of difference between the Catholic and
Protestant Bibles to which it is instructive to call attention. It is
in regard to the writing of proper names, especially in the Old
Testament. Thus where we in the Catholic Bibles have _Nabuchodonosor_
for the king of Babylon, son of Nabopollassar, the Protestant version
has _Nebuchadnezzar_; where we have _Elias_ and _Eliseus_, the
Protestant version has _Elijah_ and _Elisha_, and so forth regarding
many Hebrew names of persons and places. You will ask whence the
difference, and which is right?
The difference arises from the fact that the Protestant Version follows
the present Hebrew text of the Bible, whilst the Catholic Version
follows the Greek. Which is the safer to follow on such points as the
pronunciation of proper names--the Hebrew or the Greek? You will say
the Hebrew, but it is not so. The old Hebrew writing had, as I
mentioned before, no vowels. Hence it could not be read by any one who
had not heard it read in the schools of the rabbis. Some _six
centuries after our Lord_, certain Jewish doctors who were called
Masorets, anxious to preserve the traditional sounds of the Hebrew
language, supplied vowels in the shape of points, which they placed
under the square consonants, without disturbing the latter. Hence the
present vowel system in Hebrew, or, in other words, the present
pronunciation of Hebrew according to the reading of the Bible, is the
work of men who relied for the pronunciation of words on a tradition
which carried them back over many centuries, that is, from the time
when Hebrew was a living language to about six hundred years after
Christ. It is not difficult to imagine how in such a length of time
the true pronunciation may have been lost or certainly modified in some
cases; for though the Hebrew words were there on the paper, written in
consonants of the old form, the pronunciation of the vowels must have
been doubtful if resting on tradition alone, since the Hebrew had
already ceased to be a living language for many centuries.
In the meantime, the true pronunciation of the Hebrew proper names
could have been preserved in some of the translations made long before
the Masoretic doctors supplied their vowel points. One of these
translations from the Hebrew is the Greek Septuagint. It was made, as
we have seen, in the time of Ptolemy, _i.e._, some two and a half
centuries before Christ. The learned Jews who made this translation
knew perfectly well how the Hebrew of their day was pronounced, and we
cannot suppose that they would mutilate the proper names of their
mother tongue in the translation into Greek which, possessing written
vowels, obliged them to express the full pronunciation of the persons
and places which they transcribed.
Accordingly, we have two sources for our pronunciation of Hebrew proper
names: one which dates from about the sixth or seventh century of the
present era, when the Hebrew had become a dead language; and another,
made about _nine hundred years earlier_ by Jewish rabbis, who spoke the
language perfectly well, and who could _express the pronunciation of
proper names_ accurately because they wrote in a language which had
_written_ vowels, and with which they were as conversant as with their
own, the Hebrew.
Furthermore, we have other versions, made long before the Masoretic
Doctors invented their vowel-points in order to fix the Hebrew
pronunciation as they conceived it. Among these is the Latin Vulgate
which, like the Greek of the Septuagint, should give us the correct
pronunciation--because it was made by St. Jerome, who had studied the
Hebrew and Chaldee in Palestine under a Jewish rabbi. He knew,
therefore, the pronunciation of the Jews in his day (331-420), and
there was no reason why he should not give it to us in his several
different translations, whilst there might have been some cause why the
Masoretic Jews who lived two or three centuries later should dislike to
accept either the Greek or the Latin versions for an authority, because
both versions were used and constantly cited by the Christians as proof
that the Messiah had come.
Incidentally, the late archeological finds confirm this. Thus the name
of Nabuchodonosor (IV. Kings xxiv. 1) (Protestant, Nebuchadnezzar),
mentioned above as an example, reads in the cuneiform inscription of
the Assyrian monument Nebukudursur, which is evidently the same form of
vowel pronunciation as that employed in the Catholic version.
In comparing the two versions thus far little has been said as to the
peculiar character or merits of the English Catholic version commonly
called the Vulgate English or Douay Bible. But the main purpose of the
present chapter has been attained by the necessary inference which the
reader must have drawn, namely, that the old Catholic version is the
more faithful, and that, after all, the Bible is not a safe guide
without a Church to guard its integrity and to interpret its meaning.
But let me say just a word about the Vulgate. The Catholic Vulgate is
practically the work of St. Jerome, and our English Catholic edition is
made as literally as may be from this Latin Vulgate, "diligently
compared with the Hebrew, Greek, and other editions in divers
languages." The copies, most in use now, were made from an edition
published by the English College at Rheims in 1582, and at Douay in
1609, revised by Dr. Challoner.
The need of a new revision has been recognized, and an effort to supply
the want was made by the late Archbishop Kenrick, whose translation was
recommended by the Council of Baltimore in 1858, although it has not
been generally adopted. However, the changes to be made in the
translation of the Catholic Bible in English cannot be very numerous
nor affecting doctrines defined by the Church; nor is any accidental
change of words or expressions so vital a matter to the Catholic mind
as it must be with those who have but the Bible as their one primary
rule of faith. So far Protestant revisions have done Catholics a
service in removing by successive corrections one error after another
from the "reformed" Bible, thus demonstrating the correctness of the
old Vulgate; but they have also led Protestants to reflect seriously,
and to realize that the "Bible only" principle is proved to be false
and dangerous. They must see that the Scripture is powerless without
the Church as the witness to its inspiration, the safeguard of its
integrity, and the exponent of its meaning.
[1] Cf. a paper on the subject of the New Revision in the _Dublin
Review_, 1881, vol. VI., ser. iii.
[2] These books have been mostly retained in the Protestant Bible under
the name of _Apocryphal_, _i.e._, not inspired. The Church accepts and
defines their inspiration, and in this is supported by the strong
testimony of apostolic tradition.
[3] "Pastoral Epistles," p. 13.
[4] Vol. VI., ser. iii.
[5] _Dublin Review_, _l.c._
XXI.
THE POSITION OF THE CHURCH IN THE PRESENT STATE OF THE SCIENTIFIC
CONTROVERSY REGARDING THE BIBLE.
In one of the old churches of Wales you may see the Ten Commandments
written upon the wall, and beneath them the following inscription, the
meaning of which, it is said, had for a long time remained a mystery to
the people:
P R S V R Y P R F C T M N,
V R K P T H S P R C P T S T N.
Some one supplied the key to the interpretation by suggesting the
letter E. Then everybody read the lines, and the old folks told their
children, who inform the casual visitor that the strange letters
plainly mean: _Persevere ye perfect men, ever keep these precepts ten_.
The inscription in the old Welsh church is a good illustration of the
old text of the Bible, which had no vowels, no division of words and
sentences. God gave the key to its meaning through an intelligent
interpreter, and the men of learning supply the divisions--even in this
sense that they sometimes dispute the place where to insert and where
to omit the E.
The original obscurity has induced many to study the Bible, and the
grand result of this study in our day has been to lead the great
majority of scientific men, whether they are believers in the divine
origin of the Book or not, to the conclusion that it is, to say the
least, an historical monument of the highest antiquity, the contents of
which have come down to us in that genuine and authentic form which is
claimed for it; that is to say, that it has not been tampered with or
falsified to such an extent as would render its statements materially
other than they were from the beginning.
Tischendorf, one of the leading Biblical text critics in recent times,
allows indeed some 30,000 variations for the New Testament alone in the
different manuscripts of which we possess any trace. Although these
variations are on the whole very slight, so as not to affect the
genuineness of the Scripture documents, they establish the fact that we
do not possess the text of the Bible in the _literal_ form in which the
inspired writers originally wrote it down.
Whatever changes have crept into the text of the Bible, through
inadvertence of copyists or defective translations into other
languages, it is a settled fact among Catholic divines that they do not
affect the moral and dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church. They
regard either purely historical incidents or scientific facts, neither
of which are the object of the doctrinal definitions or moral teachings
of the Church. They are the proper subject for the study of human
reason and investigation. Hence philological science may very
becomingly occupy itself with the verbal criticism of the language and
thought of the Bible. But the Catholic Church, as a teacher of
religious truth, has an interest in these studies of verbal criticism
in so far only as they may become a help or a hindrance to her
legitimate activity of preaching and preserving the truth of
Christianity. As a rule, the Church anticipates the dangerous issues
arising from the misuse of such studies by deliberately defining not
only the right use of the instruments employed for the purpose of
criticism, but also what she herself deems the subject-matter lying
outside of the domain of such criticism. Thus, in a negative way, she
points out the field for the exercise of theories, or rather she
defines the lines beyond which speculation may not safely go. The
Church would have no end of tasks if she undertook to defend her
position against the continuously proposed hypotheses by which any
chance comer might venture to challenge her veracity or authority.
Most theories are ephemeral; two, succeeding each other, are often
mutually destructive. Prof. H. L. Hastings in his "Higher Criticism"
tells us that since 1850 there have been published 747 theories, known
to him, about the origin and authenticity of the Bible. Of these 747
theories he counts 608 as now defunct, and as the Professor wrote
several years ago, we may assume that nearly all of the remaining 139
are dead by this time, although a few new ones have come in to take
their place for a day.[1]
What, then, is the position of the Catholic Church, as limited by
_positive definition_, with regard to the text of the Bible, by which
she limits the aggressiveness of Biblical criticism?
The Catholic Church gives us a very ancient and well-attested text of
the entire Bible in the Latin tongue, and in virtue of her commission
to teach, which includes the right and duty to appoint the text-book
for that teaching, she says: _The sacred Council of Trent, believing
that it would be of great advantage to the Church of God to have it
known which of the various Latin editions of the Bible is to be held
authentic, hereby declares that the ancient edition commonly known as
the Vulgate, which has been approved by the long-standing use of ages
in the Church, is to be considered as the authentic Bible for official
uses of teaching_ (Trent, vi. 12).
You notice that the Council of Trent does not say that the Vulgate
corresponds exactly to the literal original text, nor that it is the
best of all known translations. The Council states only, but states
explicitly, that the Vulgate edition of the Bible is a reliable source
of the written revelation in matters of faith and morals. And the
reason which the Council alleges for this preference of the Vulgate
over other editions is its constant use for centuries in the Church; in
other words, that it represents the best tradition of the received
text-form of the Sacred Scriptures. But the definition of the Council
implies not only that the contents of the Vulgate in their entirety are
reliable and authentic, but that each of its statements is authentic in
its dogmatic contents, since the whole Vulgate, _i.e._, in all its
parts, is said to constitute a medium or instrument of official
teaching in the Church. The declaration of the Council is regarding
the _Latin_ Vulgate; hence all translations must conform to _its_ text,
that is to say, the corrected text of 1592, called the Clementine
recension.
It is noteworthy that, whilst the Church points out a text which is to
be the official pattern in her liturgy and in the defence of Catholic
teaching regarding faith and morals, she does not define anything
regarding other texts or versions of the Bible. Neither the Hebrew nor
the Greek texts are mentioned, although the Church gives to them, and
the Coptic, Syrian, and Armenian versions, an implied approbation by
tolerating their liturgical use in the Oriental churches.
What the Church has defined, therefore, regarding the Vulgate is this:
It has declared its _dogmatic integrity_. This implies that the
contents of the Vulgate give in their entirety and in their details a
reliable version of the inspired text as an instrument of teaching
Catholic truth and morals.
From a scientific point of view the Vulgate enjoys the advantage of
being the oldest of all the Scriptural versions. In the Old Testament
it represents a text more ancient than the Hebrew of the Masoretic
doctors. The New Testament is likewise older than the oldest Greek
text extant, as Lachmann in his critical edition has demonstrated.
Moreover, its composition is the result of the best scientific
apparatus of early Christian times, which St. Jerome possessed in a
phenomenal degree, both as to his person and also as to the
circumstances in which he was placed. Finally, it has an historical
support of unequalled superiority, inasmuch as it has been from the
beginning the means of Christianizing the nations of Europe.
All this is being verified, not only by textual critics, but by the
more recent discoveries in the study of Christian paleography.
Such is the position in which scientific research finds the Church.
The multiform theories about the Bible, and the various possible senses
of its words and passages, only affect her in a limited degree.
Catholic apologists are obliged to deal with these theories so far only
as they affect the positive teaching of the Church in faith and morals,
although the analogy of faith demands that the Catholic scientist test
his opinions by weighty tradition and approved practice. Whilst the
_dogmatic_ integrity of the Sacred Scriptures is thus secured, the
examination of the critical integrity of individual parts leaves a wide
field open to Catholic Biblical students. The work done by
non-Catholic scholars who have examined the Bible, either to bring out
the verbal meaning of its text, or to verify some historical or
philological hypothesis, is astounding. Catholic students owe a great
debt to the first gleaners in this field; for though we have neither
felt impelled to look for the rule of our faith in the Bible
exclusively, nor always been inclined to accept the dicta regarding the
literal sense of so sacred a document from the professors of
philological discipline, we have incidentally profited by all these
searchings. They have illustrated the excellence of our faith, both as
a system and as a moral principle. They have thrown light upon
problems of exegesis. All the doctrines and practices of the Catholic
Church have found their confirmation in the analysis of Biblical terms
as the result of textual criticism. The words of the Bible have been
thrown into the crucible, and the gold of Catholic doctrine has been
the outcome--purer, brighter, more refined, and still weighty. Each
verified theory regarding the sense of old forgotten Hebrew terms has
received the impress of Catholic approbation, and served to give the
doctrine of the Church a more ready currency. Scientists, often
reluctantly, are pointing out golden opportunities for Catholic
students.
It does not come within our present scope to speak of the various
methods employed by the science and art of Biblical criticism, nor to
retail the separate results to which the inquiry into the authenticity
(Higher Criticism) and the integrity and purity of the text (Lower
Criticism) has led. The history of the New Testament, which is the
best witness to the authenticity and integrity of the Old Testament
books, provided we admit the divinity of Christ, which in its turn
rests upon the strongest historic evidence, has received an immense
amount of confirmatory argument in numerous discoveries of ancient
documents. Within the last forty years have been found, among other
valuable writings, the famous _Codex Sinaiticus_ by Tischendorf (1859),
one of the oldest Greek texts of the Bible. In 1875 Archbishop
Briennios found in Constantinople the MS. Epistles of Clement of Rome,
which not only confirm the apostolical writings and evangels as being
received in the Church of his day, but furnish the oldest liturgical
prayer and sermon of post-apostolic times. Another document of the
same character, in Latin, was discovered by Morin in 1893. Next we
have the celebrated _Diatessaron of Tatian_, the oldest gospel harmony
in existence, which, known to Eusebius, but lost in the meantime, was
recovered lately, with a parallel manuscript found in Egypt, and
published last year in English. This takes us back to the time of St.
Justin. Another most important find is the MS. of the so-called
"Teaching of the Twelve Apostles." The document was discovered by
Briennios, and published in 1883. It throws much light on the
ecclesiastical discipline of the early Christian Church (about A.D.
120), speaks of the written Gospels, etc. Another valuable MS.
(Syriac) was found in 1889 by Professor Harris. It is the "Apology of
Aristides," brought from the convent of St. Catharine on Mt. Sinai, and
dates about the year 140, as it is addressed to the Emperor Hadrian,
and offers him the Christian Scriptures to read.
I pass over a host of other important finds of the same nature, of
unquestioned authenticity, which carry us back to the apostolic age.
[1] See Hettinser's "Apologie," Preface xi.
XXII.
MYSTERIOUS CHARACTERS.
Whilst Biblical criticism and constantly increasing discoveries of new
treasures, such as we mentioned in the last chapter, are adding their
approving light to the ancient and unchanged traditions of the Catholic
Church regarding the Bible and its exegesis, the finds of archeology
are confirming the statements of the Bible, especially the Old
Testament history, with an accuracy which forces even the infidel
scientist to bear witness to the historical truth of the inspired
records.
A century ago Biblical antiquity received its side-lights, for the most
part, from rabbinical literature, and from newly-discovered methods of
interpreting those classics which dealt with the Oriental world
incidentally. But in modern times an immense literary field has been
opened by the discovery of ancient monuments in Egypt, Assyria,
Babylonia, Syria, Asia Minor, Palestine, and the surrounding countries.
These monuments place us in position to trace the condition of these
nations to very remote periods, and give us a key to the explanation of
the Biblical documents. Extraordinary labor, coupled with all-sided
knowledge, a refined method of observation, and untiring patience, have
made it possible to read the hieroglyphics and the so-called cuneiform
inscriptions. It is interesting to trace the gradual progress by which
definite results were attained in deciphering certain inscriptions
whose language was entirely unknown to any living man. I may be
allowed to give here an illustration, taken from Mr. Sayce's excellent
little work, "Fresh Lights on Ancient Monuments," in which he describes
the manner of unravelling the mysterious threads of the old Persian
script: