|
Catholic Versions of Scripture
by Cardinal WisemanThe appearance of any work upon biblical literature is, unfortunately, a phenomenon amongst us. Whether this branch of theological science be cultivated as it deserves by the Catholics of Great Britain and Ireland, it might be deemed presumption in us to discuss; but of the manifestation, by its fruits, of such a study, we cannot avoid being cognisant. What is done in the seclusion of academical life, in the cloisters of our religious establishments, or in the rural solitude of our clergy, may be much more than falls under the public notice; the appearance of a work like the one that heads this article, shows that considerable abilities are, in secret, employed upon biblical pursuits, and must check the hasty conclusion, that little is done, because little appears. At the same time, the sudden and unannounced publication of a new version of Scripture was not the earliest indication which we should have expected of increased attention to these studies. We are utterly unprovided with even elementary and introductory works upon them, whether intended for the education of our clergy, or for the instruction of our people; we possess not a commentary suited to the wants of the times, or the advances made in biblical science; and are obliged to seek information either in voluminous, rare, and old writers, or in the productions of men whose religion differs essentially from ours. And even in this last resource, we have but scanty measure of relief. Protestant England is almost as badly provided as ourselves with works of practical usefulness; and it would seem as though water were as bad a conductor of knowledge as it is of electricity; for the narrow strip of it which girds our islands, most effectually precludes all communication of the various and interesting researches which occupy the continent.
But the indication of attention to biblical learning, which we should most confidently have expected to find preceding any new version of Scripture, and we will add, the proof of its existence which is most imperatively called for, is a revision and correction of that version now in use among Catholics, known by the name of the Douay version. We do not suppose that the learned author of the new translation for a moment imagined or intended that it should supersede the one now in general circulation. The sanctioned authenticity of the Vulgate, its use in all Catholic churches, the hold which it has upon the memory of clergy and laity, then the confined and partial nature of the new version, which comprises only the Gospels, and the form in which it appears, are sufficient proofs that he never entertained the idea. The correspondence between St. Jerome and St. Augustine, upon the difficulties encountered in introducing the translation of the former, instead of the old one made from the Septuagint, shows how little practicable such substitutions are. We make these remarks only to conclude, that, whatever necessity existed, before the appearance of this version, for a thorough revision of the text generally used amongst us, the same necessity does still exist. While, therefore, we are ready to commend the zeal and ability which have led to this publication, we cannot but regret that no one properly qualified, and properly authorized, has yet been found, to undertake such corrections and improvements in our received version as would finally settle its text, and save it from the repeated liberties which have been taken with it.
To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified till scarcely any verse remains as it was originally published; and so far as simplicity and energy of style are concerned, the changes are in general for the worse. For though Dr. Challoner did well to alter many too decided Latinisms, which the old translators had retained, he weakened the language considerably by destroying inversion, where it was congenial, at once, to the genius of our language and to the construction of the original, and by the insertion of particles where they were by no means necessary. Any chapter of the New Testament will substantiate this remark. For instance, in Heb. xiii., which we have accidentally opened, the Rheims edition (1582) has, v. 9, "With various and strange doctrines be not led away." This has been altered into, "Be not carried away with various and strange doctrines." The Latin is, "Doctrinis variis et peregrinis nolite abduci." Again, v. 16, "Beneficence and communication do not forget," has been changed into, "And do not forget to do good and to impart." The Vulgate has, "Beneficentiæ autem et communionis nolite oblivisci." Again, we take examples quite at random, 2 Tim. ii. 16: "Profana autem et vaniloquia devita; multum enim proficiunt ad impietatem." This the old version translated, "But profane and vain speeches avoid; for they do much grow to impiety." In the emended edition (1750) we have, "But shun profane and vain babblings, for they grow much towards ungodliness." This correction is taken verbatim from the Protestant version, with the exception of "grow towards," instead of "increase unto more." But the change was injudicious: for the Latin compound vaniloquium, or the Greek κενοφωνια, is exactly expressed by "vain speech;" whereas the word "babbling" corresponds to the entire word, and cannot have the epithet "vain;" for, thus, the phrase would represent the absurd tautology "vanum vaniloquium." In later editions, as that of Dublin, 1810, published with Dr. Troy's approbation, the word "speeches" is restored, but the construction is not.
There is another alteration of more importance, especially when considered in reference to the present times, and the influence it has had upon established forms of Catholic speech. In the first edition, in conformity to Catholic usage in England, the word "Dominus" is almost always translated by "Our Lord." The emended text changed the pronoun into an article, and says, "The Lord." In the Ave Maria, Catholics have always, till lately, been accustomed to say, "Our Lord is with thee;" as it is in that version, and as it was always used in England, even before that translation was made. But, in conformity with the change of the text, we have observed of late a tendency to introduce into the prayer a similar variation, and to say, "The Lord is with thee:" a change which we strongly deprecate, as stiff, cantish, destructive of the unction which the prayer breathes, and of that union which the pronoun inspires between the reciter and Her who is addressed. We have no hesitation in saying, that this difference, trifling as many will consider it, expresses strongly the different spirits of our, and other, religions. It never has been the custom of the Catholic Church to say, "The Redeemer, the Saviour, the Lord, the Virgin;" "Redemptor noster, Dominus noster," and so "our Saviour, our Lord, our Lady," are the terms sanctioned; and, therefore, consecrated by Catholic usage since the time of the Fathers. We own it grates our ears, and jars upon our feelings, to hear the former essentially un-Catholic forms used by preachers and writers; they want affection; they are insipid, formal; they remind us of Geneva caps, and smack of predestination. The Rheims translators have explained their reason for their translation in a note, p. 585, as follows: "We Catholics must not say The Lord, but Our Lord; as we say Our Lady for his mother, not The Lady. Let us keep our forefathers' words, and we shall easily keep our old and true faith, which we had of the first Christians." Nor is such a modification of the word "Dominus," peculiar to the English Catholics; the Syriac version, and after it the Syriac Church, calls Christ, not simply morio "The Lord," but moran, "our Lord," even where the Greek has ο Κυριος. If, therefore, it be considered too great a departure from accuracy in translation to restore the pronoun in the text of our version, let us at least preserve it in our instructions, and still more in our formularies of prayer.
But it had been well if Dr. Challoner's alterations had given stability to the text, and formed a standard to which subsequent editors had conformed. But, far from this being the case, new and often important modifications have been made in every edition which has followed, till, at length, many may appear rather new versions, than revisions of the old. We believe Catholic Britain to be the only country where such a laxity of attention has existed in regard to the purity of its authorized version.2 And we should have even less reason to complain, had these systematic variations been the only vicissitudes to which it has been subject. The mass of typographical errors to be found in some editions is quite frightful, from many of them falling upon important words, and not so much disfiguring them, which would lead to suspicion and thereby to detection, as transforming them into others that give a correct grammatical, but unsound theological, sense. In 1632, the king's printers, Barker and Lucas, were fined £3,000, for the omission of one monosyllable; and the Oxford Bible of 1792 is considered a curiosity because it reads (Luke xxii. 34) Philip instead of Peter. But, in the edition which we have referred to,-of Dublin, 1810,-revised under Dr. Troy's direction by the Rev. B. MacMahon, many worse substitutions are to be found. A table at the end gives a number of them, as Matt. xvi. 23, "thou favourest not," for "thou savourest not;" and Romans vii. 18, "to accomplish that which is good I find out," instead of "I find not." The table of errata is, however, very far from complete; for instance, the following among others are omitted in it. Gal. iv. 9, "How turn you again to the work" (for weak) "and poor elements." Ib. v. 23, "modesty, continency, charity," instead of "chastity." In a note, p. 309, we read, "Sin-which was asleep before, was weakened by the prohibition," instead of "awakened."
Our principal object, however, at present, is to turn the attention of the Catholic clergy, and particularly the bishops of Ireland, and the vicars-apostolic of England and Scotland, to the want of a complete revision of the version itself, for the purpose of settling a standard text, from which editors in future may not be allowed to depart. In this manner, alone, will the Catholics of the empire be provided with what every other portion of the Church has long since possessed. It is far from our purpose to undertake a complete exposure of the many passages which want emendation-such a task would require a treatise. In order to confine ourselves within reasonable limits, we will only consider the necessity which a new revision would impose on those who should undertake it, of a minute and often complicated study of the original texts. We have selected this view of the matter, because we think it the point most neglected in the past, and most likely to be overlooked, and to form the great stumbling-block, in any future revision. For, at first sight, it must appear an almost superfluous task to proceed, in such an undertaking, beyond the accurate study of the work immediately translated. The Vulgate is written in Latin, and it would therefore appear sufficient to possess an accurate knowledge of the Latin language, in order to translate any work written in it into our own. It is our wish to prove the fallacy of such reasoning; and, on the contrary, to show what varied, and often delicate, questions of philology the translation may involve; and how impossible it is to correct or discover the mistakes of our Douay version, without a constant recourse to the original Hebrew and Greek texts. The object of such reference will be, to decide the true meaning of expressions, obscure or doubtful in the Latin. In the few examples which we intend to give, we shall consider the Alexandrine, or as it is commonly called, the Septuagint, version, as the original of the Psalms; because it is well known that the Latin used by us, and inserted in the Vulgate, is made upon that version, and not on the Hebrew original.
I. Let us select, in the first instance, a very simple example. In the fiftieth Psalm, v. 14 (Heb. li. 14), the Vulgate has, "et spiritu principali confirma me." The Douay translators understood the adjective in the sense of principal, excellent, and accordingly translated the sentence thus, "and strengthen me with a perfect spirit." Looking simply at the Latin, the word will certainly bear that sense; as Cicero says, "Causarum aliæ sunt perfectæ et principales." But the question here is, did the author of the Vulgate use the word in this sense, and not rather in its other meaning, of princely? A reference to the Greek, from which the translation of this book was made, decides the question. For there we read, πνευματι ηγεμονικω στηριξον με,-"strengthen me with a princely spirit." In the Hebrew, the word used is נדיב which bears the same meaning, though it also derivately signifies "generous," "noble."3
II. Wisdom viii. 21, we have the following sentence: "And as I knew that I could not otherwise be continent, except God gave it." This is a verbal translation of the Latin, "Et ut scivi quoniam aliter non possem esse continens nisi Deus det." The word continens corresponds to the Greek εγκρατης, here as in every other passage wherein it occurs through the sapiential books, and is never, save in this passage, rendered in our version by continent. This point is easily established. Eccles. vi. 28, we have the same subject, the acquisition of wisdom, treated as in our text, in these words: "Investiga illam, et manifestabitur tibi, et continens factus, ne derelinquas eam." Our translators did not render these words, by "being made continent," but by "when thou hast gotten her." The Greek has και εγκρατης γενομενος (v. 27, ed. Bos). These words occur in two other places, where, however, there is no ellipsis, but the object is expressed:-xv. 1, "Qui continens est justitiæ apprehendet illam;" translated, "he that possesseth justice shall lay hold on her." And xxvii. 33, "Ira et furor utraque execrabilia sunt, et vir peccator continens illorum erit;" rendered, "and the sinful man shall be subject to them;" that is, shall contain or possess them. This last example proves, that continens, or εγκρατης, does not signify "qui se continet,"-one who restrains himself, but one who contains or holds something else; and the first instance quoted proves that it is so used elliptically, with omission of the object so held or contained.
These are the only other passages, if we mistake not, in which the Latin word occurs as an equivalent to the cited Greek one throughout these books. We may next ask, Ought a deviation to have been made from the meaning they elsewhere invariably bear, in Sap. viii. 21? And we answer, unhesitatingly, not. The entire passage is concerning the acquisition of wisdom. From verse 9 to verse 19, the writer gives us an account of his searches after it. In vv. 19, 20, he states the causes that led him to them; first, his having been gifted with an ingenuous disposition; and secondly, his having preserved himself from sin. The verse under consideration naturally follows: "And as I knew that I could not otherwise possess it (wisdom), unless God gave it (for this was also a point of wisdom, to know whose gift it was), I went to the Lord," &c. But if we read with our present version, "as I knew I could not be continent," &c., we have to meet multiplied difficulties. First, that not a word has been said about continence, but the whole antecedent matter has been concerning wisdom; secondly, that the parenthesis makes no sense, for the thing there mentioned as a gift cannot be continence, as it must refer to a substantive, and not an adjective, such as continent; and, moreover, its antithesis is lost,-"it was a point of wisdom to know whose gift wisdom is;" thirdly, that the prayer which follows, for the quality in question, is entirely for wisdom, and not for continence, which is never asked for. These reasons are more than sufficient for retaining, in this passage, the sense invariably attributed to continens in every other.
III. Ps. lxvii. 12, presents an instance in which an ambiguity of phrase compels us to recur, not only to the Greek, but, beyond this, to the original Hebrew. The Latin text runs thus: "Dominus dabit verbum evangelizantibus, virtute multa;" and is thus translated in the Douay version: "The Lord shall give the word to them that preach good tidings, in great power." The word virtus is manifestly ambiguous, as it often signifies a host, or multitude. Hence the common phrase, "Dominus virtutum," is always rendered "the Lord of Hosts;" and "virtutes cœlorum," "the host of heaven." It became, therefore, the translator's duty to recur to the Greek; where he would find the words, δυναμει πολλη. But here the same ambiguity exists. For the word δυναμις often indeed corresponds to terms significative in Hebrew of strength, as כח,4 גבורה,5 און,6 and the derivations of עוז;7 but it almost as frequently corresponds to words of multitude, as עם a people,8 המון a multitude,9 מחנה a camp,10 חיל an army,11 and, above all, to צבא, the most usual word for a collection of men, or a host. As the equivalent of this word δυναμις occurs some hundreds of times in the Bible, and one of the occasions is the very passage under discussion; for the Hebrew text, lxviii. 12, reads צבא רב. Thus, no doubt remains that the ambiguous Greek word δυναμις here stands for "multitude" or "crowds;" and this again determines the signification of the no less ambiguous Latin term "virtus."
All this investigation was absolutely necessary for the translator, before he could make sure of rightly rendering so simple a word; and the use of the adjective multa might have led him to suspect that number, and not strength, was contemplated. This verse would afford us room for several other curious philological remarks in illustration of our subject; but for brevity's sake we pass them over. We need hardly observe, that it alludes to the custom frequently mentioned in Scripture,12 and practised by other eastern nations besides the Jews,13 of female choirs coming forth to celebrate the conquerors on their return from battle. The word corresponding in the original to "evangelizantibus" is in the Hebrew in the plural feminine, and this could hardly bear the present translation, "them that preach good tidings." The word proclaim would have suited better.
IV. We now call the attention of our biblical readers to a very curious rendering in the Vulgate, which seems to us to have been misunderstood by our translators, in consequence of not having attended to the original. This is Sophon. iii. 18, where the Hebrew has as follows: וגו מפגי אספה ממך יהיו. The Vulgate translates thus: "Nugas qui a lege recesserunt, congregabo, quia ex te erant;" and is rendered thus by the Douay editors: "the triflers that were departed from the law I will gather together, because they were of thee." It must be noticed, that the Latin word nugæ purposely corresponds to the Hebrew word נוגי, nughe. This is a passive participle of the verb יגה, and means "afflicted;"14 though some lexicographers prefer the meaning of "removed," which occurs in the root, and is given by the Greek version, and some Jewish commentators.15 Now the rendering of St. Jerome strikes out a totally different signification, whether we translate it by trifles or triflers. But there is an old meaning of the word nugæ, which would exactly agree with the first of those we have mentioned. In Plautus, it means a "lamentation," the nænia or mourning song of the præfica; and this is allowed to be probably the oldest meaning of the word. Hence, by a synecdoche, it might be used for a "mourner," as it is used for a "trifler." The question, therefore, which a translator of the Vulgate would have to ask himself would be, Can St. Jerome in this passage have used the word nugas in that older sense? And we should certainly be inclined to answer it affirmatively, on the following grounds.
1. St. Jerome, in his commentary, seems indifferent which interpretation we take,-his own, or Aquila's. "Nugas, sive ut Aquila interpretatus est, translatos qui a te recesserunt congregabo."16 If he had used the word in the ordinary sense, the two versions could not for an instant have been compared. But the sorrowful and the banished are words whose meanings may be easily exchanged, as they are intimately connected by cause and effect.
2. Any one that has studied the version and commentaries of this Father must have seen their constant accordance with the traditions and opinions of the Jews; and were it necessary for us to illustrate this point by examples, we could do it by many passages in his notes upon the very book of minor prophets now under consideration. But, in fact, he tells us himself that in difficult passages he made it a point to follow his Jewish masters.17 Now the Jewish interpreters and commentators give two meanings to the word. The Targum, or Chaldaic paraphrase, and R. Solomon Jarchi, render it in the same manner as Aquila, approved by St. Jerome,-"the removed;" Kimchi, and most others, give the other meaning, "the sorrowful;" and the Gemara, an old comment upon the Babylonish Talmud, shows them both to have been maintained by the ancient Jewish teachers, inasmuch as it attributes the one to R. Joshua, and the other to R. Eleazar.18 Supposing "nugæ" to have been used by St. Jerome in its less ordinary sense, we find him approving of exactly the two interpretations which his avowed teachers would have delivered to him, and hesitating which to choose. But if the word mean "trifles" or "triflers," it is impossible to account for the source whence he derived his interpretation, not deducible from the Hebrew root, unknown to every other biblical writer, and not taught him by those on whose authority in such points he relied.
3. St. Jerome, in his commentary, makes an apology, and gives a reason for having used this word: "Id quod diximus nugas sciamus in Hebræo ipsum Latinum esse sermonem, ut propterea a nobis ita ut in Hebræo erat positum, ut nosse possimus linguam Hebræam omnium linguarum esse matricem." This reasoning supposes that he had gone out of his way to select this word, which certainly would not have been the case, had he used it in its ordinary acceptation. On the other hand, we cannot suspect him of having sacrificed the sense to a mere resemblance between the Hebrew and Latin words. We must, therefore, conclude, that the word nugæ is here used in a rarer sense, but one which suits the meaning of the original; and the result of these reflections seems to be, that this word in the passage is to be rendered by sorrowful or mourners, a signification at once allied to the version of Aquila, given by the Rabbins, and accounting for St. Jerome's excuses.
V. It is singular that St. Jerome should translate, on every occasion except two, the Hebrew word עשק and its derivatives, by calumniari or its substantives. Yet this Hebrew verb is admitted by all to signify oppression or violence, sometimes, perhaps, with an addition of fraud. The translator of the Vulgate must, therefore, inquire, whether St. Jerome really meant the word calumniari to be taken in the sense in which it is usually taken, or whether it bears in his version the peculiar signification of violence. If the former were the case, he must translate it by calumny, however this may differ from the original, since the translator's duty is only to present a faithful transcript of the Latin version. But if St. Jerome used it in the second sense, then the word calumny cannot be used, because it never bears with us the signification of violence. It is impossible to conceive that this learned Father could have used these terms in their ordinary acceptation, for they are often placed where the context will not admit of any signification but that of violence or oppression. Thus they are used in apposition with terms of unjust oppression,19 they are spoken of whole nations, which certainly could not well be said to be an object of calumny or false accusation.20 The translator would, therefore, decide that the word calumnia and its derivatives in the Vulgate signify oppression. Yet this is not universally the case, but only when it corresponds to the Hebrew עשק or its nouns. For example, Genes. xliii. 18, we have the words, "ut devolvat in nos calumniam;" yet as the Hebrew verb there is not עשק but להתגלל, we must translate the word by a false accusation. It is only, therefore, by having the original open before us, that we could ascertain when the word was to be translated violence or oppression, or when calumny or false accusation. The Douay translators have indeed generally been right in their rendering of this word, because the context is generally such as to force us to a correct interpretation; but where this did not lead them, they have failed, and so have left the work unfinished. Thus, Gen. xxvi. 20; Levit. xix. 30; Prov. xxviii. 16; Ezech. xxii. 29; and Job x. 3, our version presents the word calumny.21 The last of these passages is remarkable, for Job is there said to upbraid God with calumniating him, when it is evident, from the circumstances of his history, as well as from the context, and the general tenor of his complaints, that harsh and oppressive treatment was what he objected to the conduct of the Almighty in his regard. Yet in all these passages the same word עשק occurs in the original; and as we have seen already that St. Jerome understood this word of oppression, though he rendered it by calumniari, it is clear that in all these passages he meant this to have that meaning; and so it should have been rendered by our translators.
Only one thing would be wanting to make this reasoning satisfactory, and that is, to prove that the Latin word calumnia really has this meaning of oppression, or perhaps more properly of vexation. The Lexicons do not, it is true, present a signification sufficiently strong; the one, for instance, which approaches nearest in Forcellini,22 is No. 6, "Sumitur etiam latius pro quacunque vitiosa calliditate, astutia, vexatione." Craft, however, and not oppression, is here the essential ingredient, and all the examples brought show that he understands it only of vexatious, petty, proceedings in law. From this it would appear, that our translators were led only by the force of the context to select the extraordinary, but correct, interpretation which they have generally given. But it seems to us, that this word easily passed from its forensic use to a wider signification of oppression in acts; especially when under the sanction of law, which we apprehend to be the most ordinary use of עשק. Hence this might be accurately rendered by calumniari in Latin. We think the following authority may justify this assertion. Under Domitian, and other cruel emperors, a heavy tax was imposed upon all Jews, and was exacted with peculiar rigour, and even cruelty. Suetonius thus writes of the Emperor we have named: "Præter cæteros, Judaicus fiscus acerbissime exactus est."23 Under Nerva, the odious imposition was abolished, and a medal remains to commemorate the event. It bears this legend:-
FISCI. IVDAICI. CALVMNIA. SVBLATA.24
Here the word calumnia evidently signifies "tyranny," or "oppression," and will fully justify the use of the word in this sense in the Vulgate, and consequently the translation which we suggest.
We cannot take leave of this word without recalling to our reader's notice another remarkable text where it occurs. We allude to Luke iii. 14. The Baptist is there giving instructions to soldiers, on campaign,25 what they are to do. He suggests three points to their observance: the first is, to do violence to no man; the third, to be content with their pay. These two points are not only in accordance with the profession and habits of the persons instructed, but are also in perfect harmony the one with the other. The soldiers are not to enrich themselves by rapine, but to be satisfied with what they receive. We should expect the intermediate portion of advice to be of like character; it is, μηδε συκοφαντησητε. This the Vulgate renders by neque calumniam faciatis. The Douay version again translates, "neither calumniate any man."26 This is totally out of keeping with the context. The fact is, that the verb συκοφαντεω in the Greek of the Septuagint means to oppress, and is frequently put for the Hebrew עשק.27 It had thus acquired that force in Jewish Greek, like so many other words,28 and should be so rendered. This has been already noticed by writers on the Greek of the New Testament.29
VI. We shall, perhaps, require still more indulgence from our readers for our observations on another passage from the Old Testament. Ps. xxxix. 9 (in the Septuagint), the Greek version has σωμα δε κατηρτισω μοι, "thou hast fitted a body to me." The Latin version of the Psalms, as we have before observed, is made from this Greek translation, and yet in this passage it has "aures autem perfecisti mihi," which the Douay version no less singularly renders, "thou hast pierced ears for me." For the verb "perficio" certainly never bore this signification in any ancient writer. At first sight, it would appear as though the Vulgate, particularly if we admit the correctness of the English rendering, had in this verse been taken from the Hebrew, which has אזנים כרית לי "aures perforasti mihi." Before, therefore, censuring the Douay rendering, and consequently showing the necessity of recourse to the original texts, we must prove that the Vulgate in this verse is not made upon the Hebrew, which it seems to resemble, but on the Septuagint, to which it bears so little affinity.
A slight comparison of the entire Psalm, in the Vulgate, with the two texts, will satisfy the most superficial scholar, that every other verse is translated from the Greek; and this affords us a strong presumption that this passage was derived from the same source. The principal difficulty resides in the substitution of aures, "ears," for σωμα, "body." But this change is easily accounted for in two ways. First, several copies of the Septuagint read ωτα, "ears," instead of σωμα. In Parsons's continuation of Holmes's critical edition of that version, we have the following note upon the passage, "Σωμα δε] ωτα δε (Cod.) 39, ωτα δε, 142, 156 (292 marg.)."30 The same reading is given by Bos from a Greek commentary. The Vulgate, therefore, may have been made upon a manuscript which read thus; and in this supposition no objection exists to its having rendered this verse from the Greek. Secondly, it seems probable that originally the Latin read "corpus," and not "aures;" and then there would be no discrepancy between it and the present Greek text. The Mosarabic and Roman Psalters have it, as well as St. Augustine, Cassiodorus, St. Ambrose, and St. Hilary.31 The Veronese Psalter, published by Bianchini, presents the same reading.32 The use of the verb "perfecisti" leaves little room to doubt that this was the original reading. The substantive and the verb agree perfectly; when, at a later period, the former was changed, the latter was allowed to remain, and did not suit so well.
The moment this difficulty is removed, and no doubt consequently remains that the verse is translated from the Septuagint, it is plain that "perfecisti" corresponds to κατηρτισω. Now, this verb means sometimes in Scripture, "to complete, to perfect;" as for example, 1 Thess. iii. 10, where the Vulgate translates it "ut compleam;" and, therefore, no doubt, "perficio" is here used in this sense. The old Douay version has correctly "eares thou hast perfited to me," which was subsequently altered into its present reading. If this change was made in deference to the original Hebrew, a principle of translation was violated; for the Greek should have been consulted, and the Vulgate should not have been here abandoned for the Hebrew, any more than in a thousand other places where they differ.
VII. We will now notice a case, which shows how the incautious insertion of the smallest monosyllable may totally alter the sense. It is the well-known passage, Jo. ii. 4, "Quid mihi et tibi mulier?" The old Rhemish editors of 1582 scrupulously rendered word for word, not without a sacrifice of clearness and propriety, "What is to me and to thee woman?" In a note they explain their motives, grounded on the ambiguous character of the phrase, which they did not think it proper more definitely to express. In the correction by Dr. Challoner, this ambiguity was preserved; and, indeed, it yet remains in many modern editions. Some, however, as that of Edinburgh, 1792, have slipped in "it," and read, "What is it to me and to thee?" But there can be no doubt that this translation is erroneous, and that for many reasons.
First, this form of expression, which occurs in our text, is very common in the Old Testament, and always means that there is no connexion between the persons thus mentioned. It may be sufficient to consult the passages below in the margin.33
Secondly, it occurs very frequently in the classics, Greek and Latin, and bears invariably the same meaning. Thus Anacreon:-
Τι γαρ μαχαισι καμοι.
* *
Τι Πειαδεσσι καμοι.34Aulus Gellius quotes from Epictetus (lib. ii.) τι εμοι και σοι ανθρωπε; αρκει εμοι τα εμα κακα.35 Quintus Curtius has, in like manner, "Quid nobis tecum est;"36 and Ovid,-
"Quid mihi cum Siculis, inter Scythiamque Getasque?"37Martial writes thus: "Martialis Deciano suo S. Quid nobis inquis cum epistola? parumne tibi præstamus si legimus epigrammata?"38 We could add examples from Oriental writers. But what is most to be noted is, that the classics often fill up the ellipsis, by adding an adjective or substantive. Thus Philostratus, Σοι δε τι και Προτεσιλεω κοινον;39 Propertius uses the word "gratia."
"Cum Tiberi Nilo gratia nulla fuit."40And Claudian, "ratio."
"Quæ tibi cum pedibus ratio? quid carmina culpas?
Scandere qui nescis, versiculos laceras."41The Persians, as for instance Firdausi, use the substantive کار Kar, "negotium."
Thirdly, in the New Testament, the phrase occurs several times besides this place, and manifestly has the same meaning. We will at present only notice the message to Pilate from his wife, Matt. xxvii. 19: "Have thou nothing to do with that just man;" in the Vulgate, "Nihil tibi et justo huic." What confirms this interpretation is, that whenever a thing is said not to concern a person, the preposition is used with the accusative. Thus, when Judas restores the price of his treason, saying that he had betrayed innocent blood, he is answered, τι προς ημας; συ οψει -"Quid ad nos? tu videris." (Ib. 4.) And when Peter eagerly inquires about John, our Saviour says to him, Τι προς σε;-"Quid ad te?"42 "What is it to thee?" Precisely as in the classics; for instance, Martial,-
"Sobrius siccus est Aper: quid ad me?"43These considerations are sufficient to prove, that the accurate rendering of these words is the same as is given in Matt. xxvii. 19, "What have I to do with thee?" And we prefer this to the one given in the new version which heads our article; "What hast thou to do with me?" Because this seems to make the answer signify, "Why dost thou interfere with me?" a signification which the phrase does not generally bear; for it simply expresses the absence or denial of communication between the parties.
The insertion, therefore, of the pronoun "it" destroys this sense completely, and determines the text in favour of a signification manifestly inaccurate.44
The philological discussion of this text ought naturally to end here. But an objection to the interpretation we have preferred will certainly start up in the mind of the pious reader. Is not the expression unaccountably harsh? Can we suppose our Blessed Saviour to have addressed his holy and dear mother in terms that disowned her, and denied all connection between them? Nay, we should feel but little satisfaction ourselves in this discussion, did we feel, at its close, that we had by it derogated aught from her honour, whom, from infancy, we have been taught especially to reverence; or that we had successfully striven to establish an interpretation which apparently favoured the cavils of our religious adversaries. For we are aware how this translation has been considered by some as discountenancing our Catholic feelings towards God's mother, by proving that her own Son treated her with little respect. Such, for instance, is the view presented by a certain Mr. Ford Vance, a chosen preacher against our doctrines, who having quoted the Protestant version, thus observes:-"The Roman Catholics say that this is a wrong translation of the passage, and that it should be rendered, 'Woman, what is that to you and to me?'" And in reply he appeals to Matt. viii. 29.45 Our preceding remarks will be sufficient to show that we have no wish whatever to assert any such thing. But we deny all the consequences which he and others would draw from their version, and assert that the most timid Catholic need fear nothing in adopting it.
It is easy to prove, that the expression in question might be, and often was, used in the most respectful and even affectionate manner; and as some of our examples, at least, have not been before quoted, we will enter more fully into the matter. We have a stronger motive for so doing, that even writers not engaged on controversy have expressed themselves differently from what we deem the truth. Thus Lambert Bos describes the phrase in general, as one "qua molestia et contemptus innuitur."46
In the New Testament it certainly is used respectfully by Pilate's wife, when she calls Jesus "that just man." Nor, we think, can it be doubted, that the expostulation of the evil spirits, to which Mr. Vance refers, has the same character. For they give him his most glorious title, saying, "What have we to do with thee, Jesus, son of God?" and then they make a supplicating request to be allowed to enter into the swine; which is granted them. In the Old Testament, the phrase is used in the same manner. For instance, there surely was neither "annoyance nor contempt" intended in those words whereby the widow obtained from the prophet the resurrection of her son:-"What have I to do with thee, thou man of God? Art thou come to call my sins to remembrance, and to slay my son?"47 There is an expression, similar in signification, which is manifestly used with similar feelings. We allude to Luke v. 8, where Peter, falling on his knees before Jesus, says to him, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!" It is exceeding respect which, in these two cases, suggests expressions, at first sight indicative of a wish to have no communication with the person addressed.
Among profane writers the same use of the phrase may be easily proved. When the banished poet addresses his writings in these words,-
"Quid mihi vobiscum est, infelix cura, libelli,
Ingènio perii qui miser ipse meo?"48there is certainly expressed a feeling of affection and attachment to his unfortunate productions. The most respectful use of the expression is made in the East. In the account of a "good monitor," published by Kosegarten, we are told, how, upon a message being brought him that the caliph wished to see him, he replied, ما لي ولأمير المؤمنين "What have I to do with the prince of the faithful?"49 This was certainly not said with any intention of slighting that personage, whose call he obeyed; for his conduct is described with a desire to commend, and to propose it as an example.
But we will quote another instance, which, we flatter ourselves, will leave no room to doubt that this expression could be used in the most affectionate manner. The emperor Marcus Aurelius closes one of his letters to his beloved preceptor, Fronto, in these words:-"Valebis mihi Fronto, ubi ubi es, mellitissime, meus amor, mea voluptas. Quid mihi tecum est? amo absentem."50
These examples are more than sufficient to prove, that our Saviour could use the phrase as we have interpreted it, without incurring the imputation of undutifulness, which some writers, in their zeal against Catholics, seem almost eager to cast upon him. It may have been spoken in the most respectful and affectionate manner; and, as commentators have remarked, our Blessed Lady did not view it in the light of a refusal or a check; for after it, she felt sure that her prayer was granted, and gave directions for the working of the miracle.
VIII. The length to which we have been carried by several of our examples, obliges us to suppress many others on which we would willingly have dilated. We must, however, for the present omit them, and will briefly advert to one only. This is Heb. xi. 1, where the Latin word, "substantia," is rendered "substance." "Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for." This rendering leads the reader to a wrong conclusion; as faith may be the indication, or demonstration, but certainly not the substance, of what we hope for. The Rheims translators say, that the Latin word here bore the meaning of its corresponding Greek, υποστασις, "groundwork," or "foundation;" and though, with their usual caution, they retained the very word "substance," they added a marginal note to this effect: "By this word substance is meant, that faith is the ground of our hope." The note has disappeared, but the word which they knew to be unintelligible without it, has been retained. The Anglican version has the same word, but likewise adds an explanatory marginal note. A reference to the original Greek could alone guide the translator of the Vulgate; because the Latin word could never have been supposed to have this meaning, except as equivalent to that Greek term.
It may be necessary even sometimes to consult St. Jerome's commentary, to ascertain the exact sense in which he used words or phrases. For example:- "Butyrum et mel comedet, ut sciat reprobare malum et eligere bonum."51 From his commentary on this passage, it is evident that he used the particle ut in the sense of quamvis, as Ovid does,
"Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas."52The sense would be, that the Messiah should eat the common food of infants, although he, in truth, possessed discretion and knowledge.
These examples are, we trust, sufficient to elucidate our views regarding a complete and authorized revisal of our English Catholic version. Much we have to say respecting the prefaces and notes, the indices and titles, which should accompany any such authorized edition. On these matters it will be time enough to express our sentiments when we shall perceive that the hints here thrown out have been esteemed worthy of notice; and that attention is turned to the necessity or propriety of providing us with a standard edition, no longer subject to alteration from the caprice or ignorance of individuals. The new version which has led to the remarks we have made in this paper, cannot, as we have already observed, supersede the necessity of such a revision. With several of its verbal changes we are certainly pleased; but there are others of which we cannot bring ourselves to approve. The change of "Christ" into "Messiah," and "gospel" into "good tidings," seems unnecessary, and likely to startle ordinary readers. For the rejected words have long become part of the language.
Throughout the notes and preface there is a drift which cannot be overlooked, and which has our cordial approbation; it is to place the gospels in their proper light, not as narratives intended to form a complete digest of our Saviour's life, but as "occasional pieces," so to speak, suggested by particular circumstances, and primarily directed to readers possessing different qualifications from ours, who could understand much that to us must be obscure. The impression on the reader's mind, after having perused this edition, must be, that Christianity never depended, for its code or evidences, upon the compilation of these documents, and that they never could have been intended for a rule of faith. Considering the work in this light, we have an additional pleasure in bearing witness to the learning, diligence, and acuteness of its author.
1 It is now well known that this work is from the pen of Dr. Lingard.
2 We have not forgotten the Rev. Mr. Curtis's late Letter to the bishop of London.
3 Perhaps the old word "lordly" would best express the double meaning, as its corresponding term herrlich would in German.
4 1 Chron. xxix. 2; Es. ii. 69; Jer. xlviii. 45.
5 Jud. viii. 21; 2 Reg. xviii. 10, &c.
6 Job xl. 11.
7 Job xli. 14; Ps. xx. 1; xlv. 1.
8 1 Chron. xxi. 2.
9 2 Sam. vi. 19; 1 Reg. xx. 28; Jer. iii. 23.
10 1 Chron. xii. 22.
11 This Hebrew word is ambiguous as the Greek and Latin ones in the text; but constantly means an army, as Exod. xiv. 28.
12 See Exod. xv. 20; Jud. xi. 34; 1 Sam. xviii. 6, 7; 2 Sam. i. 20.
13 See, for instance, the account of the mountaineers of Tipra, by J. Rawlins, Esq., in the Asiatic Researches, vol. ii. Lond. 1799, p. 191.
14 See Winer's Lexicon Manuale, p. 396.
15 Rosenmüller's Prophetæ Minores. Lips. 1816, vol. iv. p. 68.
16 Comment. in loc.
17 "Hæc dico ut noveris quos in Prophetæ hujus campo habuerim præcursores, quos tamen . . . non in omnibus sum secutus, ut judex potius operis eorum quam interpres existerem, diceremque quid mihi videretur in singulis, et quid ab Hebræorum magistris acceperim."
18 Cod. Berucha, cap. iv. fol. 28.
19 Deut. xxviii. 29, 33; Eccles. v. 7; Jer. vii. 6; Ezech. xxii. 29; Amos iv. 1. Two remarkable examples are Jer. xxii. 3: "Liberate vi oppressum de manu calumniatoris;" and xxi. 12, where nearly the same words occur.
20 Jer. i. 33; Osee v. 11. But see particularly 1 Kings (or Sam.) xii. 4, where the people say to Samuel, upon his retiring from government, "Non es calumniatus nos."
21 Isa. liv. 14, the first edition of our version, Douay, 1609-10, has calumny; the modern correction, oppression.
22 Sub voce calumnia, tom. i. p. 450, col. i. Patav. 1827.
23 Domit. c. xii. tom. ii. p. 328, edit. Burm.
24 Eckhel, Doctrina Num. Vet. tom. vi. p. 404. From the Imperial Cabinet of Vienna.
25 This circumstance is of importance for the rendering of the text. The word is στρατευομενοι. See Michaelis, Marsh's transl. tom. i. p. 51.
26 The English authorized version has nearly the same,-"Neither accuse any man falsely."
27 Job xxxv. 9; Psalm cxviii. 121; Proverbs xiv. 33; xxii. 16; xxviii. 3; Eccles. iv. 1.
28 It is an admitted principle in Hermeneutics, that the Greek of the Seventy is one of the great keys to the right interpretation of the Greek of the New Testament. See Arigler, Hermeneutica Biblica Generalis. Vienna, 1813, p. 103.
29 Vid. Schleusner sub voce συκοφαντεω, and Kuinoel in loc.
30 The MSS. here quoted are thus described in the Prolegomena to the work:-"39. Codex Dorothei, ii. Membr. sæc. ix.-142. Bib. Aulier Vindob. Theol. x.; membr. pervet. optimæ notæ.-156. Bib. Basil. membr. 4 adm. antiq. sine accent. cum vers. lat. interlin.-292. Cod. Bib. Medic. num. iii. Plut. vi. opt. notæ membran. in fol. sæc. xi."
31 Ap. Sabatier, Bibliorum Sacrorum Versiones Antiquæ, 1743.
32 Psalter. duplex cum Canticis, p. 63. Published in his Vindiciæ Canonicarum Scripturarum Vulgatæ Latinæ editionis. Rome, 1740. In a note on this passage, he adds, "Favet utrique lectioni versio Arabica." This is a mistake, which, however, does not surprise us, as most that has been written on the Arabic version of the Psalms is very inaccurate. This, however, is not the place to prove this point, and substitute more exact observations.
33 Jos. xxii. 24; Jud. xi. 12; 2 Sam. xvi. 10; 1 Reg. xvii. 18; 2 Reg. iii. 13; Mic. ii. 2. Cf. Glassius, Philologia Sacra. Leips. 1776, tom. i. p. 491.
34 Ode xvii. 264, 276.
35 Noctes Atticæ, ed. Gronov. lib. i. c. ii. p. 37.
36 Lib. viii. c. viii. § 16.
37 Trist. lib. iii. eleg. xi. 54.
38 Introd. to lib. ii. Epig.
39 Philost. Her. p. 8, ed. Boiss. In like manner, Schiller, Jungfrau von Orleans, act v. scene v. has-
"Nicht kann gemein seyn
Zwischen dir und mir."
40 Lib. ii. eleg. xxxiii. 20.
41 Epigr. xxviii. In Podagr.
42 John xx. 22.
43 Lib. xii. epig. 30.
44 However, Prof. Scholz, in his version of the Gospels (Francf. 1829), has retained this meaning: "Weib, was kümmert das mich und dich?" That of Augusti and De Wette (Heidelb. 1814) has: "Weib, was habe ich mit dir zu beschaffen?"
45 Sermons on the Invocation of Angels and Saints. Serm. ii. p. 40.
46 Ellipses Græcæ, ed. Schäffer, 1808, p. 227.
47 1 Reg. xvii. 18.
48 Trist. lib. ii. eleg. i. 1.
49 Chrestom. Arab. Lips. 1828, p. 36.
50 M. C. Frontonis et M. Aurelii Epist. Romæ, 1823, p. 105.
51 Isa. viii. 15.
52 De Ponto, lib. iii. ep. iv. 19.Source. The Dublin Review, Vol. II, No. IV (April 1837), pp. 475-492, unsigned (Art. IX); reprinted in Nicholas Wiseman, Essays on Various Subjects, Vol. I (London: Dolman, 1853), pp. 73-100, as "Catholic Versions of Scripture." This transcription follows the 1853 reprint, checked against the page scans. Scans: 1853 Essays, Vol. I; Dublin Review, 1837.
In the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Bible, the Wiseman passage is quoted with "sense" in place of "verse"; the printed text reads "verse" (1853, p. 75).
Greek and Hebrew words are rendered with HTML character entities; the Syriac word on p. 77 is omitted (the printed transliterations are kept).