RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1545, 14 September 1912, Page 9

RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY.

iTHE BIBLICAL COMMISSION. IMPORTANT DECISIONS.The Rome correspondent of tho "Tablet" (London), writing on July H, states: The latest issue of the Acta "Apostolicao Sedis," among ninny other important dncuments, contains eleven answers by the Biblical Commission to as many interesting Scriptural questions on the Synoptic Gospuls. The previous pronouncement of tho Commission dealt with the Gospel of St. Matthew, to which it assigned the priority of composition universally attributed to it by tradition, but combated or called in question by modern criticism. Matthew wrote the first Gospel in his native language; it was afterwards translated into Greek, and tho Greek version may be posterior to tho Gospels of Mark and'.Luke, but it is substantially identical with the original text. Tho first of the present decisions proclaims that Mark, disciplo, and interpreter of Peter, and Luke, a doctor, helper, and companion of Paul, are really the authors of the Gospels attributed to them, for this conclusion is forced upon us by earliest tradition, by the testimony of the Fathers, by the quotations occurring in their works, by the evidence of early heretics by the versions of tho New Testament, by the most ancient codices, and by''the internal evidence. Turning next to the twelve concluding versiclos of Mnrk (Mark xvi, 9-20), the authenticity of which has been s> widely questioned by critics, the Commission declares that the arguments advanced against this 'passage are* not of a nature to justify their rejection as noiiinspired and non-canonical, and do not even provo that Mark is not the author of them. Again, it is not lawful to doubt the inspiration and canonicity of Luke's accounts of the infancy of Christ (Luke i-n), and of tho apparition of the angel comforting Him, or of the sweat of blood (x.\ii, 13-tl), lior can it be shown by folid arguments that these passages do not belong to- the genuine Gospel of Luke. , _ The fourth question refers to the Magnificat; some very rare documents nut tho Canticle into the month of St. Kliznbeth. The Commission decides that such isolated testimonies cannot prevail .against 'tho overwhelming evidence of nearly all tho codices, which attribute the Canticle -to our Lady, all the more as the context, tho mind of tho Virgin, mid the constant tradition of the Church require tho latter interpretation. Next the Commission declares that it is not lawful to nbnndon the most ancient and the traditional view that (he chronological' order of the Synoptic Gospels is Matthew first, Mark second, and Luke third, adding that this traditional order is not violated by the opinion of those who hold that the Greek version of Mak thew's Gospel may have been mnde after the composition of Mark and Luke. The sixth answer declares that it is not lawful to set the date of the composition of the Gospels of Luko and Mark as lato as the destruction of Jerusalem, or even to assert that the Gospel of Luke was written after the beginning of the-siege of Jerusalem. • : In Answer to the seventh question-the Commission pronounces that Luke's Gospel preceded the Acts of the Apostles, and was therefore composed not subsequently to tho Roman enprivitv of St. Paul. The eighth answer afljj-ms that, in view of tradition and of the internal evidence, it cannot lie prudently doubled that in composing their Gospels Mark wrote according to the preaching, of Peter, and Luko according to the .preaching of Paul, and that both evangelists had at.their disposal other trustworthy sources, both or.il and written.

Question IX runs thus: "Question: Whether the sayjirgs and doings which aro accurately and almost graphically narrated by Mark according to the preaching of Peter, and sot forth most-faithfully by Luke, having (liliseutly inquired concerning all things from the beginning from trustworthy witnesses, who from the" beginninu wero witnesses and ministors of the Word (Luke i, 2-3), have a just claim to the full and historical credence which the Church has ever given them; or whether, on the contrary, the same sayings and doings arc to be regarded as devoid, at lenst in part, of historical truth, cither .because the writers were, not eye-witnesses, or becnusc in both cyange-. lists .lack of order or discrepancy in the succession of facts are not unfreqitently found, or because, inasmuch as they came and wrote at a later time, they must necessarily havo set forth conceptions foreign to the mind of Christ and the Apostles, or facts more or less infected by popular imagination, or, finally, because they indulged in preconceived dogmatic idea*, each according to the scope he. had in view? Answer: In the affirmative to.the first part; in the negative to the fceond."

In tho Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luko there are whole passages verbally identical in all three, others common to two of tho three; others varying more or less in one or other, of-the three,, and finally parts which- are special to each, with various dislocations in the order of the discourses and facts recorded in tho three Gospels. Whence these similarities and dissimilarities? Roughly sneaking, this is the synoptic problem. The Biblical Commission has not settled it. but it has now answered two questions in such a way as to give a safe lead to Scriptural students, and to exclude at least one objectionable theory which has nlreadv found much favour. Tho decisions are as follow :—

"Question I: Whether, observing absolutely all things that are to be observed according .to what hns been already laid down,, especially concerning the authenticity and integrity of the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the substantial identity of the Greek Gospel of Matthew, with ;ts primitive original, and tho chronological order in which they Were written, it is lawful for exegetes, in explaining tho similarities between them, to dispute freely among all the various and contradictory opinions of author?, and to appeal to hypotheses of oral or written tradition, or, even to the dependence of one (Gospel) on the Gospel or Gospels that precede it?— Answer: In. the affirmative.

"Question TT: Whether what has been laid down above is to be considered as by those who, unsupported by any testimony of tradition or by any' historical argument, lightly embrace tlie hypothesis commonly known a-; that of (ho two sources, which seeks to explain tho composition of the Greek Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel nf Luke mainlv bv their dependence on the Gospel of Mark and on tho alleged collection of Sayings of the Lord, and run they, therefore, freely advocate this?— Answer: Jn the nfgafive to both parts." It will be observed that this second decision is a corollary of the previous one declaring that Matthew'* Ar.nnjaie Gospel was the first of the three in order of composition, ami Ihiil. Hi" Greek Mnfthew is substantially identical with the original .Aramaic.