The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, MAY 4, 1911. PROTESTANT BIBLE TERCENTENARY

New Zealand Tablet, 4 May 1911, Page 817

The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, MAY 4, 1911. PROTESTANT BIBLE TERCENTENARY

\jsj2Krftj 0 far as New Zealand is concerned, the ambitious (CQ<|\Ll programme which was at first contemplated— Sfi§|fcs. or at least suggested—in connection with the •&fiiSyy) celebration of the tercentenary of the Protev tant English Bible has been almost entirely js&js%fc abandoned. The • original proposals for <*a\ps. securing ' the co-operation of the heads of universities and schools in emphasising the 't"*** value of the Bible as a force in the education and culture of the people'; for obtaining ' some recognition on the part of the Government of the relation of the Bible to the foundation and freedom of English institutions'; and for obtaining ' a recognition, also, on the part of the judiciary and the Bar of the relation of the Bible to the law of the land '—have not been proceeded with; and the celebration has been confined to special sermons in the several churches on Sunday last, and united services' to be held in a few of the larger centres some evening during the current week.' At the time of writing, the united services have not eventuated; hut the reports of many of the Sunday sermons are. before us, and may doubtless be taken as a fair index of the general lines on which further deliverances will be likely to run. One or two of the lesser ministerial lights have trotted out the old legend about ' the open Bible,' being ' the source of England's greatness ; but these are, without exception, men who, from their lack of scholarship and of intellectual power, are more or less compelled to play to the gallery. For the most part, the tercentenary utterances so far have been entirely moderate and non-controversial in tone; and so long as that is so, Catholics can follow the demonstrations with friendly interest. Apart from its inaccuracies of translation, and viewed simply as a literary classic, the 'Authorised Version' deserves to the full the 'eulogies'that are being heaped upon it—and for the rest, Catholics, who themselves profoundly reverence the Word of God, have no reason to be other than pleased at seeing their nonCatholic neighbours make some public effort to show respect to the Bible as they have it. #

But there are two or three reflections which occur to us as being eminently fitting, natural, and proper on such an occasion which have not been voiced, nor even hinted at, in the addresses so far delivered. (1) If Protestants really regard the Bible as such a priceless treasureand a priceless treasure it undoubtedly is—it would have been just and becoming to have made some grateful mention, however brief, of that great Church to whose watchful care and devoted labors they owe it that they have a Bible at all. Behind all the demonstrations—in the historical background—stands the venerable figure of the Mother Church of Christendom, to whom alone the demonstrators must look if they would behold the real preserver, defender, and transmitter of the Sacred Word. It was the Catholic Church that collected the books of the New Testament and formed its present canon it was the Catholic Church that preserved the Book from corruption and destruction; and it was to the loving labor of her monks and scholars down the ages that the world owed the multiplication and distribution of the sacred volume before a printing Tires* na = heard of. 'To me it seems a marvel,' 'writes"Archbishop barr, that anyone ca " dispassionately read the history of the holy volume without feeling beyond all manner of doubt that to the Church, and to her alone, under God's protecting providence, are wo indebted for its preservation

She alone preserved it for us through the gloom of the Catacombs, when the cry "Christians to the Lions!" so. often resounded through the Imperial City, as well as when the tide of barbarism was sweeping over Europe and the old civilisation was tottering to ruin. From Pope St. Damasus, who commissioned St. Jerome to gather up the scriptural learning of the East and West, and enshrine the fragments in* her authorised version, to Pope Leo XIII., her record has been one of fidelity to the priceless treasure entrusted to her keeping.' And 'it is not too much to expect that the Church's ' superhuman struggle to' preserve God's Word inviolate through the vicissitudes of nineteen centuries ' —as Archbishop Carr expresses should have received some little meed of acknowledgment in the general chorus of tercentenary jubilation. *

(2) Attractive and valuable as are literary force and beauty in the rendering of Scripture, fidelity of translation is of even greater value and importance. In this respect the 'Authorised Version' is notoriously defective; and ' its short-comings have been frankly admitted by the compilers of the ' Revised Version' which was published in 1881. In the preface to the latter the compilers say: 'There are, however, numerous passages in the Authorised Version in which, whether regard be had to the recurrence (as in the first three Gospels) of identical clauses and sentences, to the repetition of the same word in the same passage, or to the characteristic use of particular words by the same writer, the studied variety adopted by the translators of 1611 has produced a degree of inconsistency that cannot be reconciled with the principle of faithfulness/' It is an interesting tribute to the accuracy of the Douai (Catholic) Bible that the compilers of the ' Revised Version, in their emendation of the 'Authorised Version,' in a large proportion of cases have reverted, in effect, to the rendering adopted in the Catholic version. We give a few examples, taken, without classification, just as they come to hand. Thus the well-known tag to the Lord's Prayer contained in the ' Authorised Version ' (St. Matt, vi., 13)—-' For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen ' —which is not founds in the Catholic Bible, has been omitted also from the ' Revised Version:' Again, 1 Cor. xi. 27 (referring to the Blessed Eucharist) reads thus in the ' Authorised Version' : ' Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.' The 'and ' here is important; for if it were a correct translation it might be taken as implying that unless the Eucharist were received under both kinds there would be no communion. Catholic scholars have always insisted that the ' and ' in this case was an unmistakeable mistranslation, and in the Doiiai Bible the verse runs: 'Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.' And again the 'Revised Version' has fallen into line with the Catholic Rible, and translates the verse as follows: 'Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the .Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.' Again, the imperative 'Search the Scriptures ' (St. John v. 39) of the 'Authorised Version,' which has been so often appealed to as showing that the Bible was intended to be the sole rule of faith, is now correctly and in harmony with a footnote in the Douai Bible —translated in the Revised Version : Ye search the Scriptures,' thus depriving it of all application to the question of a rule of faith. Once more: The words of 2 Timothy iii., 16, which the Authorised Version gives as 'All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, etc.', has been corrected in the Revised Version so as to run ' every Scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, etc' —and the Protestant rendering is once again brought into conformity with the Douai reading. And so we might go on. It is curiousand perhaps significant— in spite of its superior accuracy, the ' Revised Version ' has never taken the place of the older version, either for home or church use. #

(3) It is of infinitely less importance that people should appreciate the literary and aesthetic beauties of the Bible than that the Book should be recognised and regarded as speaking with an absolutely final and divine authority. And here, again, the Protestantism of to-day falters badly. There was a time when Protestants could say —as in the Presbyterian Confession of Faith —that ' the authority of the holy Scripture .... dependeth not upon the testimony of any man . . but wholly upon God, the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it fs the word of God.' Rut the Higher Criticism has changed ail that. Professor Dickie told his hearers at Knox Church on Sunday that the critics had made the Bible ' a much more human document.' They have, indeed. Professor David Smith, D.D., who was himself to have been a candidate for the Otago Chair of Theology, but was snapped up by a North of Ireland Divinity Hall, tells us in his

recent - work The Bays of Bis Flesh that amongst the Gospel writers there are (a) slips of memory, (b) mistaken fusion of passages, (c) commendation of the incredible, (d) mutilation of obscure sayings of Christ, (e) editorial confusion of thought, and (f) editorial comments set forth as the sayings of Christ. A very 'human document'—so human that it will, when the critics have done with it, be left without a shred or vestige of divine authority. *

Amongst large masses of Protestants it is true to say that to-day the Bible is not believed—and, by consequence, it is not read. One thing, and one thing only, could arrest the destructive and disintegrating process that is in operation, and restore the Bible to its true place in the hearts and minds of Protestants—and that one thing Protestant Christendom has not got. It is hinted at, rather than described, in the following pertinent paragraph from one of Mr. W. H. Mallock's thoughtful books: 'That old foundation, the Bible, has ceased, in itself, to be a foundation any longer. It moves, it shifts, it totters. It will support no structure, unless something outside itself shall be found which will support it. That something the Roman Catholic Church supplied; and now reformed Christendom is beginning at last to find that, for that something which it rejected and still rejects, it is necessary to find a substitute.