Page images
PDF
EPUB

In another vision, a year after, he saw again the lady and her book, and received the book to copy, but still it conveyed no idea to his mind. He then set himself by fasting and prayer to learn the meaning of it, and after a fortnight was gratified. He learns, too, that the lady whom he had seen is not, as he had imagined, the sibyl, but the Church, and that she appeared as old because she was created first of all, and for her sake the world was made.

After his first two visions, Hermas watched eagerly for new revelations, and set himself to obtain them by fasting and prayer. In those later visions, while the pictures presented to his mind are such as we can without difficulty believe to have been dream representations, the explanations given of them have a coherence only to be found in the thoughts of a waking man. This is still more true of the second and third parts of the work. At the end of a first part he has the vision in which he sees him, who gives the name, which, in strictness only belongs to these two latter parts of the work, a man dressed like a Shepherd, who tells him that he is the angel of repentance, who has come to dwell with him, being the guardian to whose care he had been entrusted. From this Shepherd he receives, for the instruction of himself and of the Church, the "Commandments," which form the second, and the "Similitudes," which form the third, part of the work. (Salmon in Dict. of Christ. Biog.)

The compass of the present work will not permit us to review the numerous other apocryphal writings.

CHAPTER XVI.

THE LOST BOOKS OF BOTH TESTAMENTS.

It is the common opinion of theologians that an inspired book may perish, and that some de facto have perished. As authorities for this opinion we may cite Origen, Chrysostom, St. Thomas, Bellarmine, Serarius, Pineda, Bonfrere, and nearly all the later Theologians.*

Salmeron strove to set aside this opinion by the following arguments: "The Providence of God, which gave a book to teach men, will preserve that book. Moreover, if the Church, even in its preparatory state in the Old Law, should allow a

*Orig. in Cant. Prol. c. fin. (M. 13, 84); S. Chrys. in 1. Cor. hom. 7, 3 (M. 61, 58); S. Thom, Comm. in ep. S. Paul. ad 1 Cor. 5, 4 et Col. 4, 16; Bellarm. de verbo Dei IV. 4; Serar. Proleg. c. VIII. qu. 14. 15; Pineda Salom. praev. I. 1; Bonfrer. Praeloq. VI. 2, etc.

book to perish, which had been committed to her care, she would be unfaithful to her trust." In response we say first that two questions are confused here. It is one thing that a book divinely inspired, not yet canonized by the Church, should perish; another that a book delivered to the Church by canonization should perish. This latter fact has never happened. Franzelin, in response to Salmeron, argues that it is possible that even a canonical book should perish, for the reason that such book is not the sole or absolutely necessary means of teaching men the truth. The Church is only infallible and indefectible in furnishing an adequate means to impart truth to man, and her teaching power would not be hampered by the loss of a book, or portion thereof, of Holy Scripture. The argument of Salmeron that God, who gave the book, would preserve it, is feeble, for the book may be superseded by another, or it may not be necessary for succeeding ages.

The common opinion is, therefore, that an inspired book may perish, and that some have perished. Many proverbs and canticles of Solomon and writings of Prophets, spoken of in the Scriptures, have certainly perished, and some, at least, of these were inspired.

In the Old Testament we find mention of the following works: The Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. XXI. 14); The Book of the Just (Jos. X. 13); The Book of the Words of the Days of Solomon (II. Sam. XI. 41); The Book of the Words of the Days of the Kings of Juda (III. Kings, XIV. 19); The Book of the Words of the Days of the Kings of Israel (III. Kings XIV. 20); The Book of Samuel the Prophet (I. Chron. XXIX. 29); The Words of Nathan, the Prophet (1. c.); The Book of Gad, the Prophet (1. c.); The Books of Ahias (II. Chron. IX. 29); The Vision of Addo, the Prophet (1. c.); The Book of Semeia the Prophet (II. Chron. XII. 15); The Book of Jehu, the Son of Hanan (II. Chron. XX. 34); The Discourse of Hosai (II. Chron. XXXIII. 19); The Deeds of Ozias by Isaiah (II. Chron. XXVI. 22); three thousand Parables of Solomon (III. Kings IV. 22); five thousand Canticles of Solomon (1. c.); the treatise of Solomon on Natural History (1. c.); certain writings of Jeremiah (II. Maccab. II. 1); The Book of the Days of John Hyrcanus (I. Maccab. XVI. 24); The Book of Jason, the Cyrenean (II. Maccab. II. 24).

We hold it undoubted that a person inspired, in one production, may write another without such influence of the Holy

Spirit. We admit that some of the mentioned works were not inspired; but there are others whose titles clearly prove that they were inspired works, and we no longer possess them.

Of the New Testament, nearly all admit that one of Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians (I. Cor. V. 9), and the Epistle to the Church of Laodicea (Coloss. IV. 16), have perished. Who will deny that in these Paul also was inspired?

Wherefore, we conclude that the opinion which maintains the possibility and the actuality of the loss of inspired writings, rests on convincing data.

CHAPTER XVII.

THE HEBREW TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

All the protocanonical books of the Old Testament, except some Chaldaic fragments of Ezra and Daniel, were written in Hebrew.*

Of the deuterocanonical books, Wisdom and II. Maccabees were originally written in Greek; Ecclesiasticus was written in Hebrew, but the text has perished. Jerome saw the Hebrew text of I. Maccabees, but this has also perished. It is not certain whether the others were originally written in Hebrew or Chaldaic.

Concerning the history of the Hebrew language, we have thought good to excerpt from Horne's Introduction to Holy Scripture, Vol. II. In dealing with the criticism of the text of the Old Testament, we shall frequently excerpt material from this author, with the alterations which we shall judge to be good.

The languages of Western Asia, though differing in respect to dialect, are radically the same, and have been so, as far back as any historical records enable us to trace them. Palestine, Syria, Phoenicia, Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Arabia, and also Ethiopia are reckoned as the countries, where the languages commonly denominated Oriental have been spoken. Of late, many critics have rejected the appellation "Oriental," as being too comprehensive, and have substituted that of 'Shemitish," a denominative derived from Shem. Against this appellation, however, objections of a similar nature may be urged; for no inconsiderable portion of those, who spoke

*Of Daniel, the portion from the fourth verse of second chapter, to the twenty-eighth verse of seventh chapter, was written in Chaldaic. Of Ezra, the portions from I. Ezra IV. 8, to VI. 18, and from the twelfth to the twenty-sixth verse of seventh chapter were written in Chaldaic.

the languages in question, were not descendants of Shem. is a matter of indifference which appellation is used, if it be first defined.

The Oriental Languages may be divided into three principal dialects, viz., the Aramaean, the Hebrew, and the Arabic. I.-The Aramaean, spoken in Syria, Mesopotamia, and Babylonia or Chaldaea, is subdivided into the Syriac and Chaldee dialects; or, as they are sometimes called, the East and West Aramaean.

2.-The Hebrew or Canaanitish (Isa. XIX. 18.) was spoken in Palestine, and probably with little variation in Phoenicia, and the Phoenician colonies, as at Carthage and other places. The names of the Phoenician and Punic dialects are too few, and too much disfigured, to enable us to judge with certainty how extensively these languages were the same as the dialect of Palestine.

3.—The Arabic, to which the Ethiopic bears a special resemblance, has, in modern times, a great variety of dialects, as a spoken language, and is spread over a vast extent of country. But, so far as we are acquainted with its former state, it appears more anciently to have been principally limited to Arabia and Ethiopia.

The Arabic is very rich in forms and words: the Syriac, so far as it is yet known, is comparatively limited in both; the Hebrew holds a middle place between them, both as to copiousness of words and variety of forms.

Besides the preceding dialects, there are many slighter variations of language, sometimes distinguished from the general names by local appellations. Thus, the Ephraimites could not distinguish between the letters (s) and (sh), as the Hebrews did, in speaking: hence the Ephraimites pronounced Sibboleth instead of Shibboleth. (Judges XII. 6.) Nehemiah was indignant, that part of his countrymen should speak the language of Ashdod. (Neh. XIII. 23—25.)

The Samaritan Dialect appears to be composed (as one might expect, see II. Kings XVII.) of Aramaean and Hebrew: and the slighter varieties of Arabic are as numerous as the provinces where the language is spoken.

Numerous appellations have, at different times, been given to the Hebrew language. In the Scriptures it is nowhere called Hebrew. This term, as it is used in John V. 2, and in several other passages in the New Testament, does not refer to the biblical Hebrew, but to the Syro-Chaldaic dialect prevalent in Palestine in the time of Jesus Christ. In II. Kings XVIII. 26.

it is called the language of the Jews. In the Targums or Chaldee Paraphrases of the Old Testament, the appellationholy tongue-is first applied to it: but the name, by which it is usually distinguished, is Hebrew, as being the language of the Hebrew nation.

Concerning the origin of this name, there has been considerable difference of opinion. According to some critics, it derived its name from Heber, one of the descendants of Shem (Gen. X. 21. 25. XI. 14. 16, 17.): but other learned men are of opinion that it is derived from the rooty (ABER), to pass over, whence Abraham was denominated the Hebrew (Gen. XIV. 13.), having passed over the river Euphrates to come into the land of Canaan. This last opinion appears to be best founded, from the general fact that the most ancient names of nations were appellative. But, whatever extent of meaning was attached to the appellation Hebrew, before the time of Jacob, it appears afterwards to have been limited only to his posterity, and to be synonymous with Israelite.

The origin of the Hebrew language must be dated farther back than the period, to which we can trace the appellation Hebrew. It is plain, from the names of persons and places in Canaan, that, wherever Abraham sojourned, he found a language in which he could easily converse, viz., the Hebrew or Phoenician language. That this was originally the language of Palestine, is evident from the names of nations being appellative, and from other facts in respect to the formation of this dialect. Thus, the West is, in Hebrew, D, which means the sea, that is, towards the Mediterranean Sea. As the Hebrew has no other proper word for west, so it must be evident that the language, in its distinctive and peculiar forms, must have been formed in Palestine.

The Jewish Rabbins, Jonathan the author of the Chaldee Paraphrase, Solomon Jarchi, and Aben-Ezra, have affirmed that Hebrew was the primitive language spoken in Paradise; and their opinion has been adopted by Origen, Jerome, Augustine, and some other Fathers, as well as by some modern critics and philologers. Huet, however, and the majority of modern critics, are of opinion, that the language spoken by Adam perished in the confusion of tongues at Babel. But it seems highly probable, that if the original parents of mankind were placed in Western Asia, they spoke substantially the language which has for more than fifty centuries pervaded that country. Wherefore, from internal evidence, and from the biblical account, we believe that Hebrew has preserved in the main the

« PreviousContinue »