The New Testament
I. Name;
II. Description;
III. Origin;
IV. Transmission of the Text;
V. Contents, History, and Doctrine.
I. NAME
Testament come from testamentum, the word by which the Latin
ecclesiastical writers translated the Greek diatheke. With the
profane authors this latter term means always, one passage of
Aristophanes perhaps excepted, the legal disposition a man makes
of his goods for after his death. However, at an early date, the
Alexandrian translators of the Scripture, known as the Septuagint,
employed the word as the equivalent of the Hebrew berith, which
means a pact, an alliance, more especially the alliance of Yahweh
with Israel. In St. Paul (I Cor., xi, 25) Jesus Christ uses the
words "new testament" as meaning the alliance established by
Himself between God and the world, and this is called "new" as
opposed to that of which Moses was the mediator. Later on, the
name of testament was given to the collection of sacred texts
containing the history and the doctrine of the two alliances; here
again and for the same reason we meet the distinction between the
Old and New Testaments. In this meaning the expression Old
Testament (he palaia diatheke) is found for the first time in
Melito of Sardis, towards the year 170. There are reasons for
thinking that at this date the corresponding word "testamentum"
was already in use amongst the Latins. In any case it was common
in the time of Tertullian.
II. DESCRIPTION
The New Testament, as usually received in the Christian Churches,
is made up of twenty-seven different books attributed to eight
different authors, six of whom are numbered among the Apostles
(Matthew, John, Paul, James, Peter, Jude) and two among their
immediate disciples (Mark, Luke). If we consider only the contents
and the literary form of these writings they may be divided into
historical books (Gospels and Acts), didactic books (Epistles), a
prophetical book (Apocalypse). Before the name of the New
Testament had come into use the writers of the latter half of the
second century used to say "Gospel and Apostolic writings" or
simply "the Gospel and the Apostle", meaning the Apostle St. Paul.
The Gospels are subdivided into two groups, those which are
commonly called synoptic (Matthew, Mark, Luke), because their
narratives are parallel, and the fourth Gospel (that of St. John),
which to a certain extent completes the first three. They relate
to the life and personal teaching of Jesus Christ. The Acts of the
Apostles, as is sufficiently indicated by the title, relates the
preaching and the labours of the Apostles. It narrates the
foundation of the Churches of Palestine and Syria only; in it
mention is made of Peter, John, James, Paul, and Barnabas;
afterwards, the author devotes sixteen chapters out of the twenty-
eight to the missions of St. Paul to the Greco-Romans. There are
thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, and perhaps fourteen, if, with the
Council of Trent, we consider him the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews. They are, with the exception of this last-mentioned,
addressed to particular Churches (Rom.; I, II Cor.; Gal.; Ephes.;
Philip.; Colos.; I, II Thess.) or to individuals (I, II Tim.;
Tit.; Philem.). The seven Epistles that follow (James; I, II
Peter; I, II, III John; Jude) are called "Catholic", because most
of them are addressed to the faithful in general. The Apocalypse
addressed to the seven Churches of Asia Minor (Ephesus, Smyrna,
Pergamus, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea) resembles in
some ways a collective letter. It contains a vision which St. John
had at Patmos concerning the interior state of the above-mentioned
communities, the struggle of the Church with pagan Rome, and the
final destiny of the New Jerusalem.
III. ORIGIN
The New Testament was not written all at once. The books that
compose it appeared one after another in the space of fifty years,
i.e. in the second half of the first century. Written in different
and distant countries and addressed to particular Churches, they
took some time to spread throughout the whole of Christendom, and
a much longer time to become accepted. The unification of the
canon was not accomplished without much controversy (see CANON OF
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES). Still it can be said that from the third
century, or perhaps earlier, the existence of all the books that
to-day form our New Testament was everywhere known, although they
were not all universally admitted, at least as certainly
canonical. However, uniformity existed in the West from the fourth
century. The East had to await the seventh century to see an end
to all doubts on the subject. In early times the questions of
canonicity and authenticity were not discussed separately and
independently of each other, the latter being readily brought
forward as a reason for the former; but in the fourth century, the
canonicity was held, especially by St. Jerome, on account of
ecclesiastical prescription and, by the fact, the authenticity of
the contested books became of minor importance. We have to come
down to the sixteenth century to hear the question repeated,
whether the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by St. Paul, or the
Epistles called Catholic were in reality composed by the Apostles
whose names they bear. Some Humanists, as Erasmus and Cardinal
Cajetan, revived the objections mentioned by St. Jerome, and which
are based on the style of these writings. To this Luther added the
inadmissibility of the doctrine, as regards the Epistle of St.
James. However, it was practically the Lutherans alone who sought
to diminish the traditional Canon, which the Council of Trent was
to define in 1546.
It was reserved to modern times, especially to our own days, to
dispute and deny the truth of the opinion received from the
ancients concerning the origin of the books of the New Testament.
This doubt and the negation regarding the authors had their
primary cause in the religious incredulity of the eighteenth
century. These witnesses to the truth of a religion no longer
believed were inconvenient, if it was true that they had seen and
heard what they related. Little time was needed to find, in
analyzing them, indications of a later origin. The conclusions of
the Tubingen school, which brought down to the second century, the
compositions of all the New Testament except four Epistles of St.
Paul (Rom.; Gal.; I, II Cor.), was very common thirty or forty
years ago, in so-called critical circles (see Dict. apolog. de la
foi catholique, I, 771-6). When the crisis of militant incredulity
had passed, the problem of the New Testament began to be examined
more calmly, and especially more methodically. From the critical
studies of the past half century we may draw the following
conclusion, which is now in its general outlines admitted by all:
It was a mistake to have attributed the origin of Christian
literature to a later date; these texts, on the whole, date back
to the second half of the first century; consequently they are the
work of a generation that counted a good number of direct
witnesses of the life of Jesus Christ. From stage to stage, from
Strauss to Renan, from Renan to Reuss, Weizs�cker, Holtzmann,
J¨licher, Weiss, and from these to Zahn, Harnack, criticism
has just retraced its steps over the distance it had so
inconsiderately covered under the guidance of the Christian Baur.
To-day it is admitted that the first Gospels were written about
the year 70. The Acts can hardly be said to be later; Harnack even
thinks they were composed nearer to the year 60 than to the year
70. The Epistles of St. Paul remain beyond all dispute, except
those to the Ephesians and to the Hebrews, and the pastoral
Epistles, about which doubts still exist. In like manner there are
many who contest the Catholic Epistles; but even if the Second
Epistle of Peter is delayed till towards the year 120 or 130, the
Epistle of St. James is put by several at the very beginning of
Christian literature, between the years 40 and 50, the earliest
Epistles of St. Paul about 52 till 58.
At present the brunt of the battle rages around the writings
called Johannine (the fourth Gospel, the three Epistles of John,
and the Apocalypse). Were these texts written by the Apostle John,
son of Zebedee, or by John the presbyter of Ephesus whom Papias
mentions? There is nothing to oblige us to endorse the conclusions
of radical criticisms on this subject. On the contrary, the strong
testimony of tradition attributes these writings to the Apostle
St. John, nor is it weakened at all by internal criteria, provided
we do not lose sight of the character of the fourth Gospel--called
by Clement of Alexandria "a spiritual gospel", as compared with
the three others, which he styled "corporal". Theologically, we
must take into consideration some modern ecclesiastical documents
(Decree, "Lamentabili", prop. 17, 18, and the answer of the Roman
Commission for Biblical Questions, 29 May, 1907). These decisions
uphold the Johannine and Apostolic origin of the fourth Gospel.
Whatever may be the issue of the these controversies, a Catholic
will be, and that in virtue of his principles, in exceptionally
favourable circumstances for accepting the just exigencies of
criticism. If it be ever established that II Peter belongs to a
kind of literature then common, namely the pseudepigraph, its
canonicity will not on that account be compromised. Inspiration
and authenticity are distinct and even separable, when no dogmatic
question is involved in their union.
The question of the origin of the New Testament includes yet
another literary problem, concerning the Gospels especially. Are
these writings independent of one another? If one of the
Evangelists did utilize the work of his predecessors how are we to
suppose it happened? Was it Matthew who used Mark or vice versa?
After thirty years of constant study, the question has been
answered only by conjectures. Amongst these must be included the
documentary theory itself, even in the form in which it is now
commonly admitted, that of the "two sources". The starting-point
of this theory, namely the priority of Mark and the use made of
him by Matthew and Luke, although it has become a dogma in
criticism for many, cannot be said to be more than a hypothesis.
However disconcerting this may be, it is none the less true. None
of the proposed solutions has been approved of by all scholars who
are really competent in the matter, because all these solutions,
while answering some of the difficulties, leave almost as many
unanswered. If then we must be content with hypothesis, we ought
at least to prefer the most satisfactory. The analysis of the text
seems to agree fairly well with the hypothesis of two sources--
Mark and Q. (i.e. Quelle, the non-Marcan document); but a
conservative critic will adopt it only in so far as it is not
incompatible with such data of tradition concerning the origin of
the Gospels as are certain or worthy of respect.
These data may be resumed a follows.
* The Gospels are really the work of those to whom they have been
always attributed, although this attribution may perhaps be
explained by a more or less mediate authorship. Thus, the Apostle
St. Matthew, having written in Aramaic, did not himself put into
Greek the canonical Gospel which has come down to us under his
name. However, the fact of his being considered the author of this
Gospel necessarily supposes that between the original Aramaic and
the Greek text there is, at least, a substantial conformity. The
original text of St. Matthew is certainly prior to the ruin of
Jerusalem, there are even reasons for dating it earlier than the
Epistles of St. Paul and consequently about the year 50. We know
nothing definite of the date of its being rendered into Greek.
* Everything seems to indicate the date of the composition of St.
Mark as about the time of St. Peter's death, consequently between
60 and 70.
* St. Luke tells us expressly that before him "many took in hand
to set forth in order" the Gospel. What then was the date of his
own work? About the year 70. It is to be remembered that we must
not expect from the ancients the precision of our modern
chronology.
* The Johannine writings belong to the end of the first century,
from the year 90 to 100 (approximately); except perhaps the
Apocalypse, which some modern critics date from about the end of
the reign of Nero, A.D. 68 (see GOSPEL AND GOSPELS).
IV. TRANSMISSION OF THE TEXT
No book of ancient times has come down to us exactly as it left
the hands of its author--all have been in some way altered. The
material conditions under which a book was spread before the
invention of printing (1440), the little care of the copyists,
correctors, and glossators for the text, so different from the
desire of accuracy exhibited to-day, explain sufficiently the
divergences we find between various manuscripts of the same work.
To these causes may be added, in regard to the Scriptures,
exegetical difficulties and dogmatical controversies. To exempt
the scared writings from ordinary conditions a very special
providence would have been necessary, and it has not been the will
of God to exercise this providence. More than 150,000 different
readings have been found in the older witnesses to the text of the
New Testament--which in itself is a proof that Scriptures are not
the only, nor the principal, means of revelation. In the concrete
order of the present economy God had only to prevent any such
alteration of the sacred texts as would put the Church in the
moral necessity of announcing with certainty as the word of God
what in reality was only a human utterance. Let us say, however,
from the start, that the substantial tenor of the sacred text has
not been altered, not withstanding the uncertainty which hangs
over some more or less long and more or less important historical
or dogmatical passages. Moreover--and this is very important--
these alterations are not irremediable; we can at least very
often, by studying the variants of the texts, eliminate the
defective readings and thus re-establish the primitive text. This
is the object of textual criticism.
A. Brief History of the Textual Criticism
The ancients were aware of the variant readings in the text and in
the versions of the New Testament; Origen, St. Jerome, and St.
Augustine particularly insisted on this state of things. In every
age and in diverse places efforts were made to remedy the evil; in
Africa, in the time of St. Cyprian (250); in the East by means of
the works of Origen (200-54); then by those of Lucian at Antioch
and Hesychius at Alexandria, in the beginning of the fourth
century. Later on (383) St. Jerome revised the Latin version with
the aid of what he considered to be the best copies of the Greek
text. Between 400 and 450 Rabbula of Edessa did the same thing for
the Syriac version. In the thirteenth century the universities,
the Dominicans, and the Franciscans undertook to correct the Latin
text. In the fifteenth century printing lessened, although it did
not completely suppress, the diversity of readings, because it
spread the same type of text, viz., that which the Hellenists of
the Renaissance got from the Byzantine scholars, who came in
numbers of Italy, Germany, and France, after the capture of
Constantinople. This text, after having been revised by Erasmus,
Robert Estienne, and Th�odore de B�ze, finally, in 1633, became
the Elzeverian edition, which was to bear the name of the
"received text". In remained the ne varietur text of the New
Testament for Protestants up to the nineteenth century. The
British and Foreign Bible Society continued to spread it until
1904. All the official Protestant versions depended on this test
of Byzantine origin up to the revision of the Authorized Version
of the Anglican Church, which took place in 1881.
The Catholics on their side followed the official edition of the
Latin Vulgate (which is in substance the revised version of St.
Jerome), published in 1592 by order of Clement VIII, and called on
that account the Clementine Bible. Thus it can be said that,
during two centuries at least, the New Testament was read in the
West in two different forms. Which of the two was the more exact?
According as the ancient manuscripts of the text were discovered
and edited, the critics remarked and noted the differences these
manuscripts presented, and also the divergences between them and
the commonly received Greek text as well as the Latin Vulgate. The
work of comparison and criticism that became urgent was begun, and
for almost two centuries has been conducted with diligence and
method by many scholars, amongst whom the following deserve a
special mention: Mill (1707), Bentley (1720), Bengel (1734),
Wetstein (1751), Semler (1765), Griesbach (1774), Hug (1809),
Scholz (1830), both Catholics, Lachmann (1842), Tregelles (1857),
Tischendorf (1869), Westcott and Hort, Abb� Martin (1883), and at
present B. Weiss, H. Von Soden, R.C. Gregory.
B. Resources of Textual Criticism
Never was it as easy as it is in our own days to see, consult, and
control the most ancient documents concerning the New Testament.
Gathered from almost everywhere they are to be found in the
libraries of our big cities (Rome, Paris, London, Saint
Petersburg, Cambridge, etc.), where they can be visited and
consulted by everyone. These documents are the manuscripts of the
Greek text, the old versions and the works of ecclesiastical or
other writers who have cited the New Testament. This collection of
documents, daily increasing in number, has been called the
apparatus criticus. To facilitate the use of the codices of the
text and versions they have been classed and denominated by means
of letters of the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin alphabets. Von Soden
introduced another notation, which essentially consists in the
distribution of all the manuscripts into three groups designated
respectively by the three Greek letters d (i.e. diatheke, the
manuscripts containing the Gospels and something else as well), e
(i.e. euaggelia, the manuscripts containing the Gospels only), a
(i.e. apostolos, the manuscripts containing the Acts and the
Epistles. In each series the manuscripts are numbered according to
their age.
(1) Manuscripts of the Text
More than 4000 have been already catalogued and partly studied,
only the minority of which contain the whole New Testament. Twenty
of these texts are prior to the eighth century, a dozen are of the
sixth century, five of the fifth century, and two of the fourth.
On account of the number and antiquity of these documents the text
of the New Testament is better established than that of our Greek
and Latin classics, except Virgil, which, from a critical point of
view, is almost in the same conditions. The most celebrated of
these manuscripts are:
* B Vaticanus, d 1, Rome, fourth cent.;
* Sinaiticus, d 2, Saint Petersburg, fourth cent.;
* C Ephr�mus rescriptus, d 3, Paris, fifth cent.;
* A Alexandrinus, d 4, London, fifth cent.;
* D Cantabrigiensis (or Codex Bez�) d 5, Cambridge, sixth cent.;
* D 2 Claromontanus, a 1026, Paris, sixth cent.;
* Laurensis, d 6, Mount Athos, eighth-ninth cent.;
* E Basilcensis, e 55, B�le, eighth cent.
To these copies of the text on parchment a dozen fragments on
papyrus, found in Egypt, most of which go back to the fourth
century, one even to the third century, must be added.
(2) Ancient Versions
Several are derived from original texts prior to the most ancient
Greek manuscripts. These versions are, following the order of
their age, Latin, Syriac, Egyptian, Armenian, Ethiopian, Gothic,
and Georgian. The first three, especially the Latin and the
Syriac, are of the greatest importance.
Latin version -- Up to about the end of the fourth century, it was
diffused in the West (Proconsular Africa, Rome, Northern Italy,
and especially at Milan, in Gaul, and in Spain) in slightly
different forms. The best known of these is that of St. Augustine
called the "Itala", the sources of which go as far back as the
second century. In 383 St. Jerome revised the Italic type after
the Greek manuscripts, the best of which did not differ much from
the text represented by the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. It was
this revision, altered here and there by readings from the
primitive Latin version and a few other more recent variants, that
prevailed in the west from the sixth century under the name of
Vulgate.
* Syriac Version -- Three primitive types are represented by the
Diatessaron of Tatian (second cent.), the palimpset of Sinai,
called the Lewis codex from the name of the lady who found it
(third cent., perhaps from the end of the second), and the Codex
of Cureton (third cent.). The Syriac Version of this primitive
epoch that still survives contains only the Gospels. Later, in the
fifth century, it was revised after the Greek text. The most
widespread of these revisions, which became almost the official
version, is called the Pesitt� (Peshitto, simple, vulgate); the
others are called Philoxenian (sixth cent.), Heraclean (seventh
cent.), and Syro-Palestinian (sixth cent.).
* Egyptian Version -- The best known type is that called Boharic
(used in the Delta from Alexandria to Memphis) and also Coptic
from the generic name Copt, which is a corruption of the Greek
aiguptos Egyptian. It is the version of Lower Egypt and dates from
the fifth century. A greater interest is attached to the version
of Upper Egypt, called the Sahidic, or Theban, which is a work of
the third century, perhaps even of the second. Unfortunately it is
only incompletely known as yet.
These ancient versions will be considered precise and firm
witnesses of the Greek text of the first three centuries only when
we have critical editions of them; for they themselves are
represented by copies that differ from one another. The work has
been undertaken and is already fairly advanced. The primitive
Latin version had been already reconstituted by the Benedictine D.
Sabatier ("Bibliorum Sacorum latin� versiones antiqu� seu Vetus
Italica", Reims, 1743, 3 vols.); the work has been taken up again
and completed in the English collection "Old-Latin Biblical Texts"
(1883-1911), still in course of publication. The critical edition
of the Latin Vulgate published at Oxford by the Anglicans
Wordsworth and White, from 1889 to 1905, gives the Gospels and the
Acts. In 1907 the Benedictines received from Pius X the commission
to prepare a critical edition of the Latin Bible of St. Jerome
(Old and New Testament). The "Diatessaron" of Tatian is known to
us by the Arabic version edited by 1888 by Mgr. Ciasea, and by the
Armenian version of a commentary of St. Ephraem (which is founded
on the Syriac of Tatian) translated into Latin, in 1876, by the
Mechitarists Auchar and Moesinger. The publications of H. Von
Soden have contributed to make the work of Tatian better known.
Mrs. A. S. Lewis has just published a comparative edition of the
Syriac palimpset of Sinai (1910); this had been already done by
F.C. Burkitt for the Cureton codex, in 1904. There exists also a
critical edition of the Peshitto by G. H. Gwilliam (1901). As
regards the Egyptian versions of the Gospels, the edition of G.
Horner (1901-1911, 5 vols.) has put them at the disposition of all
those who read Coptic and Sahidic. The English translation, that
accompanies them, is meant for a wider circle of readers.
(3) Citations of Ecclesiastical Authors
The text of the whole New Testament could be constituted by
putting together all the citations found in the Fathers. It would
be particularly easy for the Gospels and the important Epistles of
St. Paul. From a purely critical point of view, the text of the
Fathers of the first three centuries is particularly important,
especially Iren�us, Justin, Origen, Clement of Alexandria,
Tertullian, Cyprian, and later on Ephraem, Cyril of Alexandria,
Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine. Here again a preliminary step
must be taken by the critic. Before pronouncing that a Father read
and quoted the New Testament in this or that way, we must first be
sure that the text as in its present form had not been harmonized
with the reading commonly received at the time and in the country
where the Father's works were edited (in print or in manuscripts).
The editions of Berlin for the Greek Fathers and of Vienna for the
Latin Fathers, and especially the monographs on the citations of
the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford Society for
Historical Theology, 1905), in St. Justin (Bousset, 1891), in
Tertullian (Ronsch, 1871), in Clement of Alexandria (Barnard,
1899), in St. Cyprian (von Sodon, 1909), in Origen (Hautsch,
1909), in St. Ephraem (Burkett, 1901), in Marcion (Zahn, 1890),
are a valuable help in this work.
C. Method followed
(1) The different readings attested for the same word were first
noted, then they were classed according to their causes;
involuntary variants: lapsus, homoioteleuton, itacismus, scriptio
continua; voluntary variants, harmonizing of the texts, exegesis,
dogmatical controversies, liturgical adaptations. This however was
only an accumulation of matter for critical discussion.
(2) At first, the process employed was that called individual
examination. This consists in examining each case by itself, and
it nearly always had as result that the reading found in most
documents was considered the right one. In a few cases only the
greater antiquity of certain readings prevailed over numerical
superiority. Yet one witness might be right rather than a hundred
others, who often depend on common sources. Even the oldest text
we have, if not itself the original, may be corrupt, or derived
from an unfaithful reproduction. To avoid as far as possible these
occasions of error, critics were not long before giving preference
to the quality rather than to the number of the documents. The
guarantees of the fidelity of a copy are known by the history of
the intermediate ones connecting it with the original, that is by
its genealogy. The genealogical process was brought into vogue
especially by two great Cambridge scholars, Westcott and Hort. By
dividing the texts, versions, and Patristic citations into
families, they arrived at the following conclusions:
(a) The documents of the New Testament are grouped in three
families that may be called Alexandrian, Syrian, and Western. None
of these is entirely free from alterations.
* The text called Western, best represented by D, is the most
altered although it was widely spread in the second and third
centuries, not only in the West (primitive Latin Version, St.
Iren� St. Hippolitus, Tertullian, St. Cyprian), but also in the
East (primitive Syriac Version, Tatian, and even Clement of
Alexandria). However, we find in it a certain number of original
readings which it alone has preserved.
* The Alexandrian text is the best, this was the received text in
Egypt and, to a certain extent, in Palestine. It is to be found,
but adulterated in C (at least as regards the Gospels). It is more
pure in the Boha�ric Version and in St. Cyril of Alexandria. The
current Alexandrian text however is not primitive. It appears to
be a sub-type derived from an older and better preserved text
which we have almost pure in B and N. It is this text that
Westcott and Hort call neutral, because it has been kept, not
absolutely, but much more than all the others, free from the
deforming influences which have systematically created the
different types of text. The neutral text which is superior to all
the others, although not perfect, is attested by Origen. Before
him we have no positive testimony, but historical analogies and
especially the data of internal criticism show that it must be
primitive.
* Between the Western text and the Alexandria text is the place of
the Syrian, which was that used at Antioch in Cappadocia and at
Constantinople in the time of St. John Chrysostom. It is the
result of a methodical "confluence" of the Western text with that
received in Egypt and Palestine towards the middle of the third
century. The Syrian text must have been edited between the years
250 and 350. This type has no value for the reconstruction of the
original text, as all the readings which are peculiar to it are
simply alterations. As regards the Gospels, the Syrian text is
found in A and E, F, G, H, K, and also in most of the Peschitto
manuscripts, Armenian Version, and especially in St. John
Chrysostom. The "received text" is the modern descendant of this
Syrian text.
(b) The Latin Vulgate cannot be classed in any of these groups. It
evidently depends on an eclectic text. St. Jerome revised a
western text with a neutral text and another not yet determined.
The whole was contaminated, before or after him, by the Syrian
text. What is certain is that his revision brought the Latin
version perceptibly nearer to the neutral text, that is to say to
the best. As to the received text which was compiled without any
really scientific method, it should be put completely aside. It
differs in nearly 8000 places from the text found in the
Vaticanus, which is the best text known.
(c) We must not confound a received text with the traditional
text. A received text is a determined type of text used in some
particular place, but never current in the whole Church. The
traditional text is that which has in its favour the constant
testimony of the entire Christian tradition. Considering the
substance of the text, it can be said that every Church has the
traditional text, for no Church was ever deprived of the substance
of the Scripture (in as far as it preserved the integrity of the
Canon); but, as regards textual criticism of which the object is
to recover the ipsissima verba of the original, there is no text
now existing which can be rightly called "traditional". The
original text is still to be established, and that is what the
editions called critical have been trying to effect for the last
century.
(d) After more than a century's work are there still many doubtful
readings? According to Westcott and Hort seven-eighths of the
text, that is 7000 verses out of 8000, are to be considered
definitely established. Still more, critical discussions can even
now solve most of the contested cases, so that no serious doubts
exist except concerning about one-sixtieth of the contents of the
New Testament. Perhaps even the number of passages of which the
authenticity has not yet had a sufficient critical demonstration
does not exceed twelve, at least as regards substantial
alterations. We must not forget, however, that the Cambridge
critics do not include in this calculation certain longer passages
considered by them as not authentic, namely the end of St. Mark
(xvi, 9-20) and the episode of the adulteress (John, viii, 1-11).
(3) These conclusions of the editors of the Cambridge text have in
general been accepted by the majority of scholars. Those who have
written since them, for the past thirty years, B. Weiss, H. Von
Soden, R. C. Gregory, have indeed proposed different
classifications; but in reality they scarcely differ in their
conclusions. Only in two points do they differ from Westcott and
Hort. These latter have according to them given too much
importance to the text of the Vaticanus and not enough to the text
called Western. As regards the last-mentioned, modern discoveries
have made it better known and show that it is not to be overmuch
depreciated.
V. CONTENTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
The New Testament is the principal and almost the only source of
the early history of Christianity in the first century. All the
"Lives of Jesus Christ" have been composed from the Gospels. The
history of the Apostles, as narrated by Renan, Farrar, Fouard,
Weizs�cker, and Le Camus, is based on the Acts and the Epistles.
The "Theologies of the New Testament", of which so many have been
written during the nineteenth century, are a proof that we can
with canonical texts build up a compact and fairly complete
doctrinal system. But what is the worth of these narrations and
syntheses? In what measure do they bring us in contact with the
actual facts? It is the question of the historical value of the
New Testament which today preoccupies higher criticism.
A. History
Everybody agrees that the first three Gospels reflect the beliefs
regarding Jesus Christ and his work current among Christians
during the last quarter of the first century, that is to say at a
distance of forty or fifty years from the events. Few ancient
historians were in such favourable conditions. The biographies of
the C�sars (Suetonius and Tacitus) were not in a better position
to get exact information. All are forced to admit, moreover, that
in the Epistles of St. Paul we come into immediate contact with
the mind of the most influential propagator of Christianity, and
that a quarter of a century after the Ascension. The faith of the
Apostle represents the form of Christian thought most victorious
and most widespread in the Greco-Roman world. The writings of St.
John introduce us to the troubles of the Churches after the fall
of the Synagogue and the first encounter of Christianity with the
violence of pagan Rome; his Gospel expresses, to say the least,
the Christian attitude of that period towards Christ. The Acts
inform us, at all events, what was thought in Syria and Palestine
towards the year 65 of the foundation of the Church; they lay
before our eyes a traveller's diary which allows us to follow St.
Paul from day to day during the ten best years of his missions.
Must our knowledge stop here? Do the earliest monuments of
Christian literature belong to the class of writings called
"memoirs", and reveal only the impressions and the judgments of
their authors? Not a single critic (meaning those who are esteemed
as such) has yet ventured to underrate thus the historical worth
of the New Testament taken as a whole. The ancients did not even
raise the question, so evident did it seem to them that these
texts narrated faithfully the history of early Christianity. What
aroused the distrust of modern critics was the fancied discovery
that these writings although sincere were none the less biased.
Composed, as was said, by believers and for believers or, at all
events, in favour of the Faith, they aim much more at rendering
credible the life and teaching of Jesus than at simply relating
what He did and preached. And then they say these texts contain
irreconcilable contradictions which testify to uncertainty and
variety in the tradition taken up by them at different stages of
its development.
(1) It is agreed that the authors of the New Testament were
sincere. Were they deceived? If so the writing of truthful history
should, apparently, be given up altogether. They were near the
events: all eye-witnesses or depending immediately on eye-
witnesses. In their view the first condition to be allowed to
"testify" on Gospel history was to have seen the Lord, especially
the risen Lord (Acts, i, 21-22; 1 Cor., ix, 11; xi, 23; I John, i,
1-4; Luke, 1, 1-4). These witnesses guarantee matters easy to
observe and at the same time of supreme importance to their
readers. The latter must have controlled assertions claiming to
impose an obligation of faith and attended with considerable
practical consequences; all the more so as this control was easy,
since the matters were in question that had taken place in public
and not "in a corner", as St. Paul says (Acts, xxvi, 26; cf. ii,
22; iii, 13-14). Besides, what reasonable hope was there to get
books accepted which contained an altered form of the tradition
familiar from the teaching of the Churches for more than thirty
years, and cherished with all the affection that was borne to
Jesus Christ in person? In this sentiment we must seek the final
reason for the tenacity of ecclesiastical traditions. Finally,
these texts control each other mutually. Written in different
circumstances, with varying preoccupations, why do the agree in
substance? For history only knows one Christ and one Gospel; and
this history is based on the New Testament. Objective reality
alone accounts for this agreement.
It is true that these same texts present a multitude of
differences in details, but the variety and uncertainty to which
that may give rise does not weaken the stability of the whole from
a historical point of view. Moreover, that this is compatible with
the inspiration and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures, see
INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE. The causes of these apparent
contradictions have been long since pointed out: viz., fragmentary
narratives of the same events abruptly put side by side; different
perspectives of the same object according as one takes a front or
a side view; different expressions to mean the same thing;
adaptation, not alteration, of the subject-matter according to the
circumstances a feature brought into relief; documents or
traditions not agreeing on all points, and which nevertheless the
sacred writer has related, without claiming to guarantee them in
everything or decide the question of their divergence, These are
not subtelties or subterfuges invented to excuse as far as
possible our Evangelists. Similar observations would be made about
profane authors if there was anything to be gained by doing so.
Try for example to harmonize Tacitus with himself in "Histori�",
V, iv, and V, ix. But Herodotus, Polybius, Tacitus, Livy did not
narrate the history of a God come to earth to make men submit
their whole life to His word. It is under the influence of
naturalistic prejudice that some people easily, and as it were a
priori, are opposed to the testimony of the Biblical authors. Have
not modern discoveries come to show that St. Luke is a more exact
historian than Flavius Josephus? It is true that the authors of
the New Testament were all Christians, but to be truthful must we
be indifferent towards the facts we relate? Love does not
necessarily make us blind or untruthful, on the contrary it can
allow us to penetrate more deeply into the knowledge of our
subjects. In any case, hate exposes the historian to a greater
danger of partiality; and is it possible to be without love or
hate towards Christianity?
(2) These being the conditions, if the New Testament has handed on
to us a counterfeit of history, the falsification must have come
about at an early date, and be assignable neither to the
insincerity nor the incompetence of its authors. It is the early
Christian tradition on which they depend that becomes suspected in
its vital sources, as if it had been formed under influences of
religious instincts, which irrevocably doomed it to be mythical,
legendary, or, again, idealistic, as the symbolists put it. What
it transmitted to us was not so much the historical figures of
Christ (in the modern acceptation of the term) as His prophetic
image. The Jesus of the New Testament had become such as He might
or ought to have been imagined to be by one who saw in Him the
Messias. It is, doubtless, from the saying of Isaias, "Behold a
virgin shall conceive", that the belief in the supernatural
conception of Jesus springs--a belief which is definitely
formulated in the narratives of St. Matthew and St. Luke. Such is
the explanation current amongst unbelievers of to-day, and amongst
an ever-increasing number of liberal Protestants. It is
notoriously that of Harnack.
Avowedly or no, this way of explaining the formation of Gospel
tradition has been put forward principally to account for the
supernatural element with which the New Testament is permeated:
the objectivity of this element is refused recognition for reasons
of a philosophical order, anterior to any criticism of the text.
The starting-point of this explanation is a merely speculative
prejudice. To the objection that the positions of Strauss became
untenable the day that critics began to admit that the New
Testament was a work of the first century, and therefore a witness
closely following on the events, Harnack answers that twenty years
or even less suffice for the formation of legends. As regards the
abstract possibility of the formation of a legend that may be, but
it still remain to be proved that it is possible that a legend
should be formed, still more, that it should win acceptance, in
the same concrete conditions as the Gospel narrative. How is it
that the apocrypha never succeeded in forcing their way into the
might current that bore the canonical writings to all the
Churches, and got them accepted? Why were the oldest known to us
not composed till at least a century after the events?
Furthermore, if the Gospel narrative is really an exegetical
creation based on the Old Testament prophecies, how are we to
explain its being what it is? There is no reference in it to texts
of which the Messianic nature is patent and accepted by the Jewish
schools. It is strange that the "legend" of the Magi come from the
East at the summons of a star to adore the infant Jesus should
have left aside completely the star of Jacob (Num., xxiv, 17) and
the famous passage in Isaias, lx, 6-8. On the other hand, texts
are appealed to of which the Messianism is not obvious, and which
do not seem to have been commonly interpreted (then, at least) by
the Jews in the same way as by the Christians. This is exactly the
case with St. Matthew, ii, 15, 18, 23, and perhaps i, 23. The
Evangelists represent Jesus as the popular preacher, par
excellence, the orator of the crowd in town and country; they show
Him to us whip in hand, and they out into His mouth words more
stinging still addressed to the Pharisees. According to St. John
(vii, 28, 37; xii, 44), He "cries out" even in the Temple. Can
that trait in his physiognomy be readily explained by Isaias,
xlii, 2, who had foretold of the servant of Yahweh: "He shall not
cry nor have respect to person, neither shall his voice be heard
abroad"? Again, "The wolf shall dwell with the lamb . . . and the
sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp" (Isaias, xi, 6-8)
would have afforded material for a charming idyl, but the
Evangelists have left that realism to the apocrypha and to the
Millenarians. What passage of the Prophets or even of the Jewish
apocalypse, inspired the first generation of Christians with the
fundamental doctrine of the transitory character of the Law; and
above all, with the prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem and
its Temple? Once one admits the initial step in this theory, he is
logically led to leave nothing standing in the Gospel narrative,
not even the crucifixion of Jesus, nor His existence itself.
Solomon Reinach actually pretends that the Passion story is merely
a commentary on Psalm xxi, while Arthur Drews denies the very
existence of Jesus Christ.
Another factor which contributed to the alleged distortion of the
Gospel story was the necessity imposed on primitive Christianity
of altering, if it were to last, the conception of the Kingdom of
God preached by Jesus in person. On His lips, it is said, the
Gospel was merely a cry of "Sauve qui peut" addressed to the world
which He believed to be about to end. Such was also the persuasion
of the first Christian generation. But soon it was perceived that
they had to do with a world which was to last, and the teaching of
the Master had to be adapted to the new condition of things. This
adaptation was not achieved without much violence, done,
unconsciously, it is true, to historical reality, for the need was
felt of deriving from the Gospel all the ecclesiastical
institutions of a more recent date. Such is the eschatological
explanation propagated particularly by J. Weiss, Schweitzer,
Loisy; and favorably received by Pragmatists.
It is true that it was only later that the disciples understood
the significance of certain words and acts of the Master. But to
try and explain all the Gospel story was the retrospect of the
second Christian generation is like trying to balance a pyramid on
its apex. Indeed the hypothesis, in its general application,
implies a state of mind hard to reconcile with the calmness and
sincerity which is readily admitted in the Evangelists and St.
Paul. As for the starting-point of the theory, namely, that Christ
was the dupe of an illusion about the imminent destruction of the
world, it has no foundation in the text, even for one who regards
Christ as a mere man, except by distinguishing two kinds of
discourses (and that on the strength of the theory itself), those
that are traced back to Jesus, and those that have been attributed
to Him afterwards. This is what is called a vicious circle.
Finally, it is false that the second Christian generation was
prepossessed by the idea of tracing, per fas et nefas, everything-
-institutions and doctrines--back to Jesus in person. The first
generation itself decided more than once questions of the highest
importance by referring not to Jesus but to the Holy Spirit and to
the authority of the Apostles. This was especially the case with
the Apostolic conference at Jerusalem (Acts, xv), in which it was
to be decided in what concrete observances the Gospel was to take
the place of the Law. St. Paul distinguishes expressly the
doctrines or the institutions that he promulgates in virtue of his
Apostolic authority, from the teachings that tradition traced back
to Christ (I Cor., vii, 10, 12, 25).
Again it is to be presumed that if Christian tradition had been
formed under the alleged influence, and that, with such historical
freedom, there would remain less apparent contradictions. The
trouble take by apologists to harmonize the texts of the New
Testament is well known. If the appellation "Son of God" points
out a new attitude of the Christian conscience towards Jesus
Christ, why has it not simply replaced that of "Son of Man"? The
survival of the Gospels of this latter expression, close by in the
same texts with its equivalent (which alone showed clearly the
actual faith of the Church, could only be an encumbrance; nay
more, it remained as a telltale indication of the change that
came--afterwards. It will be said perhaps that the evolution of
popular beliefs, coming about instinctively and little by little,
has nothing to do with the exigencies of a rational logic, and
therefore has not coherence. Granted, but it must not be forgotten
that, on the whole, the literature of the New Testament is a
thoughtful, reasoned, and even apologetic work. Our adversaries
can all the less deny it this character, as, according to them,
the authors of the New Testament are "tendentious", that is to
say, inclined more than is right to give a bias to things so as to
make them acceptable.
B. Doctrines
They are: (1) specifically Christian; or (2) not specifically
Christian.
Doctrines Not Specifically Christian
Christianity being the normal continuation of Judaism, the New
Testament must needs inherit from the Old Testament a certain
number of religious doctrines concerning God, His worship the
original destinies of the world, and especially of men, the moral
law, spirits, etc. Although these beliefs are not specifically
Christian, the New Testament develops and perfects them.
* The attributes of God, particularly His spirituality, His
immensity, His goodness, and above all His fatherhood are insisted
on more fully.
* The moral law is restored to its primitive perfection in what
regards the unity and perpetuity of marriage, respect for God's
name, forgiveness of injuries, and in general the duties towards
one's neighbours; the guilt of the simple desire of a thing
forbidden by the Law is clearly set forth; external works (prayer,
almsgiving, fasting, sacrifice) really derive their worth from the
dispositions of the heart that accompany them.
* The Messianic hope is purified from the temporal and material
elements with which it had become enveloped.
* The retributions of the world to come and the resurrection of
the body are specified more clearly.
Specifically Christian Doctrines
Other doctrines, specifically Christian, are not added on to
Judaism to develop, but rather to supersede it. In reality,
between the New and Old Testaments there is a direct but not
revolutionary succession as a superficial observer might be
inclined to believe; just as in living beings, the imperfect state
of yesterday must give way before the perfection of to-day
although the one has normally prepared the other. If the mystery
of the Trinity and the spiritual character of the Messianic
Kingdom are ranked among the peculiarly Christian dogmas, it is
because the Old Testament was of itself insufficient to establish
the doctrine of the New Testament on this subject; and still more
because, at the time of Jesus, the opinions current among the Jews
went decidedly in the opposite direction.
* The Divine life common to the Three Persons (Father, Son and
Holy Ghost) in the Unity of one and the same Nature is the mystery
of the Trinity, obscurely typified or outlined in the Old
Testament.
* The Messias promised by the Prophets has come in the person of
Jesus of Nazareth, who was not only a man powerful in word and
work, but the true God Himself, the Word made man, born of a
virgin, crucified under Pontius Pilate, but risen from the dead
and now exalted to the right hand of His Father.
* It was by an ignominious death on the Cross, and not by power
and glory, that Jesus Christ redeemed the world from sin, death,
and the anger of God; He is the Redeemer of all men (Gentiles as
well as Jews) and He united them to Himself all without
distinction.
* The Mosaic Law (rites and political theocracy) having been given
only to the Jewish people, and that for a time, must disappear, as
the figure before the reality. To these practices powerless in
themselves Christ substitutes rites really sanctifying, especially
baptism, eucharist, and penance. However the new economy is to
such a degree a religion in spirit and truth, that, absolutely
speaking, man can be saved, in the absence of all exterior means,
by submitting himself fully to God by the faith and love of the
Redeemer.
* Before Christ's coming, men had been treated by God as slaves or
children under age are treated, but with the Gospel begins a law
of love and liberty written first of all in the heart; this law
does not consist merely in the letter which forbids, commands, or
condemns; it is also, and chiefly, an interior grace which
disposes the heart to do the will of God.
* The Kingdom of God preached and established by Jesus Christ,
though it exists already visibly in the Church, will not be
perfected until the end of the world (of which no one knows the
day or the hour), when He will come Himself in power and majesty
to render to each one according to his works. In the meantime, the
Church assisted by the Holy Spirit, governed by the Apostles and
their successors under the authority of Peter, teaches and
propagates the Gospel even to the ends of the earth.
* Love of our neighbour is raised to the height of the love of
God, because the Gospel makes us see God and Christ in all men
since they are, or ought to be, His mystical members. When
necessary, this love must be carried as far as the sacrifice of
self. Such is Christ's commandment.
* Natural morality in the Gospel is raised to a higher sphere by
the counsels of perfection (poverty and chastity), which may be
summed up as the positive renouncement of the material goods of
this life, in so far as they hinder our being completely given up
to the service of God.
* Eternal life, which shall not be fully realized until after the
resurrection of the body, consists in the possession of God, seen
face to faces, and of Jesus Christ.
Such are the fundamental points of Christian dogma, as expressly
taught in the New Testament. They are not found collected together
in any of the Canonical books, but were written throughout a
period extending from the middle of the first century to the
beginning of the second; and, consequently, the history of the way
in which they were expressed at different times can be
reconstructed. These texts never could, and were never meant to,
dispense with the oral tradition which preceded them. Without this
perpetual commentary they would not always have been understood
and frequently would have been misunderstood.
ALFRED DURAND
Transcribed by Ernie Stefanik
From the Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright � 1913 by the
Encyclopedia Press, Inc. Electronic version copyright � 1996 by
New Advent, Inc., P.O. Box 281096, Denver, Colorado, USA, 80228.
(
[email protected]) Taken from the New Advent Web Page
(www.knight.org/advent).
This article is part of the Catholic Encyclopedia Project, an
effort aimed at placing the entire Catholic Encyclopedia 1913
edition on the World Wide Web. The coordinator is Kevin Knight,
editor of the New Advent Catholic Website. If you would like to
contribute to this worthwhile project, you can contact him by e-
mail at (knight.org/advent). For more information please download
the file cathen.txt/.zip.
-------------------------------------------------------
Provided courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 22110
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Data: 703-791-4336
Web:
http://www.ewtn.com
FTP: ewtn.com
Telnet: ewtn.com
Email address: sysop@ ewtn.com
EWTN provides a Catholic online
information and service system.
-------------------------------------------------------
