Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-12-18


Latin Father and the first Latin version of
the holy scriptures. 4 * 4 When we hear
the exalted claims of the Roman vqlgate
let it be ever remembered that this famous
translation came from the Nile" How
Mr.. Thomas makes this mistake, cannot
understand, unless it be that he was mis-
led by word in Smiths dictionary of the
Bible, where it is said that the sItala''
originated in Africa. It originated
indeed in Africa, but far away from Alex
Carthage, between which and Egypt there
was neither community of language or of
philosophical thought. In Latin Africa,
too, lived the first Latin father, Tertullian.
The Peshito or Syric version is credited
canon, and on this account it's prestige in
the early Christian church be extols. ''The
Peshito was the Bible of the East, as the
old ITALIA was the Bible of the West" The
Psshito was the Bible of the little territory
in Asia Minor, where the Syrian language
was spoken. The "Bible of the East" was the
Greek Septuagint; but as the Septuagint
contains the "Apocrypha," Mr.. Thomas
conveniently drops it out of any position
of prominence. Still, rs to the Peshito,
the very first Syriac translation does not
contain the "Apocrypha," because it was q
translation from the Hebrew version which
did not contain them; indeed, at that
time there was no Hebrew copy of these
books extant. But it would be q grievous
mistake to assert that the Syrian bible did
not contain these books. They were trans
lated from the Greek and treated alike
with the books of the early Peshito. The
Syrian Father, st. Ephrem, quotes from
them, and, whatever Smiths dictionary
may say to the contrary, considers them as
genuine scripture. He prefaces his quota
tions with the words usually preceding
scriptural words ''as it's written'-''ss we
read in scripture" The old Syriac man
uscripts in the Ambrosian library of Milan,
i'll the Vatican library of Rome, in the
Archiepiscopal library of Damascus, con-
tain all the ''Apocrypha," and the Syrian
church for ages has never raised question
concerning the canonicity of these books.
Rev. Mr.. Thomas should be chafy of
praise for the Syriac version. He re-
jects with all his energy the passage of
john va on the pool of Beth
saba. But the Syriac version retains
the whole passage, and some early Syrian
versions, of which manuscripts are extant,
did not have the New Testament books of St.
Jude, Second Peter, Second and Third
John and the Apocalypse.
As to st. jerome, Mr.. Thomas says:
'These books he regarded SO lightly that
he translated only two of them, Judith and
Tobit, giving to each single day." Of
course he did not translate the 'Apocry-
pha'' as he did the other books of the Old
Testament from the Hebrew, for Hebrew
copies OF them were not extant-a very good
reason why Jerome did not translate them.
Tobit and Judith he found in the Chaldaic
language, and he translated them, ''giving
to each one a day"-a measure of time
quite sufficient for man versed, as Je-
rome, in Biblical languages. and whose
working day very likely consisted of
twenty hours.
We must have better evidence than
Mr.. Thomas has given us against
the books in question, before We condemn
tho Council of Trent and its decree.
THE DUETERo-CoUNCIL BOOKS.
The real history of the Deutero-canoni
cal books is the following. AS we have
said. they did not exist in the Hebrew ca
nor, but did in that Of the Septuagint. The
early Christian church in her synods,
through her fathers, in her dictionaries, ad
mitted them. There are quotations from
them even in the New Testament, if not
the exact repetition of words, at least that
of the meaning and substance, as Is usual
in New Testament quotations from the
Old. Compare Sap. v1IA36 with HEIR. I:
3; Eccli. XIV: 20 with John VI: 35; Eccli.
XIV: II with John III: z; 1 Mach. II: 80
with HEIR. II: 81, etc. Still lha f,..hs,-
were aware that these books were ncy in
the Hebrew, and this fact was occasional
ly stated by them, and the words ''extra-
canonical''-outside the Hebrew canon sec
clesiastical' admitted by church attached
to them. Some few, too, in the
absence of public definition of the church
spoke of them with less reverence than of
other books, and in a few instances spoke
| as if they scarcely knew what to think OF
them. No father is known to have posi-
| lively rejected them. Jerome certainly
| did not. although he allowed distinctionbe-
| tween them and other books in arguing
from them against Jews or heretics. There
were from the beginning grounds more than
sufficient upon which the church could base
decree placing these books in the canon.
as she did in the council of Carthage the
DEGREES of which the bishop of Rome &C
copied. Yet, as have often stated, there
was, without decree Of the church, sufi-
Gent room for doubt to render the COM
plete formation of a canon through mere
scholarship impossible.
| The very same difficulty occurred fol
the New Testament. It too has its Deutero
canonical books-books which were not fol
some time placed in the canon by univer
sal consent. They are the Epistles of st
James, the Second of Peter, that of jude
the Second and Third of John, thu
Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse
The early Syrian versions, among othe
authorities, did not contain these books
The question was finally settled for them
as for the Deutero-canonical books of tn
Old Testament. by the church, and without
the church the question would never hav
been settled.
We can fairly ask Mr.. Thomas what i
hisirule for the admission of books into tn
canon, and on this rule, whatever it ma,
be, we will show him that one book wheth
er of the Old or New Testament, bs
as much right to place III Il:
canon as another. But W
are very sure he will not state plainly and
briefly such rule, for, as I have again ant
again stated in my controversial discourse