The astute reader is probably taken aback by the title to this chapter, for which the author gives no apologies. The
even more astute reader might realize that this is a pun on the encyclical, Divino Afflante Spiritu, published September
30th, 1943. Alledgedly the work of Pius XII, more likely this was written by Fr Bea, one of his bad advisors and at this
time the pope's spiritual director. As we peruse this anthology of rationalism and unhinged scientific hypotheses the reader
should agree the title of this chapter is well merited. In the preceding chapters, more than a few barbs have been hurled at
the notion that Pius XII was an angelic pastor, whose pontificate was as completely removed from that of Good Pope John as
Judas is from St John the Evangelist. This chapter, and the ones that follow, will hopefully demolish that notion, and
convince Traditional Catholics that if they seek real reform, they had better look in the direction of heaven, and not of
Rome. Both the hope that Rome will reform itself, and that the pontificates of Pius IX through Pius XII represent some sort
of golden age of Catholicism to which we need to return, are chimeras that many have been chasing like a wounded camel chases
mirages in the desert, only to be disappointed many times in succession.
At this point in time many realize that scripture has been repeatedly attack. Most Catholics are familier with the
babble about how we have to seperate the "Jesus of the Gospels" from the "Historical Jesus". They tell us how the early
Christian communities conjured the parables of Jesus out of thin air to explain moral problems. They tell us of the battle
between the "Pauline" and the "Petrine" schools. Next thing they say is that Paul did not write his epistles and the gospels
had several authors before they were redacted and combined. The gospels, according to these exegetes, need to be
"demytholized", which basically means omitting many of the miracles our Lord worked as being hoaxes and fabrications. What
they do not realize, however, is that this exegetical and synoptic trainwreck occured long before Good Pope John came to
town. That will be demonstrated in the lines to follow.
But first, some background is in order. Once upon a time, the whole of Christendom accepted the utter, absolute
inerrancy of scripture, period. Then Galileo Galilei came to town. If this man, a respected astronomer, would have limited
his activities to describing the moons of Jupiter he discovered when observing the gas giant through the newly invented
telescope, history might be different. But Galileo decided he must also intrude into the realms of philosophy, theology, and
metaphysics, and championed the heliocentric theory of Nicolaus Copernicus as opposed to the generally accepted, but
problematic, geocentric theory of Claudius Ptolemy. Many of course, have portrayed Galileo as a hero who overthrew the
scholastic barbarians, and helped usher in the age of science. The real story is that "heliocentrism" is even more
problematic than Ptolomy's universe. Little known is the fact that a studious German astronomer, Tycho Brahe, made many
careful observations about the same time as Galileo, and developed a geocentric model so accurate it is still used to predict
solar eclipses and planetary occults. Unfortunately, Galileo and Copernicus won the battle for public recognition, swayed
the popes, and forced the Church to needlessly reconsider its stand on biblical inerrancy. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine in
particular wanted to seperate
"mathmatical processes" from the substance of scripture. This, in retrospect, proved to be a
fatal blunder, even though done with the best of intentions of defusing the conflict between Galileo and the Inquisition.
Some years later, Sir Isaac Newton unified Leibnez's newly developed differential calculus, his theory of gravity, and the
Copernican model into a very impressive scientific collosus which stands to this day, despite major experimental difficulties
too elaborate and involved to expound here. (Mention will be made of the fact that current astrophysical theory has the
eartrh in an elliptical orbit, with the sun as one of the foci. But modern astronomers are completely at a loss in how to
explain to the layman that a profound influence in the motions of the heavenly bodies is exerted by absolutely, and
precisely, the other foci, which is nothing.) Meanwhile, as scripture steadfastly points to an immovable earth in a
geocentric universe, the first cracks in the foundation of absolute biblical inerrancy began to appear.
For most of the world, these cracks remained but a few blips on the exegetical radar until the fateful voyage of His
Majesty's Ship the Beagle, in 1838, with naturalist Charles Darwin abourd. From a scientific point of view, Darwin
demonstrated, after all his observations and compilations of records concerning those studies on the Galapagos Islands, that,
if ten beagles are left stranded with adequate nutrition on a desolate Pacific Island devoid of canines, all the dogs on that
island fifty years later will pretty much resemble beagles. Quite a fertile imagination was required to derive from those
sets of data the postulates of natural selection and the origin of species. But, needless to say, Darwin's biology, married
to the sedimentology of Sir Charles Lyell, gave birth to a beast that has been rapaciously shredding traditional exegesis
ever since the late 19th century.
This beast was not long in appearing on the Ecclesiastical radar. But before the reaction of Pius IX and the gang can
be discussed, a long degression is going to be necessary to equip the reader with the capability to discern the slow slide of
biblical exegesis into oblivion.
When Our Lord Jesus Christ, son of Mary Most Holy, walked this earth, he probably spoke Aramaic, or Hebrew, though we do
not know for sure. Certainly he heard, and probably understood, at least enough Latin to discourse with Roman soldiers and
the aristocracy. We do know that the gospels were first written in Hebrew, the ancient language of the Jєωs, and Greek, as
the main thrust of the Apostolic Church was into those lands colonized by Greeks and later conquered and unified by Alexander
the Great, continuing much as they were when, subsequently, the Romans came to town. Meanwhile, the Old Testament had been
translated into Greek, the language of philosophers and scholars of the time, by the Seventy Elders of Alexandria, Egypt,
having been sponsored by Ptolemy II, a relative of the famous Cleopatra, about the 2nd Century Before Christ. This was
quoted extensively in the New Testament, especially by St Paul. (However, the Apostles also had other sources in Jєωιѕн
tradition they also quoted. For example, Mathew writes that "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremias the
prophet, saying: And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was prized, whom they prized of the
children of Israel." But one will look in vain for these words in the book of Jeremiah. Another example is St James: "When
Michael the archangel, disputing with the devil, contended about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him the
judgment of railing speech, but said: The Lord command thee." One will look in vain for this incident throughout all the
pages of the Old Testament. Exegesis is a complicated affair, folks.) As can be seen, during the Apostolic Age and for some
time after scripture was somewhat of a hodge-podge not readily available to the layman (which puts to rest a lot of
Protestant arguements). This all changed when St Jerome, a man of singular linguistic talent, came on the scene. Being
fluent in the three selfsame languages posted on the inscription above the head of Our Lord on the Cross, namely, Hebrew,
Greek, and Latin, he spent many years of painstaking research and prayerfully compiled what we know as the Latin Vulgate. In
the year 431, about 80 years after St Jerome finished his work, the Council of Ephesus declared 1) that the Vulgate was the
only authorized and acceptable version of the Holy Scriptures for use in missals and Church correspondance and 2) that only
those books declared as such were to be considered as absolutely inerrent and the work of the Holy Ghost; other writings of
the Apostles were extant, but these were relegated to the status of apochrapha. Scholars especially might derive edification
from perusing them, but they were not to enjoy the same status as the canonical books. This can be considered the birthday
of the bible as we know it. For centuries nobody dared contravene this verdict, until a monk by the name of Martin Luther
had the audacity to declare for himself and others what texts were authentic. In response the Council of Trent vehemenently
reaffirmed the declarations of the Council of Ephesus, and anathematized anybody who would dare contravene those statutes.
For the English Speaking world, in response to the Protestant mutulation of scripture, the Vulgate was translated into
English; The New Testament was finished at Rheims in 1582, while the Old Testament was compiled at Douay France and finished
in 1610. Later, about 1750, Bishop Richard Challoner compiled the annotations included in most typical Catholic editions (to
counter Protestant misinterpretations) and revised the text somewhat regarding archaic phrasology. For the English-speaking
world, that should be where the story ends.
But, as the reader has already guessed, our story is just beginning. Examples are legion; one will suffice. In 1819
William Ellery Channing preached an ordination sermon in Baltimore where he advocated historical method as a principle of
biblical interpretation. In other words, men of this stripe felt that the findings of science and archeology might expound
our understanding of scripture. Such figures proliferated going forward, especially as the speculations of Darwin and Lyell
challenged the creation account in Genesis. A man by the name of Rudolf Bultmann would really get the ball rolling, but as
he only came into prominence about 1910, that is getting a little ahead of the story.
The first reaction in the Church was under the pontificate of Leo XXIII. He sounds the alarm in PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUSS,
in the year 1893. Among other things, he states: "The Professor, following the tradition of antiquity, will make use of the
Vulgate as his text; for the Council of Trent decreed that 'in public lectures, disputations, preaching, and exposition,' the
Vulgate is the 'authentic' version; and this is the existing custom of the Church. At the same time, the other versions which
Christian antiquity has approved, should not be neglected, more especially the more ancient MSS. For although the meaning of
the Hebrew and Greek is substantially rendered by the Vulgate, nevertheless wherever there may be ambiguity or want of
clearness, the 'examination of older tongues,' to quote St. Augustine, will be useful and advantageous. But in this matter we
need hardly say that the greatest prudence is required, for the 'office of a commentator,' as St. Jerome says, 'is to set
forth not what he himself would prefer, but what his author says.'" Note that while Pope Leo affirms Trent, he opens a
slight crack with a reference to versions approved by "Christian antiquity". Whatever that term may mean, it precludes
Apostolic tradition.
Pius X attempted to close this crack with LAMENTABILI SANE, issued in 1907 which had many false propositions concerning
sacred scripiture condemned, amoung which are the following: "The Church's interpretation of the Sacred Books is by no means
to be rejected; nevertheless, it is subject to the more accurate judgment and correction of the exegetes." "Since the
deposit of Faith contains only revealed truths, the Church has no right to pass judgment on the assertions of the human
sciences." "They display excessive simplicity or ignorance who believe that God is really the author of the Sacred
Scriptures. "Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every
one, free from every error." "If he wishes to apply himself usefully to Biblical studies, the exegete must first put aside
all preconceived opinions about the supernatural origin of Sacred Scripture and interpret it the same as any other merely
human docuмent." "The narrations of John are not properly history, but a mystical contemplation of the Gospel. The
discourses contained in his Gospel are theological meditations, lacking historical truth concerning the mystery of
salvation." "John claims for himself the quality of witness concerning Christ. In reality, however, he is only a
distinguished witness of the Christian life, or of the life of Christ in the Church at the close of the first century." One
sees here a detailed attack on the errors of Protestant exagetes, and a much-needed breath of fresh air. Unfortunately,
however, the cracks opened by Leo XXIII were not so easily closed, even despite a decree by the Pontifical Biblical Commision
that the first seven chapters of Genesis are truly history and not to be read in an allogorical or symbolic manner.
Suffice to say that erosion will continue with Benedict XV and Pius XI. But the fizzure really opened wide on September
30th, 1943. The first ten or so paragraphs of Divino Afflante Spiritu are indeed a wonderful exposition of the steps taken
by the previous four popes to combat the rising tide of rationalist "demythology", whose principle advocate at this time was
Rudolf Bultmann. Many a reader will be lulled to sleep. But then we come to paragraph eleven: "There is no one who cannot
easily perceive that the conditions of biblical studies and their subsidiary sciences have greatly changed within the last
fifty years. For, apart from anything else, when Our Predecessor published the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus,
hardly a single place in Palestine had begun to be explored by means of relevant excavations. Now, however, this kind of
investigation is much more frequent and, since more precise methods and technical skill have been developed in the course of
actual experience, it gives us information at once more abundant and more accurate. How much light has been derived from
these explorations for the more correct and fuller understanding of the Sacred Books all experts know, as well as all those
who devote themselves to these studies. The value of these excavations is enhanced by the discovery from time to time of
written docuмents, which help much towards the knowledge of the languages, letters, events, customs, and forms of worship of
most ancient times. And of no less importance is papyri which have contributed so much to the knowledge of the discovery and
investigation, so frequent in our times, of letters and institutions, both public and private, especially of the time of Our
Savior." (One can only guess what this paragraph might have said if it had been written after the famous "Dead Sea Scrolls"
were discovered by Bedouin shepherds Muhammed Edh-Dhib, Jum'a Muhammed, and Khalil Musa, about November 1946.) At any rate,
these words obviously imply that the church suffered from a deficiency which can now be remedied! Move over St Jerome, here
come the archeologists and exegetes. "All these advantages which, not without a special design of Divine Providence, our age
has acquired, are as it were an invitation and inducement to interpreters of the Sacred Literature to make diligent use of
this light, so abundantly given, to penetrate more deeply, explain more clearly and expound more lucidly the Divine Oracles."
The implication here is that we are equipped to plumb more deeply into the divine mysteries than the Fathers of the Church,
who had the testimony of the Apostles themselves, now that we have microscopes and litmus paper. Moreover, the fathers were
at a distinct disadvantage, since "such was the state of letters in those times, that not many- and these few but
imperfectly- knew the Hebrew language." One does suppose that amoung those archeological finds was a copy of St Jerome's
grammer school report cards!
But get a load of this jargon: "And if the Tridentine Synod wished 'that all should use as authentic' the Vulgate Latin
version, this, as all know, applies only to the Latin Church and to the public use of the same Scriptures; nor does it,
doubtless, in any way diminish the authority and value of the original texts. For there was no question then of these texts,
but of the Latin versions, which were in circulation at that time, and of these the same Council rightly declared to be
preferable that which 'had been approved by its long-continued use for so many centuries in the Church.' Hence this special
authority or as they say, authenticity of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council particularly for critical reasons, but
rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown, in
the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it, to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and
morals; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in
disputations, in lectures and in preaching; and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as
juridical."
Needless to say, this distinction between "critical" and "juridical" does not exist in any previous Church pronouncement
concerning sacred scripture. Meanwhile, here are few questions for those rationalists masquerading as biblical scholars: By
what criteria can we discern that an ancient docuмent is venerable and trustworthy? Do scientists have some type of litmus
paper which turns blue if texts were written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost or red if they were fabricated by evil
men trying to lead souls astray (or just simply turning a profit). Meanwhile, something definitely changed. To quote but
one author: "It wasn't until the 1940s that the reins were loosened for Catholic biblical scholars when Pius XII in his 1943
Divino Afflanto Spiritu recommended that scholars have recourse to the original languages of texts and take into account
their literary forms. And on January 16th 1948 the secretary of the Pontifical Biblical Commission wrote to Cardinal Suhard,
the Archbishop of Paris, modifying the decree of 1906 on the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and allowing the question to
be freely studied. And the force of some of the earlier decrees of the Commission were modified in a rather backhanded way
in 1955." The citation does not matter here, just the facts, which are not products of this writer's imagination.
One sees throughout many parts of Divino Afflante Spiritu the sort of stuff that should only be coming from Kansas Cows.
St Jerome in particular is held in veiled contempt. "Nor should anyone think that this use of the original texts, in
accordance with the methods of criticism, in any way derogates from those decrees so wisely enacted by the Council of Trent
concerning the Latin Vulgate. It is historically certain that the Presidents of the Council received a commission, which
they duly carried out, to beg, that is, the Sovereign Pontiff in the name of the Council that he should have corrected, as
far as possible, first a Latin, and then a Greek, and Hebrew edition, which eventually would be published for the benefit of
the Holy Church of God. If this desire could not then be fully realized owing to the difficulties of the times and other
obstacles, at present it can, We earnestly hope, be more perfectly and entirely fulfilled by the united efforts of Catholic
scholars." The very thought the Vulgate of St Jerome stands in any need of correction is an affront to the Holy Ghost, pure
and simple.
Just what is the bottom line here? Well, consider what happened to the book of Tobias after exegetes studied and
corralated the Dead Sea Scrolls. In the Vulgate version, we have the following: "And Raphael said to Tobias: As soon as thou
shalt come into thy house, forthwith adore the Lord thy God: and giving thanks to him, go to thy father, and kiss him. And
immediately anoint his eyes with this gall of the fish, which thou carriest with thee. For be assured that his eyes shall be
presently opened, and thy father shall see the light of heaven, and shall rejoice in the sight of thee. Then the dog, which
had been with them in the way, ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and
wagging his tail. And his father that was blind, rising up, began to run stumbling with his feet: and giving a servant his
hand, went to meet his son." But here is the product of the exegetes (namely, the New American Bible): "Raphael said to
Tobiah before he came near to his father: 'I know that his eyes will be opened. Apply the fish gall to his eyes, and the
medicine will make the white scales shrink and peel off from his eyes; then your father will have sight again and will see
the light of day.' Then Anna ran up to her son, embraced him, and said to him, 'Now that I have seen you again, son, I am
ready to die!' And she sobbed aloud. Tobit got up and stumbled out through the courtyard gate to meet his son." The largest
single change one should notice is that the dog is missing from the second version. The dog is also missing from the Dead
Sea Scrolls, and the the earlier Greek codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Also, in the typical Latin editions of the book of
Tobias prior to St Jerome, namely, the Vetus Latina, no mutt is to be found, either. So where did St Jerome get his dog?
Perhaps he had access to docuмents no longer extant, like those that perished when the Muslim hordes burned the Library of
Alexandria in the year 682. Maybe the Holy Ghost barked in his ear. Seriously however, one should see that once details of
scripture are tampered with, an avalanche might ensue that would bury the Faith itself.
Many of course will instantly dismiss the New American Bible as being the product of post-Councilear bubbleheads, but
they cannot so easily refute this second example. In 1944, the English hierarchy approved for general use the translation of
the bible by Monsignor Ronald Knox, English theologian, priest, and crime writer on the side. In 1936 he was commissioned to
begin his work, completed only in 1945. The volume was given an imprimatur by Cardinal Griffin December 8th 1954. And why is
this important? First, here is the Latin translation of St John, chapter 21, verses 16, 17, and 18: "Dixit Jesus Simoni
Petro, diligis me plus his? Dicit ei: Etiam Domine, tu scis quia amo te. Dicit ei: PASCE AGNOS MEOS. Dicit ei iterum:
Simon Joannis, diligis me? Ait illi: Etiam Domine, tu scis quis amo te. Dicit ei: PASCE AGNOS MEOS. Dicit ei tertio: Simon
Joannis, amas me? Et dixit ei: Domine, tu omnia nostri; tu scis quia amo te. Dixit ei: PASCE OVES MEAS." Now here is the
English translation from the Vulgate: "When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest
thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: FEED MY LAMBS. He
saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith
to him: FEED MY LAMBS. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had
said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee.
He said to him: FEED MY SHEEP." Now we turn to the Knox version: "And when they had eaten, Jesus said to Simon Peter, Simon,
son of John, dost thou care for me more than these others? Yes, Lord, he told him, thou knowest well that I love thee. And he
said to him, FEED MY LAMBS. And again, a second time, he asked him, Simon, son of John, dost thou care for me? Yes, Lord, he
told him, thou knowest well that I love thee. He said to him, TEND MY SHEARLINGS. Then he asked him a third question, Simon,
son of John, dost thou love me? Peter was deeply moved when he was asked a third time, Dost thou love me? and said to him,
Lord, thou knowest all things; thou canst tell that I love thee. Jesus said to him, FEED MY SHEEP." One trusts the reader
can identify that shearlings are not essentially the same thing as lambs, because wolves can be sheared as well (their hair
actually makes good yarn for knitting). Moreover, tending is not the same as feeding, as any dog owner should know. A
footnote comes to the rescue: "Some of the Greek manuscripts here have 'my sheep', others 'my little sheep'; it would seem
that the second reading was accepted by the Latin, which translates 'lambs', here as in verse 15. Probably our Lord meant
yearling sheep, which would need to be tended, that is, led out to pasture, with greater care than the others."
One can readily see here that if rationalists are having problems with something so simple as sheep, just how will they
handle the more subtler passages of scripture? Given human propensity to call good evil and vice versa, one easily perceives
the slippery slope. And that explains the vehemence with which the saints have defended the integrity of Holy Scripture,
scrupulously protecting every jot and tittle. Tobias notwithstanding, it is Pius XII, Fr Bea (the purported author of Divino
Afflante Spiritu), and their fellow travelers who risk going to the dogs.
Topic: tampering with the Vulgate (Read 1589 times)