But do you really understand the Bible?


Too Many Know Too Little
About The Bible

Are You Prepared To
Understand The Bible?

Things You Must Know To
Understand The Bible

Real Purpose of Bible
To Teach Religion

But... Do You Have The
Complete Bible?

Follow These Rules When
Reading The Bible

Bible Translations...

Good and Bad
Why The Bible Needs An

Authoritative Interpreter



WAf the Knights o! Columbus

Advertise Catholic Faith

The reason is simple. We Catho-
lics want our non-Catholic friends

and neighbors to know us as we

really are and not as we are some

times mistakenly represented.

We are confident that when
our religious Faith is better un-

derstood by those who do not

share it, mutual understanding

will promote the good-will which

is so necessary in a predominant-

ly Christian country whose gov-

ernment is designed to serve all

the people—no matter how much

their religious convictions may

differ.

American Catholics are con-

vinced that as the teachings of

Christ widely and firmly take

hold of the hearts and conduct

of our people, we shall remain

free in the sense that Christ

promised (John VIII, 31-38),

and in the manner planned by

the Founding Fathers of this

republic.

Despite the plainly stated will

of the Good Shepherd that there

be "one fold and one shepherd,”

the differences in the understand-

ing of Christ’s teaching are

plainly evident. It has rightfully

been called "the scandal of a

divided Christianity.”

If there is anything which will

gather together the scattered

flock of Christ, it is the nation-

wide understanding of the

Savior, what Fie did and how He
intended mankind to benefit by

the Redemption.

To this end, we wish our

fellow-Americans to become ac-

quainted with the teachings of

Christ as the Catholic Church

has faithfully presented them,

since the day the apostles in-

vaded the nations of the world

in willing and courageous obedi-

ence to Christ’s command: "Go,

therefore, and make disciples of

all nations . . .” (Matt. XXVIII,

19).

SUPREME COUNCIL

KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS
Religious Information Bureau

4422 LINDELL BLVD. ST. LOUIS 8, MO.

©Knights of Columbus 1950



Too Many Know Too Little
About The Bible

Millions of people the

world over find consolation

in the Bible. They find in-
spiration and guidance for

the ups and downs of their
daily lives in reading and

re-reading its pages ... at

least their favorite passages.

Years ago thousands of

our fellow citizens took ad-

vantage of the Knights of

Columbus’ offer of a free copy of

the FOUR GOSPELS, arranged for
daily reading, and the BOOK OF
PSALMS. Many of these since have
written grateful letters indicating

the powerful and beneficial influ-
ence of these books upon their lives.

Anyone who has listened to
radio quiz programs knows that
the Bible is the world’s all-time

"best seller.” If the number of
Bibles published since the inven-

tion of the printing press were

known, it would be an astro-
nomical figure.

But, unfortunately, not all copies

of the Bible in circulation are

read. That is especially true of

those which are distributed in
pagan lands where natives some-
times use them as padding for
clothes and shoes, for cigarette

papers and other uses.

In many Christian homes
in this country, the Bible

is gathering dust in book
cases and is not read with
regularity — if at all. Pro-
fessors of English literature

in colleges and universities
today complain of the "ig-
norance of the Bible,”— an

ignorance which makes it
impossible for their students to

understand and appreciate refer-

ences to the Sacred Scripture with

which the English classics abound.

In the issue of May 8th, 1950,
TIME magazine reported a survey
made among 2,000 young people
between 18 and 29 years of age.

Of the 79% who said that "they
believed in the Bible,” 77% con-
fessed that they never read it.

Without a doubt, if such a survey

were made nationwide, the find-
ings would be pretty much the
same. Too many people who
"believe in the Bible,” even those

who talk about the Bible, seldom
will be found reading it.

It is not our purpose here to

discuss the various reasons for this

widespread apathy toward Bible

reading. But we do point out that
even among those who read the

1



Bible, too many know too little
about it. As a result, their novel
interpretations of the Bible have

sown the seeds of disunity among
Christians and have caused effects

which are not good and beneficial
for society. They have brought the
Bible, and even Christianity itself,

into disrepute, especially in the

minds of the many people who
have little practical interest in re-

ligion and only a meager firsthand
knowledge of the Bible.

Bible Misunderstood

It is, of course, no reflection
on the Bible that many readers
misunderstand it because they know
so little about it. The Bible cannot
protect itself from the misuse of
misguided men. And even though
many honest and sincere people
derive high ideals and the courage

to live truly noble lives from read-
ing its pages, others derive strange,

startling and even subversive prin-

ciples and practices from those
same pages and as a result exert
an evil influence.

From time to time, we read in
the newspapers of people who have
gouged out their eyes or cut off

a hand in obedience to what they
thought was the correct meaning
of Christ’s word: "If thy right eye

offend thee, pluck it out and cast

it from thee...” (Matt. V:20-30).
We read of others who drink
poison or allow themselves to be

stung by venomous snakes to prove
their faith in Christ’s words: "They
shall take up serpents; and if they
drink anything deadly, it shall not

hurt them” (Mark XVI: 18). Others
refuse to bear arms for their

country against aggressors and they
base their position on the words of
Christ: "Resist not evil,” and "turn
to him the other cheek” (Matt.
V:39).

It is fortunate that not all

readers of the Bible, and all who
profess to shape their lives accord-

ing to the teachings of Jesus Christ,

take these literally. Otherwise the

world would teem with one-eyed
and one-armed monsters; the popu-
lation would be notably lessened by
those who died from snakebite or
from drinking deadly poison. In-
deed, would there be any followers
of Jesus left in the world? And if
all Christians were absolute pac-
ifists, it would be a simple matter
for an aggressor nation to invade

our country, enslave us all and de-
stroy freedom in the land.

Did Christ ever use figurative
language? Did He address some of
His words to individuals as private

citizens and not to society at large?

Were some of His directions mere-
ly in the form of advice and not of

strict obligation — meant not as
absolutely indispensable conditions

for becoming His followers, but as
counsels for those who would give
up all things to imitate Him as
closely as possible?

Right Meaning
If the advice of the Lord not to

resist evil were meant for govern-

ments as well as for individuals,

what is the meaning of St. Paul’s

words that "the powers that be are

ordained of God, and have been

intrusted by God with the sword
to execute vengeance on evil-doers”

2



(Rom. XIII)? How can a govern-
ment maintain order and protect
its citizens unless it can repel the

threat of invasion by force (1 Tim.

II: 1-2) and arrest and justly punish

those who menace the peace?
The majority of serious and well-

intentioned Bible readers do not
take literally such statements as we
have cited. Or if they do, they
recognize that these statements

have restrictions and limitations in

the light of other equally impor-

tant passages.

In any case, somebody is mis-
reading the Bible. Either the state-

ments of Christ are to be under-

stood literally, and then those who
take them figuratively are wrong,
or they were meant to be taken
figuratively, and then the literalists

are wrong.

Somebody needs a better under-
standing of the Bible.

The Reading Of Holy Scripture
Truth, not eloquence, is to be sought in reading the Holy Scriptures;

and every part must be read in the spirit in which it was written.

For in the Scriptures we ought to seek profit rather than polished

diction.

Likewise we ought to read simple and devout books as will-

ingly as learned and profound ones. We ought not to be swayed
by the authority of the writer, whether he be a great literary light

or an insignificant person, but by the love of simple truth. We
ought not to ask who is speaking, but mark what is said. Men
pass away, but the truth of the Lord remains forever. God speaks

to us in many ways without regard for persons.

Our curiosity often impedes our reading of the Scriptures,

when we wish to understand and mull over what we ought simply

to read and pass by.

If you would profit from it, therefore, read with humility,
'

simplicity, and faith, and never seek a reputation for being learned.

Seek willingly and listen attentively to the words of the saints; do

not be displeased with the sayings of the ancients, for they were

not made without purpose.
Thomas a Kempis

3



THINGS YOU MUST KNOW
TO UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE

The more we know about
the life and times of Shake-

speare, and the people of
whom he wrote, the better
can we understand and ap-
preciate his collected plays.

This is also true of the

Bible.

Yet many people begin
to read the Bible with little

or no knowledge of its
background or its human authors.

We speak of "authors,” for the
Bible is not a single book, written

by one author at one time and in

one language. It is a collection of

books originally written partly in

Hebrew, partly in Aramaic and
partly in Greek.

The oldest of these books was
written perhaps as far back as 1400

years before Christ, and others at

various intervals from then on

down to the Book of Revelation
( or Apocalypse, as the Catholic

Versions entitle it), which was

written toward the end of the first

century of the Christian era. There

is accordingly an interval of 1200
to 1500 years between the writing

of the first and the writing of the

latest book in the collection which
has come to be known as the Holy
Bible or the Sacred Scriptures.

The number of titles of
books listed in the index

of the King James Version
is 39 for the Old Testament
and 27 for the New, a total
of 66. In the index of the

Catholic versions, the num-
ber of titles given for the

Old Testament is 46 and for
the New, 27 — a total of 73
books. The reason for this

difference will be discussed later in

this pamphlet. The point here em-
phasized is simply that the Bible

is not a single book composed by
one author, but a series of books

by many different authors, writing
in widely separated periods of time,

using varying languages, and re-

flecting the thought patterns of the

age in which they wrote.

The series of books making up
the Old Testament was gathered
together by the Synagogue, that is,

the Jewish religious authorities. In

all probability, they did not reach

a final decision until the synod of

Jamnia in Palestine held toward the

close of the first Christian century,

about 90 A.D. There was at the

same time in circulation among
the Jews outside Palestine, a Greek

translation of the Hebrew Scrip-
tures. This version contained several

4



books which were excluded from

the biblical library assembled and

closed by the Rabbis at Jamnia. It

was this Greek translation with its

fuller contents which was taken

over by the early Christian Church

and was later declared official by

the Church authorities.

Church Preceded Bible

The series of books contained in
the New Testament section of the
Bible was gathered together by the

Christian Church, which, however,

did not reach a final decision for

several cenmries a]ter the inaug-

uration of Christianity. The early
Church is responsible for the New
Testament collection of the Holy
Scriptures. The Church existed and
functioned for several centuries be-

fore the collection was completed
and made official.

Accordingly the Bible which the

Jews use today contains only the

Old Testament, and only those
books of the Old Testament which
the Rabbis at Jamnia decided
should be included in the biblical

library. The Christian Bible con-
tains in addition to what is in the
Jewish Bible, several other books
which were a part of the Greek
translation of the Hebrew Old
Testament, or which were written
originally in Greek and added to
the version. But since the sixteenth
century, the Bible used generally

by the Protestants omits those Old
Testament books which the early
Christian Church received ( not
without doubts and hesitation in
some quarters, it is true; but by
the end of the fifth century, these
were all settled) from the Greek

version in addition to the ones in

the Jewish Old Testament fixed
at Jamnia.

The vast majority of the books
of the Old Testament were written
originally in Hebrew. Only two
books. Wisdom and Second Macha-
bees (at present omitted from the
King James Bible) were composed
originally in Greek. Portions of

Daniel (II;4 - VII:28) and of
Ezra (IV:7-VI:18 and VII: 12-26)
were originally written in Aramaic.
Of the New Testament all the
books were originally written in
Greek except the Gospel according
to St. Matthew, which was written
originally in Aramaic. Such is the
position commonly held in the
early Church.

These ancient languages differ

considerably in construction, syntax

and method of writing from our
modern languages. First the form
of the letters of the alphabet under-

went change or evolution in the
course of the centuries. The Phoeni-
cian script was first used; this
gradually changed to the Aramaic
script, and then about the time of
our Lord or a little later, the form
of the Hebrew letters familar in
present day printed Hebrew Bibles
came into use.

Cause Of Confusion
In the earliest manuscripts, there

was no spacing between words.
There were no vowels in the text,
no punctuation and no capitaliza-
tion. The writing contained nothing
but consonants, for which the
vowels had to be supplied from
memory. This became a source of
confusion. For example, the three

5



consonants D-B-R can be read
either as dabar (two long "a”s) or

dabar (one long and one short "a”),
or deber or dober, and accordingly
may mean he spoke, he ruled, a
word, an affair, a cause or reason,

a law suit, pestilence, death, pasture.

Only the other words in the sent-
ence can be appealed to in order to

decide which meaning is intended.

As for the absence of spacing
between words, it can readily be
shown how easily that arrangement
can lead to variant understandings.

Here is an example of a string of
letters from our own alphabet
with no spacing. Try to read it;
AMANCURESTHETIC. It can
result by introducing spacing here

and there as A MAN CURES
THE TIC, or AMAN, CUR,
ESTHETIC. Years ago, a personal
news item appeared in a country
paper. It read: "Mrs. B .. . is having
a visit from her uncleand aunt.” The
typesetter had ommitted the space
between the words uncle and and.

Language Oddities
In Hebrew, and less frequently

in Greek, the change or omission

of spacing can lead to considerable

change in the sense. Similarly the

insertion of variant vowels can ap-

preciably alter the meaning of a
text. For example, in Psalm 91
in the old Latin and Greek trans-
lations, there is question of "busi-

ness that walketh about in the

dark.” The King James Version
handles the phrase correctly when
it renders it: "pestilence that

walketh in darkness.” The variation
is the result of supplying different

vowels. The old translators read

dabar; the King James translators
read deber.

These few examples show clearly
the difficulties attendant on making
a correct rendering of an old

Hebrew text. It is true that vowels
were added to the Hebrew text about
the seventh century of the Christian

era, but then the Latin and Greek
and Syriac and other ancient ver-
sions had been in existence and
use for centuries. It is also true that

spacing and punctuation were
added in the course of time, but
not soon enough for the earliest
translators to be benefited or as-
sisted by them. And anyway, may
we not with reason inquire whether
those who spaced the words and
added the vowels to the text were
always correct?

Not infrequently modern trans-
lators of the original texts depart

from the spacings and vocalization
added by the Jewish scholars about

the seventh century A. D. and get
meanings widely different from one
another and from the King James
Version. One example will suffice.
It is from Psalm 2, 11.
King James: Serve the Lord with

fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the son lest he be angry.

Moffat: Worship the Eternal
reverently, shudder and submit to
him, do homage to him truly.

Goodspeed: Serve the Lord with

fear, kiss his feet with trembling.

Roman: Serve the Lord reverently,
and rejoice in him; tremblingly do
homage to him.

Douay-Rheims: Serve the Lord

in fear and rejoice unto him with
trembling. Embrace discipline.
A good presentation of the diffi-

6



culties that accompany the work of
translating the Scriptures out of

the Old Testament originals will be
found in Moffat’s T^he Bible, A
New Translation, pp. xix-xxi: In
Problems of New Testament Trans-
lation, Dr. Goodspeed discusses the
same point in regard to translating
the New Testament.

Can You Read It?
Suppose a very familiar passage

of the Bible in the English Version

is here set down without vowels,
without spacing, all in capitals.

Here is what it looks like, and the
reader will probably have much dif-
ficulty in recognizing the passage:

RFTHRWHRTNHVNHLLWD
BTHNMTHTHKNGDMCMTHW
LLBD
NNRTHSTSNHVNGVSTHSD

RDLBRDNDFRGVSRDBTSSWF
RFVRDBTRSNDLDSNTNTMP

TTNBTDLBRSFRMBL
That is The Lord’s Prayer!

Change the letters to those of the
Hebrew alphabet, and imagine the
difficulty of understanding an origi-

nal Hebrew text without spacing or
vowels.

The Hebrews who wrote the Old
and most of the New Testament
did not think, and consequently
did not express themselves, in quite

the way to which we of the twen-
tieth century are accustomed. Yes,

it is true that God is the principal
author of the Bible; He inspired
it all, but it is also true that He
poured His thought into the mold
of the Hebrew mind and allowed
it to be expressed accordingly. It

therefore assumes some of the
characteristics and some of the

limitations of the fragile mold of
human speech.

Readers of the Bible should

understand some of the character-
istics of the Hebrew mentality
which have conditioned the mes-
sage of divine revelation God
wished to impart through the pages
of the Bible.

First, the Hebrew mind was not
analytic, that is it did not take

apart, break up into its component
elements the ideas with which it
dealt. We, on the other hand, are
trained by education to the labora-
tory technique of tearing down
machines and chemical compounds
to see what they are made of and
how they work. The Hebrew was
inclined rather to gather and com-
bine fragments of thoughts and
correlated ideas and express them
in broad general principles. For

example, we like exact figures; the
authors of the Bible were content
with such vague expressions as

"seventy times seven’’ (Matt.

XVIII: 2 2), namely, times without

number.

Meaning Different Too
"One thousand’’ means an in-

definitely large number. Especially

in the Book of Revelation are
numbers used in a symbolic sense,
and he who would take them with
arithmetical exactness would make
a great mistake. The thousand
years during which the just are
said to reign with Christ (Rev.

XX: 4) means an indefinite period
of time, and is understood by the
majority of interpreters (non-

Catholic and Catholic) to designate
the whole Messianic or Christian

7



period from the first Pentecost
down to the end of the world. The
passage has given rise to the well

known expression "millenium,”
which means a period of great
happiness and prosperity. In the

same book, the numbers seven and
twelve by no means designate a
mathematical quantity but simply

a relative plentitude, while three

and a half designates something
brief or uncertain.

Numbers For Names
With regard to the subject of

numbers, an ancient practice of

designating individuals by the
numerical equivalent of their names
must be kept in mind. This device
was used especially when the name
could not be mentioned without
running the risk of being appre-

hended by the secret police and
thrown into prison or to the lions
in the arena.

In ancient times before the in-

troduction of the Arabic numerals

into the western world, the letters

of the alphabet were used to ex-
press numbers. The first ten letters
of the alphabet stood for the num-
bers from one to ten; the letters
from the eleventh on stood for
one hundred, two hundred, etc.
Accordingly, the beast in Rev.

XIII: 18, whose number is that of
a man, 666, designates an histori-
cal or political entity. Two eminent
Protestant commentators ( Swete
and Charles) suggest Nero Caesar,
as the numerical value of the letters

making up this name totals 666.
It was this Roman Emperor who
started the Roman civil govern-
ment on its spree of persecution

against the Christians, which en-
dured well over two hundred years,
and thus Nero is an apt symbol of
any persecuting civil monarch or
government.

The Hebrews also had a way of
counting the years of a man’s reign
which is rather disconcerting to
the exact historian of the twentieth

century. They always counted a
part of a day, year or month as a
whole unit. Thus, it is possible
that a king may have occupied the
throne but for a few days, yet if
some of these days were at the
close of one year and the rest at
the beginning of a new year, this
king would be said to have reigned
for two years. In this way, Christ’s
sojourn in the tomb during the
period between His burial and

resurrection is counted as three

days, although He spent probably
less than thirty-six hours in the

tomb. But since a few of these
hours came at the close of Friday
and another few at the beginning
of Sunday, according to the ancient

Jewish method of counting time, it
can truthfully be said that He spent
three days in the tomb. Similarly

forty years is a round number
roughly designating a generation

which can vary in length.

Shades Of Meaning
Another characteristic of the

Jewish mode of thought and ex-
pression which can be misleading

to western readers is the habit of

failing to recognize, or at least

to give expression to, finer shades

of feeling or emotion. Thus, for

example, the Jewish mind at the
time the Old and New Testament

8



were written did not as a rule distin-

guish nicely between love, attrac-

tion and preference on the one
hand, and dislike, aversion and
hatred on the other hand. Accord-
ingly, the apparently harsh state-

ment of our Lord, "If any man
come to me, and hate not his
father, and mother, and wife, and
children, and brethren, and sisters,

yea, and his own life, he cannot
be my disciple” (Luke XIV: 26)
loses all its repulsive harshness

when we recall that "to hate” ac-
cording to the Hebrew mode of
speech simply means "to love less”
or "to give one’s preference to

another.” When we read: "Jacob
have I loved, but Esau have I
hated” (Rom. IX: 13 quoted from
Mai. 1:2-3), the meaning is simply:
"I have preferred Jacob to Esau.”

Another Difference
Again, the Hebrew mind did

not distinguish carefully between
different degrees of responsibility

for an action. For example, if a
person who can prevent an action
does not do so, the Hebrew writer
not infrequently will attribute that

action to the one who did not
intervene to prevent it, although

the immediate responsibility is
really attributable to another. We
read for example "shall there be
evil in a city, and the Lord hath
not done it” (Amos III: 6). This
oratorical question does not mean
that the Lord, Who is all good and
cannot be the direct cause of moral
evil, or even directly will physical
evil for its own sake, is the direct
cause of evil. But He permits it
as a punishment on the people for

their wickedness and infidelity. And
the Hebrew writer, following his
unanalytical bent, says in effect that

God is the cause of all the evil in
a city. We know that the sacred
writer means that God does not
do the evil; He merely permits it.

*1 Create Evil”

Another passage which may
easily shock the unenlightened

reader of the Bible is Isaiah

XLV:7: "I create evil: I the Lord
do all these things.” If, however,
the reader is acquainted with the

Hebrew thought patterns and takes
into account the whole passage
where this statement occurs, he will
be able to extract a very satis-
factory meaning out of the words.
The idea running through this
passage is that God’s Providence

controls and shapes the destiny of
Israel. He has caused the victories
of Cyrus over the Babylonians, so

that Cyrus may allow the Jews to
return home, reestablish their re-
ligious worship at Jerusalem, and
thus preserve the knowledge and
worship of the one true God and
the hope of the Redeemer to come.
Similarly God has brought about
the evils which afflicted the Jews
in punishment of their sins— evils
which were visited on them by the
Assyrian and Babylonian monarchs
as instruments in the hands of God
to punish the Jews for their sins.
In that sense — a perfectly intellig-
ible sense — God creates evil.
The Hebrew mind had little use

for the abstract; it much preferred
to express abstract principles in

concrete terms. Thus, instead of

saying that those who would be

9



true followers of Christ should be

prepared to sacrifice even that

which is most dear to us rather
than be untrue to Him, the Master
says: "If thy right eye scandalize

thee, pluck it out,” and St. Paul to
express the willingness of the

Galatians to make the greatest
sacrifices for

^

him, says that they

would have plucked out their eyes
and given them to him. (Gal.IV:15).

' Our Lord, instead of giving ex-
pression to the colorless, unimagi-

native principle that we should not
point out the trifling defects of our

fellow man, when we ourselves are
disfigured with shortcomings, puts

it in this expressive and graphic
way: "Why beholdest thou the
mote, i.e. (tiny speck) that is in

thy brother’s eye, but considerest

not the beam that is in thy own
eye (Matt. VII: 3)?”

What Does It Mean?
The Jewish way is to make

sweeping general statements with
no restrictions or qualifications
whatever, yet it is quite obvious

that restrictions are to be made.

For example, Jesus says categori-

cally: "No man can serve two
masters” (Matt. VI: 24). The obvi-
ous meaning is that no one can
serve two masters who are opposed
to each other, but if the masters

are in harmonious subordination
or coordination one to the other,
we not only can but must serve
them both. Thus, St. Paul com-
mands us to be subject to the civil
authorities (Rom. XIII: 1-6). And
surely this is compatible with our

obedience and service owed to God,
as long as the civil authority does

not demand for itself the right to
disregard God’s law, and remains
within its proper domain. And the
Master Himself commands us to
render to Caesar the things that

are Caesar’s, and to God the things
that are God’s (Matt. XXII: 21).
Sweeping statements in the Bible
are not therefore to be taken with

absolute literalness.

Also it must be remembered
that words in current use in
Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek two
thousand years ago, when literally
translated into twentieth century

English do not always have the
exactly identical meaning they con-
veyed in ancient times. For ex-

ample, John 11:4 presents Jesus
addressing His mother as "Woman.”
It would be considered highly
disrespectful today for a son to

address his mother in that way.

But in ancient times, it was not

so. In both Greek and Jewish
circles, the term was considered

to be one indicative of the highest

respect, equivalent to "My Lady,”
as may be verified by consulting
any good lexicon such as Liddel

and Scott, or Thayer.

Then there is the term "brother,”
which can easily mislead an un-

wary Bible reader. In ancient times

in Hebrew circles the term was
used to designate not only that

relative who had the same parent
or parents but also to indicate

more distant relatives, such as
cousins, uncles, etc. It is very easy

to verify this wider sense of the

term "brother” in Biblical usage.

For example, in Genesis XIII: 8,

Abraham says to Lot: "We are
brethren,” and we know from

10



Genesis XI, 27 that Lot was

Abraham’s nephew.

Thus when we find in the
Gospels that James, Joseph, Jude

and Simon are called "the brethren”
of Christ, this does not mean that
they were sons of Mary, His

Mother. Nowhere in the Gospels
are they called the sons of Mary
or is there any indication that

Mary had any children other than
Jesus Christ. Following the use of

language then prevailing, the

cousins of Jesus would be referred
to as His "brethren.”

Yes—Who Is Right?
Another source of difficulty in

arriving at a correct understanding

of the Bible is the symbolic and
figurative language with which it
abounds. Whether or not certain
expressions are to be taken liter-

ally or not has given rise to sharp

differences. The most famous ex-
ample is the words of Jesus; "This
is my body . . . This is my blood . .

.”

(Mark XIV: 22-24). Catholics un-
derstand the words literally; the
majority of Protestants understand

them figuratively. Who is right?
The best known example of

symbolic language is to be found

in the Book of Revelation. The
description of heaven, of the beasts

and the dragon and many other
things are all symbolic and stand
for realities quite different than the

words express in their literal sense.
The untrained reader of the Bible
can easily be led astray by this
mode of expression.

Until the invention of printing

about 1450 A.D., the Scriptures

were laboriously copied by hand.
There are many thousands of hand-
written copies of the Bible, whole
or partial, in Hebrew, Greek, Latin
and other ancient languages, not to
speak of the handwritten copies in

English and other modern lan-
guages. It is inevitable when copies
of any document are handwritten
that mistakes be made. These are
due to misinterpretation or ignor-

ance, or misreading the master copy,

or to deliberate changes.

It has been estimated that there

are about two hundred thousand
variants in the existing New Test-
ament manuscript copies alone. The
vast majority of these do not affect
the meaning in any essential way,
as they consist of variations in the

order of words, the substitution of

synonyms, different spelling and so
forth. Only about fifteen of these

variants affect the substantial mean-

ing of the passages, and such pass-

ages can always be corrected in

the light of other passages which

touch on the same matter and

where there is no textual difficulty.

But these differing copies do com-

plicate for the experts the problem

of getting back to the original

text of the inspired word.

For Clear Meaning
It is the job of textual critics

to restore the text of the Bible as

closely as possible to the original

reading. In doing this, these critics

have the aid of ancient versions,

quotations from the text in ancient

writings, and the manuscript copies

in the original language. By investi-
gating all the evidence and follow-

11



ing a well fixed set of rules for

deciding on the correct wording
of the text, one can usually arrive
at a comparatively certain restora-

tion of the text. It is, however, no
easy task, and there always remain
a certain number of texts where
more or less plausible but far from
certain hypotheses and conjectures
must be employed in order to ar-
rive at an intelligible meaning.

There are, particularly in the Old
Testament, some passages where
the Hebrew text has been so mis-
copied that it has become mean-
ingless. In such cases, if the ancient

versions do not clear up the diffi-

culty, the critics will have to be
satisfied with probable guesses as
the way the text originally stood.

It will readily be appreciated
that this matter of textual variants

in the manuscripts renders the task

of getting at the meaning of the
original copies far from easy. It
is the work of well-trained experts
to restore the text of the Scrip-

tures. They need to have a mastery
of the Biblical languages, be able
to decipher ancient handwriting

and understand and apply carefully
the principles which govern the
restoration of the correct text of

the Bible.

From Preface of Confraternity Edition of

THE NEW TESTAMENT
"The word of the Lord endures forever,” is the saying of a great
prophet (Isa. 40, 8) and of the Prince of the Apostles (1 Pet. 1, 25).

In her belief in the divine authority and the perfect truth of

the Bible, as being the inspired Word of God, the Catholic Church
has never hesitated. Nor has the Church forgotten that this sacred
Book was destined by its Author to convey His message to all His
faithful servants of every place and time. Neither has she over-

looked the fact that this message must lie sealed and silent to many
of her children unless given them in their own language, at least
by the voice of their pastors, if not by means of the written page.

Further, the Church always has realized that Holy Scripture

was committed to her charge by virtue of its very origin and

object. Like the Apostolic Tradition of Christ's teaching, the Bible,

too, is a treasury of divine revelation. As such, it can have no
rightful guardian and dispenser except that Church which Christ

formed and commissioned to teach to all the world the truths re-

vealed for man’s salvation. There can be no graver crime than the

least corruption of that eternal truth which Christ has brought us.

The Church is, therefore, watchful over Holy Scripture; and not
only over its message, but likewise over its written transmission.

12



BUT.. .DO YOU HAVE
THE EDMPLETE BIBLE?

A question of basic import-
ance for readers of the Bible

deals with the number of
books which should be in-
cluded in the Bible as the

inspired word of God.
The King James or au-

thorized Version (at least

in the editions commonly
circulated) has seven fewer
books than the Bible which
the Catholic Church uses. Could it
be that the users of the King James
Version have had an incomplete
Bible ever since this version was
first made?

In the May, 1950, number of
The Christian Herald, a leading
Protestant periodical, on page 56
there is an advertisement which
announces: THE COMPLETE
BIBLE. What is meant is that
the edition here advertised con-

tains what have come to be
known among Protestants as the
Apochrypha.

Now what are the Apochrypha?
They are the seven books which
the Bible used by the Catholic
Church for centuries has contained
and contains today. But since the
sixteenth century these books have
been usually and generally omitted
from the King James Version. In

fact, the British and Foreign
Bible Society has a rule

which forbids the inclusion
of the Apochrypha in the
Bibles which they distribute.
Could it be that the Bible
so familiar to millions of

readers and labeled The
Holy Bible Containing the
Old and the New Testa-
ments, etc., known as the

King James Version, is an incom-
plete Bible? Well, if the title of
the Smith-Goodspeed Version The
Complete Bible is correct, then
it would seem that those edi-
tions of the Bible which omit the
Apochrypha are incomplete!

The Pastor^s Journal is quoted
in this same advertisement: ”We
can no more understand the New
Testament without the Apochrypha
than we can understand contem-
porary American life with no
knowledge of the Civil War.” Who
has been keeping from the readers
of the King James Version all
these centuries that portion of the

Old Testament without which there
would be scant hope of under-
standing the New Testament, the
most vital and important portion
of the Bible?

The names of these seven books

13



are Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon,
Ecclesiasticus (Wisdom of Jesus,
son of Sirach), Judith, I and II

Machabees, Baruch. Non-Catholic

scholars such as Dr. Goodspeed and
Sir Frederic Kenyon deplore the
fact that the Apochrypha are gen-
erally omitted from modern edi-
tions of the King James Bible.

The Apochrypha
The Catholic Church, which in

practice had accepted the so-called

Apochrypha from the beginning of
Christianity as part of the inspired

word of God, officially taught their
inspired character in the decree

issued at the Council of Trent in

1545. This decree added no new
doctrine to Christian truth, but

simply affirmed solemnly what had
been the belief of the Church from
the beginning.

This raises an important ques-

tion: do the readers of the King
James Version have an incomplete
Bible while Catholic readers have

the complete Bible? Do Protestants
in their King James Version have
the Bible in its entirety and there-

fore the complete message of God,
or do Catholics intermingle with
the genuinely inspired Scriptures

some books which are of merely
human origin? This important
question should be settled satis-

factorily by every reader of the
Bible before he undertakes to
gather the divine message from
the pages of Sacred Scripture.

Most Christians agree that the
Bible is made up of books which
are inspired by God. Divine in-
spiration is the only basis on which
any book has a rightful place in

the Bible. Divine inspiration may
be described as follows: In a
manner peculiarly His own, God
moves and induces the human
author to write, and so assists him
while he writes, that he rightly

conceives in his mind and writes
those things and only those things
which God desires to be written.

This divine impulse, however, is

a secret and hidden thing. It can-
not be detected from the quality
or character of the book, or from
the contents of the book or from
the impression it produces on the
reader. Even the human writer’s
own word is in itself an insufficient
guarantee that he wrote under the

divine impTilse. For how can we
be sure that he is speaking the

truth? He may not even be aware
of the fact that he is writing under

divine influence. The only one,
therefore, who can testify to the
fact that a given book was written
under that special divine influence

and direction, which is called divine

inspiration, is God Himself, and
those to whom He chooses to
communicate this information.

God’s Way
God can make the fact of in-

spiration known in one or the
other of two ways. He can reveal
it to His official representatives, the

prophets in Old Testament times,

and to the Apostles in New Testa-
ment times. They, in turn, will

proclaim the fact to the rest of

mankind, while God guarantees
their truthfulness by miracles. If

He chooses to do so, God also can
reveal it to the individual readers

of the Bible. But if He has chosen

14



to make this private revelation, He
has acted in a way at variance with
His manner of acting in Old and

New Testament times.
As can be seen throughout the

pages of the Old Testament, God
communicated with the people at

large through His chosen repre-

sentatives, Moses and the prophets.

In New Testament times, the in-
dications all point to a continua-

tion of the same manner of acting.

He spoke to mankind through His
incarnate Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus,

in turn, spoke to the Apostles, and

they, in turn, were to communicate
His divinely revealed message to

mankind.

God does indeed send His Holy
Spirit to those in His friendship;

but He does not wish to provide
each of us with a divine tutor, all

our own. He has so planned things
that mankind would learn revealed
truth from the Apostles and their
successors. "Go, teach all nations!”

After the death of the Apostles,

the office of teaching was com-
mitted to the Church. This Church
is, according to St. Paul, the

"Church of the living God, the
pillar and ground of the truth”
(1 Tim. 111:15). This Church is
"the body of Christ” and He is
its "head” (Col. 1:18). In that case,

what the Church does, its Head
does; what the Church teaches offi-
cially, its Head teaches, and there-
fore, that teaching must be true.

If we investigate the teaching
of the Church for the first several
centuries of its existence, we will
find that it used the Greek Bible,
and later the Latin Bible in the

western Church. It was the Greek
Scripture, which St. Paul commend-
ed to Timothy (2 Tim. 111:15). As
Timothy was a Greek-speaking

Jew, he must have been educated
in the use of the Greek Scripture,
and it is of this that St. Paul writes:

"All Scripture is inspired of

God . . .” (2 Tim. Ill: 15). The Greek
Scripture contained the so-called

Apochrypha, the seven books and

portions of other books which are
omitted from most editions of the
Bible in use among non-Catholics.

Incontrovertible evidence shows
that the Catholic Church as a whole
continued to use this complete

Bible down through the centuries.
It was only after the secession from
the Church at the time of the rise
of Protestantism, that seven of

these books came little by little
to be omitted from the Bible by
the groups which left the Mother
Church. Even they at first included
the Apochrypha. According to
Goodspeed (The Story of the Bible,
p.l68) "they still find a place in

all complete printings of the King
James Version of l6ll...They
contain much of literary and his-
torical interest, and some passages
of real religious value.”

The Anglican Archbishop Abbot
in I6l5 forbade the omission of

these books from printed editions

of the Bible, but the first printed

English Bible to make its appear-
ance in the United States omitted

them, and every subsequent printing

of the Bible for general use among
non-Catholics in this country has

followed the bad example of the

first printing. In 1826, as already

15



mentioned, the British and Foreign

Bible Society passed a resolution or

rule that they would never print or
circulate copies of the Bible which

contained these seven books.

Here then is evidence that the
Catholic Church, the only Chris-

tian Church in existence for sixteen

centuries, gave to the people the

complete Bible, including the so-

called Apochrypha. It is true that

during the first four centuries

A.D., there were some doubts that
these books should be regarded as

Scripture or not. St. Jerome, al-

though not enthusiastic about these

books, included them in his Latin
version out of deference to the

prevailing usage and belief of the

Church, and he even quotes them
as Scripture here and there in his

writings.

At that time the Church had
not spoken officially. But from

the fifth century to the sixteenth,

more than a thousand years, the
whole Christian world, under the
leadership of the Church, "the

pillar and ground of truth,” was
unanimous in regarding these
books as a genuine part of the

inspired word of God.

Books Omitted
Why then is it that in the six-

teenth century, these books began
to disappear from the Bible? It
seems that the "Reformers” pre-

ferred to follow the Jewish list of

inspired books. This list was drawn
up at the synod of Jamnia in
Palestine about 90 A. D. Note the
date,—fifty years and more after
the establishment of the Church.

This synod was dominated by the

Pharisees. If you wish to know
what Jesus Christ thought of the
Pharisees, read Matthew XXIII.
The men gathered at this synod
laid down very narrow, nationalistic
and a priori rules for determining
what was an inspired book. 1) It
must be ancient in origin, i. e.
written before the succession of

prophets was broken about the
time of Ezra in the fourth century

B.C. 2) It must have been written
in Palestine. 3) It must have been
written in Hebrew.

A Bit Of History
Such principles assume with no

good reason that God could inspire
a writer only within the confines

of the Holy Land and that the only
language the omnipotent and
omniscient God would condescend
to permit was Hebrew. That, of
course, would rule out the possi-
bility of most of the New Testa-
ment writers being inspired, for
they wrote in Greek, except St.

Matthew, and nearly all of the

New Testament books were com-
posed outside Palestine.

The Apostles were not of the
same mind as the Pharisees at
Jamnia. There is abundant evidence

that they used the Greek Old Testa-
ment, and that they read and reflect

the influence of the Apochrypha

in their writings. If you have a

copy of the Apochrypha at hand,

you might, in order to verify the

foregoing statement, compare the

following passages:

Compare James 1:19 with
Ecclesiasticus V:ll
Compare 1 Peter 1:6-7 with

Wisdom 111:5-7

16



Compare Heb. XI: 34-35 with
2 Mach VI:18-VII:42
Compare Rom. 1:18-32 with

Wisdom XIII:1-XV:15.
It is true that the foregoing and

many other passages that could be
cited, are never quoted explicitly.

But there are some books, whose
right to a place in the Bible no
one questions that are never cited

in the New Testament.
The only other alternative to ac-

cepting the authority of the Church
is to accept one’s own private
authority, and appeal to John
XIV: 26 and XVI: 13 where Jesus
promised to send the Holy Spirit
to teach all truth. Actually, how-
ever, this does not mean that the
Holy Spirit will teach all truth
directly to every individual but

rather to the Church which, in
turn, will teach all truth and be
the infallible guide for the faith

of individuals. This is the only

interpretation which the Bible and
experience permits us to put on the

words. The Bible forces this inter-
pretation because God’s way is
always to communicate officially
only with His chosen and official
representatives, and they, in turn,
will pass on divine truth to the
people at large. Experience forces

this interpretation because the al-

ternative explanation has led to

nothing but confusion in the re-

ligious world.. There are literally
hundreds of sects, differing from
one another, yet each claiming to
have the correct interpretation of

God’s inspired word, and to be
guided by the Holy Spirit. God
is not the God of inconsistency
and confusion, but of consistency
and unity of doctrine.

It is for these reasons that the

Catholic reader of the Bible ac-

cepting the authority of his Church,

even as it spoke prior to the

Reformation when it was the only
Christian Church, has the un-

troubled conviction that his is the

complete Bible.

The least that any sensible person should do is to learn the truth

about the Catholic Church. For if it is true, as we have maintained

since the time of Christ, that this is the Church the Savior established

for our salvation . . . then it becomes imperatively important for

each of us personally to clearly understand, and either to accept or

reject, the evidence which is so freely available. All we ask any

sensible person to do is — INVESTIGATE!

17



BIBLE TRANSLATIONS
. . . GOOD AND BAD

Not all who read the Bible
in English realize how much
they depend upon the accu-
racy of the translation which

they use. Translations can be

good or bad.
It has been the policy of

the Catholic Church from
the earliest times to provide

the people with the Bible

translated into a language

they could understand. If at times

the Church found it necessary to

prohibit the use of certain transla-

tions, it was because these transla-

tions were erroneous and therefore

misleading and parading under false

pretenses. Instead of being the word

of God, they really were but the

word of man. It is a great crime to

present as the word of God what is
nothing but the word of fallible
man, and that is precisely what any

incorrect version of the Bible does.

The mere fact that the one doing so
may think that he is correctly stat-
ing the views of the Almighty is

no excuse.

The Catholic Church insists that
translations into languages common-
ly spoken by the people must be

accompanied with notes explaining

the more difficult or obscure pass-
ages. Otherwise, the untrained mind

can readily misunderstand

and twist the meaning to
his own destruction, as St.
Peter says (2 Peter 111:15-

16). Anyone who contends
that the Bible is perfectly

clear and can be easily
understood without aid of

footnotes stands in contra-

diction to the passage from
the second epistle of St.

Peter, and defies facts of experience

which have been multiplying for
centuries.

The Catholic Church therefore
approves of translations and pro-

motes the circulation of the Bible

among the people, but only in trans-
lations which have been thoroughly

examined by her competent teachers

for accuracy and trustworthiness.

The official attitude of the Church
is briefly stated by Pope Benedict

XV in his encyclical letter addressed
to the world under date of Sep-

tember 15, 1920: "Our one desire

for all the Church’s children is that,

being saturated with the Bible, they

may arrive at the all-surpassing
knowledge of Jesus Christ.”

In the earliest days, Christians

were for the most part Greek-speak-

ing, but about the year 150 A.D.

Latin came to be more and more

18



adopted as the common language.
The first Latin translation of the
Scriptures then made its appearance.
About 250 years later, St. Jerome,
who is acclaimed by many as the
greatest Scripture scholar of all time,

made an entirely new version from
the original texts of the Old Tes-
tament into Latin. At the same
period, there appeared versions in

Syriac, Gothic, the various Egyptian

dialects and so on, as need required.

Until almost the time of the Re-

formation, Latin continued to be the

language of the reading public. In

fact, the basis of all education was
Latin grammar. Anyone who could
read at all could read Latin. It was
the language of the schools and
universities. Lectures at the great

medieval universities were given in

Latin. Modern languages did not de-
velop until shortly before the Refor-

mation. When they began to be
commonly spoken, translations of
the Bible were made and published
in these languages.

Bible Before Luther

Contrary to a widespread false

opinion that Luther is the one who
gave the Bible to the people in the

language they could understand,

there is the unquestionable historical

fact that fourteen editions of the

Bible in German and five in Dutch
had made their appearance before
Luther gave his translation to the

German-speaking world. In the
library of the Paulist Fathers, con-

nected with the Church of St. Paul
the Apostle in New York City, there
is a copy of the ninth edition of
a German Bible printed by A.
Cogurger at Nuremberg, the very

year that Martin Luther was born.
A translation into Spanish was pub-
lished in 1478. In Italy, there was an
Italian version which was so popular
that it was reprinted seventeen times
before the publication of Luther s

German edition. In France, transla-
tions of the Bible into French

were published from 1478 down.

Anglo-Saxon Bible
In England, versions of at least

the more popular and useful parts
of the Bible into Anglo-Saxon made
their appearance as early as 670.

The handwritten version which is
generally ascribed to Wyclif may
not have been his work at all. The
matter is in dispute. From the time
of Luther there was a constant suc-
cession of English printed Bibles,

each one profiting from its prede-
cessors and correcting some of its
errors and inaccuracies until finally
there appeared the deservedly fam-

ous King James Version of 1611.
It was based on all its predecessors,
but succeeded in eliminating many
of their errors. Yet it was imperfect
mainly because of the imperfect

Greek and Hebrew texts on which
it was based.

Since l6ll, vast advances have

been made in the restoration of the
original texts due to the discovery

of many new manuscript copies.
Consequently, a revision was neces-
sary. It was published between 1881
and 1885, and it has been stated

that the Greek text of the New Tes-
tament followed in 1885 differed in

5788 passages from the Greek on
which the original King James was
based. A further revision was pub-
lished in the United States in 1901.

19



But since then, still further dis-
coveries and studies have resulted
in a still better Greek text, and so
in 1946, there was another revision
of the King James Version of the
New Testament and of the Old Test-
ament in 1952. One striking feature
of this version is that the well-

known conclusion of the Our
Father "for thine is the kingdom
and the power and the glory for-
ever, Amen,” is relegated to a foot-
note with the words: "Many author-
ities, some ancient, add in some
form.” The editors have come to
agree with the Catholic version
which has never contained these
words. These concluding words are
undoubtedly an interpolation, a sub-
sequent addition to the text and
formed no part of the Lord’s Prayer
as He taught it.

The Lord's Prayer
A brief explanation of how these

words came to be inserted in the
Greek manuscripts of the New Tes-
tament may be of interest here. The
added words are sometimes referred
to as "the Protestant ending of the
Lord’s Prayer.” That is true only in
the sense that this interpolation is

current in Protestant circles, but it

was in use centuries before the rise
of the Reformers and is derived
from Catholic sources. Its earliest
form is found in the Didache, a
document whose full title is "The
Doctrine of the Twelve (Apostles)”,
and which was composed early in
the second century after Christ.

The words were commonly ap-
pended in the public prayers of the
Church at the end of every invoca-
tion. Even when the Lord’s Prayer
was recited, these words would be

added at the end, much in the same
way as the ending "Glory be to the
Father and to the Son and to the
Holy Spirit” are often added at the
end of prayers today. Those who
copied out the manuscripts of the

Gospel according to St. Matthew
had become so accustomed to hear

the words added at the end of the

Lord’s Prayer, that when they saw
them missing from their manu-
scripts of the Gospel, they concluded

that some one had unintentionally
omitted them. So one and then an-

other copyist inserted the words

until they found their way into a

large number of copies. All the

while, the oldest and most trust-

worthy manuscripts did not have

them. The Latin version did not
have them, but they did find their

way into what was the "Received”

or accepted Greek text. Since the

Protestants made their translation
from the Greek Received text which

had the words, they were put into

the current English Protestant ver-

sion, the authorized or King James.
But since Catholics made their
translation from what was at that

time the much more accurate Latin
text which omitted the words, they

are not found in the translation

which Catholics made in 1582.

English Catholics

The English Catholics, at the time
when numerous English versions of
the Bible were being published by
the Protestants, were laboring under

fearful difficulties. They were not
tolerated in England; their property

was being confiscated. Many were
hanged, quartered or disemboweled

for the sole reason that they refused

20



to switch their allegiance from the

successor of St. Peter at Rome to
the much-married and divorced

Henry VIII, King of England. Yet
despite these difficulties, they were

able to bring out a translation of the

Scriptures. The New Testament was
published in 1582, but the Old Tes-
tament, owing to financial difficul-
ties was not published until 1609-
As this translation was made and
published partly at Rheims and part-
ly at Douay, it is known as the
Rheims-Douay version. Genuine
scholarship went into its making,
but it was extremely slavish and
literal in its adherence to the Latin

of the Vulgate. Yet it had certain
vigorous and forceful expressions,
and is responsible for the introduc-

tion into the English vocabulary of

words of Latin derivation, which are
still in current use. This version was
revised by the English Catholic
Bishop Challoner in 1749-1752.

Within the last half century or so,
numerous versions of the Bible or
its part have made their appearance.
Some of these were prepared by
non-Catholics and some by Catho-
lics.

For those who desire to verify
the facts and figures given here
concerning translations of the Bible

into German and other modern
languages, we recommend a book
which cannot be suspected of the
least Catholic bias: "The Cambridge
Modern History,” Vol. I, pp. 639-641
in particular.

FREE CATHOLIC PAMPHLETS
If you do not understand any aspect of Catholic belief or worship

. . . and want the facts . . . write today to Supreme Council. Knights

of Columbus, Religious Information Bureau, 4422 Lindell Blvd.,

St. Louis 8, Mo. Don’t let false rumors or malicious gossip mislead

you when it is so easy to learn for yourself — from authentic Catholic

sources — what the Catholic Church really teaches and what Catholics

actually believe. Your questions will be answered promptly and

without charge or obligation. Write today . . . and ask for a list of

available free pamphlets.

21



Are You Prepared

To Understand The Bible?

Many people have made a
genuine effort to read the

Bible but gave it up. "I

couldn’t make heads or tails
of it,” they will tell you.

Such persons are seldom
to blame. The truth is they
were not prepared to read
and appreciate the Bible.
For them, the Bible is as

confusing as a book of
higher mathematics would be to
one who had never learned the ele-
ments of arithmetic.

The Bible was never meant to
be a textbook for those who are
"starting from scratch” in the study
of revealed religion. God’s revealed

truth is not methodically presented

in the Scripture. Christ’s teaching

is not given in any systematic form.

Even a superficial reading of the
inspired Book should convince a
reasonable person that the indi-

vidual books or all of them to-
gether were not meant to teach
all the truths of divine revelation

to those who are learning them for
the first time.

Read the Old Testament and
you will find that it contains the

earliest traditions of the human
race, the laws, the ceremonies for

worship, the history, the moral and

devotional literature of the

Jewish people who lived for
two thousand years or more
under the special providence
of God.

In the New Testament,
you will find four brief
reports of the life, the

words and the deeds of Jesus'
Christ, a digest of the ac-

tivity of the Apostles, or at

least several of them in the early
Church, together with letters of in-

struction and moral guidance, ad-
dressed by St. Paul to the Church
in particular places; likewise, letters

of Peter, James, John, and Jude
to the Christians at large, etc.

All the writings of the Old
Testament were given by God
through writers who addressed
themselves to those who possessed
the Jewish Faith. They could and
did assume that their readers would

be familiar with the religious

teachings of that faith. The writ-
ings of the New Testament are
also addressed to believers in the

Christian Faith and, though in-

spired writings, they assumed that

the revealed truth was already

known and accepted.

Nowhere do these inspired writ-
ings present themselves as a com-

22



plete textbook of Christian revela-

tion. They speak of it as something

already communicated, already be-

lieved. They allude to it as some-
thing known and simply needing
explanation. Their purpose was

only to confirm it and to induce

Christians to practice it in accord-

ance with Christ’s requirements.

Such writings were never meant

to be the sole and direct source of

Christian truth for those who had
never heard of it before.

Preliminary Knowledge
The difficulties which people ex-

perience in reading the Scriptures

are not entirely due to the obscur-

ity of the language, nor to inspired

and sublime truths with which they
deal. This difficulty is also caused

by the fact that people begin to

read them without the necessary
preparation, without the prelimi-

nary knowledge which they pre-
suppose in the readers. The Bible
contains many allusions, hints and
illustrations which cannot be cor-
rectly and fully understood without
this preparation.

The Bible is incomplete in itself
and can be understood only when
read in the light of the Christian

Faith as it has been preserved and
taught by the Church. Those who
read the Bible without this teach-
ing and previous instruction meet
inescapable difficulty and there are
many errors into which they
may fall.

Take, as an example, the ques-
tion put to the Apostle Philip in
the Acts (Chapter VIII), by one
who felt it necessary to secure his
salvation; “What shall I do to be

saved?” The Apostle answered and
said in substance: "Believe in the

Lord Jesus Christ and be baptized:

and thou shalt be saved.” Here is
a very plain question expressed in

the simplest manner possible; the
answer seems equally plain and

simple. Two things are required:
to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ,

and to be baptized. But is this so
simple? Suppose the inquirer was
attracted to the Jewish religion and

had some elementary knowledge of
its teaching concerning the prom-

ised Messias Who was foretold by
the Jewish prophets, then belief

in Jesus Christ as the promised

Messias would have some meaning
for him. But suppose the question

were asked by a pagan who knew
nothing of the Jewish religion, then

the answer would be meaningless
and certainly not simple or suf-

ficient.

Reading Not Enough
The answer of the Apostle be-

comes true, full and adequate for
all men only when they have the
traditional teaching of what it is
to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ

and to be baptized. Those who do
not have some understanding of
Christian Doctrine will find it

practically impossible to obtain an

adequate knowledge of it by read-
ing the Bible. But when they have
such understanding, they cannot

only find it in the Scripture, but

they can find it set forth in a most

attractive and impressive form. The
Scriptures were meant for those
who possess the Christian Faith and
for those who, up to a certain point
at least, already have been instructed

23



in the doctrines and precepts of
the Gospel.

The Catholic Church never has
objected to or discouraged the

reading of the Bible. She has, on
the contrary, always regarded the

reading of the Bible as desirable or

profitable. She approves and always
has approved the use of the Bible
and objects ,and has objected only
to its misuse. The Catholic Church
holds the Scripture to have been
written by the inspiration of God
and should be used to teach, to
reprove, to correct, to instruct, to

perfect the man of God and to
prepare him for every good work.
But she does not recognize the
Bible to be a systematic presenta-

tion of divine truth and to be
sufficient to teach the true faith to

a reader who is not prepared by
preliminary instruction.

God Wrote Nothing
The principle insisted on by the

Church is a very plain and reason-
able one that accords with the his-
torical facts. God’s original revela-
tion was not made to mankind by
writing or through the medium of a
book. It was made in the beginning
immediately by God Himself to
certain individuals who communi-
cated it to others. Men knew and
believed the truth, knew and be-
lieved the one true religion, at least
in its substance, long before the
first book was written.

The primitive believers under
the Christian dispensation were
taught the Christian Faith orally

by those who had been orally in-
structed by Christ Himself. The
Faith thus preached and transmitted

by the Apostles to their successors
was possessed by those who read
any book of the Scripture and, in
the light of this knowledge, they
interpreted and understood the
Scripture.

Universal Rule
Something of this sort is ob-

viously necessary in the case of all

language, whether written or un-
written. Written language is not
intelligible to those who are ig-
norant of the characters in which
it is written or who have never
learned to read. It is equally un-

intelligible to those who, though
they know the alphabet and are
able to read, yet do not understand
the meaning of the words written.
The understanding of a word comes
from within the mind, not from
without, and if the sense be not,

to some degree, in the mind, there
is no capacity for understanding
what is meant.

The Catholic Church therefore
follows a universal rule which is
essential for the understanding of

any teaching whether by written

or unwritten language. The Church
received Christian Doctrine from

Christ Himself. By putting the
members of the Church in posses-
sion of this Doctrine in a manner
understandable to the minds of

those whom she is addressing, she
supplies the light and guidance

necessary to enable them to read
the Bible with profit and without

perverting its words to their own
destruction.

The Catholic Church requires its
people to read the Bible with a

reverential spirit, as it contains the

24



revealed word of God, and God
Himself speaks to us through its

pages. She also requires us to read

the Scriptures under her guidance

and direction and not to under-
stand them in any way opposed to
her teaching. The teaching of the
Church was received from our
Divine Savior and the teaching
found in the Bible is likewise from
God. There can be no opposition
between them.

This does not mean that Catho-
lics can read the Scriptures only

when a priest is at hand to supply
the correct interpretation, or that

we do not have the free use of
our own reason and understanding
in reading the Scriptures and de-
veloping and applying their sense.
It does not mean that the errors
of transcribers and translators may
not be corrected or that we may
not use all the helps that may be
derived from history, criticism and
science, in correcting them. It does

not mean that we may not use the
physical sciences and literature, the
facts brought to light by explorers
and students of natural history in
illustrating and settling the literal
meaning of the sacred text. It
means simply that we are not at
liberty to interpret the Scriptures

in a sense that would be contrary
to the teaching of the Church as

it has come down to us from the
time of Christ and His Apostles.
Thus Catholics, prepared by an

understanding of Christian Doc-
trine which they receive from the
Church, can study the Scriptures

themselves and bring to their Faith
new life and vigor from the in-
spired pages. And with this in
mind, the eminent Catholic layman,

Orestes A. Brownson, appealed to

Catholics to go to the Scriptures
and study them as did Christians
of past generations. "Let us take in

the sublime instruction,” he wrote,

"as it was dictated by the Holy
Ghost in a language more beautiful
and more sublime than ever did, or
ever could, originate with unin-

spired men. Our Faith will profit
by it; it will become broader,
purer, more sublime, and more
comprehensive; it will become
stronger, more robust, more ener-
getic, and more able to withstand
the seductions of error and the
temptations of vice. Our devotion
will become more ardent, more
solid, more enduring, flowing from
a fixed and unalterable principle

or conviction, not from a mere
temporary feeling or emotional

excitement; and our morals will
conform to a higher standard and
we will become capable of greater
sacrifices and more heroic deeds.”

25



Q Q Q QQQQ QQQQQQOQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQPQQQQQQ QaQ Q Q Q Q Q -

REAL PURPOSE OF BIBLE
TO TEACH RELIGIOH

Readers of the Bible have

many interests and each one
turns to its pages to satisfy

his own particular interest.
Some use the Bible as a

book of devotion, in which
they find thoughts and in-
spiration for prayer and
meditation. For others the
Bible is an object of study.

They are interested in
Oriental literature, ancient history,

morals, forms of worship and the
like.

But no matter what his special
purpose in reading the Bible

may be, everyone should bear
in mind that the Bible is a re-
ligious book. Its teaching is pre-

eminently doctrinal.

The authors of the Bible, of
course, often speak of natural

phenomena, the heavens, the earth,
the sun, moon and stars, and de-
scribe the physical universe ac-

cording to the popular conception

and in language prevailing at the

time. But their purpose is not to
teach science and they are not
writing a scientific report.

And while it contains many re-
liable historical facts, the Bible is

not primarily a history of the

Jewish people, or any other nation.

ooTsiTinrvinrsinr^^

Even in those books of
the Bible in which history
abounds, the facts enlarged

upon, the details selected,

and the manner in which
they are grouped and ap-

preciated, indicate on the
part of the writers the aim
to teach something of far

more value than the facts
which they record — great

religious truths.

These truths are not systematic-

ally arranged or expressed in ab-

stract and precise technical terms.

They are presented in a concrete,

popular and descriptive manner

best adapted to the understanding

of the people for whom they were
intended.

God, as revealed to us in the

pages of the Scripture, is very real.

So real is He, that only "the fool

hath said in his heart: 'There is

no God.’” (Ps. XIII: 1).

"All men are vain in whom there
is not the knowledge of God, and

who through these good things that
are seen, gained not power to know
Him that is, neither by giving heed
to the works did they recognize

Who was the Maker . . . They are
not to be excused, for if they were

able to know so much as to ex-

26



plore the course of things (the

world and all in it), how did they
not rather find out the Lord there-

of?” (Wis. XIII; Rom. 1:19,20).
God’s distinctive characteristics

are likewise very real. "God is a
spirit” (John IV: 24) and as such

cannot be seen or touched or in

any way perceived by human senses.
Unlike all that we know in this
world. He is not affected by the
constant change that the passage

of time works in all things. He is
changeless and His life is not
measured by time (Ps. 101: 26-28;

Heb. 1:10-12). He is not limited
to any one place, but is present
wherever His creatures need His
omnipotent power sustaining them
in existence (Jerem. XXIII: 24). He
knows the innermost nature of all
that He has made. His knowledge
penetrates even to "the bottom of
the deep . . . into the hearts of
men, into the most hidden parts”
(Eccles. XXIII).

He is good . . . and there is no
imperfection of evil in Him or in
His dealings with men (Levit. XI).
He is just and His judgments are
just and fair (Ps. 118); but above
all He is merciful and kind (Ps.
103), and as far as men in particular
are concerned, most appealing is
His love for them and all that
He has made (John III).

Only One God
Any reader of the Bible will be

impressed with the emphatic in-
sistence upon the fact that there
iA.t>ut owe true God—there are no
others (Deut. VI 4, I Cor. 8-4.)
Yet, when mankind had sufficiently
progressed and was able to rid it-

self of popular superstitious con-

cepts of many gods, the one true
God revealed Himself as He really
is — Three Divine Persons; Three
Persons individually distinct; Three
Persons each divine because each

possessing one and the same divine
nature

—
"the Father, the Son, and

the Holy Spirit” (Matt. XXVIII: 19).
This fact was made known by "the
only begotten Son, who is in the
bosom of the Father” and who be-
came man and "dwelt amongst us”
(John I).

As Men Saw It
While the Scripture contains

much valuable information con-
cerning God, it has relatively little
to say concerning the vast universe

of which we are a part. It does
not go beyond the description of
the outward appearances of the
heavens and the earth, the vast
vaulted ceiling of the heavens, the

flat expanse of earth and the move-

ment of the sun from horizon to
horizon. These are described as
they appear to the human senses
and in terms and in ideas pre-
vailing at the time. That such con-
cepts and language do not always
agree with today’s established scien-

tific concepts of such things, does

not mean that the writers were
guilty of error. They were no more
in error than in the modern scient-
ist who knows that the earth rotates
in relation to the sun, yet tells his

friend that he will go hunting with
him "at sunrise.” Their language
was not meant to be scientific. As
has been often said, they were not

concerned with how the heavens
go, but rather how to go to Heaven.

27



The one basic truth concerning
the universe which is repeatedly
stressed in the Bible is "Look upon
heaven and earth, and all that is
in them, and consider that God
made them out of nothing .

.

(II Mach. VII: 28). All things, vis-

ible and invisible, which are dis-
tinct from God, are His creatures.
"Heaven and' earth shall pass away”
and in passing will be changed

into a new heaven and a new
earth (Matt. V:18; II Peter 111:13).

Man’s Soul
It is man and his relations with

God with which the Bible is prin-
cipally concerned. Like everything

else in the world, every man is God’s
creature. His body is formed from
pre-existing material and is en-
livened and animated by a spiritual
and immortal soul which is the
direct creation of God (Gen. 11:7).
Human beings differ in kind from
other animals on the earth (Gen.
11:20). Their superiority is found
chiefly in their soul (Matt. XVI : l6),
for it is in their soul that they bear

the image and likeness of God
(Gen. 1:20). They are all one great
human family (Acts XVII: 26),
descendants from the first human
couple.

The condition in which God in-
tended the first men and women
and their descendants to live differs
vastly from that in which we find
the human family actually living.
The condition of the first man
and woman was originally happy
and privileged. They were innocent
of evil (Gen. Ill: 5) and enjoyed
a special familiarity with God (Gen.
11:19). The suffering of sickness

and all physical pain due to labor
or any other cause were unknown
to them. They knew of bodily death
only as a possible punishment of
disloyalty to their Maker whose
will they, as responsible moral
creatures, were obliged to obey.

Not unlike a person who has
always enjoyed excellent health,

who does not know what it is to
be sick, who has seldom observed
serious illness or death at first

hand, and who takes the blessings
of good health pretty much for
granted until it is lost, the first

man lost his happy and privileged
state. How this condition in which
they lived was lost — by the de-
liberate disobedience of God’s

command — is vividly described in
the first Book of the Bible (Gen.
III). Thereafter, a man is liable
to physical pain, suffering and

death. He is prone to error and an
inclination to evil which is de-

scribed as a "law in his members,

fighting against the law of his

mind” (Rom. VII:23, 24). More-
over, the unhappy consequences of

his sin and the sinful state to which

he was reduced were shared by his

children and inherited by the

whole human family; "By one man
^(Adam) sin entered into this
world, and by sin — death, and so
death passed upon all men, in whom
all sinned” (Rom. V:12).

Man Needs God
Even though he still possessed

intelligence as an essential part of

human nature and even though as
a free agent there was still in him
the capability of doing some good,

the first man and all mankind de-

28



scending from him in a similar
state, could not restore themselves

to the privileged condition without

the special help of the merciful God
from Whose grace and friendship
they had fallen. But right after the

first man’s disastrous sin, to him
and to the whole human family was
promised a Redeemer (Gen. Ill: 15),
— a Redeemer who is elsewhere
called a "second Adam” by whom
all that the "first Adam” lost for
himself and his posterity would be
restored. But even before the Re-

deemer actually appeared in the

world, Adam and his descendants
could merit the merciful forgive-

ness of God by faith in the
promised Redeemer and through
humble sorrow for their sins (Ps.
1:3,4-19).

As time went on, how long no
one can say, for there is no complete

and consecutive reckoning of time

in the Old Testament, the conse-
quences of man’s sin appeared

worse and worse in the human
family as it spread out over the

earth. The various tribes and peo-
ples forgot the one true God Who
made them and fell into the gross-
est kinds of superstition. It was

then that God chose Abraham,
separated him from his idol-wor-
shipping associates in Mesopotamia,

and from his descendants formed
a people, peculiarly his own, the

children of Israel. They were to be
a "priestly kingdom and a holy
nation” (Ex. XIX: 6). It was their
mission to preserve the knowledge
and service of the true God and
from them salvation was to be ex-
tended to the Gentiles (Gen. XII: 3).

Among these chosen people, the
hope in the Messias or the Re-
deemer of the world was kept
alive. This hope originated in the
promise of deliverance made after
the sin of the head of all mankind,

and was gradually developed and

made to designate a person possess-
ed of characteristics each generation

would appreciate. To Abraham, He
was promised as a source of bless-
ings to all nations (Gen. XXII:

17,18); to Judah as a great leader

(Gen. XL: 10); to Moses as an
author of a new regime (Deut.
XVIII: 18). Under the Kings, He
was described as one whose holy
rule should extend over all nations

(II Kings 7:11-16), and as a suf-

fering person, who, by dying,

would atone for the sins of the
people (Isaias L:3).

Christ Foretold

In later books of the Bible, new
and more distinctive features of
the Messias were described. He
was "the Son of Man” (Dan.
VII: 13) "the desired of all nations”

(Aggeus 11:8). Even a vivid de-

scription of the suffering He would
be compelled to undergo at the

hands of His contemporaries is

given (Wis. 11:11-20).

These and many other such pre-
dictions concerning the Messias

were fulfilled in the life and char-

acter of Jesus Christ. He came
into the world and on Him were
focused all the prophecies of the

past. From Him radiated all the
miraculous works which were ex-

pected in the Redeemer to come.

He was the Son of David, Who

29



accepted the title of "The Messias”
(John IV:25,26) and "The Son of
Man” (John 1:51). He described
His own mission as that of re-
deeming the world (Matt. XX:28)
and performed the works which
could be effected only by the
omnipotent God and which gave
divine apprpval to His claims
(Luke VII:22).

^'Hear Ye Him”
All that is said of Jesus can be

summed up in the words of God
the father: "This is my well be-
loved Son. Hear ye Him.”

He was born a King (Mark
XV: 2), but He declared that His
"kingdom was not of this world”
(John XVIII: 36). His worldly-
minded contemporaries refused to
recognize Him as the powerful
deliverer of the Jewish people that
they had come to expect. Instead,
they put Him to death because He
solemnly proclaimed Himself to be
the true Son of God (Luke XXII:71).
But He rose from the dead as He
Himself had foretold and as had the
prophets long before Him, (Matt.
XVI: 71), thus making it evident
that He was "the Christ,” promised
centuries before (Acts 11:36) and
that "there is no salvation in any
other, for there is no other name
under Heaven given to men where-
by we must be saved” (Acts IV: 12).
When Jesus Christ left this earth,

the foundation of His Church was
an accomplished fact. As recorded
in the Gospels, He had selected
and trained His Apostles for the
continuation of His mission among
men and after His departure, it
was in and through them that He

was to make the religious conquest
of the world (John XX: 21; Matt.
XXVIII: 19,20; Acts 1:8).
He had scarcely left the earth,

in fact, when the one to whom He,
Who called Himself the Good
Shepherd, had personally entrusted
the care of His flock (John
XXI: 15), the Apostle Peter, began
to exercise his office and to teach
and govern the Church with au-
thority (Acts 1:15 sqq; 11:4 sqq;

V:1 sqq). All the Apostles, with
Peter at their head, began to ful-
fill the mission given by the Lord.

As mortal men, the Apostles
would pass away, but the Church
with its lawful successors in the
ministry (Acts XX: 28; Titus 1:5
sqq), who were deputed to teach
and bring Christ’s Sacraments to
men for their sanctification and
salvation (Titus III: 5), was found-
ed to last to the end of time and
to remain forever "the pillar and
ground of the truth.”

Church Infallible
This does not necessarily mean,

however, that all the members of
the Church or the successors of
the Apostles would prove faithful
to the grace of God, for Christ
envisioned His Church as made
up of both the good and the bad
(Matt. XIII: 21 sqq), and even at
times governed by those who would
prove unworthy of their trust
(Luke XII: 42-46). But it does mean
that Christ’s Church with Peter and
his successors in the place given

them by Christ and protected by
Christ: "I am with you all days,
even to the end of the world,” will

ever continue in the world the

30



divinely-entrusted mission of teach-

ing and sanctifying men of good
will.

As these, the highlights of the
Bible are carefully considered, it

must be borne in mind that the
body of divinely revealed truth
which it contains became more
clearly defined through stages of

gradual and progressive develop-
ment. As Augustine, the great in-
terpreter of the Bible, tersely put

it: "The New Testament is latent in
the Old and the Old Testament is
patent in the New.” That is to
say: The Old Testament is cor-
rectly understood in its realization

in the New, and the New Testa-
ment is correctly understood as a
fulfillment of the Old.

It is a mistake therefore to read

the books of the Old Testament and
to expect to find there many truths
such as man’s personal survival and
his resurrection in the future life

as clearly defined as in the teach-

ings of Christ. It is an even greater

mistake to quote passages from the
Old Testament as though belief in
personal survival after death did

not exist.

It is also a mistake, and a very
tragic one, to read the pages of

the Old Testament and to apply
the doctrines found therein to
Christians as though Christ, Who
came to fulfill and perfect the Old
Testament, had not yet come. Such
is the mistake of those who look
upon man’s freedom from sin
through the Redemption of Christ
as due merely to the legal act of
God’s forgiveness. They ignore the
real interior change of man from
a state of sin to a state of enjoying

God’s vivifying grace by which
Christians again become the adopt-
ed sons of God. Such is also the
mistake of those who would oblige
Christians to live according to pre-

cepts such as the Sabbath observ-

ance which God issued to mankind
before the coming of Christ, and
which must be obeyed now as com-
manded by Christ and applied by
His Church.

In the Bible we find God edu-
cating mankind with divine Reve-
lation which was always given after
the manner of a divine teaching
adapted to the manners and con-
ditions of the times. The Old
Testament was a "teacher” for the

Jews, pointing distinctly to Christ

and educating them by slow de-
grees in view of His coming (Cor.
1:23-25). From time to time new
truths were made known by God
and others were made more clear
as mankind was prepared to re-
ceive them: "God, Who at sundry
times and in diverse manners spoke

in times past to the fathers by the

prophets, last of all in these days

has spoken to us by His Son,

Whom He appointed heir of all
things, by Whom also He made
the world; Who being the bright-
ness of His glory and the image

of His substance, and upholding all

things by the word of His power,
has effected man’s purgation from

sin and taken His seat at the right

hand of the Majesty on high . .
.”

(Heb. 1:1-3).

In times past, God has always
given His teaching through a

living teacher; today He gives it
through the living teaching body
of His Church.

31



Follow These Rules
When Reading the Bible

Like any other book which
has come down to us from
ancient times, the Bible

must be interpreted accord-
ing to fundamental rules

dictated by common sense.
These rules must be follow-

ed in reading the Bible

intelligently as well as

studying it scientifically.

What every sincere read-
er of the Bible seeks is the mes-

sage God wishes to communicate
to mankind. Indeed it is impera-

tive that the reader get God’s re-

vealed message correctly; otherwise

he will be deluding himself into

thinking that he has the divine

message. This will cause him to
act in the mistaken notion that he

is backed up by divine authority,
whereas he has nothing but his

own fallible authority which has
misunderstood and woefully missed

the message God sought to com-
municate. And not infrequently it
happens that he shouts and rushes

into print to proclaim what he
thinks is the divine message,

whereas it is only his own fallible
view of what the inspired word
means. If he happens to be mis-

taken, as so often happens, then

he is actually poisoning the wells

of divine truth. So, it is of

the first importance to get

the correct message of God
and to have some reason-
able guarantee that we have
the correct understanding of

the divine message.

We must, first of all, be
sure to get the correct mean-
ing of the individual words.

It is obvious that unless

we understand the meaning of each
separate word, we cannot hope to
get the meaning of the sentence
made up of those words. Let us il-
lustrate the rule by an apparently
simple word faith. It is of very
frequent occurrence, especially in

St. Paul’s writings. He says for ex-
ample: 'We conclude that a man is
justified by faith without the deeds

of the law.” (Rom. Ill: 28) What does
faith mean here? (This question is
treated more at length in our free
pamphlet "But Can It Be Found
in the Bible?”) The answer is
vitally important, because man’s

sanctification and salvation depend

on it. "Faith,” some say, "is the
emotional experience of accepting

Jesus as my personal Savior, and
enjoying the consequent assurance

that by His merits I am redeemed,
saved, destined for an eternity of

happiness in heaven.” "Faith,” ac-

32



cording to others, "is my intellec-
tual conviction that Jesus is true

God and true man, that He is my
Lord, and His word is final and
must be unconditionally accepted.

I must be subject to Him. I must
devote myself without reserve to

Him, and consider it my most
sacred duty to ascertain the will

of Him, my Master, and carry it
out as exactly and promptly as

human frailty will permit.” There
is a vast difference in these two
concepts of faith. Which is St.
Paul’s? We do not propose to
discuss the matter here, but simply

to point out that matters of vital

importance to each one personally

hinge on the definition we accept
or the understanding we have of
faith.

What Is ’Taith”?
In Rom. XIV: 23, we read:

"He that doubteth is damned if
he eat, because he eateth not of

faith: for whatsoever is not of

faith is sin.” It should be obvious

that it is extremely difficult for the

average reader to get the right

meaning out of this passage or
even of understanding the word
]aith correctly. Some readers have
drawn strange conclusions from the
last part of this verse. They have
concluded that every act of the

individual without faith is sinful,

such as for example the natural

affection a mother has for her
child, or the charitable deeds of

a naturally kind-hearted man. That,
of course, is absurd. Yet that posi-
tion has been taken by some read-
ers of St. Paul.

To go back to the passage cited
above from Rom. Ill: 28, — we find
mention of deeds of the law. The
meaning of the passage cannot be
grasped unless it is clear what is
meant by deeds of the law. Does
it mean deeds prescribed by the
Law of Moses? And if so, does it
mean all of them or some only?
Does it mean simply circumcision
and other ceremonial practices pre-

scribed by the Mosaic Law? Here
are questions of great importance,

of even eternally decisive import-

ance. They demand a certain answer.

The connection of words in the
sentence one with another must

he determined.

We must ascertain what is the
subject, what the predicate, what

the modifiers of each and so forth.

This, of course, is done by trans-

lators, but sometimes there is room
for disagreement with the way in
which they construe the parts of a

sentence. We must also determine
whether the verb is indicative or

imperative. In Greek the two forms

are sometimes identical. Here is an

example: John V: 39 reads in the

King James Version: Search the
Scriptures. But all the modern
versions available to the writer at

the moment translate: You search
the Scriptures (Revised Standard

Version, 1946); You pore over the
Scriptures (Goodspeed). So also

many other modern versions.

Here is what a modern non-
Catholic commentator has to say

about the words: "Jesus is not ex-

horting the Jews here; He is argu-
ing with them, and rebuking them

33



for their stubborn rejection of

Him . .

.

"It was a Rabbinical saying that
'he who has acquired the words of
the Law has acquired eternal life;’
and it is this kind of superstition

to which the words 'Ye search the
Scriptures, for in them ye think ye
have eternal life,’ refer ... In cate-

gorical sentences dokein (to think)

in John indicates a mistaken or in-
accurate opinion; humeis dokeite
means 'ye think wrongly’.’’

Why Search Scriptures?
"It is not possible to treat

ereunate (ye search) as an impera-

tive, and do justice to these con-
siderations. Why should the Jews
be bidden to search the Scriptures

because they held a wrong opinion
about their sanctity? The reading
of them in the formal manner of
Rabbis did not carry with it pos-

session of eternal life . . .’’ (Arch-

bishop Bernard (Anglican) in the

International Critical Commentary).

Frequently however these words
are interpreted by the advocates of
the Scriptures as the sole rule of

faith and the all-sufficient means of
salvation, as conclusive evidence

that Christ commanded all Chris-
tians to read the Scriptures as the

sole source of His doctrine . . . that

in so doing they would be sure of
eternal life. Our Lord issued no
such command or assurance.
The context must he taken into

consideration.

By context is meant the con-
nection of the statement with what
goes before and what follows it.
The most ludicrous conclusions can
be deducted from the Scriptures if

passages are extracted without ref-
erence to their setting. Judas "went
and hanged himself’’ (Matt XXVII:
5). "Go and do thou likewise’’
(Luke X: 37). Obviously such a
use of Scripture is stupid, yet is

it any more absurd than the quota-
tions, wrung from their context,
which are made to bolster some
theory or to condemn some position?

The foregoing example is absurd,
but similar cases, no less absurd,
may be found in publications that
are scattered far and wide. One
reads: "St. John in the Apocalypse
pictures the false Church (Roman
Catholic) as a wanton woman,
'arrayed in purple and scarlet color,
and decked with gold and precious
stones and with gems, called Baby-
lon the great’. . . headed by a man
of mystery, the antichrist . .

.’’ Any-
one who reads intelligently the con-
text of this passage in the Book of
Revelation cannot but agree with

the foremost non-Catholic com-
mentators that this description ap-

plies to the ancient Roman Empire
which persecuted the Christians,
and to all similar persecuting gov-
ernments. Those who are interested
may consult such leading non-
Catholic commentators on the Book
of Revelation as Swete and Charles.

More Confusion
Here is another example of wrest-

ing a passage from its context and
reading into it a meaning contrary
to the intention of the author. Mark
VII: 9 reads: "Full well ye reject

the commandments of God, that ye
may keep your own tradition.” Any
reasonable reader can readily gather

from the surrounding verses of this

34



chapter that Jesus spoke these

words of the Pharisees. But certain

scatter-brain Bible readers try to

apply this reference to the Catholic

Church because the Catholic

Church has retained down through
the centuries a living consciousness

of all that Christ taught, and be-
cause the Church insists upon call-
ing this living consciousness "di-

vine tradition” even though it does

not appear in the Bible. As the
divine tradition taught by the

Catholic Church is only what Christ
Himself taught, it is obviously silly

to suggest that Christ would con-
demn such teaching.

Another Error

Or to take another example.
St. Paul, in writing to Timothy
setting down the qualifications of
bishops, says that the bishop must

be blameless, the husband of one
wife (I Tim. Ill; 2). Some readers
of the Bible, disregarding the fact

that St. Paul elsewhere counsels

celibacy, immediately jump to the
conclusion that the Catholic Church

is in direct opposition to God’s

written word when it not only does
not insist that her bishops be
married men, but on the contrary
insists that they be unmarried. A
non-Catholic commentator, who
follows the rules of interpretation,

tells us what St. Paul really means:

"The phrase might imply that a
bishop must be a married man . .

.

but such a requirement would be
scarcely consistent with the teach-

ing of our Lord (Matt XIX; 12)
and of St. Paul (I Cor. VII: 7-8);
so the writer is only thinking of

the true character of a bishop, if

married; as in verse 4 he deals
only with his relation to his chil-

dren, if he has children.” (The
Rev. Walter Lock, D. D. in The
Pastoral Epistles in International

Critical Commentary) . .

Not only the immediately sur-
rounding verses but also the remote

context must be taken into con-

sideration in determining the divine

message. By that we mean the en-
tire content of the message of

revealed truth as set forth on the

pages of the Bible must be taken

into consideration to arrive at a

correct understanding of the mes-

sage and its meaning.

God is a good teacher and suited
His message to the stage of in-

tellectual development and moral

progress of His people. That is

why God did not choose, in Old
Testament times, to make any clear,
explicit revelation about the con-

dition of departed spirits. Indeed,

there are passages which could

easily mislead the unwary reader
to the false conclusion that some
Old Testament writers held that
man’s lot after death was a com-

plete cessation from being, reduc-

tion to nothingness, the annihila-

tion of man’s total nature at death.

But if these passages are read in

the light of other Old Testament

messages, it will be seen that there

was a definite conviction in the

minds of the Israelites that man’s

spirit survived the death of the

body. As time progressed, these
notions about life after death, at

first very vague, little by little

became more explicit.

35



Finally in the New Testament it
is clearly stated that not only is

there survival of man’s spirit after

death, but that the survival will be

happy and unending for the good,
and wretched and unending for the

deliberately wicked. It is further

made clear that, at the end of time,
the bodies of the good and bad
alike will be raised to life and re-

united with the spirit or soul to

enjoy the reward or punishment

earned by the soul while it so-

journed in the body on earth.
There is another kind of context

which must not be disregarded if

we would attain the correct under-
standing of Jesus’ teaching. This is

called the historical context, and

means the conditions of the time,
the mental outlook of those to

whom the words were originally
addressed, and the particular abuses

and errors against which His words

were directed.

19 Centuries Ago
Another helpful consideration is

the interpretation put on the words
of the Lord by those most closely
associated with Him, and who there-
fore were in an excellent position
to understand their full significance.

The faa that 1900 years separate
us from Christ’s sojourn on earth
put us under a terrific handicap.

One example will illustrate this
principle. Jesus said, "Call no man
your father upon the earth; for
one is your Father, which is in
heaven” (Matt. XXIII: 9). These

words were spoken in reference to
the practices of the Pharisees, who
loved high-sounding titles, coveted

them avidly and delighted with a

foolish vanity to be addressed by
them. If we may judge from infor-
mation gathered from the rabbini-
cal writings, God our Father in
heaven was no more in the minds
of the scribes, contemporaries of

Jesus, than a glorified Rabbi. It

was said that God spent three hours
each day studying the Law, that
He kept its rules exactly, made
vows and was rewarded for their
faithful observance by the great
heavenly Sanhedrin. It would seem,
therefore, that when they sought
and succeeded in attaining the title
of Rabbi (teacher) or Father, they
regarded themselves as the ultimate

source of their teaching and of legal

authority. They failed to recognize
their utter dependence on God,
Who alone is Infinite Wisdom and
Infinite Knowledge, and as such the

sole original source of all human
wisdom and knowledge. The
Pharisees are accordingly denounc-

ed for their arrogance and their

vanity by our Lord, and the Apos-

tles and all the followers of Jesus

are warned not to imitate them in

these vices. "Call no man rabbi,
for you are all brethren.”

At this time the Christian hier-
archy had not yet been established;

the Apostles had not been com-

missioned to go forth and teach

all nations. The Apostles at this
time were still given to quarreling

among themselves as to who was
the greater and asking if they might

be awarded the chief seats in the

Master’s Kingdom when it would
be established. The Apostles needed
this warning, but it does not ex-

clude subsequent appointment of

36



one as the chief Apostle, who under
Jesus would be leader and guide of

the others.

As a matter of fact, the Master

did foretell that Peter was to

strengthen the faith of his

brethren (Luke XXII: 32) and did

appoint him as the shepherd to
look after the Master’s flock on

earth. His lambs and sheep (John
XXI: 15-16). Thus Peter became
the earthly representative, the vicar

of the Good Shepherd, Jesus Christ,
and therefore a father to the flock.

This did not mean a "father on
earth,” whose fatherhood originat-

ed with himself, but a divinely au-

thorized state which had its roots

in heaven in the fatherhood of God
and of our Lord Jesus Christ. Peter

was, in this capacity, a lowly in-

strument in the hands of God.

Meaning Of "Father”
That such is the correct under-

standing of our Lord’s words seems

to be clear from the practice of
St. Paul, who accepted the title of
"father.” He writes the Corinthians,
"Though ye have ten thousand in-
structors in Christ, ye have not

many fathers: for in Christ Jesus
I have begotten you through the
gospel” (I Cor. IV: 15). In another

passage, Paul call Timothy his own
son (I Tim. 1: 2). If Timothy is
Paul’s son, then Paul is his father

in some sense. If Paul begot the
Corinthians, he is their father in

some sense, because it is precisely
the act of begetting which makes
one a father. Paul did not ascribe

this fatherhood to his own efforts.
He makes perfectly clear his con-
ception of his role as father. "Let

a man so account of us as the
ministers of Christ, and stewards of

the mysteries of God” (I Cor. IV: 1).
"I have planted, Apollo watered,

but God gave the increase” (I Cor.
Ill: 6). Paul regards himself merely

as God’s instrument; spiritual life

and its increase are the work of
God Himself. If Paul had ascribed
this to himself and his own ex-
clusive efforts and to what he him-
self had personally imparted to the
Corinthians and to Timothy, he
would be violating the spirit of the
Lord’s prohibition against calling

anyone on earth "Father.”
A further indication that the

Lord’s prohibition against calling

anyone father on earth is not ab-
solute, is the fact that he tells us

to "honor father and mother”
(Mark X: 19).
What our Lord meant when He

made the remark in question is
this: "Do not seek after vain and
high sounding titles or parade them
ostentatiously.” But the Semitic

mind was never content with an
abstract statement of the kind, and

so made it concrete by using the
very titles which the Pharisees
vainly sought and ostentatiously

paraded.

Language in the Bible must be
understood lifterally except where

the literal interpretation results in

an absurdity.

A general rule to follow in de-
termining whether language is

figurative or literal is this: When-
ever the literal interpretation results

in obvious nonsense, incongruity or

falsehood, the figurative meaning
must be accepted. For example,
when Jesus called Antipas of the

37



Herod family a fox, His obvious
meaning is that this ruler had some
of the well-known characteristics

of that animal, not that he was an

unreasoning animal of that species,

for it is a well-established historical

fact that Antipas was a human
being. A human being cannot at
the same time be a human being
and an animal. The meaning then
must be figurative.

When the figurative interpreta-
tion results in nonsense or absurd-

ity or contradiction, the meaning

must he literal.

For example, when our Lord told
us that we are to eat His flesh and
drink His blood (John VI), He
must have intended to be under-

stood literally, because the figure of

speech "to eat one’s flesh” in Bibical

usage means to calumniate, to de-

vour a man’s reputation by false-

hood. For Jesus to ask such a thing

is an absurdity. It would not,

however, be absurd to drink wine

which represents Christ’s blood or

symbolizes it, and many think that
such is the Master’s meaning. But

if it is, then another difficulty con-

fronts us. Such a metaphor is

never found in the Bible; it was

unknown to the audience Jesus was
addressing. Why would our Lord
use figurative language to convey

such a tremendously important

truth, when such language would
not be understood and would also

be extremely repulsive to His Jew-
ish listeners? The Jews considered
it a sin even to touch blood, and

the thought of drinking it would

have been abhorrent to them. The
conclusion is forced on us that

our Lord intended His words to
be taken literally.

Another absurdity results from
the figurative explanation of the

passage in John VI concerning the
bread of life. Our Lord insisted
upon the need for eating His flesh
and drinking His blood, despite the

revulsion of His audience. It must
have been because He wanted to be
understood in the plain, obvious

sense of the words. He would not
have allowed a misunderstanding

to alienate the people He had come
to instruct and to save. But He did
not withdraw or explain away any
part of His statement. A simple
word could have stripped the words
of every vestige or repulsiveness.

’

This can only mean that He wanted
to be understood literally.

There is another absurdity if we
take the figurative meaning of the

words: "Eat my flesh and drink my
blood.” It was our Lord’s practice

when He had used figurative lan-
guage which might be misunder-

stood, to abandon the figurative

form of speech and speak with

severely plain literalness. This He
did in His conversation with

Nicodemus (John III: 1-12); with

the disciples on more than one oc-
casion recorded in -the Gospels

(Matt. XVI: 6-l6; John XI: 11-14;

John IV: 32-34; John VIII: 32-34).

In John VI there is a question of

vital importance to the spiritual

life and welfare of His followers.

To use figurative language which
might have caused his followers to

abandon Him, is an unthinkable

procedure on the part of the

Gentle Savior.

38



WHY THE BIBLE NEEDS

AN AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETER

Considering all that is in-

volved in the proper under-

standing of the Bible, it is

clear that it is a difficult

book to understand. This

difficulty is experienced

even by highly educated and

thoroughly trained special-

ists in Biblical studies, and
to a much greater degree
by the average reader.

Yet, as St. Paul tells us (1 Tim.

11:4), God "will have all men to
be saved and come into the know-
ledge of the truth.” And St. Peter
directs that everyone be prepared

"always to give an answer to every
man that asketh you a reason of
the hope that is in you” (1 Peter
111:15). Christ demands as indis-
pensable for our eternal salvation,

that we believe what He has taught
(Mark XVI: 16). But how can we
believe unless we know with cer-
tainty what our Lord has made
known to us? His demand would
be unreasonable and incapable of
fulfillment unless He has provided
means of ascertaining in some way
in the Twentieth Century, clearly,
unmistakably, and fully what He
taught to the Apostles and which
they taught to others in the first

century. He must, therefore, have

S-BOOOS-Q-BOOOOK

provided the means of ar-
riving at His full message
and its correct interpreta-
tion. He is too good, too
reasonable, to demand the
impossible.

At this point, Protestants
and Catholics part company
and disagree fundamentally.

Fifteen hundred years after
the establishment of the

Christian Church, "the pillar and

the ground of the truth,” ( 1 Tim.

111:15), the Reformers rejected the

authority of the living Church

which had come down through the
centuries. They substituted instead
the authority of the Bible as each

reader interprets it for himself.

Christ’s essential message was in-

scribed on the pages of an inspired
book, they said, and every reader

who is sincere and honest in his
search for the truth will have the

infallible aid of the Holy Spirit to
read and understand that book
correctly.

For Catholics, the Church is,

and always has been, "the pillar

and the ground of the truth.” It

is with the Church that Jesus
promised to abide and in it and

through it. He speaks authorita-
tively and unerringly to mankind.

39



Through the living organism,
which, according to St. Paul is

Christ’s body (Col. 1:17), Jesus
Christ still speaks to the world and

not only transmits divine truth to

all mankind but also its authentic
and correct interpretation. The
Church is ever on the alert to warn
against dangerous and false theories

which are in conflict with the

moral and doctrinal teachings made
known to mankind by God’s Di-
vine Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Church speaks clearly, definite-
ly and concisely. It does not strad-

dle vital issues, it does not tem-

porize or compromise when there
is question of God’s revealed truth.

Like its Divine Founder, the Church
speaks "as one having authority . .

.”

(Matt. VII: 29).

This claim of a divinely appoint-

ed and final authority in matters

of revealed truth sounds arrogant

to many people. Whether it is or
not depends on the historical and

Scriptural evidence, on the words,

intentions and promises of its

Divine Founder. Millions down
through the centuries have been

convinced and are convinced today

that the evidence is quite satisfying.

They accept the unswerving and

infallible authority of the Church

and in their faith have found es-

cape from doubt, from everlasting

searching and have achieved a

religious certainty which is the

source of profound peace of soul.

The Bible cannot explain itself.
It cannot protest against or correct

the misinterpretation of fallible

human minds. And as a book sub-
ject to misinterpretation, it can be

misused and made to become mis-
leading, a source of doubt, disunity

and confusion. In such a situation,
who can be sure of the content,
the meaning, and the import of
God’s message? Who is right and
who is wrong among the many
intelligent people who draw dif-
ferent and conflicting meanings
from the same text?

Christ’s coming to the earth as
the Teacher of men would have
been vain, if He left no way for
men to know what He said and
what He meant. But Christ, in His
love for mankind, did provide the

means by which we can know and
understand His teaching. He left for
us a teaching Church divinely pro-
tected from error and specifically
commissioned to speak with au-

thority when other voices speak
only with confusion.

Is Christianity a religion to be

found in a book by an author whose

voice is forever silent? Or is it a
religion of Authority, living, alert,

ever ready to speak clearly and

forcefully to proclaim God’s truth

... to interpret it and to safeguard

it from being tampered with, dis-

torted and diluted ... an Authority

which is unerring because through

it, Jesus Christ perpetuates Himself

in the world as the unerring Teach-

er of His beloved people.

Whose interpretation shall you
believe? Whose opinion shall you
follow? With your eternal destiny
at stake, it is terribly important

for you to decide — and to decide
right.

Investigate! Seek honestly, intel-

ligently, prayerfully, and you shall

find the truth.

40



KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS - RELIGIOUS INFORMATION BUREAU
4422 Lindell Blvd., St. Louis 8, Missouri

List of pamphlets available at the above address. One title may be requested at a time free

of charge. Several titles, complete sets, and quantities of individual pamphlets may be ordered

at 7^ for each pamphlet, plus postage.

3. The Bible is a Catholic Book

5. Christ’s Seven Sacraments

6. The Holy Sacrifice — the Catholic
Mass

7. Why the Catholic Church says "Inves-
tigate” — Masons, Inquisition, Nuns

8. Speaking of Tolerance — Controver-
sial periods in history

9. These Men They Call "Knights”
10. Why Catholics Believe As They Do

— Existence of God, Immortality
11. A Short Story of the Popes
12. Let’s Stick to Moses — Ten Com-

mandments explained

13. But Can It Be Found in the Bible? —
Bible not sole rule of faith

14. What Happens After Death?
15. Yes ... I Condemned The Catholic

Church

16. What Do You Mean "Only One True
Church”?

17. But How Can Educated People Be
Catholics?

18. No ... Belief in God is not Enough!
19. The Real Secret of Successful Mar-

riage

20. The Way to Everlasting Life . . . The
Catholic Church

21. Is the Catholic Church a Menace to
Democracy?

22. But Do You Really Understand the
Bible? — Rules for understanding

23. A Letter to Our Non-Catholic Neigh-
bors — Aspects of Catholic faith

24. Yes, the Mother of God Will Help
You!

25. What Makes a Woman Choose Such
a Life? — Life of a Catholic Nun

26. I’ll Tell You Why I Am a Catholic
27. Why So Many Decide to Become

Catholics — Convert stories
28. Let Us Judge Catholics by the Bible

— Prayer to Saints, unmarried priests
29. But Would Christ Call You A Chris-

tian?

30. But Do You Understand What God
Told Us? — Apostles’ Creed

31. Should Children Learn About God-
in School?

32. The Bible Is Not Our Sole Guide
33. This Was the Faith of Our Fathers
34. These Are Our Seven Deadly Enemies

— Seven capital sins explained
35. Let’s Test Catholic Loyalty — A Good

Catholic is a good citizen
36. Remember the Sabbath . . . Keep It

Holy — The "Sabbath Question”
37. I Am a Catholic Priest
38. But Why the Candles, Holy Water

and Beads ? — Sacramentals
39. The Reformation. Was It Reform or

Revolt?

40. Why I Had to Embrace the Catholic
Faith — Convert stories

41. Yes, Miracles Happened at Fatima
42. Does the Bible Contradict Itself? —

Peter the Rock, Faith and/or Works
43. I Was Warned About the Catholic

Church !— Religious Liberty
44. Why a Woman Needs the Catholic

Faith

!

45. The Early Years of the Catholic
Church — First three centuries

46. Yes ... A Priest Can Forgive Your
Sins — Sacrament of Penance

47. But Why Don’t You Pray to the
Saints? — Communion of Saints

48. God’s Story of Creation — Genesis
49. Is the Catholic Church Out of Place

Here? — Catholicism and Loyalty
50. This Is the Catholic Church — Creed,

Sacraments, Mass, Commandments
5 1 . Revelation ... A Divine Message of

Hope — Revelations or Apocalypse
52. Does It Pay to be a Catholic? — How

to be a Catholic

53. Think About Death and Start to Live
— Catholic attitude toward death

54. What Do You Find Wrong With
the Catholic Church?

55. His Name Shall Be Called God With
Us — Divinity of Christ

56. The Infallible Church, Truth or Trick-
ery? — Church of the Scriptures

57. Tell Us About God... Who Is He?
Existence and nature of God

58. The Word Was Made Flesh-
Humanity of Christ

59. Let Us Pray—Prayer
60. Gift of the Holy Spirit—Confirmation
61. The Church Says — Precepts of The

Church



Learn All About

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
By Mail ... At No Cost!

You can easily investigate Catholic faith and worship
in the privacy of your home.

Just send us your name and address and advise that
you desire to learn about the Church by mail.
We will send you an interesting course of instruc-

tion which is short, yet complete.
The book explaining Catholic faith and worship is

written in an easy-to-understand form, and there are
six tests sheets to be checked. There is no writing to
do, and nobody will call on you unless you request it.
You merely mail your marked test sheets to us. We

correct them and return them to you. This enables
you to determine how well you understand the book
and on what points further explanation by mail may
help you.

There is no cost to you, no obligation.

Wriu today to:
Supreme Council

KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS
Religious Information Bureau

4422 LINDELL BLVD.
ST. LOUIS 8, MO.

Imprimatur:

I-JOSEPH E. RITTER
Archbishop of St. Louis

St. Louis, November 30, 1950

Published in United States of America

11th Reprinting, April, 1961