De Moor II:8: The Authenticity of the Hebrew and Greek Originals, Part 1

As the Authority of Scripture, binding everyone to faith and obedience, flows from its divine Inspiration; in what Edition of Scripture then is that Authority sought whence it might be found as Independent and Authentic? what text then is to be called the Authentic text of Sacred Scripture?  In which:

I.  With respect to the vocabulary Authentic and Authenticity observe that, according to BUDDEUS, in his Commentario Linguæ Græcæ, and HENRICUS STEPHANUS, in the Index of his Thesauri Linguæ Graecæ,[1] column 576, who both confirm their assertions with many examples; αὐθέντης/authentes to the most ancient Greek Writers denotes τὸν αὐτόχειρα, one who commits murder with his own hand, similarly one who lays hands upon himself,[2] the same as αὐτοέντης, from αὐτὸς, he himself, and ἕω, to send forth (or, according to the opinion of LAMBERT BOS,[3] in his Dissertatione de Etymologia Græca, pages 18, 19, after Exercitationibus philologicis in Novum Fœdus, from αὐτὸς, he himself, and ἕνω, in the place of which then is φένω, to kill):  but afterwards it denoted one that made anything himself, and did not depend upon another, so that an αὐθέντης might be an author/authority, likewise a κύριος/lord, a δεσπότης/master, who acts according to his own will and authority; αὐθεντία might be authorship/authority, power; αύθεντεῖν might be to be in control, to act imperiously, which occurs in 1 Timothy 2:12:[4]  hence those writings are αύθεντικὰ/authentic that have definite authority.  Now, among the ancient Jurisconsults it intensified, that they might call writing authentic, which were original, as an archtype or exemplar is to those that are generally copies.

II.  But as far as our Question is concerned; according to that manner of speaking of the Jurisconsults just now mentioned, only the Autographs of Moses, the Prophets, and the Apostles are authentic:  but, while these Autographs, having been lost long ago, deserve to be called authentic primarily and originally; so any faithful and accurate apographs[5] are able to be called authentic secondarily and derivatively.

In the disappearance of the Autographs, the divine Providence dispenses wisely:  while also it ought to be held as a fable that the Pentateuch, transcribed by the hand of Ezra, is said to be preserved to this day, either at Bologna in the church of St. Dominic,[6] or in the city of Cairo, Egypt; see CARPZOV’S Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti, part I, chapter VIII, § 1, pages 365-368; BUDDEUS’ Isagogen ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VIII, § 3, tome 2, page 1470b.  Neither does it deserve any greater confidence that the autograph of the Gospel of Mark, and that indeed in Latin, is preserved at Venice; concerning which see BUDDEUS’ Isagogen ad Theologiam universam, book II, chapter VIII, § 4, tome 2, page 1497a.

And in this manner indeed (that is, secondarily and derivatively), to the present day Theologians speak of the Authentic text of Scripture, making a somewhat different use of this term transferred from the court to their schools, and comprehending two things especially under the term αὐθεντίας/authenticity, both the exact harmony of the apographs with their prototypes, to such an extent that they read the apographs of the Sacred Codex as if the αὐτογράφους/autograph Codices of the Sacred Writers, whether the reader have it in Manuscript transcriptions, or in printed Editions:  and especially, flowing hence, that divine and irrefutable authority, by which the Sacred Codex, as the αὐτόπιστον/ self-authenticating and infallible Word of God, lays down the supreme norm of faith and life, and, presiding in controversies of religion, bears the judicial and unchallengeable, decisive sentence.

And this Independent αὐθεντία/authenticity and Authority of Scripture with respect to the Matters asserted or materially is also in each faithful Version of Scripture:  for the translation of the Word of God into other languages does not cause a loss of divine authority, since the mind of the supreme Deity does not lie in the sound of the words, but in the sense, which sense is able to be declared and expressed in whatever idiom.  Whence in various and many languages the Apostles were proclaiming τὰ μεγαλεῖα τοῦ Θεοῦ, the wonderful works of God, without any diminishment of the divine sense, Acts 2:11.  But formally, with respect to the manner of relation and the Words, that Authority and αὐθεντία/authenticity is only in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the Greek text of the New, so that to this text all Versions ought to be compared, and, if at any point they differ from it, to be corrected and emended; and to that extent all Versions are dependent upon the text with respect to Words.  “As the trustworthiness of the Ancient books is to be evaluated according to the Hebrew volumes:  so the trustworthiness of the New stands in need of the norm of Greek speech;” is a Canon of AUGUSTINE in GRATIAN’S Decreto,[7] first part, Distinction IX, chapter VI, columns 29, 30.  So indeed AUGUSTINE has it in book II of de Doctrina Christiana, chapter XI, opera, tome 3, column 19:  “And indeed men of the Latin language, whom we have now received that they might be instructed, have a need of two other languages for the knowledge of the divine Scriptures, namely, Hebrew and Greek, so that they might have recourse to the preceding exemplars, if the infinite variety of Latin translators occasion any doubt.”  So also in de Civitate Dei, book XV, chapter XIII near the end, opera, tome 7, column 298.  “In no way would I doubt it rightly to be done, that, when some difference is found in both Codices (the Hebrew and the Septuagint)…confidence is rather to be given to that tongue from which translation was made into another tongue by Interpreters.”

But that, in this manner, Formally and with respect to Words, the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament and the Greek Text of the New Testament are alone Authentic, we prove from this, 1.  that this text is the most Ancient; indeed, we are now wont to have recourse to the most ancient exemplars in all doubts, as those nearest to the πρωτοτύπῳ/prototype/ original:  but, in addition, 2.  this text is Original and ἀρχέτυπος/ archetypal, from which are all Versions, as ἔκτυποι/ectypes translated from the πρωτοτύπῳ/prototype/original.  3.  Finally, this text alone is Inspired by God through the infallible Spirit; while all Versions, although with respect to Substance they have Authenticity, are nevertheless without that αὐθεντίᾳ/authenticity with respect to Words and idioms, in which the divine matters are expressed; for the words of Versions are not θεόπνευστα/inspired, or immediately divine, but ἀνθρώπινα/ human, employed by men to translate the diction and expression of the sources, but not transcending human authority.  4.  Hence that text alone, the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New, was Authentic from the beginning, and no reason is able to be given as to why in the passage of time it should cease to be such:  for what is sought from their corruption supposes that which is in question.  5.  But if that text be not Authentic, no Edition of the Scripture will be authentic; so then there would be no end of contentions, and no rule in which there ought to be complete acquiescence:  but the Scripture would be able to be turned in any direction according to the will of each one.  6.  Finally, the most learned among the Papists acknowledge that in doubts recourse is to be had to these sources; which would not be fitting, unless these sources were Authentic.  Bellarmine, book II, de Verbo Dei, chapter XI, Controversiis, tome I, columns 120-122, posits various cases in which it is fitting to appeal to these sources:  1.  when there appears to be any error of the copyists in the Latin Codices; 2.  when they have various readings, so that which is true is not able to be established with certainty; 3.  when they have anything doubtful, whether in words, or in things; 4.  when the ἐνέργεια/force and propriety of the terms do not appear to be sufficiently expressed.

Now, under the Old Testament, God, in putting on record the Doctrine of salvation through His Amanuenses, made use of the Hebrew Tongue, because at that time He was revealing His Word to the Hebrew people alone, Psalm 147:19, 20; Romans 3:2:  but the native Language of this people was Hebrew:  lest concerning this a doubt be able to arise again in the future to anyone, the Most Illustrious ALBERT SCHULTENS, who in his Excursu III, chapters II-VI, pages 185-244, gave a proof at length, represented the Hebrew Tongue to have been the vernacular before the Flood, and to have remained such among the Hebrews until the time that followed the Babylonian Captivity:  compare BUDDEUS’ Historiam ecclesiasticam Veteris Testamenti, period I, section II, § 11, tome I, pages 188-193, in which he cites more authors for the same opinion, and defends that opinion against Louis Ellies Du Pin, who supposes the Chaldean tongue rather to have been the primeval language.  Hebrew is the native Jewish tongue to the Jews, over against the Syrian dialect, 2 Kings 18:26.[8]

But some things in the Old Testament are found written also in Chaldean or אֲרָמִית/Aramaic, as it is in Daniel 2:4,[9] namely, Jeremiah 10:11; Daniel 2:4-7:28; and some pericopes in the book of Ezra, namely, 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26; and that for the same reason on account of which the rest were written down in Hebrew.  Those Chaldean pericopes apparently were written down either in the Captivity, or about the time of the Babylonian Captivity, in order to serve the needs of the Jewish captives, or of those just now returning from the Captivity, to whom that Chaldean or Syriac dialect had already proven to be very familiar.  In Jeremiah 10:11, a response is furnished for the Jews, whereby to idolaters, soliciting the Jews to defect from the true God, they are able to signify their aversion to idolatry in the language of those very Gentiles.  Now, Daniel, writing in the Chaldean tongue, discusses matters pertaining to the Chaldeans in their own tongue, so that these might also be able to be made witnesses of the truth, and be refuted out of their own things.  Indeed, Ezra exhibits in the Chaldean tongue Chaldaïca, especially the Epistles written to king Artaxerxes, and his responses:  compare the Most Illustrious VERBRUGGE’S[10] Observationes philologicas de Nominum Hebræorum plurali Numero, observation II, § 7, 23, 24, pages 108-110, 127, 128; CARPZOV’S Introductionem ad Libros Propheticos Veteris Testamenti, chapter VI, § 5, pages 247-249.

Under the New Testament, on the other hand, the Sacred Writers made use of the Greek idiom, because, with the dividing wall now removed,[11] they were writing for the use of all nations without distinction, according to Mark 16:15; Acts 17:30.  Therefore, they were obliged to make use of the language most universal and known to the greatest number of Gentiles:  but this was the Greek Language, which, through the empire of the Greeks, most broadly extended, and hence the diffusion of the celebrated study of wisdom among them, was at that time made familiar among all the more civilized nations throughout all three parts of the known world, and was not unknown to most Jews dispersed among the Greeks; indeed, even at Rome, in the city triumphant over the word, it was a favorite.  “For if anyone,” says CICERO, in his Oratione pro Archia, chapter IX near the end, “thinks that a lesser produce of glory out of Greek verses, than out of Latin verses, he errs exceedingly:  because Greek is read in almost all nations, but Latin is restricted to its own borders, and that certainly narrow.”

[1] Henri Estienne, or Henricus Stephanus (c. 1530-1598), was the eldest son of Robert Estienne, who had printed several famous editions of the Greek New Testament.  Henri continued in the family printing business, editing, collating, and preparing many classical works for the press.  His most famous work is his Thesaurus Linguæ Graecæ, which was a standard work in Greek lexicography until the nineteenth century.

[2] That is, a suicide.

[3] Lambert Bos (1670-1717) was a Dutch scholar.  Among other critical works, he published Vetus Testamentum, ex Versione LXX Interpretum.

[4] 1 Timothy 2:12:  “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over (αὐθεντεῖν) the man, but to be in silence.”

[5] That is, copies.

[6] Dominic Guzman established a convent in Bologna, Italy, in 1218.  He died there in 1221.  After Dominic’s death, the monastic complex was expanded, and the Basilica of Saint Dominic was built and then consecrated in 1251.

[7] The Decretum Gratiani is a compilation of Canon Law, written in the twelfth century by the jurist Gratian.  Johannes Gratian was a teacher of theology at the monastery of Saints Nabor and Felix in northern Italy.

[8] 2 Kings 18:26:  “Then said Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and Shebna, and Joah, unto Rabshakeh, Speak, I pray thee, to thy servants in the Syrian language (אֲרָמִית); for we understand it:  and talk not with us in the Jews’ language (יְהוּדִית) in the ears of the people that are on the wall.”

[9] Daniel 2:4:  “Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in Syriack (אֲרָמִית), O king, live for ever:  tell thy servants the dream, and we will shew the interpretation.”

[10] Otho Verbrugge (1670-1745) was a Hebraist and Professor of Theology at Groningen (1717-1745).

[11] Ephesians 2:14.