CRITICISM
497
CRITICISM
li ttrr, " VigilantiEe", pstablishins; the Biblical Coni-
iiii sion, 30 October, 1902.
In a paper read before the Catholic Scientific Coii- i;nss of Fribourg, 1S97 (Revue Biblique, January, Is'is), Father M.-J. Lagrange, superior of (he Doniin- II in school of Biblical studies at Jerusalem, defended
- . Iiierary analysis and an evolution of the Pentateuch
u 1 1 irh are substantially identical with those of the Graf- \\llhausen hypothesis. He distinguished between tlir tradition that Moses was the historical author or fi'imder of the Pentateuch, which he retained, and the tr.i.lition of the Mosaic literarj' authorship, which he
- il> iiidoned. Like Loisy, the learned Dominican
i;i liiitained that the literarj' methods of the ancient ' Mii>nt are sharply differentiated from those of our ri\ ilization. During the last decade a considerable iriiiiber of Catholic Biblical scholars have coalesced into what has been called the "progressive" school. -\:i!urally disagreeing somewhat in details, they agree in holding (a) the composite texture and progressive fiirrnation of a numlier of sacred books, and in aban- (!oriing therefore their traditional unity of authorship; I 111 in allowing a theological and moral development in the O. T. ; (c) in admitting an extensive tacit in- siTtion of popular traditions and written sources, w liich contain unhistorical statements. Nevertheless these exegetes hold firmly to the objective truth of the essential and larger lines of the history of the Old Dispensation as embodied in the Bible. They assert that in general the question of the literarj' procedure of Biblical writers is not one of faith. Their position has met with repeated attacks by Catholic adherents of the conservative school, who have combated them with arguments drawn chiefly from the irreconcila- bility of the new views with the Catholic dogmatic tradition of inspiration and inerrancy as witnessed, it is alleged, in the N. T., the Fathers, the teachings of the councils of Trent and the Vatican, and particularly the encyclical of Leo XIIL (See Inspiration). The principal adversaries of the advanced conclusions are the Jesuits Delattrc (Autour de la question biblique, 1004), Brucker (contributions to the "Etudes" be- tween 189-1 and 1905), Fontaine, Fonck, Pesch, (De Inspiratione Sac. Scrip., 1906), Murillo, Billot; also Professor Hoberg and Abbe Mangenot (L'Authenti- citd du Pentateuque, 1907).
The Biblical Commission (q. v.), whose decisions have now the force of acts of the Roman Congrega- tions, declared, 13 Februarj', 190,5, that the fallibility of implicit citations in the Bible might be admitted, provided solid arguments prove that they are really citations, and that the sacred writer does not adopt them as his own. The Commission conceded on 23 June, 1905, that some passages may be historical in appearance only, always saving the sense and judg- ment of the Church. On 27 June, 1906, the commis- sion declared that the arguments alleged by critics do not disprove the substantial authorship of the Pen- tateuch by Moses. This decision has necessarily modi- fied the attitude of such Catholic writers and teachers as favoured in a greater or less degree the conclusions of the Graf-\\'ellhausen hypothesis. The decree of the Inquisition "Lamentabili" (3 July, 1907) and the encyclical "Pascendi Dominici Gregis" (8 September, 1907) reasserted against the Modernists the sound, Catholic principles to be followed in the study of Sacred Scripture.
Xew Teatamenl Criticism. — Catholic scholars who were willing to accept some of the critical theories have drawn a line of distinction between the criticism of the Old and that of the New Testament, not only because of the greater delicacy of the latter field, but because they recognize that the documents of the Old and New Dispensations were produced under quite ditTercnt conditions. In the province of N.- T. higher criticism Catholics have defended the traditional au- thenticity, integrity, and veracity of the books in IV.— 32
question. Some exegetes admit in a slight measure
divergencies in the Evangelical narratives, and the
employment of older documents by at least two of
the Synoptic writers. As to the " Synoptic problem ",
it is allowed that at least St. Luke utiUzed St. Mark's
Gospel; so Batitfol, Minocchi, Lagrange, Loisy, Bo-
naccorsi, Gigot. Unduly influenced by contemporary
German criticism. Abbe Loisy has in recent times
broken with the orthodox traditions of N.-T. exegesis.
In a reply to Harnack's "What is Christianity?" he
defended Catholic dogma as an evolution with its
roots in the Primitive Church, but made dangerous
concessions regarding Christ's claim to Divinity, His
Messianic vocation, knowledge, miracles, and Resur-
rection ("L'Evangile et I'Eglise", 1902; "Autour
d'un petit livre", 1903). In "Le Quatrieme Evan-
gile" (1903) Loisy rejects the Johannine authorship
and the historicity of the Fourth Gospel, both of which
were affirmed by the Biblical Commission (29 May,
1907). His system virtually severs the Catholic Faith
from its historical credentials as found in the N. T.,
and the above works have been condemned by the
Congregation of the Index. They have drawn out a
number of refutations from Catholic apologists, such
as the Abb(5 Lepin's "Jesus Messie et Fils de Dieu"
(1904). Jlore recently Loisy published a work on the
Synoptic Gospels (Les evangiles synoptiqucs, 1908)
in which he follows the most extravagant rationalistic
criticism. Loisy was excommunicated 7 March, 1908.
As has been remarked, the Church warmly recom-
mends the exercise of criticism according to sound
principles unbiassed by rationalistic presuppositions,
but it must condemn iffidue deference to heterodox
writers and any conclusions at variance with revealed
truth. When doubt arises about the permissibility
of hypotheses, it is for ecclesiastical authority to decide how far they consist with the deposit of faith
or are expedient to the welfare of religion.
(Catholic a .^! . , ,, . , ,.. )
From a > - -iroux*, Les Hvres
saints ct la < : u ■; Lias, Eleirvnts of
Biblical Cnl,,- ,;,.<■ ■. ,i i,n. The Old Testa-
ment and the .\ew Cnhri.^'n il.undnii. i,>;(.vi; Beattie, Radical Criticism (Chicago, l;>9oJ; Anueksun, 2'hc Bible and Modern Criticism (London, 1902); Hopfl*, Die hohere Bibclkrilik (2nd ed., Paderbom, 1905); art. Criticism, in Hasting, Diet, of Christ and the Gospels.
From a critical standpoint: Chetne, FouTtder.i of 0. T. Criti- cism (New York. 1893); Zenos, Elements of the Higher Criticism (New York, 1895); Nash, Hist, of the Higher Criticism of the N. T. (New York, 1900); Carpenter, The Bible in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1903); Driver and Ivirkpatrick, The Higher Criticism (London, 1905); Gigot*. Higher Criticism of the Bible, in New York Review. March, 1906-ApriI, 1907.
Irenic: Grannan*. Higher Criticism and the Bible, in Am. Cath. Quart. Rev.. Julv, 1894; McFatden. O. T. Criticism and the Chrislinn Church (New York, 1903); Pkters*. Die grund- satztiche .^trllung der katholische Kirche zur Bibelforschung (Pad- erbom, 1905).
George J. Reid.
Criticism Textual. — The object of textual criti- cism is to restore as nearly as possible the original text of a work the autograph of which has been lost. In this textual criticism differs from higher criticism, whose aim is to investigate the sources of a literary work, study its composition, detennine its date and trace its influence and various transformations throughout the ages.
A. Xcresait}! and processes of textual criticism. — Textual criticism has no application except in regard to a work whose original does not exist; for, if extant, it could easily be reproduced in photogravure, or pub- lished, once it had been correctly deciphered. But no autograph of the inspired writings has been trans- mitted to us, any more than have the originals of pro- fane works of tlic same era. The ancients had not that superstitious veneration for original manuscripts ■which we have to-day. In very early times the Jews were wont to destroy the sacred books no longer in use, cither by burj'ing them with the remains of holy personages or by hiding them in what was called a
