Vain repetition

Contents

CHAPTER PAGE

Introduction - - - - - - 5

1. Batta = Poly - - - - - 7

Introduction

In St. Matthew vi-7, we read :

( 1 And when you are praying, SPEAK NOT MUCH, as the heathens. For they think that in their much speaking they may be heard."

The authors of the earliest Protestant versions thought that the 44 much speaking" referred to was silly speaking, and so put 14 Babble not much " instead (Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva).

The authors of the King James version thought that the "much speaking" consisted in foolish repetitions, and so rendered the text : 4 ' Use not vain repetitions."

These Protestant renderings, as is evident, are not versions but paraphrases or interpretations of the text.

The opinion that Christ was condemning babbling or vain repetition, in Matt, vi-7, originated with Protestant scholars. We can find no trace of it prior to the sixteenth century.

In this pamphlet we are looking for the true meaning of BATTA, the word which Protestants have rendered 1 ' vain repetitions" — and then for the meaning of the text in which it occurs.

My Protestant readers will be surprised when I tell them that Christ never condemned repetition of any kind, that there is no condemnation of repetition anywhere in the Scriptures, that the Hebrew prayers, both ancient and modern, have nothing reprehensible under this head; that although pagan prayers are to be condemned, it is not on account of any repetitions that may be found in them. Whether the reasons that I give are sufficient and satisfactory, it remains for my readers to decide.

About two-thirds of the matter in this volume appeared in the N. Y. Freeman's Journal a year ago.

VAIN REPITITIONS

OR

THE PROTESTANT MEANING OF BATTA.

CHAPTER I. BaTTa = Poly

About three years ago I became interested in the Protestant text, " Use not vain repetitions as the heathens " (St. Matthew vi-7), a prohibition that Protestants accuse us of violating by reciting the Rosary, the Litanies, etc., which abound in repetition. No Catholic author that I know of, has .ever given this Protestant text much attention, or attempted to show that there is no question whatever of repetition in it, unless its implied recommendation. In fact, I have found several Catholic authors, whilst doctrinally correct, so influenced by Protestants, as to use the repetitions of the priests of Baal as an illustration of the thing prohibited in St. Matthew vi-7, and giving the same old stale, unintelligent etymological guesses that, together with the Baal and Diana illustrations, are to be found in nearly all Protestant commentaries. I have been surprised at the amount of sophistry and anti-Catholic abuse to be found in Protestant works on this text.

Until the sixteenth century neither Jews, Christians, Mohammedans nor Pagans ever saw any harm in repetition, nor, with the exception of Protestants, do they see it yet. We think that we have perfect liberty, in addressing Our Heavenly Father. We may ask Him for the same thing in the same or in equivalent words, we may repeat His Name and our petitions to Him a definite or an indefinite number of times, as often, and even oftener than a child does in addressing its earthly father. Some Protestants also believe in this perfect liberty in prayer, but the majority of them think that there is some divine restriction on repetition.

If they are asked the reason for this strange notion (strange to all the world except themselves) they will reply: Christ said : "USE NOT VAIN REPETITIONS as the heathen," — which we deny. "Why, look in the Bible and you will see that He did." In your Protestant Bible, it is true, these words are found, but are they a correct translation of the words that Christ used? or, rather, are they a correct paraphrase or interpretation ?*

Look in our Catholic Bible and you will find no mention of vain repetitions ; there you will find this text translated: "SPEAK NOT MUCH, as the heathen," an altogether different meaning, as I will show later on.

Repetitions, like many other things, are of three kinds — good, bad and indifferent. Prayer to God is good, and as a good thing cannot be done too often, the oftener it is repeated the better. Prayer to an idol is something intrinsically bad, and each time it is repeated a new injury is done to God ; such repetitions are bad repetitions. Some people have a habit of repeating some word or phrase such as "Great Scott" without any rhyme or reason, nearly every time that they open their mouths to say anything ; it is merely a foolish habit, which does neither good nor harm. Such repetitious are vain or useless repetitions. There is no question between us and our Protestant friends about the repetition of bad or indifferent things. Every one will call the repetition of a bad thing a bad repetition, and the repetition of a useless or foolish thing a foolish or vain repetition, but the question is whether it is bad or useless to repeat a good thing, to repeat a prayer to God? Protestants do not, as far as I know, at least in their commentaries on our text, accuse us of repeating prayers that are bad or indifferent, but accuse us of breaking Christ's prohibition, especially by repeating too often the prayer, which Christ in this very place, taught us to say. To Catholics it appears very lu-

*" Use not vain repetitions " is a paraphrase, but not a version, giving probably the sense but not the form of the original (St. Matthewexplained by J. Addison Alexander). Alexander is one of the few Protestant scholars who puts it so mildly as to say that the words " Use not vain repetitions 1 ' found in the English Protestant version give" probably the sense" of Our Saviour's words ; the majority speak as though there was no doubt about it.

dicrous to be accused (of the crime!) of repeating too often the Lord's Prayer, but any of my readers who are familiar with the plentiful Protestant literature on this subject know that one of the heavy charges brought against the wicked Romanists is (the sin !) of repeating too often the very prayer which Christ Himself taught us, and which is therefore the best of all prayers. The following extracts from commentaries by Protestant scholars will show us how they look at this matter :

14 BATTALOGESETE.— To repeat the same formula many times, as the worshippers of Baal and of Diana, of Ephesus and the Romanists, with their pater-nosters and aves '! i Marvin R. Vincent, in his " Word Studies in the New Testament. ' ' )

"The repetitions of pater-nosters and aves in the Roman Church, as practiced by them, are in direct violation of this precept." (St. Matthew, with S.S. Notes. Internat. Series, R. Franklin Johnson. )

"It has often been remarked that in corrupt Christian churches one of the earliest and worst perversions of the truth is the adoption of the very error (i. e., using vain repetitions) which Our Lord here describes as heathenish, and in relation to the very prayer here given to prevent it." (St. Matthew explained by Rev. J. Addison Alexander.

"In the Church of Rome not only is it carried to a shameless extent, but as Tholuc justly observes, the very prayer which Our Lord gave as an antidote to vain repetitions is the most abused to this superstitious end, the number of times it is repeated counting for so much merit. Is not this just that characteristic feature of heathen devotion which our Lord here condemns?" (Jamieson Lausset «S: Brown.)

44 Protestants condemn the general use of it made by Romanists." ( McClintock & Strong's C\cl. Art. Pater Nos/o . )

Here we have some good strong anti -Catholic assertions that we shall examine more at length later on. Christ said something in condemnation of some heathen practice in St. Matthew vi 7 which Protestants have paraphrased or interpreted ,l Use not vain repetitions, as the heathen."

Then they put Catholics and heathens in the same box and prove to their own satisfaction that we are disregarding the prohibition of Christ. From what I have read on this subject from a Protestant standpoint, I should be inclined to believe that the Roman Catholic heathen is the worst kind of heathen. We poor superstitious heathen Romanists, thinking that we have perfect liberty to address God when and where and as often as we please, a definite or an indefinite number of times, even in the very same words, do not know to what " a shameless extent " we are perverting prayer until we find it out in Protestant books. As none but Protestants are able to find their prohibition in St. Matthew vi-7, I hope that they will let us off, at least, on the plea of invincible ignorance.

I should like to ask our Protestant brethren for an explanation of their text. Do the words "Use not vain repetitions" mean: Use not repetitions, because repetitions are vain ? or, do they mean : Use not those repetitions, which are vain ? If they say the first and condemn repetition in itself, they condemn Christ and the Scriptures, and even themselves, for all men use repetition at times. But if they mean : Use not those repetitions which are vain, w 7 hat are they? Surely the Lord's Prayer, and the inspired words of Holy Scripture, of which most Catholic prayers are composed, are not vain. Protestants have never been able to agree in telling us what they mean by vain repetitions.

There is another question which I should like to ask our Protestant friends, concerning the repetitions which they think Christ has forbidden in His Sermon on the Mount. Did Christ forbid these repetitions because they were wrong ? or, are they wrong, simply because Christ has forbidden them ?

If Protestants think that they are intrinsically wrong and forbidden by the natural law, it is a pity that the learned Protestant scholars of the last three hundred years have not clearly pointed out their intrinsic malice [f they think that they are wrong simply because Christ h is forbidden them (just as it was wrong for a Jew to eat pork, simply because God forbade it to him) Protestants should abstain from attacking Jews and Pagans for doing what is in itself harmless, and they should also excuse us, as we are still unable to find the prohibition which was not discovered until sixteen centuries after Christ had spoken it. As Protestants are the only ones who are aware of its existence, they are the only ones who can be guilty of breaking it, and of offending God by doing so.

The majority of Catholics do not repeat the Lord's Prayer oftener than twice a day, at their morning and at their evening prayers. Protestants give us credit for more devotion than the majority of Catholics deserve. This pamphlet, however, is not about how much, or how little, Catholics repeat their prayers, or whether they repeat them at all, but we are to try to find out if Christ ever said anything in condemnation of repetition, whether anything like a condemnation of repetition can be extracted from the words which He used in His Sermon on the Mount (St. Matthew vi-7), or whether the Greek words Me Battalogesete can be correctly translated, or paraphrased, or interpreted " Use not vain repetitions " ?

In His introduction to the Lord's prayer, according to our English Catholic version, Christ said (St. Matt. vi-7) :

''When ye are praying, SPEAK not MUCH, as the heathens. For they think that in their MUCH SPEAKING they may be heard. Be not you therefore, like to them, for your Heavenly Father knoweth what is needful for you, before you ask him."

According to the English Protestant authorized version, Christ said :

"When ye pray, USE not VAIN REPETITIONS, as the heathen do ; for they think that they shall be heard for their MUCH SPEAKING. Be not ye therefore like unto them ; for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him."

It will be noticed that in one sentence these versions disagree. The Catholic version has ' 1 Speak not much ; " the Protestant, ''Use not vain repetitions. " When versions disagree, we must go back to the original. According to St. Matthew, Christ said : MB BATTALO- GESETE. Is the Catholic translation correct, or is the Protestant paraphrase correct, or are they both correct, i. e., have they both the same meaning? According to Protestant authors they both are correct ; ours is a literal translation, theirs is a paraphrase of that translation ; much speaking, and vain repetition are the same thing. They are not. If we split up the compound 'word, BATTALOGESETE and arrange the Greek words and the two translations in the following way, I think that it will be clear even to those who know nothing of Greek in what they agree and in what they differ :

LOGESETE ME BATTA (Catholic) : Speak not much

(Protestant) : Use not vain repetitions

LOGESETE means, speak ; the Protestant version renders it, use, but since use vain repetitions, and speak vain repetitions, mean the same thing, we have no fault to find with this word. ME means not ; but what does BATTA mean ? It means much, as I shall show, but does it also mean vain repetitions ? Since BATTA is the only word or part of a word about which we disagree, we shall put the rest aside and devote all our attention to BATTA.

Of the origin, or derivation, or etymology of BATTA we know nothing. A number of guesses have been made, but they are of no value.

BATTA is not found as a separate word in any of the Greek literature that has come down to us. It is found in combination with R1DZEIN ( Battaridzein) and with LOGEIN (Battalogein). This latter verbis found only twice in Greek authors, once in St. Matthew vi-7, the text that we will study, and again toward the end of the fifth century in Simplicius (Ench. in Epictetus 340 [212 C] ). It is found in no classic author. In its nominal form, BATTATOGIA (much speaking), it is also found in a few places. The verb is not given in any early Greek lexicon. Since then, it is found neither in Greek literature, excepting two places, nor in ancient lexicons, we must look for its meaning in the ancient translations which were made when Greek was still a

J2 living language, and when the word BATTALOGEIN was still in use ; but first and above all, we must determine its meaning in St. Matthew from its context. From both of these sources, it is certain that BATTA means much, and that BATTALOGEIN means to speak much; but neither in ancient translations, nor in the context of St. Matthew, nor anywhere in the Scriptures, can we find any support for the Protestant text. I hope that the reader who does not understand Greek will not be discouraged if I introduce another Greek word, POLY, which also means, much or many. However POLY has been transferred into English and is used in so many compounds (e. g. polygamous, much married ; polychromous, manv colored), that every one should be familiar with it. BATTA has also been anglicized, and we have it in both its verbal and its nominal form — Battologize and Battologv ; we have even two English forms, Battological and Battologist, which have nothing corresponding to them in Greek. These words were introduced into the English language by Protestants, and have the Protestant meaning of BATTA.

POLY and BATTA are synonyms; they mean much. POLY-LOGEIN and BATTA-LOGEIN are also synonyms, and mean to speak much. POLY-LOGIA and BATTA-LOGIA are also identical in sense, and mean much speaking.

Before examining the Protestant text, we must satisfy * ourselves that our Catholic translation is correct, which ought to be easy, since Protestants admit that it is. J shall give a few quotations from Protestant scholars show* ing that they consider POLY-LOGIA and BATTA^ LOGIA synonyms, meaning, much speaking.

" (Christ) uses two w r ords (Batta-logia and Poly-logia) but they have the same meaning n — Calvin.

"The explanation of its (Batta-logia) meaning is furnished by the expression much speaking, Poly-logia, which follows." — Lange, translated by Philip SchafF.

" Batta — . . . the same thing which is subsequently called Poly — " Meyer, A Critical Exeg. Handbook of St. Matthew.

Ward in his errata of the Protestant Bible, gives many of the anti-Catholic mistranslations in the English Protestant versions that preceded the King James or Authorized version of 1611. One of the erroneous translations in the Authorized Protestant version, which is not found in the versions made before its time, is "Use not vain repetitions," (St Matthew, vi-7.) It is true that the Protestant translations made prior to it, mistranslate this very text, by rendering it u Do not babble," but the particular mistranslation that we are now dealing with did not appear until 161 1, and hence it is not mentioned in Ward's list. We must first be certain that our version, "Speak not much " is correct, and then we shall show that ' ' Use not vain repetitions" is an incorrect paraphrase, or a misinterpretation. It is unnecessary to go to the trouble of proving that our version is correct since Protestant scholars admit it, but I think it important to give the correctness of our version a little more prominence, and I shall do so by putting it forward in the form of a proposition.

Chapter II. Proposition I

Our Catholic version of Christ's words (St. Matthew, vi-7 }, 11 speak not much," is a correct literal translation.

It will be necessary to keep in mind the whole verse to prove our proposition :

"When you are praying, speak not much (ME BATTALOG-) as the heathens.

" For they think that in their much speaking (POLY- LOG I A - they may be heard."

Protestant scholars in dealing with this text use the nominal form BATTA-LOGIA and the verbal form BATTA LOGEIN indifferently, for there is no dispute about the part of the verb, or about the word in its verbal or nominal form, but about the meaning of the word in either or both forms, hence for the sake of simplicity and to follow the example set for us, we will speak of BATTA-LOGIA and POLY-LOGI A, although BATTA- LOG in our text happens to be a verb, and POLY-LOG a noun.

Here is our proof in form :

POLY-LOG I A means much speaking ;

But, BATTA-LOGIA and POLY-LOGIA mean the same thing :

Therefore, BATTA-LOGIA means much speaking.

The major, as every boy and girl who has studied Greek a few weeks knows, merely states the meaning of the Greek word Poly-logia. The minor states the identity of Batta- and Poly-, which will be evident to anyone who Carefully looks over the text. Protestant scholars admit it. The Protestant versions made prior to King Jamefl ll&O Affirm the identity of Batta- and Poly-, for they translate them both by the same English word. They have mistranslated them both, but they have at the same time acknowledged their identity by mistranslate-

1$ them both by the same word,* and their identity is all that we are asking for in the minor of our syllogism.

*TYNDALE A. D. 1534— And when ye praye, bable not moche, as the hethen do : for they thincke that they shal be herde, for their moche bablynges sake.

CRAMNER A. D. 1539 — But when ye praye bable not moche, as the hethen do: for they thincke it wyll come to passe, that they shal be heard for their moche bablynges sake :

GENEVA A D. 1557 — Also when ye pray, bable not much, as the heathen do : for they thyncke to be heard for their much babling sake.

If we look at the translations made prior to the Reformation, not only do we find that they translate battalogia and polylogia by the same word, but we also find that they use the correct word. All the ante-Reformation translations of this text are correct, e. g.

WICLIF A. D. 1380— But in preiynge nyle ze speke moche as hethen men don, for thei gessen that thei be herd in her moche speche.

If one reads the Fathers in Protestant translations, he may imagine that the Fathers thought that repetition was condemned in Matt. vi-7. For Protestant translators, thinking perhaps, that the Fathers held the same views as themselves, sometimes attribute to them statements 'that they never made. The following is a comment of St. Gregory on the text (Matt, vi-7), as it is given in a Protestant translation :

" True prayer consists rather in the bitter groans of repentance than in the repetition of a set form of words" — (Trans, by Rev. Mark Pattison, M. A., Fellow of Lincoln College).

I looked at the original and found the following :

" Sed veraciter orare est amaros in compunctione gemitus, et non composita verba resonare. 1 '

I should translate these words :

" True prayer consists rather in the bitter groans of repentance, than in the resounding periods of an oration.' 1 ''

By what process can any one get "the repetition of set forms of words, 11 from "Composita verba resonare? , '

COMPOSITA VERBA means words that have been put together to make up a speech or composition. This phrase has no notion whatever in it of repetition. It meiely represents the synthesis of words that go to make up the literary production. The delivery of the speech or composition is expressed by the word RESONARE. This word is also the common ground of comparison between the contrasted audible groans of the penitent and the resounding words of the decl .imer A man's religious views often make him mistranslate a very simple sentence. It seems to have made this translator of St. GregOl J , impervious to the saint's humor, and unable to see the alliteration and the pun in the sentence that he is putting into English.

* l Sed veraciter orare est amaros in compunctione " Gemitus (resonare understood), et non composita " Verba resonare."

About twelve centuries before Luther, St. Jerome made the 1 .at in translation of the Bible known as the Vulgate. St. Jerome was one of the most eminent biblical and Greek scholars of all time. He wrote when Greek was still a living language, when Batta-logia in both its verbal and nominal form, was still in use, and giving its meaning in St. Matthew he translates it "Nolite multum loqui." Speak not much ; and there is no reason for not believing that this is also the translation that he found in the Latin versions that preceded his own. Nolite multum loqui, is probably the earliest translation, in any language, of the Greek words of St. Matthew, ME BAT- TALOGBSETE.

J. I) Miehaelis in his essay on Battology says : See the efforts of the ancients in translating the command ME B A T T A LOGESETE. The Vulgate and the translations previous to St. Jerome without any variations in the codices read : Nolite multum loqui (speak not much).

Thi> is not a study in Greek. The reader need not know au\ Greek at all, except that the two Greek words Batta-logia and Poly-logia are synonyms, and mean much speaking. I shall sum up all the Greek that he need know, to follow our argument, in this equation :

Batta-logia = Poly-logia (much speaking), which may be abbreviated by eliminating logia (speaking) from both sides, leaving \

Batta == Poly (much).

We intend to examine the crop of Protestant sophistries that have enveloped Batta, and to see how they have extracted 11 vain repetitions ' ' from it, but these dry preliminarv statements are necessary to understand what will f«»ll.»w I will conclude my remarks about the identity of Batta-logia and Poly-logia by asking the reader to examine the text, which is a compound sentence, ari l iee, if it is not evident from the logical or grammatical connection, of the two members of this sentence, that Batta and Poly are synonyms :

'•When ye pray ME BATTALOGESETE, as the

heathens

" For the}^ think that in their much speaking (POLY- LOGIA) they may be heard."

The identity of meaning of Batta and Poly is so clear that if Batta were lost, and not found in any manuscript of St. Matthew, from the rest of the sentence, it would be certain that the missing word must be Poly or a synonym of Poly. Let us write out the text, omitting Batta.

' ' When ye pray do not as the heathens.

" For they think that in their much speaking they may be heard."

The first member tells us not to do something which the heathens do. The second tells us why they do it, hoping thereby to be heard ; and it also mentions what it is, in which they place their hopes of being heard, ''their much speaking." Hence it is evident that the heathen thing prohibited in the first member is much speaking, and if the word were lost, its meaning would be supplied from the rest of the sentence. Calvin summed up all that we are asking by saying : " Christ uses two words (Batta and Poly) but they have the same meaning."

But the meaning of Poly-logia is much speaking.

Therefore, the meaning of Batta-logia is much speaking.

Therefore, our Catholic translation in which both these words are rendered much speaking, is correct.

The next point is to determine the meaning of much speaking. What is the much speaking on which the heathens rely, on which they place their hopes of being heard? Everyone knows what much or many means ; they are the opposites of little and few. They express a very simple notion of quantity. Much speaking, therefore, is speaking much or many things. It is making a long speech. The only idea contained in the phrase " much speaking " is that of length; it prescinds altogether from the quality of the speaking, it merely tells us something about its quantity ; much speaking means along speech, and its opposite, little speaking, means a little or short speech. Of course, our speaking has iS some quality — it is wise or foolish — it is a connected systematic exposition of one subject, or it is disconnected, rambling talk, which it is a waste of time to listen to, but these and other qualities which may belong to the speech or speaking must be expressed by some other words, or must be known from some other source than the adjective much or many (POLY or BATTA). "Much" speaking gives us only one point of information about the speaking, its length. It means a long speech, and since speaking to God is called prayer, much speaking to God means a long prayer. To emphasize its meaning, and, in order to give any one who wishes to assail my statements a definite point of attack, I shall put it down as a proposition.

Chapter III. Proposition II

The phrase * 1 much speaking " contains in it no notion of anything but of length ; it means a long speech ; and if it be directed to God, a long prayer.

It may seem strange that I should insist on the meaning of so simple a word as much or many, but sometimes simple facts that ought to be clear even to a child are obscured and hidden under heaps of learned verbiage. Much or many, in connection with speaking, is to be taken in its obvious sense. In the word POLY-LOGIA, therefore, or in its synonym. BATTA-LOGIA, there is no other notion than that of length, in speaking.

Lengthy speeches made to God, or long prayers, are mentioned in the Scriptures, it might seem, only to be condemned.

* 1 Wo to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites : because you devour the houses of widows, praying long prayers." — St. Matthew, xxiii-14).

4 1 Beware of the scribes * "* ' * who devour the houses of widows, feigning long prayers." — (St. Mark, xii-38).

"Beware of the scribes * * * who devour the houses of widows, feigning long prayers." — (St. Luke, xx, 46-47).

The prayers that Christ heard, and approved of, were short :

The prayer of the leper : " Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean." — (St. Luke, v-12 ; Mark, i 40 ; Matthew, vii-2).

Jairus : "Lord, my daughter is at the point of death, but come lay thy hand on her, that she may be safe and live. " — (St. Luke, viii-41 ; Mark, v-22 ; Matthew, ix-18).

The two blind men : "Son of David, have mercy on us." — (St. Matthew, ix-27).

The Syrophenician woman : " Have mercy on me, O Lord^ Thou Son of David ; my daughter is grievously troubled by a devil." — (St. Mark, vii-24 ; Matthew, xv-22).

The ten lepers; "Jesus, Master, have mercy on us." — (St. Luke, xvii-13).

The publican: "O God, be merciful to me a sinner." — (St. Luke, xviii-13).

The penitent thief : " Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom." — (St. Luke, xxiii-42).

The Apostles ; "Lord, save us, we perish." — (St. Matthew, viii-25).

St. Peter (sinking): "Lord, save me." — (St. Matthew, xiv-30).

The prayers which Christ himself said were short : In Gethsemane : " O my Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me." His prayer for his executioners : "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." And the model prayer, which he taught us, is short,