Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 4.djvu/238

 CONCORDAT

196

CONCORDAT

tained many new words and passages previously omitted, and an appendix of all the Chaldaic words in the O. T.; Baer's edition of Buxtorf (1847) added cer- tain particles. Furst's concordance (Leipzig, 1840) was for a long time the standard. It corrected Bux- torf and brought it nearerto completeness, printed all Hebrew words with the vowel-points, and perfected the order of the derivatives. Every word is explained in Hebrew and Latin. Fiirst excludes, however, the proper nouns, the pronouns, and most of the inde- clinable particles, and makes many involuntary omis- sions and errors; his classification of roots is some- times fanciful. "The Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldaic Concordance" (London, 1843; third edition, 1866) is still very useful. The most comprehensive Hebrew concordance ever published is that of Mandel- kern (Leipzig, 1896), who rectified the errors of his

Eredecessors and supplied omitted references. Though is own work has been shown to be frequently imper- fect, still it is almost complete, and by far the best of Hebrew concordances. An abridged edition of it was published in 1900.

III. Greek Septuagint. — The first was that of Conrad Kircher (Frankfort, 1607); Tromm's, pub- lished at Amsterdam, 1718, had reference not only to the Sept., but also to the versions of Aquila, Symma- chus, and Theodotion; it remained the standard till our own day, when it gave way to Hatch and Red- path's "Concordance to the Septuagint and other Greek Versions of the Old Testament "(Oxford, 1892- 97). This is a beautiful work and is commonly con- sidered about as perfect as present scholarship per- mits. It includes a concordance to the deutero- canonical books and the O. T. Apocrypha, and to the remains of the versions which form part of Origen's Hexapla. The Hebrew equivalents of the Greek, when known, are also given. References to proper names are omitted, which, however, are added in a supplement published in 1900. We must await a truly critical edition of the Sept., nevertheless, before we can have the final, perfect concordance. Bag- ster's "Handy Concordance to the Septuagint" (Lon- don, 1887) gives simply the references, without quo- tations.

IV. Greek New Testament. — The earliest con- cordances to the Greek New Testament are those of Birken or Betulius (Basle, 1546), Henry Estienne (Paris, 1594), and Erasmus Schmid (Wittenberg, 1638), whose work was twice revised and republished. During the latter half of the nineteenth century the standard N. T. concordance was that of Bruder (Leip- zig, 1842; 4th ed., 1888). Its main defect is that it was practically based on the textus receptus, though it aims, in its latest editions, to give also the chief vari- ants. The best, beyond doubt, is Moulton and Geden's "Concordance to the Greek Testament", ac- cording to the text of Westcott and Hort, Tischen- dorf, and the English Revisers (Edinburgh and New York, 1897). This includes all the marginal read- ings. In the case of a reading being in dispute among these authorities, the fact is pointed out. The Hebrew equivalents of all quotations in the N. T. are given; the relation of the Greek N. T. words to the Septuagint and other O. T. Greek versions, as well as to classical usage, is indicated. Two other useful con- cordances, especially for those not very familiar with the Greek, are "Englishman's Greek Concordance to the New Testament", by G. V. Wigram (London, 1839, 2d ed. 1844), and Hudson's "Critical Greek and English Concordance of the N. T." (Boston, 1875), which contains references to the chief variant read- ings.

V. Syriac. — Charles Schaaf's "Lexicon Syriacum" (I>eyden, 1709) practically serves the purpose of a concordance to the Peshito version.

VI. English. — The earliest concordances in Eng- lish were published in the middle of the sixteenth cen-

tury, the first by T. Gybson in 1535 (for N. T. only), and the second in 1550 by John Marbeck. The most famous belongs to the eighteenth century and is the work of Alexander Cruden. First published in 1738, it reached several editions in his own lifetime and has been re-edited and reprinted repeatedly till the pres- ent day. Abridgments have been published which sometimes endeavour to pass for the complete work. Cruden 's work is not really a complete concordance, and omits especially many references to proper names, but his last edition had one virtue, lacking in the best concordances of our day, which commends it to Catholics especially, namely, its concordance to the deutero-canonical, or so-called apocrj'phal, books of the Old Testament, which, however, is usually not re- printed. With this exception, it is far surpassed by the three great concordances of oiu' own day, those of Young, Strong, and Walker. R.Young's "Analytical Concordance to the Bible" (Edinburgh, 1879-84), an almost complete concordance, has the great virtue of indicating the Hebrew, Chaldaic, or Greek original of the English word, and distinguishing the various meanings that may underlie the same word. Strong's "Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible" (New York, 1894) has reference only to the English text; for that it can hardly be improved, as it is extremely rare to find a text missing from Strong. As a text-finder, it is unsurpassed ; but it lacks the special advantages of Young's signalized above. It contains also a com- parative concordance between the Authorized and Revised English versions, useful for a study of the changes introduced. Its great bulk and weight, how- ever, render it a rather formidable book to handle. Walker's "Comprehensive Concordance to the Holy Scriptures" (Boston, 1894) is a volume of convenient size, and almost as complete as Strong's. An excel- lent "Complete Concordance to the Revised Version of the New Testament", by J. A. Thoms, was pub- lished in London, 1884. The works of Wigram and Hudson on the Greek N. T. are also very useful to the English reader.

No concordance to the English Catholic Bible has been published, and it can hardly be said that one is much needed, except for the deutero-canonical books; the late concordances in English suffice, with the ex- ception noted, for the needs of any intelligent reader. For concordances in other modern languages, consult the articles of Mangenot and Kaulen.

Mangenot in ViGdiHorx, Did. de la Bible (Paris. 1897). s. V. Concordances d^' hi liihh, Kaulen in Kirchenlex., s. v. BihelconcoTdanzen, prints specimens of many roncordances. To the.se two articles we are indebted for most of our facts regard- ing the earlier concordances. Hazard, Introduction to Walker. Comprehensive Concordance (Boston, ISO^"); Bacher in Jewish Encyclopedia (New York, 1903). s. v. Concordances.

John F. Fenlon.

Concordat. — Definilion. — Canonists and publicists do not agree about the nature of a concordat and, consequently, vary much in the definition they give. The various theories will be explained later, but for the sake of orderly discussion at least a nominal definition will be premised. In general, a concordat means an agreement, or imion of wills, on some matter. But as soon .as we attempt to define this general notion more clearly a difficulty arises. Agreement of wills may be had in many ways: in friendship, in regard to privi- leges, in a bilateral contract, etc. Prescinding for the present from the exact nature of a concordat, and without giving an ex.act definition, we may say that a concordat is a law, ecclesiastical and civil, made for a certain covmtry in regard to matters which in some way concern both Church and State, a law, moreover, poss(\ssing the force of a treaty entered into by both the erclesiastical and civil power and to a certain ex- tent binding upon both. The full meaning of the terms employed will be explaineil below.

Purix>se.~The purpose of a concordat is to termin- ate, or to avert, dissension between the Church and