Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/776

 EXEGESIS

698

EXEGESIS

spired books, it is better to explain the language of Paul by that of Paul, the expressions of John by those of John, than to explain Paul by Matthew, and John by I.uke. Again, it is more natural to explain an ex- I>ression occurring in the Fourth Gospel by another found in the same book than by a parallel passage taken from the Apocalypse. Finally, it should be kept in mind that parallelism of thought, or real par- allelism, is a more reliable aid in finding the exact sense of a passage than a mere material recurrence of a sentence or a phrase.

(iii) Historical Setting. — The inspired writers con- nected with their words the ideas which they them- selves possessed, and which they knew to be intelli- gible to their contemporaries. When they spoke of a house, they expressed a habitation to which their con- temporaries were accustomed, not a contrivance in use among the barbarians. In order to arrive at the pre- cise sense of a passage, we must therefore bear in mind its historical setting, we must consult the testimony of history. The true sense of the Bible cannot be found in an idea or a thought historically untrue. The commentator must therefore be well acquainted with sacred history and sacred archeology, in order to know, to a certain extent at least, the various cus- toms, laws, habits, national prejudices, etc. untler the influence of which the inspired writers composed their respective books. Otherwise it will be impossible for him to understand the allusions, the metaphors, the language, anil the style of the sacred writers. What has l)een said about the historico-grammatical inter- pretation of Scripture is synopsized, as it were, in the Encyclical already quoted: "The more our adversa- ries contend to the contrary, so much the more solici- tously should we adhere to the received and approved canons of interpretation. Hence, while weighing the meanings of words, the connexion of ideas, the paral- lelism of passages, and the like, we should by all means make use of such illustrations as can be drawn from apposite erudition of an external sort."

(2) Catholic Interpretation. — Since the Church is the official custodian and interpreter of the Bible, her teaching concerning the Sacred Scriptures and their genuine sense must be the supreme guide of the com- mentator. The inferences which flow from this prin- ciple are partly negative, partly positive.

(i) Negative Directions. — The following directions are called negative not because they do not imply a positive attitude of mind or because they do not lead to positive results, but because they appear to empha- size at first sight the avoidance of certain methods of proceeding which would be legitimate in the exegesis of profane books. They are based on what the Church teaches concerning the sacred character of the Bible.

(a) Avoid Irreverence. — Since the Bible is God's own book, its study must be begun and prosecuted with a spirit of reverence and prayer. The Fathers insist on this need in many passages. St. Athanasius calls the Scriptures the fountain that quenches our thirst for justice and supplies us with the doctrine of piety (Ep. fest. xxxix) ; St. Augustine (C. Faust., XIII, xviii) wishes them to be read for a memorial of our faith, for the consolation of our hope, and for an ex- hortation to charity; Origen (Ep. ad Gregor. Neoca?s., c.iii) considers pious prayer as the most essential means for the understanding of the Divine Scriptures; but he wishes to see humility joined with prayer; St. Jerome (In Mich., I, x) agrees with St. Augustine (De doctr. Christ., III,xxxvii) in regarding prayer as the principal and most necessary aid for the understanding of the Scriptures. We might add the words of other patristic writers, if the alli'gi'<l rifcronces were not clear and explicit enough to remove all doubt on the subject.

(b) No Error in Scripture. — Since God is the prin- cipal Author of Sarreil Scripture, it can contain no error, no self-contradiction, nothing contrary to scien-

tific or historical truth. The Encyclical "Providen- tissimus Deus" is most explicit in its statement of this prerogative of the Bible: "All the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dicta- tion of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily, as it is impossible that God Himself, the Supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true.' The Fathers agree with this teaching almost unani- mously; we may refer the reader to St. Jerome (In Nah., I, iv), St. Iremeus (C. hser., II, xxviii), Clement of Alexandria (Strom., VII, xvi), St. Augustine ("C. Faust.", II, ii; cf. "In Ps. cxviii", serm. xxxi, 5; "Ad Hier.", ep. Ixxxii, 2, 22; "Ad Oros. c. Prise", xi), St. Gregory the Great (Prsef. in Job, n. 2). The great African Doctor suggests a simple and radical remedy against apparent errors in the Bible: " Either my codex is wrong, or the translator has blundered, or I do not understand."

But inerrancy is not the prerogative of everything that happens to be found in the Bible; it is restricted to what the inspired writers state as their own, unless they quote the words of a speaker who is infallible in his utterances, the words of an Apostle, e. g., or of a Divinely authorized speaker, whether angel or man (cf. Luke, i, 42, 67; ii, 25; II Mach., vii, 21), or again words regarded as having Divine authority either by Scripture (cf. I Cor., iii, 19; Gal., iv, 30) or by the Church (e. g., the Magnificat). Biblical words that do not fall under any of these classes carry merely the authority of the speaker, the weight of which must be studied from other sources. Here is the place to take notice of a decision issued by the Biblical Commission, 13 Feb., 1905, according to which certain Scriptural statements may be treated as quotations, though they appear on the surface to be the utterances of the in- spired writer. But this can be done only when there is certain and independent proof that the inspired writer really quotes the words of another without in- tending to make them his own. Recent writers call such passages "tacit" or "implicit" citations.

The inerrancy of Scripture does not allow us to ad- mit contradictions in its statements. This is under- stood of the genuine or primitive text of the Bible. Owing to textual corruptions, we must be prepared to meet contradictions in details of minor impor- tance; in weightier matters such discrepancies have been avoided even in our present text. Discrepancies which may appear to obtain in matters of faith or morals should put the commentator on his guard that the same Biblical expressions are not everywhere taken in the same sense, that various passages may differ from each other as the complete statement of a doctrine differs from its incomplete expression, as a clear presentation differs from its obscure delineation. Thus "works" has one meaning in James, ii, 24, an- other in Rom., iii, 28; "brothers" denotes one kind of relationship in Matt., xii, 46, quite a different kind in most other passages; John, xiv, 28, and x, 30, Acts, viii, 12, and Matt., xxviii, 19, are respectively opposed to each other as a clear statement is opposed to an obscure one, as an explicit one to a mere implication. In apparent Ril>lieal di.screpancies found in historical passages, the commentator must distinguish between statements made by the inspired writer and those merely quoted by him (cf. I Kings, xxxi, 9, and II Kings, i, 6 sqq.), between a double account of the same fact and the narrative of two similar incidents, between chronologies which begin with different start- ing-points, finally between a compendious and a de- tailed report of an event. Lastly, apparent discrep- ancies which occur in prophetical passages necessitate an investigation, whether the respective texts emanate from the Prophets as Prophets (cf . II Kings, vii, 3-17),