Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/777

 EXEGESIS

699

EXEGESIS

whether they refer to the same or to similar subjects (the destruction of Jerusalem, e. g., and the end of the world), whether they consider their subject from the same point of view (e. g. the suffering and the glorious Messias), whether they use proper or figurative lan- guage. Thus the Prophet Nathan in his private ca- pacity encourages David to build the Temple (II Kings, vii, 3), but as Prophet he foretells that Solomon will build the house of God (ibid., 13).

The inerrancy of Scripture excludes also any con- tradiction between the Bible and the certain tenets of science. It cannot be supposed that the inspired WTiters should agree with all the various hypotheses which scientists assume to-tlay anil reject to-morrow; but the commentator will be required to harmonize the teaching of the Bible with the scientific results which rest on solid proof. This rule is clearly laid do^\Ti by the Encyclical in the words of St. Augustine: " Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of recon- ciliation with our Scriptures, and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so" (DeGen. ad lift., I,xxi, xli). But the commen- tator must also be careful " not to make rash asser- tions, or to a,ssert what is not known as known" (St. Aug., in Gen. op. imperf., ix, 30). The Encyclical appeals here again to the wortls of the great African Doctor (St. Aug., de Gen. ad litt., II, ix xx): "[The Holy Ghost] who spoke by them [the inspired WTiters], did not intend to teach men these things [i. e., the es- sential nature of the things of the visible universe], things in no way profitable unto salvation." The pontiff continues: "Hence they . . . described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Or- dinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way, the .sacred wTitcrs — as the Angelic Doctor re- minds us (Sunima, I, Q. Ixx, a. 1, ad 3°") — ' went by what visibly appeared ', or put down what God, speak- ing to men, signified in a way men could understand and were accustomed to." In Gen., i, 16, e. g., the sun and the moon are called two great lights; in Jos., X, 12, the sun is commanded to stand still; in Eccl., i, .'), the sun returns to its place; in Job, xxvi, 11, the heavens arc uphekl by columns; in other passages the firmament appears solid and brazen, and God rides on the clouds of heaven.

Finally, the commentator must be preparetl to deal with the seeming discrepancies between Biblical and profane history. The considerations to be kept in mind here are similar to those laid down in the preced- ing paragraph. First, not all statements found in pro- fane sources can be regarded a priori as Gospel truth ; some of them refer to subjects with which the writers were imperfectly acquainted, others proceed from party-feeling and national vanity, others again are based on imperfectly or only partially translated an- cient documents. Secondly, the Bible does not ex pro- jesso t«ach profane history or chronology. These topics are treated only incidentally, in as far as they are connected with sacred subjects. Hence it would be wrong to regard Scripture as containing a complete course of history and chronology, or to consider the text of its historical portions above suspicion of cor- ruption. Thirdly, we must keep in mind the wonls of St. Jerome (in Jer., xxviii, 10): "Many things in Sa- cred Scripture are related according to the opinion of the time m which they are said to have happened, and not according to objective truth"; and again (in Matt., xiv, 8): "According to the custom of Scripture, the historian relates the opmion concerning many things

in accordance with the general belief at that time." Father Delattre maintains (Le Criterium &. I'usage de la Nouvelle Exegese Bibliciue, Liege, 1907) that ac- cording to St. Jerome the inspired writers report the public opinion prevalent at the time of the events re- lated, not the public opinion prevalent when the narra- tive was written. This distinction is of greater prac- tical importance than it, at first, seems to be. For Father Delattre only grants that the mspired historian may WTite according to sensible appearances, while his opponents contend that he may follow also the so-called historic appearances. Finally, the first two decisions of the Biblical Commission must be men- tioned in this connexion. Some Catholic writers had attempted to remove certain historical difficulties from the sacred text either by considering the respective passages as tacit or implied quotations from other authors, for which the inspired writers did not in any way vouch; or by denying that the sacred writers vouch, in any way, for the historical accuracy of the facts they narrate, since they use these apparent facts merely as pegs on which to hang some moral teaching. The Biblical Commission rejected these two methods by decrees issued respectively 13 Feb. and 23 Jinie, 1905, adding, however, that either of them may be admitted in the case when, due regard being paid to the sense and judgment of the Church, it can be proved by solid argument that the sacred writer either really quoted the sayings or documents of another without speaking in his own name, or did not really intend to write his- tory, but only to propose a parable, an allegory, or another non-historical literary concept.

(ii) Positive Directions. — St. Irenwus represents the teaching of the early Church, when he writes that the truth Ls to be learned where the charismata of God are, and that Holy Scripture is safely interpreted by those who have the Apostolic succession (Adv. hver., IV, xxvi, 5). Vincent of L^rins appears to sum up the teaching of the Fathers on this subject when he writes that on accoimt of the gi'eat intricacies of various errors it is necessarj' that the line of Prophetic and Apostolic interpretation be directed according to the rule of ecclesiastical and Catholic teaching. The Vati- can Coimcil emphasizes the decree of the Coimcil of Trent (Sess. IV, De edit, et usu sacr. libr.) when it teaches (Constit. de fide cathol., c. ii) that " in things of faith and morals belonging to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be considered the true sense of Holy Scripture which has been held and is held by our Holy Mother the Church, whose place it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret Holy Scripture against such sense or also against the imanimous agreement of the Fathers ". Hence flow the following principles.

(a) Defined Texts. — The Catholic commentator is bound to adhere to the interpretation of texts which the Church has defined either expres.sly or implicitly. The number of these texts is small, so that the com- mentator can easily avoid any transgression of this principle. The Council of Trent teaches that Rom., v, 12, refers to original sin (Sess. V, cc. ii, iv), that John, iii, 5, teaches the absolute necessity of the baptism of water (Sess. V, c. iv; Sess. VII, De bapt., c. ii), that Matt., xxvi, 26 sq. is to be imderstood in the proper sense (Sess. XIII, cap. i) ; the Vatican Council gives a direct definition of the texts. Matt., xvi, 16 sqq. and John, x.xi, 1.5 sqq. Many more Scripture texts are in- directly defined by the definition of certain doctrines and the condemnation of certain errors. The Council of Nic:Pa, e. g., .showed how tho.se passages ought to be interpreted on which the Arians relied in their conten- tion tliat the Word w.as a creature; the F'ifth CEcu- nipiiical Council (II Constantinople) teaches the right meaning of many prophecies by condemning the inter- pretation of Tlu'odiM-e of Mopsuestia.

(b) Patristic Interpretation. — Pope Leo XIII, in hia