Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7.djvu/316

 HERMENEUTICS

274

HERMENEUTICS

of (a) the version, (b) the paraphrase, (c) the gloss and scholion, (d) the dissertation, (e) or finally the commentary. The homily may also be classed among the more popular method of Biblical exposition.

(4) The concluding pages of the article Exegesis are devoted to a brief history of the subject: (a) Jewish exegesis is divided into (a) Palestinian and (/3) Hellen- istic; (b) Christian exegesis comprises, (a) the patris- tic period, i. e., (i) the Apostolic Fathers and apolo- gists, (ii) the Greek Fathers of both Alexandrian and Antiochene tendencies, (iii) the Latin Fathers; (/3) the time from the Patristic age (in its narrower sense) to the Council of Trent, where we again meet with (i) Greek writers, and (ii) Latin scholars, either pre- Scholastic or Scholastic; (7) the period after the Council of Trent with (i) its Catholic writers of the golden age, of the transition period, and of recent times, and (ii) the non-Catholic exegctes, whether they be of the number of the early Reformers, or of their immediate successors, or again of the rational- ists. We have added this survey of the history of exegesis because it throws light on the historic develop- ment of hermeneutics.

XL Two Special Questions. — No difficulties will be raised against the Biblical interpreter as long as he remains within the sphere of the rules which govern his gramma tico-historical exegesis; but protest will rise up on every side as soon as he urges the principle of Biblical inerrancy, and the duty of bowing to the authority of the Church. A few additional observa- tions on these two points will therefore not be out of place.

(1) Inerrancy. — (a) Nature of Inerrancy. — The in- errancy of Scripture means that its hermeneutic truth is also objectively true, and that its genuine sense is adequately presented by its literal expression, at least by its complete literal expression, found in the original text interpreted in the light of the special purpose of the Holy Ghost and of its intended circle of readers. But this perfection of literary presentation does not remove obscurity and amljiguity of expression, de- fects which flow naturally from the human authors of the various books of Sacred Scripture, and w^ere foreseen, and for good reasons permitted or even in- tended, by the Holy Ghost. Nor does the absolute truthfulness of Sacred Scripture imply that the Bible always presents the whole truth under all its aspects, nor does it demand that all the sayings quoted by the Bible as historical facts are olijectivcly true. Words quoted in Scripture as spoken by infallibly truthful speakers, e. g., by God Himself, or the good angels, or the prophets and apostles actually inspired, or by the sacred writer himself while under the influence of inspiration, all these wordsare not merely historically, but also objectively, true; but words quoted in Scrip- ture as proceeding "from speakers open to error are not necessarily objectively true, though they are histori- cally true. If however such profane words are ex- pressly approved of by the inspired wTiters, they are also objectively true.

(b) Consequences flowing from Inerrancy. — It fol- lows from what has been said that there can be no contradictions in the Bible, and that there can be no real opposition between Biblical statements and the truths of philosophy, .science, or history.

(o) No Contradictions in Sacred Scripture. — The impossibility of any contradiction existing in the Bible itself flows from the fact tliat God is tlie author of Sacred Scripture, and would be responsible for any such discrepancy. But how are we to remedy appar- ent contradictions in Scripture, the existence of which cannot be denied?

(i) In some cases it is practically certam that our present text has been corrupted. I Kings, xiii, 1, says that Saul was a child of one year when he l>egan to reign, and he reigned two years over Israel, though, according to Acts, xiii, 21 (and Joseph., Antiq., \ I,

xiv) Saul reigned forty years, beginning at the age of twenty-one. In the former case, the letters of the Hebrew text denoting forty and twenty respectively must have been lost. A similar corruption must be admitted in III Kings, iv, 26, which grants to Solomon 40,000 stalls of chariot horses instead of the 4000 as- signed to him in II Par., ix, 25 (Hebrew text).

(ii) In other cases the apparent contradictions in the Bible are due to an erroneous exegesis of one or both of the passages in question. Such wrong inter- pretations are easily caused bj' the change of the meaning of a word; by the assumption of a wrong nexus of ideas (chronological, real, or psychological); by a restriction or an extension of the meaning of a passage beyond its natural limits; by an interchange of figurativewithproper, of hjiwthetical with absolute, language; by a concession of Divine authority to mere quotations from profane sources, or by a neglect of the difference between the Old and the New Testa- ment. Thus the word " tempt" has one sense in Gen., xxii, 1, and quite another .sense in James, i, 13; the expressions "faith" and "works" have not the same sen.se in Rom., iii, 28, and James, ii, 14, 24; the "sin- cere companion" of Phil., iv, .3, does not mean "wife", and does not place this pa.s.sage in opposition to I Cor., vii. S; the " hatred of parents" inculcated in Luke, xiv, 26, is not the hatred prohibited by the command- ment of the decalogue; the nexus of events in the First Gospel is not chronological, and does not estalilish an opposition bet ween St. Matt hew and the other Evangel- ists; in I Kings, xxxi, 4, the inspired writer testifies that Saul killed himself, while in II Kings, i, 10, the lying .\malecite boasts that he slew Saul; in John, i, 21, the Baptist denies that he is " the prophet", with- out contradicting the statement of Christ in Matt., xi, 9, that John is a prophet; etc.

(iii) Apparent contradictions in the Bible may have their source in an erroneous identification of distinct words or facts, in a neglect of the difference of stand- point of different wTiters or speakers, or finally in an erroneous assumption or opposition between two really concordant pas.sages. Thus Gen., xii, 11 sqq., refers to facts wholly different from those related in Gen., XX, 2, and xxvi, 7; the healing of the centurion's servant related in Matt., viii, .5 sqq., is entirely distinct from the healing of the king's son mentioned in John, iv, 46 sqq.; the multiplication of loaves in Matt., xiv, 15 sqq., is distinct from that described in Matt., xv, 32 sqq., the cleansing of the temple related in John, ii, 13 sqq., is not identical with the event told in Matt., xxi, 12 sqq.; the anointing described in Matt., xxvi, 6 sqq., and John, xii, 3 sqq., differs from that told in Luke, vii. 37 sqq.; the prophets view the coming of Christ now from an historical, now from a moral, and again from an eschatological. standpoint, etc.

(j3) No Opposition between Biblical and Profane Truth, (i) Proof. — Thus far we have considered ap- parent contradictions between different statements of Sacred Scripture; a word mu.st be added about the opposition which may appear to exist between the teaching of the Bible and the tenets of philosophy, science, an<l history. The Bible student must be con- vinced that there can be no such real opposit ion. The Vatican Council declares expressly: "Though faith is above reason, still there can never be a true discrep- ancy between faith and reason, since the same God, who reveals mysteries and infuses faith, implants in the human mind the light of reason" (Sess. Ill, Con- stit. de fide cath., cap. iv). The same truth is upheld by Leo XIII in the Encyclical " Provideritissimus Deus": "Let the learned maintain steadfastly that God the creator and ruler of all things is also the author of the Scriptures, and that therefore nothing can be gathered from nature, nothing from historical docu- ments, which really contradicts the Scriptures." Consequently, any opposition between Biblical and profane truth is only apparent. Such an appearance