Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7.djvu/357

 HEXAEMERON

313

HEXAEMERON

have existed, even including views as to the origin of the universe. Combining this fact with the Chris- tian doctrine that tlie Biblical Hexaemeron is Di- vinely inspired, we may ask whether its text may not be a snatch of folk-lore, by Divine influence purged of error and of all that is not in keeping with the sacred character of the word of God, and committed to writ- ing in order to teach men that the whole universe is the creature of God, and that the seventh day must be sanctified. In this case, the first chapter of Gene- sis would not be siipernaturally revealed in the strict- est sense of the word, but it would be an infallible record of an ancient belief, current among the He- brews, as to the origin of the world. The sacred writer would have left us an inspired report of a Hebrew tradition just as other inspired writers have left us inspired accounts of certain historical docu- ments. In itself, such a view of Gen., i, does not seem impossible; but, taking the Hexaemeron in the light of Christian tradition, its folk-lore theory of origin seems to be inadmissible. The Fathers, the early ecclesiastical writers, the Scholastics, and the more recent commentators would have been wrong in their endeavours to explain each sentence and even every word of Gen., i, in the same strict way in which they interpret the most sacred passages of Scripture. Their occasional recourse to figure and allegory only shows their conviction that the Hexaemeron contains not only inspired but also strictly revealed truth. A Catholic interpreter can hardly surrender such an un- interrupted Christian tradition in order to make room for a theory which sprang up only towards the end of the nineteenth century. Nor can it be urged that every sentence and every word of the Hebrew tradi- tion concerning the origin of the universe, purified and infallibly preserved to us by inspiration, are equiva- lent to the strictly revealed passages of Scripture. Such an assumption concerning a profane ancient tra- dition implies the admission of a greater miracle than is demanded by a supernatural revelation in the strict sense of the word. Besides, the patrons of the folk- lore theory must explain the origin or source of the sublime Hebrew tradition, the existence of which they assume; thus they burden themselves with all the difficulties which are encountered by the critics in their endeavours to explain the natural origin of the creation myths.

Finally, the Biblical Commission in a decree issued 30 June, 1909, denies the existence of any solid foun- dation for the various exegetical systems devised and defended with a show of science to exclude the literal, historical sense of the first tliree chapters of Genesis; in particular, it forbitls the teaching of the view that the said three chapters of Genesis contain, not accounts of things which have really happened, but either fables derived from mythologies and the cosmogonies of an- cient peoples, and by the sacred author expurgated of all error of polytheism and adapted to monotheistic doctrine, or allegories and symbols destitute of any foundation of oljjective reality and proposed under the form of history to inculcate historical and philo- sophical truths, or legends partly historical and partly fictitious freely composed for the instruction and edi- fication of minds. The commission bases its prohibi- tion on the character and historical form of the Book of Genesis, the special nexus of the first three chapters with one another and with those that follow, the al- niost unanimous opinion of the Fathers, and the tra- ditional sense which, transmitted by the people of Israel, the Church has ever held.

(4) Revelation. — As no man witnessed the creation and formation of the universe, all human speculations concerning this subject present only conjectures and hypotheses. In this field we obtain certain knowl- edge only by Divine revelation. Whether God granted this revelation by way of language, or by vision, or by another more intellectual process, we do

not know; all of these methods are possible, and as such they may enter into the exegesis of Gen., i. Again, though very plausible reasons may be advanced for the thesis that God granted such a revelation to the first man, Adam, they are not absolutely convincing; the full instruction as to the origin of the world may have been given at a later period, perhaps only to the inspired writer of the Hexaemeron. If the revelation in question was granted at an earUer time, perhaps immediately after man's creation, its substance may have been preserved by the aid of a special providence among the ancestors of the Hebrews. While the primitive doctrine degenerated among the races into their respective cosmogonies, modified by their vari- ous natural surroundings, one race may have kept alive the spark of Divine truth as it had been received from God in the craille of humanity. Or, if such a purity of doctrine among the Hebrew ancestors ap- pears to be incompatible with the vagaries of otlier Semitic cosmogonies, it may be assumed that God partially or wholly repeated His primitive revelation, during the time of the Patriarchs, for instance, or of Moses. At any rate, the attitude of Christian tra- dition towards the Hexaemeron implies its revealed character; hence, whatever theories may be held as to its transmission, its ultimate source is Divine revelation.

III. Meaning op the Hexaemeron. — The genuine meaning of the Hexaemeron is not self-evident. The history of its exegesis shows that even the greatest minds differ in their opinion as to its real meaning. All interpreters begin by feeling the need of an ex- planation of this passage of the Bible, and all end by differing from all other interpreters. There are hints as to the meaning of Gen., i, in other parts of Scrip- ture. Prov., iii, 19 sq.; viii, 22 sq.; Wi.sd., ix, 9; Ecclus., xxiv, refer to the personal Divine Wisdom what the Hexaemeron attributes to the word of God; Prov., viii, 2.3 sqq., and Ecclus., xxiv, 14, exclude eternal creation. The words of the woman recorded in II Mach., vii, 28, inculcate a production out of nothing. Ps. ciii anil Job, xxxviii sq., give a poetical amplification of the Hexaemeron. But these Biblical elucidations cannot claim to be a commentary on Gen., i. Nor has the Church given us any official explanation of the Mosaic account of God's creative work. We must, therefore, rely on the principles of Catholic hermeneutics and the writings of Cathoho interpreters for our understanding of the Hexaemeron. It will be found convenient, in our review of the per- tinent exegetical work, to distinguish between literal and allegorical explanations.

The legitimate character of this method of proceed- ing will become clear in the light of the aforesaid de- cree of 30 June, 1909, issued by the Biblical t^ommis- sion. After safeguarding the literal, historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis in as far as they bear on the facts touching the foundations of the Christian religion — e. g., the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time, the special creation of man, the formation of the first woman from the first man, the unity of the human race — the commission lays down several special principles as to the inter- pretation of the first part of Genesis:— (1) Where the Fathers and Doctors differ in their interpretation, without handing down anything as certain and de- fined, it is lawful, saving the judgment of the Church and preserving the analogy of faith, for everybody to follow and defend his own prudently adopted opinion. (2) When the expressions themselves manifestly ap- pear to be used improperly, either metaphorically or antlu-opomorphically, and when either reason pro- hibits our holding the proper sense, or necessity compels us to set it aside, it is lawful to depart from the proper sense of the words and phrases in the above- mentioned chapters. (3) In the light of the example of the holy Fathers and of the Church herself, pre-