Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7.djvu/358

 HEXAEMERON

314

HEXAEMERON

supposing the literal and historical sense, the allegor- ical and prophetical interpretation of some parts of the said chapters maybe wisely and usefully employed. (4) In interpreting the first" chapter of Genesis we need not always look for the precision of scientific language, since the sacred writer did not intend to teach in a scientific manner the intimate constitution of visible things and the complete order of creation, but to give his poo|3le a proper notion according to the common mode of expression of the time. (5) In the denomination and distinction of the six days men- tioned in the first chapter of Genesis the word yom (day) can be taken either in its proper sense, as a natural day, or in an improper sense, for a period of time, and discussion on this point among exegetes is legitimate.

A. Literal Explanations. — Literal explanations do not necessarily exclude the admission of any figurative language in the Hexaemeron. The various actions of God, for instance — His commands. His review of His work, His blessings — are expressed in anthropo- morphic language. But a literal explanation insists on the literal interpretation of the six days, under- standing them as periods corresponding to our spaces of twenty-four hours.

(a) Non-Concordist Interpretations. — The author of IV Esdr., vi, 38 sqq., is excessive in the literalness of his interpretation; he aLso supplements the Bib- lical account of creation with profane Jewish tradi- tions. Omitting the views of Theophilus of Antioch ("Ad .\utol. ", II, in P. G., VI, 1069 sqq.), Hippolytus (fragm. in P. G., X, 583 sqq.), TertuUian ("Adv. Hermog. ", xLx sqq., in P. L., II, 214 sqq.), and Clement of Alexandria ("Strom.", V, xiv, in P. G., IX, 129 sqq.), who have dealt only cursorily with the Hexaemeron problem, we find patrons of the literal interpretation of Gen., i, in such writers as Ephraem (0pp., ed. Rome, 1737, I), Jacob of Edessa (ibid., p. 116), Diodorus of Tarsus (P. G., XXXIII, 1561 sqq.), Theodore of Mopsuestia (P. G., LXVI, 636 sqq.), St. Basil (P. G., XXIX, 17), Gregory of Nyssa ("Hexaemeron" in P. G., XLIV, 68), Philoponus ("De mundi creatione"; ed. Cor- derius, Vienna, 1630), Gregory the Great ("Mor. " in Job, -xl, 10, in P. L., LXXVI, 644 sqq.), the Venerable Bede ("Hexaemeron" in P. L., XCT, 10 sqq.), Raba- nus Maurus ("Comm. in Gen." in P. L., CVH, 439), Walafried ("Glossa ord." in P. L., CXIII, 67), Hugh of St. Victor (" .\nnot. in Pentateuch. "; " De sacram. fidei" in P. L., CLXXV, 29, and CLXXVI, 173), and other authors of minor importance. During the Scholastic age, too, the literal interpretation of the Hexaemeron was the prevalent one, as may be seen in the great works of Peter Lombard (Sent., II), Bl. Albertus Magnus (Summ. theol., II, tract. XI), and St. Thomas (Summa, I, Q. Ixv sqq.). Most of the subsequent commentators urged the literal sense of the Hexaemeron; this is true even of the early Prot^ estant writers who were always insisting on the prim- itive text of Scripture. The scientific diflSculties implied in the literal interpretation of Gen., i, were explained mainly by recourse to miracle, a method occasionally employed even down to our owti day by some theological writers. We call these interpreters non-Concordist, not liecause they do not explain the difficulties in an absolutely possible way, but because they have no regard for the harmony between the inspired record anfl the laws of nature.

(b) The Hexaemeron Prior to the Geological Strata. — In order to avoid any opposition between the Hex- aemeron and the data of geology, it has been at- tempted to place the geological formations after the six days of creation. A. Gonziilez de Sala (16.50). I. Woodward (1659), I. Sclieuchzer (1731), and others expressed the opinion that our present geological strata, fossils, etc. are due to the waters of the Deluge. G. Leibniz, A. L. Moro (1740), and others expressed

their belief that the influence of fire and heat had been at least partial causes of the present conformation of the earth's crust and surface. There was a great di- versity of opinion as to the real length of time covered by the six days: G. Wiston (1696) maintained that before the rotation of the earth around its axis a day lasted a year; G. L. Buffon (1749) required a hundred thousand years for the Hexaemeron; while I. E. Silberschlag (17S0) is content with si.x natural days. Among more recent writers the following are Diluvi- alists: C. F. Keil ("Biblischer Commentar", Leipzig, 1866), P. Laurent ("Etudes geologiques ", Paris, 1803), A. Sorignet ("La (.'osmogonie de la Bible ", etc., Paris, 1854), V. M. Gatti (" Institutiones apologetico-polemi- cae ", 1S67), I. E. Veith (" Die Anfange der Menschen- welt", Vienna, 1805), A. Bosizio ("Das Hexaemeron und die Geologie", Mainz, 1865; "Die Geologic und die Sundfluth", Mainz, 1S77), A. Trissl ("Siindfluth oder Gletscher? " Munich, 1894, and "Das biblische Sechs- tagewerk", Ratisbon, 1894), G. I. Burg (" Biblischc Chronologic", Trier, 1894). But this theorv does not fully agree with the Biblical account of tlie Flood, nor docs it satisfy the geologists.

(c) The Hexaemeron Posterior to the Geological Data. — -Another class of writers, whom we may call Restitutionists, are of the opinion that the Hexae- meron gives the history of the restoration of the earth after it had been so utterly destroyed that its chaos is properly described in Gen., i, 2. The geological data belong, therefore, to the period preceding this destruction of the world. Among the patrons of this theory we may mention: I. G. Rosenmtlller (" .■\nti- quissima telluris historia", Ulm, 1770), W. F. Hetzel ("Die Bibel,.\ltes und NeuesTest.", Lemgo, 1780), Th. Chalmers ("Review of Cuvier's Theory of the Earth", Edinburgh, 1S14; "Evidence and .-Uithority of the Divine Revelation", Edinburgli, 1814). N. Wiseman ("TwelveLectures",London, 1849) ,W.Bucklan(l ("Ge- ology and Mineralogy", London, 1S38). The following interpreters identified the primeval destruction of the earth with the catastrophe brought on liy the fall of the angels: L. Schmid ("Erklarung der hi. Schriften ", etc., Miinster, 1834), A.Westermayer ("Das Ahe Testa- ment und seine Bedeutung", Schaffhausen. 1861), and I. H. Kurtz ("Bibel und Astronomic", Berhn, 1842). The speculations implied in this theory are hardly upheld by Sacred Scripture.

(d) The Hexaemeron Within the Geological Forma- tions. — Father Pianciani has expressed the view that the six days of the Hexaemeron, though natural days, may not lie continuous days; theymay be picked out from among the long geological periods to which they respectively belong in such a way as to illustrate, as it were, the work going on in the several formative ages. A vast space of time may intervene between every two consecutive days, so as to make the si.x days cover the whole perioil of geological formation. But this explanation is hardly in keeping with the Biblical account of the six days. Besides, it can hardly be maintained that long ages intervened between the si.xth and seventh day.

(e) The Hexaemeron is a Vision. — Father von Hum- melauer ("Commentarius in Gcncsim", Paris, 1895) feels convinced, on the one hand, that the Hexaemeron speaks of six natural days, and that, on the other hand, it does not oppo.se the certain results of science. He believes that the vision theory will safeguard both these requirements. Instead of revealing the origin of the world in so many words, God showed Adam in a vision the general dependence of everything on His creative power; hence the Biblical Hexaemeron must be explained in the way in which other Scriptural visions are interpreted. The real length of time cov- ered by the six visional days is not determined by Scripture: even the sequence of certain details may be different in nature from that in the vision, so that this theory does not interfere with the data of geology,