Scientific Study of the Bible
by Cardinal Eugene Tisserant, J. M. Voste, O.P.
Rome, August 20, 1941
Your Excellency:
An anonymous writer recently sent a criticism of the method of Biblical studies followed by Catholic exegetes to the Holy Father, the Cardinals, and the Bishops of Italy. His objections may be grouped under four headings. The letter of the Biblical Commission answers the objections as follows:
(1) On the Literal Sense — The writer complains that Catholic exegetes in their interpretation of Scripture consider only the literal sense and take it in a purely material way. This writer himself explains the Bible according to his own fancies.
The Commission in reply reminds that it is a proposition of faith that, in addition to the literal sense of Holy Writ, there is also a spiritual or typical sense, as we are taught by the practice of Our Lord and the Apostles. This typical sense, however, is not found in every sentence or passage. It was a grave mistake of the Alexandrian School that it tried to discover a symbolical sense everywhere, even at the sacrifice of the literal or historical sense. The spiritual or typical sense must be based on the literal and must be established by the usage of Christ, of the Apostles or inspired writers, or by the traditional use of the Holy Fathers and of the Church, especially as found in the sacred liturgy, since "lex orandi est lex credendi." While accommodations may be used in sermons and ascetical works for edification, these are not to be advanced as real senses of Scripture, unless supported as just described.
It is a rule stated by St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa, I, Q. i, art. 10, ad 1) and prescribed by the "Providentissimus Deus" of Leo XIII and the "Spiritus Paraclitus" of Benedict XV that all senses of Scripture are founded on the literal sense, and that from this latter by itself alone argument can be drawn. Thus, Leo XIII says that the exegete should weigh well the meaning of the words, the context, parallel passages, and external aids; and that he must never depart from the literal and, as it were, obvious sense, without good reason or necessity. Benedict XV said that the very wording of Scripture must be most carefully considered in order to know for certain what the sacred writer has said. In this he cites as a model St. Jerome, who, when he had first established the literal or historical meaning, proceeded to draw out the inner and higher meaning. The Pontiff then recommended to exegetes that they follow this example of rising moderately and temperately from the literal to the higher senses of Scripture. Both Leo XIII and Benedict XV quote St. Jerome's saying that a commentator should seek to expound not what he himself wishes, but what the author means to say.
(2) On the Use of the Vulgate — Even more palpable is the error of this anonymous booklet on the meaning of Trent concerning the use of the Vulgate. The Council, in order to remedy the confusion caused by the new Latin and vernacular translations of its time, wished that for public use in the Western Church the common Latin version, employed for centuries by the Church herself, should be sanctioned. It had no thought of lessening in the least the authority of the ancient versions used in the Oriental Churches, especially of the Septuagint, used by the Apostles themselves, and much less the authority of the original texts. The Council resisted a group among the Fathers who wanted to have the Vulgate proclaimed the only authoritative text, to the exclusion of the use of all others.
The anonymous writer thinks that in virtue of the Decree of Trent we have in the Latin Vulgate a text that has been declared superior to all others, and so he censures the exegetes for wishing to interpret the Vulgate with the help of the originals and other ancient versions. For him the Decree gives us such certainty about the sacred text that the Church has no need to search further for the authentic word of God — and this not merely in matters of faith and morals, but in all respects, even literary, geographical, chronological, and the like. He holds that the Decree of Trent has given us the authentic and official text, from which one may not depart; and that consequently all textual criticism is a mutilation of Scripture and a usurpation of the authority of the Church.
To this the Commission replies that such views are first against common sense, which will never agree that any version can be superior to the original text. They are, furthermore, against the mind of the Fathers of Trent themselves, as appears from the Acts of the Council. The Council was well aware of the need for a revision and correction of the Vulgate itself, and left the supervision of this work to the Supreme Pontiffs. This wish of the Council the Popes proceeded to accomplish, and further (under Sixtus V) a corrected edition of the Septuagint was made. Commissions were also set up for like editions of the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. Again, the views of the anonymous writer are openly opposed to the Encyclical "Providentissimus," which commanded that account be taken of the other versions which Christian antiquity has esteemed and used, and in particular of the original languages.
In short, the Council of Trent declared the Vulgate "authentic" in the juridical sense, that is, as regards its proving force in matters of faith and morals. But in so doing it did not ignore the possibility of divergencies between it and the original text and the ancient versions, as every good work of Introduction explains from the Acts of the Council.
(3) On Textual Criticism — Holding, as does the anonymous writer, the value of the Vulgate to be almost unique, it is not surprising that he regards textual criticism as unnecessary and useless. The recent discoveries of very precious texts, however, prove the opposite of his contention. He states that the Church has presented the Vulgate to us as the official text and guaranteed it, and that therefore textual criticism, or attempts to establish a text, treats a sacred book as human and mutilates the Bible. This whole procedure, he says, amounts to naturalism and modernism. The original texts and ancient versions, he claims, may be used only for consultation in difficulties; the Greek text may not be preferred to the other texts, and especially to the official Vulgate; nor may entire passages or verses be expunged from the Vulgate or from the original.
In answer to all this the Commission says:
Catholic Biblical science, from the days of Origen and St. Jerome down to the establishment of the "Commission for the Revision and Emendation of the Vulgate" instituted by the Pope of the "Pascendi," has labored to establish the purest possible form of the original text and of the versions, especially of the Vulgate. Leo XIII in his Apostolic Letter "Vigilantiae" earnestly desired that our scholars should cultivate the critical art as most useful for discovering thoroughly the meaning of the sacred writers; and he expressed his willingness that they should, when necessary, consult the works of outsiders. The Biblical Commission also in its Decree of June 27, 1906, laid down concerning the Pentateuch (and the same rule, due requirements being observed, can be said of other books of the Bible, see the Decree on the Psalms), that one may admit that certain modifications were made in it during the course of centuries, such as: additions made after the death of Moses, or by an inspired writer, or glosses and explanations interjected into the text; certain words and forms translated from older to later speech; defective readings due to the fault of copyists, about which it is permitted to inquire and judge according to critical standards. Moreover, the Holy Office has permitted, and still permits, that Catholic exegetes may discuss the question of the Comma Joanneum, and, having weighed the arguments on both sides with the moderation which the gravity of the matter demands, may pronounce against the genuinity of the text.
All this is overlooked by the booklet in question, so opposed is it to the work of Catholic exegetes, who, faithful to Catholic traditions and the norms of the supreme Church authority, prove by their painful labors of textual criticism how great is their respect for the Sacred Text.
(4) On the Study of Oriental Languages and Auxiliary Sciences — One is moved to pity and even indignation at the levity and incredible arrogance of the anonymous writer when he speaks of Hebrew, Syriac, and Aramaic as mere matter for scientific pride, and a vain display of erudition. Orientalism, he thinks, has degenerated into a fetich, and Oriental scholarship today is often very questionable.
Such scorn, the Commission says, is calculated not only to discourage these hard studies, but to promote lightness and levity in the treatment of the sacred books, and so tends inevitably to lessen the supreme respect and submissiveness which is owed to them and the fear of using them in any unsuitable manner. Such a spirit is quite opposite to that of the Church, which from St. Jerome's day to our own has favored Oriental studies, knowing that "it is necessary for Scripture professors to be acquainted with the languages in which the canonical books were written by the sacred writers" ("Providentissimus Deus"). Leo XIII in the same Encyclical recommended for higher schools of learning that chairs of ancient languages, especially Semitic, and of cognate disciplines, be set up; and he exhorted in his Apostolic Letter "Vigilantix" that a knowledge of Oriental languages should not be less valued among Catholics than among non-Catholics. The study of the Biblical tongues, Hebrew and Greek, recommended by Leo XIII for theological institutes of learning, was made obligatory for them by Pius X, and this law is recalled in the Constitution "Deus Scientiarum Dominus."
Naturally the study of the Oriental languages and auxiliary sciences is not for the exegete an end in itself. It is a means for understanding and expounding precisely and clearly the Divine Word in order that it may provide all possible nourishment for the spiritual life. It is not, then, a spirit of narrow pedantry or an ill-concealed distrust of the spiritual understanding that moves us to recommend and inculcate the search for the literal meaning with all the aids of philology and criticism. On the contrary, we should disapprove all excessive, exclusive, and abusive employment of that sense, such as would treat the Bible as if it were not a divine work. But "abusus non tollit usum," and so it is not permitted to throw suspicion on the right use of exegetical principles.
The anonymous writer seeks to support his ideas by the authority of the Encyclical "Pascendi," but without success. As Leo XIII in the "Providentissimus Deus" gave the Magna Charta for Biblical studies, calling this most important subject to the attention of the whole Church, so Pius X, on his own personal initiative, gave the definite direction to this teaching, especially in Rome and Italy. In his experience as Bishop he had observed at close hand the imperfections in Biblical teaching and its disastrous results. Soon after his election as Pope he instituted (February 23, 1904) the degrees of licentiate and doctorate in Scripture, knowing that this would be an efficacious means of calling students to specialize in the Bible. Lacking the means to establish the Institute of Higher Biblical Studies which he had in mind, Pius X, nevertheless, in 1906 encouraged the teaching of Scripture in the Roman Pontifical Seminary. Then in 1908 and 1909 he ordered a higher course of Sacred Scripture to be given in the Gregorianum and the Angelico. Then in 1909 he created the Pontifical Biblical Institute, which has done so much to promote progress in Scriptural studies, especially in Italy, as the large number of Italian students in the Institute and the annual Biblical Week give proof. Finally, it was Pius X who settled the rules for the teaching of Scripture in seminaries (March 27, 1906), and provided for their application in the seminaries of Italy (May 10, 1907).
Whatever be the aims of the anonymous writer, Biblical studies must go on in the seminaries of Italy according to the directions of recent Supreme Pontiffs. Today, no less than yesterday, priests and ministers of the Word must be well prepared and able to give a satisfactory answer not only to questions of dogma and moral, but also to difficulties against the historical truth and religious doctrines of the Bible, and especially of the Old Testament.
We shall conclude with the closing exhortation of the "Spiritus Paraclitus," urging the clergy to be filled with the spirit of that holy exegete, St. Jerome, and to make themselves worthy of their office by knowledge, since Biblical study must not be neglected nor conducted other than in the manner prescribed by the "Providentissimus Deus" of Leo XIII.
The Holy Father himself in an audience with the Most Reverend Secretary of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on August 16, 1941, deigned to approve the deliberations of the Eminent members of the Commission in the present matter and to order that the present letter be sent out.
In fulfilling the charge confided to me, I beg you, Most Rev. Bishop, to accept my homage, while I sign myself
Your Most Reverend Paternity's devoted servant,
(Signed) Eugene Cardinal Tisserant, President
(Signed) J. M. Voste, O.P., Secretary
This item 8428 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
