EXEGESIS
694
EXEGESIS
(0) Arguments for the Multiple Literal Sense. — The
advocates of a multiple literal sense advance the fol-
lowing arguments for their view: First, Sacred Scrip-
ture supposes its existence in several passages. Thus
Heb., i, 5, understands Ps. ii, 7 (this day have I begot-
ten thee), of the Divine generation of the Son; Acts,
xiii, 33, understands the text of the Resurrection;
Heb., V, 5, of the eternal priesthood of Christ. Again,
the Latin Vulgate and the Septuagint, together with
I Pet., ii, 2-t, understand Is. liii, 4 (he hath borne our
infirmities), of our sins; Matt., viii, 17, understands
the words of our bodily ailments. And again, I Mach.,
i, 57. applies some words of Dan., ix, 27, to his own
subject, while Matt., xxiv, 15, represents them as a
prophecy to be fulfilled in the destruction of the Holy
City. Finally, John, ii, 19, was understood by the
Jews in a sense different from that intended by Jesus
Christ; and John, xi, 51, expresses two disparate
meanings, one intended by Caiphas and the other by
the Holy Ghost. The second argument is, that tradi-
tion too upholds the existence of a multiple sense in
several passages of the Bible. Its witnesses are St.
Augustine (Conf., XII, xxvi, xxx, xxxi; De doctr.
Christ., Ill, xxvii; etc.), St. Gregory the Great (in
Ezech., iii, 13, Lib. I, hom. x, n. 30 sq.), St. Basil, St.
Chrvsostom, St. Jerome, St. Bernard, and, among the
Scholastics. St. Thomas (I, Q. i, a. 10; "De potent.",
IV, 1 ; "in II sent.", dist. xii, Q. i, a. 2, ad 7""), Card.
Cajetan (ad I, Q. i, a. 10), Melchior Cano (Loc. theol..
Lib. II, c. xi, ad 7 arg., ad 3 rat.), Baiiez (ad I, Q. i,
a. 10), Sylvius (ad id"), John of St. Thomas (I, Q. i,
disp. ii, a. 12), Billuart (De reg. fidei, dissert, i, a. 8),
Vasquez. Valentia, Molina, Serrarius, Cornelius a La-
pide. and others.
(p) Reasons against the Multiple Literal Sense. — Patrizi, Beelen, Lamy, Comely, Knabenbauer, Reit- ma\T, and the greater number of recent writers deny the actual existence of a multiple literal sense in the Bible; they urge the following reasons for their opin- ion: First, the Bible is written in human language; now. the language of other books usually presents only one literal sense. Second, the genuine sense of Sacred Scripture must be discovered by means of the rules of hermeneutics. A commentator would render these rules meaningless, if he were to look for a second literal sense of a passage after discovering one true meaning by their means. Third, commentators implicitly as- sume that any given text of Scripture has only one literal sense; for after finding out the various mean- ings which are philologically probable, they endeavour to ascertain which of them was intended by the Holy Ghost. Fourth, a multiple literal sense would create equivocation and confusion in the Bible. Finally, the multiple sense in Scripture would be a supernatural fact wholly depending on the free will of God. We cannot know it independently of revelation; its actual occurrence must be solidly proved from Scripture or tradition. The patrons of the multiple literal sense have not thus far advanced any such proof.
(1) Where Scripture appeals to disparate meanings of the same passage, it does not necessarily consider each of them as the Uteral sense. Thus Heb., i, 5. may represent Ps. ii, 7, as referring literally to the eternal generation, but Acts, xiii, 33, may consider the Resur- rection, and Hebr., v, 5, the eternal priesthood of Christ as necessary consequences. Matt., viii, 17, ap-
Clies the consequent sense of Is., liii, 4, to the cure of o<lily ailments; I Mach., i, 57, merely accommodates some words of Dan., ix, 27, to the writer's own time; in John, ii, 19, and xi, 51, only the meaning intended by the Holy Ghost is the literal sense, though this may not have been understood when the words in question were spoken. (2) The testimony of the Fathers and the Scholastic theologians is not sufficient in our ca.se to prove the existence of a dogmatic tradition as to the actual occurrence of the multiple literal sense in Scripture. There is no trace of itoefore the time of
St. Augustine; this great Doctor proposes his view not
as the teaching of tradition, but as a pious and proba-
ble opinion. The expressions of the other Fathers,
excepting perhaps St. Gregory the Cireat, urge the
depth and wealth of thought contained in Scripture,
or they refer to meanings which we technically call its
typical, derivative, or consequent sense, and perhaps
even to mere accommodations of certain passages.
Among the Scholastics. St. Thomas follows the opinion
of St. Augustine, at least in one of the alleged passages
(De potent., IV, 1), and a number of the later Scholas-
tics follow the opinion of St. Thomas. The other early
Scholastics maintain rather the opposite view, as may
be seen in St. Bonaventure (IV Sent. dist. xxi, p. I,
dub. 1) and Alexander of Hales (Summa, I, Q. i, m. 4,
a. 2).
(v) The Derivative or Consequent Sense. — The con- sequent or derivative sense of Scripture is the truth legitimately inferred from its genuine meaning. It would be wrong to identify the consequent sense with the more latent literal sense. This depth of the literal sense may spring from the fact that the predicate changes somewhat in its meaning if it be applied to totally different subjects. The word wise has one meaning if predicated of God, and quite another if predicated of created beings. Such a variety of meaning belongs to the literal meaning in the strict sense of the word. The consequent sense may be said to be the conclusion of a syllogism one of whose prem- ises is a truth contained in the Bible. Such inferences can hardly be called the sense of a book written by a human author; but God has foreseen all the legitimate conclusions derived from Biblical truths, so that they may be said, in a certain way, to be His intended meaning. The Bible itself makes use of such infer- ences as if they were based on Divine authority. St. Paul (I Cor., i, 31) quotes such an inference based on Jer., ix, 23, 24, with the express addition, "as it is WTitten"; in I Cor., ix, 10, 11, he derived the conse- quent sense of Deut., xxv, 4, indicating the second premise, while in I Tim., v, IS, he states the conse- quent sense of the same passage without adding the second premise. Theologians and ascetieal writers have, therefore, a right to utilize dogmatic and moral inferences from the genuine sense of Sacred Scripture. The writings of the Fathers illustrate this principle most copiously.
(vi) Accommodation. — By accommodation the ■writer's words are applied, on the ground of analogy, to something not originally meant by him. If there be no analogy between the original and the imposed meaning, there is no accommodation of the passage, but rather a violent perversion of its true meaning; such a contorted meaning is not merely outside, but against, the genuine sense. Accommodation is usu- ally divided into two classes: extensive and allusive. Extensive accommodation takes the words of the Bible in their genuine sense, but applies them to a new subject. Thus the words, he " was found perfect, just, and in the time of wrath he was made a reconcilia- tion", which Ecclus., xliv, 17, predicates of Noe, are often applied to other saints. Allusive accommoda- tion does not employ the words of Scripture in their genuine sense, but gives them an entirely different meaning; here the analogy does not exist between the objects, but between the verbal expressions. Ps. xvii, 26, 27, " With the holy, thou wilt be holy; and with the innocent man thou wilt be innocent; and with the elect thou wilt be elect: and with the perverse thou wilt be per\-erted", expresses originally the attitude of God to the good and the wicked; but by accommoda- tion these words are often used to show the influence of companionship. That the use of accommodation if legitimate, may be inferred from its occurrence in Scripture, in the writings of the Fathers, and from its very nature. Examples of accommodation in Scrip- ture may be found in Matt., vii, 23 (cf . Ps. vi, 9), Rom.,
