HERMENEUTICS
272
HERMENEUTICS
neutics is either general or special, according to the
character of the exegetical rules it contains: it is
general if its rules are applicable to the whole Bible;
it is special if they are intended for the explanation of
particular books only, e. g., the Psalms or the Pauline
Epistles. But, as in logic the species contains all the
essential notes of the genus, so does special herme-
neutics contain all the exegetical rules of general
hermeneutics, and so does particular hermeneutics
embrace all the laws of interpretation imposed by
univer^^al hermeneutics.
V. FiHST Principle in HERMENEmcs. — Since the more special hermeneutical laws do not contradict the more general laws, but only determine them more accurately in order to adapt them to the particular writings which they are to explain, it ought to be possible to determine the first and highest principle or law of hermeneutics, from which all the special exegetical rules are derived. The reader will remem- ber that such first principles exist in other sciences, too; in logic, for instance, and in ethics, we have the principle of contradiction and the principle of do- ing good respectively. Returning to hermeneutics, thought must be derived from language accortling to the same law which regulates the expression of thought in language, the process alone being inverted. In this respect language in general does not differ from a cipher message which must be read according to the code in which it was written. Now a writer commonly uses the code of his day and of his own peculiar circumstances; he employs language in accordance with its peculiar usages and its rules of grammar: he follows in the expression of his thoughts the sequence of logic, and his worils reflect his mental as well as his physical and social conditions. If the interpreter wishes to fully understand the writer, he must be guided by these quasi-eriteria of the author's mean- ing: his language, his train of thought or the context, and his psychological and hi.storical condition at the time of writing. Hence flows the first and highest
Erinciple of hermeneutics: Find the sense of a book y way of its language (grammatically and philologi- calljO, by way of the rules of logic (from the context), and by way of the writer's mental and external con- dition. Expre.ssing the same truth negatively, we may say that any meaning of a passage which does not agree with its grammar, its context, and the in- ternal and external conditions of its author, cannot be the true sense of the writer. In the case of Scripture, the fact of its inspiration and of its authentic inter- pretation by the Church must be added to the three common criteria of interpretation; hence any mean- ing not in keeping with Scriptural grammar, context, or the concrete conditions of the Biblical writers, or not in harmony with the fact of inspiration and the spirit of the Church's interpretation, cannot be the true sense of Scripture. Regard to only the first three of these criteria renders the exegesis rationalistic; ol)servance of the first four is a recognition of the specific Christian doctrine of Biblical inspiration; but it is only the conjunction of the fifth with the other four that gives fjirth to true Catholic exegesis without destroying the rational and simply Christian character of the interpretation.
VI. Sources of Hermenectic Principles.^ — The foregoing remarks reveal the sources from which her- meneutics derives its secondary- principles. It pre- supposes a grammatical and philological knowledge of the language in which the work is written, an ac- quaintance with the laws of logic and rhetoric, and a familiarity with the data of psychology and the facts of history. These are the sources of the rules of tmiver- sal hermeneutics; in the case of the Sacred Scriptures, the scientific interpreter must be well-grounded in the so-called Sacred or Biblical languages; he must be well-versed in Biblical historj-, archaeologv', and geog- raphy; he should know the various Christian dogmas
bearing on the Bible and their history; finally he
must be instructed in patrology, ecclesiastical history,
and Biblical literature. Before entering on the ex-
planation of any particular book of Scripture, the
commentator must also be versed in the dogmatic,
moral, philosophical, and scientific questions con-
nected with his particular subject. In the light of
these many requirements, one easily understands why
it is so hard to find commentaries which are fully satis-
factory, and one also realizes the need of reading
several commentaries l)efore one can claim fully to
understand the Scriptures or any part thereof.
VII. Historical Development of Her.meneitics. — Seeing the importance of Bililical hermeneutics, it may seem a matter for surprise that this branch of study was not tlcvcloped earlier. But the history of every science shows that practice precedes theory. Language, for instance, had been in use for many gen- erations before systematic grammars were written; health had been the object of care for centuries be- fore the growth of the science of medicine. In a similar way, the books of Sacred Scripture were read and explained by means of what may be called natural hermeneutics before the science of exegesis was thought of. Deut., xvii, 8-12, 18; xxi, 5; xxxi, 9-13, 24-26, may be regarded as containing at least implied testimony in favour of the practice of exegesis, though it is impossible to detcrimne the hermeneutical laws then in force.
(1) Jeuisli Development. — Not long after the days of Christ, R. Hillel set forth seven hemieneutic rules (middoth), among which are found the inference from the greater to the less, from the general to the partic- ular, from the context, and from parallel passages. At the beginning of the second century R. Yishma 'el ben Elisha' increased the number of Ilillel's rules to thirteen, treating among other questions the way of harmonizing contradictory passages. About the mid- dle of the second century R. Eli'ezer derived thirty- two hermeneutic rules from the then prevailing method of interpretation, and these are still to be found in the editions of the Talmud after the treatise "Berakhoth". In the Middle Ages Aben Ezra and Maimonides ex- plained certain hermeneutic rules, but no rabbinic writer has written p.r professo any complete treatise on Biblical hermeneutics.
(2) Christian Development. — (a) The First Three Centuries. — Among the earliest Christians, too, the Scriptures were read and explained without the guid- ance of any acknowledged rules of hermeneutics. We may infer from the sayings of the Fathers that tradi- tion and the analogy of faith were the sovereign laws of the early Christian interpreters. In the second century Melito of Sardis composed a hermeneutic treatise, entitled "The Key", in which he explained the Biblical tropes. The Fathers of the third and fourth centuries suggested many rules of interpreta- tion without collecting them into any distinct work. Besides Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria, Origen proposed and defended against Jews and heretics his rules of exegesis in his work " De principiis", lib. IV; Diodorus of Tarsus (d. before 394) wrote on the differ- ence l)etween type and allegory, l)ut his work "Quo- modo differt theoria ab allegoria" has been lost; St. John Chrvsostom urges the commentator to study the context, the author, the readers, the intention of the speaker, the occasion, place, time, and manner of writing (Hom. in Jer. x, 3.'}; Horn, xv in Joan.). St. Jerome, too, has left many hints on the proper method of interpretation (" Ep. ad Pammach."; "De optimo genere interpretandi " ; "Lib. quirst. Hebr. in Gen."; "Denominibuset loc. Hebr."; "Praef. in 12 prophet. "; "In quat. evang. ", etc.).
(b) From the Fourth to the Fourteenth Centurj-. — About s.. D. 390 the Donatist Tychoniiis published a work entitled "Septem regulae ad inquirendum et inveniendum sensum S. Scripturx", which was both
