HERMENEUTICS
271
HERMENEUTICS
Der Hirt des Hermas (Passau, 1879); Brull, Der H. des H.
(Freiburg im Br., 1882); Rendel Harris, Hermas in Arcadia
in Journal of Soc. of Bibl. Lit. and Exeg. (1887, and reprinted,
Cambridge, 18SS). On Hennas 's use of the N. T. see the works
of Westcott, Zahn, Gregory, etc. on the Canon; and C. Tay-
lor, The witness of Hernias to the four Gospels (Ix)ndon, 1892);
Idem, Hermas and Cehes (an attempt to show that Hermas has
used the TrtVaKe? of the Stoic philosopher Cebes) in Journal of
Philol, XXVIII (1900), 276. On the plural authorship, De
Champagny, Les Anlonins, I (Paris, 1863); Spitta, Zur Gesch.
undLitt. des Urchristentums, II (Gottingen, 1896); Vulter, Die
Visionen des Hermas, die Sibylle, und Kletnens von Rom (Ber-
lin, 1900). For the unity, Link, Die Einheit des Pastor Hernia
(Marburg, 1888); Baumgartner, Die Einheit des Hermas-
buches (Freiburg im Br., 1889); Funk in Theol. Quartalschr.,
LXXXI (1899), 321; Stahl, Palristische Untersuehungen (Ber-
lin, 1901 — ), gives the date as 165-70, after the appearance of
Montanism; Reville, La valeur du temoignage historique du
Pasteur d'Hermas (Paris, 1900). On the theology of the Shep-
herd, Link, Christi Person und Werk im Hirten des Hennas
(Marburg, 1886); Benigni in Bessarione, VI (1S99): Heurtier,
Le dogme de la Trinite dans Vepitre de S. Clem, et le Pasteur d'H.
(Lyons, 1900). Further bibliography in Richardson, Synop-
sis; Chevalier, Repertoire, and Bardenhewer, loc. cit.
John Chapman.
Henneneutics, derived from a Greek word con- nected with the name of the god Hermes, the reputed messenger and interpreter of the gods. It would be wrong to infer from this that the word denotes the interpretation or exegesis of Sacred Scripture. Usage has restricted the meaning of hermeneuties to the science of Biblical exegesis, that is, to the collection of rules which govern the right interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Exegesis is therefore related to hermeneu- ties, as language is to grammar, or as reasoning is to logic. Men spoke and reasoned before there was any grammar or logic; but it is very difficult to speak cor- rectly and reason rightlj^ at all times and under any circumstances without a knowledge of grammar and logic. In the same wa.V our early Christian writers explained Sacred Scripture — as it is interpreted in particular cases even in our days by students of extraordinary talent — without relying on any formal principles of hermeneuties, but such explanations, if correct, will always be in accordance with the canons of our present-day science of exegesis.
I. Necessity of Her.meneutics. — The reader must not infer from wh3t has been said that hermeneuties is a mere accomplishment in the Biblical exegete, that its knowledge is not necessary for the Bible student. It is true that in the early Church the .science of exege- sis was not developed; but it must be remembered that the so-called sacred languages were the vernacular tongues of the Syrian and Greek writers, who were familiar with what are to us Biblical antiquities, and who were also imbued with the early oral traditions containing the true explanation of the many difficult passages of Sacred Scripture. As soon as these natu- ral aids of the Christian interpreter began to wane, the principles of hermeneuties began to develop. Even at the time of St. Augustine they were collected into a single book, so that they could be made known and put into practice without much difficulty. Anyone acquainted with the variety of opinion concerning the meaning of some of the most important passages of the Bible will wonder ratheratthesuggestion of explaining Scripture without the aid of hermeneuties, than at the claim for its urgent necessity. Nor can it be said that the variety of exegetical results on the part of writers well-versed in the principles of scientific interpreta- tion shows the uselessness of hermeneuties in the explanation of Sacred Scripture. No scientific princi- ples have ever done away with all disagreement of scientists in any branch of knowledge; besides, in the case of Scriptiire study, hermeneuties has diminished the number of the opinions of interpreters by elimi- nating the views not supported by any solid scientific principle. Such principles are even more necessary for the Biblical interpreter than a study of logic is for the thinker; for while the laws of thought are based on an inborn tendency of the mind, the rules of her- meneuties rest to a great extent on facts external to
the mind. And the results flowing from the applica-
tion of the principles of hermeneuties are not less
important than those derived by means of the formal
laws of logic, since the controversies between Jews
and Christians, between Christians and Rationalists,
between Catliolics and Protestants, are in the end
brought back to hermeneutic questions.
II. Limits of Her.meneutics. — Though the in- fluence of hermeneuties is so far-reaching, its effi- ciency must not be overestimated. Hermeneuties does not supply a deficiency of natural ability, nor does it rectify false philosophical principles or per- verse passions, nor again does it impart the needed philological and historical erudition. Secondly, of itself hermeneuties does not investigate the objective truth of a writer's meaning, which has been estabUshed by its canons; it does not inquire what is true or fal.se, but only what the writer intended to say. Hence a hermeneutic truth may be an objective falsehood, unless the writing subj ec ted to the hermeneutic rules be endowed with the prerogative of inerrancy. Thirdly, hermeneuties does not inquire into the authentic- ity of a writing, nor into the genuineness of its text, nor again into its special character — for instance, whether it be of a sacred or profane nature. Biblical hermeneuties ]>resupposes, therefore, a knowledge of the history of the Canon of both the Old and the New Testament, an acquaintance with the results of the lower or textual criticism, and a study of the dog- matic treatise on inspiration. The number of limita- tions of hermeneuties will not render the reader im- patient, if he keeps in mind that he bears with the limits which circumscribe the field of other branches of learning; no one blames grammar, for instance, be- cause it does not confer any special linguistic aptitude on the grammarian, or because it does not improve the melody or the syntactical structure of the language.
III. Object of Hermeneutics. — After removing what is foreign to hermeneutics, we are enabled to understand its proper object more thoroughly. Its material object is the book or writing which is to be explained; its formal object is concerned with the sense expressed by the author of the book in question. Thus, Biblical hermeneutics deals with Sacred Scrip- ture as its material object, furnishing a complex set of rules for finding and expressing the true sense of the inspired writers, while the discovery and presentation of the genuine sense of Sacred Scripture may be said to be its formal object.
IV. Division of Hermeneutics. — The most direct and simple method of determining the meaning of an author consists in the latter's statement of the sense he intended to convey. Such a statement, whether it proceed from the author himself or from another person who has certain knowledge of the author's mind, is called an authentic interpretation. The legal interpretation differs from the authentic in that it proceeds, not from the lawgiver himself, but from his successor, or from his equal in legislative power, or from the supreme legal authority. The scientific interpretation differs from both the authentic and the legal; its value is not derived from authority, but from the trustworthiness and the learning of the com- mentator, from the weight of his arguments, and from his faithful adherence to the rules of hermeneutics. Authority as such does not enter into the field of general hermeneutics. The rules of hermeneutics, thus circumscribed, may be either of universal or particular application, that is, they may be valid for the right explanation of any book or writing, or they may be adapted for a particular class of books, e. g., Sacred Scripture or canon law. Biblical hermeneutics belongs to this second class, not because the universal rules of exegesis are inapplicable to the Sacred Books, but because the sacred character of the Bible demands additional rules of interpretation which are not ap- plicable to profane writings. Finally, Biblical herme-
