### Implicit Citations, Theory of
Implicit citations consist in attributing the thoughts or words of others without naming the source. In this sense, there are many implicit citations in the Bible, as is evident from a comparison between parallel passages in the Gospels or between those in Kings and Chronicles. The question has been raised whether the Bible also contains implicit citations not approved by the sacred writer and which, therefore, may contain errors. The theory of implicit citations understands them precisely in this sense.
The principles already applied in some cases by Eusebius, St. Jerome, and numerous ancient and modern exegetes were presented in systematic form by the Jesuit F. Prat in *La Bible et l'histoire* (q.v.). Among other things, he writes: “All the historical books of the Old Testament seem to have been compiled using earlier documents, but explicit citations are always rarer the further back one goes in the course of the centuries.” The principal signs for recognizing implicit citations, according to Prat, would be especially differences in style and perspective. He nonetheless insisted that individual cases be examined. Taken as a whole, his work left the impression that the Bible contains many implicit citations not approved by the sacred writers.
Some authors (Billot, Schiffini, Delattre) vigorously contested the theory. Others, such as A. Durand, fully accepted II.
On February 13, 1905, the Pontifical Biblical Commission clarified the issue of implicit citations with the following decision. Question: “Is it permissible for a Catholic exegete, in order to resolve difficulties arising in certain texts of Holy Scripture, to assert that these texts contain an implicit or tacit citation of a written document by a non-inspired author, all the assertions of which the inspired author does not intend to approve or adopt, so that these assertions cannot be considered free from error?” Answer: “No, except in the case in which, apart from the meaning and judgment of the Church, it is proven with solid arguments: 1) that the sacred writer is actually citing the words of others, and 2) that he does not approve or adopt them, so that it may be rightly held that he is not speaking in his own name.”
This response clearly establishes the principles. The application to concrete cases remains delicate. It is evident that the theory cannot be accepted as a means of resolving all exegetical difficulties. In practice, implicit citations may be admitted when the nature of the text itself demands it, for example, when one is confronted with genealogies that, by their very nature, are transcribed from documents whose accuracy is not the sacred writer’s responsibility, or when the profane source that may have served the inspired author is actually found.
The presence of contradictions within the same work is not a legitimate criterion for recognizing an implicit citation, since—as A. Lemonnyer rightly notes—“it is not so simple to discover in a given text the presence of a formal contradiction.” Moreover, it would be a puerile and convenient expedient for evading difficulties. Various exegetes, in order to reconcile biblical inerrancy with the presence of inaccurate or erroneous accounts, prefer to resort to the theory of historical appearances or literary genres. Even in this area, the Biblical Commission has provided guidelines.
**