BIBLICAL INTRODUCTION. - The science that provides the knowledge necessary Bible (v.).
The name «i.» was first used in the Greek equivalent εἰδαγωγή by the monk Adrian (v.) around the middle of the fifth century, in the work Εἰδαγωγή εἰς τὰς θείας γραφάς (Introduction to the Divine Scriptures: PG 98, 1273-1312; cf. G. Mercati, in Rev. bibl., 11 [1914], pp. 246-55). A century later, Cassiodorus, in his Institutiones divinarum et humanarum lectionum (edited by R. A. B. Mynors, Oxford 1937, and previously in PG 70, 1105-50), lists among the «introductores Scripturae Divinae» Tychonius the Donatist, St. Augustine, Adrian, Eucherius, and Junilius, who, with the exception of Junilius, provide only rules for biblical interpretation (PL 70, 1122).
The general notion is described by Leo XIII in the encyclical Providentissimus (18 November 1893), where he requires «the sacred seminaries and academies» to study b. i., so that «the student may have useful resources for demonstrating the integrity and authority of the Bible, for investigating and attaining its legitimate meaning, and for repressing and destroying sophistical attacks» (cf. Enchiridion biblicum, Rome 1927, nos. 88-89).
The necessity of this study is reaffirmed by Pius X in the apostolic letter Quoniam in re biblica (27 March 1906; Ench. Bibl., nos. 155-73), by Benedict
XV in the encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus (15 September 1920; Euchiridion biblicum, nos. 457-508), and by Pius XII in the encyclical Dixino afflante Spiritu (30 September 1943; AAS, 35 [1943], pp. 297-326).
The need for an introductory study of Sacred Scripture was already pointed out by St. Peter, where he laments that «certain ignorant and unstable persons distort» certain difficult passages of St. Paul «as they do the other Scriptures of the same kind» (II Pt. 3, 16). The difficulties of the Bible require a b. i.: one is, in fact, dealing with a divine-human book, composed in ancient languages and reflecting a mentality very different from our own.
There is not yet any uniform arrangement of b. i. Commonly, by b. i. in the broad sense, one means «all the disciplines whose knowledge contributes to an understanding of the Sacred Scriptures, including therefore the sciences called auxiliary, such as philology, geography, history, and biblical archaeology» (H. Hoepfl-B. Gut, cit. in bibl., p. 2). By b. i. in the strict sense one means «that discipline which studies the origin (divine and human) of the Sacred Books, their history (preservation and propagation), authenticity, integrity, and interpretation» (ibid.).
B. i. is generally divided into general and special. The former, also called biblical propaedeutics, deals with questions concerning the sacred books taken together and studies their inspiration, canon, original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek text, ancient and modern versions, hermeneutics, and the history of exegesis.
Special b. i. studies the individual books, or groups of books, of the Old and New Testaments separately and is chiefly concerned with establishing their human authority. It investigates their authors, date, place of origin, subject, purpose, division, and integrity.
Rationalists, considering the Bible a purely profane book, treat b. i. as «the history of the sacred books of the Hebrews» or «of biblical literature»; Catholics, mindful of Leo XIII’s warning, regard it as a science «treated under the auspices and with the assistance of theology»; this, however, does not prevent them from employing the historical-critical method. Biblical truth has nothing to fear from sound criticism (cf. E. Mangenot, col. 914). The proofs adduced especially in favor of inspiration and canonicity will thus have a twofold value: apologetic, insofar as they represent the historical tradition; theological, insofar as they attest the dogmatic tradition.
Historical outline. As a special discipline, b. i. was treated systematically only from the sixteenth century onward; nevertheless, from the earliest centuries there were treatments of particular questions connected with b. i. Here too, the stimulus toward improving methods arose from the progress of the critical, philological, and historical sciences.
In the age of the Fathers, b. i. was not treated ex professo. Important information drawn from tradition concerning the sacred authors, the canon, and the sacred text was nevertheless transmitted; hermeneutical rules in particular were studied. Relevant to b. i. in the second century are the Marcionite Prologues to the Gospels of Mark, Luke, and John and to ten Pauline letters, the Muratorian Canon, and a hermeneutical Key attributed to Melito of Sardis (lost). In the third century, the writings of St. Irenaeus and the hermeneutical works of the «Alexandrian school», represented by Clement of Alexandria and Origen, are useful. In the fourth century, so too are those of the «second Antiochene school», represented by Diodore of Tarsus, St. John Chrysostom (v.), and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Much information on b. i. is found in the Historia ecclesiastica of Eusebius of Caesarea and in the works of St. Jerome, especially in the celebrated Prologues to his version from the Hebrew, in the De viris illustribus, and in his expanded version of Eusebius’ Onomasticon.
Later writers devoted greater attention to organizing the treatise on hermeneutics. St. Augustine devoted to it the De doctrina christiana (PL 34, 15-122) and the four books De consensu Evangelistarum (PL 34, 1041-1230). Among the writings recalled by Cassiodorus as introductorii, the following are noteworthy: Tychonius the Donatist (ca. 400), De septem regulis, for discovering the biblical meaning (PL 18, 15-66), discussed by St. Augustine; Eucherius (v.) of Lyon, Formularum spiritis intelligentiae ad Uranium I. unus; Instructionum ad Salonium II. duo (PL 50, 727-822); Junilius Africanus (ca. 550), De partibus divinae Legis (PL 68, 15-42), in dialogical form.
In the sixth century, Cosmas Indicopleustes, in the Christian Topography (PG 88, 51-470), also deals with the authors and subject matter of the sacred books. Cassiodorus (d. 570) collected in his Institutiones the notions of b. i. treated by various authors (PL 70, 1105-50).
In the Middle Ages, the scholastics were chiefly interested in the doctrinal and moral questions contained in the Bible; they touched incidentally upon introductory questions in prolegomena or commentaries. Since they did not know the original languages, they relied exclusively on the Latin Vulgate and sought to correct the copyists’ errors.
Hugh of St. Victor deserves mention, and especially St. Thomas Aquinas, who set out the rules of hermeneutics in the Sum. Theol., 1°, q. 1, aa. 9-10; Quodlib., VII, q. 6, aa. 14-16; and dealt thoroughly with the question of inspiration. J. Gerson, Propositiones de sensu litterali S. Scripturae, and Nicholas of Lyra in the prolegomena to the Postillae, completed by Paul of Burgos, should also be recalled.
During the period of Humanism, notable progress was made in the field of biblical philology. The study of Oriental languages, introduced into universities by the Council of Vienne (1312), bore fruit in the fields of b. i. and Old Testament exegesis; the study of the Greek language, which spread throughout the West, especially after the fall of Constantinople (1453), contributed to a deepening of New Testament studies. With the publication of the Polyglot of Cardinal F. Ximenes de Cisneros (d. 1517), critical studies received new impetus. D. Erasmus of Rotterdam (d. 1536) advanced critical studies of the New Testament through his editions of the Greek text. During this period Sante Pagnini stands out, with Isagoges seu introductionis ad Sacrae Litteras liber unus (Lyon 1525), in which he deals with the Hebrew language and writing, the versions, the canon, and hermeneutical rules. He also wrote Isagoges ad s. Literas et ad mysticos Scripturarum sensu libri octodecim (there 1536).
After the Council of Trent, which established the canon and declared the Vulgate authentic (8 Apr. 1546), Catholic writers dealt especially with these subjects and with hermeneutical norms. Siena (v.) may be considered the first to compile a complete autonomous b. i. in his 8 books entitled Bibliotheca sancta (Venice 1566); s. R. Bellarmino, in his Controversie, also dealt with De verbo Dei scripto et non scripto (Rome 1581).
Writings on b. i. were published by A. Salmeron (d. 1585), N. Serarius (d. 1609), and J. Bonfrère (d. 1643).
Among the Protestants, M. Flacius (d. 1575), A. Rivetus (d. 1634), A. Calovius (d. 1686), and especially B. Walton (d. 1661) devoted themselves to b. i., the latter with the celebrated London polyglot Bible (1654–57).
During the period of biblical criticism and rationalism, the Oratorian R. Simon (d. 1712), in the Catholic sphere, was the first to treat b. i. by the historical-critical method, in his celebrated works Histoire critique du texte, des versions et des commentaires du Vieux Testament (Paris 1678); Histoire critique du texte du Nouveau Testament (Rotterdam 1689), etc. Wishing to proceed along the middle path between Catholics and Protestants, he ended by displeasing both sides. He was opposed by J. Bossuet and by the Protestant J. Le Clerc, but his method ultimately triumphed. Among Catholics, A. Calmet (d. 1757), H. Goldhagen (d. 1794), J. F. Marchini (d. 1774), and I. N. Schaeffer (d. 1790) distinguished themselves.
With the English deists, especially E. Herbert of Cherburg (d. 1638) and A. Collins (d. 1729), and later with J. S. Semler (d. 1791), biblical rationalism was established,
which denied the Bible every superior dignity and authority. T. Hobbes, B. Spinoza, and Voltaire exercised considerable influence upon II. These currents, especially the rationalist one propagated by G. L. Lessing and S. Reimarus, strove to reduce b. i. to the level of a profane literary science.
In the 19th century, Catholics renewed introductory studies, adapting R. Simon’s method to the new apologetic requirements and giving rise to the initiatives and publications encouraged and guided by the ecclesiastical magisterium (the biblical Documents of the First Vatican Council, of Leo XIII, Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, and Pius XII; Responses of the Pontifical Biblical Commission; cf. Enchiridion biblicum, from no. 60 to the end). The encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu recalls the progress made in the biblical field during the 50 years that had elapsed since Procidentissimus (1893). The Dominican Biblical School in Jerusalem, the Jesuits’ Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome and Jerusalem, and journals devoted strictly to biblical or theological subjects frequently deal with questions of b. i.