In fact, Cassian recognizes four senses of Scripture, three of which are the spiritual senses: (1) the literal or historical sense, (2) the allegorical or Christological sense, (3) the tropological or moral or anthropological sense, and (4) the anagogical or eschatological sense.13 To illustrate these senses, Cassian uses the example of the city of Jerusalem: “… one and the same Jerusalem can be taken in four senses: historically, as the city of the Jews; allegorically as the church of Christ, anagogically as the heavenly city of God ‘which is the mother of us all,’ tropologically, as the soul of man, which is frequently subject to praise or blame from the Lord under this title” (conl. 14,8). The roots of this type of exegetical methodology are to be found, as has been indicated above, in the New Testament. Paul had spoken explicitly of the “Jerusalem above” (Gal 4:26), and Jerusalem as a symbol for the eschatological reality had been fully developed in Rev 19–21, but there had been no suggestion that every text should be interpreted in these multiple senses. This development led to a proliferation of ingenious and highly imaginative interpretations.
Nevertheless, there were certain controls in this methodology. These were provided chiefly by the practice of comparing one text with another that contained a similar figure or idea. In fact, there developed a remarkably consistent or traditional Patristic interpretation of many texts. An example that occurs in the Rule may serve to illustrate these generalizations. Prol.28 reads: “While these temptations were still young, he caught hold of them and dashed them against Christ.” The italicized words are taken from Ps 136(137):9, where they express the pious Israelite’s hope that the Babylonian babies may be dashed on the rocks before they have a chance to grow up and become oppressors like their fathers. The same verse, with the same interpretation, is alluded to in RB 4.50: “As soon as wrongful thoughts come into your heart, dash them against Christ and disclose them to your spiritual father.” The clue to this interpretation had been provided originally by 1 Cor 10:4, which interpreted “the rock” (the one that Moses struck in the desert) as Christ. In 1 Pet 2:4-7 Christ was also described as “a living stone.” Since the desire that real Babylonian babies be smashed on real rocks was both historically no longer relevant and hardly consistent with the teaching of Jesus, it was obvious to the Patristic interpreter that the verse must have a “spiritual” meaning. There were spiritual rocks readily available in the New Testament; it remained only to spiritualize the babies into wrongful thoughts. It must also be remembered that for Christians the focus of the struggle between good and evil was no longer against the powers and principalities of this world but within the individual soul. It appeared natural, therefore, to seek the meaning of such a verse by applying it in a tropological sense. This interpretation of Ps 136(137):9 probably originated with Origen and had already appeared in the writings of Latin authors such as Hilary (in psalm. 136,14), Jerome (epist. 22,6), Ambrose (paenit. 2,106), Augustine (in psalm. 136,21), and Cassian (inst. 6,13) before it reached the sixth-century monastic rules.
Another instance of this kind of “spiritual” interpretation in the Rule is the use of the image of Jacob’s ladder (Gen 28:12). Jacob had dreamt that he saw a ladder or staircase stretching up to heaven, with angels ascending and descending upon it. In John 1:51 this text is made to refer to Christ. But in RM and RB the ladder is given an elaborate spiritual interpretation in which it is understood to represent our life on earth. Its sides are our body and soul, and the steps are the twelve stages of humility (RB 7.8-9).
Although this kind of explicit spiritual interpretation of biblical texts is comparatively rare in the Rule—about ten percent of approximately three hundred references—it was probably taken for granted by both the author and his readers that many of the other biblical texts quoted or alluded to would be given this kind of interpretation.14 This was the dominant methodology practiced by most of the principal earlier Latin writers, e.g., Hilary, Ambrose and Augustine, and it had the strong recommendation of Cassian, whose authority in monastic circles was well established.15
An example from Cassian will serve to illustrate this point. Readers sometimes express surprise that a command such as the prohibition against adultery would be included in the list of the tools for good works (RB 4.4) recommended to monks. Surely they did not need to be reminded that this was not in keeping with the monastic vocation. Cassian had explained that this command should of course be observed in the literal sense by those still in bondage to passion, but it could also be observed in a spiritual sense by those who were more spiritual. Thus it could be interpreted as a prohibition against the worship of idols and all kinds of heathen superstition, against vain speculation that destroys the simplicity of faith and against the superstitions of the law of which Paul had written (Gal 4:10; Col 2:21). It could also be understood as a prohibition against “adulterous intercourse with heretical teaching” and, finally, even as a prohibition against wandering thoughts (Cassian. conl. 14,11). The roots of this interpretation were, of course, already present in the Old Testament, where the prophets had often used the image of adultery for false worship (e.g., Hos 4:12; Isa 47:13; Jer 3:6).
The rejection of the spiritual interpretation of scriptural texts is not an altogether modern phenomenon or even one of the Reformation. Already in antiquity there were voices raised to challenge this methodology. This was done chiefly by the so-called Antiochene school, of which the chief representatives were Diodorus of Tarsus, Apollinaris of Laodicea and Theodore of Mopsuestia. These writers insisted upon the primacy of the literal sense (historia), but also admitted a typological sense for many Old Testament passages. This was difficult to exclude in view of its use by New Testament writers. The Antiochene point of view is represented among Latin writers by Junilius Africanus and especially by Jerome (epist. 84). In his later works Jerome had come under the influence of Apollinaris, whom he had heard lecture at Laodicea, and came to reject the validity of interpretations other than the historical or literal sense.16 In the later medieval period, although considerable confusion generally reigned over the uses of the various senses of Scripture, Thomas Aquinas set forth what became the classical position. He insisted that, while the other senses of Scripture might be useful for conveying spiritual or moral teaching and for hortatory or homiletic purposes, for purposes of determining doctrine (what pertains to faith) only the literal sense could be invoked (summa theol. I, 1, a.10).
It is generally accepted today that the kind of spiritual interpretation described above is not valid as exegesis of a text (unless of course the allegorical or spiritual meaning is the one intended by the author as, for example, in Ezek 16). It is regarded rather as eisegesis (reading into a text). Nevertheless, this does not mean that such interpretations should be dismissed as valueless. They may have considerable value as expression of the spiritual experience of many generations and as pedagogical devices. After all, the tencommandments have served throughout the Christian era as pedagogical devices to convey teaching never intended in the Old Testament context. This does not mean the teaching is wrong, but simply that it cannot be regarded as valid exegesis. In any case, if one is to appreciate the wisdom and the beauty of many Patristic texts, one must recognize and appreciate the fact that the scriptural texts are often being used as vehicles for all sorts of spiritual teaching and moral exhortation not originally intended by the text but having a validity in their own right.
____________________
1 See the Introduction, pp. 4, 31–33.
2 See the Introduction, pp. 18–20.
3 For a discussion of the technical terms lectio, meditatio, oratio and contemplatio, see Appendix 5, pp. 445–447.
4 C. Butler, Sancti Benedicti Regula Monachontm (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder 1912) pp. 173–175; R. Hanslik, Benedicti Regula, CSEL 75 (Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky 1960, 19772) pp. 180–186.
5 De Vogüé, 2.882–886.
6 S. Pawlowsky, Die biblischen Grundlagen der Regula Benedicti (Vienna: Herder 1965) pp. 30–33.
7 I
bid., p. 36.
8 lbid., pp. 68f.
9 See K. Heussi, Der Ursprung des Mönchtums (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr 1936) pp. 164f.
10 See, for example, D. J. McCarthy “Exod 3:14: History, Philology and Theology” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978) 311–322.
11 For discussions of Patristic exegesis, see The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, ed. G. A. Buttrick (Nashville: Abingdon 1962) 2.718–721; L. Pirot and A. Robert, Ditionnaire de la Bible, Supplément (Paris: Letouzey et Ané 1949) 4.569–591; The Cambridge History of the Bible. From the Beginnings to Jerome, ed. P. Ackroyd and C. Evans (Cambridge Univ. Press 1970) pp. 412–453, 465–489.
12 See the Introduction, pp. 34–37.
13 In the medieval period this was enshrined in the commonplace jingle:
Littera gesta docet, quid credas allegoria;
Moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia.
14 See L. Leloir “La lecture de l’Écriture selon les anciens Péres” RAM 47 (1971) 183–200; and especially H. de Lubac, Exégése médiévale: Les quatre sens de l’Écriture, 3 vols., Théologie 41,42,59 (Paris: Aubier 1959, 1961, 1964).
15 See A. Kristensen “Cassian’s Use of Scripture” ABR 28 (1977) 285, who suggests that the sections in the Conferences and Institutes dealing with cenobitic life tend to use the Scriptures in the literal sense (the cenobitic life being conceived as a life according to the precepts of the Lord), while those sections dealing with the eremitical life tend to make more frequent use of the non-literal sense.
16 See J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome (New York: Harper & Row 1975) pp. 59–60.
Appendix 7
The Rule of St. Benedict and the Rule of the Master
The relationship between the Rule of St. Benedict and that of the Master has been discussed at length in the Introduction, pp. 79–83. The additional material provided in this Appendix is for the purpose of illustrating that relationship and for the sake of further study of the relationship between the two rules. The material is in two parts: (1) a table showing the sequence and correspondences of the two rules; (2) the Latin text of chapter 2, on the abbot, from both rules, arranged to. facilitate the study of the redactional activity of St. Benedict, i.e., his omissions and additions.
1. A TABLE OF CORRESPONDENCES
The following table of correspondences between the Rule of St. Benedict and the Rule of the Master has been adapted from that compiled by de Vogüé (1.174–185). It is, as he notes, the fruit of a lengthy comparative study of the two rules. The left-hand column under RM shows those passages that correspond to those of RB not only in content but also by at least approximate position. The right-hand column shows those passages whose location interrupts the parallel sequence of the two rules or those cases where the same subject is treated in more than one place. The parentheses in the two RM columns indicate doubtful or distant relationships and cases of open contradiction. The Roman numerals indicate instances of deliberate structural repetition of themes in RM.
RB A TABLE OF CORRESPONDENCES RM
Prol.1
Listen and put into practice
Prol. 1,5,8,22
Prol. 15,19,22
Prol.2
in order to return to God
Prol.3,11;
Thp.6
from whom you had drifted
Prol.3,7;
Thp.6
Prol.3
Engage in the service of Christ through the renunciation of your own will
Th.18,21;
Thp. 24-53
Prol.4
Ask for divine assistance
Thp.69-72,79
Prol.5-44
Commentary on Psalms 33 and 14
Ths.2-44
Prol.45
Foundation of the school
Ths.45
Prol.46
Hope of not being too harsh
Prol.47
If it seems a little strict
Prol.48
it is because the way at first is narrow
(Prol.14)
Prol.49
At length love expands
Prol.50
Persevere until death
Ths.46
1.1-9
Kinds of monks: first three
1.1-9
1.10-11
fourth kind (gyrovagues)
1.13-74
1.12
It is better to say nothing of them
1.13
1.13
Return to the cenobites
1.75
2.1-10
The abbot: his name. Looking toward the judgment (I)
2.1-10
2.11-15
He is to adapt himself to different characters (I)
2.23-25
2.16-22
He is not to show favoritism
2.16-22
2.23-25
He is to adapt himself to different characters (II)
2.23-25
2.26
He is to correct faults
2.27-29
He is to adapt himself to different characters (III)
2.30
His name. Looking toward the judgment (II)
2.32
2.31-32
He is to adapt himself to different characters (IV)
2.33-36
The primacy of the spiritual
2.37-38
Looking toward the judgment (III)
2.33-34
2.38-40
The amendment of others and of himself
2.39-40
3.1-11
Counsel with the whole community
2.41-50
3.12-13
Counsel with the seniors
4.1-74
The tools for good works
2.52; 3.1-77; 4.t
4.75-77
Conclusion: eternal reward
3.78-94
4.78
The workshop
6.1-2
5.1-9
Obedience without delay
7.1-9
5.10-13
The narrow way
7.47-51
5.14-19
Obedience without murmuring
7.67-74
6.1-6
Restraint in speaking: even of good words
8.31-37
6.7
Questions put to the superior
9.1-50
6.8
Vulgarity forbidden
9.51
7.1-9
Humility: preamble: the ladder
10.1-9
7.10-13
First step. Description
10.10-13
7.14-18
God present to the thoughts
10.14-19
7.19-25
God present to volition and desire
10.30-36
7.26-30
Conclusion of the first step
10.37-41
7.31-66
Steps 2-12
10.42-86
7.67-70
Conclusion: love
10.87-91
8.1-2
The night office: hour in winter
33.3-9
8.3
Study after the office
44.12-19
8.4
Hour in summer
33.10-26
9.1-11
Vigils in winter
33.27-34;
44.1-4
10.1-3
Vigils in summer
33.35-41;
44.5-8
11.1-11
Vigils on Sunday
49
11.12-13
Abridgement in case of lateness
(33.42-54)
12.1-4
Sunday Lauds
35.1; 39.1-5;
45.12
13.1-11
Lauds on ordinary days
35.1; 39.1-4
13.12-14
The Lord’s Prayer at the end of the hours
14.1-2
&n
bsp; Feasts of the saints
(45.16-18)
15.1
Alleluia: Easter season
45.1
15.2
Pentecost to Lent: second nocturn
44.2-7
15.3
Sunday at all hours except Vespers
45.12
15.4
Responsory only during Easter season
45.1
(44.37)
16.1-3
Office during the day: “seven times a day”
34.1-3
16.4
“In the middle of the night”
RB 1980- The Rule Of St Benedict Page 69