(This article courtesy of the Arlington Catholic Herald.)
This other meaning, known as the “literal sense,” was given great impetus at Antioch in Syria. This “School of Antioch,” along with Alexandria, proved beneficial for the science of theology.
Located in the region of Syria, Antioch was founded circa 300 B.C. by Seleucus I Nicator (d. 281 B.C.). In the Old Testament, Antioch was the royal city of the Seleucid Empire, a kind of headquarters (cf. 1 Macc. 3:37; 4:35). In the New Testament, St. Paul spent much time in Antioch, treating it as a base for early missionary journeys (cf. Acts 13:1-3; 15:35-41). It should be noted that Scripture mentions a second place also named Antioch, part of the region of Pisidia (cf. Acts 13:14; 14:21). It is Antioch of Syria that is our focus.
The School of Antioch had its inception during the latter half of the 3rd century. Lucian (d. circa A.D. 312) is usually the earliest name connected to this beginning. Other names associated with this Syrian institution were Eustathius of Antioch (d. circa A.D. 330), Titus of Bostra (d. circa A.D. 364), Diodorus of Tarsus (d. A.D. 392), Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. A.D. 428), and Theodoret of Cyrus (d. A.D. 458). The gem of this school of thought was St. John Chrysostom (d. A.D. 407).
The Antiochene method placed great stress on the literal sense of Holy Writ; frequently labeled the historical-grammatical sense. Antioch was reacting to certain abuses resulting from Alexandrian “spiritual” exegesis. The literal and spiritual senses are both valid, possessing a long historical precedent, and are cited with approval in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#115—118). However, both senses can be misused without careful application (cf. Catechism 119).
The role of the literal sense of God’s word, characteristic of Antiochene methodology, is enunciated by St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274): “All other [spiritual] senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal” (Summa Theologiae I, 1, 10). At the heart of the literal sense of hermeneutics (i.e. interpretation) are two points: an attention to the historical context of the Bible, and the recognition of its particular grammar. The Fathers who were influenced by the School of Antioch used this two-fold grid in their Scriptural works.
To help clarify the application of the senses, an example usually credited to St. John Cassian (d. A.D. 435) is helpful. Taking the entity of Jerusalem found in the Bible, St. Cassian assigned different layers of meaning to this city’s appearances in the Sacra Pagina. Literally, Jerusalem is an historic city (cf. Mt. 4:25). Allegorically, this place represents the Catholic Church (cf. Heb. 12:22). Morally, this area refers to the Christian pilgrimage (cf. Lk. 13:34). Anagogically, Jerusalem points to our final rest (cf. Rev. 21:2). Certainly, not every single concept in Scripture has multiple senses: this is where the tradition of the Church is crucial.
Incidentally, the literal sense of Biblical exegesis can also be abused. The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its document The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (1993), warns against an exaggerated “fundamentalism.” (No. I.F) An example of this error is reading the entire book of Revelation with a strict literal view. Revelation, although containing some literal events, uses rich imagery and symbolism. A book of this type should be read in accordance with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church (cf. Catechism 109—114).
Catholics have been left a great treasure by the Biblical exegesis of the Church Fathers. A detailed treatment of the senses of Scripture can be studied in Medieval Exegesis, composed by the late Rev. Henri de Lubac, S.J. Catholics can and should draw a wealth of edification from the Biblical exegesis of the Fathers, great advocates of the literal and spiritual senses of Scripture.
