The Catena
Aurea
“Ignorance
of Scripture is ignorance of Christ” – St. Jerome
Scripture scholars
and enthusiasts have a plethora of wonderful commentaries to choose from to
enhance their understanding of the Bible.
But for my money, when it comes to the Gospels, at least, nothing beats
St. Thomas Aquinas’s Catena Aurea (The Golden Chain).
What I love about
this work, which is an in-depth commentary on the four Gospels, is that it is a
compilation of the writings and commentaries of the great Fathers and Doctors
of the Church. No line of the Gospels is
ignored and it is a brilliant window into the minds of the early Saints and how
they understood the Scriptures.
The
historical-critical method of Scripture study is a popular approach among many
Biblical scholars today. As a very brief
definition, this method examines Scripture from the critical eye of historical
study. The Church affirms that it does
have its place, if it is used as a way to enhance our understanding of
Scripture, and not as a tool misused to try and discredit it.
One example of the benefits we
have gained through such study has been the understanding of the differences in
the Synoptic Gospels’ timing of the Passover in relation to the Last Supper
with St. John’s. The Last Supper was a
Passover celebration and yet, we are told by St. John that Christ died on the
Cross at the hour at which the lambs were being sacrificed for the
Passover. How is this reconciled?
We have learned that there were
two calendars in use by Jews at the time.
The Essenes would have celebrated Passover when Jesus did, at the Last
Supper. This interpretation is strengthened
by the Scripture’s note that Jesus told His disciples to speak to a man
carrying a water jug about preparing the room for the Last Supper. Only in the Essene section of Jerusalem would
a man be carrying a water jug, a woman’s job, since it was an exclusively male
area. Tradition holds the location of
the Last Supper in the Essene section of the city as well. Rabbinical Jews would have been slaughtering
the lambs for their celebration of the Passover at the time of the Crucifixion. So the Gospels, it turns out, have no
contradiction on the issue. Historical
understanding brought us greater spiritual understanding.
Of course, our
study of history has only served to increase the historical value of the
Bible. The civilizations and leaders
mentioned in Scripture are increasingly verified by archeological study, and
many non-Christian sources validate events mentioned in the Bible. Lee Strobel’s work The Case for Christ also shows that the Bible itself, from a purely
historical perspective, should be looked on as the most trustworthy document we
have from the ancient world.
Often I hear,
though, that we have a difficult time understanding Scripture because we don’t
have the proper historical context or understanding of the genres of ancient
writing. There is some validity to
that. Context is certainly vitally important
to properly understand what the Bible is really saying, and many scholars do a
great job of providing the context that can enhance our understanding.
I do occasionally
have trouble with the arguments of Scripture scholars who use the claim that we
lack an understanding of ancient genre to call into question the truth of
certain passages of Scripture.
I admit I am not
qualified to cast judgment, so here is where I find the Catena Aurea so
valuable. Who would better understand
the genre of the time: the Saints tied historically to that time, or Scripture
scholars 2,000 years later? This is why
I have gained such insight from Aquinas’s incredible compilation.
An example: Looking
at St. Matthew’s and St. Luke’s treatment of the Nativity, where is St. Joseph
from? According to St. Luke, Joseph was
from Nazareth. (Luke chooses to leave
out the flight to Egypt, but an understanding of writing styles often used in
Scripture allows us to realize that the language he uses does not therefore
imply it didn’t happen.)
In St. Matthew’s
Gospel, however, after returning to Israel from Egypt, Joseph plans to return
to Judea and only ends up in Nazareth because of the warning of an angel. Which is correct?
I’ve heard it said
that this shows that the accounts can’t really be read as historically
accurate. Now I understand there are
spiritual meanings to Scripture (based on the literal meaning, properly
understood, as taught by Pope Leo XIII).
But this troubled me.
However, the
Fathers had addressed this issue (as they have every conceivable issue) as
recorded in the Catena Aurea. St.
Matthew was writing his Gospel for the Jews.
And St. Joseph, like the Jews of St. Matthew’s time, would have expected
that the Messiah belonged in Judea.
Therefore, the Fathers say, though Joseph was from Nazareth, as the
Guardian of the Redeemer, he would naturally have felt that a return to Israel
would mean a return to Judea. The angel,
however, warns him not to return to Judea, so he settles in his town of
Nazareth.
Since I have not
the ability or authority to credibly cast aspersions on any Scripture scholar
(except those clearly opposed to the Church, and usually identified by Her), I
will not pretend to do so. But I will
say that the Catena Aurea, with its reliance on such spiritual giants, and
compiled by one of the most brilliant men ever to live, has many times given me
a greater understanding and appreciation of the holy Gospels.
