The
Interpretation of the Bible in the Church
Presented by the
Pontifical Biblical Commission
to Pope John Paul II on April 23, 1993
(as published in Origins, January 6, 1994)
CONTENTS
·
Preface
·
I.
Methods and Approaches for Interpretation
·
III.
Characteristics of Catholic Interpretation
·
IV.
Interpretation of the Bible in the Life of the Church
·
Endnotes
PREFACE
The
study of the Bible is, as it were, the soul of theology, as the Second Vatican
Council says, borrowing a phrase from Pope Leo XIII (Dei Verbum, 24).
This study is never finished; each age must in its own way newly seek to
understand the sacred books.
In
the history of interpretation the rise of the historical-critical method opened
a new era. With it, new possibilities for understanding the biblical word in its
originality opened up. Just as with all human endeavor, though, so also this
method contained hidden dangers along with its positive possibilities. The
search for the original can lead to putting the word back into the past
completely so that it is no longer taken in its actuality. It can result that
only the human dimension of the word appears as real, while the genuine author,
God, is removed from the reach of a method which was established for
understanding human reality.
The
application of a "profane" method to the Bible necessarily led to
discussion. Everything that helps us better to understand the truth and to
appropriate its representations is helpful and worthwhile for theology. It is in
this sense that we must seek how to use this method in theological research.
Everything that shrinks our horizon and hinders us from seeing and hearing
beyond that which is merely human must be opened up. Thus the emergence of the
historical-critical method set in motion at the same time a struggle over its
scope and its proper configuration which is by no means finished as yet.
In
this struggle the teaching office of the Catholic Church has taken up positions
several times. First, Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus
of Nov. 18, 1893, plotted out some markers on the exegetical map. At a time when
liberalism was extremely sure of itself and much too intrusively dogmatic, Leo
XIII was forced to express himself in a rather critical way, even though he did
not exclude that which was positive from the new possibilities. Fifty years
later, however, because of the fertile work of great Catholic exegetes, Pope
Pius XII, in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu of Sept. 30, 1943,
was able to provide largely positive encouragement toward making the modern
methods of understanding the Bible fruitful. The Constitution on Divine
Revelation of the Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, of Nov. 18, 1965,
adopted all of this. It provided us with a synthesis, which substantially
remains, between the lasting insights of patristic theology and the new
methodological understanding of the moderns.
In
the meantime, this methodological spectrum of exegetical work has broadened in a
way which could not have been envisioned 30 years ago. New methods and new
approaches have appeared, from structuralism to materialistic, psychoanalytic
and liberation exegesis. On the other hand, there are also new attempts to
recover patristic exegesis and to include renewed forms of a spiritual
interpretation of Scripture. Thus the Pontifical Biblical Commission took as its
task an attempt to take the bearings of Catholic exegesis in the present
situation 100 years after Providentissimus Deus and 50 years after Divino
Afflante Spiritu.
The
Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its new form after the Second Vatican
Council, is not an organ of the teaching office, but rather a commission of
scholars who, in their scientific and ecclesial responsibility as believing
exegetes, take positions on important problems of Scriptural interpretation and
know that for this task they enjoy the confidence of the teaching office. Thus
the present document was established. It contains a well-grounded overview of
the panorama of present-day methods and in this way offers to the inquirer an
orientation to the possibilities and limits of these approaches.
Accordingly,
the text of the document inquires into how the meaning of Scripture might become
known--this meaning in which the human word and Godīs word work together in the
singularity of historical events and the eternity of the everlasting Word, which
is contemporary in every age. The biblical word comes from a real past. It comes
not only from the past, however, but at the same time from the eternity of God
and it leads us into Godīs eternity, but again along the way through time, to
which the past, the present and the future belong.
I
believe that this document is very helpful for the important questions about the
right way of understanding Holy Scripture and that it also helps us to go
further. It takes up the paths of the encyclicals of 1893 and 1943 and advances
them in a fruitful way. I would like to thank the members of the biblical
commission for the patient and frequently laborious struggle in which this text
grew little by little. I hope that the document will have a wide circulation so
that it becomes a genuine contribution to the search for a deeper assimilation
of the word of God in holy Scripture.
Rome, on the feast of St. Matthew the evangelist 1993.
Cardinal
Joseph Ratzinger
INTRODUCTION
The
interpretation of biblical texts continues in our own day to be a matter of
lively interest and significant debate. In recent years the discussions involved
have taken on some new dimensions. Granted the fundamental importance of the
Bible for Christian faith, for the life of the church and for relations between
Christians and the faithful of other religions, the Pontifical Biblical
Commission has been asked to make a statement on this subject.
A.
The State of the Question Today
The
problem of the interpretation of the Bible is hardly a modern phenomenon, even
if at times that is what some would have us believe. The Bible itself bears
witness that its interpretation can be a difficult matter. Alongside texts that
are perfectly clear, it contains passages of some obscurity. When reading
certain prophecies of Jeremiah, Daniel pondered at length over their meaning
(Dn. 9:2). According to the Acts of the Apostles, an Ethiopian of the first
century found himself in the same situation with respect to a passage from the
Book of Isaiah (Is. 53:7-8) and recognized that he had need of an interpreter
(Acts 8:30-35). The Second Letter of Peter insists that "no prophecy of
Scripture is a matter of private interpretation" (2 Pt. 1:20), and it also
observes that the letters of the apostle Paul contain "some difficult
passages, the meaning of which the ignorant and untrained distort, as they do
also in the case of the other Scriptures, to their own ruin" (2 Pt. 3: 16).
The
problem is therefore quite old. But it has been accentuated with the passage of
time. Readers today, in order to appropriate the words and deeds of which the
Bible speaks, have to project themselves back almost 20 or 30 centuries--a
process which always creates difficulty. Furthermore, because of the progress
made in the human sciences, questions of interpretation have become more complex
in modern times. Scientific methods have been adopted for the study of the texts
of the ancient world. To what extent can these methods be considered appropriate
for the interpretation of holy Scripture? For a long period the church in her
pastoral prudence showed herself very reticent in responding to this question,
for often the methods, despite their positive elements, have shown themselves to
be wedded to positions hostile to the Christian faith. But a more positive
attitude has also evolved, signaled by a whole series of pontifical documents,
ranging from the encyclical Providentissimus Deus of Leo XIII (Nov. 18,
1893) to the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu of Pius XII (Sept. 30,
1943), and this has been confirmed by the declaration Sancta Mater Ecclesia
of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (April 21, 1964) and above all by the
dogmatic constitution Dei Verbum of the Second Vatican Council (Nov. 18,
1965).
That
this more constructive attitude has borne fruit cannot be denied. Biblical
studies have made great progress in the Catholic Church, and the academic value
of these studies has been acknowledged more and more in the scholarly world and
among the faithful. This has greatly smoothed the path of ecumenical dialogue.
The deepening of the Bibleīs influence upon theology has contributed to
theological renewal. Interest in the Bible has grown among Catholics, with
resultant progress in the Christian life. All those who have acquired a solid
formation in this area consider it quite impossible to return to a precritical
level of interpretation, a level which they now rightly judge to be quite
inadequate.
But
the fact is that at the very time when the most prevalent scientific method--the
"historical-critical method"--is freely practiced in exegesis,
including Catholic exegesis, it is itself brought into question. To some extent,
this has come about in the scholarly world itself through the rise of
alternative methods and approaches. But it has also arisen through the
criticisms of many members of the faithful, who judge the method deficient from
the point of view of faith. The historical-critical method, as its name
suggests, is particularly attentive to the historical development of texts or
traditions across the passage of time--that is, to all that is summed up in the
term diachronic. But at the present time in certain quarters it finds
itself in competition with methods which insist upon a synchronic
understanding of texts--that is, one which has to do with their language,
composition, narrative structure and capacity for persuasion. Moreover, for many
interpreters the diachronic concern to reconstruct the past has given way to a
tendency to ask questions of texts by viewing them within a number of
contemporary perspectives--philosophical, psychoanalytic, sociological,
political, etc. Some value this plurality of methods and approaches as an
indication of richness, but to others it gives the impression of much confusion.
Whether
real or apparent, this confusion has brought fresh fuel to the arguments of
those opposed to scientific exegesis. The diversity of interpretations only
serves to show, they say, that nothing is gained by submitting biblical texts to
the demands of scientific method; on the contrary, they allege, much is lost
thereby. They insist that the result of scientific exegesis is only to provoke
perplexity and doubt upon numerous points which hitherto had been accepted
without difficulty. They add that it impels some exegetes to adopt positions
contrary to the faith of the church on matters of great importance such as the
virginal conception of Jesus and his miracles, and even his resurrection and
divinity.
Even
when it does not end up in such negative positions, scientific exegesis, they
claim, is notable for its sterility in what concerns progress in the Christian
life. Instead of making for easier and more secure access to the living sources
of Godīs word, it makes of the Bible a closed book. Interpretation may always
have been something of a problem, but now it requires such technical refinements
as to render it a domain reserved for a few specialists alone. To the latter
some apply the phrase of the Gospel: "You have taken away the key of
knowledge; you have not entered in yourselves and you have hindered those who
sought to enter" (Lk. 11:52; cf. Mt. 23:13).
As
a result, in place of the patient toil of scientific exegesis, they think it
necessary to substitute simpler approaches such as one or other of the various
forms of synchronic reading which may be considered appropriate. Some even,
turning their backs upon all study, advocate a so-called "spiritual"
reading of the Bible, by which they understand a reading guided solely by
personal inspiration--one that is subjective--and intended only to nourish such
inspiration. Some seek above all to find in the Bible the Christ of their own
personal vision and, along with it, the satisfaction of their own spontaneous
religious feelings. Others claim to find there immediate answers to all kinds of
questions touching both their own lives and that of the community. There are,
moreover, numerous sects which propose as the only way of interpretation one
that has been revealed to them alone.
B.
Purpose of This Document
It
is, then, appropriate to give serious consideration to the various aspects of
the present situation as regards the interpretation of the Bible--to attend to
the criticisms and the complaints as also to the hopes and aspirations which are
being expressed in this matter, to assess the possibilities opened up by the new
methods and approaches and, finally, to try to determine more precisely the
direction which best corresponds to the mission of exegesis in the Catholic
Church.
Such
is the purpose of this document. The Pontifical Biblical Commission desires to
indicate the paths most appropriate for arriving at an interpretation of the
Bible as faithful as possible to its character both human and divine. The
commission does not aim to adopt a position on all the questions which arise
with respect to the Bible such as, for example, the theology of inspiration.
What it has in mind is to examine all the methods likely to contribute
effectively to the task of making more available the riches contained in the
biblical texts. The aim is that the word of God may become more and more the
spiritual nourishment of the members of the people of God, the source for them
of a life of faith, of hope and of love--and indeed a light for all humanity
(cf. Dei Verbum, 21).
To
accomplish this goal, the present document:
1.
Will give a brief description of the various methods and approaches,[1]
indicating the possibilities they offer and their limitations.
2.
Will examine certain questions of a hermeneutical nature.
3.
Will reflect upon the aspects which may be considered characteristic of a
Catholic interpretation of the Bible and upon its relationship with other
theological disciplines.
4.
Will consider, finally, the place interpretation of the Bible has in the life of
the church.
I.
METHODS AND APPROACHES FOR INTERPRETATION
A.
Historical-Critical Method
The
historical-critical method is the indispensable method for the scientific study
of the meaning of ancient texts. Holy Scripture, inasmuch as it is the
"word of God in human language," has been composed by human authors in
all its various parts and in all the sources that lie behind them. Because of
this, its proper understanding not only admits the use of this method but
actually requires it.
1.
History of the Method
For
a correct understanding of this method as currently employed, a glance over its
history will be of assistance. Certain elements of this method of interpretation
are very ancient. They were used in antiquity by Greek commentators of classical
literature and, much later, in the course of the patristic period by authors
such as Origen, Jerome and Augustine. The method at that time was much less
developed. Its modern forms are the result of refinements brought about
especially since the time of the Renaissance humanists and their recursus ad
fontes (return to the sources).
The
textual criticism of the New Testament was able to be developed as a scientific
discipline only from about 1800 onward, after its link with the textus
receptus was severed. But the beginnings of literary criticism go back to
the 17th century, to the work of Richard Simon, who drew attention to the
doublets, discrepancies in content and differences of style observable in the
Pentateuch--discoveries not easy to reconcile with the attribution of the entire
text to Moses as single author. In the 18th century, Jean Astruc was still
satisfied that the matter could be explained on the basis that Moses had made
use of various sources (especially two principal ones) to compose the Book of
Genesis. But as time passed biblical critics contested the Mosaic authorship of
the Pentateuch with ever growing confidence.
Literary
criticism for a long time came to be identified with the attempt to distinguish
in texts different sources. Thus it was that there developed in the 19th century
the "documentary hypothesis," which sought to give an explanation of
the editing of the Pentateuch. According to this hypothesis, four documents, to
some extent parallel with each other, had been woven together: that of the
Yahwist (J), that of the Elohist (E), that of the Deuteronomist (D) and that of
the priestly author (P); the final editor made use of this latter (priestly)
document to provide a structure for the whole.
In
similar fashion, to explain both the agreements and disagreements between the
three synoptic Gospels, scholars had recourse to the "two source"
hypothesis. According to this, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were composed out
of two principal sources: on the one hand, the Gospel of Mark and, on the other,
a collection of the sayings of Jesus (called Q, from the German word Quelle,
meaning "source"). In their essential features, these two hypotheses
retain their prominence in scientific exegesis today--though they are also under
challenge.
In
the desire to establish the chronology of the biblical texts, this kind of
literary criticism restricted itself to the task of dissecting and dismantling
the text in order to identify the various sources. It did not pay sufficient
attention to the final form of the biblical text and to the message which it
conveyed in the state in which it actually exists (the contribution of editors
was not held in high regard). This meant that historical-critical exegesis could
often seem to be something which simply dissolved and destroyed the text. This
was all the more the case when, under the influence of the comparative history
of religions, such as it then was, or on the basis of certain philosophical
ideas, some exegetes expressed highly negative judgments against the Bible.
It
was Hermann Gunkel who brought the method out of the ghetto of literary
criticism understood in this way. Although he continued to regard the books of
the Pentateuch as compilations, he attended to the particular texture of the
different elements of the text. He sought to define the genre of each piece
(e.g., whether "legend" or "hymn") and its original setting
in the life of the community or Sitz im Leben (e.g., a legal setting or a
liturgical one, etc.).
To
this kind of research into literary genres was joined the "critical study
of forms" (Formgeschichte), which Martin Dibelius and Rudolf
Bultmann introduced into the exegesis of the synoptic Gospels. Bultmann combined
form-critical studies with a biblical hermeneutic inspired by the existentialist
philosophy of Martin Heidegger. As a result, Formgeschichte often stirred
up serious reservations.
But
one of the results of this method has been to demonstrate more clearly that the
tradition recorded in the New Testament had its origin and found its basic shape
within Christian community or early church, passing from the preaching of Jesus
himself to that which proclaimed that Jesus is the Christ. Eventually, form
criticism was supplemented by Redaktionsgeschichte (redaction criticism),
the "critical study of the process of editing." This sought to shed
light upon the personal contribution of each evangelist and to uncover the
theological tendencies which shaped his editorial work.
When
this last method was brought into play, the whole series of different stages
characteristic of the historical-critical method became complete: From textual
criticism one progresses to literary criticism, with its work of dissection in
the quest for sources; then one moves to a critical study of forms and, finally,
to an analysis of the editorial process, which aims to be particularly attentive
to the text as it has been put together. All this has made it possible to
understand far more accurately the intention of the authors and editors of the
Bible as well as the message which they addressed to their first readers. The
achievement of these results has lent the historical-critical method an
importance of the highest order.
2.
Principles
The
fundamental principles of the historical-critical method in its classic form are
the following:
It
is a historical method, not only because it is applied to ancient texts--in this
case, those of the Bible--and studies their significance from a historical point
of view, but also and above all because it seeks to shed light upon the
historical processes which gave rise to biblical texts, diachronic processes
that were often complex and involved a long period of time. At the different
stages of their production, the texts of the Bible were addressed to various
categories of hearers or readers living in different places and different times.
It
is a critical method, because in each of its steps (from textual criticism to
redaction criticism) it operates with the help of scientific criteria that seek
to be as objective as possible. In this way it aims to make accessible to the
modern reader the meaning of biblical texts, often very difficult to comprehend.
As
an analytical method, it studies the biblical text in the same fashion as it
would study any other ancient text and comments upon it as an expression of
human discourse. However, above all in the area of redaction criticism, it does
allow the exegete to gain a better grasp of the content of divine revelation.
3.
Description
At
the present stage of its development, the historical-critical method moves
through the following steps:
Textual
criticism, as practiced for a very long time, begins the series of scholarly
operations. Basing itself on the testimony of the oldest and best manuscripts,
as well as of papyri, certain ancient versions and patristic texts,
textual-criticism seeks to establish, according to fixed rules, a biblical text
as close as possible to the original.
The
text is then submitted to a linguistic (morphology and syntax) and semantic
analysis, using the knowledge derived from historical philology. It is the role
of literary criticism to determine the beginning and end of textual units, large
and small, and to establish the internal coherence of the text. The existence of
doublets, of irreconcilable differences and of other indicators is a clue to the
composite character of certain texts. These can then be divided into small
units, the next step being to see whether these in turn can be assigned to
different sources.
Genre
criticism seeks to identify literary genres, the social milieu that gave rise to
them, their particular features and the history of their development. Tradition
criticism situates texts in the stream of tradition and attempts to describe the
development of this tradition over the course of time. Finally, redaction
criticism studies the modifications that these texts have undergone before being
fixed in their final state, it also analyzes this final stage, trying as far as
possible to identify the tendencies particularly characteristic of this
concluding process.
While
the preceding steps have sought to explain the text by tracing its origin and
development within a diachronic perspective, this last step concludes with a
study that is synchronic: At this point the text is explained as it stands, on
the basis of the mutual relationships between its diverse elements, and with an
eye to its character as a message communicated by the author to his
contemporaries. At this point one is in a position to consider the demands of
the text from the point of view of action and life (fonction pragmatique).
When
the texts studied belong to a historical literary genre or are related to events
of history, historical criticism completes literary criticism so as to determine
the historical significance of the text in the modern sense of this expression.
It
is in this way that one accounts for the various stages that lie behind the
biblical revelation in its concrete historical development.
4.
Evaluation
What
value should we accord to the historical-critical method, especially at this
present stage of its development?
It
is a method which, when used in an objective manner, implies of itself no a
priori. If its use is accompanied by a priori principles, that is not something
pertaining to the method itself, but to certain hermeneutical choices which
govern the interpretation and can be tendentious.
Oriented
in its origins toward source criticism and the history of religions, the method
has managed to provide fresh access to the Bible. It has shown the Bible to be a
collection of writings, which most often, especially in the case of the Old
Testament, are not the creation of a single author, but which have had a long
prehistory inextricably tied either to the history of Israel or to that of the
early church. Previously, the Jewish or Christian interpretation of the Bible
had no clear awareness of the concrete and diverse historical conditions in
which the word of God took root among the people; of all this it had only a
general and remote awareness.
The
early confrontation between traditional exegesis and the scientific approach,
which initially consciously separated itself from faith and at times even
opposed it, was assuredly painful; later however it proved to be salutary: Once
the method was freed from external prejudices, it led to a more precise
understanding of the truth of sacred Scripture (cf. Dei Verbum, 12).
According to Divino Afflante Spiritu, the search for the literal sense of
Scripture is an essential task of exegesis and, in order to fulfill this task,
it is necessary to determine the literary genre of texts (cf. Enchiridion
Biblicum, 560), something which the historical-critical method helps to
achieve.
To
be sure, the classic use of the historical-critical method reveals its
limitations. It restricts itself to a search for the meaning of the biblical
text within the historical circumstances that gave rise to it and is not
concerned with other possibilities of meaning which have been revealed at later
stages of the biblical revelation and history of the church. Nonetheless, this
method has contributed to the production of works of exegesis and of biblical
theology which are of great value.
For
a long time now scholars have ceased combining the method with a philosophical
system. More recently, there has been a tendency among exegetes to move the
method in the direction of a greater insistence upon the form of a text, with
less attention paid to its content. But this tendency has been corrected through
the application of a more diversified semantics (the semantics of words,
phrases, text) and through the study of the demands of the text from the point
of view of action and life (aspect pragmatique).
With
respect to the inclusion in the method of a synchronic analysis of texts, we
must recognize that we are dealing here with a legitimate operation, for it is
the text in its final stage, rather than in its earlier editions, which is the
expression of the word of God. But diachronic study remains indispensable for
making known the historical dynamism which animates sacred Scripture and for
shedding light upon its rich complexity: For example, the covenant code (Ex.
21-23) reflects a political, social and religious situation of Israelite society
different from that reflected in the other law codes preserved in Deuteronomy
(Chapters 12-26) and in Leviticus (the holiness code, Chapters 17-26). We must
take care not to replace the historicizing tendency, for which the older
historical-critical exegesis is open to criticism, with the opposite excess,
that of neglecting history in favor of an exegesis which would be exclusively
synchronic.
To
sum up, the goal of the historical-critical method is to determine, particularly
in a diachronic manner, the meaning expressed by the biblical authors and
editors. Along with other methods and approaches, the historical-critical method
opens up to the modern reader a path to the meaning of the biblical text such as
we have it today.
B.
New Methods of Literary Analysis
No
scientific method for the study of the Bible is fully adequate to comprehend the
biblical texts in all their richness. For all its overall validity, the
historical-critical method cannot claim to be totally sufficient in this
respect. It necessarily has to leave aside many aspects of the writings which it
studies. It is not surprising, then, that at the present time other methods and
approaches are proposed which serve to explore more profoundly other aspects
worthy of attention.
In
this Section B, we will present certain methods of literary analysis which have
been developed recently. In the following sections (C, D, E), we will examine
briefly different approaches, some of which relate to the study of the
tradition, others to the "human sciences," others still to particular
situations of the present time. Finally (F), we will consider the fundamentalist
reading of the Bible, a reading which does not accept any systematic approach to
interpretation.
Taking
advantage of the progress made in our day by linguistic and literary studies,
biblical exegesis makes use more and more of new methods of literary analysis,
in particular rhetorical analysis narrative analysis and semiotic analysis.
1.
Rhetorical Analysis
Rhetorical
analysis in itself is not, in fact, a new method. What is new is the use of it
in a systematic way for the interpretation of the Bible and also the start and
development of a "new rhetoric."
Rhetoric
is the art of composing discourse aimed at persuasion. The fact that all
biblical texts are in some measure persuasive in character means that some
knowledge of rhetoric should be part of the normal scholarly equipment of all
exegetes. Rhetorical analysis must be carried out in a critical way, since
scientific exegesis is an undertaking which necessarily submits itself to the
demands of the critical mind.
A
considerable number of recent studies in the biblical area have devoted
considerable attention to the presence of rhetorical features in Scripture.
Three different approaches can be distinguished. The first is based upon
classical Greco-Roman rhetoric; the second devotes itself to Semitic procedures
of composition; the third takes its inspiration from more recent
studies--namely, from what is called the "new rhetoric."
Every
situation of discourse involves the presence of three elements: the speaker (or
author), the discourse (or text) and the audience (or the addressees). Classical
rhetoric distinguished accordingly three factors which contribute to the quality
of a discourse as an instrument of persuasion: the authority of the speaker, the
force of the argument and the feelings aroused in the audience. The diversity of
situation and of audience largely determines the way of speaking adopted.
Classical rhetoric since Aristotle distinguishes three modes of public speaking:
the judicial mode (adopted in a court of law); the deliberative mode (for the
political assembly) and the demonstrative mode (for celebratory occasions).
Recognizing
the immense influence of rhetoric in Hellenistic culture, a growing number of
exegetes make use of treatises on classical rhetoric as an aid toward analyzing
certain aspects of biblical texts, especially those of the New Testament.
Other
exegetes concentrate upon the characteristic features of the biblical literary
tradition. Rooted in Semitic culture, this displays a distinct preference for
symmetrical compositions, through which one can detect relationships between
different elements in the text. The study of the multiple forms of parallelism
and other procedures characteristic of the Semitic mode of composition allows
for a better discernment of the literary structure of texts, which can only lead
to a more adequate understanding of their message.
The
new rhetoric adopts a more general point of view. It aims to be something more
than a simple catalogue of stylistic figures, oratorical stratagems and various
kinds of discourse. It investigates what makes a particular use of language
effective and successful in the communication of conviction. It seeks to be
"realistic" in the sense of not wanting to limit itself to an analysis
that is purely formal. It takes due account of the actual situation of debate or
discussion. It studies style and composition as means of acting upon an
audience. To this end, it benefits from contributions made of late in other
areas of knowledge such as linguistics, semiotics, anthropology and sociology.
Applied
to the Bible, the new rhetoric aims to penetrate to the very core of the
language of revelation precisely as persuasive religious discourse and to
measure the impact of such discourse in the social context of the communication
thus begun.
Because
of the enrichment it brings to the critical study of texts, such rhetorical
analysis is worthy of high regard, above all in view of the greater depth
achieved in more recent work. It makes up for a negligence of long standing and
can lead to the rediscovery or clarification of original perspectives that had
been lost or obscured.
The
new rhetoric is surely right in its drawing attention to the capacity of
language to persuade and convince. The Bible is not simply a statement of
truths. It is a message that carries within itself a function of communication
within a particular context, a message which carries with it a certain power of
argument and a rhetorical strategy.
Rhetorical
analysis does have, however, its limitations. When it remains simply on the
level of description, its results often reflect a concern for style only.
Basically synchronic in nature, it cannot claim to be an independent method
which would be sufficient by itself. Its application to biblical texts raises
several questions. Did the authors of these texts belong to the more educated
levels of society? To what extent did they follow the rules of rhetoric in their
work of composition? What kind of rhetoric is relevant for the analysis of any
given text: Greco-Roman or Semitic? Is there sometimes the risk of attributing
to certain biblical texts a rhetorical structure that is really too
sophisticated? These questions--and there are others--ought not in any way cast
doubt upon the use of this kind of analysis; they simply suggest that it is not
something to which recourse ought be had without some measure of discernment.
2.
Narrative Analysis
Narrative
exegesis offers a method of understanding and communicating the biblical message
which corresponds to the form of story and personal testimony, something
characteristic of holy Scripture and, of course, a fundamental modality of
communication between human persons. The Old Testament in fact presents a story
of salvation, the powerful recital of which provides the substance of the
profession of faith, liturgy and catechesis (cf. Ps. 78:3-4; Ex. 12:24-27; Dt.
6:20-25; 26:5-11). For its own part, the proclamation of the Christian kerygma
amounts in essentials to a sequence telling the story of the life, death and
resurrection of Jesus Christ, events of which the Gospels offer us a detailed
account. Catechesis itself also appears in narrative form (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23-25).
With
respect to the narrative approach, it helps to distinguish methods of analysis,
on the one hand, and theological reflection, on the other.
Many
analytic methods are in fact proposed today. Some start from the study of
ancient models of narrative. Others base themselves upon present-day "narratology"
in one or other of its forms, in which case there can often be points of contact
with semiotics. Particularly attentive to elements in the text which have to do
with plot, characterization and the point of view taken by a narrator, narrative
analysis studies how a text tells a story in such a way as to engage the reader
in its "narrative world" and the system of values contained therein.
Several
methods introduce a distinction between real author and implied author,
real reader and implied reader. The real author is the
person who actually composed the story. By implied author one means the
image of the author which the text progressively creates in the course of the
reading (with his or her own culture, character, inclinations faith, etc.). The real
reader is any person who has access to the text--from those who first read
it or heard it read, right down to those who read or hear it today. By implied
reader one means the reader which the text presupposes and in effect
creates, the one who is capable of performing the mental and affective
operations necessary for entering into the narrative world of the text and
responding to it in the way envisaged by the real author through the
instrumentality of the implied author.
A
text will continue to have an influence in the degree to which real readers
(e.g., ourselves in the late 20th century) can identify with the implied reader.
One of the major tasks of exegesis is to facilitate this process of
identification.
Narrative
analysis involves a new way of understanding how a text works. While the
historical-critical method considers the text as a "window" giving
access to one or other period (not only to the situation which the story relates
but also to that of the community for whom the story is told), narrative
analysis insists that the text also functions as a "mirror" in the
sense that it projects a certain image--a "narrative world"--which
exercises an influence upon readersī perceptions in such a way as to bring them
to adopt certain values rather than others.
Connected
with this kind of study primarily literary in character, is a certain mode of
theological reflection as one considers the implications the "story"
(and also the "witness") character of Scripture has with respect to
the consent of faith and as one derives from this a hermeneutic of a more
practical and pastoral nature. There is here a reaction against the reduction of
the inspired text to a series of theological theses, often formulated in
nonscriptural categories and language. What is asked of narrative exegesis is
that it rehabilitate in new historical contexts the modes of communicating and
conveying meaning proper to the biblical account in order to open up more
effectively its saving power. Narrative analysis insists upon the need both to
tell the story of salvation (the "informative" aspect) and to tell the
story in view of salvation (the "performative" aspect). The biblical
account, in effect, whether explicitly or implicitly as the case may be,
contains an existential appeal addressed to the reader.
The
usefulness of narrative analysis for the exegesis of the Bible is clear. It is
well suited to the narrative character which so many biblical texts display. It
can facilitate the transition, often so difficult, from the meaning of the text
in its historical context (the proper object of the historical-critical method)
to its significance for the reader of today. On the other hand, the distinction
between the real author and the implied author does tend to make problems of
interpretation somewhat more complex.
When
applied to texts of the Bible, narrative analysis cannot rest content with
imposing upon them certain preestablished models. It must strive to adapt itself
to their own proper character. The synchronic approach which it brings to texts
needs to be supplemented by diachronic studies as well. It must, moreover,
beware of a tendency that can arise to exclude any kind of doctrinal elaboration
in the content of biblical narratives. In such a case it would find itself out
of step with the biblical tradition itself, which practices precisely this kind
of elaboration, and also with the tradition of the church, which has continued
further along the same way. Finally, it is worth noting that the existential
subjective effectiveness of the impact of the word of God in its narrative
transmission cannot be considered to be in itself a sufficient indication that
its full truth has been adequately grasped.
3.
Semiotic Analysis
Ranged
among the methods identified as synchronic, those namely which concentrate on
the study of the biblical text as it comes before the reader in its final state,
is semiotic analysis. This has experienced a notable development in certain
quarters over the last 20 years. Originally known by the more general term structuralism,
this method can claim as forefather the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure,
who at the beginning of the present century worked out the theory according to
which all language is a system of relationships obeying fixed laws. Several
linguists and literary critics have had a notable influence in the development
of the method. The majority of biblical scholars who make use of semiotics in
the study of the Bible take as their authority Algirdas J. Greimas and the
School of Paris, which he founded. Similar approaches and methods, based upon
modern linguistics, have developed elsewhere. But it is Greimasī method which
we intend to present and analyze briefly here.
Semiotics
is based upon three main principles or presuppositions:
--The
principle of immanence: Each text forms a unit of meaning complete in itself;
the analysis considers the entire text but only the text it does not look to any
date "external" to the text such as the author, the audience, any
events it describes or what might have been its process of composition.
--The
principle of the structure of meaning: There is no meaning given except in and
through relationship, in particular the relationship of "difference"
the analysis of the text consists then in establishing the network of
relationships (of opposition, confirmation, etc.) between the various elements;
out of this the meaning of the text is constructed.
--The
principle of the grammar of the text: Each text follows a "grammar,"
that is to say, a certain number of rules or structures; in the collection of
sentences that we call discourse there are various levels, each of which has its
own distinct grammar.
The
overall content of a text can be analyzed at three different levels.
--The
narrative level. Here one studies in the story the transformations which move
the action from the initial to the final state. Within the course of the
narrative, the analysis seeks to retrace the different phases, logically bound
to each other, which mark the transformation from one state to another. In each
of these phases it establishes the relationships between the "roles"
played by the "actants" which determine the various stages of
development and bring about transformation.
--The
level of discourse. The analysis here consists of three operations: (a) the
fixing and classification of figures, that is to say, the elements of meaning in
a text (actors, times, places), (b) the tracking of the course of each figure in
the text in order to determine just how the text uses each one; (c) inquiry into
the thematic value of the figures. This last operation consists in discerning
"in the name of what" (= what value) the figures follow such a path in
the text determined in this way.
--The
logico-semantic level. This is the so-called deep level. It is also the most
abstract. It proceeds from the assumption that certain forms of logic and
meaning underlie the narrative and discursive organization of all discourse. The
analysis at this level consists in identifying the logic which governs the basic
articulations of the narrative and figurative flow of a text. To achieve this,
recourse is often had to an instrument called the "semiotic square" (carre
semiotique), a figure which makes use of the relationships between two
"contrary" terms and two "contradictory" terms (for example,
black and white; white and non-white; black and not-black).
The
exponents of the theory behind the semiotic method continue to produce new
developments. Present research centers most particularly upon enunciation and
intertextuality. Applied in the first instance to the narrative texts of
Scripture, to which it is most readily applicable, the use of the method has
been more and more extended to other kinds of biblical discourse as well.
The
description of semiotics that has been given and above all the formulation of
its presuppositions should have already served to make clear the advantages and
the limitations of this method. By directing greater attention to the fact that
each biblical text is a coherent whole, obedient to a precise linguistic
mechanic of operation, semiotics contributes to our understanding of the Bible
as word of God expressed in human language.
Semiotics
can be usefully employed in the study of the Bible only insofar as the method is
separated from certain assumptions developed in structuralist philosophy, namely
the refusal to accept individual personal identity within the text and
extratextual reference beyond it. The Bible is a word that bears upon reality, a
word which God has spoken in a historical context and which God addresses to us
today through the mediation of human authors. The semiotic approach must be open
to history: first of all to the history of those who play a part in the texts;
then to that of the authors and readers. The great risk run by those who employ
semiotic analysis is that of remaining at the level of a formal study of the
content of texts, failing to draw out the message.
When
it does not become lost in remote and complex language and when its principal
elements are taught in simple terms, semiotic analysis can give Christians a
taste for studying the biblical text and discovering certain of its dimensions,
without their first having to acquire a great deal of instruction in historical
matters relating to the production of the text and its sociocultural world. It
can thus prove useful in pastoral practice itself, providing a certain
appropriation of Scripture among those who are not specialized in the area.
C.
Approaches Based on Tradition
The
literary methods which we have just reviewed, although they differ from the
historical-critical method in that they pay greater attention to the internal
unity of the texts studied, remain nonetheless insufficient for the
interpretation of the Bible because they consider each of its writings in
isolation. But the Bible is not a compilation of texts unrelated to each other;
rather, it is a gathering together of a whole array of witnesses from one great
tradition. To be fully adequate to the object of its study, biblical exegesis
must keep this truth firmly in mind. Such in fact is the perspective adopted by
a number of approaches which are being developed at present.
1.
Canonical Approach
The
"canonical" approach, which originated in the United States some 20
years ago, proceeds from the perception that the historical-critical method
experiences at times considerable difficulty in arriving, in its conclusions, at
a truly theological level. It aims to carry out the theological task of
interpretation more successfully by beginning from within an explicit framework
of faith: the Bible as a whole.
To
achieve this, it interprets each biblical text in the light of the canon of
Scriptures, that is to say, of the Bible as received as the norm of faith by a
community of believers. It seeks to situate each text within the single plan of
God, the goal being to arrive at a presentation of Scripture truly valid for our
time. The method does not claim to be a substitute for the historical-critical
method; the hope is, rather, to complete it.
Two
different points of view have been proposed:
Brevard
S. Childs centers his interest on the final canonical form of the text (whether
book or collection), the form accepted by the community as an authoritative
expression of its faith and rule of life.
James
A. Sanders, rather than looking to the final and fixed form of the text, devotes
his attention to the "canonical process" or progressive development of
the Scriptures which the believing community has accepted as a normative
authority. The critical study of this process examines the way in which older
traditions have been used again and again in new contexts before finally coming
to constitute a whole that is at once stable and yet adaptable, coherent while
holding together matter that is diverse--in short, a complete whole in which the
faith community can find its identity. In the course of this process various
hermeneutic procedures have been at work, and this continues to be the case even
after the fixing of the canon. These procedures are often midrashic in nature,
serving to make the biblical text relevant for a later time. They encourage a
constant interaction between the community and the Scriptures, calling for an
interpretation which ever seeks to bring the tradition up to date.
The
canonical approach rightly reacts against placing an exaggerated value upon what
is supposed to be original and early, as if this alone were authentic. Inspired
Scripture is precisely Scripture in that it has been recognized by the church as
the rule of faith. Hence the significance, in this light, of both the final form
in which each of the books of the Bible appears and of the complete whole which
all together make up as canon. Each individual book only becomes biblical in the
light of the canon as a whole.
It
is the believing community that provides a truly adequate context for
interpreting canonical texts. In this context faith and the Holy Spirit enrich
exegesis; church authority, exercised as a service of the community, must see to
it that this interpretation remains faithful to the great tradition which has
produced the texts (cf. Dei Verbum, 10).
The
canonical approach finds itself grappling with more than one problem when it
seeks to define the "canonical process." At what point in time
precisely does a text become canonical? It seems reasonable to describe it as
such from the time that the community attributes to it a normative authority,
even if this should be before it has reached its final, definitive form. One can
speak of a "canonical" hermeneutic once the repetition of the
traditions, which comes about through the taking into account of new aspects of
the situation (be they religious, cultural or theological), begins to preserve
the identity of the message. But a question arises: Should the interpretive
process which led to the formation of the canon be recognized as the guiding
principle for the interpretation of Scripture today?
On
the other hand, the complex relationships that exist between the Jewish and
Christian canons of Scripture raise many problems of interpretation. The
Christian church has received as "Old Testament" the writings which
had authority in the Hellenistic Jewish community, but some of these are either
lacking in the Hebrew Bible or appear there in somewhat different form. The
corpus is therefore different. From this it follows that the canonical
interpretation cannot be identical in each case, granted that each text must be
read in relation to the whole corpus. But, above all, the church reads the Old
Testament in the light of the paschal mystery--the death and resurrection of
Jesus Christ--who brings a radical newness and, with sovereign authority, gives
a meaning to the Scriptures that is decisive and definitive (cf. Dei Verbum,
4). This new determination of meaning has become an integral element of
Christian faith. It ought not, however, mean doing away with all attempt to be
consistent with that earlier canonical interpretation which preceded the
Christian Passover. One must respect each stage of the history of salvation. To
empty out of the Old Testament its own proper meaning would be to deprive the
New of its roots in history.
2.
Approach Through Recourse to Jewish Traditions of Interpretation
The
Old Testament reached its final form in the Jewish world of the four or five
centuries preceding the Christian era. Judaism of this time also provided the
matrix for the origin of the New Testament and the infant church. Numerous
studies of the history of ancient Judaism and notably the manifold research
stimulated by the discoveries at Qumran have highlighted the complexity of the
Jewish world, both in the land of Israel and in the Diaspora, throughout this
period.
It
is in this world that the interpretation of Scripture had its beginning. One of
the most ancient witnesses to the Jewish interpretation of the Bible is the
Greek translation known as the Septuagint. The Aramaic Targums represent a
further witness to the same activity which has carried on down to the present,
giving rise in the process to an immense mass of learned procedures for the
preservation of the text of the Old Testament and for the explanation of the
meaning of biblical texts. At all stages, the more astute Christian exegetes,
from Origen and Jerome onward, have sought to draw profit from the Jewish
biblical learning in order to acquire a better understanding of Scripture. Many
modern exegetes follow this example.
The
ancient Jewish traditions allow for a better understanding particularly of the
Septuagint, the Jewish Bible which eventually became the first part of the
Christian Bible for at least the first four centuries of the church and has
remained so in the East down to the present day. The extracanonical Jewish
literature, called apocryphal or intertestamental, in its great abundance and
variety, is an important source for the interpretation of the New Testament. The
variety of exegetical procedures practiced by the different strains of Judaism
can actually be found within the Old Testament itself, for example in Chronicles
with reference to the books of Samuel and Kings, and also within the New
Testament, as for example in certain ways Paul goes about argument from
Scripture. A great variety of forms--parables, allegories, anthologies and florilegia,
rereadings (relectures) pesher technique, methods of associating
otherwise unrelated texts, psalms and hymns, vision, revelation and dream
sequences, wisdom compositions--all are common to both the Old and the New
Testaments as well as in Jewish circles before and after the time of Jesus. The
Targums and the Midrashic literature illustrate the homiletic tradition and mode
of biblical interpretation practiced by wide sectors of Judaism in the first
centuries.
Many
Christian exegetes of the Old Testament look besides to the Jewish commentators,
grammarians and lexicographers of the medieval and more recent period as a
resource for understanding difficult passages or expressions that are either
rare or unique. References to such Jewish works appear in current exegetical
discussion much more frequently than was formerly the case.
Jewish
biblical scholarship in all its richness, from its origins in antiquity down to
the present day, is an asset of the highest value for the exegesis of both
Testaments, provided that it be used with discretion. Ancient Judaism took many
diverse forms. The Pharisaic form which eventually came to be the most
prevalent, in the shape of rabbinic Judaism, was by no means the only one. The
range of ancient Jewish texts extends across several centuries; it is important
to rank them in chronological order before proceeding to make comparisons. Above
all, the overall pattern of the Jewish and Christian communities is very
different.
On
the Jewish side, in very varied ways, it is a question of a religion which
defines a people and a way of life based upon written revelation and an oral
tradition; whereas, on the Christian side, it is faith in the Lord Jesus--the
one who died, was raised and lives still, Messiah and Son of God; it is around
faith in his person that the community is gathered. These two diverse starting
points create, as regards the interpretation of the Scriptures, two separate
contexts, which for all their points of contact and similarity are in fact
radically diverse.
3.
Approach by the History of the Influence of the Text (Wirkungsgeschichte)
This
approach rests upon two principles: a) a text only becomes a literary work
insofar as it encounters readers who give life to it by appropriating it to
themselves; b) this appropriation of the text, which can occur either on the
individual or community level and can take shape in various spheres (literary,
artistic, theological, ascetical and mystical), contributes to a better
understanding of the text itself.
Without
being entirely unknown in antiquity, this approach was developed in literary
studies between 1960 and 1970, a time when criticism became interested in the
relation between a text and its readers. Biblical studies can only draw profit
from research of this kind, all the more so since the philosophy of hermeneutics
for its own part stresses the necessary distance between a work and its author
as well as between a work and its readers. Within this perspective, the history
of the effect produced by a book or a passage of Scripture (Wirkungsgeschichte)
begins to enter into the work of interpretation. Such an inquiry seeks to assess
the development of interpretation over the course of time under the influence of
the concerns readers have brought to the text. It also attempts to evaluate the
importance of the role played by tradition in finding meaning in biblical texts.
The
mutual presence to each other of text and readers creates its own dynamic, for
the text exercises an influence and provokes reactions. It makes a resonant
claim that is heard by readers whether as individuals or as members of a group.
The reader is in any case never an isolated subject. He or she belongs to a
social context and lives within a tradition. Readers come to the text with their
own questions, exercise a certain selectivity, propose an interpretation and, in
the end, are able either to create a further work or else take initiatives
inspired directly from their reading of Scripture.
Numerous
examples of such an approach are already evident. The history of the reading of
the Song of Songs offers an excellent illustration: It would show how this book
was received in the patristic period, in monastic circles of the medieval church
and then again how it was taken up by a mystical writer such as St. John of the
Cross. The approach thus offers a better chance of uncovering all the dimensions
of meaning contained in such a writing. Similarly, in the New Testament it is
both possible and useful to throw light upon the meaning of a passage (for
example, that of the rich young man in Mt. 19:16-26) by pointing out how
fruitful its influence has been throughout the history of the church.
At
the same time, history also illustrates the prevalence from time to time of
interpretations that are tendentious and false, baneful in their effect--such
as, for example, those that have promoted anti-Semitism or other forms of racial
discrimination or, yet again, various kinds of millennarian delusions. This
serves to show that this approach cannot constitute a discipline that would be
purely autonomous. Discernment is required. Care must be exercised not to
privilege one or other stage of the history of the textīs influence to such an
extent that it becomes the sole norm of its interpretation for all time.
D.
Approaches That Use the Human Sciences
In
order to communicate itself, the word of God has taken root in the life of human
communities (cf. Sir. 24:12), and it has been through the psychological
dispositions of the various persons who composed the biblical writings that it
has pursued its path. It follows, then, that the human sciences--in particular
sociology, anthropology and psychology--can contribute toward a better
understanding of certain aspects of biblical texts. It should be noted, however,
that in this area there are several schools of thought, with notable
disagreement among them on the very nature of these sciences. That said, a good
number of exegetes have drawn considerable profit in recent years from research
of this kind.
1.
Sociological Approach
Religious
texts are bound in reciprocal relationship to the societies in which they
originate. This is clearly the case as regards biblical texts. Consequently, the
scientific study of the Bible requires as exact a knowledge as is possible of
the social conditions distinctive of the various milieus in which the traditions
recorded in the Bible took shape. This kind of sociohistorical information needs
then to be completed by an accurate sociological explanation, which will provide
a scientific interpretation of the implications for each case of the prevailing
social conditions.
The
sociological point of view has had a role in the history of exegesis for quite
some time. The attention which Form-criticism devoted to the social
circumstances in which various texts arose (Sitz im Leben) is already an
indication of this: It recognized that biblical traditions bore the mark of the
socio-cultural milieu which transmitted them. In the first third of the 20th
century, the Chicago School studied the socio-historical situation of early
Christianity, thereby giving historical criticism a notable impulse in this
direction. In the course of the last 20 years (1970-1990), the sociological
approach to biblical texts has become an integral part of exegesis.
The
questions which arise in this area for the exegesis of the Old Testament are
manifold. One should ask, for example, concerning the various forms of social
and religious organization which Israel has known in the course of its history.
For the period before the formation of a nation-state, does the ethnological
model of a society which is segmentary and lacking a unifying head (acephalous)
provide a satisfactory base from which to work? What has been the process
whereby a loosely organized tribal league became, first of all, an organized
monarchical state and, after that, a community held together simply by bonds of
religion and common descent? What economic, military and other transformations
were brought about by the movement toward political and religious centralization
that led to the monarchy? Does not the study of the laws regulating social
behavior in the ancient Near East and in Israel make a more useful contribution
to the understanding of the Decalogue than purely literary attempts to
reconstruct the earliest form of the text?
For
the exegesis of the New Testament, the questions will clearly be somewhat
different. Let us mention some: to account for the way of life adopted by Jesus
and his disciples before Easter, what value can be accorded to the theory of a
movement of itinerant charismatic figures, living without fixed home, without
family, without money and other goods? In the matter of the call to follow in
the steps of Jesus, can we speak of a genuine relationship of continuity between
the radical detachment involved in following Jesus in his earthly life and what
was asked of members of the Christian movement after Easter in the very
different social conditions of early Christianity? What do we know of the social
structure of the Pauline communities, taking account in each case of the
relevant urban culture?
In
general, the sociological approach broadens the exegetical enterprise and brings
to it many positive aspects. Knowledge of sociological data which help us
understand the economic, cultural and religious functioning of the biblical
world is indispensable for historical criticism. The task incumbent upon the
exegete to gain a better understanding of the early churchīs witness to faith
cannot be achieved in a fully rigorous way without the scientific research which
studies, the strict relationship that exists between the texts of the New
Testament and life as actually lived by the early church. The employment of
models provided by sociological science offers historical studies into the
biblical period a notable potential for renewal--though it is necessary, of
course, that the models employed be modified in accordance with the reality
under study.
Here
let us signal some of the risks involved in applying the sociological approach
to exegesis. It is surely the case that, if the work of sociology consists in
the study of currently existing societies, one can expect difficulty when
seeking to apply its methods to historical societies belonging to a very distant
past. Biblical and extrabiblical texts do not necessarily provide the sort of
documentation adequate to give a comprehensive picture of the society of the
time. Moreover, the sociological method does tend to pay rather more attention
to the economic and institutional aspects of human life than to its personal and
religious dimensions.
2.
The Approach Through Cultural Anthropology
The
approach to biblical texts which makes use of the study of cultural anthropology
stands in close relationship with the sociological approach. The distinction
between the two approaches exists, at one and the same time, on the level of
perception, on that of method and on that of the aspect of reality under
consideration. While the sociological approach--as we have just
mentioned--studies economic and institutional aspects above all, the
anthropological approach is interested in a wide assortment of other aspects,
reflected in language, art, religion, but also in dress, ornament, celebration,
dance, myth, legend and all that concerns ethnography.
In
general, cultural anthropology seeks to define the characteristics of different
kinds of human beings in their social context--as, for example the
"Mediterranean person"--with all that this involves by way of studying
the rural or urban context and with attention paid to the values recognized by
the society in question (honor and dishonor, secrecy, keeping faith, tradition,
kinds of education and schooling), to the manner in which social control is
exercised, to the ideas which people have of family house, kin, to the situation
of women, to institutionalized dualities (patron - client, owner - tenant,
benefactor - beneficiary, free person - slave), taking into account also the
prevailing conception of the sacred and the profane, taboos, rites of passage
from one state to another, magic, the source of wealth, of power, of
information, etc. On the basis of these diverse elements, typologies and
"models" are constructed, which are claimed to be common to a number
of cultures.
Clearly
this kind of study can be useful for the interpretation of biblical texts. It
has been effectively applied to the study of the ideas of kinship in the Old
Testament, of the position of women in Israelite society, of the influence of
agrarian rituals, etc. In the texts which report the teaching of Jesus, for
example the parables, many details can be explained thanks to this approach.
This is also the case with regard to fundamental ideas, such as that of the
reign of God or of the way of conceiving time with respect to the history of
salvation, as well as of the processes by which the first Christians came to
gather in communities. This approach allows one to distinguish more clearly
those elements of the biblical message that are permanent, as having their
foundation in human nature, and those which are more contingent, being due to
the particular features of certain cultures. Nevertheless, no more than is the
case with respect to other particularized approaches, this approach is not
qualified simply by itself to determine what is specifically the content of
revelation. It is important to keep this in mind when appreciating the valuable
results it has brought.
3.
Psychological and Psychoanalytical Approaches
Psychology
and theology continue their mutual dialogue. The modern extension of
psychological research to the study of the dynamic structures of the
subconscious has given rise to fresh attempts at interpreting ancient texts,
including the Bible. Whole works have been devoted to the psychoanalytic
interpretation of biblical texts, which has led to vigorous discussion: In what
measure and under what conditions can psychological and psychoanalytical
research contribute to a deeper understanding of sacred Scripture?
Psychological
and psychoanalytical studies do bring a certain enrichment to biblical exegesis
in that, because of them, the texts of the Bible can be better understood in
terms of experience of life and norms of behavior. As is well known religion is
always in a relationship of conflict or debate with the unconscious. It plays a
significant role in the proper orientation of human drives. The stages through
which historical criticism passes in its methodical study of texts need to be
complemented by study of the different levels of reality they display.
Psychology and psychoanalysis attempt to show the way in this respect. They lead
to a multidimensional understanding of Scripture and help decode the human
language of revelation.
Psychology
and, in a somewhat different way, psychoanalysis have led, in particular, to a
new understanding of symbol. The language of symbol makes provision for the
expression of areas of religious experience that are not accessible to purely
conceptual reasoning but which have a genuine value for the expression of truth.
For this reason, interdisciplinary study conducted in common by exegetes and
psychologists or psychoanalysts offers particular advantages, especially when
objectively grounded and confirmed by pastoral experience.
Numerous
examples could be cited showing the necessity of a collaborative effort on the
part of exegetes and psychologists: to ascertain the meaning of cultic ritual,
of sacrifice, of bans, to explain the use of imagery in biblical language, the
metaphorical significance of miracle stories, the wellsprings of apocalyptic
visual and auditory experiences. It is not simply a matter of describing the
symbolic language of the Bible but of grasping how it functions with respect to
the revelation of mystery and the issuing of challenge--where the
"numinous" reality of God enters into contact with the human person.
The
dialogue between exegesis and psychology or psychoanalysis, begun with a view to
a better understanding of the Bible, should clearly be conducted in a critical
manner, respecting the boundaries of each discipline. Whatever the
circumstances, a psychology or psychoanalysis of an atheistic nature
disqualifies itself from giving proper consideration to the data of faith.
Useful as they may be to determine more exactly the extent of human
responsibility, psychology and psychoanalysis should not serve to eliminate the
reality of sin and of salvation. One should moreover take care not to confuse
spontaneous religiosity and biblical revelation or impugn the historical
character of the Bibleīs message, which bestows upon it the value of a unique
event.
Let
us note moreover that one cannot speak of "psychoanalytical exegesis"
as though it existed in one single form. In fact, proceeding from the different
fields of psychology and from the various schools of thought, there exists a
whole range of approaches capable of shedding helpful light upon the human and
theological interpretation of the Bible. To absolutize one or other of the
approaches taken by the various schools of psychology and psychoanalysis would
not serve to make collaborative effort in this area more fruitful but rather
render it harmful.
The
human sciences are not confined to sociology, cultural anthropology and
psychology. Other disciplines can also be very useful for the interpretation of
the Bible. In all these areas it is necessary to take good account of competence
in the particular field and to recognize that only rarely will one and the same
person be fully qualified in both exegesis and one or other of the human
sciences.
E.
Contextual Approaches
The
interpretation of a text is always dependent on the mindset and concerns of its
readers. Readers give privileged attention to certain aspects and, without even
being aware of it, neglect others. Thus it is inevitable that some exegetes
bring to their work points of view that are new and responsive to contemporary
currents of thought which have not up till now been taken sufficiently into
consideration. It is important that they do so with critical discernment. The
movements in this regard which claim particular attention today are those of
liberation theology and feminism.
1.
The Liberationist Approach
The
theology of liberation is a complex phenomenon, which ought not be
oversimplified. It began to establish itself as a theological movement in the
early 1970s. Over and beyond the economic, social and political circumstances of
Latin America, its starting point is to be found in two great events in the
recent life of the church: the Second Vatican Council, with its declared
intention of aggiornamento and of orienting the pastoral work of the
church toward the needs of the contemporary world, and the Second General
Conference of the Episcopate of Latin America held at Medellin in 1968, which
applied the teachings of the council to the needs of Latin America. The movement
has since spread also to other parts of the world (Africa, Asia, the black
population of the United States).
It
is not all that easy to discern if there truly exists "one" theology
of liberation and to define what its methodology might be. It is equally
difficult to determine adequately its manner of reading the Bible, in a way
which would lead to an accurate assessment of advantages and limitations. One
can say that liberation theology adopts no particular methodology. But starting
from its own socio-cultural and political point of view, it practices a reading
of the Bible which is oriented to the needs of the people, who seek in the
Scriptures nourishment for their faith and their life.
Liberation
theology is not content with an objectifying interpretation which concentrates
on what the text said in its original context. It seeks a reading drawn from the
situation of people as it is lived here and now. If a people lives in
circumstances of oppression, one must go to the Bible to find there nourishment
capable of sustaining the people in its struggles and its hopes. The reality of
the present time should not be ignored but, on the contrary, met head on, with a
view to shedding upon it the light of the word. From this light will come
authentic Christian praxis, leading to the transformation of society through
works of justice and love. Within the vision of faith Scripture is transformed
into a dynamic impulse for full liberation.
The
main principles guiding this approach are the following:
God
is present in the history of his people, bringing them salvation. He is the God
of the poor and cannot tolerate oppression or injustice.
It
follows that exegesis cannot be neutral, but must, in imitation of God, take
sides on behalf of the poor and be engaged in the struggle to liberate the
oppressed.
It
is precisely participation in this struggle that allows those interpretations to
surface which are discovered only when the biblical texts are read in a context
of solidarity with the oppressed.
Because
the liberation of the oppressed is a communal process, the community of the poor
is the privileged addressee of the Bible as word of liberation. Moreover, since
the biblical texts were written for communities, it is to communities in the
first place that the reading of the Bible has been entrusted. The word of God is
fully relevant--above all because of the capacity inherent in the
"foundational events" (the exodus from Egypt, the passion and
resurrection of Jesus) for finding fresh realization again and again in the
course of history.
Liberation
theology includes elements of undoubted value: the deep awareness of the
presence of God who saves; the insistence on the communal dimension of faith;
the pressing sense of need for a liberating praxis rooted in justice and love; a
fresh reading of the Bible which seeks to make of the word of God the light and
the nourishment of the people of God in the midst of its struggles and hopes. In
all these ways it underlines the capacity of the inspired text to speak to the
world of today.
But
a reading of the Bible from a stance of such commitment also involves some
risks. Since liberation theology is tied to a movement that is still in a
process of development, the remarks which follow can only be provisional.
This
kind of reading is centered on narrative and prophetic texts which highlight
situations of oppression and which inspire a praxis leading to social change. At
times such a reading can be limited, not giving enough attention to other texts
of the Bible. It is true that exegesis cannot be neutral, but it must also take
care not to become one-sided. Moreover, social and political action is not the
direct task of the exegete.
In
their desire to insert the biblical message into a socio-political context some
theologians and exegetes have made use of various instruments for the analysis
of social reality. Within this perspective certain streams of liberation
theology have conducted an analysis inspired by materialist doctrines, and it is
within such frame of reference that they have also read the Bible, a practice
which is very questionable, especially when it involves the Marxist principle of
the class struggle.
Under
the pressure of enormous social problems, there has understandably been more
emphasis on an earthly eschatology. Sometimes this has been to the detriment of
the more transcendent dimensions of Scriptural eschatology.
More
recent social and political changes have led this approach to ask itself new
questions and to seek new directions. For its further development and
fruitfulness within the church, a decisive factor will be the clarification of
its hermeneutical presuppositions, its methods and its coherence with the faith
and the tradition of the church as a whole.
2.
The Feminist Approach
The
feminist biblical hermeneutic had its origin in the United States toward the end
of the 19th century. In the sociocultural context of the struggle for the rights
of women, the editorial board of a committee charged with the revision of the
Bible produced "The Womanīs Bible" in two volumes (New York 1885,
1898).
This
movement took on fresh life in the 1970s and has since undergone an enormous
development in connection with the movement for the liberation of women,
especially in North America. To be precise, several forms of feminist biblical
hermeneutics have to be distinguished, for the approaches taken are very
diverse. All unite around a common theme, woman, and a common goal: the
liberation of women and the acquisition on their part of rights equal to those
enjoyed by men.
We
can here mention three principal forms of feminist biblical hermeneutics: the
radical form, the neo-orthodox form and the critical form.
The
radical form denies all authority to the Bible, maintaining that it has
been produced by men simply with a view to confirming manīs age-old domination
of woman (androcentrism).
The
neo-orthodox form accepts the Bible as prophetic and as potentially of
service, at least to the extent that it takes sides on behalf of the oppressed
and thus also of women, this orientation is adopted as a "canon within the
canon," so as to highlight whatever in the Bible favors the liberation of
women and the acquisition of their rights.
The
critical form, employing a subtle methodology, seeks to rediscover the
status and role of women disciples within the life of Jesus and in the Pauline
churches. At this period, it maintains, a certain equality prevailed. But this
equality has for the most part been concealed in the writings of the New
Testament, something which came to be more and more the case as a tendency
toward patriarchy and androcentrism became increasingly dominant.
Feminist
hermeneutic has not developed a new methodology. It employs the current methods
of exegesis, especially the historical-critical method. But it does add two
criteria of investigation.
The
first is the feminist criterion, borrowed from the womenīs liberation movement,
in line with the more general direction of liberation theology. This criterion
involves a hermeneutic of suspicion: Since history was normally written by the
victors, establishing the full truth requires that one does not simply trust
texts as they stand but look for signs which may reveal something quite
different.
The
second criterion is sociological; it is based on the study of societies in the
biblical times, their social stratification and the position they accorded to
women.
With
respect to the New Testament documents, the goal of study, in a word is not the
idea of woman as expressed in the New Testament but the historical
reconstruction of two different situations of woman in the first century: that
which was the norm in Jewish and Greco-Roman society and that which represented
the innovation that took shape in the public life of Jesus and in the Pauline
churches, where the disciples of Jesus formed "a community of equals."
Galatians 3:28 is a text often cited in defense of this view. The aim is to
rediscover for today the forgotten history of the role of women in the earliest
stages of the church.
Feminist
exegesis has brought many benefits. Women have played a more active part in
exegetical research. They have succeeded, often better than men, in detecting
the presence, the significance and the role of women in the Bible, in Christian
origins and in the church. The worldview of today, because of its greater
attention to the dignity of women and to their role in society and in the
church, ensures that new questions are put to the biblical text, which in turn
occasions new discoveries. Feminine sensitivity helps to unmask and correct
certain commonly accepted interpretations which were tendentious and sought to
justify the male domination of women.
With
regard to the Old Testament, several studies have striven to come to a better
understanding of the image of God. The God of the Bible is not a projection of a
patriarchal mentality. He is Father, but also the God of tenderness and maternal
love.
Feminist
exegesis, to the extent that it proceeds from a preconceived judgment, runs the
risk of interpreting the biblical texts in a tendentious and thus debatable
manner. To establish its positions it must often, for want of something better,
have recourse to arguments ex silentio. As is well known, this type of
argument is generally viewed with much reserve: It can never suffice to
establish a conclusion on a solid basis. On the other hand, the attempt made on
the basis of fleeting indications in the texts to reconstitute a historical
situation which these same texts are considered to have been designed to
hide--this does not correspond at all to the work of exegesis properly so
called. It entails rejecting the content of the inspired texts in preference for
a hypothetical construction, quite different in nature.
Feminist
exegesis often raises questions of power within the church, questions which, as
is obvious, are matters of discussion and even of confrontation. In this area,
feminist exegesis can be useful to the church only to the degree that it does
not fall into the very traps it denounces and that it does not lose sight of the
evangelical teaching concerning power as service, a teaching addressed by Jesus
to all disciples, men and women.[2]
F.
Fundamentalist Interpretation
Fundamentalist
interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible, being the word of God,
inspired and free from error, should be read and interpreted literally in all
its details. But by "literal interpretation" it understands a naively
literalist interpretation, one, that is to say, which excludes every effort at
understanding the Bible that takes account of its historical origins and
development. It is opposed, therefore, to the use of the historical- critical
method, as indeed to the use of any other scientific method for the
interpretation of Scripture.
The
fundamentalist interpretation had its origin at the time of the Reformation,
arising out of a concern for fidelity to the literal meaning of Scripture. After
the century of the Enlightenment it emerged in Protestantism as a bulwark
against liberal exegesis.
The
actual term fundamentalist is connected directly with the American
Biblical Congress held at Niagara, N.Y., in 1895. At this meeting, conservative
Protestant exegetes defined "five points of fundamentalism": the
verbal inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Christ, his virginal birth, the
doctrine of vicarious expiation and the bodily resurrection at the time of the
second coming of Christ. As the fundamentalist way of reading the Bible spread
to other parts of the world, it gave rise to other ways of interpretation,
equally "literalist," in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America. As
the 20th century comes to an end, this kind of interpretation is winning more
and more adherents, in religious groups and sects, as also among Catholics.
Fundamentalism
is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the Bible, the inerrancy of the
word of God and other biblical truths included in its five fundamental points.
But its way of presenting these truths is rooted in an ideology which is not
biblical, whatever the proponents of this approach might say. For it demands an
unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only
source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible
which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research.
The
basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that, refusing
to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes
itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As
regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of
the divine and the human. It refuses to admit that the inspired word of God has
been expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under
divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and
resources. For this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had
been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the word
of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various
periods. It pays no attention to the literary forms and to the human ways of
thinking to be found in the biblical texts, many of which are the result of a
process extending over long periods of time and bearing the mark of very diverse
historical situations.
Fundamentalism
also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical
texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific
truth. It often historicizes material which from the start never claimed to be
historical. It considers historical everything that is reported or recounted
with verbs in the past tense, failing to take the necessary account of the
possibility of symbolic or figurative meaning.
Fundamentalism
often shows a tendency to ignore or to deny the problems presented by the
biblical text in its original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek form. It is often
narrowly bound to one fixed translation, whether old or present-day. By the same
token it fails to take account of the "rereadings" (relectures)
of certain texts which are found within the Bible itself.
In
what concerns the Gospels, fundamentalism does not take into account the
development of the Gospel tradition, but naively confuses the final stage of
this tradition (what the evangelists have written) with the initial (the words
and deeds of the historical Jesus). At the same time fundamentalism neglects an
important fact: The way in which the first Christian communities themselves
understood the impact produced by Jesus of Nazareth and his message. But it is
precisely there that we find a witness to the apostolic origin of the Christian
faith and its direct expression. Fundamentalism thus misrepresents the call
voiced by the Gospel itself.
Fundamentalism
likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of view. It accepts the literal
reality of an ancient, out-of-date cosmology simply because it is found
expressed in the Bible; this blocks any dialogue with a broader way of seeing
the relationship between culture and faith. Its relying upon a non-critical
reading of certain texts of the Bible serves to reinforce political ideas and
social attitudes that are marked by prejudices--racism, for example--quite
contrary to the Christian Gospel.
Finally,
in its attachment to the principle "Scripture alone," fundamentalism
separates the interpretation of the Bible from the tradition, which, guided by
the Spirit, has authentically developed in union with Scripture in the heart of
the community of faith. It fails to realize that the New Testament took form
within the Christian church and that it is the Holy Scripture of this church,
the existence of which preceded the composition of the texts. Because of this,
fundamentalism is often anti-church, it considers of little importance the
creeds, the doctrines and liturgical practices which have become part of church
tradition, as well as the teaching function of the church itself. It presents
itself as a form of private interpretation which does not acknowledge that the
church is founded on the Bible and draws its life and inspiration from
Scripture.
The
fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to
the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these
people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of
telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to
each and every problem. Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism
actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life
a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the
biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.
II.
HERMENEUTICAL QUESTIONS
A.
Philosophical Hermeneutics
In
its recent course exegesis has been challenged to some rethinking in the light
of contemporary philosophical hermeneutics, which has stressed the involvement
of the knowing subject in human understanding, especially as regards historical
knowledge. Hermeneutical reflection took new life with the publication of the
works of Friedrich Schleiermacher, Wilhelm Dilthey and above all, Martin
Heidegger. In the footsteps of these philosophers, but also to some extent
moving away from them, various authors have more deeply developed contemporary
hermeneutical theory and its applications to Scripture. Among them we will
mention especially Rudolf Bultmann, Hans Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur. It is
not possible to give a complete summary of their thought here. It will be enough
to indicate certain central ideas of their philosophies which have had their
impact on the interpretation of biblical texts.[3]
1.
Modern Perspectives
Conscious
of the cultural distance between the world of the first century and that of the
20th, Bultmann was particularly anxious to make the reality of which the Bible
treats speak to his contemporaries. He insisted upon the
"pre-understanding" necessary for all understanding and elaborated the
theory of the existential interpretation of the New Testament writings. Relying
upon the thinking of Heidegger, Bultmann insisted that it is not possible to
have an exegesis of a biblical text without presuppositions which guide
comprehension. "Pre-understanding" (Vorverständnis) is founded
upon the life-relationship (Lebensverhältnis) of the interpreter to the
reality of which the text speaks. To avoid subjectivism, however, one must allow
pre-understanding to be deepened and enriched--even to be modified and
corrected--by the reality of the text.
Bultmann
asked what might be the most appropriate frame of thought for defining the sort
of questions that would render the texts of Scripture understandable to people
of today. He claimed to have found the answer in the existential analysis of
Heidegger, maintaining that Heideggerian existential principles have a universal
application and offer structures and concepts most appropriate for the
understanding of human existence as revealed in the New Testament message.
Gadamer
likewise stresses the historical distance between the text and its interpreter.
He takes up and develops the theory of the hermeneutical circle. Anticipations
and preconceptions affecting our understanding stem from the tradition which
carries us. This tradition consists in a mass of historical and cultural data
which constitute our life context and our horizon of understanding. The
interpreter is obliged to enter into dialogue with the reality at stake in the
text. Understanding is reached in the fusion of the differing horizons of text
and reader (Horizontverschmelzung). This is possible only to the extent
that there is a "belonging" (Zugehörigkeit), that is, a
fundamental affinity between the interpreter and his or her object. Hermeneutics
is a dialectical process: The understanding of a text always entails an enhanced
understanding of oneself.
With
regard to the hermeneutical thought of Ricoeur, the principal thing to note is
the highlighting of the function of distantiation. This is the necessary prelude
to any correct appropriation of a text. A first distancing occurs between the
text and its author, for, once produced, the text takes on a certain autonomy in
relation to its author; it begins its own career of meaning. Another distancing
exists between the text and its successive readers; these have to respect the
world of the text in its otherness.
Thus
the methods of literary and historical analysis are necessary for
interpretation. Yet the meaning of a text can be fully grasped only as it is
actualized in the lives of readers who appropriate it. Beginning with their
situation, they are summoned to uncover new meanings, along the fundamental line
of meaning indicated by the text. Biblical knowledge should not stop short at
language, it must seek to arrive at the reality of which the language speaks.
The religious language of the Bible is a symbolic language which "gives
rise to thought" (donne a penser), a language the full richness of
which one never ceases to discover, a language which points to a transcendent
reality and which, at the same time, awakens human beings to the deepest
dimensions of personal existence.
2.
Usefulness for Exegesis
What
is to be said about these contemporary theories of the interpretation of texts?
The Bible is the word of God for all succeeding ages. Hence the absolute
necessity of a hermeneutical theory which allows for the incorporation of the
methods of literary and historical criticism within a broader model of
interpretation. It is a question of overcoming the distance between the time of
the authors and first addressees of the biblical texts, and our own contemporary
age, and of doing so in a way that permits a correct actualization of the
Scriptural message so that the Christian life of faith may find nourishment. All
exegesis of texts is thus summoned to make itself fully complete through a
"hermeneutics" understood in this modern sense.
The
Bible itself and the history of its interpretation point to the need for a
hermeneuticsfor an interpretation, that is, that proceeds from and addresses our
world today. The whole complex of the Old and New Testament writings show
themselves to be the product of a long process where founding events constantly
find reinterpretation through connection with the life of communities of faith.
In church tradition, the fathers, as first interpreters of Scripture, considered
that their exegesis of texts was complete only when it had found a meaning
relevant to the situation of Christians in their own day. Exegesis is truly
faithful to proper intention of biblical texts when it goes not only to the
heart of their formulation to find the reality of faith there expressed but also
seeks to link this reality to the experience of faith in our present world.
Contemporary
hermeneutics is a healthy reaction to historical positivism and to the
temptation to apply to the study of the Bible the purely objective criteria used
in the natural sciences. On the one hand, all events reported in the Bible are
interpreted events. On the other, all exegesis of the accounts of these events
necessarily involves the exegeteīs own subjectivity. Access to a proper
understanding of biblical texts is only granted to the person who has an
affinity with what the text is saying on the basis of life experience. The
question which faces every exegete is this: Which hermeneutical theory best
enables a proper grasp of the profound reality of which Scripture speaks and its
meaningful expression for people today?
We
must frankly accept that certain hermeneutical theories are inadequate for
interpreting Scripture. For example, Bultmannīs existentialist interpretation
tends to enclose the Christian message within the constraints of a particular
philosophy. Moreover, by virtue of the presuppositions insisted upon in this
hermeneutic, the religious message of the Bible is for the most part emptied of
its objective reality (by means of an excessive "demythologization")
and tends to be reduced to an anthropological message only. Philosophy becomes
the norm of interpretation, rather than an instrument for understanding the
central object of all interpretation: the person of Jesus Christ and the saving
events accomplished in human history. An authentic interpretation of Scripture,
then, involves in the first place a welcoming of the meaning that is given in
the events and, in a supreme way, in the person of Jesus Christ.
This
meaning is expressed in the text. To avoid, then, purely subjective readings, an
interpretation valid for contemporary times will be founded on the study of the
text, and such an interpretation will constantly submit its presuppositions to
verification by the text.
Biblical
hermeneutics, for all that it is a part of the general hermeneutics applying to
every literary and historical text, constitutes at the same time a unique
instance of general hermeneutics. Its specific characteristics stem from its
object. The events of salvation and their accomplishment in the person of Jesus
Christ give meaning to all human history. New interpretations in the course of
time can only be the unveiling or unfolding of this wealth of meaning. Reason
alone cannot fully comprehend the account of these events given in the Bible.
Particular presuppositions, such as the faith lived in ecclesial community and
the light of the Spirit, control its interpretation. As the reader matures in
the life of the Spirit, so there grows also his or her capacity to understand
the realities of which the Bible speaks.
B.
The Meaning of Inspired Scripture
The
contribution made by modern philosophical hermeneutics and the recent
development of literary theory allows biblical exegesis to deepen its
understanding of the task before it, the complexity of which has become ever
more evident. Ancient exegesis, which obviously could not take into account
modern scientific requirements, attributed to every text of Scripture several
levels of meaning. The most prevalent distinction was that between the literal
sense and the spiritual sense. Medieval exegesis distinguished within the
spiritual sense three different aspects, each relating, respectively, to the
truth revealed, to the way of life commended and to the final goal to be
achieved. From this came the famous couplet of Augustine of Denmark (13th
century):
Littera gesta docet, quid credas allegoria,
moralis quid agas, quid speras anagogia.
In
reaction to this multiplicity of senses, historical-critical exegesis adopted,
more or less overtly, the thesis of the one single meaning: A text cannot have
at the same time more than one meaning. All the effort of historical-critical
exegesis goes into defining "the" precise sense of this or that
biblical text seen within the circumstances in which it was produced.
But
this thesis has now run aground on the conclusions of theories of language and
of philosophical hermeneutics, both of which affirm that written texts are open
to a plurality of meaning.
The
problem is not simple, and it arises in different ways in regard to different
types of texts: historical accounts, parables, oracular pronouncements, laws,
proverbs, prayers, hymns, etc. Nevertheless, while keeping in mind that
considerable diversity of opinion also prevails, some general principles can be
stated.
1.
The Literal Sense
It
is not only legitimate, it is also absolutely necessary to seek to define the
precise meaning of texts as produced by their authors--what is called the
"literal" meaning. St. Thomas Aquinas had already affirmed the
fundamental importance of this sense (S. Th. I, q. 1,a. 10, ad 1).
The
literal sense is not to be confused with the "literalist" sense to
which fundamentalists are attached. It is not sufficient to translate a text
word for word in order to obtain its literal sense. One must understand the text
according to the literary conventions of the time. When a text is metaphorical,
its literal sense is not that which flows immediately from a word-to-word
translation (e.g. "Let your loins be girt": Lk. 12:35), but that which
corresponds to the metaphorical use of these terms ("Be ready for
action"). When it is a question of a story, the literal sense does not
necessarily imply belief that the facts recounted actually took place, for a
story need not belong to the genre of history but be instead a work of
imaginative fiction.
The
literal sense of Scripture is that which has been expressed directly by the
inspired human authors. Since it is the fruit of inspiration, this sense is also
intended by God, as principal author. One arrives at this sense by means of a
careful analysis of the text, within its literary and historical context. The
principal task of exegesis is to carry out this analysis, making use of all the
resources of literary and historical research, with a view to defining the
literal sense of the biblical texts with the greatest possible accuracy (cf. Divino
Afflante Spiritu: Ench. Bibl., 550). To this end, the study of
ancient literary genres is particularly necessary (ibid. 560).
Does
a text have only one literal sense? In general, yes; but there is no question
here of a hard and fast rule, and this for two reasons. First, a human author
can intend to refer at one and the same time to more than one level of reality.
This is in fact normally the case with regard to poetry. Biblical inspiration
does not reject this capacity of human psychology and language; the fourth
Gospel offers numerous examples of it. Second, even when a human utterance
appears to have only one meaning, divine inspiration can guide the expression in
such way as to create more than one meaning. This is the case with the saying of
Caiaphas in John 11:50: At one and the same time it expresses both an immoral
political ploy and a divine revelation. The two aspects belong, both of them, to
the literal sense, for they are both made clear by the context. Although this
example may be extreme, it remains significant, providing a warning against
adopting too narrow a conception of the inspired textīs literal sense.
One
should be especially attentive to the dynamic aspect of many texts. The meaning
of the royal psalms, for example, should not be limited strictly to the
historical circumstances of their production. In speaking of the king, the
psalmist evokes at one and the same time both the institution as it actually was
and an idealized vision of kingship as God intended it to be; in this way the
text carries the reader beyond the institution of kingship in its actual
historical manifestation. Historical-critical exegesis has too often tended to
limit the meaning of texts by tying it too rigidly to precise historical
circumstances. It should seek rather to determine the direction of thought
expressed by the text; this direction, far from working toward a limitation of
meaning, will on the contrary dispose the exegete to perceive extensions of it
that are more or less foreseeable in advance.
One
branch of modern hermeneutics has stressed that human speech gains an altogether
fresh status when put in writing. A written text has the capacity to be placed
in new circumstances, which will illuminate it in different ways, adding new
meanings to the original sense. This capacity of written texts is especially
operative in the case of the biblical writings, recognized as the word of God.
Indeed, what encouraged the believing community to preserve these texts was the
conviction that they would continue to be bearers of light and life for
generations of believers to come. The literal sense is, from the start, open to
further developments, which are produced through the "rereading" (relectures)
of texts in new contexts.
It
does not follow from this that we can attribute to a biblical text whatever
meaning we like, interpreting it in a wholly subjective way. On the contrary,
one must reject as unauthentic every interpretation alien to the meaning
expressed by the human authors in their written text. To admit the possibility
of such alien meanings would be equivalent to cutting off the biblical message
from its root, which is the word of God in its historical communication; it
would also mean opening the door to interpretations of a wildly subjective
nature.
2.
The Spiritual Sense
There
are reasons, however, for not taking alien in so strict a sense as to
exclude all possibility of higher fulfillment. The paschal event, the death and
resurrection of Jesus, has established a radically new historical context, which
sheds fresh light upon the ancient texts and causes them to undergo a change in
meaning. In particular, certain texts which in ancient times had to be thought
of as hyperbole (e.g. the oracle where God, speaking of a son of David, promised
to establish his throne "forever": 2 Sm. 7:12-13; 1 Chr. 17:11-14),
these texts must now be taken literally, because "Christ, having been
raised from the dead, dies no more" (Rom. 6:9). Exegetes who have a narrow,
"historicist" idea about the literal sense will judge that here is an
example of an interpretation alien to the original. Those who are open to the
dynamic aspect of a text will recognize here a profound element of continuity as
well as a move to a different level: Christ rules forever, but not on the
earthly throne of David (cf. also Ps. 2:7-8; 110: 1.4).
In
such cases one speaks of "the spiritual sense." As a general rule we
can define the spiritual sense, as understood by Christian faith, as the meaning
expressed by the biblical texts when read under the influence of the Holy
Spirit, in the context of the paschal mystery of Christ and of the new life
which flows from it. This context truly exists. In it the New Testament
recognizes the fulfillment of the Scriptures. It is therefore quite acceptable
to reread the Scriptures in the light of this new context, which is that of life
in the Spirit.
The
above definition allows us to draw some useful conclusions of a more precise
nature concerning the relationship between the spiritual and literal senses:
Contrary
to a current view, there is not necessarily a distinction between the two
senses. When a biblical text relates directly to the paschal mystery of Christ
or to the new life which results from it, its literal sense is already a
spiritual sense. Such is regularly the case in the New Testament. It follows
that it is most often in dealing with the Old Testament that Christian exegesis
speaks of the spiritual sense. But already in the Old Testament there are many
instances where texts have a religious or spiritual sense as their literal
sense. Christian faith recognizes in such cases an anticipatory relationship to
the new life brought by Christ.
While
there is a distinction between the two senses, the spiritual sense can never be
stripped of its connection with the literal sense. The latter remains the
indispensable foundation. Otherwise one could not speak of the
"fulfillment" of Scripture. Indeed, in order that there be
fulfillment, a relationship of continuity and of conformity is essential. But it
is also necessary that there be transition to a higher level of reality.
The
spiritual sense is not to be confused with subjective interpretations stemming
from the imagination or intellectual speculation. The spiritual sense esults
from setting the text in relation to real facts which are not foreign to it: the
paschal event, in all its inexhaustible richness, which constitutes the summit
of he divine intervention in the history of Israel, to the benefit of all
mankind.
Spiritual
interpretation, whether in community or in private, will discover the authentic
spiritual sense only to the extent that it is kept within these perspectives.
One then holds together three levels of reality: the biblical text, the paschal
mystery and the present circumstances of life in the Spirit.
Persuaded
that the mystery of Christ offers the key to interpretation of all Scripture,
ancient exegesis labored to find a spiritual sense in the minutest details of
the biblical text--for example, in every prescription of the ritual law--making
use of rabbinic methods or inspired by Hellenistic allegorical exegesis.
Whatever its pastoral usefulness might have been in the past, modern exegesis
cannot ascribe true interpretative value to this kind of procedure (cf. Divino
Afflante Spiritu: Ench. Bibl. 553).
One
of the possible aspects of the spiritual sense is the typological. This is
usually said to belong not to Scripture itself but to the realities expressed by
Scripture: Adam as the figure of Christ (cf. Rom. 5: 14), the flood as the
figure of baptism (1 Pt. 3:20-21), etc. Actually, the connection involved in
typology is ordinarily based on the way in which Scripture describes the ancient
reality (cf. the voice of Abel: Gn. 4:10; Heb. 11:4; 12:24) and not simply on
the reality itself. Consequently, in such a case one can speak of a meaning that
is truly Scriptural.
3.
The Fuller Sense
The
term fuller sense (sensus plenior), which is relatively recent,
has given rise to discussion. The fuller sense is defined as a deeper meaning of
the text, intended by God but not clearly expressed by the human author. Its
existence in the biblical text comes to be known when one studies the text in
the light of other biblical texts which utilize it or in its relationship with
the internal development of revelation.
It
is then a question either of the meaning that a subsequent biblical author
attributes to an earlier biblical text, taking it up in a context which confers
upon it a new literal sense, or else it is a question of the meaning that an
authentic doctrinal tradition or a conciliar definition gives to a biblical
text. For example, the context of Matthew 1:23 gives a fuller sense to the
prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 in regard to the almah who will conceive, by
using the translation of the Septuagint (parthenos): "The virgin
will conceive." The patristic and conciliar teaching about the Trinity
expresses the fuller sense of the teaching of the New Testament regarding God
the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The definition of original sin by the
Council of Trent provided the fuller sense of Paulīs teaching in Romans 5:12-21
about the consequences of the sin of Adam for humanity. But when this kind of
control--by an explicit biblical text or by an authentic doctrinal tradition--is
lacking, recourse to a claimed fuller sense could lead to subjective
interpretations deprived of validity.
In
a word, one might think of the"fuller sense" as another way of
indicating the spiritual sense of a biblical text in the case where the
spiritual sense is distinct from the literal sense. It has its foundation in the
fact that the Holy Spirit, principal author of the Bible, can guide human
authors in the choice of expressions in such a way that the latter will express
a truth the fullest depths of which the authors themselves do not perceive. This
deeper truth will be more fully revealed in the course of time--on the one hand,
through further divine interventions which clarify the meaning of texts and, on
the other, through the insertion of texts into the canon of Scripture. In these
ways there is created a new context, which brings out fresh possibilities of
meaning that had lain hidden in the original context.
III.
CHARACTERISTICS OF CATHOLIC INTERPRETATION
Catholic
exegesis does not claim any particular scientific method as its own. It
recognizes that one of the aspects of biblical texts is that they are the work
of human authors, who employed both their own capacities for expression and the
means which their age and social context put at their disposal. Consequently
Catholic exegesis freely makes use of the scientific methods and approaches
which allow a better grasp of the meaning of texts in their linguistic,
literary, sociocultural, religious and historical contexts, while explaining
them as well through studying their sources and attending to the personality of
each author (cf. Divino Afflante Spiritu: Ench. Bibl. 557). Catholic
exegesis actively contributes to the development of new methods and to the
progress of research.
What
characterizes Catholic exegesis is that it deliberately places itself within the
living tradition of the church, whose first concern is fidelity to the
revelation attested by the Bible. Modern hermeneutics has made clear, as we have
noted, the impossibility of interpreting a text without starting from a
"pre-understanding" of one type or another.
Catholic
exegetes approach the biblical text with a pre- understanding which holds
closely together modern scientific culture and the religious tradition emanating
from Israel and from the early Christian community. Their interpretation stands
thereby in continuity with a dynamic pattern of interpretation that is found
within the Bible itself and continues in the life of the church. This dynamic
pattern corresponds to the requirement that there be a lived affinity between
the interpreter and the object, an affinity which constitutes, in fact, one of
the conditions that makes the entire exegetical enterprise possible.
All
pre-understanding, however, brings dangers with it. As regards Catholic
exegesis, the risk is that of attributing to biblical texts a meaning which they
do not contain but which is the product of a later development within the
tradition. The exegete must beware of such a danger.
A.
Interpretation in the Biblical Tradition
The
texts of the Bible are the expression of religious traditions which existed
before them. The mode of their connection with these traditions is different in
each case, with the creativity of the authors shown in various degrees. In the
course of time, multiple traditions have flowed together little by little to
form one great common tradition. The Bible is a privileged expression of this
process: It has itself contributed to the process and continues to have
controlling influence upon it.
The
subject, "interpretation in the biblical tradition," can be approached
in very many ways. The expression can be taken to include the manner in which
the Bible interprets fundamental human experiences or the particular events of
the history of Israel, or again the manner in which the biblical texts make use
of their sources, written or oral, some of which may well come from other
religions or cultures--through a process of reinterpretation. But our subject is
the interpretation of the Bible; we do not want to treat here these very broad
questions but simply to make some observations about the interpretation of
biblical texts that occurs within the Bible itself.
1.
Rereadings (Relectures)
One
thing that gives the Bible an inner unity, unique of its kind, is the fact that
later biblical writings often depend upon earlier ones. These more recent
writings allude to older ones, create "rereadings" (relectures) which
develop new aspects of meaning, sometimes quite different from the original
sense. A text may also make explicit reference to older passages, whether it is
to deepen their meaning or to make known their fulfillment.
Thus
it is that the inheritance of the land, promised by God to Abraham for his
offspring (Gn. 15:7,18), becomes entrance into the sanctuary of God (Ex. 15:17),
a participation in Godīs "rest" (Ps. 132:7-8) reserved for those who
truly have faith (Ps. 95:8-11; Heb. 3:7-4:11) and, finally, entrance into the
heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 6:12, 18-20), "the eternal inheritance" (Heb.
9: 15).
The
prophecy of Nathan, which promised David a "house," that is a dynastic
succession, "secure forever" (2 Sm. 7:12-16), is recalled in a number
of rephrasings (2 Sm. 23:5; 1 Kgs. 2:4; 3:6; 1 Chr. 17:11-14), arising
especially out of times of distress (Ps. 89:20-38), not without significant
changes; it is continued by other prophecies (Ps. 2:7-8; 110: 1,4; Am. 9: 11;
Is. 7: 13-14; Jer. 23:56, etc.), some of which announce the return of the
kingdom of David itself (Hos 3:5, Jer. 30:9, Ez. 34:24, 37:24-25; cf. Mk.
11:10). The promised kingdom becomes universal (Ps. 2:8; Dn. 2:35, 44; 7:14; cf.
Mt. 28:18). It brings to fullness the vocation of human beings (Gn. 1:28; Ps.
8:6-9; Wis. 9:2-3; 10:2).
The
prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the 70 years of chastisement incurred by
Jerusalem and Juda (Jer. 25:11-12; 29:10) is recalled in 2 Chr. 25:20-23 which
affirms that this punishment has actually occurred. Nonetheless, much later, the
author of Daniel returns to reflect upon it once more, convinced that this word
of God still conceals a hidden meaning that could throw light upon the situation
of his own day (Dn. 9:24-27).
The
basic affirmation of the retributive justice of God, rewarding the good and
punishing the evil (Ps. 1:1-6; 112:1-10; Lv. 26:3-33; etc.), flies in the face
of much immediate experience, which often fails to bear it out. In the face of
this, Scripture allows strong voices of protestation and argument to be heard
(Ps. 44; Jb. 10:1- 7; 13:3-28; 23-24), as little by little it plumbs more
profoundly the full depths of the mystery (Ps. 37; Jb. 38-42; Is. 53; Wis. 3-5).
2.
Relationships Between the Old Testament and the New
Intertextual
relationships become extremely dense in the writings of the New Testament,
thoroughly imbued as it is with the Old Testament through both multiple allusion
and explicit citation. The authors of the New Testament accorded to the Old
Testament the value of divine revelation. They proclaimed that this revelation
found its fulfillment in the life, in the teaching and above all in the death
and resurrection of Jesus, source of pardon and of everlasting life.
"Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures and was
buried; he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures and
appeared" (1 Cor. 15:3-5): Such is the center and core of the apostolic
preaching (1 Cor. 15:11).
As
always, the relationship between Scripture and the events which bring it to
fulfillment is not one of simple material correspondence. On the contrary, there
is mutual illumination and a progress that is dialectic: What becomes clear is
that Scripture reveals the meaning of events and that events reveal the meaning
of Scripture, that is, they require that certain aspects of the received
interpretation be set aside and a new interpretation adopted.
Right
from the start of his public ministry, Jesus adopted a personal and original
stance different from the accepted interpretation of his age, that "of the
scribes and Pharisees" (Mt. 5:20). There is ample evidence of this: The
antitheses of his Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5:21-48); his sovereign freedom with
respect to Sabbath observance (Mk. 2:2728 and parallels); his way of
relativizing the precepts of ritual purity (Mk. 7: 1-23 and parallels); on the
other hand, the radicality of his demand in other areas (Mt. 10:2-12 and
parallels; 10:17-27 and parallels), and, above all, his attitude of welcome to
"the tax-collectors and sinners" (Mk. 2: 15-17 and parallels). All
this was in no sense the result of a personal whim to challenge the established
order. On the contrary, it represented a most profound fidelity to the will of
God expressed in Scripture (cf. Mt. 5:17; 9:13; Mk. 7:8-13 and parallels; 10:5-9
and parallels).
Jesus'
death and resurrection pushed to the very limit the interpretative development
he had begun, provoking on certain points a complete break with the past,
alongside unforeseen new openings. The death of the Messiah, "king of the
Jews" (Mk. 15:26 and parallels), prompted a transformation of the purely
earthly interpretation of the royal psalms and messianic prophecies. The
resurrection and heavenly glorification of Jesus as Son of God lent these texts
a fullness of meaning previously unimaginable. The result was that some
expressions which had seemed to be hyperbole had now to be taken literally. They
came to be seen as divine preparations to express the glory of Christ Jesus, for
Jesus is truly "Lord" (Ps. 110:1), in the fullest sense of the word
(Acts 2:36; Phil. 2: 1011; Heb. 1:10-12); he is Son of God (Ps. 2:7; Mk. 14:62;
Rom. 1:3-4), God with God (Ps. 45:7; Heb. 1:8; Jn. 1:1; 20:28); "his reign
will have no end" (Lk. 1:32-33; cf. 1 Chr. 17: 11- 14; Ps. 45:7; Heb. 1:8)
and he is at the same time "priest forever" (Ps. 110:4; Heb. 5:6-10;
7:23-24).
It
is in the light of the events of Easter that the authors of the New Testament
read anew the Scriptures of the Old. The Holy Spirit, sent by the glorified
Christ (cf. Jn. 15:26; 16:7), led them to discover the spiritual sense. While
this meant that they came to stress more than ever the prophetic value of the
Old Testament, it also had the effect of relativizing very considerably its
value as a system of salvation. This second point of view, which already appears
in the Gospels (cf. Mt. 11:11-13 and parallels; 12:41-42 and parallels; Jn.
4:12-14; 5:37; 6:32), emerges strongly in certain Pauline letters as well as in
the Letter to the Hebrews. Paul and the author of the Letter to the Hebrews show
that the Torah itself, insofar as it is revelation, announces its own proper end
as a legal system (cf. Gal. 2:15-5:1; Rom. 3:20-21; 6:14; Heb. 7:11-19; 10:8-9).
It follows that the pagans who adhere to faith in Christ need not be obliged to
observe all the precepts of biblical law, from now on reduced in its entirety
simply to the status of a legal code of a particular people. But in the Old
Testament as the word of God they have to find the spiritual sustenance that
will assist them to discover the full dimensions of the paschal mystery which
now governs their lives (cf. Lk. 24:25-27, 44-45; Rom. 1: 1- 2).
All
this serves to show that within the one Christian Bible the relationships that
exist between the New and the Old Testament are quite complex. When it is a
question of the use of particular texts, the authors of the New Testament
naturally have recourse to the ideas and procedures for interpretation current
in their time. To require them to conform to modern scientific methods would be
anachronistic. Rather, it is for the exegete to acquire a knowledge of ancient
techniques of exegesis so as to be able to interpret correctly the way in which
a Scriptural author has used them. On the other hand, it remains true that the
exegete need not put absolute value in something which simply reflects limited
human understanding.
Finally,
it is worth adding that within the New Testament, as already within the Old, one
can see the juxtaposing of different perspectives that sit sometimes in tension
with one another: For example, regarding the status of Jesus (Jn. 8:29; 16:32
and Mk. 15:34) or the value of the Mosaic Law (Mt. 5:1719 and Rom. 6:14) or the
necessity of works for justification (Jas. 2:24 and Rom. 3:28; Eph. 2:8-9). One
of the characteristics of the Bible is precisely the absence of a sense of
systematization and the presence, on the contrary, of things held in dynamic
tension. The Bible is a repository of many ways of interpreting the same events
and reflecting upon the same problems. In itself it urges us to avoid excessive
simplification and narrowness of spirit.
3.
Some Conclusions
From
what has just been said one can conclude that the Bible contains numerous
indications and suggestions relating to the art of interpretation. In fact, from
its very inception the Bible has been itself a work of interpretation. Its texts
were recognized by the communities of the Former Covenant and by those of the
apostolic age as the genuine expression of the common faith. It is in accordance
with the interpretative work of these communities and together with it that the
texts were accepted as sacred Scripture (thus, e.g. the Song of Songs was
recognized as sacred Scripture when applied to the relation between God and
Israel). In the course of the Bibleīs formation, the writings of which it
consists were in many cases reworked and reinterpreted so as to make them
respond to new situations previously unknown.
The
way in which sacred Scripture reveals its own interpretation of texts suggests
the following observations:
Sacred
Scripture has come into existence on the basis of a consensus in the believing
communities recognizing in the texts the expression of revealed faith. This
means that, for the living faith of the ecclesial communities, the
interpretation of Scripture should itself be a source of consensus on essential
matters.
Granted
that the expression of faith, such as it is found in the sacred Scripture
acknowledged by all, has had to renew itself continually in order to meet new
situations, which explains the "rereadings" of many of the biblical
texts, the interpretation of the Bible should likewise involve an aspect of
creativity; it ought also to confront new questions so as to respond to them out
of the Bible.
Granted
that tensions can exist in the relationship between various texts of sacred
Scripture, interpretation must necessarily show a certain pluralism. No single
interpretation can exhaust the meaning of the whole, which is a symphony of many
voices. Thus the interpretation of one particular text has to avoid seeking to
dominate at the expense of others.
Sacred
Scripture is in dialogue with communities of believers: It has come from their
traditions of faith. Its texts have been developed in relation to these
traditions and have contributed, reciprocally, to the development of the
traditions. It follows that interpretation of Scripture takes place in the heart
of the church: in its plurality and its unity, and within its tradition of
faith.
Faith
traditions formed the living context for the literary activity of the authors of
sacred Scripture. Their insertion into this context also involved a sharing in
both the liturgical and external life of the communities, in their intellectual
world, in their culture and in the ups and downs of their shared history. In
like manner, the interpretation of sacred Scripture requires full participation
on the part of exegetes in the life and faith of the believing community of
their own time.
Dialogue
with Scripture in its entirety, which means dialogue with the understanding of
the faith prevailing in earlier times, must be matched by a dialogue with the
generation of today. Such dialogue will mean establishing a relationship of
continuity. It will also involve acknowledging differences. Hence the
interpretation of Scripture involves a work of sifting and setting aside; it
stands in continuity with earlier exegetical traditions, many elements of which
it preserves and makes its own; but in other matters it will go its own way,
seeking to make further progress.
B.
Interpretation in the Tradition of the Church
The
church, as the people of God, is aware that it is helped by the Holy Spirit in
its understanding and interpretation of Scripture. The first disciples of Jesus
knew that they did not have the capacity right away to understand the full
reality of what they had received in all its aspects. As they persevered in
their life as a community, they experienced an ever-deepening and progressive
clarification of the revelation they had received. They recognized in this the
influence and the action of "the Spirit of truth," which Christ had
promised them to guide them to the fullness of the truth (Jn. 16:12-13).
Likewise the church today journeys onward, sustained by the promise of Christ:
"The Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, which the Father will send in my name,
will teach you all things and will make you recall all that I have said to
you" (Jn. 14:26).
1.
Formation of the Canon
Guided
by the Holy Spirit and in the light of the living tradition which it has
received, the church has discerned the writings which should be regarded as
sacred Scripture in the sense that, "having been written under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for author and have been handed on
as such to the church" (Dei Verbum, 11) and contain "that truth
which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our
salvation" (ibid.).
The
discernment of a "canon" of sacred Scripture was the result of a long
process The communities of the Old Covenant (ranging from particular groups,
such as those connected with prophetic circles or the priesthood to the people
as a whole) recognized in a certain number of texts the word of God capable of
arousing their faith and providing guidance for daily life; they received these
texts as a patrimony to be preserved and handed on. In this way these texts
ceased to be merely the expression of a particular authorīs inspiration; they
became the common property of the whole people of God. The New Testament attests
its own reverence for these sacred texts, received as a precious heritage passed
on by the Jewish people. It regards these texts as "sacred Scripture"
(Rom. 1:2), "inspired" by the Spirit of God (2 Tm 3:16; cf. 2 Pt.
1:20-21), which "can never be annulled" (Jn 10:35).
To
these texts, which form "the Old Testament" (cf. 2 Cor. 3:14), the
church has closely associated other writings: first those in which it recognized
the authentic witness, coming from the apostles (cf. Lk. 1:2; 1 Jn. 1:1-3) and
guaranteed by the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Pt. 1:12), concerning "all that Jesus
began to do and teach" (Acts 1: 1) and, second, the instructions given by
the apostles themselves and other disciples for the building up of the community
of believers. This double series of writings subsequently came to be known as
"the New Testament."
Many
factors played a part in this process: the conviction that Jesus--and the
apostles along with him--had recognized the Old Testament as inspired Scripture
and that the paschal mystery is its true fulfillment; the conviction that the
writings of the New Testament were a genuine reflection of the apostolic
preaching (which does not imply that they were all composed by the apostles
themselves); the recognition of their conformity with the rule of faith and of
their use in the Christian liturgy; finally, the experience of their affinity
with the ecclesial life of the communities and of their potential for sustaining
this life.
In
discerning the canon of Scripture, the church was also discerning and defining
her own identity. Henceforth Scripture was to function as a mirror in which the
church could continually rediscover her identity and assess, century after
century, the way in which she constantly responds to the Gospel and equips
herself to be an apt vehicle of its transmission (cf. Dei Verbum, 7).
This confers on the canonical writings a salvific and theological value
completely different from that attaching to other ancient texts The latter may
throw much light on the origins of the faith. But they can never substitute for
the authority of the writings held to be canonical and thus fundamental for the
understanding of the Christian faith.
2.
Patristic Exegesis
From
earliest times it has been understood that the same Holy Spirit, who moved the
authors of the New Testament to put in writing the message of salvation (Dei
Verbum, 7; 18), likewise provided the church with continual assistance for
the interpretation of its inspired writings (cf. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., 3
24.1; cf. 3.1.1; 4 33 8; Origen, De Princ., 2.7.2; Tertullian, De
Praescr., 22).
The
fathers of the church, who had a particular role in the process of the formation
of the canon, likewise have a foundational role in relation to the living
tradition which unceasingly accompanies and guides the churchīs reading and
interpretation of Scripture (cf. Providentissimus: Ench Bibl. 110- 111; Divino
Afflante Spiritu, 28-30: Ench. Bibl. 554; Dei Verbum, 23; PCB,
Instr. de Evang. Histor., 1). Within the broader current of the great
tradition, the particular contribution of patristic exegesis consists in this:
to have drawn out from the totality of Scripture the basic orientations which
shaped the doctrinal tradition of the church and to have provided a rich
theological teaching for the instruction and spiritual sustenance of the
faithful.
The
fathers of the church placed a high value upon the reading of Scripture and its
interpretation. This can be seen, first of all, in works directly linked to the
understanding of Scripture, such as homilies and commentaries. But it is also
evident in works of controversy and theology, where appeal is made to Scripture
in support of the main argument.
For
the fathers the chief occasion for reading the Bible is in church, in the course
of the liturgy. This is why the interpretations they provide are always of a
theological and pastoral nature, touching upon relationship with God, so as to
be helpful both for the community and the individual believer.
The
fathers look upon the Bible above all as the Book of God, the single work of a
single author. This does not mean, however, that they reduce the human authors
to nothing more than passive instruments; they are quite capable, also, of
according to a particular book its own specific purpose. But their type of
approach pays scant attention to the historical development of revelation. Many
fathers of the church present the "Logos," the Word of God, as author
of the Old Testament and in this way insist that all Scripture has a
Christological meaning.
Setting
aside certain exegetes of the School of Antioch (Theodore of Mopsuestia, in
particular), the fathers felt themselves at liberty to take a sentence out of
its context in order to bring out some revealed truth which they found expressed
within it. In apologetic directed against Jewish positions or in theological
dispute with other theologians, they did not hesitate to rely on this kind of
interpretation.
Their
chief concern being to live from the Bible in communion with their brothers and
sisters, the fathers were usually content to use the text of the Bible current
in their own context. What led Origen to take a systematic interest in the
Hebrew Bible was a concern to conduct arguments with Jews from texts which the
latter found acceptable. Thus, in his praise for the hebraica veritas,
St. Jerome appears, in this respect, a somewhat untypical figure.
As
a way of eliminating the scandal which particular passages of the Bible might
provide for certain Christians, not to mention pagan adversaries of
Christianity, the fathers had recourse fairly frequently to the allegorical
method. But they rarely abandoned the literalness and historicity of texts. The
fathersī recourse to allegory transcends for the most part a simple adaptation
to the allegorical method in use among pagan authors.
Recourse
to allegory stems also from the conviction that the Bible, as Godīs book, was
given by God to his people, the church. In principle, there is nothing in it
which is to be set aside as out of date or completely lacking meaning. God is
constantly speaking to his Christian people a message that is ever relevant for
their time. In their explanations of the Bible, the fathers mix and weave
together typological and allegorical interpretations in a virtually inextricable
way. But they do so always for a pastoral and pedagogical purpose, convinced
that everything that has been written has been written for our instruction (cf.
1 Cor. 10:11).
Convinced
that they are dealing with the Book of God and therefore with something of
inexhaustible meaning, the fathers hold that any particular passage is open to
any particular interpretation on an allegorical basis. But they also consider
that others are free to offer something else, provided only that what is offered
respects the analogy of faith.
The
allegorical interpretation of Scripture so characteristic of patristic exegesis
runs the risk of being something of an embarrassment to people today. But the
experience of the church expressed in this exegesis makes a contribution that is
always useful (cf. Divino Afflante Spiritu, 31-32; Dei Verbum,
23). The fathers of the church teach to read the Bible theologically, within the
heart of a living tradition, with an authentic Christian spirit.
3.
Roles of Various Members of the Church in Interpretation
The
Scriptures, as given to the church, are the communal treasure of the entire body
of believers: "Sacred tradition and sacred Scripture form one sacred
deposit of the word of God, entrusted to the church. Holding fast to this
deposit, the entire holy people, united with its pastors, remains steadfastly
faithful to the teaching of the apostles" (Dei Verbum, 10; cf. also
21). It is true that the familiarity with the text of Scripture has been more
notable among the faithful at some periods of the churchīs history than in
others. But Scripture has been at the forefront of all the important moments of
renewal in the life of the church, from the monastic movement of the early
centuries to the recent era of the Second Vatican Council.
This
same council teaches that all the baptized, when they bring their faith in
Christ to the celebration of the eucharist, recognize the presence of Christ
also in his word, "for it is he himself who speaks when the holy Scriptures
are read in the church" (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 7). To this hearing
of the word, they bring that "sense of the faith" (sensus fidei)
which characterizes the entire people (of God).... For by this sense of faith
aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the people of God, guided by the
sacred magisterium which it faithfully follows, accepts not a human word but the
very Word of God (cf. 1 Thes. 2: 13). It holds fast unerringly to the faith once
delivered to the saints (cf. Jude 3), it penetrates it more deeply with accurate
insight and applies it more thoroughly to Christian life" (Lumen Gentium,
12).
Thus
all the members of the church have a role in the interpretation of Scripture. In
the exercise of their pastoral ministry, bishops, as successors of the
apostles, are the first witnesses and guarantors of the living tradition within
which Scripture is interpreted in every age. "Enlightened by the Spirit of
truth, they have the task of guarding faithfully the word of God, of explaining
it and through their preaching making it more widely known" (Dei Verbum,
9; cf. Lumen Gentium, 25). As co- workers with the bishops, priests have
as their primary duty the proclamation of the word (Presbyterorum Ordinis,
4). They are gifted with a particular charism for the interpretation of
Scripture, when, transmitting not their own ideas but the word of God, they
apply the eternal truth of the Gospel to the concrete circumstances of daily
life (ibid.). It belongs to priests and to deacons, especially when they
administer the sacraments, to make clear the unity constituted by word and
sacrament in the ministry of the church.
As
those who preside at the eucharistic community and as educators in the faith,
the ministers of the word have as their principal task not simply to impart
instruction, but also to assist the faithful to understand and discern what the
word of God is saying to them in their hearts when they hear and reflect upon
the Scriptures. Thus the local church as a whole, on the pattern of
Israel, the people of God (Ex. 19:5-6), becomes a community which knows that it
is addressed by God (cf. Jn. 6:45), a community that listens eagerly to the word
with faith, love and docility (Dt. 6:4-6). Granted that they remain ever united
in faith and love with the wider body of the church, such truly listening
communities become in their own context vigorous sources of evangelization and
of dialogue, as well as agents for social change (Evangelii Nuntiandi
57-58; CDF, "Instruction Concerning Christian Freedom and Liberation,"
69-70).
The
Spirit is, assuredly, also given to individual Christians, so that their
hearts can "burn within them" (Lk. 24:32) as they pray and prayerfully
study the Scripture within the context of their own personal lives. This is why
the Second Vatican Council insisted that access to Scripture be facilitated in
every possible way (Dei Verbum, 22; 25). This kind of reading, it should
be noted, is never completely private, for the believer always reads and
interprets Scripture within the faith of the church and then brings back to the
community the fruit of that reading for the enrichment of the common faith.
The
entire biblical tradition and, in a particular way, the teaching of Jesus in the
Gospels indicates as privileged hearers of the word of God those whom the world
considers people of lowly status. Jesus acknowledged that things hidden
from the wise and learned have been revealed to the simple (Mt. 11:25, Lk.
10:21) and that the kingdom of God belongs to those who make themselves like
little children (Mk. 10: 14 and parallels).
Likewise,
Jesus proclaimed: "Blessed are you poor, because the kingdom of God is
yours" (Lk. 6:20; cf. Mt. 5:3). One of the signs of the Messianic era is
the proclamation of the good news to the poor (Lk. 4:18; 7:22; Mt. 11:5, cf. CDF,
"Instruction Concerning Christian Freedom and Liberation," 47-48).
Those who in their powerlessness and lack of human resources find themselves
forced to put their trust in God alone and in his justice have a capacity for
hearing and interpreting the word of God which should be taken into account by
the whole church, it demands a response on the social level as well.
Recognizing
the diversity of gifts and functions which the Spirit places at the service of
the community, especially the gift of teaching (1 Cor. 12:28-30; Rom. 12:6-7;
Eph. 4:11-16), the church expresses its esteem for those who display a
particular ability to contribute to the building up of the body of Christ
through their expertise in interpreting Scripture (Divino Afflante Spiritu,
4648: Ench. Bibl. 564-565; Dei Verbum, 23; PCB, "Instruction
Concerning the Historical Truth of the Gospels," Introd.). Although their
labors did not always receive in the past the encouragement that is given them
today, exegetes who offer their learning as a service to the church find
that they are part of a rich tradition which stretches from the first centuries,
with Origen and Jerome, up to more recent times, with Pere Lagrange and others,
and continues right up to our time. In particular, the discovery of the literal
sense of Scripture, upon which there is now so much insistence, requires the
combined efforts of those who have expertise in the fields of ancient languages,
of history and culture, of textual criticism and the analysis of literary forms,
and who know how to make good use of the methods of scientific criticism.
Beyond
this attention to the text in its original historical context, the church
depends on exegetes, animated by the same Spirit as inspired Scripture, to
ensure that "there be as great a number of servants of the word of God as
possible capable of effectively providing the people of God with the nourishment
of the Scriptures" (Divino Aff1ante Spiritu, 24; 53-55: Ench.
Bibl., 551, 567; Dei Verbum, 23; Paul VI, Sedula Cura [1971]).
A particular cause for satisfaction in our times is the growing number of women
exegetes; they frequently contribute new and penetrating insights to the
interpretation of Scripture and rediscover features which had been forgotten.
If,
as noted above, the Scriptures belong to the entire church and are part of
"the heritage of the faith," which all, pastors and faithful,
"preserve, profess and put into practice in a communal effort," it
nevertheless remains true that "responsibility for authentically
interpreting the word of God, as transmitted by Scripture and tradition, has
been entrusted solely to the living magisterium of the church, which exercises
its authority in the name of Jesus Christ" (Dei Verbum, 10).
Thus,
in the last resort it is the magisterium which has the responsibility of
guaranteeing the authenticity of interpretation and, should the occasion arise,
of pointing out instances where any particular interpretation is incompatible
with the authentic Gospel. It discharges this function within the koinonia
of the body, expressing officially the faith of the church, as a service to the
church; to this end it consults theologians, exegetes and other experts, whose
legitimate liberty it recognizes and with whom it remains united by reciprocal
relationship in the common goal of "preserving the people of God in the
truth which sets them free" (CDF, "Instruction Concerning the
Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian," 21).
C.
The Task of the Exegete
The
task of Catholic exegetes embraces many aspects. It is an ecclesial task, for it
consists in the study and explanation of holy Scripture in a way that makes all
its riches available to pastors and the faithful. But it is at the same time a
work of scholarship, which places the Catholic exegete in contact with
non-Catholic colleagues and with many areas of scholarly research. Moreover,
this task includes at the same time both research and teaching. And each of
these normally leads to publication.
1.
Principal Guidelines
In
devoting themselves to their task, Catholic exegetes have to pay due account to
the historical character of biblical revelation. For the two testaments
express in human words bearing the stamp of their time the historical revelation
communicated by God in various ways concerning himself and his plan of
salvation. Consequently, exegetes have to make use of the historical-critical
method. They cannot, however, accord to it a sole validity. All methods
pertaining to the interpretation of texts are entitled to make their
contribution to the exegesis of the Bible.
In
their work of interpretation Catholic exegetes must never forget that what they
are interpreting is the word of God. Their common task is not finished
when they have simply determined sources, defined forms or explained literary
procedures. They arrive at the true goal of their work only when they have
explained the meaning of the biblical text as Godīs word for today. To this end
they must take into consideration the various hermeneutical perspectives which
help toward grasping the contemporary meaning of the biblical message and which
make it responsive to the needs of those who read Scripture today.
Exegetes
should also explain the Christological, canonical and ecclesial meanings of the
biblical texts.
The
Christological significance of biblical texts is not always evident, it
must be made clear whenever possible. Although Christ established the New
Covenant in his blood, the books of the First Covenant have not lost their
value. Assumed into the proclamation of the Gospel, they acquire and display
their full meaning in the "mystery of Christ" (Eph. 3:4); they shed
light upon multiple aspects of this mystery, while in turn being illuminated by
it themselves. These writings, in fact, served to prepare the people of God for
his coming (cf. Dei Verbum, 14- 16).
Although
each book of the Bible was written with its own particular end in view and has
its own specific meaning, it takes on a deeper meaning when it becomes part of
the canon as a whole. The exegetical task includes therefore bringing out
the truth of Augustineīs dictum: "Novum Testamentum in Vetere latet, et
in Novo Vetus patet" ("The New Testament lies hidden in the Old,
and the Old becomes clear in the New") (cf. Quaest. in Hept., 2, 73:
Collected Works of Latin Church Writers, 28, III, 3, p. 141).
Exegetes
have also to explain the relationship that exists between the Bible and the church.
The Bible came into existence within believing communities. In it the faith of
Israel found expression, later that of the early Christian communities. United
to the living tradition which preceded it, which accompanies it and is nourished
by it (cf. Dei Verbum, 21), the Bible is the privileged means which God
uses yet again in our own day to shape the building up and the growth of the
church as the people of God. This ecclesial dimension necessarily involves an
openness to ecumenism.
Moreover,
since the Bible tells of Godīs offer of salvation to all people, the exegetical
task necessarily includes a universal dimension. This means taking account of
other religions and of the hopes and fears of the world of today.
2.
Research
The
exegetical task is far too large to be successfully pursued by individual
scholars working alone. It calls for a division of labor, especially in
"research," which demands specialists in different fields.
Interdisciplinary collaboration will help overcome any limitations that
specialization may tend to produce.
It
is very important for the good of the entire church, as well as for its
influence in the modern world, that a sufficient number of well-prepared persons
be committed to research in the various fields of exegetical study. In their
concern for the more immediate needs of the ministry, bishops and religious
superiors are often tempted not to take sufficiently seriously the
responsibility incumbent upon them to make provision for this fundamental need.
But a lack in this area exposes the church to serious harm, for pastors and the
faithful then run the risk of being at the mercy of an exegetical scholarship
which is alien to the church and lacks relationship to the life of faith.
In
stating that "the study of sacred Scripture" should be "as it
were the soul of theology" (Dei Verbum, 24), the Second Vatican
Council has indicated the crucial importance of exegetical research. By the same
token, the council has also implicitly reminded Catholic exegetes that their
research has an essential relationship to theology, their awareness of which
must also be evident.
3.
Teaching
The
declaration of the council made equally clear the fundamental role which belongs
to the teaching of exegesis in the faculties of theology, the seminaries and the
religious houses of studies. It is obvious that the level of these studies will
not be the same in all cases. It is desirable that the teaching of exegesis be
carried out by both men and women. More technical in university faculties, this
teaching will have a more directly pastoral orientation in seminaries. But it
can never be without an intellectual dimension that is truly serious. To proceed
otherwise would be to show disrespect toward the word of God.
Professors
of exegesis should communicate to their students a profound appreciation of
sacred Scripture, showing how it deserves the kind of attentive and objective
study which will allow a better appreciation of its literary, historical, social
and theological value. They cannot rest content simply with the conveying of a
series of facts to be passively absorbed, but should give a genuine introduction
to exegetical method, explaining the principal steps, so that students will be
in a position to exercise their own personal judgment.
Given
the limited time at a teacherīs disposal, it is appropriate to make use of two
alternative modes of teaching: on the one hand, a synthetic exposition to
introduce the student to the study of whole books of the Bible, omitting no
important area of the Old or New Testament; on the other hand, in-depth analyses
of certain well-chosen texts, which will provide at the same time an
introduction to the practice of exegesis. In either case, care must be taken to
avoid a one-sided approach that would restrict itself, on the one hand, to a
spiritual commentary empty of historical- critical grounding or, on the other,
to a historical-critical commentary lacking doctrinal or spiritual content (cf. Divino
Afflante Spiritu: Ench. Bibl. 551-552, PCB, De Sacra Scriptura Recte
Docenda: Ench. Bibl. 598). Teaching should at one and the same time show
forth the historical roots of the biblical writings, the way in which they
constitute the personal word of the heavenly Father addressing his children with
love (cf. Dei Verbum, 21) and their indispensable role in the pastoral
ministry (cf. 2 Tm. 3, 16).
4.
Publications
As
the fruit of research and a complement to teaching, publications play a highly
important role in the advancement and spread of exegetical work. Beyond printed
texts, publication today embraces other more powerful and more rapid means of
communication (radio, television, other electronic media); it is very
advantageous to know how to make use of these things.
For
those engaged in research, publication at a high academic level is the principal
means of dialogue, discussion and cooperation. Through it, Catholic exegesis can
interact with other centers of exegetical research as well as with the scholarly
world in general.
There
is another form of publication, more short-term in nature, which renders a very
great service by its ability to adapt itself to a variety of readers, from the
well-educated to children of catechism age, reaching biblical groups, apostolic
movements and religious congregations. Exegetes who have a gift for
popularization provide an extremely useful and fruitful work, one that is
indispensable if the fruit of exegetical studies is to be dispersed as widely as
need demands. In this area, the need to make the biblical message something real
for today is ever more obvious. This requires that exegetes take into
consideration the reasonable demands of educated and cultured persons of our
time, clearly distinguishing for their benefit what in the Bible is to be
regarded as secondary detail conditioned by a particular age, what must be
interpreted as the language of myth and what is to be regarded as the true
historical and inspired meaning. The biblical writings were not composed in
modern language nor in the style of the 20th century. The forms of expression
and literary genres employed in the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek text must be made
meaningful to men and women of today, who otherwise would be tempted to lose all
interest in the Bible or else to interpret it in a simplistic way that is
literalist or simply fanciful.
In
all this variety of tasks, the Catholic exegete has no other purpose than the
service of the word of God. The aim of the exegete is not to substitute for the
biblical texts the results of his or her work, whether that involves the
reconstruction of ancient sources used by the inspired authors or up-to-date
presentation of the latest conclusions of exegetical science. On the contrary,
the aim of the exegete is to shed more and more light on the biblical texts
themselves, helping them to be better appreciated for what they are in
themselves and understood with ever more historical accuracy and spiritual
depth.
D.
Relationship With Other Theological Disciplines
Being
itself a theological discipline, "fides quaerens intellectum,"
exegesis has close and complex relationships with other fields of theological
learning. On the one hand, systematic theology has an influence upon the
presuppositions with which exegetes approach biblical texts. On the other hand,
exegesis provides the other theological disciplines with data fundamental for
their operation. There is, accordingly, a relationship of dialogue between
exegesis and the other branches of theology, granted always a mutual respect for
that which is specific to each.
1.
Theology and Presuppositions Regarding Biblical Texts
Exegetes
necessarily bring certain presuppositions (Fr., precomprehension) to
biblical writings. In the case of the Catholic exegete, it is a question of
presuppositions based on the certainties of faith: The Bible is a text inspired
by God, entrusted to the church for the nurturing of faith and guidance of the
Christian life. These certainties of faith do not come to an exegete in an
unrefined, raw state, but only as developed in the ecclesial community through
the process of theological reflection. The reflection undertaken by systematic
theologians upon the inspiration of Scripture and the function it serves in the
life of the church provides in this way direction for exegetical research.
But
correspondingly, the work of exegetes on the inspired texts provides them with
an experience which systematic theologians should take into account as they seek
to explain more clearly the theology of Scriptural inspiration and the
interpretation of the Bible within the church. Exegesis creates, in particular,
a more lively and precise awareness of the historical character of biblical
inspiration. It shows that the process of inspiration is historical, not only
because it took place over the course of the history of Israel and of the early
church, but also because it came about through the agency of human beings, all
of them conditioned by their time and all, under the guidance of the Spirit,
playing an active role in the life of the people of God.
Moreover,
theologyīs affirmation of the strict relationship between inspired Scripture
and tradition has been both confirmed and made more precise through the advance
of exegetical study, which has led exegetes to pay increasing attention to the
influence upon texts of the life-setting (Sitz im Leben) out of which
they were formed.
2.
Exegesis and Systematic Theology
Without
being the sole locus theologicus, sacred Scripture provides the
privileged foundation of theological studies. In order to interpret Scripture
with scholarly accuracy and precision, theologians need the work of exegetes.
From their side, exegetes must orientate their research in such fashion that
"the study of sacred Scripture" can be in reality "as it were the
soul of theology" (Dei Verbum, 24). To achieve this, they ought pay
particular attention to the religious content of the biblical writings.
Exegetes
can help systematic theologians avoid two extremes: on the one hand, a dualism,
which would completely separate a doctrinal truth from its linguistic
expression, as though the latter were of no importance; on the other hand, a
fundamentalism, which, confusing the human and the divine, would consider even
the contingent features of human discourse to be revealed truth.
To
avoid these two extremes, it is necessary to make distinctions without at the
same time making separations--thus to accept a continuing tension. The word of
God finds expression in the work of human authors. The thought and the words
belong at one and the same time both to God and to human beings, in such a way
that the whole Bible comes at once from God and from the inspired human author.
This does not mean, however, that God has given the historical conditioning of
the message a value which is absolute. It is open both to interpretation and to
being brought up to date--which means being detached, to some extent, from its
historical conditioning in the past and being transplanted into the historical
conditioning of the present. The exegete performs the groundwork for this
operation, which the systematic theologian continues by taking into account the
other loci theologici which contribute to the development of dogma.
3.
Exegesis and Moral Theology
Similar
observations can be made regarding the relationship between exegesis and moral
theology. The Bible closely links many instructions about proper
conduct--commandments, prohibitions, legal prescriptions, prophetic exhortations
and accusations, counsels of wisdom, and so forth--to the stories concerning the
history of salvation. One of the tasks of exegesis consists in preparing the way
for the work of moralists by assessing the significance of this wealth of
material.
This
task is not simple, for often the biblical texts are not concerned to
distinguish universal moral principles from particular prescriptions of ritual
purity and legal ordinances. All is mixed together. On the other hand, the Bible
reflects a considerable moral development, which finds its completion in the New
Testament. It is not sufficient therefore that the Old Testament should indicate
a certain moral position (e.g. the practice of slavery or of divorce, or that of
extermination in the case of war) for this position to continue to have
validity. One has to undertake a process of discernment. This will review the
issue in the light of the progress in moral understanding and sensitivity that
has occurred over the years.
The
writings of the Old Testament contain certain "imperfect and
provisional" elements (Dei Verbum, 15), which the divine pedagogy
could not eliminate right away. The New Testament itself is not easy to
interpret in the area of morality, for it often makes use of imagery, frequently
in a way that is paradoxical or even provocative; moreover, in the New Testament
area the relationship between Christians and the Jewish Law is the subject of
sharp controversy.
Moral
theologians therefore have a right to put to exegetes many questions which will
stimulate exegetical research. In many cases the response may be that no
biblical text explicitly addresses the problem proposed. But even when such is
the case, the witness of the Bible, taken within the framework of the forceful
dynamic that governs it as a whole, will certainly indicate a fruitful direction
to follow. On the most important points the moral principles of the Decalogue
remain basic. The Old Testament already contains the principles and the values
which require conduct in full conformity with the dignity of the human person,
created "in the image of God" (Gn. 1:27). Through the revelation of
Godīs love that comes in Christ, the New Testament sheds the fullest light upon
these principles and values.
4.
Differing Points of View and Necessary Interaction
In
its 1988 document on the interpretation of theological truths, the International
Theological Commission recalled that a conflict has broken out in recent times
between exegesis and dogmatic theology; it then notes the positive contribution
modern exegesis has made to systematic theology ("The Interpretation of
Theological Truths,"1988, C.I, 2). To be more precise, it should be said
that the conflict was provoked by liberal exegesis. There was no conflict in a
generalized sense between Catholic exegesis and dogmatic theology, but only some
instances of strong tension. It remains true, however, that tension can
degenerate into conflict when, from one side or the other, differing points of
view, quite legitimate in themselves, become hardened to such an extent that
they become in fact irreconcilable opposites.
The
points of view of both disciplines are in fact different and rightly so. The
primary task of the exegete is to determine as accurately as possible the
meaning of biblical texts in their own proper context, that is, first of all, in
their particular literary and historical context and then in the context of the
wider canon of Scripture. In the course of carrying out this task, the exegete
expounds the theological meaning of texts when such a meaning is present. This
paves the way for a relationship of continuity between exegesis and further
theological reflection. But the point of view is not the same, for the work of
the exegete is fundamentally historical and descriptive and restricts itself to
the interpretation of the Bible.
Theologians
as such have a role that is more speculative and more systematic in nature. For
this reason, they are really interested only in certain texts and aspects of the
Bible and deal, besides, with much other data which is not biblical--patristic
writings, conciliar definitions, other documents of the magisterium, the
liturgy--as well as systems of philosophy and the cultural, social and political
situation of the contemporary world. Their task is not simply to interpret the
Bible; their aim is to present an understanding of the Christian faith that
bears the mark of a full reflection upon all its aspects and especially that of
its crucial relationship to human existence.
Because
of its speculative and systematic orientation, theology has often yielded to the
temptation to consider the Bible as a store of dicta probantia serving to
confirm doctrinal theses. In recent times theologians have become more keenly
conscious of the importance of the literary and historical context for the
correct interpretation of ancient texts, and they are much more ready to work in
collaboration with exegetes.
Inasmuch
as it is the word of God set in writing, the Bible has a richness of meaning
that no one systematic theology can ever completely capture or confine. One of
the principal functions of the Bible is to mount serious challenges to
theological systems and to draw attention constantly to the existence of
important aspects of divine revelation and human reality which have at times
been forgotten or neglected in efforts at systematic reflection. The renewal
that has taken place in exegetical methodology can make its own contribution to
awareness in these areas.
In
a corresponding way, exegesis should allow itself to be informed by theological
research. This will prompt it to put important questions to texts and so
discover their full meaning and richness. The critical study of the Bible cannot
isolate itself from theological research, nor from spiritual experience and the
discernment of the church. Exegesis produces its best results when it is carried
out in the context of the living faith of the Christian community, which is
directed toward the salvation of the entire world.
IV.
INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH
Exegetes
may have a distinctive role in the interpretation of the Bible but they do not
exercise a monopoly. This activity within the church has aspects which go beyond
the academic analysis of texts. The church, indeed, does not regard the Bible
simply as a collection of historical documents dealing with its own origins; it
receives the Bible as word of God, addressed both to itself and to the entire
world at the present time. This conviction, stemming from the faith, leads in
turn to the work of actualizing and inculturating the biblical message, as well
as to various uses of the inspired text in liturgy, in "lectio divina,"
in pastoral ministry and in the ecumenical movement.
A.
Actualization
Already
within the Bible itself--as we noted in the previous chapter--one can point to
instances of actualization: very early texts have been reread in the light of
new circumstances and applied to the contemporary situation of the people of
God. The same basic conviction necessarily stimulates believing communities of
today to continue the process of actualization.
1.
Principles
Actualization
rests on the following basic principles:
Actualization
is possible because the richness of meaning contained in the biblical text gives
it a value for all time and all cultures (cf. Is. 40:8; 66:18-21; Mt. 28:
19-20). The biblical message can at the same time both relativize and enrich the
value systems and norms of behavior of each generation.
Actualization
is necessary because, although their message is of lasting value, the biblical
texts have been composed with respect to circumstances of the past and in
language conditioned by a variety of times and seasons. To reveal their
significance for men and women of today, it is necessary to apply their message
to contemporary circumstances and to express it in language adapted to the
present time. This presupposes a hermeneutical endeavor, the aim of which is to
go beyond the historical conditioning so as to determine the essential points of
the message.
The
work of actualization should always be conscious of the complex relationships
that exist in the Christian Bible between the two testaments, since the New
Testament presents itself, at one and the same time, as both the fulfillment and
the surpassing of the Old. Actualization takes place in line with the dynamic
unity thus established.
It
is the living tradition of the community of faith that stimulates the task of
actualization. This community places itself in explicit continuity with the
communities which gave rise to Scripture and which preserved and handed it on.
In the process of actualization, tradition plays a double role: On the one hand,
it provides protection against deviant interpretations; on the other hand, it
ensures the transmission of the original dynamism.
Actualization,
therefore, cannot mean manipulation of the text. It is not a matter of
projecting novel opinions or ideologies upon the biblical writings, but of
sincerely seeking to discover what the text has to say at the present time. The
text of the Bible has authority over the Christian church at all times, and,
although centuries have passed since the time of its composition, the text
retains its role of privileged guide not open to manipulation. The magisterium
of the church "is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only
what has been handed on, by divine commission, with the help of the Holy Spirit,
the church listens to the text with love, watches over it in holiness and
explains it faithfully" (Dei Verbum, 10).
2.
Methods
Based
on these principles, various methods of actualization are available.
Actualization,
already practiced within the Bible itself, was continued in the Jewish tradition
through procedures found in the Targums and Midrashim: searching for parallel
passages (gezerah shawah), modification in the reading of the text ('al
tiqrey), appropriation of a second meaning (tartey mishmaī), etc.
In
their turn, the fathers of the church made use of typology and allegory in order
to actualize the biblical text in a manner appropriate to the situation of
Christians of their time.
Modern
attempts at actualization should keep in mind both changes in ways of thinking
and the progress made in interpretative method.
Actualization
presupposes a correct exegesis of the text, part of which is the determining of
its literal sense. Persons engaged in the work of actualization who do
not themselves have training in exegetical procedures should have recourse to
good introductions to Scripture, this will ensure that their interpretation
proceeds in the right direction.
The
most sure and promising method for arriving at a successful actualization is the
interpretation of Scripture by Scripture, especially in the case of the texts of
the Old Testament which have been reread in the Old Testament itself (e.g., the
manna of Exodus 16 in Wisdom 16:20-29) and/or in the New Testament (Jn.6). The
actualization of a biblical text in Christian life will proceed correctly only
in relation to the mystery of Christ and of the church. It would be
inappropriate, for example, to propose to Christians as models of a struggle for
liberation episodes drawn solely from the Old Testament (Exodus, 1-2 Maccabees).
Based
upon various forms of the philosophy of hermeneutics, the task of interpretation
involves, accordingly, three steps: 1. to hear the word from within oneīs own
concrete situation; 2. to identify the aspects of the present situation
highlighted or put in question by the biblical text; 3. to draw from the
fullness of meaning contained in the biblical text those elements capable of
advancing the present situation in a way that is productive and consonant with
the saving will of God in Christ.
By
virtue of actualization, the Bible can shed light upon many current issues: for
example, the question of various forms of ministry, the sense of the church as
communion, the preferential option for the poor, liberation theology, the
situation of women. Actualization can also attend to values of which the modern
world is more and more conscious, such as the rights of the human person, the
protection of human life, the preservation of nature, the longing for world
peace.
3.
Limits
So
as to remain in agreement with the saving truth expressed in the Bible, the
process of actualization should keep within certain limits and be careful not to
take wrong directions.
While
every reading of the Bible is necessarily selective, care should be taken to
avoid tendentious interpretations, that is, readings which, instead of being
docile to the text make use of it only for their own narrow purposes (as is the
case in the actualization practiced by certain sects, for example Jehovahīs
Witnesses).
Actualization
loses all validity if it is grounded in theoretical principles which are at
variance with the fundamental orientations of the biblical text, as, for
example, a rationalism which is opposed to faith or an atheistic materialism.
Clearly
to be rejected also is every attempt at actualization set in a direction
contrary to evangelical justice and charity, such as, for example, the use of
the Bible to justify racial segregation, anti-Semitism or sexism whether on the
part of men or of women. Particular attention is necessary, according to the
spirit of the Second Vatican Council (Nostra Aetate, 4), to avoid
absolutely any actualization of certain texts of the New Testament which could
provoke or reinforce unfavorable attitudes to the Jewish people. The tragic
events of the past must, on the contrary, impel all to keep unceasingly in mind
that, according to the New Testament, the Jews remain "beloved" of
God, "since the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" (Rom.
11:28-29).
False
paths will be avoided if actualization of the biblical message begins with a
correct interpretation of the text and continues within the stream of the living
tradition, under the guidance of the churchīs magisterium.
In
any case, the risk of error does not constitute a valid objection against
performing what is a necessary task: that of bringing the message of the Bible
to the ears and hearts of people of our own time.
B.
Inculturation
While
actualization allows the Bible to remain fruitful at different periods,
inculturation in a corresponding way looks to the diversity of place: It ensures
that the biblical message takes root in a great variety of terrains. This
diversity is, to be sure, never total. Every authentic culture is, in fact, in
its own way the bearer of universal values established by God.
The
theological foundation of inculturation is the conviction of faith that the word
of God transcends the cultures in which it has found expression and has the
capability of being spread in other cultures, in such a way as to be able to
reach all human beings in the cultural context in which they live. This
conviction springs from the Bible itself, which, right from the book of Genesis,
adopts a universalist stance (Gn. 1:27-28), maintains it subsequently in the
blessing promised to all peoples through Abraham and his offspring (Gn. 12:3;
18:18) and confirms it definitively in extending to "all nations" the
proclamation of the Christian Gospel (Mt. 28:18-20; Rom. 4:16-17; Eph. 3:6).
The
first stage of inculturation consists in translating the inspired Scripture into
another language. This step was taken already in the Old Testament period, when
the Hebrew text of the Bible was translated orally into Aramaic (Neh. 8:8,12)
and later in written form into Greek. A translation, of course, is always more
than a simple transcription of the original text. The passage from one language
to another necessarily involves a change of cultural context: Concepts are not
identical and symbols have a different meaning, for they come up against other
traditions of thought and other ways of life.
Written
in Greek, the New Testament is characterized in its entirety by a dynamic of
inculturation. In its transposition of the Palestinian message of Jesus into
Judeo-Hellenistic culture it displays its intention to transcend the limits of a
single cultural world.
While
it may constitute the basic step, the translation of biblical texts cannot,
however, ensure by itself a thorough inculturation. Translation has to be
followed by interpretation, which should set the biblical message in more
explicit relationship with the ways of feeling, thinking, living and
self-expression which are proper to the local culture. From interpretation, one
passes then to other stages of inculturation, which lead to the formation of a
local Christian culture, extending to all aspects of life (prayer, work, social
life, customs, legislation, arts and sciences, philosophical and theological
reflection). The word of God is, in effect, a seed, which extracts from the
earth in which it is planted the elements which are useful for its growth and
fruitfulness (cf. Ad Gentes, 22). As a consequence, Christians must try
to discern "what riches God, in his generosity, has bestowed on the
nations; at the same time they should try to shed the light of the Gospel on
these treasures, to set them free and bring them under the dominion of God the
Savior" (Ad Gentes, 11).
This
is not, as is clear, a one-way process; it involves "mutual
enrichment." On the one hand, the treasures contained in diverse cultures
allow the word of God to produce new fruits and on the other hand, the light of
the word allows for a certain selectivity with respect to what cultures have to
offer: Harmful elements can be left aside and the development of valuable ones
encouraged. Total fidelity to the person of Christ, to the dynamic of his
paschal mystery and to his love for the church make it possible to avoid two
false solutions: a superficial "adaptation" of the message, on the one
hand, and a syncretistic confusion, on the other (Ad Gentes, 22).
Inculturation
of the Bible has been carried out from the first centuries, both in the
Christian East and in the Christian West, and it has proved very fruitful.
However, one can never consider it a task achieved. It must be taken up again
and again, in relationship to the way in which cultures continue to evolve. In
countries of more recent evangelization, the problem arises in somewhat
different terms. Missionaries, in fact, cannot help bring the word of God in the
form in which it has been inculturated in their own country of origin. New local
churches have to make every effort to convert this foreign form of biblical
inculturation into another form more closely corresponding to the culture of
their own land.
C.
Use of the Bible
1.
In the Liturgy
From
the earliest days of the church, the reading of Scripture has been an integral
part of the Christian liturgy, an inheritance to some extent from the liturgy of
the synagogue. Today, too, it is above all through the liturgy that Christians
come into contact with Scripture, particularly during the Sunday celebration of
the Eucharist.
In
principle, the liturgy, and especially the sacramental liturgy, the high point
of which is the eucharistic celebration, brings about the most perfect
actualization of the biblical texts, for the liturgy places the proclamation in
the midst of the community of believers, gathered around Christ so as to draw
near to God. Christ is then "present in his word, because it is he himself
who speaks when sacred Scripture is read in the church" (Sacrosanctum
Concilium, 7). Written text thus becomes living word.
The
liturgical reform initiated by the Second Vatican Council sought to provide
Catholics with rich sustenance from the Bible. The triple cycle of Sunday
readings gives a privileged place to the Gospels, in such a way as to shed light
on the mystery of Christ as principle of our salvation. By regularly associating
a text of the Old Testament with the text of the Gospel, the cycle often
suggests a Scriptural interpretation moving in the direction of typology. But,
of course, such is not the only kind of interpretation possible.
The
homily, which seeks to actualize more explicitly the word of God, is an integral
part of the liturgy. We will speak of it later when we treat of the pastoral
ministry.
The
lectionary, issued at the direction of the council (Sacrosanctum Concilium,
35) is meant to allow for a reading of sacred Scripture that is "more
abundant, more varied and more suitable." In its present state, it only
partially fulfills this goal. Nevertheless even as it stands it has had positive
ecumenical results. In certain countries it also has served to indicate the lack
of familiarity with Scripture on the part of many Catholics.
The
Liturgy of the Word is a crucial element in the celebration of each of the
sacraments of the church; it does not consist simply in a series of readings one
after the other; it ought to involve as well periods of silence and of prayer.
This liturgy, in particular the Liturgy of the Hours, makes selections from the
book of Psalms to help the Christian community pray. Hymns and prayers are all
filled with the language of the Bible and the symbolism it contains. How
necessary it is, therefore, that participation in the liturgy be prepared for
and accompanied by the practice of reading Scripture.
If
in the readings "God addresses the word to his people" (Roman
Missal, n. 33), the Liturgy of the Word requires that great care be taken
both in the proclamation of the readings and in their interpretation. It is
therefore desirable that the formation of those who are to preside at the
assembly and of those who serve with them take full account of what is required
for a liturgy of the word of God that is fully renewed. Thus, through a combined
effort, the church will carry on the mission entrusted to it, "to take the
bread of life from the table both of the word of God and of the body of Christ
and offer it to the faithful" (Dei Verbum, 21).
2.
Lectio Divina
Lectio
divina is a reading, on an individual
or communal level, of a more or less lengthy passage of Scripture, received as
the word of God and leading, at the prompting of the Spirit, to meditation,
prayer and contemplation.
Concern
for regular, even daily reading of Scripture reflects early church custom. As a
group practice, it is attested in the third century, at the time of Origen; he
used to give homilies based on a text of Scripture read continuously throughout
a week. At that time there were daily gatherings devoted to the reading and
explanation of Scripture. But the practice did not always meet with great
success among Christians (Origen, Hom. Gen., X.1) and was eventually
abandoned.
Lectio
divina, especially on the part of the
individual, is attested in the monastic life in its golden age. In modern times,
an instruction of the biblical commission, approved by Pope Pius XII,
recommended this lectio to all clerics, secular and religious (De
Scriptura Sacra, 1950: Ench. Bibl., 592). Insistence on lectio
divina in both its forms, individual and communal, has therefore become a
reality once more. The end in view is to create and nourish "an efficacious
and constant love" of sacred Scripture, source of the interior life and of
apostolic fruitfulness (Ench. Bibl., 591 and 567), also to promote a
better understanding of the liturgy and to assure the Bible a more important
place in theological studies and in prayer.
The
conciliar constitution Dei Verbum (No. 25) is equally insistent on an
assiduous reading of Scripture for priests and religious. Moreover--and this is
something new--it also invites,"all the faithful of Christ" to acquire
"through frequent reading of the divine Scripture īthe surpassing
knowledge of Christ Jesusī (Phil. 3:8)." Different methods are proposed.
Alongside private reading, there is the suggestion of reading in a group. The
conciliar text stresses that prayer should accompany the reading of Scripture,
for prayer is the response to the word of God encountered in Scripture under the
inspiration of the Spirit. Many initiatives for communal reading have been
launched among Christians, and one can only encourage this desire to derive from
Scripture a better knowledge of God and of his plan of salvation in Jesus
Christ.
3.
In Pastoral Ministry
The
frequent recourse to the Bible in pastoral ministry, as recommended by Dei
Verbum (No. 24), takes on various forms depending on the kind of
interpretation that is useful to pastors and helpful for the understanding of
the faithful. Three principal situations can be distinguished: catechesis,
preaching and the biblical apostolate. Many factors are involved relating to the
general level of Christian life.
The
explanation of the word of God in catechesis (Sacrosanctum Concilium,
35, General Catechetical Directory, 1971,16) has sacred Scripture as first
source. Explained in the context of the tradition Scripture provides the
starting point, foundation and norm of catechetical teaching. One of the goals
of catechesis should be to initiate a person in a correct understanding and
fruitful reading of the Bible. This will bring about the discovery of the divine
truth it contains and evoke as generous a response as is possible to the message
God addresses through his word to the whole human race.
Catechesis
should proceed from the historical context of divine revelation so as to present
persons and events of the Old and New Testaments in the light of Godīs overall
plan.
To
move from the biblical text to its salvific meaning for the present time various
hermeneutic procedures are employed. These will give rise to different kinds of
commentary. The effectiveness of the catechesis depends on the value of the
hermeneutic employed. There is the danger of resting content with a superficial
commentary, one which remains simply a chronological presentation of the
sequence of persons and events in the Bible.
Clearly,
catechesis can avail itself of only a small part of the full range of biblical
texts. Generally speaking, it will make particular use of stories, both those of
the New Testament and those of the Old. It will single out the Decalogue. It
should also see that it makes use of the prophetic oracles, the wisdom teaching
and the great discourses in the Gospels such as the Sermon on the Mount.
The
presentation of the Gospels should be done in such a way as to elicit an
encounter with Christ, who provides the key to the whole biblical revelation and
communicates the call of God that summons each one to respond. The word of the
prophets and that of the "ministers of the word" (Lk. 1:2) ought to
appear as something addressed to Christians now.
Analogous
remarks apply to the ministry of preaching, which should draw from the
ancient texts spiritual sustenance adapted to the present needs of the Christian
community.
Today
this ministry is exercised especially at the close of the first part of the
eucharistic celebration, through the homily which follows the
proclamation of the word of God.
The
explanation of the biblical texts given in the course of the homily cannot enter
into great detail. It is, accordingly, fitting to explain the central
contribution of texts, that which is most enlightening for faith and most
stimulating for the progress of the Christian life, both on the community and
individual level. Presenting this central contribution means striving to achieve
its actualization and inculturation, in accordance with what has been said
above. Good hermeneutical principles are necessary to attain this end. Want of
preparation in this area leads to the temptation to avoid plumbing the depths of
the biblical readings and to being content simply to moralize or to speak of
contemporary issues in a way that fails to shed upon them the light of Godīs
word.
In
some countries exegetes have helped produce publications designed to assist
pastors in their responsibility to interpret correctly the biblical texts of the
liturgy and make them properly meaningful for today. It is desirable that such
efforts be repeated on a wider scale.
Preachers
should certainly avoid insisting in a one-sided way on the obligations incumbent
upon believers. The biblical message must preserve its principal characteristic
of being the good news of salvation freely offered by God. Preaching will
perform a task more useful and more conformed to the Bible if it helps the
faithful above all to "know the gift of God" (Jn. 4: 10) as it has
been revealed in Scripture; they will then understand in a positive light the
obligations that flow from it.
The
biblical apostolate has as its objective to make known the Bible as the
word of God and source of life. First of all, it promotes the translation of the
Bible into every kind of language and seeks to spread these translations as
widely as possible. It creates and supports numerous initiatives: the formation
of groups devoted to the study of the Bible, conferences on the Bible, biblical
weeks, the publication of journals and books, etc.
An
important contribution is made by church associations and movements which place
a high premium upon the reading of the Bible within the perspective of faith and
Christian action. Many "basic Christian communities" focus their
gatherings upon the Bible and set themselves a threefold objective: to know the
Bible, to create community and to serve the people. Here also exegetes can
render useful assistance in avoiding actualizations of the biblical message that
are not well grounded in the text. But there is reason to rejoice in seeing the
Bible in the hands of people of lowly condition and of the poor; they can bring
to its interpretation and to its actualization a light more penetrating, from
the spiritual and existential point of view, than that which comes from a
learning that relies upon its own resources alone (cf. Mt. 11:25).
The
ever increasing importance of the instruments of mass communication ("mass
media")--the press, radio, television--requires that proclamation of the
word of God and knowledge of the Bible be propagated by these means. Their very
distinctive features and, on the other hand, their capacity to influence a vast
public require a particular training in their use. This will help to avoid
paltry improvisations, along with striking effects that are actually in poor
taste.
Whatever
be the context--catechetics, preaching or the biblical apostolate--the text of
the Bible should always be presented with the respect it deserves.
4.
In Ecumenism
If
the ecumenical movement as a distinct and organized phenomenon is relatively
recent, the idea of the unity of Godīs people, which this movement seeks to
restore, is profoundly based in Scripture. Such an objective was the constant
concern of the Lord (Jn. 10:16; 17:11, 20-23). It looks to the union of
Christians in faith, hope and love (Eph. 4:2-5), in mutual respect (Phil. 2:
1-5) and solidarity (1 Cor. 12:14-27; Rom. 12:45), but also and above all an
organic union in Christ, after the manner of vine and branches (Jn. 15:4-5),
head and members (Eph. 1:22-23; 4:12- 16). This union should be perfect, in the
likeness of the union of the Father and the Son (Jn. 17:11, 22). Scripture
provides its theological foundation (Eph. 4:4-6; Gal. 3:27-28), the first
apostolic community its concrete, living model (Acts 2:44; 4:32).
Most
of the issues which ecumenical dialogue has to confront are related in some way
to the interpretation of biblical texts. Some of the issues are theological:
eschatology, the structure of the church, primacy and collegiality, marriage and
divorce, the admission of women to the ministerial priesthood and so forth.
Others are of a canonical and juridical nature: They concern the administration
of the universal church and of local churches. There are others, finally, that
are strictly biblical: the list of the canonical books, certain hemmeneutical
questions, etc.
Although
it cannot claim to resolve all these issues by itself, biblical exegesis is
called upon to make an important contribution in the ecumenical area. A
remarkable degree of progress has already been achieved. Through the adoption of
the same methods and analogous hermeneutical points of view, exegetes of various
Christian confessions have arrived at a remarkable level of agreement in the
interpretation of Scripture, as is shown by the text and notes of a number of
ecumenical translations of the Bible, as well as by other publications.
Indeed,
it is clear that on some points differences in the interpretation of Scripture
are often stimulating and can be shown to be complementary and enriching. Such
is the case when these differences express values belonging to the particular
tradition of various Christian communities and so convey a sense of the manifold
aspects of the mystery of Christ.
Since
the Bible is the common basis of the rule of faith, the ecumenical imperative
urgently summons all Christians to a rereading of the inspired text, in docility
to the Holy Spirit, in charity, sincerity and humility; it calls upon all to
meditate on these texts and to live them in such a way as to achieve conversion
of heart and sanctity of life. These two qualities, when united with prayer for
the unity of Christians, constitute the soul of the entire ecumenical movement
(cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, No. 8). To achieve this goal, it is
necessary to make the acquiring of a Bible something within the reach of as many
Christians as possible, to encourage ecumenical translations--since having a
common text greatly assists reading and understanding together--and also
ecumenical prayer groups, in order to contribute, by an authentic and living
witness, to the achievement of unity within diversity (cf. Rom. 12:4-5).
CONCLUSION
From
what has been said in the course of this long account--admittedly far too brief
on a number of points--the first conclusion that emerges is that biblical
exegesis fulfills, in the church and in the world, an indispensable task.
To attempt to bypass it when seeking to understand the Bible would be to create
an illusion and display lack of respect for the inspired Scripture.
When
fundamentalists relegate exegetes to the role of translators only (failing to
grasp that translating the Bible is already a work of exegesis) and refuse to
follow them further in their studies, these same fundamentalists do not realize
that for all their very laudable concern for total fidelity to the word of God,
they proceed in fact along ways which will lead them far away from the true
meaning of the biblical texts, as well as from full acceptance of the
consequences of the incarnation. The eternal Word became incarnate at a precise
period of history, within a clearly defined cultural and social environment.
Anyone who desires to understand the word of God should humbly seek it out there
where it has made itself visible and accept to this end the necessary help of
human knowledge. Addressing men and women, from the beginnings of the Old
Testament onward, God made use of all the possibilities of human language, while
at the same time accepting that his word be subject to the constraints caused by
the limitations of this language. Proper respect for inspired Scripture requires
undertaking all the labors necessary to gain a thorough grasp of its meaning.
Certainly, it is not possible that each Christian personally pursue all the
kinds of research which make for a better understanding of the biblical text.
This task is entrusted to exegetes, who have the responsibility in this matter
to see that all profit from their labor.
A
second conclusion is that the very nature of biblical texts means that
interpreting them will require continued use of the historical-critical
method, at least in its principal procedures. The Bible, in effect, does not
present itself as a direct revelation of timeless truths but as the written
testimony to a series of interventions in which God reveals himself in human
history. In a way that differs from tenets of other religions, the message of
the Bible is solidly grounded in history. It follows that the biblical writings
cannot be correctly understood without an examination of the historical
circumstances that shaped them. "Diachronic" research will always be
indispensable for exegesis. Whatever be their own interest and value,
"synchronic" approaches cannot replace it. To function in a way that
will be fruitful, synchronic approaches should accept the conclusions of the
diachronic, at least according to their main lines.
But
granted this basic principle, the synchronic approaches (the rhetorical,
narrative, semiotic and others) are capable, to some extent at least, of
bringing about a renewal of exegesis and making a very useful contribution. The
historical-critical method, in fact, cannot lay claim to enjoying a monopoly in
this area. It must be conscious of its limits, as well as of the dangers
to which it is exposed. Recent developments in philosophical hermeneutics and,
on the other hand, the observations which we have been able to make concerning
interpretation within the biblical tradition and the tradition of the church
have shed light upon many aspects of the problem of interpretation that the
historical-critical method has tended to ignore. Concerned above all to
establish the meaning of texts by situating them in their original historical
context, this method has at times shown itself insufficiently attentive to the
dynamic aspect of meaning and to the possibility that meaning can continue to
develop. When historical-critical exegesis does not go as far as to take into
account the final result of the editorial process but remains absorbed solely in
the issues of sources and stratification of texts, it fails to bring the
exegetical task to completion.
Through
fidelity to the great tradition, of which the Bible itself is a witness,
Catholic exegesis should avoid as much as possible this kind of professional
bias and maintain its identity as a theological discipline, the principal
aim of which is the deepening of faith. This does not mean a lesser involvement
in scholarly research of the most rigorous kind, nor should it provide excuse
for abuse of methodology out of apologetic concern. Each sector of research
(textual criticism, linguistic study, literary analysis, etc.) has its own
proper rules, which it ought follow with full autonomy. But no one of these
specializations is an end in itself. In the organization of the exegetical task
as a whole, the orientation toward the principal goal should remain paramount
and thereby serve to obviate any waste of energy. Catholic exegesis does not
have the right to become lost, like a stream of water, in the sands of a
hypercritical analysis. Its task is to fulfill, in the church and in the world,
a vital function, that of contributing to an ever more authentic transmission of
the content of the inspired Scriptures.
The
work of Catholic exegesis already tends toward this end, hand in hand with the
renewal of other theological disciplines and with the pastoral task of the
actualizing and inculturating of the word of God. In examining the present state
of the question and expressing some reflections on the matter, the present essay
hopes to have made some contribution toward the gaining, on the part of all, of
a clearer awareness of the role of the Catholic exegete.
ENDNOTES
1. By an exegetical method, we understand a group of scientific procedures employed in order to explain texts. We speak of an approach when it is a question of an inquiry proceeding from a particular point of view. (return to text)
2. Out of 19 votes cast, the text of this last paragraph received 11 in favor, four against and there were four abstentions. Those who voted against it asked that the result of the vote be published along with the text. The commission consented to this. (return to text)
3. The hermeneutic
of the word developed by Gerhard Ebeling and Ernst Fuchs adopts a different
approach and proceeds from another field of thought. It involves more a
theological rather than a philosophical hermeneutic. Ebeling agrees however with
such authors as Bultmann and Ricoeur in affirming that the word of God finds its
true meaning only in the encounter with those to whom it is addressed. (return
to text)