Faith, The Fount Of Exegesis: The Interpretation Of Scripture In The Light Of The History Of Researc
LINK > https://cinurl.com/2t2l13
INTRODUCTION A. The State of the Question Today B. The Purpose of This DocumentI. METHODS AND APPROACHES FOR INTERPRETATION A. Historical-Critical Method History of Method Principles Description Evaluation B. New Methods for Literary Analysis Rhetorical Analysis Narrative Analysis Semiotic Analysis C. Approaches Based on Tradition Canonical Approach Recourse to Jewish Traditions of Interpretation History of the Influence of the Text D. Approaches That Use Human Sciences Sociological Approach Cultural Anthropology Psychological and Psychoanalytical Approaches E. Contextual Approaches The Liberationist Approach The Feminist Approach F. Fundamentalist ApproachII. HERMENEUTICAL QUESTIONS A. Philosophical Hermeneutics Modern Perspectives Usefulness for Exegesis B. The Meaning of Inspired Scripture The Literal Sense The Spiritual Sense The Fuller Sense III. CHARACTERISTICS OF CATHOLIC INTERPRETATION A. Interpretation In the Biblical Tradition Rereadings Relationships Between the Old Testament and New Some Conclusions B. Interpretation in the Tradition of the Church Formation of the Canon Patristic Exegesis Roles of Various Members of the Church in Interpretations C. The Task of the Exegete Principle Guidelines Research Teaching Publications D. Relationship With Other Theological Disciplines Theology and Presuppositions Reguarding Biblical Texts Exegesis and Systematic Theology Exegesis and Moral Theology Differing Points of View and Necessary Interaction IV. INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH A. Actualization Principles Methods Limits B. Inculturation C. Use of the Bible In the Liturgy Lectio Divina In Pastoral Ministry In Ecumenism CONCLUSIONENDNOTESPREFACEThe study of the Bible is, as it were, the soul of theology, as theSecond Vatican Council says, borrowing a phrase from Pope Leo XIII (DeiVerbum, 24). This study is never finished; each age must in its own waynewly seek to understand the sacred books.In the history of interpretation the rise of the historical-critical methodopened a new era. With it, new possibilities for understanding the biblical wordin its originality opened up. Just as with all human endeavor, though, so alsothis method contained hidden dangers along with its positive possibilities. Thesearch for the original can lead to putting the word back into the pastcompletely so that it is no longer taken in its actuality. It can result thatonly 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 forunderstanding human reality.The application of a "profane" method to the Bible necessarily ledto discussion. Everything that helps us better to understand the truth and toappropriate its representations is helpful and worthwhile for theology. It is inthis sense that we must seek how to use this method in theological research.Everything that shrinks our horizon and hinders us from seeing and hearingbeyond that which is merely human must be opened up. Thus the emergence of thehistorical-critical method set in motion at the same time a struggle over itsscope and its proper configuration which is by no means finished as yet.In this struggle the teaching office of the Catholic Church has taken uppositions several times. First, Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical ProvidentissimusDeus of Nov. 18, 1893, plotted out some markers on the exegetical map. At atime when liberalism was extremely sure of itself and much too intrusivelydogmatic, Leo XIII was forced to express himself in a rather critical way, eventhough he did not exclude that which was positive from the new possibilities.Fifty years later, however, because of the fertile work of great Catholicexegetes, Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu ofSept. 30, 1943, was able to provide largely positive encouragement toward makingthe modern methods of understanding the Bible fruitful. The Constitution onDivine Revelation of the Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, of Nov. 18,1965, adopted all of this. It provided us with a synthesis, which substantiallyremains, between the lasting insights of patristic theology and the newmethodological understanding of the moderns.In the meantime, this methodological spectrum of exegetical work hasbroadened in a way which could not have been envisioned 30 years ago. Newmethods and new approaches have appeared, from structuralism to materialistic,psychoanalytic and liberation exegesis. On the other hand, there are also newattempts to recover patristic exegesis and to include renewed forms of aspiritual interpretation of Scripture. Thus the Pontifical Biblical Commissiontook as its task an attempt to take the bearings of Catholic exegesis in thepresent situation 100 years after Providentissimus Deus and 50 yearsafter Divino Afflante Spiritu.The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its new form after the Second VaticanCouncil, is not an organ of the teaching office, but rather a commission ofscholars who, in their scientific and ecclesial responsibility as believingexegetes, take positions on important problems of Scriptural interpretation andknow that for this task they enjoy the confidence of the teaching office. Thusthe present document was established. It contains a well- grounded overview ofthe panorama of present-day methods and in this way offers to the inquirer anorientation to the possibilities and limits of these approaches.Accordingly, the text of the document inquires into how the meaning ofScripture might become known--this meaning in which the human word and God'sword work together in the singularity of historical events and the eternity ofthe everlasting Word, which is contemporary in every age. The biblical wordcomes from a real past. It comes not only from the past, however, but at thesame time from the eternity of God and it leads us into God's eternity, butagain along the way through time, to which the past, the present and the futurebelong.I believe that this document is very helpful for the important questionsabout the right way of understanding Holy Scripture and that it also helps us togo further. It takes up the paths of the encyclicals of 1893 and 1943 andadvances them in a fruitful way. I would like to thank the members of thebiblical commission for the patient and frequently laborious struggle in whichthis text grew little by little. I hope that the document will have a widecirculation so that it becomes a genuine contribution to the search for a deeperassimilation of the word of God in holy Scripture. Rome, on the feast of St. Matthew the evangelist 1993. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger INTRODUCTIONThe interpretation of biblical texts continues in our own day to be amatter of lively interest and significant debate. In recent years thediscussions involved have taken on some new dimensions. Granted the fundamentalimportance of the Bible for Christian faith, for the life of the church and forrelations between Christians and the faithful of other religions, the PontificalBiblical Commission has been asked to make a statement on this subject.A. The State of the Question TodayThe 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 bearswitness that its interpretation can be a difficult matter. Alongside texts thatare perfectly clear, it contains passages of some obscurity. When readingcertain prophecies of Jeremiah, Daniel pondered at length over their meaning(Dn. 9:2). According to the Acts of the Apostles, an Ethiopian of the firstcentury found himself in the same situation with respect to a passage from theBook 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 ofScripture is a matter of private interpretation" (2 Pt. 1:20), and it alsoobserves that the letters of the apostle Paul contain "some difficultpassages, the meaning of which the ignorant and untrained distort, as they doalso 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 thepassage of time. Readers today, in order to appropriate the words and deeds ofwhich the Bible speaks, have to project themselves back almost 20 or 30centuries--a process which always creates difficulty. Furthermore, because ofthe progress made in the human sciences, questions of interpretation have becomemore complex in modern times. Scientific methods have been adopted for the studyof the texts of the ancient world. To what extent can these methods beconsidered appropriate for the interpretation of holy Scripture? For a longperiod the church in her pastoral prudence showed herself very reticent inresponding to this question, for often the methods, despite their positiveelements, have shown themselves to be wedded to positions hostile to theChristian faith. But a more positive attitude has also evolved, signaled by awhole series of pontifical documents, ranging from the encyclical ProvidentissimusDeus of Leo XIII (Nov. 18, 1893) to the encyclical Divino AfflanteSpiritu of Pius XII (Sept. 30, 1943), and this has been confirmed by thedeclaration Sancta Mater Ecclesia of the Pontifical Biblical Commission(April 21, 1964) and above all by the dogmatic constitution Dei Verbum ofthe 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 theacademic value of these studies has been acknowledged more and more in thescholarly world and among the faithful. This has greatly smoothed the path ofecumenical dialogue. The deepening of the Bible's influence upon theology hascontributed to theological renewal. Interest in the Bible has grown amongCatholics, with resultant progress in the Christian life. All those who haveacquired a solid formation in this area consider it quite impossible to returnto a precritical level of interpretation, a level which they now rightly judgeto be quite inadequate.But the fact is that at the very time when the most prevalent scientificmethod--the "historical-critical method"--is freely practiced inexegesis, including Catholic exegesis, it is itself brought into question. Tosome extent, this has come about in the scholarly world itself through the riseof alternative methods and approaches. But it has also arisen through thecriticisms of many members of the faithful, who judge the method deficient fromthe point of view of faith. The historical-critical method, as its namesuggests, is particularly attentive to the historical development of texts ortraditions across the passage of time--that is, to all that is summed up in theterm diachronic. But at the present time in certain quarters it findsitself in competition with methods which insist upon a synchronicunderstanding of texts--that is, one which has to do with their language,composition, narrative structure and capacity for persuasion. Moreover, for manyinterpreters the diachronic concern to reconstruct the past has given way to atendency to ask questions of texts by viewing them within a number ofcontemporary perspectives--philosophical, psychoanalytic, sociological,political, etc. Some value this plurality of methods and approaches as anindication of richness, but to others it gives the impression of much confusion.Whether real or apparent, this confusion has brought fresh fuel to thearguments of those opposed to scientific exegesis. The diversity ofinterpretations only serves to show, they say, that nothing is gained bysubmitting biblical texts to the demands of scientific method; on the contrary,they allege, much is lost thereby. They insist that the result of scientificexegesis is only to provoke perplexity and doubt upon numerous points whichhitherto had been accepted without difficulty. They add that it impels someexegetes to adopt positions contrary to the faith of the church on matters ofgreat importance such as the virginal conception of Jesus and his miracles, andeven 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 theChristian life. Instead of making for easier and more secure access to theliving sources of God's word, it makes of the Bible a closed book.Interpretation may always have been something of a problem, but now it requiressuch technical refinements as to render it a domain reserved for a fewspecialists alone. To the latter some apply the phrase of the Gospel: "Youhave taken away the key of knowledge; you have not entered in yourselves and youhave 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 thinkit necessary to substitute simpler approaches such as one or other of thevarious forms of synchronic reading which may be considered appropriate. Someeven, turning their backs upon all study, advocate a so-called"spiritual" reading of the Bible, by which they understand a readingguided solely by personal inspiration--one that is subjective--and intended onlyto nourish such inspiration. Some seek above all to find in the Bible the Christof their own personal vision and, along with it, the satisfaction of their ownspontaneous religious feelings. Others claim to find there immediate answers toall kinds of questions touching both their own lives and that of the community.There are, moreover, numerous sects which propose as the only way ofinterpretation one that has been revealed to them alone.B. Purpose of This DocumentIt is, then, appropriate to give serious consideration to the various aspectsof the present situation as regards the interpretation of the Bible--to attendto the criticisms and the complaints as also to the hopes and aspirations whichare being expressed in this matter, to assess the possibilities opened up by thenew methods and approaches and, finally, to try to determine more precisely thedirection which best corresponds to the mission of exegesis in the CatholicChurch.Such is the purpose of this document. The Pontifical Biblical Commissiondesires to indicate the paths most appropriate for arriving at an interpretationof the Bible as faithful as possible to its character both human and divine. Thecommission does not aim to adopt a position on all the questions which arisewith 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 contributeeffectively to the task of making more available the riches contained in thebiblical texts. The aim is that the word of God may become more and more thespiritual nourishment of the members of the people of God, the source for themof 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. 2b1af7f3a8