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 sile