Vatican II and the Interpretation of Scripture

by Thomas McGovern

Pope Paul VI promulgated the Vatican II dogmatic constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) on 18 November 1965. Chapter III of this document provides us with the most important magisterial statement of the Church on the interpretation of Scripture since Pius XII's encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943).¹ At this remove, and at a time when authoritative voices speak about a crisis in biblical exegesis, it is instructive to recall the hermeneutical principles laid down by the solemn magisterium of the Church at Vatican II for an authentic interpretation of the inspired text.

Over recent decades, there has been an enormous literary output by way of scriptural commentary and exegetical research, indicating a great upsurge of interest in biblical studies. Nevertheless, in many cases the results of these efforts, rather than throw new light on the deposit of Revelation, have cast doubts on basic doctrines of the faith such as the virginal conception and birth of Jesus, Christ's consciousness of his divinity and messianic mission, his explicit foundation of a hierarchical Church, etc.² A contemporary scholar assesses the situation as follows:

Within the last several decades the historical study of the Bible (in its many contemporary forms) has gained widespread acceptance in the Church. So great is its hold on biblical scholarship today that the methods are widely assumed to be normative for all interpretation of the Bible. Biblical exegesis is conceived of as a historical and scholarly enterprise carried on by specialists in ancient languages and literature and, more recently, by scholars of social and cultural history . . . Biblical scholarship has largely become a world to itself, divorced from the Church's theological and spiritual traditions. For most of the Church's history, theology and scriptural interpretation were one. Theology was called sacra pagina, and the task of interpreting the Bible was a theological enterprise. The Church's faith and life was seen as continuous with the Bible . . . With the emergence of the new historical disciplines in the 18th century and the application of these disciplines to the Scriptures, scholars began, unwittingly at first, to construct a new context to take the place of the Church. The aim was to break free of the patterns that had shaped Christian interpretation for centuries. The Bible came to be seen more and more as a book of the ancient world; hence its interpretation was primarily a historical enterprise.³

The rational methods of critical exegesis, including historical and literary criticism, are an integral and important part of biblical science as a whole. These methods are affirmed by Dei Verbum, and are given a particular emphasis in the 1993 document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.⁴ However, it is of interest to note that Cardinal Ratzinger, in his preface to this same document, alerts us to the "hidden dangers" associated with historico-critical exegesis. For example, he points out how the search for the original meaning can put the Bible back in the past completely, distancing it from its current claims on us. Similarly, overemphasis on these critical methods can result in the human authorship seeming to be the real one, while God, the principal author is removed from its reach.⁵ My purpose in this essay is not to examine these human interpretative techniques, which have their own validity. Rather what I propose is to review the broader theological perspective proposed by Vatican II for the interpretation of Scripture, a perspective which, at the same time, defines the limits of the human sciences as applied to biblical hermeneutics.

From a subjective point of view the way the Bible is interpreted depends to a large extent on the presuppositions of the exegete — his perception of the origin, content and purpose of the sacred text, his understanding of what divine inspiration implies, the extent to which he allows himself be guided by the Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church, and the relationship he envisages between scriptural exegesis and the theological enterprise as a whole. In chapter III of Dei Verbum, the conciliar Magisterium has indicated the theological principles to be used in the exegesis of Scripture if it is to be truly an ecclesial task. We will see that it is only when the inspired text is interpreted according to these criteria that there will be real progress in our understanding of the written word of God.

Catholic Hermeneutical Principles in Dei Verbum

Because the Bible is unique in that it is the product of divine inspiration working in the human authors, it is clear that the Scriptures cannot be treated as just another piece of ancient literature, or that the human sciences alone are adequate to penetrate the salvific truth which it contains. The Bible is, in fact, a document that has been entrusted by God to the Church, and thus it cannot be interpreted outside of the living Tradition of the Church, which is its natural context and environment. While the Catholic exegete will avail himself of all that the human sciences can offer to achieve a deeper understanding of the inspired text, he can never forget that his primary task is a theological and pastoral one — the building up of the Body of Christ (Eph. 4.12). As John Paul II has pointed out:

In the church all methods of exegesis must be, directly or indirectly, at the service of evangelization. In recent times we have heard many Christians complain that exegesis has become a scholarly art, with no relationship to the life of the people of God.⁶

While this may not be true in many cases, nevertheless there is cause, the Pope says, for taking it seriously:

Fidelity to the task of interpretation demands that the exegete is not content merely to study the secondary aspects of biblical texts, but that he emphasize the main message, which is a religious one, a call to conversion and the good news of salvation, capable of transforming every person and the whole of human society, introducing it into the divine communion.⁷

Thus if he is to be true to his ecclesial task, in his investigation of the inspired text he will try to find answers to questions like the following: what is the meaning of the text in question in the context of the whole of Revelation? How has it been interpreted by the Church in its teaching and pastoral practice? How does it reflect the life of the Church that preceded its redaction and its canonical acceptance? How does the particular text fit into the Christian vision of things? How ought it be applied to the life of the Christian? If the exegete, depending on the circumstances, doesn't ask himself these or similar type questions, he could hardly describe himself as a Catholic exegete.⁸

Biblical exegesis is not just a historical science but is, essentially, a theological one, in which the exegete as believer takes precedence over any critical techniques. The rational hermeneutic of Scripture is at the service of the faith and not vice versa. As Pope John Paul II pointed out,

Today as yesterday, exegesis must lead to theology and theology must take its point of departure from a continual and updated return to the Scriptures read in the Church.⁹

Since every science is specified by its object and methodology, in theology and, consequently, in biblical exegesis, since its principles come directly from God, the point of departure is always divine Revelation. Like other sciences, scriptural exegesis considers its object rationally, but the data of reason are subsidiary to the primary principles drawn from the faith. God in revealing himself to us manifests himself as the object of our knowledge and love, and by means of supernatural grace gives us the capacity to know and to share in the intimate divine life. Thus the method of theological knowledge is different from that of the other sciences because it demands, in the first place, an initiative on the part of its proper object, i.e., God's revelation of himself. This is followed by the human-rational discourse about God the Revealer, which necessarily requires the constant illumination of supernatural faith.¹⁰

Hence, in theological-exegetical knowledge, the power of argumentation, the evidence of certitude, does not come from the resources of reason (call them literary criticism, epistemology, historical criticism, etc.) but from the resonance of the exegete with the faith of the Church or, more exactly, with the preaching of the Apostles, the deposit of which is to be found in sacred Scripture and in sacred Tradition.¹¹

The point of departure of biblical exegesis is not human discourse about God, but rather the divine discourse concerning himself in inspired human words and actions — above all, in the Word Incarnate, God become man. Biblical hermeneutics, if it is to be authentic, must be grounded on this presupposition. The point needs to be clearly made — the historical-critical methods are very useful, although secondary, aids in the exegetical enterprise. They do not, and cannot, change or modify the faith in any substantial way. Neither do they provide a new, indispensable basis for it, because our faith is grounded on the living tradition of the Church in which Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium complement each other mutually.¹²

Again, these rational methods do not, and cannot, discover anything substantially new about the faith, which we did not know already. To suggest otherwise is to ask the historico-critical sciences to deliver something that ontologically they are incapable of doing. What they can do, in keeping with their scope and methodology, is to help reconstruct the prehistory of the Gospel writings, or the other books of the Old and New Testaments, by means of the study of literary forms, the pre-canonical sources, the redactional techniques of the hagiographers, and the context in which they took on successive literary configurations. But in fact none of these procedures can substantially change the witness of the faith as recorded in the definitive canonical writings.¹³

Content and Unity of all of Sacred Scripture

Let us now turn to the three theological principles articulated by Vatican II in Dei Verbum, to be used in the exegesis of the biblical text. These are as follows: (1) the content and the unity of all of sacred Scripture; (2) the living Tradition of the whole Church; and (3) the analogy of faith.¹⁴

If it is a commonly accepted literary principle that, to fully understand an individual publication of an author, we should bear in mind the content of all his work, it is obvious that the same principle also applies to the study of sacred Scripture. This approach is a direct consequence of the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the Bible. The principal Author of all the books of Scripture is the Holy Spirit, who speaks to us through many human authors over a period of almost a thousand years. As a result, all of sacred Scripture constitutes one book because it is the work of the one Spirit, who brings about one unique economy of salvation. In addition, the content of Scripture is one because in its entirety it gives witness to the good news of salvation centred on Jesus Christ.¹⁵

There is a supernatural unity and coherence about the content of the whole of Scripture that can only be seen from an overall perspective. The salvific truth that Scripture contains has a theological richness that overflows the capacity of any individual book of the Bible to contain, the implications of which are being progressively explicated under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church.¹⁶ Only the Spirit has perfect knowledge of the content of Scripture, whether implicit or explicit; only he understands the integral meaning of every episode and every human author, because, as St Thomas points out, the divine intentionality of the principal Author extends far beyond that of any or all of the human authors.¹⁷

This principle of the content and the unity of all of sacred Scripture not only implies studying texts in the light of parallel passages, establishing points of comparison with regard to the use of language, concepts, etc. It also means that in using this theological principle of biblical hermeneutics, the interpreter, when, for example, he explains a book of the Old Testament, must bear in mind not only the insights he has gained from other books of the same dispensation, but must also view it in the light reflected from the New Testament which records the fullness of Revelation, i.e., the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word. Later in this same constitution,¹⁸ we are reminded of the well-known interpretive principle of St. Augustine: the New Testament lies hidden in the Old, and the Old becomes clear in the light of the New — which is another practical application of this theological criterion of biblical hermeneutics.

Scripture — its own Best Interpreter

Another way of expressing this principle is that Scripture itself, in its entirety, is its own best interpreter.¹⁹ It is the principle used by Jesus Christ when he explains the mystery of the Resurrection to the two disillusioned disciples on the road to Emmaus:

O foolish men and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory? And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself (Luke 24:27).

Christ does not get involved in details about the empty tomb or the credibility of the holy women as witnesses, points which the two disciples had referred to in the earlier part of their conversation with the Master. He shows them that it is only by reflecting on Scripture as a whole that they can begin to understand the significance of the event which had taken place at early dawn on Easter day.²⁰ This is a hermeneutical approach that St. Thomas frequently used.²¹

While the concept of the unity of sacred Scripture as a hermeneutical principle is to be found frequently in the writings of the Fathers of the Church, this would appear to be the first time that it has been articulated as such in a document of the Magisterium.²²

The Living Tradition of the Church as a Hermeneutical Principle

We now turn to the living Tradition of the whole Church as an exegetical principle. The text of this hermeneutical criterion is the result of a number of literary exchanges between the Council Fathers and the Theological Commission during the different sessions of Vatican II.²³ The word Tradition started life with a small "t" in schema III of this conciliar document.²⁴ However, a group of thirteen Fathers petitioned that traditio in schema IV of the text be written with a capital "T," because the text was referring to something more than ecclesiastical traditions alone. In addition, there was a request that this criterion would be expanded to include the phrases sensus fidei Populi Dei (the sense of the faith of the People God) and Patres Ecclesiae (the Fathers of the Church). The Theological Commission proposed an alternative version — vivae totius Ecclesiae Traditionis (the living Tradition of the whole Church), indicating that the concepts sensus fidei and Patres Ecclesiae were to be understood as being included in this revised wording.²⁵ In addition, direct reference to the role of the Fathers of the Church in the interpretation of Scripture would be made in paragraph 23 of the constitution Dei Verbum.²⁶ To this has also been added what is said in paragraph 21 about Tradition, taken together with Scripture, as the supreme rule of faith.²⁷

In the interpretation of any text or document there is always a hermeneutical circle between the text and its context. Every comprehension of a text supposes a precomprehension in the reader that in turn is conditioned by factors external to the text. Tradition as a hermeneutical principle implies a precomprehension made up of the depositum fidei (deposit of faith) as applied to the text.²⁸ In Dei Verbum, we see that Tradition is defined first by its content — doctrine, life and cult,²⁹ but also by its dynamism — 'the Tradition that comes from the apostles makes progress in the Church, with the help of the Holy Spirit'.³⁰ Both aspects are inseparably united.³¹

In response to the sola Scriptura doctrine of the Lutherans, the Council of Trent reaffirmed that the faith of the Church was contained not solely in sacred Scripture but in the unwritten traditions as well.³² Vatican I confirmed the doctrine of Trent on Tradition.³³

There is no substantial change in the Vatican II text, but there is a change of perspective. The definitive text does not speak of two sources, but it does say that sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are a mirror in which the Church contemplates God, and what it is itself. Tradition is not just the past of the Church; it is a vital living projection of it, the preparation of its future life. It is the past insofar as one comes to know Revelation through it, and from it one derives the norm for the present and the future. Tradition is prior to Scripture and this explains why it has to be called on to give a better explanation, especially of the implicit content of Scripturee.

The Analogy of Faith

The analogy of faith is the third principle of Catholic hermeneutics referred to by the constitution on divine Revelation.³⁴ By analogy of faith is understood the mutual harmony of revealed truths, in virtue of which they illustrate one another and thus cannot contradict each other. This rule of interpretation means that in those biblical texts whose meaning has not been declared authentically, neither by the Church nor by the unanimous consensus of the Fathers and Tradition, a Catholic exegete has to follow the analogy of faith. The basis of the analogy of faith is the unity of Revelation. This means that no affirmation of Scripture, whether of the Old or the New Testament, can be taken in isolation, but has to be interpreted within the context of the totality of Revelation. Thus the Catholic exegete, in questions that are open to discussion, has to seek a solution that is in accord with the teaching of the Church.

This rule has always been used by the Fathers. St. Augustine formulates it as follows: In the doubtful passages of Scripture . . . consult the rule of faith which comes from the clearest passages of the same Scripture and from the authority of the Church.³⁵ But it was Leo XIII who solemnly sanctioned and recommended this rule of interpretation. After describing the method to be applied to texts whose meaning has been authentically declared, he says that

in the other passages the analogy of faith should be followed, and Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for seeing that the same God is the author both of the sacred books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can, by legitimate means, be extracted from the former, which shall, in any respect, be at variance with the latter. Hence it follows that all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church.³⁶

In order that the exegete be able to apply this rule of the analogy of the faith properly, he ought to have a sufficient knowledge of theology. Leo XIII was insistent on this point: The professor of Holy Scripture, therefore, amongst other recommendations, must be well acquainted with the whole circle of theology and deeply read in the commentaries of the holy Fathers and Doctors, and other interpreters of mark.³⁷

The analogy of faith is a rule that is negative in orientation to the extent that it prohibits the interpretation of sacred Scripture insofar as it goes contrary to the doctrine of the Church. Nevertheless, it has a positive dimension that is useful for exegetical work. In virtue of the internal unity of Revelation and the knowledge the Church has of it, the analogy of faith allows light to be thrown on a particular biblical text, thus providing a deeper knowledge of its meaning as it con-templates it within the totality of Revelation.

Under this heading the question of the multiplicity of meanings of Scripture arises, an aspect of exegesis to which many of the Fathers devoted attention such as Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, Gregory the Great, etc.³⁸ If all interpretation is an effort to give fuller expression to the divine Truth encapsulated by the written words, it is legitimate, in view of the profound richness of the Truth concerning Christ, to consider that there is no definitive interpretation in the sense that one particular interpretation exhausts the fullness of divine intentionality contained in the inspired text.³⁹ This point of view is given substance by the conciliar constitution when it states that in various ways there is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are passed on, and that, as a consequence, as the centuries go by, the Church is always advancing towards the plenitude of divine truth.⁴⁰

This multiplicity of meaning does not derive from the ambiguity of the words nor the psychology of the hagiographer, but from the richness of the mystery and the reflection of the Truth that the words contain. This Truth cannot be verbalized exhaustively once and for all, but is open to a multiplicity of perspectives.⁴¹ It has been pointed out that there is a reciprocal relationship involved in the dynamic of the analogy of the faith: the living Tradition of the Church helps us by means of its growing understanding of the faith to a deeper understanding of Scripture. On the other hand, an ever renewed reading of Scripture must become the soul of theology⁴² and of Tradition, so that everything in one sense leads us back to the unity of the beginning; but it also leads us on to the fullness of the truth in the hereafter.

The Magisterium and the Interpretation of Scripture

Closely associated with these three theological criteria for the exegesis of Scripture is the hermeneutical principle that the Magisterium is the authoritative interpreter of the Bible. Paragraph number 10 of Dei Verbum outlines, perhaps more penetratingly than in any other previous document of Church teaching, the relationship which exists between Tradition, Scripture and the Magisterium. This is summarized as follows:

It is clear, therefore, that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.⁴³

The point is, however, emphasized that the task of giving an authentic interpretation of Scripture has been entrusted, by command of Jesus Christ, "to the living Teaching office of the Church alone."⁴⁴ The Magisterium of the Church is, at all times, the supreme authority that judges the conformity of its living Tradition with the deposit of Revelation.⁴⁵ Considering then the function of the Magisterium in the transmission and development of Tradition, and given the intimate connection between Scripture and Tradition, it is logical that there would be an intrinsic relationship between the Magisterium and the inspired text. Since Trent, the documents of the Magisterium have very clearly affirmed that it alone has the function of giving an authentic interpretation of sacred Scripture.⁴⁶

We have already referred to the hermeneutical circle, and the fact that every interpretation of a text is influenced by the intellectual presuppositions of the interpreter. He brings all that makes up his precomprehension to bear on the particular text, and what he in turn gets out of the text becomes part of the total comprehension of the interpreter. The same principles also apply in the case of the text of Scripture with the Magisterium as interpreter. However, given the special character of both, the relationship between them will be unique.⁴⁷

The Authoritative Interpretation of Scripture

The history of the magisterial interpretation of Scripture has its roots in the attitude of Jesus Christ to the inspired text. For him Scripture exercises a role of infallible authority in order to know divine Revelation (cf. John 10:35), and as such it has a permanent value (cf. Matt. 5:17). Jesus, however, presents himself as an authority superior to Scripture, not to correct it, but to give it its perfect fulfillment (cf. Matt. 5:21-48). He interprets it with authority, as for example when he shows what is the first commandment (cf. Mark 12:28-34). He corrects the erroneous interpretation of the Pharisees on the question of divorce (cf. Matt. 19:1-9 and par.). He shows that Scripture is orientated towards himself and that it speaks of him (cf. Luke 24:25-27). His authority to interpret the written Word derives precisely from the fact that it is of himself that the Scriptures give witness (cf. John 5:39).⁴⁸

The disciples only achieve a deep understanding of the Scriptures when they are explained to them by the Risen Christ (Luke 24:25-32). The paschal events are the key to the interpretation of Scripture and the teachings given by Christ during his public life (cf. John 2:22). St John's gospel explains why: the Holy Spirit sent after the glorification of Christ leads the disciples into the fullness of truth (cf. John 14:26; 16:13-15).

These data from the gospels are sufficient to show us how, in the process of the definitive revelation of God through Jesus Christ, Scripture is not only a witness to Christ, but so is the very interpretation which Christ himself provides, or which the disciples come to realize through the action of the Holy Spirit. That is to say, although the plenitude of Revelation is given to us in a particular Person, and through certain events, it is united to the perennial witness of the writings and their authorized magisterial interpretation on the part of him who is the very Word of God become man.

After Pentecost we see that the Apostles, in preaching the gospel, also act as authorized interpreters of the Old Testament. There is, for example, striking evidence for this in the discourses of St. Peter⁴⁹ and in the letters of St. Paul.⁵⁰ This interpretation is a fundamental element in the exposition of the message of salvation: everything has happened "in accordance with the Scriptures" (cf. 1 Cor 15:3-4).

Because the Church, to fulfill its mission, has been hierarchically constituted and endowed with a teaching authority, in the proclamation and interpretation of the Scriptures of the New Testament, the Magisterium exercises a specific function: to conserve, defend, and transmit the deposit of Revelation. The Magisterium cannot prescind from the writings of the New Testament, nor do the latter substitute the Magisterium.

If for the authentic interpretation of the Old Testament, the Magisterium can rely on the interpretation of Christ and the Apostles, for the New Testament it counts on the living Tradition of the Church in which the understanding of the mystery of Christ is always increasing. As is pointed out in Dei Verbum, although its authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ, the

Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.⁵¹

While paragraph twelve of Dei Verbum is primarily concerned with articulating the hermeneutical principles which should guide the exegete in his approach to the inspired text, the point is again made that everything said "about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgment of the Church, which exercises the divinely conferred mission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."⁵²

The Role of the Catholic Exegete⁵³

The Council Fathers have, however, defined what was expected of Catholic exegetes:

It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment (ut quasi preparato studio, iudicium Ecclesiae maturetur).⁵⁴

The Church needs the service of exegetes and, for this reason, it specifies at the same time the manner in which it expects this contribution to be made: so that it will facilitate the Church in making a more mature judgment about the meaning of Scripture, because everything related to the interpretation of Scripture is subject, by divine commission, to the judgment of the Church.

An adequate hermeneutic of Scripture requires a valid synthesis between theological hermeneutical principles and the insights of the human sciences. In this context the contribution of John Paul II cannot be understated. His magisterial commentary on the text of Genesis 2-4 and Matthew 5:7 in his catechetical series on the "theology of the body"⁵⁵ is an outstanding example for exegetes of the implementation of the hermeneutical norms of Vatican II. Here the Pope uses the best insights of historical criticism, psychology and anthropology in a theological hermeneutic of these texts that, because of its depth and richness of content, bears comparison with anything that the Fathers have written on this topic.

An outstanding characteristic of John Paul II's writing is his use of Scripture in all his encyclicals and apostolic letters. Biblical texts are used by him not just to bolster a theological point — rather they constitute the very structure and context of his discourses. If we take an encyclical like Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life, 1995) or his letter on suffering, Salvifici Doloris (1984), we see the profound scriptural basis of his teaching. It is a lesson for exegetes and priests about the importance of the inspired word for teaching and preaching.

End Notes

1 The Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC) has, of course, given us its document The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (1993). However the PBC, reconstituted after Vatican II, has no inherent authority since it now functions only in an advisory role to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. While the PBC document makes a useful contribution, it also has its limitations. In this regard, cf. Lewis Ayres and Stephen E Fowl, '(Mis)reading the Face of God: The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church', in Theological Studies 60 (1999), 513-528. This article questions the necessary priority which the authors of the PBC document give to the historical-critical method, and the assumption that this approach to the reading of Scripture can be used objectively without any a priori preconceptions. While the document makes its own valid contribution, one might question the usefulness of its offering liberation theology and feminism as contextual sources for the interpretation of Scripture, sources which are ideological rather than theological.

2 Peter Williamson, 'Catholicism and the Bible: An Interview with Albert Vanhoye', First Things, 74 [June/July 1997], 36; Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, 'Foundations and Approaches of Biblical Exegesis', in Origins, 17 (February 1988), 596, 600; idem, Gospel, Catechesis, Catechism (San Francisco, 1997), 65, 68; Ignace de la Potterie, 'Interpretation of the Holy Scripture in the Spirit in which it was Written', in Vatican II: Assessment and Perspectives Twenty Five Years After (1962-1987), ed. Rene Latourelle, (New York, 1988), 255; idem, 'Reading Holy Scripture "in the Spirit": Is the patristic way of reading the Bible still possible today?', in Communio, 4 (Winter 1986), 315-25.

3 Robert L. Wilken. 'Interpreting the Bible': A response to Interpreting the Bible in the Church, in Catholic International, November 2000, p. 92

4 Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, 15 April 1993.

5 Cf.Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, ibid., Preface, dated 21 September 1993.

6 Address to the PBC, 7 April 1989, in L'Osservatore Romano, 17 April 1989.

7 Ibid.

8 Cf. J. M. Casciaro, Exegesis Biblica, Hermeneutica, y Teologia, Pamplona, 1983, p. 271.

9 John Paul II, Address to the Facultis Catholiques de Lyon, no.4, [AAS 79 (1987) 337-338].

10 Cf. Casciaro, ibid., p.274.

11 Cf. ibid, p.276.

12 Cf. Dei Verbum, no.10.c.

13 Cf. Casciaro, ibid., p.287. In this context it is of interest to note the following point made by John Paul II to members of the PBC: 'Every method has its limitations; it is necessary to recognise them.

This is part of the scientific spirit, which is distinguished from scienticism. If they truly have a scientific spirit, the believing exegetes will be aware of the relative value of the results of their studies, and their modesty, far from harming the influence of their work, will guarantee its authenticity' (Address, 7 April 1989, in L' Osservatore Romano, 17 April 1989).

14 Cf. Dei Verbum, no.12.c.

15 Dei Verbum, no.7.a..

16 Cf. Dei Verbum, no.9.

17 Cf. De Potentia, q.IV, a.1, c

18 Cf. Dei Verbum, no.16.

19 Cf. Augustine Bea, The Word of God and Mankind, London, 1967, p. 207.

20 Cf. my 'The Resurrection: Objective fact or pious delusion?' in Homiletic and Pastoral Review, June 1990, p. 15.

21 Cf. S.Th. I, q-1, a.8, c; In Ep. ad Rom., c. 9. lect. II, no.752; c. 10, lect. II, no.838, c. 14. lect. I, no.1108; Contra Gentiles, IV, 1. My source for these references is M.A. Tabet, 'La Pespectiva Sobrenatural de la Hermeneutica Biblica de Santo Tomas', in Scripta Theologica, 18 (1986), p.184, note 22.

22 Cf. Bea, ibid., pp 205-206.

23 Cf. Acta Synodalia, III-III, pp 274, 278 et passim.

24 Cf. Acta Synodalia,III-III, p. 90.

25 Cf. Acta Synodalia, IV-V, p. 712.

26 'The spouse of the Incarnate Word, which is the Church, is taught by the Holy Spirit. She strives to reach day by day a more profound understanding of the sacred Scriptures, in order to provide her children with food from the divine words. For this reason also she duly fosters the study of the Fathers, both Eastern and Western' (Dei Verbum, no. 23).

27 '[The Church] has always regarded, and continues to regard the Scriptures, taken together with sacred Tradition, as the supreme rule of her faith' (Dei Verbum, no. 21).

28 Gadamer has pointed out that a text can only be interpreted in the context of its historical tradition, and thus confirms the Catholic view that a text of Scripture has to be 'read' in the context of the life of the Church, as this life is manifested in the documents of tradition. Cf. H-G. Gadamer, Truth and Method, London, 1975, p. 238 et passim. Cf. C. Basevi, 'La Funcion Hermeneutica de la Tradicion de la Iglesia', in Scripta Theologica, 18 (1986) pp 162-163.

29 Cf. Dei Verbum, no. 8.a.

30 Ibid., no. 8.b.

31 At the beginning of Christianity, we find a doctrinal totality which is made up of: a) the life and teaching of Christ; b) the interpretation of this latter by the Apostles in continuity with Christ; and c) the 'precipitation' of this interpretation into preaching from which come both the writings of the New Testament and the Tradition of the Church. Therefore any attempt to reconstruct the nucleus of the sola Scriptura (which never existed alone), or the ipsissima verba Christi is pointless since all the New Testament is, to a greater or lesser degree, the verba Christi, and, in any case, it is very difficult to say if a particular phrase constitutes the exact words of Christ (cf. Basevi, ibid., p.163).

32 Cf. Council of Trent Decree concerning the canonical Scriptures (DS 1501).

33 Cf. Vatican I Dogmatic Constitution, Dei Filius, Chapter 2 (De Revelatione).

34 Cf. ibid., no. 12. c.

35 De Doctrina Christiana: 3, 2: PL 34, 65.

36 Cf. Leo XIII, encyclical Providentissimus Deus, EB 109.

37 EB 110. The Pontifical Biblical Commission advised the use of the analogy of Faith in the interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis where the unanimous consensus of the Fathers was lacking — cf. EB 327. Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu recommended the same principle — cf. EB 551.

A few years later (1950) in the encyclical Humani Generis, he condemned a number of erroneous approaches to the interpretation of sacred Scripture, including the fact that biblical scholars 'take no account of the analogy of faith' (EB 612).

38 Cf. M. A. Molina, La interpretacion de la Escritura en el Espiritu, Burgos, 1987, p. 224.

39 Cf. M. A. Tabet, Una Introduccion a la Sagrada Escritura, Madrid, 1981, pp 96-101.

40 Dei Verbum, no.8.b.

41 Cf. Molina, ibid., pp.224-225.

42 Cf. Dei Verbum, no. 24.

43 Dei Verbum, no.10.c.

44 Ibid., 10.b.

45 Cf. Lumen Gentium, no. 25.

46 Cf. DS 1507 (Trent) and DS 3007 (Vatican 1).

47 Cf. G. Aranda, 'Magisterio de la Iglesia e Intepretacion de la Escritura, in Biblia y Hermeneutica, Pamplona 1986, pp. 529-542.

48 Cf. ibid., p. 539.

49 Cf. Acts 2:14-36; 3:11-26, etc, reflecting the primitive kerygma.

50 Cf. Gal 4:21-31; etc.

51 Cf. Dei Verbum, no.10.b.

52 Cf. ibid., no.12.c. Here there is a reference in the text to the Vatican 1 dogmatic constitution, Dei Filius, chapter 2 (De Revelatione): DS 3007, which reaffirms the Tridentine Decree that only the Church has the God-given authority to determine the authentic meaning of Scripture, and that nobody can interpret the sacred text contrary to this sense nor contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers of the Church.

53 Cf my 'Magisterium, Scripture and Catholic Exegetes', in Homiletic and Pastoral Review, July 1991, pp 11-19.

54 Dei Verbum, no.12.c.

55 Cf. John Paul II weekly series of sixty-three addresses given at General Audiences, published in L'Osservatore Romano, English language edition, during the period 10 September 1979 to 11 May 1981.

Reverend Thomas J. McGovern, a priest of the Opus Dei Prelature, is chaplain to Glenard University Residence, Dublin. He holds a doctorate in theology from the University of Navarre, Spain. He has written several times for HPR and is author of Priestly Celibacy Today. His most recent book is Priestly Identity: A Study in the Theology of the Priesthood. His last article in HPR appeared in 2002.

© Homiletic & Pastoral Review / Ignatius Press

This item 6333 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org