Biblical Scholarship with a Pastoral Purpose
In 1975 when Catholic biblical scholarship had finally come into its own after the Second Vatican Council, Dominican exegete Francoise Dreyfus disturbed the atmosphere of celebration by publishing an article in Revue Biblique entitled "Exegese en Sorbonne, exegese en eglise." According to Dreyfus, pastors and faithful were finding that academic exegesis did not help them to hear and live the word of God found in Scripture. For pastoral ministry scholarly exegesis was as clumsy as trying to use a screwdriver to do the work of a toothpick. Rather than opening the path to Scripture, academic scholarship had imprisoned the Bible's meaning in the past and erected barriers to ordinary believers being able to understand it.
Since then complaints about the pastoral shortcomings of Catholic biblical scholarship have continued to arise. Much of the criticism was directed at historical criticism. In 1993 the Biblical Commission studied the matter, acknowledged the perception that scholarly exegesis was "notable for its sterility in what concerns progress in the Christian life," and concluded that the historical-critical method is necessary but not sufficient. Some exegetes have sought to overcome its limitations by emphasizing synchronic literary methods. Others have proposed new hermeneutical approaches. Still others have advocated recovering the treasures of ancient Christian interpretation. Although these efforts have succeeded at ending historical criticism's hegemony and at opening new perspectives, so far the pastoral payoff has been modest.
Why has contemporary biblical scholarship not been more successful at helping Catholics engage Scripture? One reason that has not received sufficient attention is the fact that the presuppositions, goals, and concerns of biblical scholarship differ, depending on whether it is directed toward the academy or toward the church.
By biblical scholarship oriented to the academy I mean what is taught in university graduate programs, discussed at professional meetings like the Society for Biblical Literature (SBL) and the Catholic Biblical Association (CBA), and what is published in scholarly journals, monographs and commentaries.
By biblical scholarship oriented to the church I mean study, writing, and teaching about the Bible intended to serve the religious needs of a community of faith — for preaching, prayer, catechesis, youth ministry, adult education, and the like. (For space reasons, I will not discuss Scripture study in theological research but will confine my attention to the Church's use of Scripture in pastoral ministry.)
The first difference between biblical scholarship directed to the academy and biblical scholarship directed to the Church's pastoral mission consists in the presuppositions on which each is based.
Through most of the history of the Church, biblical scholarship occurred exclusively within ecclesiastical institutions among scholars who shared a common faith. For the last century or two, however, the most influential biblical research and teaching has occurred at secular universities.
This change of social location altered the discourse of Christian biblical scholars. Charles Conroy, professor of Old Testament at the Gregorian University in Rome, explained at the centenary of Revue Biblique in 1992 why contemporary exegesis tends not to be theological:
It is not that all exegetes are necessarily insensitive to theology; it is simply that they often write in the first place for their colleagues in the international, interconfessional, and inter-religious community of Old Testament scholars.
Today the Scripture faculties of most universities — including those that are church-affiliated — are interconfessional and inter-religious. The professional associations devoted to biblical scholarship have followed suit.
The non-confessional ideal for biblical scholarship goes back to the Enlightenment when scholars sought freedom from ecclesiastical control and the domination of dogmatic theology. They reasoned that studying the Bible with scientific objectivity, freed from all a priori judgments, would enable them to ascertain the truth about the Bible. Subsequently, philosophical hermeneutics has shown the illusory nature of this enterprise, since all interpretation begins with pre-understanding. Biblical scholarship that claimed to be scientific and objective was found to be biased by Enlightenment naturalism and rationalism. Both historical study and biblical interpretation are substantially influenced by the presuppositions on which they are based.
The pastoral ministry of the Church requires that the presuppositions of biblical scholarship correspond to the faith of the community being served. To do otherwise risks subverting that faith tradition by substituting another foundation of belief. Thus biblical scholarship oriented to the Catholic Church is characterized by a commitment to Catholic presuppositions of faith. As the Biblical Commission says in the IBC, "What characterizes Catholic exegesis is that it deliberately places itself within the living tradition of the Church, whose first concern is fidelity to the revelation attested by the Bible" (IBC III.b). The Catholic Church's understanding of the Gospel furnishes the pre-understanding of Catholic exegesis.
The Biblical Commission acknowledges that all pre-understanding brings dangers: "As regards Catholic exegesis, the risk is that of attributing to biblical texts a meaning which they do not contain but which is the product of a later development within the tradition" (IBC III.c.). For example, exegetes ought not attribute to New Testament texts the Christological precision of subsequent church councils.
Vatican II's Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum (DV), provides a baseline of affirmations about the Bible and the ways in which a Catholic pre-understanding of faith guides interpretation. In principle, biblical studies at Catholic seminaries and universities approach Scripture with this pre-understanding of Christian faith. In practice, however, many Catholic scholars and institutions follow the non-confessional approach of the wider academy, often unconsciously.
The second difference between biblical scholarship directed to the academy and biblical scholarship directed to the church consists in the goals to which they aspire.
The goal of biblical studies in the academy could be briefly described as increasing and disseminating the quantity and quality of verifiable knowledge about the Bible, its origins, its literary character, the world of its authors and original readers, and the history of its interpretation and influence.
The aim of biblical scholarship in the Church, however, is salvific and transformative. Scripture describes the goals of teaching the word of God variously as building up the body of Christ (Eph. 4:12), bringing Christians to maturity (Col. 1:28), and leading them to communion (koinonia) with God and with one another (1 John 1:3). When John Paul II officially received the Biblical Commission's The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, he spoke of the role of the Bible in the community of faith: "This meaning [of the Scriptures] is inseparable from their goal, which is to put believers into a personal relationship with God." The Biblical Commission affirmed their religious purpose as well: "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" (IBC, Introduction).
While biblical study in the academy aims at an increase in a body of knowledge, in the Church its aim is to transform people through a relationship with God.
These radically different goals naturally lead to very different concerns in studying the Bible. A few antitheses depict these differences with broad strokes.
The academy is interested in the Bible as a human product, a literary, historical, and cultural artifact. The church is concerned to understand the Bible as divine communication, the word of God.
The academy seeks to understand biblical writings in their original historical context, and often, to reconstruct the history of the events and traditions found there. The church, although concerned for the historical reality of what Scripture attests and for historical context as a clue to the author's meaning, is more interested in the truths revealed in the narrative. Moreover, pastoral ministry interprets these writings in the wider context of the liturgy, Church tradition, and the meaning for Christian faith in the present.
The academy seeks the critical meaning of texts. For the sake of doctrine, the Church seeks something similar yet distinct — the critical theological meaning of texts read in the light of "the content and unity of the whole Scripture," "the living tradition," and "the analogy of faith" (Dei Verbum 12). Beyond this, however, pastoral ministry looks to Scripture as a means of communion with God and welcomes both traditional and contemporary Spirit — inspired actualizations of texts in prayer, preaching, song, devotions and the liturgy. These are not evaluated by strict exegetical standards, as much as by their conformity to the rule of faith and the charity they evoke.
The academy is interested in new methods, the frontiers of knowledge, and the aspects of a text that are most obscure. It employs a technical vocabulary to disseminate its findings as precisely as possible within a community of scholars. Pastoral ministry aims to make the content of Scripture intelligible to everyone, and so aspires to the simplest, clearest and most engaging language available. Although the Church is open to new insights, it prioritizes the matters in Scripture that are clearest and that have stood the test of time. If the academy can be compared to a research laboratory, the Church is a hospital that gives only tested medicines to the sick, a famine relief agency that feeds the hungry only with food that it knows to be safe and nourishing.
These stark contrasts beg qualification. The Church benefits from the historical, literary, philological, linguistic, and archaeological discoveries of the non-confessional academy. At times the academy's discoveries correct or deepen received interpretations. Narrative and canonical methods have discovered much of pastoral value. The personal faith of some scholars in non-confessional settings informs their work even when their teaching publications cannot directly express it. Finally, non-confessional biblical research can demonstrate the reasonableness of the Church's faith to those who do not believe.
Nevertheless, the differing presuppositions and goals of biblical studies in the Church and academy issue in substantially different concerns.
It is perfectly legitimate that the academy and the church have differing orientations to the Bible. Problems arise, however, when the differences in presuppositions, goals and concerns between the academy and the church are not adequately taken into account. Often Scripture courses in Catholic colleges, seminaries and other graduate programs that prepare ministers of the word offer what could be described as "Academic Exegesis Lite."
At the undergraduate level Scripture courses often imitate the example of secular universities. Robert Hill describes this type of curriculum in Breaking the Bread of the Word: "The emphasis in such a program falls on imparting and absorbing information about texts, authors, historical and social contexts. A Bible as Literature program can likewise be conducted without presuming a faith dimension to the study." Hill doubts that this kind of teaching of Scripture leads to the koinonia of I John 1:3.
In graduate programs for future pastoral ministers, knowledge of critical questions, secondary literature, and exegetical methods receive more attention than knowledge of the text and its message. Emphasis is placed on the differences among biblical writings rather than their underlying unity. Scripture and Church doctrine are perceived as separate spheres of knowledge. The unintended consequence among some Catholics is to diminish their estimation of Scripture's importance leading to what Cardinal Ratzinger aptly criticized as "magisterial positivism." Because they have not learned the roots of doctrines in Scripture, they are unable to explain their faith and rely on magisterial documents, as though these had the power to communicate divine life as the inspired Scriptures do.
An academic approach to teaching Scripture leads future ministers of the word to consult commentaries when they write research papers, but, when they prepare homilies or catechesis, to resort to a superficial or subjective approach to actualization. They have not learned a method of Bible study (exegesis) that is practical for use in pastoral ministry.
In a word, the unreflective transferal of the academy's orientation to Biblical studies to the Church's formation of pastoral ministers leads to an isolation of Scripture from theology, spirituality, homiletics and pastoral practice. It is not surprising that some seminarians, future deacons and lay ministers fail to see the relevance of Scripture courses to their future ministry.
For these reasons, those who are involved in the Scriptural formation of clergy and lay ministers must not simply hand on to future ministers of the word what they themselves received in their graduate biblical studies. The same applies to those teaching Scripture for faith formation at Catholic colleges and universities.
What is needed? First, Scripture scholarship directed to a pastoral purpose — whether teaching seminarians or future pastoral ministers at theological schools or providing faith formation to undergraduates at Catholic universities — must begin with an explicit presupposition of Christian faith. Catholic exegesis is a branch of theology, "faith seeking understanding."
Second, Scripture scholarship with a pastoral purpose must develop a hermeneutic and pedagogy shaped by the Church's goals of promoting communion with God, building up the body of Christ, and fostering personal transformation. Such a pastoral hermeneutic and pedagogy, grounded in prayer, begins with a robust faith in Scripture as the word of God and interprets all of life in its light.
Efforts are underway. Thomas Stegman, S.J., of Weston Jesuit School of Theology describes strategies that he and Daniel Harrington have adopted to teaching their introductory class on the New Testament:
[We] make clear that the students' primary text is the New Testament, and we gear their written assignments to their explaining chosen biblical passages to an audience that has no theological background (e.g., an RCIA group; even a friend or spouse). This forces them to wrestle with texts themselves with the help of questions we supply, and only to consult commentaries to confirm that their own conclusions are in the ballpark. We also try to draw threads through the New Testament to make explicit what each writing says about Christology, the church, and Christian discipleship. This . . . allows the unique perspectives of different books to appear, while showing the overarching unity of Scripture. It also helps students to see the connection between their Bible courses and other aspects of their theological training.
Some Catholic publications demonstrate a pastoral approach to biblical scholarship. Scott Hahn, the most widely read Catholic author of popular books on Scripture, ably links biblical theology to Catholic faith and the liturgy. George Martin's new commentary, The Gospel According to Mark: Meaning and Message, presents a wealth of exegetical learning in simple language with questions for reflection that invite readers to apply the text to their lives.
Biblical scholarship that aims to serve the Church must recognize the distinctiveness of its presuppositions, its goals and its concerns. As the Biblical Commission says,
Catholic exegesis should avoid as much as possible [a] professional bias and maintain its identity as a theological discipline, the principal aim of which is the deepening of faith . . . The orientation toward the principal goal should remain paramount and thereby serve to obviate any waste of energy. Catholic exegesis does not have the right to become lost, like a stream of water, in the sands of a hypercritical analysis. Its task is to fulfill, in the Church and in the world, a vital function, that of contributing to an ever more authentic transmission of the content of the inspired Scriptures" (IBC Conclusion).
Dr. Peter S. Williamson serves as Associate Professor of Sacred Scripture at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, Mich. He received his S.T.D. in Biblical Theology from the Gregorian University in 2001. Dr Williamson, a convert to the Catholic Church in 1972, is a married layman who has been involved for over 30 years in evangelization and pastoral ministry. He is the author of Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture: A Study of the Pontifical Biblical Commission's "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" (Loyola Press, 2002) and co-editor with Ralph Martin of John Paul II and the New Evangelization (revised edition, St. Anthony Messenger, 2006).
This item 7426 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
