Catholic Principles

8/12/2019 Catholic Principles

1/13

THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLYPublished by the Catholic Biblical Association of AmericaEditor: Richard J Dillon, Fordham University, Bronx, NY 10458(Manuscn pts of anicles are to be sent to the editor.)Book Review Editors:

r and Qumran: Irene Nowell, O.S.B., Mount St. Schoiastica, Atchison, KS 66002-2778NT and Intertestamental: Amy-Jill Levine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37240(Books for review are to be sent to The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 314 Caldwell Hall The C th rUniversity of America, Washington. DC 20064.) , a Ie

Publishing E d i t o r ~ Christopher T Begg, The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC 20064Associate Editors:

Term 2000 2003

Ilmn 2001-2004

Term 2002 2005

Term 2003-2006

Paul J. Achtemeier, Union Theological Seminary in VirginiaJon L Berquist, Chalice PressBrendan Byrne, S.J., Jesuit Theological College, Parkville, AustraliaLinda Day, Pittsburgh Theological SeminaryRobert A Kugler, Lewis and Clark CollegeSean E. McEvenue, Concordia University (Emeritus)Francis J Moloney, S.D.B., The Catholic University of AmericaMark Allan Powell, Trinity Lutheran SeminaryBarbara Bowe, R.S.C.J., Catholic Theological UnionClaudia V Camp, Texas Christian UniversityCarol J Dempsey, O.P., University of PortlandRalph W Klein, Lutheran School of Theology at ChicagoJerome Murphy-O'Connor, O.P., Ecole Biblique

M a r i ~ n L. Soards, ~ u i s v i I l e Presbyterian Theological SeminaryBonrue Thurston, PIttsburgh Theological SeminaryJerome T Walsh, University of BotswanaA. K. M. Adam, Seabury-Western Theological SeminaryAdela Yarbro Collins, Yale Divinity SchoolMary Rose D'Angelo, University of Notre DameCarole Fontaine, Andover Newton Theological School

W m ~ a m Holladay, Andover Newton Theological School (Emeritus)leslie J. Hoppe, O.P.M., Catholic Theological UnionJean-Pierre Ruiz, St. John's University, JamaiCa, NYChoon-Leong Seow, Princeton Theological SeminaryDavid E Aune, University of Notre DameWarren Carter, St. Paul School of Theology, Kansas CityBeverly R, Gaventa, Princeton Theological SeminaryB:rrbara Green, O.P., Graduate Theological Union, BerkeleyGina Hens-Piazza, Jesuit School of Theology, BerkeleyPeter Machinist, Harvard UniversityPaula M McNutt, Canisius CollegeDavid L. Petersen, Emory University

The Catholic Biblical Quarterly is available in electronic form in Periodical Abstracts, both Research IFull Te xt and e s ~ h II Full Text (University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI). t is indexed in the Catholic

p e n . o d l c ~ l I n d e ~ .. ArtIcles are also indexed in Religion Index One: Periodicals, book reviews in Index to BookReV ews n ReligIOn

. ~ n s t r u c t i o n s ~ o r contributors : articles and book reviews are found in CBQ 60 (1998) 829-56. AreVised list of abbreVIatIOns for periodIcals and series is found in each year's October issue.The editors are not obliged to review or return unsolicited books sent for review.Correspondence about the contents of the Quanerly or about editorial policy should be addressed to th'editor.

C o r r e s p ~ n d e n c e about business matters of the Quanerly (subscriptions. missing issues, defective copiese : ~ h t n g . e s offpnnts, b a c ~ i.ssues, decennial indexes, and changes of address), as well as inquiries about other .p I ~ t J . ? n s of the a ~ s o c J a t I O n should be addressed to the executive secretary of the Catholic BiblicalA ~ s o c l a t l O n of ~ ~ n c a 314 Caldwell Hall, The Catholic University of America, Washington. DC 20064. Thep n c ~ of a subscnptlOn for those who are not members of the association is $30.00 a year. Back issues are $7 50per Issue and $30.00 per volume. Decennial indexes are $2.00 each for vols. 1-10 and 11-20, 3.00 each for'vols. 2 1 ~ 3 0 and 31-4.0. $7.00 for vols. 41-50, and $11.00 for all five indexes together; all orders for them mustbe prepaid, but there S no charge for postage.

Catholic Principlesfor Interpreting ScripturePETER S WILLIAMSONSacred Heart Major SeminaryDetroit, MI 48206

AT THE CONVENTION of the Catholic Biblical Association of America in 1997,Luke Timothy Johnson aroused no small reaction from his fellow exegetes by apaper entitled What's Catholic about Catholic Biblical Scholarship? Accordingto Johnson, Catholic biblical scholarship had changed over the course of the lastcentury from being Catholic, but not very scholarly, to its present condition ofbeing scholarly, bu t not markedly Catholic. Johnson attributed the putative indistinguishability of Catholic exegesis to its embrace of the historical-critical methodwith its monopolistic claims and its Protestant bias against tradition.'

At the following year's meeting of the CBA, Roland Murphy addressed thesame question. Murphy disagreed that Catholics' use of he historical-critical method

leve ls Catholic scholarship with others who use the same method. Instead, hemaintained that Catholic scholar s' self-perception as participants in a living tradition colors their approach to the biblical text 2 Although Murphy's paper offered

I Luke Timothy Johnson, So What's Catholic About It? The State of Catholic Biblical Scholarship, Commonweal, 16 January 1998, 12-16. Johnson presents a revised version of his CBA presentation. along with his vision of the way forward, in Luke Timothy Johnson and William S. Kurz. TheFuture of Catholic Biblical Scholarship: A Constructive Conversation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002).

2 Roland E. Murphy, What Is Catholic About Catholic Biblical $cholarship?-Revisited,BTB 28 (1998) 112-19, here 118. Murphy concludes by denying that the primacy of the historicalcritical method strips Catholic biblical scholarship of its Catholic character. Instead, Murphylocates the distinctiveness of the endeavor in the Catholic exegete's self-perception: The Catholicscholar is an active member of the church, who inherits from the past and works within that 'Jivingtradition' described above; this presupposition colors the approach to the text.

327


2/13

328 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 65, 2003a personal rather than a systematic response to the question What's Catholicabout Catholic Biblical Scholarship?, Murphy suggested that an adequate answermight be found in the 1993 document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission onThe Interpretation o the Bible in the Church. 3

I was encouraged by Murphy's suggestion, since at that time I was in theearlystages of doctoral research the Biblical Commission's document, seekingto :,rllculate and evaluate the pnnclp1es of Catholic interpretation found in it. ThisartICle p r ~ s e n t s the results of that study, twenty principles of Catholic interpretatlOn denved from The Interpretation o he Bible in the Church IBC) that shedlight on what constitutes Catholic interpretation.'

Althou ghtheBi blica l C.ommission's document and these principles are limited to c o n s l d e ~ n g mterpretallon wlthm the Catholic Church, they can be of serviceto non-Catholic scholars as well. First, other Cbristian traditions and to a lesserdegree, Jewishinterpretation share many of the same principles. S e ~ o n d , thesepnnClples proVide a model of uniting scholarly study of a sacred text to religiousfruth and to the life of a community that may prove useful to other communions.Fmally, scholars engaged in ecumenical dialogue or collaboration with Catholicsmay find this summary of Catholic henneneutical principles helpful.1 IntroductionA. The Biblical Commission and Its DocumentThe Biblical Commission's focus was more specific than the sweeping Catholic biblkal scholarsh ip .addressed by both Johnson and Murphy. As the title ofIBC mdICates, theC0n:=sslOn concerned itself with the interpretation of the Bible

n the church, whICh It refers to as Catholic exegesis. Catholic exegesis thusdefined must be distinguished from biblical scholarship by Catholics in secular ormterreliglOus contexts. The Biblical Commission did not take up how Catholicexegetes carry out their work in nonecclesial settings except to affirm that theirwork properly entails contac t with non-Catholic colleagues and with many areasof scholarly research (III.C.a).'It should also be noted that IBC employs the term exegesis in a particularv:ay Common usage employs the term exegesis for scholarly, historical, orhterary n l y s l ~ of texts and the term theology (or other terms) for the explanallon of a text s religIOUS message for believing Christians. The convention is so

:3 Murphy, What is Catholic , 112.. 4 entire study has been published: Peter S, Williamson, Catholic Principles for Inter-preting SCripture: A Study o he Pontifical Biblical Commission's The Interpretation o he Bible in

the C h u r c ~ ( ~ . James Swetnam; Subsidia Biblica 22; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2001). Thebook prOVIdes a fuller exposition of the principles and discusses them in the light of publishedcommentary on IBC, prior magisterial teaching on Scripture, and contemporary scholarly discussionof the issues at stake.

S See Williamson, Catholic Principles. 156.Jorcommentsby Jon D. Levenson and Albert Vanhoye on the work of Catholic exegetes in secular or religiously pluralistic contexts.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 329well established that contemporary authors add modifiers to the tenn exegesisor adopt other tenns when they wish to refer to an exegesis that encompasses thetheological and henneneutical dimensions of the text.6 However, for the BiblicalCommission, exegesis refers to integral interpretation, involving scholarly analysis completed by an explanation of Scripture's meaning as the word of God forCbristian faith.Several factors support Murphy's suggestion that it might be profitable tostudy the Biblical Commission's 1993 document for an adequate answer towhat constitutes Catholic interpretation. First, IBC is substantial, being the longesttreatment of biblical interpretation by an official church document. Second, thetiming was right. The authors of the document were in a position to draw on acentury of Catholic experience and of teaching by the magisterium regarding scientific methods of studying the Bible. In addition, they were able to take into accountquestions that had come to light regarding the historical-critical method, new exegetical methods, and insights from philosophical hermeneutks . Third, IBC was developed by a group of exegetes.7 The Biblical Commission is an international bodyof twenty distinguished Catholic exegetes; they produced a competent work thatwas well received by biblical scholars both inside and outside the Catholic Church.Finally, the pope liked it. Although IBC is not magisterial teaching, strictly speaking,Pope John Paul II received it and endorsed it in an address that emphasized itsconsistency with previous teaching of the papal magisterium on the interpretationof Scripture, giving it quasi-magisterial status.'

6 In this way, Maurice Gilbert ( Exegesis, Integral, in Dictionary o Fundamental Theologyred. Rene Latourelle and Rino Fisichella; New York: Crossroad, 1995] 2 9 1 ~ 9 8 uses the teml integralexegesis to indicate exegesis that encompasses the theological or pneumatic principles that aregiven as essential in Dei Verbum 12. Francis Martin ( Literary Theory, Philosophy of History andExegesis. Thomist 52 [1988] 574-604. here 587) speaks of a total reading when interpretation goesbeyond what the text says, to what the text is talking about, Sandra M, Schneiders (The Revelatory Text: Interpreting the New Testament as Sacred Scripture [2d ed.; Collegeville, MN: LiturgicalPress. 1999] 127) uses integral process of interpretation to include the hermeneutical dimension,which seeks understanding in the fullest sense of the word,

7 The members of the Biblical Commission who approved the final draft of IBC included thefollowing: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, President; Johannes Beutler, SJ. (Germany); Jacques Briend(France); N. Balembo Paul Buetubela (Congo Kinshasa); Brendan Byrne. S.1, (Australia); MarcelDumais, D.M. , (Quebec, Canada); Joseph Fitzmyer, S.1, (United States); Albert Fuchs (Austria); JanLambrecht. SJ, (Belgium); Armando Jorge Levoratti (Argentina); Jose Loza Vera, D.P, (Mexico);Archim, Antoine Mouhanna (Lebanon); Domingo Munoz Leon (Spain); R Jesu Raja, SJ, (India);Gianfranco Ravasi (Italy); Hubert Ritt (Austria); Lothar Ruppert (Germany); Adrian Schenker, D.P,(Switzerland); Giuseppe SegaUa (Italy); Lech Remigiusz Stachowiak (Poland); Albert Vanhoye, S.1Secretary (France); and Jean-Luc Vesco, D.P, (France),

8 In his preface, Cardinal Ratzinger makes clear that the Pontifical Biblical Commission isnot an organ of the teaching office (Preface c, a), However. in an interview ( Modemitlt ateareligiosita post-modema. Il Regno-Attualitii. 1994, no. 4 (1994] 6570, here 67.68), the cardinaloffered this evaluation: The Holy Father was in agreement about the importance o the subject [i.e


3/13

330 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY 65, 2003Some readers interpreted IBC primarily as an evaluation of contemporary

methods, or as a defense of the historical-critical method and a rejection of fundamentalism. These readers may be surprised to see the Biblical Commission 's document mined for its overall approach to Catholic interpretation. Indeed, if thedocument is read through the optic of its first chapter 39 of IBC's 100 pages aredevoted to description and evaluation of exegetical methods and approaches thisis the reasonable conclusion. However, several indicators in the text the document's title, introduction, conclusion, and structure show that the members ofthe Biblical Commission had in mind a larger purpose. 9 One gains a richer andtruer understanding of IBC by reading it through the optic of its third chapter,entitled The Characteristics of Catholic Interpretation. ,

B The Quest for PrinciplesThe aim of my research was to identify, explain, and discuss the principles

of Catholic biblical interpretation found in The Interpretation o the Bible in theChurch. I defined principles of Catholic interpretation as the presuppositionsand procedures appropriate to interpreting Scripture in the life o the CatholicChurch 10Although the Biblical Commission did not intend to define principles ofinterpretation, a careful reading of IBC reveals that the Biblical Commissioncontemporary exegetical methods], which needed a clear word to update the magisterial teaching. Butall, in all. it turned out that the voice of the experts, the theologians, confirmed by the Pope. was bettersUlted to meet the current challenges and new questions. I believe this to be a very interesting model.Theol,ogians [referring to the exegetes who comprise the Commission] speak in all their responsibilityas behevers and pastors of the church, composing a scientific and pastoral work. Then the Holy Father,with a carefully prepared address, confirms the essential points, thus assuming the essence o his text(as opposed to its details) into magisterial teaching [my own translation; emphasis added].

9 lBG's structure is particularly telling, paralleling in some respects that of the Biblical Com-~ s s i o n ~ previous major published document, Bible et christoiogie in Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Scriptureand Chmtology: A Statement o the Biblical Commission with a Commentary [New York Paulist,198.6] . That document begins with a description and evaluation of the current approaches to the

s u b ~ e c t and then offers the Biblical Commission's view of the global witness ofScripture about Christ,WhI h formed the basis of its evaluations of particular approaches. Similarly, after a description andevaluation of exegetical methods and contemporary hermeneutics, the Biblical Commission presentsits perspective in chapter 3, Characteristics of Catholic Interpretation, which provides the inter-pretive key for both what precedes and what follows it.. 10 Idid not attempt to present every principle of Catholic interpretation, but only those expressedmIBG. Many Catholic beliefs about Scripture that indeed function as principles of nterpretation, suchas the Bible's inspiration and inerrancy, were assumed by the Biblical Commission-without prejudiceto future developments-and were not ,treated, In addition, it would be possible to articulate otherprinciples of interpretation depending on the biblical genre and the interpretive aim: for instanceprinciples for exegeting parables or for interpreting the psalms in Christian prayer or for p r e c h i n ~the gospels. Although the Biblical Commission does offer some practical advice that applies to specifickinds of interpretation, this document mainly considers interpretation at a more general level.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 33makes its judgments on the basis of consistent principles. Sometimes these principles are explicit, for instance, when the document provides precise definitionsfor the senses of Scripture. At other times they are implicit, for instance, when itevaluates various exegetical approaches in chapter I and offers reasons for theseevaluations. In still other cases, the Biblical Commission's principles emerge asconclusions that follow from descriptive sections, such as the conclusions theCommission draws from the history of interpretation (chapter 3).I analyzed IBC to identify and formulate its fundamental principles; I supplemented my analysis by consulting published commentary on the document, payingparticular attention to commentary by members of the Biblical Commission. Inorder to make the statement of the principles reflect the pcsition of the BiblicalCommission as closely as possible, I followed the language ofthe document whenever possible. When that was not possible, 1 paraphrased or summarized as carefully as I could. (I have used parenthetical references in the statements of theprinciples to indicate IBC sections quoted or paraphrased.) Finally, I consultedthree members of the Biblical Commission regarding the adequacy of the pnnciples I was in the process of formulating.

II. PrinciplesIn the remainder of this article, I will present the twenty principles of Catho

lic interpretation identified in this study (in italics below), comment briefly oneach of them and conclude with observations about their significance.The t w e ~ t y principles fall under six headings, as indicated in the outlinebelow:

A. The Foundational Principle1. The Word of God in Human Language

B, In Human Language : Catholic xegesis and Human Knowledge2. Catholic Exegesis and Science3. Catholic Exege sis and History4. The Use of Philological and Literary Analysis5. The Contribution of Philosophical Hermeneutics

C. The Word of God : Catholic xegesis and Christian Faith6. A Hermeneutic of Faith7. The Role of the Community of Faith

11 Those I consulted were Albert Vanhoye, Joseph Fitzmyer, and Brendan Byrne. After thestudy was complete. Vanhoye, the Secretary of the Commission, confirmed its interpretation of I ein his preface to the published version, Fitzmyer ( Review: Catholic Principles for InterpretingScripture, Bib 83 [20021 435-39, here 437) agreed that the book succeeds well in identifying,describing, and discussing the twenty principles of the Catholic interpretation of the Bible which arefound in the 1993 document of the Biblical Commission although he took issue with myapproach to the historical-critical method (see n. 24 below).


4/13

332 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY 65 20038. Interpretation in Light of the Biblical Tradition, the Unity of Scripture, and theCanon9. Interpretation of the Old Testament in Light of the Paschal Mystery10. Interpretation in Light of the Living Tradition o the Church

11. The Aim of Interpretation: To Explain Scripture's Religious MessageD. The Meaning of Inspired Scripture12. The Literal Sense13. The Spiritual Sense Typology14. The Fuller Sense

E. In Human Language : Methods and ApproachesIS. The Use of the Historical-Critical Method16. A Plurality of Methods and Approaches

F Interpretation in Practice17. The Task of the Exegete and the Relationship of Exegesis to Other TheologicalDisciplines18. Actualization19. Inculturation20. The Use of the Bible in the Church

A. The Foundational PrincipleThe first principle expresses the Catholic Church 's understanding of the natureof Sacred Scripture.Principle #1: The Word of God in Human LanguageSacred Scripture is the word of God expressed in human language (LA.a).

The thought and the words belong at one and the same time both to God and tohuman beings in such a way that the whole Bible comes at once from God andfrom the inspired human authors (III.D.2.c)P

It is the c.anonical text in its final stage which is the expression of the wordof God (LAA.f).e ~ a u s e it is the word of God, Scripture fulfills a foundational, sustaining,

and crlllcal role for the church, for theology, for preaching and for catechesis.Scripture is a source of the life of aith, hope, and love of he People of God anda light for all humanity (Intra B.b).

Although the Biblical Conurtission chose not to articulate a full-blown theology of Sacred Scripture, the twofold nature of Scripture expressed in the firstparagraph of this principle-Scripture is both the word of God and the words ofhuman beings-underlies the entire document. This principle is based on the

2 Unless otherwise indicated, citations in parentheses refer to sections and paragraphs in heInterpretation of the Bible in the Church. The sections are numbered in accord with divisions in thedocument, and paragraphs within a section are enumerated by lower case letters. Preface, Introand Conclusion refer to sections of IBe. Address refers to the address given by Pope John a ~ lII .on. 23 April 1993 on the occasion o his officially receiving the document from the Biblical Com-tnlSSlOn.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 333analogy between Scripture and the Incarnation of the Divine Word noted byvarious church fathers and mentioned in both Divino affiante Spiritu (37) and DeiVerbum (13).In addition, this first principle identifies the proper object of interpretationin the church: It is the canonical text in its final stage which is the expression ofthe word of God I.AA.f). Merely to explain the sources behind biblical books,or the theologies of these sources, falls short of communicating the Scripture'strue meaning. This principle summons source criticism to show its worth byshedding light on the meaning of the inspired final form of the biblical text.

B In Human Language : Catholic Exegesis and Human KnowledgeThe next four principles treat the ways in which the Bible, because it is the

work of human authors, must be studied like any other ancient text. They explainhow history, literary knowledge, philosophical hermeneutics, and other scholarlydisciplines are essential for valid interpretation.

Principle #2: Catholic Exegesis and ScienceBiblical texts are the work of human authors who employe d their own capaci-

ties for expressiol1 and the means which their age a nd social context put t theirdisposal. Consequently, Catholic exegesi s freely make s use of scientific methodsand approaches which allow a bett er grasp of he meaning of exts in their literary,sociocultural, religious, and historical contexts (IIl.a).

Catholic exegesis should be carried out in a manner that is s critical andobjective as possible.

Catholic exegesis actively contributes to the development of new methodsand to the progress of research (lILa). In this enterprise Catholic scholars colln-borate with scholars who are not Catholic (III.C.a).

English usage usually reserves the words science and scientific for thephysical or social sciences. However, the Biblical Commission uses the terms ina broader sense to refer to any systematic and critical disciplin e of human knowledge. Schol arshi p and scho larl y capture the intended meaning. This principle (following IBC lILa) affirms that Catholic exegesis makes use of scientificmethods and approaches, indicating that exegesis does not belong to any of thosedisciplines but rather employs them as instruments to fulfill its proper task ofexplaining the meaning of Sacred Scripture.

Principle #3: Catholic Exegesis and HistoryCatholic exegesis is concern ed with history because of he historical charac-

ter of biblical revelation. Although the Bible is not a history book in the modern

13 See Williamson, Catholic Principles 37-38.


5/13

334 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY 65, 2003sense, and although it includes literary genres that are poetic, symbolic, andimaginative, Scripture bears witness to a historical reality, i.e., the saving actionso God in the past, which have implications for the present.

Interpretation o a biblical text must be consistent with the meaning expressedby the human authors (II.B.l.g).

Historical study places biblical texts in their ancient contexts, helping toclarify the meaning a the biblical authors message for their original readers andfor us

Although Catholic exegesis employs a historical method, it is not historicistor positivist, confining its view o truth to what can be demonstrated by supposedly objective historical analysis.

This principle identifies three reasons why the study of history is importantto Catholic exegesis: the historical character of Christian revelation, the need forinterpretation to remain faithful to the message the human authors expressed inwriting, and the ways in which historical study supplies the context that makesthe text intelligible.While affirming the role of history and the historical-critical method (see alsoprinciple #15), the Biblical Commission takes a firm stand against two defectiveapproaches to history which it identifies as historicism and historical positivism.By historicism, the Biblical Commission means explaining biblical texts in a waythat confines their meaning to their original historical circumstances (LAA.f;II.B.l.e; II.B.2.a). By historical positivism, the Commission refers to the beliefthat historical study that employs "objective" methods and sources (i.e., not"biased by religious faith") can obtain scientifically accurate historical information about events recounted in the Bible, and that only such historical informationis worthy of credence (ILA.2.c).14 The historical positivist fails to reckon with thefact that every historical report, including his or her own, entails interpretationthat engages the subjectivity of the interpreter.

Principle #4: The Use o Philological and Literary AnalysisBecause Scripture is the word o God that has been expressed in writing,philological and literary analyses are necessary in order to understand all themeans biblical authors employed to communicate their message.

4 This is a subject the Biblical Commission treated in greater depth in 1984 in Bible etchristologie (in Fitzmyer, Scripture and Christology, 6-7; [Ench ib 92223]). On that occasion, theBiblical Commission observed that the objectivity of the historical method is not the same as that ofthe natural sciences, since history concerns itself with human experience, which cannot be verified byexperimentation that produces repeatable results. Experience qua experience can only be understoodfrom within. Investigating human experience confronts the historian with the subjectivity of boththe authors under consideration and the researcher making the inquiry. The historical study of Jesusis an obvious example: it is never neutral, because Jesus' life and message require a decision on thepart o anyone who studies them.

\

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 335Philological and literary analyses contribute to determining authentic

readings, understanding vocabulary and syntax, distinguishing textual units,identifying genres, analyzing sources, and recognizing internal coherence intexts (LA.3.c). Often they help make clear what the human author intended tocommunicate.Literary analysis underscores the importance o reading the Bible synchronically (LA.3.c; Conclusion cod , o reading texts in their literary contexts, ando recognizing plurality o meaning in written texts (II.B.d).Just as it makes use of history, Catholic exegesis makes use of the literarydisciplines normally employed in the interpretation of written texts. This principlerefers to the totality of those disciplines under the heading "philological and

. literary analysis" 15 and describes their role. Literary methods, such as narrativeand rhetorical criticism, demonstrate the value of synchronic study of texts along-side the diachronic perspective of historical study.

Principle #5: The Contribution o Philosophical HermeneuticsRecognizing the role of philosophical hermeneutics is new to documents of

the Catholic Church concerning Scripture. In fact, although BC devotes fewerthan a dozen paragraphs to the subject, what it affirms-summarized in thisprinciple is crucial for the Commission's entire presentation of Catholic interpretation. Hermeneutics is the hinge that joins faith and reason in the exegeticalenterprise.Because interpreting the Bible entails an act o human understanding likethe act o understanding any other ancient writing, it is fitting that philosophicalhermeneutics inform Catholic interpretation.It is not possible to understand any written text without pre-understanding,i.e., presuppositions which guide comprehension (II.A.l.a). The acto understandinginvolves a dialectic between the pre-understanding o he interpreter and the perspective o he text (II.A. .c). Nevertheless, this pre-understanding must be opento correction in its dialogue with the reality 0/ the text (II.A.l.a).Since interpretation o the Bible involves the subjectivity o the interpreter,understanding is possible only if there is a fundamental affinity between theinterpreter and the object o interpretation (II.A.2.c).Some hermeneutical theories are inadequate because o/presuppositions thatare incompatible with the message o the Bible (II.A.2.d).Philosophical hermeneutics corrects some tendencies of historical criticism,showing the inadequacy o historical positivism (II.B.2.c), the role 0/ the readerin interpretation, possibilities o meaning beyond a text's historical setting, andthe openness o texts to a plurality o meaning (II.B.c; Conclusion d).

5 l e prefers the tenn linguistic to philological.


6/13

336 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 65, 2003Because in the Bible Christians seek the meaning of ancient writings for the

present, literary and historical criticism must be incorporated in a model ofinterpretation which overcomes the distance in time between the origin of he textand our contemporary age (II.A2.a). Both the Bible itself and the history of itsinterpretation demonstrate a pattern a/ re-reading texts in the light fnew circumstances (II.A.2.b).

Several points about this principle call for comment. First, the recognitionthat every interpreter begins with a pre-understanding that conditions understandingleads to awareness regarding the various pre-understandings that exist and opensthe door to interpretation that proceeds from Christian faith. Henneneutical awareness can lead interpreters to disclose their presuppositions and can make dialoguepossible among interpreters who start with differing pre-understandings.

Second, the insight that "affinity" between text and interpreter is a conditionfor an authentic understanding suggests the possibility that Christian faith mightbe an advantage for understanding the Christian Scriptures.

Third, although it does not resolve every question, the principle that henneneutical theories and their presuppositions must not contradict the Bible's messageor else constitute an a priori judgment against i t-is useful for eliminating someunsuitable presuppositions for approaching the biblical text, such as atheism, rationalism materialism and so on.

Fourth, the principle that a text can have meaning beyond its original historical setting suggests the value of a tradition of interpretation and opens the doorto the actualization of texts.

Fifth, recognizing the possibility that texts may have more than one meaningaccords well with a long tradition of multiple senses of Scripture.

Finally, recognizing the need for a henneneutic that makes the step fromwhat a text meant then to what it means now summons exegesis to move beyondan archaeological conception of its task. t also confirms the henneneuticallegitimacy of preaching and teaching that apply Scripture to new circumstances andquestions.

C The Word of God : Catholic Exegesis and Christian FaithPrinciples #6 through #11, which are based on Christian faith, articulate the

content that most distinguishes Catholic exegesis from that of the secular academy Christians of other traditions as well as believing Jews would share some ofthese principles of interpretation.

At the outset of IBC' s important chapter on the characteristics of Catholicinterpretation (chapter 3), the Biblical Commission summarizes its position thisway: What characterizes Catholic exegesis is that it deliberately places itself

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 337within the living tradition of the Church, whose first concern is fidelity to therevelation attested by the Bible" ( II.b).

Principle #6: A Hermeneutic of FaithBiblical knowledge cannot stop short at an understanding of words, con-cepts, and events. It must seek to arrive at the reality of which the language

speaks, a transcendent reality, communication with God (II.A.l.d).Reason alone is not able to comprehend fully the events and the messagerecounted in the Bible. n order truly to understand the Bible one must welcomethe meaning given to the events, above all, in the person of Jesus Christ (II.A.2.d).Because the Bible is the word of God it must be approached in the light of aithin order to be properly understood. Therefore, exegesis is a theological discipline.

The light of the Holy Spirit is needed to interpret Scripture correctly. ssomeone grows in the life of the Spirit, his or her capacity to understand therealities of which the Bible speaks also grows (II.A2.f).

The pre-understanding that properly accompanies Catholic interpretation isnot merely unthematized belief, but r ather the fullness of Catholic faith. 16 Doesthis mean that the Catholic exegete has his or her conclusions predetermined, forinstance, by the Catechism? No. According to the Biblical Commission,

All pre-understanding brings dangers with it. As regards Catholic exegesis therisk is that of attributing to biblical texts a meaning which they do not contain butwhich is the product of a later development within the tradition. The exegete mustbe aware of such a danger. lBe. IlI.c)

Diachronic study enables an interpreter to distinguish levels of meaning a s s o c i ~ated with a text. Speaking more broadly, the fact that pre-understanding is inevitable does not mean that one's presuppositions detennine one's conclusions.Philosophical henneneutics recognizes a henneneutic spiral as the interpreterengages the text. Scholarly integrity requires that conclusions regarding a text'smeaning be able to be verified in the text.

Principle #7: The Role of the Community of FaithThe believing community, the People of God, provides the truly adequate

context for interpreting Scripture (I.C.I.g). Scripture took shape within the tradi-tions of faith of Israel and the early church and contributed, in turn, to thedevelopment of their traditions (III.A.3.f).The Scriptures belong to the entire church (III.B.3.i) and all of he membersof the church have a role in the interpretation of Scripture (III.B.3.b). People oflowly status, according to Scripture itself, are privileged hearers of the word ofGod (JlI.B.3.f).

16 See Williamson Catholic Principles 9 7 ~ 9 9 105.


7/13

338 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY 65, 2003Various special roles in interpretation belong to clergy, catechists, exegetes,and others (Ill.B.3.i). Church authority is responsible to see that interpretationremains faithful to the Gospel and the great tradition, and the magisterium exercises a role o inal authority i occasion requires it (I.C.I.g).This principle affinns that the church is not an inferior context for discovering the genuine meaning of Scripture, but is rather the privileged context for

understanding it, since Scripture and the church are intrinsically linked." t isnoteworthy that IBC does not confine the interpretation of Scripture to elitegroups, either clerical or scholarly. Scripture belongs to all, and the poor are itsprivileged addressees. The magisterium's function is not to set itself betweenScripture and the people of God, but rather to render authoritative judgments asthe need arises.

Principle #8: Interpretation in Light o the Biblical Tradition, the Unityo Scripture, and the CanonCatholic exegesis seeks to interpret the Sacred Scripture in continuity withthe dynamic pattern o interpretation found within the Bible itself. In the Bible,later writings often depend on earlier texts when their authors re-read what hadbeen written before in light o new questions and circumstances (III.A.I.a). Catholic exegesis seeks both to befaithful to the understanding offaith expressed in theBible and to maintain dialogue with the generation o today (III.A.3.h).Catholic exegesis recognizes the essential unity of Scripture which en omwpasses differing perspectives (III.A.2.g), yet presents an array o witnesses to onegreat tradition (I.C.a; III.A.a).Catholic exegesis interprets individual texts in the light o the whole canon

o Scripture (I.C.b; IIl.D.4.b).This principle affinns that the way that Scripture interprets itself sheds lighton how Scripture is to be properly interpreted, particularly in the way it re-readssome texts later in new circumstances. The unity of Scripture, which provides thebasis for interpreting Scripture in light of the canon, is grounded both in its

internal literary relations and in its divine inspiration. Nevertheless, this unityembraces diversity: One of the characteristics of the Bible is precisely theabsence of a sense of systematization and the presence, on the contrary, of thingsheld in dynamic tension" (1II.A.2.g).Principle #9: Interpretation o the Old Testament in Light o the PaschalMysteryThe church regards the Old Testament as inspired Scripture, faitlifully con

veying God's revelation (III.A.2.a; III.B. 'b).17 In discerning the canon o Scripture, the Church was also discerning and defining her own

identity. Henceforth Scripture was to function as a mirror in which the Church could continuallyrediscover her identity and assess, century after century, th way in which she constantly responds tothe gospel and equips herselfto be an apt vehicle o its transmission (cf. ei Verbum 7) (III.B.1.e).

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 339The New Testament interprets the Old Testament in the light o the paschal

mystery (I.e. .i). Jesus' life, death, and resurrection fulfill the Old TestamentScriptures (III.A.2.a). Jesus' own interpretation o the Old Testament and that othe Apostles, expressed in the New Testament under the inspiration o the Spirit,are authoritative, even i some o the interpretive procedures employed by NewTestament authors reflect the ways o thinking o a particular period o time(III.A.2.f).Christians do not limit the meaning o the Old Testament to the ways inwhich it prepares for the coming o Christ. Rather, the church esteems the canonical interpretation o he Old Testament before the Christian Passover as a stagein the history o salvation (I.e.I.i). Christians continue to draw sustenance fromthe inspired message o the Old Testament (I1I.A.2.e).

One of the prime instances of the way Scripture's interpretation of itselfproperly guides Christian interpretation is the high esteem with which the NTregards the OT Scriptures, and the way NT authors interpret the OT Here, it isimportant to affinn both what is unique about the Christian interpretation of theJewish Scriptures-interpreting them in light of the incarnation, life, death, andresurrection of Jesus-and the value for Christian life of their original canonicalsense. The most recent document of the Biblical Commission, The Jewish Peopleand Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible, illustrates this appreciation ofboth levels of OT interpretation in its second section, "Fundamental themes in theJewish Scriptures and-their reception into faith in Christ" (19-65).

Principle 10: Interpretation in Light o the Living Tradition o theChurchCatholic exegesis deliberately places itself within the stream o the living

tradition o he church (III.b) and seeks to befaithful to the revelation handed onby the great tradition, o which the Bible is itself a witness (Conclusion e).Within this living tradition, the fathers o the church have a foundational

place, having drawn from the whole o Scripture the basic orientations whichshaped the doctrinal tradition o the church, and having provided a rich theological teachingfor the instruction and spiritual sustenance ofthefaithful (III.B.2.b).However Catholic exegesis is not bound by thefathers' exegetical methods (II.B.2.h;III.B.2.k).What is the proper role of the fathers of the church in Catholic interpretation?The Council of Trent had declared that no one [should] dare to interpret theScripture in a way contrary to the unanimous consensus of the Fathers" (DS1507). Yet Pius XII acknowledged, "There are but few texts about which theteaching of the Fathers is unanimous" (DS 3831). Critical exegetes rejected theallegorizing method of many of the fathers. Recent years, however, have witnessed a revived interest in patristic interpretation, sometimes in reaction to aperceived barrenness in much historical-critical exege sis.


8/13

340 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 65, 2003The Biblical Commission responded by identifying the fathers' conttibution

as threefold: defining the canon of Scripture, drawing the church's basic docttinalorientations from Scripture (e.g., in Christology), and providing biblical interpretation which is theologically rich and spiritually sustaining. The Commissionpraises the fathers for their example of pastoral actualization in accomplishing thelast of these. At the same time, the Conunission criticizes exegetical practicespresent in some patristic interpretation, namely, allegorization and a failure togive due weight to texts' historical and literary contexts.

Principle #11: The Aim of Interpretation: To Explain Scripture sReligious MessageThe primary aim of Catholic exegesis is to explain the religious message of

the Bible i.e. its meaning as the word which God continues to address to thechurch and to the entire world (IV.a; IlI.C. 'b). The ultimate purpose of Catholicexegesis is to nourish and build up the body of Christ with the word of God.

This principle highlights the religious and pastoral mission of biblical inter-pretation in the church:

Catholic exegesis should, . , maintain its identity as a theological discipline [emphasis original], the principal aim of which is the deepening of faith In the organization of the exegetical task as a whole, the orientation toward the principal goalshould remain paramou nt. Its task is to fulfill, in the Church and in the world, avital function, that of contributing to an ever more authentic transmission of thecontent of the inspired Scriptures. (Conclusion e)18

The social location of exegesis in the interreligious and interconfessional academy tends to suppress these elements, posing a serious obstacle to the fulfillmentof the purpose of Catholic exegesis. l

This principle suggests a useful question for evaluating interpretations: Howdoes the given interpretation reveal the meaning of a text as the word of God forChristian faith? Regularly posing this question can help Catholic exegetes keeptheir goal in view.

18 Pope John Paul II stressed this point in his address on the occasion of receiving IBC: Indeed,[the true meaning of the Scriptures] is inseparable from their goal, which is to put believers into apersonal relationship with God (Address 11; see also 10). The logic is simple. The purpose of Scripture is to communicate a religious message; it follows that the goal of exegesis is to relay that samemessage.

19 Charles Conroy ( Reflections on the Present State of Old Testament Studies, Greg 73[1992] 597-609, here 598-99) commented on the change in social location of OT studies since thefounding of the Revue biblique ahundred years earlier: This may help to explain why many exegetical writings do not seem to be very theological in character. It is not that all exegetes are necessarilyinsensitive to theology; it is simply that they often write in the first place for their colleagues in theinternational, interconfessional, and inter-religious community of Old Testament scholars.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 34D The Meaning of Inspired ScriptureThe next three principles describe the various senses o Scripture. Ancient

exegesis recognized more than one level of meaning in Sacred Scripture. Amongthe fathers of the church, the distinction between the literal and the spiritual senseswas the most common (ILB.a). Medieval exegesis accepted Cassian's fourfoldsense of Scripture, the literal (or historical), the allegorical, the moral (or tropological), and the anagogical. The last three were recognized as spiritual senses.Historical criticism reacted to this exegesis, which sometimes seemed arbitrary orsubjective (ILB.b). The classic historical-critical method admitted the possibilityof only a single meaning. that of the author's intention conceived within thecircumstances that produced the text.According to the Biblical Commission, the thesis of only one meaning has"run aground" (ILB.c) because of developments in both philosophical hermeneutics and theories of language. The Conunission insists on the presence o awealth of meaning, affirming the existence of two primary senses of inspiredScripture, the literal and the spiritual. A third sense of Scripture, the fuller sense,is categorized as a particular subtype of the spiritual sense.

Principle #12: The Literal SenseThe literal sense of Scripture is that which has been expressed directly by the

inspired human authors. Since it is the fruit o inspiration this sense is alsointended by God, as principal author. One arrives a t this sense by means of acareful analysis of the text within its literary and historical context (ILB. .c).

The literal meanings of many texts possess a dynamic aspect that enablesthem to be re-read later in new circumstances (II.B. .e).The novelty of IBC s approach to the literal sense is twofold. First, by definingthe literal sense as "that which has been expressed directly by the human author,"the Commission avoids the problem of locating meaning in an intention of theauthor to which we have no sure access apart from the text itself. One commentatordescribed this refinement of the definition of the literal sense as a change fromintentio auctoris to expressio auctoris. 2 Second, the recognition that the literalsense of many texts possesses a "dynamic aspect" invites exegetes to consider thedirection of thought or potential extension of meaning in a text, thus opening upthe literal sense to valid re-readings. BC gives the example of the royal psalms,which evoke at one and the same time both the institution as it actually was andan idealized vision of kingship as God intended it to be (ILB. .e). Commission

2 The new formulation integrates the literal sense within a wider conception of the text asobjective communication of meanings not all of which are necessarily, always, and completely tiedto the conscious awareness [of the author] (Roberto Vignolo. Questioni di ermeneutica, in L inter-pretazione della Bibbia nella Chiesa [ed. Giuseppe Ghiberti and Francesco M osetto; Percorsi e traguardi biblici; Leumann (Thrin); Elledici, 1998] 261-98, here 282-83).


9/13

342 THE CATHOLIC BffiLiCAL QUARTERLY I 65, 2003member Brendan Byrne explains this dynamic aspect of the literal sense bymeans of an analogy: it is like the conical beam of a flashlight which grows widerthe farther it shines from its point of origin. 2

Principle #13: The Spiritual Sense, TypologyThe spiritual sense of Sacred Scripture is the meaning expressed by the

biblical texts when read under the influence of the Holy Spirit in the context ofthe paschal mystery and of the new life which flows from it (II.B.2.b).

The spiritual sense is always founded on the literal sense. A relationship ofcontinuity and conformity between the literal and the spiritual sense is necessaryin order for the literal sense of an Old Testament text to be fulfil led at a higherlevel in the New (II.B.2.e).

Typology is an aspect of the spiritual sense (II.B.2.i).IBC's reaffirmation of the validity and necessity of the spiritual sense is

striking, since this is an aspect of biblical meaning that has been neglected by themajority of exegetes for many years. The Biblical Commission proposes theexample of 2 Sam 7:12-13, God's promise to David through the prophet Nathanthat he will raise up one of his sons to be king and will establish the throne of thisson's kingdom forever. Viewed in its historical context, this seems to be prophetichyperbole. But now, in light of the paschal event, this text must be taken to referliterally to Christ, the son of David, who will reign forever. The spiritual senserefers in large part (though not exclusively) to the christological sense, thus to theways in which Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament Scriptures.

The spiritual sense is not simply a meaning read into the Bible, but a meaningthe texts themselves express when read in the light of the realities to which Christian faith attests. t is not a Usoft sens e o meaning: The spiritual sense is notto be confused with subjective interpretations stemming from the imagination orintellectual speculation. The spiritual sense results from setting the text in relationto real facts , namely, the death and resurrection of Jesus (II.B.2.f).22 t isfounded on the literal sense.Those who have been calling for a recovery of the spiritual sense of Scripturemay not be completely satisfied with the Biblical Commission's modest andrestrained treatment of this important aspect of biblical meaning. But they shouldbe pleased that a commission comprised of twenty critically trained exegetes has

21 Conversation with the author, 9 August 1999,22 In his address, Pope John Paul T also stressed the objectivity o the spiritual sense with

reference to the enCYClical Divino aiflante Spiritu of Pius XII: The spiritual sense must offer proofo its authenticity. A merely subjective inspiration is insufficient. One must be able to show that it isa sense 'willed by God himself,' a spiritual meaning 'given by God to the inspired text EnchBib55253). Detennining the spiritual sense then, belongs itself to the realm o exegetical science(Address 5).

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 343reaffirmed the church's tradition of the spiritual sense and has proposed a newdefinition that can serve at least as a starting point for further discussion.

Principle #14: The Fuller SenseThe fuller sense (sensus plenior) is a deeper meaning of the text, intended

by God but not clearly expressed by the human author (II.B.3.a). t has itsfoundation in the fact that the Holy Spirit, the principal author of the Bible, canguide human authors in the choice of expressions in such a way that the latter willexpress a truth the fullest depths of which the authors do not perceive (II.B.3.c).

The existence of fuller sense to a biblical text can be recognized when onestudies the text in the light of other biblical texts or authoritative doctrinal traditions which utilize it (II.B.3.a).BC's brief section of the fuller sense is noteworthy, since it is the firstacknowledgment by a church document of the sensus plenior, first proposed in theearly twentieth century. To illustrate its definition of the fuller sense, the BiblicalCommission offers the example of Isa 7:14, which is then interpreted by Matt1:22-23. In the original context of the prophecy, Isaiah refers to the birth of a childin the eighth century B.C.; Matthew indicates that God had a deeper purpose inthe words spoken than the prophet himself realized. The Biblical Commissionunderstands the fuller sense as a special variety of the spiritual sense, when thedifference is more pronounced between a text's literal sense and its subsequentinterpretation in light of the paschal mystery.

E "In HU U n Language": Methods and ApproachesThe question about methods, and especially the historical-critical method, is

what led the Biblical Commission to take up the broader questionof interpretationin the church. The next two principles embody their fundamental conclusions.Principle #15: The Use of the Historical-Critical MethodThe historicalcritical method is the indispensable tool o scientific exegesis

to ascertain the literal sense of a text in a diachronic manner (I.AA.g; l.A.a).In order for this task to be completed, it must include a synchronic study ofthe final form of the text, which is the expression of the word of God (l.AA.f).The historical-critical method can and must be used without philosophicalpresuppositions contrary to Christian faith (I.AA.b-c).Despite its importance, the historical-critical method cannot be granted amonopoly and exegetes must be conscious o its limits. Exegetes must recognizethe dynamic aspect of meaning and the possibility that meaning can continue todevelop (Conclusion d).Many readers interpreted IBC as an unqualified endorsementof the historicalcritical method. However, my research shows that the Biblical Commission's


10/13

344 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 65, 2003document recognizes valid criticisms and, in some important ways, redefines and

redimensions the historical-critical method that it endorses. Commission members Albert Vanhoye and Brendan Byrne confirmed that this was intentional.23

The properly oriented approach to the historical-critical method that theBiblical Commission recommends is one that 1) defines the object of historicalcritical study in a particul ar manner, 2) excludes errors for which the method hasbeen known--e.g., historicism, historical positivism, neglect of the final text, andpresuppositions inconsistent with the message of Scripture-and (3) places thehistorical-critical method in the context of a Catholic hermeneutic, which thetwenty principles pr oposed he re se ek to specify.24

Principle #16: A Plurality of Methods and ApproachesCatholic exegesis is characterized by openness to a plurality ofmethods and

approaches. Although the historical-critical method retains its primacy, literarymethods and approaches bas ed on tradition, the social sciences, r particularcontemporary contexts can yield important insights into the meaning of the biblical word. However, the value of hese insights will correspond to their harmonywith the fundamental principles which guide Catholic interpretation.

IBC was almost universally praised for its openness, that is, its recognitionthat a wide variety of exegetical methods or approaches contributes to Catholicinterpretation. Literary methods such as narrative analysis, rhetorical analysis, andsemiotic analysis can have their place alongside the traditional historical-criticalmethod. Likewise, approaches based on tradition-such as the canonical approach,

3 Commission member Brendan Byrne (in an email message to the author, 8 December 1999)considers one of the most significant features of the document to be its relativization of the

h i s t o r i c a l ~ c r i t i c a l method, while insisting on its necessity and, indeed, according it a place of r i v i ~lege. Vanhoye ( L'interpretazione della Bibbia nella Chiesa: Riflessione circa un documento dellaCommissione Biblica, Civilta Cattolica 145, n. 3457 [1994] 1 2 ~ 1 3 acknowledges that the documentintends to defend the h i s t o r i c a l ~ c r i t i c a l method from those who would reject it, but also, he adds, todefend the method against its own temptations, namely, historicism and getting lost in the sands ofhypercritical analysis lBC, Conclusion, e), In an interview Vanhoye comments, The document asa whole 'redimensions' the position and function of the h i s t o r i c l ~ c r i t i c l method, affirming its value,but denying its sufficiency (Peter S. Williamson, Catholicism and the Bible: An Interview withAlbert Vanhoye, First Things 74 {1997] 35-40, here 38).

24 See Williamson, Catholic Principles, 231 35, for a fuller description of the approach to theh i s t o r i c a l ~ c r i t i c a l method the Commission recommends. Joseph Fitzmyer ( Review: Catholic Prin-ciples, 438-39) confirms the accuracy of the book's presentation of the Commission's position, buthe detects a dislike of the method in my introduction (see Catholic Principles, 7). He also rejectswhat he takes to be my view that the h i s t o r i c a l ~ c r i t i c a l method is not per se neutral and cannot yieldobjective results. I believe Fitzmyer has misunderstood my position. The Biblical Commission's'document convinced me that the problem is not the use but the misuse of the method, above all thefailure to employ it as part of a hermeneutic grounded in Christian faith. Nevertheless, I criticized thedocument for failing to make an adequate distinction between the approach to the historical-criticalmethod that the Commission endorses and some problematic approaches that continue to enjoy widecurrency (see Catholic l?rinciples, 236-48,251-52),

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 345the use of Jewish traditions of interpretation, and the study of the history of theinfluence of the text-as well as methods based on the social sciences all holdvalue. Finally, approaches th at begin with the social situation of the readers, suchas liberationist and feminist interpretation, arrive at genuine insights into the bIblical word as they pose questions arising from specific experiences. Yet, eachdiscipline must respect the limits of its competence (e.g., psychoanaly sis of anatheistic nature disqualifies itself from giving proper consideration to the dataoffaith [l.D.3.e.]). Likewise, liberationist and feminist approaches must not allowideology to control the interpretation of the biblical word.

F Interpretation n PracticeThe final four principles, principles ##17-20, pertain to the practiceof inter

pretation in the church. Important among these is IBe s treatment of the task ofthe exegete.

Principle #17: The Task of the Exegete and the Relationship of Exegesisto Other Theological DisciplinesThe task of the Catholic exegete is both a work of scholarship and an

ecelesial service (III.C.a). Because sound interpretation requires a lived affinitywith what is studied and with the light of he Holy Spirit, full participation in thelife and faith of the believing community (III.A.3.g) and personal prayer arenecessary (Address 9). .The primary task of he exegete is to determine as accurately as poss,ble themeaning of biblical texts in their own proper context, that is, first of all in theirparticular literary and historical context, and then in the context of the w,dercanon of Scripture (IIl.DA.b).Catholic exegetes arrive t the true goal of their work only when they haveexplained the meaning of the biblical text as God s ' .ord for today (III.C.l.b).Exegetes should also explain the christological, canonzcal, and eccleszal contentof biblical texts (III.C.l.c).Exegesis is a theological discipline that exists in a relationship of dialoguewith other branches of theology (III.D.a).This principle summarizes elements of the Biblical Commission's t ~ c h i n gthat bear directly on the question Johnson and Murphy addressed regardmg thenature of Catholic biblical scholarship. The first paragraph maintains that the bestvantage point for interpreting Scripture is not that of the ?bjective o?tsider butis, rather, the view from the heartof the Christian commumty and the hfe of faIth.The second paragraph makes clear that Catholic exegesis does not content Itselfwith the historical and literary context, as secular studies might, but ascertainsmeaning in light of the whole canon of Scripture. The third paragraph affirm s thatit properly belongs to exegetes-not only to theologians, preachers, and catechiststo explain the contemporary and theological meaning of the text, mcludmg thechristological, canonical, and ecclesial significance.


11/13

346 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 65, 2003Principle #18: ActualizationThe ~ h u r c h receives the Bible as the word ofGod addressed both to itselfandto th: entire world at the pres:nt time (IVa), Actualization is possible because of

the r l c h ~ e s s of meamng contamed zn the biblical text; and it is necessary becausethe S C r l p t u r ~ was composed in response to circumstances of the past and inlanguage suzted to those circumstances (IVA, I.b-c),A ~ t ~ a l i z ~ t i o ~ presupposes a correct exegesis of a text part oj which is

d e t e r ' . l ~ l n g Its lzteralsens: (IV.A.2.e), The most reliable andfruiiful method ofa c t ~ a l ~ z z n g S C ~ l p t u r e lS to l ~ t e r p r e t cnpture by Scripture. The actualization ofa blblzcal text n ChrIstian life proceeds in relation to the mystery of Christ andthe church (IV.A.2,f),

Actualization involves three steps: 1) hearing the Word from within one sown concrete ~ i t u a t i o n ; (2) identifying the aspects of the present situation high-lzghted or put n question by the biblical text; and 3) drawing from the fullnessof e a n z ~ g c o m a z ~ e d in the biblical text those elements capable of advancing thepresent sltuatlOn ln a way that is productive and consonant with the saving willof God in Christ (IVA,2.g).

The Biblical Commission's section on actualization was widely noted andapplauded. IBC was the first church document on the Bible to use the term actualiz.ation, which means ~ n d e r s t a n d i n g the meaning of Scripture for today, PrecntICal e ~ e r a t i o n s actualIzed Scnpture-i.e read it in light of their circumstances

a ~ d q ~ e s t i o n s - u n c o n s c i o u s l y , without an awareness of the distance between thes l t u a ~ o n addressed by the text and their own. The need for the concept of actualIzatlOn anses from the dlstancmg of the biblical word that follows historicalconS lOusness and the use of historical methods.

, lBC teaches that to be valid, actualization cannot be arbitrary but must accord';lth the gUidelmes expressed in the second paragraph of this principle, All Christians called to actualize Scripturefor themselves. While pastoral actualizationapplymg Scnpture to contemporary circumstances-belongs to preachers andcatechists rather than exegetes, good exegesis is oriented toward and preparesthe way for actualization,

Principle #19: InculturationThe foundation of inculturation is the Christian conviction that the word ofGod transcends the cultures in which it has found expression. The word of God

can and must be communicated in such a way as to reach all human beings intheir own cultural contexts (IV.B,b),The first stage of nculturation consists in translating Scripture into anotherlanguage (,IVB.c), Then ~ o m s interpretation, which sets the biblical message inmore explzclt relatIOnshIp wah the ways of eeling, thinking, living, and self-

~ x p r e s s l O ~ proper to the local culture, Finally, one passes to other stages oftnculturatlOn l ~ a d m g to the Jonnation ofa local Christian culture encompassingall aspects of life (IV.B.e),

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 347The relation between the word of God and the human cultures it encounters

is one of mutual enrichment. The treasures contained in diverse cultures allow theWord of God to produce new fruits, while the light of the word of God allowshelpful and harmful elements in cultures to be discerned (IV.BJ),Just as actualization makes Scripture fruitful for people living in variousperiods of time, so inculturation makes Scripture fruitful for the peoples living indifferent places. Here, however, what is sought goes beyond the interpretation ofScripture in different cultural settings to a successful embodiment of the Christianmessage in the life of a people, The Biblical Commission recognized that inculturation o the word of God entails mutual enrichment, since every authenticculture is , , . in its own way the bearer of universal values established by God(IVB,a).

Principle 20: The Use of the Bible in the ChurchInterpretation occurs in all the ways in which the church uses the Bible-in

the liturgy lectio divina, pastoral ministry and ecumenism.In principle, the liturgy brings about the most perfect actualization of thebiblical texts, since it is Christ hinzselfwho speaks when Sacred Scripture is readin the church ( Sancrosanctum Concilium, 7), The liturgy gives a privilegedplace to the Gospels, and the cycle of Sunday readings, which associate an OldTestament text with a Gospel reading, often suggests a typological interpretation(IVC.1.b-c),Lectio divina is a reading of Scripture as the word of God, which leads, withthe help of the Holy Spirit, to meditation, prayer, and contemplation (IVC.2,a),

Pastoral ministry makes use of the Bible in catechesis, preaching, and thebiblical apostolate (IV,C.3.a), Scripture provides the first source, foundation, andnorm of catechetical teaching and preaching, where it is explained in the light oftradition (IV.C.3,b), The role of the homily is to actualize the word of God(IV,C.1.d),

In ecumenism. the same methods and analogous hermeneutical points ofview permit exegesis to unite Christians by means of he Bible, the common basisof the rule of aith (IV.CA,c,e).

n a time like the present, in which many motives for the study of Scripturehave been proposed, whether theological, literary, psychological, or political, it isworth remembering that the Christian approach to the Bible is characterized byan intense interest in the use of Scripture in the life of the church. For this reason,the Biblical Commission insists that interpretation in the context of the church'slife has aspects which go beyond the academic analysis of texts (IVa). Whatis most striking about IBC' s treatinent of interpretation in pastoral ministry is howauthoritative and substantial a role Scripture assumes (see IV,C.3,b), The BlbhcalCommission expects Scripture to fulfill both a normative and a material :ole.Because Scripture is the first source and starting point o all pastorallTIlnIs-try, Scripture provides the norm for catechesis and preaching by functioning not


12/13

348 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 65,2003merely as an extrinsic standard against which these activities may be measuredbut as the very content that they should seek to communicate.

ConclusionThe Biblical Commission's 1993 document sheds light on the essential charac

teristics of biblical interpretation in the Catholic Church. Furthermore, the document offers balanced judgments on some issues that have been hotly debated amongexegetes and theologians-among them, the proper use of the historical-criticalmethod, the place of the spiritual and fuller senses of Scripture, the role of patristicexegesis in Catholic interpretation, and the necessity of passing, in the process ofactualization, from what the text meant to what it means.

If one were to guess what readers find most surprising about these twentyprinciples drawn from IBC, it would be their theological character. In this regard,the Biblical Commission's document is in profound agreement with Divino afJlanteSpiritu of Pius XII and the constitution Dei Verbum of the Second Vatican Council.These documents insist that rigorous exegetical scholarship and theological commitment are not only not incompatible; they are, indeed, ideal partners. The marriage of these two values is evident in the work of the great Catholic interpreterslike those whom IBG mentions by narne (lli.B.3.h)-Origen, Jerome, and, morerecently, M.-J. Lagrange-who sought to explain Sacred Scripture as the word ofGod.In their CBA presentations, Luke Timothy Johnson and Roland Murphyaddressed a perennially important question: What's Catholic about Catholicbiblical scholarship? This topic has two aspects. First, what constitutes Catholicexegesis? These principles drawn from the Biblical Commission's Interpretationojthe Bible in the Church propose a definite answer. Second, to what degree doescontemporary Catholic biblical scholarship attain this ideal? That evaluation,while crucial, is beyond the scope of this article, and it remains for readers tojudge for themselves.In her study The Revelatory Text Sandra Schneiders observes that contemporary exegesis often knows well enough how to do what it does, but lacks a clearidea of what it is doing.25 Articulating and discussing the principles of Catholicinterpretation-whether those presented here, which are based on the BiblicalCommission's document, or others that someone else may propose-help to

. correct that deficit. Carefully considered principles can help to orient the work ofexegetes; they clarify the identity and strengthen the unity of Catholic biblicalscholarship, which finds itself being pulled in many directions. Principles ofinterpretation can serve not only exegetes but also theologians, clergy, and laypeople. They can function as criteria for evaluating interpretations, helping to

25 Schneiders, Revelatory Text 21.

CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 49discern exegesis that will be fruitful in the life of the church. They can providea pedagogical tool for professors and students of Scripture and theology, as collections of previous hermeneutical rules have done m. the C h ~ s t l a n and JeWIshtraditions.'. Finally, Catholic principles of mterpretatlon proVIde a ?ompass forecumenical dialogue and for collaboration in the work of mterpretation betweenCatholic and non-Catholic scholars. .

t is my hope that these principles drawn from InterpretatIOn oj the BIble nthe Church may serve the Biblical Commission's goal, expressed at the end of thedocument (Intro B.b): The aim is that the Word of God may become more andmore the spiritual nourishment of the members of the People of God, the s o u ~ c efor them of a life of faith, of hope and of love-and indeed a light for all humanIty(cf. Dei Verbum, 21).

26 Precedent for such hermeneutical guides may be found in the seven exegetical ~ l e s midd,6t)ofHillel, in the thirteen middotof Rabbi Ishmael, or in Tyconius s ~ o o k ~ f ~ u l e s , which ~ u g ~ s t m e. a Ch Doctn'ne 3 30-36 43-56 See Karlfried FroehlIch, Blbllcallnterpretatwn m theuses m n T S an . . 1 h F rtrEarly Church (ed. William G. Rusch; Sources of Early Christian T h ~ u g h t ; P h l ~ a d e pia 0 ess,1984 for the texts and an introduction to these ancient principles of IOterpretatlOn. .

) EDITOR S NOTE: See the review of Williamson s book, Catholic Principles for InterpretingScripture by Dale Launderville. O.S.B . in this issue.


13/13

THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLYPublished by the Catholic Biblical Association of AmericaEditor: R i ~ h a r d 1. Dillon, 'Fordham University, Bronx, NY 10458

Manuscripts of articles are ,to be sent to the editor.)Book Review Editors:OT and Qumran: Irene Nowell, a.S.B., Mount St. Schoiastica, Atchison, KS 66002-2778NT arid Intertestamenta1: Amy-Jill Levine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37240Books for review are to be sent to The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 314 Caldwell Hall, The CatholicUniversity of America, Washington, DC 20064.)Publishing Editor: Christopher T. Begg, The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC 20064

Associate Editors:Term 2000-2003

Term 2001-2004

Term 2002-2005

Term 2003 2006

Paul J, Achtemeier, Union Theological Seminary in VirginiaJon L. Berquist, Chalice PressBrendan Byrne, S.1., Jesuit Theological College, Parkville, AustraliaLinda Day, Pittsburgh Theological SeminaryRobert A. Kugler, Lewis and Clark CollegeSean E. McEvenue, Concordia University (Emeritus).Francis J. Moloney, S.D.B.,The Catholic University of AmericaMark Allan Powell, Trinity Lutheran SemlnaryBarbara Bowe, R.S.C.1., Catholic Theological UnionClaudia V. Camp, Texas Christian UniversityCarol J. Dempsey, O.P., University of PortlandRalph W. Klein, Lutheran School of Theology at ChicagoJerome Murphy-O'Connor, O.P., Ecole BibliqueMarion L. Soards, Louisville Presbyterian Theological SeminaryBonnie Thurston, Pittsburgh Theological SeminaryJerome T. Walsh, University of BotswanaA. K. M. Adam, Seabury-Western Theological SeminaryAdela Yarbro Collins, Yale Divinity SchoolMary Rose D'Angelo, University of Notre DameCarole Fontaine, Andover Newton Theological SchoolWilliaw Holladay, Andover Newton Theological School (Emeritus)Leslie J. Hoppe, O.F.M., Catholic Theological UnionJean-Pierre Ruiz,.St. John's University, Jamaica, NYChoon-Leong Seow, 'Princeton Theological SeminaryDavid E. Aune, University of Notre DameWarren Carter, SI. Paul School of Theology, Kansas CityBeverly R. Gaventa, Princeton Theological SeminaryBarbara Green, O.P., Graduate Theological Union, BerkeleyGina Hens-Piazza, Jesuit School of Theology, BerkeleyPeter Machinist, Harvard UniversityPauhi M. McNutt, Canisius CollegeDavid L. Petersen, Emory University

For information on preparing manuscripts and on persons for correspondence, see the pag e facing the first textpage of each issue.Officers of the Catholic Biblical Association of America for 2002-2003: President: Eugene C. Ulrich,University of Notre Dame; Notre Dame, IN 46556; Vice-President: Prank J. Matera, The Catholic University ofAmerica, Washington, D C 20064; Executive Secretary: Joseph Jensen, O.S.B. The Catholic Biblical Associationof America, Washington, DC 20064; Treasurer: Lawren ce E. Boadt, C.S.P St. Paul's College, Washington, DC20017; Editor of he Catholic Biblical Quarterly: Richard J. Dillon, Fordham University, Bronx,NY 10458;Editor of Old Testament Ahstraqts: Christopher T. Begg, The Catholic Universityof America, Washington, DC20064; Editor of he CBQ Monograph Series: Mark'S. Smith, New York University, New York, NY 10012;Chair of he Board of Trustees: Richard J. Sklba, Milwaukee, WI 53211.All correspondence concerning the association should be addressed to the executive secretaryat314 Caldwell Hall, The'Catholic University of America, Washington, DC 20064. Active and associatemembership is open to those who qualify as specialists in biblical studies. Sl,lstaining membership is open tothose who wish to promote the work of the association. Annual membership dues for active, associate, andsustaining members, including a subscription to the CBQ are $35.00. The association's e-mail address [email protected]. Its web site has, http://cba.cua.edu as its URL.The Catholic Biblical Quarterly is published four times a year (January, April, July, October) by the CatholicBiblical Association of America at the Catholic University of America, 620 Michigan Ave., NE, Washington,DC 20064. Periodicals postage paid at Washington, DC, and at additional mailing offices.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to the Catholic Biblical Quarterly The Catholic University ofAmerica. 620 Michiean Ave . NE. Washineton. DC 20064.

the

VOL. 65 NO 3 / JULY 2003

Documents

Catholic Principles