Developments in Catholic Biblical Studies Reflected in Three 20th Century “Catholic Encyclopedias”

This article was downloaded by: [Texas A & M International University]On: 08 October 2014, At: 00:43Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of Religious &Theological InformationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wrti20

Developments in CatholicBiblical Studies Reflected inThree 20th Century “CatholicEncyclopedias”Regina A. Boisclair PhD aa Alaska Pacific University , Anchorage , AK , USAPublished online: 13 Mar 2012.

To cite this article: Regina A. Boisclair PhD (2005) Developments in Catholic BiblicalStudies Reflected in Three 20th Century “Catholic Encyclopedias”, Journal ofReligious & Theological Information, 7:1, 57-72, DOI: 10.1300/J112v07n01_06

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J112v07n01_06

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wrti20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J112v07n01_06

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J112v07n01_06

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:43

08

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Developments in Catholic Biblical StudiesReflected in Three 20th Century

“Catholic Encyclopedias”

Regina A. Boisclair

ABSTRACT. This article analyzes entries pertaining to biblical studiesin three Catholic encyclopedias, the Catholic Encyclopedia (1907-1914)and the original and revised editions of the New Catholic Encyclopedia(1967 and 2003), to determine the degree to which, individually, theyrepresent the “state of the art” at the time of publication and, collec-tively, whether they accurately reflect developments in Catholic biblicalscholarship in the twentieth century. The author concludes that, despitecertain inadequacies and gaps in coverage, the three encyclopedias are avaluable resource for tracing the course of those developments. [Articlecopies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service:1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <[email protected]> Web-site: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. Allrights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Catholic biblical study, Catholic biblical scholarship,Catholic Church, Bible, theological encyclopedias

INTRODUCTION

The second edition of the New Catholic Encyclopedia (2002) is thethird fifteen-volume “Catholic Encyclopedia” produced and published

Regina A. Boisclair, PhD, holds the Cardinal Newman Chair of Catholic Theologyand is Associate Professor of Religious Studies, Alaska Pacific University, Anchorage,AK.

Journal of Religious & Theological Information, Vol. 7(1) 2005Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JRTI

2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1300/J112v07n01_06 57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:43

08

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.HaworthPress.com

http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JRTI

in the United States.1 A new edition of a religious encyclopedia shouldbe a major contribution to religious and theological information. Theoriginal New Catholic Encyclopedia was a complete revision of theCatholic Encyclopedia issued in 1907-14. The second edition NewCatholic Encyclopedia is not a complete revision of its predecessor. Re-views of the second edition are mixed.2

Librarians expect that a recent Catholic Encyclopedia will provideaccurate entries with bibliographies of accessible resources represent-ing the state-of-the-question at the time of publication. They would alsoexpect that three editions should provide a way to identify changes inthe understanding of topics included from edition to edition. These ex-pectations are especially important for libraries that have limited Catho-lic resources. This article will consider if and how the two expectationsare realized in the three editions. As a Catholic biblical scholar with adegree in Library Science, I shall offer an assessment that reflects theperspectives of biblical studies and the interests of librarians. The firstsegment is a general assessment of each of the three editions. The sec-ond section discusses if and how the biblical entries allow researchers totrace “the growth in understanding”3 that has hallmarked Catholicbiblical interpretation over the course of the 20th century.

THREE EDITIONS OF CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIAS

The venerable Catholic Encyclopedia (hereafter: CE) issued in 15volumes between 1907 and 1912, with a brief supplement and indexreleased in 1914 as Vol. 16, was an extraordinary achievement. Com-piled by an American editorial board with international contributors,the entries covered the teachings, history, and activities of the CatholicChurch together with reports on Catholic contributions to the intellec-tual and artistic worlds. These articles, written with the erudite rhetoricfavored by 19th century intellectuals, reflect the absolute best scholarlystandard of that era. Entries were accompanied with bibliographies rep-resenting the state of scholarly opinion at the time of publication.4

The CE delivered what it intended. In a world in which few Catholicresources existed in the English language, CE offered mature, “authori-tative information on the entire cycle of Catholic interests, actions anddoctrine”5 together with bibliographies to guide further research. How-ever, what the “Preface” identified as “the latest and most accurate in-formation on what the Catholic Church defined as well as impartialrecords of different views of disputed questions,”6 inevitably changes.

58 JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS & THEOLOGICAL INFORMATION

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:43

08

Oct

ober

201

4

This can be seen even within the CE when entries in volumes issued af-ter 1907 refer to teachings issued after 1907. For example, Charles L.Souvenay’s entry, “Isaias,” published in Vol. 8 in 1910, includes a re-port of the teaching pertaining to Isaiah issued by the Pontifical BiblicalCommission in 1908.7 Two further supplements to the CE were issued(Vol. 17, 1922; Vol. 18, 1958). The decision to produce a completerevision was made in 1958.

Although the CE remains a valuable resource for historical research,when seeking “the latest and most accurate information” in 2005, theCE is a source of disinformation. Until recently this has not been a prob-lem.8 However, the CE presently enjoys a pretentious new life on theworld-wide-web.9 In its electronic reincarnation the CE distorts con-temporary Catholicism and dishonors the intentions of its original edi-tors.10 What was THEN is not what is NOW. What accurately presentsthe activities and teachings of the Catholic Church in the early 20th cen-tury cannot and does not accurately represent the teachings and activi-ties of the Catholic Church in the early 21st.11

All fifteen volumes of the New Catholic Encyclopedia (hereafter:NCE) were published in 1967. The NCE found its way into most librar-ies in the United States and Canada. This encyclopedia had a broaderscope than its predecessor. It included articles on the arts, literature, ed-ucation, the social, physical, and biological sciences as well as othertopics in the hope that American Catholics would purchase NCE as ageneral encyclopedia. While this feature of the NCE illustrated thebreadth of the Catholic intellectual tradition, it was also one of the lastgasps of American Ghetto Catholicism.12

Although it was intended as a total revision of the CE, some NCE en-tries simply replaced those of the CE with identical information and up-dated bibliographies. For example, the entry for “Adonai” by RichardThomas Aquinas Murphy in the NCE (I: 135-6)13 is a modest rework-ing of the entry by E. Heilein in the CE (I:146). However, Murphyeliminated citations published between 1896-1905 that were listed byHeilein and introduced “B. W. Anderson, Interpreters Dictionary of theBible (1962) 2:414, H. Junker, Lexicon fur Theologie und Kirche(1930-38) 1:152, and P. Van Imshoot, Theologie de L’Ancien Testement,2v. (1954-56).”

Although the NCE has truly been a well respected, informative re-source, in retrospect, one must admit that this publication was prema-ture.14 Entries in NCE reflect the intellectual foundation for the SecondVatican Council (1962-1965). They could not take much account of thedocuments issued by Vatican II, let alone the enormous changes that oc-

Regina A. Boisclair 59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:43

08

Oct

ober

201

4

curred over the following decade. While the biblical entries clearly re-flect the radical changes inaugurated after Pope Pius XII issued DivinoAfflante Spiritu in 1943, most failed to incorporate the implications ofthe Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation issued by Vatican II in1965 or the seminal instruction of the Pontifical Biblical Commission“On the Historical Truth of the Gospels,” released in 1964. Four supple-ments and what is called the “Jubilee Volume” have been produced toaddress subsequent developments.15 A concentration of biblical entrieswas included in the Volume 18 supplement issued in 1989. Unfortu-nately, apart from libraries associated with Catholic colleges and uni-versities, few purchased the supplements.16 A new edition has beenneeded for some time.17

The second edition of the New Catholic Encyclopedia (hereafter:NCE2) was issued in 2002. Many will appreciate the fact that the text isprinted in larger type and that citations are spelled out rather than abbre-viated. However, the October 22, 2004 issue of Commonweal captionedits cover story review of NCE2 with the words: “Catholic Lite?” illus-trated with a picture of the first six volumes of NCE and of NCE2 onseparate scales indicating that six volumes of the NCE2 weigh consider-ably less than six of the NCE. The problem with the NCE2 is not thatthere are fewer entries. Nor is the problem that the NCE2 reproduces anumber of articles from NCE and/or its supplements. Neither shouldanyone question the decision to remove entries that were only tangen-tially related to Catholicism. Few will question that many articles fromthe NCE or its supplements did not need revision. However, some willquestion why particular entries were revised and others were not. Allwill find it unfortunate that so many entries do not have updatedbibliographies.

From a selection of entries relevant to biblical studies from Volume Iof the NCE2, those for “Adam,” “Adonai,” “Aeon (In the Bible),” “Af-terlife (In the Bible),” “Alms and Almsgiving (In the Bible),” “Alpha-betic Psalms,” “Amos,” “Angels,” “Apostle,” “Aramaic Language,Biblical,” “Areopagus,” “Ark of the Covenant,” “Ascension of JesusChrist,” “Asceticism (In the New Testament)” reproduce entries fromthe NCE. While there was no pressing need to revise these entries, it isdisappointing that none has a revised bibliography. For example,Murphy’s entry for “Adonai,” from the NCE did not need to bechanged but the 2002 bibliography should have included references to“Adonai” by Julia M. O’Brien in Anchor Bible Dictionary 1:74 (1992)and the article of E. Jenni in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:43

08

Oct

ober

201

4

I:23-29 (1997). These current resources are likely to be found in NorthAmerican libraries.

Admittedly, some entries reproduced from the NCE updated thebibliographies for the NCE2. For example, recent publications are ap-pended to the entries for “Aramaeans”(I:623-625) and “Aramaic Lan-guage” (I:625-627) by Joseph Fitzmyer as well as that for “Abraham,Patriarch” by E. Martin (I:36-37); otherwise, these entries are reprintedverbatim from NCE. Some entries with updated bibliographies were re-vised by the editors of the NCE2, as one finds for R. G. Vincent’s NCEentry for the “American School of Oriental Research” (I:353). Onemight expect that when a topic had been updated by one of the supple-ments to NCE, the entry in the NCE2 would reproduce the supplementor include both the original article and that of the supplement if it did notoffer a complete revision. The NCE2 duplicated the entry on “Apoca-lyptic” by Carroll Stuhlmuller (I:545-547) from NCE (I:553-4) addingonly the additional bibliographic citations (but none of the text) fromthe entry on “Apocalypticism” by John J. Collins in the Vol. 18 supple-ment (22).

Of course, there are biblical entries in NCE2 that were fully revised.More entries pertaining to New Testament topics were revised thanthose pertaining to the Old Testament. Some revisions were trulyneeded; others were not. S. Maria Anicia Bation, C.O.’s, “Acts of theApostles” in the NCE2 (I:87-90) is a much needed corrective to Neal M.Flanagan’s article from the NCE (I:103-06).18 While Raymond F. Col-lins’ “Adultery (In the Bible)” in NCE2 (I:131-133) improves that ofJames J. Davis from the NCE (I:151-2), I sense no substantive reasonwhy this particular entry was revised when so many others were not.There is also rearrangement in the NCE2. The entry “Apocrypha” inNCE2 (I:548-558) reproduces Carroll Stuhlmueller’s contribution tothe general entry “Bible, III (Canon)” in NCE (II:390-404). Returningthis entry to the rubric “Apocrypha” (under which heading there ap-peared an article by George J. Read in CE I: 601-14), puts informationback to the heading under which most users would seek the topic.19

Unfortunately the NCE2 was advertised as if the second edition wererevised on a scale similar to NCE. This set the stage for disappointment.Given the exemplary high quality of Catholic scholarly publications,(e.g., Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Horizons, the many specialized ref-erence resources published by The Liturgical Press), one is not sur-prised that many librarians who serve the Catholic community areprofoundly dissatisfied. There is no scarcity of fully qualified Catholicscholars from whom entries could have been requested. Why weren’t


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:43

08

Oct

ober

201

4

the American Catholic learned societies asked to assist in the distribu-tion of entries? Was the effort unrealistically scheduled and under-funded? More significantly, is it reasonable to continue to produce thiskind of resource in bound volumes? Berard L. Marthaler, general editorof NCE2, astutely notes that the only way for a Catholic Encyclopedia“to remain abreast of current developments, l[ies] in some form of elec-tronic version that can be expanded, revised, and edited more easily andmore economically than a print edition.”20 Although the NCE2 was re-cently introduced in an electronic version as part of the Gale VirtualReference Library, as of this moment there is no indication that thisrepresents a commitment to ongoing revision.

THREE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIASAND CATHOLIC BIBLICAL STUDIES

The Catholic Church claims that its teaching office (magisterium) isthe authorized interpreter of all matters pertaining to Catholic faithand morality. This includes foundational understandings and ap-proved methods for the interpretation of the Bible. While the expression“the church has always taught” often prefaces Catholic instructions,over the course of the 20th century many Catholic presuppositions, pre-mises, and practices considerably changed. Few changes were moreradical or remarkable than those pertaining to the Bible.

The intellectual path underlying the three editions of the Catholic En-cyclopedia follows a jagged trajectory that moves from suspicion to re-jection, then to advocacy and the expansion of critical methods inbiblical analysis. All three editions (1907, 1967, 2002) were flanked byofficial Catholic teachings addressing biblical interpretation.21 Theseofficial Catholic pronouncements differ one from another. After a briefsummary of the ethos and official teachings during the time of each pub-lication, I will discuss a selection of entries in the related edition.

During the second half of the 19th century new historical and literarymethods in biblical analysis came into ascendancy in the GermanProtestant academy. By the late 19th century conclusions drawn fromwhat was then called “higher criticism” challenged the historical reli-ability of biblical accounts, the literary integrity of biblical texts, and thetraditional identity of biblical authors. The Catholic magisterium notonly rejected the underlying “rationalist” presuppositions of scholarswho denied the supernatural quality of biblical texts and challenged ex-isting understandings of biblical inerrancy, but it also rejected most


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:43

08

Oct

ober

201

4

conclusions drawn from their analysis. In 1893 Pope Leo XIII identifiedhigher criticism as “an inept method” in Providensimus Deus (II, D2a)and established the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1902 (hereafter:PBC) to adjudicate challenging issues. Shortly thereafter Pope Pius Xassociated the new critical approaches with the agnostic and evolution-ary presuppositions of “modernist” scholars who sought to free inter-pretation from church authority. During this period the PBC issued anumber of “responses” that rejected the internal evidence of biblicaltexts in favor of traditional beliefs. The major points addressed were:Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, (1906); the historical accuracy ofGenesis 2-3, (1909); the nature of prophecy as foretelling that obviatesthe theory there was more than one Isaiah, (1908); Matthew’s gospelwas the first written, (1911); Mark and Luke wrote in their canonical se-quence after Matthew, (1912); the Fourth Gospel, written by John, theson of Zebedee is historically accurate, (1907); Luke, the companion ofPaul wrote Acts, 1913; the Pastoral Epistles were written by Paul,(1913).22 Pius X also mandated that Catholics give religious ascent tothese pronouncements.

While it is somewhat astonishing that the CE was even producedgiven such an intellectual climate, the fact that it was published pro-vides us with a valuable resource for a difficult era in the history ofCatholic biblical research. Entries in the CE convey excellent descrip-tions of positions now abandoned by both Catholic biblical scholars andCatholic authority. Nevertheless, many entries devote as much spaceexplaining the critical positions they reject as they do the official teach-ings. To illustrate this I will discuss two Old Testament and two NewTestament entries. All four concern issues that were addressed by thePBC.

In his entry “Pentateuch” (XI: 646-61), A. J. Maas stressed the inter-nal unity of the texts and defended Mosaic authorship while providing adetailed summary of how the documentary hypothesis developed andwas understood in 1910. In his entry “Isaias” (VIII:179-84) Charles L.Souvay states that the idea that the book of Isaiah was the work of morethan one author was yet unproven, but divided his discussion of the textinto segments titled “First Isaias” and “Second Isaias!”

The entry for “Gospel of St. John” by Leopold Fonck (VIII:438-43)claims that the author of the Fourth Gospel was the Apostle John, theson of Zebedee who knew the Synoptic narrative and assumed it wasknown to his readers. Fonck contends that there is no reason to questionthat the account of Jesus’ encounter with the woman caught in adultery(Jn 7:53-8:11) and the second ending (Jn 21) were part of John’s origi-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:43

08

Oct

ober

201

4

nal gospel. He insists that the Fourth Gospel is historically accurate andharmonizes the gospels to account for discrepancies among the gospelsthat he considers to be biographies. While this entry was tailored tocounter opposing viewpoints, Fonck’s presentation reacts to differingconclusions rather than reporting alternative arguments. The entry for“Synoptics” by Francis E. Gigot (XIV:389-94) contains a detailed ac-count of the synoptic problem and plausible resolutions. His presenta-tion of what he identifies as the “Two Documents theory” is clearer thanmany presentations of the “two source theory” in current textbooks.However since this entry would have to conform to the responses of thePBC, Gigot rejects the theory in favor of the ancient tradition that Mat-thew was chronologically the first to write a gospel in Aramaic or He-brew before the destruction of Jerusalem and before Mark or Luke.23

What contemporary readers learn from these and other entries is pre-cisely how the Bible was regarded by critical scholars in the early partof the twentieth century and how the Catholic Church sought to pre-serve what it then considered to be apostolic traditions from erroneousinnovations. Whether the authors of these entries were personally con-vinced of the Catholic position is irrelevant. During this era few Catho-lic biblical scholars who recognized the validity of the new approachescontinued to publish significant studies.24 Most explored topics ofmarginal importance or avoided publication altogether.

Pope Pius XII’s 1943 encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu” trans-formed this intellectual climate. In this encyclical, Pius XII encouragedCatholic exegetes to study difficult texts, to address difficult problems,and to use the new understandings of literary forms in doing so, whilereminding the world that very few biblical passages had ever been au-thoritatively defined by the church or the consistent teaching of the Fa-thers. This encyclical also called for translations of the Bible from theoriginal languages to replace the vernacular versions that were transla-tions of the Latin Vulgate.

Since Pius XII’s encyclical is the “Magna Carta” for Catholic biblicalscholarship, it is not surprising to find that the 1958 Supplement to theCE discussed Divino Afflante Spiritu in two detailed entries.25 Underthis Supplement’s entry “Bible” by Edmund F. Sutcliffe, the subdivi-sion devoted to “Acts of the Biblical Commission” includes reports ofclarification to previous decrees that were issued by the PBC in 1948and 1955. That of 1948 was a letter to Cardinal Suhard of Paris statingthat Catholic scholars were at liberty to investigate the sources of thePentateuch and the historicity of the first eleven chapters of Genesis.That of 1955 declared “the interpreter of Sacred Scripture can pursue


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:43

08

Oct

ober

201

4

his scientific investigations with full liberty and accept the results ofthese investigations.”26

Given the enormity of this change, it is not surprising that one of thenoted strengths of the NCE was its biblical entries. The 138 page entry“Bible” (II:381-518) is the longest single entry in the NCE. It is com-prised of several articles by various scholars; following a brief introduc-tion “Bible I,” the main subdivisions are: Bible II (Inspiration), Bible III(Canon), Bible IV (Texts and Versions), Bible V (Textual Criticism),Bible VI (Exegesis), and Bible VII (Papal Teachings). These are fol-lowed by several other articles on biblical topics from “Bible and Lit-urgy” to “Biblical Theology” (II:518-50) for a total of 170 pages!27

There were numerous other biblical entries throughout the 15 volumes.We can illustrate the significance of Divino Afflante Spiritu by noting

the differences between entries in the NCE and those of the CE. Whilethe entry for “Pentateuch” in CE was a defense of Mosaic authorship inopposition to the documentary hypothesis, the NCE entry “Pentateuch”by Eugene H. Maly (XI:98-104) provides a history of the developmentof documentary hypothesis and presents it as the dominant understand-ing of his contemporary Catholic and non-Catholic scholars. The articleidentifies the prevailing concerns in Catholic biblical scholarship asan interest in determining the successive formative stages of the ca-nonical text and the theological developments that influenced succes-sive redactions. Maly dismisses the issue of Mosaic authorship with areport credited to Lagrange, that is, the modern concept of authorial in-tegrity emerged in the Christian era; it was not that of ancient Israel.Since Moses was central to Pentateuchal traditions, Israel attributed thisliterary remembrance to him.

While the entry for “Isaias” in the CE states that the theory that thecanonical text was derived from more than one prophet had not beenconvincingly established, William F. Hill’s entry “Isaia, Book of ” inthe NCE (VII:666-71) presumes the canonical text is the work of severalauthors. He not only discusses the differences between Proto Isaia,Deutero-Isaia, and Trito-Isaia but he also states as likely that the IsaianApocalypse (Is 24-27) and the “Little Apocalypse” (Is 34-35) are thework of later authors from c. 300 B.C.

Raymond E. Brown’s entry “John, Gospel According to” in the NCE(VII:1080-88) is a précis of his magisterial Anchor Bible commentaryfor the Fourth Gospel published in 1966. While at this point in timeBrown was still inclined to agree with the Fonck’s claim in the CE thatthe Fourth Gospel originated with John the son of Zebedee, Brown doesnot agree with Fonck’s understandings of the literary and historical in-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:43

08

Oct

ober

201

4

tegrity of the canonical text. Brown distinguished the source of theFourth Gospel’s tradition from the evangelist and considers the canoni-cal text as the result of more than one written edition, compiled by a re-dactor. He identifies Jn 7:53-8:11 and Jn 21 as additions and rejects theidea that John borrowed from the Synoptic tradition. Brown notes spe-cific instances where one can find external verification to incidentsunique to John, such as the pool of Bethesda in Jn 5:2. He also recog-nizes that John cannot be used as a biographical guide for the life of thehistorical Jesus.28 Throughout the entry Brown provides superb de-scriptions of many alternative positions and explains why he takes ex-ception.

If the entry for “Synoptics” in the CE includes an exceptionally cleardescription of the Synoptic Problem for its era, the entry for “SynopticProblem” in the NCE by Francis J. McCool (XIII:886-91) is an overlytechnical discussion for a general reader. Recognizing that most schol-ars hold to the “two source hypothesis,” McCool provides a detailed de-scription of why the theory came to dominate. That is valuable, but hisdiscussion of a Catholic alternative to the two-source theory is an exten-sive presentation of a minority position that would be very confusing tonon-specialists.

Over 30 biblical entries were incorporated in the supplemental NCEVol. 18. Two of the four topics that have been discussed were revisited.Christopher Begg’s entry on “Pentateuchal Studies” (369-72) summa-rized recent trends pertaining to the documentary hypothesis with reportsthat many scholars had abandoned reworking the old issues preoccupiedwith diachronic interests and were instead adopting synchronic ap-proaches that were beginning to offer fresh insights. He gives briefsketches of some literary, theological and canonical perspectives thathad been applied to the Pentateuch and expresses hope that no one ap-proach will be as dominant in the future as had diachronic interests inthe past.

Raymond E. Brown revised his own NCE entry on the gospel ofJohn. The revision (219-221) reads as a précis of his 1979 publication,The Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist Press).Brown reports that he has abandoned his previous sense that the com-munity traditions could be traced to the Apostle John, the son ofZebedee. He states that he has now aligned with scholars who attributethe tradition to the founder of the community believed to be an anony-mous companion of Jesus during his ministry, and identified in the gos-pel as “the disciple Jesus loved.” This entry provides detailed reasons


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:43

08

Oct

ober

201

4

for the changes in Brown’s thinking. He also sketches his reconstruc-tion of the history of the Johannine community that is reflected inChristological insights in the gospels and the letters of John, I, II, andIII. Other points made in this revision include a retraction of the sugges-tion allowed by his NCE entry that ancient traditions lent themselves tohistorical reliability.

Among the more interesting biblical entries in the Vol. 18 supple-ment was “Luke-Acts” by W. Kurz (268-271) that reads as a critique ofthe historical critical method. Kurz introduces and disregards studiesthat apply Structuralism, Liberationist and Feminist Hermeneutics butcommends the new efforts in narrative criticism. In some ways this par-ticular entry anticipates the next instruction from the PBC issued in1993. Other important entries in the Vol. 18 supplement include that for“Psalms and Hebrew Poetry” by Irene Nowell (XVIII: 404-6). This en-try is more of an updating than a corrective of Roland E. Murphy’s entry“Psalms” in the NCE (XI:935-9).29 The entry for “Historical Jesus” byWilliam P. Lowe is a new topic. The original NCE likely avoided this is-sue because the distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christof faith had been among the significant modernist controversies associ-ated with Alfred Loisy. This article describes the three quests for thehistorical Jesus that have preoccupied different generations of NewTestament scholars over the in 20th century. Other notable entries arethose on “Old Testament Interpretation (Theology)” by Samuel Terrian(332-6) and “Parables of Jesus” by J. R. Donahue (347-9).

The instruction “Interpretation of the Bible in the Catholic Church”issued by the PBC in 1993 identifies the historical critical method as“the indispensable method for the scientific study of the meaning of an-cient texts,” (I, A). It also describes and approves new methods such asrhetorical analysis, narrative analysis, semiotic analysis, canonical criti-cism, as well as approaches founded on the social sciences (sociology,cultural anthropology, psychology) in addition to the contextual herme-neutics of liberation and feminism. The instruction sought to reaffirmclearly and officially the historical critical method as well as to endorseother new approaches to biblical texts. Significantly, this instructionsoundly rejects the literalistic interpretative method of fundamentalismstating that it “invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide.” (I, F) ThePBC also issued the instruction “The Jewish People and their SacredScriptures in the Christian Bible” in 2002. Although this particularteaching was issued too late to have an impact on entries in the NCE2,the PBC entry (11:476-79) mentions it as forthcoming under its original


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:43

08

Oct

ober

201

4

French title, including its major divisions. It was only later translatedofficially into English.

The NCE2 entry “Hermeneutics, Biblical” by George T. Montague(6:791-97) provides a report of the various features of biblical herme-neutics from the Patristic era to a detailed description of the 1996 in-struction. Of the new methods mentioned in the instruction, the onlyspecific entry that directly applies to the bible is “Feminist Hermeneu-tics” by Anne Clifford (5:674-5). This entry details the nature of thefeminist hermeneutics of suspicion, of remembrance and of celebra-tion that establish correctives to sexist perspectives that dehumanizewomen.

The entry for “Pentateuch” in the NCE2 (XI:88-100) reproduces theNCE entry by Eugene Maly then continues with Christopher Begg’s en-try from the Volume 18 supplement. The entry “Isaiah” reproduces thatof W. Hill from the NCE without any change or update for the bibliog-raphy. Although I have followed the identical entries for the CE andthe NCE, the topic “Synoptic Problem” is specifically devoted todiachronic analysis. It will not disclose how the NCE2 reflects changesin Catholic biblical analysis. The entries for each of the four gospels arebetter suited to this task.

The entry “Mark, Gospel according to” by Frank Matera (9:183-187)is a complete revision.30 While Matera provides an excellent standardintroduction to Mark, he offers nothing that clearly reflects the newerapproaches to the text. For the entry “Matthew, Gospel According to,”one finds John Quinlan’s NCE entry (IX:493-502) heavily revised andcombined with that of G. Thompson from the Vol. 18 supplement(284-286) and provided with an updated bibliography. Although largelybased on historical critical analysis, this entry reports some insightsdrawn from composition and narrative criticism. It reports the importantrecent considerations of Matthew’s relationship to Judaism, but doesnot do justice to an issue that has been so prominent in recent studies.

The entry for “Luke, Gospel According to” (8:855-61), partially de-rived from that of Richard Thomas Aquinas Murphy in the NCE(VIII:1067-73), has been tightened by Raymond Collins who also pro-vides a fresh discussion of the place and time of composition, sourcesand literary and theological characteristics. This article presents an ex-cellent standard summary of current understandings drawn from thehistorical critical method but it fails to note the several studies of thisgospel that offer insights drawn from synchronic approaches. However,the article “Luke/Acts” that follows the article on the gospel has beenreproduced from the Volume 18 supplement, lightly revised by the edi-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:43

08

Oct

ober

201

4

tors. As noted above, this particular article took note of the synchronicapproaches.

The entry “John, Gospel According to” by Raymond E. Brown fromthe NCE was revised by F. J. Maloney for the NCE2(7:902-913). Mostof the revision consists of modest additions to the ends of paragraphsthat nuance particular points from Brown’s original text. In addition thewhole section on authorship was revised to reflect Brown’s changedview reported in the Vol. 18 supplement. The most interesting change inthis entry is the recognition that current interest in narrative has all buteliminated earlier interest in identifying the sources of the gospel. The ar-ticle claims that attention to the structure and message of the canonicaltext in far more prominent.

Overall, one senses that while the biblical entries in the NCE tried toinclude detailed information, the biblical entries in the NCE2 when fullyrevised tended to be accurate but more introductory. It is for this veryreason that the failure to update every bibliography in the NCE2 is espe-cially unfortunate. In general, the Old Testament articles have not beenas well revised as the New Testament articles in the NCE2. There is no“survey” article on Old Testament scholarship to parallel that of Ray-mond F. Collins on “New Testament Scholarship” (NCE210:303-8).Fortunately, there are many fine specialized biblical resources librarieswill be likely to own, especially if they serve the information needs ofgraduate students or specialists.

CONCLUSION

This article has assessed the three editions of Catholic encyclopediasissued in the United States over the past ninety-five years. It has focusedspecifically on how the information in these editions represents officialCatholic teachings pertaining to the Bible during the era in which it wasproduced. It is clear that over the three editions one can see real changesin Catholic understanding of the Bible. Reading the biblical studies en-tries from the three editions gives a very good sense of the course oftwentieth century Catholic biblical exegesis. This article has identifiedvarious limitations in the three editions while it recognizes that they area valuable source for those seeking the general perspectives and re-search history of twentieth century Catholic biblical scholarship.31


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:43

08

Oct

ober

201

4

NOTES

1. The Catholic Encyclopedia: An International Work of Reference on the Con-stitution, Doctrine, Discipline, and History of the Catholic Church, Charles G.Herbermann, et al., Eds. (New York: Robert Appleton, 1907-1914); The New CatholicEncyclopedia, William J. Mc Donald, Ed. in Chief (New York: McGraw Hill, 1967);The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed. Bernard L. Marthaler, Ed. in Chief, FarmingtonHills, MI: Thompson Gale, 2002).

2. Jan Malcheski, “New Catholic Encyclopedia” American Theological LibraryAssociation Newsletter 50:4 (August, 2003): 24-27; Ernest H. Rubinstein, “The‘New’ New Catholic Encyclopedia,” Commonweal, CXXXI: 18 (October 22, 2004):22-25. Alternatively Christopher McConnell praises the revision. Booklist 99 (January1 & 15): 45.

3. Vatican II, “Constitution on Divine Revelation,” 5.4. A history of the formulation of CE is provided by the Jacques Maritain Center of

the University of Notre Dame: www.nd.edu/DepartmentsMaritain/etext/encyclop.htm.An account is provided by Berard L. Marthaler, “The Making and Remaking of theCatholic Encyclopedia, ”U.S. Catholic Historian # 53-55.

5. “Preface,” The Catholic Encyclopedia, (New York: Robert Appleton, 1907) I: v.6. Ibid., vi7. The Catholic Encyclopedia, VIII:182-3. The entry for “Biblical Commission,”

II: 557-8 reports four instructions issued before 1907. Throughout the CE entries ac-count for instructions issued through 1913.

8. After purchasing the NCE, some libraries weeded the CE and some transferred itinto their circulating collection or put it into storage. A number of libraries maintainboth editions in the reference collections.

9. The New Advent web site that includes the electronic CE reports that shortly af-ter the publication of the NCE many claimed that it was not as authoritative as its prede-cessor. What this suggests is that the CE still provides better information.

10. It is not my inclination or intent to disparage K. Knight, the owner of New Ad-vent, or those who participated in typing CE entries and other resources for thisself-designated Catholic super-site www.newadvent.org. Good intentions do not guar-antee good information.

11. A recent article on Catholic web sites in America reports that K. Knight “agreesthat the site [i.e., the CE] needs to include ‘a universal disclaimer on all the articles andvarious ‘special notes’ regarding information that is no longer accurate, especially inits articles on Judaism. He hopes to have these notices up by May.” Jeffrey J. Guhim,“Orthodoxy Online,” America, 192:21 (June 20-27, 2005): 16. As of 31 July, 2005 nodisclaimer or special notices were posted.

12. Anti-Catholicism fostered American Catholic separatism up to the 1960’s.From schools and scout troops and Catholic societies such as the Knights of Columbus,American Catholics established an alternative America that is aptly described as Amer-ican Ghetto Catholicism. For various diverse reasons by the mid 1960’s Catholic sepa-ratism largely dissolved.

13. To minimize footnotes I will henceforth note the volume and pagination for spe-cific entries within the text. The volume will be provided in Roman numerals.

14. Marthaler, 56-58.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:43

08

Oct

ober

201

4

15. Vol. 16 (1967-1975), 1976; Vol. 17 (Change in the Church), 1979; Vol. 18(1978-1988), 1989; Vol. 19 (1989-1995), 1996. The Jubilee Volume (The WojtylaYears), 2001 was issued as a Propaedia to the Second Edition. See Marthaler, 59-60.

16. This issue is complicated by the fact that records in the WorldCat are inaccurate.It is impossible to determine which libraries own the supplementary volumes. It seemsthat a number of libraries in the process of transferring to electronic records enteredtheir New Catholic Encyclopedia with a record for the four supplementary volumeswhen they only own the original 15 volumes.

17. Marthaler, 60-61.18. Flanagan presumes that the author of Acts was a traveling companion to Paul,

and an eyewitness to part of what he relates. He dates the text around 70 C.E. Bationreports these traditional beliefs about the author but notes these positions are dis-puted. She is more concern to relate what can be said about the “implied author” fromthe internal evidence of the text. Following the current majority, Bation dates the textin the 80s.

19. It is disappointing nothing in the article clarifies the very real differences be-tween Catholic and Protestant use of this technical term

20. Marthaler, 60.21. The more important are: Providensimus Deus, Leo XIII, 1893; Pascendi

Dominici Gregis, Pius X, 1907; Spiritus Paraclitus, Benedict XV, 1920; DivinoAfflante Spiritu, Pius XII, 1943; “On the Historicity of the Gospels, Pontifical BiblicalCommission” [hereafter: PBC], 1964; De Verbum, Second Vatican Council, 1965; “Onthe Interpretation of Scripture in the Catholic Church,” PBC, 1996; “The Jewish Peo-ple and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible,” PBC, 2002.

22. Raymond E. Brown and Thomas Aquinas Collins, “Church Pronouncements,”New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, RolandE. Murphy, eds. (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1991): 1171-2. Today many notethat most of the early PBC responses were nuanced to accommodate possible changesin light of subsequent research disassociated with that of scholars who were identifiedas rationalists and/or modernists. At the time these responses cast a dark shadow overCatholic biblical scholarship.

23. Gigot distinguished between the Aramaic or Hebrew text of Matthew from theGreek as a way to maintain the chronological priority of Mark among the canonicalsynoptics. This suggestion was not acceptable to the PBC.

24. The most noteworthy exception was Marie Joseph LaGrange, O.P. His biogra-phy in the NCE reports: “He restored prestige to Catholic scholarship and almost alonelifted Catholic Biblical Studies out of mediocrity.” Richard Thomas Aquinas Murphy,“Lagrange, Marie Joseph,” NCE VIII:322.

25. One is two-page entry found under “Divino Afflante Spiritu”; the second isfour-page discussion that appears within the entry for “Bible” subdivided to report Pa-pal Teachings. There is no pagination in the 1958 supplement.

26. Edward F. Siegman, “Decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission,” CatholicBiblical Quarterly 18 (1956):23-9.

27. An exceptionally fine and detailed review of the scriptural entries in NCE is pro-vided by Alexander A. Di Lella in Catholic Biblical Quarterly 29 (1967): 661-5.

28. Underlying this point is the instruction “On the Historical Truth of the Gospels,”issued by the PBC in 1964. The PBC clearly notes that three different stages of historyare found in each gospel: that of Jesus, of the early church, and of the evangelists. Inreading Brown’s article one recognizes that he has assimilated this instruction. He pre-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:43

08

Oct

ober

201

4

sumed that neither John nor the synoptics provide accounts of the historical Jesus buthis entry does not state this clearly.

29. It is especially interesting that Noel also provides a complete new entry for theNCE2 (XI:794-7). This is the only instance that I found in which the author of an entryfor Vol. 18 provided a new article for the NCE2. While I do not claim that my readingwas comprehensive, it was focused on where important changes might be reflected.

30. Daniel Harrington updated the NCE entry in the Vol. 18 supplement. This is oneof the few instances in which a new biblical entry by a new author was introduced in theNCE2.

31. Thanks must be given to the staff, who welcomed me to the Mullen Library atthe Catholic University of America where most of the research for this article was com-pleted in June, 2004. Thanks are also due to Martin Breen, Reference Librarian at theJesuit Krauss McCormick Library at the Lutheran School of Theology, Chicago andRon Crown, Librarian at Pius XII Library at St. Louis University for faxing materialsthat were not in Alaska.

Received: 08/01/05Revised: 08/15/05

Accepted: 08/16/05


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

& M

Int

erna

tiona

l Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

0:43

08

Oct

ober

201

4