Post-Vatican biblical criticism and the living tradition and the Magisterium of the Church

Kazimierz Romaniuk

Post-Vatican biblical criticism and

the living tradition and the

Magisterium of the Church

Collectanea Theologica 57/Fasciculus specialis, 5-15

A

R

T

I

C

L

E

S

C o llec ta n e a T h e o lo g ic a 57 (1987) fase, sp e c ia lis KAZIMIERZ R O M A N IU K , W A R S Z A W A

POST-VATIC A N BIBLICAL CRITICISM

AND

THE LIVING TRADITION AND THE M AGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH

In th e Final Relatio of th e S ynod of Bishops of 1985 we find, am ong o th er statem ents, th e follow ing:

Ecclesia v e rb u m Dei religiose audiens ad illud fide­ liter p ro c lam andum m ittitur (cf. D V 1). Itaque praedicatio Evangelii inter praecipua m unera Ecclesiae, et imprim is episcoporum, e m inet et hodie m axim i m o m e n ti est (cf. LG 25). In hoc c o n te x tu apparet m o m e n tu m C on stitutio­ nis Dogmaticae „Dei V e r b u m " , quae forsitan nimis n e ­ glecta fuit sed tam en a Paulo V I in Exhortatione Aposto- lica ,,Evangelii n u n tia nd i” (1975) modo profundiore et om nino actuali iteru m proposita est. Etiam pro hac C ons­ titutione n ecessarium est partialem lectio n em evitare. Praecipue e x eg e sis sensus originalis S. Scripturae, quae a Concilio en ix e co m m en d a tu r (cf. D V 12), non potest se­ parari a v iv a traditione Ecclesiae (cf. V D 9) n e q u e ab autentica interpretatione M agisterii Ecclesiae (cf. V D 10)

The ab ov e e x c erp t ta k e n from th e S y n od 's Final Relatio refe rs to the m eth od o lo g y of tran sm ittin g th e c o n ten ts of D ivine R ev ela­ tion. It is ad d re sse d forem ost, of course, to th e bishops (imprim is

episcoporum), b u t in no less a d e g re e to Biblical sch o lars as well.

It seem s o n ly n a tu ra l, th erefo re, th a t it should be, abo v e all, this latte r g ro up th a t w ould feel th e n eed for m ak ing an e x am in atio n of conscience, one of its v e ry ow n w hich w ould en com p ass in its ra n g e th e e n tire bo dy of its didactic-bib lical e n d e av o u rs of th e past tw o d ecad es since V atican II. It beh o o v es us, it seem s, to sp eak thus of an "ex a m in a tio n of conscien ce", inasm uch as th e syn o d al

Final Relatio a p p e ars to p e rc e iv e in this tw e n ty -y e a r p e rio d follow ­

ing th e V a tic a n C ouncil som e serio u s shortco m in gs in th e m ethod of h an d in g on to th e faithful th e in sp ired W o rd of God.

Som e of th e se d eficien cies as th e Relatio p re se n ts th em are:

neglected . M o reo ver, th e Relatio seem s to su g g est th a t this failu re to give th e C o n stitu tio n due c o n sid e ratio n is all th e m ore re g re tta b le since its d ire c tiv e s w e re called to m ind for us b y Pope Paul VI in his A postolic E xhortation, Evangelii Nuntiandi.

2. T he re a d in g of th e C o n stitu tio n n o t in its to ta l context, but in partial, fra g m en t-se lec tiv e read in g.

3. In th e re s e a rc h e s for th e o rig in al m ean ing of th e S acred S crip tu res, th e re w as an ev id e n t lack of tak in g into p ro p er accou nt th e living tra d itio n of th e C h urch (cf. DV 9), as w ell as th e official tea c h in g of th e M agisterium .

Let us try , th erefo re, to analy ze som ew h at m ore th o ro u g h ly th ese th re e sy n o d al "o b se rv a tio n s" — as w e shall call th em to avoid sa y in g "ch a rg e s" — in th e p e rsp e c tiv e of th e Biblical criticism of the last tw o decades.

1. N eg lect of th e C o n stitu tio n „Dei V erbum "

It seem s th a t th e ab o ve sy n o d al re p ro a c h can be d ire c te d in p a rtic u la r to th e v a rio u s Biblical C onferences and C ongresses, e sp ec ially in te r-faith m eetings, th o u g h no t sim ply to th is la tte r group alone. T he b y -p assin g in silence of th e C o n stitu tio n Dei V e r b u m at in te r-faith g a th e rin g s w as p ro m p ted m ost often b y ecum enical concerns. Y et w e could assum e th a t such fea rs a re grou n dless, th a t is, fears th a t a m ore fre q u e n t ap p eal to th e C o n stitu tio n on R e v e la ­ tion m ight be a se tb a c k to th e ecu m en ical m ovem ent. A fter all, it is th is v e ry C o n stitu tio n th a t b elon g s to th e m ost ecum en ical d o ­ cum ents of th e Second V atican C ouncil, a fact fre q u e n tly a d v e rte d to ev en by our se p a ra te d b re th re n 1. A nd so, it is to th ese Biblical C o n v ention s and C o n g resses th a t w e m ust ad d ress th e S ynod's p o in ted re m a rk on th e u n d e rv a lu a tio n (n eg lectio) of th e C o n stitu ­ tion.

1 In th e o p in io n of O. C u l l m a n n , th e C o n stitu tio n o n R e v e la tio n c o n ­ ta in s v e rita b le „ p e a r ls” o n th e su b je ct of th e H o ly S crip tu res (cf. Ż y c ie i M yśl, 16, 1966, 175). A little fu rth er th is sa m e e x e g e t e asserts: „ W ith o u t a n y r e s e r v a ­ tion s w e r e jo ic e in th e sta te m en ts from w h ic h it fo llo w s that r es ea r ch in to H o ly S crip tu res is th e v e r y so u l of th e o lo g y ... W e are d e lig h te d w ith th e g rea ter num ber of th e e n u n cia tio n s of th e la st ch a p ter of th e sc h e m a o n R ev ela tio n ." L. V i s с h e r sp ea k s in sim ilar fa sh io n in h is a r tic le e n title d N a c h d e r v i e r t e n S e ss io n d e s z w e i t e n V a t i k a n i s c h e n K o n z ils , ÖR 15 (1966) 81. A c c o r d in g to M. T h u r i a n th e C o n stitu tio n m a y b e r eg a r d e d 'as th e first p h a se in th e m o ­ v e m en t for C h ristian u n ity (cf. Le M o n d e 14.11.1965). T h e p r e v io u s ly c ite d auth or O. C u I I m a n n sa y s: „A s an e x e g e te , I a g r e e in p r in c ip le fu lly w ith th e co m m en ta r y in C h ap ter 5 o n th e N e w T esta m en t. W ith in th e sc o p e of th e co m ­ m e n ta ry w a s a c h ie v e d b a sic u n a n im ity of th o u g h t.” A n d fin a lly , w ith a d irect refe re n c e to ecu m en ism : „T he e cu m en ic a l d e sig n m a n ife sts itse lf e s p e c ia lly c le a r ly in th e te x ts tr ea tin g of th e r o le and m issio n of D iv in e R e v e la tio n , w h e r e it is a lso p r o p o sed th at in th e w o r k of tr a n sla tio n s of th e Scrip tu res th e r e sh o u ld be c o o p e ra tio n w ith our se p a r a ted brethren."

P ro ceedin g th e n w ith our a n a ly sis of th is sam e S y nod al o b se rv a ­ tion, w e n eed to m ake now th e follow ing d istinction: a d istin ctio n b etw e en w ritin g s on th e su b ject of th e C o n stitu tio n itself and the actual a p p ro p riatio n of th e C o n stitu tio n w h e th e r in com m entaries, in in tro d u c tio n s to Biblical studies, in th eo lo g ies or in Biblical c a ­ tec h e ses of th e P o st-V atican period. Perhaps, w e ought to n o te here th a t th e C o n stitu tio n as such has b e e n subm itted to m ulti-faceted analy ses, esp ec ially in th e first s e v e ra l y e a rs after its ap p earan ce. The lite ra tu re on th e su b ject Dei V e r b u m is im p ressiv ely ric h 2. W e m ay daresay , th erefo re, th a t th e tw e n ty -y e a r P o st-V atican p eriod h ad qu ite a d e q u a te ly w o rk ed out for us a d e ta ile d and a p rofound th e o ry on th e C onstitution.

T he sam e can n o t be said, h o w ev er, ab o u t th e im p lem en tatio n of the C o n stitu tio n on th e p ra c tic a l level. Thus, for exam ple, th e re did not a p p e ar a n y specifically n ew In tro d u ctio n s to Biblical Studies, w orked out on th e p rin cip les e n u n c ia te d in th e Dei V erb u m 3. N or do w e h a v e to d ate an y d istin ctiv e ly n e w th e o ry on d iv in e in sp ira ­ tio n 4 and th e canon of H oly Scriptures.. T h ere is little ev idence, m oreov er, of a n y significant in flu en ce of th e C o n stitu tio n on the com m entaries, e sp e c ia lly on th e "classic" com m en taries of th e past tw o decades. In short, c e rtain p a rtic u la r c o n stitu tiv e e le m en ts of th e C o n stitu tio n did n o t e n te r into th e reg u la r life m ain stream of C atholic Biblical criticism ,

2 A c o m p ila tio n of th e m ost im portant p o sitio n s p u b lish e d up to 1968 is g iv e n b y A. K u b i ś , „A B ib lio g r a p h y o n th e C o n cilia r C o n stitu tio n on D iv in e R e v ela tio n " I d e e p r z e w o d n i e k o n s t y t u c j i s o b o r o w e j o B o ż y m O b j a w i e n i u (The D om in an t N o tio n s in th e C o n cilia r C o n stitu tio n o n D iv in e R e v ela tio n ) K rak ów 1968, 191— 205.

3 A m o n g th e v e r y fe w e x c e p tio n s in this regard w e can inclu de the wk of th e Ita lia n e x e g e t e V. M a n u c c i , B ibbia c o m e p a r o la di Dio. I n tr o d u z io n e

g e n e r a l e alla s a c r a Scrittu ra, B rescia 1981. The 5th e d itio n w a s p u b lish e d in 1985.

In th e r e v ie w s of th is w ork , w e fin d co m m en ts su ch as th e fo llo w in g : „La co sti- tu z io n e c o n c ilia r e D ei V erb um , fra i su o i v a ri risu lta ti co n creti, ha a v u to ancha q u ello di orie n ta re se c o n d o n u o v e p r o sp e ttiv e o g n i in tro d u zio n e g e n e r a le alia S. Scrittura. M ons. V a le rio M an u cci offre la piu te stim o n ia n z a del qu adro m eto d o - io g ic o per un ap p rocio g lo b a le ai te s to bib lico." C. M. M a r t i n i O ss. Rom. 27.9.T98il. A ls o „C'e aria in d u b b ia m en te n u o v a , q u ella c h e si resp ira già, b e n c h é c o n d e n s a ta entro p o c h e to rm en ta te p a g in e, n e lla D ei V erb um ... " G. G i a v i n i , SC 110, 1 (1982) n. 97.

4 In P o lish lite ra tu re c o n su lt o n th is poin t se v e r a l a r tic le s b y Fr. J. H o - m e r s к i, e.g. in R uch B ib lijn y i L itu rg iczn y 17 (1964) 261— 274; A te n e u m K a­ p ła ń sk ie 56 (1964) 193— 201; and a lso in A te n e u m K ap łań sk ie. 61 (1969) 388— 383. S ee in p articu lar in I d e e p r z e w o d n ie . .. , c ite d p r e v io u sly , pp. 67— 68. A lso the e s s a y b y B ish op H. M u s z y ń s k i , S ł o w o n a tc h n io n e (The In sp ired W ord. A n o u tlin e of th e t h e o lo g ic a l c o n te n ts of b ib lica l in sp iration ) K rak ów 1983.

2. The Partial or S electiv ely Fragmentary A cceptance of the Constitution „Dei Verbum"

T he second po in t of note, ad m itted ly a critical one, to u ch e s on the q u estio n of th e P ost-V atican a c ce p tatio n of th e C o n stitu tio n Dei V erbum . It speaks of th e fra g m en ta ry n a tu re of th e te x t a c c e p ­ tan ce th a t c h a ra c te riz e d this period. T rue, th e sy n o d al o b se rv a tio n is v e ry g e n e ra l in c h a ra c te r, inasm uch as it does n ot iden tify the fragm ent-elem ents, som e of w h ich w e re ignored, w hile o th ers w e re selected for in co rp o ratio n into th e Bible stu dies of th e se p a st tw e n ty years.

N e v e rth e le ss, a clo ser look at th e p u b licatio n s on S crip tu ral studies of alm ost th e e n tire last q u a rte r-c e n tu ry allow s us to co n ­ clude th a t th e w rite rs of th e Final Relatio had in m ind th e Biblicists' v e ry e n th u sia stic ad o p tio n — som etim es e x te n d e d p e rh a p s too far — of specifically th o se e lem en ts b y w h ich th e C o n stitu tio n cleared for us th e w ay to a b e tte r u n d e rsta n d in g w ith no n-C atholic Biblical scholarship. To p ut it m ore ex actly, w e a re sp eak in g h e re of th o se e le m en ts w hich w on for th em selves, a lre a d y in th e Encyclical, Di-

v ino aillante Spirito, th e d esig n a tio n — "th e g re e n lig h t”.

It w as th e re ite ra tio n of p rec isely th e se d ire c tiv e s of th e C o n sti­ tution, theijr ela b o ratio n , an d th e stro n g em p h asis giv en to th em th a t led to th e w arm re c e p tio n acco rd ed to th e C o n stitu tio n Dei

V e r b u m by Biblical sch o lars at large, n o t only b y C atholic groups.

"N um ber 19" of th e C o n stitu tio n becam e g e n e ra lly ackn ow ledg ed as th e official e n c o u ra g e m e n t for ta k in g full a d v a n ta g e of th e m e­ th ods p ro m u lg a te d b y th e Form- und R ed aktio nsgesch ichte th eo ries.

Tim e and ag ain it h as b een p ro v e n th a t th e C o n stitu tio n v e ry c le a rly ex p an d s an d re n d e rs flexible th e co n cept of h isto ric ity as su ch 5. It does so p rin c ip ally b y v irtu e of a d o p tin g such fo rm u lation s as: "T he sacred a u th o rs w ro te th e four G ospels, selectin g som e th in g s from th e m an y w h ich h ad b een h a n d e d on b y w o rd of m outh or in w ritings, red u c in g som e of th em to a synth esis, e x p la in ­ ing som e th in g s in v ie w of th e situ a tio n of th e ir ch u rc h e s" (n. 19). O r e v e n in an e a rlie r sta te m e n t w h e re th e d ocum ent sp eak in g of th e Old T e sta m en t says: "T he books, a lth o u g h th e y also con tain som e th in g s w h ich a re in co m p lete and tem p o rary , n e v e rth e le ss show us a tru e d iv in e p e d a g o g y " (n. 15).

6 In c o n n e c tio n w ith th is s e e J. A . F i t z m y e r , D ie W a h r h e i t d e r E v a n ­

g e li e n , S tu ttgart 1965. T h e auth or is a c tu a lly fo c u s in g h e r e o n th e In stru ctio n s

from th e B ib lica l C om m ission : D e h i s t o r ic a E v a n g e li o r u m v e r i t a t e issu e d A p ril 21, 1964. H o w e v e r , it is g e n e r a lly r e c o g n iz e d that th is In stru ctio n is at th e basis of th e 5th C h apter of th e C o n stitu tio n o n R e v e la tio n . S e e o n thiis p oin t K. R o ­ m a n i u k , P r o b l e m y e g z e g e z y N o w e g o T e s t a m e n t u w K o n s t y t u c j i d o g m a t y c z n e j

o B o s k im O b j a w i e n i u (P rob lem s in th e e x e g e s is of th e N e w T esta m en t N o te d in

th e D o g m a tic C o n stitu tio n on D iv in e R ev ela tio n ) R uch B ib lijn y i L itu r g iczn y 14 (1967) 5— 18.

A lm ost one e n tire p a ra g ra p h of th e C o n stitutio n Dei V erbum consists of such form al d irectives, a le rtin g co m m entators on H oly S crip tu res to th e fact th a t "d ue a tte n tio n m ust be paid to th e c u sto ­ m ary and c h a ra c te ristic sty le s of feeling, sp eak in g an d n a rra tin g w hich p re v a ile d at th e tim e of th e sacred w rite r", (n. 12). This is n o th in g else th a n th e C h u rch's official en c o u ra g e m e n t to Biblicists to e n g ag e in p ro b in g studies, extra-B ib lical ones as well, of v a rio u s lite ra ry form s, and to u se th ese as c rite ria in th e ir critical in te rp re ta ­ tions of th e Bible.

But it h as com e to p ass th a t a n a ly se s d raw n up on th e rules of lite ra ry criticism h a v e b een stre tc h e d to such lim its in th e post- -C onciliar e ra th a t th e y h a v e b eg u n to w e a ry e v e n th o se w ho had b een e n th u sia stic a lly p u rsu in g su ch a n a ly se s th em selv es u n til now. T estifyin g to th is en n u i is, am ong o th er things, th e ever-m o re- -fre q u en tly e v id e n t re lu c ta n c e am ong co m m en tators to b re a k up la rg e r lite ra ry w h o les and to see p e rfo rce in e v e ry b o o k of the Bible, e v e n in th o se of but a few ch ap ters, a k ind of artificial " p a ­ stich e" of som e few or at tim es e v e n of se v e ra l com p osition s6.

These, then, a re som e ex am p les of th is so rt of p a rtia l or "piece- -w ise" a c ce p tan c e of th e C o n stitu tio n Dei V e rb u m . M o reo ver, it w as p rim a rily in th is d irectio n th a t th e re a d in g of th e docum ent w ent d u rin g th e past tw o decades.

O n th e o th er h an d and sig n ifican tly enough, th e re n e v e r a p p e a r­ ed in an y la rg e r p u b licatio n a full d ev elo p m en t of th e fifth po in t of th e C o n stitu tio n w h ich tre a ts of th e n eed of obedience in faith in th e se m atters. A nd y et, it w ould seem to h a v e b e e n in d ic a te d as n e c e ssa ry in an ag e m ark ed b y a crisis of a u th o rity in all sp heres and at a tim e of w id e sp re a d secularism . R eferen ces to num ber 10 of th e C o n stitu tio n w e re lik ew ise in freq u en t, an d w hen th e y did occur, it w as la rg e ly for th e p u rp o se of e x p o u n d in g v e ry specifically on th e te a c h in g ro le of th e C hurch.

F u rth e rm o re , full a d v e rte n c e has n o t as y e t b een m ade, at least no t e v e ry w h e re , to th e p o stu la te s c o n stitu tiv e of th e w ho le sixth c h a p te r of th e Dei V e r b u m w hich sp eak s of th e S crip tu res in th e life of th e C hurch. H ere w e w ish to a ck n o w led g e th a t th e em erg en ce and su b seq u e n t a c tiv itie s of th e W o rld C atho lic F e d e ra tio n of the Biblical A p o sto late h a v e show n th em se lv e s to be a significant a c h ie ­ v em en t in this specific reg ard .

6 T his k in d of r e lu c ta n c e is rather e a s ily d e te c te d in th e se v e r a l v o lu m e s of

3. The Search for the M eaning of the H oly Scriptures

and

the Living Tradition and Official Teaching of the Church

The tex t-fo rm u latio n of th e Final Relatio h as us d ealing h e re quite clearly, on th e one hand, w ith p a tristic ex egesis — and p erh ap s also w ith p o st-p a tristic (v iv a tiaditio) —· and on th e o th er hand, w ith the tea c h in g office of th e C hurch w hich a u th e n tic a lly in te rp re ts the H oly Scrip tu res. In rem in d in g us th a t th e re can be no d iscord (disharm ony) b e tw e en som e " p riv a te " in q u iry into th e m ean ing of the W o rd of God and tra d itio n and th e M agisterium , th e w rite rs of the Relatio give us to u n d e rsta n d th a t in th e p ast tw e n ty years, things w e re not alw ay s so, or to p u t it sim ply, th e y w e re otherw ise. Let us look, th erefo re, into this m atte r from th ese tw o aspects: first, at c o n te m p o ra ry Biblical sch o larsh ip and p a tristic exegesis, and th e official e n u n c ia tio n s of th e C hurch.

a. C o n t e m p o r a r y B i b l i c a l S t u d i e s

a n d

P a t r i s t i c E x e g e s i s

T h ere is no n eed to h id e th e fact th a t th e F a th ers of th e C hurch a re n ot h eld as th e g re a te s t au th o rities in th e field of e x eg esis by c o n te m p o ra ry S c rip tu ra l scholars. A la rg e num ber of facto rs e n te r into e x p la in in g th is s ta te of affairs. Som e of th ese are:

T he P hilo lo g ical In ad e q u a c ie s of P a tristic E xegesis

It is w ell k n ow n th a t c o n te m p o ra ry Biblical sch o larsh ip is b ased on a sound k no w led g e of lang u ag es, p rin c ip ally of the lan g u ag es in w hich th e S crip tu res w e re w ritten , but often of m ore lan g u ag es th an these. T he m a jo rity of th e S c rip tu ra l co m m en tators from th e p a ­ tristic age, h o w ev er, n e ith e r set such k n o w led g e of lan g u a g e s as th eir basis, nor do th e y g iv e a n y e v id e n c e of p o ssessin g it. The F a th ers of th e W e ste rn C hurch, w ith b u t a few ex cep tio n s, are com m enting on S crip tu res w ritte n in th eir Latin tra n sla tio n s; m ore e x a c tly — first in th e O ld Latin form, th e n la te r in th e V u lg ate v ersio n of Jero m e. G ran ted, th e F a th e rs of th e E astern C hurch are v e rse d in th e G reek lan g u ag e, b u t sc arc e ly a n y of th em can claim th e ab ility to re a d th e S crip tu res in th e H e b re w language.

T h at is w h y it is p ossible to ju stify — at lea st in p a rt — the ch arg e a d v an ced ag ain st p a tristic Biblical stud ies th a t th e w rite rs are, for all p urposes, com m enting on. S c rip tu ra l te x ts significan tly a t v a ria n c e w ith th e o riginal tex ts w hich, m o reo ver, ap p e ar in th e S crip tu res issued to d ay . To th e c a te g o ry of w e ak n esses in th e p h i­ lological a r e a m ust also b e ad d ed th e alm ost to ta l ab sen ce w ith th e

F ath ers (with th e sing le ex c ep tio n of O rigen) of an y a ttem p ts at tex tu a l criticism . As a resu lt, th erefo re, th e object u n d e r an alysis is, in th e case of th e p a tristic exeg esis, a te x t qu ite different from th a t u n d e r critical stu d y b y co n te m p o ra ry Biblicists.

T he E x cessiv ely A llego rizin g T enden cies th a t C h a ra cte riz e P a tristic C om m entaries

For m any F a th e rs of th e C hurch, th e lite ra l sen se of the S crip tu res is of little im port, and in th e ir view , ought no t to be the ob ject of d isc o v e ry in re a d in g th e W o rd of G od7. T he P au line adm o­ n ition ab o u t th e "k illin g '' fun ction of th e le tte r (2 Cor. 3 : 6 ) is r e ­ p e a te d by th em o v er and o v er an d in v a rio u s w ays. A ll th a t the Bible sp e ak s of m ust h a v e a sp iritu a l an d a d eep er se n se 8.

This u n d e rsta n d in g of th e Bible, o rig in a tin g a lre a d y w ith Philo9, and la te r carefu lly c u ltiv a te d in th e ren o w n e d ex eg etic a l-c a te c h e - tic a l School of A le x a n d ria 10, e n jo y e d g re a t p o p u larity in a n tiq u ity in spite of th e a p p e a ra n c e in tim e of th e A n tio ch C en ter w hich sou gh t to p ro m o te a m ore lite ra l e x e g e s is 11.

The fact rem ains th a t th e re p re v a ile d at th e tim e an alm ost u n iv e rsa lly h e ld conviction, b asin g itself, m o reo ver, on th e tea c h in g of St. Paul, th a t w h a te v e r is w ritte n in th e d iv in e ly in spired Books w as w ritte n for our in stru c tio n (Rom. 15:4)12. W h ile th is assertio n

7 In A u g u s tin e 's v ie w , r e str ic tin g o n e s e lf in th e rea d in g to th e lite ra l se n s e w o u ld b e an affront to th e v e r y d ig n ity of God. „H aec si sp ir itu a lite r non in te llig a n tu r n o n n e fa b u la e sunt? N is i a lig u id h ab ean t se c re ti, n o n n e in d ig n a e su n t Deo?" (In Ps. 76,2).

8 T h e se are th e term s w ith w h ic h St. A u g u s tin e d e sig n a te s th is s e n s e or m ean in g: s e n s u s s p ir i t u a l i s — In Ps. 33 (serm o 4,1); i n t e l l e c t u s s p ir i t u a l i s ■— In Ps. 103 (serm o 1,1); illu s tr is i n t e l l e c t u s ■— In Ps. 108,1; i n t e r p r e ta t i o a l le g o r i c a ■— In Ps. 77,26; tr a n s i tu s a d C h r i s t u m ·— In Ps. 7,1; m y s t i c a s i g n if ic a tio ■— In Job. tr. 9,2.

9 Cf. S. G. S o w e r s , T h e H e r m e n e u t i c s of Philo a n d H e b r e w s , R ichm ond 1965.

10 Cf. L. G i n z b e r g, A l l e g o r i c a l I n te r p r e t a t io n s , J e w ish E n cy clo p ed ia

n. 403; a lso W . B u r g h a r d t , O n E a r ly C h r is tia n E x e g e s is , ThS 11 (1950) 78— 116.

11 Cf. С. IT a y , A n t i o c h e n E x e g e s is a n d C h r i s t o l o g y , A u stral. Bibl. R ev. 12 (1964) 10— 235; R. E. B r o w n n o te s w ith g o o d rea so n : „ H o w e v e r , w ith H ila ry (d. 367), A m b ro se (d. 397) and e s p e c ia lly A u g u s tin e (d. 430), th e w a v e of A le ­ xa n d ria n a lle g o r ic a l e x e g e s is sw e p t in to th e W e s t.” Th e J e r o m e B ib li c a l C o m ­

m e n t a r y II, 61.2.

12 St. J e r o m e , w h ile not o n e of th e g rea test a lle g o r ic a l co m m en tators in p a tristic e x e g e s is , also sa y s: „ N o n su n t, ut qu idam pu tant, in scrip tu ris, verb a sim p licia ; plu rim um in h is a b sco n d itu m e st. A liu d littera , a liu d m y stic u s serm o sig n ifica t." EP. 18, 12 (PL 22,368). S e e y e t on th is point: A. P e η n a, P rinc ipi

e c a r a t t e r e d e l T e s e g e s i di S. G ir o la m o , Rom a 1950. T h is sa m e m eth o d o f in terp ret­

in g S crip tu res w a s dom inan t am on g th e co m m en ta to rs of th e M id d le A g e s. S e e - С. S p i с q, P o u r q u o i le m o y e n - â g e n'a -t-il p a s p r a t i q u é d a v a n t a g e l ' e x é g è s e l it ­

téral? RSPT 28 (1939) 139— 179; B y th e sam e author: E s q u is s e d'un e h i s t o i r e de T e s é g è s e l a ti n e au M o y e n A g e , P aris 1944.

itself is re a d ily acceptab le, th e po in t at issue h e re is th a t n one of the p a tristic co m m en tato rs pro p o sed an y c rite ria on th e basis of w hich could be d isco v ered th e sp iritu a l sen se of th e m an y things, the p eo p le and th e e v e n ts e n te rin g into an d form ing th e to ta l s tru c ­ tu re of th e Biblical u n iv erse. In consequence, th e re ru le s in th eir w ritin g ab so lu te freedom and a su b jectiv ism difficult to reco n cile w ith th e rig o rs of th e sc h o la rly Biblical in v estig a tio n s of our tim es13. This sta te of affairs is m ade w orse b y th e fact th a t som e of th e F a th ers of th e C hurch, am ong th em such lu m inaries in o th er r e ­ spects as St. A ugustine, re ly in g e x c lu siv e ly on th e S eptuagint, com e to re g a rd it as bein g itself an in sp ired text. H ence, th e y p e rc e iv e c e rtain d ev ia tio n s from th e orig in al H eb rew th a t occur in th e S e p ­ tu ag in t tra n sla tio n as a sign by w hich God H im self m an d ates th e re a d e r to se arc h out in th e se in stan ces th e sp iritu a l sense of the given Biblical p a ssa g e 14.

T he E vident D eficiencies in P atristic Exegesis

in th e A reas of Biblical H istory, G eo g rap h y and A rch eo lo g y These w e a k n e sse s a re th e n a tu ra l con seq u en ces of th e ir to ta l indifference to th e lite ra ry sense of th e Bible15. M oreo ver, th e ro le of arc h e o lo g y as an a u x ilia ry d iscip lin e in e x eg esis w as as y et unknow n, w hile th e a v a ilab le g eo g rap h ical-h isto rical data, w ere, for th e m ost p art, in te rp re te d a lle g o ric ally also.

T he "H o m iletical C h a ra c te r" of P atristic Exegesis

The m inds of th e sch o lars of our tim es, inclu ding Biblical scholars, are g e a re d to th e rig o rs of stric t logical th in k in g and th e y find no p lea su re in this ty p e of "ho m iletical" exposition. But th a t is p rec isely th e d istin ctiv e c h a ra c te ristic of m an y of th e e x e g etic a l co m m en taries of th e F a th e rs of th e C hurch. T he com m entaries are, in fact, no m o re th a n serm ons w hich w e re u su a lly listen e d to by

13 M. P o n t e t , an e x c e p tio n a l a u th o rity o n St. A u g u s tin e , w r ite s th u s on th e a lle g o r ic a l e x e g e s is of th is F ather of th e Church: „D e plu s, il y a dans so n e x é g è s e u n c u r ie u x m e la n g e de rem arq u es a ig u ë s et de n a ïv e tés ." L 'e x é g è s e

d e S. A u g u s t i n n. 230. S im ila rly R. E. B r o w n w h o o b ser v e s: „T he F athers and

S c h o la stic s had fo u n d in th e N e w T esta m en t th e o lo g ic a l in sig h ts of w h ic h th e o r ig in a l au th ors w e r e in n o cen t." T h e J e r o m e B ib li c a l C o m m e n t a r y II, 613.

14 S e e for th is M. P o n t e t , L 'e x é g è s e d e S. A u g u s t i n p r é d i c a t e u r , Paris 1944, n. 182.

16 T he E n c y c lic a l D i v in o a illa n te S p iritu confirm s th is, as w e rea d in it: „ N o n en im pau ca, inter ea p raesertim q u ae ad h isto ria m sp ecta n t, aut v ix , aut non sa tis e x p lic a ta su nt a su p erioru m sa e cu lo ru m e x p la n a to r ib u s, q u ip p e qu ib us fere o m n es n o titia e d e e s s e n t ad illa m a g is illu stra n d a n ec essa ria e ." EB 555. For a rather u n u su a l n o tio n of h isto r y s e e th e tr e a tis e w h ic h still rem a in s a c la s sic in its field : Sain t A u g u s t i n et la Un de la c u l tu r e a n tiq u e , P aris 1938, 132 pp, b y H. I. M a r r o u.

th e sim ple p eo p le of God. T he p o in t is th a t su ch an e x e g e sis m ay be allo w ed c e rta in p re d e te rm in e d p re ro g a tiv e s o th erw ise forbidden, m ainly for th is re a so n th a t as serm on, th e e x e g esis m ust n o t only co n vince th e m ind of th e lis te n e r b u t it m ust also to u ch his em otions and stir him to action. T h at is w h y th is se lfa p p ro p ria ted licentia

hom iletica is a p h en o m en o n q u ite p erm issib le in a serm on, e v e n

th o u g h it is h a rd ly su ita b le for u se in th e field of sc h o la rly Biblical criticism .

A d m itted ly then, p a tristic e x e g esis does n o t p re se n t an e s p e ­ cially a ttra c tiv e field of in v estig a tio n in th e v iew of co n te m p o ra ry Biblical sch o larsh ip w h ich in q u ire s ab o v e all into th e lite ra l sense of th e in sp ired w o rd of God. W h ile th is sta n c e of th e m odern sch o lar h as our u n d e rsta n d in g , it it re g re tta b le , n e v e rth e le ss, th at c u rre n t Biblical th eo lo g y does n o t av ail itself of p a tristic so u rces to a g re a te r degree. T he p e n e tra tin g in te lle c tu a l insights of th e F a th ers of th e C hurch, th e ir p ro n en e ss to tre a t b o th T estam en ts jo in tly w ith an ad m irab le fid elity to th e p rin cip le: In V e t e i e N o v u m latet

et in N o v o V e t u s p a tetle (The new is h id d en in th e old, w h ile the

old stan d s open to th e new ) could u n d o u b ted ly p ro v e helpful in th e co n stru c tio n of Biblical th eo lo g ies b o th of th e ind iv id u al book s of th e Bible and of th e w hole of b o th T estam en ts as w ell. A m ore fre q u e n t re a c h in g out for th e F a th e rs of th e C hurch could v e ry w ell sa v e our e x eg esis and our Biblical th eo lo g y from m ore th a n one in stan ce of o v er-p hilo lo gizin g an d of an e x a g g e ra te d seek in g of p a ra lle ls in clo sely b o u n d religions.

b. B i b l i s t i c s o f t h e L a s t T w e n t y Y e a r s

a n d

t h e O f f i c i a l T e a c h i n g F u n c t i o n o f t h e C h u r c h Som e Biblical sc h o la rs h a v e th is a g a in st th e official p ro n o u n ­ cem ents of th e C h u rch th a t in tim e th e y lose th e ir bin din g force, as th e h isto ry of biblistics sh o w s17. A n d th e y cite m any e x am p les to su p p o rt this claim. Thus, it is p o in te d o u t th a t e v e n a t th e begin n in g

16 Iren eu s e x p r e s s e s th is sa m e th o u g h t in su ch fo r m u la tio n as: „ In sem in a tu s est u b iq u e in Scrip turis... F iliu s D ei." A d v , ha er. IV , 20. or „ D isse m in a v e r u n t ... S erm on em d e C h risto p a tr ia rch a e et prop h etae" A d v . h a e r IV , 39. A u g u s tin e sp ea k s in lik e w a y : „ M o se s o m n e q u od sc rip sit, de C h ristio est." C o n t r a Faust, 16,9.

17 „T o d a y , w ith th e a p p ro v a l of th e sa m e c o m m issio n , m o st of th e se di­ r e c tiv e s are reg a r d e d as p a s s e b y C a th o lic sch o la rs." R. E. B r o w n , T h e J e ­

r o m e B ib li c a l C o m m e n t a r y II, 620. W e ca n fin d , h o w e v e r , so m e v e r y e lo q u en t

sta te m en ts o n th is p oin t co m in g from so m e th e o lo g ia n s of ren o w n . T hu s, for ex a m p le, Card. L. B i l l o t c o u n s e ls th e lite r a r y form s sh o u ld be r eg a r d e d as „g en eri di v a n ità , n e i q u a li o n o n c'è s c u sa a lcu n a , o se c'è l'ig n o ren za sc u sa l'errore, e la te m e r ità sc u s a l'ign oran za." D e i n s p i r a ti o n e S a c r a e S c r ip tu r a e, R om a4 1929, 154. C ited b y L. A l o n s o S c h o к e l , D o v e v a ï e s e g e s i c a tt o l ic a , C iv. Catt. 11 (1960) 451.

of this cen tu ry , th e P a p a l Biblical C om m ission did n ot allow (although in tru th , w ritte n do cum ents to th is effect a re difficult to find) th e use of v a rio u s lite ra ry form s in th e in te rp re ta tio n of th e S criptu res. A nd it w as o n ly w ith stro n g re s e rv a tio n s (this ag ain in com pliance w ith th e sam e C om m ission's d irectiv es) th a t scholars w ere to d raw from re se a rc h e s in th e field of form criticism , viz.,

Formgeschichte, th e th e o ry of th e tw o so u rces of lite ra ry c riticism 18.

Sim ilarly, th e n ew h y p o th ese s on th e D eutro- and T rito -Isaiah them es found no a c c e p ta n c e 19. In th e official d o cu m en ts of th e C hurch, th e L etters to th e H eb rew s w as alm ost alw ays ascrib ed to St. P aul20; and th e re a re o th er such, exam ples.

O n all th ese p ro b lem atic q u estions, and w e could e a sily list m any m ore, th e re w as shed in tim e a co m p letely differen t ligh t in th e official e n u n c ia tio n s of th e C hurch. It is th e relativ ism of th ese p ro n o u n cem en ts th a t Biblical scho lars find so discouraging, as som e are quick to confess, p ro te stin g at th e sam e tim e at th e restric tio n s im posed on th e c re a tiv e in itia tiv e of C atholic ex egetes.

But p o sitio n s sta k e d on such claim s a re n o t a lw a y s w ell-founded. In all fairness, th e y n eed be c o rre c te d by b ringing fo rth a w h ole list of docu m en ts a tte stin g to th e e x tra o rd in a ry freedom th a t w as giv en to C atholic scholars, at lea st since W orld W a r II, in th e ir c o n s tru c ­ tion of all so rts of in v e stig a tiv e h y p o th eses: In fact, th e p e rio d from

1941— 1948 is re g a rd e d as th e re n a issa n c e of C atholic Biblical s tu ­ dies, m ainly b ec au se of th e issu an ce of se v e ra l im p o rta n t Papal d o ­ cu m ents21.

W e a re obliged to look from a som ew hat d iffe re n t p e rsp e c tiv e on th e q u e stio n of th e C hu rch 's la te r ad o p tin g a m ore lib e ra l p o si­ tion in m atte rs re la tin g to th e in te rp re ta tio n of th e Bible. A fter all, th e so-called "re lativ ism " of th e e a rlie r p ro n o u n cem en ts can be also re a d ily seen as in a sense a c e rta in re silie n c y (elasticity) of th e M agisterium and its sen sitiv e a w a re n e ss of th e e v e r n ew a c h ie ­ v em en ts on th e Biblical scene. It is in its ow n w a y an e x p re ssio n of re sp e c t for th ese ach iev em ents. F or th e C hurch tak e s th ese findings into acco u n t to th is e x te n t th a t from tim e to tim e, d ire c tly un d er th e in flu en ce of th e se rese a rc h e s, it m odifies and c o rre c ts its ow n outlook. This fact c e rta in ly m erits th e a p p re c ia tiv e rec o g n itio n of scholars. W e can w ell im agine w h at som e w ould sa y w ere th e M a­ gisteriu m n e v e r to show a n y flexibility. N o d o u b t it w ould be charged, an d rig h tly so, w ith p e trifica tio n an d an in se n sitiv e d isre ­ g a rd of th e fru its of th e ard u o u s lab o rs (researches) of so m an y m en of learnin g .

18 A n A llu s io n to th e P ro n o u n cem en t of th e B ib lica l C o m m issio n o f Ju n e 24, 1912 (EB 417— 418).

19 S e e th e P ro n o u n ce m en t from Ju n e 28, 1908 (EB 276— 80). 20 T he r e s p o n s e from J u n e 24, 1914 (EB 411— 413).

Finally, w e m ust rem em ber th a t th e g re a te r n u m ber of th e B iblical C om m ission's p ro n o u n cem en ts issu ed at th e b e g in n in g of this c e n tu ry w e re m ade in th e face of a ctu al h isto ric a l d a n g e rs th re a te n in g the C h u rch of th a t d a y from th e on slau g h t of M o d er­ nism. In its co n cern to p re s e rv e th e p u rity of faith of its b eliev ers, th e C hu rch saw fit to p ro te c t th em in th is w a y from th e ev ils th at w ere ram p a n t at th e time.

Conclusion

T he w ish of th e s e reflectio n s w as th a t th e y m ight b e a n e x ­ p ression of a h e a rt-s tirre d resp o n se to th e rem a rk s of th e S ynod on the problem of th e n eg lect of th e C onciliar C o n stitu tio n on D ivine R evelation. M ay th e th o u g h ts vo iced h e re in testify to th e fact th a t the o b se rv a tio n s m ade b y th e p a rticip a n ts at th e S ynod w ere p e ru se d c arefu lly by th o se in th e field at issue.

O urs w as also th e co n cern to p o in t out th e kind of obstacles that p ro fessio n al Biblical co m m en tato rs a re faced with, e v en tho se who a re tru ly re c e p tiv e to th e vo ice of th e tea c h in g office of the C hurch. T he rec a llin g of th ese u n se ttlin g o b stacles w as in no w ay an a tte m p t at ju stify in g this n eg le c t of th e C o n stitu tio n Dei V e r b u m during th e p a st tw e n ty y e a rs. O ur h ope w as ra th e r to in d ic a te w ays of o verco m in g th ese difficulties — difficulties th a t at tim es w ere, in fact, n o t e v e n actual.

W ith o u t m inim izing th e in stru ctio n s left us b y th e Final Relatio, w e m ust assert, n o n eth eless, th a t w h en w e ta k e full stock of the last tw o d e c a d e s an d strik e a m ore e q u ita b le balan ce, w e find th a t th e ''b ib lic al'' fruits of th e S econd V a tic a n C ouncil a re a lre a d y p e r­ ceiv ab le e v e n in th e d aily life of th e C atholic C hurch. W h a t rem ains is sim ply to co n tin u e th e w o rk th a t w as b e g u n w ith g re a te r fidelity now to th e p rin cip les of th e Dei V e r b u m and in com pliance to th e d ire c tiv e s of the Final Relatio of th e Synod of Bishops.