The Catholic Church and Bible Interpretation

The historical-critical method of Bible interpretation is “indispensable”, declares a remarkable new report of the Pontifical Biblical Commission of the Roman Catholic Church.¹ “Proper understanding [of the Bible] not only admits the use of this method but actually requires it.” Holy Scripture is the “word of God in human language”; in short, the Bible “has been composed by human authors in all its various parts,” states the report issued late last year by a 20-person committee, all men and all leading Roman Catholic scholars.

One of the most valuable aspects of the Commission’s report is its careful, yet succinct descriptions of the wide variety of methods of biblical interpretation, noting both the strengths and limitations of each method.

The Commission’s report discusses both the “documentary hypothesis” regarding the editing of the Pentateuch and the “two-source hypothesis” regarding the relationship of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) to one another.

The report describes the “documentary hypothesis” as “an explanation of the editing of the Pentateuch. According to this hypothesis, four documents, to some extent parallel with each other, had been woven together: that of the Yahwist (J), that of the Elohist (E), that of the Deuteronomist (D) and that of the priestly author (P); the final editor made use of this latter (priestly) document to provide a structure for the whole.”

As for the “two-source hypothesis”:

“In similar fashion, to explain both the agreements and disagreements between the three synoptic Gospels, scholars had recourse to the ‘two-source’ hypothesis. According to this, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were composed out of two principal sources: on the one hand, the Gospel of Mark and, on the other, a collection of the sayings of Jesus (called Q, from the German word quelle, meaning “source”). In their essential features, these two hypotheses retain their prominence in scientific exegesis today—though they are also under challenge.”

The report goes on to describe not only source criticism as reflected in the methods described above, but also form criticism, tradition criticism, redaction criticism and other tools of the historical-critical approach, which, the report concludes, have provided “fresh access to the Bible.”

The report specifically rejects the literalist stance of fundamentalist interpretation. The report describes the fundamentalist approach as “dangerous,” inviting people to “a kind of intellectual suicide.” This approach “unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.” The report’s discussion of fundamentalist interpretation is printed in its entirety in the sidebar to this article.

While noting the limitations of feminist exegesis, the report gives generally high marks to it:

“Feminist exegesis has brought many benefits. Women have played a more active part in exegetical research. They have succeeded, often better than men, in detecting the presence, the significance and the role of women in the Bible, in Christian origins and in the church. The worldview of today, because of its greater attention to the dignity of women and to their role in society and in the church, ensures that new questions are put to the biblical text, which in turn occasions new discoveries. Feminine sensitivity helps to unmask and correct certain commonly accepted interpretations which were tendentious and sought to justify the male domination of women.”

The report gives a more qualified endorsement to liberation theology. Liberation theology seeks a reading of the Bible “drawn from the situation of people as it is lived here and now. If a people lives in circumstances of oppression, one must go to the Bible to find there nourishment capable of sustaining the people in its struggles and its hopes.”

According to the principles of liberation theology, “God is present in the history of his people, bringing them salvation. He is the God of the poor and cannot tolerate oppression or injustice. It follows that exegesis cannot be neutral, but must, in imitation of God, take sides on behalf of the poor and be engaged in the struggle to liberate the oppressed.”

The report’s conclusion regarding liberation theology states:

“Liberation theology includes elements of undoubted value: the deep awareness of the presence of God who saves; the insistence on the communal dimension of faith; the pressing sense of need for a liberating praxis rooted in justice and love; a fresh reading of the Bible which seeks to make of the word of God the light and the nourishment of the people of God in the midst of its struggles and hopes. In all these ways it underlines the capacity of the inspired text to speak to the world of today.

“But a reading of the Bible from a stance of such commitment also involves some risks …. It is true that exegesis cannot be neutral, but it must also take care not to become one-sided. Moreover, social and political action is not the direct task of exegete …. [C]ertain streams of liberation theology have conducted an analysis inspired by materialist doctrines, and it is within such frame of reference that they have also read the Bible, a practice which is very questionable, especially when it involves the Marxist principle of the class struggle.”

Speaking of the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament, the report frankly acknowledges that the biblical exegete “need not put absolute value in something which simply reflects limited human understanding …. The Bible is a repository of many ways of interpreting the same events and reflecting upon the same problems. In itself it urges us to avoid excessive simplification and narrowness of spirit.”

While varied approaches and numerous interpretations can all have their own validity, some interpretations are plainly unacceptable:

“[H]istory also illustrates the prevalence from time to time of interpretations that are tendentious and false, baneful in their effect—such as, for example, those that have promoted anti-Semitism or other forms of racial discrimination or, yet again, various kinds of millennarian delusions.”

The report admonishes the exegete to be “aware of [the] danger … of attributing to biblical texts a meaning which they do not contain but which is the product of a later development within the [church] tradition.”

The report condemns biblical interpretations that are used “to justify racial segregation, anti-Semitism or sexism whether on the part of men or of women. Particular attention is necessary, according to the spirit of the Second Vatican Council (Nostra Aetate, 4), to avoid absolutely any actualization of certain texts of the New Testament which could provoke or reinforce unfavorable attitudes to the Jewish people. The tragic events of the past must, on the contrary, impel all to keep unceasingly in mind that, according to the New Testament, the Jews remain ‘beloved’ of God, ‘since the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable’ (Romans 11:28–29).”

Although the report is avowedly theological and theologically Catholic, it is nevertheless instructive and valuable reading for non-Catholics and even non-Christians. It’s time that Catholic biblical exegesis is “a theological discipline, the principal aim of which is the deepening of faith.” On the other hand, objective, scientific methods of modern biblical interpretation are shared by scholars of all religious confessions. In this regard, the Commission’s report contains a generally unbiased and non-confessional description of these methodologies, emphasizing their value while noting their limitations.

The report approvingly describes a variety of recent literary interpretations of the Bible, such as rhetorical analysis, narrative analysis and even semiotic analysis (the latter, we are told, was originally known as structuralism; it is valuable even though it often gets “lost in remote and complex language”).

Especially insightful are the report’s description of the sociological, anthropological and psychological approaches to biblical interpretation. “Religious texts are bound in reciprocal relationship to the societies in which they originate,” the report notes. Even psychoanalysis is valuable because it has led “to a new understanding of symbol. The language of symbol makes provision for the expression of areas of religious experience that are not accessible to purely conceptual reasoning but which have a genuine value for the expression of truth.” Psychologists in cooperation with biblical scholars can help us “to ascertain the meaning of cultic ritual, of sacrifice, of bans, to explain the use of imagery in biblical language, the metaphorical significance of miracle stories, the wellsprings of apocalyptic visual and auditory experiences. It is not simply a matter of describing the symbolic language of the Bible but of grasping how it functions with respect to the revelation of mystery and the issuing of challenge—where the ‘numinous’ reality of God enters into contact with the human person.”

The report also reflects a high regard for philosophical approaches such as that represented by the French hermeneutical scholar Paul Ricoeur. Describing his approach, the report tells us: “Once produced, the text takes on a certain autonomy in relation to its author; it begins its own career of meaning …. The meaning of a text can be fully grasped only as it is actualized in the lives of readers who appropriate it.” Each new reader is thus “summoned to uncover new meanings, along the fundamental line of meaning indicated by the text.”

The report also carefully considers the spiritual sense of Scripture, which is, according to the explicit presuppositions of the report, the inspired, even inerrant, Word of God:

“We can define the spiritual sense, as understood by Christian faith, as the meaning expressed by the biblical texts when read, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, in the context of the, paschal mystery of Christ and of the new life which flows from it. This context truly exists. In it the New Testament recognizes the fulfillment of the Scriptures. It is therefore quite acceptable to reread the Scriptures in the light of this new context, which is that of life in the Spirit.”

Finally, the report appears to speak directly to Bible Review:

“Exegetes who have a gift for popularization provide an extremely useful and fruitful work, one that is indispensable if the fruit of exegetical studies is to be dispersed as widely as need demands.”

For the full text of this report, write to Origins/CNS Documentary Service, 3211 4th St. NE, Washington, DC 20017–1100, or call (202) 541–3290. (Minimum charge for a single copy is $5.00; for 2–4 copies, $3.50 each. Multiple copyrights available on request.)

The historical-critical method of Bible interpretation is “indispensable”, declares a remarkable new report of the Pontifical Biblical Commission of the Roman Catholic Church.1 “Proper understanding [of the Bible] not only admits the use of this method but actually requires it.” Holy Scripture is the “word of God in human language”; in short, the Bible “has been composed by human authors in all its various parts,” states the report issued late last year by a 20-person committee, all men and all leading Roman Catholic scholars. One of the most valuable aspects of the Commission’s report is its careful, yet succinct descriptions […]