3. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND CRITICAL EXEGESIS

In the first two hundred years after Richard Simon, the Catholic Church had great difficulty in figuring out how critical exegesis could be consistent with a faithful acceptance of the Bible as the written Word of God. In the last one hundred years, however, the Catholic Church has grown increasingly confident that critical exegesis and faithful exegesis can make a good marriage. The first signs of this newly found confidence appeared in Pope Leo XIII's landmark encyclical letter Providentissimus Deus (1893). Fifty years later Pope Pius XII in the encyclical letter Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943) endorsed textual criticism, literary genres, archaeological investigation, etc. as legitimate instruments of Catholic exegesis. This was a decisive breakthrough. The years 1964-1965 saw some basic results of critical Gospel exegesis accepted by the Pontifical Biblical Commission (Instruction Sancta Mater Ecclesia, 1964) and, more importantly, by the Second Vatican Council (Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum, 1965).

Finally, on April 15, 1993 the Pontifical Biblical Commission issued a document entitled The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. This document a) briefly describes the various exegetical methods and approaches, indicating their strong points and weak points; b) discusses a few hermeneutical problems; c) reflects on the basic dimensions of a Catholic interpretation of the Bible and its relationship to the other theological areas; d) considers the place occupied by Biblical interpretation in the life of the Church. (cf. Introduction, B) (10)

Regarding the historical-critical method, the document has this to say (11): "The historical-critical method is indispensable for the scientific study of the meaning of ancient texts. Sacred Scripture, insofar as it is 'Word of God in human language', has been composed by human authors in all its parts and in all its sources. Hence the right understanding of Sacred Scripture not only admits as legitimate, but demands, the use of this method." (I.A)

Naturally, this is not the only method. Hence the document continues: "No scientific method for the study of the Bible is capable of exhausting the richness of the biblical texts. Whatever its validity, the historical-critical method cannot pretend to be all sufficient. Inevitably, this method neglects several aspects of the writings it studies. No wonder, therefore, if today other methods and approaches are proposed to deepen this or that aspect worthy of consideration." (1.B) Even so, the historical-critical method remains fundamental and indispensable.

In presenting this document Pope John Paul II recalls the wonderfully deep reason of this indispensability, namely the mystery of the Incarnation. The Pope refers to a text of the Second Vatican Council: "In sacred Scripture [...] while the truth and holiness of God always remain intact, the marvellous 'condescension' of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, 'that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far. He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature.' (St. John Chrysostom, On Genesis, 3,8). For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as of old the Word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the weak flesh of humanity, became like other men." (Dei Verbum, 13).

While there was a time when the terms 'critical' and 'Catholic' used in my title were somehow mutually exclusive, today this is no longer the case. On the contrary, they are mutually inclusive. On the one hand, the acceptance of the critical method by the Church is a sign of her catholicity. On the other hand, the critical method is essentially catholic in its reliance on criteria which are as objective as possible. Catholic means universal, and there is nothing more universal for humanity than our God-given rationality. Unreasonableness creates ghettos. Reason opens up the individual to others and to the Other. The Catholic Church's endorsement of the critical method is in line with its uninterrupted acceptance of natural theology as praeambula fidei.

The welcome given by the Catholic Church to the critical method means that the Church can no longer be considered fundamentalist. In fact, it is characteristic of fundamentalism to reject on principle the critical method, or at least a great part of its results. For fundamentalism, the critical method is the negation of the Bible as the written Word of God, inspired and guaranteed by God. For the fundamentalists, the destructive results of the application of this method to the Bible are all too evident. The Catholic Church, with her two hundred years of misgivings with regard to this method, is in a position to understand the concerns off undamentalist Christians. The excesses of liberal Protestant exegesis have their share of responsibility for the opposition aroused against critical exegesis. In particular, the fundamentalists reproach the critics for readily admitting all sorts of mistakes in the Bible. How can the Word of God include mistakes and errors, and still be the Word of God? This is the overriding fundamentalist concern. Within the Catholic Church there has taken place a profound reflection on this problem. It would be good for the Protestant undamentalists to take cognizance of the results of this reflection and see whether they are not a better response to their concerns than their own fundamentalism.

Pressed by the alternatives, to accept the supposed results of critical exegesis and admit errors in the Bible, or to continue to affirm the absolute authority of the Bible and reject the results of critical exegesis, the fundamentalists opt for the second alternative. The price they pay for doing so is double: on the one hand, this rejection induces a certain lack of intellectual honesty and consistency in dealing with problems in the Bible. (12); on the other hand, this rejection results in an undue stress on the supernatural and the divinity of Christ, at the expense of his humanity.

At the opposite pole of the spectrum, the position of liberal Protestantism vis-a-vis critical exegesis is one of unconditional acceptance. Does this mean a corresponding rejection of the I standpoint of faith? No, liberal Protestantism does not reject the I faith but does something which to Catholic and fundamentalist eyes I amounts very much to a rejection of the faith. Liberal Protestants ! argue for the essential irrelevance of the results of historical-critical exegesis to the Christian faith. In their own words: "In terms of method, the biblical texts are to be treated no differently than other literary sources, especially those of antiquity. [...] For the beginner in this discipline, this observation may already cause initial problems to surface. Anyone who expects 'edification' from his encounter with the OT and the NT is at once confronted with the questions of authenticity, unity, and historical reliability. He has to ask whether the certainty of his own faith may be jeopardized by questioning the historical reliability of certain traditions concerning Jesus, or whether such a danger can be avoided on the premise that faith and historical insight belong to two fundamentally different levels.(14) It is clear that Conzelmann and Lindemann opt for this second alternative. It is also clear that behind this choice there is the "sola fide" ("faith only") principle of Martin Luther: no human element (whether rational or historical) can undermine the certainty of the faith or claim to offer any kind of support to a self-sufficient faith.

Whether this is a satisfactory solution to the problem caused by the tension between criticism and faith remains to be seen. In my opinion, this solution is as unsatisfactory as the fundamentalist solution. There, as already pointed out, intellectual honesty becomes a problem and so does the full reality of the Incarnation. Here, strangely enough, the same twofold problem surfaces. On the one hand, the liberal Protestant position also lacks intellectual honesty. Is it not too easy an escape to say that the historical findings of critical exegesis are ultimately irrelevant to the faith? It must be a cheap faith that can be defended all that easily! Moreover, such a facile defence is actually meant to give critical exegesis a totally free rein. The Christian experience of faith is said to be meaningful even apart from its basis in history (a basis which liberal critical exegesis declares mostly irretrievable). "But this attitude is of little interest to the [true] historian, who will be justified in pointing out that 'there must be an adequate basis for the alleged experience if it is to be meaningful.'" (15).

On the other hand, the reality of the Incarnation is also in danger here. If history is irrelevant to the faith, it means that the Word is not truly Incarnate. A tremendous dichotomy is introduced between reason and faith, nature and grace, time and eternity, man and God. The same dichotomy emerges disguised in different clothes in fundamentalism. After all, opposites touch one another. It may well be that Fundamentalist Exegesis and Liberal Exegesis, these opposites which polarize the Protestant field, are finally rooted in the unbalance of the "sola fide" ("faith only") principle as distinct from the Catholic "prima fides" ("faith first") principle.

10. The only edition available to me is the Italian edition. The English translation of this document in the text of my article is mine. Cf. Pontificia Commissione Biblica, L 'inferpretazione delta Bibbia nella Chiesa (Citta del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1993) 125. This summary of the whole document appears on page 29.

11. Pontificia Commissione Biblica, 30.

12. cf. Barr, 40-89 and 120-159.

13. Ban, 169-171.

14. Conzelmann and Lindemann, 2-3.

15. Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1977) 182.