A very fruitful relationship.
The publication of the recent Instruction for the study of the Fathers of the Church in priestly formation is a significant event: the study of Theology must be nourished not only by a scholastic presentation of dogma, but also by its progressive historical formation in the time of the Fathers. It is understandable that the document particularly insists on the theological aspect. We, however, have been asked to illustrate another aspect: “The Fathers of the Church and the Bible.” For this it is not enough to propose the example of the Fathers, remembering that they have made constant use of the Bible; The question is whether the Fathers’ way of interpreting can be ours today. Therefore the title is as follows: “The Fathers of the Church in the present study of Sacred Scripture.” We will systematically present what the Instruction says in this regard, but we will also try to develop these few indications in the light of the Constitution Dei Verbum and the urgent demands of contemporary hermeneutics. We will follow the three stages of the Instruction.
I. The present situation
1. In nn. 8-9 the dominant orientation of contemporary exegesis is carefully described. First of all, the general fact is noted that is manifested in the new Theology that, sensitive to the challenges of “modernity”, is much more interested in a direct confrontation of biblical data with the social reality of our time than with the testimonies of the Fathers or with ecclesiastical tradition: the document observes, therefore, “a general rejection of the past” (n.8). In this way we fall, on the one hand, into a “biblicism”, which is a form of “historicism”; and on the other, in a kind of “sociological update” of the Bible, also with a historicist stamp. In this entire process, the reading of the Church is absent, that is, the role of Tradition for the interpretation of Scripture. A more specific obstacle in the study of the Fathers is the very method of contemporary exegesis. Here the text of the Instruction is harsh: “Modern exegesis that uses the aid of historical and literary criticism, casts a shadow on the exegetical contributions of the Fathers, which are considered simplistic and, in substance, useless for a deep knowledge of the Sacred Scripture” (n.9). This severe judgment is currently shared by various theologians and philosophers, such as R. Guardini, H. Gadamer, H. Urs von Balthasar, J. Ratzinger; But they, in addition to confirming that situation, indicate the philosophical reason and the epistemological and theological gap thereof. J. Ratzinger, for example, already in an article from 1967, he observed that one of the three reasons why the Council wanted to prepare a Constitution on Revelation was that the “theological problem” represented by “the use of the historico-critical method” in the interpretation of Sacred Scripture appeared increasingly clearly. In other words, the Council wanted exegesis to truly become a theological science. This is how the insistence is understood. of the Constitution Dei Verbum: “The study of sacred Scripture must be like the soul of sacred Theology” (n. 24). Note in this phrase the double use of the word “sacred” (sacred), both for Scripture and for Theology, which shows that exegesis, like theology, must be essentially religious and believing, and not only philological and historical. This Instruction highlights another “lacuna” in current biblical studies: “Such orientations, while impoverishing and denaturalizing the exegesis itself, breaking its natural union with Tradition, undoubtedly diminish the esteem and interest in patristic works” (n. 9). And then the document adds: “The exegesis of the Fathers, on the other hand, could open our eyes to other dimensions, such as spiritual exegesis and hermeneutics, which would complete the historico-critical (dimension) by enriching it with deeply theological intuitions” (ibid.)
Let’s pause for a moment on this phrase. Two important terms have been introduced here: spiritual exegesis and hermeneutics. The first expression, paradoxically, is found only here in the entire Instruction, even though it is a document about the Fathers (for them – we know – the search for spiritual meaning was fundamental); We will return to this paradox later. The second expression, however, hermeneutics, is found again in no. 54, when the method to be followed in the study of the Fathers is indicated; and there is an interesting confrontation with biblical science: in both cases, that is, for both Exegesis and Patristics, the critical historical method is certainly recommended, but its limits are also insisted upon; it must be integrated with “the methods of modern literary analysis and hermeneutics” (which therefore go beyond the purely historical method).
What is Hermeneutics? It is the science that seeks to specify the conditions in the study or investigation of “meaning”; It is the science of interpretation. Here we touch on the decisive point. Well, it is not enough to recommend the study of the Fathers saying that in this way the historico-critical exegesis could be enriched with profound theological intuitions. The specialist may have some consideration for this pious invitation of a parenetic type, but for him it remains something inoperative until he is critically shown that this recourse to the exegesis of Tradition is part of his exegetical method. Otherwise he could immediately reply that such an enrichment of his exegesis with the Patristic Tradition does not interest him at all, since it is something extrinsic to his discipline; It is something that should be left to the patrologist or the theologian. This question, therefore, must be criticized from a rigorously methodological point of view, because in this time of “interdisciplinary work”, the closure, the isolation of exegetical science, cannot be accepted. What is questioned today is the epistemological status of exegesis itself: it is a science, yes, but not only a historical science, but a hermeneutic and theological science, that is, a “science of faith”, as R. Guardini said, that is, the search for gnosis tês pisteôs. What does it mean to “interpret the Sacred Scripture”, but to search for its meaning, and not only the history of the texts? Without exaggeration, it can be said that today’s exegetical science limits itself to reconstituting the genesis of the texts, their historical context, without truly opening itself to the question about their meaning, about the depth and theological and dynamic openness of the texts. It would be necessary to introduce a whole theological reflection here on two questions:
a) What is a written text, as distinguished from the initial oral kerigma? b) in that written text – which is therefore different from the previous announcement, which challenged the listeners – where is the meaning of that text? Only in its explicit formulation? Didn’t it also challenge future readers?
These are questions that are at the center of contemporary Hermeneutics and that biblical exegesis cannot ignore for long.
2. But let us now see in what way the Instruction recalls the directives of the Church regarding the study of the Fathers in biblical exegesis. Texts from the Second Vatican Council, the Congregation for Catholic Education and the last Popes are once again proposed here. Let’s limit ourselves to the most widely cited document, Dei Verbum. Among the five passages of the Constitution that are remembered, four touch on the problem of the relationship between Scripture and Patristic Tradition: – in DV 8-10, it speaks of the close relationship and unity between Scripture and Tradition, keeping in mind that it is the Fathers who attest and transmit the life-giving presence of Tradition in the Church; – in DV 24, it is remembered that Sacred Scripture must be “like the soul of Theology.” Unfortunately, it is not explained by either the Council or the Congregation which type of exegesis can truly be “the soul of Theology” today. It is obvious that exclusively historico-critical exegesis cannot suffice for this task. The current situation demonstrates this almost dramatically; – Let us quote, finally, the conclusion of n. 14 of the Instruction, where there is once again a confrontation between contemporary exegesis and patristic exegesis, with an extensive quote from DV 23. The Instruction says:
“Also today, despite the undeniable progress achieved by modern exegesis, the Church, ‘which is concerned with achieving an ever deeper understanding of the Sacred Scripture, in order to be able to continually nourish its children with the divine words…, therefore rightly favors the study of the Fathers of the East and West and of the Sacred Liturgies’ (n.23).”
Among the conciliar texts cited in the Instruction, this is the most important, because it is situated from a hermeneutical point of view, using the formula “a deeper intelligence every day (in dies, DV 23).” Acquiring intelligence or understanding of Scripture is – or should be – properly the objective of biblical exegesis; You must always seek to better penetrate the meaning of the texts. Furthermore, if we speak of “deeper every day” understanding, it means that the meaning of the “Sacred Scriptures” was and remains present in the texts, but partially hidden, implicit; It was and remains within the biblical text, but it must also be sought beyond the explicit formulations. Therefore, it is not enough to study, as they say, “the text as a text.” Interpreting means transcending the limits of expressions, making explicit what is implicit, revealing the deep life of the texts. Father Scheuer, philosopher and teacher of Father Marechal in Leuven, said: “It is necessary to find the flame in the formula.” This is precisely what the Tradition of the Church seeks to achieve. It would have been appropriate here to also remember n. 8 of Dei Verbum on the progress of Tradition, that is, on the “growth of understanding” (crescit…perceptio) of things and words, due to both study and the “intimate intelligence” that comes from the experience of spiritual things. Behind this text of the Council is the great principle of San Gregorio Magno: “Sacra Scriptura… aliquo modo cum legentibus crescit”.
II. Why turn to the Fathers in biblical exegesis?
The second part of the Instruction is titled: “Why study the Fathers?” Understandably, here too there is much more emphasis on the importance of the Fathers for Theology than for Biblical Exegesis. However, it is our intention to highlight what the Instruction proposes as a stimulus for today’s exegetical work.
1. In no. 26 it is recalled that the Fathers continually resort to Sacred Scripture, but adds, at the same time, that they have the meaning of Tradition. He recognizes that “their method (that of the Fathers) presents certain and undeniable limits” with respect to the various sciences used by modern exegesis. But, the Instruction adds with a quote from the Encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu (EB 554), the superiority of the Fathers with respect to the exegetes of the Middle Ages and the modern age is due to their “intuition of celestial things, by an admirable penetration of spirit, thanks to which they are more advanced in the depth of the divine word.” Therefore, “the example of the Fathers can teach modern exegetes a truly religious approach to Sacred Scripture, as well as an interpretation that constantly adheres to the criterion of communion with the Church, which walks through history under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.” It will be seen, in the third part, how such a program can be carried out in concrete. At no. 27 the Instruction presents some very timely reflections on the synthetic character of the exegesis of the Fathers: from the “exegetical activity of the Fathers in medio Ecclesiae” Christian Theology was born. Indeed, “That exegesis, in which spiritual life merges with rational theological reflection (…) It is centered entirely on the mystery of Christ, to whom it refers all the particular truths in an admirable synthesis. (…) The Fathers seek to embrace the totality of the Christian mystery (…), they look at everything in its center, making this whole present in each of its parts and relating each peripheral issue to it.”
2. Perhaps it would have been appropriate – here, in n.27, or in n.14, where five passages from Dei Verbum were cited – to make an explicit reference to cap. III of the conciliar Constitution, where the inspiration of Sacred Scripture and its interpretation are formally discussed. The fact that the Sacred Scripture has been inspired by the Spirit of God was essential for the Fathers: for them, it is precisely the Spirit that constitutes the depth of the letter. From this it follows that the deep meaning of the Sacred Scripture is that which Father H. De Lubac has called: “Le sens donné par l’Esprit” (the meaning given by the Spirit). The Dei Verbum (12,3) took up this patristic norm; In fact, after a paragraph (12,2) on the need for a philological and historical analysis of the texts, he said: “But the Sacred Scripture must be read with the same Spirit with which it was written.” This principle, unfortunately not mentioned in the Instruction, is nevertheless the compendium of the great Patristic Tradition on biblical exegesis. The Council, in DV 12,3, derived from this principle three consequences for the interpretation of all Scripture: the content and unity of all Scripture, the living Tradition of the entire Church and the analogy of faith must be taken into account. Let’s add another consequence of that “traditional” principle that we have cited; It undeniably follows the need to rediscover the “spiritual meaning” of Sacred Scripture today, that is, the Spirit in the letter. The expression “spiritual exegesis”, we have noted, is unfortunately found only once in the entire present Instruction (in n.9). For this reason, we allow ourselves to insist a little: recommending the study of the Fathers in biblical exegesis does not mean, certainly, that it would be necessary to return to their methods, but rather that we must learn to read the Sacred Scripture in the spirit of the Fathers, that is, as Father de Lubac said, rediscover today “the spiritual intelligence of the Scripture as the Christian centuries have understood it”; It is that spiritual intelligence that San Gregorio Magno called “internal intelligence”; the “inner meaning” of the biblical text.
III. How should the Fathers be studied?
1. For this third part of the Instruction we stop only in the second section, where the method is discussed (nn. 53-56), since there a suggestive confrontation is made between the study of Patristics and that of the Bible. For both disciplines, the scientific rigor of the method, the historico-critical one, is insisted upon. But what is said immediately afterwards for the study of the Fathers also applies to exegesis: “In the case of a theological discipline, which in all its phases proceeds ad lumen fidei, freedom of research should not reduce its object of study within the sphere of pure philology or historical-criticism. In fact, positive Theology must recognize, as a first presupposition, the supernatural character of its object and the need to make reference to the Magisterium” (n.54). As the Patristic, also the exegesis “is situated and proceeds in an environment of faith” (ibid.).
2. But we must further specify the question about the method. It is not enough to ask: How to study the Fathers? For the biblical scholar, the question is rather the following: How can one, today, make use of the patristic interpretation of Scripture within modern critical exegesis? To answer this question it is necessary to start from the interest, growing in our time, in the so-called Wirkungsgeschichte: for a century now, after so many studies on biblical philology, on ancient history, on the history of religions, on the history of the text, of traditions, of forms, etc., biblical scholars also begin to be interested in the “history of effects”, that is, in the history of the rereading of the biblical text in the Tradition; in other words, in the History of exegesis. Let us specify that it is not only about the History of Jewish exegesis, to illuminate the historical context of the New Testament (which would still be a predominantly historical interest); It is the History of properly Christian exegesis, in patristic and medieval times. Here the interest is not only historical, but formally hermeneutical: the “teleological” dimension of the text is part of the very structure of the interpretive act, as M. Heidegger, P. Ricoeur and H.G. Gadamer have well shown. For this reason we also note with interest that the Instruction, in n.56, insists on the importance of “interdisciplinary contact”: numerous disciplines can benefit from this collaboration, in particular the study of Sacred Scripture. What is required today is, therefore, a “hermeneutical re-thinking” of the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, between critical exegesis and Christian exegesis. That is why the patristic problem of the relationship between letter and spirit, or the medieval problem of the four senses of Scripture, becomes very current again. Only today, that research must be rethought on a more critical basis, that is, according to the criteria of contemporary epistemology. We would like to give here two examples of this fruitful reciprocity between critical exegesis and patristic interpretation. In the passage from Mt 1, 18-25, to answer the question why Joseph wanted to abandon Mary, San Bernardo answers that he wants to give, not his answer, but that of the Fathers. And then he cites an interpretation that was widespread in the Patristic era and in the Middle Ages. Currently. Contemporary exegesis is rediscovering precisely that interpretation of Tradition, with a more attentive study of Matthew’s vocabulary and the structure of the passage. Another example: the blood and water that flow from the pierced side of Jesus according to Jn 19, 34. In this case, wrote H. Rahner, the Augustinian interpretation is situated at the starting point of a mystical tradition that, when the time would have come (in the Middle Ages), would make devotion to the Heart of Christ flourish. Here again the structural analysis of the symbolism of the text provides precious support, but also new complements to that reading of the Tradition.
Conclusion
After having taken, with the encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu, a decisive step toward the recovery of historical exegesis, the contemporary Church, under the impulse of the Second Vatican Council (cf. the Constitutions Sacrosanctum Concilium and Dei Verbum), is making another fundamental advance on its path, rediscovering the inevitable importance and ever-renewing force of the way in which our Fathers in the faith read the Bible, so as to attain “an ever deeper understanding” of Sacred Scripture, as the Instruction hopes for us in n. 14. For this reason, this new document on the study of the Fathers of the Church is a sign of the times. Indeed, works that seek to achieve this integration, this synthesis, are multiplying today. It is enough to recall, in the case of Italy, the great collection begun with the volume entitled Genesi: La Bibbia interpretata dalla grande Tradizione, by Umberto Neri; and El Salterio de la Tradición, by Luciana Mortari. In France, two great collections of the same kind may be mentioned: Bible chrétienne and Lire la Bible avec les Pères. These are promising signs, which will be important both for the pastoral life of the Church and for ecumenical dialogue. One might say that we are again witnessing a fulfilment of the prophetic promise: “Behold, the days are coming, oracle of the Lord, when I will send a famine upon the land; not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the Word of God” (Am 8:11 LXX). But it is up to us to act in such a way that the announcement of the following verse is not also fulfilled: “They shall wander from sea to sea, from north to east, seeking the Word of God, but they shall not find it” (8:12). The Church today, on the contrary, wants all of us to find the Word of the Lord; therefore we must strive to restore it to its central place in the life of the People of God. The light of the Word of God must be “put on a lampstand, so that all who enter may see the light” (Lk 8:16). But we must also make our own the following admonition of the Gospel: “Take care, then, how you hear!” (Lk 8:18).
Author: Rev. Fr. Ignace de la Potterie, SJ
Source: Apologetica.org
