Dear Brothers and Sisters,
the work
for my book on Jesus offers ample occasion to see all the good
that can come from modern exegesis, but also to recognize the
problems and risks in it. Dei Verbum 12 offers two
methodological indications for suitable exegetic work. In the
first place, it confirms the need to use the historical-critical
method, briefly describing the essential elements. This need is
the consequence of the Christian principle formulated in Jn 1:14
"Verbum caro factum est." The historical fact is a constitutive
dimension of Christian faith. The history of salvation is not a
myth, but a true story and therefore to be studied with the same
methods as serious historical research.
However, this history has another dimension, that of divine
action. Because of this, "Dei Verbum" mentions a second
methodological level necessary for the correct interpretation of
the words, which are at the same time human words and divine
Word.
The Council says, following a fundamental rule for any
interpretation of a literary text, that Scripture must be
interpreted in the same spirit in which it was written and
thereby indicates three fundamental methodological elements to
bear in mind the divine dimension, the pneumatology of the
Bible: one must, that is 1) interpret the text bearing in mind
the unity of the entire Scripture; today this is called
canonical exegesis; at the time of the Council this term had not
been created, but the Council says the same thing: one must bear
in mind the unity of all of Scripture; 2) one must then bear in
mind the living tradition of the whole Church, and finally 3)
observe the analogy of faith. Only where the two methodological
levels, the historical-critical and the theological one, are
observed, can one speak about theological exegesis -- of an
exegesis suitable for this Book. While the first level today's
academic exegesis works on a very high level and truly gives us
help, the same cannot be said about the other level. Often this
second level, the level constituted of the three theological
elements indicated by Dei Verbum seems to be almost absent. And
this has rather serious consequences.
The first consequence of the absence of this second
methodological level is that the Bible becomes a book only about
the past. Moral consequences can be drawn from it, one can learn
about history, but the Book only speaks about the past and its
exegesis is no longer truly theological, becoming
historiography, the history of literature. This is the first
consequence: the Bible remains in the past, speaks only of the
past. There is also a second even more serious consequence:
where the hermeneutics of faith, indicated by Dei Verbum,
disappear, another type of hermeneutics appears of necessity, a
secularized, positivistic hermeneutics, whose fundamental key is
the certitude that the Divine does not appear in human history.
According to this hermeneutic, when there seems to be a divine
element, one must explain where it came from and bring it to the
human element completely.
Because of this, interpretations that deny the historicity of
divine elements emerge. Today, the so-called mainstream of
exegesis in Germany denies, for example, that the Lord
instituted the Holy Eucharist and says that Jesus' corpse stayed
in the tomb. The Resurrection would not be an historical event,
but a theological vision. This occurs because the hermeneutic of
faith is missing: therefore a profane philosophical hermeneutic
is stated, which denies the possibility of entering and of the
real presence of the Divine in history. The consequence of the
absence of the second methodological level is that a deep chasm
was created between scientific exegesis and lectio divina. This,
at times, gives rise to a form of perplexity even in the
preparation of homilies. Where exegesis is not theology,
Scripture cannot be the soul of theology and, vice versa, when
theology is not essentially the interpretation of the Scripture
in the Church, this theology has no foundation anymore.
Therefore for the life and the mission of the Church, for the
future of faith, this dualism between exegesis and theology must
be overcome. Biblical theology and systematic theology are two
dimensions of the one reality, what we call Theology. Due to
this, I would hope that in one of the propositions the need to
bear in mind the two methodological levels indicated in Dei
Verbum 12 be mentioned, where the need to develop an exegesis
not only on the historical level, but also on the theological
level is needed. Therefore, widening the formation of future
exegetes in this sense is necessary, to truly open the treasures
of the Scripture to today's world and to all of us.
[Translation by the secretariat of the Synod of Bishops]
© Copyright 2008 - Libreria Editrice Vaticana
Look at the One they
Pierced!
