THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY

Published by the Catholic Biblical Association of America

Editor: Richard J. Dillon, Fordham University, Bronx, NY 10458
(Manuscn'pts of anicles are to be sent to the editor.)
Book Review Editors:
or and Qumran: Irene Nowell, O.S.B., Mount St. Schoiastica, Atchison, KS 66002-2778
NT and Intertestamental: Amy-Jill Levine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37240
(Books for review are to be sent to The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 314 Caldwell Hall The C th r
University of America, Washington. DC 20064.) , ,a 0 Ie
Publishing Christopher T. Begg, The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC 20064
Associate Editors:
Term 2000-2003
Ilmn 2001-2004
Term 2002-2005
Term 2003-2006
Paul J. Achtemeier, Union Theological Seminary in Virginia
Jon L, Berquist, Chalice Press
Brendan Byrne, S.J., Jesuit Theological College, Parkville, Australia
Linda Day, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
Robert A. Kugler, Lewis and Clark College
Sean E. McEvenue, Concordia University (Emeritus)
Francis J. Moloney, S.D.B., The Catholic University of America
Mark Allan Powell, Trinity Lutheran Seminary
Barbara Bowe, R.S.C.J., Catholic Theological Union
Claudia V. Camp, Texas Christian University
Carol J. Dempsey, O.P., University of Portland
Ralph W. Klein, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, O.P., Ecole Biblique
L. Soards, Presbyterian Theological Seminary
Bonrue Thurston, PIttsburgh Theological Seminary
Jerome T. Walsh, University of Botswana
A. K. M. Adam, Seabury-Western Theological Seminary
Adela Yarbro Collins, Yale Divinity School
Mary Rose D'Angelo, University of Notre Dame
Carole Fontaine, Andover Newton Theological School
Holladay, Andover Newton Theological School (Emeritus)
leslie J. Hoppe, O.P.M., Catholic Theological Union
Jean-Pierre Ruiz, St. John's University, JamaiCa, NY
Choon-Leong Seow, Princeton Theological Seminary
David E. Aune, University of Notre Dame
Warren Carter, St. Paul School of Theology, Kansas City
Beverly R, Gaventa, Princeton Theological Seminary
B:rrbara Green, O.P., Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley
Gina Hens-Piazza, Jesuit School of Theology, Berkeley
Peter Machinist, Harvard University
Paula M. McNutt, Canisius College
David L. Petersen, Emory University
The Catholic Biblical Quarterly is available in electronic form in Periodical Abstracts, both Research I
Full. Te.xt and II Full Text (University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI). It is indexed in the Catholic
.. ArtIcles are also indexed in Religion Index One: Periodicals, book reviews in Index to Book
ReVIews In ReligIOn.
. contributors 0: articles and book reviews are found in CBQ 60 (1998) 829-56. A
reVised list of abbreVIatIOns for periodIcals and series is found in each year's October issue.
The editors are not obliged to review or return unsolicited books sent for review.
Correspondence about the contents of the Quanerly or about editorial policy should be addressed to th'
editor.
about business matters of the Quanerly (subscriptions. missing issues, defective copies
offpnnts, i.ssues, decennial indexes, and changes of address), as well as inquiries about other .
p I of the should be addressed to the executive secretary of the Catholic Biblical
of 314 Caldwell Hall, The Catholic University of America, Washington. DC 20064. The
of a subscnptlOn for those who are not members of the association is $30.00 a year. Back issues are $7 50
per Issue and $30.00 per volume. Decennial indexes are $2.00 each for vols. 1-10 and 11-20, $3.00 each for'
vols. and 31-4.0. $7.00 for vols. 41-50, and $11.00 for all five indexes together; all orders for them must
be prepaid, but there IS no charge for postage.
Catholic Principles
for Interpreting Scripture
PETER S. WILLIAMSON
Sacred Heart Major Seminary
Detroit, MI 48206
AT THE CONVENTION of the Catholic Biblical Association of America in 1997,
Luke Timothy Johnson aroused no small reaction from his fellow exegetes by a
paper entitled "What's Catholic about Catholic Biblical Scholarship?" According
to Johnson, Catholic biblical scholarship had changed over the course of the last
century from being Catholic, but not very scholarly, to its present condition of
being scholarly, but not markedly Catholic. Johnson attributed the putative indistin-
guishability of Catholic exegesis to its embrace of the historical-critical method
with its monopolistic claims and its Protestant bias against tradition.'
At the following year's meeting of the CBA, Roland Murphy addressed the
same question. Murphy disagreed that Catholics' use of the historical-critical method
"levels" Catholic scholarship with others who use the same method. Instead, he
maintained that Catholic scholars' self-perception as participants in a living tradi-
tion colors their approach to the biblical text
2
Although Murphy's paper offered
I Luke Timothy Johnson, "So What's Catholic About It? The State of Catholic Biblical Scholar-
ship," Commonweal, 16 January 1998, 12-16. Johnson presents a revised version of his CBA presen-
tation. along with his vision of the way forward, in Luke Timothy Johnson and William S. Kurz. The
Future of Catholic Biblical Scholarship: A Constructive Conversation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002).
2 Roland E. Murphy, "What Is Catholic About Catholic Biblical $cholarship?-Revisited,"
BTB 28 (1998) 112-19, here 118. Murphy concludes by denying that the primacy of the historical-
critical method strips Catholic biblical scholarship of its "Catholic" character. Instead, Murphy
locates the distinctiveness of the endeavor in the Catholic exegete's self-perception: "The Catholic
scholar is an active member of the church, who inherits from the past and works within that 'Jiving
tradition' described above; this presupposition colors the approach to the text."
327
328 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 65, 2003
a personal rather than a systematic response to the question "What's Catholic
about Catholic Biblical Scholarship?," Murphy suggested that "an adequate answer"
might be found in "the 1993 document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on
The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. "3
I was encouraged by Murphy's suggestion, since at that time I was in the
earlystages of doctoral research the Biblical Commission's document, seeking
to :,rllculate and evaluate the pnnclp1es of Catholic interpretation found in it. This
artICle the results of that study, twenty principles of Catholic interpre-
tatlOn denved from The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (IBC) that shed
light on what constitutes Catholic interpretation.'
AlthoughtheBiblical C.ommission's document and these principles are limi-
ted to mterpretallon wlthm the Catholic Church, they can be of service
to non-Catholic scholars as well. First, other Cbristian traditions and to a lesser
degree, Jewishinterpretation share many of the same principles. these
pnnClples proVide a model of uniting scholarly study of a sacred text to religious
fruth and to the life of a community that may prove useful to other communions.
Fmally, scholars engaged in ecumenical dialogue or collaboration with Catholics
may find this summary of Catholic henneneutical principles helpful.
1. Introduction
A. The Biblical Commission and Its Document
The Biblical Commission's focus was more specific than the sweeping "Catho-
lic biblkal scholarship" .addressed by both Johnson and Murphy. As the title of
IBC mdICates, the C0n:=sslOn concerned itself with the interpretation of the Bible
In the church, whICh It refers to as "Catholic exegesis." Catholic exegesis thus
defined must be distinguished from biblical scholarship by Catholics in secular or
mterreliglOus contexts. The Biblical Commission did not take up how Catholic
exegetes carry out their work in nonecclesial settings except to affirm that their
work properly entails "contact with non-Catholic colleagues and with many areas
of scholarly research" (III.C.a).'
It should also be noted that IBC employs the term "exegesis" in a particular
v:ay. Common usage employs the term "exegesis" for scholarly, historical, or
hterary of texts and the term "theology" (or other terms) for the expla-
nallon of a text s religIOUS message for believing Christians. The convention is so
:3 Murphy, "What is Catholic ... ," 112.
. 4 entire study has been published: Peter S, Williamson, Catholic Principles for Inter-
preting SCripture: A Study of the Pontifical Biblical Commission's "The Interpretation of the Bible in
the James Swetnam; Subsidia Biblica 22; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2001). The
book prOVIdes a fuller exposition of the principles and discusses them in the light of published
commentary on IBC, prior magisterial teaching on Scripture, and contemporary scholarly discussion
of the issues at stake.
S See Williamson, Catholic Principles. 156.Jorcomments by Jon D. Levenson and Albert Van
hoye on the work of Catholic exegetes in secular or religiously pluralistic contexts.
CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 329
well established that contemporary authors add modifiers to the tenn "exegesis"
or adopt other tenns when they wish to refer to an exegesis that encompasses the
theological and henneneutical dimensions of the text.
6
However, for the Biblical
Commission, "exegesis" refers to integral interpretation, involving scholarly analy-
sis completed by an explanation of Scripture's meaning as the word of God for
Cbristian faith.
Several factors support Murphy's suggestion that it might be profitable to
study the Biblical Commission's 1993 document for "an adequate answer" to
what constitutes Catholic interpretation. First, IBC is substantial, being the longest
treatment of biblical interpretation by an official church document. Second, the
timing was right. The authors of the document were in a position to draw on a
century of Catholic experience and of teaching by the magisterium regarding scien-
tific methods of studying the Bible. In addition, they were able to take into account
questions that had come to light regarding the historical-critical method, new exegeti-
cal methods, and insights from philosophical hermeneutks. Third, IBC was devel-
oped by a group of exegetes.
7
The Biblical Commission is an international body
of twenty distinguished Catholic exegetes; they produced a competent work that
was well received by biblical scholars both inside and outside the Catholic Church.
Finally, the pope liked it. Although IBC is not magisterial teaching, strictly speaking,
Pope John Paul II received it and endorsed it in an address that emphasized its
consistency with previous teaching of the papal magisterium on the interpretation
of Scripture, giving it quasi-magisterial status.'
6 In this way, Maurice Gilbert ("Exegesis, Integral," in Dictionary of Fundamental Theology
red. Rene Latourelle and Rino Fisichella; New York: Crossroad, 1995] uses the teml "integral
exegesis" to indicate exegesis that encompasses the theological or "pneumatic" principles that are
given as essential in Dei Verbum 12. Francis Martin ("Literary Theory, Philosophy of History and
Exegesis." Thomist 52 [1988] 574-604. here 587) speaks of a "total reading" when interpretation goes
beyond "what the text says," to "what the text is talking about," Sandra M, Schneiders (The Reve-
latory Text: Interpreting the New Testament as Sacred Scripture [2d ed.; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical
Press. 1999] 127) uses "integral process of interpretation" to include the hermeneutical dimension,
which seeks "understanding in the fullest sense of the word,"
7 The members of the Biblical Commission who approved the final draft of IBC included the
following: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, President; Johannes Beutler, SJ. (Germany); Jacques Briend
(France); N. Balembo Paul Buetubela (Congo Kinshasa); Brendan Byrne. S.1, (Australia); Marcel
Dumais, D.M.!, (Quebec, Canada); Joseph Fitzmyer, S.1, (United States); Albert Fuchs (Austria); Jan
Lambrecht. SJ, (Belgium); Armando Jorge Levoratti (Argentina); Jose Loza Vera, D.P, (Mexico);
Archim, Antoine Mouhanna (Lebanon); Domingo Munoz Leon (Spain); R. Jesu Raja, SJ, (India);
Gianfranco Ravasi (Italy); Hubert Ritt (Austria); Lothar Ruppert (Germany); Adrian Schenker, D.P,
(Switzerland); Giuseppe SegaUa (Italy); Lech Remigiusz Stachowiak (Poland); Albert Vanhoye, S.1"
Secretary (France); and Jean-Luc Vesco, D.P, (France),
8 In his preface, Cardinal Ratzinger makes clear that the Pontifical Biblical Commission "is
not an organ of the teaching office" (Preface c, a), However. in an interview ("Modemitlt atea
religiosita post-modema." Il Regno-Attualitii. 1994, no. 4 (1994] 6570, here 67.68), the cardinal
offered this evaluation: "The Holy Father was in agreement about the importance of the subject [i.e"
330 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 65, 2003
Some readers interpreted IBC primarily as an evaluation of contemporary
methods, or as a defense of the historical-critical method and a rejection of funda-
mentalism. These readers may be surprised to see the Biblical Commission's docu-
ment mined for its overall approach to Catholic interpretation. Indeed, if the
document is read through the optic of its first chapter-39 of IBC's 100 pages are
devoted to description and evaluation of exegetical methods and approaches-this
is the reasonable conclusion. However, several indicators in the text-the docu-
ment's title, introduction, conclusion, and structure-show that the members of
the Biblical Commission had in mind a larger purpose.
9
One gains a richer and
truer understanding of IBC by reading it through the optic of its third chapter,
entitled "The Characteristics of Catholic Interpretation." ",
B. The Quest for "Principles"
The aim of my research was to identify, explain, and discuss the principles
of Catholic biblical interpretation found in The Interpretation of the Bible in the
Church. I defined "principles of Catholic interpretation" as the presuppositions
and procedures appropriate to interpreting Scripture in the life of the Catholic
Church 10
Although the Biblical Commission did not intend to define principles of
interpretation, a careful reading of IBC reveals that the Biblical Commission
contemporary exegetical methods], which needed a clear word to update the magisterial teaching. But
all, in all. it turned out that the voice of the experts, the theologians, confirmed by the Pope. was better
sUlted to meet the current challenges and new questions. I believe this to be a very interesting model.
Theol,ogians [referring to the exegetes who comprise the Commission] speak in all their responsibility
as behevers and pastors of the church, composing a scientific and pastoral work. Then the Holy Father,
with a carefully prepared address, confirms the essential points, thus assuming the essence of this text
(as opposed to its details) into magisterial teaching" [my own translation; emphasis added].
9 lBG's structure is particularly telling, paralleling in some respects that of the Biblical Com-
previous major published document, Bible et christoiogie (in Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Scripture
and Chmtology: A Statement of the Biblical Commission with a Commentary [New York Paulist,
198.6]). That document begins with a description and evaluation of the current approaches to the
and then offers the Biblical Commission's view of the global witness of Scripture about Christ,
WhICh formed the basis of its evaluations of particular approaches. Similarly, after a description and
evaluation of exegetical methods and contemporary hermeneutics, the Biblical Commission presents
its perspective in chapter 3, "Characteristics of Catholic Interpretation," which provides the inter-
pretive key for both what precedes and what follows it.
. 10 I did not attempt to present every principle of Catholic interpretation, but only those expressed
m IBG. Many Catholic beliefs about Scripture that indeed function as principles of interpretation, such
as the Bible's inspiration and inerrancy, were assumed by the Biblical Commission-without prejudice
to future developments-and were not ,treated, In addition, it would be possible to articulate other
principles of interpretation depending on the biblical genre and the interpretive aim: for instance
principles for exegeting parables or for interpreting the psalms in Christian prayer or for
the gospels. Although the Biblical Commission does offer some practical advice that applies to specific
kinds of interpretation, this document mainly considers interpretation at a more general level.
CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 331
makes its judgments on the basis of consistent principles. Sometimes these prin-
ciples are explicit, for instance, when the document provides precise definitions
for the senses of Scripture. At other times they are implicit, for instance, when it
evaluates various exegetical approaches in chapter I and offers reasons for these
evaluations. In still other cases, the Biblical Commission's principles emerge as
conclusions that follow from descriptive sections, such as the conclusions the
Commission draws from the history of interpretation (chapter 3).
I analyzed IBC to identify and formulate its fundamental principles; I supple-
mented my analysis by consulting published commentary on the document, paying
particular attention to commentary by members of the Biblical Commission. In
order to make the statement of the principles reflect the pcsition of the Biblical
Commission as closely as possible, I followed the language ofthe document when-
ever possible. When that was not possible, 1 paraphrased or summarized as care-
fully as I could. (I have used parenthetical references in the statements of the
principles to indicate IBC sections quoted or paraphrased.) Finally, I consulted
three members of the Biblical Commission regarding the adequacy of the pnn-
ciples I was in the process of formulating."
II. Principles
In the remainder of this article, I will present the twenty principles of Catho-
lic interpretation identified in this study (in italics below), comment briefly on
each of them and conclude with observations about their significance.
The principles fall under six headings, as indicated in the outline
below:
A. The Foundational Principle
1. The Word of God in Human Language
B, "In Human Language": Catholic Exegesis and Human Knowledge
2. Catholic Exegesis and Science
3. Catholic Exegesis and History
4. The Use of Philological and Literary Analysis
5. The Contribution of Philosophical Hermeneutics
C. "The Word of God": Catholic Exegesis and Christian Faith
6. A Hermeneutic of Faith
7. The Role of the Community of Faith
11 Those I consulted were Albert Vanhoye, Joseph Fitzmyer, and Brendan Byrne. After the
study was complete. Vanhoye, the Secretary of the Commission, confirmed its interpretation of IBe
in his preface to the published version, Fitzmyer ("Review: Catholic Principles for Interpreting
Scripture," Bib 83 [20021 435-39, here 437) agreed that the book "succeeds well ... in identifying,
describing, and discussing the twenty principles of the Catholic interpretation of the Bible which are
found in the 1993 document of the Biblical Commission .... " although he took issue with my
approach to the historical-critical method (see n. 24 below).
332 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 65, 2003
8. Interpretation in Light of the Biblical Tradition, the Unity of Scripture, and the
Canon
9. Interpretation of the Old Testament in Light of the Paschal Mystery
10. Interpretation in Light of the Living Tradition of the Church
11. The Aim of Interpretation: To Explain Scripture's Religious Message
D. The Meaning of Inspired Scripture
12. The Literal Sense
13. The Spiritual Sense, Typology
14. The Fuller Sense
E. "In Human Language": Methods and Approaches
IS. The Use of the Historical-Critical Method
16. A Plurality of Methods and Approaches
F. Interpretation in Practice
17. The Task of the Exegete and the Relationship of Exegesis to Other Theological
Disciplines
18. Actualization
19. Inculturation
20. The Use of the Bible in the Church
A. The Foundational Principle
The first principle expresses the Catholic Church's understanding of the nature
of Sacred Scripture.
Principle #1: The Word of God in Human Language
Sacred Scripture is the word of God expressed in human language (LA.a).
The thought and the words belong at one and the same time both to God and to
human beings in such a way that the whole Bible comes at once from God and
from the inspired human authors (III.D.2.c)P
It is the c.anonical text in its final stage which is the expression of the word
of God (LAA.f).
it is the word of God, Scripture fulfills a foundational, sustaining,
and crlllcal role for the church, for theology, for preaching and for catechesis.
Scripture is a source of the life of faith, hope, and love of the People of God and
a light for all humanity (Intra B.b).
Although the Biblical Conurtission chose not to articulate a full-blown the-
ology of Sacred Scripture, the twofold nature of Scripture expressed in the first
paragraph of this principle-Scripture is both the word of God and the words of
human beings-underlies the entire document. This principle is based on the
12 Unless otherwise indicated, citations in parentheses refer to sections and paragraphs in The
Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. The sections are numbered in accord with divisions in the
document, and paragraphs within a section are enumerated by lower case letters. "Preface," "Intro"
and "Conclusion" refer to sections of IBe. "Address" refers to the address given by Pope John
II .on. 23 April 1993 on the occasion of his officially receiving the document from the Biblical Com-
tnlSSlOn.
CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 333
analogy between Scripture and the Incarnation of the Divine Word noted by
various church fathers and mentioned in both Divino affiante Spiritu (37) and Dei
Verbum (13).
In addition, this first principle identifies the proper object of interpretation
in the church: It is the canonical text in its final stage which is the expression of
the word of God (I.AA.f). Merely to explain the sources behind biblical books,
or the theologies of these sources, falls short of communicating the Scripture's
true meaning. This principle summons source criticism to show its worth by
shedding light on the meaning of the inspired final form of the biblical text."
B. "In Human Language": Catholic Exegesis and Human Knowledge
The next four principles treat the ways in which the Bible, because it is the
work of human authors, must be studied like any other ancient text. They explain
how history, literary knowledge, philosophical hermeneutics, and other scholarly
disciplines are essential for valid interpretation.
Principle #2: Catholic Exegesis and Science
Biblical texts are the work of human authors who employed their own capaci-
ties for expressiol1 and the means which their age and social context put at their
disposal. Consequently, Catholic exegesis freely makes use of scientific methods
and approaches which allow a better grasp of the meaning of texts in their literary,
sociocultural, religious, and historical contexts (IIl.a).
Catholic exegesis should be carried out in a manner that is as critical and
objective as possible.
Catholic exegesis actively contributes to the development of new methods
and to the progress of research (lILa). In this enterprise Catholic scholars colln-
borate with scholars who are not Catholic (III.C.a).
English usage usually reserves the words "science" and "scientific" for the
physical or social sciences. However, the Biblical Commission uses the terms in
a broader sense to refer to any systematic and critical discipline of human knowl-
edge. "Scholarship" and "scholarly" capture the intended meaning. This prin-
ciple (following IBC lILa) affirms that Catholic exegesis makes use of scientific
methods and approaches, indicating that exegesis does not belong to any of those
disciplines but rather employs them as instruments to fulfill its proper task of
explaining the meaning of Sacred Scripture.
Principle #3: Catholic Exegesis and History
Catholic exegesis is concerned with history because of the historical charac-
ter of biblical revelation. Although the Bible is not a history book in the modern
13 See Williamson, Catholic Principles, 37-38.
334 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 65, 2003
sense, and although it includes literary genres that are poetic, symbolic, and
imaginative, Scripture bears witness to a historical reality, i.e., the saving actions
of God in the past, which have implications for the present.
Interpretation of a biblical text must be consistent with the meaning expressed
by the human authors (II.B.l.g).
Historical study places biblical texts in their ancient contexts, helping to
clarify the meaning a/the biblical authors' message for their original readers and
for us.
Although Catholic exegesis employs a historical method, it is not historicist
or positivist, confining its view of truth to what can be demonstrated by suppos-
edly objective historical analysis.
This principle identifies three reasons why the study of history is important
to Catholic exegesis: the historical character of Christian revelation, the need for
interpretation to remain faithful to the message the human authors expressed in
writing, and the ways in which historical study supplies the context that makes
the text intelligible.
While affirming the role of history and the historical-critical method (see also
principle #15), the Biblical Commission takes a firm stand against two defective
approaches to history which it identifies as historicism and historical positivism.
By historicism, the Biblical Commission means explaining biblical texts in a way
that confines their meaning to their original historical circumstances (LAA.f;
II.B.l.e; II.B.2.a). By historical positivism, the Commission refers to the belief
that historical study that employs "objective" methods and sources (i.e., not
"biased by religious faith") can obtain scientifically accurate historical informa-
tion about events recounted in the Bible, and that only such historical information
is worthy of credence (ILA.2.c).14 The historical positivist fails to reckon with the
fact that every historical report, including his or her own, entails interpretation
that engages the subjectivity of the interpreter.
Principle #4: The Use of Philological and Literary Analysis
Because Scripture is the word of God that has been expressed in writing,
philological and literary analyses are necessary in order to understand all the
means biblical authors employed to communicate their message.
14 This is a subject the Biblical Commission treated in greater depth in 1984 in Bible et
christologie (in Fitzmyer, Scripture and Christology, 6-7; [EnchBib 92223]). On that occasion, the
Biblical Commission observed that the objectivity of the historical method is not the same as that of
the natural sciences, since history concerns itself with human experience, which cannot be verified by
experimentation that produces repeatable results. Experience qua experience can only be understood
"from within." Investigating human experience confronts the historian with the subjectivity of both
the authors under consideration and the researcher making the inquiry. The historical study of Jesus
is an obvious example: it is never neutral, because Jesus' life and message require a decision on the
part of anyone who studies them.
!
\
CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 335
Philological and literary analyses contribute to determining authentic
readings, understanding vocabulary and syntax, distinguishing textual units,
identifying genres, analyzing sources, and recognizing internal coherence in
texts (LA.3.c). Often they help make clear what the human author intended to
communicate.
Literary analysis underscores the importance of reading the Bible synchro-
nically (LA.3.c; Conclusion cod), of reading texts in their literary contexts, and
of recognizing plurality of meaning in written texts (II.B.d).
Just as it makes use of history, Catholic exegesis makes use of the literary
disciplines normally employed in the interpretation of written texts. This principle
refers to the totality of those disciplines under the heading "philological and
. literary analysis" 15 and describes their role. Literary methods, such as narrative
and rhetorical criticism, demonstrate the value of synchronic study of texts along-
side the diachronic perspective of historical study.
Principle #5: The Contribution of Philosophical Hermeneutics
Recognizing the role of philosophical hermeneutics is new to documents of
the Catholic Church concerning Scripture. In fact, although /BC devotes fewer
than a dozen paragraphs to the subject, what it affirms-summarized in this
principle-is crucial for the Commission's entire presentation of Catholic inter-
pretation. Hermeneutics is the hinge that joins faith and reason in the exegetical
enterprise.
Because interpreting the Bible entails an act of human understanding like
the act of understanding any other ancient writing, it is fitting that philosophical
hermeneutics inform Catholic interpretation.
It is not possible to understand any written text without "pre-understanding, "
i.e., presuppositions which guide comprehension (II.A.l.a). The act of understanding
involves a dialectic between the pre-understanding of the interpreter and the per-
spective of the text (II.A.!.c). Nevertheless, this pre-understanding must be open
to correction in its dialogue with the reality 0/ the text (II.A.l.a).
Since interpretation of the Bible involves the subjectivity of the interpreter,
understanding is possible only if there is a fundamental affinity between the
interpreter and the object of interpretation (II.A.2.c).
Some hermeneutical theories are inadequate because o/presuppositions that
are incompatible with the message of the Bible (II.A.2.d).
Philosophical hermeneutics corrects some tendencies of historical criticism,
showing the inadequacy of historical positivism (II.B.2.c), the role 0/ the reader
in interpretation, possibilities of meaning beyond a text's historical setting, and
the openness of texts to a plurality of meaning (II.B.c; Conclusion d).
15 lEe prefers the tenn "linguistic" to "philological."
336 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 65, 2003
Because in the Bible Christians seek the meaning of ancient writings for the
present, literary and historical criticism must be incorporated in a model of
interpretation which overcomes the distance in time between the origin of the text
and our contemporary age (II.A2.a). Both the Bible itself and the history of its
interpretation demonstrate a pattern a/re-reading texts in the light afnew circum-
stances (II.A.2.b).
Several points about this principle call for comment. First, the recognition
that every interpreter begins with a pre-understanding that conditions understanding
leads to awareness regarding the various pre-understandings that exist and opens
the door to interpretation that proceeds from Christian faith. Henneneutical aware-
ness can lead interpreters to disclose their presuppositions and can make dialogue
possible among interpreters who start with differing pre-understandings.
Second, the insight that "affinity" between text and interpreter is a condition
for an authentic understanding suggests the possibility that Christian faith might
be an advantage for understanding the Christian Scriptures.
Third, although it does not resolve every question, the principle that henneneu-
tical theories and their presuppositions must not contradict the Bible's message-
or else constitute an a priori judgment against it-is useful for eliminating some
unsuitable presuppositions for approaching the biblical text, such as atheism, ratio-
nalism, materialism, and so on.
Fourth, the principle that a text can have meaning beyond its original his-
torical setting suggests the value of a tradition of interpretation and opens the door
to the actualization of texts.
Fifth, recognizing the possibility that texts may have more than one meaning
accords well with a long tradition of multiple senses of Scripture.
Finally, recognizing the need for a henneneutic that makes the step from
what a text meant then to what it means now summons exegesis to move beyond
an archaeological conception of its task. It also confirms the henneneuticallegiti-
macy of preaching and teaching that apply Scripture to new circumstances and
questions.
C. "The Word of God": Catholic Exegesis and Christian Faith
Principles #6 through #11, which are based on Christian faith, articulate the
content that most distinguishes Catholic exegesis from that of the secular acad-
emy. Christians of other traditions as well as believing Jews would share some of
these principles of interpretation.
At the outset of IBC' s important chapter on the characteristics of Catholic
interpretation (chapter 3), the Biblical Commission summarizes its position this
way: "What characterizes Catholic exegesis is that it deliberately places itself
CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 337
within the living tradition of the Church, whose first concern is fidelity to the
revelation attested by the Bible" (!II.b).
Principle #6: A Hermeneutic of Faith
Biblical knowledge cannot stop short at an understanding of words, con-
cepts, and events. It must seek to arrive at the reality of which the language
speaks, a transcendent reality, communication with God (II.A.l.d).
Reason alone is not able to comprehend fully the events and the message
recounted in the Bible. In order truly to understand the Bible, one must welcome
the meaning given to the events, above all, in the person of Jesus Christ (II.A.2.d).
Because the Bible is the word of God, it must be approached in the light of faith
in order to be properly understood. Therefore, exegesis is a theological discipline.
The light of the Holy Spirit is needed to interpret Scripture correctly. As
someone grows in the life of the Spirit, his or her capacity to understand the
realities of which the Bible speaks also grows (II.A2.f).
The pre-understanding that properly accompanies Catholic interpretation is
not merely unthematized belief, but rather the fullness of Catholic faith.
16
Does
this mean that the Catholic exegete has his or her conclusions predetermined, for
instance, by the Catechism? No. According to the Biblical Commission,
All pre-understanding .. , brings dangers with it. As regards Catholic exegesis, the
risk is that of attributing to biblical texts a meaning which they do not contain but
which is the product of a later development within the tradition. The exegete must
be aware of such a danger. (lBe. IlI.c)
Diachronic study enables an interpreter to distinguish levels of meaning
ated with a text. Speaking more broadly, the fact that pre-understanding is inevi-
table does not mean that one's presuppositions detennine one's conclusions.
Philosophical henneneutics recognizes a henneneutic spiral as the interpreter
engages the text. Scholarly integrity requires that conclusions regarding a text's
meaning be able to be verified in the text.
Principle #7: The Role of the Community of Faith
The believing community, the People of God, provides the truly adequate
context for interpreting Scripture (I.C.I.g). Scripture took shape within the tradi-
tions of faith of Israel and the early church and contributed, in turn, to the
development of their traditions (III.A.3.f).
The Scriptures belong to the entire church (III.B.3.i) and all of the members
of the church have a role in the interpretation of Scripture (III.B.3.b). People of
lowly status, according to Scripture itself, are privileged hearers of the word of
God (JlI.B.3.f).
16 See Williamson, Catholic Principles, 105.
338 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 65, 2003
Various special roles in interpretation belong to clergy, catechists, exegetes,
and others (Ill.B.3.i). Church authority is responsible to see that interpretation
remains faithful to the Gospel and the great tradition, and the magisterium exer-
cises a role of final authority if occasion requires it (I.C.I.g).
This principle affinns that the church is not an inferior context for discov-
ering the genuine meaning of Scripture, but is rather the privileged context for
understanding it, since Scripture and the church are intrinsically linked." It is
noteworthy that IBC does not confine the interpretation of Scripture to elite
groups, either clerical or scholarly. Scripture belongs to all, and the poor are its
privileged addressees. The magisterium's function is not to set itself between
Scripture and the people of God, but rather to render authoritative judgments as
the need arises.
Principle #8: Interpretation in Light of the Biblical Tradition, the Unity
of Scripture, and the Canon
Catholic exegesis seeks to interpret the Sacred Scripture in continuity with
the dynamic pattern of interpretation found within the Bible itself. In the Bible,
later writings often depend on earlier texts when their authors re-read what had
been written before in light of new questions and circumstances (III.A.I.a). Catho-
lic exegesis seeks both to befaithful to the understanding offaith expressed in the
Bible and to maintain dialogue with the generation of today (III.A.3.h).
Catholic exegesis recognizes the essential unity of Scripture, which encomw
passes differing perspectives (III.A.2.g), yet presents an array of witnesses to one
great tradition (I.C.a; III.A.a).
Catholic exegesis interprets individual texts in the light of the whole canon
of Scripture (I.C.b; IIl.D.4.b).
This principle affinns that the way that Scripture interprets itself sheds light
on how Scripture is to be properly interpreted, particularly in the way it re-reads
some texts later in new circumstances. The unity of Scripture, which provides the
basis for interpreting Scripture in light of the canon, is grounded both in its
internal literary relations and in its divine inspiration. Nevertheless, this unity
embraces diversity: "One of the characteristics of the Bible is precisely the
absence of a sense of systematization and the presence, on the contrary, of things
held in dynamic tension" (1II.A.2.g).
Principle #9: Interpretation of the Old Testament in Light of the Paschal
Mystery
The church regards the Old Testament as inspired Scripture, faitlifully con-
veying God's revelation (III.A.2.a; III.B.!'b).
17 "In discerning the canon of Scripture, the Church was also discerning and defining her own
identity. Henceforth Scripture was to function as a mirror in which the Church could continually
rediscover her identity and assess, century after century, the way in which she constantly responds to
the gospel and equips herselfto be an apt vehicle of its transmission (cf. Dei Verbum, 7)" (III.B.1.e).
CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 339
The New Testament interprets the Old Testament in the light of the paschal
mystery (I.e.!.i). Jesus' life, death, and resurrection fulfill the Old Testament
Scriptures (III.A.2.a). Jesus' own interpretation of the Old Testament and that of
the Apostles, expressed in the New Testament under the inspiration of the Spirit,
are authoritative, even if some of the interpretive procedures employed by New
Testament authors reflect the ways of thinking of a particular period of time
(III.A.2.f).
Christians do not limit the meaning of the Old Testament to the ways in
which it prepares for the coming of Christ. Rather, the church esteems the canoni-
cal interpretation of the Old Testament before the Christian Passover as a stage
in the history of salvation (I.e.I.i). Christians continue to draw sustenance from
the inspired message of the Old Testament (I1I.A.2.e).
One of the prime instances of the way Scripture's interpretation of itself
properly guides Christian interpretation is the high esteem with which the NT
regards the OT Scriptures, and the way NT authors interpret the OT. Here, it is
important to affinn both what is unique about the Christian interpretation of the
Jewish Scriptures-interpreting them in light of the incarnation, life, death, and
resurrection of Jesus-and the value for Christian life of their original canonical
sense. The most recent document of the Biblical Commission, The Jewish People
and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible, illustrates this appreciation of
both levels of OT interpretation in its second section, "Fundamental themes in the
Jewish Scriptures and-their reception into faith in Christ" (19-65).
Principle #10: Interpretation in Light of the Living Tradition of the
Church
Catholic exegesis deliberately places itself within the stream of the living
tradition of the church (III.b) and seeks to befaithful to the revelation handed on
by the great tradition, of which the Bible is itself a witness (Conclusion e).
Within this living tradition, the fathers of the church have a foundational
place, having drawn from the whole of Scripture the basic orientations which
shaped the doctrinal tradition of the church, and having provided a rich theo-
logical teachingfor the instruction and spiritual sustenance ofthefaithful (III.B.2.b).
However, Catholic exegesis is not bound by thefathers' exegetical methods (II.B.2.h;
III.B.2.k).
What is the proper role of the fathers of the church in Catholic interpretation?
The Council of Trent had declared that "no one [should] dare to interpret the
Scripture in a way contrary to the unanimous consensus of the Fathers" (DS
1507). Yet Pius XII acknowledged, "There are but few texts ... about which the
teaching of the Fathers is unanimous" (DS 3831). Critical exegetes rejected the
allegorizing method of many of the fathers. Recent years, however, have wit-
nessed a revived interest in patristic interpretation, sometimes in reaction to a
perceived barrenness in much historical-critical exegesis.
340 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 65, 2003
The Biblical Commission responded by identifying the fathers' conttibution
as threefold: defining the canon of Scripture, drawing the church's basic docttinal
orientations from Scripture (e.g., in Christology), and providing biblical interpre-
tation which is theologically rich and spiritually sustaining. The Commission
praises the fathers for their example of pastoral actualization in accomplishing the
last of these. At the same time, the Conunission criticizes exegetical practices
present in some patristic interpretation, namely, allegorization and a failure to
give due weight to texts' historical and literary contexts.
Principle #11: The Aim of Interpretation: To Explain Scripture's
Religious Message
The primary aim of Catholic exegesis is to explain the religious message of
the Bible, i.e., its meaning as the word which God continues to address to the
church and to the entire world (IV.a; IlI.C.!'b). The ultimate purpose of Catholic
exegesis is to nourish and build up the body of Christ with the word of God.
This principle highlights the religious and pastoral mission of biblical inter-
pretation in the church:
Catholic exegesis should, . , maintain its identity as a theological discipline [empha-
sis original], the principal aim of which is the deepening of faith .... In the orga-
nization of the exegetical task as a whole, the orientation toward the principal goal
should remain paramount. ... Its task is to fulfill, in the Church and in the world, a
vital function, that of contributing to an ever more authentic transmission of the
content of the inspired Scriptures. (Conclusion e)18
The social location of exegesis in the interreligious and interconfessional acad-
emy tends to suppress these elements, posing a serious obstacle to the fulfillment
of the purpose of Catholic exegesis.
l9
This principle suggests a useful question for evaluating interpretations: How
does the given interpretation reveal the meaning of a text as the word of God for
Christian faith? Regularly posing this question can help Catholic exegetes keep
their goal in view.
18 Pope John Paul II stressed this point in his address on the occasion of receiving IBC: "Indeed,
[the true meaning of the Scriptures] is inseparable from their goal, which is to put believers into a
personal relationship with God" (Address 11; see also 10). The logic is simple. The purpose of Scrip-
ture is to communicate a religious message; it follows that the goal of exegesis is to relay that same
message.
19 Charles Conroy ("Reflections on the Present State of Old Testament Studies," Greg 73
[1992] 597-609, here 598-99) commented on the change in social location of OT studies since the
founding of the Revue biblique a hundred years earlier: "This may help to explain why many exegeti-
cal writings do not seem to be very theological in character. It is not that all exegetes are necessarily
insensitive to theology; it is simply that they often write in the first place for their colleagues in the
international, interconfessional, and inter-religious community of Old Testament scholars."
CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 341
D. The Meaning of Inspired Scripture
The next three principles describe the various senses of Scripture. Ancient
exegesis recognized more than one level of meaning in Sacred Scripture. Among
the fathers of the church, the distinction between the literal and the spiritual senses
was the most common (ILB.a). Medieval exegesis accepted Cassian's fourfold
sense of Scripture, the literal (or historical), the allegorical, the moral (or tropo-
logical), and the anagogical. The last three were recognized as spiritual senses.
Historical criticism reacted to this exegesis, which sometimes seemed arbitrary or
subjective (ILB.b). The classic historical-critical method admitted the possibility
of only a single meaning. that of the author's intention conceived within the
circumstances that produced the text.
According to the Biblical Commission, the thesis of only one meaning has
"run aground" (ILB.c) because of developments in both philosophical herme-
neutics and theories of language. The Conunission insists on the presence of a
wealth of meaning, affirming the existence of two primary senses of inspired
Scripture, the literal and the spiritual. A third sense of Scripture, the fuller sense,
is categorized as a particular subtype of the spiritual sense.
Principle #12: The Literal Sense
The literal sense of Scripture is that which has been expressed directly by the
inspired human authors. Since it is the fruit of inspiration, this sense is also
intended by God, as principal author. One arrives at this sense by means of a
careful analysis of the text within its literary and historical context (ILB.!.c).
The literal meanings of many texts possess a dynamic aspect that enables
them to be re-read later in new circumstances (II.B.!.e).
The novelty of IBC' s approach to the literal sense is twofold. First, by defining
the literal sense as "that which has been expressed directly by the human author,"
the Commission avoids the problem of locating meaning in an intention of the
author to which we have no sure access apart from the text itself. One commentator
described this refinement of the definition of the literal sense as a change from
intentio auctoris to expressio auctoris.
20
Second, the recognition that the literal
sense of many texts possesses a "dynamic aspect" invites exegetes to consider the
direction of thought or potential extension of meaning in a text, thus opening up
the literal sense to valid re-readings. !BC gives the example of the royal psalms,
which evoke "at one and the same time both the institution as it actually was and
an idealized vision of kingship as God intended it to be" (ILB.!.e). Commission
20 The new formulation integrates the literal sense "within a wider conception of the text as
objective communication of meanings not all of which are necessarily, always, and completely tied
to the conscious awareness [of the author]" (Roberto Vignolo. "Questioni di ermeneutica," in L'inter-
pretazione della Bibbia nella Chiesa [ed. Giuseppe Ghiberti and Francesco Mosetto; Percorsi e tra-
guardi biblici; Leumann (Thrin); Elledici, 1998] 261-98, here 282-83).
342 THE CATHOLIC BffiLiCAL QUARTERLY I 65, 2003
member Brendan Byrne explains this "dynamic aspect" of the literal sense by
means of an analogy: it is like the conical beam of a flashlight which grows wider
the farther it shines from its point of origin.
21
Principle #13: The Spiritual Sense, Typology
The spiritual sense of Sacred Scripture is the meaning expressed by the
biblical texts when read under the influence of the Holy Spirit in the context of
the paschal mystery and of the new life which flows from it (II.B.2.b).
The spiritual sense is always founded on the literal sense. A relationship of
continuity and conformity between the literal and the spiritual sense is necessary
in order for the literal sense of an Old Testament text to be fulfilled at a higher
level in the New (II.B.2.e).
Typology is an aspect of the spiritual sense (II.B.2.i).
IBC's reaffirmation of the validity and necessity of the spiritual sense is
striking, since this is an aspect of biblical meaning that has been neglected by the
majority of exegetes for many years. The Biblical Commission proposes the
example of 2 Sam 7:12-13, God's promise to David through the prophet Nathan
that he will raise up one of his sons to be king and will establish the throne of this
son's kingdom forever. Viewed in its historical context, this seems to be prophetic
hyperbole. But now, in light of the paschal event, this text must be taken to refer
literally to Christ, the son of David, who will reign forever. The spiritual sense
refers in large part (though not exclusively) to the christological sense, thus to the
ways in which Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament Scriptures.
The spiritual sense is not simply a meaning read into the Bible, but a meaning
the texts themselves express when read in the light of the realities to which Chris-
tian faith attests. It is not a Usoft" sense of meaning: "The spiritual sense is not
to be confused with subjective interpretations stemming from the imagination or
intellectual speculation. The spiritual sense results from setting the text in relation
to real facts ... ," namely, the death and resurrection of Jesus (II.B.2.f).22 It is
founded on the literal sense.
Those who have been calling for a recovery of the spiritual sense of Scripture
may not be completely satisfied with the Biblical Commission's modest and
restrained treatment of this important aspect of biblical meaning. But they should
be pleased that a commission comprised of twenty critically trained exegetes has
21 Conversation with the author, 9 August 1999,
22 In his address, Pope John Paul IT also stressed the objectivity of the spiritual sense with
reference to the enCYClical Divino aiflante Spiritu of Pius XII: "The spiritual sense must offer proof
of its authenticity. A merely subjective inspiration is insufficient. One must be able to show that it is
a sense 'willed by God himself,' a spiritual meaning 'given by God' to the inspired text (EnchBib
55253). Detennining the spiritual sense then, belongs itself to the realm of exegetical science"
(Address 5).
CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 343
reaffirmed the church's tradition of the spiritual sense and has proposed a new
definition that can serve at least as a starting point for further discussion.
Principle #14: The Fuller Sense
The fuller sense (sensus plenior) is a deeper meaning of the text, intended
by God but not clearly expressed by the human author (II.B.3.a). It has its
foundation in the fact that the Holy Spirit, the principal author of the Bible, can
guide human authors in the choice of expressions in such a way that the latter will
express a truth the fullest depths of which the authors do not perceive (II.B.3.c).
The existence of afuller sense to a biblical text can be recognized when one
studies the text in the light of other biblical texts or authoritative doctrinal tra-
ditions which utilize it (II.B.3.a).
!BC's brief section of the fuller sense is noteworthy, since it is the first
acknowledgment by a church document of the sensus plenior, first proposed in the
early twentieth century. To illustrate its definition of the fuller sense, the Biblical
Commission offers the example of Isa 7:14, which is then interpreted by Matt
1:22-23. In the original context of the prophecy, Isaiah refers to the birth of a child
in the eighth century B.C.; Matthew indicates that God had a deeper purpose in
the words spoken than the prophet himself realized. The Biblical Commission
understands the fuller sense as a special variety of the spiritual sense, when the
difference is more pronounced between a text's literal sense and its subsequent
interpretation in light of the paschal mystery.
E. "In HU11U1n Language": Methods and Approaches
The question about methods, and especially the historical-critical method, is
what led the Biblical Commission to take up the broader question of interpretation
in the church. The next two principles embody their fundamental conclusions.
Principle #15: The Use of the Historical-Critical Method
The historicalcritical method is the indispensable tool of scientific exegesis
to ascertain the literal sense of a text in a diachronic manner (I.AA.g; l.A.a).
In order for this task to be completed, it must include a synchronic study of
the final form of the text, which is the expression of the word of God (l.AA.f).
The historical-critical method can and must be used without philosophical
presuppositions contrary to Christian faith (I.AA.b-c).
Despite its importance, the historical-critical method cannot be granted a
monopoly, and exegetes must be conscious of its limits. Exegetes must recognize
the dynamic aspect of meaning and the possibility that meaning can continue to
develop (Conclusion d).
Many readers interpreted IBC as an unqualified endorsement of the historical-
critical method. However, my research shows that the Biblical Commission's
344 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 65, 2003
document recognizes valid criticisms and, in some important ways, redefines and
"redimensions" the historical-critical method that it endorses. Commission mem-
bers Albert Vanhoye and Brendan Byrne confirmed that this was intentional.
23
The "properly oriented" approach to the historical-critical method that the
Biblical Commission recommends is one that (1) defines the object of historical-
critical study in a particular manner, (2) excludes errors for which the method has
been known--e.g., historicism, historical positivism, neglect of the final text, and
presuppositions inconsistent with the message of Scripture-and (3) places the
historical-critical method in the context of a Catholic hermeneutic, which the
twenty principles proposed here seek to specify.24
Principle #16: A Plurality of Methods and Approaches
Catholic exegesis is characterized by openness to a plurality of methods and
approaches. Although the historical-critical method retains its primacy, literary
methods and approaches based on tradition, the social sciences, or particular
contemporary contexts can yield important insights into the meaning of the bib-
lical word. However, the value of these insights will correspond to their harmony
with the fundamental principles which guide Catholic interpretation.
IBC was almost universally praised for its openness, that is, its recognition
that a wide variety of exegetical methods or approaches contributes to Catholic
interpretation. Literary methods such as narrative analysis, rhetorical analysis, and
semiotic analysis can have their place alongside the traditional historical-critical
method. Likewise, approaches based on tradition-such as the canonical approach,
23 Commission member Brendan Byrne (in an email message to the author, 8 December 1999)
considers "one of the most significant features of the document" to be "its relativization of the
method, while insisting on its necessity and, indeed, according it a place of
lege." Vanhoye ("L'interpretazione della Bibbia nella Chiesa: Riflessione circa un documento della
Commissione Biblica," Civilta Cattolica 145, n. 3457 [1994] acknowledges that the document
intends to defend the method from those who would reject it, but also, he adds, to
defend the method against its own temptations, namely, historicism and getting lost "in the sands of
hypercritical analysis" (lBC, Conclusion, e), In an interview Vanhoye comments, "The document as
a whole 'redimensions' the position and function of the method, affirming its value,
but denying its sufficiency" (Peter S. Williamson, "Catholicism and the Bible: An Interview with
Albert Vanhoye," First Things 74 {1997] 35-40, here 38).
24 See Williamson, Catholic Principles, 231 35, for a fuller description of the approach to the
method the Commission recommends. Joseph Fitzmyer ("Review: Catholic Prin-
ciples, " 438-39) confirms the accuracy of the book's presentation of the Commission's position, but
he detects a "dislike of the method" in my introduction (see Catholic Principles, 7). He also rejects
what he takes to be my view that the method "is not per se neutral and cannot yield
objective results." I believe Fitzmyer has misunderstood my position. The Biblical Commission's'
document convinced me that the problem is not the use but the misuse of the method, above all the
failure to employ it as part of a hermeneutic grounded in Christian faith. Nevertheless, I criticized the
document for failing to make an adequate distinction between the approach to the historical-critical
method that the Commission endorses and some problematic approaches that continue to enjoy wide
currency (see Catholic l?rinciples, 236-48,251-52),
CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 345
the use of Jewish traditions of interpretation, and the study of the history of the
influence of the text-as well as methods based on the social sciences all hold
value. Finally, approaches that begin with the social situation of the readers, such
as liberationist and feminist interpretation, arrive at genuine insights into the bIb-
lical word as they pose questions arising from specific experiences. Yet, each
discipline must respect the limits of its competence (e.g., "psychoanalysis of an
atheistic nature disqualifies itself from giving proper consideration to the data of
faith" [l.D.3.e.]). Likewise, liberationist and feminist approaches must not allow
ideology to control the interpretation of the biblical word.
F. Interpretation in Practice
The final four principles, principles ##17-20, pertain to the practice of inter-
pretation in the church. Important among these is IBe's treatment of the task of
the exegete.
Principle #17: The Task of the Exegete and the Relationship of Exegesis
to Other Theological Disciplines
The task of the Catholic exegete is both a work of scholarship and an
ecelesial service (III.C.a). Because sound interpretation requires a lived affinity
with what is studied and with the light of the Holy Spirit, full participation in the
life and faith of the believing community (III.A.3.g) and personal prayer are
necessary (Address 9). .
The primary task of the exegete is to determine as accurately as poss,ble the
meaning of biblical texts in their own proper context, that is, first of all in their
particular literary and historical context, and then in the context of the w,der
canon of Scripture (IIl.DA.b).
Catholic exegetes arrive at the true goal of their work only when they have
explained the meaning of the biblical text as God's '".ord for today (III.C.l.b).
Exegetes should also explain the christological, canonzcal, and eccleszal content
of biblical texts (III.C.l.c).
Exegesis is a theological discipline that exists in a relationship of dialogue
with other branches of theology (III.D.a).
This principle summarizes elements of the Biblical Commission's
that bear directly on the question Johnson and Murphy addressed regardmg the
nature of Catholic biblical scholarship. The first paragraph maintains that the best
vantage point for interpreting Scripture is not that of the "?bjective" o?tsider but
is, rather, the view from the heart of the Christian commumty and the hfe of faIth.
The second paragraph makes clear that Catholic exegesis does not content Itself
with the historical and literary context, as secular studies might, but ascertains
meaning in light of the whole canon of Scripture. The third paragraph affirm.s that
it properly belongs to exegetes-not only to theologians, preachers, and catechists-
to explain the contemporary and theological meaning of the text, mcludmg the
christological, canonical, and ecclesial significance.
346 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 65, 2003
Principle #18: Actualization
The receives the Bible ,as the word of God addressed both to itself and
to th: entire world at the pres:nt time (IVa), Actualization is possible because of
the of meamng contamed zn the biblical text; and it is necessary because
the was composed in response to circumstances of the past and in
language suzted to those circumstances (IVA, I.b-c),
presupposes a correct exegesis of a text, part oj which is
Its lzteralsens: (IV.A.2.e), The most reliable andfruiiful method of
,lS ,to Scnpture by Scripture. The actualization of
a blblzcal text In ChrIstian life proceeds in relation to the mystery of Christ and
the church (IV.A.2,f),
Actualization involves three steps: (1) hearing the Word from within one's
own concrete (2) identifying the aspects of the present situation high-
lzghted or put In question by the biblical text; and (3) drawing from the fullness
of in the biblical text those elements capable of advancing the
present sltuatlOn ln a way that is productive and consonant with the saving will
of God in Christ (IVA,2.g).
The Biblical Commission's section on actualization was widely noted and
applauded. IBC was the first church document on the Bible to use the term "actu-
aliz.ation," which means the meaning of Scripture for today, Pre-
cntICal actualIzed Scnpture-i.e" read it in light of their circumstances
without an awareness of the distance between the
addressed by the text and their own. The need for the concept of actu-
alIzatlOn anses from the dlstancmg of the biblical word that follows historical
conSClOusness and the use of historical methods.
, lBC teaches that to be valid, actualization cannot be arbitrary but must accord
';lth the gUidelmes expressed in the second paragraph of this principle, All Chris-
tians called to actualize Scripture for themselves. While pastoral actualization-
applymg Scnpture to contemporary circumstances-belongs to preachers and
catechists rather than exegetes, good exegesis is oriented toward and prepares
the way for actualization,
Principle #19: Inculturation
The foundation of inculturation is the Christian conviction that the word of
God transcends the cultures in which it has found expression. The word of God
can and must be communicated in such a way as to reach all human beings in
their own cultural contexts (IV.B,b),
The first stage of inculturation consists in translating Scripture into another
language (,IVB.c), Then interpretation, which sets the biblical message in
more explzclt relatIOnshIp wah the ways of feeling, thinking, living, and self-
proper to the local culture, Finally, one passes to other stages of
tnculturatlOn, to the Jonnation of a local Christian culture, encompassing
all aspects of life (IV.B.e),
CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 347
The relation between the word of God and the human cultures it encounters
is one of mutual enrichment. The treasures contained in diverse cultures allow the
Word of God to produce new fruits, while the light of the word of God allows
helpful and harmful elements in cultures to be discerned (IV.BJ),
Just as actualization makes Scripture fruitful for people living in various
periods of time, so inculturation makes Scripture fruitful for the peoples living in
different places. Here, however, what is sought goes beyond the interpretation of
Scripture in different cultural settings to a successful embodiment of the Christian
message in the life of a people, The Biblical Commission recognized that incul-
turation of the word of God entails mutual enrichment, since "every authentic
culture is , , . in its own way the bearer of universal values established by God"
(IVB,a).
Principle #20: The Use of the Bible in the Church
Interpretation occurs in all the ways in which the church uses the Bible-in
the liturgy, lectio divina, pastoral ministry, and ecumenism.
In principle, the liturgy brings about the most perfect actualization of the
biblical texts, since it is Christ hinzselfwho "speaks when Sacred Scripture is read
in the church" ("Sancrosanctum Concilium," 7), The liturgy gives a privileged
place to the Gospels, and the cycle of Sunday readings, which associate an Old
Testament text with a Gospel reading, often suggests a typological interpretation
(IVC.1.b-c),
Lectio divina is a reading of Scripture as the word of God, which leads, with
the help of the Holy Spirit, to meditation, prayer, and contemplation (IVC.2,a),
Pastoral ministry makes use of the Bible in catechesis, preaching, and the
biblical apostolate (IV,C.3.a), Scripture provides the first source, foundation, and
norm of catechetical teaching and preaching, where it is explained in the light of
tradition (IV.C.3,b), The role of the homily is to actualize the word of God
(IV,C.1.d),
In ecumenism. the same methods and analogous hermeneutical points of
view permit exegesis to unite Christians by means of the Bible, the common basis
of the rule of faith (IV.CA,c,e).
In a time like the present, in which many motives for the study of Scripture
have been proposed, whether theological, literary, psychological, or political, it is
worth remembering that the Christian approach to the Bible is characterized by
an intense interest in the use of Scripture in the life of the church. For this reason,
the Biblical Commission insists that interpretation in the context of the church's
life "has aspects which go beyond the academic analysis of texts" (IVa). What
is most striking about IBC' s treatinent of interpretation in pastoral ministry is how
authoritative and substantial a role Scripture assumes (see IV,C.3,b), The Blbhcal
Commission expects Scripture to fulfill both a normative and a material :ole.
Because Scripture is the "first source" and "starting point" of all pastorallTIlnIs-
try, Scripture provides the norm for catechesis and preaching by functioning not
348 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 65,2003
merely as an extrinsic standard against which these activities may be measured
but as the very content that they should seek to communicate.
Conclusion
The Biblical Commission's 1993 document sheds light on the essential charac-
teristics of biblical interpretation in the Catholic Church. Furthermore, the docu-
ment offers balanced judgments on some issues that have been hotly debated among
exegetes and theologians-among them, the proper use of the historical-critical
method, the place of the spiritual and fuller senses of Scripture, the role of patristic
exegesis in Catholic interpretation, and the necessity of passing, in the process of
actualization, from what the text meant to what it means.
If one were to guess what readers find most surprising about these twenty
principles drawn from IBC, it would be their theological character. In this regard,
the Biblical Commission's document is in profound agreement with Divino afJlante
Spiritu of Pius XII and the constitution Dei Verbum of the Second Vatican Council.
These documents insist that rigorous exegetical scholarship and theological com-
mitment are not only not incompatible; they are, indeed, ideal partners. The mar-
riage of these two values is evident in the work of the great Catholic interpreters
like those whom IBG mentions by narne (lli.B.3.h)-Origen, Jerome, and, more
recently, M.-J. Lagrange-who sought to explain Sacred Scripture as the word of
God.
In their CBA presentations, Luke Timothy Johnson and Roland Murphy
addressed a perennially important question: "What's Catholic about Catholic
biblical scholarship?" This topic has two aspects. First, what constitutes Catholic
exegesis? These principles drawn from the Biblical Commission's Interpretation
ojthe Bible in the Church propose a definite answer. Second, to what degree does
contemporary Catholic biblical scholarship attain this ideal? That evaluation,
while crucial, is beyond the scope of this article, and it remains for readers to
judge for themselves.
In her study The Revelatory Text, Sandra Schneiders observes that contem-
porary exegesis often knows well enough how to do what it does, but lacks a clear
idea of what it is doing.
25
Articulating and discussing the principles of Catholic
interpretation-whether those presented here, which are based on the Biblical
Commission's document, or others that someone else may propose-help to
. correct that deficit. Carefully considered principles can help to orient the work of
exegetes; they clarify the identity and strengthen the unity of Catholic biblical
scholarship, which finds itself being pulled in many directions. Principles of
interpretation can serve not only exegetes but also theologians, clergy, and lay
people. They can function as criteria for evaluating interpretations, helping to
25 Schneiders, Revelatory Text, 21.
CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES 349
discern exegesis that will be fruitful in the life of the church. They can provide
a pedagogical tool for professors and students of Scripture and theology, as collec-
tions of previous hermeneutical rules have done m. the and JeWIsh
traditions.'. Finally, Catholic principles of mterpretatlon proVIde a ?ompass for
ecumenical dialogue and for collaboration in the work of mterpretation between
Catholic and non-Catholic scholars. .' .
It is my hope that these principles drawn from InterpretatIOn oj the BIble In
the Church may serve the Biblical Commission's goal, expressed at the end of the
document (Intro B.b): "The aim is that the Word of God may become more and
more the spiritual nourishment of the members of the People of God, the
for them of a life of faith, of hope and of love-and indeed a light for all humanIty
(cf. Dei Verbum, 21)."
26 Precedent for such hermeneutical guides may be found in the seven exegetical (midd,6t)
of Hillel, in the thirteen middot of Rabbi Ishmael, or in Tyconius' s which
. a Ch' " Doctn'ne 3 30-36 43-56 See Karlfried FroehlIch, Blbllcallnterpretatwn m the
uses m n TIS Ian .., , 1 h' . F rtr
Early Church (ed. William G. Rusch; Sources of Early Christian pia. 0 ess,
1984 for the texts and an introduction to these ancient principles of IOterpretatlOn. .
)'EDITOR'S NOTE: See the review of Williamson's book, Catholic Principles for Interpreting
Scripture, by Dale Launderville. O.S.B .. in this issue.
THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY
Published by the Catholic Biblical Association of America
Editor: 1. Dillon, 'Fordham University, Bronx, NY 10458
(Manuscripts of articles are ,to be' sent to the editor.)
Book Review Editors:
OT and Qumran: Irene Nowell, a.S.B., Mount St. Schoiastica, Atchison, KS 66002-2778
NT arid Intertestamenta1: Amy-Jill Levine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37240
(Books for review are to be sent to The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 314 Caldwell Hall, The Catholic
University of America, Washington, DC 20064.)
Publishing Editor: Christopher T. Begg, The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC 20064
Associate' Editors:
Term 2000-2003
Term 2001-2004
Term 2002-2005
Term 2003-2006
Paul J, Achtemeier, Union Theological Seminary in Virginia
Jon L. Berquist, Chalice Press
Brendan Byrne, S.1., Jesuit Theological College, Parkville, Australia
Linda Day, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
Robert A. Kugler, Lewis and Clark College
Sean E. McEvenue, Concordia University (Emeritus)
.Francis J. Moloney, S.D.B., The Catholic University of America
Mark Allan Powell, Trinity Lutheran Semlnary
Barbara Bowe, R.S.C.1., Catholic Theological Union
Claudia V. Camp, Texas Christian University
Carol J. Dempsey, O.P., University of Portland
Ralph W. Klein, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, O.P., Ecole Biblique
Marion L. Soards, Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
Bonnie Thurston, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
Jerome T. Walsh, University of Botswana
A. K. M. Adam, Seabury-Western Theological Seminary
Adela Yarbro Collins, Yale Divinity School
Mary Rose D'Angelo, University of Notre Dame
Carole Fontaine, Andover Newton Theological School
Williaw Holladay, Andover Newton Theological School (Emeritus)
Leslie J. Hoppe, O.F.M., Catholic Theological Union
Jean-Pierre Ruiz,.St. John's University, Jamaica, NY
Choon-Leong Seow, 'Princeton Theological Seminary
David E. Aune, University of Notre Dame
Warren Carter, SI. Paul School of Theology, Kansas City
Beverly R. Gaventa, Princeton Theological Seminary
Barbara Green, O.P., Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley
Gina Hens-Piazza, Jesuit School of Theology, Berkeley
Peter Machinist, Harvard University
Pauhi M. McNutt, Canisius College
David L. Petersen, Emory University
For information on preparing manuscripts and on persons for correspondence, see the page facing the first text
page of each issue.
Officers of the Catholic Biblical Association of America for 2002-2003: President: Eugene C. Ulrich,
University of Notre Dame; Notre Dame, IN 46556; Vice-President: Prank J. Matera, The Catholic University of
America, Washington, DC 20064; Executive Secretary: Joseph Jensen, O.S.B.,The Catholic Biblical Association
of America, Washington, DC 20064; Treasurer: Lawrence E. Boadt, C.S.P" St. Paul's College, Washington, DC
20017; Editor of the Catholic Biblical Quarterly: Richard J. Dillon, Fordham University, Bronx, NY 10458;
Editor of Old Testament Ahstraqts: Christopher T. Begg, The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC
20064; Editor of the CBQ Monograph Series: Mark'S. Smith, New York University, New York, NY 10012;
Chair of the Board of Trustees: Richard J. Sklba, Milwaukee, WI 53211.
All correspondence concerning the association should be addressed to the executive secretary at
314 Caldwell Hall, The'Catholic University of America, Washington, DC 20064. Active and associate
membership is open to those who qualify as specialists in biblical studies. Sl,lstaining membership is open to
those who wish to promote the work of the association. Annual membership dues for active, associate, and
sustaining members, including a subscription to the CBQ, are $35.00. The association's e-mail address is
cua-cathbib@cua.edu. Its web site has, http://cba.cua.edu as its URL.
The Catholic Biblical Quarterly is published four times a year (January, April, July, October) by the Catholic
Biblical Association of America at the Catholic University of America, 620 Michigan Ave., NE, Washington,
DC 20064. Periodicals postage paid at Washington, DC, and at additional mailing offices.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, The Catholic University of
America. 620 Michiean Ave .. NE. Washineton. DC 20064.
the
VOL. 65, NO.3 / JULY 2003