“Interpretations are proposed that deny the real presence of God in history…”
The complete transcript of the popes address to the synod of bishops on “The Word of God in the life and mission of the Church,” on the morning of Tuesday, October 14, 2008
by Benedict XVI
Dear brothers and sisters, working on my book about Jesus has provided ample opportunity to see all of the good that comes to us from modern exegesis, but also to recognize its problems and risks.
The [conciliar constitution] “Dei Verbum,” section 12, offers two methodological guidelines for adequate exegetical work. In the first place, it confirms the necessity of using the historical-critical method, and briefly describes the essential elements of this. This necessity is the consequence of the Christian principle formulated in John 1:14: “Verbum caro factum est.” The historical fact is an essential dimension of the Christian faith. The history of salvation is not a myth, but real history, and for this reason it must be studied with the methods of serious historical research.
Nevertheless, this history has another dimension, that of divine action. In consequence, “Dei Verbum” speaks of a second methodological level necessary for proper interpretation of the words, which are at the same time human words and the divine Word. Following a fundamental rule for the interpretation of any literary text, the council says that Scripture is to be interpreted according to the same spirit in which it was written, and consequently indicates three methodological elements fundamental for the purpose of taking into account the divine, pneumatological dimension of the Bible. What this means is that one must: 1) interpret the text while taking into account the unity of all of Scripture; today, this is called canonical exegesis; at the time of the council, this term had not yet been created, but the council says the same thing: the unity of all of Scripture must be taken into account; 2) one must also keep in mind the living tradition of the entire Church, and finally 3) one must observe the harmony that exists between elements of the faith.
It is only where these two methodological levels are observed, historical-critical and theological, that one can speak of theological exegesis, an exegesis suitable for this Book. While current academic exegesis works at an extremely high standard with regard to the first level, the same cannot be said of the second. Often this second level, the level constituted by the three theological elements indicated by “Dei Verbum,” seems almost completely 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, history can be learned from it, but the Book as such speaks only of the past, and exegesis is no longer truly theological, but becomes pure historiography, the history of literature. This is the first consequence: the Bible remains in the past, it speaks only of the past.
The second consequence is even more serious: where the hermeneutics of faith indicated by “Dei Verbum” disappears, another kind of hermeneutics seems to be necessary, a secularized, positivist hermeneutics, the fundamental principle of which is the conviction that the Divine does not appear in human history. According to this hermeneutics, when it seems that there is a divine element, it must be explained where this impression comes from, and everything must be reduced to the human element.
In consequence, interpretations are proposed that deny the historicity of the divine elements. Today the so-called “mainstream” of exegesis in Germany denies, for example, that the Lord instituted the Holy Eucharist, and says that the body of Jesus remained in the tomb. The Resurrection is no longer seen as an historical event, but as a theological view. This takes place because of hermeneutics of faith is missing: a profane, philosophical hermeneutics is therefore asserted, denying the possibility of the entry and real presence of the Divine within history.
The consequence of the absence of the second methodological level is the creation of a profound gulf between scientific exegesis and “lectio divina.” It is precisely from this that there sometimes arises confusion over the preparation of homilies. Where exegesis is not theology, Scripture cannot be the soul of theology, and vice versa, where theology is not essentially the interpretation of Scripture within the Church, this theology no longer has any foundation.
For this reason, for the sake of the life and mission of the Church, for the future of the faith, it is absolutely necessary to overcome this dualism between exegesis and theology. Biblical theology and systematic theology are two dimensions of a single reality, which we call theology.
In consequence, it seems desirable to me that one of the proposals [of the synod] should speak of the need for exegesis to include the two methodological levels indicated by “Dei Verbum” 12, which speaks of the need to develop an exegesis that is not only historical, but also theological. It will therefore be necessary to broaden the formation of future exegetes in this sense, in order to truly open the treasures of Scripture to today’s world, and to all of us.
__________
The documentation of the synod, on the Vatican website:
