The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church 1993, Pontifical Biblical Commission

[Crumpy]

I picked up a copy of this years ago, read it, and chucked it into the garage. Upon a ruthless cleaning of the garage, I picked it up and decided I needed to refresh myself on this landmark document.

The document is available (free) on the EWTN document library website.

All I could remember about it, is that I didn’t like reading it. I waded through it again, and I’m feeling better about it, quite good, in fact. The last sentence of the document tells a lot more about its “agenda” than the title, itself: “…the present essay hopes to have made some contribution toward the gaining, on the part of all, of a clearer awareness of the role of the Catholic exegete.”

Previously, as now, I sensed that there was some ax they were grinding, and you can see, they did.

What I didn’t like about it before and now, is the general tone in the document that we hardly know anything at all about the Bible. Obviously most Catholics think they do know a lot about the Bible, although we don’t claim special qualifications. The Commmission wasn’t debating that point, anyway, rather focusing on their own role in having the last word about the interpretation of scripture.

Having suggested that very thing, they back off and say that, sure, they don’t have a monopoly on interpretation of the Bible.

So, it’s this. I recommend anyone read the title document carefully, for a Catholic perspective on interpretation of the Bible.

They list a lot of methods and “approaches” and come around to stating the limitations that have been manifested with all of them.

This levels the playing field whenever you might hear a lecture or a homily or whatever about someone interpreting the Bible. It gives you a roadmap to diving into the Scripture yourself. In this respect of “lectio divina” – private Scripture reading and study, they come right out and say that you should get a good commentary. Whew! I would have been shocked if they had said anything else.

 

[Manfred]

I picked up a copy of this years ago, read it, and chucked it into the garage. Upon a ruthless cleaning of the garage, I picked it up and decided I needed to refresh myself on this landmark document.

The document is available (free) on the EWTN document library website.

All I could remember about it, is that I didn’t like reading it. I waded through it again, and I’m feeling better about it, quite good, in fact. The last sentence of the document tells a lot more about its “agenda” than the title, itself: “…the present essay hopes to have made some contribution toward the gaining, on the part of all, of a clearer awareness of the role of the Catholic exegete.”

Previously, as now, I sensed that there was some ax they were grinding, and you can see, they did.

What I didn’t like about it before and now, is the general tone in the document that we hardly know anything at all about the Bible. Obviously most Catholics think they do know a lot about the Bible, although we don’t claim special qualifications. The Commmission wasn’t debating that point, anyway, rather focusing on their own role in having the last word about the interpretation of scripture.

Having suggested that very thing, they back off and say that, sure, they don’t have a monopoly on interpretation of the Bible.

So, it’s this. I recommend anyone read the title document carefully, for a Catholic perspective on interpretation of the Bible.

They list a lot of methods and “approaches” and come around to stating the limitations that have been manifested with all of them.

This levels the playing field whenever you might hear a lecture or a homily or whatever about someone interpreting the Bible. It gives you a roadmap to diving into the Scripture yourself. In this respect of “lectio divina” – private Scripture reading and study, they come right out and say that you should get a good commentary. Whew! I would have been shocked if they had said anything else.

I quickly scanned through the whole document, but the following two passages in the section on Fundamentalism caught my eye.

The first:

“Fundamentalism often shows a tendency to ignore or to deny the problems presented by the biblical text in its original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek form. It is often narrowly bound to one fixed translation, whether old or present-day.”

The second:

“The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem. Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.”

With regard to the first, this takes a mild swipe at those who adhere strictly and solely to the venerable Douay-Rheims-Challoner version on the Catholic side. On the Protestant side, of course, there is the “KJV-only” crowd.

With regard to the second: I actually know someone (A Protestant) who looks to his bible for answers to whatever problems arise in his personal or professional life, and then gets frustrated when he can’t quite find the answer for which he was looking.

 

[Crumpy]

I
With regard to the first, this takes a mild swipe at those who adhere strictly and solely to the venerable Douay-Rheims-Challoner version on the Catholic side. On the Protestant side, of course, there is the “KJV-only” crowd.

With regard to the second: I actually know someone (A Protestant) who looks to his bible for answers to whatever problems arise in his personal or professional life, and then gets frustrated when he can’t quite find the answer for which he was looking.

Yes, that’s what I was trying to say politely in the original post, that this document is not only a bit contradictory at times, but it is also polemical (which is the fancy word for “argumentative”).

Sure, the whole document is filled with “swipes” at this and that. I’ve been in a small group where, at the first drop of a hat, this young lady was “in my face” about the Bible not having all the answers.

I’m not sure what bogeyman they’re fighting, but even the document admits that the Church is constantly striving from place to place and time to time to connect up the message of the Bible to current problems and challenges.

This document is just your typical document that was made up by a committee, with words and catchy phrases to make everybody happy, at least from a Catholic standpoint.

For example, you can find both support and criticism for the historical-critical method. And, yes, there are limited words of praise for fundamentalism, as well as the critical words that you quoted.

This document has been “on the street” for fifteen years, and I’d like to know if any author or publisher has put out anything that you might call “compliant” with this document. In a finite amount of space, any publication can surely deal these issues only briefly and tentatively.

When I first read this document, I wrote a letter to a national Catholic publication predicting that there ought to be an ecumenical council to take up the issues of the Bible. Well, we all did just get a synod on this subject, and I can’t wait to see what will come of that.

This document, still, is useful for non-Catholics to look over, to try to wrench them out of their sectarion and parochial views. The basic Protestant belief since John Wyclif around the 13th century, is that everyone (except Catholics, of course) ought to be able to interpret the Bible for themselves. The Reformation has been the result of that basic philosophy.

 

[japhy]

This document (made by an organization which is not an official organ of the Church anymore!) confuses me because it seems to disagree with previous official statements of the Church on the manner in which the Word of God was received by the authors of the books of the Bible.

I outlined this problem in a thread from a year ago.

 

[Manfred]

Gee, I thought it was me who was reading way too much into some of the documents, viz, Providentissimus Deus, Divino Afflante Spiritu, and even Dei Verbum, the latter being the least helpful.

And then along comes Liturgiam Authenticam, and now I’m really scratching my head! Admittedly, the latter pertains to liturgical usage of the Scriptures, but honestly, brethren, why should that be any different from what we read privately, devoutly, or for serious study?

 

[Crumpy]

This document (made by an organization which is not an official organ of the Church anymore!) confuses me because it seems to disagree with previous official statements of the Church on the manner in which the Word of God was received by the authors of the books of the Bible.

I outlined this problem in a thread from a year ago.

I was happy and sad about the treatment of fundamentalism in the 1993 document. I was happy that they took it up at all, but sad that they made that particularly vague assertion.

I think the first problem with fundamentalism is private interpretation of scripture. My uncle is an evangelical and fairly fundamentalist, and he just sits down with his bible and maybe a Strong’s concordance – and that’s it. I think he may be surprised at times what comes out of his own mouth.

I asked him about a bit of fairly familiar scripture and he was pained greatly to say anything. I think he was making the most effort to avoid anything resembling a Catholic conclusion about scripture.

In contrast, the Catholic position is fairly well stated, about the interpretation of scripture requiring the assent of the magisterium within the bounds of the church’s historical teaching on a subject, to put it one way. (see my signature statement, below)

The most obvious thing in the 1993 document is that it gives principles for interpreting scripture, and not a static, “this is it” “paint yourself in a corner” interpretation of scripture. That’s the problem that I see, that you’re almost never at an end in considering how scripture should be interpreted.

I’ve just been reading the gospel of Luke, and in one place it says that the apostles were not sure of the meaning of something that Jesus said. I think that was somewhere in chap 20-22. I think that specifically points to principles enunciated in “interpretation” that we need to pray for that same spirit by which the scripture was written. The meanings simply don’t jump off the page, as fundamentalists would have us believe.

On your other point: Yes, the PBC was an official commission for a while, whose conclusions were considered binding to the assent of faith, and then that was rescinded probably upon seeing that it just didn’t work that way. The rescinsion (if that’s a word) produced the position in the document, that the exegetes should be consulted. About a hundred years ago, they fumbled pretty badly with the power they thought they had.

 

[japhy]

Yes, the PBC was an official commission for a while, whose conclusions were considered binding to the assent of faith, and then that was rescinded probably upon seeing that it just didn’t work that way. The rescinsion (if that’s a word) produced the position in the document, that the exegetes should be consulted. About a hundred years ago, they fumbled pretty badly with the power they thought they had.

Aren’t we bound to accept these replies of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (when it was still an organ of the Holy See), as Pope Pius X said: “all without exception are bound by an obligation of conscience to submit to the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, whether already issued or to be issued hereafter, exactly as to the decrees of the Sacred Congregations which are on matters of doctrine and approved by the Pope”?

 

[MarcoPolo]

I’m not sure what bogeyman they’re fighting, but even the document admits that the Church is constantly striving from place to place and time to time to connect up the message of the Bible to current problems and challenges.

As I am in the middle of a master’s degree course on Biblical Foundations and studying this document, perhaps I can share. In general the “bogeyman” is the entity of the Enlightenment, that believed that interpretation of Scripture can come about using reason and scientific methods like narrative criticism or various hermeneutics…all apart from faith. The document often appeals to prior Papal encyclicals like Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943) and Providentissimus Deus (1893) which address many of the same concerns about an absolutization of the historical-critical method. As then Cardinal Ratzinger said in his introduction to this document, “It takes up the paths of the encyclicals of 1893 and 1943 and advances them in a fruitful way.” Pope John Paul II’s *Fides et Ratio *touches on this union of faith and reason as well.

The reason why the document sometimes doesn’t embrace the historical critical method is because it is often used to contradict the faith. The hesitation on the part of the Church in the 19th century to use this method was because it was “hostile” to the faith as it had been applied by outsiders (see the introduction). All in all, this document treats how the historical-critical method should be used, along with its value and limitations.

Being this a document on methods and practice and not addressing a matter of faith or morals, it is not infallible, but rather authoritative.

 

[Crumpy]

OK, the “bogeyman” I was referring to had to do with the issue of using the Bible to answer all of life’s questions. This is not only what the document says, these were also the words that the young lady threw at me.

So: Who said that the Bible supposedly had all the answers to all of life’s questions? I mean this literally. Who supposedly said this, that the PBC is reacting to? I’ve never heard any fundamentalist say such a thing.

On the other hand, I see the Bible as saying many, many things that pertain to our whole life. Take the words of Jesus in Luke’s gospel:

LK 14:33 In the same way, everyone of you who does not renounce all his possessions cannot be my disciple.

This is a verse that hits me right between the eyes. It is something that pertains to every day of my life and everything that I do. It doesn’t give me an answer to all my problems, but it sure says something about my life, from the top down, so to speak. This certainly would affect every problem in my life.

I see in the PBC’s statement as the problem of relativism, from a particular point of view, which is this: The skeptic (relativist) would say, Lk 14:33 doesn’t pertain to anything in my life. If I follow this Bible precept, I will be dead in a week, if not sooner. Is that what the Bible wants, anyway? Am I fundamentalist to take Jesus at his word? Or. do we have an ‘out’ depending on what “renounce” means?