Scripture and Interpretation: Spring 2013 Discussion Series

Marquette Scripture Project is kicking off the semester with an intriguing discussion series on Scripture and interpretation! We are 1.) exploring the history of Christian understandings of the nature of Scripture and the norms of Christian exegesis (especially focusing on what the authors of the New Testament themselves suggest), and 2.) examining what normative beliefs and interpretive practices should guide Christian understanding of and interpretation of Scripture today.  Please see the schedule below, along with details for each session (suggested readings and questions to contemplate). Questions? Contact Karen at karen.keen@marquette.edu.

All sessions are on Wednesdays from 10:45am-11:45am

• Jan. 30: “Scripture in Tradition”, AMU 252
• Feb. 13: “Christian Revelation and Scripture,” Henke Lounge
• Feb. 27: “Scripture and the Churches,” AMU 254
• Mar. 20: “The Two Testaments’ Relation,” AMU 252
• Apr. 3: “Traditional Exegesis and Historical Method,” AMU 252
• May 1: “Theological Ends in Traditional Exegesis,” AMU 364

1. January 30^th: Scripture in Tradition

Suggested reading: 2 Timothy 3:14-4:5, 2 Peter 1:16-21, and de Lubac’s “Forward” in Scripture in the Tradition (pp. vii-ix).

Questions for discussion: What is Christian Scripture? What kinds of questions/topics would a Christian theology of Scripture need to address? What are the “constants in Christian exegesis”?

2. February 13^th: Christian Revelation and Scripture

Suggested reading: Hebrews 1:1-4; Colossians 2:1-19, and de Lubac’s Scripture in the Tradition pp. 100-112.

Questions for discussion: What is distinctively Christian about the Christian belief in divine revelation? What is its content? (And is this previous question even a legitimate one). How are revelation and Scripture related? How do Protestants and Catholics differ in their answers to these questions?

3. February 27^th:  Scripture and the Churches

Suggested Reading: Ephesians 2:11-3:20; 1 Peter 2:1-17, de Lubac’s Scripture in the Tradition pp. 113-129.

Questions: How is(are) the Church(es) related to Israel in the Scriptures? What role does(do) the Church(es) play in the interpretation and dissemination of Scripture? What role should the Church(es) play in the interpretation of Scripture?

4. March 20^th: The Two Testaments’ Relation

Suggested reading: Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:1-13; Matthew 5:17-48 (see also Romans 9-11), de Lubac’s Scripture in the Tradition pp. 173-182.

Questions for discussion: How are the Old and New Testaments related to one another? Is Christianity inherently supercessionistic?

5. April 3^rd: Traditional Exegesis and Historical Method

Suggested Reading: 1 Corinthians 15:1-11; Luke 24:13-35; Acts 8:26-40, de Lubac’s Scripture in the Tradition pp. 24-31.

Questions: Given that the human authors of Scripture do not abide by the canons of modern or post-modern historiography, in what sense is what they write historical? What functions and goals do modern historical approaches to the Bible have? What role do the aforementioned approaches play in Christian faith and life? Can historical investigation overturn doctrinal beliefs of Christian communities? Should it be allowed to do so?

6. May 1^st: Theological Ends in Traditional Exegesis: Allegory and Typology

Suggested Reading: John 5:30-46; Galatians 4:21-31; Corinthians 10:1-13, de Lubac’s Scripture in the Tradition pp. 11-24.

Questions: From whence did allegory come? Is there a difference between Christian allegorical interpretation and other forms of premodern allegorical/symbolic interpretation (Jewish, “pagan”, etc.)? Is allegorical exegesis still permissible/viable/useful? If so, what is its appropriate context?

 

New Fall Discussion Series!

Marquette Scripture Project Presents

Creation: Genesis and John

 

Join us to discuss the historical and theological roots of

Genesis 1:1-2 and John 1:1-2

Every other Thursday from 12:30-1:30pm

 

• Sept 20th,  AMU 448,  Karen Keen

• Oct 4th,  Henke Lounge,  Dr. Deirdre Dempsey

• Oct 18th,  Library Conference Room A,  Dr. Michael Barnes

• Nov 1st,  AMU 254,  Paul Pasquesi

• Nov 15th,  Henke Lounge,  Dr. Andrei Orlov

• Nov 29th,  Henke Lounge,  Stephen Waers

• Dec 6th,  Henke Lounge,  Fr. William Kurz

 
(Image courtesy of Manostphoto / Free Digital Photos.net)

Theology is exegesis

The chief task of Christian theology is exegesis. The reason for that is devastatingly simple: ‘Jesus Christ as he is attested to us in Holy Scripture is the one Word of God.’ Theology is exegesis because its matter is Jesus Christ as he communicates himself through Holy Scripture. And so attention to Holy Scripture is not only a necessary but also – in a real sense – a sufficient condition for theology, because Scripture itself is not only necessary but also sufficient. One way of writing the history of modern theology would be to trace the sad fate of Scripture’s sufficiency and its reduction to merely necessary status. The counter to this is: exegesis, exegesis and exegesis. The task of exegesis is far too important to be devolved upon biblical technicians. But if modern theology demonstrates a failure on this score, it does not lie primarily on the part of the guild of biblical scholars, but on the part of dogmatic theologians, who have all too often abdicated responsibility for exegesis, and rested content with genres and modes of argument which have encouraged the conceptual takeover of the biblical gospel. Christian theology is properly evangelical, because it is generated by the gospel. But part of securing that evangelical character will be recovering a rhetoric for theology which simply lets Scripture be. Work on that task – which, in their different ways, Barth and Bonhoeffer also deemed theology’s central preoccupation – is scarcely begun.

- John Webster, “Reading the Bible: The Example of Barth and Bonhoeffer”

Good Friday Unlocks the Bible’s Meaning

“My heart has become like melting wax in my belly.” By his belly Jesus means the weak in his Church. How did his heart become like wax? His heart is his Scripture, or rather his wisdom in the Scriptures. But Scripture was closed. Nobody understood it. When the Lord was crucified, it began to flow freely like wax, so that all the weak could understand Scripture. As a result of the crucifixion even the veil of the temple was torn, because what had previously been veiled was now revealed.

-St Augustine on Psalm 22.14

Words, Concepts, Judgments

“It is certainly true that one should teach nothing outside of Scripture pertaining to divine matters, as St Hilary writes in On the Trinity Book I, which means only that one should teach nothing that is at variance with Scripture. But that one should not use more or other words than those contained in Scripture–this cannot be adhered to, especially in a controversy and when heretics want to falsify things with trickery and distort the words of Scripture. It thus became necessary to condense the meaning of Scripture, comprised of so many passages, into a short and comprehensive word, and to ask whether [the Arians] regarded Christ as homoousios, which was the meaning of all the words of Scripture that they had distorted with false interpretations among their own people, but had freely confessed before the emperor and the council. It is just as if the Pelagians were to try to embarrass us with the term ‘original sin’ or ‘Adam’s plague’ because these words do not occur in Scripture, though Scripture clearly teaches the meaning of these words, that we are ‘conceived in sin’ (Ps 51.5), that we are ‘by nature children of wrath’ (Eph 2.3), and that we must all be accounted sinners ‘because of the sin of one man’ (Rom 5.12).”

Luther, On the Councils and the Church (LW 41, pp. 83-84)

Joseph Ratzinger’s “Jesus of Nazareth”

The second volume of Joseph Ratzinger’s Jesus of Nazareth will appear during Lent of 2011, according to the American distributor, Ignatius Press. This volume will discuss Jesus’ passion and resurrection, which helps to explain the book’s timing (even as the pope is currently finishing the third volume). More information on the book and some possible expectations can be found here. Since the first volume of the book (published in 2007) has produced heated debate in numerous circles, especially biblical circles, I will summarize the book’s basic shape in preparation for the second volume. Then, I will briefly summarize scholarly response to this volume.

Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration proposes to be a Scriptural portrait of Jesus Christ. It is at once meant to be a Catholic appropriation of Scripture, showing how it can be employed with a regard for history as well as faith, and at the same time a Catholic appropriation of Christ. These two intentions, toward Scripture and toward Christ, are bound inextricably in the book. To ask which comes “first” is to ask the wrong question. Thus, Joseph Ratzinger – writing, notably, as a private theologian and not in his capacity as pontiff – gives the essential thesis of his book as follows:

It [my book] sees Jesus in light of his communion with the Father, which is the true center of his personality; without it, we cannot understand him at all, and it is from this center that he makes himself present to us still today. (xiv)

His thesis draws from Scripture and from the faith of the Church, a faith inherited from Israel. Ratzinger argues that “Scripture emerged from within the heart of a living subject – the pilgrim People of God – and lives within that same subject” (xx), making Scripture at once the subject of history and of faith. He insists that historical-criticism ought not be abandoned, and yet that it has serious limits: the face of Christ shows us the face of God, and Scripture functions in a similar manner by giving us a portrait of Christ.

What follows in Ratzinger’s deceptively short book is a complicated synthesis of theological reflection, detailed Scriptural reading, and historical analysis. He presents this synthesis in the form of a basically Synoptic chronology of distinct topics: from Jesus’ Baptism, into the Temptation, forward through his ministry into the Transfiguration. Most of the book is spent in the Synoptics, with a shift toward John later in the work. He makes good on his promise to see Jesus in light of his communion with the Father, and that relationship dominates Ratzinger’s interpretation of texts. Presupposing the overarching unity of Scripture, as well as faith’s ability to “read” the contours of this unity, Ratzinger frequently weaves together the multiple Synoptic accounts. He accomplishes this intertextuality in varying ways, depending on whether he discuses a specific topic (as in “The Lord’s Prayer,” which more freely associates the passages underneath the unifying heading), or whether he discusses the unique qualities of a book in the canon (as in his section on “Three Major Parables from the Gospel of Luke”). The book is not at all a display of papal hyper-intertextuality, as for example with some of the more dizzying passages in John Paul II’s encyclicals, though it is not without such moments.

Notable in Ratzinger’s exegetical “style” here, and this is not always typical of him (see more rigorous exercises such as Principles of Catholic Theology), is the ability to draw out further implications from the text in what might be called a more spiritually aware variant of reader-response criticism. This is the “pastoral” bent of the book, often maligned among scholars. But this tendency does not, as far as Ratzinger appears concerned, deviate from the essential thrust of the book – which is indeed a hybrid of spiritual and exegetical rigor. He sees no opposition between the “Christ of faith” and the “Jesus of history,” and is determined to indicate the possibility of such a unity in his own exegesis.

Ratzinger displays a profound concern with the New Testament’s relationship to the Old, and he cites texts from the prophets and the Torah with notable frequency. He appears at least partially influenced by Paul’s writings in this regard (along with a strongly liturgical sensibility), and in his citations reveals frequent reliance upon Paul’s view of the relationship between the Old Law and the New. It is therefore not surprising that, a year later, he as pope would proclaim the Year of St. Paul, a year for ecumenical endeavors and – it should not be forgotten – a long series of homilies on the Pauline letters (here is the very last).

Ratzinger thus reveals himself to be immensely concerned with the direction of Scripture in modern scholarship and among ordinary Catholics, and in this book he attempts to address both.

Scholarly reaction to the book is easy to summarize: abject hatred. The book was almost universally derided by scholars, and I will not attempt critique their fairness or unfairness here. Instead, I will offer a quote from Luke Timothy Johnson, who in his review manages to be eloquent whether or not I agree with him:

It is, in short, a book that falls between the worlds of scholarship and devotion, contributing little of substance to either and noteworthy primarily because of the office held by its author. (Modern Theology, 24 no 2 Ap 2008, p 318-320)

That is certainly damning, and a good example of the scholarly reaction to the work. Fair reaction or not, the pope managed to hit a nerve, causing a quite entertaining level of hostility. So I must wonder: where is this nerve, what does it mean…and do I also want to strike it?

[Book in discussion: Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration by Joseph Ratzinger, translated by A. J. Walker (New York, NY: Doubleday, 2007)]

Ratzinger on Theological Exegesis

I’m currently reading through Ratzinger’s (Benedict XVI’s) The Nature and Mission of Theology. This morning, I ran across a passage that bears repeating.

If theology considers its own specific property only as an obstacle, how can it possibly yield any fruit? We must factor Church and dogma into the theological equation as a generative power rather than as a shackle. Indeed, only this ‘energy source’ discloses to theology its grand perspectives. As an example, let us take exegesis, which even today is considered to be the classic illustration of the fact that the Church is a mere hindrance to theology. What, then, does a theology which emancipates itself from the Church actually achieve? In what sort of freedom does it then find itself? It becomes antiquarianism. It limits its researches to the past and advances varying hypotheses regarding the origin of individual texts and their relationship to the historical facts. These hypotheses interest us more than other literary theories only because the Church still asserts that these books document not merely past events but what is true. Neither does the attempt to make the Bible relevant by means of some personal philosophy improve matters, for there are better philosophies which nonetheless leave us cold. But how exciting exegesis becomes when it dares to read the Bible as a unified whole. If the Bible originates from the one subject formed by the people of God and, through it, from the divine subject himself, then it speaks of the present. If this is so, moreover, even what we know about the diversity of its underlying historical constellations yields its harvest; there is a unity to be discovered in this diversity, and diversity appears as the wealth of unity. This opens up a wide field of action both to historical research and to its hypotheses, with the sole limit that it may not destroy the unity of the whole, which is situated on another plane than what can be called the ‘nuts and bolts’ of the various texts. Unity is found on another plane, yet it belongs to the literary reality of the Bible itself.

From Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Nature and Mission of Theology (trans. Adrian Walker; San Francisco: Ignatius, 1995), 64-65.