Pi&'rz(tzzzisr f J()/!/ &( &'z/&t!! l ('!&l l')z,',Sl&/&'i &'(!9w ~ aw 1 g e rn the following year, Dr»vtu», in, in «p()ch-(nakiz)g»tud) .Reaciing Holy Scnpture zn opposed "exegesis in the Sorb«)il n» 1&) "('xeg«»j» i!1 f l1«~ ~ / T a1 a ~ a 4 Church."."the Sprrrt: is the patnshc It is important to rcmemb»r this: f(jr the ( hri»tian,~ ~ the true interpretation of H()lv Script«ir« I»zllain» jnd 'evillway of reading the Bible always be 'exegesis in th«Church.')ut it i» a significant tacti ~, that this type of exegesis is not pi1l»ent«d bV C(in(.ili!l!!i in a~ 'still possrbie today? reductive manner, as one of th« 'di»puted qu«»tion»': the

author (this time a Catholic) lii&iit» birn»«lf fo j(idgii&g critic,illvthe role of "the Church's auth()rity in th« int»rpretati()n» ()fScripture" (again and again th«»p«ct«r ()f,&nti-m()«]«r()i»j&)), butl'as

nothing to say about fli«»pe(itic ch,ira«t«ri»fic» &)f ('hristi,inIgnace de la Potterie

the Tradition we should recall (vh.&t «va» ernpha»iz«d in»«)Iluminous a manner, at th«beginnii&g of th« last c»ntur&', by th«l The faithful reading ot Ho1y '4 great theologian of the Church, J. A. Mo»hf»r:

!

i j'cripture and its Christian interpretationcannot be done except in the Spirit. Scripture should be interpr»t»d acc()rding tu th«Spint, because it isIi

the work of the Holy Spirit; this Spirit is given fo u» by th«church &ifJesus, which has come down to u» vvith a p»rf»ct contiouitv; wf).) t»v»rIn 1980, Co!iciliunz devoted one number of its "Ecumenism" contradicts it should b» considered «rr&)n«ous, . Scriptur«»houlilseries to a much debated and particularly delicate subj»( t; be interpreted spirituallv, wliich i» t( 8,ch is to»a« thlit oil(. «a(1(10!. ti&1d 1(1 itan thin that contradi&.t» th«convictioii (if th«Church.

!

a a n g

c

n

f

h

e

Conflicti!ig Ways of Izztert&retizz&, the Bible.'he first articl» al-einterpret Scripture accor« iiig to t 1& (. oc rin( (i «tacked the fundamental question head on: "Is Historical Criti-

cism out of Date?" Naturally, the answer was negative. De»pit«

~

the interrogative form of the title, the author (who is f)r&)t»»-tant) passes over in complete silence a nonetheless undeni1bl»

In this synthetic obs«rvation on the historv of exegesi», wefact: criticisms of the method have been multiplying for the lastwish to show that the ancient Tradition, at th» tim«. ot th«twenty years or so. The very divergence of the r»ading» pr&&- Fathers and the Middl» Ag«», has )Iw,)&l» affirm«d that th« f'in1posed in this issue shows the growing dissatisfacti(&n at fh«»(.i-task of Christian «.x»g«»i» i» to read th« I lolv Scripture "in t1»entific monopoly which the defenders of the hist&&rical-critic,ilSpirit," that is to»ay, to l&&ok in it t'or spiritual understanding.method pretend to have. By way of characterizing the»ituafi&inWe will then show thatof uncertainty in which contemporary exegesis finds its«lf, lcite two particularly eloquent titles. In 1974, Ikefoule publish»dan article which was a statement: "Exegesis in Question."-'ndthe Christian synthesis on a more critical found ho

!E fisc 'ez&jje Bi&i&j)jze 82

'Edited by Hans Kung and Jurgen Moftmann, Concilium 138 (Edinburgtul; T. and T. Clark, and New York: Seabury, 1980).(1975):321-359.L&reyfus says that if he were o ';

18 Miniaiyy inFraz)pots Refoule, "L'exegese en question," Le Supplement no. 1)1(1974):391-423.

4Jobann Adam Moehfor, Du' "' ' n', '!938) V 2&-2 l.Cenennnie ) (Winter. (886) e'886 by Clllllllflillle'ill!'flllllllllllll ( lljlnlllc j&celr i Kafhotizisnjua... (Tu i»g«&):ll

',

i;

Pca-l&11~ ll &III ~ il 1& If&312 Ignace de la Potter&e

P,

sa vi ic an, &'' s t . - I ~ and/or); there is a certain t('.»sion betw»&.n th( irl. 'l hi: I»»si(»lsalvific plan of God, the truth of salvation (ve&i tas saluta».s) I h» (and or); er i ', ~ ~ ' — - . i(i»hei s to explain the riit betwe&!n t l» t(~o gr»a s(. lo( s ( every texts of Holy Scripture have then a dimension of int('ll;i;- &,' p p

' 'i b 't ' I ' i r»«l s( l(i( ' eI eSiS in antiquity: the SC&!OO (it n ip» anc I city that secular texts do not possess. They have in thems» g('s g

a "spiritual sense," which is due to the presence of the Spirit in Alexandria. The latter (inc u ing '. »me», rig l,,c

' ' ll ~ .' *veri d»t,lil ot th».certainl sinned by»xc»ss in allegorizi»lt &*i »ri c cg o y p re its sp'tua d .;»tl; ers) c y -'ee e.biblical accounts. But th» inverse t»nc»ncv, ap y ' ' .'st»&'Iol(s & l lca

I chians which granted an aimost »xc usiv» pridepth m Scripture: "M&ra profund&tas elo(lu&orum Iu(iru&» ( l'led pc jaSt. Augustine in the Co»fessions, &nira profu»d&'tas, Deus»&e«s, eletterandasinglehistorical sens»o t e i e, was

more dangerous for Christian I'ait l. i»ca '»wm&'ra prof«»ditas!" (12.14,17),'I o» betw»»n all» ~(iry and orth(idoxy:According to Origen, "the truth of the Word of, reflections on the relation le w»»n a

God is hidden under the surface of the letter" {l» Lev., I. I). InS C cho(il of Antioch, whicli ad(&lit»&. t lc it»ra»&&i »&h's commentary on Matthew, St. Hilary many times urges hi Th cis c

i. i I" ., ...the very metropolis o&'»r& sy &»am» y: c''eadersto search out the interior intelligibility of the Gc,sp»I"I't I f tl 5 'pt I h'I'the "truth" of the Gospel and of the Sc ipture. St, Jere&me too is

very clear: "Let us not think that the Gospel is in the words (ifthe Scriptures; not on the surface, but in the &»a&ro&o; not in th» the mystical interpretation a»d orthodoxy ~&I s«in( orleaves of the words, but in the root of comprehension" (l» Ga!.,

ld d th'ore than to elabo1.11).We must then "pass to the truth of Scripture, to its sl»&it The me/« h edieval tradition would o not ing moI ~ of iatristic exegesis.(ln Gal., 5.13). rate on these fundamental princip es o pa ris i .

To explam this dimension of inter&or&ty in th»Scripture, the Fathers gladly return to the idea of "myst«ry"that is contained in the biblical accounts. With regard to the

The title of this section is fr(inl I atherde

episode of Jacob and Esau in Genesis 27:1-40, St. GregoryThis iv()l ks justifies

«

explains that, if one wants to understand this account m&.&re,, Lubac's g reat work, air»adv citeprofoundly "he must rise at once from history to the mystc rv', in saying athat the hermeneutic princip es o'

a es a more systematic orm,y p" ~ ays in one very beautif'ul 'n the middle ag'f the 'four senses of Scripture.I' p i i y, at "with one and the sam» v, (ird l doctrine o e

it tells a story and unveils a myslerll" (Moralia, 2{l.l.l). St. f the monastic tradition, trom lssthis doctrine of thc f(itlr s»uses renl'ilnec 'i . ~»rivedAugustine proceeds in the same way, as for exampl» in his this doct

'

le grecommentary on the account of the wedding feast at Cana {I(ilin,, always aers and throu h t »m, rom oneI om th

are certainly clear, all of the mysteries hidden in the L()ld s the presence of the p tth Splrltmiracle will be discovered" (Tract. ln fob., 9.5). One must then must rea p .

I „,nple a beauti.u pLet me cite one sing e «'t „earsexplain "what belongs to the mystery of this fact," in particularrom William of St. Thierry, St Bernard's fr nown aswhat is signified by "the mother of Jesus and the wedding; sage «om W '

M t p;eu the letter k«in.his letter to the brothers o s that theyfeast," in the mystical sense (in &nysterio, 8.13).This sense that goes "beyond" the letter, this the 'the "«Iden Ep'stle .

shou'd undertake lect&o d&vinaFathers ordinarily name 'allegory'from allos and agoreuein, tosay something else). This connection is so deep in them thatManlio Simonetti could entitle his recent work on patristic ex-egesis The Letter andlor Allegory (Letlera elo allegoria). Here "the 'lohn Her(ry «ivn&~" E-""y"«'tats9oI ~h 7 sec«4, N(» S PPletter" and "allegory" are presented in a dialectical relation

!

"I

!I

314 Ig&&ace de }a Putt»ri» R»a&}ff&g l }ii}J/ S&'f I}'I;ir ';,',';, S})j,,ir'& Sin the spirit by whom the Scriptures were v'ritten. It is in ti&;s .llf'I-Ifthat they require to e rea, an so un ers oo . 'ou wi n«) c r c II&«I.I . h ' b d, d so understood. Yoc will 1 . i,, This use is followed through thc ini&ld,c auvs c&ipr'I I &4 .«uiz,

v I c 'la I &) di 6«&)v&'I'ntothe thinking of I'aui it you do not first strep yoursel& &&i&i& tt)& a Benedictine abbot oi'he I th c«J&t&irv, Invitr 9 u.- I&) &.:sc&)vc&spf'rit, by strict attention in reading and by assiduous appiic&J &)n J&) in Scripture "pretiosissifff&J Cliri.tl &'I L(& " 'lr'.&'lli/sl('I'ffi (lii & '»ll.,nieditation. You will never understand David unless «)(ir o&&n 6:43). Christian "allegorv," as )pp )s I t that & I th '(..r«cks, is

t an imaginary ace&)unt, a coherent s«t ()t n&.i.,&ph()rs. It isso with the other authors. (E,». nd fratres rl» ni&»fte f3&i, I~1)indeed a history, not simply Is.&n,ice&)u&it &)I cxi«ri&)r «pisodcs,but as the uncovering/u&1vcili&1g ()f their hidden signii'i«ance; itIt might be objected that, in distinction to St. jerome, Willi,&n&is the "truth oi salvation" which it ci)nt.&ins a&1c &v &i('1 . cri 1-uses the word 'spiritus'n a pyschological sense. It do«s i&&)t

refer to the Holy Spirit, but to the human spirit (that &)I''.&iil, ()tI fhe s»lisir» liiifirilis has,&s its &)1j«ct I &c rn&)r& ai &.the reader and the interpreter of the Bible). l3ut F&)r Willi,&i&I,,&s

h. ". ' ",',,, religious life ot'he Christi,&i&. 'I'&is is 1 i«sci&s«&r& .'&rilforthe whole ofC&ster&c&an n1ystic&sm, the "spirit" &)I'htakes on for his spiritual lii'c .&i&d t»r his «xtcrior .&c iona life of profound communio&1 w&t

/

s, ', . agas). The true tropology sh&)uld b( an «xt«nsion an&. un o e(see William's insistence on the iiuitas spiritfrs, following I C,)r ' . I I . r i 3 I .t )1 &n&. un o eof allegory in the life oi'hc bcl'i( vcr. I's means, I&1 &110( «6:17). The inspired writer, the reader, and the interpret«r &)fterms: the moral must b«.1 moralitv of t,&it &, anc o s 1iri.u.Holy Scripture commune in one single spiritual experi«ncc. Ii isa personal manner of living dogma. It is, says .r. & cby participation in the same Spirit that one must rc„&d,1&1d ' I f I i

' lt ., &ys"the mystery of Christ and of th«C&urc1 s() ar as

'eplicatesitself in the. soul and the life of the faithful" (p. 3~6)This unity of the Spirit also secures tile Un&iv ()f ihe p .' ' 3~6

"So understood, tropol&)gy &y&)uld bc t c 'spiri u,&"four senses" of'cripture. Let me recall the famous coup&«i b),which the Middle Ages memorized this division excel}el&ce" (p. 357).F' ll; 'I'I ' 'h '11()yc&11cr&i iow 1&dsF&nail), an1goF,&a 1is &s t «m()ac&I

the final ends (r}lio t»If&tris), tov&1rds the hc&i(.nly'&Iy a&1d divlileLittera gestn dr)cet, quid credns allegorinMora}is quiil ngr&s, quo teiulris afiavogin."

life. The anagogical sense is thus,&t thc same tin1«1n 1&11&cip&

The "letter" of the biblical account tells the "events" of hist&)rq tion of eschatology.'II

Or&c Ii&us i bc c I!cful &10t io speak ot 1 p ui I I V cAs for the three other senses, "allegory," the "moral''&)rh would I«ad to arbitrariness. n rca i v,), nd "anagogy," they are but the th&1 c biblical s, vl i h u

e divided the different asp ci: of there is onl ~ I- ~ ". )n " t S&fL1 stcrv c()nsi xnificd in Scriptur« t1f()&ig

1tual understand&&1g We musttry to understand bcttcr ih& on y one un&quc ~y~tc&1 I'c M1 I& Jv ot

&ts 14&sc itis sl Ii 1«1&&11 the 1 I

!'

governing intuition of this doctrine, what makes th« inici&&)r d&vers&ty of &ts p. &&scs ")-" ',~ ~ ~

- . 'nicrioriz«dunity, the true spirit. Christ, prefiguied or i»&&'(- I- ''.: -' ''," (1 3-„7)1& cs(~ &11 by thc

Attegoria is the very object of faith (quid cr»&lns): ii. is m the soul o c i 't, L1«ginning with the 14ththe "mystery" that is unveiled in history; the empirical facts as But ther« is no doubt that, beg&nn g r „d tof

such have no interest for the believer except for their religious ury ~ '"g . ""h d ctr&ne oF the tour senses ecame ib an

elaboratewe have seen it was already, dissi at . ThI

t m of artificial or sterile allegorizations.. This is the

"on of mystery to explain the andecadence, which slowly preparered for

the newprofound sense of the history of salvation and of Scr&pturc g

orientation of the 16th century.

2. The lnoderu rupture: Separate exegesis"See the excellent analysis by de Lubac, "Sur un vieux distique: La doctrine thought wasJ C! enu me ievaI du 'quadruple sens,'" in Melanges offerts au R. P. Ferdinand Crrnallr ra According to the analysis of Fr(T&)ulouse: Bibliotheque de 1'insiitut catt&olique, 1948), pp. 347-366. characterize yh t 'b

3 ~ ~~~~

~~~~~~

~i~~

~

~!

~~

~~

!~

Rea(li&l, 1$( 1(! S:&1 t&: ''1(316 I~»ace de ta Potfe&iean essen ia rer, 1, form's sola Script&(ra here plavs a v»r1 gi(al rol» 1 r&&m n(ni oi&

! o I th th t ou t:1- th 1-; l -, I;I 1 1'- 1.- r.-»1' b ligious coefficient; the prevalence ot si;&rr'(i& &l, »', 'he on y t ing a'ure.h h essed this reference, over explicallo», ivhich . ScripWhat was the situatioli &ri ic 1 (tl ~ (()th century? This. th psychological irreducibility... of signifi(olio», ivilh i,s

(t&&1 u &1 1 ni( l.ho(l was 1 c &&lc &P «' om rea.»,

ected. But it is also the tim» ot'he gr&iwing impact o

truth. Croce has def'ined it vers ni(c 1&. [I I&stor&c&sthe middle ages. The effacement of individuals befor» tli»

o em imes

randeur of ngature and the mystery of God is replaced by lh» h;story ~ iz After the ralionalism &if the 1&~th «.nt y,f h- 1, tli»

in history. It fol ows, as C& s 0 s sccA so well, th 1t ( &ic (it it ns of thc unbelieving 1:nliglito&i me&it as niaiiy("&

the essential aspects of Renaissance civilization is "the»soap(I hasar 1 lans (. c(i&J, Gad imei&from ecclesiastical control in all its forms.A'ans Urs von Bal

hat, bv th» ri orous app &&-This general orientation of thought and culture, is h t t b 1 1 g pin cuttin off the higher ayers &.historical criticism th;it is in c g

Gospels (which v ere added by faith, as t cy sa&, 7om ow on to the fore. Under what determining influ»nc». considered as mythica '), (

ou y, o o on, that Sp'no a wa. th(*, Christianity, that &il the historic Ja or of bibhcal cnticism, one of the founders of mod»rn

exegesis. The gove ning idea of Spinozism is the noti(in,ilimmanence: every problem must be resolved by the r»soun:»s distinguish between t »of reason alo»e. Biblical sciences thus became exclusively plii- and the true historic (&,('5&'&(s& I&&(l&fir(l&) b&bi&cal i»s

dichotoiny was» inaillfcst achicvemcndimcnsi(in ig&i(» &

u o

al for Christian tai i,e the meddling (if faI(Ii11 tly k d *n history (H&st&&rr'& ) an c&in

1(. '.)n» thus acc»}& sexegesis is "methodologically atheistic." (Geschichte) is truly trag&c.'This exclusive rationahsm obviously must tn(li»ph onizes the total separati&»'&in (&f th» "]»sus (i

in the 'century of lights,'he Enlightenment: it implies th» -Christ «f f„;th This s»p;sc &nt&o&1 seri(ius y ~ dIrejection of all tradition, all authority, and secures the total & study and Chi.isfologyreleci,, ~ ~ & ., to the point o

3S to bc returning toautonomy of reason. This is the position of Kant: '»ligion Formgeschichte Today & pIl the ru ture seem 'o—

within the limits of reason alone." There can be no question favor as when one waants to reduce to a pany more of a search for the spiritual sense of Scripture. Th»epoch of the Fathers of the Church has ended: the epistemo- ."R oue de Me&op .l '9logical rupture with the Tradition is consummated. The Re-

lvlorale 44 (1957):6OB-6..1

. rd &he+Hi-toeI, '!,13Martin Kahler, Tile So-Called H&alar&err 1964)

trans. Carl E. Braaten (Philnde phra "d 1 1 Se,,;ng lhe

Fo&.rrr, «ar'oM.-D. Chenu, La Theologieau Xlle siecle, Etudes de Philosophic Medievnk'Hans Urs von Balthasar, G"'V . „d J,il n Pd&chas (d, Jose ih Fess&o i'5(Parian J. Vrin, 1957), p. 175.nGeorges Gusdorf, l.es Sciences hu&nainea et la pensee»ccidenlale, vol. 2: I.e.'gnat&us and Now Y&&k Cro~ (id 198 porigi neo des sciences harm&ines (Parian Payot, 1967), p. 135.

1

I!

318 Ignace de la Pofferie R('adiiiy'(&I(i '&cril&II»'r('i&i i)a'"&j&l&'il I -1

ical construction this or that Gospel account, which ls li(»i&&irie — 1 deed as he says a little pill&el. '"!pie. Ih

virgin birth, the miracle accounts, or even the resurl-peti&I» theophany."" Again, more clearly,itself). Each of these is said to be not a historical fact so much asa theol&&&&oumeno&I, an exPression of the faith of the Church. But pro»1 the point of VieW Of the hist&&r)'I'plieions, l(ideo Christi»iity

l in this situation one no longer reaches the full reality «t I&i.-t(».(7, ".'resents us with a supi'erne h&pr&&Johnny: !I&c (ra»st&g»&r«I&(»& of «e1&istorical eve»t iiito I&ie»&plui&iib... el(] is II&( I»sto»(1&( & v(»/ .Is spicthe concrete and living in age of'esus h se,'f

Looked at up close, this must seem another f(&rlii of which dis lays t e Iii~aximiini ioi lns-»

the dichotomy between history and faith that provoked Ihe h' '- ] being in order to under) && a historic, illy condi&i&uiec"""""""'"""" '"'g'»"'ng "'"""n" ry ' ('l e . existence buperficiilly lh'iivin . &i»I&I ( j «&ii pic&Reformation, theology become more and more re»lut('I'&ii&1 hjstory..., But, in relility, this 'hi«i&&ri(al c

g I .'' 'f Jesus I&1 to(al (hpo 1hon& '&&'ha( il I»'csun(s Is like &»Ieg ~ ~ g g b rtl to tlie probleirl so well descrij ed I v + existence of Jc s ', I, ' » . i."I' &-,, audacious effort to saz&e II!e Iiist&»i&ai &(&('»I in i(selt, &y v»( &&w&iig IMaurice Blondel in "History and Dogma."is Tliis is th& l»-&ij.....&, »(& v I

lem of the relation between Christian facts (the hist&&rv ofsalvation) and Christian beliefs (dogir(as). Theology has &11('»

Th' of view matches perfectly with whit t}i('oflclll&il.ken the ~b~t~~ct form of what Blondel call

this consists in separating truth from history, in sh&iwiii&;h .t »ilnds us that God has reveiled himself iii liistorvoneself i diffe ent to the hu an progress th ough th hi t I '„d d; th t. I, lh k rd ) ~t Greg, vcs r mof salvation and the concrete aspect of revelation. Agailist this,,, t d, b „, I; ',d I,,, too. Wheii the ie ieverform of dogmatism, of theological conceptualism, L«iss&es .d „h t, ot I„,.I„yso a t«d;sc„ver in tiemreaction was at first healthy and legitimate: he wished I&& ',, I, t I a&id diii»e &(,-,((»fi(»& li( must »ecessirl yintroduce historical method into Christian thougllt a»d Ihe(&l-, " ' th I st iii to tile 1ll&'t(&1/"

ogy. Unfortunately, he fell quickly enough into the op]p&&s'&0excess, that of historicism. In this attitude the histori,i» otreligious doctrines claims an absolute autonomy and proto»& 'I'»d«to lead Christian truth back to historical and verifiable fact. To

f „h,t ., 19oz depp»ds &iii 1 revelati»» tliiis ls to want to reduce history as reillty to I'ust»I'v Isf h tor and trolii i~hie]i lt ls impscience," the history of salvation to a technical and critic.il t."'"He ould a&id so»ie vcars later lit the beginni»t'istory(in the scientific sense of critical ). But this requires,,isI ' I'I

II IBlondel shows, the opposition of a separated dogmatics 'o,i"sepirated exegesis," the latter beillg illterested ill n()thi»», 'fterthel()ngdecljlle()fcitholic'xegesls,more than the historical reconstitution of events. At this poiiit,we can do no better than to refiect on the strong words &&I' d

.t ....st,ll „igl»g Ixlo»othe]ess, eve»Mircea Eliade, the great specialist in the history of religions:

"Historicism as such is a product of the decomposition ofChristianity; it could only have come about insofar as we had credit to this stu y, and't t th' dy, and then to use it to Penelost faith in the trans-historical reality of the historical event.""

Philip Maire( (New York: Sheed & Wa«ard, 1961), p.170.

'Maurice Blondel, "History and Dogma," trans. Alexander Dru, in )i&&' Eliade, ln&ages a&id Synd&ols, p. 164.Letter on Apologetics, and History and Dogma, ed. Dru and Illtyd Trethow in '&&Eliade, Iinages «nd Shayn&bois, pp. I&','. d (be Li(( T&staniei&L trans.9-170.(New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965), pp 221-287.&6Mircea Eliade, l&nages and Symbols: Studies in Religious Syn&bolisn&, trans. Edward Myers (London: Ca(ho(ic Tru

Re&&&I&&z & Ft&7l&/ S& t»&f&f»r&'&l ff!& .'&/»&'&f 32l320 Ig&zzzce de l&i Potterie'i

!

h umber in the se!.ies p&'ese&Its son&&'iea&f: f&ibllcalinto the understanding of the Word of God. X&&u &»»»;;& p&& gita.z Fach num'.'; .- ~...

& 1 I& a/I

theme over three periods (Old 'I estament N& w I cstanieiit, iesunius 0&nnes.'hisfurther integration of the historical;",&&rk,&nd

d C .urch between the iarzcti«e &&t'critic.il exeg&osis"«heo»gic» interpretation of Scripture is thc t,&sic «hich Scripture and Cl urclawaits us today. In fact, it has been the object of the m&&st r'cent and the return to 'pthe inter retiition ot tli&.'r,&diti&&n.

There is another important fact, quite nice y em-of contemporary investigations.phasized in a recent article bv oiancai.. inccChristians are in the procees of rediscovering "the centra

f h 'vVor ~ of Cod." "I'&& cite. the beginning ot his3, 7&&z&&ards a rediscoz&ery of fhe spiritual se&is«.'f Scrip(&i&.& character of the 'Vor ~ of Coc. ''&& c'.study:Many signs make us see that the epoch &&f roti&&n,il-

ism and historcistic scientism is beginning its inex&&r,ible de-cline. New needs are making themselves felt. Today wc l&&&&k, After a secular exile, e ' "

~i&bio f&&i D»e carithe Wolxl &&l'sod ll ls l es&&&1&v& &is coil &'d I'&

the life of the Catholic Church this is &n &»&denia a eI

as Paul Ricoeur says, for "prophets of meaning." It is essentialto take this change of climate into account when trying to s,iy Cathohc believers, who have for centuries neit er»ow

ti ddi t o t t ithth Sci 1 l'r 1 d &ndP«Pa«Scripture. forby the liturgical, ecumenical, and biblical movements, Vaticanfact... liberated the Word ancl put an end to the exile o o y

Scripture, »a. IVezJ z&&ays of reading Scripfiire

sedThis new climate explains th& ;nterest arouseIn beginning this overview, we should recall t)ie

~

d b'bl' ~ t dy-groups and, aga" ~title of that number of Concili iini: Conf licfing Waits of'nfe&.»&etin&,» o y y '...,h, di fferent ecclesialtoda b wides read bi lica stu y-grou sthe Bible. We are presented, for example, with a mateii,ilistic ' p ',, We sl-&ouid note inmovements and in centers for spiritualitreading, a psychoanalytic reading, and others of the san1e kind.articu ar the su rising rediscovery of a prac ice &For my part I would like to point in a!&Other

to monastic circles —the le&«&& diz"'"'direction by recalling the enormous labor, in recent time. as in ', iests and relig&ous.become more and more freouent among pries s:.i discovering patr&st&c and &z,cd& ecome more and no&

but also amon different lay groups, w ic a wan

their Christian faith better and to live it moreeval exegesis. This is not the place to present a system,iticbibliography, which would be enormous. Let mc contentmyself with recalling three major contemporary enterprises " " y ' „;,, h is a con»»e&'ndthen noticing that each of them has been undert;ikon iil tution Dei z&erbun&, vvhe« 'l'e -'-"" p " "'"different country, which shows- the amplitude of the &uov«- . e re g ~ "., uest,on. Do these ntion of the readin of k-lo y Scnpturc. - cnewBut this raises a delicate quesn ent of renewal There is m France the monument~i &oil&.

g the exegetion Sources chrefiennes, which, together with the works otF&'.More. Do the have any effect on t e'r '" . s s okende Lubac and of so inany others, allows us to know, to admire,

and to delight in the patristic way of reading the Bible. In seems doubtful, Let us note simp y ~ the wholeI that Toinet has sp

recent& of a "re roach spoken from 'the cloisterto the

England, there is the great tradition of patristic Congresses at recen"y of a 'Oxford, the proceedings of which regularly appear in Sfiidiapatristica. Finally, there is the movement of patristic studies inItaly, with the very recent creation of an association for the P bl' d '98p by Edizior&i Dehonia," in t.a rec&'pf&on d&1 study of the history of Jewish and Christian exegesis. And, in E Bianct&1 "Le caractere central ''ossoa, Co8&tawhat concerns exegetical work more directly, we should als&&note the great series launched some years ago, Parola, Spirito e vol. 135 (Paris, 1985). pp. 157-185.

a

Renditt&& H&ilil S&ii,&tilt& 'iii Ill& )J&it it'22Ignace de Ia P&&tteric

he i&&ca iiiii ///gg. 'I: I f t . 8 t s this sufficienth attentive t&& the iiica»! &1(,Au I»&» j.«tive

' ~ . l&e iii(

pf texts, to their r&&hole»tea»i»&l.i k between ~crjI&f&r&e „in,lChurch has been broken. Or we can put the question in light &&f spmrrre sort of belie is require eventhe first part of this article: " Can we say that the great Vi i,i& iVje, ing".of Christian reading and exegesis ("in the Spirit" ), & lassiealready with the Fathers and reiterated by Vatican I I (D *i ing posed toI'&erb«nt, 12)—that this principle has guided exegetic&&I w&&rk

It fhe relation between exegfrom within? The answer must be negative,1' In the following section, we want tp anajvze this

difficulty and to suggest what direction should be taken h& filid, esp yIthe solution, to find an interpretation of Scripture th,il !..»i&&re Ppjnf. Twp lessons ajopve i &&ug 1 ', 32)

l! j and more "in the Spirit.""'interpretation lis '&,'representation (D(r&'sti-'litt&t;). I f 11 leil 11s,ex-plicitation (Aus-legit»,g') Tc Vo inter ret a text is p eb. Exegesis and herinene«ties

(1) The principal reason why some have tho;ight tp tp disengage whatever i»ip «t',I e„me»euticajexclude the "spiritual sense" from exegetical work is tli:I they hidden riche '.',

t s them t(& seekare convinced that lt ls npt "scientific." It ls lmpprtalit t& dispel, less~~ fpr fheojpg " gI «»s;,I in fhe Scllpfura serious mistake here. We must ask what the.'tat&is &&f what is it&1th&,&,,

&V, .„I help but be st1 &«rlrl in the Trad&flu&iscientific knowledge really is today. Listen to the I.a&i&le»re's themselves (' ' n„,j.,s,uid those tron&A&jjljam Rjcjial dspn). 3 thecomment; "If there is any lesson to be drawn fr&&r» the, by the resem ' „ I tlap Scriptures.blance j&etween these ...&A&e & anI evolution of the modern sciences..., it is that the idea of &A h&t patristic texts o 'VI „d that fhe re

n fhe s lrrtu&ij " nse, .ader otand Sl Greg& "y c ' 1th St.is scientific does not derive from a single model."-"": Tod,i)» e say that St. Hi ary

distinguish three great categories of science, each pf «jiich eek out its "iiilci'i&&r "i e ' - *„&nd fhe1represents a very particular idea of the scientific. The th&rcl Jerome that the "me»lng " - "V. " b,t,,i flee»i«map...,//category is that of "hermeneutical sciences." These bring into 'ords. It is ou ',

I',,l pf Scr&Ptuplay the category of "meaning." Exegesis doubtless I'alj iiilp in the root of t« '-,4 '„',josppj,v is als

On fji& 0'tjl&.r jl& / V '. „Ajljon lis alithis category. Its role is to itttert&rat Holy Scripture, t» lind&(.&1 t&liice// '/ djscoverj&19 fl ' ' &,ccjsej&&/ fj&e"meaning" iri it Now a still widespread lnjsullderst ilid:lig process 0 re-isc,,tillpri. It is Vree y

dition tor ajl true interVr .'. Iities of texts.(deriving from the persistent influence of historicism) c&&n: i&lers ~ intrinsic con-i'

ll I jil( nt virtu& ltlexegesis principally if not exclusively as a philological,&nd tradition that 'na ' . III, dej wh&& has ai ~ y8,

t cite here Maurice on ae of modernhistorical science. Its role is to show where texts come fr&&&T&, 'e must (irs cl, h'jps&Inhicaj lacunae// d po ma," "the V '"" extrinsicism o( what their genesis is, and what meaning they might have hadfor their first readers. Thus one strives to reconstitute historicaj exegesis «s "p

d h; tory a,id, pn thej& .

a fixed dogmatism that ignore 'ogma, a thir w ythe ositivism of the histor an b fajfh and to d g™. ywho i norese post iv econnect history t d collectiv~Paul Toinet, Pour u»etheologiedet'e&regese(Paris: Fac-editions, 19g3), p. &t&, . nf pf fhe tradition y" tj Hans-Georg'See ahove p. 373. 'he vital mov

h h Mpre recen yThe question has already heen treated, for example, in I L Riedlinger, "La conscience of the w fe pf histor fwhole Cr u« .. ricism,

li lettre et I'espirt: Les voies de l'exegese spirituelle dans I'Fglise," &To»&iuu»io Gadamer has denoI ven as an o Je[French editionj 7 (1976):26-39.'"J. Ladriere, in the afterword to Tharcisee Tshlhangu, La

tt&iotogi«'ouuu&'cience

&&u XXe siecle (Zaire: Presses universitaires du Zaire, 1980), p. atk t e aut entic un

R 'll l Ills'I&l!/ .';:»n: & '.' I ' l;& &i324 I&mace IIe Ia Potferie' these words: "I-Iolx 'icripl&!&c if;&&&;Ilf i&c I'c I&l an'ithat one keep in mind its effectual history {Wir4i»&is& cs& /&i& /&l I beg&ns with

in the same S airii bv v& I«&u ihcv &x crc &i rit cn."To interpret is, then, to transcend. It is to go "beyond" & isif&1» &nterpreted in I~ ~ - -'t

signs beyond words in order to reach the pr&)found life t I'l fur er p —'' " '»n "g

11rther ex lains that to atlain ibis»n,i wc moist ~&e atf»n

i.»" &nt and the unity ot th» &vh&ifc &&f'criplur», »»pinemerges progressively from the "effectual history." Wc c;n s,!1 I, the conten

with George Steiner: "'Interpretation'isj what gives 1«ing&&agc mind the livi gin tradition &&t fhc vvh&&lc ('&!n a ianc Ican i

." I not a m.&ttcr ot 1&iokint& f&ir 0 "spirit&&a!sc!!sc'literal

sense," bui of tinding &&nc &vit iin I . 1»transcription."" A purely historical and critical explication of a, beyond t&he lite1 . The aim is to ar& iv 0 at an "inl«riv&. 1&e»e rn i&»&word from the past is not an "interpretation." Spirit in the letter.

a '&nit& r! f&ir t&»f!»i c rs bv»isp&rc& ic !eve&'s,'1 These principles recall again that great intuiti&&n &if ''r «x.icr&cncc of G&id."& '!tcr,il cxc„& s&s In&Isthe Fathers, especially St. Gregory. On many different &&&.c,!- according to their &-'xl-&. ee aen Itself, I&I &&i&den Itself, to f&cco&ril 'pl I'I 'uisions, in his biblical commentaries, Gregory insists on tl!c f.«.f open itselt', deepen I se

. Thc & 1 ic!"I I&!Ic li'Is i»c 'n ~,!vcn t!s v.(i» 'nterpretation. Th&i* ~

' is &ici1ih, b&! f. the S &II!t g!vcs.8). They grow in significance according to ii!0 vc!.)'the written lett r b ing I,. ih,y m of he understanding that itself grows in believers. And 3:6).A d b J 1 im cl: "fh

wasn't this already the teaching of Jesus himself, when hc,:.1!i spirit and they are life" {J&to the disciples: "But when the Spirit of truth comes he i~ ill &.»&&' Jordan.you to the complete truth... and he will tell you of thc thingsto come" {John 16:13).To understand the truth of Christ fs n&&lpossible without the action in us of the Spirit of Christ, &ivh&& i 'the Spirit of truth.

4. CO»clusiOr&

This is the fullest understanding of my essay'!!The faithful reading of Holy Scripture and its Christian intc

I pretation cannot be done except "in the Spirit." This requirein reply to the question posed by my sub-title, thai o!distinguish between the letter and the spirit of Scripture. In llstudy of the letter, it goes without saying that one can't j&&st &,back to the methods and the procedures of the ancients, v~ hi&are outdated in many respects. One ought here to take ad& a!tage of the immense resources of modern exegesis. Noncthless one must recall the "patristic way of reading the Bible": v&should read and interpret in the spirit prescribed by the Fath»themselves. This is the way of the Tradition. It is also the wathat the Church asks us to follow today, in the Constitution Dverbu&n, no. 12. That paragraph on interpretation, as we recal

: I

George Steiner, After Babel; Aspec&s of Language an&i Transla&ion (OxforOxford University Press, 1977), p. 27. With Ricoe«r, we might also speak he

I of the "teleological" dimension of interpretation (beyond its "archeologi&aand historical dimension).