 |
| Erasumus Lecture, January 27, 1988, New York City |
Below is the introductory statement of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger from a 21 member post-conference conference on January 28, 1988, Lotos Club, New York City in Richard John Neuhaus, editor, Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: The Raztinger Conference on Bible and Church, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989, 103-108.
When I composed my paper [the well-known Erasmus Lecture of the previous day], I did so with the knowledge that there are many today who do not understand the historical-critical method, and therefore who oppose it out of ignorance. There are many, as well, and their number is growing, who have given the method very serious consideration and study and have immense reservations about it. Among these are systematic theologians who deliberately seek to avoid the Bible in their theological work. Further examples of the modern confusion in systematic theology would be the works of those who dismiss the Bible as a composition that should be treated only with suspicion. In moral theology we are told that modern biblical study has revealed that the moral injunctions of the biblical literature are so time--and culture--bound that they no longer apply. As you can see, hermeneutical methodology can bring about a rejection of the relevance of the Bible for learning about God and his relationships to mankind.
It would not be fair to the historical-critical method simply to chastise it because of the faults of its erroneous practitioners. On the other hand, one must ask to what extent its erroneous application is due to the defects of the method itself. Again, I am not saying the method has done no good. I am suggesting that it contains such significant mistaken assumptions that a reexamination of it is now incumbent upon all who would affirm the perennial importance of God's written word for the church and for the world of today. It is useless to take refuge in an allegedly pure, literal understanding of the Bible. On the other hand, it is clear that a merely positivistic, rigid ecclesiasticism would not suffice either.
Three fundamental erroneous presuppositions
[1. Certitude]
The first and most fundamental presupposition of the historical-critical method is that, if it is employed as its authors designed it, it would enjoy a degree of certitude similar to that enjoyed by the natural sciences. But if the Heisenberg Principle has any bearing, one can see that the interpreters' original questions have changed as the inquiry has progressed. That is, the questions of Martin Dibelius and Rudolf Bultmann, who devised the method, began to change almost as soon as they began to realize the standard opinions, especially with regard to the synoptic Gospels, and have continued to change to this very day. This involvement of the subject in what is supposed to be a purely objective inquiry should surprise no one. It is what happens in every area of human knowledge. This is true also for what passes as scientific knowledge. And in areas of investigation that are not subject to strict scientific calculation--such as history and literature--this is also true. This is where the object of study cannot be defined in terms of weight, height, or length; here the activity of the inquiring subject is increased. And here the conclusions of historical and literary research more than the findings of the natural sciences depend on the researcher's own evaluation.
[Thus, the results] reflect not the history of progress from imprecise to precise and objective conclusions, but rather a history of subjectively constructed interrelationships. One simply has to return to the issues facing Dibelius and Bultmann. They sought to overcome the arbitrary manner in which biblical exegesis was done in so-called liberal theology in the period immediately preceding. When they asserted the fundamental principle of the priority of preaching over event, they had discovered a literary criteria which in turn would be able to allow them to distinguish between historical and nonhistorical elements. Thus for Bultmann the word received priority, and events therefore were treated as secondary developments.
[2. Discontinuity, forcing the principle of evolution]
To affirm different phases of development of the tradition is to affirm that the understanding of Jesus prevalent in one phase does not necessarily continue into the next phase. This notion of discontinuity contains the presupposition that what is simple in the biblical tradition is original and what is complex must therefore be a later development. All of this seems quite arbitrary. But if one sees here the introduction of the principle of evolution into biblical studies, it may not be all that arbitrary after all. For Bultmann, the definition of Hellenism contains the notion of the cosmos and the mystical worship of the gods. The consequence was that what was Hellenistic could not be Palestinian and hence could not be original. Whatever has to do with cult, cosmos, or mystery must be rejected as a later development. With presuppositions such as these it is no surprise that the picture of Jesus is determined in advance. What remains of the picture of Jesus is a strictly eschatological prophet who really proclaims nothing of substance.
[3. Kant's narrowing of reason]
The question arose: How is one to show any real relevance of Jesus for life today? Here Bultmann relied on the early work of Martin Heidegger. For Bultmann, then, being Christian today was collapsed into this mode of existing in openness and alertness as Heidegger taught.
One thing we must recognize here is the influence of the history of religions school. It affirms the possibility of an objective, scientific methodology and offers an absolute rule for distinguishing between what could have been and what should be explained by developments. To this latter category belongs everything that is not embodied in our ordinary daily experience. This leads me to suggest on a deeper level that the real philosophical presupposition of this whole system lies in the philosophic turning point proposed by Kant. According to him, it is only through practical reason that man can make contact with the reality that is his destiny. But using his empirical categories of exact science by definition excludes the appearance of the One who is "Wholly Other" and the initiative of that One. In theological terms this means that revelation must recede into the pure formality of the eschatological stance. hence, in modern, exegesis, in different ways, there is a reduction of history into philosophy. Modern exegetical debates, therefore, are not just between historians but also between philosophers.
[Three fundamental responses to these erroneous presuppositions]
[1.] First, we should recall that theology--the study of God and God's relationship with humanity--cannot be confused with the natural sciences. This is because in its own terms theology observes that God is supernatural. It is fundamental to all human knowledge to recognize that the object of study indicates and determines the proper method to be followed to understanding. One does not approach surgery like politics or art, or art like chemistry. Thus the biblical word cannot fruitfully be exposed to just any kind of examination. We, because we believe in God, already recognize that natural science is not adequate to study the divine. The real natural scientist who is a believer knows enough about the limits of his own scientific methodology to know that with it alone one cannot see God.
[2.] Second, we must be ready to learn from the extraordinary. We must be ready to accept that the truly original--that is, something that cannot be derived from precedents, but which opens up out of itself--may occur in history. We cannot deny to humanity the ability to be responsive beyond the boundaries of pure reason.
One might easily retort that I am simply replacing one set of presuppositions with another. But does not the Christ faith itself constitute a presupposition when reading the Bible? I would reply, "Yes, it does." Who has ever suggested that the renunciation of Christian faith is necessary to read Scripture?
3. And third, we must reexamine the relationship between word and event. here we can see more clearly that the scientific principle that says, with certainty, what happens occurs either because of necessity or accident, is a philosophical banality and a theological absurdity. We must experiment with the idea that things can indeed be other than they are or presently seem to be. In accord with the biblical terminology, the event itself can be word. This perspective banishes the distinction between event and word. Certainly texts must first of all be traced back to their historical origins and interpreted in their proper historical contexts to the extent possible. But the second exegetical operation is that they must also be examined in the life of the total movement of history and in the light of history's central event, our Lord Jesus Christ.
[Method C]
[T]he Great Debate, which will take a long time to resolve, cannot afford simplistic answers, placing tradition into a blind opposition to the spirit of the present age. But neither can it afford to renounce the great insights delivered by the past and pretend that the history of human thought seriously began only with Kant.
I'll put it another way. You can call the patristic-medieval exegetical approach Method A. The historical-critical approach, the modern approach, epitomized by Dibelius and Bultmann, is Method B. What I am calling for is not a return to Method A, but a development of a Method C, taking advantage of the strengths of both Method A and Method B, but cognizant of the shortcomings of both.
The exegete, finally, must realize that he does not stand in some neutral position, outside history and outside the church. Such a presumed immediacy regarding the purely historical can only lead to dead ends. The first real presupposition of all exegesis is that it accepts the Bible as a book. In so doing it has already chosen a place for itself, which does not follow simply from the study of literature. Ti has identified this particular literature as a product of coherent history. That history is the proper space for the process of coming to understand the text. If it wishes to be theology, it must take a further step. It must recognize that the faith of the church is present and that without the faith the Bible remains a closed book. It must come to the knowledge that faith is a hermeneutic, a space for understanding, which does not do dogmatic violence to the Bible but precisely hods the solitary possibility for the Bible to be itself.
Cf. Google Scholar search "Method C" Ratzinger and "Method C" "Benedict XVI".
Here is the list of the 21 participants at that intimate post conference discussion: Elizabeth Achtemeier, Raymond E. Brown, Karl P. Donfried, Avery Dulles, Thomas Hopko, Joseph Komonchak, William H. Lazareth, George Lindbeck, Ricahrd K. Maloney, Richard John Neuhaus, Thomas C. Oden, Carl J. Peter, Clark H. Pinnock, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, John H. Rodgers, Jr., J. Francis Stafford, Paul T. Stallsworth, Michael Swalina, Michael Waldstein, George Weigel, David Wells.