At the Synod: Tension Between Biblical Scholaship and the Catholic Faith
I found this report from CNS to be illustrative of the conversations going on at the synod:
There are a couple basic approaches to resolving the conflict. 1.) You can reject the traditionally held view as erroneous. 2.) You can gloss over the contradiction and ignore it.
But of course, both of these approaches are problematic. The first one is a problem because people have the tendency to throw out the baby with the bath water and reject more than was proved wrong. Or people assume that because one traditionally-held view was proved wrong that all traditional views should be questioned or overthrown. The second approach is a problem because it does not give due credit to reason--a legitimate and binding way of coming to know the truth.
I grant there are other (and more complex) ways of explaining the problem, but I just wanted to break it down for you.
There are a few attempts out there trying to solve this problem, but it just hasn't been done on a wide scale. I'm hoping that the bishops will work through the difficulty and delicacy of the whole thing, but we'll have to wait and see.
- During the first 10 days of the Oct. 5-26 synod on the Bible, a recurring theme in the synod hall was the tension several bishops see between some schools of biblical scholarship and the traditional faith of the church.
The day after Cardinal Marc Ouellet of Quebec presented his summary of the synod's initial discussions Oct. 15, several synod members met with reporters to discuss points the cardinal raised.
U.S. Cardinal William J. Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said the tension between some schools of interpretation, or exegesis, and the traditional theology and teaching of the church was "not just one of the key -- but I would say one of the most delicate -- questions" for the synod.
He said, "We might look at the tension this way: When you look at the Scriptures, oftentimes you are told, 'Read the Scripture to look just at what this passage says to you or says in itself.'
"That is a very important step," he said, "but when you think of the way in which the church for 2,000 years has been reading and reflecting on the Scripture, the next question seems natural and necessary, and that is, 'How is this passage of Scripture related to all of the Bible and how is it related to the faith of the church?'"
There are a couple basic approaches to resolving the conflict. 1.) You can reject the traditionally held view as erroneous. 2.) You can gloss over the contradiction and ignore it.
But of course, both of these approaches are problematic. The first one is a problem because people have the tendency to throw out the baby with the bath water and reject more than was proved wrong. Or people assume that because one traditionally-held view was proved wrong that all traditional views should be questioned or overthrown. The second approach is a problem because it does not give due credit to reason--a legitimate and binding way of coming to know the truth.
I grant there are other (and more complex) ways of explaining the problem, but I just wanted to break it down for you.
There are a few attempts out there trying to solve this problem, but it just hasn't been done on a wide scale. I'm hoping that the bishops will work through the difficulty and delicacy of the whole thing, but we'll have to wait and see.
5 Comments:
The "tension" between biblical scholarship and the Catholic faith is clear: when scholarship definitely proves something that contradicts the way that Catholics have always thought about something...well, what do you do?
I read the article you linked to, but didn't see that. I'm not sure what you're saying. What has scholarship definitely proved that was against the Catholic way of thinking?
I really like this post. I am so happy with the current Synod and I really hope that some good stuff comes out of it when it's all said and done. The tension between biblical scholarship and the Catholic faith is a great one that requires serious attention. I think that we have two extreme sides that need to come together. We have some biblical scholars who are unconcerned with the Church's tradition and don't put their theological prowess to the task of trying to bring them together. Sometimes they even try to pit them against each other in an unhelpful way. On the other hand, you have traditionalists in the Church who simply reject historical scholarship altogether and thus jettison any of hope of an intellectual faith. Both groups are acting contrary to the will of the bishops, as we can see. I would like to think that the program at Catholic is doing something to try to address this problem, but of course the students are very diverse.
Can I change a life?: The phrase "definitively proved" is probably overstating the matter since historical scholarship is not an exact science. But there are still examples of tension. A question that we have been dealing with for decades now is the historicity of the gospels. Another question I can think of off the top of my head is the relationship between priesthood/holy orders in the NT and in the 2nd centuries. A lot of biblical scholars see a fairly sharp divide between how things were in the NT and how they were 2nd and 3rd centuries. There has to be some sort of reconciliation.
Here's a quote from Mark Kinzer's paper "Messianic Judaism and Jewish Tradition in the 21st Century" that I think we'll demonstrate what I mean. Speaking of the Pentateuch he states, "THere are also numerous inconsistencies and even apparent contradictions. Numbers 18:21-32 commands that Israelites give their tithe to the Levites, who then offer a tithe of the tithe to the Kohanim. However, Deuteronomy 12:22-29 instructs Israelites to eat their own tithe at the central sanctuary, and to give it to the poor every three years. Exodus 21:7 indicates that a female slave is not freed in her seventh year as is the male slave, whereas Deuteronomy 15:17 appears to treat the female and male slave alike. Exodus 12:1-13 seems to presume that Pesach will be observed in the home, whereas Deuteronomy 16:2 requires that it be observed in the central sanctuary. Exodus 12:5 says that the Pesach offering can be a sheep or a goat, whereas Deuteronomy 16:2 permits it also to be a bull."
Ok, those are some obscure points. But if you draw the lines of connection like Kinzer does here, the inconsistencies are apparent. When you look at the Bible before doing this examining process and say "The Bible is true. I believe it completely." And then you encounter these inconsistencies about what exact to believe in...then you've got a problem. The bad approach is to throw the whole thing out because you can't squeeze it into your previous perspective. The good approach is to realize that God is bigger than these little inconsistencies and that the Bible is still his word even if you can solve all the conundrums in it. But...we need a theological and hermeneutical approach that grants the Bible its full weight as the authoritative Word of God and yet honestly accounts for all of the problems, difficulties, inconsistencies, etc.
Mark: I was going to send you a generic e-mail about a new book, but I 1) couldn't find an address, and 2) saw the reference to Dr. Fedoryka. We've been trying to get back in touch with him for some time. Do you have contact information? If so, please go to our web site, www.cesj.org, for contact information (we're in Arlington). You'll also see Dr. Adler's name mentioned there in connection with Louis O. Kelso, with whom he co-authored two books.
Michael D. Greaney
Director of Research
Center for Economic and Social Justice
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home