I must come clean about something, though I could plead guilty to a lot more, and it has to do with the modern study of the Bible. At times I have criticized the study of the Bible as practiced since the Enlightenment, even to those who are not of the guild of Biblical scholars. That is, I have betrayed my brothers and sisters in the Catholic Biblical Association and the Society of Biblical Literature. But now criticism of the guild of Biblical scholars has gotten out of hand. There have been many worthy criticisms made of practitioners of biblical studies, of people whose work is clearly prejudiced against dogma, against the Church, and even against the reality of the divine. Now, however, I feel that the criticisms of Biblical studies have so gotten out of hand, that people in general, fellow Christians and theologians who are not biblical scholars, have lost sight of the worthy accomplishments that have been made in my field. By virtue of my criticisms of excesses in my field, I have conspired in my own downfall, for it seems that there is no good in current biblical studies.
R.R. Reno, blogging today in First Things, outlines his reasons for proposing and producing the Brazos Commentary on the Bible, a theological commentary on the Bible, in which biblical scholars need not apply. Really? Reno writes that "for more than a thousand years it was simply assumed than an exegete and a theologian were pretty much synonyms. After all, you need to know what the Bible says in order to develop an accurate account of God and salvation—and you need to study classical doctrine in order to give a clear and cogent account of what the scripture says." Fair enough, but it seems that the solution to this separation between exegete and theologian is to rid the study of the Bible of biblical scholars. Reno says that "over the last two hundred years, the work of biblical interpretation has rotated away from the churchly business of teaching doctrine. Bible scholars have built their own independent intellectual project, one that excludes Church doctrine from the process of interpretation as a matter of principle. The job of the modern historical exegete is to scientifically determine what a particular portion of the Bible meant when it was composed, not how it should be read by the Church today."
I am not certain that I agree with that statement in its entirety – especially that Biblical scholars have built their own "independent intellectual project" – but let that be for now. What, however, is wrong with determining what a "particular portion of the Bible meant when it was composed"? If the study of the Bible is to determine meaning, then it seems that a determination of meaning in proper historical context is essential, if not sufficient. It is especially meaningful in that all other senses of the Scripture, as the Church tells us in the Catechism and other Church documents, such as the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s "Interpretation of the Bible in the Church," are based upon the literal meaning. There is this increasing hue and cry amongst theologians who are not biblical scholars to return to the glory days, supposedly, of the Church fathers when a portion of Scripture could mean whatever the particular Church father’s imagination proposed it meant. Those who simply want to return to the interpretation of the Bible in the Church fathers need to read the Church fathers.
I am not opposed to the spiritual reading of Scripture – it is essential and necessary to interpreting the Scripture, as Jesus himself engages in it (see a general example in Luke 24 and a specific example in John 3) – but this desire to cast out excellent historical work on the Bible is atrocious. Reno says that historical study of the Bible has produced results that "on the whole…have been disastrous." I disagree with this, and could point to numerous examples as to why, but instead I might say the same about moral theology in the past two hundred years. Have Catholic moral theogians done a stellar job of interpreting the Church’s teaching for the faithful? Have they produced a literature which is accessble to the laity? Is the solution to throw out moral theologians and let biblical scholars, untrained in the field, take over. I mean, how could we do worse, right? Yet, that is what Reno suggests is the solution for his biblical commentary series: take people untrained in the Bible and let them have a go. Instead, the solution to bad biblical scholarship is good biblical scholarship, and there are many superb biblical scholars who take seriously the primary goals of the biblical texts: to teach us the nature of God’s activity amongst human beings and to show us the way to salvation.
Reno says he is not surprised that Biblical scholars are antagonistic to the project. "Eight volumes have appeared, and in the main biblical scholars have shown themselves opposed to—and often angry about—the series." Biblical scholars are antagonistic because most of the series, and some of the people recruited to write in the series, do not know what they are doing with the biblical text. It is an anti-intellectual enterprise in the guise of being for the Church. Reno goes on to say that "it is a plain fact, however, that today the Church does not need to know more (or want to know more) about ancient Israelite religion or the Q hypothesis." How he knows this, I do not know. If he does not want to know more about Q or ancient Israelite religion, then carry on without it, but knowing much about history can be more than helpful, it can be essential to opening up the text for readers today. He also says that there exists a "widespread sense that modern historical–critical study of the Bible has run its course." Again, I am not certain where this "widespread sense" emerges, whether in the classroom, or in the pulpit, or in the pews, or perhaps amongst academics who do not want to do the research to engage in modern biblical study. When I speak at Churches what I note is how much the people in the pews love historical information and data. They love history because ever since the rise of historical consciousness in the West, we must understand things in historical context. We cannot escape this reality. We must understand the Bible historically. Yet, bad history and bad historical understanding is so much the norm, which is why the Da Vinci Code exploded as a pop cultural phenomenon, even amongst Christians, Catholic and other. People are hungry for good historical information about their faith. Churches have so poorly explained the historical rise of Judaism and Christianity that Dan Brown and his overwrought prose took in millions of people who should have known better, but were never taught better. The answer to this is not to cast out historical study.
We cannot simply revert to the time of the Church fathers, and pretend that the Bible did not emerge in particular historical contexts. The Church fathers turned to, sometimes, tenuous spiritual senses to make sense of data that they could explain in no other way. For the Church fathers, "The lack of a sense of history, of historic change, development, and reversal, of the unpredictable and far-reaching diversity that human development entails, and the corresponding lack of historically oriented interpretative resources made it impossible simultaneously to affirm the unity and coherence of divine revelation and to maintain in practice the primacy of the literal sense of scripture" (Ben F. Meyer, Critical Realism and the New Testament [Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Publications, 1989] 33). Reno does not have the same historical context or excuse as the Church fathers, however, and we do not need scholars such as Reno doing an end-around on biblical scholarship. If biblical scholarship is sometimes bad, it is not because of the worthlessness of history or the intended sense of the text, it is because of bad philosophical presuppositions regarding history, revelation and interpretation. Reno’s project is antagonistic and ill-advised. We need more talking amongst theological disciplines not the rejection of biblical scholarship. Meyer goes on to argue that "communion in faith with the Church of apostolic times is hardly more than an illusion if it fails to include creedal commitments to the same revelation. Thus, the maintenance of authentic Christian identity is the ultimate theological rationale of insistence on the intended sense of scriptural texts" (Critical Realism, 33).
John W. Marten