Pub - The Bible in The Churches How Various Christians I PDF

The BIBLE
in the
CHURCHES
How Various Christians Interpret the Scriptures
KENNETH HAGEN, EDITOR
rita
BEBÍ
•MU
MARQUETTE
UNIVERSITY
PRliSS
Marquette Studies in Theology
No. 4
Andrew Talion, Series Editor
Cover design by Joan Skocir

Assistant to the Editor:
Aldemar Hagen
Copyright © 1 9 9 8 by Joseph A. Burgess, Kenneth Hagen, Daniel J.

Harrington, Grant R. Osborne, Michael Prokurat, Marion L Soards,
George H . Tavard
Library o f C o n g r e s s C a t a l o g i n g - i n - P u b l i c a t i o n D a t a
The Bible in t h e c h u r c h e s : h o w v a r i o u s C h r i s t i a n s i n t e r p r e t t h e
S c r i p t u r e s / [edited b y K e n n e t h H a g e n ] . — 3 r d ed.
p. c m . — ( M a r q u e t t e s t u d i e s in t h e o l o g y ; 4)
I n c l u d e s b i b l i o g r a p h i c a l references a n d i n d e x .
ISBN 0-87462-628-5(pbk.)
1. B i b l e — C r i t i c i s m , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , e t c . — H i s t o r y .
2. B i b l e — H e r m e n e u t i c s . I. H a g e n , K e n n e t h . II. Series.
BS500.B5443 1998
220.6'09—dc21 97-45377
MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY PRESS
T h e A—ucialioii of Jesuit l/niver^ily P r e s s e s

Contents
Preface: T h i r d E d i t i o n iv
Preface: S e c o n d E d i t i o n v
Preface: First E d i t i o n vi
The History of Scripture in the Church

Kenneth Hagen 1
Catholic Interpretation of Scripture

D a n i e l J. H a r r i n g t o n . S.J 29
Orthodox Interpretation of Scripture

Michael Prokurat 61
Lutheran Interpretation of Scripture

J o s e p h A . Burgess 101
Evangelical Interpretation of Scripture

G r a n t R. O s b o r n e 129
Reformed Interpretation of Scripture

M a r i o n L. Soards 159
Scripture as the Word of Cod and the Ecumenical Task
G e o r g e H . T a v a r d , A.A 175
Index and Scripture Citations 199
List o f C o n t r i b u t o r s 218
IV T H K BIBI.K IN THK C H U R C H E S
PREFACE
Third Edition
Everything stated in the prefaces t o t h e first a n d s e c o n d edition c o n -

tinues t o pertain in t h e third edition. T h e t h i r d edition is revised a n d
e x p a n d e d . A new c h a p t e r has been a d d e d for t h e Reformed tradition by
M a r i o n L. Soards. A n index has been prepared a n d a d d e d by J o a n Skocir.
A n o t e t o teachers u s i n g this v o l u m e for a text: page n u m b e r s
have c h a n g e d . In t h e (initial) H i s t o r y C h a p t e r , s o m e h e a d i n g s have
b e e n c h a n g e d a n d s o m e stylistic c h a n g e s have b e e n m a d e , b u t t h e
s u b s t a n c e a n d m a t e r i a l covered are t h e s a m e . D a n i e l H a r r i n g t o n ( R o -
m a n C a t h o l i c ) has a d d e d s o m e p a r a g r a p h s a t t h e e n d of his treat-
m e n t of E p h . 2 : 1 - 1 0 , a n d s o m e b i b l i o g r a p h i c i t e m s . The O r t h o d o x
c h a p t e r ( M i c h a e l P r o k u r a t ) is c o n s i d e r a b l y e x p a n d e d ; a fuller treat-
m e n t in t h e text a n d n o t e s has resulted. The following c h a p t e r s re-
main the same: L u t h e r a n (Joseph Burgess), Evangelical ( G r a n t
O s b o r n e ) , a n d Ecumenical (George Tavard).
The s e c o n d e d i t i o n o f T h e Bible in t h e C h u r c h e s , as d o e s t h i s
e d i t i o n , c o n t a i n s c h a p t e r s t h a t are different in focus. Since t h e b e -
g i n n i n g of o u r u n d e r t a k i n g as an i n s t i t u t e in 1 9 8 2 , w e have b e e n
aware of t h e different s h a p e t h e s e c h a p t e r s have t a k e n . In t h e s e c o n d
a n d t h i r d e d i t i o n , I t h i n k it is fair t o say t h a t H a r r i n g t o n , O s b o r n e ,
a n d S o a r d s are m o r e historical a n d d e s c r i p t i v e in t h e i r a p p r o a c h e s
( h o w t h e Bible is u n d e r s t o o d a n d u s e d in t h e i r t r a d i t i o n s ) , w h i l e
Burgess a n d P r o k u r a t are m o r e a p o l o g e t i c a n d assertive ( w h y t h e
Bible s h o u l d b e u n d e r s t o o d as it is in t h e i r t r a d i t i o n s ) . I have felt all
a l o n g t h a t these differences were a p l u s , in t h a t t h e y reflect t h e c h u r c h -
s c h o l a r at w o r k o n t h e sacred text.
E a c h c h a p t e r c o n t i n u e s t o be confessional.
Kenneth Hagen
October, 1997
For t h e record: M a r q u e t t e U n i v e r s i t y Press in A u g u s t 1 9 9 6 ran a

l i m i t e d , slightly revised r e p r i n t of t h e s e c o n d e d i t i o n o f T h e Bible in
t h e C h u r c h e s . Revisions w e r e m a d e o n l y in t h e P r o k u r a t c h a p t e r .
A n d t h e list o f c o n t r i b u t o r s was u p d a t e d t o give his n e w p o s i t i o n .
T h e i n t e n t of t h e press was t o g e t a few h u n d r e d copies o u t q u i c k l y
for fall class use. T h e q u i c k e s t w a y t o tell t h e difference b e t w e e n t h e
s e c o n d a n d revised s e c o n d e d i t i o n ( b o t h b e a r i n g t h e i m p r i n t d a t e of
1 9 9 4 ) is t o l o o k at t h e List of C o n t r i b u t o r s : For t h e revised s e c o n d
e d i t i o n [ 1 9 9 6 ] , P r o k u r a t ' s address is Texas. The v o l u m e is b e i n g u s e d
as a text by an increasing n u m b e r o f professors.
T H E BIBI.F IN THK C H U R C H E S v
PREFACE
Second Edition
In 1 9 8 5 I h e Bible in t h e C h u r c h e s (Paulist), w h i c h essentially

was a text d e d i c a t e d t o h o w C a t h o l i c , L u t h e r a n , a n d Evangelical
c h u r c h e s have u n d e r s t o o d a n d u s e d t h e Bible, was p u b l i s h e d . A h i s -
t o r y o f t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e Bible from t h e early c h u r c h t o t h e
n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y was also i n c l u d e d . The v o l u m e sold o u t by F e b -
ruary 1992.
S i n c e t h e u n a v a i l a b i l i t y of T h e Bible in t h e C h u r c h e s , I have
a c c e p t e d t h e c h a l l e n g e t o see w h a t c o u l d be d o n e t o b r o a d e n t h e
a p p e a l o f a revised v o l u m e for college a n d s e m i n a r y use. A single
v o l u m e serves a real n e e d for t h o s e i n t e r e s t e d in h o w t h e c h u r c h e s
actually a p p l y t h e S c r i p t u r e s . N o o n e v o l u m e c u r r e n t l y exists in E n -
g l i s h — o n e t h a t engages t h e s t u d e n t w i t h t h e r e c e p t i o n o f t h e S c r i p -
tures in t h e m a j o r C h r i s t i a n t r a d i t i o n s w r i t t e n b y representatives of
t h e living t r a d i t i o n s .
I n c l u d e d in t h e revised e d i t i o n are representatives of t h e R o m a n
C a t h o l i c , E a s t e r n O r t h o d o x , L u t h e r a n , a n d Evangelical t r a d i t i o n s
o n t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e Bible in t h e i r c h u r c h e s p l u s a c o n c l u d i n g c h a p -
ter b y G e o r g e T a v a r d . In an effort t o m o v e b e y o n d a n o t h e r v o l u m e
o n t h e h i s t o r y o f h e r m e n e u t i c s , each of t h e c o n t r i b u t o r s exegetes
E p h e s i a n s 2:1 - 1 0 , w h i c h gives a c o n c r e t e e x a m p l e of h o w t h e c h u r c h e s
r e a d t h e s a m e text so differently.
I n t e r e s t in t h e h i s t o r y of biblical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n c o n t i n u e s t o i n -
crease in scholarly historical circles; p l u s w e c o n t i n u e t o h e a r chal-
lenges t o t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y historical-critical m e t h o d o l o g i e s . It is
a m a z i n g a n d gratifying t h a t interest in c h u r c h h i s t o r y as t h e h i s t o r y
of biblical exegesis ( G e r h a r d E b e l i n g ) is actually b e i n g d o n e t h r o u g h -
o u t E u r o p e a n d t h e U n i t e d States.
M a r q u e t t e U n i v e r s i t y Press, A n d r e w T a l l o n , D i r e c t o r , b e c a m e a
s t r o n g s u p p o r t t o press o n w i t h a n e w a n d revised e d i t i o n . A l d e m a r
H a g e n did the hard technical work.
Kenneth Hagen
D e c e m b e r 10, 1 9 9 3
T H E BIBI.K IN THK C H U R C H E S
PREFACE
First E d i t i o n
The idea for this v o l u m e o n biblical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n in t h e c h u r c h e s

g r e w o u t o f a n i n s t i t u t e c o n v e n e d b y K e n n e t h H a g e n a n d h e l d at
M a r q u e t t e U n i v e r s i t y in M i l w a u k e e in t h e s u m m e r of 1 9 8 2 . The
goal o f t h e p r o j e c t was t h e e x p l o r a t i o n o f t h e m u c h a c c l a i m e d "crisis"
in biblical study. The i n s t i t u t e e x a m i n e d t h e e c u m e n i c a l significance
of biblical s t u d y t o d a y a n d in h i s t o r y as a s o u r c e o f b o t h u n i t y a n d
division a m o n g t h e c h u r c h e s .
K e n n e t h H a g e n ( L u t h e r a n ) , professor of t h e o l o g y at M a r q u e t t e ,
b e g i n s b y t r a c i n g t h e h i s t o r y of biblical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n from early
Christianity to the nineteenth century. T h e o t h e r three contributors
assess h o w t h e Bible is i n t e r p r e t e d in their respective t r a d i t i o n s , give
a n exegesis of a c o m m o n text ( E p h . 2 : 1 - 1 0 ) , a n d p r o v i d e s o m e b i b -
l i o g r a p h i c s u g g e s t i o n s . A l t h o u g h t h e basic f o r m a t o f t h e s e t h r e e c o n -
t r i b u t i o n s is t h e s a m e , t h e a u t h o r s were free t o discuss w h a t e v e r t h e y
c o n s i d e r e d m o s t p e r t i n e n t a n d m o s t v a l u a b l e in a d v a n c i n g t h e c o n -
versation.
D a n i e l J. H a r r i n g t o n , S.J. ( C a t h o l i c ) , professor of N e w Testa-
m e n t at W e s t o n S c h o o l of T h e o l o g y in C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . , investi-
gates t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h C a t h o l i c biblical scholars have a c c e p t e d
a n d a d a p t e d t h e critical m e t h o d s d e v e l o p e d largely in P r o t e s t a n t
circles. G r a n t R. O s b o r n e (Evangelical), professor o f N e w T e s t a m e n t
at T r i n i t y - E v a n g e l i c a l D i v i n i t y S c h o o l in Deerfield, 111., e x p l a i n s h o w
t h e evangelical a p p r o a c h to S c r i p t u r e d e v e l o p e d o u t o f t h e h i s t o r y o f
t h e C h u r c h in general a n d o u t of late n i n e t e e n t h a n d early t w e n t i e t h
c e n t u r y A m e r i c a n f u n d a m e n t a l i s m in p a r t i c u l a r . J o s e p h A. Burgess
( L u t h e r a n ) , executive d i r e c t o r o f t h e D i v i s i o n of T h e o l o g i c a l S t u d i e s
for t h e L u t h e r a n C o u n c i l / U S A in N e w York, N.Y., deals w i t h s o m e
of t h e u n d e r l y i n g theological issues from a L u t h e r a n p e r s p e c t i v e . T h e
brief c o n c l u s i o n b y H a r r i n g t o n tries t o focus t h e areas o f c o n v e r -
gence and divergence.
Kenneth Hagen organized the 1982 institute, directed the
p r o g r e s s of t h e w r i t i n g p r o j e c t , a n d served as general e d i t o r of t h e
v o l u m e . D a n i e l J. H a r r i n g t o n a c t e d as c o p y e d i t o r a n d w o r k e d o n
relations w i t h t h e p u b l i s h e r .
Kenneth Hagen
March 1984
THE HISTORY OF SCRIPTURE
IN THE CHURCH
by
KKNNKTH HAGKX
PARI' O N K : EARLY C H U R C H TO THE REFORMATION
M
o d e r n biblical s c h o l a r s h a v e d e a l t w i t h S c r i p t u r e since t h e
s i x t e e n t h c e n t u r y in t e r m s of t h e v a r i o u s critical m e t h o d s .
It was n o t always t h a t way. T h e c o n c e r n for " m e t h o d , "
w h e t h e r in t h e o l o g y o r m e d i c i n e o r logic, etc., b e c a m e i m p o r t a n t in
t h e s i x t e e n t h c e n t u r y a n d has c o n t i n u e d t o d o m i n a t e t h e intellectual
s c e n e . T h e crisis t o d a y in s c r i p t u r a l s t u d y is d u e largely t o t h e devel-
o p m e n t of t h e "historical-critical m e t h o d " after t h e s i x t e e n t h c e n -
tury. S i n c e t h a t m e t h o d has so d o m i n a t e d P r o t e s t a n t a p p r o a c h e s t o
S c r i p t u r e for c e n t u r i e s a n d C a t h o l i c a p p r o a c h e s m o r e recently, P a r t
Two will l o o k at t h e rise of t h e historical-critical m e t h o d .
T o l o o k a t t h e h i s t o r y o f S c r i p t u r e before t h e m o d e r n c h u r c h ,
t h e m a t e r i a l in P a r t O n e will b e d i v i d e d i n t o four s e c t i o n s : (I) The
Early C h u r c h , (II) T h e H i g h M i d d l e Ages, (III) T h e Late M e d i e v a l
P e r i o d , a n d (IV) T h e Early R e f o r m a t i o n . In each case t h e s u b d i v i -
sions will t r e a t t h e place of t h e Bible in theology, t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
of t h e B i b l e , a n d a key figure ( A u g u s t i n e , A q u i n a s , E r a s m u s , a n d
L u t h e r , respectively).
I. T H E EARLY C H U R C H
A. T h e Place o f the Bible in T h e o l o g y
For a b o u t t h e first t h o u s a n d years t h e o l o g y was sacrapagina (sa-

c r e d p a g e ) . F r o m t h e age of t h e Fathers u p to t h e rise of t h e s c h o o l s
( S c h o l a s t i c i s m ) , t h e s o u r c e o f t h e o l o g y was t h e s a c r e d p a g e o f S c r i p -
t u r e . T h e o l o g y was all w r a p p e d u p in t h e s t u d y of G o d ' s s a c r e d i m -
p r i n t in H o l y W r i t .
2 T H E HISTORY OI SCRIPTURE IN THE C H U R C H
1
T h i n k of m o n a s t i c life. It was t h e m o n a s t i c c o m m u n i t y ( m o r e
so in t h e W e s t ) t h a t p r e s e r v e d l e a r n i n g u p t o t h e t i m e o f t h e s c h o o l s
or universities. They were t h e bearers of classical a n d C h r i s t i a n civi-
lization. T h i n k o f t h e m o n k in t h e S c r i p t o r i u m w o r k i n g w i t h S c r i p -
t u r e before t h e m o v a b l e p r i n t i n g press a n d t h e p h o t o c o p i e r . T h e dis-
c i p l i n e d life e n t a i l e d c o p y i n g S c r i p t u r e , s i n g i n g it in t h e h o l y office,
p r a y i n g it, c a r r y i n g it in t h e h e a r t t h e w h o l e day. The m o n k a n d n u n
lived in t h e w o r l d o f t h e Bible. Their w h o l e life was c o n n e c t e d w i t h
S c r i p t u r e . It was s o m e t i m e in t h e R e n a i s s a n c e (different t i m e s for
different places) t h a t p e o p l e b e g a n t o see a difference b e t w e e n t h e i r
c o n t e m p o r a r y c u l t u r e a n d t h e age o f t h e Bible. The m o n a s t i c s c o u l d
n o t disassociate t h e m s e l v e s f r o m S c r i p t u r e . It is h a r d for us t o i m a g -
ine t h a t b e c a u s e w e have t h e Bible in a black b o o k , w e can t a k e it off
t h e shelf, r e a d it, a n d t h e n p u t t h e b o o k b a c k ( o u t o f s i g h t , o u t of
m i n d ) . The m o n a s t i c c o u l d n o t p u t t h e Bible away. The Bible was
n o t a b o o k . The Bible w a s in t h e h e a r t .
F r o m t h e earliest t i m e s o n , t h e place o f t h e Bible in t h e o l o g y was
t h a t t h e Bible was t h e o l o g y a n d t h e o l o g y was t h e Bible. The Fathers
refuted heresies, t h e m o n k s p r e s e r v e d t h e S c r i p t u r e s a n d Traditions,
all o n t h e basis o f t h e Bible. T h e o l o g y was n o t s o m e s e p a r a t e disci-
p l i n e as it b e c a m e in t h e h i g h M i d d l e Ages a n d as it is today. For t h e
early p e r i o d t h e Bible was t h e s o u r c e o f all t h a t i s — G o d ' s w o r k in his
c r e a t i o n a n d in his C h u r c h , a n d t h a t w o r k is e n c a p s u l a t e d in t h e
monastic community.
B. T h e Interpretation o f the Bible
'The Bible was seen t o c o n t a i n v a r i o u s senses o r levels o f m e a n -

i n g , s o m e t i m e s m a n y levels. The Bible was so rich, so full of m e a n -
i n g , t h a t its d e p t h o f m e a n i n g c o u l d n o t be e x h a u s t e d b y a literal
2
r e a d i n g . 'The early c h u r c h o n u p t o t h e d i s c o v e r y of A r i s t o t l e was
i n f l u e n c e d b y P l a t o n i c p h i l o s o p h y . In P l a t o n i c p h i l o s o p h y t h e p a r -
ticular t h i n g (in S c r i p t u r e , t h e letter of t h e text) is a m i r r o r o f reality.
:
" T h e m o n a s t i c vocation was as m u c h for w o m e n as for m e n ; indeed, it is
often w o m e n w h o may justly claim the priority as monastic pioneers" (Kallistos
Ware, "Eastern C h r i s t e n d o m " in The Oxford History of Christianity, ed. J o h n
M c M a n n e r s [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993] 140).
' T h e literal approach of the Antiochene school in the early period was an
exception. In fact t h r o u g h o u t the medieval church, m o r e so in manuscripts t h a n in
w h a t later was printed, a literal approach can be found, a l t h o u g h very m u c h the
exception.
Ki N \ : ri: HAGEN 3
The reality is t h e fuller m e a n i n g . As t h e m o n a s t i c s read S c r i p t u r e

t h e y find s h a d e s o f m e a n i n g far b e y o n d w h a t first m e e t s t h e eye.
" T h e letter kills, b u t t h e Spirit gives life" (2 C o r . 3:6) was N e w
Testament w a r r a n t for t h e Fathers a n d t h e m o n a s t i c s t o d i s t i n g u i s h
b e t w e e n t h e literal a n d t h e s p i r i t u a l m e a n i n g . T h e N e w T e s t a m e n t
itself, in its i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e O l d , d i s t i n g u i s h e s b e t w e e n t h e lit-
eral a n d s p i r i t u a l m e a n i n g . T h e p a t t e r n for i n t e r p r e t i n g S c r i p t u r e is
c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n S c r i p t u r e . I n t e r p r e t i n g S c r i p t u r e m e a n t explicat-
i n g t h e s p i r i t u a l d e p t h s o f m e a n i n g expressed in t h e letter. F o r us,
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n m e a n s b r i d g i n g t h e g a p b e t w e e n an a n c i e n t t e x t a n d
t h e m o d e r n w o r l d . W h e n t h e r e is o n l y o n e w o r l d , t h e r e is n o s e p a r a -
t i o n . So i n t e r p r e t a t i o n m e a n t c o m m e n t i n g , a n n o t a t i n g , e x p l a i n i n g
t h e v a r i o u s levels of m e a n i n g t h e Spirit leads o n e t o see.
T h e m o s t f a m o u s o f t h e multilevel a p p r o a c h b e c a m e t h e quadriga,
t h e fourfold sense: t h e literal tells w h a t h a p p e n e d (historical sense),
t h e allegorical teaches w h a t is t o be believed, t h e t r o p o l o g i c a l o r m o r a l
w h a t is t o b e d o n e , a n d t h e a n a g o g i c a l w h e r e it is g o i n g o r " t e n d i n g . "
T h e usual e x a m p l e is J e r u s a l e m , w h i c h refers literally t o t h e city,
allegorically t o t h e C h u r c h , tropologically to t h e soul, a n d anagogically
to h e a v e n . T h e m o n k s p u t this t o r h y m e . T h e p o i n t is t h a t t h e letter
of S c r i p t u r e is a m i r r o r o f t h e a l m o s t limitless d e p t h o f m e a n i n g .
C . T h e Key Figure is St. A u g u s t i n e
A u g u s t i n e p u l l e d t o g e t h e r t h e v a r i o u s s t r a n d s o f biblical s t u d y
in t h e early p e r i o d a n d b e c a m e t h e pillar o n w h i c h m e d i e v a l t h e o l -
ogy was built, t h u s t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t t h e o l o g i a n for t h e entire ( t h o u -
s a n d year plus) m e d i e v a l era a n d well i n t o t h e s i x t e e n t h c e n t u r y . N o w
w e c o n s i d e r h o w A u g u s t i n e p u t S c r i p t u r e t o g e t h e r : t h r e e aspects of
his u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f S c r i p t u r e .
First, A u g u s t i n e , as w a s typical t h r o u g h o u t this p e r i o d , saw t w o
eras o f salvation r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e t w o great b o o k s of S c r i p t u r e . T h e
O l d a n d N e w T e s t a m e n t s r e p r e s e n t t h e o l d a n d n e w era of s a l v a t i o n .
G o d h a d a p l a n for his p e o p l e ; h e gave revelation progressively as t h e
p e o p l e w e r e p r e p a r e d a n d able t o a c c e p t w h a t it was t h a t G o d h a d in
m i n d . A progressive revelation w e n t o n in S c r i p t u r e . T h e ages of
S c r i p t u r e c o r r e s p o n d t o a p e r s o n g r o w i n g u p ; c o r p o r a t e l y it is t h e
h u m a n race g r o w i n g u p . In t h e O l d Testament t h e h u m a n race was
in its infancy o r in a d o l e s c e n c e , a n d o n l y as t h e h u m a n race (Israel)
b e c a m e m o r e m a t u r e was it r e a d y t o receive C h r i s t a n d t h e h i g h e r
revelation. By i m p l i c a t i o n t h e n t h e fuller u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f revela-
t i o n c o n t i n u e s in t h e C h u r c h .
A n o t h e r c o n c e p t t h a t A u g u s t i n e u s e d was t h a t G o d is t h e " d o c -
t o r of m e d i c i n e " a n d is h e a l i n g his p e o p l e . Salvation is h e a l t h (well-
b e i n g ) . T h e goal o f c r e a t i o n , revelation, a n d finally salvation is final
a n d c o m p l e t e h e a l i n g . So G o d t h e d o c t o r p r e s c r i b e d m e d i c i n e to t h e
e x t e n t t h a t t h e p e o p l e w o u l d r e s p o n d a n d g r o w u n t i l t h e c o m i n g of
C h r i s t , w h o is b o t h t h e m e d i c i n e a n d t h e c u r e . C h r i s t is t h e c u r e as
well as t h e curer. T h e h e a l i n g process c o n t i n u e s in t h e life of t h e
C h u r c h . As A u g u s t i n e , t h e n , l o o k e d at S c r i p t u r e , h e saw G o d ' s p l a n ,
G o d ' s p r o v i d e n c e . H e s a w t w o eras of this p l a n , a n d in these t w o eras
G o d is t h e d o c t o r h e a l i n g his p e o p l e .
S e c o n d , A u g u s t i n e also w o r k e d w i t h t h e S c r i p t u r e s as b o o k s . As
a theologian he h a d the Jewish a n d Christian manuscripts or books
t o i n t e g r a t e . A great deal o f early h e r m e n e u t i c a l effort was s p e n t o n
t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e t w o great T e s t a m e n t s . Very generally,
t h e N e w w a s c o n s i d e r e d t o be t h e fulfillment o f t h e O l d . A u g u s t i n e
e m p h a s i z e d t h a t w h a t w a s h i d d e n o r veiled in t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t
was revealed o r u n c o v e r e d in t h e N e w Testament. W h a t was prefig-
u r e d in t h e O l d was m a d e clear in t h e N e w . This is a " b o t h . . . a n d "
r e l a t i o n s h i p , t h u s t h e necessity of b o t h Testaments: t h e N e w is c o n -
cealed in t h e O l d , a n d t h e O l d is m a d e clear in t h e N e w . S i n c e t h e
H o l y Spirit is t h e a u t h o r of b o t h , t h e r e is u n i t y a n d h a r m o n y b e -
t w e e n t h e m . 'The u n i t y of t h e Testaments a n d t h e progress of revela-
t i o n is t h e basis o f h o l d i n g t h a t t h e N e w ' T e s t a m e n t is s u p e r i o r t o t h e
O l d Testament. The N e w is n e w in relation t o t h e O l d , a n d vice
versa. B o t h are n e e d e d . The N e w is m o r e excellent.
S o A u g u s t i n e l o o k e d at t h e Bible in t e r m s of s a l v a t i o n - m e d i c i n e
a n d h e a l i n g . H e l o o k e d a t t h e Bible as a t h e o l o g i a n a n d s a w a u n i t y
g e a r e d t o w a r d s t h e s u p e r i o r i t y of t h e N e w ' T e s t a m e n t as t h e fulfill-
m e n t of t h e Jewish S c r i p t u r e s . Third, w h e n A u g u s t i n e l o o k e d at Scrip-
t u r e , h e d i d so in t e r m s of s a l v a t i o n ; h e saw t h e t w o Testaments as
t w o types o f p e o p l e , t w o ways o f life. This is a n o t h e r level o n w h i c h
h e l o o k e d a t S c r i p t u r e a n d s a w t h a t t h e r e is n o t o n l y t h e c h r o n o l o g i -
cal d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e w h o l e race a n d t h e w h o l e d o c t r i n e , b u t t h e r e
is also t h e s i t u a t i o n t h a t s o m e p e o p l e o f faith b a c k in O l d T e s t a m e n t
t i m e s were actually living a h e a d o f t h e m s e l v e s ( J o h n 8 : 5 6 , [JesusJ
"Your father A b r a h a m rejoiced t o see m y day: a n d h e s a w it, a n d was
g l a d " ) . The a n c e s t o r s o f faith were actually living t h e N e w Testament
b e c a u s e t h e y believed C h r i s t i a n d o c t r i n e ( T h e y s a w t h e p r o m i s e , e m -
b r a c e d it, a n d d i e d in faith, H e b . 1 1 : 1 3 ) . It was c o m m o n in t h e early
a n d m e d i e v a l c h u r c h t o say t h a t M o s e s w a s a C h r i s t i a n , a l o n g w i t h
all t h e faithful d e s c r i b e d in H e b r e w s 1 1 . A u g u s t i n e also said t h a t in
N e w T e s t a m e n t t i m e s t h e r e were p e o p l e w h o h a d n o t believed t h e
message a n d w e r e srill l i v i n g t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t b e c a u s e t h e y w e r e
living a c c o r d i n g t o t h e flesh a n d n o t a c c o r d i n g t o t h e Spirit. This is
again A u g u s t i n e ' s f a m o u s l e t t e r / S p i r i t d i c h o t o m y , a n d ir b e c o m e s an
i m p o r t a n t h e r m e n e u t i c a l tool t h r o u g h o u t t h e m e d i e v a l p e r i o d i n t o
m o d e r n t i m e s . W e live e i t h e r a c c o r d i n g to t h e letter, o r a c c o r d i n g t o
t h e Spirit. " T h e letter kills, t h e S p i r i t gives life." So if w e live a c c o r d -
i n g t o t h e letter, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e desires o f t h e flesh, w e are O l d
Testament. It d o e s n o t m a t t e r w h e n w e live, c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y s p e a k -
i n g , b u t s o t e r i o l o g i c a l l y s p e a k i n g w e are o l d , A u g u s t i n e said. O r , if
w e live a c c o r d i n g t o t h e S p i r i t a n d y o u see t h e S p i r i t in t h e letter of
S c r i p t u r e a n d c a n see t h r o u g h t h e veil t o t h e p u r e light o f C h r i s t a n d
C h r i s t i a n d o c t r i n e , t h e n w e b e l o n g to t h e N e w ' T e s t a m e n t a n d are
new, n o m a t t e r w h e t h e r w e are A b r a h a m or s o m e o n e in t h e N e w
T e s t a m e n t o r s o m e o n e today. S o , o n b a l a n c e , w h a t we h a v e f r o m
A u g u s t i n e is a fairly c o m p l i c a t e d v i e w of S c r i p t u r e , a m u l t i n u a n c e d
view o f S c r i p t u r e ; a n d it is t h e s e v a r i o u s s t r a n d s of p u t t i n g S c r i p t u r e
together a n d interpreting Scripture that continued through the me-
dieval p e r i o d .
In b e t w e e n t h e early p e r i o d a n d t h e h i g h M i d d l e Ages is s o m e -
t h i n g o f a t r a n s i t i o n a l p e r i o d f o c u s e d o n t h e a b b e y o f S a i n t V i c t o r in
Paris, n a m e l y , t h e t w e l f t h - c e n t u r y V i c t o r i n e s . In g o i n g f r o m A u g u s -
t i n e t o T h o m a s A q u i n a s via these V i c t o r i n e s , w e see t h a t s o m e t h i n g
of a shift in t h e a p p r o a c h t o S c r i p t u r e was u n d e r w a y , a shift t h a t is
d e v e l o p e d in ' T h o m a s . The i m p o r t a n t t h i n g a b o u t t h e V i c t o r i n e s is
t h a t s o m e of t h e m w e r e o r i e n t e d t o w a r d s t h e literal sense o f S c r i p -
t u r e , t o w a r d t h e historical s e n s e , a n d u s e d J e w i s h exegesis for t h e
u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e O l d Testament. W h a t w e h a v e in t h e V i c t o r i n e s
was n o t so m u c h a t h e o r e t i c a l c h a n g e ; t h a t is, t h e y w e r e really n o t
d e v e l o p i n g a n e w h e r m e n e u t i c . They w e r e s i m p l y p r e o c c u p i e d w i t h
t h e literal-historical sense a p a r t from t h e allegorical or s p i r i t u a l i z i n g
senses.
II. T H E H I G H M I D D L E AGES
A . T h e Place o f the Bible in T h e o l o g y
F r o m t h e e l e v e n t h c e n t u r y o n it is i m p o r t a n t t o t h i n k of t h e
s c h o o l , t h e university, for it is a t t h e s c h o o l s t h a t t h e o l o g y takes o n a
n e w focus. This p e r i o d b e c a m e k n o w n as S c h o l a s t i c i s m b e c a u s e t h e -
o l o g y increasingly b e c a m e s c h o o l - t h e o l o g y at t h e n e w l y f o u n d e d u n i -
versities. T h e o l o g y a n d t h e s t u d y o f S c r i p t u r e u n d e r w e n t q u i t e a shift
as t h e y m o v e d f r o m t h e m o n a s t e r y t o t h e u n i v e r s i t y c l a s s r o o m . W e
have p i c t u r e d t h e m o n a s t i c s living, p r a y i n g , eating, a n d sleeping Scrip-

t u r e , living their lives, as t h e y c o n t i n u e t o d o to this day, in t h e c o n -
text o f t h e life of S c r i p t u r e . W h e r e a s in t h e s c h o o l , n o t u n l i k e o u r
c o n t e m p o r a r y colleges a n d universities, S c r i p t u r e b e c a m e a s u b j e c t
of a c a d e m i c study. In t h e s c h o o l a p p r o a c h was a d i s t i n c t i o n or s e p a -
r a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e o l o g y a n d exegesis, a d i s t i n c t i o n o r s e p a r a t i o n b e -
t w e e n t h e d i s c i p l i n e of t h e o l o g y a n d t h e d i s c i p l i n e of biblical i n t e r -
p r e t a t i o n . This is p a r t l y b e c a u s e o f t h e i n f l u e n c e of A r i s t o t e l i a n p h i -
l o s o p h y a w a y from P l a t o n i c p h i l o s o p h y . W i t h A r i s t o t l e , reality is
seen c o n t a i n e d in t h e t h i n g itself. H e n c e in s c r i p t u r a l study, a t t e n -
t i o n shifts t o t h e sense of t h e letter. W i t h t h e reality seen in t h e t h i n g
itself, r a t h e r t h a n b e i n g m i r r o r e d i n t o s o m e o t h e r - w o r l d l y realm of
t h e s p i r i t u a l , S c r i p t u r e itself b e c o m e s t h e o b j e c t o f study. W h a t t h e
H o l y Spirit i n t e n d e d t o say is there in Scripture, a n d all t h e levels of
m e a n i n g are in t h e letter of t h e text, n o t in s o m e o t h e r levels of m e a n i n g .
W i t h a shift in s c r i p t u r a l s t u d y t h e r e is a shift in theology. W h i l e
w o r k o n t h e Bible b e c o m e s m o r e "literal" a n d " h i s t o r i c a l " ( t h o u g h ,
r e m e m b e r , w e are still in t h e twelfth a n d t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r i e s ) , t h e o l -
o g y b e c o m e s s p e c u l a t i v e . A n i m p o r t a n t i n f l u e n c e o n this shift in
t h e o l o g y is t h e interest in dialectic (a p a r t of logic). In t h e u n i v e r s i t y
s i t u a t i o n , dialectic is t h e analysis o f a q u e s t i o n . S p e c u l a t i o n is l o o k -
ing i n t o s o m e t h i n g . It c o u l d a n d d i d have mystical o v e r t o n e s b e -
cause t h e o l o g y first a n d f o r e m o s t is l o o k i n g i n t o G o d . A q u e s t i o n is
p o s e d , alternatives a n a l y z e d , often followed b y a r e s o l u t i o n . The shift
in t h e o l o g y is a shift a w a y from sacrapagina t o sacra doctrina (sacred
d o c t r i n e ) . ' The first q u e s t i o n in Thomas's Summa theologiae is: W h a t
is sacred d o c t r i n e ? W o r k o n t h e sacred p a g e is c o n t a i n e d in t h e Com-
mentaries o n S c r i p t u r e . 'Theological q u e s t i o n s are dealt w i t h in t h e
Summaries o f ' T h e o l o g y ( t h e r e were s u m m a r i e s in o t h e r disciplines
as well). ' T h e o l o g y t h e n t o o k o n a life o f its o w n . S c r i p t u r e a n d t h e
F a t h e r s are t h e a u t h o r i t i e s ( f o o t n o t e s ) . The m e t h o d is p h i l o s o p h i c a l ,
faith s e e k i n g u n d e r s t a n d i n g .
' Simon of Tournai (d. 1201), t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t Parisian (early Scholastic)

theologian at the end of the twelfth century, wrote Inslitutiones in sacram paginam.
Scripture is n o t the subject. W i t h the use of dialectic, the work consists of" a series
of questions related to Christian doctrine: the w o r k begins " I n c i p i u n t Sententiae
m a g i s t r i S i m o n i s T o r n a c e n s i s / ' See R i c h a r d H e i n z m a n n ' s e d i t i o n of Die
"Instituliones in sacram paginam" des Simon von Tournai. Einleitung und
Quastionenverzeichnis ( M u n i c h : Verlag Ferdinand S c h o n i n g h , 1967).
B. T h e Interpretation o f t h e Bible
A c c o m p a n y i n g t h e s e p a r a t i o n of Bible a n d t h e o l o g y is a differ-
e n t a p p r o a c h t o t h e Bible (with A r i s t o t l e a n d reason in t h e b a c k -
g r o u n d ) . For a P l a t o n i s t , t h e soul (spirit) was seen h i d d e n o r i m p r i s -
o n e d in t h e b o d y (letter). T h e A r i s t o t e l i a n sees t h e s p i r i t expressed
by t h e text. All m e a n i n g is c o n t a i n e d in t h e letter, a u t h o r e d b y G o d .
The focus shifts a w a y from t h e m i r r o r o f universal t r u t h s t o t h e in-
t e n t i o n of t h e a u t h o r (letter). T o u n d e r s t a n d t h e a u t h o r is t o d i s c e r n
t h e w o r d s a n d t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e . T h e L a t i n w o r d to u n d e r s t a n d
{intelligere) m e a n s t o r e a d w i t h i n , t o p e n e t r a t e t h e r a t i o n a l m e a n i n g .
The t r u t h o f t h e m a t t e r is t h e r e in t h e Bible expressed by t h e letters.
S o far in S c h o l a s t i c i s m w e h a v e t h e s e p a r a t i o n of biblical s t u d y
from t h e s t u d y o f theology, a different a p p r o a c h t o t h e o l o g y {sacra
doctrina), a n d a different a p p r o a c h t o S c r i p t u r e ( i n t e n t i o n of t h e
letter). Also w e have s o m e t h i n g of a n e w h e r m e n e u t i c ; at least a great
deal is m a d e o f t h a t in t h e l i t e r a t u r e . ( O n e is always s u s p i c i o u s o f
n e w t h e o r i e s , b e c a u s e in t h e p r a c t i c e o f biblical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , t h e
t r a d i t i o n a l results usually p e r t a i n . ) T h i s n e w t h e o r y is seen devel-
o p e d b y t h e i m p o r t a n t f o u r t e e n t h - c e n t u r y Franciscan biblical scholar,
N i c h o l a s of Lyra, w h o in t u r n was t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t biblical c o m -
m e n t a t o r for t h e later M i d d l e Ages a n d early R e f o r m a t i o n . Nicholas's
c o m m e n t a r i e s were often p r i n t e d in c o l u m n s a l o n g side t h e biblical
text a n d t h e glosses of t h e Fathers in t h e later fifteenth a n d s i x t e e n t h
c e n t u r i e s . T h e n e w h e r m e n e u t i c is called t h e "double-literal sense":
t w o senses o r m e a n i n g s expressed b y t h e o n e letter or w o r d . There is
t h e historical-literal sense a n d t h e s p i r i t u a l - or p r o p h e t i c - l i t e r a l sense.
The e x a m p l e given is t h a t S o l o m o n m a y refer t o S o l o m o n t h e m a n
or be a figure o f C h r i s t or b o t h . If b o t h , b o t h were i n t e n d e d by t h e
a u t h o r , t h e H o l y Spirit. As will be seen w i t h T h o m a s , g r o u n d i n g
e v e r y t h i n g in t h e letter d o e s n o t p r e c l u d e t h e use of t h e t r a d i t i o n a l
fourfold sense (literal, allegorical, t r o p o l o g i c a l , a n d a n a g o g i c a l ) . 'The
t h e o r y of t h e double-literal sense is widely a c c e p t e d in t h e later M i d d l e
Ages (via T h o m a s a n d N i c h o l a s ) . The result is an increasing a t t e n -
t i o n t o t h e text.
C . T h e Key Figure is T h o m a s A q u i n a s
In t h e m o d e r n p e r i o d T h o m a s is f a m o u s for his Summa theologiae

( S u m m a r y o f T h e o l o g y ) . In t h e c e n t u r y following his o w n , his c o m -
m e n t a r i e s o n S c r i p t u r e w e r e m o r e influential. N o t e t h a t t h e A r i s t o -
telian ' T h o m a s w r o t e o n S c r i p t u r e , a n d in a s e p a r a t e literary g e n r e h e
w r o t e o n theology. As an A r i s t o t e l i a n t h i n k s in t e r m s o f causality
r a t h e r t h a n reflection, T h o m a s t h i n k s o f G o d as t h e first a u t h o r o f
S c r i p t u r e a n d t h e h u m a n a u t h o r s as i n s t r u m e n t s of d i v i n e revela-
t i o n , c h o o s i n g their o w n w o r d s . The letter c o n t a i n s t h e i n t e n t i o n of
t h e i n s p i r e d writer. ' T h o m a s o u t l i n e d his a p p r o a c h t o biblical i n t e r -
p r e t a t i o n in t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t :
T h e author of Holy Scripture is God, in whose power it is to sig-

nify his meaning, not by words only (as man also can do) but by
things themselves. So, whereas in every other science things are
signified by words, this science has the property that the things
signified by the words have themselves also a signification. There-
fore that first signification whereby words signify things belongs
to the first sense, the historical or literal. T h a t signification whereby
things signified by words have themselves also a signification is
called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal, and presup-
poses it. For as the apostle says (Heb. 10:1) the Old Law is a figure
of the N e w Law, and (Pseudo-) Dionysius says: " T h e N e w Law
itself is a figure of future glory." Again, in the New Law, whatever
our Head had done is a type of what we ought to do. Therefore, so
far as the things of the Old Law signify the things of the New Law,
there is the allegorical sense; so far as the things d o n e in Christ or
so far as the things which signify Christ are types of what we ought
to do, there is the moral sense. But so far as they signify what
relates to eternal glory, there is the anagogical sense. Since the
literal sense is that which the author intends, and since the author
of Holy Scripture is God, it is not unfitting, as Augustine says, if
even according to the literal sense one word in Holy Scripture
1
should have several senses.'
' T h o m a s p r e s e n t s a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e O l d a n d N e w 'Testa-
m e n t s a l o n g t h e lines of sign a n d fulfillment. The p a t t e r n is from
O l d t o N e w t o "future glory." A u g u s t i n e is c i t e d t o s h o w t h a t in o n e
literal sense t h e r e are several (spiritual) m e a n i n g s . (It is always a m a z -
i n g h o w c u r r e n t A u g u s t i n e is for t h e medievals o n i n t o t h e s i x t e e n t h
c e n t u r y . ) G o d is at w o r k in t h e O l d Testament t h r o u g h t y p e s a n d
signs of t h e N e w . In s e e i n g t h e signs o n e sees t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e -
t w e e n O l d a n d N e w , a n d in s e e i n g t h e s p i r i t u a l sense o f t h e N e w o n e
sees t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e N e w ' T e s t a m e n t a n d t h e C h u r c h . In
t h e allegorical, m o r a l , a n d anagogical senses, G o d uses visible w o r d s
t o signify invisible t r u t h s . The p a t t e r n o f r e l a t i o n s h i p , fulfillment,
d e v e l o p m e n t f r o m O l d t o N e w to C h u r c h is t h e p a t t e r n of T h o m a s ' s
4
Aquinas, Sumnui tbeologiae 1.1.10.
theology, a n d his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of S c r i p t u r e fits w i t h i n t h a t o r g a n i c

pattern.
For T h o m a s , t h e r e is an o r g a n i c u n i t y b e t w e e n O l d a n d N e w .
A u g u s t i n e ' s v i e w o f t h e p r o g r e s s of revelation is e x p a n d e d by T h o -
m a s t o i n c l u d e e v e r y t h i n g f r o m b e g i n n i n g t o e n d , from c r e a t i o n t o
history, t h r o u g h t h e h i s t o r y of Israel, O l d a n d N e w , t o t h e e n d of
t i m e . T h o m a s ' s v i e w of revelation is t h a t it is s a l v a t i o n h i s t o r y devel-
o p i n g organically. G o d is w o r k i n g s a l v a t i o n in history, a n d so t h e
h i s t o r y o f G o d ' s p e o p l e is s a l v a t i o n history. 'The h i s t o r y o f s a l v a t i o n
in S c r i p t u r e is t h e d e v e l o p m e n t f r o m O l d t o N e w , o l d law t o e v a n -
gelical law. 'The u n i t y is b a s e d o n G o d . The o r g a n i c c o n t i n u u m goes
o n in t h e C h u r c h t o " e t e r n a l glory."
The m a i n focus o f T h o m a s o n t h e O l d a n d N e w T e s t a m e n t is o n
t h e i r o r g a n i c d e v e l o p m e n t , a p a r t o f t h e larger focus o f s a l v a t i o n
history. In t e r m s of A u g u s t i n e ' s a p p r o a c h a n d c a t e g o r i e s , Thomas's
a p p r o a c h is a b l e n d of t h e p r o v i d e n t i a l a n d h e r m e n e u t i c a l foci. The
b l e n d is s e e i n g T e s t a m e n t as b o t h era a n d b o o k . C e r t a i n t h i n g s c o n -
c e r n i n g C h r i s t are p r e f i g u r e d in t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t t h r o u g h figures
like D a v i d a n d S o l o m o n . This is so b e c a u s e t h i n g s o f C h r i s t are of
s u c h m a g n i t u d e a n d p o w e r t h a t t h e y c o u l d n o t have b e e n i n t r o d u c e d
" s u d d e n l y " : " T h e t h i n g s o f C h r i s t are so g r e a t t h a t t h e y w o u l d n o t
h a v e b e e n believed unless t h e y h a d first b e e n d i s s e m i n a t e d g r a d u a l l y
5
t h r o u g h t h e g r o w t h of t i m e . " The d e v e l o p m e n t in t i m e (era o f sal-
v a t i o n ) is t h e d e v e l o p m e n t f r o m i m p e r f e c t t o perfect. Also t h e O l d
T e s t a m e n t is a "figure" of t h e N e w ' T e s t a m e n t . ' T h e N e w ' T e s t a m e n t
C h u r c h is a "figure" of t h e g l o r y o f h e a v e n . W i t h t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f
"figure," O l d t o N e w a n d N e w t o glory, t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t is a "fig-
ure of t h e figure." 'The d e v e l o p m e n t is t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f clarity.
' T h o m a s also refers t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f O l d a n d N e w L a w t o t h e rela-
t i o n s h i p o f seed t o tree, i m p l i c i t t o explicit, fear t o love. The g r o w t h
is c o n t i n u a l .
III. T H E LATE MEDIEVAL PERIOD
The f o u r t e e n t h a n d fifteenth c e n t u r i e s w e r e a m i x t u r e of w h a t
w e n t before a n d n e w c u r r e n t s of t h o u g h t a n d p r a c t i c e . T h e s c h o o l s
c o n t i n u e d t o b e t h e m a i n focus o f t h e o l o g i c a l a n d biblical s t u d i e s .
' C i t e d in K e n n e t h H a g e n , A Theology of Testament in the Young Luther

(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974) 4 7 .
The n e w c u r r e n t s o f s p i r i t u a l i t y (for e x a m p l e , G e r m a n m y s t i c i s m
a n d Devotio modernd) approached Scripture more along the m o -
n a s t i c lines of sacra pagina. A m o n g t h e N o m i n a l i s t s (a n e w p h i l o s o -
p h y - t h e o l o g y ) a n d o t h e r s , a t t e n t i o n was p a i d t o t h e relation o f t h e
S c r i p t u r e s t o t h e Traditions o f t h e C h u r c h . 'Tension a n d even c o n -
flict b e t w e e n t h e m w e r e p o s i t e d . The c o n c e n t r a t i o n o n S c r i p t u r e as
an a n c i e n t b o o k a n d t h e use of S c r i p t u r e t o criticize t h e C h u r c h w a s
intensified in t h e (very) late m e d i e v a l m o v e m e n t o f H u m a n i s m .
The H u m a n i s t s were n o t t h e o l o g i a n s in t h e usual sense of t h e
profession at t h e e n d o f t h e M i d d l e Ages, t h a t is, t h e y w e r e n e i t h e r
m o n a s t i c s n o r scholastics. O f t e n t h e y were i n d e p e n d e n t s c h o l a r s ,
s o m e t i m e s lay, i n t e r e s t e d in c u l t u r e a n d l e a r n i n g a n d t h e effects of
c u l t u r e a n d l e a r n i n g o n t h e r e f o r m of C h u r c h a n d society. I n t e r e s t in
Bible a n d t h e o l o g y was a p a r t of a b r o a d e r c o m m i t m e n t t o reap t h e
w i s d o m of t h e p a g a n classics a n d t h e C h r i s t i a n Fathers. The disci-
p l i n e of biblical a n d theological s t u d y m e a n t l a n g u a g e study, classi-
cal L a t i n a n d G r e e k ( a n d H e b r e w for s o m e ) .
The H u m a n i s t s were i n v o l v e d in all k i n d s of h u m a n e s t u d i e s .
For o u r p u r p o s e s w e p e g their efforts a r o u n d t h e p r i n t i n g press a n d
t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f s a c r e d l i t e r a t u r e (sacra littera). S o t h e a p p r o a c h e s
t o S c r i p t u r e in t h e m e d i e v a l c h u r c h differed as it was h a n d l e d b y t h e
m o n k s (sacrapagina), b y t h e s c h o o l m e n (sacra doctrina), a n d by t h e
p r i n t e r s (sacra littera). 'That is a n e n o r m o u s d e v e l o p m e n t , t h e effects
of w h i c h we are still appropriating: the relation of t h e H o l y B o o k t o t h e
traditions of the C h u r c h , t o t h e s t u d y of theology, a n d to the life of faith.
B. T h e Interpretation o f the Bible
The fourfold m e t h o d c o n t i n u e d . The d o u b l e - l i t e r a l sense was

used. The i m i t a t i o n o f C h r i s t was a n o t h e r e m p h a s i s . The use o f J e w -
ish resources for a m o r e historical u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e O l d Testa-
m e n t increased. S t u d y o f H e b r e w a n d G r e e k g r e w t r e m e n d o u s l y . All
of these interests a n d a p p r o a c h e s w e r e filtered i n t o t h e R e f o r m a t i o n
t h r o u g h t h e H u m a n i s t s . The m o s t i m p o r t a n t w o r k o n S c r i p t u r e at
the b e g i n n i n g of the sixteenth century was d o n e by the H u m a n i s t s .
In t h e C a t h o l i c R e f o r m a t i o n t h e H u m a n i s t s led t h e w a y for critical
e d i t i o n s o f S c r i p t u r e , v e r n a c u l a r t r a n s l a t i o n s , a n d t h e s t u d y of t h e
G r e e k a n d Latin classics (as o p p o s e d t o t h e Scholastics). In these
m a t t e r s t h e y w e r e d e f e a t e d a t t h e m i d - s i x t e e n t h c e n t u r y C o u n c i l of
Trent. It has b e e n in o u r c e n t u r y t h a t C a t h o l i c s have a d o p t e d H u -
m a n i s t a n d m o d e r n critical a p p r o a c h e s t o S c r i p t u r e . The P r o t e s t a n t s
generally w e l c o m e d a n d u s e d H u m a n i s t s c h o l a r s h i p .
The effect o f t h e H u m a n i s t s o n t h e place a n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f

S c r i p t u r e in t h e C h u r c h c e n t e r e d a r o u n d t h e i r sense o f history, s t u d y
of t h e classics, expertise in t h e biblical (original) l a n g u a g e s , p r e p a r a -
t i o n o f critical p r i n t e d e d i t i o n s of t h e Bible, a n d t h e use o f S c r i p t u r e
for t h e r e f o r m of t h e C h u r c h . ( N o t e t h a t t h e i r effect o n t h e place a n d
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of S c r i p t u r e is o n t h e C h u r c h in g e n e r a l , n o t j u s t o n
theology, since their p r o g r a m s w e r e b r o a d e r t h a n m o n a s t i c a n d s c h o -
lastic theology.)
A g r o w i n g sense a m o n g t h e R e n a i s s a n c e t h i n k e r s ( s o u t h o f t h e
Alps) a n d H u m a n i s t s ( n o r t h ) w a s t h a t t h e historical p a s t is d i s t a n t
a n d different from p r e s e n t c u l t u r e . This sense w a s n o t universally
a c c e p t e d , a n d it t o o k u n t i l t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y for historical c o n -
sciousness t o be w i d e l y a c c e p t e d a n d t h e n largely o n l y in W e s t e r n
c u l t u r e . T h e i r sense o f h i s t o r y was t h a t t h e t i m e a n d place of classical
c u l t u r e was in t h e a n c i e n t w o r l d — n o t t h e i r o w n . In general for t h e
medievals t h e age of t h e Bible was t h e i r o w n , a timelessness t o it all.
The H u m a n i s t s p e r s p e c t i v e was t h e s e p a r a t i o n o f p a s t from p r e s e n t .
The H u m a n i s t s were s c h o l a r s , s t u d e n t s o f a n t i q u i t y . The general
R e n a i s s a n c e o f t h e t i m e was a revival of t h e arts, l i t e r a t u r e , a n d l e a r n -
ing. The H u m a n i s t s were i n t e r e s t e d in t h e l e a r n i n g c o n t a i n e d in clas-
sical l i t e r a t u r e . T h e s t u d y o f t h e classics was t o g o a l o n g w i t h t h e
s t u d y of S c r i p t u r e , w h i c h also was from t h e classical w o r l d , for t h e
p u r p o s e of m o r a l a n d intellectual reform o f t h e C h u r c h , theology,
p h i l o s o p h y , e d u c a t i o n — t h e w h o l e p r o g r a m . T h e critical s t u d y o f
t h e past h a d t h e edge to it of i n f o r m i n g a n d often a t t a c k i n g t h e present.
The s t u d y of t h e past i n c l u d e d t h e e d i t i n g , p r i n t i n g , a n d l e a r n i n g
from t h e c h u r c h fathers.
The H u m a n i s t s were a p a r t of t h e revival o f H e b r e w a n d G r e e k
s t u d i e s . S t u d y of t h e a n c i e n t w o r l d m e a n t t h e recovery of t h e i r l a n -
g u a g e s . S t u d y o f t h e original l a n g u a g e s o f S c r i p t u r e raised q u e s t i o n s
a b o u t t h e L a t i n Bible. T h e s t u d y o f t h e Bible in t h e original often led
t o a c r i t i c i s m o f t h e w a y t h e Bible h a d b e e n t r a n s l a t e d i n t o L a t i n a n d
i n t e r p r e t e d . S t u d y o f a n c i e n t l a n g u a g e s w a s n o t w h a t we w o u l d call
strictly a n a c a d e m i c exercise. A n c i e n t l i t e r a t u r e — c l a s s i c a l a n d C h r i s -
t i a n — w a s p r e s u m e d t o have value. The H u m a n i s t s were often criti-
cal o f Scholastics a n d o t h e r s w h o c o n c e n t r a t e d o n l y o n t h e literal
m e a n i n g o f t h e text.
H u m a n i s t interest in original l a n g u a g e s i n c l u d e d an interest in
original m a n u s c r i p t s a n d codices. W i t h t h e i r historical p e r s p e c t i v e
o n t h e e d i t i n g , t r a n s l a t i n g , a n d t r a n s m i s s i o n o f texts, t h e y w e r e c o n -
c e r n e d t o g e t as far b a c k as p o s s i b l e t o t h e original version of a w r i t -
ing. F o r s c r i p t u r a l study, this c o n c e r n led t o t h e discovery, c o l l a t i n g ,
a n d p r i n t i n g o f early H e b r e w a n d G r e e k codices o f t h e Bible. In

1 5 1 6 E r a s m u s p u b l i s h e d t h e first G r e e k N e w T e s t a m e n t . The six-
t e e n t h c e n t u r y w i t n e s s e d several critical e d i t i o n s of t h e Bible, p r i n t e d
by m o v a b l e t y p e . The n e w m e t h o d in p r i n t i n g m a d e possible t h e
m u l t i p l i c a t i o n o f b o t h critical e d i t i o n s a n d v e r n a c u l a r t r a n s l a t i o n s .
The s t u d y of t h e classics, t h e Bible, a n d c h u r c h fathers was criti-
cal a n d scholarly. T h e p u r p o s e of it was t o r e f o r m t h e p r e s e n t . The
H u m a n i s t s w e r e a m o n g t h o s e w h o were d i s t u r b e d a b o u t c o r r u p t i o n ,
lack o f e d u c a t i o n , a n d t h e generally sorry state of society. The C h u r c h
was often b l a m e d for m o s t o f it, b l a m e d for b e i n g t o o i n t e r e s t e d in
m o n e y , politics, war, e v e r y t h i n g b u t t h e care o f souls. The a t t a c k s
w e r e b i t t e r a n d sarcastic. T h e o l o g y ( S c h o l a s t i c i s m ) was r e p r o a c h e d
for b e i n g i n t e r e s t e d o n l y in syllogisms a n d n o t t h e s i m p l e p i e t y of
S c r i p t u r e . The goal o f t h e i r w o r k w a s t h e r e f o r m o f C h u r c h a n d
society t h r o u g h e d u c a t i o n for t h e p u r p o s e of piety a n d k n o w l e d g e .
C . T h e Key Figure is Erasmus o f R o t t e r d a m
W r i t i n g at t h e t u r n o f t h e s i x t e e n t h c e n t u r y ( d i e d in 1 5 3 6 ) ,
E r a s m u s was v e r y critical. H e l a m b a s t e d t h e s u p e r s t i t i o n s o f c u r r e n t
m o n a s t i c practice, t h e ritualism a n d legalism c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e mass,
S c h o l a s t i c t h e o l o g y (especially its p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h p r o p o s i t i o n s ,
corollaries, d e f i n i t i o n s , a n d c o n c l u s i o n s ) , t h e w o r l d l i n e s s of t h e P o p e
(especially his p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h war, m o n e y , e x c o m m u n i c a t i o n s ,
a n d i n t e r d i c t s ) , t h e b e g g i n g o f m e n d i c a n t friars, clerical c o n c u b i -
n a g e , a n d so o n . The basis o f his a t t a c k s was a call to r e t u r n t o t h e
s o u r c e o f S c r i p t u r e in its p u r i t y a n d original m e a n i n g for C h r i s t i a n
living. T h e " p a g a n " classics a n d c h u r c h fathers were t o serve as an
orientation to Scripture.
E r a s m u s e d i t e d a n d p u b l i s h e d a n u m b e r o f t h e w o r k s of t h e
F a t h e r s . A g a i n s t c r i t i c i s m , h e c o n t i n u e d to a d v o c a t e t h e s t u d y of t h e
classics. "A sensible r e a d i n g o f t h e p a g a n p o e t s a n d p h i l o s o p h e r s is a
g o o d p r e p a r a t i o n for t h e C h r i s t i a n life." H e d i s t i n g u i s h e d b e t w e e n
t h e b a d m o r a l s o f t h e p a g a n s , w h i c h are n o t t o be followed, a n d t h e i r
m a n y e x a m p l e s o f r i g h t living. " T o b r e a k in o n " S c r i p t u r e w i t h o u t
t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h e classics is " a l m o s t s a c r i l e g i o u s . " "St. C y p r i a n
has w o r k e d w o n d e r s in a d o r n i n g t h e Scriptures w i t h t h e literary b e a u t y
6
of t h e a n c i e n t s . " So g u i d e d b y t h e F a t h e r s o f t h e C h u r c h , classical
studies were t a k e n as a necessary i n t r o d u c t i o n t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g C h r i s -
t i a n revelation.
6
Enchiridion (1503) cited in The Essential Erasmus, ed. J. P. D o l a n (New
York: N e w American Library, 1964) 3 6 .
Ki N \ : I i : HAGEN 13
S c h o o l e d b y t h e B r e t h r e n of t h e C o m m o n Life (a p a r t of late
m e d i e v a l Devotio moderna), Erasmus's o r i e n t a t i o n t o t h e o l o g y was
a w a y from s p e c u l a t i o n t o w a r d piety. H i s o r i e n t a t i o n t o S c r i p t u r e ,
t h e s o u r c e o f C h r i s t i a n piety, was t o w a r d t h e e x a m p l e o f Jesus. The
ethical life, p r e a c h i n g , a n d t e a c h i n g of Jesus c o m b i n e i n t o t h e p h i -
l o s o p h y of C h r i s t , t h e s o u r c e o f r e f o r m for e v e r y t h i n g f r o m t h e p a -
pacy t o p e a s a n t r y .
E r a s m u s ' s m a i n interest a n d w o r k was o n t h e N e w Testament.
H i s G r e e k N e w ' T e s t a m e n t w i t h critical a n n o t a t i o n s was a m i l e s t o n e
in R e f o r m a t i o n w o r k o n t h e Bible. It was used b y L u t h e r i m m e d i -
ately. E r a s m u s c o u l d b e very critical o f t h e p e o p l e o f t h e O l d Testa-
m e n t , for their s u p e r s t i t i o u s a n d b a r b a r o u s ways, in c o m p a r i s o n w i t h
t h e " g o o d letters" from G r e e c e a n d R o m e . In m e d i e v a l t e r m s his
a p p r o a c h t o t h e N e w ' T e s t a m e n t was largely t r o p o l o g i c a l — a s in C h r i s t ,
so in m e .
Erasmus's sarcasm against Scholastic t h e o l o g y i n c l u d e d his charge
o f s u p e r c i l i o u s s p e c u l a t i o n , especially t h e i r use o f dialectic. T h e o l -
o g y was t o o intellectually p r e o c c u p i e d w i t h d o c t r i n e , a n d n o t w i t h
its m a i n t a s k — p e r s u a d i n g a n d b r i n g i n g p e o p l e t o t h e w a y o f C h r i s t .
Practical p i e t y is t h e p o i n t of it all. W h e n c o n t e m p o r a r y c o m m e n t a -
tors d e a l t w i t h t h e N e w 'Testament, E r a s m u s c o m p l a i n e d t h a t t h e y
c o n c e n t r a t e d o n l y o n t h e literal sense:
Let me mention another requirement for a better understanding

of Holy Scripture [the first being reading Scripture with a clean
heart!. I would suggest that you read those commentators w h o d o
not stick so closely to the literal sense. T h e ones I would recom-
m e n d most highly after St. Paul himself are Origen, Ambrose,
Jerome, and Augustine. Too many of our modern theologians are
prone to a literal interpretation, which they subtly misconstrue.
T h e y do not delve into the mysteries, and they act as if St. Paul
were not speaking the truth when he says that our law is spiritual.
T h e r e are some of these theologians w h o are so completely taken
up with these h u m a n commentators that they relegate what the
Fathers had to say to the realm of dreams. T h e y are so entranced
with the writings of Duns Scotus that, without ever having read
the Scriptures, they believe themselves to be competent theolo-
gians. I care not how subtle their distinctions are; they are cer-
tainly not the final word o n what pertains to the Holy Spirit."
In t h e i r t h e o l o g y t h e Scholastics w e r e t o o s p e c u l a t i v e ; in t h e i r
c o m m e n t a r i e s o n S c r i p t u r e t h e y were t o o literal. So a l e a d i n g s c h o l a r
Ibid., 3 7 .
14 T H E HISTORY OI SCRIPTURE IN T H E C H U R C H
of t h e R e n a i s s a n c e calls for a p i o u s r e a d i n g of t h e Bible as t h e s o u r c e

for C h r i s t i a n living.
I V . T H K EARLY REFORMATION
T h e early r e f o r m e r s , for e x a m p l e L u t h e r , Z w i n g l i , C a l v i n , w e r e
very c o n c e r n e d a b o u t t h e p l a c e of Bible in e v e r y t h i n g — C h u r c h ,
theology, a n d especially p r e a c h i n g . T h e m a i n p o i n t of t h e R e f o r m a -
tion was t h a t the G o s p e l m u s t be p r o c l a i m e d . T o c o n t i n u e o u r
s c h e m a t i z a t i o n ( m o n a s t e r y — u n i v e r s i t y — p r i n t i n g press), n o w t h i n k
p u l p i t , t h i n k o f t h e Evangelical cities ( W i t t e n b e r g , Z u r i c h , G e n e v a )
w h e r e t h e m e d i u m for i n f o r m a t i o n was t h e p u l p i t ( a l o n g w i t h t h e
i m p o r t a n t p a m p h l e t s ) . T h e R e f o r m a t i o n was a m o v e m e n t o f t h e
W o r d : C h r i s t , S c r i p t u r e , p r e a c h i n g — i n t h a t order. T h e y all are t h e
W o r d o f G o d . The r e f o r m e r s used t h e p r i n t e d W o r d , s t u d i e d t h e
W o r d , p r a y e d t h e W o r d . T h e i r c o n c e r n was t o b r i n g p r e a c h i n g b a c k
i n t o t h e m a s s , p r e a c h i n g in t h e v e r n a c u l a r , a n d p r e a c h i n g o n t h e text
of S c r i p t u r e . W h e n L u t h e r s a i d t h a t t h e C h u r c h is n o t a p e n - h o u s e
b u t a m o u t h - h o u s e , he m e a n t t h a t the g o o d news c a n n o t properly be
p u t in (dead) letters b u t is t o b e p r o c l a i m e d l o u d l y in G e r m a n .
W h a t t h e Scholastics s e p a r a t e d — t h e o l o g y a n d c o m m e n t a r y o n
S c r i p t u r e — t h e early r e f o r m e r s s o u g h t t o b r i n g t o g e t h e r a g a i n , a l o n g
t h e lines of sacra pagina ( m i n u s t h e m o n a s t e r y ) . S c r i p t u r e a l o n e is
t h e sole a u t h o r i t y for t h e C h u r c h , t h e d i s c i p l i n e o f theology, a n d t h e
life o f faith. The r e f o r m e r s c o n t i n u e d t h e call for t h e r e f o r m o f t h e
C h u r c h o n t h e basis o f S c r i p t u r e . Every office a n d activity in t h e
C h u r c h falls u n d e r t h e j u d g m e n t of S c r i p t u r e . All o f t h e o l o g y is c o n -
t a i n e d in S c r i p t u r e . G o d h a s revealed all t h a t we n e e d t o k n o w a b o u t
h i m in C h r i s t . C a l v i n is especially s t r o n g o n t h e k n o w l e d g e o f G o d ,
t h e b e g i n n i n g p o i n t o f t h e Institutes of the Christian Religion. God
is revealed in S c r i p t u r e , a n d t o see t h e revelation of G o d in n a t u r e w e
n e e d t h e spectacles of S c r i p t u r e . T h e o l o g y m u s t b e biblical t h e o l o g y ;
a n y o t h e r k i n d is h u m a n i n v e n t i o n .
S c r i p t u r e is its o w n a u t h o r i t y b e c a u s e it is clear. N o o t h e r a u -
t h o r i t y is n e e d e d t o see t h r o u g h its m e a n i n g . The early r e f o r m e r s
were n o t concerned a b o u t s o m e theory of inspiration. T h a t came
later. The Bible is t h e W o r d . The r e f o r m e r s w e r e a w a r e o f t h e "criti-
cal" d i s c u s s i o n s a m o n g t h e H u m a n i s t s a b o u t t h e text, a u t h o r s h i p ,
l a n g u a g e , e t c . L u t h e r e n g a g e d in s o m e o f t h i s . The p o i n t o f t h e W o r d
is t h e p r e s e n c e of t h e W o r d in S c r i p t u r e - C h u r c h - p r e a c h i n g . T h e H u -
m a n i s t sense o f t h e d i s t a n c e o f S c r i p t u r e from t h e p r e s e n t was n o t

a c c e p t e d . The scholastic s e p a r a t i o n of t h e o l o g y from S c r i p t u r e was
a t t a c k e d . The p u r p o s e of t h e o l o g y is t o serve p r e a c h i n g , t h e m a i n
task o f t h e C h u r c h . T h e vast a m o u n t o f t h e o l o g i c a l l i t e r a t u r e from
t h e early R e f o r m a t i o n was i n t e n d e d t o clear t h e r o a d b l o c k s t o S c r i p -
t u r e a n d t o facilitate t h e p r o c l a m a t i o n of t h a t G o s p e l .
B. T h e Interpretation o f t h e Bible
The early reformers w e r e p r e m o d e r n ; t h e y c o n t i n u e d t h e g e n -

eral m e d i e v a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n as c o m m e n t a r y , a n n o -
t a t i o n , a n d e x p o s i t i o n . The m o d e r n i n t e r p r e t e r c o n t i n u e s t o d e v e l o p
t h e H u m a n i s t p e r s p e c t i v e of t h e historical past; t h u s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
in m o d e r n t i m e is b r i d g i n g t h e g u l f b e t w e e n a n c i e n t l i t e r a t u r e a n d
m o d e r n t h i n k i n g . T h e early r e f o r m e r s c o n t i n u e d t h e m o n a s t i c a p -
p r o a c h o f total i m m e r s i o n i n t o t h e t h i n k i n g a n d l a n g u a g e o f S c r i p -
t u r e so t h a t t h e r e is o n l y o n e l a n g u a g e , o n e biblical theology.
In t h e i r C a t h o l i c c o n t e x t , t h e reformers e m p h a s i z e d t h a t S c r i p -
t u r e was its o w n i n t e r p r e t e r (a very o l d p r i n c i p l e , g r o u n d e d in S c r i p -
t u r e itself). L u t h e r a r g u e d t h a t t h e p a p a c y h a d b u i l t a wall of a u -
t h o r i t a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a r o u n d itself so t h a t S c r i p t u r e c o u l d o n l y
be read as t h e p a p a c y saw fit. O n e late m e d i e v a l synthesis h a d it t h a t
S c r i p t u r e is t o Tradition as f o u n d a t i o n is t o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ( O c c a m ) .
S t r o n g in t h e s i x t e e n t h c e n t u r y was t h e q u e s t i o n of an a u t h o r i t a t i v e
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of S c r i p t u r e . The C a t h o l i c C o u n c i l of T r e n t d e c r e e d
in m i d c e n t u r y :
that no one, relying on his own skill, in matters ol faith, and of

morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, wrest-
ing the Sacred Scriptures to his own senses, presume to interpret
the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy m o t h e r
church, whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of
8
the Holy Scripture, has held and does hold.
For C a l v i n a t this t i m e , t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f S c r i p t u r e b y S c r i p -
t u r e a l o n e is a i d e d b y t h e i n t e r n a l t e s t i m o n y o f t h e H o l y Spirit. S c r i p -
t u r e itself attests to its message a n d m e a n i n g . C h r i s t a n d t h e Spirit
are at w o r k in t h e W o r d . The r e f o r m e r s insisted t h a t p o s t a p o s t o l i c
claims o f a u t h o r i t a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n were precisely t h e reason w h y
t h e W o r d o f G o d lost its/his central place in t h e life o f t h e C h u r c h .
8 P Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, Vol. 2 (New York: Harper, 1919) 8 3 .

The R e f o r m a t i o n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f S c r i p t u r e was c a u g h t u p in
theological polemics. T h e H u m a n i s t s used Scripture to attack the
C h u r c h , b u t t h e y were n o t so m u c h i n t e r e s t e d in t h e p u r e d o c t r i n e s
of S c r i p t u r e as t h e y were in e x p o s i n g t h e c o r r u p t i o n a n d folly of t h e
p r e s e n t s i t u a t i o n in t h e l i g h t o f t h e p i e t y o f S c r i p t u r e . The early re-
formers f o u g h t for p u r e d o c t r i n e o n t h e basis o f S c r i p t u r e ( a n d t h e
F a t h e r s ) . T h e d o c t r i n e o f justification b y faith a l o n e , b y grace a l o n e
(by C h r i s t a l o n e ) , was seen as t h e c e n t r a l d o c t r i n e o f S c r i p t u r e . T h e
d o c t r i n e o f justification b y faith is t h e c r i t e r i o n b y w h i c h all o t h e r
d o c t r i n e s , offices, a n d p r a c t i c e s in t h e C h u r c h are j u d g e d . T h e
criteriological p r i o r i t y of justification b y faith is e s t a b l i s h e d in S c r i p -
t u r e . T h e C h u r c h s t a n d s o r falls, said L u t h e r , o n t h e s c r i p t u r a l t e a c h -
i n g o f justification. T h e r e were o t h e r issues, o t h e r p o l e m i c s , b u t t h e
p r o c e d u r e w a s t h e s a m e . D o c t r i n a l r e f o r m was forged a n d p l e a d e d
o n t h e basis o f S c r i p t u r e .
C . T h e Key Figure is M a r t i n Luther
Basic for L u t h e r ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f S c r i p t u r e is his d i s t i n c t i o n

b e t w e e n law a n d G o s p e l . T h e G o s p e l of Jesus C h r i s t is t h e fulfill-
m e n t a n d e n d o f t h e M o s a i c law. L a w a n d G o s p e l are in all b o o k s o f
t h e Bible. T h e G o s p e l is t h e g o o d n e w s t h a t salvation is in C h r i s t
a l o n e . A b r a h a m a n d o t h e r s s a w t h a t G o s p e l in t h e p r o m i s e s , believed,
a n d w e r e justified. L u t h e r transposes A u g u s t i n e ' s d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n
O l d a n d N e w T e s t a m e n t as ways o f salvation t o law a n d G o s p e l as
ways o f salvation. T h e w a y o f t h e l a w is d o this . . . a n d d o n ' t d o t h a t
. . . . T h e w a y o f t h e G o s p e l is believe . . . a n d it has a l r e a d y b e e n d o n e
for y o u in C h r i s t . T h e law is c o m m a n d , t h e G o s p e l is gift, t h e gift of
forgiveness. W h e n t h e law c o m m a n d s , failure results b e c a u s e o n e
c a n n o t fulfill t h e law o n one's o w n p o w e r ( " T h e g o o d 1 w o u l d , I d o
n o t , " said P a u l ) . T h e law h u m b l e s ; t h e G o s p e l picks u p . O n e c a n n o t
be p i c k e d u p unless o n e is p u t d o w n to size. B e i n g b r o u g h t l o w (law)
a n d b e i n g raised u p ( G o s p e l ) are t h e daily struggles of t h e C h r i s t i a n
life, t h e e x p e r i e n c e of sin ( b r o u g h t by t h e l a w ) , a n d t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f
forgiveness ( b r o u g h t b y C h r i s t ) . T h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n law a n d
G o s p e l , t h e d o c t r i n e o f justification b y faith a p a r t from w o r k s , a n d
t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e c o r e o f S c r i p t u r e are all t h e s a m e for L u t h e r .
T h e c e n t e r o f S c r i p t u r e for L u t h e r is C h r i s t , p r e s e n t in b o t h t h e
O l d a n d N e w T e s t a m e n t . C h r i s t is t h e e t e r n a l W o r d o f G o d , p r e s e n t
in O l d T e s t a m e n t t i m e s in t h e form of p r o m i s e , p r e s e n t in N e w Tes-
t a m e n t times in t h e p e r s o n of Jesus, a n d p r e s e n t in t h e C h u r c h t h r o u g h
W o r d a n d s a c r a m e n t . In all cases, C h r i s t t h e W o r d is t h e effective
m e a n s o f grace ( h e a l i n g salvation for A u g u s t i n e ) . T h e c e n t e r o r c o r e

of S c r i p t u r e is " w h a t drives C h r i s t " {was Christum treibet), i.e., w h a t
p r e a c h e s C h r i s t , w h a t p r o m o t e s o r p o i n t s t o C h r i s t . C h r i s t is a t t h e
c o r e of G o d ' s p l a n o f s a l v a t i o n . G o d p r o m i s e s t h r o u g h p r o p h e t s ;
G o d delivers in p e r s o n . All of S c r i p t u r e leads t o C h r i s t , a n d Christ
leads t o salvation.
L u t h e r ' s r e s p o n s e t o t h e v a r i o u s senses of m e a n i n g in t h e M i d d l e
Ages (fourfold, d o u b l e - l i t e r a l ) was t h a t S c r i p t u r e has o n e s i m p l e sense
( m o s t often, C h r i s t ) . The g r a m m a t i c a l sense is t h e s i m p l e s t sense
a n d is t h e m e a n i n g of t h e text, t h e g r a m m a t i c a l m e a n i n g a n d t h e
t h e o l o g i c a l m e a n i n g are t h e s a m e . L u t h e r availed h i m s e l f o f H u m a n -
ist s c h o l a r s h i p ( a n d H u m a n i s t s s a w a n early ally in L u t h e r ) a n d w a s
a p a r t of a late medieval t r e n d t o h i g h l i g h t (once again) t h e
christological m e a n i n g o f a text. L u t h e r also u s e d allegory, n o t t o
establish a d o c t r i n e , h e said, b u t t o e m b e l l i s h it. H e also u s e d t h e
o t h e r s p i r i t u a l senses. L u t h e r o n S c r i p t u r e is often p r e s e n t e d as a
total b r e a k from t h e m e d i e v a l w o r l d . T h a t c a m e later. (You c a n t a k e
t h e b o y o u t o f t h e m o n a s t e r y , b u t y o u c a n n o t take t h e m o n a s t e r y o u t
of t h e boy.) In t h e area of t h e senses of m e a n i n g , L u t h e r is a p a r t of
t h e m e d i e v a l t r e n d t o call for a r e t u r n t o t h e letter of t h e text, a n d
t h e n , in p r a c t i c e , t o g o o n a n d find o t h e r senses of m e a n i n g . After all
( a n d all t h e m e d i e v a l s k n e w t h i s ) t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t itself uses
allegory.
L u t h e r ' s d i s t i n c t i o n is h i s c o n s t r u c t i o n o f S c r i p t u r e as c o n t a i n -
i n g a single t e s t a m e n t (will, p r o m i s e ) of C h r i s t . G o d ' s last a n d o n l y
will a n d t e s t a m e n t is t h a t h e w o u l d d i e for o u r salvation. The p r o m -
ise is t h e d e c l a r a t i o n o f t h e will a n d t e s t a m e n t . T h e d e a t h o f t h e
G o d - M a n validates his t e s t a m e n t . T h e i n h e r i t a n c e is t h e forgiveness
of sins a n d e t e r n a l life. The ( n e w ) t e s t a m e n t o f C h r i s t is e t e r n a l . It is
p l a y e d o u t in t i m e , b u t t h e r e is n o d e v e l o p m e n t in t h e e t e r n a l . A u -
g u s t i n e a n d t h e medievals generally s a w a d e v e l o p m e n t a n d t r a n s f o r -
mation within a n d between the O l d a n d N e w Testament. Luther
h e l d t h a t t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t is o l d e r t h a n t h e O l d b e c a u s e it is t h e
o l d e s t ( e t e r n a l ) . T h e O l d Testament b e g i n s a n d e n d s in t i m e .
W e h a v e c o m e a l o n g w a y ( t o t h e s i x t e e n t h c e n t u r y ) . O r have
we? W h a t often is seen t o b e n e w is n o t so n e w after all. T h e m o n a s -
tery {sacra pagina), t h e university {sacra doctrina), t h e p r i n t i n g press
{sacra littera), a n d t h e p u l p i t ( H o l y G o s p e l ) all r e p r e s e n t shifts a n d
e m p h a s e s . T h e w h o l e e n t e r p r i s e , h o w e v e r , was still "sacred."
18 T H E HISTORY OI SCRIPTURE IN T H E C H U R C H
PART T W O : T H E M O D E R N C H U R C H
In t h e m o d e r n p e r i o d t h e historical-critical m e t h o d d o m i n a t e s
m o s t Protestant approaches to Scripture and, since 1943 {Divino
Afflante Spiritu), also m o s t C a t h o l i c a p p r o a c h e s . By t h e m i d d l e o f
t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y t h e historical-critical m e t h o d is in place. O n e
w a y o f p i c t u r i n g t h e shift t h a t takes place b e t w e e n t h e m e d i e v a l a p -
p r o a c h ( i n c l u d i n g early R e f o r m a t i o n ) a n d t h e m o d e r n a p p r o a c h o f
t h e later s e v e n t e e n t h a n d e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y is t o c o n s i d e r t h e i r views
of t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e letter a n d t h e real, t h e c o r r e l a t i o n b e -
t w e e n t h e text of S c r i p t u r e a n d t h e events S c r i p t u r e d e s c r i b e s . In t h e
m e d i e v a l a p p r o a c h t h e letter o f t h e Bible was read as h i s t o r i c a l a n d
real; t h e r e was n e v e r a n y q u e s t i o n t h a t w h a t was s a i d actually t o o k
place. S c r i p t u r e was read as religion, history, g e o g r a p h y , liturgy, prayer,
a n d so o n . S c r i p t u r e is G o d ' s W o r d o n t h e s u b j e c t . The a p p r o a c h of
historical c r i t i c i s m is first to q u e s t i o n t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e letter
a n d t h e real, t h e n t o p o s i t a s e p a r a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e t w o , a n d finally
to see t h e text as a faith r e s p o n s e t o a s t i m u l u s , a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f
a n e v e n t b u t n o t t h e e v e n t itself. W h a t w e h a v e in t h e text are t h e
r e s p o n s e s o f t h e c o m m u n i t i e s o f faith, n o t t h e s t i m u l i . In t h e n i n e -
t e e n t h c e n t u r y it was s a i d t h a t w h a t we h a v e in t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t is
t h e C h r i s t of faith a n d n o t t h e J e s u s o f history. In a n y case, it c a m e to
b e p e r c e i v e d in historical c r i t i c i s m t h a t t h e Bible is t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
o f facts a n d n o t t h e facts t h e m s e l v e s . It was w r i t t e n f r o m faith t o
(our) faith.
The historical-critical m e t h o d is c o n c e r n e d a b o u t t h e o r i g i n of
i n d i v i d u a l b o o k s of t h e Bible. M o d e r n s s t u d y i n d i v i d u a l b o o k s in
t h e i r l i f e - s e t t i n g - i n - h i s t o r y , u s i n g h i s t o r y t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e Bible,
n o t u s i n g t h e Bible t o u n d e r s t a n d history. C o n c e r n e d a b o u t t h e b o o k s
as t h e o l o g i c a l l i t e r a t u r e a n d n o t history, it uses t h e b e s t critical ( o b -
jective, analytic) tools available for t h e s t u d y o f a n c i e n t l i t e r a t u r e .
T h e m o d e r n a p p r o a c h d e v e l o p s s o m e o f t h e h u m a n i s t interests d e -
tailed earlier h e r e — i n t e r e s t in t h e h i s t o r i c a l past, t h e o r i g i n a l text,
a n d language.
There w e r e a n d are v a r i o u s m e t h o d s w i t h i n t h e h i s t o r i c a l - c r i t i -
cal m e t h o d . These will b e d e t a i l e d b y o t h e r s in t h i s v o l u m e . H e r e t h e
c o n c e r n will b e t o t r a c e t h e rise o f t h e historical-critical m e t h o d , t o
detail t h e shift f r o m m e d i e v a l - e a r l y R e f o r m a t i o n t o (early) m o d e r n
a p p r o a c h e s (from t h e m i d d l e o f t h e s i x t e e n t h c e n t u r y t o late e i g h -
t e e n t h c e n t u r y ) . 'The m e d i e v a l s t r e a t e d S c r i p t u r e as t h e C h u r c h ' s h o l y
b o o k , a u t h o r e d b y G o d . The m o d e r n s t r e a t S c r i p t u r e as a p r o d u c t of
h u m a n h i s t o r y w i t h t h e secular tools o f historical a n d literary criti-
cism in o r d e r t o u n d e r s t a n d it b e t t e r in its a n c i e n t s e t t i n g .
A m o n g t h e e l e m e n t s t h a t c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e rise o f t h e h i s t o r i -
cal-critical m e t h o d , in a d d i t i o n t o t h e s e p a r a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e letter
a n d t h e real, i n c l u d e t h e following: (1) m e t h o d o l o g y , (2) D e i s m a n d
r a t i o n a l i s m , (3) t h e disciplines of biblical i n t r o d u c t i o n a n d biblical
theology, (4) t e x t u a l c r i t i c i s m , a n d (5) historical c o n s c i o u s n e s s .
1. M e t h o d o l o g y . T h e o l o g y b e c a m e i n t e r e s t e d in t h e q u e s t i o n s o f
9
" m e t h o d " (way o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ) in t h e s i x t e e n t h c e n t u r y . In 1 5 5 5
Nils H e m m i n g s e n , a s t u d e n t of L u t h e r a n d M e l a n c h t h o n (especially
t h e latter), p u b l i s h e d a b o o k On Methods, t h e first p a r t for p h i l o s o -
p h y , t h e s e c o n d for t h e o l o g i c a l m e t h o d . It was i m p o r t a n t because o f
its s u b j e c t — m e t h o d u s . Earlier in t h e s i x t e e n t h c e n t u r y m e t h o d as a
t e c h n i c a l t e r m c a m e i n t o m e d i c i n e , a n d in t h e s e c o n d half o f t h e
c e n t u r y lawyers d i s c u s s e d m e t h o d . S o t h e o l o g y j o i n e d t h e o t h e r
b r a n c h e s o f l e a r n i n g in t h e i r c o n c e r n t o t i d y u p t h e i r d i s c i p l i n e . Also
i m p o r t a n t is t h a t H e m m i n g s e n b r o u g h t logic (particularly dialectic)
i n t o t h e o l o g y in t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f m e t h o d . F o r biblical s t u d y this
m e a n t t h a t discussion of "exegetical m e t h o d " was c a r r i e d o n in t h e
p a r t o n p h i l o s o p h i c a l m e t h o d , a n d t h e n c a r r i e d over a n d p r a c t i c e d
in t h e o l o g y a n d "exegesis," t h e actual w o r d b e i n g used.
"Exegesis" was w i d e l y u s e d in t h e s e v e n t e e n t h a n d e i g h t e e n t h
c e n t u r y as t h e a r t for i n t e r p r e t i n g S c r i p t u r e . Exegesis is an a n c i e n t
a n d early m o d e r n w o r d , n o t t o be f o u n d in ecclesiastical L a t i n in t h e
a n c i e n t or m e d i e v a l p e r i o d . M e d i e v a l w o r k o n S c r i p t u r e was d o n e in
the genre of a n n o t a t i o n a n d exposition. "Interpretation" m e a n t the
translation a n d e x p l a n a t i o n of obscure a n d e n i g m a t i c w o r d s or
d r e a m s . M o d e r n " i n t e r p r e t a t i o n " p r e s u p p o s e s a historical s e p a r a t i o n
b e t w e e n t h e i n t e r p r e t e r a n d t h e text; a n d in t h e case of t h e " m e t h o d -
ists," t h e r e is t h e necessity o f first d i s c u s s i n g t h e m e t h o d o r w a y of
i n t e r p r e t i n g before t h e actual i n t e r p r e t a t i o n or exegesis takes place.
For L u t h e r , S c r i p t u r e was its o w n i n t e r p r e t e r . T h e difference is t h a t
t h e (early) m o d e r n b e c o m e s c o n s c i o u s o f t h e d i s c i p l i n e , o r p r o b l e m ,
of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .
W h a t c o m e s o u t of this w o r k o n m e t h o d o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is
reflection o n t h e n e e d for an i n t r o d u c t i o n t o a biblical b o o k . A l r e a d y
'' K. H a g e n , ' " D e exegetica m e t h o d o , ' Niels H e m m i n g s e n ' s D e M e t h o d i s

( 1 5 5 5 ) , " The Bible in the Sixteenth Century, ed. David Sreinmerz ( " D u k e M o n o -
graphs in Medieval and Renaissance Studies," Vol. 1 1; D u r h a m , N . C . : D u k e U n i -
versity Press, 1990) 1 8 1 - 9 6 , 2 5 2 - 5 5 .
in t h e t h i r d q u a r t e r o f t h e s i x t e e n t h c e n t u r y , t h i s is f o u n d in
H e m m i n g s e n a n d M a t t h i a s Flacius Illyricus w h o is often c r e d i t e d
w i t h b e i n g t h e father of m o d e r n h e r m e n e u t i c s . I n H e m m i n g s e n ' s
m e t h o d o l o g y four q u e s t i o n s n e e d t o be asked in an i n t r o d u c t i o n t o a
p a r t i c u l a r b o o k o f t h e Bible in o r d e r t h a t it will b e u n d e r s t o o d " m o r e
explicitly," " m o r e skillfully a n d correctly," " m o r e easily," o r " m o r e
clearly." In t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n t h e first q u e s t i o n o f authorship deter-
m i n e s t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e w r i t i n g . The s e c o n d , t h e occasion, leads
t o an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e literary s t r u c t u r e s . The t h i r d , t h e status
or p r i n c i p a l q u e s t i o n of t h e w r i t i n g , leads t o a p e r c e p t i o n of t h e
u l t i m a t e goal a n d s c o p e of t h e w h o l e w r i t i n g . T h e f o u r t h is t h e method
or o r d e r of p r e s e n t a t i o n . Flacius also reflected o n t h e n e e d for an
i n t r o d u c t i o n , c o v e r i n g t h e s a m e four q u e s t i o n s , before o n e b e g i n s
w i t h t h e biblical w r i t i n g itself.
T h e shift a w a y from t h e m e d i e v a l - e a r l y R e f o r m a t i o n t o early
m o d e r n a p p r o a c h e s , s o m e w h e r e in t h e m i d d l e o f t h e s i x t e e n t h c e n -
tury, is seen in t h e m o d e r n focus o n t h e p r o p e r o r d e r o f m e t h o d o l -
ogy, i n t r o d u c t i o n , exegesis, in o t h e r w o r d s , o n t h e p r o b l e m o f i n t e r -
p r e t a t i o n ( h e r m e n e u t i c s ) . For t h e m e d i e v a l s t h e r e was n o p r o b l e m of
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . T h e r e were rules for r e a d i n g S c r i p t u r e , s u m m a r i z e d
by L u t h e r as prayer, m e d i t a t i o n , a n d e x p e r i e n c e . For t h e m o d e r n ,
these b e c o m e h i n d r a n c e s r a t h e r t h a n h e l p s . T h e m o d e r n n e e d s a
m e t h o d t o u n d e r s t a n d . L u t h e r often said he n e e d e d m o r e t i m e .
2 . D e i s m a n d rationalism. T o discuss t h e n e x t m a j o r a d v a n c e s in
t h e rise of t h e historical-critical m e t h o d w o u l d m e a n j u m p i n g t o t h e
late s e v e n t e e n t h a n d e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y , w i t h t h e d e v e l o p m e n t s in
D e i s m a n d r a t i o n a l i s m . T o u n d e r s t a n d t h e attacks from these q u a r -
ters, generically all rationalists, o n e n e e d s t o see w h a t it was t h e y
w e r e a t t a c k i n g , namely, w h a t is k n o w n w i t h i n ( W e s t e r n ) E u r o p e a n d
P r o t e s t a n t a n t i s m as O r t h o d o x y a n d P i e t i s m .
In t h e later s i x t e e n t h a n d s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y t h e q u e s t i o n of
m e t h o d in t h e o l o g y was c e n t r a l in L u t h e r a n a n d R e f o r m e d O r t h o -
doxy. T h e c o n c e r n was for p u r e d o c t r i n e in its p r o p e r place in t h e
d o g m a t i c s y s t e m . S c r i p t u r e is t h e s o u r c e for s y s t e m a t i c a n d d o c t r i n a l
theology. In t h e give a n d take w i t h R o m a n t h e o l o g i a n s , t h e O r t h o -
d o x Protestants d e v e l o p e d n u a n c e d theories of t h e inspiration o f Scrip-
t u r e , t h e o n l y infallible a u t h o r i t y . Revealed t h e o l o g y is d r a w n o n l y
from t h e revealed W o r d . S c r i p t u r e is d i v i n e , s u p e r n a t i o n a l revela-
t i o n . It is t h e very W o r d of G o d in its letters, w o r d s , d o c t r i n e s , a n d
p r e c e p t s . S c r i p t u r e is t h e i n s t r u m e n t a l s o u r c e of t h e o l o g y : G o d is t h e
" p r i n c i p l e o f t h e b e i n g " o f t h e o l o g y — t h e first cause of t h e o l o g y ; a n d
S c r i p t u r e is t h e " p r i n c i p l e of k n o w i n g " G o d — h e n c e t h e i n s t r u m e n t
of theology. It is t h e O r t h o d o x t h e o r y of revelation a n d i n s p i r a t i o n
t h a t d r e w t h e ire of D e i s m a n d r a t i o n a l i s m .
T h e i r t h e o r y o f i n s p i r a t i o n is k n o w n as t h e d i c t a t i o n t h e o r y .
The d e f i n i t i o n o f i n s p i r a t i o n w a s t h a t act of G o d w h e r e b y h e c o n -
veyed t h e c o n t e n t o f w h a t h e w a n t e d to be w r i t t e n a n d t h e very w o r d s
expressing t h a t c o n t e n t . It is also t h e d o c t r i n e of p l e n a r y inspira-
t i o n — e v e r y t h i n g in S c r i p t u r e was i n s p i r e d a n d d i c t a t e d . If t h e in-
s p i r a t i o n o f o n e verse is d e n i e d , t h e i n s p i r a t i o n , a u t h o r i t y , a n d infal-
libility o f t h e w h o l e Bible falls. It is also t h e d o c t r i n e o f verbal i n s p i -
r a t i o n — e v e r y w o r d . The H o l y Spirit actually d i c t a t e d t h e very w o r d s .
T h e biblical a u t h o r s were d e f i n e d as "secretaries," h a n d s of C h r i s t or
p e n m e n o f t h e H o l y Spirit. It is also t h e d o c t r i n e o f i n e r r a n c y — t h e
secretaries w e r e k e p t from e r r o r in t h e w r i t i n g by t h e H o l y Spirit.
The m e t h o d o f i n s p i r a t i o n was discussed in m u c h detail. The effect
was t o secure a s u p e r n a t u r a l revelation ( S c r i p t u r e ) t h a t was i n e r r a n t ,
a u t h o r i t a t i v e , sufficient, clear, a n d efficacious.
T h e responses to O r t h o d o x y in t h e late s e v e n t e e n t h a n d eigh-
t e e n t h c e n t u r y w e r e as different as Pietism is from r a t i o n a l i s m . A n d
O r t h o d o x y d i d n o t die. H e n c e a t h r e e - r i n g circus, w h i c h is still b e -
i n g played today.
W h a t is a Pietist? He's o n e w h o hears t h e W o r d .
A n d lives a h o l y life in t e r m s of w h a t he's h e a r d .
There were Pietists in s e v e n t e e n t h - c e n t u r y E n g l a n d , H o l l a n d ,
a n d G e r m a n y . 'They were i n t e r e s t e d in n o n t h e o l o g i c a l s t u d y of t h e
Bible for p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e a n d h o l i n e s s . They were m o r e inter-
ested in t h e effect of S c r i p t u r e t h a n its o r i g i n . S c r i p t u r e was t h e s o u r c e
of p r o v i d e n t i a l g u i d a n c e for t h e p i o u s . 'They e n c o u r a g e d d i r e c t ac-
cess t o t h e Bible w i t h o u t p o s t b i b l i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . 'They w e r e ( a n d
are) r e s p o n s i b l e for t h e massive d i s t r i b u t i o n of i n e x p e n s i v e e d i t i o n s
of t h e Bible. The d e v e l o p i n g historical-critical m e t h o d was of little
or n o interest. The Pietists w e r e in o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e r a t i o n a l i s m of
t h e age. A Bible in everyone's h a n d . For t h e O r t h o d o x , the Bible was a
source b o o k of doctrine; for t h e Pietist, it was t h e m i r r o r of holiness.
A rival t o O r t h o d o x y a n d P i e t i s m , b u t w a y over o n t h e secular
side o f t h i n g s w h e r e t h e historical-critical m e t h o d was d e v e l o p i n g ,
was E n l i g h t e n m e n t Christianity. E n l i g h t e n m e n t C h r i s t i a n i t y i n c l u d e d
English D e i s t s , D u t c h s k e p t i c s , F r e n c h n a t u r a l i s t s , a n d G e r m a n ra-
t i o n a l i s t s — a l l generically rationalists.
A central c o n c e r n of t h e E n g l i s h D e i s t s (rational belief in t h e
d e i t y ) , w h o w e r e m o r e influential in F r a n c e a n d G e r m a n y t h a n in
E n g l a n d , was t o a t t a c k s u p e r n a t i o n a l views o f revelation a n d t o ar-
g u c r a t h e r for n a t u r a l r e l i g i o n — t h e n a t u r a l , t h e r a t i o n a l , a n d t h e
universal. T h e A n g l i c a n p h i l o s o s p h e r , J o h n L o c k e , p r o v o k e d m u c h
c o n t r o v e r s y w i t h his b o o k The Reasonableness of Christianity (1695).
O t h e r w o r k s , typical a n d i n f l u e n t i a l , f r o m t h e D e i s t s w e r e J o h n
T o l a n d , Christianity Not Mysterious ( 1 6 9 6 ) ; a n d M a t t h e w T i n d a l ,
Christianity as Old as Creation ( 1 7 3 0 ) . R e a s o n is t h e j u d g e of revela-
t i o n . Belief in t h e C r e a t o r G o d ( D e i t y ) is r e a s o n a b l e ; b u t belief in
G o d ' s s u b s e q u e n t i n t e r v e n t i o n — p r o p h e c i e s , miracles, a t o n e m e n t —
is n o t r e a s o n a b l e a n d t h e r e f o r e rejected. The t r u t h o f C h r i s t i a n i t y
m u s t be d i s c o v e r a b l e in all ages. N a t u r a l religion is t h e i n n a t e c o r e of
all religion. The universality o f reason is t h e o n l y c r i t e r i o n o f t r u t h .
T h e a u t h o r i t y of t h e biblical r e c o r d is d o u b t f u l .
W h a t c o m e s t h e n from t h e D e i s t s , n a t u r a l i s t s , a n d rationalists is
t h a t t h e e n l i g h t e n e d are freed f r o m t h e d o g m a t i c s o f O r t h o d o x y a n d
a n y s u p e r n a t u r a l t h e o r y o f i n s p i r a t i o n . D o c t r i n e s like t h e d i v i n i t y of
C h r i s t , original sin, a t o n e m e n t , s a c r a m e n t s , a n d miracles are p u t aside.
T h e N e w Testament n e v e r m e a n t t h e m t o be t a k e n seriously. V i e w s
of t h e s u p e r n a t u r a l were r e g a r d e d as s u p e r s t i t i o n . S c r i p t u r e was in-
t e r p r e t e d historically a n d critically. The " u n w o r t h y , " " i m p o s s i b l e , "
a n d " u n r e a s o n a b l e " parts o f S c r i p t u r e w e r e e x p l a i n e d away.
3 . T h e disciplines o f biblical i n t r o d u c t i o n a n d biblical theology.

By t h e m i d d l e of t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y ( J o h n D . M i c h a e l i s , Intro-
duction to the New Testament, 1 7 5 0 ) , t h e discipline o f biblical in-
t r o d u c t i o n was in place. W e have seen w r i t i n g s a b o u t biblical i n t r o -
d u c t i o n s already in t h e s e c o n d half o f t h e s i x t e e n t h c e n t u r y w i t h
H e m m i n g s e n a n d Flacius. Their reflection o n t h e n e e d for an i n t r o -
d u c t i o n in o r d e r t o p r e p a r e t h e w a y for u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e b o o k m o r e
clearly is n o t r e c o g n i z e d in s e c o n d a r y l i t e r a t u r e . R i c h a r d S i m o n , a
F r e n c h C a t h o l i c in t h e s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y , is often c r e d i t e d w i t h
b e i n g t h e " f o r e r u n n e r " of t h e discipline o f i n t r o d u c t i o n ( 1 6 7 8 , Critical
History of the Old Testament; t h r e e v o l u m e s o n t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t ,
1689-93).
In this d i s c i p l i n e t h e Bible is t r e a t e d as a n c i e n t l i t e r a t u r e w i t h a
historical s e t t i n g . T o u n d e r s t a n d a w r i t i n g is t o u n d e r s t a n d its s i t u a -
t i o n in t i m e a n d space, t h e book's setting-in-life. A n i n t r o d u c t i o n
raises all t h e q u e s t i o n s necessary t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e b o o k . In o n e in-
t r o d u c t i o n , M i c h a e l i s asks t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s : W h a t t y p e of
l i t e r a t u r e is it? W h e r e is it c i t e d elsewhere? To w h o m is it w r i t t e n ?
W h a t was its place in t h e c o m m u n i t y ? W h e n was it w r i t t e n a n d in
w h a t language? W h a t q u e s t i o n s are t h e r e a b o u t t h e G r e e k transla-
tion? W h o w r o t e it? W h a t a b o u t t h e literary t e c h n i q u e ? Is it c a n o n i -
cal? W h a t is its c o n t e n t ? In this I i n c - u p t h e r e are t e n q u e s t i o n s raised

before t h e q u e s t i o n of c o n t e n t , b e c a u s e t h e message is l i n k e d t o its
historical p l a c e .
The d i s c i p l i n e o f i n t r o d u c t i o n p r e s u p p o s e s t h e relativity o f each
b o o k . E a c h b o o k is u n i q u e u n t o itself a n d d e m a n d s a t h o r o u g h , o b -
jective (i.e., critical) s t u d y in o r d e r t o u n d e r s t a n d it. L a t e r in t h e
eighteenth century, J o h n E i c h h o r n developed further the h u m a n i s t -
rationalist i n t r o d u c t i o n ( t h r e e v o l u m e s o n t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t , 1 7 8 0 -
8 3 ) . T h e O l d Testament m u s t be s t u d i e d like a n y o t h e r l i t e r a t u r e ,
free f r o m all a u t h o r i t i e s , d o g m a , a n d t r a d i t i o n .
The discipline o f biblical t h e o l o g y followed closely o n t h e disci-
p l i n e of biblical i n t r o d u c t i o n . The d i s c i p l i n e o f biblical theology,
seen b y s o m e as t h e c r o w n o f biblical s c h o l a r s h i p , c o m e s o u t of t h e
E n l i g h t e n m e n t a n d t h e critical m e t h o d o l o g i e s w e have b e e n d e t a i l -
i n g . M o r e p a r t i c u l a r l y , G o t t h o l d Lessing's Education of Mankind
( 1 7 8 0 ) c o n s t r u c t e d a view o f t h e Bible w h i c h p a r o c h i a l i / x d it as p r e -
p a r a t o r y t o t h e m a t u r a t i o n o f t h e h u m a n race. The O l d T e s t a m e n t
c a m e at t h e stage of t h e c h i l d h o o d of t h e race, w h i c h was m o t i v a t e d
by t e m p o r a l r e w a r d s a n d p u n i s h m e n t s (law). 'The N e w T e s t a m e n t
fits i n t o t h e a d o l e s c e n c e o f t h e race, w h e r e o n e is w i l l i n g t o p u t u p
w i t h t e m p o r a r y h a r d s h i p s w i t h t h e p r o m i s e o f g r e a t e r (spiritual) re-
w a r d s later ( r e s u r r e c t i o n ) . A n d finally t h e race m a t u r e d i n t o a d u l t -
h o o d by t h e t i m e of t h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t , w h e r e o n e lives in t h e h e r e
a n d n o w g u i d e d b y reason a l o n e . In effect, t h e n , t h e Bible is p u t in
its t i m e a n d p l a c e .
Later in t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y t h e c o n c e r n was t o s e p a r a t e b i b -
lical t h e o l o g y from d o g m a t i c t h e o l o g y ( 1 7 5 8 , The Advantage of Bib-
lical 'Theology over Scholasticism; 1 7 8 7 , 'The Difference between Bib-
lical Theology and Dogmatic Theology). D o g m a t i c theology, per-
h a p s c o n n e c t e d t o p h i l o s o p h y , c o u l d have p e r m a n e n c e , w h i l e b i b l i -
cal t h e o l o g y is c o n n e c t e d t o its history. Late e i g h t e e n t h - c e n t u r y r o -
m a n t i c i s m , w i t h its e m p h a s i s o n e m p a t h y , a i d e d t h e d i s c i p l i n e of
biblical theology. S o m e t h i n g like today's nostalgia, o n e c o u l d e m o -
t i o n a l l y i m m e r s e oneself i n t o t h e s p i r i t o f a past g e n e r a t i o n . Biblical
t h e o l o g y is t h e t h e o l o g y o f a b o o k . If a b o o k has a h u m a n s i t u a -
tion—authorship, time, audience, language, purpose, content,
m e t h o d — t h e n it also h a s a p a r t i c u l a r theology. As t h e r e are v a r i o u s
b o o k s w i t h v a r i o u s historical s i t u a t i o n s , so t h e r e are various b o o k s
w i t h v a r i o u s t h e o l o g i e s . As a result o f this e i g h t e e n t h - c e n t u r y devel-
o p m e n t , t h e r e is n o s u c h t h i n g as biblical t h e o l o g y in t h e singular,
o n l y biblical t h e o l o g i e s in t h e p l u r a l .
R a t i o n a l i s m , c o n n e c t e d w i t h D e i s m , led to t h e rise of biblical

i n t r o d u c t i o n s a n d t h e o l o g i e s , as well as w i t h a d v a n c e s in textual criti-
cism, all a p a r t o f t h e d e v e l o p i n g historical-critical m e t h o d .
4 . Textual criticism. Textual criticism as a p p l i e d t o t h e Bible c o n -

cerns t h e analysis o f c o d i c e s , v a r i a n t r e a d i n g s , earliest m a n u s c r i p t
e v i d e n c e , w i t h b o t h t h e o r y a n d p r a c t i c e . E r a s m u s ' s text o f t h e G r e e k
N e w T e s t a m e n t , t h e first p u b l i s h e d in 1 5 1 6 , as m e n t i o n e d earlier,
r e m a i n e d t h e "critical" e d i t i o n {textus receptus) u n t i l well i n t o t h e
n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y . A l t h o u g h t h e C o m p l u t e n s i a n Polyglot relied o n
earlier m a n u s c r i p t e v i d e n c e , a n d was actually p r i n t e d earlier {New
Testament, 1 5 1 4 ) t h o u g h m a d e p u b l i c in 1 5 2 2 , a n d is n o w r e g a r d e d
as better, it was E r a s m u s ' s text, t h r o u g h s u b s e q u e n t e d i t i o n s , t h a t
was "received by all" {textus receptus) a n d s e e m e d t o have an over
t h r e e h u n d r e d year r i g h t t o be. R o b e r t S t e p h a n u s ' s text (Paris, 1 5 5 0 ) ,
w h i c h followed E r a s m u s ( 1 5 3 5 e d i t i o n ) , b e c a m e t h e textus receptus
10
for B r i t a i n . The e d i t i o n of t h e p r i n t i n g firm, Elzevir ( L e i d e n , 1 6 3 3 ) ,
w h i c h followed S t e p h a n u s , b e c a m e t h e textus receptus for t h e C o n -
t i n e n t . R i c h a r d S i m o n , later in t h e s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y , e n g a g e d in a
critical i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o textual v a r i a n t s . In 1 7 3 4 J o h a n n Bengel
( T u b i n g e n ) issued a critical text, n o t exactly t h e textus receptus, a n d
is r e g a r d e d as i m p o r t a n t for m o d e r n scientific textual criticism b e -
cause o f his p r i n c i p l e s (e.g., t h e m o r e difficult r e a d i n g is preferred)
a n d theories of m a n u s c r i p t families (groupings of manuscripts). J o h a n n
Wettstein's Greek N e w Testament ( 1 7 5 1 - 5 2 , Amsterdam) contained m a n y
i m p o r t a n t (new) variants. J o h a n n Griesbach (text, 1 7 7 4 - 7 5 ) agreed w i t h
Bengel o n t h e g r o u p i n g of m a n u s c r i p t families. His theories have lived
o n in textual criticism (e.g., a reading m u s t have an ancient witness, the
shorter as well as t h e m o r e difficult is preferred).
A n d so o n w e n t t h e r e c e p t i o n o f t h e textus receptus u n t i l 1 8 3 1 ,
w h e n Karl L a c h m a n n set it aside a n d p u b l i s h e d a text b a s e d entirely
o n a n c i e n t m a n u s c r i p t s . In 1 8 8 1 , W e s t c o t t a n d H o r t p u b l i s h e d The
New 'Testament in the Original Greek, w h i c h has b e c o m e in effect a
n e w textus receptus.
Textual criticism, w i t h t h e t h o u s a n d s a n d t h o u s a n d s o f m a n u -
scripts a n d t h e tens of t h o u s a n d s of v a r i a n t r e a d i n g s , w a s c o m p l i -
c a t e d n o t o n l y b y t h e d i s c i p l i n e itself b u t also b y t h e t r a d i t i o n
( C h u r c h ) t h a t has received t h e biblical text. Critical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of
t h e text d e v e l o p e d earlier u n d e r t h e aegis of r a t i o n a l i s m . C r i t i c a l r e n -
d e r i n g o f t h e t e x t itself was s l o w e r t o d e v e l o p n o t o n l y b e c a u s e
x
Stephanus's 1551 N e w Testament introduced verse divisions still in use today.
E r a s m u s ' s text was b a s e d o n late e v i d e n c e b u t also b e c a u s e it has

s e l d o m b e e n r e g a r d e d as p u r e l y a scientific task.
5. Historical c o n s c i o u s n e s s . Historical consciousness is t h e d a w n -

i n g o f p e r s p e c t i v e o n t h e past a n d p r e s e n t , o n d i s t a n c e a n d differ-
e n c e . W h a t d e v e l o p e d in H u m a n i s m , a sense of a n t i q u i t y ' s d i s t a n c e
from t h e p r e s e n t , i n c l u d i n g S c r i p t u r e , c o n t i n u e d t o d e v e l o p in t h e
early m o d e r n p e r i o d w i t h all t h e critical m e t h o d o l o g i e s .
H i s t o r i c a l c o n s c i o u s n e s s is p a r t a n d parcel o f w h a t w e h a v e b e e n
discussing. The p r o b l e m o f h e r m e n e u t i c s as t h e p r o b l e m o f u n d e r -
s t a n d i n g a n d l a n g u a g e is b r o u g h t i n t o t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y b y
F r i e d r i c h S c h l e i e r m a c h e r a n d b e y o n d o u r s c o p e . H e r m e n e u t i c s as
t h e p r o b l e m o f e x p r e s s i o n , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , a n d t r a n s l a t i o n is b r o u g h t
i n t o focus in t h e early m o d e r n p e r i o d w i t h t h e rise o f t h e historical-
critical m e t h o d . Key in this d e v e l o p m e n t is t h e s e p a r a t i o n b e t w e e n
text a n d reader, n a m e l y , t h e c o n s c i o u s n e s s o f t h e s e p a r a t i o n .
O n e w a y o f d e s c r i b i n g this d e v e l o p m e n t is t o use t h e d i s t i n c t i o n
b e t w e e n i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n a n d e x t e r n a l i z a t i o n u s e d in t h e s o c i o l o g y of
k n o w l e d g e . In t h e m e d i e v a l - e a r l y R e f o r m a t i o n p e r i o d , as o u r a r g u -
m e n t has g o n e , t h e reader i n t e r n a l i z e d S c r i p t u r e , m o r n i n g , n o o n ,
a n d night. W i t h H u m a n i s m — p r i n t i n g , editing, translating, intro-
d u c i n g — d e v e l o p e d t h e e x t e r n a l i z a t i o n o f t h e Bible as an a n c i e n t text.
The c o n c e r n of m e t h o d o l o g y is t o find t h e way(s) o f b r i d g i n g t h e
g a p b e t w e e n t e x t a n d i n t e r p r e t e r . O n c e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n (with h i s t o r i -
cal c o n s c i o u s n e s s ) b e c o m e s t h e focus of biblical study, t h e n t h e O r -
t h o d o x n e e d e d t o set u p a s y s t e m , w i t h logical c o h e r e n c e , t o m a k e
t h e L u t h e r a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h e c o r r e c t o n e vis-a-vis t h e R o m a n a n d
t h e R e f o r m e d t r a d i t i o n s . T h e e m a n c i p a t o r from O r t h o d o x d o g m a -
t i s m is always d e s c r i b e d as reason ( a n d o n t o r a t i o n a l i s m ) . B u t O r -
t h o d o x y u s e d p h i l o s o p h y , a n d P i e t i s m c o n t r i b u t e d a n o t h e r crucial
e l e m e n t in t h e e m a n c i p a t i o n — t h e subjective e x p e r i e n c e of t h e i n d i -
v i d u a l . So this p e r s p e c t i v e suggests t h a t o r t h o d o x p h i l o s o p h y p l u s
pietist i n d i v i d u a l i s m h e l p e d create t h e a t m o s p h e r e for r a t i o n a l i s m ,
w h e r e t h e externalization process is a d v a n c e d . The Bible is t o b e treated
as a n y o t h e r a n c i e n t d o c u m e n t , in n e e d o f historical i n t r o d u c t i o n
a n d l i n g u i s t i c - l i t e r a r y analysis. The d i s t a n c e a n d task is e n o r m o u s .
Biblical t h e o l o g y b e l o n g s t o t h e a n c i e n t w o r l d . D o g m a t i c t h e o l -
ogy, c o n s c i o u s o f its m e t h o d o l o g y a n d d i s t a n c e from S c r i p t u r e , is
p a r t o f t h e C h u r c h ' s t r a d i t i o n , also past. If t h e r e is t o be a b r i d g e
b e t w e e n biblical t h e o l o g y a n d c o n t e m p o r a r y t h i n k i n g , it is t h e task
of h e r m e n e u t i c s (translation, i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , u n d e r s t a n d i n g ) t o b r i d g e
t h e g u l f — a n d o n to t h e p r o b l e m s of t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y .
It is w i t h historical c o n s c i o u s n e s s t h a t p r o b l e m s are p e r c e i v e d
t h a t w e r e n o t b e f o r e — m e t h o d , exegesis, critical text, i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ,
a n d h e r m e n e u t i c s — a l l w i t h t h e positive use o f reason. T h e rise o f
t h e historical-critical m e t h o d itself is a historical p h e n o m e n o n . Its
p o s t u r e t o d a y is t h a t it is p u r e l y objective a n d scientific. It d i d n o t
b e g i n t h a t w a y n o r d e v e l o p u n t o u c h e d b y h u m a n historical e l e m e n t s .
P r a c t i t i o n e r s of t h e historical-critical m e t h o d m a y w a n t t o use t h e
m e t h o d o n itself a n d see it in its historical s e t t i n g , w h i c h this essay
has t r i e d t o set o u t w i t h p u r e objectivity. T h e usual s u r v e y o f t h e
historical-critical m e t h o d is d e s c r i b e d w i t h " a d v a n c e " l a n g u a g e , n o t
totally a b s e n t from t h e foregoing. As o n e a u t h o r p u t it, g o i n g t h r o u g h
t h e c e n t u r i e s , "It finally w o n out!" W h a t d i d it w i n , o u t s i d e o f c o n -
trol o f a c a d e m i c biblical studies? D i d it w i n a n y n e w o r b e t t e r o r
clearer u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e text t h a t was u n a v a i l a b l e to St. A u g u s t -
ine, T h o m a s , L u t h e r , o r C a l v i n ?
RECOMMENDED READINGS
A l d r i d g c , J o h n W. The Hermeneutic of Erasmus. R i c h m o n d : J o h n

K n o x , 1 9 6 6 . Basic level; c o n c e n t r a t e s o n t h e p h i l o s o p h y o f C h r i s t ,
e r u d i t i o n , a n d philology.
Cambridge History of the Bible, 3 v o l u m e s . C a m b r i d g e : U n i v e r s i t y

Press, 1 9 6 3 - 7 0 . Reference v o l u m e s by specialists t h a t cover t h e early
p e r i o d (I), m e d i e v a l (II), a n d m o d e r n (III).
C h a u , W a i - S h i n g . The Letter and the Spirit: a History of Interpreta-

tion from Origen to Luther. N e w York: Peter L a n g , 1 9 9 5 . A s u r v e y
o f historical a p p r o a c h e s t o S c r i p t u r e , f o c u s i n g o n law a n d G o s p e l
in t h e P a u l i n e epistles.
G r a n t , R o b e r t . A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible.

N e w York: M a c m i l l a n , 1 9 6 3 ; 2 n d e d i t i o n w i t h D a v i d Tracy, P h i l a -
d e l p h i a : Fortress, 1 9 8 4 . Basic i n t r o d u c t i o n t h a t starts w i t h t h e Bible
itself.
H a g e n , K e n n e t h . Luther's Approach to Scripture as seen in his "Com-

mentaries" on Galatians. ' T u b i n g e n : J. C . B. M o h r (Paul S i e b e c k ) ,
1 9 9 3 . Places L u t h e r in t h e c o n t e x t of t h e w h o l e h i s t o r y o f biblical
interpretation.
H a h n , H e r b e r t F. The Old Testament in Modern Research. P h i l a d e l -

p h i a : Fortress Press, 1 9 5 4 / 6 6 . Extensive s u r v e y of O l d T e s t a m e n t
criticism; strong on the m o d e r n s .
K o o i m a n , W i l l e n J. Luther and the Bible. Translated b y J o h n S c h m i d t .

P h i l a d e l p h i a : M u h l e n b e r g , 1 9 6 1 . I n t r o d u c t o r y level a i m e d a t a
b r o a d coverage of m a n y facets.
K u m m e l , W e r n e r G . The New Testament: The History of the Inves-

tigation of its Problems. 'Translated by S. M . G i l m o u r a n d H . C .
K e e . N a s h v i l l e : A b i n g d o n , 1 9 7 2 . E x t e n s i v e survey o f N e w Testa-
m e n t criticism; several p r i m a r y s o u r c e s . E m p h a s i s o n t h e m o d e r n s .
de L u b a c , H e n r i . The Sources of Revelation. Translated by L. O ' N e i l l .

N e w York: H e r d e r a n d H e r d e r , 1 9 6 8 . A n a b r i d g m e n t o f his m o n u -
m e n t a l w o r k in F r e n c h o n p a t r i s t i c a n d m e d i e v a l exegesis; e m p h a -
sis o n t h e spiritual u n d e r s t a n d i n g of S c r i p t u r e .
Smalley, Beryl. 'The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages. O x f o r d :

Blackwell, 1 9 5 2 . S c h o l a r l y a n d r e a d a b l e h i s t o r y from t h e Fathers
o f t h e C h u r c h t o t h e friars o f t h e t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y .
S t u h l m a c h e r , Peter. Historical Criticism and Theological Interpreta-

tion of Scripture. T r a n s l a t e d b y R. Harrisville. P h i l a d e l p h i a : F o r -
tress, 1 9 7 7 . S h o r t o v e r v i e w from t h e a n c i e n t s t o t h e t w e n t i e t h c e n -
t u r y ; r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e c u r r e n t d i l e m m a .
CATHOLIC INTERPRETATION
OF SCRIPTURE
by
DANIEL J. HARRINGTON, S.J.
I. T H E BIBLE IN CATHOLIC LIEE TODAY
A
friend w h o by u p b r i n g i n g a n d c o n v i c t i o n is a n evangelical
Christian m a d e a c o m m e n t s o m e t i m e ago that startled m e .
H e said t h a t w h e n e v e r h e h a s h a d o c c a s i o n to a t t e n d R o m a n
C a t h o l i c liturgies recently, h e has b e e n s t r u c k b y h o w " P r o t e s t a n t "
t h e y s o u n d e d . H e m e a n t t h a t as a c o m p l i m e n t , a n d h e w e n t o n t o
e x p l a i n t h a t w h a t m a k e s h i m feel a t h o m e in C a t h o l i c w o r s h i p t o d a y
is t h e massive dose o f biblical l a n g u a g e — n o t o n l y in t h e r e a d i n g s
t a k e n directly from t h e Scriptures b u t also in t h e s o n g s a n d t h e prayers.
H i s c o m m e n t led m e , as a p r o f e s s i o n a l biblical s c h o l a r w h o also
p r e a c h e s a n d presides regularly at w o r s h i p services in t h e C a t h o l i c
C h u r c h , t o reflect o n a d r a m a t i c d e v e l o p m e n t in m y o w n c h u r c h .
T h e f o u n d a t i o n s for t h i s d e v e l o p m e n t w e r e a l r e a d y laid in t h e
1 9 4 0 s a n d 1 9 5 0 s b y P o p e Pius XII's encyclical o n biblical s t u d i e s
{Divino Afflante Spiritu) a n d his revision o f t h e liturgical services
for H o l y W e e k . B u t t h e decisive t u r n i n g p o i n t was t h e S e c o n d Vatican
C o u n c i l . B u i l d i n g u p o n t h e directives a p p r o v e d by P o p e Pius X I I
a n d w o r k e d o u t in m o r e detail b y biblical s c h o l a r s a n d t h e o l o g i a n s ,
t h e C o u n c i l F a t h e r s affirmed in a p o w e r f u l w a y t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f
t h e Bible in t h e life o f t h e C a t h o l i c C h u r c h .
Before w e l o o k at t h e key d o c u m e n t r e l a t i n g t o t h e Bible f r o m
V a t i c a n II, it m a y b e useful t o c o n t r a s t t h e place o f t h e Bible in t h e
C a t h o l i c C h u r c h before t h e C o u n c i l a n d its place today. T h e t h r e e
areas for c o n t r a s t are liturgy, t h e o l o g i c a l e d u c a t i o n , a n d e c u m e n i s m .
P r i o r t o Vatican II, S c r i p t u r e was c e r t a i n l y an integral p a r t of t h e
M a s s . A s e l e c t i o n f r o m a N e w T e s t a m e n t epistle o r t h e O l d Testa-
30 CATHOLIC INTERPRETATION OE SCRIPTURE
m c n t , as well as a passage from o n e o f t h e G o s p e l s , was read at every

e u c h a r i s t i c service. T h e priest r e a d these biblical selections in L a t i n ,
w h i l e s o m e o f t h e laity followed a l o n g w i t h t h e h e l p o f an E n g l i s h
t r a n s l a t i o n . O n S u n d a y s , t h e passages were also read a l o u d in E n -
glish, e i t h e r as an a c c o m p a n i m e n t t o t h e L a t i n o r after it. T h e r a n g e
of S c r i p t u r e r e a d i n g s was n a r r o w a n d repetitive. M a t t h e w ' s G o s p e l
w i t h its e m p h a s e s o n c h u r c h o r d e r a n d P e t r i n e a u t h o r i t y was espe-
cially p r o m i n e n t .
Vatican II r e m o v e d t h e l a n g u a g e b a r r i e r b y d e c r e e i n g t h a t t h e
sacred liturgy c o u l d n o w be c e l e b r a t e d in m o d e r n l a n g u a g e s as well
as L a t i n . T h e Bible is n o w read in English (or w h a t e v e r l a n g u a g e is
m o s t a p p r o p r i a t e ) , a n d t h e r e a d i n g s have a very p r o m i n e n t place.
S h o r t l y after t h e c o u n c i l , t h e liturgists w o r k e d o u t a n e w a n d m o r e
c o m p r e h e n s i v e cycle o f S c r i p t u r e r e a d i n g s . F o r S u n d a y s t h e r e is a
t h r e e - y e a r cycle, each S u n d a y h a v i n g passages f r o m t h e O l d Testa-
m e n t , t h e b o o k o f P s a l m s , t h e N e w Testament Epistles, a n d t h e G o s -
pels. For w e e k d a y s t h e r e is a t w o - y e a r cycle c o n s i s t i n g o f a passage
from t h e O l d 'Testament or t h e N e w ' T e s t a m e n t Epistles, a p s a l m ,
a n d t h e G o s p e l s . This d e v e l o p m e n t m e a n s t h a t in t h e i r w o r s h i p ser-
vices, C a t h o l i c s t o d a y are e x p o s e d t o large a m o u n t s o f S c r i p t u r e in
t h e l a n g u a g e t h a t t h e y m o s t readily u n d e r s t a n d .
P r i o r t o V a t i c a n II, t h e Bible was n o t o r d i n a r i l y read directly as
p a r t o f t h e p r i m a r y - o r s e c o n d a r y - s c h o o l p r o g r a m in religious e d u -
c a t i o n . In C a t h o l i c colleges, t h e s t u d y of t h e Bible was s u p p l e m e n t e d
by c o n s e r v a t i v e t e x t b o o k s t h a t g u i d e d s t u d e n t s a l o n g a p p r o v e d p a t h s .
In t h e t r a i n i n g of C a t h o l i c priests, biblical courses were usually p l a c e d
at t h e e n d o f t h e p r o g r a m , after t h e p r o p e r d o g m a t i c t h e o l o g i c a l
f o u n d a t i o n s w e r e a l r e a d y in place. Professors of S c r i p t u r e in p r e -
Vatican II s e m i n a r i e s w e r e generally very c a u t i o u s n o t t o stray i n t o
t h e realms o f d o g m a t i c t h e o l o g y o r m o r a l t h e o l o g y . They focused o n
philological a n d historical m a t t e r s . W h a t t h e y t a u g h t were officially
classified as " m i n o r c o u r s e s . "
Vatican II m a d e clear t h a t biblical s t u d i e s are central in C a t h o l i c
theology. In t h e m a n y years t h a t I h a v e t a u g h t in C a t h o l i c s e m i n a r i e s
since 1 9 7 1 , 1 h a v e n e v e r h e a r d a s t u d e n t q u e s t i o n o r c o m p l a i n a b o u t
t h e n e e d for S c r i p t u r e courses. These courses are t a k e n a t t h e b e g i n -
n i n g , m i d d l e , a n d e n d o f s e m i n a r y p r o g r a m s . The s t u d e n t s w o r k
h a r d a t t h e s e courses a n d enjoy t h e m . 'The professors d i a l o g u e w i t h
a n d even t e a c h courses w i t h t h e i r colleagues in s y s t e m a t i c a n d m o r a l
theology. A t every level in t h e C a t h o l i c e d u c a t i o n a l s y s t e m — c o l l e g e s ,
h i g h schools, g r a m m a r schools, religious e d u c a t i o n c l a s s e s — t h e Bible
is r e a d a n d discussed. C a t h o l i c s are b e c o m i n g increasingly familiar
D A N I K I . J . HARRINGTON, S.J. 31
w i t h t h e l a n g u a g e a n d t h e m e s of S c r i p t u r e a n d t h u s b e t t e r able t o
appreciate their language of worship.
M y P r o t e s t a n t friend's c o m m e n t a b o u t t h e m o r e " b i b l i c a l " c h a r -
acter o f C a t h o l i c life raises t h e issue a b o u t t h e e c u m e n i c a l signifi-
c a n c e of t h e Bible for C a t h o l i c s . P r i o r t o V a t i c a n II, m a n y C a t h o l i c s
l o o k e d u p o n t h e Bible as a " P r o t e s t a n t " b o o k . Those C a t h o l i c s w h o
r e a d it w e r e careful t o follow officially a p p r o v e d h a n d b o o k s a n d c o m -
m e n t a r i e s a n d loyally d e f e n d e d t h e n e e d for s u c h a u t h o r i t a t i v e g u i d -
a n c e f r o m t h e t e a c h i n g offices o f t h e c h u r c h . ' T h o s e w h o q u o t e d t h e
Bible e x c e p t t o affirm t r a d i t i o n a l t h e o l o g i c a l p o s i t i o n s w e r e c o n s i d -
e r e d p e c u l i a r or e v e n d a n g e r o u s .
V a t i c a n II has e n c o u r a g e d C a t h o l i c s t o c l a i m t h e Bible as t h e i r
o w n b o o k . O n local, n a t i o n a l , a n d i n t e r n a t i o n a l levels, t h e Bible has
e m e r g e d as t h e c o m m o n g r o u n d for C a t h o l i c s a n d P r o t e s t a n t s . B o t h
g r o u p s h a v e b e c o m e sensitive t o t h e i r s h a r e d h e r i t a g e in S c r i p t u r e
a n d h a v e r e c o g n i z e d t h a t m a n y o f t h e i r s h a r p e s t differences come
f r o m p o s t b i b l i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t s . These differences are real a n d t o u c h
o n g e n u i n e issues b u t m u s t n o t o b s c u r e w h a t C a t h o l i c s a n d P r o t e s -
t a n t s h o l d in c o m m o n .
W i t h i n C a t h o l i c circles t h e r e is g r e a t e n t h u s i a s m for c o u r s e s a n d
lectures o n t h e Bible. B o o k s a b o u t t h e Bible a n d t r a n s l a t i o n s of t h e
Bible are b i g sellers. A w h o l e i n d u s t r y o f lectures o n t h e Bible t h a t
are available in t h e f o r m of cassettes h a s s p r u n g u p . All t h e s e devel-
o p m e n t s s h o w t h a t C a t h o l i c s n o w l o o k u p o n t h e Bible as " t h e i r "
b o o k t o o , see it as a m e a n s t o w a r d C h r i s t i a n u n i t y , a n d w a n t to k n o w
as m u c h a b o u t it as t h e y c a n .
A very c o n c r e t e i n s t a n c e o f t h e e c u m e n i c a l possibility a n d p o w e r
of t h e Bible is t h e fact t h a t w h e n t h e n e w C a t h o l i c l e c t i o n a r y was
p r e p a r e d in r e s p o n s e to Vatican II, it was a d o p t e d (with m i n o r m o d i -
fications) b y several m a i n l i n e P r o t e s t a n t c h u r c h e s — L u t h e r a n , E p i s -
c o p a l , M e t h o d i s t , a n d P r e s b y t e r i a n . 'This m e a n s t h a t o n a l m o s t every
S u n d a y t h e s a m e set of S c r i p t u r e r e a d i n g s is read a n d p r e a c h e d u p o n
in all t h e s e C h r i s t i a n c o m m u n i t i e s . The historical a n d t h e o l o g i c a l
differences b e t w e e n t h e s e g r o u p s r e m a i n , b u t at least t h e y are d e a l i n g
w i t h t h e s a m e basic texts o f t h e Bible.
I I . VATICAN I I ' S CONSTITUTION O N DIVINE REVELATION
The m o s t c o m p a c t a n d a u t h o r i t a t i v e s t a t e m e n t o n t h e t h e o r y
a n d t h e o l o g y o f t h e Bible's place in t h e C a t h o l i c C h u r c h is V a t i c a n
II's C o n s t i t u t i o n o n D i v i n e R e v e l a t i o n ( k n o w n also b y its L a t i n title
Dei Verbum. All q u o t a t i o n s are from A . F l a n n e r y , ed., Vatican Council
//: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, 7 5 0 - 6 5 ) . That d o c u -

m e n t was issued in N o v e m b e r 1 9 6 5 , b u t t h e w a y h a d b e e n p r e p a r e d
for it by P o p e Pius XII's 1 9 4 3 encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu a n d
by several o t h e r official s t a t e m e n t s t h r o u g h t h e years. The conciliar
d o c u m e n t s u m m a r i z e d t h e i m p o r t a n t p o i n t s in t h o s e earlier s t a t e -
m e n t s a n d p u s h e d C a t h o l i c biblical s t u d y o u t o f s o m e o l d r u t s a n d
onto better paths.
The first c h a p t e r o f t h e six c h a p t e r s in t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n deals
w i t h " d i v i n e revelation itself." Before t h e C o u n c i l a n d even in t h e
early stages of t h e d r a f t i n g o f t h e d o c u m e n t , t h e r e h a d b e e n a lively
debate a b o u t the nature of divine revelation, with m a n y theologians
(in t h e w a k e o f Vatican I's insistence o n t h e c o n t e n t of faith) stress-
i n g t h e p r i m a c y of t h e t h e o l o g i c a l p r o p o s i t i o n s revealed in t h e Bible.
W i t h o u t d e n y i n g t h e c o n t e n t o f revelation a n d its p r o p o s i t i o n a l d i -
m e n s i o n , t h e final draft of t h e C o u n c i l ' s C o n s t i t u t i o n stresses t h e
p r i m a c y o f G o d ' s revelation of h i m s e l f as a p e r s o n in r e l a t i o n s h i p to
his p e o p l e . The p e r s o n a l d i m e n s i o n o f revelation m a k e s possible t h e
p r o p o s i t i o n a l d i m e n s i o n : " B y d i v i n e revelation G o d w i s h e d t o m a n i -
fest a n d c o m m u n i c a t e b o t h h i m s e l f a n d t h e eternal decrees of his
will c o n c e r n i n g t h e salvation of m a n k i n d " ( § 6 ) . B o t h d i m e n s i o n s
are clearly affirmed, b u t t h e p e r s o n a l aspect o f revelation is given
first place.
T h e s e c o n d c h a p t e r , w h i c h c o n c e r n s t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n of d i v i n e
revelation, takes u p t h e p r o b l e m of t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n S c r i p t u r e
a n d t r a d i t i o n . R e j e c t i n g t h e idea t h a t S c r i p t u r e a n d t r a d i t i o n c o n s t i -
t u t e t w o d i s t i n c t sources o f r e v e l a t i o n , t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n insisted t h a t
t h e y flow from "the s a m e d i v i n e w e l l - s p r i n g " ( § 9 ) . It w e n t o n t o state
t h a t "sacred t r a d i t i o n a n d sacred S c r i p t u r e m a k e u p a single sacred
d e p o s i t o f t h e W o r d o f G o d , w h i c h is e n t r u s t e d t o t h e c h u r c h " ( § 1 0 ) .
This e m p h a s i s o n t h e u n i t y o f S c r i p t u r e a n d t r a d i t i o n does n o t s i m -
ply a b s o r b t h e latter i n t o t h e f o r m e r : " T h e c h u r c h d o e s n o t d r a w h e r
c e r t a i n t y a b o u t all revealed t r u t h s from t h e h o l y S c r i p t u r e s a l o n e "
( § 9 ) . A n d t h e task of "giving an a u t h e n t i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n " of b o t h
S c r i p t u r e a n d t r a d i t i o n is e n t r u s t e d t o " t h e living t e a c h i n g office of
t h e c h u r c h a l o n e " ( § 1 0 ) , t h o u g h it is clearly s t a t e d t h a t t h e ecclesias-
tical m a g i s t e r i u m is " n o t s u p e r i o r t o t h e W o r d o f G o d , b u t is its
servant" (§10). Thus the Constitution presents Scripture and tradi-
t i o n as o n e s o u r c e o f d i v i n e revelation w h i l e affirming t h e existence
of t r a d i t i o n a n d m a k i n g t h e ecclesiastical m a g i s t e r i u m (the P o p e a n d
t h e b i s h o p s ) t h e u l t i m a t e arbiter.
The t h i r d c h a p t e r is d e v o t e d t o d i v i n e i n s p i r a t i o n a n d its i n t e r -
p r e t a t i o n . The fact of i n s p i r a t i o n is s t a t e d at t h e o u t s e t : " T h e d i -
vincly revealed realities, w h i c h are c o n t a i n e d a n d p r e s e n t e d in t h e

text o f sacred S c r i p t u r e , h a v e b e e n w r i t t e n d o w n u n d e r t h e inspira-
t i o n o f t h e H o l y Spirit" ( § 1 1 ) . The s a m e s e c t i o n p r e s e n t s a d o c t r i n e
of t h e i n e r r a n c y of S c r i p t u r e : " T h e b o o k s of S c r i p t u r e , firmly, faith-
fully, a n d w i t h o u t error, t e a c h t h a t t r u t h w h i c h G o d , for t h e sake of
o u r salvation, w i s h e d t o see c o n f i d e d t o t h e sacred S c r i p t u r e s . " This
m a y s o u n d like a s t a t e m e n t of l i m i t e d i n e r r a n c y ; t h a t is, o n l y w h a t
p e r t a i n s t o o u r s a l v a t i o n , a n d n o t historical o r scientific m a t t e r s , in
t h e Bible is free from error. B u t , in fact, t h e t h e o l o g i a n s w h o w r o t e
this d o c u m e n t a n d t h e C o u n c i l F a t h e r s w h o v o t e d t h e i r a p p r o v a l
d e l i b e r a t e l y s o u g h t t o a v o i d a p p r o v i n g e i t h e r c o m p l e t e i n e r r a n c y or
l i m i t e d i n e r r a n c y as t h e church's t e a c h i n g . Since t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n
w a s n o t a t h e o l o g i c a l treatise a n d since t h e C o u n c i l Fathers d i d n o t
w a n t t o a b s o l u t i z e o r give official s a n c t i o n to o n e t h e o l o g i a n o r o n e
s c h o o l , t h e r e is n o a t t e m p t t o e x p l a i n in detail how i n s p i r a t i o n a n d
i n e r r a n c y f u n c t i o n o r w h a t s c o p e these t e r m s m i g h t have. It was m o r e
a m a t t e r o f reaffirming v e n e r a b l e theological t e a c h i n g s w i t h o u t speci-
fying w h i c h i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e m is best.
T h e s e c t i o n o n t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f S c r i p t u r e ( § 1 2 ) is t h e m o s t
i m p o r t a n t p a r t for biblical s c h o l a r s . T a k i n g its c u e f r o m Divino
Afflante Spiritu, t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n u r g e d biblical scholars a n d i n d e e d
all C a t h o l i c s (1) t o p a y a t t e n t i o n t o t h e literary f o r m s in w h i c h d i -
v i n e revelation is expressed, (2) to l o o k t o t h e m e a n i n g t h a t t h e b i b -
lical a u t h o r i n t e n d e d in his o w n historical s i t u a t i o n a n d c u l t u r e , a n d
(3) to c o n s i d e r t h e c u s t o m a r y a n d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c p a t t e r n s of p e r c e p -
t i o n , s p e e c h , a n d n a r r a t i v e p r e v a i l i n g at t h a t t i m e . Since this p a r t o f
t h e d o c u m e n t s u m m a r i z e s so well t h e tasks u n d e r t a k e n by C a t h o l i c
biblical s c h o l a r s , it deserves t o be q u o t e d in full:
In determining the intention of the sacred writers, attention must

be paid, inter alia, to "literary forms, for the fact is that ttuth is
differently presented and expressed in the various types of histori-
cal writing, in prophetical and poetical texts," and in other forms
of literary expression. Hence the exegete must look for that mean-
ing which the sacred writer, in a determined situation and given
the circumstances of his time and cultute, intended to express and
did in fact express, through the m e d i u m of a contemporary liter-
ary form. Rightly to understand what the sacred author wanted to
affirm in his work, due attention must be paid both to the cus-
tomary and characteristic patterns of perception, speech and nar-
rative which prevailed at the age of the sacred writer, and to the
conventions which the people of his time followed in their deal-
ings with one another.
The f r e e d o m o f research expressed in this p a r a g r a p h is s o m e -

w h a t t e m p e r e d b y a r e m i n d e r t h a t biblical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is "ulti-
m a t e l y s u b j e c t t o t h e j u d g m e n t of t h e c h u r c h w h i c h exercises t h e
divinely c o n f e r r e d c o m m i s s i o n a n d m i n i s t r y of w a t c h i n g over a n d
i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e w o r d of G o d " ( § 1 2 ) . T h e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e
d o c t r i n e of t h e d i v i n e i n s p i r a t i o n of S c r i p t u r e a n d t h e task of i n t e r -
p r e t i n g S c r i p t u r e in its historical c o n t e x t is d r a w n by u s i n g t h e for-
m u l a "the w o r d s o f G o d , expressed in t h e w o r d s of m e n " ( § 1 3 ) .
In t h e f o u r t h c h a p t e r , t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n d e f e n d s t h e divinely in-
s p i r e d c h a r a c t e r a n d l a s t i n g value o f t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t ( § 1 4 ) . It
does so b y a l l u d i n g t o s o m e of t h e ways in w h i c h t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t
has b e e n v i e w e d in C h r i s t i a n t h e o l o g y : p r e p a r a t i o n for a n d p r o p h -
ecy of t h e c o m i n g o f C h r i s t , a s o u r c e for u n d e r s t a n d i n g G o d a n d his
dealings w i t h his p e o p l e , a n d a s t o r e h o u s e o f s u b l i m e t e a c h i n g o n
G o d a n d o f s o u n d w i s d o m o n h u m a n life ( § 1 5 ) . It also m e n t i o n s
t h a t t h e b o o k s o f t h e O l d Testament c o n t a i n " m a t t e r s i m p e r f e c t a n d
p r o v i s i o n a l , " w i t h o u t specifying w h a t these are (cultic rules, calls for
v e n g e a n c e , ethically q u e s t i o n a b l e actions?) a n d w h a t C a t h o l i c s are
t o d o w i t h t h e m . A g a i n it is i m p o r t a n t t o r e m e m b e r t h a t t h e C o n s t i -
t u t i o n is n o t a t h e o l o g y t e x t b o o k b u t r a t h e r a s t a t e m e n t o f d i r e c t i o n s
agreed u p o n a n d a p p r o v e d b y t h e C a t h o l i c b i s h o p s of t h e w o r l d .
'The c h a p t e r o n t h e N e w ' T e s t a m e n t strikes a c a u t i o u s b a l a n c e
b e t w e e n r e c o g n i t i o n of t h e c o m p l e x process b y w h i c h t h e four G o s -
pels c a m e i n t o b e i n g a n d a f f i r m a t i o n of t h e basic t r u t h o f t h e i r p o r -
traits o f Jesus:
H o l y M o t h e r C h u r c h has firmly and with absolute constancy

maintained and continues to maintain, that the four Gospels just
named, whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand
on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really
did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day when he
was taken up (see Acts 1:1-2). For, after the ascension of the Lord,
the apostles handed on to their hearers what he had said and done,
but with that fuller understanding which they, instructed by the
glorious events of Christ and enlightened by the Spirit of truth,
now enjoyed. T h e sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, se-
lected certain of the many elements which had been handed on,
either orally or already in written form, others they synthesi?.ed or
explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, the while
sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that
they have told us the honest truth about Jesus. W h e t h e r they re-
lied on their own memory and recollections or on the testimony
of those who "from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers
of the Word," their purpose in writing was that we might know
the "truth" concerning the things of which we have been informed

(see Luke 1:2-4).
This s t a t e m e n t in s e c t i o n 19 leaves r o o m a n d i n d e e d e n c o u r a g e s
biblical scholars t o d o research o n t h e literary f o r m s , s o u r c e s , a n d
final e d i t i n g o f t h e G o s p e l s . B u t it d e m a n d s t h a t t h e y n o t lose s i g h t
of t h e historical p e r s o n o f Jesus of N a z a r e t h — t h e o n e t o w h o m t h e
G o s p e l s bear w i t n e s s . The P a u l i n e epistles a n d t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t
w r i t i n g s are said t o f o r m u l a t e m o r e precisely t h e a u t h e n t i c t e a c h i n g
of C h r i s t , p r e a c h t h e s a v i n g p o w e r of his d i v i n e w o r k , a n d foretell its
glorious c o n s u m m a t i o n (§20).
T h e sixth c h a p t e r , w h i c h deals w i t h sacred S c r i p t u r e in t h e life
of t h e C h u r c h , p r o v i d e s t h e d i r e c t i o n s t h a t h a v e b r o u g h t a b o u t t h e
biblical r e n e w a l o f r e c e n t years. T h e o p e n i n g s t a t e m e n t in s e c t i o n 21
stresses t h e link b e t w e e n t h e S c r i p t u r e s a n d t h e e u c h a r i s t i e b o d y o f
C h r i s t . Far from s e p a r a t i n g t h e t w o , t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n s p e a k s o f " t h e
o n e t a b l e o f t h e w o r d of G o d a n d t h e b o d y of C h r i s t . " It insists t h a t
"all t h e p r e a c h i n g o f t h e c h u r c h . . . s h o u l d b e n o u r i s h e d a n d r u l e d
by sacred S c r i p t u r e " ( § 2 1 ) , t h a t access t o S c r i p t u r e " o u g h t t o be w i d e
o p e n to t h e C h r i s t i a n faithful" ( § 2 2 ) , a n d t h a t s t u d y of t h e "sacred
p a g e s h o u l d b e t h e very soul of sacred t h e o l o g y " ( § 2 4 ) . T h u s t h e
p o s t - V a t i c a n II d e v e l o p m e n t s w i t h respect t o t h e Bible's place in t h e
life of t h e C h u r c h are best seen as faithful responses to t h e s p i r i t of
t h e C o u n c i l , n o t as d e v i a t i o n s from it or as a n e w m o v e m e n t a p a r t
from it. If a n y d o u b t r e m a i n e d a b o u t t h e central role o f biblical s t u d -
ies in t h e s e m i n a r y c u r r i c u l u m a n d t h e p i e t y of t h e C h u r c h ' s m i n i s -
ters, t h e n e x t - t o - l a s t s e c t i o n of t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n speaks very clearly:
"All clerics, p a r t i c u l a r l y priests o f C h r i s t a n d o t h e r s w h o , as d e a c o n s
or catechists, are officially e n g a g e d in t h e m i n i s t r y of t h e w o r d , s h o u l d
i m m e r s e t h e m s e l v e s in t h e S c r i p t u r e s by c o n s t a n t sacred r e a d i n g a n d
diligent study" (§25).
Vatican IPs C o n s t i t u t i o n o n D i v i n e R e v e l a t i o n has given i m p o r -
t a n t a n d fruitful d i r e c t i o n s t o t h e biblical m o v e m e n t in t h e C a t h o l i c
C h u r c h . The m o s t significant d i r e c t i o n s are s u m m a r i z e d by t h e fol-
l o w i n g list: t h e e m p h a s i s o n G o d ' s p e r s o n a l revelation as t h e basis for
w h a t e v e r p r o p o s i t i o n a l revelation m a y b e c o n t a i n e d in S c r i p t u r e , t h e
insistence t h a t S c r i p t u r e a n d t r a d i t i o n flow from " t h e s a m e d i v i n e
w e l l - s p r i n g , " t h e f o r t h r i g h t a c c e p t a n c e o f t h e historical a n d literary
s t u d y of t h e S c r i p t u r e s , t h e respect for t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t , t h e c a u -
tious b a l a n c e b e t w e e n t h e c o m p l e x i t y of o u r G o s p e l s a n d their es-
sential t r u t h a b o u t Jesus, a n d t h e e n c o u r a g e m e n t for Bible r e a d i n g
a n d s t u d y in every p h a s e o f t h e C h u r c h ' s life.
There is m u c h o n this list w i t h w h i c h evangelical a n d L u t h e r a n

C h r i s t i a n s c a n agree, t h o u g h t h e i r e m p h a s e s m a y b e slightly differ-
e n t . B u t s o m e evangelicals m i g h t t a k e e x c e p t i o n t o w h a t m i g h t a p -
p e a r t o b e a d o c t r i n e o f l i m i t e d i n e r r a n c y expressed in t h e C o n s t i t u -
t i o n : " t h a t t r u t h w h i c h G o d , for t h e sake o f o u r s a l v a t i o n , w i s h e d t o
see c o n f i d e d t o t h e s a c r e d S c r i p t u r e s " ( § 1 1 ) . B o t h evangelicals a n d
L u t h e r a n s will n o d o u b t t a k e s t r o n g e x c e p t i o n t o t h e idea o f t h e
ecclesiastical m a g i s t e r i u m as t h e final a r b i t e r of biblical i n t e r p r e t a -
t i o n ( § § 1 0 , 12). 'They m a y also b e s k e p t i c a l a b o u t h o w well C a t h o -
lics can m a n a g e t o k e e p t o g e t h e r S c r i p t u r e a n d t r a d i t i o n o n t h e o n e
h a n d , a n d w o r d a n d s a c r a m e n t o n t h e o t h e r h a n d . B u t h o w e v e r valid
t h e i r o b j e c t i o n s m a y b e , P r o t e s t a n t s w h o t a k e t h e t r o u b l e t o read
V a t i c a n l i s C o n s t i t u t i o n o n D i v i n e R e v e l a t i o n c a n n o t fail t o recog-
nize t h e " b i b l i c a l " c h a r a c t e r o f m u c h of t h e l a n g u a g e u s e d in t h e
d o c u m e n t a n d t h e m a n y d i r e c t references t o S c r i p t u r e t h r o u g h o u t it.
The C o u n c i l F a t h e r s o p t e d for t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e Bible r a t h e r t h a n
for t h e l a n g u a g e o f s c h o l a s t i c theology.
III. T H E WAYS OE CURRENT BIBLICAL SCHOIARSHIP
U p t o t h i s p o i n t w e h a v e c o n s i d e r e d t h e practical i m p a c t o f b i b -
lical s t u d y o n C h u r c h life a n d a n official s t a t e m e n t a b o u t t h e place
of t h e Bible in t h e C h u r c h . N o w is t h e t i m e t o focus o n t h e m e t h o d s
used b y C a t h o l i c biblical scholars; t h a t is, w h a t t h o s e m e n a n d w o m e n
w h o d e v o t e t h e m s e l v e s t o research o n t h e S c r i p t u r e s d o w h e n t h e y
c o n f r o n t t h e biblical t e x t s .
" C a t h o l i c biblical research" is o b v i o u s l y research d o n e b y C a t h o l i c
scholars. U n t i l recently, m o s t biblical professionals w e r e also o r d a i n e d
priests w h o t a u g h t in s e m i n a r i e s o r o n o n e of t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l b i b l i -
cal faculties in R o m e (Pontifical Biblical I n s t i t u t e ) o r J e r u s a l e m (Lcole
B i b l i q u e , S t u d i u m B i b l i c u m F r a n c i s c a n u m ) . S i n c e V a t i c a n II, a n
i n c r e a s i n g n u m b e r of C a t h o l i c l a y m e n a n d l a y w o m e n (as well as
w o m e n religious) h a v e o b t a i n e d d o c t o r a l degrees in biblical s t u d i e s
a n d are n o w t e a c h i n g at C a t h o l i c ( a n d o t h e r ) u n i v e r s i t i e s a n d p u b -
l i s h i n g b o o k s a n d articles. These lay professors are n o t as i m m e d i -
ately u n d e r ecclesiastical a u t h o r i t y as priests are, b u t u p t o t h i s p o i n t
n o g r e a t conflict h a s arisen r e g a r d i n g this m a t t e r .
C a t h o l i c biblical s c h o l a r s b r i n g t o t h e text of S c r i p t u r e t h e set of
c o n c e r n s a n d p r o c e d u r e s t h a t h a s b e e n d e v e l o p e d over t h e c e n t u r i e s
a m o n g s e r i o u s s t u d e n t s of t h e Bible. In m o d e r n t i m e s this set of
c o n c e r n s is often called t h e historical-critical m e t h o d . This a p p r o a c h
takes as its p r i m a r y t a s k t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e biblical text in its
o w n t i m e a n d o n its o w n t e r m s . It applies t h e p o w e r s of t h e m i n d to
t h e text in o r d e r t o u n d e r s t a n d it b e t t e r a n d t o a p p r e c i a t e it for itself.
T h e m a j o r c o n c e r n s o f C a t h o l i c biblical s c h o l a r s h i p can b e p r e s e n t e d
under ten headings.
A. Literary C r i t i c i s m
The Bible is basically an a n t h o l o g y of w r i t i n g s t h a t b e a r w i t n e s s

to G o d ' s dealings w i t h his p e o p l e . In t h e O l d Testament t h e r e are
narratives, law c o d e s , p r o p h e t i c oracles, p s a l m s , a n d w i s d o m b o o k s .
In t h e N e w ' T e s t a m e n t t h e r e are stories of Jesus (the four G o s p e l s )
a n d t h e early c h u r c h (Acts) as well as epistles b y Paul a n d o t h e r fig-
ures a n d an a p o c a l y p s e ( R e v e l a t i o n ) . W i t h i n these large literary types,
t h e r e are also s m a l l e r f o r m s s u c h as sayings, p a r a b l e s , a n d e x h o r t a -
tions. The Bible is m o s t obviously a collection of pieces of literature, a n d
so t h e obvious starting p o i n t for any biblical scholar is literary criticism.
L i t e r a r y criticism m e a n s a p p l y i n g t o S c r i p t u r e t h e q u e s t i o n s a n d
c o n c e r n s u s e d in t h e s t u d y of a n y l i t e r a t u r e . The a i m b e h i n d t h e
literary-critical a p p r o a c h t o t h e Bible is n o t t o r e d u c e it t o t h e level
of o t h e r b o o k s , b u t r a t h e r t o h e l p us a p p r e c i a t e t h e ways in w h i c h
t h e biblical writers c o m m u n i c a t e d t o t h e i r original a u d i e n c e s a n d
still c o m m u n i c a t e t o us today.
The first c o n c e r n o f literary criticism is t h e w o r d s a n d images of
t h e t e x t s — t h e raw m a t e r i a l s o u t of w h i c h a n y w r i t t e n c o m m u n i c a -
t i o n is c o n s t r u c t e d . W h a t d o e s this o r t h a t w o r d m e a n ? Is t h e w o r d
b e i n g u s e d literally or m e t a p h o r i c a l l y ? W h a t s y m b o l i s m is p r e s e n t in
t h e passage? T h e n in a n a r r a t i v e text w e w a n t t o k n o w h o w t h e w o r d s
are p u t t o g e t h e r to f o r m a s t o r y a n d h o w t h e c h a r a c t e r s in t h e s t o r y
are related t o o n e a n o t h e r . In a d i s c o u r s e or an epistle t h e literary
critic focuses o n t h e p r o g r e s s o f t h o u g h t — h o w t h e w o r d s a n d i m -
ages are p u t t o g e t h e r t o f o r m a n a r g u m e n t o r m o v e p e o p l e t o g o o d
a c t i o n . O b v i o u s l y t h e literary critic p r o c e e d s from i n d i v i d u a l w o r d s
a n d i m a g e s t o t h e c o h e r e n c e o f t h e w h o l e passage a n d t h e n b a c k to
t h e w o r d s a n d images in light o f t h e w h o l e . The c i r c u l a r i t y i n h e r e n t
in t h e s t u d y o f l i t e r a t u r e suggests t h a t a t e x t is always c a p a b l e o f
r e c e i v i n g b e t t e r a n d m o r e a d e q u a t e r e a d i n g s a t v a r i o u s levels o f
understanding.
L i t e r a r y critics are also c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e literary f o r m o f a
text. The larger f o r m s , or g e n r e s , in t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t are familiar:
G o s p e l s , Acts, Epistles, a n d A p o c a l y p s e . B u t w i t h i n these larger forms
t h e i n d i v i d u a l p a r t s use vehicles like p a r a b l e s o r p r o v e r b s or blessings
a n d curses. The n o w familiar s a y i n g t h a t " t h e m e d i u m is t h e m e s -
sage" m a k e s t h e p o i n t t h a t t h e c h o i c e o f a specific literary m o d e o f

c o m m u n i c a t i o n already b e g i n s t h e process o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n . T h e
c h o i c e of t h e literary form of t h e p e r s o n a l r e s u m e in t h e U n i t e d States
t o d a y c o m m u n i c a t e s t h a t t h e p e r s o n is s e e k i n g a j o b . If t h e j o b a p p l i -
cant were t o present the personnel manager with a p o e m or a video,
t h e o n l y h o p e for g e t t i n g t h e j o b w o u l d be t h e d i s p l a y o f i n g e n u i t y .
T h e r e f o r e , t h o s e w h o s t u d y S c r i p t u r e from t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f literary
criticism m u s t a t t e n d t o t h e literary f o r m s used in t h e text a n d h o w
the literary forms c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e expression of t h e message or c o n t e n t .
In o n e sense, literary criticism is t h e m o s t basic a p p r o a c h t o t h e
biblical t e x t a n d all t h e o t h e r m e t h o d s are really specialized o p e r a -
t i o n s w i t h i n this general m e t h o d . B u t literary criticism in t h e n a r r o w
sense c o n c e n t r a t e s o n t h e a e s t h e t i c a p p r e c i a t i o n of t h e biblical t e x t as
l i t e r a t u r e . C a t h o l i c biblical scholars generally have g o o d literary e d u -
c a t i o n s a n d are n a t u r a l l y a t t r a c t e d t o relating d e v e l o p m e n t s in liter-
ary criticism a n d literary t h e o r y t o S c r i p t u r e . The t o p i c of m a n y
r e c e n t d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n s a n d j o u r n a l articles b y C a t h o l i c s has
b e e n t h e literary o u t l i n e o r s t r u c t u r e of a p a r t i c u l a r passage o r b i b l i -
cal b o o k . The d y n a m i c s a n d rhetorical t e c h n i q u e s of narratives a n d
t h e a r g u m e n t s t r u c t u r e of t h e epistles have also b e e n i n v e s t i g a t e d b y
C a t h o l i c ( a n d o t h e r ) scholars. In p a r t s o f E u r o p e a n d to s o m e e x t e n t
in t h e U n i t e d States, C a t h o l i c scholars h a v e tried t o use s t r u c t u r a l i s t
analysis t o u n d e r s t a n d biblical t e x t s — t h a t is, t o g o b e n e a t h t h e s u r -
face s t r u c t u r e s o f t h e text a n d arrive at t h e d e e p s t r u c t u r e s of m i n d
a n d reality. O t h e r s use t h e a p p r o a c h o f d e c o n s t r u c t i o n , w h i c h l o o k s
o n t h e text as m a i n l y an o c c a s i o n for creative i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .
The literary-critical w o r k o f C a t h o l i c biblical scholars is p a r t o f
a larger m o v e m e n t in biblical s c h o l a r s h i p t h a t seeks a b e t t e r a p p r e -
c i a t i o n o f t h e Bible as story. T h i s m o v e m e n t has also g e n e r a t e d a
b r o a d e r t h e o l o g i c a l a p p r o a c h — t h e so-called n a r r a t i v e t h e o l o g y or
t h e o l o g y o f story.
T h e chief p r o b l e m c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e literary a p p r o a c h is its
t e n d e n c y t o r e d u c e e v e r y t h i n g t o textual aesthetics. Since t h e m e t h -
o d s for i n t e r p r e t i n g fiction or p o e t r y w o r k well o n various s e c t i o n s
o f S c r i p t u r e , s o m e c o n c l u d e t h a t e v e r y t h i n g in S c r i p t u r e is fiction or
p o e t r y a n d t h u s w i t h o u t historical significance. S u c h a c o n c l u s i o n
clearly goes b e y o n d t h e b o u n d a r i e s of t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o n D i v i n e
R e v e l a t i o n a n d o f C a t h o l i c t h e o l o g y in g e n e r a l . B u t it also raises an
i n t e r e s t i n g q u e s t i o n : If o n e a d m i t s t h e O l d ' I e s t a m e n t b o o k s of J o n a h ,
T o b i t , Esther, a n d J u d i t h are literary fictions ( a n d m o s t C a t h o l i c
biblical scholars t a k e this a p p r o a c h — a c o r r e c t a p p r o a c h , in m y o p i n -
i o n ) , w h e r e does o n e d r a w t h e line b e t w e e n literary fiction a n d b i b -
lical history? This is a s e r i o u s p r o b l e m , b u t it s h o u l d n o t o b s c u r e or

d e t r a c t f r o m t h e very positive results t h a t e m e r g e from b r i n g i n g t o
t h e text of S c r i p t u r e t h e c o n c e r n s a n d m e t h o d s o f literary criticism
a n d a p p r e c i a t i n g t h e Bible as l i t e r a t u r e .
B. Textual Criticism
S i n c e w o r d s are t h e materials o u t of w h i c h literary texts are c o n -

s t r u c t e d , it is essential t o be as sure as possible a b o u t t h e a c c u r a c y o f
t h e w o r d s in t h e texts. The biblical texts have b e e n h a n d e d o n t h r o u g h
t h e c e n t u r i e s a n d t h u s have b e e n s u b j e c t t o d i s t o r t i o n a n d h u m a n
error. T h e goal o f t e x t u a l criticism is t o g e t b a c k as close as possible
t o w h a t t h e biblical writers set d o w n in t h e i r original m a n u s c r i p t s .
R e a c h i n g t h a t goal is n o t easy. Textual critics m u s t w o r k w i t h t h e
H e b r e w , A r a m a i c , a n d G r e e k m a n u s c r i p t s of t h e Bible. They m u s t
also m a k e use o f t h e earliest t r a n s l a t i o n s i n t o A r a m a i c , G r e e k , L a t i n ,
Syriac, E t h i o p i c , A r m e n i a n , etc. P r i o r t o t h e d i s c o v e r y o f biblical
m a n u s c r i p t s a m o n g t h e D e a d Sea Scrolls at Q u m r a n , t h e earliest
available H e b r e w m a n u s c r i p t s o f t h e O l d Testament were from t h e
t e n t h a n d e l e v e n t h c e n t u r i e s A . D . 'The m o s t i m p o r t a n t m a n u s c r i p t s
of t h e N e w Testament c a m e from t h e f o u r t h a n d fifth c e n t u r i e s A . D . ,
t h o u g h t h e r e are s o m e f r a g m e n t a r y m a n u s c r i p t s ( t h e so-called p a -
pyri) from t h e s e c o n d a n d t h i r d c e n t u r i e s . So textual critics m u s t
learn m a n y a n c i e n t l a n g u a g e s a n d p r e p a r e t h e m s e l v e s to w o r k w i t h
m a n u s c r i p t s far r e m o v e d in t i m e from t h e o r i g i n a l s .
H a v i n g a s s e m b l e d t h e m a n u s c r i p t e v i d e n c e , textual critics c o m -
p a r e t h e texts to u n c o v e r textual v a r i a n t s . These variants are t h e n
w e i g h e d in o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e o n rational g r o u n d s w h a t was t h e
r e a d i n g of t h e original text a n d w h a t c r e p t i n t o t h e t r a d i t i o n as t h e
result o f c o n s c i o u s o r u n c o n s c i o u s a l t e r a t i o n . In m a k i n g s u c h d e c i -
s i o n s , textual critics m u s t take i n t o a c c o u n t t h e q u a n t i t y a n d qualify
of t h e m a n u s c r i p t e v i d e n c e (external evidence) as well as t h e c o n t e x t ,
l a n g u a g e , a n d style o f t h e d o c u m e n t ( i n t e r n a l e v i d e n c e ) . 'The task o f
t h e textual critic of t h e Bible is l i g h t e n e d s o m e w h a t b y t h e general
reliability o f t h e process o f t r a n s m i s s i o n a n d t h e a b u n d a n c e o f m a n u -
script evidence.
A large a m o u n t of t h a t m a n u s c r i p t e v i d e n c e is p r e s e r v e d at t h e
Vatican L i b r a r y in R o m e a n d in o t h e r libraries a n d m o n a s t e r i e s o f
t h e C a t h o l i c C h u r c h . These m a n u s c r i p t s are accessible t o all scholars
e i t h e r for d i r e c t i n s p e c t i o n or by p h o t o g r a p h i c r e p r o d u c t i o n s . I n -
d e e d t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e s of t h e C a t h o l i c C h u r c h t h r o u g h o u t
t h e ages have m a d e possible t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n o f t h e N e w ' T e s t a m e n t
text from g e n e r a t i o n t o g e n e r a t i o n , a n d o u r k n o w l e d g e of t h e O l d
T e s t a m e n t t r a d i t i o n w o u l d be far p o o r e r w i t h o u t t h e s e i n s t i t u t i o n s .
M o d e r n C a t h o l i c biblical scholars are well p r e p a r e d for textual
criticism t h r o u g h a g o o d g r o u n d i n g in a n c i e n t l a n g u a g e s . N e v e r t h e -
less, few are p r o m i n e n t in this d i s c i p l i n e . A n i m p o r t a n t e x c e p t i o n
was C a r l o M . M a r t i n i , a n Italian J e s u i t w h o was a m e m b e r of an
international a n d interconfessional panel charged with preparing a
n e w s t a n d a r d e d i t i o n o f t h e G r e e k N e w Testament. B u t he is n o w t h e
C a r d i n a l A r c h b i s h o p o f M i l a n , a n d his p a s t o r a l d u t i e s leave h i m n o
t i m e for textual c r i t i c i s m . In a similar p r o j e c t for p r e p a r i n g a n e w
e d i t i o n o f t h e H e b r e w O l d Testament, t h e D o m i n i c a n s c h o l a r D o -
m i n i q u e B a r t h é l é m y is a m a j o r figure. Several A m e r i c a n Jesuits have
w o r k e d w i t h F r a n k M . C r o s s o f H a r v a r d in his r é é v a l u a t i o n o f O l d
T e s t a m e n t textual criticism in l i g h t o f t h e Q u m r a n discoveries.
The q u e s t i o n r e m a i n s : W h y are so few C a t h o l i c scholars p r o m i -
n e n t in this discipline? The reason is clearly n o t lack o f e d u c a t i o n ,
especially in t h e l a n g u a g e s . O n e c a n o n l y s p e c u l a t e o n this m a t t e r ,
b u t p e r h a p s o n e factor is a lack of t h e P r o t e s t a n t passion for d i s c o v -
e r i n g t h e exact w o r d i n g of t h e original m a n u s c r i p t as it c a m e from
t h e h a n d o f t h e biblical writer. M a n y evangelicals l i m i t biblical in-
s p i r a t i o n t o t h e so-called a u t o g r a p h s ( t h e m a n u s c r i p t s w r i t t e n by t h e
biblical w r i t e r ) , a n d so t h e r e is a p o w e r f u l religious m o t i v e t o g e t
b a c k t o t h e original texts. The C a t h o l i c d o c t r i n e of i n s p i r a t i o n is n o t
so n a r r o w a n d places m o r e t r u s t in t h e process o f t r a n s m i s s i o n . 'Thus
t h e d i v e r g e n t u n d e r s t a n d i n g s o f biblical i n s p i r a t i o n m a y well b e a
factor, h e r e , t h o u g h t h e r e are surely o t h e r factors: t h e p a s t o r a l d e -
m a n d s m a d e o n C a t h o l i c clerics, t h e so-called " t w e n t i e t h - c e n t u r y
i n t e r l u d e " in N e w ' T e s t a m e n t textual criticism, a n d t h e intrinsically
difficult a n d often t e d i o u s n a t u r e o f t h e research.
C . T h e W o r l d o f t h e Bible
'The h e a v y e m p h a s i s o n biblical l a n g u a g e s in t h e t r a i n i n g o f
C a t h o l i c scholars finds expression m o s t d r a m a t i c a l l y in research o n
t h e w o r l d o f t h e Bible, especially o n t h e texts discovered in t h e M i d d l e
East d u r i n g t h e p a s t t w o h u n d r e d years. These texts h a v e a l l o w e d us
t o l e a p b a c k over t h e c e n t u r i e s a n d t o see w h a t t e r m s , ideas, a n d
c u s t o m s were in t h e b a c k g r o u n d of t h e biblical w r i t i n g s .
For t h e O l d Testament, t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t extrabiblical texts
are in S e m i t i c l a n g u a g e s s u c h as A k k a d i a n , A r a m a i c , a n d U g a r i t i c , as
well as S u m e r i a n a n d E g y p t i a n . These texts h a v e i l l u m i n e d o u r u n -
d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e c r e a t i o n stories in G e n e s i s , t h e historical s e t t i n g
of t h e biblical narratives from earliest t i m e s t o t h e postexilic p e r i o d ,

a n d t h e l a n g u a g e a n d literary f o r m o f t h e P s a l m s . For t h e N e w Testa-
m e n t , t h e m o s t significant a n c i e n t texts are in H e b r e w , A r a m a i c ,
G r e e k , L a t i n , a n d C o p t i c ( N a g H a m m a d i d o c u m e n t s ) . These texts
have s h e d light o n t h e eschatological c o n s c i o u s n e s s o f t h e early C h r i s -
tians a n d t h e e m e r g e n c e o f t h e early c h u r c h , t h e c u l t u r a l milieu(s) in
w h i c h C h r i s t i a n i t y d e v e l o p e d , a n d s o m e of t h e p r o b l e m s a n d t h r e a t s
t h a t it faced.
M a n y o f these discoveries are so r e c e n t t h a t t h e y have still n o t
b e e n a s s i m i l a t e d i n t o biblical c o m m e n t a r i e s . W h e n t h e y are, it is
crucial for t h e exegete t o m a k e clear w h a t e l e m e n t s t h e biblical a n d
extrabiblical texts share a n d w h e r e t h e y differ. It is also i m p o r t a n t t o
specify t h e historical r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n t h e t w o texts. O b v i o u s l y
t h e best parallels are t h o s e b e t w e e n texts from r o u g h l y t h e s a m e t i m e
a n d p l a c e , for t h e n we have a b e t t e r c h a n c e of k n o w i n g w h a t was "in
t h e air."
The Biblical I n s t i t u t e Press o f t h e Pontifical Biblical I n s t i t u t e in
R o m e has p l a y e d a l e a d i n g role in t h e e d i t i n g a n d p u b l i s h i n g of tex-
t u a l m a t e r i a l f r o m t h e a n c i e n t N e a r East. M a n y d i s s e r t a t i o n s b y
C a t h o l i c scholars in R o m e a n d elsewhere h a v e b e e n e x p l o r a t i o n s of
biblical texts in light o f extrabiblical m a t e r i a l . The professors at t h e
D o m i n i c a n Ecole B i b l i q u e in J e r u s a l e m have b e e n active p a r t i c i p a n t s
in p u b l i s h i n g t h e Q u m r a n scrolls a n d in t h e archaeological excava-
t i o n s at Q u m r a n a n d e l s e w h e r e . The faculty a n d s t u d e n t s o f t h e
S t u d i u m B i b l i c u m F r a n c i s c a n u m have m a d e m a n y c o n t r i b u t i o n s in
t h e a r c h a e o l o g y o f early C h r i s t i a n i t y a n d in e x p l o r i n g t h e p h e n o m -
e n o n of J e w i s h C h r i s t i a n i t y . C a t h o l i c scholars have b e e n p r o m i n e n t
in e d i t i n g t h e texts from U g a r i t , Q u m r a n , a n d N a g H a m m a d i . 'The
fact t h a t m a n y o l d e r C a t h o l i c scholars w e r e well versed in t h e G r e e k
a n d L a t i n classics has m e a n t t h a t t h e G r e c o - R o m a n s e t t i n g of early
C h r i s t i a n i t y has r e m a i n e d a lively field o f research.
The great interest of C a t h o l i c scholars in t h e w o r l d o f t h e Bible
a n d in texts from a n t i q u i t y in p a r t i c u l a r m a y s t e m in p a r t f r o m t h e
p e r e n n i a l C a t h o l i c fascination w i t h t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n religion a n d
c u l t u r e . C a t h o l i c t h e o l o g y e m p h a s i z e s t h e idea t h a t G o d expresses
h i m s e l f in t h e m i d s t o f c r e a t e d realities a n d h u m a n c u l t u r e . If this is
so in t h e p r e s e n t , it m u s t also h a v e b e e n so in a n t i q u i t y w h e n t h e
b o o k s of t h e Bible w e r e b e i n g c o m p o s e d . Therefore, t h e m o r e t h a t
s c h o l a r s h i p can reveal a b o u t t h e realities a n d c u l t u r e o f t h e biblical
world, the richer a n d deeper will o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e Bible be. M y
h u n c h is t h a t this theological emphasis underlies m u c h of the scientific
research d o n e by C a t h o l i c scholars o n the w o r l d of the Bible.
D . Word Study
The serious t r a i n i n g in biblical l a n g u a g e s t h a t is d e m a n d e d of

C a t h o l i c scholars also s h o w s itself in their research o n t h e w o r d s a n d
ideas in S c r i p t u r e . The a r c h a e o l o g i c a l discoveries of r e c e n t years have
b r o u g h t forth m a n y a n c i e n t texts, a n d t h o s e texts have greatly illu-
m i n e d o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e languages of t h e Bible ( H e b r e w ,
A r a m a i c , a n d G r e e k ) . In O l d T e s t a m e n t research, t h e U g a r i t i c texts
from R a s - S h a m r a have r e v o l u t i o n i z e d t h e s t u d y of H e b r e w p o e t r y ,
a n d t h e legal a n d m y t h i c texts in A k k a d i a n h a v e m a d e m o r e intelli-
gible v a r i o u s c u s t o m s a n d t e r m s in t h e P e n t a t e u c h . N e w T e s t a m e n t
scholars have l e a r n e d m u c h a b o u t t h e k i n d of G r e e k u s e d in Jesus'
t i m e from the E g y p t i a n papyri a n d a b o u t t h e t e r m i n o l o g y a n d t h o u g h t
of J e w i s h a p o c a l y p t i c i s m from t h e D e a d Sea Scrolls.
The m o s t c o m m o n k i n d of w o r d s t u d y in t h e biblical field u s u -
ally b e g i n s w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t o r p r o b l e m a t i c passage. In
o r d e r t o g e t a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f a difficult w o r d o r idea in t h e
target passage, t h e s c h o l a r m a k e s a s u r v e y o f t h e i n s t a n c e s of t h e t e r m
in o t h e r d o c u m e n t s . If a N e w Testament w o r d is u n d e r c o n s i d e r -
a t i o n , t h e n o n e looks at t h e G r e e k w r i t i n g s o f t h e classical a u t h o r s ,
t h e G r e e k t r a n s l a t i o n o f t h e O l d 'Testament ( S e p t u a g i n t ) , a n d t h e
J e w i s h a u t h o r s P h i l o a n d J o s e p h u s . N a t u r a l l y o n e also searches o u t
t h e H e b r e w O l d Testament, t h e D e a d Sea Scrolls, a n d o t h e r relevant
d o c u m e n t s . In each o c c u r r e n c e of t h e w o r d , t h e focus of research is
w h a t it m e a n s in its c o n t e x t in t h e h o p e o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g b e t t e r t h e
target passage.
In a d d i t i o n t o t h e extrabiblical e v i d e n c e , w o r d s t u d y m u s t also
t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t parallels w i t h i n t h e Bible itself. In this s t e p an
i m p o r t a n t c h a n g e has t a k e n place in C a t h o l i c biblical s c h o l a r s h i p in
r e c e n t years. I n t h e p a s t t h e r e w a s a t e n d e n c y t o j o i n t o g e t h e r all t h e
biblical instances of a t e r m or idea as if t h e Bible w e r e m a d e o u t o f
w h o l e c l o t h . The t h e o l o g i c a l a s s u m p t i o n was t h a t t h e Bible is a u n i t y
a n d t h a t its l a n g u a g e is a special t y p e of H e b r e w or G r e e k ( " H o l y
G h o s t G r e e k " ) . N o w t h e m a j o r c o n c e r n a m o n g C a t h o l i c scholars is
to let t h e d i s t i n c t accents w i t h i n t h e Bible be h e a r d . Their e m p h a s i s
is o n p l u r a l i t y of views w i t h i n S c r i p t u r e a n d o n t h e p a r t i c u l a r c o n t r i -
b u t i o n s of t h e i n d i v i d u a l w r i t e r s .
The p h r a s e "biblical t h e o l o g y " is p o p u l a r in C a t h o l i c circles, a n d
a very c o m m o n w a y o f d o i n g biblical t h e o l o g y is t o trace t h e h i s t o r y
of a w o r d or idea from earliest O l d Testament t i m e s , t h r o u g h
i n t e r t e s t a m e n t a l J e w i s h w r i t i n g s a n d classic w o r k s , to t h e N e w 'Testa-
m e n t . The a i m is to see b o t h c o n t i n u i t y a n d decisive shifts in m e a n -
DANTKI.J. HARRINGTON, S.J. 43
ing; t h e c o n c l u s i o n t o s u c h s t u d i e s usually involves a synthesis a n d

an a s s e s s m e n t of challenges for t h e C h u r c h today. This k i n d o f s t u d y
places detailed philological research o n individual biblical a n d extrabiblical
texts in the broader f r a m e w o r k of t h e history of biblical ideas.
Part of t h e p o p u l a r i t y of this a p p r o a c h t o biblical t h e o l o g y a m o n g
C a t h o l i c scholars is d u e t o t h e C a t h o l i c c o n c e r n a n d f o n d n e s s for
t r a d i t i o n . T h i s a p p r o a c h is really a c h a r t i n g o u t of t h e t r a d i t i o n o f a
biblical w o r d o r idea. For a c h u r c h t h a t is i m m e r s i n g itself m o r e a n d
m o r e in l a n g u a g e a n d ideas o f S c r i p t u r e , a n d t h a t is so eager t o h a n d
o n t h e t r a d i t i o n o f faith, t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n o n key c o n c e p t s a n d their
d e v e l o p m e n t in biblical t i m e s a n d a g a i n s t t h e b a c k g r o u n d of t h e
biblical w o r l d is a s o u n d a p p r o a c h a n d is s u r e t o p a y rich r e w a r d s .
E. Source C r i t i c i s m
T h e task o f d e t e c t i n g w h e r e a s o u r c e was u s e d in a biblical b o o k

is called "source c r i t i c i s m . " S o m e t i m e s w e are t o l d explicitly b y t h e
biblical a u t h o r t h a t h e was u s i n g a s o u r c e , a n d so t h e p r o c e d u r e is
q u i t e s i m p l e . T h e m o r e difficult i n s t a n c e s are t h o s e in w h i c h t h e use
of a s o u r c e is s u s p e c t e d b u t n e e d s t o be p r o v e d b y rational analysis.
T h e i n t e r n a l criteria for d e t e r m i n i n g t h e p r e s e n c e o f a s o u r c e in t h e
Bible (or in a n y o t h e r text) i n c l u d e t h e following: v o c a b u l a r y in a
passage different from e v e r y t h i n g else in t h e b o o k , a shift in t o n e or
literary style, an u n e x p e c t e d i n t e r r u p t i o n in t h e c o n t e x t a n d an a w k -
w a r d r e s u m p t i o n of it later, t h e p r e s e n c e of t h e s a m e s t o r y twice in
slightly different f o r m s , a n d theological or ideological c o n t r a d i c t i o n s
within the same book.
T h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t areas of s o u r c e criticism in biblical research
c o n c e r n t h e P e n t a t e u c h a n d t h e s y n o p t i c G o s p e l s . T h e classic four-
d o c u m e n t h y p o t h e s i s used in e x p l a i n i n g t h e o r i g i n o f t h e first five
b o o k s of t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t claims t h a t P e n t a t e u c h is t h e fusion of
f o u r s o u r c e s : Yahwist (J), Elohist (E), Priestly (P), a n d D e u t e r o n o m i s t
( D ) . T h e t i m e s p a n from t h e earliest d o c u m e n t (J) t o t h e latest (P) is
a b o u t four h u n d r e d years ( 9 5 0 B . C . t o 5 5 0 B . C . ) . The classic t w o -
source hypothesis of the synoptic Gospels maintains t h a t M a r k was
t h e earliest G o s p e l (ca. A . D . 7 0 ) a n d t h a t M a t t h e w a n d L u k e (ca.
A . D . 8 0 - 9 0 ) u s e d b o t h M a r k a n d a c o l l e c t i o n o f Jesus' sayings k n o w n
a m o n g m o d e r n scholars as Q (ca. A . D . 5 0 ) .
T h e s e h y p o t h e s e s were p o p u l a r i z e d in liberal P r o t e s t a n t circles
in n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y G e r m a n y . T h e initial C a t h o l i c r e s p o n s e s were
generally s u s p i c i o u s a n d n e g a t i v e . B u t as t h e a r g u m e n t s a n d their
p r o p o n e n t s w e r e g r a d u a l l y s e p a r a t e d , t h e r e was i n c r e a s i n g a c c e p -
t a n c c — t o t h e p o i n t t h a t b o t h of these h y p o t h e s e s are n o w p a r t of
"scholarly o r t h o d o x y " a m o n g C a t h o l i c biblical scholars. In t h e b r o a d e r
c o n t e x t of biblical s c h o l a r s h i p , b o t h s o u r c e - h y p o t h e s e s are u n d e r at-
tack, a n d C a t h o l i c s c a n b e f o u n d o n t h e v a r i o u s sides of t h e d e b a t e .
B u t t h e r e is s o m e i r o n y in t h e fact t h a t t h e m o d e r n s t r o n g h o l d of t h e
classic t w o - s o u r c e h y p o t h e s i s o f t h e s y n o p t i c G o s p e l s is t h e C a t h o l i c
U n i v e r s i t y of L o u v a i n in B e l g i u m .
F. R e d a c t i o n C r i t i c i s m
W h e r e it has b e e n possible t o isolate sources o n external or inter-

nal g r o u n d s , t h e w a y is cleared for r e d a c t i o n c r i t i c i s m — t h e exegeti-
cal m e t h o d t h a t focuses o n t h e p a r t i c u l a r e m p h a s e s o r views t h a t t h e
biblical w r i t e r s have i m p o s e d o n t h e i r sources. Besides t h e literary
task o f d e t e r m i n i n g t h e final w r i t e r o r redactor's d i s t i n c t i v e c o n t r i -
b u t i o n s , r e d a c t i o n criticism also involves a historical task since t h e
redactor's e m p h a s e s a n d views c a n s h e d light o n his s i t u a t i o n w i t h i n
t h e early c h u r c h a n d o n t h e p r o b l e m s t h a t t h e r e d a c t o r a n d his c o m -
m u n i t y w e r e facing.
It is possible t o a p p l y t h e t e c h n i q u e s of r e d a c t i o n criticism t o
a n y p a r t o f S c r i p t u r e , b u t t h e m o s t fertile g r o u n d for r e d a c t i o n criti-
cism has b e e n t h e s y n o p t i c G o s p e l s . The p i o n e e r s of t h e r e d a c t i o n -
critical a p p r o a c h t o G o s p e l s t u d y ( G u n t h e r B o r n k a m m , H a n s
C o n / x l m a n n , W i l l i M a r x s e n ) w e r e G e r m a n P r o t e s t a n t scholars b u t
their w o r k in t h e late 1940s a n d 1 9 5 0 s was t a k e n u p w i t h great e n -
t h u s i a s m b y C a t h o l i c scholars in t h e 1960s a n d 1 9 7 0 s . In o n e sense,
t h e a p p r o a c h has b e e n "played o u t , " since practically every G o s p e l
text has b e e n t h e object o f close r e d a c t i o n - c r i t i c a l analysis. O n t h e
o t h e r h a n d , t h e c o n c e r n w i t h t h e final r e d a c t i o n of biblical b o o k s
has b e c o m e so integral a p a r t of t h e exegetical task t h a t n o c o m m e n -
t a t o r can d i s r e g a r d it.
As I have a l r e a d y o b s e r v e d , r e d a c t i o n criticism is p o p u l a r a m o n g
C a t h o l i c biblical scholars. This is so in p a r t b e c a u s e C a t h o l i c s c h o l -
ars are p a r t o f t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l a n d i n t e r c o n f e s s i o n a l d i a l o g u e of
biblical research today. B u t r e d a c t i o n c r i t i c i s m also has h a d a special
attractiveness for C a t h o l i c s . T h e approach's u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e b i b -
lical w r i t e r s as t r a n s m i t t e r s a n d i n t e r p r e t e r s o f t r a d i t i o n strikes a re-
s p o n s i v e c h o r d a m o n g t r a d i t i o n - c o n s c i o u s C a t h o l i c s . Its interest in
early c h u r c h life a n d its view of t h e biblical a u t h o r s as w r i t i n g in a n d
for p a r t i c u l a r c o m m u n i t i e s of faith parallel t h e p e r e n n i a l C a t h o l i c
concerns with the C h u r c h .
G. Form C r i t i c i s m
U n d e r t h e h e a d i n g o f literary criticism, t h e r e was s o m e d i s c u s -

s i o n a b o u t t h e literary f o r m s in w h i c h t h e biblical w r i t e r s expressed
t h e m s e l v e s a n d t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e c h o i c e o f a p a r t i c u l a r literary
form a l r e a d y c o m m u n i c a t e s s o m e o f t h e writer's message. T h u s f o r m
criticism is really an a s p e c t o f t h e general literary-critical task, a n d
t h e first c o n c e r n o f t h e f o r m critic is t o d e t e r m i n e t h e literary f o r m
of t h e b o o k ( n a r r a t i v e , letter, etc.) or of t h e passages w i t h i n a b o o k
( p r o v e r b , p a r a b l e , t h a n k s g i v i n g , etc.). B u t t h e r e is also a historical
task in f o r m criticism just as t h e r e is in r e d a c t i o n c r i t i c i s m . T h e as-
s u m p t i o n is t h a t t h e p a r t i c u l a r literary f o r m can tell us s o m e t h i n g
a b o u t t h e c o m m u n i t y in w h i c h t h e t r a d i t i o n was u s e d a n d a b o u t t h e
p r o b l e m s t h a t t h e c o m m u n i t y faced.
C a t h o l i c r e a c t i o n s t o f o r m criticism h a v e b e e n a m b i v a l e n t . N o
o n e q u a r r e l s a b o u t t h e a t t e n t i o n p a i d t o literary f o r m s . I n d e e d t h e
d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e literary f o r m s has b e e n s t r o n g l y e n c o u r a g e d
since Divino Afflante Spiritu ( 1 9 4 3 ) a n d e n d o r s e d e n t h u s i a s t i c a l l y
in Vatican U s C o n s t i t u t i o n o n D i v i n e R e v e l a t i o n ( 1 9 6 5 ) . T h e a m -
bivalence involves t h e historical d i m e n s i o n . C a t h o l i c s are generally
positive t o w a r d t h e effort to get b e h i n d t h e texts i n t o t h e life o f t h e
c o m m u n i t y . In fact, t h e historical p r o g r a m o f f o r m criticism has s o m e -
t i m e s even b e e n u s e d apologetically to c o n f i r m t h e C a t h o l i c a p p r o a c h
t o t h e Bible as t h e C h u r c h ' s b o o k .
T h e C a t h o l i c p r o b l e m w i t h f o r m criticism arises from t h e feel-
i n g t h a t it is a p o o r historical t o o l . The a t t e m p t to c o n s t r u c t t h e
h i s t o r y o f t h e early c h u r c h o n f o r m - c r i t i c a l g r o u n d s has never b e e n
very successful. W h e r e it has b e e n tried, t h e r e has u s u a l l y b e e n a
r a t h e r u n d i s c i p l i n e d m i x i n g of f o r m a n d c o n t e n t t o arrive at t e n d e n -
t i o u s ( M a r t i n Dibelius's p h r a s e "in t h e b e g i n n i n g was t h e s e r m o n " )
or skeptical c o n c l u s i o n s a b o u t t h e relation o f t h e t r a d i t i o n t o Jesus
of N a z a r e t h ( R u d o l f B u l t m a n n ' s h i s t o r y o f t h e S y n o p t i c t r a d i t i o n ) .
T h e t e n d e n c y of the form-critical p i o n e e r s to o v e r e m p h a s i z e t h e
creativity of t h e c o m m u n i t y at t h e expense of historical f o u n d a -
tions w e n t b e y o n d the b o u n d a r i e s of C a t h o l i c theology a n d was
sharply criticized.
H . Historical C r i t i c i s m
The task of r e l a t i n g t h e texts of S c r i p t u r e a n d t h e events b e h i n d

t h e m is c a l l e d h i s t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m . T h e t e r m " h i s t o r i c a l - c r i t i c a l
m e t h o d " is generally t a k e n t o refer t o t h e w h o l e p r o j e c t o f i n t e r p r e t -
i n g t h e biblical text in its historical s e t t i n g a n d o n its o w n t e r m s . B u t

"historical criticism" is also u s e d in a m o r e n a r r o w sense t o describe
t h e a t t e m p t to d e t e r m i n e w h a t really h a p p e n e d , for e x a m p l e , at Israel's
escape from E g y p t o r o n Easter S u n d a y m o r n i n g . It was t h e h o p e of
"scientific" h i s t o r i a n s in t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y t o peel a w a y t h e e n -
c r u s t a t i o n s o f t r a d i t i o n a n d arrive at t h e s o l i d c o r e o f g e n u i n e h i s -
tory. In liberal P r o t e s t a n t circles in G e r m a n y t h e r e s e e m s t o have
b e e n an a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e g o o d n e s s o f Jesus h a d b e e n o b s c u r e d
a n d d i s t o r t e d b y C h u r c h t r a d i t i o n ( i n c l u d i n g t h e c h u r c h of N e w
Testament t i m e s ) .
In his 1 8 9 8 essay o n historical a n d d o g m a t i c m e t h o d in t h e o l -
ogy, t h e G e r m a n P r o t e s t a n t t h e o l o g i a n E r n s t Troeltsch e n u n c i a t e d
t h e t h r e e p r i n c i p l e s of historical criticism. The first w a s t h e p r i n c i p l e
o f criticism o r methodological doubt. H i s t o r y o n l y achieves p r o b -
ability, a n d t h e religious t r a d i t i o n m u s t be s u b j e c t e d t o historical
criticism. This first p r i n c i p l e presents few p r o b l e m s for C a t h o l i c t h e o -
logians; b u t t h e s e c o n d p r i n c i p l e d o e s . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e p r i n c i p l e o f
anabgy, p r e s e n t experiences a n d o c c u r r e n c e s are t h e criteria o f p r o b -
ability in t h e past. That s o u n d s a c c e p t a b l e u n t i l o n e reflects t h a t since
d e a d p e o p l e d o n o t rise at p r e s e n t , a n o t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n t h a n w h a t is
in t h e G o s p e l s m u s t b e f o u n d for t h e events after Jesus' d e a t h . 'The
p r i n c i p l e of correlation also causes p r o b l e m s for C a t h o l i c t h e o l o g y :
All historical p h e n o m e n a are so i n t e r r e l a t e d t h a t a c h a n g e in o n e
p h e n o m e n o n necessitates a c h a n g e in t h e causes l e a d i n g t o it a n d in
t h e effects it h a s . S u c h a view o f cause a n d effect again s o u n d s ini-
tially a c c e p t a b l e , b u t a rigid view o f it rules o u t miracles a n d salva-
t i o n h i s t o r y (since t h e o l o g i c a l o r t r a n s c e n d e n t a l causes are n o t to be
i n v o l v e d in historical c r i t i c i s m ) .
'The p r o b l e m s p o s e d by t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f a n a l o g y a n d correla-
t i o n are chiefly p h i l o s o p h i c a l , for t h e y p r e s u p p o s e a very different
k i n d of u n i v e r s e from t h e o n e a s s u m e d in t h e Bible a n d t h e C h r i s -
t i a n t r a d i t i o n . 'This is n o t t o say t h a t t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l a n d t h e o l o g i -
cal issues raised by t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s are i n s i g n i f i c a n t or can be w a v e d
aside b y a p p e a l t o S c r i p t u r e . B u t it is i m p o r t a n t t o r e c o g n i z e t h a t
these p r i n c i p l e s rest o n d e b a t a b l e p h i l o s o p h i c a l p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s a n d
t h e n are elevated t o t h e status o f criteria for j u d g i n g w h a t really h a p -
p e n e d in biblical t i m e s . It is i m p o r t a n t also t o recognize t h a t C a t h o -
lic t h e o l o g i a n s s h o u l d have n o q u a r r e l w i t h historical criticism p r o -
v i d e d t h a t it d o e s n o t involve t h e n a r r o w u n d e r s t a n d i n g a s s u m e d in
Troeltsch's t h r e e p r i n c i p l e s .
T h u s t h e C a t h o l i c p r o b l e m w i t h historical criticism is t w o f o l d :
(1) H i s t o r i c a l criticism has f r e q u e n t l y t a k e n a negative view of t r a d i -
t i o n a n d C h u r c h ; (2) historical criticism has f r e q u e n t l y b e e n b a s e d

o n u n a c c e p t a b l e p h i l o s o p h i c a l a s s u m p t i o n s . These p r o b l e m s , h o w -
ever, d o n o t absolve C a t h o l i c exegetes from t r y i n g t o d e t e r m i n e w h a t
really h a p p e n e d w h e r e this m i g h t be possible. The t h e o l o g i c a l aber-
r a t i o n s of s o m e historical critics d o n o t d e s t r o y t h e validity of t h e
e n t i r e historical-critical e n t e r p r i s e .
I. Translations
O n e very c o n c r e t e w a y in w h i c h t h e exegetical labors o f C a t h o -

lic biblical scholars reach t h e w i d e r c h u r c h m e m b e r s h i p is t h r o u g h
t r a n s l a t i o n s o f t h e Bible. S i n c e Vatican II, it is a s s u m e d t h a t C a t h o l i c
t r a n s l a t i o n s will be b a s e d o n t h e original l a n g u a g e s ( H e b r e w , Ara-
m a i c , G r e e k ) r a t h e r t h a n o n t h e Latin V u l g a t e . The t w o m a j o r E n -
glish t r a n s l a t i o n s p r e p a r e d u n d e r C a t h o l i c a u s p i c e s are t h e J e r u s a l e m
Bible a n d t h e N e w A m e r i c a n Bible. They are w i d e l y u s e d in l i t u r g i -
cal activity a n d in p r i v a t e r e a d i n g by E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g C a t h o l i c s .
The English J e r u s a l e m Bible was first p u b l i s h e d in 1 9 6 6 . In m a n y
respects (especially in t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n s a n d notes) it is d e p e n d e n t
o n t h e F r e n c h Bible de Jerusalem ( 1 9 5 6 ) . 'The British t e a m of t r a n s -
lators w o r k e d w i t h t h e original l a n g u a g e s b u t generally followed t h e
F r e n c h t r a n s l a t o r s w h e n q u e s t i o n s a b o u t v a r i a n t r e a d i n g s or i n t e r -
p r e t a t i o n arose. The N e w A m e r i c a n Bible ( 1 9 7 0 ) is basically t h e w o r k
of m e m b e r s o f t h e C a t h o l i c Biblical A s s o c i a t i o n of A m e r i c a , t h o u g h
n o t all t h e c o l l a b o r a t o r s w e r e C a t h o l i c s . The fact t h a t these t w o E n -
glish t r a n s l a t i o n s a p p e a r e d s h o r t l y after Vatican II s h o u l d n o t d i s -
guise t h e fact t h a t t h e y w e r e already in p r e p a r a t i o n for m a n y years
a n d c o n s t i t u t e an e l o q u e n t w i t n e s s t o C a t h o l i c biblical s c h o l a r s h i p
b e t w e e n Divino Afflante Spiritu ( 1 9 4 3 ) a n d Vatican II. B o t h ver-
sions were t h o r o u g h l y revised in t h e 1 9 8 0 s — t h e e n t i r e J e r u s a l e m
Bible a n d t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t a n d Psalms o f t h e N e w A m e r i c a n
B i b l e — t o r e f l e c t d e v e l o p m e n t s in s c h o l a r s h i p , c h a n g e s in t h e
English language (especially g e n d e r inclusiveness), a n d the c o n -
t i n u i n g s e a r c h for a c c u r a c y .
There are t w o p h i l o s o p h i e s o f t r a n s l a t i o n o p e r a t i v e in biblical
circles these days. A formal e q u i v a l e n c e t r a n s l a t i o n (like t h e Revised
S t a n d a r d Version) a i m s t o b e intelligible t o p e o p l e t o d a y w h i l e m i r -
r o r i n g t h e v o c a b u l a r y , imagery, a n d s y n t a x of t h e original text. A
d y n a m i c e q u i v a l e n c e t r a n s l a t i o n (like t h e G o o d N e w s Bible) is c o n -
c e r n e d w i t h t h e total process of c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d seeks t o p r o -
d u c e t h e s a m e effect in p e o p l e t o d a y as t h e biblical a u t h o r s d i d a m o n g
their c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . T a k i n g t h e s e t w o p h i l o s o p h i e s as t h e far e n d s
of a s p e c t r u m , w c can say t h a t t h e N e w A m e r i c a n Bible t e n d s t o w a r d

f o r m a l e q u i v a l e n c e a n d t h e J e r u s a l e m Bible leans t o w a r d d y n a m i c
e q u i v a l e n c e . N e i t h e r t r a n s l a t i o n is a " p u r e " r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f a strict
p h i l o s o p h y ; b o t h m a n a g e t o e m b o d y a g o o d deal o f t e c h n i c a l b i b l i -
cal s c h o l a r s h i p in a m o d e s t fashion.
J. H e r m e n e u t i c s
The t e r m " h e r m e n e u t i c s " covers t h e e n t i r e process of biblical

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t has b e e n e x p l a i n e d so far in this p a r t of t h e essay.
B u t it is s o m e t i m e s also reserved for t h e s t e p t h a t takes place after t h e
exegesis has b e e n d o n e a n d t h e s t u d e n t o f S c r i p t u r e tries t o a r t i c u l a t e
w h a t t h e text m e a n s . The p r o d u c t m a y be a scholarly article, a h o m -
ily, or a p o p u l a r lecture. S i n c e n o o n e c o m e s t o t h e h e r m e n e u t i c a l
task w i t h o u t special interests o r intellectual history, at this p o i n t I
w o u l d like t o call a t t e n t i o n t o f o u r general characteristics o f C a t h o -
lic b i b l i c a l s c h o l a r s h i p t o d a y : its c o m m i t m e n t t o e c u m e n i s m , its
s e n s e o f t r a d i t i o n , its r e l a t i o n t o t h e C h u r c h , a n d its i n t e r n a t i o n a l
dimension.
Biblical s c h o l a r s h i p has b r o u g h t C a t h o l i c scholars i n t o c o n t a c t
w i t h p e o p l e of o t h e r religious c o m m i t m e n t s . M a n y A m e r i c a n C a t h o -
lic scholars h a v e b e e n t r a i n e d in l a n g u a g e s , history, archaeology, a n d
exegesis at J o h n s H o p k i n s , H a r v a r d , Yale, C h i c a g o , a n d o t h e r s u c h
i n s t i t u t i o n s . C a t h o l i c scholars play i m p o r t a n t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a n d e d i -
torial roles in t h e Society of Biblical L i t e r a t u r e in t h e U n i t e d States,
t h e Society of N e w Testament S t u d i e s , a n d t h e Society o f O l d Testa-
m e n t S t u d i e s . F o r m a n y years, C a t h o l i c s h a v e w o r k e d t o g e t h e r w i t h
t h e i r colleagues, t h u s c o n t r i b u t i n g t o w h a t has b e c o m e an i n t e r n a -
tional a n d i n t e r c o n f e s s i o n a l d i a l o g u e . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , C a t h o l i c s
have m a d e available t h e i r t e c h n i c a l biblical j o u r n a l s (Catholic Bibli-
cal Quarterly, Revue Biblique, Biblische Zeitschrift, Biblica, Estudios
Biblicos, Rivista Biblica) t o all c o m p e t e n t s c h o l a r s . For m a n y years
also, P r o t e s t a n t scholars have given p a p e r s a t t h e m e e t i n g s of t h e
C a t h o l i c Biblical A s s o c i a t i o n . T h i s r e m a r k a b l e level of e c u m e n i c a l
c o o p e r a t i o n has b e e n carefully fostered b y biblical scholars repre-
s e n t i n g t h e various confessions precisely b e c a u s e t h e y have seen h o w
fruitful a n d h e a l t h y it can be for t h e C h u r c h at large.
Yet t h e s t r o n g c o m m i t m e n t t o e c u m e n i s m b y C a t h o l i c biblical
scholars does n o t m e a n a desire to d o a w a y w i t h a sense of C a t h o l i c
t r a d i t i o n . 'The C a t h o l i c C h u r c h is very m u c h an i n s t i t u t i o n of t r a d i -
t i o n s , a n d this feature o f C a t h o l i c i s m leaves its m a r k o n C a t h o l i c
biblical scholarship. 'This t e n d e n c y shows itself first in typically C a t h o -
lie a p p r o a c h e s t o t h e relation b e t w e e n t h e e a r t h l y J e s u s , t h e early

c h u r c h , a n d t h e N e w Testament w r i t i n g s . W h i l e a c k n o w l e d g i n g t h e
c o m p l e x i t y of t h e G o s p e l t r a d i t i o n a n d even d e l i g h t i n g in it, t h e
C a t h o l i c a p p r o a c h a s s u m e s a c o n t i n u i t y a n d rejects t h e idea o f an
u n b r i d g e a b l e gulf. The a g e n t in this c o n t i n u i t y is t h e C h u r c h u n d e r
t h e g u i d a n c e o f t h e H o l y Spirit. The C a t h o l i c c o n c e r n w i t h t r a d i t i o n
also m a n i f e s t s itself in a lively i n t e r e s t in p h i l o s o p h y a n d general
h e r m e n e u t i c a l theory. There is a s t r o n g awareness o f t h e c o m p l e x i t y
i n v o l v e d in b r i n g i n g S c r i p t u r e t o bear o n c h u r c h life t o d a y a n d a
c o n s c i o u s n e s s t h a t S c r i p t u r e has b e e n i n t e r p r e t e d in v a r i o u s w a y s at
v a r i o u s p o i n t s in history.
T h i r d l y , t h e r e is a s t r o n g sense o f C h u r c h in C a t h o l i c biblical
s c h o l a r s h i p . The locus for m o s t C a t h o l i c biblical s c h o l a r s h i p is t h e
C h u r c h r a t h e r t h a n t h e a c a d e m y . 'The a s s u m p t i o n is t h a t biblical
exegesis is m o r e t h a n historical research a n d o u g h t t o c o n t r i b u t e posi-
tively t o t h e church's life. M a n y issues s t u d i e d by C a t h o l i c s — t h e
N e w Testament d i v o r c e texts, m i n i s t r y in t h e early c h u r c h , t h e role
of w o m e n — r e f l e c t t h e a g e n d a of c h u r c h p r o b l e m s today. This s t r o n g
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of biblical s c h o l a r s h i p w i t h t h e C h u r c h o c c a s i o n a l l y
leads t o s i t u a t i o n s in w h i c h t h e results o f exegesis a n d c u r r e n t c h u r c h
p o l i c y a p p e a r to collide. A n e x a m p l e is t h e o r d i n a t i o n o f w o m e n t o
t h e ministerial p r i e s t h o o d . The c o n c l u s i o n o f a g r o u p of biblical schol-
ars t h a t S c r i p t u r e p r e s e n t s n o obstacle to w o m e n ' s o r d i n a t i o n was
d e e m e d insufficient t o justify d e p a r t u r e from t r a d i t i o n b y h i g h e r
R o m a n a u t h o r i t i e s . W h e n s u c h a collision o c c u r s , " p u r e " exegesis
s o m e t i m e s loses o u t a n d is s u b o r d i n a t e d t o t r a d i t i o n a n d t h e j u d g -
m e n t of t h e ecclesiastical m a g i s t e r i u m (the P o p e a n d t h e b i s h o p s ) .
Finally, t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r o f t h e C a t h o l i c C h u r c h is
h e r m e n e u t i c a l l y significant. The n e t w o r k o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n t h a t ex-
ists in t h e C a t h o l i c C h u r c h will n o t allow N o r t h A m e r i c a n o r W e s t -
e r n E u r o p e a n biblical scholars t o avoid for l o n g t h e challenges p o s e d
by Third W o r l d exegetes. I n d i a n C a t h o l i c scholars h a v e b e e n e x p l o r -
i n g t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e historical-critical a p p r o a c h t o exegesis
a n d t h e t r a d i t i o n a l I n d i a n m e t h o d s of i n t e r p r e t i n g religious texts.
Latin A m e r i c a n biblical t h e o l o g i a n s have e m p h a s i z e d t h e c e n t r a l i t y
of t h e t h e m e o f l i b e r a t i o n , t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f b e i n g c o n s c i o u s o f t h e
life-setting of Bible study, a n d t h e political significance of t h e b i b l i -
cal message in t h e past a n d today. Africans have d i s c e r n e d an affinity
b e t w e e n t h e biblical w o r l d a n d t h e i r o w n a n d reject t h e idea t h a t
they m u s t interpret Scripture t h r o u g h the m e d i u m of Western cul-
t u r e . F e m i n i s t s in t h e U n i t e d States h a v e q u e s t i o n e d t h e usual r e c o n -
s t r u c t i o n o f early C h r i s t i a n h i s t o r y a n d f o u n d i n d i c a t i o n s o f a sig-
nificant role for w o m e n in early c h u r c h life. Their f e m i n i s t c o n c e r n s

a n d m e t h o d s are b e i n g t a k e n u p in t u r n by E u r o p e a n a n d African
scholars.
By w a y o f c o n t r a s t h e r e , t h e m e t h o d e m p l o y e d by t h e L a t i n
A m e r i c a n t h e o l o g i a n s of l i b e r a t i o n deserves an e x p l a n a t i o n , for its
p r i n c i p l e s differ from a n d c h a l l e n g e t h e historical-critical a p p r o a c h
o u t l i n e d in t h e p r e c e d i n g pages. The s t a r t i n g p o i n t for t h e l i b e r a t i o n
t h e o l o g i a n s is t h e analysis o f c o n t e m p o r a r y sociopolitical e x p e r i e n c e ,
n o t t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e a n c i e n t historical c o n t e x t . The life-set-
t i n g for this k i n d o f biblical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is t h e so-called base c o m -
m u n i t y , w h i c h arose as a p o p u l a r m o v e m e n t in C a t h o l i c i s m . 'The
biblical i n t e r p r e t e r s , w h e t h e r t h e y are p e a s a n t s or professors, p e r -
ceive clear parallels b e t w e e n t h e s i t u a t i o n o f p e o p l e in Latin A m e r i c a
t o d a y a n d t h a t o f G o d ' s p e o p l e in biblical t i m e s . This parallelism
leads b a c k logically t o t h e biblical texts as sources of e n l i g h t e n m e n t
a n d e n c o u r a g e m e n t today.
The l i b e r a t i o n t h e o l o g i a n s also c h a l l e n g e t h e ideal o f t h e h i s t o r i -
cal critic as t h e objective s p e c t a t o r o r t h e u n i n v o l v e d r e p o r t e r . A b o u t
t h i r t y years ago t h e r e was a lively d e b a t e a m o n g E u r o p e a n a n d N o r t h
A m e r i c a n exegetes a n d t h e o l o g i a n s a b o u t w h e t h e r it is possible t o
have p r e s u p p o s i t i o n l e s s exegesis. The answer, o f c o u r s e , is n o . B u t
nevertheless t h e a i m o f historical criticism is to p u t aside one's o w n
p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s as m u c h as possible a n d take t h e text o n its o w n
t e r m s . The l i b e r a t i o n t h e o l o g i a n s a r g u e t h a t this p s e u d o - o b j e c t i v e
s t a n c e m e r e l y m a s k s a w h o l e set of h i d d e n a n d p o t e n t i a l l y d e s t r u c -
tive a s s u m p t i o n s a b o u t G o d , h u m a n i t y , a n d t h e w o r l d . Therefore
t h e y call for t h e i n t e r p r e t e r ' s f o r t h r i g h t a d m i s s i o n of a political, s o -
ciological, o r theological p o s i t i o n . 'They criticize bitterly t h o s e l e a r n e d
biblical c o m m e n t a r i e s t h a t issue from professors' desks, a p p a r e n t l y
u n t o u c h e d b y social e x p e r i e n c e a n d d e v o i d o f h u m a n c o m m i t m e n t .
'The t h i r d c h a l l e n g e t o historical criticism raised b y t h e libera-
t i o n t h e o l o g i a n s involves w h a t c o n s t i t u t e s t h e a d e q u a t e i n t e r p r e t a -
t i o n o f S c r i p t u r e . The l i b e r a t i o n t h e o l o g i a n s a r g u e t h a t intellectual
a p p r o p r i a t i o n is n o t e n o u g h . N e i t h e r is p r a y e r e n o u g h . Rather, t h e
biblical texts n a t u r a l l y lead t o c o n c r e t e social a c t i o n s issuing from
intellectual reflection a n d m e d i t a t i o n . F o r these l i b e r a t i o n t h e o l o -
g i a n s , biblical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n necessarily d e m a n d s sociopolitical a c -
tivity. G u i d e d b y t h e s o p h i s t i c a t e d h e r m e n e u t i c a l t h e o r i e s of Paul
R i c o e u r , these l i b e r a t i o n t h e o l o g i a n s s p e a k of a h e r m e n e u t i c a l circle
t h a t m o v e s from s u s p i c i o n a b o u t p r e s e n t - d a y e x p e r i e n c e ( " s o m e t h i n g
is w r o n g " ) , t h r o u g h s u s p i c i o n a b o u t t h e ideologies a n d t h e o l o g i e s
( a n d exegesis) t h a t s u p p o r t t h e p r e s e n t - d a y political s t r u c t u r e s , t o
t h e Bible as a s o u r c e of faith a n d of i n s p i r a t i o n for a c t i o n , to a c t i o n

in t h e p r e s e n t t i m e .
T h u s t h e Latin A m e r i c a n l i b e r a t i o n t h e o l o g i a n s differ f r o m t h e
historical critics in t h e i r i n s i s t e n c e o n t h e p r e s e n t - d a y political s i t u -
a t i o n as t h e s t a r t i n g p o i n t for biblical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , t h e i r a d m i s s i o n
of p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s , a n d t h e i r e m p h a s i s o n a c t i o n as p a r t o f t h e i n t e r -
p r e t a t i v e process. T h e i r a p p r o a c h is clearly o p e n t o a b u s e s . B u t it
d o e s i l l u m i n a t e b y c o n t r a s t s o m e o f t h e m a j o r features o f t h e h i s t o r i -
cal-critical m e t h o d . A l s o , t h e r e is still a place for historical c r i t i c i s m
in l i b e r a t i o n t h e o l o g y . The l i b e r a t i o n t h e o l o g i a n s s i m p l y d e m a n d
t h a t o t h e r aspects o f t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i v e p r o c e s s — p r e s e n t - d a y e x p e r i -
e n c e , t h e i n t e r p r e t e r ' s p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s , a n d political a c t i o n — b e ac-
k n o w l e d g e d a n d celebrated.
IV. FROM DEATH T O LIEE ( E P H . 2 : 1 - 1 0 )
T h e Epistle t o t h e E p h e s i a n s p u r p o r t s t o b e a letter w r i t t e n by
Paul from p r i s o n . It is often classed w i t h t h e epistles to t h e P h i l i p p i a n s ,
C o l o s s i a n s , a n d P h i l e m o n as o n e of t h e C a p t i v i t y Epistles. B u t m o s t
critical C a t h o l i c s c h o l a r s n o w agree w i t h t h e i r P r o t e s t a n t colleagues
t h a t FLphesians is a n essay w r i t t e n b y an a d m i r e r o f Paul in t h e late
first c e n t u r y A . D . (ca. A . D . 8 0 - 9 0 ) in o r d e r t o e m p h a s i z e t h e u n i t y
in C h r i s t b e t w e e n J e w i s h C h r i s t i a n s a n d G e n t i l e C h r i s t i a n s . T h e case
a g a i n s t P a u l i n e a u t h o r s h i p involves t h e m o r e S e m i t i c l a n g u a g e a n d
style of FLphesians, its different use of c e r t a i n t h e m e s a n d m o t i f s , a n d
its d i v e r g e n t o r m o r e d e v e l o p e d theology. T h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f c h u r c h
s t r u c t u r e s a s s u m e d in t h e epistle a n d t h e p r o b l e m s facing t h e c o m -
m u n i t y are m o r e easily l i n k e d w i t h t h e late first c e n t u r y t h a n t h e late
50s o r early 6 0 s . T h e h y p o t h e s i s of n o n - P a u l i n e a u t h o r s h i p n o l o n g e r
p r e s e n t s a s e r i o u s p r o b l e m a m o n g C a t h o l i c exegetes ( t h o u g h a few
still a r g u e t h a t Paul w a s t h e a u t h o r ) .
E p h . 2 : 1 - 1 0 deals w i t h t h e r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of sinful h u m a n i t y t o
G o d . It p r e p a r e s for t h e d i s c u s s i o n of h o w n o n - J e w s c a n b e c o m e
p a r t o f t h e p e o p l e o f G o d ( E p h . 2 : 1 1 - 2 2 ) . T h e Revised N e w A m e r i -
c a n Bible translates t h e passage as follows:
'You were dead in your transgressions and sins in which you once
lived following the age of this world, following the ruler of the
power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the disobedient.
'All of us once lived a m o n g them in the desires of our flesh, fol-
lowing the wishes of the flesh a n d the impulses, and we were by
nature children of wrath, like the rest. 'But God, w h o is rich in
52 CATHOLIC INTKRPRKTATION OF SCRIPTURK
s
mercy, because of the great love he had for us, even when we were
dead in our transgressions, brought us to life with Christ (by grace
you have been saved), ''raised us up with him, and seated us with
him in the heavens in Christ Jesus, 'that in the ages to come he
might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in his kindness
to us in Christ Jesus. T o r by grace you have been saved through
faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; 'it is not from
works, so no one may boast. "Tor we are his handiwork, created
in Christ Jesus for the good works that G o d has prepared in ad-
vance, that we should live in them.
T h e N e w J e r u s a l e m Bible r e n d e r s E p h . 2 : 1 - 1 0 in this w a y :
'And you were dead, through the crimes and the sins V h i c h used
to make up your way of life when you were living by the principles
of this world, obeying the ruler w h o dominates the air, the spirit
3
who is at work in those who rebel. We too were all among them
once, living only by our natural inclinations, obeying the demands
of h u m a n self-indulgence and our own whim; our nature made us
no less liable to God's retribution than the rest of the world. 'But
G o d , being rich in faithful love, through the great love with which
s
he loved us, even when we were dead in our sins, brought us to
life with Christ—it is through grace that you have been saved—
f
'and raised us up with him and gave us a place with him in heaven,
in Christ Jesus.
T h i s was to show for all ages to come, through his goodness
towards us in Christ Jesus, how extraordinarily rich he is in grace.
"Because it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith; not
by anything of your own, but by a gift from God; 'not by any-
t h i n g that you have d o n e , so that n o b o d y can claim the credit.
l0
W e are God's w o r k of art, created in Christ Jesus for the good
works w h i c h G o d has already designated to m a k e u p o u r way
of life.
This s u m m a r y of Paul's G o s p e l first explains t h e state o f sin a n d

s p i r i t u a l d e a t h in w h i c h t h e G e n t i l e C h r i s t i a n s lived before C h r i s t
(vv. 1-3). By t h e i r i m m o r a l a c t i o n s t h e y s h o w e d t h e i r allegiance t o
t h e p o w e r s of evil a n d t h u s d e s e r v e d G o d ' s anger. T h e i r l o r d was t h e
" p r i n c e of t h e air," their w a y o f life w a s g u i d e d b y t h e "flesh," a n d
t h e i r activities were sins a n d offenses.
H a v i n g d e s c r i b e d t h e negative p e r i o d of t h e i r lives, t h e a u t h o r o f
E p h e s i a n s develops t h e positive side in verses 4 - 1 0 . T h r o u g h his m o s t
p o w e r f u l display o f mercy, love, a n d grace (vv. 4 - 5 ) , G o d in C h r i s t
saved these G e n t i l e s from t h e i r s p i r i t u a l d e a t h a n d allowed t h e m to
share in t h e g l o r y of t h e risen L o r d (v. 6 ) . The p r e s e n t a s p e c t o r
realized a s p e c t o f e s c h a t o l o g y is s t r o n g l y e m p h a s i z e d : "you h a v e b e e n
saved . . . he raised us u p w i t h h i m a n d s e a t e d us w i t h h i m in t h e
h e a v e n s . " N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e f u t u r e a s p e c t o f e s c h a t o l o g y ("in t h e ages
t o c o m e " ) is n o t i g n o r e d (v. 7 ) . T h e r e is so m u c h e m p h a s i s o n G o d
in C h r i s t as t h e s o u r c e o f salvation a n d t h e u n m e r i t e d c h a r a c t e r of
salvation (vv. 8-9) t h a t o n e can s u s p e c t s o m e c o n t r o v e r s y a b o u t this
in t h e b a c k g r o u n d of t h e letter. 'The passage closes in verse 10 w i t h
an e x h o r t a t i o n t o live t h e life t h a t befits t h o s e w h o m G o d in C h r i s t
has saved. 'The s e c o n d half of E p h e s i a n s (chs. 4 - 6 ) spells o u t w h a t
s u c h a life in c o n f o r m i t y w i t h salvation m e a n s .
I w o u l d like to c o m m e n t o n t h r e e m a t t e r s a r i s i n g from this ex-
t r a o r d i n a r i l y rich text: its theology, its r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e g e n u i n e
P a u l i n e w r i t i n g s , a n d its transfer value.
The passage d r a w s a c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n w h a t life for t h e G e n t i l e
C h r i s t i a n s was before C h r i s t (vv. 1-3) a n d w h a t it is n o w ( w . 4 - 1 0 ) .
'The m o s t s t r i k i n g t h e o l o g i c a l feature is t h e e m p h a s i s o n salvation as
already p r e s e n t (vv. 5 - 6 ) , t h o u g h t h e future d i m e n s i o n o f salvation is
also m e n t i o n e d (v. 7 ) . In this respect t h e l a n g u a g e o f E p h e s i a n s is
s t r o n g e r t h a n t h a t o f Paul in R o m a n s a n d G a l a t i a n s . A n o t h e r i m p o r -
t a n t feature is t h e stress o n t h e u n m e r i t e d n a t u r e of salvation (vv. 8-
9) a n d t h e idea o f g o o d d e e d s flowing from G o d ' s gift of salvation (v.
10). Even t h o u g h s o m e P r o t e s t a n t s m i g h t t h i n k t h a t C a t h o l i c s seek
salvation t h r o u g h w o r k s , t h e p o s i t i o n of C a t h o l i c t h e o l o g y is p e r -
fectly c o n s i s t e n t w i t h E p h e s i a n s o n this m a t t e r . 'These t w o t h e m e s —
t h e p r e s e n t d i m e n s i o n of salvation a n d G o d ' s grace as t h e s o u r c e of
g o o d d e e d s — w o u l d have great appeal to C a t h o l i c readers o f t h e Bible.
H o w w o u l d C a t h o l i c s assess t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f this passage t o
Paul's g e n u i n e letters? H o w w o u l d t h e y evaluate t h e E p h e s i a n e m -
phasis o n t h e p r e s e n c e of salvation in c o m p a r i s o n t o Paul's stress o n
t h e f u t u r e d i m e n s i o n ? D e f e n d e r s of P a u l i n e a u t h o r s h i p o f E p h e s i a n s
w o u l d see it as t h e m a t u r e s t a t e m e n t o f ideas t h a t w e r e g e r m i n a t i n g
in G a l a t i a n s a n d R o m a n s . P r o p o n e n t s o f p s e u d o n y m o u s a u t h o r s h i p
w o u l d h o l d t h a t it is an a u t h e n t i c d e v e l o p m e n t of Paul's t h o u g h t for
a n e w s i t u a t i o n a n d t i m e . The idea of u s i n g G a l a t i a n s a n d R o m a n s as
a c a n o n t o criticize a n d j u d g e o t h e r c a n o n i c a l w r i t i n g s w o u l d n o t be
t h e usual a p p r o a c h for C a t h o l i c s . I n s t e a d o f seizing u p o n t h e c o n t r a -
d i c t i o n s a n d differences, t h e first i n s t i n c t of C a t h o l i c s w o u l d be t o
focus o n c o n t i n u i t y a n d d e v e l o p m e n t . The a i m b e h i n d c h a r t i n g t h e
course of a Pauline t h e m e like eschatology w o u l d be t o illustrate
g r o w t h in i n s i g h t a n d a b i l i t y t o a d a p t t h e G o s p e l t o c h a n g e d c i r -
c u m s t a n c e s , n o t t o let t h e p o w e r a n d m a j e s t y o f t h e g e n u i n e Paul
shine forth.
M y final c o m m e n t involves t h e h e r m e n e u t i c a l transfer value o f

E p h . 2 : 1 - 1 0 . The t e x t was clearly a d d r e s s e d t o n o n - J e w s w h o h a d
t u r n e d from p a g a n i s m t o C h r i s t i a n faith. It deals w i t h t h e e x p e r i -
e n c e o f c o n v e r s i o n ("once . . . b u t n o w " ) . The k i n d of c o n v e r s i o n
described implies that the converts were adults w h e n they t u r n e d
from p a g a n i s m t o C h r i s t i a n i t y , a n d in t h a t t u r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e d w h a t
is called "salvation." If o n e were t o p r e a c h o n this t e x t today, t h e
a u d i e n c e t o w h o m it w o u l d m e a n m o s t w o u l d be a d u l t s w h o h a d
c o n v e r t e d f r o m p a g a n i s m t o C h r i s t i a n i t y . For C a t h o l i c s a n d o t h e r s
b a p t i z e d at infancy, this k i n d o f c o n v e r s i o n l a n g u a g e is o n l y partially
a p p r o p r i a t e . Even C h r i s t i a n s b a p t i z e d as a d u l t s b u t h a v i n g been raised
in C h r i s t i a n families a n d a C h r i s t i a n a t m o s p h e r e will have n o t u n -
d e r g o n e t h e k i n d of e x p e r i e n c e s k e t c h e d in E p h . 2 : 1 - 1 0 .
T h e p r o b l e m of transfer is p o s e d b y t h e l a n g u a g e o f c o n v e r s i o n
l e a d i n g t o b a p t i s m f o u n d in this a n d o t h e r P a u l i n e texts. Very often
t h i s c o n v e r s i o n l a n g u a g e is t a k e n b y c o m m i t t e d C h r i s t i a n s as s o m e -
t h i n g t o be e x p e r i e n c e d a n e w everyday, as d e l i n e a t i n g t h e daily life o f
every C h r i s t i a n . This h e r m e n e u t i c a l m o v e t r a n s f o r m s c o n v e r s i o n lan-
g u a g e i n t o m a i n t e n a n c e l a n g u a g e . I h e s i t a t e t o use t h e w o r d " d i s t o r -
t i o n " b e c a u s e it is so s t r o n g . B u t a t least C h r i s t i a n s w h o use this text
t o d a y s h o u l d be aware o f its original c o n v e r s i o n s e t t i n g in E p h e s i a n s
a n d t h e o n l y partly justified m a i n t e n a n c e application they m a k e of it.
B u t h o w t h e n m i g h t serious, l o n g - t i m e C h r i s t i a n s a p p r o a c h E p h .
2 : 1 - 1 0 in m a i n t a i n i n g a n d e n r i c h i n g t h e i r faith today? T h e task o f
t r y i n g t o m a k e t h e S c r i p t u r e s c o m e alive a n d s p e a k t o o u r s i t u a t i o n
is s o m e t i m e s called " a c t u a l i z a t i o n . " T h e m o s t familiar f o r m o f a c t u -
alization is t h e s e r m o n o r h o m i l y in w h i c h a p r e a c h e r tries t o b r i n g a
biblical passage t o b e a r o n t h e life o f a c o n g r e g a t i o n today. O t h e r
forms o f a c t u a l i z a t i o n i n c l u d e Bible d i s c u s s i o n g r o u p s , d r a m a t i c r e p -
r e s e n t a t i o n s (a "passion p l a y " ) , w o r k s of a r t (a s c u l p t u r e or p a i n t i n g
of a biblical s c e n e ) , a n d d a n c e ( e n a c t i n g o r r e s p o n d i n g t o a biblical
text). Each f o r m a t takes as its s t a r t i n g p o i n t a biblical passage a n d
"actualizes" it in a d i s t i n c t i v e way.
H o w e v e r , t h e m o s t c o m m o n a n d accessible f o r m o f actualiza-
t i o n is p r a y e r b a s e d o n biblical texts. This c a n t a k e place o n a c o m -
m u n a l o r i n d i v i d u a l basis. O n e very o l d a n d still fresh m e t h o d o f
a c t u a l i z i n g biblical texts in p r a y e r is called lectio divina ("spiritual
[or, divine] r e a d i n g " ) . T h e m e t h o d has a l o n g h i s t o r y w i t h i n t h e c o n -
text o f C h r i s t i a n m o n a s t i c i s m . It has b e e n revived r e c e n t l y a n d m a d e
accessible t o all t h e p e o p l e of G o d especially b y C a r d i n a l C a r l o M a r -
tini o f M i l a n , o n c e a d i s t i n g u i s h e d N e w 'I e s t a m e n t textual critic. It
consists o f four steps: reverent r e a d i n g of t h e biblical text, m e d i t a -
t i o n , prayer, a n d c o n t e m p l a t i o n a n d / o r a c t i o n . I will illustrate this

a p p r o a c h w i t h reference t o E p h . 2 : 1 - 1 0 .
Lectio. A r e v e r e n t r e a d i n g {lectio) a t t e n d s t o t h e c o n t e x t , w o r d s
a n d i m a g e s , c h a r a c t e r s , progress o f t h o u g h t , a n d t h e m e s a l o n g t h e
lines d e s c r i b e d i m m e d i a t e l y after t h e t w o t r a n s l a t i o n s o f E p h . 2 : 1 -
10. The goal o f this step is t o u n d e r s t a n d w h a t t h e text says o n its
o w n g r o u n d s . W h i l e t h e critical Bible s t u d y d e s c r i b e d t h u s far can
h e l p o n e t o read t h e text i n t e l l i g e n t l y a n d is f u n d a m e n t a l , t h e r e also
n e e d s t o be a s a v o r i n g a n d p e r s o n a l a s s i m i l a t i o n of t h e t e x t o n b o t h
t h e intellectual a n d t h e e m o t i o n a l levels. A s l o w a n d d e l i b e r a t e oral
r e a d i n g can facilitate t h e a p p r o p r i a t e k i n d of p e r s o n a l e n g a g e m e n t .
Meditatio. M e d i t a t i o n o n a biblical text c o n s i d e r s w h a t t h e text
says t o m e (or us). B e g i n n i n g w i t h t h e biblical passage in E p h . 2 : 1 -
10, o n e m i g h t focus o n a t h e m e or t w o s u c h as t h e p r e s e n t d i m e n -
s i o n o f salvation o r o n g o o d w o r k s flowing from G o d ' s gift of salva-
t i o n . O r o n e m i g h t focus o n a certain p h r a s e s u c h as " G o d , w h o is
rich in m e r c y " (2:4) or "we are his h a n d i w o r k " ( 2 : 1 0 ) , a n d r e p e a t it
a n d m a k e it one's o w n . O r o n e m i g h t a p p l y t h e i m a g i n a t i o n a n d t r y
t o visualize s o m e o f t h e p h r a s e s ("raised us u p w i t h h i m , " 2 : 6 ) . O r
o n e m i g h t s i n g t h e h y m n " A m a z i n g G r a c e " a n d l u x u r i a t e in t h e m a n y
parallels to (or influences from) E p h . 2 : 1 - 1 0 . H e r e t h e goal is to
m a k e c o n n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e passage a n d one's p r e s e n t s i t u a t i o n .
Oratio. T h e s t e p k n o w n as oratio ("prayer") c o n c e r n s w h a t I
w a n t t o say t o G o d o n t h e basis of m y r e a d i n g o f a n d m e d i t a t i o n o n
a biblical text. O n t h e basis o f E p h . 2 : 1 - 1 0 , o n e m i g h t w a n t t o praise,
t h a n k , a n d a d o r e G o d for G o d ' s m e r c y s h o w n in Jesus, o r for t h e gift
of Jesus C h r i s t a n d his s a v i n g p o w e r . O r o n e m i g h t w a n t t o ask G o d
for h e l p in u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e C h r i s t - e v e n t , in e x p e r i e n c i n g it p e r -
s o n a l l y a n d c o m m u n a l l y , in t r a n s l a t i n g G o d ' s gift i n t o a p p r o p r i -
a t e b e h a v i o r , o r in c o n t i n u i n g a l o n g t h e w a y o f C h r i s t i a n faith
a n d practice.
ContemplatiolActio. A final r e s p o n s e t o t h e process of r e a d i n g ,
m e d i t a t i n g , a n d p r a y i n g w i t h E p h . 2 : 1 - 1 0 m i g h t s i m p l y be to relish
the experience a n d to c o n t e m p l a t e the mystery of G o d reconciling
t h e w o r l d t h r o u g h C h r i s t . A n o t h e r possible r e s p o n s e m i g h t be t o use
t h e o c c a s i o n t o c o n f r o n t s o m e t h i n g in one's life t h a t m i g h t n e e d
d e l i b e r a t i o n , d i s c e r n m e n t , a n d d e c i s i o n . D o e s t h e lectio divina p r o -
cess reveal a n e e d for c h a n g e in s o m e area? W h a t are t h e o p t i o n s , a n d
t h e reasons for t h e m ? W h a t d e c i s i o n d o 1 n e e d t o m a k e a n d t o act
u p o n in o r d e r to find peace a n d t o b r i n g m y life a n d a c t i o n i n t o line
w i t h m y beliefs a n d p u b l i c profession as a C h r i s t i a n ? D e a l i n g w i t h
s u c h q u e s t i o n s m a y t h e n result in a c t i o n .
V. SUMMARY
Since the Second Vatican C o u n c i l , Catholics have been reading

t h e Bible w i t h e n t h u s i a s m a n d m a k i n g it t h e i r o w n b o o k . This devel-
o p m e n t is especially d r a m a t i c in liturgy, religious e d u c a t i o n , a n d
e c u m e n i s m . Vatican l i s C o n s t i t u t i o n o n D i v i n e R e v e l a t i o n p r o v i d e d
s o m e helpful d i r e c t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r of d i v i n e
r e v e l a t i o n , S c r i p t u r e a n d t r a d i t i o n , t h e n e e d for i n t e r p r e t i n g S c r i p -
t u r e in its h i s t o r i c a l s e t t i n g , r e s p e c t for t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t , r e c o g -
n i t i o n o f t h e c o m p l e x i t y o f t h e G o s p e l s , a n d t h e Bible's p l a c e in
c h u r c h life.
C a t h o l i c biblical s c h o l a r s b r i n g t o t h e S c r i p t u r e s t h e q u e s t i o n s
a n d c o n c e r n s t h a t c o n s t i t u t e t h e historical-critical m e t h o d . They w o r k
in t h e areas o f literary c r i t i c i s m , textual c r i t i c i s m , t h e w o r l d o f t h e
Bible, w o r d study, s o u r c e c r i t i c i s m , r e d a c t i o n c r i t i c i s m , f o r m criti-
c i s m , historical c r i t i c i s m , a n d t r a n s l a t i o n . In i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e Bible,
t h e y are c o m m i t t e d t o e c u m e n i s m , m a i n t a i n a s t r o n g sense of C a t h o l i c
t r a d i t i o n , d o t h e i r research in t h e c o n t e x t o f today's C h u r c h , a n d are
p a r t i c i p a n t s in a n i n t e r n a t i o n a l d i a l o g u e . A " C a t h o l i c " r e a d i n g o f
E p h . 2 : 1 - 1 0 e m p h a s i z e s t h e p r e s e n t d i m e n s i o n o f salvation a n d G o d ' s
grace as t h e s o u r c e o f g o o d a c t i o n s , sees t h e passage as a n a u t h e n t i c
d e v e l o p m e n t o f Paul's theology, a n d recognizes t h e l i m i t a t i o n s i m -
p o s e d b y its o r i g i n a l c o n t e x t as a d u l t c o n v e r s i o n l e a d i n g to b a p t i s m .
A C a t h o l i c a c t u a l i z a t i o n o f t h i s biblical text m i g h t p r o c e e d a c c o r d -
i n g to t h e m e t h o d o f lectio divina: r e a d i n g , m e d i t a t i o n , prayer, a n d
contemplation and/or action.
DANTKI.J. H A R R I N G T O N , S.J. 57
B c r g a n t , D i a n e a n d R o b e r t J. Karris, eds. 'The Collegeville Bible Com-

mentary. Collegeville, M i n n . : The Liturgical Press, 1 9 8 9 . This o n e -
v o l u m e c o m m e n t a r y o n b o t h Testaments b y C a t h o l i c scholars trans-
m i t s t h e best o f m o d e r n s c h o l a r s h i p t o a w i d e a u d i e n c e .
B r o w n , R a y m o n d E. Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine. New

Y o r k / M a h w a h , N . J . : Paulist Press, 1 9 8 5 . In a series o f essays B r o w n
s h o w s t h a t C a t h o l i c N e w T e s t a m e n t exegesis is centrist ( r a t h e r t h a n
liberal or conservative) a n d n o t d e s t r u c t i v e o f C a t h o l i c d o c t r i n e .
. Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible. N e w Y o r k /

M a h w a h , N . J . : Paulist, 1 9 9 0 . W r i t t e n b y o n e o f t h e best C a t h o l i c
biblical scholars o f t h e t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y , this v o l u m e r e s p o n d s t o
frequently asked q u e s t i o n s o n such topics as f u n d a m e n t a l i s m , Mary,
s a c r a m e n t s , a n d Peter.
B r o w n , R a y m o n d E., J o s e p h A . Fitzmyer, a n d R o l a n d E. M u r p h y ,
eds. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. FLnglewood Cliffs, N . J . :
P r e n t i c e H a l l , 1 9 9 0 . This o n e - v o l u m e c o m m e n t a r y o n t h e e n t i r e
Bible i n c l u d e s topical articles o n s u c h topics as i n s p i r a t i o n , h e r m e -
n e u t i c s , Jesus, a n d P a u l i n e theology. W r i t t e n b y C a t h o l i c s c h o l a r s ,
it is full o f reliable a n d u p - t o - d a t e i n f o r m a t i o n a n d is t h e best ex-
a m p l e of m o d e r n C a t h o l i c s c h o l a r s h i p .
C o l l i n s , J o h n J. a n d D o m i n i c C r o s s a n , eds. The Biblical Heritage in

Modern Catholic Scholarship. W i l m i n g t o n , D e l . : Glazier, 1 9 8 6 .
The essays in this v o l u m e deal p r i n c i p a l l y w i t h t h e e c u m e n i c a l
reality of c o n t e m p o r a r y biblical s c h o l a r s h i p a n d locate w o r k s b y
C a t h o l i c s in this f r a m e w o r k .
F i t z m y e r , J o s e p h A . Scripture, the Soul of Theology. N e w York:

Paulist, 1 9 9 4 . W r i t t e n b y o n e of t h e very best C a t h o l i c biblical
s c h o l a r s , t h e essays in this c o l l e c t i o n c o n c e r n t h e historical-critical
a p p r o a c h t o S c r i p t u r e , o t h e r a p p r o a c h e s , S c r i p t u r e as t h e soul of
theology, a n d biblical s t u d y a n d e c u m e n i s m .
Fogarty, G e r a l d P. American Catholic Biblical Scholarship: A His-

tory from the Early Republic to Vatican II. S a n F r a n c i s c o : H a r p e r
& R o w , 1 9 8 9 . In t r a c i n g t h e s t o r y o f A m e r i c a n C a t h o l i c biblical
s c h o l a r s h i p from J o h n C a r r o l l t o Vatican II, a d i s t i n g u i s h e d c h u r c h
h i s t o r i a n focuses o n t h e struggles r e v o l v i n g a r o u n d a c c e p t a n c e of a
critical a n d historical a p p r o a c h to t h e Bible.
H a r r i n g t o n , D a n i e l J. Interpreting the New Testament. Rev. e d .

W i l m i n g t o n , D e l . : Glazier, 1 9 8 8 . This i n t r o d u c t i o n t o N e w Tes-
t a m e n t exegesis e x p l a i n s t h e m e t h o d s d e s c r i b e d in t h e p r e s e n t es-
say a n d p r o v i d e s e x a m p l e s h o w t h e y can be used in s t u d y i n g s p e -
cific biblical texts. Interpreting the Old Testament (Wilmington,
D e l . : Glazier, 1 9 8 1 ) is s i m i l a r in s c o p e a n d c o n t e n t .
The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. B o s t o n : St. Paul P u b -

l i s h i n g , 1 9 9 4 . T o m a r k t h e anniversaries o f t h e encyclicals o n b i b -
lical studies b y P o p e Leo X I I I ( 1 8 9 3 ) a n d P o p e Pius X I I ( 1 9 4 3 ) ,
t h e Pontifical Biblical C o m m i s s i o n in 1 9 9 3 issued a m a r v e l o u s
d o c u m e n t o n biblical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . It deals w i t h m e t h o d s a n d
a p p r o a c h e s , h e r m e n e u t i c a l q u e s t i o n s , C a t h o l i c biblical i n t e r p r e t a -
t i o n , a n d t h e Bible in c h u r c h life.
L i e n h a r d , J o s e p h T . The Bible, the Church, and Authority.

Collegeville, M i n n . : The Liturgical Press, 1 9 9 5 . This b o o k explains
from a C a t h o l i c p e r s p e c t i v e t h e origins of t h e C h r i s t i a n Bible a n d
its m e a n i n g for t h e c h u r c h t o d a y , a n d e l a b o r a t e s a C a t h o l i c u n -
d e r s t a n d i n g of the relations a m o n g the Bible, the c h u r c h , a n d
authority.
M e g i v e r n , J a m e s J., ed. Bible Interpretation. Official C a t h o l i c ' T e a c h -

ings. W i l m i n g t o n , N . C . : C o n s o r t i u m B o o k s / M c G r a t h P u b l i s h -
ing C o . , 1 9 7 8 . English t r a n s l a t i o n o f s i x t y - t w o d o c u m e n t s , i n c l u d -
i n g Vatican ITs C o n s t i t u t i o n o n D i v i n e R e v e l a t i o n , d e a l i n g w i t h
t h e place o f t h e Bible in t h e C h u r c h .
N e u h a u s , R i c h a r d J o h n , e d . Biblical Interpretation in Crisis. The

Ratzinger Conference on Bible and Church. Grand Rapids:
E e r d m a n s , 1 9 8 9 . P r e s e n t e d at a c o n f e r e n c e in 1 9 8 8 , t h e four p a -
pers by Joseph Ratzinger, R a y m o n d Brown, William Lazareth, a n d
G e o r g e L i n d b e c k explore t h e value o f historical criticism a n d t h e
role o f t h e Bible in t h e C h u r c h .
S c h n e i d e r s , S a n d r a M . The Revelatory Text. Interpreting the New

Testament as Sacred Scripture. San F r a n c i s c o : H a r p e r C o l l i n s , 1 9 9 1 .
DANTKI.J. H A R R I N G T O N , S.J. 59
This r e a d a b l e a n d c o m p r e h e n s i v e i n t r o d u c t i o n t o biblical h e r m e -
n e u t i c s takes a c c o u n t o f n e w ways of r e a d i n g texts a n d s h o w s h o w
s o m e t r a d i t i o n a l theological t o p i c s t a k e o n fresh significance w h e n
set in a different c o n t e x t .
Senior, D o n a l d , ed. The Catholic Study Bible. N e w York: O x f o r d

U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 9 0 . The first p a r t ( a l m o s t 6 0 0 pages) consists
o f general a n d i n t r o d u c t o r y articles, as well as r e a d i n g g u i d e s for
t h e v a r i o u s p a r t s o f t h e Bible. The s e c o n d p a r t p r o v i d e s t h e i n t r o -
d u c t i o n s , t r a n s l a t i o n s , a n d n o t e s for t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t a c c o r d i n g
t o t h e 1 9 7 0 e d i t i o n o f t h e N e w A m e r i c a n Bible a n d t h e t h o r o u g h l y
revised N e w ' T e s t a m e n t ( 1 9 8 8 ) .
S t u h l m u e l l e r , C a r r o l l , e d . The Collegeville Pastoral Dictionary of

Biblical'Theology. Collegeville, M i n n . : 'The Liturgical Press, 1 9 9 6 .
W r i t t e n b y C a t h o l i c biblical scholars k n o w n for t h e i r p a s t o r a l c o n -
c e r n , this Bible d i c t i o n a r y covers t h e o l o g i c a l topics s u c h as a t o n e -
m e n t , c h u r c h , eschatology, a n d f r i e n d s h i p w i t h reference t o O l d
a n d N e w Testaments a n d to t h e o l o g y a n d c h u r c h life.
ORTHODOX INTERPRETATION
OF SCRIPTURE
by
MICHAEL PROKURAT
I. INTRODUCTION
T h e t o p i c , t h e Bible a n d its i n t e r p r e t a t i o n in t h e E a s t e r n O r -
t h o d o x C h u r c h , is i m m e n s e a n d will be i n v e s t i g a t e d f r o m a
p a r t i c u l a r p e r s p e c t i v e — f r o m w i t h i n t h e Tradition o f t h e O r -
t h o d o x C h u r c h a n d w i t h an eye t o w a r d c o n t e m p o r a r y q u e s t i o n s in
t h e W e s t r e l a t i n g t o " B i b l e . " ' W e d o n o t i n t e n d t o review p a t r i s t i c
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , t h o u g h an a p p r o p r i a t e o p t i o n , b u t c h o o s e a b r o a d e r
historical o v e r v i e w o f t h e c a n o n . Similarly, n o e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e h i s -
torical-critical m e t h o d in t h e O r t h o d o x C h u r c h is c o n t a i n e d h e r e i n ,
1
since it has b e e n t w i c e r e v i e w e d in r e c e n t p u b l i c a t i o n s . We further
limit the topic by treating only the G r e e k / B y z a n t i n e a n d Slavic/Rus-
sian c h u r c h e s , n o t o u t o f a sense o f exclusivity b u t s i m p l y b e c a u s e
t h e y are m o s t accessible t o us liturgically, historically, linguistically,
sociologically, etc. A fuller t r e a t m e n t i n c l u d i n g all e t h n i c (or " n a -
:
For m a n y O r t h o d o x Christians the Tradition of the O r t h o d o x C h u r c h is
ultimately inseparable from that of the West a n d the whole of Christian history.
Two of my teachers, rhe late Professor Georges Barrois and Professor Vicror R.
Gold, b o t h of w h o m are probably best k n o w n for rheir c o n t r i b u t i o n s to the O x -
ford annotared Revised Standard Version (much of which was used again, with or
w i t h o u t appropriate accrediring, in rhe N e w Revised Standard Version), have c o n -
tributed greatly to the approach taken in this chapter. Although they w o u l d b o t h
identify themselves first with the Western C h u r c h — a n d each has a formidable
k n o w l e d g e of t h e Eastern C h u r c h as w e l l — t h e a p p r o a c h itself goes b e y o n d
geography.
' Veselin Kesich, The Gospel Image of Christ, rev. ed., (Cresrwood, N.Y.: St.
Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992) chs. 2 - 3 ; and J o h n Breck, The Power of the Word
in the Worshiping Church (Cresrwood, N.Y.: Sr. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1986)
ch. 1.
62 ORTHODOX INTERPRETATION OE SCRIPTURE
tional") O r t h o d o x c h u r c h e s is d e s i r a b l e b u t n o t w i t h i n t h e s c o p e o f
3
this c h a p t e r .
O u r p o i n t o f d e p a r t u r e takes as a p r e s u p p o s i t i o n — w h i c h s o m e
m i g h t prefer t o view as a h y p o t h e s i s — t h a t S c r i p t u r e is, a n d ever has
b e e n , liturgical. S e c o n d , O r t h o d o x C h r i s t i a n s e x p e r i e n c e S c r i p t u r e
a n d its i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p r i m a r i l y as a liturgical c e l e b r a t i o n , o t h e r t h a n
in t h e i r p r i v a t e r e a d i n g a n d study. O n t h e first p o i n t , S c r i p t u r e is
liturgical, t h e s t a t e m e n t is m a d e in t h e s t r o n g e s t possible sense. T o
say it in s i m p l e t e r m s , S c r i p t u r e o r i g i n a t e d as t h e l i t u r g y o f t h e p e o p l e
of G o d . For t h e specialist, t h e Sitz im Leben o f S c r i p t u r e is t h e T e m p l e
l i t u r g y o f J e r u s a l e m a n d t h e l i t u r g y o f t h e C h u r c h — a l o n g w i t h their
respective h i e r a r c h i e s . ' In p o p u l a r t e r m s o n e m i g h t e x p a n d t h e l o n g -
u s e d a x i o m t h a t t h e Psalms are "the p r a y e r b o o k " o f t h e T e m p l e a n d
C h u r c h t o i n c l u d e all t h e b o o k s o f t h e Bible in t h i s " p r a y e r b o o k . " In
s a y i n g S c r i p t u r e is liturgical, w e d o n o t m e a n to say m e r e l y t h a t lit-
urgy is s c r i p t u r a l ; b u t m o r e o v e r t h a t w h a t was originally liturgy b e -
c a m e S c r i p t u r e . S c r i p t u r e h a d its e m e r g e n c e a n d c o n t i n u e d exist-
e n c e in t h e liturgy, t h e liturgical life o f t h e Temple a n d C h u r c h , t h e
c o m m u n a l prayers of t h e p e o p l e of G o d .
The s e c o n d p o i n t , t h a t O r t h o d o x e x p e r i e n c e S c r i p t u r e a n d its
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n p r i m a r i l y as a liturgical c e l e b r a t i o n , is p r o b a b l y less
controversial b u t is offered in d i r e c t c o n t i n u i t y w i t h t h e first. As a
s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d d e s c r i p t i o n , O r t h o d o x C h r i s t i a n s — s c h o l a r s , clergy,
5
a n d l a i t y — r e c o g n i z e t h e p o i n t as t r u e . Even s o , o n e still m i g h t chal-
1
D u e to the rarity of English language materials o n the Bible in the O r t h o d o x
C h u r c h , especially regarding questions on history and c a n o n , incredible statements
can be found even in recent scholarly publications. For example, H a r r y M . Orlinsky
and Robert G. Bratcher in A History of Bible Translation and the North American
Contribution (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1991) 9, date the origins of the Slavic
version of the Bible to the fifth c e n t u r y — 4 0 0 years before any historian would
claim that a Slavic alphabet was invented! Similarly, R. F. Collins in t h e New Jerome
Biblical Commentary (F.nglewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1990) 1043, makes
the extraordinary statement that, "Since the n i n e t e e n t h century, however, Russian
O r t h o d o x theologians generally have not accepted the deuterocanonical b o o k s . "
T h e claim is erroneous o n g r o u n d s of liturgical and intellectual history. [It should
be noted that in other regards both A History of Bible Translation and the NJBC
are accurate and r e c o m m e n d e d books.]
4
T h i s is nor to say that exceptions c a n n o t be found. For example, the imperial
edict in Ezra does n o t lend itself to the same interpretation.
' See Breck, Power of the Word, " I n t r o d u c t i o n , " wherein this and the unity
between "Word and Sacrament" are explained from an O r t h o d o x perspective. For
a good recent survey of the c a n o n with similar conclusions regarding the Bible in
the C h u r c h in worship, see Joseph T. I.ienhard, The Bible, the Church, and Authority
(Collegeville, Minn.: T h e Liturgical Press, 1995). For an insightful comparsion of Or-
thodoxy and evangelical Protestantism o n Scripture, see Grant R. O s b o r n e , " T h e M a n y
MlCHAKI. P R O K U ' R A T 63
lenge t h e s t a t e m e n t , t o ask if this is as it s h o u l d b e . G i v e n t h e first

p o i n t a n d t h e s e l f - u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e O r t h o d o x as b e i n g t h e p e o p l e
of G o d p a r excellence w h e n p a r t i c i p a t i n g in d i v i n e service, t h e a n -
swer t o t h e c h a l l e n g e q u e s t i o n is yes.
A liturgical u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e W o r d o f G o d involves m a n y
difficulties a n d d a n g e r s , t w o of w h i c h are discussed below. First, t h e
liturgical c e l e b r a t i o n gives revelatory a n d historical, salvific events
by G o d a mysteriological o r " p o e t i c - m y t h i c " e x p r e s s i o n — a n d this is
n o t easily u n d e r s t o o d . T o t h e s y m p a t h e t i c , it l o o k s as if t h e l i t u r g y
a t t e m p t s t o "recreate" events from t h e Bible b y r e p e a t i n g t h e s c r i p -
tural a c c o u n t , e l a b o r a t e d as a c o m p l e t e story. T o t h e less t h a n s y m p a -
t h e t i c , it looks as if t h e s c r i p t u r a l a c c o u n t has b e e n e x p a n d e d t o s u c h
a degree in t h e liturgical c e l e b r a t i o n t h a t it has g o n e far b e y o n d avail-
able e v i d e n c e a n d i n f o r m a t i o n , it is " o u t o f b o u n d s . " T o t h e O r t h o -
d o x , t h e liturgical c e l e b r a t i o n is u n d e r s t o o d as a participation in the
event itself, i.e., every Easter is a d i r e c t p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h e resurrec-
t i o n o f C h r i s t , every E u c h a r i s t is a p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h e o r i g i n a l Last
S u p p e r , etc. T h e liturgy is n o t m e a n t t o b e a r e - c r e a t i o n o r r e p e t i -
t i o n , n o r is it m e a n t to b e a " r e w r i t e " of t h e s c r i p t u r a l a c c o u n t , b u t a
d i r e c t p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h e (scriptural) s a v i n g acts o f G o d . For R u s -
sian p h i l o s o p h e r s a n d t h e o l o g i a n s early in t h i s c e n t u r y , like N .
Berdyaev a n d S. Bulgakov, t h e c a t e g o r y " t r a n s - h i s t o r i c a l " — a c a t e g o r y
c a p a b l e of c a p t u r i n g h e r m e n e u t i c s a n d theology, o r t h e larger m e a n -
ings o f h i s t o r y — i n c l u d e s t h o s e timeless e v e n t s c e l e b r a t e d b y t h e
6
m y s t e r i o l o g i c a l o r " p o e t i c - m y t h i c " l i t u r g y . T h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of
t h e living, liturgical W o r d is q u i t e different from a c o m m e n t a r y a p -
p r o a c h o r confessional d e f i n i t i o n b a s e d u p o n a list of " T h e B o o k s of
S c r i p t u r e " — t h o u g h it n e e d n o t b e s o .
T h e s e c o n d difficulty in a liturgical u n d e r s t a n d i n g of S c r i p t u r e
is t h e historical q u e s t i o n — w h a t t h e text m e a n t w i t h i n its o w n c o n -
t e x t . Clearly, h i s t o r i c a l facticity is i m p o r t a n t . W e agree w i t h t h e
A p o s t l e Paul t h a t if C h r i s t was n o t raised from t h e d e a d , t h e n o u r
faith is in v a i n . T h e N i c e n e - C o n s t a n t i n o p o l i t a n C r e e d also m a i n -
tains a historical p e r s p e c t i v e , as does t h e general m a i n s t r e a m of t h e
and rhe O n e : T h e Interface Between O r t h o d o x and Evangelical Protestant H e r m e -

neutics," St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, XXIX, 3 (1995) 2 8 1 - 3 0 4 .
6
For us in the West, schooled in logical positivism, such a category simply
could n o t exist. O n l y a "primitive religion" w o u l d repeat a cyclical liturgical cel-
ebration within linear time. Fortunately, the explanations of religion a n d m y t h by
Mircea Eliade (sensitive to his O r t h o d o x b a c k g r o u n d ) , and recent recognition of
the inadequacies of ratio rationaiis in describing the wholeness of the h u m a n being and
society, have both further sensitized us to the validity of liturgical expression.
64 O R T H O D O X INTERPRETATION OE SCRIPTURE
J u d e o - C h r i s t i a n t r a d i t i o n . Still, it m i g h t b e o b j e c t e d t h a t s u c h a li-
turgical u n d e r s t a n d i n g of S c r i p t u r e b e t t e r p r e s e n t s t h o s e t r a n s - h i s -
torical e v e n t s t h a n it d o e s t h e h i s t o r i c a l . The o b j e c t i o n largely m i s -
construes the character of w h a t trans-historical means: Historical
facticity is n o t t o b e e x c l u d e d , b u t i n c l u d e d . Besides t h i s , t h e Bible is
t h e b o o k o f t h e p e o p l e o f G o d , a n d n o t vice versa; a n d it was n o t
w r i t t e n t o satisfy m o d e r n p r e c o n c e p t i o n s s t e m m i n g from t h e p h i -
l o s o p h y o f logical p o s i t i v i s m .
II. ORAL AND W R I I T E N
The first historical i n d i c a t i o n s of t h e w r i t t e n biblical t e x t t h a t

w e h a v e f r o m w i t h i n t h e Bible itself are t h e f a m o u s e p i s o d e s of t h e
f i n d i n g o f a b o o k in t h e Temple ( p r o b a b l y p a r t o f D e u t e r o n o m y )
d u r i n g Josiah's reign, a n d of t h e d i c t a t i o n b y t h e p r o p h e t J e r e m i a h t o
B a r u c h in t h e sixth c e n t u r y B . C . The earliest scrolls a n d m a n u s c r i p t s
of t h e biblical text ( Q u m r a n ) are from a t i m e m u c h later t h a n t h i s ,
closer to t h e b i r t h o f Jesus. D u e t o t h e fragility of w r i t i n g m a t e r i a l s ,
it is u n l i k e l y t h a t a n y s i g n i f i c a n t q u a n t i t y of earlier m a t e r i a l s will b e
f o u n d , u n l e s s t h e y are i n s c r i b e d o n m e t a l or s t o n e .
O u r c u l t u r a l p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h t h e w r i t t e n text s h o u l d n o t o b -
s c u r e o u r vision in s e e i n g a reality t h a t is foreign t o us: The Bible in
its o w n t i m e was a p r o d u c t o f a n d existed w i t h i n oral c u l t u r e ( s ) .
Even t h e w r i t t e n T o r a h or P e n t a t e u c h text, b r o u g h t f r o m B a b y l o n b y
Ezra in t h e fifth c e n t u r y a n d c e r e m o n i a l l y read (i.e., r e a d a l o u d ) in
7
its e n t i r e t y from a p l a t f o r m c o n s t r u c t e d n e a r t h e W a t e r G a t e , was
a c c o m p a n i e d b y a n oral t r a n s l a t i o n a n d / o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ( N e h . 8 ) .
M a n y examples p o i n t toward the primacy of the spoken word: "Hear,
O Israel: 'The L O R D is o u r G o d , t h e L O R D a l o n e . . . . R e c i t e t h e m
t o y o u r c h i l d r e n a n d talk a b o u t t h e m w h e n y o u are at h o m e a n d
w h e n y o u are away, w h e n y o u lie d o w n a n d w h e n y o u rise" ( D e u t .
6 : 4 f ) . For t h o s e needful o f m o r e e x a m p l e s , suffice it t o say t h a t s c h o l -
ars r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e v e r b " t o r e a d " in t h e a n c i e n t w o r l d p r i m a r i l y
m e a n t "to r e a d a l o u d . " T h u s , w e are o b l i g a t e d t o d o b u s i n e s s w i t h
t h e fact t h a t t h e Bible w i t h i n its o w n t i m e was n o t e x p e r i e n c e d as a
b o o k or scroll, b u t as t h e s p o k e n a n d p r o c l a i m e d w o r d . W h a t d o e s
t h i s m e a n t o us t o d a y a n d w h a t difference d o e s it m a k e ?
W h a t d o e s it m e a n ? ' T h e first c o n s e q u e n c e of "orality" in t h i s
sense is t h a t t h e w o r d s h a v e a " l i v i n g " aspect. They are especially
•' T h e Water Gate is identified as the "east gate of the T e m p l e " in 1 Esd. 9:38,
which connects Ezras reading with the T e m p l e area or thereabouts.
MlCHAKI, P R O K U ' R A T 65
"alive" w h e n e x p e r i e n c e d a n d s p o k e n , a n d t h e y are e n t r u s t e d t o a
c o m m u n i t y of faith, often t e r m e d t h e p e o p l e of G o d . For A m e r i c a n s
w h o b e l o n g t o "liturgical c h u r c h e s , " this s h o u l d n o t be a difficult
c o n c e p t . The " h o l y w o r d s " are p a r t of t h e c o m m u n a l expression o f
w o r s h i p , t h e n as n o w : "Assemble t h e p e o p l e — m e n , w o m e n , a n d
c h i l d r e n , as well as t h e aliens r e s i d i n g in y o u r t o w n s — s o t h a t t h e y
m a y h e a r a n d learn t o fear t h e L O R D y o u r G o d a n d t o o b s e r v e dili-
g e n t l y all t h e w o r d s o f this law . . ." ( D e u t . 3 1 : 1 2 f ) . W h e n c o d i f i e d
these " h o l y w o r d s " (or W o r d of G o d ) are u n d e r s t o o d as t h e " B o o k of
8
t h e P e o p l e . " F o r t h e O r t h o d o x C h r i s t i a n all of these e l e m e n t s — t h e
salvific e v e n t s , t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e c o m m u n i t y of t h e p e o p l e of
G o d , a n d t h e liturgical expression o f this experience (the "holy words")
in p r o c l a m a t i o n a n d p r e a c h i n g — a r e c o n s t i t u t i v e t o t h e i n t e r p r e t a -
t i o n o f S c r i p t u r e . For e x a m p l e , t h e d e l i v e r a n c e f r o m E g y p t , t h e for-
m a t i o n of t h e p e o p l e delivered, as well as t h e S o n g o f M i r i a m cel-
e b r a t i n g t h e e v e n t s , are all p a r t o f T r a d i t i o n — e v e n i n c l u d i n g t h e
liturgical c e l e b r a t i o n of t h e e v e n t t h r o u g h t h e ages a n d t o d a y o n
Pascha ( E a s t e r ) . T h e original oral t r a d i t i o n is intrinsically c o n n e c t e d
to p r e s e n t - d a y liturgical usage, t h r o u g h the m e d i a t i o n of H o l y
S c r i p t u r e a n d its i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , all a p a r t o f a l i v i n g , u n i n t e r -
rupted continuum.
W h a t difference d o e s it m a k e ? A n o r m a t i v e w a y o n e m a y p a r -
ticipate in H o l y T r a d i t i o n , especially t h e s a v i n g acts o f G o d , is in t h e
liturgy, m e d i a t e d b y S c r i p t u r e . T h e r e f o r e , S c r i p t u r e a n d p r e a c h i n g
have a s a c r a m e n t a l q u a l i t y in t h e b r o a d e r sense o f t h e w o r d . T h e
Bible is n o t so m u c h history, l i t e r a t u r e , o r t h e o l o g y in t h e a b s t r a c t , as
it is t h e liturgical b o o k of t h e C h u r c h . W h e n w e r e a d o u r privately
o w n e d E n g l i s h - l a n g u a g e Bibles in o u r h o m e s , it is easy to forget t h a t
t h a t literary m i l e s t o n e , t h e K i n g J a m e s V e r s i o n , was actually a t r a n s -
l a t i o n from B y z a n t i n e liturgical texts. T h e codices f r o m w h i c h m o d -
e r n English p r i n t e d texts are t r a n s l a t e d m i g h t best b e d e s c r i b e d as
t h e liturgical b o o k s of t h e C h u r c h .
W h y is t h e o r a l — a n d t h e l i t u r g i c a l — a s p e c t o f t h e Bible so diffi-
c u l t for us t o grasp? First o f all, it is b e c a u s e all m o d e r n W e s t e r n
c u l t u r e s are " w r i t t e n " ( a n d possibly " v i d e o " a n d " c o m p u t e r " ) before
t h e y are "oral." As Fr. A. S c h m e m a n n was f o n d of p o i n t i n g o u t , m o r e
w o r d s are p r i n t e d every w e e k in t h e S u n d a y e d i t i o n o f t h e New York
Times t h a n t h e r e are in t h e w h o l e of t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t . W h a t w e
8
Conrrasr rhis u n d e r s t a n d i n g with the accurare Moslem self-identification,
"People of the Book," since the Koran is primarily a literary work. Christians igno-
rant of Islam and their o w n history somerimes identify themselves as the "People of
the B o o k " — a n u n f o r t u n a t e misrepresenration.
h a v e e l s e w h e r e called t h e " p o s t - G u t e n b e r g i a n " B i b l e — a n i n d i v i d u -

ally affordable p r i n t e d c o l l e c t i o n o f all t h e b o o k s from G e n e s i s t o
R e v e l a t i o n b o u n d u n d e r o n e c o v e r — h a s b e e n t h e n o r m for so m a n y
c e n t u r i e s (in a c u l t u r e focused o n t h e i n d i v i d u a l ) t h a t w e h a v e for-
g o t t e n h o w e x c e p t i o n a l a n d rare a p r o d u c t i o n , in historical t e r m s , a
p r i v a t e c o p y o f t h e B i b l e is. S i n c e i n d i v i d u a l s r e a d t h e post-
G u t e n b e r g i a n Bible p r i v a t e l y a t will, a n d f r e q u e n t l y d e v o i d o f c o m -
m u n i t y c o n t e x t , t h e y risk b e i n g insensitive t o t h e c o m m u n a l procla-
mation o f t h e W o r d . Even t h e classical m e m o r i z a t i o n o f biblical p a s -
sages has b e c o m e i n d i v i d u a l i z e d r a t h e r t h a n c o m m u n i t y - f o c u s e d in
o u r A m e r i c a n c u l t u r e . The q u e s t for i n d i v i d u a l salvation h a s eclipsed
t h e reality t h a t G o d usually saves t h e p e o p l e o f G o d first, a n d t h e n
saves i n d i v i d u a l s b y i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h e m i n t o his p e o p l e . Private read-
ings a n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s — w h i c h h a v e t h e i r place in T r a d i t i o n t o o —
h a v e all b u t s u p p l a n t e d liturgical p r o c l a m a t i o n a n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .
S e c o n d , it is difficult t o g r a s p t h e oral a n d liturgical c h a r a c t e r of
t h e W o r d o f G o d b e c a u s e e v e n t h e n a m e s w e use p r e j u d i c e us in
a d v a n c e . The w o r d " s c r i p t u r e " c o m e s f r o m t h e L a t i n scriptum and
i n d i c a t e s s o m e t h i n g w r i t t e n . Similarly, t h e w o r d " B i b l e " c o m e s f r o m
t h e p l u r a l G r e e k w o r d biblia (related t o Byblos) a n d c o n n o t e s b o o k s
or a c o l l e c t i o n o f b o o k s . As a result, t h e p r i m a r y E n g l i s h t e r m s w e
use for t h e W o r d o f G o d b o t h h a v e t o d o w i t h w r i t t e n b o o k s . O t h e r
c u l t u r e s (e.g., G r e e k a n d R u s s i a n ) d o n o t always follow suit w i t h this
usage. This o b s e r v a t i o n is n o t m a d e w i t h t h e i n t e n t o f c h a n g i n g t h e
English language terminology, b u t rather with the aim of s h e d d i n g
s o m e light o n o u r o w n American cultural p r e d i l e c t i o n s — o n e of the
m o s t difficult tasks of exegesis.
I I I . HEBREW AND GREEK
T h e history of the H e b r e w b o o k s a n d language from the

B a b y l o n i a n Exile d o w n t h r o u g h t h e H e l l e n i s t i c a n d R o m a n p e r i o d s
is a c o m p l e x a n d s h a d o w y o n e , a b o u t w h i c h s c h o l a r s c o n t i n u e to
d e b a t e — n o r is it o u r p u r p o s e t o b r o a c h all t h e s e q u e s t i o n s . A few
general observations s h o u l d suffice. A consensus exists a m o n g scholars
t h a t t h e sixth c e n t u r y B . C . , a n d m o r e especially t h e time a n d place of t h e
Babylonian Exile, was t h e matrix from w h i c h the T o r a h a n d m o s t of t h e
9
p r o p h e t i c b o o k s e m e r g e d in their final w r i t t e n f o r m . The reasons for
y
A m o r e radical position, e.g., van Scters' and others, holds that most o f these
books were n o t only redacted, b u t moreover created, d u r i n g the Exile. I find this
position t e n d e n t i o u s .
this h a d to d o largely w i t h t h e cessation of social institutions, includ-

ing liturgy, a n d t h e crises of the exiled c o m m u n i t y .
P r i m a r y social i n s t i t u t i o n s for t h e s m a l l , pre-exilic J u d a h i t e state
i n c l u d e d t h e m o n a r c h y a n d t h e J e r u s a l e m T e m p l e , b o t h of w h i c h
b e c a m e m o r i b u n d d u r i n g t h e Exile. W i t h t h e e n d o f t h e Temple
c a m e also t h e d e m i s e o f its l i t u r g y a n d liturgical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , i.e.,
p r o p h e c y , all p a r t o f t h e fabric of life for c e n t u r i e s before t h e inva-
sion. The cessation o f t h e Temple liturgy, defeat b y a foreign p o w e r
( a n d g o d ! ) , a n d t h e t e m p t a t i o n s o f c o s m o p o l i t a n B a b y l o n i a n life cre-
a t e d a w e l l - r e c o g n i z e d religious crisis of g r e a t d e p t h . A m o n g t h e
m e m o r a b l e responses t o this c r i s i s — a p o c a l y p t i c i s m , a h o p e for re-
t u r n , t h e " S e c o n d Isaiah," e t c . — w e r e t h e c o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e H e b r e w
b o o k s a n d , q u i t e p o s s i b l y , t h e c o n t i n u a t i o n o f t h e l i t u r g y in
B a b y l o n ( w i t h o u t sacrifice) in a s e t t i n g w h i c h e v e n t u a l l y b e c a m e
the synagogue.
Even after t h e (partial) r e t u r n of t h e Jews from B a b y l o n in 5 3 8
B . C . a n d following, t h e w o r k d o n e t h e r e ( B a b y l o n ) o n w h a t is n o w
c o n s i d e r e d S c r i p t u r e m a i n t a i n e d a certain p r i m a c y . The B a b y l o n i a n
J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y was n o t o n l y w e a l t h i e r a n d m o r e p o w e r f u l t h a n
t h e J e r u s a l e m c o m m u n i t y , b u t it h a d l e a r n e d to t r a n s p o r t physically
t h e liturgy a n d its b o o k s , b o t h o f w h i c h expressed t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e
p e o p l e o f G o d . Sacrifice r e m a i n e d t h e sole p r e r o g a t i v e o f t h e revivi-
fied J e r u s a l e m c o m m u n i t y in t h e r e b u i l t Temple, a fact m a d e plain
by t h e A r a m a i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e b e t w e e n t h e J e r u s a l e m T e m p l e c o m -
m u n i t y a n d t h e J e w i s h c o m m u n i t i e s at E l e p h a n t i n e in E g y p t a n d in
B a b y l o n . O n l y t h e Temple a n d t h e p r i e s t h o o d w o u l d survive as i n -
s t i t u t i o n s in J e r u s a l e m , w h i l e t h e m o n a r c h y a n d its a c c o m p a n y i n g
10
prophecy became silent—virtually non-extant.
'The intellectual p r e c e d e n c e o f t h e B a b y l o n i a n Jews is i l l u s t r a t e d
in E z r a s r e t u r n a n d in t h e liturgical r e a d i n g of t h e b o o k s o f t h e T o -
rah o r P e n t a t e u c h . W h a t e v e r t h e d e g r e e of H e b r e w c o m p r e h e n s i o n ,
w h e n Ezra read t h e 'Torah in H e b r e w , it was necessary for t h e Levites
(or Ezra h i m s e l f ) t o explain t h e i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e w o r d s t o his lis-
t e n e r s ( N e h . 8) in J e r u s a l e m . Ezra's " B i b l e " (Torah) w a s a m a n i f e s t a -
tion of a religious a n d political alliance b e t w e e n Jerusalem a n d
B a b y l o n ; a n d it was t h e liturgical b o o k o f t h e places w h e r e t h e h o p e s
for liturgy h a d never ceased, w h e r e t h e p r i e s t h o o d w a s a u t h o r i t a -
tively r e p r e s e n t e d . These c o n s t i t u t e d Ezra's claims t o a u t h o r i t y , a l o n g
w i t h t h e p o w e r o f Persian s u p p o r t .
° Michael P r o k u r a t , llaggai and Z.echariah 1-8: A Form Critical Analysis

(University Microfilms International: Dissertation Abstracts International. 4912A,
J u n e 15, 1989) 121f., 173f., 360f.
N o t e v e r y o n e was t o a c c e p t Ezra's a u t h o r i t y — o r his " B i b l e " —

a n d t h e exclusivistic a u t h e n t i c i t y h e c l a i m e d for it. O n o n e h a n d , b y
t h e first c e n t u r y B . C . t h e S a m a r i t a n s w o u l d codify their o w n s c r i p -
t u r e s a n d give p r e c e d e n c e t o t h e S h e c h e m i t e t r a d i t i o n o v e r t h e
J e r u s a l e m i t e , p r e s e r v i n g a text in H e b r e w w i t h s o m e different spell-
ings, b u t s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e s a m e as t h e H e b r e w o f t h e later M a s o r e t e s .
Historical questions relating to the Samaritans a n d the Samaritan
P e n t a t e u c h are a p p r o p r i a t e to an i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e
Bible in t h e Persian, H e l l e n i s t i c , a n d R o m a n p e r i o d s , b u t are c o m -
p l e x . " O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e J e w i s h c o l o n i e s in E g y p t a p p e a r to
have an u n i n t e r r u p t e d p r e s e n c e in t h a t c o u n t r y from t h e t i m e o f t h e
Exile ( J e r e m i a h , E l e p h a n t i n e c o m m u n i t y , etc.) t h r o u g h t h e R o m a n
d e s t r u c t i o n o f A l e x a n d r i a in t h e early s e c o n d c e n t u r y A . D . A l t h o u g h
w e d o n o t k n o w as m u c h as w e m i g h t like a b o u t t h e i r liturgical p r a c -
tices a n d s c r i p t u r e s , t h e fact t h a t t h e y s e e m e d t o a p p e a l t o J e r u s a l e m
from t i m e t o t i m e , a n d J e r u s a l e m a c c u s e d t h e m o f h e t e r o d o x y , w o u l d
lead o n e t o d o u b t t h e i r full c o m p l i a n c e w i t h J e r u s a l e m liturgical a n d
religious policy. ( I n d e e d , w h e n A l e x a n d r i a b e c a m e a l e a d i n g city of
t h e M e d i t e r r a n e a n , t h e J e w s t h e r e m i g h t have e n t e r t a i n e d an a t t i -
t u d e of c o s m o p o l i t a n s u p e r i o r i t y over t h e i r " s u b u r b a n " n e i g h b o r s in
J e r u s a l e m . ) In this fluid c o n t e x t t r a n s l a t i o n s w e r e m a d e i n t o G r e e k
and Aramaic.
A c o m m o n l y voiced opinion regarding the H e b r e w a n d Greek
Bibles, especially r e g a r d i n g t h e b o o k s of t h e First C o v e n a n t (i.e., O l d
T e s t a m e n t ) , was a n d is t h a t t h e H e b r e w Bible was t h e J e w i s h Bible,
w h i l e t h e G r e e k was t h a t o f t h e C h u r c h . This r a t h e r s i m p l e view is at
best m i s l e a d i n g , if n o t o n e t o be entirely rejected. A b e t t e r d e s c r i p -
t i o n m i g h t be t h a t t h e H e b r e w a n d G r e e k S c r i p t u r e s were b o t h le-
gitimate synagogue traditions, a n d the C h u r c h a d o p t e d the tradi-
t i o n o f t h e G r e e k - s p e a k i n g s y n a g o g u e s — a l t h o u g h even as late as t h e
f o u r t h c e n t u r y w i t h St. G r e g o r y N a z i a n z e n (leader o f t h e S e c o n d
E c u m e n i c a l C o u n c i l ) a n d his c o n t e m p o r a r y , St. J e r o m e , we find s o m e
C h r i s t i a n s e x p r e s s i n g a preference for t h e H e b r e w listing of b o o k s .
H i s t o r i c a l i t e m s t h a t alert us t o a p a r i t y c l a i m e d for t h e t w o
c o n t e m p o r a r y t r a d i t i o n s are t h e Letter o f Aristeas (ca. 1 0 0 B . C . ) ,
referring t o t h e G r e e k t r a n s l a t i o n of t h e H e b r e w , a n d Ben Sirach or
Ecclesiasticus. The Letter of Aristeas resorts t o e x a g g e r a t e d m e a n s t o
c o n v i n c e s u b s e q u e n t g e n e r a t i o n s t h a t t h e J e w i s h t r a n s l a t o r s were n o t
o n l y qualified a n d w o r k i n g u n d e r E g y p t i a n i m p e r i a l t u t e l a g e , b u t
:l
T h i s is largely d u e ro a terminological difficulty. All people living in the
region of Samaria t h r o u g h o u t the three periods are n o t to be identified as Samari-
tan religious sectarians w h o advanced M r . Gerizim as a rival to M t . Z i o n .
MlC.HAKI. P R O K U ' R A T 69
t h a t t h e i r p r o d u c t was c r e a t e d b y a fantastic u n a n i m i t y . B e n Sirach's

g r a n d s o n in t h e P r o l o g u e t o his g r a n d f a t h e r s w o r k finds it necessary
t o w a r n t h e reader t h a t t h e G r e e k d o e s n o t always t r a n s l a t e t h e exact
sense of t h e H e b r e w — a n e x p l a n a t i o n necessary b e c a u s e m a n y p e o p l e
a s s u m e d it d i d . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t r a n s l a t i o n a l difficulties d i d n o t p r e -
v e n t h i m f r o m p r e s e n t i n g t h e G r e e k o f his g r a n d f a t h e r s w o r k "for
t h o s e living a b r o a d w h o w i s h e d t o g a i n l e a r n i n g , b e i n g p r e p a r e d in
c h a r a c t e r to live a c c o r d i n g t o t h e Law." If t h e a b o v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of
t h e e v i d e n c e is insufficient t o illustrate t h e p a r i t y c l a i m e d for t h e
Greek translation with the H e b r e w original, one could a d d the wit-
nesses of t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t w r i t e r s , a n d t o t h a t t h e voices o f P h i l o
of A l e x a n d r i a a n d Flavius J o s e p h u s . G r e e k was h e r e t o stay.
A t t h e s a m e t i m e as B e n Sirach t r a n s l a t e d w r i t i n g s from H e b r e w
t o G r e e k ( a n d possibly before), o t h e r s t r a n s l a t e d biblical b o o k s , in-
c l u d i n g t h e P e n t a t e u c h , from H e b r e w i n t o A r a m a i c . K n o w n p r i m a -
rily from t h e medieval era as t h e A r a m a i c T a r g u m s ( T a r g u m i m ) , s o m e
o f these w o r k s o r i g i n a t e d even before t h e t i m e o f t h e Talmud a n d t h e
classical rabbis. Several d o c u m e n t s from Q u m r a n testify t o t h e early
p r e - C h r i s t i a n d a t e o f A r a m a i c t r a n s l a t i o n efforts. A l s o , gospel q u o t e s
of Jesus' w o r d s o n t h e cross are an A r a m a i c e q u i v a l e n t t o a H e b r e w
p s a l m verse. A l t h o u g h t h e T a r g u m s h a v e a l o n g h i s t o r y o f t r a n s m i s -
sion, developing t h r o u g h the Byzantine period a n d beyond, the gen-
eral p h e n o m e n o n r e p r e s e n t s a g o o d parallel t o t h e t r a n s l a t i o n s from
H e b r e w to G r e e k a n d t h e w i d e s p r e a d interest in t h e t r a n s l a t i o n a n d
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e H e b r e w text in t h e a n c i e n t w o r l d t h r o u g h late
antiquity.
The political u n i t y o f t h e a n c i e n t w o r l d a c h i e v e d b y A l e x a n d e r ,
a n d again b y t h e R o m a n s , gave G r e e k an u n p r e c e d e n t e d e c u m e n i c a l
s t a t u s a m o n g l a n g u a g e s . O n e c o u l d say t h a t R o m a n m i l i t a r y m i g h t ,
G r e e k c u l t u r e a n d l a n g u a g e , a n d J e w i s h religion fascinated t h e w o r l d
for c e n t u r i e s . 'The G r e e k l a n g u a g e was c l a i m e d by t h e a n c i e n t s t o
have s u p e r i o r i t y over t h e H e b r e w o n p u r e l y l i n g u i s t i c g r o u n d s : spell-
i n g in G r e e k was m o r e exact t h a n t h e u n p o i n t e d H e b r e w text; a n d
v e r b tenses a n d forms in G r e e k w e r e m o r e specific t h a n t h e i r H e -
b r e w c o u n t e r p a r t s , n o t t o m e n t i o n t h e accessibility o f G r e e k t o a
worldwide population.
The t r a n s l a t i o n of t h e H e b r e w b o o k s i n t o G r e e k a c c o m p l i s h e d
an u n a n t i c i p a t e d e q u i v o c a t i o n o f c u l t u r a l s t r u c t u r e s b e t w e e n t h e
S e m i t i c a n d G r e e k w o r l d s , t h e c u r i o u s results o f w h i c h w e live w i t h
today. T h a t is t o say, t h e " t r a n s c u l t u r a l " i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of T o r a h w i t h
Law, t h e F o r m e r P r o p h e t s w i t h H i s t o r y , C o v e n a n t w i t h W i l l o r Tes-
t a m e n t , e t c . — h o w e v e r necessary a n d inevitable from t h e t r a n s l a t o r s '
p o i n t of v i e w — h a v e given difficulty t o readers a n d scholars from

medieval t i m e s until t h e p r e s e n t . For e x a m p l e , it is generally a c k n o w l -
e d g e d t h a t t h e H e b r e w w o r d " t o r a h " in m o s t c o n t e x t s is b e t t e r u n -
d e r s t o o d as " i n s t r u c t i o n " o r " t e a c h i n g " ; b u t w h e n given t h e sense o f
R o m a n (or A m e r i c a n ) "law," it b e c o m e s s o m e t h i n g different. A g a i n ,
w h e n t h e T o r a h a n d F o r m e r P r o p h e t s were e n t i t l e d "writings a n d
h i s t o r y " in t h e S e p t u a g i n t , in m e d i e v a l t i m e s t h e y s o o n b e c a m e "all
t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e u n i v e r s e , " even t h o u g h t h a t m e a n i n g was never
i m p l i e d by t h e H e b r e w t i t l e s — n o r d i d scholars t h r o u g h late a n t i q -
u i t y force t h a t u n d e r s t a n d i n g o n t h e m .
Finally, a n d p r o b a b l y m o s t significantly, " c o v e n a n t " was c o n s i s -
t e n t l y r e n d e r e d " t e s t a m e n t " b y t h e S e p t u a g i n t translators, t h e Q u m r a n
t r a n s l a t o r s , a n d t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t a u t h o r s — p o s s i b l y t h e result o f
t h e lack of i n t e r n a t i o n a l (or s u z e r a i n t y ) c o v e n a n t s , m a d e o b s o l e t e in
t h e H e l l e n i s t i c a n d R o m a n Periods b y t h e c o n q u e s t s o f A l e x a n d e r
a n d R o m e . As t h e o l o g i a n s h a v e b e e n l e a r n i n g t h r o u g h o u t t h e t w e n -
tieth century, covenant n o t only had a millennium's w o r t h o f history
b e h i n d it at the time of the Babylonian Exile, b u t r e p r e s e n t e d a sig-
nificant, living r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n a k i n g a n d v a s s a l — m u c h m o r e
t h a n a t e s t a m e n t o r d e a t h b e q u e s t . B o t h Jesus a n d Paul d o u b t l e s s
h a d "berith" o r " c o v e n a n t " o n their lips a n d in their m i n d s for t h e
"words of institution" a n d at other times, b u t the Greek translation
does n o t readily c o n v e y this to u s .
For c o n t e m p o r a r y q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g H e b r e w a n d G r e e k Bibles
in w h i c h O r t h o d o x p a r t i c i p a t e , a few r e m a r k s are in order. S i n c e
b o t h t h e G r e e k a n d Russian c h u r c h e s use t h e L u c i a n i c S e p t u a g i n t ,
t h e r e is a t e n d e n c y a m o n g t h e faithful t o r o m a n t i c i z e t h e u n a n i m i t y
of t h e liturgical w i t n e s s a n d b e a u t y o f l a n g u a g e , d e p i c t i n g t h e h i s -
t o r y o f t h e G r e e k S c r i p t u r e s as d e v o i d o f c o n t r o v e r s y a n d i n d e p e n -
d e n t of t h e H e b r e w . H i s t o r y reveals flaws in this a t t i t u d e . For ex-
ample, d u r i n g the fourth century (considered by some O r t h o d o x to
be a t h e o l o g i c a l a p o g e e ) t h e r e w e r e t h r e e different S e p t u a g i n t s in use
in t h e m a j o r C h r i s t i a n c e n t e r s of t h e eastern M e d i t e r r a n e a n : (1) T h e
c h u r c h e s in A n t i o c h a n d C o n s t a n t i n o p l e u s e d t h e L u c i a n i c r e c e n -
sion. (2) C a e s a r e a in Palestine utilized a t r a n s l a t i o n b y O r i g e n t h a t
was u p d a t e d b y P a m p h i l u s a n d E u s e b i u s . (3) A l e x a n d r i a h a d a t h i r d
r e c e n s i o n b y a c e r t a i n H e s y c h i u s a b o u t w h i c h little else is k n o w n .
T h e C o n s t a n t i n o p o l i t a n p r a c t i c e , b a s e d o n a t r a n s l a t i o n d o n e by t h e
P r e s b y t e r L u c i a n ( w h o preferred A t t i c forms) in t h a t s a m e c e n t u r y ,
finally w o n o u t .
A n o t h e r e x a m p l e of t h e H e b r e w - G r e e k issue can b e f o u n d in t h e
m a j o r w o r k s o f t h a t i n s t r u c t o r o f t h e C a p p a d o c i a n Fathers, O r i g e n .
MlCHAEI. P R O K U R A T 71
P r o b a b l y d u e t o his extensive influence in m a t t e r s christological, these

c o n c e r n s eclipsed his p r i m a r y effort a n d t h a t of t h e e n t i r e A l e x a n d r i a n
S c h o o l : S c r i p t u r e . It s h o u l d b e r e m e m b e r e d t h a t his g r e a t e s t research
effort was a c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e H e b r e w o r i g i n a l , o c c u p y i n g t h e first
c o l u m n of his S c r i p t u r e listings, w i t h t h e v a r i o u s G r e e k r e n d e r i n g s ;
a n d his w o r k m a y b e c i t e d as a d i r e c t p r e d e c e s s o r t o t h e S e p t u a g i n t
t r a n s l a t i o n w o r k of t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y , m e n t i o n e d a b o v e . The p o i n t
h e r e is t h a t O r i g e n b e g a n w i t h t h e H e b r e w o r i g i n a l , t r a n s l i t e r a t e d it
i n t o G r e e k , a n d p r o c e e d e d t o list t h e v a r i o u s G r e e k t r a n s l a t i o n s as
c o m p a r e d t o t h e H e b r e w . For O r i g e n , t h e H e b r e w text was t h e c o n -
t r o l l i n g factor t o w h i c h t h e G r e e k h a d t o b e c o m p a r e d .
Today, the relationships between the various H e b r e w a n d Greek
textual t r a d i t i o n s have t o b e t a k e n very seriously, as seriously as O r i g e n
t o o k t h e m , especially in regard t o t h e m a n y n e w resources a n d t o o l s
w e n o w h a v e a t o u r d i s p o s a l . T h i s was i l l u s t r a t e d in t h e n i n e t e e n t h
c e n t u r y by Patriarch Philaret of M o s c o w w h o oversaw the Russian
Bible t r a n s l a t i o n (see b e l o w ) , w h i c h is n o w p u b l i s h e d a n d u s e d by
t h e R u s s i a n c h u r c h . In a d d i t i o n , o n e of t h e g r e a t e s t resources i l l u m i -
n a t i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e H e b r e w a n d G r e e k textual t r a d i -
t i o n s has b e e n given t o us this c e n t u r y b y t h e discoveries a t Q u m r a n .
Q u m r a n has p r o v e d t h a t b o t h t h e H e b r e w M a s o r e t i c t e x t a n d t h e
G r e e k S e p t u a g i n t are faithful a n d c r e d i b l e witnesses t o t h e a n c i e n t
t r a d i t i o n s a n d m a n u s c r i p t s . In m a n y w a y s , c e r t a i n l y b e c a u s e of t h e
d i s c o v e r y a n d availability o f n e w i n f o r m a t i o n , w e are p r e s e n t l y in a
p o s i t i o n t o d o w o r k w i t h S c r i p t u r e t h a t was i m p o s s i b l e even a h a l f
c e n t u r y ago.
I V . T H E LANGUAGE OE THE COUNCILS
All ( " C h a l c e d o n i a n " ) O r t h o d o x c h u r c h e s l o o k t o t h e Seven E c u -

m e n i c a l C o u n c i l s , a n d related local c o u n c i l s , as definitive of H o l y
Tradition, as a s t a t e m e n t o f faith over t i m e , as a n o r m o f " o r t h o p r -
axy," e t c . ; a n d t h e t r a d i t i o n s a n d d e c i s i o n s of these C o u n c i l s are very
m u c h alive today, f r o m t h e N i c e n e - C o n s t a n t i n o p o l i t a n C r e e d t o ico-
2
n o g r a p h y . Issues r e l a t i n g t o S c r i p t u r e existed at each o f t h e s e v e n , '
t h o u g h w e shall l i m i t o u r i n v e s t i g a t i o n t o s o m e g e n e r a l c o n s i d e r -
a t i o n s , p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e t o p i c of t h e c a n o n o r list o f b o o k s t o b e r e a d —
b o t h in c h u r c h a n d o t h e r w i s e .
H e n r y C h a d w i c k , " T h e Status of E c u m e n i c a l C o u n c i l s in A n g l i c a n
T h o u g h t , " The Heritage of the Early Church, David N e i m a n a n d Margaret Schatkin,
eds., Orientalia Christiana Analecta 195 ( R o m a : P o n t . I n s t i t u t u m S t u d i o r u m
O r i e n t a l i u m , 1973) 39.3-408.
Even t h o u g h h i s t o r y has n o t given us t h e m i n u t e s o f t h e First

C o u n c i l in A . D . 3 2 5 , w e d o k n o w from o t h e r w r i t i n g s a n d s u b s e -
q u e n t councils that questions a b o u t Scripture were on the agenda.
T h e p r i m a r y t h e o l o g i c a l d e b a t e over S c r i p t u r e at t h e First C o u n c i l
h a d t o d o w i t h its use w i t h i n a c o m m o n creed, a c r e e d w i t h r o o t s in
C a e s a r e a , later called t h e N i c e n e C r e e d . O n e g r o u p insisted t h a t a
creed c o u l d o n l y use w o r d s f o u n d in S c r i p t u r e , w h i l e t h e p r e v a i l i n g
c o n s e n s u s c l a i m e d t h a t t h e w o r d s of S c r i p t u r e d o n o t e x h a u s t d i v i n e
revelation a n d h u m a n e x p e r i e n c e ; a n d t h e h i s t o r y o f intellect a n d
passage o f t i m e h a d raised n e w q u e s t i o n s w h i c h w o u l d best be a n -
swered by " c o n t e m p o r a r y language." Gnosticism a n d Arianism h a d
c r e a t e d a crisis t h a t o n l y t h e G r e e k w o r d " h o m o o u s i o s " o r " c o n s u b -
s t a n t i a l " — a n o n b i b l i c a l w o r d — c o u l d address. T h e s a m e g r o u p m a i n -
t a i n e d t h a t t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of Jesus C h r i s t as " h o m o o u s i o s " or "of
o n e essence w i t h t h e F a t h e r " was in fact " b i b l i c a l , " t h o u g h t h e w o r d
itself d o e s n o t a p p e a r in t h e Bible. Briefly, t h e y a r g u e d t h a t t h e w o r d
was n o t a new d e f i n i t i o n o r n e w revelation o f G o d , b u t m e r e l y a
r e s t a t e m e n t of H o l y T r a d i t i o n u s i n g c o n t e m p o r a r y ( f o u r t h - c e n t u r y )
l a n g u a g e ; p a r a p h r a s i n g St. Paul in 1 C o r i n t h i a n s 11 a n d 1 5 , w h a t
has b e e n received is b e i n g passed o n .
St. A t h a n a s i u s of A l e x a n d r i a , r e c o g n i z e d as a m o t i v a t i n g t h e o -
logical force at N i c a e a a n d a u t h o r o f t h e "Life o f St. A n t h o n y , " is-
s u e d his 3 9 t h Festal Letter (Easter, A . D . 3 6 7 ) listing t h e b o o k s to be
r e a d in his d i o c e s a n c h u r c h e s . A l t h o u g h t h e first definitive b o o k list
c a m e from a h i e r a r c h as a n e d i c t , it was u n d e r s t o o d as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
o f c h u r c h p r a c t i c e h a n d e d d o w n from t h e a p o s t l e s — t h e " C a n o n of
T r u t h . " This was t h e first d o c u m e n t t o list t h e t w e n t y - s e v e n b o o k s of
t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t w h i c h w e r e c o g n i z e today. T h e list h a d n o offi-
cial a u t h o r i t y o u t s i d e A t h a n a s i u s ' s diocese b u t was p r o b a b l y given
special r e c o g n i t i o n b e c a u s e o f h i s s t a t u s w i t h i n t h e c h u r c h a n d
Alexandria's p o s i t i o n as a l e a d i n g city o f t h e E m p i r e . It is also p o s -
sible t h a t A t h a n a s i u s was r e s p o n s i b l e for p r e p a r a t i o n o f C o d e x
V a t i c a n u s w h i l e exiled in R o m e , since t h e b o o k lists in t h e Easter
letter a n d V a t i c a n u s are i d e n t i c a l . W e p r o c e e d t o an e x a m i n a t i o n of
select c a n o n s from t h e c o n c i l i a r p e r i o d .
A p o s t o l i c C a n o n 8 5 : T h i s earliest c a n o n i c a l reference t o a list of

t h e b o o k s o f S c r i p t u r e is difficult t o d a t e , j u s t as a n y o n e o f t h e
A p o s t o l i c C a n o n s is difficult t o d a t e i n d i v i d u a l l y ; b u t w e have d i s -
covered t h a t t h e b o d y o f eighty-five c a n o n s was c o m p i l e d b y t h e first
h a l f o f t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y , p r o b a b l y s h o r t l y after t h e First E c u m e n i -
cal C o u n c i l . It is u n n e c e s s a r y t o assert t h a t C a n o n 8 5 was w r i t t e n b y
an a p o s t l e , b u t it has always b e e n given "apostolic a u t h o r i t y " w i t h i n

t h e O r t h o d o x C h u r c h (even before t h e C o u n c i l o f T r u l l o ) . W e k n o w
t h a t t h e A p o s t o l i c C a n o n s d o r e p r e s e n t t h e earliest c a n o n law o f t h e
C h u r c h a n d p r o b a b l y o r i g i n a t e before t h e year 3 0 0 . It is t r a d i t i o n a l
t o ascribe t h e greatest a u t h o r i t y t o this p a r t i c u l a r c a n o n w h e n e x a m -
i n i n g all t h o s e ecclesiastical rules t h a t p e r t a i n t o a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f
the books of Scripture.
" L e t t h e f o l l o w i n g b o o k s b e c o u n t e d v e n e r a b l e a n d sacred b y all
of y o u . . . ." S u c h a forceful b e g i n n i n g clause clearly s h o w s t h e h i g h
s t a t u s of S c r i p t u r e . T h e first g r o u p w h i c h t h e c a n o n lists are t h o s e
b o o k s o f t h e First C o v e n a n t ( O l d Testament). A m o n g these are c o n -
t a i n e d m a n y " d e u t e r o c a n o n i c a l b o o k s , " i.e., W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n ,
3
t h r e e B o o k s o f M a c c a b e e s , etc.' Besides these t h e C h u r c h r e c o m -
m e n d s t o t e a c h t h e y o u n g p e o p l e Ecclesiasticus ( W i s d o m of S i r a c h ) .
W i t h this a d m o n i t i o n t h e C h u r c h recognizes t h e value of a c e r t a i n
b o o k , a l t h o u g h o n e n o t r e c o m m e n d e d for liturgical usage. S u c h a
p o s i t i o n is an i m p o r t a n t a t t i t u d e t o o b s e r v e : A n o n l i t u r g i c a l b o o k
has a m a r k e d , r e c o g n i z e d value.
The s e c o n d list in t h e c a n o n e n u m e r a t e s b o o k s o f t h e N e w Tes-
t a m e n t . In a d d i t i o n to t h e G o s p e l s a n d Epistles o n e w o u l d e x p e c t ,
R e v e l a t i o n is m o s t n o t a b l y o m i t t e d , w h i l e t w o Epistles of C l e m e n t
a n d t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n s of C l e m e n t are a p p e n d e d . The C o n s t i t u t i o n s
are a d d r e s s e d t o t h e b i s h o p s a n d are n o t t o be read b y all, "on ac-
c o u n t o f t h e mystical t h i n g s in t h e m , " p r o b a b l y r e f e r r i n g t o t h e
disciplina arcani, i.e., r e t i c e n c e in revealing details of C h r i s t i a n m y s -
teries ( s a c r a m e n t s ) . W i t h this brief advice we can sense a p r i n c i p l e o f
d i s c e r n m e n t a n d d i s c r e t i o n . N o t e v e r y o n e is able t o read a b s o l u t e l y
everything a n d u n d e r s t a n d it properly. Both Scripture a n d liturgy bear a
certain "gnosis," o r k n o w l e d g e , t h a t needs to be interpreted correcdy.
T h e Metered P o e m s o f St. Gregory the T h e o l o g i a n : D a t i n g from

t h e m i d d l e o f t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y , this piece gives advice as to w h i c h
are t h e " g e n u i n e b o o k s " o f S c r i p t u r e , a n d was later given t h e a u t h o r -
:1
Pace H a r o l d S c a n l i n , " T h e O l d T e s r a m e n r C a n o n in t h e O r t h o d o x
C h u r c h e s , " New Perspectives on Historical Theology, ed. Bradley Nassif ( G r a n d
Rapids, M i c h . : William B. F.erdmans Publishing C o m p a n y , 1996) 3 0 6 : "Virtually
every k n o w n statement o n the canon from the East u p to the closing of the fourth
c e n t u r y limits the O l d T e s t a m e n t canon to the H e b r e w c a n o n . . . ." Even w i t h o u t
Apostolic C a n o n 8 5 , the s t a t e m e n t could n o t stand in the face of fourth-century
translation efforts (e.g., the I.ucianic Septuagint et al.) and liturgical practice. Scanlin
also appears to be unaware of the use of Hebrew in Slavic and Russian Bible translation
(p. 311), for which see below, 'Slavic and Russian." (The Russian and Slavic churches
comprise approximately two-thirds of the worlds Orthodox population.)
ity o f a c a n o n . St. G r e g o r y r e m a r k s t h a t m a n y m a l i g n a n t b o o k s have

b e e n c i r c u l a t e d a n d c a u t i o n s h o u l d b e s h o w n in c h o o s i n g s c r i p t u r a l
r e a d i n g s . H e lists t w e n t y - t w o b o o k s of t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t . Those
t h a t h e o m i t s are Esther, 1 Esdras, a n d all t h e d e u t e r o c a n o n i c a l b o o k s .
'This is t h e s h o r t e s t O l d ' T e s t a m e n t c a n o n ( a c c e p t e d a n d a p p r o v e d )
a n d is closest in c o n t e n t t o t h e " H e b r e w Bible." O f t h e b o o k s of t h e
N e w T e s t a m e n t St. G r e g o r y m e n t i o n s t w e n t y - s i x . H e o m i t s t h e Rev-
e l a t i o n . O f n o t e , t h e A p o s t l e J o h n is referred t o as " t h e e n t e r e r o f
h e a v e n " ; a n d t h u s t h e r e s e e m s to be an i n d i r e c t reference t o Revela-
t i o n . It is i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t G r e g o r y has i n d i c a t e d a k n o w l e d g e of Rev-
e l a t i o n a n d has n o t i n c l u d e d it in his c a n o n .
I a m b i c s o f St. A m p h i l o c i u s , B i s h o p o f Seleucus: Later in t h e

f o u r t h c e n t u r y Gregory's c o u s i n , St. A m p h i l o c i u s , w r o t e " t h e m o s t
t r u e c a n o n of t h e d i v i n e l y g i v e n S c r i p t u r e s . " In t h e w o r d i n g o f this
c a n o n w e find s o m e helpful a n d revealing i n f o r m a t i o n : " W e s h o u l d
k n o w t h a t n o t every b o o k w h i c h is called S c r i p t u r e is to be received
as a safe g u i d e . For s o m e are tolerably s o u n d a n d o t h e r s are m o r e
t h a n d o u b t f u l . " O b v i o u s l y , t h e r e m u s t h a v e b e e n m a n y different a n d
v a r i a n t b o o k s of S c r i p t u r e d i s s e m i n a t e d , possibly t h o s e o f t h e G n o s -
tic c o r p u s , w h i c h were labeled u n d e p e n d a b l e b y t h e m a j o r i t y o p i n -
i o n . It is n o t e w o r t h y t h a t A m p h i l o c i u s uses t h e t e r m i n o l o g y "toler-
ably s o u n d " in referring t o s o m e of t h e b o o k s . It s e e m s t h a t t h e r e was
a very fine line t h a t d i v i d e d t h o s e b o o k s w h i c h were a c c e p t a b l e , yet
d o u b t f u l , f r o m t h e o t h e r b o o k s t h a t w e r e u n a c c e p t a b l e , b u t still w o r -
t h y o f c o n s i d e r a t i o n . A d d i t i o n a l l y , h e e n u m e r a t e s t h e b o o k s as t h o s e
" w h i c h t h e i n s p i r a t i o n of G o d h a t h given." In t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t
c a n o n h e lists all o f t h e p r o t o c a n o n i c a l b o o k s b u t o m i t s t h e
d e u t e r o c a n o n i c a l o n e s . A t t h e e n d o f this first list he c o n t i n u e s , "to
these s o m e a d d E s t h e r . "
In his list of b o o k s o f t h e N e w ' T e s t a m e n t c a n o n all t h e usual
o n e s are i n c l u d e d e x c e p t R e v e l a t i o n . 'The c o m m e n t c o n c e r n i n g t h e
R e v e l a t i o n o f J o h n is t h a t s o m e a c c e p t it, " b u t by far t h e m a j o r i t y say
it is s p u r i o u s . " It s e e m s t h a t A m p h i l o c i u s c o n s i d e r s it in t h e c a t e g o r y
of "very d o u b t f u l , b u t a c c e p t e d b y economiaT S u c h hazy d i s t i n c -
t i o n s a n d a willingness to m a k e plausible c o n c e s s i o n s s h o w t h a t t h e
F a t h e r s of t h e C h u r c h u s e d a m e t h o d o l o g y t h a t was b o t h flexible
a n d o p e n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f rational d i s c o u r s e .
S y n o d o f Laodicea, C a n o n 5 9 : D a t i n g f r o m t h e s e c o n d h a l f of
t h e f o u r t h c e n t u r y , t h e text p r o p e r d o e s n o t h a v e t o d o d i r e c t l y w i t h
e s t a b l i s h i n g a b o d y o f S c r i p t u r e , b u t r a t h e r w i t h c o n t r o l l i n g t h e texts
t h a t arc r e a d in c h u r c h : " N o p s a l m s c o m p o s e d by p r i v a t e i n d i v i d u a l s
n o r a n y u n c a n o n i c a l b o o k s m a y b e r e a d in c h u r c h . "
A n e s t a b l i s h e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f this c a n o n reveals t h a t t h e rule
a p p r o v e s o n l y t h o s e h y m n s a n d a n t i p h o n s w h i c h are s a n c t i o n e d . All
r e a d i n g o f n o n s a n c t i o n e d p r i v a t e c o m p o s i t i o n s is p r o h i b i t e d . The
c a n o n is n o t m e a n t to restrict h y m n s a n d r e a d i n g s solely t o t h a t of
s c r i p t u r a l o r i g i n . T h e relevance this p o s i t i o n has t o o u r s t u d y is t h a t
t h e C h u r c h herself exercised a u t h o r i t y t o j u d g e t h a t w h i c h was t o be
r e a d w i t h i n h e r "ecclesia." She d i d n o t close t h e possibility o f f u r t h e r
e x p a n s i o n o f t h e b o d y o f m a t e r i a l read, b u t t o o k t h e p o w e r t o d i s -
c e r n w h a t t h a t b o d y w o u l d be. W e well k n o w t h a t s h e later a p p r o v e d
m a n y h y m n s of private composition a n d incorporated t h e m into the
liturgical cycle.
S y n o d o f L a o d i c e a , C a n o n 6 0 : The g e n u i n e n e s s o f this c a n o n is
v i g o r o u s l y q u e s t i o n e d . Briefly, its text is a d e t a i l e d list of t h o s e b o o k s
t h a t are t o be i n c l u d e d in t h e S c r i p t u r e s . T h e r e are significant o m i s -
sions o f s o m e of t h e m o r e controversial b o o k s , i.e., R e v e l a t i o n , all
t h e B o o k s o f M a c c a b e e s , a n d W i s d o m o f S o l o m o n . As a result o f
these i m p o r t a n t o m i s s i o n s a n d t h e q u e s t i o n a b l e a u t h o r s h i p of t h e
text, m a n y c o m m e n t a t o r s ascribe little i m p o r t a n c e t o it.
H i p p o ( 3 9 3 ) , C a n o n 3 6 : Briefly, this is t h e a n c i e n t e p i t o m e o f
C a n o n 2 4 of t h e African C o d e ( b e l o w ) , e x c e p t t h a t H i p p o a l l o w e d
t h e readings o f t h e "Passions o f t h e M a r t y r s " o n t h e anniversaries o f
t h e m a r t y r s ' d e a t h s . It seems t h a t n o t h i n g aside from S c r i p t u r e a n d
t h e " P a s s i o n s " was r e a d in t h e African C h u r c h before t h e African
C o d e , w h i l e a n t i p h o n a l a n d n o n s c r i p t u r a l c o m p o s i t i o n s were s u n g
r a t h e r t h a n read. In a n y case, w e can o n l y s p e c u l a t e as t o t h e reason
t h a t t h e "Passions o f t h e M a r t y r s " was d r o p p e d from liturgical use in
t h e African C h u r c h b e t w e e n A . D . 3 9 3 a n d 4 1 9 .
A f r i c a n C o d e , C a n o n 2 4 : In this c a n o n o f t h e early fifth c e n t u r y

w e find a d e t a i l e d list o f t h e c a n o n i c a l S c r i p t u r e s w h i c h t h e m e m b e r s
o f t h e African c h u r c h " h a v e received from o u r fathers t o be r e a d in
t h e c h u r c h . " It is t h e m o s t c o m p l e t e a n d l e n g t h y c o m p i l a t i o n o f b o o k s
o t h e r t h a n A p o s t o l i c C a n o n 8 5 , a n d actually c o n f o r m s t h e closest t o
t h e Bible p r i n t e d today, w i t h t h e d e u t e r o c a n o n i c a l b o o k s ( o m i t t i n g
3 M a c c a b e e s a n d t h e Prayer of M a n a s s e h ) a n d all t h e b o o k s of t h e
N e w Testament. This list differs from t h e A p o s t o l i c C a n o n in its
o m i s s i o n o f t h e C l e m e n t i n e w r i t i n g s a n d B e n Sirach, a n d its i n c l u -
sion of Revelation.
The w o r d i n g o f t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y clause, " t h a t besides t h e ca-

n o n i c a l S c r i p t u r e s n o t h i n g b e r e a d in c h u r c h u n d e r t h e n a m e o f d i -
v i n e S c r i p t u r e , " gives i n d i c a t i o n o f p r o b l e m a t i c factors in t h e eccle-
siastical s i t u a t i o n . Clearly, o t h e r texts were read o r s u n g besides S c r i p -
t u r e . O f these t h e African c o u n c i l h a d n o fear. R a t h e r , t h e y were
d e a l i n g w i t h t h e p r o b l e m of heretical o r s p u r i o u s b o o k s b e i n g r e a d
in t h e c h u r c h w i t h t h e a u t h o r i t y , sanctity, a n d v e n e r a t i o n t h a t t h e y
a c c o r d e d o n l y t o t h e d i v i n e S c r i p t u r e . A g a i n s t these p s e u d e p i g r a p h i c
w r i t i n g s t h e C h u r c h of Africa w a n t e d t o p r o t e c t its m e m b e r s .
Q u i n i s e x t , C a n o n 2: A t e n d o f t h e s e v e n t h c e n t u r y t h e C o u n c i l
of T r u l l o ( Q u i n i s e x t ) gave b l a n k e t a p p r o v a l t o all c a n o n s previously
r e c o g n i / x d in t h e C h u r c h , i n c l u d i n g t h e b u l k o f t h e a b o v e c a n o n s .
Specific m e n t i o n is m a d e of t h e A p o s t o l i c C a n o n s in relation t o a
d e t e r m i n a t i o n of a list of biblical b o o k s . Q u i n i s e x t c h o s e to o m i t t h e
C o n s t i t u t i o n s of t h e H o l y A p o s t l e s w r i t t e n b y C l e m e n t b e c a u s e er-
r o n e o u s teachers h a d i n t r o d u c e d heretical d o c t r i n e s i n t o t h e C o n s t i -
t u t i o n s , a n d t h e y were rejected "so as t h e b e t t e r t o m a k e sure o f t h e
edification a n d s e c u r i t y o f t h e m o s t C h r i s t i a n flock."
As a result o f this Q u i n i s e x t c a n o n , o n e is led t o c o n c l u d e t h a t
t h e a p p r o v a l of t h e c a n o n o f S c r i p t u r e given was n o t specific, b u t
g e n e r a l . This c o n c l u s i o n is t r u e in p a r t b e c a u s e t h e v a r i o u s c a n o n s
c i t e d conflict as to t h e i r c o n t e n t . N e v e r t h e l e s s , a t t e n t i o n s h o u l d fo-
cus o n this s e c o n d c a n o n of T r u l l o , w i t h its e m p h a s i s o n A p o s t o l i c
C a n o n 8 5 . W h e r e a s later c a n o n s are o n l y m e n t i o n e d b y n a m e , t h e r e
are n o less t h a n ten lines o f d i s c u s s i o n a n d c o m m e n t a r y o n A p o s t o l i c
C a n o n 8 5 . G i v e n t h e a u t h o r i t y o f a p o s t o l i c a u t h o r s h i p , it was also
t h e first a n d m o s t d e t a i l e d c o m m e n t a r y f o u n d in ecclesiastical law
c o n c e r n i n g t h e c a n o n of S c r i p t u r e . N o set criticism existed at this
t i m e c l a i m i n g t h a t later c a n o n s s u p e r s e d e d t h e i r p r e d e c e s s o r s ; a n d in
t h i s case it m i g h t b e a r g u e d t h a t t h e o p p o s i t e is t r u e , t h e earliest
c a n o n was seen as t h e m o s t a u t h o r i t a t i v e . T h e r e f o r e , w e are left w i t h
t h e conclusion t h a t Apostolic C a n o n 8 5 was accepted at Trullo as t h e
principal c a n o n of Scripture, t h o u g h a "first a m o n g equals." ( O t h e r later
c a n o n s a t Trullo reflected o n t h e character of individual books.)
S e v e n t h E c u m e n i c a l C o u n c i l , C a n o n 1: This c a n o n accepted all

the canons of the Sixth Ecumenical and the Quinisext Councils. As
w e have seen, t h e s e c o n d c a n o n o f Q u i n i s e x t gave b l a n k e t a p p r o v a l
t o m a n y differing t r a d i t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e c o n t e n t of t h e Bible,
a n d this a p p r o v a l was c o n f i r m e d b y t h e S e v e n t h C o u n c i l . W h e r e
does t h a t leave us w h e n w e a t t e m p t t o describe t h e a t t i t u d e t o w a r d
t h e listing of biblical b o o k s at Q u i n i s c x t a n d t h e S e v e n t h C o u n c i l ?
T h e r e s e e m t o b e t h r e e t e n a b l e possibilities ( e n u m e r a t e d in a n as-
c e n d i n g o r d e r of preference):
1. T h e fathers a t t h e s e c o u n c i l s a c c e p t e d A p o s t o l i c C a n o n 8 5 as
h a v i n g t h e greatest a u t h o r i t y a n d o m i t t e d t h e Constitutions b e c a u s e
t h e y h a d b e e n heretically c o r r u p t e d . This c o m p r i s e d t h e c o n t e n t of
t h e Bible t h e y used.
2 . E i t h e r t h e y d i d n o t c o n s i d e r t h e differences in t h e v a r i o u s
c a n o n s o f S c r i p t u r e as i m p o r t a n t , o r t h e y s a w t h e m as c o n s t r u c t i v e
criticism of t h e diverse b o o k s .
3 . T h e y were heir t o a liturgical cycle t h a t d e t e r m i n e d t h e read-
ings in t h e c h u r c h e s , a n d this cycle m a d e t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e c a n o n
of S c r i p t u r e a n " e m p t y p r o b l e m " : Lex orandi est lex credendi. T h e
several liturgical practices a d e q u a t e l y a n d a c c u r a t e l y r e p r e s e n t e d t h e
faith of t h e C h u r c h .
Based o n t h e t r a d i t i o n o f t h e Seven E c u m e n i c a l C o u n c i l s , it is
l e g i t i m a t e t o assert t h a t t h e C h u r c h has c o n t i n u a l l y used d i s c e r n -
m e n t in h e r selection of scriptural readings. S h e has e n c o u r a g e d m e m -
bers t o utilize d i s c r e t i o n a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g in t h e i r use o f a u t h o -
rized a n d u n a u t h o r i z e d b o o k s . A l s o , positive s p i r i t u a l value was of-
t e n a s c r i b e d t o n o n s c r i p t u r a l , a p o c r y p h a l , o r p s e u d e p i g r a p h i c texts
t h a t w e r e ( a n d are) beneficial t o C h r i s t i a n readers, in s p i t e o f ecclesi-
astical p r o h i b i t i o n of liturgical r e c i t a t i o n .
I m p o r t a n t t o m o d e r n scholarly historical p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s , it is
i n a p p r o p r i a t e t o take late d e f i n i t i o n s o f t h e s c r i p t u r a l c a n o n (e.g.,
the W e s t m i n s t e r C o n f e s s i o n o r t h e C o u n c i l o f Trent) a n d
a n a c h r o n i s t i c a l l y retroject m o d e r n a s s u m p t i o n s b a c k o n t o a n y p r e -
1
v i o u s era, as w i t h t h e " C o u n c i l " o f J a m n i a . ' The C h u r c h seems t o
have a c c e p t e d regional differences in t h e listing o f b o o k s , as in t h e
i n c l u s i o n o f t h e B o o k of R e v e l a t i o n in t h e W e s t a n d its exclusion
elsewhere. It is u n d e r s t a n d a b l e h o w a n i n d i v i d u a l w h o s e p e r s p e c t i v e
was l i m i t e d t o o n l y o n e M e d i t e r r a n e a n region w o u l d a s s u m e t h a t t h e
regional list of b o o k s w a s n o r m a t i v e for all o t h e r places a n d for all
t i m e , t h o u g h t h e a t t i t u d e a n d c o n c l u s i o n , u p o n e x a m i n a t i o n , are
improper a n d inaccurate.
'•* Daniel J. H a r r i n g t o n , " I n t r o d u c t i o n to the Canon,™ The New Interpreter's

Bible, ed. I.eander E. Keck, et al. (Nashville: A b i n g d o n Press, 1994) 7 - 2 1 . Both
H a r r i n g t o n a n d I.ienhard, The Bible, simply dismiss a late date for t h e M u r a t o r i a n
C a n o n . Cf. Lee M . M c D o n a l d , The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon
(Peabody, Mass.: H e n d r i c k s o n Publishers, Inc., 1995) 2 0 9 - 2 0 . M c D o n a l d s u p -
ports the view of canon established by Albert Sundberg, u p o n whose w o r k m u c h of
c o n t e m p o r a r y canonical studies is based.
V . LATIN
The g l o r i o u s h i s t o r y of t h e t r a n s l a t i o n of t h e Bible i n t o L a t i n is
well k n o w n from t h e w r i t i n g s of St. J e r o m e . As w e shall see below,
o n e o f t h e first t r a n s l a t i o n s of t h e e n t i r e Bible i n t o C h u r c h Slavic
was m a d e f r o m a L a t i n e d i t i o n s h o r t l y before t h e R e f o r m a t i o n . T h e
w h o l e of t h i s t r a n s l a t i o n p r o j e c t f r o m L a t i n to Slavic h a d a p r o f o u n d
affect o n R u s s i a n c u l t u r e in t h e f o l l o w i n g c e n t u r i e s . D u r i n g t h i s t i m e
t h e o l o g i c a l e d u c a t i o n in Russia was c o n d u c t e d exclusively in L a t i n ,
b o t h s p o k e n a n d w r i t t e n . R u s s i a n t e x t b o o k s a n d t h e o l o g i c a l treatises
d i d n o t exist. In s p i t e o f t h e fact t h a t L a t i n o c c u p i e s a special place as
t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e V u l g a t e a n d as t h e m e d i e v a l t h e o l o g i c a l l a n g u a g e
of E u r o p e , t h e f o c u s o f O r t h o d o x a t t e n t i o n o n t h e L a t i n B i b l e
lies e l s e w h e r e .
O r t h o d o x c o m m e n t a r y o n t h e L a t i n o f St. A u g u s t i n e , especially
in r e g a r d t o his a n t h r o p o l o g y , s p a n s o v e r fifteen h u n d r e d years, f r o m
t h e t i m e o f his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s (see T h e o d o r e o f M o p s u e s t i a a n d
15
J o h n Cassian) to the present. The c o m m e n t a r y is q u i t e c o n s i s t e n t ,
b u t is negatively critical; a n d it has g o n e relatively u n h e e d e d b e c a u s e
it u n d e r m i n e s A u g u s t i n e ' s t e a c h i n g o n o r i g i n a l s i n — f o u n d a t i o n a l t o
W e s t e r n a n t h r o p o l o g y a n d soteriology, if n o t t o W e s t e r n c u l t u r e as a
w h o l e . The a t t i t u d e of E a s t e r n t h e o l o g i a n s t o w a r d A u g u s t i n e a n d his
p r e - V u l g a t e L a t i n Bible (or t o w a r d his 'Trinitarian t h e o l o g y ) p r o b -
ably a p p e a r s c u r i o u s t o W e s t e r n e r s , s i n c e t h e O r t h o d o x are h a p p y to
recognize t h e man's sanctity, l e a r n e d a c h i e v e m e n t s , p r o f o u n d insights,
etc., b u t t h e y t a k e e x c e p t i o n to p a r t i c u l a r t h e o l o g i c a l f o r m u l a t i o n s ,
l a b e l i n g t h e m e r r o n e o u s — f o r w h i c h t h e O r t h o d o x in t u r n are ac-
c u s e d of b e i n g s e m i - P e l a g i a n .
Reciprocally, t h e O r t h o d o x are s u r p r i s e d at t h e c o m p l e t e a c c e p -
t a n c e o f all o f A u g u s t i n e ' s t h e o l o g y b y W e s t e r n t h e o l o g i a n s . As
V l a d i m i r Lossky h a s p o i n t e d o u t , t h e reasons for this m i s u n d e r s t a n d -
i n g lie in t h e s t a t u s a c c o r d e d " D o c t o r s of t h e W e s t e r n C h u r c h " in
m e d i e v a l t i m e s , i.e., if o n e s u b s c r i b e s t o all t h e t e a c h i n g s of a recog-
n i z e d d o c t o r , o n e will b e w i t h o u t t h e o l o g i c a l e r r o r ; a n d A u g u s t i n e
enjoys this s t a t u s . The East c o n s i d e r s t h i s m e d i e v a l a t t i t u d e n o t o n l y
u n c r i t i c a l f r o m a s c h o l a r l y p o i n t o f view, b u t also o u t s i d e o f C h r i s -
t i a n Tradition: D o c t r i n a l "infallibility" is a very specialized c o n c e p t
:s
David Weaver, " P r o m Paul to Augustine: R o m a n s 5:12 in Early Christian
Exegesis," St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, XXVII, 3 (1983) 187-206; XXIX,
2 (1985) 133- 59; XXIX, 3 (1985) 2 3 1 - 5 7 . Stanislas I.yonnet, S.J., 'T.e sens de ¿ 6 to
en R o m . 5,12 et l'exegese des Peres Grecs," Biblica, 3 6 (1955) 4 3 6 - 5 6 and 'T.e
Peche Originel en R o m . 5,12," RiblicaA\ (1960) 3 2 5 - 5 5 .
t h a t is n o t a t t r i b u t e d t o i n d i v i d u a l s , b u t is m o s t often u s e d in h i s -
6
torical retrospect t o describe conciliar decisions of t h e w h o l e C h u r c h . '
F u r t h e r , lest o n e g e t t h e i m p r e s s i o n t h a t this a p p r o a c h is solely a
c r i t i q u e of m e d i e v a l R o m a n C a t h o l i c theology, t h e O r t h o d o x see a
s i m i l a r a t t i t u d e t o w a r d a u t h o r i t y in t h e c h u r c h e s o f t h e R e f o r m a -
t i o n . F o r e x a m p l e , if n o t t h e w r i t i n g s o f A u g u s t i n e , t h e n t h o s e of
Luther, Calvin, or other of t h e Reformers are frequently accorded a d e
facto—if n o t d e jure—"infallible status" by m a n y Protestants today.
A u g u s t i n e ' s a n t h r o p o l o g y , especially r e g a r d i n g c r e a t i o n , original
sin, b a p t i s m , a n d g r a c e , is a n i n t e g r a t e d s y s t e m a n d is b a s e d t o a
large e x t e n t o n his close exegesis o f R o m . 5 : 1 2 . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h e
pre-Vulgate N o r t h African Latin Bible h e used ( a n d t h a t A m b r o s i a s t e r
7
u s e d before h i m ) m i s t r a n s l a t e d St. P a u l ' a n d read, "Sin c a m e i n t o
t h e w o r l d , a n d d e a t h t h r o u g h sin, a n d so d e a t h s p r e a d t o all m e n ,
t h r o u g h o n e m a n , in whom all m e n s i n n e d {in quo omnes
peccaverunt)." T h e G r e e k p r e p o s i t i o n a l p h r a s e s h o u l d be t r a n s l a t e d ,
" b y which (death) all m e n s i n n e d . " [ H o w e v e r o n e translates t h e p h r a s e ,
t h e q u e s t i o n lies in t h e p r o p e r a n t e c e d e n t t o t h e p r o n o u n . G r e e k ,
like E n g l i s h , accepts t h e last o c c u r r i n g n o u n as t h e a n t e c e d e n t t o t h e
p r o n o u n , w h i c h in this case is " d e a t h . " ] A u g u s t i n e ' s S c r i p t u r e t o l d
h i m t h a t e v e r y o n e s i n n e d in A d a m , ergo original sin. Paul actually
s a i d t h a t d e a t h c a m e i n t o t h e w o r l d b e c a u s e of A d a m ' s s i n , a n d
resultingly all p e o p l e sin b e c a u s e of t h e i r fear o f d e a t h , s o m e t h i n g
q u i t e different from the above, a n d also m o r e judicious for t h e rest of
8
humanity.'
Nevertheless, the East a d m i t s of n o guarantees for conciliar doctrinal infal-

libility (which are c o n r e m p o r a n e o u s with the council being held). M a n y councils
were convened which proclaimed themselves "Ecumenical" and were n o t so recog-
nized. T h a t is to say, the classical question of authority is handled quite differently
in the East from the way it is handled in the West. See also C h a d w i c k , " T h e Status
of Ecumenical Councils."
:
Remarkably, a translational a m b i g u i t y is maintained in English language
Bibles at this p o i n t today: the Greek preposition is rendered "because" rather t h a n
"by which (death)."
H o w d o the O r t h o d o x u n d e r s t a n d R o m . 5:12? Since Paul's t h o u g h t can be
schematized as typological parallelism in R o m . 5 : 1 2 - 2 1 , repeated in 6 : 1 5 - 2 3 , and
a n o t h e r in 1 Cor. 1 5:40-49, there should be lirtle d o u b t as ro what he m e a n t . For
example, for type-prototype read: A d a m - C h r i s t , sin-grace, dearh-life, etc., all of
which are causally connected and run parallel. Again, the essence of R o m . 5:12-21
is summarized in 6 : 2 3 , "For the wages of sin is death, b u t the free gift of G o d is
erernal life in Chrisr Jesus o u r Lord." T h i s typological parallelism, sometimes stud-
ied under the rubric of chiasm, compares favorably with the "descending and as-
cending" parrern long recognized in Phil. 2:5f, which is usually categorized as a
pre-Pauline h y m n .
1
As J. Pclikan has s h o w n , ' A u g u s t i n e e x p a n d s this idea o f o r i g i -
nal sin, f o l l o w i n g A m b r o s i a s t e r at first ( w h o m A u g u s t i n e q u o t e s ) ,
t h e n r o o t i n g it in p r o c r e a t i o n ; b u t s u c h a view of sin a n d p r o c r e a t i o n
is d a n g e r o u s l y c l o s e t o — i f n o t i d e n t i c a l w i t h — t h e s t a n d a r d
M a n i c h a e a n v i e w A u g u s t i n e h e l d for n i n e years before his a d u l t c o n -
version t o C h r i s t i a n i t y , a n d for w h i c h his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s criticized
h i m . Paul's view of t h e m a t t e r — w e r e m e m b e r Paul was t r a i n e d as a
r a b b i — h a d n o t h i n g t o d o w i t h sexuality p e r se, o r i g i n a l sin, or origi-
nal guilt. It m i g h t b e t t e r be c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y 2 Bar. 5 4 : 1 5 , 19: " F o r
t h o u g h A d a m first s i n n e d a n d b r o u g h t u n t i m e l y d e a t h u p o n all, yet
of t h o s e w h o w e r e b o r n from h i m each o n e o f t h e m has p r e p a r e d for
his o w n soul t o r m e n t t o c o m e , a n d , again each o n e o f t h e m has
c h o s e n for h i m s e l f glories t o c o m e . . . . A d a m is t h e r e f o r e n o t t h e
cause, save o n l y o f his o w n s o u l , b u t each o f us has b e e n t h e A d a m of
his o w n s o u l . "
T h e g n o s t i c d o c t r i n e A u g u s t i n e read i n t o his Latin Bible i n c l u d e d
n o t o n l y t h e sexually t r a n s m i t t e d sin a n d g u i l t o f o r i g i n a l sin, b u t
also t h e d o c t r i n e of t h e " d i s t o r t e d h u m a n i m a g e , " w h i c h r e n d e r e d
20
t h e i m a g e o f G o d in h u m a n b e i n g s " d e s t r o y e d . " T h i s m a y be c o n -
t r a s t e d w i t h a general insistence in t h e East o n t h e " u n d i s t o r t e d i m -
age of G o d " in m e n a n d w o m e n , w h e r e i n o n l y t h e likeness n e e d s to
21
be recovered, w h i l e t h e i m a g e is l a t e n t l y p r e s e r v e d . N o n e t h e l e s s ,
A u g u s t i n e p u t t h e " n e w " C h r i s t i a n d o c t r i n e to w o r k w i t h great re-
sults, b u t w i t h a focus t h a t further s e p a r a t e d h i m from classical Pauline
theology.
A u g u s t i n e used t h e revised d o c t r i n e p r i m a r i l y as a foil against
t h e Pelagians w h o c l a i m e d t h a t b a p t i s m was u n n e c e s s a r y . H i s re-
s p o n s e was t h a t b a p t i s m was a b s o l u t e l y necessary d u e to t h e h u m a n
being's " d e s t r o y e d n a t u r e " w h i c h was in n e e d o f b a p t i s m a n d grace.
T h i s a l m o s t m e t a p h y s i c a l a r g u m e n t m a y be c o n t r a s t e d w i t h Paul's
e m p h a s i s o n b a p t i s m as a r e t u r n from i d o l a t r y a n d a false c r e a t u r e l y
i n d e p e n d e n c e . Similarly, in d e a l i n g w i t h t h e b a p t i s m o f i n f a n t s
A u g u s t i n e ' s focus is o n d e l i v e r a n c e from "original sin." For Paul b a p -
t i s m is c e r t a i n l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d as b e i n g for " r e m i s s i o n o f s i n s , " b u t
19
See Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (¡00-600), Vol.
I: The Christian Tradition (Chicago: T h e University of Chicago Press, 1971) 2 9 9 -
301.
Ibid.
:
' It shotdd be sobering for theologians to recognize that w h a t was originally a
H e b r e w parallelism, "image and likeness," has been dissected, been given distinct
meanings, been passed through a gnostic filter, been served u p repeatedly d u r i n g
the Reformation, and is still an object of ongoing debate in Christian anthropology.
MlCHAKI. P R O K U R A T 81
2 1
t h e m a j o r i t y o f references deal w i t h b a p t i s m " i n t o C h r i s t . " In b o t h
i n s t a n c e s r e g a r d i n g b a p t i s m A u g u s t i n e favors a m e t a p h y s i c a l , p r o b -
l e m - s o l v i n g a p p r o a c h a i m e d at i n d i v i d u a l salvation, w h i l e Paul speaks
primarily a b o u t an imitation of the death a n d resurrection of Christ,
w h i c h addresses a sinful w o r l d , b u t m o r e t h a n a n y t h i n g , i n c o r p o -
rates all m e m b e r s i n t o a life in C h r i s t a n d t h e C h u r c h . U l t i m a t e l y ,
for A u g u s t i n e this d o c t r i n e b e c a m e t h e e n t i r e p r o v i d e n t i a l r e a s o n i n g
b e h i n d t h e i n c a r n a t i o n : s o m e o n e h a d t o b e b o r n virginally, w i t h o u t
o r i g i n a l sin a n d w i t h an u n d i s t o r t e d n a t u r e , in o r d e r t o r e t u r n h u -
m a n i t y t o t h e s a m e "sinless" (asexual?) s t a t e . T h i s p o s i t i o n is a far cry
f r o m Paul's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e r o a d t o D a m a s c u s e p i s o d e , J o h n ' s
r e p o r t i n g o f J e s u s ' first m i r a c l e at C a n a , o r A t h a n a s i u s ' s On the In-
carnation, all of w h o m u n d e r s t o o d G o d as self-revealing by n a t u r e ,
a n d n o t p r o v i d e n t i a l l y c o n s t r a i n e d t o r e s p o n d t o a difficulty c a u s e d
by h u m a n sexual b e h a v i o r .
A l t h o u g h J e r o m e ' s V u l g a t e cleared u p difficulties w i t h differing
O l d L a t i n e d i t i o n s t h a t c i r c u l a t e d in R o m e a n d N o r t h Africa,
A u g u s t i n e ' s (forgivable) eisegesis r e m a i n s w i t h u s . T o d a y , if o n e asks
a n y W e s t e r n e r w h a t A d a m a n d Eve's sin w a s , t h e a n s w e r "sex" is given
unhesitatingly and u n a n i m o u s l y — t h e gnostic myth remains, the
G r e e k s c r i p t u r a l text n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g . T h i s a t t i t u d e is n o t o n l y a
p o p u l a r m i s c o n c e p t i o n , b u t f u n c t i o n s at " h i g h " t h e o l o g i c a l levels:
w i t n e s s t h e r e c e n t N e w Revised S t a n d a r d Version r e n d e r i n g of Ps.
5 1 : 5 , " I n d e e d , I was b o r n guilty, a s i n n e r w h e n m y m o t h e r c o n -
ceived m e , " i n c o r p o r a t i n g A u g u s t i n i a n "original sin" a n d "original
g u i l t " i n t o o n e line ( w h e r e i n t h e Revised S t a n d a r d Version h a d b e e n
m o r e careful). The O r t h o d o x u n d e r s t a n d t h i s f o r m o f g n o s t i c i s m t o
b e n o t o n l y m i s o g y n o u s , b u t m i s a n t h r o p i c , d e n y i n g a positive value
2
to h u m a n s e x u a l i t y — w h i c h is n o t d e n i e d in a n y biblical t e x t . '
V I . SLAVIC AND RUSSIAN
T h e t r a d i t i o n a l b e g i n n i n g s o f t h e t r a n s l a t i o n of t h e Bible i n t o
Slavic are w i t h t h o s e fathers of Slavic literary c u l t u r e , Cyril ( + 8 6 9 ) ,
" From the available evidence ir does nor seem rhar infant baptism was an
issue in Paul's time, since the baptism of households probably would have included
all rhe d e p e n d e n t m e m b e r s , slaves, children, etc., just as the celebration o f Passover
in Jewish households would have been inclusive of all household m e m b e r s .
" This rheological affirmation is shared by some Wesrern biblical exegeres. See
Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Psalms, Part I with an Introduction to Cultic Poetry, Vol. XIV:
The Forms of the Old Testament Literature (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1988) 214, and other references cired rhere.
b a p t i z e d C o n s r a n t i n c , a n d his o l d e r b r o t h e r M e t h o d i u s ( + 8 8 4 ) . Cyril,
k n o w n as " C o n s t a n t i n e t h e P h i l o s o p h e r " for his a c a d e m i c skills, a n d
M e t h o d i u s , w h o w o u l d c o n t i n u e t r a n s l a t i o n w o r k w i t h disciples in
Bulgaria after his b r o t h e r ' s d e a t h , w e r e m e m b e r s of t h e Slavic-speak-
i n g c o m m u n i t y in T h e s s a l o n i k a , p a r t of a "Slavic p r e s e n c e " t h e r e
d a t i n g b a c k at least t o t h e sixth c e n t u r y A . D . T h e b r o t h e r s were ac-
c o m p l i s h e d l i n g u i s t s , a n d Cyril r e m a r k a b l y s o , m a s t e r i n g G r e e k ,
Slavic, L a t i n , H e b r e w , a n d Syriac. They were b o t h e m p l o y e d b y t h e
B y z a n t i n e E m p e r o r M i c h a e l III a n d t h e g r e a t P a t r i a r c h P h o t i u s as
emissaries t o t h e A r a b s a n d K h a z a r s , a n d p r i m a r i l y as m i s s i o n a r i e s to
S l a v i c - s p e a k i n g l a n d s o n t h e D a n u b e a n d in t h e B a l k a n s . By t h e t i m e
P r i n c e Rostislav of M o r a v i a r e q u e s t e d missionaries from C o n s t a n t i n -
o p l e t o t e a c h his p e o p l e t h e i r o w n l a n g u a g e ( 8 6 2 ) — i n o r d e r t o foil
G e r m a n political a m b i t i o n s — i t is p r o b a b l e t h e b r o t h e r s h a d already
begun w o r k i n g o n s o m e type of alphabet.
T h e early h i s t o r y of t h e Slavic Bible is t o o c o m p l e x t o r e p e a t in
full, b u t s o m e o f t h e m o r e n o t a b l e p o i n t s b e a r m e n t i o n i n g , m a n y o f
w h i c h are historical ironies. T h e first q u i r k of h i s t o r y is t h a t t h e Slavic
a l p h a b e t a t t r i b u t e d t o C o n s t a n t i n e - C y r i l ' s inventiveness (Cyrillic) was
p r o b a b l y c r e a t e d later b y M e t h o d i u s ' s disciples in Bulgaria in t h e last
2
d e c a d e of the n i n t h c e n t u r y . ' M a n y scholars n o w believe t h a t
C o n s t a n t i n e - C y r i l d e v i s e d a n o t h e r a l p h a b e t , G l a g o l i t i c , w h i c h was
utilized b y t h e M o r a v i a n s b u t s o o n fell i n t o disuse; a n d his h a d n o t
b e e n t h e first a t t e m p t . Earlier in t h e s a m e c e n t u r y t w o B y z a n t i n e
e m p e r o r s t r i e d unsuccessfully t o synthesize a Slavic a l p h a b e t ; a n d
t h e F r a n k s t r a n s l a t e d a small liturgical selection o f C h r i s t i a n texts
from Latin i n t o Slavic w i t h t h e use o f L a t i n letters.
A s e c o n d i r o n y is t h a t t h e p r e l i t e r a r y Slavic l a n g u a g e h a d n o
theological o r religious v o c a b u l a r y , n o r a v o c a b u l a r y o f p h i l o s o p h y
or social i n s t i t u t i o n s , w h i c h c o u l d serve as a basis for t r a n s l a t i o n .
C o m p o s i t e G r e e k w o r d s , like o u r English "theo-logy" a n d "tris-agion,"
b e c a m e n e w Slavic w o r d s w i t h identical c o m p o s i t i o n from G r e e k
r o o t s . T h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h e G r e e k Bible was so f o r m a t i v e in t h e d e -
v e l o p m e n t of t h e Slavic Bible over t h e next century, o r r a t h e r o f Slavic
literary l a n g u a g e in g e n e r a l , t h a t t h e w o r d c o u n t a n d w o r d o r d e r
M
R o m a n Jakobson, "Sr. Consrantine's Prologue ro the Gospel," St. Vladimir's
Seminary Quarterly, VII, 1 (1963) 14-19, and o t h e r articles in the same n u m b e r .
Special thanks to Dr. T h o m a s Klocek of DePaul University for an updated bibliog-
raphy on the O h r i d literary school, including the following m o r e accessible irems:
Radmila Ugrinova-Skalovska, " C l e m e n t of O h r i d a n d the F o u n d i n g of the O h r i d
Literary School," Macedonian Review, XVI, 3 (1986) 2 5 8 - 6 2 ; N . L. Tunirsii, Sv.
Kliment (Tipografiia Sv. TV. Sergiivoii I.avry, 1913) 2 2 4 - 6 0 [in Russian].
often b e c a m e t h e s a m e in b o t h Bibles. This was t r u e to a s u r p r i s i n g

d e g r e e : W h e n particles existed in G r e e k w h i c h h a d n o Slavic c o u n -
t e r p a r t , a p a r t i c l e was i n v e n t e d a n d i n s e r t e d i n t o t h e Slavic biblical
text a t t h e a p p r o p r i a t e p o i n t ! (Cf. A q u i l a s G r e e k t r a n s l a t i o n o f H e -
b r e w a little over o n e - h a l f m i l l e n n i u m earlier.) N o o t h e r literary l a n -
g u a g e , w i t h t h e possible e x c e p t i o n of H e b r e w , was so p r o f o u n d l y
i n f l u e n c e d by t h e biblical text. The Slavic l a n g u a g e b e c a m e " l i t e r a t e "
in c o n f o r m i t y t o t h e G r e e k Bible w h i c h gave it its v o c a b u l a r y a n d
s y n t a x , as well as its theological o r i e n t a t i o n .
A t h i r d historical r i d d l e b e g i n s w i t h t h e M o r a v i a n s , w h o origi-
nally r e q u e s t e d B y z a n t i n e m i s s i o n a r i e s a n d received t h e h e l p . The
m i s s i o n a r i e s m a d e use o f t h e Slavic v e r n a c u l a r liturgically a n d in
p r e a c h i n g , b u t t h e M o r a v i a n s d i d n o t b e c o m e t h e p r i m a r y vehicle of
t h e B y z a n t i n e - S l a v i c m i s s i o n . This lot fell t o Boris of Bulgaria w h o ,
w i t h i n a few years o f t h e o r i g i n a l m i s s i o n , a c c e p t e d C h r i s t i a n i t y from
C o n s t a n t i n o p l e in o r d e r t o be delivered from t h e M o r a v i a n s ! The
Slavic v e r n a c u l a r was successfully salvaged b y t h e B u l g a r i a n s w h e n
t h e y g r a n t e d a s y l u m to M e t h o d i u s ' s circle of disciples, e.g., C l e m e n t
of O h r i d ( O c h r i d a ) a n d o t h e r s .
The f o u r t h a n d last e q u i v o c a t i o n falls t o t h e B y z a n t i n e s . W h e n
C o n s t a n t i n e - C y r i l a n d M e t h o d i u s first b e g a n t o read t h e Bible a n d
p r a y in Slavic, t h e y were a c c u s e d of heresy b y t h e Latin C h r i s t i a n s .
T h e " t h r e e - l a n g u a g e s heresy" was a belief t h a t t h e Bible c o u l d o n l y
be r e a d in o n e of t h e t h r e e l a n g u a g e s i n s c r i b e d o n t h e cross o f J e s u s —
H e b r e w , G r e e k , o r L a t i n . In s p i t e of t h e Latin c h a r g e t h e b r o t h e r s
r e m a i n e d firm in t h e i r resolve to c o n t i n u e u s i n g Slavic, o s t e n s i b l y
d e f e n d e d b y C o n s t a n t i n o p l e . The B y z a n t i n e e q u i v o c a t i o n lies in t h e
fact t h a t n o t all t h e G r e e k s w e r e c o n v i n c e d o f t h e l e g i t i m a c y of t h e
use of Slavic: t h e E m p e r o r t h o u g h t t h a t t r a n s l a t i o n was a d e p a r t u r e
from t r a d i t i o n ; C o n s t a n t i n e - C y r i l was afraid of an accusation of heresy
from t h e G r e e k s w h e n h e p r a y e d in Slavic; a n d i n d e e d , t h e s a m e
r e c r i m i n a t i o n s r e a p p e a r e d w i t h t h e arrival o f G r e e k m i s s i o n a r i e s in
25
Bulgaria w i t h i n t h e c e n t u r y . A l t h o u g h C o n s t a n t i n o p l e theoretically
a c k n o w l e d g e d t h e t h e o l o g i c a l validity o f t h e use of o t h e r l a n g u a g e s ,
in p r a c t i c e t h e y d i s p l a y e d a b i t o f " B y z a n t i n e c h a u v i n i s m . "
As w i t h t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e t r a n s l a t i o n o f t h e S e p t u a g i n t from
H e b r e w , so t o o t h e t r a n s l a t i o n o f t h e L u c i a n i c r e c e n s i o n a n d t h e
N e w T e s t a m e n t from G r e e k i n t o Slavic is c l o u d e d b y h a l f - t r u t h s .
T h e p o p u l a r version o f t h e h i s t o r y says t h a t t h e o l d e r M e t h o d i u s a n d
" D i m i t r i Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth: Eastern Europe 500-1453

(Crestwood, N.Y.: Sr. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1971) 2 0 2 - 3 .
t w o o f his disciples finished t r a n s l a t i n g all t h e b o o k s o f t h e Bible

from G r e e k after t h e d e a t h o f b r o t h e r C y r i l , t h a t is b e t w e e n 8 6 9 a n d
8 8 4 . This d e s c r i p t i o n is p r o b a b l y b a s e d o n a n o v e r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n or
t h e desire t o h a v e t h e s a i n t e d b r o t h e r s finish t h e m o n u m e n t a l task
w i t h i n t h e i r lifetimes. A d e c a d e o r so later t h e exarch J o h n o f B u l -
garia said t h a t Cyril h a d translated t h e G o s p e l B o o k a n d Epistle B o o k ,
w h i l e M e t h o d i u s h a d t r a n s l a t e d sixty o t h e r b o o k s from G r e e k i n t o
Slavic. Even if w e e m p l o y a s h o r t c a n o n , w h i c h n e i t h e r t h e G r e e k s
n o r t h e Slavs ever d i d , t h e n u m b e r s c i t e d are insufficient for a w h o l e
Bible o f a n y t y p e . T h e early n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y R u s s i a n h i s t o r i a n
M e t r o p o l i t a n Evgenii ( B o l h o v i t i n o v ) s t a t e d t h a t a full t r a n s l a t i o n w a s
never m a d e b y t h e s a i n t e d b r o t h e r s . In a d d i t i o n , s i n c e n o c o m p l e t e
m a n u s c r i p t o f t h e Slavic Bible exists from t h e w h o l e of t h e Kievan
P e r i o d ( X - X I I I ) , we m a y d o u b t w h e t h e r t h e e n t i r e t r a n s l a t i o n was
e x e c u t e d d u r i n g this t i m e .
N o n e t h e l e s s , t h e K i e v a n P e r i o d w a s n o t d e v o i d of t h o s e inter-
e s t e d in t h e Bible, especially in c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e p o p u l a r p o w e r
of l i t u r g y a n d t h e p e r s o n a l p i e t y o f t h e p e o p l e o f Kievan R u s ' . Since
t h e O l d Testament e n j o y e d l i m i t e d liturgical use, o n l y t h e p r e s c r i b e d
O l d Testament l e c t i o n a r y was collected i n t o o n e liturgical b o o k , in
p r a c t i c e r e n d e r i n g a c o m p l e t e c o l l e c t i o n unnecessary. F o r b o t h l i t u r -
gical a n d private use, t h e available biblical b o o k s c i r c u l a t e d in s m a l l e r
c o l l e c t e d e d i t i o n s . The Psalter was t h e m o s t p o p u l a r o n e , o u t p a c i n g
even t h e G o s p e l s , a n d was u s e d n o t o n l y as t h e " p r a y e r b o o k of t h e
C h u r c h " b u t also as t h e o n l y r e a d i n g p r i m e r . After t h e Psalter a n d
26
G o s p e l s c a m e t h e P r o p h e t s a n d W i s d o m literature, especially S i r a c h .
The Palaea, a "Reader's D i g e s t version" o f t h e H i s t o r i c a l B o o k s of
t h e O l d ' T e s t a m e n t dressed u p w i t h a p o c r y p h a l l e g e n d s , c o m p l e t e d
t h e list. G . F e d o t o v characterizes t h e era as follows:
In Russia [Kievan Rus'] the notion of the Biblical canon, distin-

guishing strongly between the inspired Holy Scripture and the
words of the fathers, never existed. All religious writings were called
sacred and divine insofar as they were not heretical. T h e Russian
people had a particular predilection for the apocrypha [i.e., n o n -
Biblical rather than deuterocanonical] because of its fabulous con-
2
tent which appealed to their imagination. "
George P. Fedorov, The Russian Religious Mind, Vol. I: Kievan Christianity:

The Tenth to the Thirteenth Century, ed. J o h n Meyendorff ( C a m b r i d g e , Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1966) 4 2 - 4 3 .
' I b i d . , 43.
W h i l e r e a d i n g was a v i r t u e o f t h e elite, a n d liturgy a p p e a l e d to

b o t h elite a n d c o m m o n , H o l y S c r i p t u r e a n d a p o c r y p h a l w o r k s were
rivaled in p o p u l a r i t y o n l y by t r a n s l a t i o n s o f t h e lives o f s a i n t s . These
w e r e followed in t h e m a n u s c r i p t s by s e r m o n s a n d p a t r i s t i c exegeses.
T h u s , t h r e e of t h e largest a n d m o s t p o p u l a r literary c o r p o r a o f Kieven
R u s ' h a d H o l y S c r i p t u r e as t h e i r c e n t e r p i e c e .
After a h i a t u s in biblical t r a n s l a t i o n effort o f n o t a few h u n d r e d
years, w e r e s u m e o u r i n v e s t i g a t i o n in N o v g o r o d a t t h e e n d o f t h e
fifteenth c e n t u r y , h a v i n g w i t n e s s e d t h e p a s s i n g of t h e e n t i r e A p p a -
nage P e r i o d ( M o n g o l s ) a n d t h e fall of C o n s t a n t i n o p l e ( T u r k s ) ; a n d
w e s t a n d o n t h e b r i n k of t h e coalescence o f t h e k i n g d o m of M u s c o -
vite R u s ' , o r G r e a t Russia. A t this t i m e t h e so-called "Judaizer h e r -
esy" arose, a m o v e m e n t t h a t i n c l u d e d t r a n s l a t i o n s o f biblical b o o k s
o n l y f r o m t h e H e b r e w . 'The "Judaizers" w e r e led by Z e c h a r i a h (Slavic:
Skharia), w h o was p r o b a b l y a C r i m e a n Karaite Jew; a n d h e t a u g h t
t h a t C h r i s t w a s a p r o p h e t , t h e m e s s i a n i c p r o p h e c i e s were unfulfilled
a n d still a w a i t e d fulfillment, t h e C h u r c h is u n n e c e s s a r y , e t c . Besides
t h e O l d Testament, t h e g r o u p t r a n s l a t e d t h e m e d i c a l treatises, ethics,
28
a n d logic of M a i m o n i d e s a n d al-Gazzali, as well as astrological b o o k s .
W h e n t w o N o v g o r o d i a n priests i n f l u e n c e d b y t h e m o v e m e n t t r a n s -
ferred t o M o s c o w , t h e "Judaizer heresy" b e c a m e m a r g i n a l l y i n f l u e n -
tial in t h e c a p i t a l .
'The m a i n o p p o n e n t of t h e J u d a i z e r s was J o s e p h o f V o l o k (Iosif
Volotskii), an a b b o t o f t h e V o l o k o l a m s k M o n a s t e r y . H e successfully
p u r s u e d t h e m u n t i l t h e y were c o n d e m n e d b y a c h u r c h c o u n c i l ( 1 5 0 4 )
a n d e r a d i c a t e d b y Ivan III. J o s e p h is best k n o w n in R u s s i a n h i s t o r y
as t h e successful s p o k e s m a n for t h e "possessors," over against N i l u s
of Sora (Nil Sorskii) w h o led t h e " n o n - p o s s e s s o r s , " in w h a t b e c a m e a
l e g i t i m a t e m i n o r i t y p o s i t i o n theologically, t h o u g h less so politically.
S i m p l y p u t , t h e possessors believed in extensive c h u r c h h o l d i n g s a n d
close c o o p e r a t i o n w i t h secular a u t h o r i t y in o r d e r t o d o G o d ' s w o r k ,
while the non-possessors m i n i m i z e d church holdings and preferred
a s e p a r a t i o n b e t w e e n C h u r c h a n d state.
Is it c o i n c i d e n t a l t h a t S c r i p t u r e figured in Joseph's c o n t r o v e r s i e s
w i t h t h e n o n - p o s s e s s o r s n o less t h a n it h a d w i t h t h e Judaizers? The
n o n - p o s s e s s o r s , s o m e w h a t in a n t i c i p a t i o n o f w h a t w o u l d o c c u r in
8
' Georges Florovsky, Ways of Russian Theology, Part I, Vol. V: The Collected-
Works of Georges Florovsky, ed. Richard S. H a u g h , tr. Robert L. Nichols (Belmont,
Mass.: N o r d l a n d Publishing C o m p a n y , 1979) 15. Francis J. T h o m s o n , " T h e C o r -
pus of Slavonic Translations Available in Muscovy," Christianity and the Eastern
Slavs, Vol. I: Slavic Cultures in the Middle Ages, ed. Boris Gasparov and Olga
Raevsky-Hughes (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993) 186.
t h e W e s t later in t h e s a m e c e n t u r y , "differentiated in t h e t e a c h i n g of
the C h u r c h a m o n g H o l y Writ, tradition, a n d h u m a n custom, con-
s i d e r i n g o n l y H o l y W r i t — t h a t is, G o d ' s c o m m a n d m e n t s — a s c o m -
19
pletely b i n d i n g . T h e rest c o u l d b e criticized a n d c h a n g e d . " A l t h o u g h
b o t h Joseph a n d Nilus were canonized, Joseph's "establishment" posi-
tion better a c c o m m o d a t e d t h e rising centralization o f t h e Muscovite state,
while s o m e of Nilus's disciples were c o n d e m n e d as heretics.
In t h e m i d s t of t h e J u d a i z e r a n d n o n - p o s s e s s o r c o n t r o v e r s i e s , t h e
first k n o w n , c o m p l e t e Slavic Bible was c o m p i l e d in N o v g o r o d . The
t r a n s l a t i o n effort, w h i c h w e n t b e y o n d solely biblical texts, was s t i m u -
l a t e d by a n d r e s p o n d e d t o t h e a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d m o v e m e n t s u n d e r
t h e a u t h o r i z a t i o n a n d p r o t e c t i o n of A r c h b i s h o p G e n n a d i u s of
N o v g o r o d — a n d b e c a m e k n o w n in R u s s i a n as G e n n a d i u s ' s Bible
( 1 4 9 9 a n d following). Political a n d p o l e m i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s u n d e r -
m i n e d t h e i n t e g r i t y of t h e effort f r o m t h e very b e g i n n i n g .
N e i t h e r H e b r e w n o r G r e e k w a s e m p l o y e d as a p r i m a r y text from
w h i c h to translate. O n l y t h e Vulgate was used, an i n d i c a t i o n o f Russia's
general o r i e n t a t i o n t o w a r d t h e O c c i d e n t after t h e fall o f C o n s t a n t i n -
30
o p l e . T h e V u l g a t e was s u p p l i e d by a D o m i n i c a n , Friar B e n j a m i n
( V e n i a m i n ) , a n d J e r o m e ' s prefaces a n d N i c h o l a s o f Lyra's p o s t s c r i p t s
were a p p e n d e d to t h e C h u r c h Slavic t r a n s l a t i o n . T h e t r a n s l a t o r s s e e m
t o h a v e b e e n u n a w a r e t h a t t h e b o o k s o f t h e Vulgate are n o t identical
1
to t h e E a s t e r n c a n o n . ' Russian e v a l u a t i o n s of t h e t r a n s l a t i o n t h r o u g h
m o d e r n t i m e s have b e e n negative, a n d focus o n t h e " i n c u r s i o n a r y "
p r e s e n c e o f R o m a n C a t h o l i c politics o n t o Russian soil. O t h e r Latin
texts w h i c h p r o d u c e d a " E u r o p e a n r e s o n a n c e " in Russia w e r e also
"' Nicholas V. Riasanovsky, A History of Russia, 5th ed. (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1993) 123.
European contacts and ideas were more exciting t h a n a static Byzantium,
and they t e m p t e d the Russians away from their o w n traditional roots.
" See T h o m s o n , "Corpus of Slavonic Translations," 187. In this well-researched
article T h o m s o n describes how intellectual silence engulfed Slavic translation projects
and RusVRussia from the t e n t h to the seventeenth century. T h e "why" of it, focus-
ing on the c o n t e n t of translations, is addressed, b u t requires some further examina-
tion, in m y o p i n i o n . For example, t h e Byzantines from w h o m the Slavs received
texts for translation, b e g i n n i n g at least as early as the eleventh century, formally
renounced their o w n Greek philosophical inheritance, which anti-intellectual atti-
tude—preserved as a c h u r c h a n a t h e m a in C o n s t a n t i n o p l e and R u s ! — w a s trans-
m i t t e d to t h e Slavs. (See J o h n M e y e n d o r f f , Rome, Constantinople, Moscow
[Cresrwood, N . Y : St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1996] 3 5 , 119-23.) Also, the
c o m p a r i s o n of the intellectual history of Rus' with c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s Western in-
tellectual h i s t o r y — t h e rediscovery of Arisrotle and the synthesis within Scholasti-
cism—presupposes that the w o n d r o u s Western model is historically normative,
which it may well n o t be.
translated at A r c h b i s h o p G c n n a d i u s ' s residence. T h e s e i n c l u d e d pieces

f o c u s i n g o n m e s s i a n i s m in S c r i p t u r e , p o l e m i c s a g a i n s t J e w s , a n d
C h u r c h - s t a t e d e b a t e s o n p r o p e r t y . Like it or n o t , L a t i n a t e i n f l u e n c e
w o u l d d o m i n a t e m a j o r sectors of Russian ecclesiastical life for c e n -
2
turies t o c o m e . '
After t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f t h e first p r i n t e d Epistle B o o k ( " T h e
A p o s t l e " ) in 1 5 6 4 , t h e first full text o f t h e Slavic Bible was p u b l i s h e d
in 1 5 8 0 , a n d again w i t h e m e n d a t i o n s in 1 5 8 1 . It w a s k n o w n as t h e
O s t r o g Bible after its chief p a t r o n , P r i n c e C o n s t a n t i n e o f O s t r o g
( K o n s t a n i n O s t r o z h s k i i ) . The w o r k a p p e a r e d as a p a r t o f a larger
p r i v a t e p u b l i s h i n g effort a m o n g t h e O r t h o d o x in L i t h u a n i a a n d P o -
land, w h i c h i n c l u d e d liturgical b o o k s a n d religious p a m p h l e t s — t r a n s -
lational r a t h e r t h a n p o l e m i c a l w o r k s .
A l t h o u g h all t h e O s t r o g p u b l i c a t i o n s served a p o l o g e t i c p u r p o s e s ,
t h e i n s p i r a t i o n for this serious t r a n s l a t i o n p r o j e c t c a m e from a greater
vision o f S l a v o - H e l l e n i c c u l t u r e , c o m m o n t o t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s in t h e
" O s t r o g C i r c l e . " T r a i n e d in G r e e k , L a t i n , a n d Slavic, m e m b e r s o f t h e
O s t r o g C i r c l e r o o t e d t h e i r w o r k in t h e i r o w n t r a d i t i o n , w h i l e p a r -
t i c i p a t i n g in t h e trilingual " G r e e k s c h o o l , " w h i c h lasted o n l y a few
d e c a d e s . T h e Prince's s c h o o l s e e m e d to b e a r e s p o n s e t o t h e J e s u i t -
s p o n s o r e d C o l l e g e of St. A t h a n a s i u s f o u n d e d in R o m e d u r i n g t h e
s a m e p e r i o d t o e d u c a t e Slavs a n d G r e e k s in U n i a t e C a t h o l i c i s m ; a n d
indeed they responded strongly to Uniatism a n d the calendar reform
of P o p e G r e g o r y X I I I . N o n e t h e l e s s , t h e m o s t s t u n n i n g a c c o m p l i s h -
m e n t o f t h e O s t r o g C i r c l e was t h e i r Bible; a n d t h e q u a l i t y of its
Slavic text favorably c o m p a r e d t o c o n t e m p o r a r y t r a n s l a t i o n s in o t h e r
l a n g u a g e s , for e x a m p l e t h e Sixtus C l e m e n t i n e version of t h e V u l g a t e
(1 5 9 2 ) . " In e v a l u a t i n g t h e t r a n s l a t i o n , Pr. G . F l o r o v s k y w r i t e s , " T h e
O s t r o g Bible, as s u c h , r e m a i n s a l a n d m a r k in S l a v o n i c biblical h i s -
tory. It a b i d e s also as a m a g n i f i c e n t a c h i e v e m e n t in itself, a m o n u -
m e n t of s c h o l a r s h i p , l i t e r a t u r e , a n d t h e o l o g y . " The m e m b e r s of t h e
s h o r t - l i v e d C i r c l e were exceptional for t h e i r t i m e a n d place, a n d m a n y
w e n t o n t o o t h e r tasks o f h i s t o r y - m a k i n g significance.
Before leaving t h e O s t r o g C i r c l e , let us l o o k briefly at t h e i r m e t h -
o d o l o g y . E m p l o y i n g classical C h u r c h Slavic, t h e y a t t e m p t e d t o fol-
l o w t h e G r e e k textual t r a d i t i o n u s i n g every available critical r e s o u r c e .
S t a r t i n g first w i t h G c n n a d i u s ' s Bible, o t h e r G r e e k a n d Slavic m a n u -
scripts w e r e o b t a i n e d w i t h difficulty from C o n s t a n t i n o p l e a n d m o -
n a s t i c c e n t e r s ; b u t t h e m a n u s c r i p t s w e r e d i s a p p o i n t i n g l y p o o r . After
" Florovsky, Ways, Parr I, Vol. V, 14-19.

" Ibid., 4 2 - 4 5 .
these, t h e y c o n s u l t e d t h e ( M a s o r e t i c ) H e b r e w text, t h e V u l g a t e , a n d
r e c e n t C z e c h a n d Polish versions; a n d finally t h e y c h e c k e d their re-
sults against the Aldine S e p t u a g i n t (Venice, 1518) a n d the
C o m p l u t e n s i a n Polyglot ( S p a i n , 1 5 2 2 ) w h i c h c o n t a i n e d parallel col-
u m n s of H e b r e w , A r a m a i c , G r e e k , a n d L a t i n O l d Testaments, as well
as G r e e k a n d L a t i n N e w ' T e s t a m e n t s . All s u b s e q u e n t e d i t i o n s o f
C h u r c h Slavic Bibles h a v e b e e n d e p e n d e n t o n t h e text of t h e O s t r o g
B i b l e . " Clearly, a n y o n e c l a i m i n g an a u t o n o m y for t h e Slavic Bible
exclusive of t h e H e b r e w text o r o f W e s t e r n s c h o l a r s h i p k n o w s n e i -
t h e r this Bible n o r its history.
As Prince C o n s t a n t i n e of O s t r o g w e n t o n t o b e c o m e an e c u m e n i s t
of sorts, so t o o a n o t h e r o f his C i r c l e , Cyril Lukaris ( 1 5 7 2 - 1 6 3 8 ) ,
w e n t o n to b e c o m e t h e e c u m e n i c a l l y m i n d e d p a t r i a r c h o f A l e x a n -
dria, a n d later p a t r i a r c h o f C o n s t a n t i n o p l e . " Aside from his h i g h l y
political r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e C h u r c h o f R o m e a n d t h e Turks, Cyril
is best k n o w n for his C a l v i n i s t Confession ( s t a t e m e n t of religious
belief), p u b l i s h e d at G e n e v a in 1 6 2 9 a n d w r i t t e n in Latin six years
earlier. Cyril was possibly t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t intellectual figure in
t h e E a s t e r n C h u r c h at t h e t i m e , t h o u g h d o o m e d t o tragic political
a n d ecclesiastical c i r c u m s t a n c e s ; a n d his Confession was c o n d e m n e d
by n o less t h a n six local c h u r c h c o u n c i l s before t h e e n d o f t h e s e v e n -
6
t e e n t h c e n t u r y . ' W i t h t h e r e p u d i a t i o n s o f Cyril's C a l v i n i s t s t a t e m e n t
of faith c a m e a tacit, n e g a t i v e a t t i t u d e f r o m t h e c o n d e m n i n g h i e r a r -
c h y t o w a r d an e n l i g h t e n e d use o f t h e Bible b y t h e faithful. The reac-
t i o n s o m e t i m e s t o o k o n an aspect c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of c o n t e m p o r a r y ,
seventeenth-century R o m a n Catholic polemics.
Let us briefly s u m m a r i z e s o m e o f Cyril's a c t i o n s p e r t i n e n t to o u r
37
t o p i c a n d t h e r e a c t i o n s he e l i c i t e d . In " Q u e s t i o n I I I " of t h e Confes-
sion C y r i l lists t h e c a n o n o f S c r i p t u r e as t h a t o f t h e S y n o d of L a o d i c e a
(see t h e s u s p i c i o u s C a n o n 6 0 a b o v e ) ; b u t h e p r o c e e d s t o c h a n g e it t o
14
Ibid., 4 5 . A "child" of the Osrrog Circle, Meletii Smorritsky (whose farher
was an ediror of rhe Osrrog Bible and firsr rector of rhe School) used the same
critical approach to sacred philology ro create a Polish O r t h o d o x version of Scrip-
rure, w h i c h differed from that of the Polish Prorestants and R o m a n Catholics. See
David A. Frick, Melelij Smolryc'kyj ( C a m b r i d g e , Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1995) 1 8 1 - 2 0 5 .
" See T i m o r h y Ware, The Orthodox Church, rev. ed. ( H a r m o n d s w o r t h , En-
gland: Penguin Books Ltd., 1993) 9 6 - 9 7 .
16
See D o s i t h e u s , The Acts and Decrees of The Synod of Jerusalem, tr.
J. N . W. B. Robertson (New York: A M S Press, 1969) for a p o i n t - b y - p o i n t response.
'" T h e Lukaris episode has never been fully investigated from the perspective
of the history of the Bible in the O r t h o d o x C h u r c h , probably d u e ro a preoccupa-
tion with the more i m m e d i a t e and prevalent doctrinal and political issues.
c o r r e s p o n d exactly t o t h e C a l v i n i s t c a n o n , i n v o k i n g t h e c o n c e p t of
" a p o c r y p h a " for r e m a i n i n g b o o k s , a n d asserts t h a t this h a d always
b e e n t h e c a n o n i c a l r e c k o n i n g o f t h e O r t h o d o x C h u r c h ! This p a r -
t i c u l a r d e c e p t i o n was u n c o v e r e d a t t h e S y n o d a t Jassy in M o l d a v i a
( 1 6 4 2 ) , t h e s e c o n d s u c h s y n o d c o n d e m n i n g t h e Confession. The first
local c o u n c i l in C o n s t a n t i n o p l e against Cyril's s t a t e m e n t ( 1 6 3 8 ) fo-
c u s e d m o r e o n a c r i t i q u e of C h a p t e r II, w h e r e i n h e c l a i m e d S c r i p -
ture to be of higher authority than the C h u r c h . Cyril argued that the
C h u r c h was liable t o err, w h e r e a s S c r i p t u r e was n o t . C e r t a i n l y Cyril
h i m s e l f was liable of error, as p r o v e d at t h e S y n o d of J e r u s a l e m ( 1 6 7 2 ) .
T h i s local c o u n c i l t o o k p a i n s t o research his s e r m o n s a n d illustrate
t h a t h e c o n s i s t e n t l y c o n t r a d i c t e d himself, referencing " a p o c r y p h a l "
b o o k s as a u t h o r i t a t i v e S c r i p t u r e a n d c o u n t e r m a n d i n g t h e d o c t r i n a l
c o n t e n t of t h e Confession. In general t h e o p p o s e d s y n o d s w e r e c o n -
c e r n e d w i t h p r o t e c t i n g t h e i n t e g r i t y of t h e t e a c h i n g of t h e C h u r c h
a n d t h e c h u r c h fathers, as well as t h e listing of t h e b o o k s ; a n d his-
torically t h e y w e r e c o n s i d e r e d justified a n d c o n s i s t e n t in their a c -
tions against the brilliant Patriarch.
In r e t r o s p e c t t h e difficulty w i t h t h e Lukaris e p i s o d e a n d t h e Bible
s e e m s t o lie in o t h e r a d h o m i n e m c o n d e m n a t i o n s , t h o s e d e s i g n e d
solely to d e n o u n c e t h e m a n a n d his nefarious t e a c h i n g s ; b u t not ev-
erything Cyril t a u g h t was w r o n g , t h o u g h it s e e m s t o have b e e n s u b -
s e q u e n t l y t r e a t e d as if it w e r e . For e x a m p l e , in t h e Confession Q u e s -
t i o n I reads: " O u g h t t h e sacred S c r i p t u r e s t o be r e a d in t h e c o m m o n
l a n g u a g e b y all C h r i s t i a n s ? " Cyril a n s w e r s , "All faithful C h r i s t i a n s
o u g h t t o k n o w , believe, a n d confess, w h a t is in t h e sacred S c r i p -
t u r e s , " w h i c h w i t h a l m o s t all t h e rest o f t h e a n s w e r is perfectly " O r -
t h o d o x . " U n f o r t u n a t e l y , at o n e p o i n t h e claims, " F o r n e i t h e r can w e
learn from a n y o t h e r s o u r c e t h a n f r o m t h e s a c r e d S c r i p t u r e s , " w h i c h
is i n s e n s i t i v e t o O r t h o d o x p n e u m a t o l o g y , e c c l e s i o l o g y , a n d T r a -
d i t i o n in g e n e r a l .
T h e easily r e m e m b e r e d " n o " a n s w e r given t h e s a m e q u e s t i o n b y
P a t r i a r c h D o s i t h e u s at t h e S y n o d of J e r u s a l e m ( 1 6 7 2 ) is m i s l e a d i n g
for t w o reasons. First, his a n s w e r t h a t S c r i p t u r e o u g h t n o t b e read in
t h e c o m m o n l a n g u a g e is i n s u p p o r t a b l e from Tradition a n d is c i t e d
w i t h o u t precedent. Both the Synod of C o n s t a n t i n o p l e (1638) a n d
t h e S y n o d in M o l d a v i a ( 1 6 4 2 ) i g n o r e d it c o m p l e t e l y . D o s i t h e u s ' s
c a n o n i c a l f o r m u l a t i o n — " t o read s o m e p a r t s o f t h e S c r i p t u r e s , a n d
especially o f t h e O l d ( T e s t a m e n t ) , is f o r b i d d e n for t h e aforesaid rea-
s o n s a n d o t h e r s o f like s o r t " — r e q u i r e s a clear c a n o n i c a l p r e c e d e n t
w h i c h is n o t , o r r a t h e r c a n n o t b e , p r o v i d e d . S e c o n d , his a n s w e r is so
h i g h l y qualified a n d n u a n c e d t h a t it a p p e a r s t h a t t h e fashioners of
this r e s p o n s e s i m p l y w a n t e d t o a n s w e r " n o " w h e n L u k a r i s a n s w e r e d

"yes."
D o s i t h e u s uses a s i m i l a r t e c h n i q u e in a n s w e r i n g Cyril's Q u e s -
t i o n II ("Are t h e S c r i p t u r e s plain to C h r i s t i a n s w h o read t h e m ? " ) ,
w h i c h q u e s t i o n is i g n o r e d by t h e local c o u n c i l s o f C o n s t a n t i n o p l e
a n d Jassy. C y r i l gives a qualified "yes" t o t h e q u e s t i o n a n d r e m a i n s
w i t h i n t h e Tradition. D o s i t h e u s s e e m s t o c h a n g e t h e q u e s t i o n t o r e a d
8
"all C h r i s t i a n s " ' a n d r e s p o n d s w i t h a qualified " n o . " A t this p o i n t
t h e q u a n t i t a t i v e difference in t h e i r a n s w e r s m i g h t be c h a r a c t e r i z e d
by Cyril's glass b e i n g "half-full" w h i l e D o s i t h e u s ' s is " h a l f - e m p t y . "
N e v e r t h e l e s s , D o s i t h e u s p u s h e s t h e p o i n t t o c o n c l u d e , "it is n o t n e c -
essary, b u t r a t h e r i m p o s s i b l e , t h a t all s h o u l d k n o w w h a t t h e H o l y
Spirit m a n i f e s t s t o t h o s e a l o n e w h o are exercised in w i s d o m a n d h o -
liness." S u b s e q u e n t to t h e s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y D o s i t h e u s ' s c o u n c i l
has b e e n given a u t h o r i t a t i v e s t a t u s , w h i l e Cyril a n d his Confession
have b e e n c o n s i s t e n t l y c o n d e m n e d . O n e c a n n o t h e l p b u t t h i n k t h a t
in t h e p a r t i c u l a r s a b o v e , D o s i t h e u s ' s o r t h o d o x y was n o t a n y m o r e
reliable t h a n Cyril's, a n d in s o m e p o i n t s less so.
In Russia t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y b r o u g h t w i t h it a n a v i d interest
in t h e H e b r e w t e x t of t h e Bible, especially a m o n g t h e o l o g i a n s , b u t
also a m o n g m e m b e r s of t h e n e w l y f o r m e d Russian Bible Society.
Translations f r o m H e b r e w i n t o R u s s i a n ( i n s t e a d o f C h u r c h Slavic)
d r e w m i x e d r e a c t i o n s from t h e h i e r a r c h y a n d from society at large
for a b o u t fifty years, u n t i l t h e last q u a r t e r o f t h e c e n t u r y . N o t a b l e
figures p r o d u c e d p e r s o n a l t r a n s l a t i o n s : M a k a r i i G l u k h a r e v ( 1 7 9 2 -
1 8 4 7 ) , a s e m i n a r y professor a n d S i b e r i a n missionary, t r a n s l a t e d J o b
( 1 8 3 7 ) a n d Isaiah ( 1 8 3 9 ) from H e b r e w as a t e s t i m o n y t o his o p i n i o n
t h a t a Russian t r a n s l a t i o n s h o u l d be m a d e from H e b r e w ; b u t h e was
officially r e p r i m a n d e d for his efforts t o w a r d t h a t e n d . A r c h p r i e s t
G e r a s i m Pavskii ( 1 7 8 7 - 1 8 6 3 ) , an e m i n e n t professor a n d H e b r a i s t in
St. P e t e r s b u r g , c o u r t c h a p l a i n a n d t u t o r t o t h e i m p e r i a l family, p r o -
d u c e d a p e r s o n a l t r a n s l a t i o n o f t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t w h i c h his s t u -
d e n t s c i r c u l a t e d c l a n d e s t i n e l y u n t i l all copies were confiscated in an
i n v e s t i g a t i o n in 1 8 4 2 . A l t h o u g h G l u k h a r e v ' s a n d Pavskii's transla-
t i o n s were e v e n t u a l l y p u b l i s h e d in t h e m i d - 1 8 6 0 s , t h e H e b r e w ver-
sus G r e e k d e b a t e c o n t i n u e d — t o an i m p a s s e for s o m e w h o w o u l d
a d m i t o n l y o n e t r a d i t i o n (e.g., P. G o r s k i i - P l a t o n o v a c c e p t e d o n l y t h e
w
M a s o r e t i c text, R G o v o r o v o n l y t h e S e p t u a g i n t ) ; b u t for m o s t s c h o l -
ars a n d c h u r c h m e n of t h e last d e c a d e s o f t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y , t h e
iS
Dositheus, Acts and Decrees, 1 5 3 .
*' Florovsky, Ways, Part II, Vol. VI, 3 4 8 - 4 9 .
c o m p l e x r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e H e b r e w a n d G r e e k texts was n o t
o n l y a c k n o w l e d g e d b u t r e s e a r c h e d in critical literature o n a b o o k -
10
by-book basis.
O r g a n i z a t i o n a n d e x e c u t i o n o f t h e g r e a t Bible t r a n s l a t i o n p r o j e c t
of n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y Russia can be c r e d i t e d t o o n l y o n e i n d i v i d u a l ,
M e t r o p o l i t a n P h i l a r e t ( D r o z d o v ) of M o s c o w . In 1 8 5 6 h e p e r s o n a l l y
u r g e d t h e H o l y S y n o d to u n d e r t a k e a n e w t r a n s l a t i o n w h i c h w o u l d
p r o v i d e "the O r t h o d o x p e o p l e w i t h t h e m e a n s t o r e a d H o l y S c r i p -
t u r e for i n s t r u c t i o n in t h e h o m e a n d w i t h t h e easiest possible c o m -
1
p r e h e n s i o n . " ' A n earlier t r a n s l a t i o n h a d b e e n c o m p l e t e d a n d p u b -
lished in s e g m e n t s : t h e G o s p e l s in 1 8 1 9 , t h e e n t i r e N e w T e s t a m e n t
in 1 8 2 0 , t h e Psalter in 1 8 2 2 , a n d t h e rest o f t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t in
1 8 2 5 . Tragically, t h e c o m p l e t e d w o r k d i d n o t fare a n y b e t t e r t h a n its
s p o n s o r s , A . G o l i t s y n a n d t h e Bible Society, w h o s e activities w e r e
c u r t a i l e d in 1 8 2 5 . W i t h t h e p r i n t i n g c o m p l e t e , t h e w o r k was n o t
2
only suppressed, b u t completely destroyed.
In t h e early p h a s e of t h e p r o j e c t ( 1 8 1 6 - 1 8 2 5 ) P h i l a r e t h a d set
forth g u i d e l i n e s for t r a n s l a t i o n w h i c h w e r e also used in t h e s e c o n d
h a l f o f t h e c e n t u r y . The t r a n s l a t i o n was m a d e from t h e M a s o r e t i c
H e b r e w as t h e basic text, a n d t h e n f r o m t h e G r e e k w h e n it was t h e
original l a n g u a g e , g i v i n g b o t h preference over e x t a n t Slavic transla-
t i o n s . Literary f o r m was a n a l y z e d a n d m a i n t a i n e d : '"The s p i r i t o f a
passage m u s t be p a i n s t a k i n g l y o b s e r v e d , so t h a t c o n v e r s a t i o n will be
r e n d e r e d in a c o l l o q u i a l style, n a r r a t i o n in a n a r r a t i v e style, a n d so
f o r t h . " H e r a n k e d t h e priorities of t r a n s l a t i o n as a c c u r a c y first, clar-
ity s e c o n d , " a n d literary p u r i t y t h i r d . " P h i l a r e t also gave directives
4
" Ibid. See the listing of major individual translarions in e n d n o t e s 4 0 - 5 4 , as
well as on pages 124-28.
41
T h e project had originated forty years earlier w h e n Tsar Alexander I ( 1 8 0 1 -
1825) charged his friend A. N . Golitsyn, the head of n u m e r o u s g o v e r n m e n t reli-
gious and educational posts and the president of the newly formed Russian Bible
Society, with complete responsibility in words similar to the preceding ones. Al-
t h o u g h the Holy Synod was not involved at a l l — a n d it was assumed C h u r c h Slavic
would c o n t i n u e to be used liturgically—the actual translation project was super-
vised by the able dean of the St. Petersburg Academy, A r c h i m a n d r i t e Philaret
(Drozdov), the future M e t r o p o l i t a n of Moscow.
4
' For partictdars o n this episode and the ill-fated Bible Society, see Florovsky,
Ways, Part I, Vol. V, 1 8 1 - 2 0 1 .
4<
O n e m i g h t see in at least the first two items, curiously juxtaposed, the heir
of the slavish word-for-word translation from Greek to C h u r c h Slavic completed a
m i l l e n n i u m earlier, n o w canonized and taken as n o r m a t i v e . T h i s m i g h t be the
reason that the vocabulary and syntax of the Russian Bible is not readily c o m p r e -
hensible to Russians.
44
Florovsky, Ways, Parr I, Vol. V, 190.
r e g a r d i n g style; for e x a m p l e , " H o l y S c r i p t u r e derives its majesty from

15
t h e power, n o t t h e glitter, of its w o r d s . "
As o n e m i g h t s u r m i s e , Philaret's g u i d e l i n e s for t r a n s l a t i o n o p e n e d
n e w q u e s t i o n s w h i c h R u s s i a n society in t h e 1 8 2 0 s c o u l d n o t toler-
ate. The q u e s t i o n s w e r e difficult, l e g i t i m a t e , a n d c o u l d o n l y be a d -
dressed t h r o u g h p u b l i c d i s c u s s i o n — w h i c h w o u l d n o t o c c u r u n t i l
later in t h e c e n t u r y . For e x a m p l e , for p e o p l e w h o were t r o u b l e d b y
t h e d i v e r g e n c e s o f t h e R u s s i a n f r o m t h e Slavic, especially in regard t o
preference given t h e H e b r e w , e x p l a n a t i o n h a d t o b e m a d e t o pacify
those u n f a m i l i a r w i t h a n c i e n t languages. A n o t h e r e x a m p l e , clear from
t h e h i s t o r y already reviewed, is t h a t t h e Slavic Bible itself c o u l d n o t
be e q u a t e d w i t h t h e S e p t u a g i n t , as e v e r y o n e h a d s u p p o s e d . It was
c o m p o s i t e a n d d i d n o t c o r r e s p o n d in every respect t o t h e G r e e k .
Finally, as m e n t i o n e d a b o v e , e v e n t h e H e b r e w a n d G r e e k t e x t s
enjoy a c o m p l e x relationship w h i c h needs to be u n d e r s t o o d on a
case-by-case basis.
A l t h o u g h Philaret's p u r p o s e a p p e a r s t o us clear a n d c o m m e n d -
able, his efforts w e r e o p p o s e d b y s o m e colleagues, n o t a b l y M e t r o -
p o l i t a n P h i l a r e t ( A m f i t e a t r o v ) o f Kiev a n d t h e n e w O b e r - P r o c u r a t o r
of t h e M i n i s t r y o f Religious Affairs, C o u n t A. Tolstoi. O p p o s i t i o n
s t e m m e d from b a d experiences w i t h t r a n s l a t o r s a n d t h e Russian Bible
Society earlier in t h e c e n t u r y , as well as from an i n b r e d hierarchical
c o n s e r v a t i s m . T h e p r o j e c t h a d b e e n successfully o p p o s e d in 1 8 2 4
a n d 1 8 4 2 ; a n d w h e n it was p r o p o s e d a g a i n in 1 8 5 6 , m a n y reasons
a g a i n s t it w e r e a r t i c u l a t e d : T h e r e was a m i s t r u s t o f t h e H e b r e w Bible
w h i c h was [falsely] d e s c r i b e d as " u n k n o w n in t h e C h u r c h . " Earlier
in t h e c e n t u r y t h e t r a n s l a t i o n s from H e b r e w by Pavskii a n d M a k a r i i
c a u s e d h e a t e d controversy. Reference was m a d e t o t h e G r e e k c h u r c h
6
w h i c h d i d n o t allow t r a n s l a t i o n s i n t o v e r n a c u l a r G r e e k . ' T h e R u s -
sian l a n g u a g e was a c c u s e d of b e i n g less expressive t h a n C h u r c h Slavic,
a n d besides, t h e o t h e r liturgical b o o k s h a d n o t b e e n t r a n s l a t e d , a n d
4:
so o n . ' In a d d i t i o n o n l y C h u r c h Slavic t r a n s l a t i o n s w e r e u s e d
,!i
liturgically ( w h i c h r e m a i n e d t h e case t h r o u g h o u t t h e Soviet P e r i o d ) .
To the credit of m i d c e n t u r y Russian s c h o l a r s h i p — a n d of
Philaret's J o b - l i k e p e r s e v e r a n c e — t h e m o n u m e n t a l Bible p r o j e c t was
4 i
Ibid.
4 6
Translation of t h e Bible into m o d e r n Greek was firsr blessed in 1808 by
Parriarch Cyril VI of C o n s t a n t i n o p l e ; b u t it was subsequently resisted until the
present decade, w h e n the new translation sparked a hot debate.
4
" Florovsky, Ways, Parr II, Vol. VI, 122-24.
4 8
O n e m i g h t argue rhar Philaret envisioned an eventual evolution to liturgical
Russian.
MlCHAKL P R O K U ' R A T 93
c o m p l e t e d u n d e r the auspices of the H o l y S y n o d a n d u n d e r the

M e t r o p o l i t a n ' s watchful eye. The G o s p e l B o o k was p u b l i s h e d in 1 8 6 0 ,
t h e c o m p l e t e N e w T e s t a m e n t in 1 8 6 2 , a n d fascicles o f t h e O l d Testa-
m e n t b e g a n t o a p p e a r in 1 8 6 8 . The c o m p l e t e e d i t i o n was p u b l i s h e d
in 1 8 7 5 . All s u b s e q u e n t s y n o d a l e d i t i o n s b u i l t u p o n this o n e ; a n d
revisions were h a n d l e d b y t h e ( n o w familiar) t e c h n i q u e o f c i t i n g t h e
c o r r e c t i o n in t h e f o o t n o t e a n d m o v i n g it i n t o t h e t e x t in t h e follow-
i n g p r i n t i n g . N e w e d i t i o n s were revised a n d r e p u b l i s h e d u n t i l t h e
d e c a d e before t h e R u s s i a n R e v o l u t i o n . W h e n t h e Russian C h u r c h
p u b l i s h e d 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 Bibles t o c o m m e m o r a t e t h e m i l l e n n i u m of C h r i s -
t i a n i t y in R u s ' in 1 9 8 8 , t h e y r e p u b l i s h e d t h e last p r e r e v o l u t i o n a r y
revision of Philaret's Bible. This last fact p r o b a b l y best illustrates h o w
biblical s c h o l a r s h i p was forced to a standstill d u r i n g t h e Soviet
Period.
In t h e c l o s i n g d e c a d e s o f t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y a n d t h e first of
t h e t w e n t i e t h o n e can r e c o g n i z e c o m m o n e l e m e n t s in biblical s t u d -
ies in E u r o p e a n Russia a n d in c o n t i n e n t a l E u r o p e . A l t h o u g h N e w
Testament s c h o l a r s h i p in Russia was less a r d e n t l y p u r s u e d t h a n O l d ,
o n e finds m a n y of t h e s a m e l e a r n e d w r i t i n g s a n d c u l t u r a l fascina-
t i o n s as are f o u n d in E u r o p e . Keil's G e r m a n Introduction was t r a n s -
l a t e d i n t o R u s s i a n a n d b e c a m e a basic h a n d b o o k . R e n a n from F r a n c e
a n d Strauss from t h e T u b i n g e n s c h o o l w e r e r e a d extensively a n d re-
p l i e d to in t h e j o u r n a l s as well. 'The W e s t e r n O l d Testament c o m -
m e n t a r i e s d e v o t e d t o m e s s i a n i s m a n d christological i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s
19
w e r e also well l i k e d . O n t h e t e c h n i c a l a n d p o p u l a r levels a r c h a e o l -
o g y (e.g., t h e j o u r n a l Orthodox Palestinian Collection, 1881-1914)
a n d p i l g r i m a g e s t o Palestine were p u r s u e d so extensively t h a t v a r i o u s
tsarist g o v e r n m e n t s b u i l t large c h u r c h e s a n d hostels at p a r t i c u l a r ar-
chaeological a n d religious sites to h o u s e t h e i r citizens. F u r t h e r , n o
Russian s i t t i n g r o o m was c o m p l e t e w i t h o u t a c o p y of t h e life of Jesus
as p o r t r a y e d b y t h e world's masters. After t h e R e v o l u t i o n emigre schol-
ars w h o s u r v i v e d t h e Bolsheviks a n d w e r e able t o m a k e a c u l t u r a l
5 0
t r a n s i t i o n c o n t r i b u t e d a n e w t o t h e societies t h a t a c c e p t e d t h e m .
Florovsky, Ways, Parr II, Vol. VI, 128.

'" Aside from some of the names found in rhe bibliography, one mighr include
N . M . Z e r n o v (Oxford), M . I. Rosrovrsev (Yale), A. N . Grabar (France), and N . S.
Arseniev ( G e r m a n y and the U.S.), a m o n g others. Although n o n e of t h e m taught
and wrote solely on the Bible, all of rhem made c o n t r i b u t i o n s in particular areas of
its study.
V I I . EI'HESIANS 2 : 1 - 1 0
In d e a l i n g w i t h this p a r t i c u l a r text t h e r e are n o t a b l e differences

b e t w e e n t h e w a y it is h a n d l e d in t h e E a s t e r n C h u r c h a n d t h e w a y it is
t r e a t e d in t h e W e s t . First, t h e p e r i c o p e d i v i s i o n s u s e d in t h e O r t h o -
d o x C h u r c h are f r e q u e n t l y different f r o m t h e i r W e s t e r n c o u n t e r p a r t s ,
a n d this is a typical e x a m p l e . E p h . 1:22-2:3 is t h e 2 1 9 t h e p i s t o l a r y
p e r i c o p e d i v i s i o n , a n d E p h . 2 : 4 - 1 0 is t h e 2 2 0 t h . E p h . 1:22-2:3 is t h e
p r e s c r i b e d r e a d i n g o n M o n d a y o f t h e s i x t e e n t h w e e k after P e n t e c o s t
a n d is read as p a r t of t h e lectio continua for w e e k d a y s . It d o e s n o t
c o r r e s p o n d t o a p a r t i c u l a r gospel p e r i c o p e . E p h . 2 : 4 - 1 0 is p a r t of t h e
S u n d a y cycle o f r e a d i n g s , r e a d o n t h e t w e n t y - t h i r d S u n d a y after P e n -
tecost. D u r i n g this t i m e o f year t h e S u n d a y gospel l e c t i o n a r y is from
L u k e a n d d o e s n o t c o r r e s p o n d t o a c o u n t e d S u n d a y after P e n t e c o s t .
A c c o r d i n g l y , E p h . 2 : 4 - 1 0 d o e s n o t always a c c o m p a n y t h e s a m e g o s -
pel p e r i c o p e f r o m L u k e .
W h a t this m e a n s in p o p u l a r t e r m s is t h a t E p h . 2 : 4 - 1 0 is m o r e
f a m i l i a r t o t h e a v e r a g e p a r i s h i o n e r b e c a u s e it is r e a d o n S u n d a y ,
w h e r e a s E p h . 1:22-2:3 is r e a d o n M o n d a y ( a n d t h e n o n l y if t h e r e is a
D i v i n e L i t u r g y ) a n d is m o s t p r o b a b l y less familiar. In fairness t o t h e
reader u n f a m i l i a r w i t h O r t h o d o x liturgy, a n o t h e r i t e m s h o u l d b e m e n -
t i o n e d h e r e . A l t h o u g h it is e n t i r e l y in k e e p i n g w i t h t r a d i t i o n for t h e
h o m i l i s t t o p r e a c h solely o n t h e l e c t i o n a r y r e a d i n g from t h e epistle,
in m o s t i n s t a n c e s — p o s s i b l y 9 0 p e r c e n t o f t h e t i m e — t h e p r e a c h i n g
will b e d o n e f r o m t h e g o s p e l lesson, a n d t h e epistle m i g h t o n l y b e
m e n t i o n e d secondarily.
In a d d i t i o n , a n o t h e r p r e s u p p o s i t i o n a b o u t l e c t i o n a r y r e a d i n g s ,
East or West, s h o u l d be " d e m y t h o l o g i z e d . " In b o t h traditions
h o m i l i s t s , a n c i e n t a n d m o d e r n , a l m o s t always treat t h e liturgical
l e c t i o n a r y d i v i s i o n s — a n d s o m e t i m e s t h e r e c e n t c h a p t e r a n d verse
d i v i s i o n s ! — a s if t h e y are s a c r o s a n c t . T h e y are n o t . F r o m a "scien-
tific" p o i n t o f view, l e c t i o n a r y d i v i s i o n s f r e q u e n t l y d o n o t follow t h e
literary s t r u c t u r e of t h e piece b e i n g read, as o n e m i g h t e x p e c t . If o n e
checks any l e c t i o n a r y today, n u m e r o u s divergences from literary s t r u c -
t u r e will b e f o u n d . T h e s e d i v e r g e n c e s are i n t e n t i o n a l l y i n c l u d e d b y
t h e fashioners o f e a c h l e c t i o n a r y for a n u m b e r of l e g i t i m a t e r e a s o n s —
l e g i t i m a t e f r o m a liturgical r a t h e r t h a n exegetical p o i n t o f view.
In l i g h t o f t h i s p h e n o m e n o n t h e k n o w l e d g e a b l e exegete is e n -
c o u r a g e d t o b e familiar w i t h all t h e s t r u c t u r e s a n d s u b s t r u c t u r e s o f
t h e w h o l e l i t e r a r y w o r k u n d e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n , a n d if p o s s i b l e , w i t h
t h e ( h y p o t h e s i z e d ) d y n a m i c s of t h e lectionary. In t h e case o f Ephesians
o n e has t o m a k e s o m e d e c i s i o n s as t o h o w t h e r e p e a t e d i n t e r c e s s i o n s
a n d d o x o l o g i c s fit t o g e t h e r : t h e first b e g i n s at 1:15 a n d t h e s e c o n d at

3 : 1 , before t h e m a i n parénesis of c h a p t e r four. W h a t m i g h t b e i n -
ferred from t h e O r t h o d o x l e c t i o n a r y is t h a t c h a p t e r s 1-3 are all i n -
t r o d u c t o r y to t h e epistle: a g r e e t i n g , a t h a n k s g i v i n g , followed b y t w o
similar pairs of c o m p l e x intercessions a n d doxologics ( 1 : 1 5 - 2 : 2 2 ; 3 : 1 -
2 1 ) , before t h e m a i n b o d y o f t h e epistle in 4 : 1 - 6 : 2 0 .
S e c o n d , q u e s t i o n s o f t r a n s l a t i o n a r i s e . W h i c h o n e is r e a d
liturgically? W h i c h is t h e best? etc. N o t m e a n t as a t a u t o l o g y , w e m a y
say t h a t every t r a n s l a t i o n is o n l y t h a t — a t r a n s l a t i o n . Traduttore
traditore, "the t r a n s l a t o r is a t r a i t o r t o his text," is a h a r d j u d g m e n t ,
b u t p a r t l y justified. In r e s p o n s e t o t h i s , all O r t h o d o x s e m i n a r i e s in
t h e U n i t e d States still r e q u i r e G r e e k ( a l t h o u g h n o t H e b r e w a n d A r a -
m a i c , as in t h e old Russian a c a d e m i e s ) . The p r e a c h e r is e x p e c t e d to
be able t o s p e a k w i t h u n d e r s t a n d i n g o n m a t t e r s o f t r a n s l a t i o n , v o -
cabulary, w o r d study, a n d so o n . Laity s t u d y i n g w i t h o u t a n c i e n t l a n -
g u a g e s are e n c o u r a g e d t o use a n d c o m p a r e as m a n y m o d e r n English
a n d foreign l a n g u a g e e d i t i o n s as possible. Liturgical r e a d i n g in E n -
glish is frequently d o n e from t h e K i n g J a m e s Version, t h e N e w A m e r i -
can Bible, o r t h e Revised S t a n d a r d V e r s i o n , t h e last of w h i c h i n -
c l u d e d scholarly p a r t i c i p a t i o n from t h e O r t h o d o x in its p r e p a r a t i o n
a n d received a h i e r a r c h i c a l blessing. ( T h e N e w R e v i s e d S t a n d a r d
Version is b e i n g given serious c o n s i d e r a t i o n as a s t u d y text, b u t is n o t
yet read liturgically.)
Third, o n e c a n e x p e c t t h e preacher's exegesis p r e p a r a t i o n , if n o t
t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e s e r m o n itself, t o rely in p a r t o n t h e classical
5
h o m i l i e s o f t h e c h u r c h fathers. ' For E p h e s i a n s , c o m m e n t a r i e s are
available from several of t h e favorite O r t h o d o x p a t r i s t i c h o m i l i s t s ,
i n c l u d i n g St. J o h n C h r y s o s t o m , St. E p h r e m t h e Syrian, St. J o h n of
D a m a s c u s , a n d ' T h e o d o r e t o f C y r r h u s , a m o n g o t h e r s . O n e aspect of
classical p a t r i s t i c h o m i l i e s , often i g n o r e d in r e c e n t d e c a d e s , is t h a t
t h e y a d d r e s s e d particular, s o m e t i m e s r e c u r r e n t , real-life s i t u a t i o n s in
t h e C h u r c h . These s e r m o n s w e r e generally n o t w r i t t e n in " i v o r y t o w -
ers" o r as exercises in m e t h o d or style, t h o u g h s o m e of t h e m were.
The b e t t e r ones were edifying t o t h e faithful at a c e r t a i n historical
p o i n t in t i m e , a n e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t every h o m i l i s t strives t o fulfill in
speaking to contemporaries.
A n o t h e r a s p e c t of p a t r i s t i c h o m i l i e s t h a t o n e learns very q u i c k l y
is t h a t t h e r e is n o single " O r t h o d o x i n t e r p r e t a t i o n " p e r se, b u t m a n y
!
- A good example of this type of exegesis may be found in D e m e t rois Trakatellis,
Authority and Passion, tr. George K. Duvall and H a r r y Vulopas (Brookline, Mass.:
H o l y Cross O r t h o d o x Press, 1987).
g o o d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , all o f w h i c h m a y b e " O r t h o d o x . " It is clear

w h e n a c h u r c h father lets t h e text s p e a k o n its o w n , a n d w h e n he
takes a p o s i t i o n , d o c t r i n a l or o t h e r w i s e , a n d uses t h e text as a " p r o o f "
of t h a t p o s i t i o n . (Significantly, p a t r i s t i c exegeses lack "faith vs. w o r k s "
p o l e m i c s . " ) In t h e l a t t e r case this is c o n s i d e r e d eisegesis ( r e a d i n g
m e a n i n g s i n t o a text) r a t h e r t h a n exegesis. A l s o , all of t h e holiest,
m o s t scholarly saints, are liable t o m a k e m i s t a k e s from t i m e t o t i m e —
a h u m b l i n g , b u t also refreshing, fact.
F o u r t h , either of o u r two pericopes w o u l d normally be exam-
i n e d as t o s t r u c t u r e a n d f o r m , as w e o b s e r v e d in t h e t r a n s l a t i o n g u i d e -
lines of Philaret; b u t literary s t r u c t u r e a n d f o r m d o n o t e x h a u s t t h o s e
categories, b e c a u s e t h e liturgical year also possesses v a r i o u s s t r u c -
tures a n d f o r m s w h i c h have an affect o n exegesis. As a result, g o o d
s e r m o n p r e p a r a t i o n is n a t u r a l l y sensitive t o t h e liturgical season, t h e
festal cycles, t h e m e n a i o n ( i n c l u d i n g h a g i o g r a p h y ) , etc. C o n s i d e r -
a t i o n s of literary s t r u c t u r e a n d f o r m , n o n e t h e l e s s , h a v e t o b e g i v e n a
c e r t a i n p r i m a c y . In o u r e x a m p l e , aside from t h e s t r u c t u r a l c o n s i d e r -
a t i o n s m e n t i o n e d a b o v e , o n e w o u l d also n o t e t h a t t h e e p i s t o l a r y f o r m
of E p h e s i a n s is different from t h a t o f a p e r s o n a l letter. W h e t h e r or
n o t o n e insists o n P a u l i n e a u t h o r s h i p , it is o b v i o u s t h a t t h e f o r m of a
general essay o r t r a c t is m o r e a p p l i c a b l e h e r e t h a n o n e of p e r s o n a l
direct address.
Fifth, it is c o m m o n t o give t h e passage a historical a n c h o r , b o t h
c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y a n d culturally. In t h e case of t h e P a u l i n e c o r p u s t h e
historical p a r a m e t e r s are r a t h e r closely set t o o n e o r a n o t h e r d e c a d e
o f t h e first c e n t u r y , w h e t h e r o r n o t o n e a t t r i b u t e s FLphesians t o Paul
h i m s e l f o r t o a " P a u l i n e s c h o o l " (i.e., d e u t e r o - P a u l i n e a u t h o r s h i p ) ;
a n d this k n o w l e d g e a b o u t t h e first c e n t u r y is c o m m o n e n o u g h t h a t it
d o e s n o t bear r e p e a t i n g in s e r m o n - f o r m very m a n y t i m e s a year.
O r t h o d o x N e w T e s t a m e n t scholars o f t h e s e c o n d half of t h e t w e n -
t i e t h c e n t u r y h a v e b e e n c o n s e r v a t i v e in g i v i n g u p t r a d i t i o n a l P a u l i n e
a u t h o r s h i p . (To t h e i r c r e d i t h o m i l i s t s , w h a t e v e r t h e i r exegetical l e a n -
ings, h a v e n o t m a d e P a u l i n e c h r o n o l o g y a focus o f p r e a c h i n g . ) W e
find this t e n d e n c y t o d a t e t h e epistles early c u r i o u s . The O r t h o d o x
s h o u l d h a v e n o t h e o l o g i c a l c o m p u l s i o n t o establish strict a p o s t o l i c
a u t h o r s h i p in o r d e r to validate t h e c a n o n i c i t y of a w o r k — t h e q u e s -
t i o n is h a r d l y raised; a n d t h e y have h a d little stake in t h e a c a d e m i c
r e - f i g h t i n g of t h e F r a n c o - P r u s s i a n W a r (the lines a l o n g w h i c h t h e
"'At least o n e such w o r k does exist, St. M a r k the Ascetic's " 2 2 6 texts entitled:
To those who think to be justified by deeds," in E. Kadloubovsky and G. E. H . Palmer,
Early Fathers from the Philokalia (London: Faber and Faber Limited, 1969) 86-93.
e a r l y a n d l a t e d a t i n g are u s u a l l y d r a w n ) , w h i c h in a n y case s e e m s
t o h a v e s u b s i d e d e v e n a m o n g t h e F r e n c h a n d G e r m a n s in r e c e n t
decades.
S i x t h , as w e r u n t h e risk of o v e r s i m p l i f y i n g for t h e sake of b r e v -
ity, t h e c o m p e t e n t O r t h o d o x exegete e m p l o y s o n e o r a n o t h e r critical
m e t h o d t o c o m p l e t e his s e r m o n p r e p a r a t i o n . W h e t h e r t h e p a r t i c u -
lars of t h e m e t h o d o l o g i c a l analysis w o u l d a p p e a r in t h e s e r m o n p r e -
s e n t a t i o n is d o u b t f u l . A l t h o u g h t h e historical-critical m e t h o d is al-
ways i m p o r t a n t for an e x p e r t u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e p e r i c o p e , m e t h -
o d o l o g i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s m a y b e restricted t o s e r m o n p r e p a r a t i o n
only, b e c a u s e t h e m e t h o d itself m i g h t n o t p r o d u c e exegetical results
t h a t are edifying t o t h e f a i t h f u l — w h i c h is t h e classical raison d ' e t r e
for p r e a c h i n g .
S e v e n t h a n d last, a n d a p a r t o f t h e historical-critical m e t h o d , is
a n analysis of w h a t t h e p e r i c o p e m e a n t in its o w n historical a n d c u l -
t u r a l c o n t e x t a n d w h a t it m e a n s t o C h r i s t i a n s today. T h e r e is a t r e -
m e n d o u s a m o u n t o f l a t i t u d e in t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f e a c h o f t h e s e t w o
analyses. In t h e case of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of a l m o s t all critical m e t h o d ( s ) ,
m o s t O r t h o d o x Scripture scholars have t a u g h t their s e m i n a r y stu-
d e n t s t h a t t h e m e t h o d s are, in t h e m s e l v e s , n e u t r a l a n d t h e y s h o u l d
b e u s e d as t o o l s , different t o o l s w o r k i n g b e t t e r for different tasks.
R e g a r d i n g w h a t a passage m e a n s today, t h e p r o p h e t i c d e m a n d s of
this p r i n c i p l e m i g h t well d i c t a t e t h a t t h e s a m e s e r m o n , g i v e n f r o m a
set lectionary, w o u l d n e v e r b e given t w i c e — e v e r y a u d i e n c e a n d t i m e
are d e s e r v i n g o f a n e w r e s p o n s e . A l t h o u g h this m i g h t a p p e a r overly
d e m a n d i n g to A m e r i c a n t r a d i t i o n s in w h i c h t h e p r e a c h e r w e e k l y se-
lects a p p r o p r i a t e " p r o o f t e x t s " t o b e r e a d in s u p p o r t o f a p r e a r r a n g e d
s e r m o n topic, p r e a c h i n g from the l e c t i o n a r y — a n d being o p e n to the
H o l y S p i r i t — i n t h e O r t h o d o x C h u r c h has n o t o n l y d i s c o u r a g e d p e r -
s o n a l t h e o l o g i c a l a g e n d a s , b u t has e x p o s e d t h e faithful to t h e e n t i r e t y
of t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t t r a d i t i o n .
V I I I . SUMMARY
In c o n c l u s i o n , t h e liturgical ( i n c l u d i n g t h e h o m i l e t i c a l ) use o f
t h e W o r d o f G o d in t h e O r t h o d o x C h u r c h m a y b e seen o c c u p y i n g a
p r e e m i n e n t place over t h e w r i t t e n w o r d , u s e d for p e r s o n a l d e v o t i o n
a n d study. In o r d e r t o enjoy t h e "fullness" o f S c r i p t u r e a n d its refer-
e n t s , t h e average O r t h o d o x C h r i s t i a n will l o o k t o t h e p a r i s h a n d
m o n a s t i c liturgical p r a c t i c e for t h e m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f this p a r t o f liv-
i n g T r a d i t i o n . W h a t a biblical t e x t m e a n s t o d a y is p r i m a r i l y b a s e d
u p o n c h u r c h liturgical usage a n d p r o c l a m a t i o n in h o m i l i e s , r a t h e r
t h a n u p o n ecclesiastical p r o n o u n c e m e n t . F o r t h e Bible t o b e "alive"

in t h e Tradition, it m u s t be h e a r d a n d e x p e r i e n c e d l i t u r g i c a l l y — i t is
t h e W o r d w h i c h dwells in t h e h e a r t of t h e p e o p l e o f G o d . W h e n
S c r i p t u r e necessarily exists in a p a r t i c u l a r p r i n t e d form or o c c u p i e s
hierarchical a t t e n t i o n in edicts, these types of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s are o n l y
relative t o t h e W o r d living a m o n g all t h e p e o p l e , h i e r a r c h y a n d laity,
n o w a n d t h r o u g h o u t t h e ages. T o say it differently, t h e living W o r d
of G o d is seen m a n i f e s t in t h e First C o v e n a n t , in Jesus C h r i s t a n d his
w o r d s , in t h o s e w h o r e p e a t e d Jesus' w o r d s before t h e y w e r e w r i t t e n
d o w n , in t h e C h u r c h a n d h e r liturgical use of a w r i t t e n , " c a n o n i c a l "
text, in t h e Fathers a n d M o t h e r s of t h e C h u r c h , in c o n t e m p o r a r y
congregations, etc.—ever s h o w i n g forth a "present incarnation" of
t h e living W o r d .
B a r r o i s , G e o r g e s . The Face of Christ in the Old Testament.

C r e s t w o o d , N.Y.: St. V l a d i m i r ' s S e m i n a r y Press, 1 9 7 4 .
. Scripture Readings in Orthodox Worship. C r e s t w o o d , N.Y.:

St. V l a d i m i r ' s S e m i n a r y Press, 1 9 7 7 .
B r e c k , J o h n . The Power of the Word in the Worshiping Church.

. " O r t h o d o x y a n d t h e Bible Today." I n The Legacy of St.

Vladimir, 1 4 1 - 5 7 . E d i t e d b y J. Breck, J. Meyendorff, a n d E. Silk.
Fedotov, G e o r g e P. The Russian Religious Mind. Vol. I: Kievan Chris-

tianity: The Tenth to the Thirteenth Century. Vol. II: The Middle
Ages: The Thirteenth to the Fifteenth Centuries. Edited by J o h n
M e y e n d o r f f . C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 6 6 .
Florovsky, G e o r g e s . Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox

View. Vol. I of The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky. Belmont,
Mass.: N o r d l a n d Publishing C o m p a n y , 1972.
. Ways of Russian Theology. Part I, Vol. V a n d Part II, Vol.

VI of The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky. E d i t e d b y R i c h -
a r d S. H a u g h ; t r a n s l a t e d b y R o b e r t L. N i c h o l s . B e l m o n t , M a s s . :
Nordland Publishing Company, 1979.
G a m b l e , H a r r y Y. " C a n o n , N e w T e s t a m e n t . " In Vol. I of The An-

chor Bible Dictionary, 8 5 2 - 6 1 . E d i t e d by D a v i d N . F r e e d m a n .
N e w York: D o u b l e d a y , 1 9 9 2 .
J u g i e , M a r t i n . Histoire du Canon de VAncien Testament dans I'Eglise

Grecque et lEglise Russe. Vol. I of Etudes de Theologie Orientale.
Paris: G a b r i e l B e a u c h e s n e & C i e , E d i t e u r s , 1 9 0 9 .
K e s i c h , Veselin. The Gospel Image of Christ. Rev. e d . C r e s t w o o d ,

N . Y : St. V l a d i m i r ' s S e m i n a r y Press, 1 9 9 2 . [ T h e first e d i t i o n in-
c l u d e d t h e s u b t i t l e , The Church and Modern Criticism.]
L o s s k y , V l a d i m i r . The Vision of God. T r a n s l a t e d b y A s h e l e i g h

M o o r h o u s e . B e d f o r d s h i r e : The Faith Press, 1 9 7 3 .
M e y e n d o r f f , J o h n . The Orthodox Church: Its Past and Its Role in

the World Today. Translated b y J o h n C h a p i n . N e w York: P a n t h e o n
Books, 1962.
O b o l e n s k y , D i m i t r i . The Byzantine Commonwealth: Eastern Eu-

rope 500-1453. C r e s t w o o d , N . Y : St. V l a d i m i r ' s S e m i n a r y Press,
1982.
P e l i k a n , Jaroslav. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-

600). Vol. I o f The Christian 'Tradition. C h i c a g o : The U n i v e r s i t y
o f C h i c a g o Press, 1 9 7 1 .
. The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700). Vol. II o f

The Christian Tradition. C h i c a g o : The U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o Press,
1974.
Prokurat, Michael, Alexander Golitzin, a n d Michael D . Peterson.

The Historical Dictionary of the Orthodox Church. Vol. 9 o f His-
torical Dictionaries of Religions, Philosophies, and Movements.
L a n h a m , M d . a n d L o n d o n : S c a r e c r o w Press, 1 9 9 6 .
R i a s a n o v s k y , N i c h o l a s V. A History of Russia. 5 t h ed. N e w York:

O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 9 3 .
S a n d e r s , J a m e s A. lbrah& Canon. P h i l a d e l p h i a : Fortress Press, 1 9 7 2 .
S c h m e m a n n , A l e x a n d e r . Introduction to Liturgical 'Theology.

C r e s t w o o d , N . Y : St. V l a d i m i r ' s S e m i n a r y Press, 1 9 8 6 .
S t y l i a n o p o u l o s , T h e o d o r e . The Good News of Christ. Brookline,

M a s s . : H o l y C r o s s O r t h o d o x Press, 1 9 9 1 .
W a r e , T i m o t h y . 'The Orthodox Church. Rev. ed. H a r m o n d s w o r t h ,

England: Penguin Books Ltd., 1993.
LUTHERAN INTERPRETATION
OF SCRIPTURE
by
JOSF.PH A . BlJRGF.SS
W
' h a t p r o o f d o y o u have? W h a t e v i d e n c e d o y o u have?
W i t h s u c h q u e s t i o n s y o u are raising t h e p r o b l e m of a u -
thority. A n d u l t i m a t e l y a n y d i s c u s s i o n of the p r o b l e m of
a u t h o r i t y leads t o t h e q u e s t i o n of final a u t h o r i t y . W h a t is y o u r final
a u t h o r i t y ? A r c h i m e d e s said t h a t if y o u w o u l d give h i m a place t o
s t a n d o n a n d a lever l o n g e n o u g h , h e c o u l d m o v e the w o r l d . C h r i s -
tians will state t h a t t h e i r final a u t h o r i t y is C o d , C h r i s t , t h e H o l y
Spirit, or t h e Bible. All C h r i s t i a n s h o l d sola scriptura t o be t h e final
a u t h o r i t y , even t h o u g h sola scriptura m a y b e m o d i f i e d by w o r d s s u c h
as " a n d C h r i s t , " " a n d t r a d i t i o n , " " a n d e x p e r i e n c e , " o r " a n d r e a s o n . "
Sola scriptura is t h e claim, yet w h a t this claim m e a n s n e e d s to be
s o r t e d o u t . O n e c a r t o o n s h o w s a p a c k a g e d e s c e n d i n g from t h e sky
s u s p e n d e d from a p a r a c h u t e . The label o n t h e p a c k a g e says " H o l y
B i b l e . " A n o t h e r c a r t o o n has G o d s i t t i n g o n a c l o u d a n d s p e a k i n g
t h r o u g h a m e g a p h o n e ; four t u b e s d e s c e n d from t h e m e g a p h o n e to
e a r t h , w h e r e M a t t h e w , M a r k , L u k e , a n d J o h n are s i t t i n g at desks
w r i t i n g d o w n w h a t t h e y hear. W e s m i l e a n d d i s m i s s s u c h c a r t o o n s as
caricatures. B u t at t h e o p e n i n g lecture o n t h e Bible at a L u t h e r a n
s e m i n a r y t h e t e a c h e r p i c k e d u p a Bible, p l a c e d it o n t h e floor, a n d
actually s t o o d o n t h e Bible for several m o m e n t s . H e i n t e n d e d t o
d r a m a t i z e t h e fact t h a t h e t o o k his s t a n d o n t h e Bible. The s t u d e n t s
w e r e horrified for t o t h e m it was sacrilegious t o use t h e Bible like
t h i s . After all, t h e Bible is a " h o l y " b o o k , s o m e t i m e s even v e n e r a t e d
in w o r s h i p . S o m e h o w this p a p e r a n d i n k is different from all o t h e r
p a p e r a n d ink! O r is it? H a s a c o n c e p t of material holiness c r e p t in
from t h e O l d Testament, w h e r e c e r t a i n objects m a y n o t be t o u c h e d
or even l o o k e d a t b e c a u s e t h e y are h o l y (cf. N u m . 4 : 1 5 , 1 9 - 2 0 ; 1
C h r . 1 3 : 9 - 1 0 ) ? H e r e a u t h o r i t y has b e e n u n d e r s t o o d as raw p o w e r .
O n l y G o d , of course, has raw p o w e r in t h e u l t i m a t e sense, for h e is
o m n i p o t e n t a n d n o o n e can c o m p e t e w i t h his power.
102 LUTHERAN INTERPRETATION OP SCRIPTURE
A t t h e o t h e r e x t r e m e sola scriptura means no more than that the

Bible is a n i m p o r t a n t d o c u m e n t b u t o n e a m o n g m a n y i m p o r t a n t
d o c u m e n t s . T h e r e is n o w o r d f r o m t h e L o r d , f r o m o u t s i d e o f myself.
U l t i m a t e l y I h a v e t o d e p e n d o n myself, m y r e a s o n , m y feelings, m y
e x p e r i e n c e , o r m y c o n s c i e n c e . A t this p o i n t t h e u n i q u e n e s s of t h e
Bible is lost b e c a u s e o f "historical c r i t i c i s m . " H i s t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m , t o
b e s u r e , m u s t b e d e f i n e d . First o f all, w h a t is " h i s t o r i c a l " ? S e c o n d ,
w h a t is "criticism"? If historical m e a n s t h a t t h e r e is n o w o r d f r o m
G o d , t h a t t h e o n l y a u t h o r i t y I have is m y e x p e r i e n c e , t h e n I a m c a u g h t
in relativism, for reason, feelings, e x p e r i e n c e , a n d even c o n s c i e n c e
vary in m y o w n life a n d in t h e c o u r s e of history. If c r i t i c i s m m e a n s
t h a t I a m t h e j u d g e of all t h a t is o r is n o t , t h e n I h a v e m a d e myself t h e
final a u t h o r i t y for all t h i n g s a n d o n c e a g a i n h a v e fallen i n t o rela-
tivism. A c c o r d i n g to this, the most virulent definition of histori-
cal c r i t i c i s m , t h e B i b l e h a s a u t h o r i t y o n l y t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t I give
it a u t h o r i t y .
It is i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e t h a t o t h e r d e f i n i t i o n s o f historical c r i t i -
cism are possible a n d even a p p r o p r i a t e . W h a t is n e e d e d a t this p o i n t
is t h a t y o u a n d I react t o t h e assertion t h a t t h e r e is n o w o r d f r o m t h e
L o r d , t h a t t h e Bible is n o t u n i q u e , t h a t I a m t h e final a u t h o r i t y . W e
k n o w t h a t w e are m o r e u n c o m f o r t a b l e w i t h t h i s assertion t h a n t h e
o t h e r e x t r e m e . L u t h e r a n s take t h e Bible very seriously, h o l d i n g t h a t
it is t h e " o n l y rule a n d n o r m a c c o r d i n g t o w h i c h all d o c t r i n e s a n d
t e a c h e r s alike m u s t b e a p p r a i s e d a n d j u d g e d " {Formula of Concord,
FLpitome, 1). L u t h e r a n s differ, o n e m u s t q u i c k l y interject, o n h o w t o
a p p l y this p r i n c i p l e ; s o m e L u t h e r a n s even h o l d a v i e w o f t h e Bible
w h i c h looks very m u c h like f u n d a m e n t a l i s m , a l t h o u g h t h e vast m a -
j o r i t y d o n o t b e l o n g in this c a m p . B u t t h e r e c a n b e n o d o u b t a b o u t
t h e c e n t r a l i t y of sola scriptura in t h e L u t h e r a n t r a d i t i o n .
I. H o w is THE BIBLE DIFFERENT?
L u t h e r a n s differ o n h o w t h e Bible is different even w h i l e agree-

i n g t h a t t h e Bible is t h e sole a u t h o r i t y for all p r o c l a m a t i o n , t e a c h i n g ,
a n d life in t h e C h u r c h . N o official L u t h e r a n t e a c h i n g o n t h e i n s p i r a -
t i o n o f t h e Bible exists, even t h o u g h s o m e h a v e t r i e d t o d e r i v e a
d o c t r i n e of i n s p i r a t i o n f r o m t h e L u t h e r a n C o n f e s s i o n s . T h e r e is n o
official L u t h e r a n list o f t h e b o o k s of t h e Bible, a n d for t h a t reason
t h e c a n o n of S c r i p t u r e is in p r i n c i p l e o p e n for L u t h e r a n s ; in fact
L u t h e r a n s o p e r a t e w i t h t h e s a m e basic c a n o n t h a t m o s t P r o t e s t a n t s
use, a n d it w o u l d b e false t o i m p l y t h a t L u t h e r a n s h a v e h a d a n y d e -
sire t o a d d t o t h e c a n o n .
J O S K P H A. BURGESS 103
A. Is t h e Bible Different Because It is Inspired?
L u t h e r a n s take t h e Bible very seriously b e c a u s e it is t h e o n l y

s o u r c e w e h a v e for G o d ' s w o r d . B u t w h y o n l y t h e Bible? W h a t m a k e s
it different? Because t h e difference is n o t in t h e p a p e r a n d i n k a n d
b e c a u s e t h e s a m e w o r d s a n d s e q u e n c e s of w o r d s are u s e d as in o t h e r
l i t e r a t u r e , w h a t possible c l a i m can b e m a d e t h a t t h e Bible is differ-
ent? As is well k n o w n , t h e c l a i m is t h a t t h e Bible was w r i t t e n by t h e
i n s p i r a t i o n of t h e H o l y Spirit a n d therefore t h e Bible is u n l i k e all
o t h e r b o o k s . O t h e r religions also claim t h e i r h o l y b o o k s are i n s p i r e d ,
b u t C h r i s t i a n s c l a i m t h e Bible is i n s p i r e d b y t h e S p i r i t o f t h e o n e
true God.
Every C h r i s t i a n h o l d s t h a t t h e Bible is i n s p i r e d . T h e q u e s t i o n is
" h o w " ? V a r i o u s t h e o r i e s o f i n s p i r a t i o n exist, a n d each claims t o d e -
scribe t h e m e t h o d t h e H o l y Spirit used. N o t h e o r y denies t h e H o l y
Spirit. For e x a m p l e , b e c a u s e C h r i s t i a n s h o l d t h a t e v e r y o n e received
the Holy Spirit t h r o u g h baptism, some w o u l d hold that the Holy
Spirit c o n t i n u e s to inspire t h e w r i t i n g s d o n e by C h r i s t i a n s . A t t h e
o t h e r e x t r e m e are t h o s e c l a i m i n g t h a t G o d gave t h e w o r d s , i n s p i r e d
s o m e o n e to w r i t e , a n d t h a t p e r s o n s i m p l y h e l d t h e p e n .
T h e r e is n o o n e biblical t h e o r y of i n s p i r a t i o n ; in fact, t h e Bible
c o n t a i n s several theories of i n s p i r a t i o n . ' T h o u s a n d s o f passages state
" t h e L o r d s a i d , " " t h u s says t h e L o r d , " " t h e L o r d s p o k e , " "the L o r d
s p o k e t o , " a n d t h e like. T h e difficulty is t h a t w h a t is m e a n t is n o t
o b v i o u s . W a s t h e L o r d s p e a k i n g in s u c h a w a y t h a t e v e r y o n e s t a n d -
i n g a b o u t h e a r d ? O r was t h e L o r d s p e a k i n g in s u c h a w a y t h a t t h e
p r o p h e t a l o n e h e a r d , a n d in this case w e r e s o u n d s h e a r d or were
ideas registered? If ideas, were t h e y filtered t h r o u g h t h e p r o p h e t ' s
m i n d , or were t h e y ideas t h e p r o p h e t c o u l d w r i t e d o w n w i t h o u t b e -
i n g altered b y t h e p r o p h e t ' s historical c o n t e x t ? In all p r o b a b i l i t y m o s t
of t h e writers o f t h e Bible d i d n o t a g o n i z e over s u c h q u e s t i o n s b u t
s i m p l y a s s u m e d t h a t w h a t t h e y said a n d w r o t e w a s i n s p i r e d b y G o d .
A t t i m e s , t o be sure, w h e n it was a q u e s t i o n of t r u e or false p r o p h e c y
a n d t e a c h i n g , t h e y d i d a g o n i z e a n d even p r o v i d e d certain k i n d s of
a n s w e r s (cf. D e u t . 1 3 : 1 - 5 ; 1 K i n g s 2 2 : 2 8 ; G a l . 1:6-9).
In t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e first g i v i n g of t h e T e n C o m m a n d m e n t s o n
M o u n t Sinai t h e w r i t e r describes h o w M o s e s w r o t e d o w n t h e w o r d s
of t h e L o r d , yet in t h e s a m e c h a p t e r t h e L o r d says h e has d o n e t h e
w r i t i n g ( E x o d . 2 4 : 4 , 12). In t h e h i s t o r y of t h e s e c o n d g i v i n g of t h e
Fen C o m m a n d m e n t s t h e L o r d w r i t e s o n t h e t w o tables o f s t o n e , yet
M o s e s later in t h e c h a p t e r is t h e o n e w h o w r o t e o n t h e t w o tables
( E x o d . 3 4 : 1 , 2 8 ) . H o w does o n e s o r t o u t t h e t h e o r y of i n s p i r a t i o n in
104 LUTHERAN I N T E R P R E T A T I O N or- SCRIPTURE
these passages? O n l y w i t h great difficulty can a t h e o r y b e p r o p o s e d

unless o n e resorts t o c o m p l e x e x p l a n a t i o n s o r unless editorial i n t e r -
ference is suggested. In 2 K i n g s 3 : 1 5 t h e p r o p h e t a s k e d for a m i n s t r e l
t o be b r o u g h t ; w h e n t h e m i n s t r e l p l a y e d , t h e p r o p h e t was i n s p i r e d .
This fits in w i t h t h e m a n t i c t h e o r y of i n s p i r a t i o n in t h e a n c i e n t w o r l d .
T h e m u s i c i a n was possessed a n d in this w a y i n s p i r e d by t h e spirit.
T h e p r o p h e t in t u r n c o u l d be i n s p i r e d t h r o u g h t h e m u s i c i a n (cf. 1
C h r . 2 5 : 1 ) . In Z e c h . 1 3 : 4 - 6 l a c e r a t i o n s have b e e n u s e d b y t h e false
p r o p h e t s t o p r o d u c e p r o p h e t i c ecstasy, b u t t h e p r a c t i c e is f o u n d in
official religious life as well 0 " . 4 1 : 5 ; cf. 1 K i n g s 1 8 : 2 8 - 2 9 ) .
T h e m o s t f a m o u s N e w T e s t a m e n t passage d e a l i n g w i t h inspira-
t i o n is 2 Tim. 3 : 1 6 : "All s c r i p t u r e is i n s p i r e d , " a c c o r d i n g t o t h e t r a n s -
l a t i o n f o u n d in t h e K i n g J a m e s Version. B u t t h e N e w English Bible
translates: "Every i n s p i r e d s c r i p t u r e has its use." This is at least a very
acceptable version of t h e G r e e k text a n d brings o u t t h e fact t h a t "scrip-
t u r e " in this c o n t e x t m e a n s t h e O l d Testament. W h e n o n e recalls t h e
radical f r e e d o m w i t h w h i c h N e w Testament w r i t e r s m a k e use o f t h e
O l d Testament, o n e m u s t b e c a u t i o u s a b o u t a n y t h e o r y o f inspira-
t i o n w h i c h w o u l d i m p l y t h a t t h e text was t h o u g h t to be so h o l y t h a t
it m u s t n o t b e i n t e r p r e t e d except in a very literal fashion. 'The adjec-
tive t r a n s l a t e d as " i n s p i r e d " s i m p l y m e a n s " G o d - b r e a t h e d , " a n d n o
p a r t i c u l a r t h e o r y of i n s p i r a t i o n is i m p l i e d b y t h e w o r d . In 2 Pet. 1:21
p r o p h e c y is n o t f r o m h u m a n efforts, for p r o p h e t s are t h o s e " m o v e d
by t h e H o l y S p i r i t . " O b v i o u s l y this m e a n s t h a t p r o p h e t s are t h o s e
g u i d e d b y t h e H o l y Spirit, b u t in w h a t w a y a n d t o w h a t e x t e n t is n o t
defined.
Paul d i s t i n g u i s h e s b e t w e e n G o d ' s w o r d s a n d his o w n w o r d s
(1 C o r . 7 : 6 , 10, 12, 2 5 , 4 0 ) , b u t h e does n o t describe h o w this is
d o n e o r w h a t m a k e s G o d ' s w o r d s different. W h a t does Paul m e a n
w h e n he writes "we i m p a r t this in w o r d s n o t t a u g h t b y h u m a n w i s -
d o m b u t t a u g h t b y t h e Spirit" (1 C o r . 2:13)? W h o is t h e " w e " in this
passage? Is it Paul, o r is it a n editorial " w e , " o r is it all t r u e C h r i s -
tians? F u r t h e r m o r e , w h a t " w o r d s " are m e a n t here? Are these Paul's
w o r d s in this letter, or t h e w o r d s h e uses in p r e a c h i n g , o r is it t h e
w o r d s u s e d b y t r u e C h r i s t i a n s w h e n t h e y testify? S i m i l a r q u e s t i o n s
arise w i t h a p h r a s e like "in t h e Spirit" ( M a t t . 2 2 : 4 2 ; Rev. 1:10) a n d
t h e assertion t h a t t h e H o l y Spirit "will t e a c h y o u all t h i n g s a n d b r i n g
t o y o u r r e m e m b r a n c e all t h a t I have said to y o u " ( J o h n 1 4 : 2 6 ) . H o w
does t h e H o l y S p i r i t d o t h i s , a n d t o w h a t extent? "The c o n c l u s i o n
from l o o k i n g at t h e Bible o n i n s p i r a t i o n is t h a t since n o m o n o l i t h i c
t h e o r y o f i n s p i r a t i o n is f o u n d in t h e Bible, t h e a p p r o a c h t o t h e Bible
s h o u l d b e d o x o l o g i c a l , t h a t is, w e can o n l y a p p r o a c h t h e Bible w i t h
praise a n d t h a n k s g i v i n g b e c a u s e it b u r s t s every c a t e g o r y a n d t h e o r y
we m i g h t have.
A brief s u r v e y of t h e t h e o r i e s o f i n s p i r a t i o n in c h u r c h h i s t o r y
s h o w s h o w t h e o r i e s d e v e l o p e d a c c o r d i n g to t h e historical c o n t e x t .
I n s p i r a t i o n in t h e O l d Testament usually m e a n t t h a t t h e p e r s o n a l i t y
of t h e w r i t e r was n o t o v e r p o w e r e d b y t h e S p i r i t b u t r a t h e r i n t e r a c t e d
w i t h t h e Spirit. C h r i s t i a n i t y , h o w e v e r , c a m e f r o m t h e s t r a n d o f J u d a -
ism called H e l l e n i s t i c J u d a i s m , w h i c h h a d a p p r o p r i a t e d t h e H e l l e -
nistic idea t h a t t h e i n s p i r e d w r i t e r has b e e n u s e d b y G o d t h e w a y a
m u s i c i a n uses a lyre or a flute. This m a n t i c view o f i n s p i r a t i o n can be
f o u n d in P h i l o , J o s e p h u s , 4 Ezra, a n d t h e Talmud. C h r i s t i a n s u s e d
t h e a n a l o g y o f t h e lyre o r flute u p t o a n d i n c l u d i n g I r e n a e u s , b u t
b e c a u s e of t h e rise o f M o n t a n i s m , w h i c h also c l a i m e d t h a t its p r o p h -
ets h a d b e e n m a n t i c a l l y i n s p i r e d , t h e m a n t i c t h e o r y o f i n s p i r a t i o n
c a m e t o b e a sign of false p r o p h e c y . The m a n t i c t h e o r y c o n t i n u e d to
be u s e d as an a p o l o g e t i c device in battles a g a i n s t heresy, b u t d u r i n g
t h e M i d d l e Ages for t h e m o s t p a r t a t h e o r y o f i n s p i r a t i o n was n o t
e m p h a s i z e d b e c a u s e t h e t r a d i t i o n of t h e C h u r c h was t h e basis for
authority.
The c h a n g e at t h e t i m e of t h e R e f o r m a t i o n was n o t a n e w or
r e n e w e d t h e o r y of i n s p i r a t i o n . L u t h e r t o o k t h e Bible very seriously,
as d i d o t h e r s before h i m , yet h e also c o u l d use t h e Bible very criti-
cally, as is well k n o w n , for e x a m p l e , from his s t a t e m e n t s a b o u t t h e
Epistle o f J a m e s as an "epistle o f straw." 'The L u t h e r a n Book of Con-
corddid n o t prescribe a n y formal d o c t r i n e of i n s p i r a t i o n for L u t h e r -
a n s . In t h e p o l e m i c s o f t h e s e c o n d g e n e r a t i o n o f t h e R e f o r m a t i o n ,
however, m a n t i c views of i n s p i r a t i o n r e t u r n e d , for e x a m p l e , in Flacius
Illyricus, w h o h e l d t h a t even t h e H e b r e w vowels are i n s p i r e d . D u r -
i n g t h e so-called p e r i o d of O r t h o d o x y in t h e s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y ,
p o l e m i c fronts h a r d e n e d a n d m a n t i c views of i n s p i r a t i o n b e c a m e
very i m p o r t a n t , n o t a b l y in G e r h a r d , Calov, a n d Q u e n s t e d t a m o n g
t h e L u t h e r a n s , a n d V o e t i u s , " c o v e n a n t " theology, a n d t h e Formula
Consensus Helvetica of 1 6 7 5 a m o n g t h e R e f o r m e d .
The s y n t h e s i s w h i c h O r t h o d o x y t r i e d t o establish failed, for t h e
m o d e r n w o r l d was b r e a k i n g t h r o u g h . N o t o n l y h a d voyages o f dis-
covery f o u n d t h e r e are s t r o n g religions elsewhere in t h e w o r l d a n d
C o p e r n i c u s s h o w n t h a t h u m a n b e i n g s are n o t t h e physical c e n t e r of
t h e u n i v e r s e , b u t t h e Age of R e a s o n c u l m i n a t i n g in Kant's p h i l o s o -
p h y raised q u e s t i o n s a b o u t t h e place of religion in t h e t o t a l s c h e m e
of life. The F r e n c h R e v o l u t i o n in 1 7 8 9 c h a l l e n g e d t r a d i t i o n a l p o l i t i -
cal, social, a n d religious a u t h o r i t y . In t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y D a r w i n
p r o d u c e d a t h e o r y of e v o l u t i o n , q u e s t i o n i n g t h e u n i q u e n e s s of h u -
m a n b e i n g s . Toward t h e e n d of t h a t c e n t u r y F r e u d d e v e l o p e d m o d e l s
of t h e h u m a n m i n d w h i c h c h a l l e n g e d t r a d i t i o n a l views o f h u m a n
c o n s c i o u s n e s s a n d drives. In this c e n t u r y Einstein's t h e o r y o f relativ-
ity, H e i s e n b e r g ' s p r i n c i p l e of i n d e t e r m i n a c y , n u c l e a r w e a p o n s , l a n d -
i n g o n t h e m o o n , a n d g e n e t i c e n g i n e e r i n g , t o n a m e b u t a few in a
l o n g list, have been further shocks t o traditional authorities a n d beliefs.
Traditionalists, faced w i t h w h a t t h e y p e r c e i v e d as r e l a t i v i s m ,
s c i e n t i s m , h i s t o r i c i s m , s e c u l a r i s m , a n d a t h e i s m , r e a c h e d for t r a d i -
tional w e a p o n s . R o m a n C a t h o l i c s w o r k e d o u t a n d t h e n finally in
1 8 7 0 d e f i n e d p a p a l p r i m a c y a n d infallibility. A n g l i c a n s p r o d u c e d
t h e O x f o r d M o v e m e n t . In t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y s o m e L u t h e r a n s ,
s u c h as V i l m a r a n d S t a h l , e m p h a s i z e d t h e L u t h e r a n C o n f e s s i o n s a n d
a high view of the minister's authority. But the m a n t i c theory of
i n s p i r a t i o n also was a m a j o r w e a p o n L u t h e r a n t r a d i t i o n a l i s t s m a d e
use of as t h e y d e f e n d e d w h a t t h e y p e r c e i v e d as t h e t r u e faith u n d e r
a t t a c k b y error. O t h e r L u t h e r a n s a d o p t e d R e f o r m e d " c o v e n a n t " t h e -
o l o g y ("salvation h i s t o r y " ) , a c c o r d i n g t o w h i c h revelation takes place
t h r o u g h t h e historical events t h e m s e l v e s a n d t h e r e f o r e a t t a c k s m a d e
o n t h e w r i t t e n text c a n n o t affect t h e " i n s p i r e d " events; already Bengel
in t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y w a s f a m o u s for f o l l o w i n g t h i s l i n e o f
t h o u g h t , a n d it c o n t i n u e d in t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y in s u c h t h e o l o -
gians as v o n F i o f m a n n , R o t h e , a n d M e n c k e n . A different t a c k was
t a k e n by S c h l e i e r m a c h e r , w h o h e l d t h a t t h e H o l y Spirit is identical
w i t h t h e spirit in t h e C h u r c h ; for this reason t h e spirit w h i c h g u i d e d
t h e apostles w h e n t h e y w r o t e is n o t essentially different f r o m t h e
spirit w h i c h g u i d e s each C h r i s t i a n today. The a p o s t l e s , t o be sure,
w o u l d have a s t r o n g e r m e a s u r e of t h e spirit b e c a u s e t h e y were closer
t o Christ's spirit.
Variations on these theories of inspiration c o n t i n u e today; no
o n e t h e o r y d o m i n a t e s . All w o u l d c o n t e n d in s o m e w a y t h a t t h e Bible
is b o t h h u m a n a n d d i v i n e , b u t w h e t h e r this w o u l d be by a n a l o g y
w i t h C h r i s t ' s h u m a n i t y a n d divinity, an a n a l o g y a l r e a d y s u g g e s t e d by
C h r y s o s t o m in t h e early c h u r c h , w o u l d b e a m a t t e r of d i s p u t e b e -
cause n o t all w o u l d agree t h a t since C h r i s t ' s h u m a n i t y is w i t h o u t sin,
therefore t h e Bible m u s t be w i t h o u t error. D o e s t h e fact t h a t Jesus
lived w i t h o u t sin m e a n t h a t w h i l e w a l k i n g h e c o u l d n o t s t u b his t o e
o n a rock?
B. Is the Bible Different Because It is Canon?
The p r o b l e m of t h e Bible as c a n o n is t h e u n e x a m i n e d e c u m e n i -
cal p r o b l e m , a l a n d m i n e w a i t i n g t o e x p l o d e . The general q u e s t i o n o f
t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e Bible a n d t r a d i t i o n , t o be sure, has b e e n

discussed, as for e x a m p l e in 1 9 6 3 at t h e w o r l d c o n f e r e n c e of Faith
a n d O r d e r of t h e W o r l d C o u n c i l of C h u r c h e s . B u t in s p i t e of basic
differences t h a t exist a m o n g c h u r c h e s , e c u m e n i c a l dialogues have s i m -
ply a s s u m e d a c o n s e n s u s exists o n t h e n a t u r e a n d e x t e n t of t h e c a n o n .
A t stake is n o t o n l y t h e fact t h a t s o m e h o l d t h e A p o c r y p h a t o be
c a n o n i c a l a n d o t h e r s d o n o t . R a t h e r , t h e n a t u r e of t h e Bible itself is
decisive for all o t h e r t h e o l o g i c a l q u e s t i o n s . It can b e said t h a t L u t h -
erans h o l d t o t h e fact b u t n o t t h e e x t e n t o f t h e c a n o n b e c a u s e L u t h -
erans are n o t tied t o a specific list o f b o o k s in t h e Bible. Yet w h a t
does it m e a n t o h o l d t o t h e fact of t h e c a n o n ? W i t h i n t h e Bible itself
t h e w o r d is used (Gal. 6 : 1 6 ; cf. R o m . 6 : 1 7 ) , b u t h o w " c a n o n " applies
t o t h e Bible is of c o u r s e n o t spelled o u t .
T h e p r o b l e m s are c o m p l e x . H o w d o w e deal w i t h t h e fact t h a t 1
E n o c h 1:9 is q u o t e d as p r o p h e c y in J u d e 1 4 - 1 5 ? In 1 C o r . 2 : 9 , u s i n g
t h e t e c h n i c a l f o r m u l a "it is w r i t t e n , " w h i c h i n d i c a t e s a u t h o r i t a t i v e
s c r i p t u r e , Paul cites a passage n o t in t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t . T h e letter o f
1 C l e m e n t , w r i t t e n A . D . 9 5 - 9 6 , t h e letters of I g n a t i u s , w r i t t e n a b o u t
A . D . 1 1 0 , a n d t h e D i d a c h e , also w r i t t e n a b o u t A . D . 1 1 0 , are n o t
i n c l u d e d in t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t c a n o n , b u t 1 a n d 2 T i m o t h y a n d
T i t u s , w r i t t e n d u r i n g t h e s a m e p e r i o d , are i n c l u d e d . First C l e m e n t
a n d t h e D i d a c h e w e r e , after all, in s o m e early lists a n d c o l l e c t i o n s .
W h a t if t h e lost letter t o t h e L a o d i c e a n s ( C o l . 4 : 1 6 ) w e r e f o u n d ?
W o u l d w e i n c l u d e it in t h e c a n o n a n d if s o , h o w w o u l d w e decide?
W o u l d a n y t h i n g e x c e p t an e c u m e n i c a l c o u n c i l b e able to m a k e s u c h
a decision?
Lest w e fall i n t o t h e m i s t a k e o f s i m p l y asserting t h a t t h e c a n o n is
t h e c a n o n is t h e c a n o n a n d t h e r e f o r e t h e n a t u r e of t h e c a n o n is self-
e v i d e n t , it is i m p o r t a n t t o b e c o m e a w a r e of t h e v a r i o u s a t t e m p t s in
c h u r c h h i s t o r y t o define t h e c a n o n .
1. W h a t is canonical is d e t e r m i n e d by o r t h o d o x c o n t e n t . W h e r e
t h e spirit o f C h r i s t is, t h e r e is t h e c a n o n . B u t w h e r e is t h e spirit?
W h e r e d o w e find o r t h o d o x c o n t e n t ? T h e difficulty w i t h this at-
t e m p t is t h a t it is precisely t h e c a n o n w h i c h is s u p p o s e d t o define
w h e r e t h e spirit is a n d w h a t is o r t h o d o x . F u r t h e r m o r e , in t h e early
c h u r c h , o r t h o d o x y a n d heresy were n o t so easy t o d i s c e r n . In t h a t
early p e r i o d lines were fluid. O n l y after l o n g d e b a t e a n d s t r u g g l e d i d
o r t h o d o x y e m e r g e a n d heresy b e c o m e e v i d e n t . A n d in fact u n t i l well
i n t o t h e s e c o n d c e n t u r y , all t h e b a p t i z e d , h a v i n g received t h e H o l y
Spirit in b a p t i s m , w e r e u n d e r s t o o d t o b e i n s p i r e d .
2 . W h a t is canonical is apostolic. B u t w h o arc apostles a c c o r d i n g

to t h e N e w Testament? L u k e t h i n k s o f twelve apostles, t h e eleven
p l u s M a t t h i a s (Acts 1:26), p l u s t w o , Paul a n d B a r n a b a s (Acts 1 4 : 4 ,
14). In R o m . 16:7 Paul writes o f A n d r o n i c u s a n d J u n i a s w h o were
apostles before h i m , in Phil. 2 : 2 5 L p a p h r o d i t u s is called an a p o s t l e ,
a n d in 2 C o r . 8:24 apostles are s i m p l y t h o s e w h o are m i s s i o n a r i e s .
'The N e w T e s t a m e n t b o o k s b y M a r k , L u k e , a n d J u d e are clearly n o t
w r i t t e n b y apostles, a n d if t h e c l a i m is m a d e t h a t these m e n were
closely a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a p o s t l e s , t h e n already t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of
apostolicity has b e e n greatly w i d e n e d . Very early q u e s t i o n s were raised
a b o u t t h e P a u l i n e a u t h o r s h i p of H e b r e w s ; in s p i t e of b e i n g associ-
a t e d w i t h " J o h n , " t h e B o o k of R e v e l a t i o n was t h e last b o o k a c c e p t e d
i n t o t h e c a n o n b e c a u s e its f o r m a n d c o n t e n t d i d n o t m a t c h o t h e r
J o h a n n i n e l i t e r a t u r e a n d b e c a u s e it s e e m e d t o l e n d s u p p o r t t o
Montanism.
3 . W h a t is canonical is early or t h e earliest. To g o b a c k t o t h e

s o u r c e s is n o t o n l y an a p p e a l t o t r a d i t i o n , in this case t h e early or
earliest t r a d i t i o n , b u t also an appeal t o t h e h u m a n i s t i c p r i n c i p l e t h a t
o n e m u s t g o b a c k t o t h e s o u r c e s . W h a t c o m e s f r o m t h e early c h u r c h
establishes t h e c a n o n , o r w h a t b e l o n g s t o t h e era of salvation h i s t o r y
establishes t h e c a n o n . Yet, as is well k n o w n , n o t all t h e w r i t i n g s from
t h e early t r a d i t i o n h a v e b e e n i n c l u d e d in t h e c a n o n . E v e n if t h e ear-
liest w r i t i n g s are m o r e likely t o be a m o r e a c c u r a t e reflection of w h a t
was said a n d d o n e , s o m e were n o t selected for t h e c a n o n . 'The early
c h u r c h s t r u g g l e d w i t h this p r o b l e m , for s o m e early w r i t i n g s , like
B a r n a b a s , w e r e i n c l u d e d a n d t h e n rejected w h i l e o t h e r s , like Revela-
t i o n , w e r e rejected a n d finally i n c l u d e d .
4 . W h a t is canonical is w h a t the C h u r c h establishes as c a n o n i -

cal. If this were t h e case, t h e C h u r c h w o u l d be m o r e a u t h o r i t a t i v e
t h a n t h e Bible. S o m e w o u l d take this p o i n t of view. As a m a t t e r o f
fact, h o w e v e r , f o r m a l r e c o g n i t i o n of t h e c a n o n b y t h e C h u r c h t o o k
place r a t h e r late in t h e process. The first t i m e t h a t all t w e n t y - s e v e n
b o o k s in t h e N e w Testament w e r e listed was b y A t h a n a s i u s in his
Easter letter in A . D . 3 6 7 . The first f o r m a l r e c o g n i t i o n b y t h e C h u r c h
of this list o f b o o k s c a m e from a local c o u n c i l — p o s s i b l y at R o m e in
A . D . 3 8 2 , c e r t a i n l y at H i p p o in A . D . 3 9 3 ; a n o t h e r local c o u n c i l
followed suit at C a r t h a g e in A . D . 3 9 7 . I n n o c e n t I in A . D . 4 0 5 c i t e d
this s a m e list. In s o m e p a r t s o f t h e O r t h o d o x C h u r c h t h e B o o k of
Revelation was n o t accepted until the t e n t h century. At the Council
of F l o r e n c e in A . D . 1 4 4 2 t h e R o m a n C a t h o l i c C h u r c h for t h e first
t i m e formally d e f i n e d t h e e x t e n t of t h e biblical c a n o n . As already

n o t e d , L u t h e r a n s h a v e n o t formally d e f i n e d t h e e x t e n t of t h e c a n o n .
T h e Bible of t h e N e s t o r i a n C h u r c h in Syria, t h e Peschitta, has o n l y
t w e n t y - t w o b o o k s in t h e N e w Testament, w h i l e t h e Bible o f t h e E t h i o -
p i a n C o p t i c C h u r c h has t h i r t y - o n e b o o k s in its N e w ' T e s t a m e n t c a n o n .
A l r e a d y in t h e s e c o n d c e n t u r y t h e sayings o f Jesus a n d letters of
Paul h a d c a n o n i c a l a u t h o r i t y , b u t it t o o k c e n t u r i e s for t h e c a n o n of
t h e N e w Testament as w e n o w k n o w it t o be e s t a b l i s h e d . Even t h e
G o s p e l of J o h n was n o t fully a c c e p t e d until t h e e n d of t h e s e c o n d
c e n t u r y b e c a u s e it was s u s p e c t e d b y s o m e t o have g n o s t i c t e n d e n c i e s .
If t h e c l a i m is m a d e t h a t t h e C h u r c h establishes t h e c a n o n , t h e q u e s -
t i o n m u s t be asked: W h i c h c h u r c h a n d a t w h a t p o i n t in history?
M o s t i m p o r t a n t of all, however, is t h a t t h o s e m a k i n g this c l a i m u n -
d e r s t a n d t h e C h u r c h t o b e m o r e a u t h o r i t a t i v e t h a n t h e Bible.
5. W h a t is c a n o n i c a l is w h a t h a s b e e n u s e d as c a n o n i c a l . The
c a n o n has s i m p l y d e v e l o p e d ; c e r t a i n b o o k s h a v e b e e n used, a n d for
this reason t h e y h a v e f o r m e d t h e c a n o n . The difficulty w i t h this at-
t e m p t t o e x p l a i n t h e c a n o n is t h a t t h e r e has b e e n a great deal of
variety. A t t i m e s H e r m a s , 2 C l e m e n t , o r t h e A p o c a l y p s e o f Peter was
i n c l u d e d . W h y w e r e t h e letters o f I g n a t i u s n o t u s e d as c a n o n i c a l let-
ters? T o claim t h a t usage m a k e s a b o o k c a n o n i c a l d o e s n o t explain
w h y c e r t a i n b o o k s w e r e u s e d a n d o t h e r s n o t used.
6. W h a t is c a n o n i c a l is w h a t is f o u n d i n t h e e a r l y c r e e d s . For
e x a m p l e , 1 C o r . 8:6 a n d 1 5 : 3 - 5 are creeds o r f r a g m e n t s o f creeds
u s e d in t h e early c h u r c h . A c c o r d i n g t o this v i e w p o i n t s u c h creeds are
c a n o n i c a l ; t h e y are t h e final a u t h o r i t i e s for t h e C h r i s t i a n faith. 'Thus
a certain pattern of preaching developed a n d b e c a m e normative, a
p a t t e r n of a u t h e n t i c i t y . Later, in t h e s e c o n d c e n t u r y , Papias w o u l d
claim u n i q u e a u t h o r i t y for t h e sayings of Jesus. A b o u t this t i m e t h e
creed o f t h e c h u r c h of R o m e also p l a y e d a role in d e f i n i n g t h e C h r i s -
t i a n faith.
B u t from all t h e creeds a n d f r a g m e n t s of creeds, w h e r e d o e s o n e
find " t h e " creed, " t h e " p a t t e r n w h i c h is n o r m a t i v e ? In a d d i t i o n , o n e
m u s t ask if this a t t e m p t t o establish t h e c a n o n d o e s n o t m a k e t h e
t w e n t y - s e v e n b o o k s of t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t s u b o r d i n a t e t o t h e creed.
7 . W h a t is c a n o n i c a l is w h a t t h e i n t e r n a l t e s t i m o n y o f t h e H o l y
S p i r i t s h o w s is c a n o n i c a l . A w o m a n t o l d o f t h e great s p i r i t u a l bless-
ing she received f r o m t h e w o r d "selah" in t h e P s a l m s . Yet scholars are
n o t c e r t a i n o f t h e m e a n i n g o f "selah"; it p r o b a b l y is s o m e s o r t of
d i r e c t i o n t o t h e c o n d u c t o r for t h e m u s i c . D o e s n o t t h i s a t t e m p t to
establish t h e n a t u r e o f t h e c a n o n u l t i m a t e l y m e a n m y i n t e r n a l e x p e -
r i e n c e b e c o m e s t h e final a u t h o r i t y ? H o w is o n e t o d i s t i n g u i s h b e -
t w e e n t h e spirits (1 J o h n 4 : 1 - 4 ) ?
8 . W h a t is c a n o n i c a l is t h e c a n o n w i t h i n t h e c a n o n . The c a n o n
w i t h i n t h e c a n o n is n o t t h e c a n o n in a w o o d e n sense. In o t h e r w o r d s ,
t h e c a n o n w i t h i n t h e c a n o n is n o t a c e r t a i n passage f r o m t h e Bible,
s u c h as J o h n 3 : 1 6 , o r a certain a u t h o r , s u c h as Paul o r J o h n o r M a t -
thew, or a c e r t a i n b o o k , s u c h as R e v e l a t i o n . The c a n o n w i t h i n t h e
c a n o n is t h a t w h i c h is u s e d t o deal w i t h difficulties f o u n d w i t h i n t h e
Bible. T h e Bible c o n t a i n s s u c h difficulties w h e n it is t a k e n literally.
As a c o n s e q u e n c e , each t r a d i t i o n uses s o m e k i n d of h e r m e n e u t i c s t o
s o r t o u t t h e s e difficulties. E a c h t r a d i t i o n has a t h e o l o g i c a l a p p r o a c h
t o t h e Bible, a n a p p r o a c h often d e s c r i b e d as t h e " h e r m e n e u t i c s of t h e
g o s p e l " ; w h a t is m e a n t is t h a t b y this process t h e c e n t r a l t r u t h of t h e
Bible c a n b e d i s c e r n e d a n d k e p t i n t a c t . In a sense t h e historical c a n o n
a n d t h e o l o g i c a l c a n o n s t a n d in t e n s i o n . The c a n o n w i t h i n t h e c a n o n
is n o t an a u t h o r i t y b y itself, s e p a r a t e from t h e gospel, t h e t h e o l o g i c a l
c a n o n ; a n d t h e c a n o n w i t h i n t h e c a n o n is n o t a n a u t h o r i t y s e p a r a t e
from t h e b o o k called t h e Bible, t h e h i s t o r i c a l c a n o n . N e v e r t h e l e s s ,
t h e h e r m e n e u t i c s o f t h e g o s p e l is t h a t w h i c h d e t e r m i n e s t h e c e n t r a l
t r u t h called t h e g o s p e l , a n d e a c h C h r i s t i a n t r a d i t i o n h a s its o w n
" h e r m e n e u t i c s of t h e g o s p e l , " its c a n o n w i t h i n t h e c a n o n . A L u t h e r a n
" h e r m e n e u t i c s of t h e g o s p e l " will b e d e s c r i b e d in S e c t i o n III of this
chapter.
I I . BASIC QUESTIONS AND PRESUPPOSITIONS
C h r i s t is t h e answer. W h a t is t h e q u e s t i o n ? T h e q u e s t i o n m i g h t
be: H o w d o e s o n e d e c i d e t h a t C h r i s t is t h e answer? O r t h e q u e s t i o n
m i g h t be: W h a t d o e s it m e a n t h a t C h r i s t is t h e answer? T h e n all sorts
of q u e s t i o n s a n d p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s c o m e i n t o play. The p o i n t is t h a t
a l t h o u g h all agree t h a t C h r i s t is t h e answer, n o t all agree o n w h a t this
m e a n s . N o r d o e s it h e l p t o c l a i m t o h o l d t o S c r i p t u r e s as a b s o l u t e l y
i n e r r a n t a n d infallible in every detail or t o claim t o use a m e t h o d of
i n t e r p r e t i n g S c r i p t u r e t h a t is literal a n d " h i s t o r i c a l - g r a m m a t i c a l , " in-
s t e a d of " h i s t o r i c a l - c r i t i c a l , " for t h e r e is clearly n o u n a n i m i t y a m o n g
those claiming to hold such positions.
B u t t h e r e is n o u n a n i m i t y a m o n g t h o s e c l a i m i n g t o use t h e h i s -
torical-critical m e t h o d either. Therefore s o m e o t h e r c r i t e r i o n will have
to b e f o u n d for d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r t h e historical-critical m e t h o d is
a c c e p t a b l e for t h o s e h o l d i n g t o C h r i s t as t h e answer. Those w h o at-

tack t h e historical-critical m e t h o d a p p l y certain tests, a n d these tests
are really t h e p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s o f t h o s e o p p o s i n g t h e h i s t o r i c a l - c r i t i -
cal m e t h o d .
A. T h e P r e s u p p o s i t i o n o f t h e U n i t y o f Scripture
The historical-critical m e t h o d asks: " W h a t h a p p e n e d ? " W h a t it

discovers is n o t o n l y t h a t t h e Bible was w r i t t e n over m a n y h u n d r e d s
of years a n d in m a n y different literary f o r m s b u t also t h a t t h e Bible
c o n t a i n s a g r e a t variety o f ideas, s o m e o f w h i c h a t least a p p e a r t o
o p p o s e each o t h e r . A f a m o u s e x a m p l e is t h e s t o r y o f K i n g D a v i d ' s
c e n s u s ; in 2 S a m . 2 4 : 1 it is r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e L o r d i n c i t e d D a v i d to
take t h e c e n s u s , w h e r e a s in 1 C h r o n . 2 1 : 1 it says t h a t S a t a n i n c i t e d
D a v i d t o n u m b e r Israel. H i s t o r i c a l critics unravel t h e difficulty in
these verses b y n o t i n g t h a t t h e y were w r i t t e n b y different a u t h o r s at
different t i m e s w i t h different t h e o l o g i e s .
O p p o n e n t s of historical criticism p r e s u p p o s e t h e u n i t y of S c r i p -
t u r e . Is this a u n i t y s u c h as C h r i s t i a n s p o s i t for t h e Trinity, a u n i t y
w h i c h is finally a mystery? O r is this a u n i t y w h i c h excludes c o n t r a -
d i c t i o n s , a u n i t y b u i l t o n logic, so t h a t even if i t e m s s t a n d in c o n t r a -
d i c t i o n , a c o n t r a d i c t i o n c a n n o t exist b e c a u s e t h e p r e s u p p o s i t i o n of
u n i t y does n o t allow for c o n t r a d i c t i o n ? In t h a t case t h e r e a d e r is
e x p e c t e d to s u s p e n d j u d g m e n t , t o o p p o s e his intellect, because of t h e
s u p r e m e authority of the presupposition of unity. M o s t of the time,
t o b e s u r e , t h e u n i t y o f S c r i p t u r e is d e f e n d e d b y m e a n s o f a n
o v e r a r c h i n g c o n c e p t s u c h as t h e W o r d , or t h e c o v e n a n t , or salvation
history, o r G o d ' s p l a n , or G o d ' s kingly rule, o r G o d ' s grace.
The r e j o i n d e r by t h e historical critics is s i m p l e : H o w are diffi-
culties solved b y refusing t o deal w i t h t h e m ? M o r e i m p o r t a n t l y , is it
n o t in fact t r u e t h a t i n s t e a d of w o r k i n g o n t h e basis of t h e u n i t y of
S c r i p t u r e , each s t r e a m o f C h r i s t i a n t r a d i t i o n uses its o w n theological
a p p r o a c h , its o w n c a n o n w i t h i n t h e c a n o n , t o s o r t o u t a n d solve t h e
difficulties in S c r i p t u r e ?
B. T h e Presupposition that Reason is to be Subordinate to Scripture
The basis for this p r e s u p p o s i t i o n is often 2 C o r . 1 0 : 5 : " W e d e -

stroy a r g u m e n t s a n d every p r o u d obstacle t o t h e k n o w l e d g e o f G o d ,
a n d t a k e every t h o u g h t captive t o o b e y C h r i s t " (cf. 1 C o r . 1:18-25).
A t first g l a n c e n o o n e w o u l d fault this a r g u m e n t . R e a s o n is n o t G o d ,
a n d reason c a n n o t b e s u p e r i o r t o S c r i p t u r e . S c r i p t u r e tells us w h o w e
arc a n d w h o G o d is, n o t r e a s o n . R e a s o n c a n at b e s t p l a y a s e r v a n t
r o l e , as a t o o l w h i c h h e l p s us u n d e r s t a n d m o r e fully w h a t S c r i p -
ture means.
The q u e s t i o n , o f c o u r s e , is w h e t h e r reason for historical critics is
necessarily m a d e s u p e r i o r t o S c r i p t u r e or w h e t h e r historical critics
d o n o t also use reason as a t o o l . D u r i n g t h e F r e n c h R e v o l u t i o n , t o be
s u r e , reason was m a d e i n t o a g o d d e s s , a n d n o d o u b t i n d i v i d u a l s have
m a d e reason s u p e r i o r t o revelation. B u t for t h e vast m a j o r i t y h i s t o r i -
cal criticism is a m e t h o d , n o t a p h i l o s o p h y . In o r d e r t o p e n e t r a t e
m o r e d e e p l y i n t o t h e m e a n i n g of S c r i p t u r e , it is necessary to t h i n k .
T h i n k i n g always i n c l u d e s t h e use of t h e p r i n c i p l e of analogy, for h o w
else is it possible t o c o m p r e h e n d at all? Surely n o o n e w o u l d claim
t h a t S c r i p t u r e m u s t in p r i n c i p l e be irrational or i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e .
N o r d i d Paul in 1 C o r . 1:18-25 a n d 2 C o r . 10:5 i n t e n d t o reject
t h i n k i n g or t r y i n g t o c o m p r e h e n d S c r i p t u r e w i t h t h e use of m o d e r n
historical t o o l s . F u r t h e r m o r e , m o d e r n t h i n k e r s are well a w a r e o f t h e
fact t h a t reason itself is p a r t o f h i s t o r y a n d s u b j e c t t o c h a n g e .
C. The Presupposition that Miracles Happen
B u t w h a t is a miracle? The c o m m o n u n d e r s t a n d i n g a m o n g t h o s e
raising this q u e s t i o n is t h a t miracles are e v i d e n c e or proof. By this
t h e y u n d e r s t a n d c r e a t i o n t o be r u n by n a t u r a l laws, like a clock; a
m i r a c l e is t h a t w h i c h breaks i n t o s u c h a w o r l d a n d in d o i n g so p r o -
vides p r o o f t h a t G o d has i n t e r v e n e d . S o m e w o u l d also p o i n t o u t t h a t
t h e m o d e r n scientific view o f t h e w o r l d as an o p e n s y s t e m allows for
miracles, a n d o t h e r s w o u l d also c l a i m t h a t t h r o u g h G o d ' s s u s t a i n i n g
w o r k e v e r y t h i n g is a m i r a c l e . As a result, t h e C h r i s t i a n faith can be
d e f e n d e d as t r u t h because t h e r e is e v i d e n c e to b a c k u p t h e faith; few,
t o be s u r e , w o u l d d e n y t h a t faith is also n e e d e d , b u t t h e i m p o r t a n t
t h i n g is t h a t t h e p r o o f s are t h e r e for all w h o are w i l l i n g t o see. A n d
t h e proofs are t h e r e b e c a u s e t h e Bible records s u c h miracles a n d in-
t e n d s t h e m t o be e v i d e n c e a n d proof.
Those using t h e historical-critical m e t h o d d o n o t reject "miracles"
in t h e sense d e f i n e d a b o v e , for as d e f i n e d a b o v e " m i r a c l e s " s t a n d o u t -
side o f h i s t o r y a n d t h e h i s t o r i a n can o n l y state "I d o n ' t k n o w . " B u t
t h e h i s t o r i a n is able to ask t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r t h e Bible i n t e n d e d
"miracles" t o be u n d e r s t o o d in t h e sense d e f i n e d a b o v e . N o t every-
o n e w h o o b s e r v e d a m i r a c l e was c o n v i n c e d , a n d s o m e said t h a t Jesus
d i d miracles b y t h e p o w e r o f Beelzebul ( M a r k 3 : 2 2 ) . 'Thus it was well
k n o w n t h a t miracles w e r e d o n e b y t h o s e w h o w e r e n o t C h r i s t i a n s .
The G o s p e l of J o h n has a very c o m p l e x u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f "signs" o r
JOSKI'H A. PjURGKSS 113
" m i r a c l e s " (cf. 2 : 2 3 - 2 5 ; 3 : 2 ; 6 : 2 6 ; 1 0 : 1 9 - 2 1 ; 1 1 : 4 5 - 4 8 ; 2 0 : 2 9 - 3 1 ) .

Paul i n d i c a t e s t h a t d e m a n d i n g "signs" is o n e w a y t h e Jews s h o w their
unbelief, for C h r i s t i a n s h o l d to t h e s t u m b l i n g b l o c k o f C h r i s t c r u c i -
fied (1 C o r . 1:22; cf. 2 C o r . 1 2 : 9 - 1 3 ) . T h e h i s t o r i a n is also aware o f
t h e fact t h a t literary f o r m s s o m e t i m e s give t h e reader a clue t o t h e
i n t e n t of a m i r a c l e story. T h e i m p o r t a n t p o i n t , h o w e v e r , is t h a t t h e
h i s t o r i a n d o e s n o t try t o d e n y o r d e s t r o y w h a t t h e Bible describes;
rather, t h e historical critic h e l p s us u n d e r s t a n d t h e text a n d in fact
helps us focus o n Jesus C h r i s t alone a n d h i m crucified (cf. 1 Cor. 2:2).
D . T h e P r e s u p p o s i t i o n o f Facticity
It is a fact t h a t t h e m o d e r n m i n d often a s s u m e s t h a t "facts" exist.

W h a t is m e a n t is t h a t a certain k i n d o f i n f o r m a t i o n is d e m o n s t r a b l e ,
directly accessible t o t h e five senses, a n d available t o all h u m a n b e -
ings. A p o p u l a r view of science is t h a t science is able t o p r o d u c e
facts. S o m e t i m e s it is a s s u m e d t h a t h i s t o r y also is able t o p r o d u c e
facts a n d t h a t t h e Bible, a b o o k of history, is full of facts w h i c h C h r i s -
tians are t o believe in. H i s t o r i c a l criticism, in t u r n , is t h o u g h t b y
s o m e t o be very d e s t r u c t i v e b e c a u s e it seems t o q u e s t i o n s o m e of t h e
facts in t h e Bible.
The t r o u b l e w i t h "facts" is t h a t truly m o d e r n science n o l o n g e r
claims t o p r o d u c e facts b u t r a t h e r statistical averages. A n d m o d e r n
historical s t u d y n o l o n g e r claims t o p r o d u c e facts b u t r a t h e r a r e c o r d
of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s a n d ideas. Even t h e p e r s o n o n t h e street k n o w s
t h a t an a c c i d e n t at t h e crossroads will be i n t e r p r e t e d differently by
different witnesses. A n d even t h e p e r s o n o n t h e street k n o w s t h a t
p e o p l e in o t h e r t i m e s a n d c u l t u r e s p e r c e i v e d a n d t h o u g h t differently.
O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e p e r s o n o n t h e street still t h i n k s t h a t w o r d s
have a specific m e a n i n g , a m e a n i n g w h i c h can be established by m e a n s
of a d i c t i o n a r y after d e t e r m i n i n g t h e c o n t e x t . W h a t p e o p l e d o n o t
realize is t h a t d i c t i o n a r i e s are h i s t o r y b o o k s , w h i c h is q u i c k l y p e r -
ceived w h e n s o m e o n e looks i n t o t h e O x f o r d E n g l i s h D i c t i o n a r y , for
e x a m p l e . G r a m m a r is t h e s a m e k i n d of p r o b l e m . M o s t s u p p o s e t h a t
g r a m m a r is exact, t h a t c o r r e c t usage c a n be e s t a b l i s h e d . S o m e t h i n k
t h a t w i t h a " h i s t o r i c a l - g r a m m a t i c a l " m e t h o d it is possible t o a v o i d
t h e perils o f t h e historical-critical m e t h o d . Yet g r a m m a r t o o is his-
torical a n d d e p e n d s o n t h e p h i l o s o p h i e s of l a n g u a g e o p e r a t i v e at a
specific t i m e . In general it can be said t h a t t h e o l o g i a n s n e e d t o b r i n g
t h e historical n a t u r e o f w o r d s a n d "facts" t o t h e a t t e n t i o n o f t h e per-
s o n o n t h e street.
E. T h e P r e s u p p o s i t i o n o f Propositional Truth
C a n t r u t h b e c a p t u r e d in a s t a t e m e n t w h i c h t h e n is " t h e t r u t h " ?
After all, t w o p l u s t w o equals four. B u t I h a v e never seen a " t w o " o r a
"four." N u m b e r s b e l o n g t o t h e u n r e a l w o r l d of m a t h e m a t i c s . In t h e
real w o r l d w e live in, life is historical a n d t r u t h is h i s t o r i c a l . This
d o e s n o t m e a n t h a t t r u t h d o e s n o t exist or is n o t t r u t h . It d o e s m e a n
t h a t even a p r o p o s i t i o n s u c h as " G o d is o n e " m u s t b e u n d e r s t o o d as
a h i s t o r i c a l p r o p o s i t i o n (cf. J a m e s 2 : 1 9 ) . W h o is G o d in this s t a t e -
m e n t ? W h a t are t h e a c t i o n s of t h i s G o d ? F u r t h e r m o r e , w h a t is " o n e "
in this c o n t e x t ? Is it o n e over a g a i n s t t h e m a n y ? H o w d o e s t h i s fit in
w i t h C h r i s t i a n l a n g u a g e a b o u t G o d b e i n g t r i u n e ? W h a t is at s t a k e
h e r e is n o t a k i n d of n e w m a t h , b u t w h a t it m e a n s t o b e h u m a n , t o b e
historical.
In t i m e s p a s t t h e o l o g i a n s d i d h o l d t h a t t r u t h in religion c o u l d b e
s t a t e d in p r o p o s i t i o n s a n d t h a t t h e Bible c o n t a i n e d p r o p o s i t i o n s w h i c h
C h r i s t i a n s s h o u l d h o l d to as t h e t r u t h . T h a t was b e c a u s e o f t h e p r e -
v a i l i n g p h i l o s o p h y o f t h e t i m e , a p h i l o s o p h y b u i l t o n a s t a t i c , logical
view of t r u t h . B u t t h e Bible is n o t t i e d t o a n y p a r t i c u l a r p h i l o s o p h y
or a n y p a r t i c u l a r p h i l o s o p h i c a l view o f t r u t h . F o r C h r i s t i a n s t r u t h is
a p e r s o n (cf. J o h n 14:6) w h o m w e k n o w b y faith. T r u t h is t h e r e f o r e
d y n a m i c , personal, relational, historical. Today the presupposition
of p r o p o s i t i o n a l t r u t h b e l o n g s largely to a b y g o n e era. Even s e n t e n c e s
t h a t are p r o p o s i t i o n s often c o m m u n i c a t e m o r e b y w h a t t h e y e v o k e
t h a n by w h a t t h e y d e n o t e logically. T h u s t h e historical-critical m e t h o d
w i t h its d y n a m i c , h i s t o r i c a l view o f t r u t h a n d p r o p o s i t i o n s is n o t a
threat b u t a help in u n d e r s t a n d i n g w h a t the Bible m e a n s for y o u a n d m e .
III. A LUTHERAN APPROACH
F o r t u n a t e l y n o o n e is saved by t h e correct i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of S c r i p -
t u r e , or n o n e of us w o u l d b e saved. W e are saved b y Jesus C h r i s t .
N e v e r t h e l e s s , w e n e e d t o d i s c e r n w h o it is w e believe in. H o w c a n w e
discern? W h a t is t h e final a u t h o r i t y ? T h e Bible is t h e final a u t h o r i t y ,
o f c o u r s e . T h e p r o b l e m is t h a t t h e Bible m u s t b e i n t e r p r e t e d , for it
m u s t s p e a k to all t i m e as well as t o its t i m e . W h o can a u t h o r i t a t i v e l y
i n t e r p r e t t h e Bible? Is it satisfactory t o say t h a t t h e Bible is s i m p l y t o
b e t a k e n as it is b e c a u s e it is i n e r r a n t ? B u t t h o s e w h o d o this disagree
w i d e l y a m o n g t h e m s e l v e s . Is it satisfactory t o say t h a t t h e C h u r c h is
t o i n t e r p r e t t h e Bible? B u t t h e r e is n o " c h u r c h " t o w h i c h all c h u r c h e s
g r a n t s u c h a u t h o r i t y . N o r c a n t h e m a t t e r b e left t o i n d i v i d u a l s , for
t h e y g o t h e i r o w n w a y s . L u t h e r a n s p r o p o s e a t h e o l o g i c a l answer. Ba-
J O S K I ' H A. BURGKS 115
sic t o L u t h e r a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g is t h a t t h e w o r d o f G o d is t o b e u n -
d e r s t o o d in t h r e e senses, in d e s c e n d i n g o r d e r to i m p o r t a n c e . First o f
all, t h e W o r d of G o d is Jesus C h r i s t (cf. J o h n 1:1-14). S e c o n d , t h e
w o r d o f G o d is t h e p r e a c h e d w o r d , t h e living voice of t h e g o s p e l .
T h i r d , t h e w o r d o f G o d is t h e w r i t t e n w o r d , t h e text of S c r i p t u r e .
A . Five L u t h e r a n p r i n c i p l e s for i n t e r p r e t i n g S c r i p t u r e :
1. T h e N e w T e s t a m e n t i n t e r p r e t s t h e O l d . In o t h e r w o r d s , t h e
t w o t e s t a m e n t s are n o t e q u a l . N o t o n l y is t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t t h a t
w h i c h c a m e later a n d therefore i n t e r p r e t s t h e O l d , b u t also t h e N e w
T e s t a m e n t b r i n g s s o m e t h i n g new, Jesus C h r i s t . N o t o n l y d o e s t h e
N e w T e s t a m e n t fulfill t h e O l d , a n d therefore t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t is to
be t a k e n very seriously, b u t t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t b r i n g s t h a t w h i c h t h e
O l d T e s t a m e n t d o e s n o t h a v e , t h e cross a n d r e s u r r e c t i o n . T h e O l d
T e s t a m e n t , t o be sure, describes t h e sufferings o f J o b , t h e suffering
s e r v a n t o f Isaiah 5 3 , a n d t h e l a m e n t s o f J e r e m i a h , b u t these are n o t
to be c o m p a r e d w i t h G o d ' s s o n d y i n g o n t h e cross in t h e N e w Testa-
m e n t . For this reason t h o s e w h o s e faith is c e n t e r e d in t h e d e a t h a n d
r e s u r r e c t i o n o f Jesus C h r i s t i n t e r p r e t t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t t h r o u g h t h e
New.
2 . T h e c l e a r i n t e r p r e t s t h e u n c l e a r . T h e c o n v e r s e is n o t t r u e ; t h e
u n c l e a r d o e s n o t i n t e r p r e t t h e clear. First o f all, t h e i n t e r p r e t e r is n o t
to b e g i n w i t h difficult passages, s u c h as 1 S a m . 2 : 6 : " T h e L o r d kills
a n d b r i n g s t o life," o r 1 C o r . 1 5 : 2 9 : " W h a t d o p e o p l e m e a n b y b e i n g
baptized on behalf of the dead?" Instead, the interpreter m u s t begin
w i t h clear passages d e s c r i b i n g t h e h u m a n p r e d i c a m e n t a n d h o w G o d
has a c t e d ; it is p o s s i b l e to place difficult passages in t h e i r p r o p e r
c o n t e x t . B u t a n o t h e r s t e p is i n v o l v e d b e y o n d historical a n d intellec-
tual clarity, for in t h e s e c o n d place, clarity is t h a t w h i c h p o i n t s t o
C h r i s t a n d w h a t e v e r d o e s n o t p o i n t t o C h r i s t is u n c l e a r ; final a u -
t h o r i t y is t h e clarity f o u n d in C h r i s t . In o t h e r w o r d s , clarity is i n t e r -
nal, t h e o l o g i c a l , a n d n o t historical o r intellectual. A t t i m e s L u t h e r
d i d , t o b e s u r e , a r g u e for t h e external clarity o f S c r i p t u r e ; t h a t was in
order to defend himself against "enthusiastic" o p p o n e n t s
{Schwärmer). T r u e clarity, however, is f o u n d o n l y in C h r i s t .
3 . S c r i p t u r e i n t e r p r e t s itself. B u t d o e s this n o t m e a n t h a t o n e is
a r g u i n g in a circle? D o e s this m e a n t h a t o n e c a n n o t use o t h e r m a t e -
rial t o h e l p u n d e r s t a n d S c r i p t u r e ? T o t h e c o n t r a r y ! F>ery possible
tool n e e d s to be u s e d in o r d e r t o u n d e r s t a n d w h a t S c r i p t u r e has t o
say. N o r is S c r i p t u r e u n d e r s t o o d t h e r e f o r e t o be a perfect s y s t e m ,
c o n t a i n i n g all k n o w l e d g e a n d t r u t h . W h a t is m e a n t is t h a t S c r i p t u r e
is t h e final a u t h o r i t y a n d c a n n o t be s u b s u m e d u n d e r or j u d g e d by
a n y o t h e r a u t h o r i t y . Yet s u c h finality is n o t finality in a w o o d e n sense.
S c r i p t u r e is t h e final a u t h o r i t y b e c a u s e it p o i n t s t o C h r i s t , a n d n o t h -
i n g can be a l l o w e d t o b e a h i g h e r a u t h o r i t y . C h r i s t is t h e o n e w h o
gives S c r i p t u r e w h a t e v e r a u t h o r i t y it h a s .
4 . " W a s C h r i s t u m t r e i b e t . " N o satisfactory t r a n s l a t i o n i n t o E n -

glish exists. Literally t h e w o r d s m e a n : " W h a t drives C h r i s t . " W h a t is
m e a n t is t h a t w h a t " p r o m o t e s " C h r i s t is t h e t r u t h , t h a t w h e r e o n e
finds C h r i s t , t h e r e is t h e t r u t h . This m a y s e e m t o b e s i m p l y a n o t h e r
s l o g a n , like " C h r i s t a l o n e , " yet it expresses in a p r o f o u n d sense t h e
h e a r t of t h e L u t h e r a n a p p r o a c h to S c r i p t u r e .
5. I n t e r p r e t i n g S c r i p t u r e c a n o n l y b e d o n e w i t h i n t h e C h u r c h .
T h i s m a y s o u n d i n t o l e r a n t . A n d it does n o t solve t h e q u e s t i o n w h e r e
" t h e " C h u r c h is. A g a i n , w h a t is m e a n t is t h a t C h r i s t is f o u n d in a n d
t h r o u g h his C h u r c h a n d t h a t it is in his C h u r c h t h a t his Spirit is
w o r k i n g . A p e r s o n m i g h t s p e c u l a t e a b o u t w h e t h e r C h r i s t a n d his
Spirit are p r e s e n t o u t s i d e of t h e C h u r c h , a n d if so, t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f
t h e C h u r c h w o u l d n e e d t o b e b r o a d e n e d o r w h a t it m e a n s for C h r i s t
a n d his Spirit to be p r e s e n t m i g h t n e e d to be redefined. All s u c h
s p e c u l a t i o n r e m a i n s p u r e s p e c u l a t i o n . W h a t t h e C h r i s t i a n k n o w s for
sure is t h a t C h r i s t a n d his Spirit are p r e s e n t w i t h i n his C h u r c h a n d
t h a t t h o s e w h o are o u t s i d e o f C h r i s t are, because t h e y lack his Spirit,
u n a b l e t o i n t e r p r e t C h r i s t correctly a n d t h e r e f o r e u n a b l e t o i n t e r p r e t
S c r i p t u r e correctly.
It is o b v i o u s t h a t all five L u t h e r a n p r i n c i p l e s really state t h e s a m e
t h i n g , t h a t w h e r e o n e finds C h r i s t , t h e r e o n e finds t h e t r u t h a n d t h a t
t h i s is h o w S c r i p t u r e is t o be i n t e r p r e t e d . Finally this is a theological
j u d g m e n t . As a c o n s e q u e n c e , L u t h e r a n s n o t o n l y have n o p r o b l e m
w i t h t h e historical-critical m e t h o d b u t use it gladly w h e n it helps
p o i n t t o C h r i s t a n d q u e s t i o n t h e m e t h o d a n d its results w h e n it does
not point to Christ.
T h e reader will object. Is it n o t impossible to believe in t h e " w h o , "
Jesus C h r i s t , w i t h o u t also b e l i e v i n g in t h e " w h a t " a b o u t w h a t h e d i d
a n d w h a t h e m e a n s for y o u a n d me? Is n o t t h e r e f o r e t h e historical-
critical m e t h o d t o be rejected b e c a u s e it calls i n t o q u e s t i o n o r m a y
s e e m t o call i n t o q u e s t i o n s o m e or all o f t h e " w h a t " ?
L u t h e r a n s take t h e " w h a t " v e r y seriously. As is well k n o w n , L u t h -
erans take S c r i p t u r e very seriously. They also take C h r i s t i a n t r a d i t i o n
v e r y seriously. T h r e e e c u m e n i c a l creeds, t h e A p o s d e s ' C r e e d , t h e

N i c e n e C r e e d , a n d t h e A t h a n a s i a n C r e e d , are all p a r t of t h e b e g i n -
n i n g of t h e L u t h e r a n confessional b o o k , t h e Book of Concord. 'The
Book of Concord is very specific a b o u t t h e " w h a t " of t h e C h r i s t i a n
faith a n d is, f u r t h e r m o r e , full of references t o t h e so-called c h u r c h
fathers o f t h e C h r i s t i a n t r a d i t i o n . Finally, h o w e v e r , for L u t h e r a n s t h e
q u e s t i o n is " h o w " t h e " w h a t " is used. C o m m i t m e n t t o t h e " w h a t " b y
itself c o u l d be a historical faith t h a t has n o t h i n g to d o w i t h s a l v a t i o n .
C h r i s t i a n f a i t h is n o t o n l y o r p r i m a r i l y p h i l o s o p h i c a l o r h i s t o r i -
cal t r u t h . T h e i m p o r t a n t q u e s t i o n is " h o w " s u c h faith is p a r t o f a
p e r s o n ' s life.
B. W h e n L u t h e r a n s spell o u t this s t a n c e , t h e y n o r m a l l y use five

s l o g a n s . Each of these slogans is like a m i n i a t u r e creedal statement.
1. C h r i s t a l o n e . C h r i s t is t h e sole f o u n d a t i o n , "the way, t h e t r u t h ,

a n d t h e life" ( J o h n 14:6). Thus "the t r u t h " is a historical p e r s o n o f a
p a r t i c u l a r t i m e a n d place, w h o d i d c e r t a i n t h i n g s a n d said c e r t a i n
t h i n g s . Yet h e is " t h e t r u t h " w h o d e t e r m i n e s w h a t all o t h e r t r u t h is.
The difficulty is t h a t a l t h o u g h e v e r y o n e agrees t h a t C h r i s t is "the
t r u t h , " very different views o f C h r i s t r e m a i n . " C h r i s t a l o n e " r e m a i n s
a h o l l o w f o r m u l a . N o r is a n y t h i n g c h a n g e d by h o l d i n g t h a t " t h e g o s -
p e l " is t h e t r u t h , for "the g o s p e l , " like " C h r i s t a l o n e , " r e m a i n s a h o l -
l o w f o r m u l a t h a t has b e e n filled w i t h v a r y i n g c o n t e n t . Therefore t h e
alternatives are e i t h e r to identify t r u t h a n d gospel w i t h t h e w h o l e
b o o k called t h e Bible or t o t r y t o find s o m e w a y t o s o r t o u t t h e
different views o f C h r i s t a n d g o s p e l . N o m a t t e r h o w m u c h s o m e
claim t o take t h e first a l t e r n a t i v e , e v e r y o n e in fact o p e r a t e s o n t h e
basis o f t h e s e c o n d .
2 . G r a c e a l o n e . N o o n e d e n i e s t h a t salvation is b y "grace a l o n e . "

B u t w h a t d o e s this m e a n ? Is grace t r u l y " a l o n e " o r d o e s it i n c l u d e
works? W h a t a b o u t t h e law? Is grace t o be c a t e g o r i z e d variously, as
n a t u r a l grace, actual grace, p r e v e n i e n t grace, a n d t h e like? Because of
these difficulties, L u t h e r a n s m a k e use o f t h e P a u l i n e p h r a s e "justifi-
c a t i o n of t h e u n g o d l y " ( R o m . 4 : 5 ) so t h a t grace t r u l y r e m a i n s grace
a n d sin t r u l y r e m a i n s sin. A r g u m e n t s r e m a i n , t o b e s u r e , a b o u t t h e
"law" a n d " w o r k s " a n d " r e w a r d s , " b u t t h e basic t h r u s t o f t h e L u t h e r a n
s t a n c e is m a d e clear b y t h e P a u l i n e p h r a s e "justification of t h e u n -
godly." Yet m o r e m u s t be said.
3 . F a i t h a l o n e . All m a y agree o n "grace a l o n e , " b u t few agree o n

"faith a l o n e . " Is t h e r e n o t h i n g else e x c e p t "faith alone"? D o n o w o r k s
apply? Yes, t h e C h r i s t i a n has n o g u a r a n t e e s as t h e w o r l d r e c k o n s g u a r -
a n t e e s , for all e x p e r i e n c e , i n c l u d i n g t h e e x p e r i e n c e of faith itself, is
a m b i g u o u s . Faith is b a s e d u p o n G o d ' s faithfulness t o his p r o m i s e in
Jesus C h r i s t , n o t o n a n y s e c u r i t y a p e r s o n m i g h t find in t h e e x p e r i -
e n c e o f faith o r a n y o t h e r e x p e r i e n c e . Since t h r o u g h t h e p r o m i s e a
p e r s o n is free from all d e m a n d s o f t h e law, a n e w w o r l d b e g i n s , a
joyful life freely d o i n g w h a t o t h e r s n e e d .
4 . C r o s s a l o n e . L u t h e r a n t h e o l o g y is c r o s s - c e n t e r e d . T h e cross,
s y m b o l o f t o r t u r e a n d defeat, is t h e p o w e r o f G o d for salvation (cf. 1
C o r . 1 : 2 2 - 2 4 ) . T h e cross w i t h o u t t h e r e s u r r e c t i o n is s i m p l y a trag-
edy. Conversely, t h e r e s u r r e c t i o n w i t h o u t t h e cross is s i m p l y a fan-
tasy. B o t h cross a n d r e s u r r e c t i o n m u s t b e h e l d as a unity. Yet as l o n g
as C h r i s t i a n s c o n t i n u e in this w o r l d , t h e i r lives c o n t i n u e t o be lives
u n d e r t h e cross, b r o k e n b y sin, sickness, w e a k n e s s , a n d d e a t h .
5. S c r i p t u r e a l o n e . W o u l d this b e t h e place w h e r e L u t h e r a n s fi-

nally establish t h e " w h a t " in s o m e o t h e r w a y t h a n b y m e a n s o f " t h e -
ology"? N o t at all. " S c r i p t u r e a l o n e " d o e s n o t m e a n t h a t S c r i p t u r e in
all its p a r t s is equally valid. Precisely because L u t h e r a n s take S c r i p -
t u r e seriously a n d in its literal sense, t h e y take t h e difficulties in S c r i p -
t u r e seriously, w h e t h e r b r o u g h t t o t h e i r a t t e n t i o n b y t h e historical-
critical m e t h o d o r by a n y o t h e r m e a n s . B u t C h r i s t is t h e t r u t h , n o t
t h e difficulties.
W h y s h o u l d these five L u t h e r a n s l o g a n s , all s t a t i n g " C h r i s t is

t h e t r u t h , " be t h o u g h t t o b e a u t h o r i t a t i v e for t h e C h r i s t i a n faith?
C o u l d n o t o t h e r slogans s u c h as "the c h u r c h a l o n e " or " i n e r r a n c y
a l o n e " b e u s e d just as well? A n d h a v e n o t L u t h e r a n s w i t h t h e s e five
slogans t i e d t h e m s e l v e s t o " w h a t " i n s t e a d of " h o w " after all? B u t w h e n
L u t h e r a n s spell o u t t h e i r s t a n c e , t h e y take o n e final s t e p .
Final a u t h o r i t y lies in t h e p r o c l a m a t i o n o f t h e p r o m i s e . T o p u t it
a n o t h e r way, w h e n L u t h e r a n s are asked a b o u t t h e " w h a t , " t h e i r p r o p e r
a n s w e r is t o p r o c l a i m t h e p r o m i s e t h a t for Christ's sake all y o u r sins
are forgiven. T h e reason for d o i n g t h i s is t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n of a u t h o r -
ity is b u t t h e s y m p t o m of a d e e p e r q u e s t i o n , sin, a n d t h e a n s w e r is t o
proclaim the promise to you, not to present you with the "what" that
s u p e r s e d e s all o t h e r " w h a t s . " A n d if y o u ask w h y this p r o m i s e , t h e
L u t h e r a n will p r o c l a i m t h e p r o m i s e t o y o u o n c e again. It is in t h e
p r o p e r use o f t h e p r o m i s e t h a t final a u t h o r i t y lies; this is t h e " h o w . "
Final a u t h o r i t y lies in t h e fact t h a t t h r o u g h t h e H o l y S p i r i t t h e p r o m -

ises are s e l f - a u t h e n t i c a t i n g . As c h i l d r e n L u t h e r a n s u s e d t o m e m o r i z e
L u t h e r ' s e x p l a n a t i o n t o t h e t h i r d article o f t h e A p o s t l e s ' C r e e d : "I
believe t h a t I c a n n o t b y m y o w n reason or u n d e r s t a n d i n g believe in
Jesus C h r i s t m y L o r d o r c o m e t o h i m , b u t t h e H o l y S p i r i t has called
m e t h r o u g h t h e gospel
For all of t h e s e reasons L u t h e r a n s d o n o t reject t h e h i s t o r i c a l -
critical m e t h o d . M o r e o v e r , a p e r s o n c a n n o t escape t h i s m e t h o d b e -
cause it b e l o n g s t o t h e very air w e b r e a t h e in this c e n t u r y . It c a n h e l p
us b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d ourselves a n d S c r i p t u r e . A t t h e s a m e t i m e L u t h -
erans are a w a r e o f t h e fact t h a t t h e historical-critical m e t h o d is itself
historical a n d m u s t b e e x a m i n e d critically (just as each m e t h o d is
historical a n d m u s t b e e x a m i n e d critically). Finally w h a t e v e r p o i n t s
to C h r i s t is t h e t r u t h , a n d w h a t is n e e d e d is t h a t t h e p r o m i s e of
s a l v a t i o n in Jesus C h r i s t b e p r o c l a i m e d .
IV. EPHESIANS
A l m o s t n o t h i n g h i n t s at a c o n c r e t e s e t t i n g for t h e letter. M o s t
satisfactory is t h e thesis t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l actually s t a t e d "in FLphesus"
a n d t h a t t h e copyists for s o m e of t h e o l d e s t a n d w e i g h t i e s t m a n u -
s c r i p t s , k n o w i n g t h a t t h e c o n t e n t s o f t h e letter d o n o t m a t c h w h a t
t h e B o o k o f A c t s says a b o u t Paul a n d p e r h a p s h o p i n g t o t r a n s f o r m
t h e letter i n t o a letter for t h e w h o l e C h u r c h , s i m p l y o m i t t e d t h e
destination.
D i d Paul w r i t e t h e letter t o t h e E p h e s i a n s ? The first a n d m o s t
t e l l i n g reason for h o l d i n g t h a t Paul d i d n o t w r i t e E p h e s i a n s is t h e
close r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n E p h e s i a n s a n d C o l o s s i a n s . Larger p a t t e r n s
w i t h i n t h e t w o letters are c o n s p i c u o u s l y similar. M o s t decisive is t h e
use of s i m i l a r t e r m i n o l o g y b u t in a different sense. W h i c h letter was
w r i t t e n first? C o l o s s i a n s h a s t o h a v e b e e n first b e c a u s e it deals w i t h a
c o n c r e t e s i t u a t i o n . T h e a u t h o r o f E p h e s i a n s a b s t r a c t e d from t h a t situ-
a t i o n . It is difficult to i m a g i n e h o w t h e o p p o s i t e s e q u e n c e m i g h t
have occurred.
T h e s e c o n d reason for h o l d i n g t h a t Paul d i d n o t w r i t e E p h e s i a n s
is t h e o l o g i c a l . M o r e specifically, t h e C h u r c h for Paul can b e e i t h e r
t h e local c o n g r e g a t i o n o r t h e universal C h u r c h . H e d o e s , t o b e s u r e ,
t h i n k it i m p o r t a n t t o agree w i t h t h e m o t h e r c h u r c h in J e r u s a l e m a n d
t w i c e w r i t e s of t h e C h u r c h as a w h o l e (1 C o r . 1 5 : 9 ; G a l . 1:13). Yet in
E p h e s i a n s t h e C h u r c h always is t h e universal C h u r c h . A c c o r d i n g t o
Paul it is b e t t e r n o t t o m a r r y b e c a u s e t h e e n d is near, a l t h o u g h t h o s e
w h o are m a r r i e d s h o u l d stay as t h e y are a n d t h o s e w h o lack self-
c o n t r o l o u g h t to m a r r y (1 C o r . 7 ) . E p h c s i a n s p a i n t s an e n t i r e l y dif-
ferent p i c t u r e o f m a r r i a g e . It is t o be a reflection o f t h e perfect u n i t y
w h i c h exists b e t w e e n C h r i s t a n d his b r i d e , t h e C h u r c h ( 5 : 2 2 - 3 3 ) .
T h e final reason for h o l d i n g t h a t Paul d i d n o t w r i t e E p h c s i a n s is
stylistic. W h a t s t a n d s o u t m o s t o f all is t h e lavish use of w o r d s ; a
f r e s h m a n E n g l i s h t e a c h e r w o u l d say t h e style is r e d u n d a n t .
Taken i n d i v i d u a l l y n o n e o f t h e reasons a g a i n s t P a u l i n e a u t h o r -
s h i p m a y s e e m o v e r p o w e r i n g , b u t t h e c u m u l a t i v e w e i g h t of e v i d e n c e
b e c o m e s c o n c l u s i v e . W h o t h e n w r o t e t h e l e t t e r t o t h e Ephcsians? H e
was s o m e o n e well a c q u a i n t e d w i t h Paul's t e a c h i n g a n d p r o b a b l y , b e -
cause of his literary style a n d k n o w l e d g e o f J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n , a J e w -
i s h - C h r i s t i a n . M o r e t h a n t h a t o n e c a n n o t say. W h e n was t h e letter
w r i t t e n ? Since E p h c s i a n s is d e p e n d e n t o n C o l o s s i a n s a n d familiar
w i t h m o s t of Paul's o t h e r letters, t h e earliest d a t e is p r o b a b l y A T ) .
8 0 . I g n a t i u s o f A n t i o c h , m a r t y r e d s h o r t l y after A . D . 1 1 0 , s e e m s to
be familiar w i t h E p h c s i a n s ( E p h . 1 2 : 2 ; cf. P o l y c a r p 5:1), w h i c h w o u l d
set t h e u p p e r l i m i t .
E x t e r n a l l y E p h c s i a n s has t h e f o r m o f a letter, w i t h a p r o p e r o p e n -
i n g , t h a n k s g i v i n g / b l e s s i n g , i n t e r c e s s i o n , b o d y , a n d closing. In a c t u a l
fact E p h c s i a n s is h a r d l y a letter at all, for it is t o o g e n e r a l a n d t h e o -
logical. A t t h e s a m e t i m e it is q u i t e specific, a i m e d at m a t u r e C h r i s -
tians w h o are b e i n g a s k e d to r e m e m b e r w h a t t h e i r b a p t i s m m e a n s for
t h e C h u r c h a n d t h e i r life in C h r i s t . The b e s t w a y to c a t e g o r i z e
E p h c s i a n s is t o call it a liturgical d i s c o u r s e w h i c h has b e e n p u t in t h e
f o r m o f a letter.
V. El'HKSIANS 2 : 1 - 1 0
A t first g l a n c e this s e c t i o n m i g h t s e e m t o b e a b r e a k in t h e t h a n k s -
g i v i n g / i n t e r c e s s i o n w h i c h b e g a n in 1:15 a n d c o n t i n u e s in 3 : 1 , 14.
Yet t h e o v e r r i d i n g t h e m e of G o d ' s a c t i o n in C h r i s t c o n t i n u e s , as c a n
be seen b y t h e w a y w h a t is s t a t e d in 1:20 is a p p l i e d t o t h e C h r i s t i a n
in 2 : 5 - 6 . R e d e m p t i o n a n d forgiveness, m e n t i o n e d in 1:7, is t h e t h e m e
of t h e first s e c t i o n of t h e s e c o n d c h a p t e r , w h i l e r e u n i t i n g all t h i n g s
( 1 : 1 0 ; cf. 1:23) is t h e t h e m e o f t h e s e c o n d s e c t i o n , a n d 2 : 1 9 - 2 2 p i c k s
u p t h e t h e m e of t h e C h u r c h in 1:23.
The s t r u c t u r e o f this s e c t i o n , a n d for t h a t m a t t e r t h e w h o l e c h a p -
ter, is also b a s e d o n t h e p a t t e r n " o n c e — b u t n o w , " f o u n d in s u c c i n c t
f o r m in 5:8 b u t h e r e s p a n n i n g m a n y verses. I n m o d e r n A m e r i c a this
p a t t e r n exists as well. W e find it, for e x a m p l e , in t h e line "I o n c e was
lost b u t n o w a m f o u n d " f r o m t h e h y m n " A m a z i n g G r a c e . " In N e w
T e s t a m e n t t i m e s it is u s e d in R o m . 6 : 1 7 - 2 2 , G a l . 4 : 8 - 9 , C o l . 1:21-
2 2 , a n d 1 Pet. 2 : 1 0 , t o cite b u t a few places. Its p u r p o s e is to b r i n g

o u t t h e c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n past a n d p r e s e n t , b e t w e e n b e i n g w i t h o u t
C h r i s t a n d b e i n g in C h r i s t , a n d as a c o n s e q u e n c e it is often c o n -
n e c t e d w i t h b a p t i s m . W i t h t h a n k f u l n e s s t h e C h r i s t i a n reflects o n t h e
evils o f t h e p a s t a n d t h e g l o r i o u s c e r t a i n t y o f his n e w s t a t u s ; at t i m e s
an a p p r o p r i a t e life in C h r i s t is also m e n t i o n e d . The w o r d s " o n c e —
b u t n o w " are n o t r e q u i r e d for t h e p a t t e r n , for t h e c o n t r a s t b y itself is
all t h a t is n e e d e d . In verses 2 a n d 3 t h e w o r d " o n c e " a p p e a r s as a clue
to t h e c o n t r a s t i n t r o d u c e d b y " b u t " in verse 4 . In verse 5 t h e c o n t r a s t
lies in t h e c o n t e n t o f t h e verse. O n l y in verse 1 3 , after "at o n e t i m e "
(v. 11) a n d "at t h a t t i m e " (v. 12) have a p p e a r e d again as clues, d o t h e
w o r d s " b u t n o w " actually a p p e a r a l o n g w i t h a n o t h e r " o n c e . " In verse
19 t h e c o n t r a s t again lies in t h e c o n t e n t of t h e verse. N o w h e r e else in
t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t is this p a t t e r n used m o r e frequently.
The Revised S t a n d a r d V e r s i o n of t h e Bible ( R S V ) , a t r a n s l a t i o n
originally p r e p a r e d u n d e r A m e r i c a n P r o t e s t a n t auspices a n d w i d e l y
u s e d in P r o t e s t a n t ( a n d s o m e C a t h o l i c ) c h u r c h e s , c o n t a i n s t h e fol-
lowing translation of Eph. 2:1-10:
'And you he made alive, when you were dead through the tres-
!
passes and sins in which you once walked, following the course of
this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit
that is n o w at work in the sons of disobedience. 'Among these we
all once lived in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of
body and mind, and so we were by nature children of wrath, like
the rest of mankind. 'But God, w h o is rich in mercy, out of the
s
great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead through
our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you
have been saved), ''and raised us up with him, and made us sit
with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the com-
ing ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in
kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. T o r by grace you have been
saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of
God—''not because of works, lest any man should boast. '"For we
are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which
G o d prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
T h e first seven verses are o n e l o n g s e n t e n c e , a n d t h e v e r b " m a d e

alive" does n o t o c c u r u n t i l verse 5. " W a l k i n g " a c c o r d i n g t o t h e flesh
(vv. 2 - 3 ) is t h e first h a l f o f a p a r e n t h e s i s t h a t is closed b y t h e "walk"
a c c o r d i n g t o g o o d w o r k s in verse 10. T h e first seven verses state t h e
p r o b l e m , w h i c h is sin, a n d t h e s o l u t i o n , w h i c h is G o d ' s a c t i o n . The
final t h r e e verses s u m u p w h a t salvation b y grace m e a n s , a l t h o u g h a
p a r e n t h e t i c a l slogan in verse 5 a n t i c i p a t e s t h e s u m m a r y .
V. 1. " A n d " is s i m p l y a c o n n e c t i v e . " D e a d " refers, o f c o u r s e , to

s p i r i t u a l d e a t h , w h i c h is t h e m o s t s e r i o u s k i n d o f d e a t h possible b e -
cause it m e a n s b e i n g c u t off from G o d . T h e cause o f d e a t h is "tres-
passes a n d s i n s . " N o d i s t i n c t i o n s h o u l d be d r a w n b e t w e e n these t w o
t e r m s , w h i c h b o t h b y t h e fact t h a t t w o are u s e d a n d t h a t t h e y are
plural express t h e t o t a l i t y o f sin. A c c o r d i n g t o Paul's theology, sin
b r i n g s a b o u t d e a t h ( R o m . 5 : 1 2 , 2 1 ; 6 : 2 3 ; 1 C o r . 1 5 : 5 6 ) ; he is refer-
ring, however, first of all t o physical d e a t h . N o t h i n g i n d i c a t e s t h a t
"you" is a reference t o G e n t i l e C h r i s t i a n s . R a t h e r , this is a d e s c r i p -
t i o n of t h e p r e d i c a m e n t w h i c h i n c l u d e s all, a n d "you" w o u l d n o r -
m a l l y be u s e d in a letter a t this p o i n t . The R S V has s u p p l i e d t h e verb
" h e m a d e alive" from verse 5.
V. 2 . Three n a m e s , w h i c h are really t h e s a m e n a m e , are given for
t h e evil force w h i c h o p p o s e s G o d . The first has b e e n t r a n s l a t e d as
" t h e c o u r s e of this w o r l d " b y t h e RSV. 'The p h r a s e actually describes
A i o n , t h e g o d of this age, w h o a c c o r d i n g t o t h e syncretistic t h o u g h t
o f t h e H e l l e n i s t i c w o r l d r u l e d all o f space a n d t i m e . " T h i s w o r l d "
s t a n d s in o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e " c o m i n g w o r l d " t h a t G o d will rule. A n -
o t h e r n a m e for t h e evil o n e is " t h e p r i n c e o f t h e p o w e r of t h e air." As
in C o l . 1:13, " p o w e r " d o e s n o t m e a n a q u a l i t y b u t t h e s p h e r e t h a t t h e
" p r i n c e " rules. 'The "air" is t h e lowest level o f t h e h e a v e n s ; h u m a n
beings reach u p i n t o this level, for t h e y e i t h e r b a t t l e against evil ( 6 : 1 1 -
12) or are s u b j e c t t o it, as in this verse. The "spirit" is s i m p l y a g e n -
eral n a m e for t h e s a m e evil force. E a c h of t h e t h r e e n a m e s describes
t h e t o t a l i t y o f evil (cf. 1:21; 6 : 1 1 , 16). This is t h e evil force t h a t is
"now" at w o r k a m o n g the disobedient ones, leading t h e m t h r o u g h
sin t o d e a t h (v. 1). ' T h u s b y i m p l i c a t i o n evil is n o t " n o w " at w o r k
a m o n g C h r i s t i a n s a n d c o n s e q u e n t l y t h e y are free from its rule.
V. 3 . A c h a n g e is m a d e t o " w e . " N o t h i n g i n d i c a t e s t h a t J e w i s h
C h r i s t i a n s are m e a n t , as s o m e h a v e c l a i m e d in o r d e r t o s u p p o r t t h e
thesis t h a t in verse 1 "you" refers t o G e n t i l e C h r i s t i a n s . " W e all" is a
shift t o t h e inclusive style u s e d in confession; w e all confess t h a t w e
are s u b j e c t t o sin, d e a t h , a n d evil. In a d d i t i o n , " w e " a n t i c i p a t e s t h e
use o f " w e " a n d "us" in t h e f o l l o w i n g verses a n d m a y reflect C o l .
2 : 1 3 . " L i v e d " m o r e c o n s c i o u s l y describes life t o g e t h e r (2 C o r . 1:12;
1 'Tim. 3 : 1 5 ) , w h i l e " w a l k e d " (v. 2) t e n d s t o be m o r e i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c
(cf. 5:2, 8, 1 5). O n l y h e r e in E p h e s i a n s d o e s "flesh" have t h e negative
sense it d o e s in Paul. "Passions" a n d "desires" p o i n t t o t h e a b u n d a n c e
a n d c o m p l e t e n e s s o f sin, just as " b o d y a n d m i n d , " w h i c h c o u l d be
t r a n s l a t e d as "flesh a n d evil t h o u g h t , " is t h e w h o l e m a n in o p p o s i -
t i o n t o G o d . Radical sin in verse 3 p r o d u c e s an effective c o n t r a s t to
radical grace in verse 4 . 'The c o n c l u d i n g p a r t of this verse has b e e n
o n e o f t h e classical p r o o f texts for t h e d o c t r i n e o f original sin. U n f o r -

t u n a t e l y t h e R S V has a d d e d " s o , " as if a c o n c l u s i o n w e r e b e i n g d r a w n
w h i c h c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d a general p r i n c i p l e , w h e n in m a t t e r of
fact this clause is parallel t o t h e earlier p a r t of t h e verse. W h a t is
m e a n t is t h a t since w e t o o w e r e d e a d in o u r trespasses a n d sins a n d
enslaved t o t h e p r i n c e o f this w o r l d , w e t o o w e r e c h i l d r e n of w r a t h
like t h e s o n s o f d i s o b e d i e n c e . " B y n a t u r e " s h o u l d t h e r e f o r e be t r a n s -
l a t e d as "really" o r "totally" (cf. G a l . 4 : 8 ; W i s . 1 3 : 1 ) . " W r a t h " s t a n d s
in c o n t r a s t t o m e r c y in verse 4 (cf. 5:6).
V. 4 . " B u t n o w G o d has a c t e d " is w h a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f this
verse i n t e n d s , for t h e " o n c e — b u t n o w " p a t t e r n a p p l i e s h e r e . The
basis of G o d ' s a c t i o n is his mercy, w h i c h is m e n t i o n e d in 1 Pet. 1:3
a n d Titus 3:5 in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h b a p t i s m . ' T h u s h e r e also b a p t i s m
p r o b a b l y s h o u l d be u n d e r s t o o d . G o d ' s p r e d e s t i n i n g love has already
b e e n set forth in 1:5 a n d Christ's v e r y c o n c r e t e love for t h e C h u r c h
will b e d e s c r i b e d later (cf. 5:2, 2 5 ) . In verse 5 t h e w o r d s "were d e a d
t h r o u g h t h e trespasses" are r e p e a t e d from verse 1 in o r d e r to b r i n g
o u t o n c e again t h e c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n o u r p r o b l e m a n d G o d ' s s o l u -
t i o n . The shift b a c k a n d forth b e t w e e n "we" a n d " y o u " in this verse
a n d in verses 8 - 1 0 d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t t h e a u t h o r d i d n o t w r i t e at o n e
p o i n t t o G e n t i l e C h r i s t i a n s a n d at a n o t h e r t o J e w i s h C h r i s t i a n s . S u c h
a h y p o t h e s i s w o u l d b e c o m e e x t r e m e l y c o m p l i c a t e d in this section!
I n s t e a d t h e a u t h o r m a d e use of t r a d i t i o n a l slogans a n d materials w h i c h
h e d i d n o t follow slavishly, m a k i n g it difficult for us t o d a y t o d e t e r -
m i n e exactly w h a t is t r a d i t i o n a l a n d w h a t is a d a p t a t i o n .
Vv. 5 - 6 . That w e w e r e " m a d e alive t o g e t h e r w i t h C h r i s t " b e g i n s
t o a p p l y 1:20 t o us. C o l . 2 : 1 3 is clearly parallel t o this passage. W h e n
w e r e w e m a d e alive? 'The aorist tense p o i n t s t o a specific t i m e in t h e
past, w h i c h t h e parallel in C o l . 2 : 1 1 - 1 3 s h o w s t o be b a p t i s m . Paul
w o u l d h a v e w r i t t e n t h a t w e have b e e n b u r i e d w i t h C h r i s t a n d t h a t
w e shall be m a d e alive a n d raised a n d m a d e t o sit a t t h e r i g h t h a n d ,
b u t h e r e n o t h i n g has b e e n reserved for t h e future (cf. R o m . 6 : 8 ; 8 : 1 1 ;
1 C o r . 1 5 : 2 2 , 5 2 ; P h i l . 3 : 9 - 1 1 ) . This is v e r y c l o s e t o r e a l i z e d
eschatology. It c a n n o t be lightly d i s m i s s e d as m e r e r h e t o r i c occa-
s i o n e d b y t h e e n t h u s i a s t i c joy t h a t b a p t i s m evokes o r as s i m p l y t h e
d e s c r i p t i o n of C h r i s t , t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e n e w h u m a n i t y , al-
ready s i t t i n g in t h e h e a v e n l y places. T h e a u t h o r fully i n t e n d e d t o
state t h a t salvation is c o m p l e t e , even t h o u g h , as in 1:14, he qualified
his p o s i t i o n a n d d i d n o t fall i n t o t h e heresy c o n d e m n e d in 2 Tim.
2 : 1 8 or i n t o G n o s t i c i s m .
In t h e m i d d l e o f t h i n g s t h e a u t h o r a d d s a p a r e n t h e s i s t h a t a n t i c i -
pates verse 8: " b y grace y o u h a v e b e e n saved." The verb is in t h e
p e r f e c t tense, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t salvation t o o k place in t h e p a s t a n d

c o n t i n u e s i n t o t h e p r e s e n t . Paul d i d n o t use t h e v e r b "to save" in t h e
p a s t t e n s e e x c e p t for R o m . 3 : 2 4 , w h e r e t h e aorist i n d i c a t i n g a n e v e n t
in t h e past is k e p t in b a l a n c e b y t h e future reference of t h e p h r a s e "in
this h o p e ; " for h i m "to save" refers t o t h o s e w h o are in t h e process of
b e i n g saved y e t will be saved at t h e last j u d g m e n t (1 C o r . 1 5 : 2 ; 2
C o r . 6:2) a n d t o f u t u r e salvation ( R o m . 5 : 9 - 1 0 ; 1 3 : 1 1 ; 1 T h e s s . 5 : 8 -
9 ) . U n d e r s t a n d i n g grace as t h e p r i n c i p l e o f salvation is very s i m i l a r
to w h a t is s t a t e d in R o m . 3 : 2 4 , w h e r e Paul a d a p t e d earlier m a t e r i a l s
w i t h a liturgical b a c k g r o u n d , j u s t as t h e a u t h o r of L p h e s i a n s at this
p o i n t a d a p t e d liturgical m a t e r i a l s .
T h a t w e "sit w i t h h i m in t h e h e a v e n l y places" is o n e o f several
very s t r i k i n g e x a m p l e s o f h o w t h e a u t h o r of E p h e s i a n s t e n d s t o t h i n k
in t e r m s of s p a c e i n s t e a d o f t i m e . Even t h e p a t t e r n " o n c e — b u t n o w "
is really a d e s c r i p t i o n of t w o o p p o s i n g s p h e r e s r a t h e r t h a n progress
across t i m e . A t t i m e s Paul d i d , t o be sure, use s p a c e categories (for
e x a m p l e , R o m . 10:6; 1 C o r . 1 5 : 4 7 ; Phil. 3 : 2 0 ; 1 T h e s s . 4 : 1 6 ) , al-
t h o u g h he p r e f e r r e d t i m e categories a n d o c c a s i o n a l l y a s p a c e cat-
e g o r y will also have a future reference (cf. 1 Thess. 4 : 1 6 ) . B u t in t h e
letter to t h e E p h e s i a n s s p a c e categories have a decisive place, as in
1:3, 2 0 - 2 2 ; 3 : 1 9 ; 4 : 9 - 1 0 , 1 5 - 1 6 , a n d this passage.
V. 7 . In spite of his preference t h e a u t h o r of E p h e s i a n s , like Paul,
u s e d b o t h categories. " I n t h e c o m i n g ages" refers t o t h e future. Tempt-
i n g as it m i g h t be t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e "ages" as p e r s o n a l evil forces in
a n a l o g y to t h e "Aion o f this w o r l d " in verse 2 , elsewhere in this letter
t h e plural has a p u r e l y t e m p o r a l m e a n i n g ( 3 : 9 , 1 1 , 2 1 ) . 'The p l u r a l
f o r m by this t i m e h a d b e c o m e c u s t o m a r y t h r o u g h use in d o x o l o g i e s
a n d s i m p l y m e a n t "all t i m e s . " 'Thus verse 7 m e a n s t h a t in all future
t i m e s G o d will effectively " s h o w " (cf. 1:9) t h e "riches o f his g r a c e "
(cf. 1:7) to us in C h r i s t . Yet this verse m u s t n o t be u n d e r s t o o d a p a r t
from 1:21 a n d t h e fact t h a t C h r i s t already rules t h e " c o m i n g ages."
Vv. 8 - 9 . The p a r e n t h e s i s from verse 5 n o w d e v e l o p s i n t o a s h o r t
s u m m a r y o f P a u l i n e theology. The s u m m a r y is m a d e u p o f P a u l i n e
slogans a n d as in verse 5 seems t o e c h o t h e s a m e s o r t of m a t e r i a l s
Paul u s e d in R o m . 3 : 2 4 . The s o v e r e i g n t y o f G o d ' s grace c o u l d h a r d l y
be confessed w i t h greater clarity. B u t even t h o u g h "grace a l o n e " a n d
"faith a l o n e " are p r e s e n t , "saved" is o n c e a g a i n , as in verse 5, in t h e
perfect t e n s e . Paul's eschatological dialectic o f justification is a b s e n t
w h e r e it is h a r d t o i m a g i n e Paul h i m s e l f w o u l d h a v e o m i t t e d it. I w o
" n o t " p h r a s e s define w h a t grace is: " n o t of ourselves," " n o t o f w o r k s . "
Paul's p o l e m i c against t h e w o r k s of t h e law is n o w h e r e i m p l i e d . W h e r e
Paul s p o k e o n l y o f " w o r k s , " his p o l e m i c was always i m p l i e d (cf. R o m .
4 : 2 , 6; 9 : 3 2 ; 11:6). E p h . 2 : 9 , however, s i m p l y c o u n t e r p o s e s grace

a n d every h u m a n w o r k . Paul f r e q u e n t l y w a r n e d a g a i n s t " b o a s t i n g "
(cf. R o m . 4 : 2 ; 1 C o r . 1 : 2 8 - 3 1 ; 4 : 7 ; P h i l . 3 : 3 ) , w h i c h in its m o s t
i n s i d i o u s f o r m is t h e c l a i m t o be b e t t e r t h a n o t h e r s , so t h a t grace is
still n o t sovereign.
V. 1 0 . In this c o n t e x t t o b e "created" is t h e s a m e as w h a t Paul
m e a n t by b e c o m i n g G o d ' s " n e w c r e a t i o n " (2 C o r . 5 : 1 7 ; G a l . 6 : 1 5 ; cf.
E p h . 4 : 2 4 ) . W h e n d i d this n e w c r e a t i o n t a k e place? B a p t i s m c o u l d
be m e a n t (cf. C o l . 3 : 9 - 1 0 ; E p h . 4 : 2 4 ) , y e t in a d d i t i o n before t h e
f o u n d a t i o n o f t h e w o r l d G o d " d e s t i n e d us to be his s o n s " a n d t o be
" h o l y a n d blameless" ( 1 : 4 - 5 , 1 1 - 1 2 ) . In n o w a y d o e s this passage
m e a n t h a t C h r i s t i a n s h a v e b e e n p r e p a r e d t o d o g o o d w o r k s , for it is
t h e " g o o d w o r k s " t h a t have b e e n p r e p a r e d b e f o r e h a n d . B u t C h r i s -
tians will "walk" t h e w a y o f g o o d w o r k s b e c a u s e of f r e e d o m a n d
g r a t i t u d e , n o t b e c a u s e o f an a t t e m p t t o save t h e m s e l v e s (cf. R o m .
1:5; 6 : 1 6 - 1 8 ; P h i l . 2 : 1 2 - 1 3 ) . T h a t C h r i s t i a n s " s h o u l d " w a l k t h e w a y
o f g o o d w o r k s is also i n t e n d e d b y t h e a u t h o r .
Conclusion
H a s a n y t h i n g i m p o r t a n t b e e n lost in t h e t r a n s l a t i o n o f Paul's
a p o c a l y p t i c t h e o l o g y o f justification by faith i n t o ecclesiological u n i -
versalism in t h e letter t o t h e E p h e s i a n s ? In E p h e s i a n s C h r i s t clearly is
central, as is grace. B u t Paul's eschatalogical t e n s i o n b e t w e e n "already"
a n d " n o t yet" has b e e n greatly lessened. A l r e a d y "we have r e d e m p -
t i o n " ( 1 : 7 ) , already "we sit w i t h h i m in t h e h e a v e n l y places" ( 2 : 6 ) .
T h e r e f o r e t h e n e e d for ethics a n d b a t t l i n g t h e evil o n e ( 4 : 2 7 ; 5:6;
6:11 - 1 7 ) has b e e n greatly d i m i n i s h e d , in s p i t e o f t h e space these t o p -
ics are given. The role of t h e law has b e c o m e m u c h s m a l l e r ( 2 : 1 5 ) .
For Paul t h e law is n o t exclusively a J e w i s h issue, b u t plays a decisive
role in e v a l u a t i n g w h o o n e really is before G o d . T h e law, in fact, is a
key t o t h e p o l e m i c f u n c t i o n of justification b y faith. E p h e s i a n s is, of
c o u r s e , w r i t t e n in a different t i m e a n d s i t u a t i o n . T h e q u e s t i o n is
w h e t h e r a n y t h i n g essential for Paul's t h e o l o g y has b e e n lost w h e n
j u d g m e n t a n d t h e law have lost m u c h o f t h e i r significance.
T o p u t it a n o t h e r way: S o m e t h i n g has c h a n g e d in E p h e s i a n s .
The C h u r c h has b e c o m e d e t e r m i n a t i v e , a n d justification b y faith
takes s e c o n d place. Is it i m p o r t a n t if t h e basic christological e m p h a -
sis of justification b y faith a l o n e is l e s s e n e d o r even lost? L u t h e r a n s
a n d t h o s e in t h e R e f o r m a t i o n t r a d i t i o n have c l a i m e d t h a t justifica-
t i o n b y faith a l o n e is c e n t r a l a n d h a v e b e e n u n w i l l i n g t o a l l o w
ecclesiology to d e t e r m i n e C h r i s t o l o g y .
126 LI;THKRAN INTERPRETATION o r SCRIPTURE
V I . SUMMARY
L u t h e r a n s u n d e r s t a n d t h e W o r d o f G o d as Jesus C h r i s t , t h e
p r e a c h e d w o r d of t h e g o s p e l , a n d t h e w r i t t e n w o r d of S c r i p t u r e . The
five L u t h e r a n p r i n c i p l e s for i n t e r p r e t i n g S c r i p t u r e are t h e following:
the N e w T e s t a m e n t interprets the O l d ;
t h e clear i n t r p r e t s t h e u n c l e a r ;
S c r i p t u r e i n t e r p r e t s itself;
w h a t " p r o m o t e s " C h r i s t is t h e t r u t h ;
i n t e r p r e t i n g S c r i p t u r e can o n l y b e d o n e w i t h i n t h e C h u r c h .
The L u t h e r a n s t a n c e is c a p t u r e d in t h e five " a l o n e s " — C h r i s t ,
g r a c e , faith, t h e cross, a n d S c r i p t u r e .
JOSKPH A. BURGESS 127
Barr, J a m e s . The Bible in the Modern World. N e w Y o r k / E v a n s t o n /

S a n F r a n c i s c o / L o n d o n : H a r p e r & Row, 1 9 7 3 . A c h a l l e n g e b y a
c o m p e t e n t O l d T e s t a m e n t s c h o l a r t o all t h o s e w h o w a n t t o t a k e
t h e Bible seriously. T h e basic q u e s t i o n s are raised.
B o r n k a m m , H e i n r i c h . Luther and the Old Testament. T r a n s l a t e d b y

E. a n d R. G r i t s c h . P h i l a d e l p h i a : Fortress Press, 1 9 6 9 . T e c h n i c a l
a n d already an o l d e r b o o k , this is an i m p o r t a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e
d i s c u s s i o n o f L u t h e r ' s use of S c r i p t u r e .
F l e s s e m a n - v a n Leer, Ellen. 'The Bible. Its Authority and Interpreta-

tion in the Ecumenical Movement. Faith a n d O r d e r Paper N o . 9 9 ;
G e n e v a : W o r l d C o u n c i l o f C h u r c h e s , 1 9 7 9 . A c o l l e c t i o n of t h e
d o c u m e n t s a n d as s u c h very helpful.
K r e n t z , E d g a r . 'The Historical-Critical Method. Philadelphia: For-

tress Press, 1 9 7 5 . T h e best s h o r t s u m m a r y o f w h a t t h e historical-
critical m e t h o d is really a b o u t .
K u m m e l , W e r n e r G e o r g . 'The New Testament: 'The History of the

Investigation of Its Problems. T r a n s l a t e d b y S. G i l m o u r a n d H .
K e e . N a s h v i l l e / N e w York: A b i n g d o n Press, 1 9 7 2 . T h e classic h i s -
t o r y a n d s u m m a r y of w h a t has h a p p e n e d t o t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t in
t h e last c e n t u r i e s .
Neill, S t e p h e n . 'The Interpretation of the New 'Testament, 1861-1961.

L o n d o n : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 6 4 . Available in p a p e r b a c k
a n d often r e p r i n t e d , this b o o k is a very r e a d a b l e i n t r o d u c t i o n to
o u r p r e s e n t - d a y d e b a t e a b o u t i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e Bible.
R e u m a n n , J o h n , ed., in c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h S a m u e l H . Nafzger a n d
H a r o l d H . D i t m a n s o n , Studies in Lutheran Hermeneutics. Phila-
d e l p h i a : Fortress Press, 1 9 7 9 . A m o d e r n d e b a t e a m o n g L u t h e r a n s
about interpretation and Scripture.

tion of Scripture. T r a n s l a t e d b y R. Harrisville. P h i l a d e l p h i a : For-
tress Press, 1 9 7 7 . A r e c e n t a t t e m p t b y a L u t h e r a n t o establish a
m o r e m o d e r a t i n g discussion in historical criticism.
128 LI;THKRAN INTERPRETATION OP S C R I M U R E
T h e o l o g i c a l Professors o f t h e A m e r i c a n L u t h e r a n C h u r c h . The Bible:

Book of Faith. M i n n e a p o l i s : A u g s b u r g P u b l i s h i n g H o u s e , 1 9 6 4 . A
p o p u l a r v o l u m e a n d still very useful for t h o s e w h o are facing h i s -
torical criticism for t h e first t i m e .
'The Word of God: Scripture and 'Tradition. L u t h e r a n s a n d C a t h o -

lics in D i a l o g u e IX. M i n n e a p o l i s : A u g s b u r g F o r t r e s s , 1 9 9 5 .
EVANGELICAL INTERPRETATION
OF SCRIPTURE
The B a c k g r o u n d
t o C o n t e m p o r a r y Evangelical E x p o s i t i o n
by
GRANT R. OSBORNE
I t is c o m m o n l y believed a m o n g m a n y n o n e v a n g e l i c a l s t h a t f u n -
d a m e n t a l i s m - e v a n g e l i c a l i s m is a u n i f o r m t r a d i t i o n , c h a r a c t e r i z e d
b y a rigid, a t o m i s t i c , a n d static view o f S c r i p t u r e . S o m e have
g o n e so far as to c a r i c a t u r e t h e m o v e m e n t as a " n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y
heresy" w h i c h has n o r o o t s in t h e C h u r c h before t h a t t i m e . For this
reason it is i m p o r t a n t t o realize t h a t w i d e diversity exists w i t h i n t h e
c a m p a n d t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e historical reasons w h y this s h o u l d be so.
A t t h e o u t s e t , I w o u l d assert t h a t t h e r e are i n d e e d historical roots
for t h e evangelical d o c t r i n e of inerrancy, w h i c h m e a n s t h a t t h e Bible
is w i t h o u t e r r o r in its original a u t o g r a p h s . S o m e a m o n g t h e e v a n -
gelical t r a d i t i o n follow t h e c o m m o n l y h e l d view t h a t i n e r r a n c y d e -
v e l o p e d o u t o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of S c o t t i s h C o m m o n Sense Realism
to S c r i p t u r e in t h e latter p a r t of t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y . T h i s p h i -
l o s o p h y s t e m m e d from t h e i n d u c t i v e m e t h o d p r o p o u n d e d b y Francis
B a c o n ( 1 5 6 1 - 1 6 2 6 ) . It e n t a i l e d an o p t i m i s t i c e p i s t e m o l o g y w h i c h
a s s u m e d t h a t definite a p p r e h e n s i o n of t r u t h c o u l d be d e r i v e d from
an objective o b s e r v a t i o n o f facts. T h e r e f o r e , o n e c o u l d ascertain w i t h
c e r t a i n t y t h e exact m e a n i n g o f t h e Bible, w h i c h as d i v i n e revelation
m u s t b e free f r o m e r r o r . G e o r g e M a r s d e n a r g u e s t h a t t h e O l d
P r i n c e t o n i a n s of t h e late n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y ( C h a r l e s H o d g e ,
A r c h i b a l d A. H o d g e , B e n j a m i n B. Warfield) forged their s t r o n g views
o n t h e basis of C o m m o n Sense R e a l i s m , " t h a t t h e S c r i p t u r e s n o t
o n l y c o n t a i n , b u t A R E T H E W O R D O F G O D , a n d h e n c e t h a t all
1
their e l e m e n t s a n d all their a f f i r m a t i o n s are a b s o l u t e l y errorless."
:
George B. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping
of Twentieth Century Evangelicalism, 1870-1925 (New York: Oxford Universiry
130 EVANGELICAL INTERPRETATION OP SCRIPTURE
H o w e v e r , J o h n W o o d b r i d g e argues in r e s p o n s e t h a t C o m m o n
Sense Realism was a f o r m a t i v e factor b u t n o t t h e s o u r c e o f t h e d o c -
t r i n e . H e states t h a t w h i l e t h e P r i n c e t o n i a n s ' s view o f i n e r r a n c y was
r e i n f o r c e d b y B a c o n i a n i s m (see a b o v e ) , t h e i r d o c t r i n e of c o m p l e t e
infallibility w a s n o t " p a r a d i g m d e p e n d e n t " u p o n (i.e., it d i d n o t have
2
its o r i g i n in) t h a t p e r s p e c t i v e . I n d e e d W o o d b r i d g e ' s w o r k is a l e n g t h y
compilation of attitudes held by the C h u r c h t h r o u g h o u t church his-
t o r y t o w a r d S c r i p t u r e . H e asserts, validly I believe, t h a t w h i l e t h e
exact f o r m u l a t i o n o f i n e r r a n c y or c o m p l e t e infallibility h a d n o t o c -
c u r r e d earlier, t h e actual details were t o be f o u n d earlier. R o g e r s a n d
M c K i m (see n. 1) a n d o t h e r s h a d s o u g h t to d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e
c e n t r a l p o s i t i o n of t h e C h u r c h h a d always b e e n t h a t infallibility was
restricted o n l y t o religious or salvific c o n c e r n s a n d t h a t it was n o t
e x t e n d e d t o p a r t i c u l a r details s u c h as historical o r scientific s t a t e -
m e n t s . W o o d b r i d g e traces carefully t h e v i e w p o i n t of t h e c h u r c h fa-
t h e r s , t h e r e f o r m e r s , a n d o t h e r s , a r g u i n g t h a t t h e y p r i m a r i l y followed
a view of c o m p l e t e infallibility. O n this basis I w o u l d assert likewise
t h a t t h e f u n d a m e n t a l i s t / e v a n g e l i c a l view of S c r i p t u r e follows t h e c e n -
tral p o s i t i o n w h i c h t h e C h u r c h has h e l d since t h e first c e n t u r y . N o t e
carefully t h a t I a m n o t h e r e a r g u i n g t h a t this d o c t r i n e is c o r r e c t ,
r a t h e r t h a t it has historical p r e c e d e n t . The c o r r e c t n e s s of t h e p o s i -
t i o n is y e t t o b e discussed.
M o d e r n f u n d a m e n t a l i s m / e v a n g e l i c a l i s m , however, d o e s have its
p r i m a r y roots in t h e late n i n e t e e n t h a n d early t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r i e s .
T h r o u g h o u t m o s t o f t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y , A m e r i c a was basically
c o n s e r v a t i v e . In t h e p o s t - C i v i l W a r era, in fact, it s e e m e d t h a t t h e
c o n s e r v a t i v e cause h a d i n d e e d t r i u m p h e d . Yet d i s q u i e t i n g r u m o r s
c o n t i n u e d t o surface, p r i m a r i l y t h e pessimistic c o n c l u s i o n s o f h i g h e r
c r i t i c i s m from G e r m a n y . 'These critical s c h o o l s greatly i n f l u e n c e d
A m e r i c a n s c h o l a r s h i p . Ideas like D a r w i n i a n e v o l u t i o n a n d p o p u l a r
p r e a c h e r s like H e n r y W a r d B e e c h e r w e r e h a r b i n g e r s in t h e 1 8 7 0 s o f
a m o v e m e n t w h i c h w o u l d s o o n cause a crisis a n d an intellectual revo-
l u t i o n . It b e g a n in t h e universities a n d t h e n s p r e a d t o t h e p u l p i t s . As
conservative scholars retired t h e y w o u l d be replaced b y y o u n g e r , m o r e
Press, 1980) 113 (cf. 111-15), q u o t e from A. A. H o d g e and B. B. Warfield, "Inspi-

ration," The Presbyterian Review II (April 1881) 2 3 4 . See also F.rnesr Sandeen,
The Roots of Fundamentalism (Chicago: University of C h i c a g o Press, 1970) 1 0 3 -
3 1 , and Jack Rogers and D o n a l d M c K i m , The Authority and Interpretation of the
Bible: An Historical Approach ( N e w York: H a r p e r a n d Row, 1979) 2 6 5 - 3 4 7 .
-' J o h n W o o d b r i d g e , Biblical Authority: A Critique of the RogerslMcKim Pro-
posal (Grand Rapids: Z o n d e r v a n Publishing H o u s e , 1982) 2 1 9 (n. 88).
G R A N T R. O S B O R N E 131
liberal t h i n k e r s , often e d u c a t e d o n t h e C o n t i n e n t . M o r e o v e r , A m e r i -
can conservatives w e r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d m o r e b y practical piety t h a n by
a p o l o g e t i c c o n c e r n s . The liberal p r e a c h e r s c o n t i n u e d these pietistic
e m p h a s e s u p o n e x p e r i e n c e a n d m o r a l i t y as t h e y s o u g h t t o reconcile
t r a d i t i o n a l views of S c r i p t u r e w i t h scientific views of reality. P r e a c h -
ers like B e e c h e r a n d L y m a n A b b o t t b e c a m e e x c e e d i n g l y p o p u l a r , a n d
broader issues like t h e a u t h o r i t y of Scripture were n o t truly u n d e r s t o o d .
The Evangelical A l l i a n c e , f o r m e d in 1 8 4 6 , b e c a m e a m a j o r fo-
r u m for d e b a t e . It c e n t e r e d u p o n revivalism, social c o n c e r n (social
j u s t i c e , a i d for t h e p o o r ) , S a b b a t a r i a n i s m (the sacred n a t u r e of S u n -
d a y as t h e "Lord's d a y " ) , free e n t e r p r i s e , a n d a h i g h view of biblical
infallibility. In 1 8 7 3 J a m e s M c C o s h , p r e s i d e n t o f P r i n c e t o n , a t t e m p t e d
t o m a k e D a r w i n i s m a n d S c r i p t u r e c o m p a t i b l e a n d o c c a s i o n e d a vigor-
o u s d e b a t e . F o r t h e n e x t t h r e e d e c a d e s t h e e m p h a s i s shifted t o h i g h e r
c r i t i c i s m . In 1 9 0 8 t h e A l l i a n c e b e c a m e t h e F e d e r a l C o u n c i l o f
C h u r c h e s , still p r i m a r i l y c o n s e r v a t i v e b u t m o v i n g steadily t o t h e left.
T h e evangelical r e s p o n s e t o t h e t h r e a t was q u i t e diverse. S o m e
retreated i n t o p i e t y a n d refused t o g e t i n v o l v e d in s u c h issues. D w i g h t
L. M o o d y , for i n s t a n c e , refused t o address controversial q u e s t i o n s
a n d simply preached personal repentance a n d the gospel. H e be-
lieved t h a t if o n e ignores e r r o r it will pass away. H e r e h e a l l u d e d t o
G a m a l i e l ' s advice in Acts 5 : 3 8 - 3 9 : " T h e r e f o r e , in t h e p r e s e n t case I
advise y o u : Leave t h e s e m e n a l o n e ! Let t h e m go! F o r if their p u r p o s e
or activity is o f h u m a n o r i g i n , it will fail. B u t if it is from G o d , y o u
will n o t be able t o s t o p these m e n ; y o u will o n l y find yourselves
fighting G o d . " M a n y o t h e r s , h o w e v e r ( i n c l u d i n g d i r e c t associates of
M o o d y ' s like R e u b e n T o r r e y ) , b e l i e v e d in d i r e c t c o n f r o n t a t i o n . T h e
t e r m " f u n d a m e n t a l i s t " arose from a series of twelve v o l u m e s p u b -
lished b e t w e e n 1 9 1 0 a n d 1 9 1 5 , The Fundamentals, t h o u g h t h e title
was first u s e d by C u r t i s Lawes in 1 9 2 0 . T h e s e w e r e w r i t t e n b y c o n -
servative scholars t o u p h o l d t h e t r a d i t i o n a l views r e g a r d i n g t h e Bible
a n d t h e c a r d i n a l t e n e t s of t h e faith against t h e e n c r o a c h i n g c o n c l u -
sions of " h i g h e r criticism" (e.g., d e n y i n g t h e t r a d i t i o n a l a u t h o r s h i p
a n d dates o f biblical b o o k s , q u e s t i o n i n g t h a t Jesus actually u t t e r e d
t h e "sayings" a t t r i b u t e d t o h i m in t h e G o s p e l s ) a n d e v o l u t i o n . T h e s e
v o l u m e s dispel t h e c o m m o n l y h e l d view t h a t f u n d a m e n t a l i s m arose
o u t o f an a n t i - i n t e l l e c t u a l m i l i e u . I n d e e d t h e y a t t e m p t e d t o " b e a t t h e
h i g h e r critics at t h e i r o w n g a m e , " a s s e r t i n g t h a t " h i g h e r c r i t i c i s m was
3
n o t critical e n o u g h . "
' T i m o r h y P. Weber, " T h e Two-Edged Sword: T h e Fundamentalist Use of the

Bible," The Bible in America: Essays in Cultural History, ed. N a t h a n O . H a t c h
and M a r k A. Noll (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982) 109 (cf. 102-10).
O n e of the basic debates b e t w e e n f u n d a m e n t a l i s m a n d

n o n f u n d a m e n t a l i s m c o n c e r n e d Bible s t u d y m e t h o d s . The results of
C o m m o n Sense Realism o n t h e g r o w i n g c o n s e r v a t i v e m o v e m e n t lay
in t h e d e n i a l of critical t o o l s a n d t h e assertion t h a t k n o w l e d g e o f
biblical t r u t h w a s o p e n t o t h e average p e r s o n u t i l i z i n g o n l y his Bible
w i t h t h e a i d o f t h e H o l y Spirit. P r o o f - t e x t i n g , t h e p r a c t i c e of p r o v i n g
a d o c t r i n a l p o i n t b y a l l u d i n g t o a s c r i p t u r a l text, was d e e m e d suffi-
c i e n t t o establish a p a r t i c u l a r v i e w p o i n t . O n e o f t h e m o s t p o p u l a r
w o r k s in this regard was R e u b e n Torrey's What The Bible Teaches
( 1 8 9 8 ) , w h i c h c l a i m e d t o b e b o t h " u n b i a s e d " a n d "scientific" as it
d o c u m e n t e d (in five h u n d r e d pages) theological s t a t e m e n t s w i t h b i b -
lical p r o o f - t e x t s . The i n d u c t i v e m e t h o d o f Bible study, p r o c e e d i n g
synthetically from the whole t o the parts a n d seeking to elucidate
m a j o r t h e m e s , c a m e i n t o p r o m i n e n c e d u r i n g this p e r i o d . The t e r m
" i n d u c t i v e s t u d y " in f u n d a m e n t a l i s m c a m e t o be u s e d for t h a t m e t h o d
w h i c h s t u d i e d t h e t e x t b y itself r a t h e r t h a n critical tools o r c o m m e n -
taries t o e l u c i d a t e its m e a n i n g . Yet it w o u l d be s h a l l o w t o h i n t t h a t
this was t h e o n l y m e t h o d . C o n s e r v a t i v e s like J. G r e s h a m M a c h e n
a n d N e d S t o n e h o u s e c o n t i n u e d t o i n t e r a c t w i t h t h e h i g h e s t levels of
s c h o l a r s h i p t h r o u g h o u t this era. H o w e v e r , t h e s y n t h e t i c m e t h o d d i d
predominate.
Two f u r t h e r aspects s h o u l d be n o t e d . First, f u n d a m e n t a l i s m re-
ceived i m p e t u s from a series of Bible conferences b e t w e e n 1 8 7 6 a n d
1910. These centered u p o n b o t h prophecy a n d apologetics, a t t e m p t -
i n g t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h e "true faith" a n d to w a r n against t h e c o m i n g
"apostasy" (2 T h e s s . 2:3) w h i c h was i d e n t i f i e d w i t h t h e rising liberal
m o v e m e n t . T h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t was t h e 1 8 9 5 c o n f e r e n c e in N i a g a r a ,
N e w York. It a d o p t e d t h e five-point p l a t f o r m w h i c h later b e c a m e t h e
basis of 'The Fundamentals: t h e i n e r r a n c y o f t h e Bible, t h e virgin
b i r t h , t h e d e i t y of C h r i s t , t h e s u b s t i t u t i o n a r y a t o n e m e n t (the view
t h a t Jesus d i e d as t h e sacrifice o r " s u b s t i t u t e " for man's sins), a n d t h e
physical r e s u r r e c t i o n o f C h r i s t a n d his s e c o n d c o m i n g .
Second, the gradual control which nonconservatives established
over t h e nation's h i g h e r i n s t i t u t i o n s o f l e a r n i n g led to t h e Bible Insti-
t u t e m o v e m e n t . As t h e i r i n f l u e n c e w a n e d in t h e m a j o r s e m i n a r i e s ,
f u n d a m e n t a l i s t s d e v e l o p e d t h e i r o w n schools in w h i c h t h e Bible was
t h e core o f t h e p r o g r a m . T h e i r p u r p o s e was t o p r e p a r e c h u r c h lead-
ers r a t h e r t h a n t o p r o v i d e a b r o a d - b a s e d e d u c a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , t h e y
e s c h e w e d t h e arts in favor of biblical a n d practical courses like p a s t o -
ral care or e d u c a t i o n (yet w i t h o u t e d u c a t i o n a l t h e o r y d e r i v e d from
t h e universities). H o w e v e r , this m o v e m e n t was n o t so m u c h a retreat
from society as it was an a t t e m p t to preserve t h e B i b l e - b a s e d e d u c a -
rion o f t h e past. This c a m e to a h e a d in 1 9 2 9 , w h e n J. G r e s h a m

M a c h e n a n d R o b e r t D i c k W i l s o n r e s i g n e d from P r i n c e t o n a n d cre-
a t e d a n e w s c h o o l , W e s t m i n s t e r T h e o l o g i c a l S e m i n a r y , in P h i l a d e l -
p h i a . F r o m t h a t t i m e t h e s e p a r a t i o n was fairly c o m p l e t e , a n d for t h e
n e x t t w o d e c a d e s t h e r e was little d i a l o g u e b e t w e e n t h e liberal a n d
1
fundamentalist factions.
O n e e v e n t w h i c h illustrates t h e g r o w i n g rift was t h e so-called
" m o n k e y trial" in 1 9 2 5 o f J o h n S c o p e s , a t e a c h e r o f e v o l u t i o n in
D a y t o n , Tennessee. T h e scene, t r u m p e t e d a r o u n d the world by the
press, p i t t e d W i l l i a m J e n n i n g s B r y a n , g o l d e n - t o n g u e d o r a t o r a n d
f o u r - t i m e c a n d i d a t e for p r e s i d e n t of t h e U n i t e d States, against t h e
l e a d i n g trial lawyer o f his day, C l a r e n c e D a r r o w . T h e results are t o o
well k n o w n t o c h r o n i c l e : D a r r o w n o t o n l y d e m o l i s h e d Bryan's a r g u -
m e n t s b u t also h u m i l i a t e d his views. F r o m t h a t t i m e , f u n d a m e n t a l -
ism was increasingly c o n s i d e r e d a b a c k w a r d , r e a c t i o n a r y , a n d a n t i -
intellectual b a s t i o n of rural P r o t e s t a n t i s m .
T h e e n s u i n g years saw t w o d e v e l o p m e n t s w i t h i n f u n d a m e n t a l -
ism: a d i m i n u t i o n o f i n f l u e n c e in b r o a d sectors of A m e r i c a n life a n d
i n f i g h t i n g a m o n g t h e m s e l v e s . In t h e years o f The Fundamentals there
was a sense of u n i t y a m o n g t h e R e f o r m e d , W e s l e y a n , a n d m i l l e n a r i a n
s e g m e n t s . In fact, w e m u s t c o r r e c t t h e h y p e r b o l i c s t a t e m e n t s o f
S a n d e e n a n d o t h e r s t h a t f u n d a m e n t a l i s m was a m i l l e n a r i a n o r dis-
p e n s a t i o n a l m o v e m e n t (the view t h a t biblical h i s t o r y p r o c e e d e d via
p e r i o d s or " d i s p e n s a t i o n s " w i t h i n w h i c h G o d a t t e m p t e d in v a r i o u s
ways to b r i n g m a n k i n d b a c k i n t o fellowship w i t h h i m s e l f ) . W h i l e
this faction has b e c o m e p r e d o m i n a n t a m o n g c u r r e n t f u n d a m e n t a l -
ists, t h e origins of t h e m o v e m e n t were c o m p l e x a n d i n c l u d e d an a m a l -
g a m a t i o n o f m a n y t r a d i t i o n s . H o w e v e r w i t h t h e increased c o n t r o -
versies w i t h i n each g r o u p , t h e y lost c o n t a c t w i t h o n e a n o t h e r a n d in
t h e 1 9 3 0 s b e g a n s p l i t t i n g i n t o factions w i t h i n t h e m s e l v e s . ' T h e c o n -
c e r n for t h e o l o g i c a l p r e c i s i o n b e g a n t o e x t e n d t o p e r i p h e r a l as well as
c a r d i n a l t e n e t s o f t h e faith, a n d d e n o m i n a t i o n a l splits m u l t i p l i e d ,
often over t h e issue of s e p a r a t i o n (from C h r i s t i a n g r o u p s n o t d e e m e d
sufficiently o r t h o d o x ) . O f c o u r s e , t h e r e w e r e m o r e t h a n d o c t r i n a l
differences b e h i n d t h e s e w a r s . In a t i m e o f controversy, m a n y s t r o n g -
4
See Louis Gasper, The Fundamentalist Movement, 1930-1956 (Grand Rap-
ids: Baker Book H o u s e , 1981) 1-20 ("The Fundamentalist Herirage"), and N o r m a n
F. Furniss, The Fundamentalist Controversy, 1918-/931 (New Haven: Yale U n i -
versity Press, 1954) 1 1 7 - 8 8 .
- For reactions within the A r m i n i a n , Holiness, and Pentecostal sectors, see
Vinson Tyson, "Theological Boundaries: T h e A r m i n i a n Tradition," The Evangeli-
cals, ed. David F. Wells and John D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975) 38-57.
willed, c h a r i s m a t i c i n d i v i d u a l s c a m e t o t h e forefront. The p o w e r plays

a m o n g these leaders also c a u s e d m a n y of t h e splits. It is fair to say
t h a t m o s t o f t h e vast n u m b e r o f small d e n o m i n a t i o n s t o d a y c a m e
i n t o b e i n g in t h e late 1 9 2 0 s or t h e 1 9 3 0 s .
These i n t e r n a l conflicts as well as t h e p o o r i m a g e o f f u n d a m e n -
talism c a u s e d it t o lose p u b l i c visibility a n d i n f l u e n c e d u r i n g t h e
6
1 9 3 0 s . H o w e v e r , it w o u l d b e e r r o n e o u s t o c o n c l u d e t h a t it was d y -
i n g d u r i n g t h o s e years. Statistics, in fact, s h o w t h a t it c o n t i n u e d t o
grow, p a r t l y from t h e influx of i m m i g r a n t g r o u p s w h o a l i g n e d t h e m -
selves w i t h f u n d a m e n t a l i s t c o n c e r n s a n d p a r t l y from m a n y A m e r i -
cans w h o g r e w d i s e n c h a n t e d w i t h t h e m a i n s t r e a m d e n o m i n a t i o n s .
N e v e r t h e l e s s , d i s c o u r a g e m e n t was t h e o r d e r o f t h e d a y w i t h i n f u n d a -
m e n t a l i s m , p r i m a r i l y b e c a u s e t h e y h a d n o n a t i o n a l voice b u t also
b e c a u s e t h e splits h a d m a d e t h e s p l i n t e r g r o u p s s m a l l , ineffective
units w h i c h c o u l d n o t perceive t h e g r o w t h w i t h i n t h e scene as a w h o l e .
Moreover, the polemical, reactionary mindset which p r e d o m i n a t e d
w a s n o t a t t u n e d t o o p t i m i s m , t h a t is, t h e y c e n t e r e d u p o n t h e n e g a -
tive a s p e c t s o f t h e m o v e m e n t a n d c o u l d n o t p e r c e i v e t h e l a r g e r
7
picture.
In t h e 1 9 4 0 s a n e w g r o u p b e g a n t o e m e r g e , n o w k n o w n as
"evangelicalism." It differed from m i l i t a n t f u n d a m e n t a l i s m a l o n g sev-
eral lines: (1) a desire t o d i a l o g u e w i t h t h e w o r l d o f s c h o l a r s h i p , (2) a
disavowal o f radical s e p a r a t i o n (i.e., t h e view t h a t o n e h a d to sepa-
rate oneself from a n y g r o u p or p e r s o n n o t e s p o u s i n g t h e " p a r t y l i n e "
in its details as well as in its essentials), (3) a greater theological o p e n -
ness o n p e r i p h e r a l m a t t e r s , for i n s t a n c e o n eschatological issues, (4)
c o o p e r a t i v e e v a n g e l i s m , seen especially in t h e Billy G r a h a m c r u s a d e s
in t h e 1 9 5 0 s , (5) a m o r e eclectic e d u c a t i o n , as seen in t h e f o r m a t i o n
of Fuller S e m i n a r y in 1 9 4 7 , (6) a refusal t o align flag-waving, p o l i t i -
cal c o n s e r v a t i s m w i t h o r t h o d o x y , a n d (7) social c o n c e r n , for i n s t a n c e
6
George Marsden, " F r o m F u n d a m e n t a l i s m to Evangelicalism: A Historical
Analysis," The Evangelicals, Wells and W o o d b r i d g e , eds., 147, calls rhe period
from 1926 ro the 1940s a stage of "withdrawal a n d r e g r o u p i n g , ' d u r i n g which
rime sectarianism p r e d o m i n a r e d and b o r h separatism and millenarianism b e c a m e
resrs of orrhodoxy. T h i s , however, was true only in rhe mainstream of f u n d a m e n t a l -
ism. O n the edges, for insrance a m o n g m a n y reformed Wesleyan a n d Anabaprisr
groups, this did n o t hold true.
See Joel Carpenter, " F u n d a m e n t a l i s t Institutions and the Rise of Evangelical
Protestantism, 1 9 2 9 - 1 9 4 2 , " Church History 4 9 (1980) 7 3 - 7 5 . I Ie argues that the
four basic areas of fundamentalist activity (education, Bible conferences, radio broad-
casting, and foreign missions) demonstrated "a growing, d y n a m i c m o v e m e n t . " There
was no "American Religious Depression" in the 1930s b u t rarher a shift of e m p h a -
sis from polemics to evangelism.
t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f m i s s i o n a r y agencies w h i c h p r i m a r i l y d e a l t w i t h
w o r l d relief a n d m e d i c a l p r o b l e m s .
There are n o w t w o basic factions w i t h i n t h e u l t r a c o n s e r v a t i v e
c a m p , n a m e l y t h e f u n d a m e n t a l i s t a n d t h e evangelical. T h e m a j o r
issue w h i c h d i s t i n g u i s h e s t h e t w o is s e p a r a t i o n , w h i c h entails a m o r e
holistic set o f a t t i t u d e s r e g a r d i n g t h e Christian's r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e
w o r l d a n d o t h e r C h r i s t i a n g r o u p s . In m a n y cases t h e use o f t h e Bible
is very similar, especially o n t h e p o p u l a r level. B o t h g r o u p s t e n d t o
p r o o f - t e x t a n d t o a t o m i z e S c r i p t u r e (see f u r t h e r b e l o w ) . Yet w i t h re-
s p e c t t o external aspects t h e y differ m a r k e d l y . The f u n d a m e n t a l i s t s
t e n d to t a k e a negative a p p r o a c h t o o t h e r C h r i s t i a n g r o u p s a n d t o
s u c h " w o r l d l y " a m u s e m e n t s as m o v i e s , cards, d a n c i n g , etc. M o r e -
over, t h e y are often c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y " s e c o n d - d e g r e e s e p a r a t i o n , " i.e.,
s e v e r a n c e n o t o n l y f r o m t h e w o r l d o f l i b e r a l i s m b u t also f r o m
evangelicals w h o refuse t o d e t a c h t h e m s e l v e s from s u c h . T h e classic
e x a m p l e is t h e f u n d a m e n t a l i s t o p p o s i t i o n t o Billy G r a h a m because
o f his o p e n n e s s t o "liberal" p a r t i c i p a t i o n in his c r u s a d e s . The evan-
gelical, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , is m o r e o p e n t o s u c h t h i n g s as m o v i e s o r
r e c r e a t i o n o n S u n d a y . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e r e is a desire to d i a l o g u e w i t h
other Christian m o v e m e n t s a n d to cooperate where such does n o t
c o m p r o m i s e t h e basic tenets of evangelical d o g m a (see t h e seven p o i n t s
a b o v e ) . Evangelicals p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e Society o f Biblical L i t e r a t u r e
a n d a t t e n d m e e t i n g s of t h e N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of C h u r c h e s ( a l t h o u g h
there is great debate regarding the extent of participation in t h e latter).
T h e b r e a k b e t w e e n t h e t w o can b e s e e n , for i n s t a n c e , in t h e rival
n a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s . In S e p t e m b e r 1 9 4 1 , C a r l M c l n t i r e f o r m e d
t h e A m e r i c a n C o u n c i l of C h r i s t i a n C h u r c h e s ( A C C C ) a n d in O c t o -
b e r of t h a t year a n o t h e r c o n f e r e n c e was h e l d at M o o d y Bible I n s t i -
t u t e t o f o r m t h e N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f Evangelicals. T h e f o r m e r
o r g a n i z a t i o n specifically w i s h e d t o c o m b a t t h e Federal C o u n c i l o f
C h u r c h e s w h i l e t h e latter d i d n o t d e m a n d t h a t their m e m b e r s sever
all ties. W h i l e t h e t w o g r o u p s h a d q u i t e s i m i l a r views w i t h respect t o
S c r i p t u r e a n d o t h e r d o c t r i n e s , t h e y differed greatly in t e r m s o f a t t i -
t u d e s t o w a r d o u t s i d e r s (see t h e p r e v i o u s p a r a g r a p h ) .
H o w e v e r , o t h e r s p l i n t e r m o v e m e n t s w i t h i n t h e t w o g r o u p s have
o c c u r r e d . F u n d a m e n t a l i s m has seen several splits, for e x a m p l e t h a t
b e t w e e n M c l n t i r e a n d B o b J o n e s . J e r r y Falwell has b e e n m o v i n g m o r e
t o w a r d t h e evangelical c a m p in his r h e t o r i c , a l t h o u g h m a n y o f his
8
political s t a t e m e n t s are g e a r e d t o t h e f u n d a m e n t a l i s t . T h e A C C C
8
See Jerry Falwell, The Fundamentalist Phenomenon: The Resurgence of
Conservative Christianity ( G a r d e n City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981).
s p l i t a few y e a r s a g o b e t w e e n a m o d e r a t e f a c t i o n a n d a M c l n t i r e -
l e d s p l i n t e r g r o u p . The c u r r e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n is c o n t r o l l e d b y t h e
moderates.
E v a n g e l i c a l i s m is also d i v i d e d p r i m a r i l y o n t h e issue o f i n e r r a n c y .
9
The d e b a t e h a s b e e n c h r o n i c l e d in t h e t w o w o r k s o f H a r o l d L i n d s e l l ,
w h i c h u n f o r t u n a t e l y are h i g h l y p o l e m i c a l . T h e Evangelical T h e o -
logical Society, o r g a n i z e d in 1 9 4 9 t o p r o v i d e an eclectic f o r u m for
t h e o l o g i c a l d i s c u s s i o n , h a s m a d e i n e r r a n c y its o n l y d o c t r i n a l s t a t e -
m e n t so as to p r o v i d e a p l a t f o r m for differences o n o t h e r m a t t e r s . In
r e c e n t years, h o w e v e r , it h a s b e e n d i v i d e d o n a d e f i n i t i o n a n d criteria
for i n e r r a n c y . As a result, a n o t h e r o r g a n i z a t i o n , t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l
C o u n c i l o n Biblical I n e r r a n c y ( I C B I ) h a s b e e n f o r m e d to a d j u d i c a t e
a m o r e carefully d e f i n e d s t a t e m e n t o n t h e issue. Those w h o affirm
t h e d o c t r i n e o f total i n f a l l i b i l i t y / i n e r r a n c y are n o w s u b d i v i d e d i n t o
t w o f u r t h e r g r o u p s , o n e s e g m e n t s e e k i n g t o establish criteria for d e -
c i d i n g w h a t affirms t h e d o c t r i n e a n d a n o t h e r w i s h i n g t o allow flex-
ibility in d e t e r m i n i n g details.
This, o f c o u r s e , is n o t t o i n t i m a t e t h a t i n e r r a n c y is t h e sole or
even t h e m a j o r d i v i d i n g factor a m o n g evangelicals. M a n y o t h e r fac-
tors (e.g., h i g h versus l o w forms of w o r s h i p , e s c h a t o l o g i c a l views, t h e
c h a r i s m a t i c issue, t h e s a c r a m e n t s , w o m e n in t h e C h u r c h , ethical is-
sues, C a l v i n i s m versus A r m i n i a n i s m versus A n a b a p t i s m ) c o u l d b e
m e n t i o n e d . H o w e v e r , i n e r r a n c y m o s t clearly relates to t h e use of S c r i p -
t u r e a n d c u r r e n t l y is a m a j o r c o n t e n t i o n . 'The 1 9 8 2 m e e t i n g of t h e
Evangelical 'Theological S o c i e t y ( D e c e m b e r 1 5 - 1 7 , 1 9 8 2 ) c e n t e r e d
u p o n "biblical criticism" a n d c o n c l u d e d w i t h a basic a f f i r m a t i o n of
critical tools w h e n u s e d m o d e r a t e l y , i.e, as a m e a n s o f i n t e r p r e t i n g a
passage r a t h e r t h a n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e d e g r e e o f a u t h e n t i c i t y .
I. T H E EVANGELICAL AND SCRIP LURE
As o n e m i g h t d e t e r m i n e f r o m t h e p r e c e d i n g d i s c u s s i o n , t h e r e is
w i d e diversity a m o n g evangelicals w i t h respect t o t h e i r use of S c r i p -
ture. M a n y segments of the various camps do indeed e m p l o y an ato-
m i s t i c , p r o o f - t e x t i n g a p p r o a c h a n d s t r o n g l y d i s p a r a g e t h e use o f tools
like c o m m e n t a r i e s o r b a c k g r o u n d l i t e r a t u r e , s a y i n g t h a t t h e y i n v a r i -
ably focus u p o n p r o b l e m s of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a n d i n e v i t a b l y m o v e o n e
a w a y f r o m a c o m m i t m e n t t o t h e " s i m p l e g o s p e l . " This relic o f " c o m -
m o n sense realism" is still p r e v a l e n t . H o w e v e r , t h e interest in a p r o p e r
a p p r o a c h t o t h e Bible is c e r t a i n l y g r o w i n g , as w i t n e s s t h e r e c e n t u p -
'' H a r o l d Lindsell, Battle for the Bible ( G r a n d Rapids: Z o n d e r v a n , 1976), and

The Bible in the Balance (Grand Rapids: Z o n d e r v a n , 1979).
surge in evangelical w o r k s o n Bible s t u d y m e t h o d s o r h e r m e n e u t i c s .

T o be c e r t a i n , m a n y b o o k s g o n o f u r t h e r t h a n i n d u c t i v e Bible study.
H o w e v e r , o t h e r s are e x t r e m e l y s o p h i s t i c a t e d a n d a w a r e of t h e e n o r -
m o u s b o d y of l i t e r a t u r e , secular a n d religious, o n t h e p r o b l e m o f
literary i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . J. R o b e r t s o n M c Q u i l k i n , p r e s i d e n t o f C o -
l u m b i a Bible College, says, "Even a n i n t r o d u c t o r y t e x t b o o k o n h e r m e -
I0
n e u t i c s o u g h t t o be . . . t h o r o u g h l y g r o u n d e d in solid s c h o l a r s h i p . . . . "
It is very clear t h a t M c Q u i l k i n a n d o t h e r s d e n y t h e validity o f proof-
t e x t i n g . W a l t e r Kaiser states t h a t " ' p r o o f t e x t i n g , ' t h e isolation a n d
use o f verses a p a r t f r o m t h e i r i m m e d i a t e o r sectional c o n t e n t , is r e p -
r e h e n s i b l e a n d s h o u l d be d i s c o n t i n u e d i m m e d i a t e l y . " " R e c e n t g r a d u -
ates o f evangelical s c h o o l s have h a d s t r o n g courses in p r o p e r exegeti-
cal p r o c e d u r e .
A. Meaning and the Author-Text-Reader Problem
Evangelicals t r a d i t i o n a l l y stress " w h a t it m e a n t " as well as " w h a t

it m e a n s . " There is s t r o n g u n a n i m i t y w i t h respect to i n t e n t i o n a l i t y ,
i.e., t h e possibility o f r e c o v e r i n g t h e a u t h o r ' s i n t e n d e d m e a n i n g . The
m o d e r n h e r m e n e u t i c a l d i l e m m a s t e m s from t h e relation b e t w e e n a u -
t h o r , text, a n d reader. The a u t h o r creates t h e text in o r d e r t o c o m m u -
n i c a t e a certain i n t e n d e d message. The r e a d e r searches t h e text in
o r d e r t o discover a message, a n d it is here t h a t t h e p r o b l e m o c c u r s .
The a u t h o r is n o t p r e s e n t t o clarify t h e i n t e n d e d m e a n i n g , a n d read-
ers often find q u i t e different m e a n i n g s in t h e text. I n h e r e n t in this is
t h e difficulty o f p r e u n d e r s t a n d i n g , o f m o v i n g b e h i n d one's o w n p r e -
c o n c e i v e d n o t i o n s t o e n t e r i n t o t h e t h o u g h t - w o r l d of t h e text. W h e n
o n e goes t h e n e x t s t e p a n d seeks to discover t h e a u t h o r ' s i n t e n d e d
m e a n i n g , t h e task b e c o m e s i m m e a s u r a b l y m o r e c o m p l e x . As a result,
m a n y literary s c h o o l s p o s i t t h e a u t o n o m y o f t h e t e x t from t h e a u t h o r
a n d t o a g r e a t e r o r lesser degree p r o n o u n c e t h e i m p o s s i b i l i t y of ascer-
t a i n i n g t h e "author's i n t e n d e d m e a n i n g . " Instead, t h e focus has shifted
t o t h e reader, a n d t h e o r i e s o f " p o l y v a l e n c e " o r " m u l t i p l e m e a n i n g s "
p r e d o m i n a t e . As o n e e n t e r s t h e w o r l d of t h e text, a h e r m e n e u t i c a l
circle o c c u r s in w h i c h b o t h text a n d reader are altered. W h i l e total
" J. Robertson M c Q u i l k i n , Understanding and Applying the Bible (Chicago:

M o o d y Press, 1983) 10. See also J. I. Packer, "Infallible Scripture and the Role of
Hermeneutics,'' Scripture and Truth, ed. D . A. Carson and J o h n D . W o o d b r i d g e
(Grand Rapids: Z o n d e r v a n , 1983) 3 2 5 - 5 6 , w h o speaks of "the centraliry of h e r m e -
neutics today" ( 3 2 5 - 2 7 ) .
;l
Walter Kaiser, Toward an Exegetical Theology ( G r a n d Rapids: Baker, 1981)
8 2 . He clarifies this by arguing that a misuse of the "analogy of faith,' in w h i c h a
future passage is utilized to interpret a previous o n e , is equally w r o n g .
s u b j e c t i v i t y d o c s n o t result, t h e d y n a m i c transference of m e a n i n g
allows m a n y p o s s i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s t o o c c u r d e p e n d i n g o n t h e c o n -
12
text o r p e r s p e c t i v e o f t h e reader.
W h i l e r e c o g n i z i n g t h e t h o r n y p r o b l e m s i n v o l v e d in t h e task o f
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , evangelicals are n o t so p e s s i m i s t i c r e g a r d i n g t h e task
of d e t e r m i n i n g t h e i n t e n d e d m e a n i n g . W h i l e t h e r e is n o space t o
p r e s e n t d e t a i l e d a r g u m e n t s , I m i g h t m e n t i o n a few s a l i e n t p o i n t s . A t
t h e o u t s e t , t h e w o r k o f t h e literary critic E. D . H i r s c h has b e c o m e
very p o p u l a r . B u i l d i n g u p o n W i t t g e n s t e i n ' s t h e o r y of "family r e s e m -
b l a n c e s " b e t w e e n " l a n g u a g e g a m e s , " H i r s c h argues t h a t u n d e r s t a n d -
i n g is c o n n e c t e d t o " i n t r i n s i c g e n r e , " t h a t is, t h e "type o f u t t e r a n c e "
w h i c h n a r r o w s d o w n t h e "rules" t h a t a p p l y t o a p a r t i c u l a r s p e e c h .
W h i l e p r e u n d e r s t a n d i n g plays a m a j o r role in i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , t h e r e is
a basic g e n r e w h i c h is i n t r i n s i c t o a literary w o r k a n d w h i c h , w h e n
d i s c o v e r e d , can l e a d t o a c o r r e c t d e l i n e a t i o n of its original i n t e n d e d
5
meaning.'
H i r s c h separates m e a n i n g ( w h a t it m e a n t ) a n d significance ( w h a t
it m e a n s ) i n t o t w o s e p a r a t e aspects o f t h e h e r m e n e u t i c a l task. T h e
issue is w h e t h e r o n e can g e t b e h i n d t h e latter t o t h e former. After
lengthy discussion of the p r o b l e m of semantics a n d m e a n i n g , Moisés
Silva is c o n v i n c e d t h a t o n e c a n : "I take it as a valid a s s u m p t i o n t h a t
t h e i n t e r p r e t e r a p p r o a c h e s a n y text w i t h a m u l t i t u d e o f e x p e r i e n c e s
. . . t h a t i n f o r m his o r h e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h a t text. . . . B u t I
believe just as s t r o n g l y t h a t t h e i n t e r p r e t e r m a y transcend, t h o u g h
n o t e l i m i n a t e , t h a t p o i n t of reference. . . . T h e m o m e n t w e l o o k a t a
text w e c o n t e x t u a l ize it, b u t a self-awareness o f t h a t fact o p e n s u p t h e
possibility of m o d i f y i n g o u r p o i n t of reference in t h e l i g h t o f c o n t r a -
1
dictory data."'
For good discussions of rhis, see Charles M . W o o d , The Formation of Chris-

tian Understanding. An Essay in Theological Hermeneulics (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1981), and David H . Kelsey, The Uses of Scripture in Recent Theol-
ogy (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975). Kelsey has a "functional"' view of a u t h o r -
ity which sees Scripture as providing "patterns" rather t h a n concepts.
•' E. D . Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1967) 7 2 - 8 8 . For a slightly different proposal, centering on the text rather than the
author, see P. D . Juhl, Interpretation: An Essay in the Philosophy of Literary Criti-
cism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980) 1 2 - 1 5 . Two w h o follow closely
this a r g u m e n t are Walter Kaiser, " T h e Single Intent of Scripture," Evangelical Roots,
ed. K e n n e t h Kantzer (Nashville: T h o m a s Nelson, 1978), and Elliott J o h n s o n ,
Hermeneulics (Grand Rapids: Z o n d e r v a n , f o r t h c o m i n g ) .
: 1
Moisés Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexi-
cal Semantics (Grand Rapids: Z o n d e r v a n , 1983) 148. See also William W. Klein,
Craig I.. Blomberg, a n d R o b e r t I.. H u b b a r d , Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpre-
tation (Dallas: Word Books, 1993) 132-34.
A c o n n e c t e d issue relates t o t h e q u e s t i o n s of biblical a u t h o r i t y

a n d p r o p o s i t i o n a l revelation in S c r i p t u r e , i.e., t h a t t h e Bible is t h e
actual W o r d o f G o d in p r o p o s i t i o n a l f o r m r a t h e r t h a n a w i t n e s s t o
G o d ' s revelation. Paul A c h t e m e i e r asserts t h a t a c o n c e r n for an infal-
lible, p r o p o s i t i o n a l revelation has led t o t h e t y p e o f h a r m o n i z i n g (in
o r d e r t o solve discrepancies) w h i c h in effect is self-contradictory, since
it creates m o r e p r o b l e m s t h a n it s o l v e s . H e t h e r e f o r e p r o p o s e s a
d y n a m i c m o d e l w h i c h views i n s p i r a t i o n as a process i n v o l v i n g n o t
only t h e original tradition b u t later situations a n d respondents. Interest-
ingly, t h e type of "glib h a r m o n i z a t i o n " w h i c h A c h t e m e i e r attacks is also
denied by D . A. C a r s o n , w h o nevertheless argues further t h a t the m e t h o d
6
w h e n utilized as o n e a m o n g m a n y literary tools can be highly useful.'
T o return to the subject of propositional revelation, W a y n e
G r u d e m p r o v i d e s an extensive discussion of Scripture's "self-attesta-
t i o n , " a r g u i n g (1) t h a t all of t h e O l d Testament w r i t i n g s are c o n s i d -
e r e d G o d ' s w o r d s , (2) t h a t t h e w r i t t e n w o r d s of G o d have t h e s a m e
t r u t h - s t a t u s as t h e s p o k e n w o r d s o f G o d , a n d (3) t h a t t h e N e w Testa-
m e n t w r i t i n g s a t t a i n e d t h e s a m e status as t h e O l d Testament w r i t -
7
i n g s . ' H e c o n c l u d e s this after e x a m i n i n g i n t r o d u c t o r y f o r m u l a s a n d
claims t o a u t h o r i t y w i t h i n t h e biblical text. The i m p l i c a t i o n s are c r u -
cial for t h e evangelical claim to p r o p o s i t i o n a l revelation. I f G r u d e m ' s
f i n d i n g s are c o r r e c t , t h e Bible claims t o be t h e W o r d o f G o d , n o t
o n l y to testify to t h e W o r d o f G o d . M o r e o v e r , t h e Bible w o u l d d e -
m a n d t o be u n d e r s t o o d in t e r m s o f its o r i g i n a l m e a n i n g , n o t m e r e l y
be o p e n t o m u l t i p l e m e a n i n g s in v a r i o u s c o n t e x t s . This is at t h e h e a r t
o f t h e evangelical view o f S c r i p t u r e . I also c o n c u r w i t h A n t h o n y C .
T h i s e l t o n ' s excellent discussion o f a u t h o r i t y a n d t h e Bible's " l a n g u a g e
g a m e s . " H e argues t h a t b o t h static a n d d y n a m i c views are valid: 'The
Bible is m o r e t h a n "a h a n d b o o k o f i n f o r m a t i o n a n d d e s c r i p t i o n " in
t h a t it e m b r a c e s a " w h o l e r a n g e o f d y n a m i c s p e e c h - a c t s " ; yet at t h e
s a m e t i m e this p e r f o r m a t i v e e l e m e n t rests "on t h e t r u t h o f c e r t a i n
8
states o f affairs in G o d ' s relation to t h e w o r l d . " ' F e w evangelicals
;s
Paul Achtemeier, The Inspiration of Scripture: Problems and Proposals (Phila-
delphia: Westminster, 1980) 5 7 - 7 5 .
D . A. Carson, "Uniry and Diversity in t h e N e w Testament: T h e Possibility
of Systematic Theology," Scripture and Truth, ed. Carson and W o o d b r i d g e , 9 0 - 9 3
(cf. 139-41).
' Wayne A. G r u d e m , "Scripture's Self-Arrestation and rhe Problem of For-
mularing a Docrrine of Scriprure," Scripture and Truth, 4 9 (cf. 19-59).
:li
A. C . T h i s e l r o n , The Two Horizons: New Testament Hermeneulics and
Philosophical Description (Grand Rapids: F.erdmans, 1980) 4 3 7 (cf. 4 3 2 - 3 8 ) . See-
also his New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of Transforming
Biblical Reading (Grand Rapids: Z o n d e r v a n , 1992) 5 9 7 - 6 1 9 .
w o u l d a r g u e for a p u r e l y static v i e w of S c r i p t u r e . M o s t w o u l d see

b o t h static a n d d y n a m i c e l e m e n t s , w h i c h w e m i g h t align w i t h m e a n -
i n g a n d significance.
In r e c e n t evangelical h e r m e n e u t i c s , t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e r e a d e r
as i n t e r p r e t e r is i n c r e a s i n g l y r e c o g n i z e d . K l e i n , B l o m b e r g , a n d
H u b b a r d see t h r e e aspects in literary c r i t i c i s m : "(1) focus o n t h e
a u t h o r ' s i n t e n t in c o m p o s i n g t h e text, (2) t h e c o n v e n t i o n s of t h e text
1
t h a t reflect t h a t i n t e n t , a n d (3) t h e reader's r e s p o n s e t o t h e t e x t . " ' All
these e l e m e n t s i n t e r a c t in t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f m e a n i n g . Yet h o w d o e s
t h e reader align w i t h t h e i n t e n d e d m e a n i n g o f t h e text? T h i s e l t o n
believes t h a t t h e text p e r f o r m s a t r a n s f o r m i n g f u n c t i o n , g u i d i n g t h e
readers t o t h e n e w h o r i z o n s or life-worlds o f t h e text a n d c o n t r o l l i n g
23
t h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n of t h e reader in t h e t e x t . I see a u t h o r , text, a n d
r e a d e r e n g a g i n g in a t r i a l o g u e in c o m i n g - t o - u n d e r s t a n d i n g . W h i l e
t h e a u t h o r p r o d u c e s t h e text, it is t h e text n o t t h e a u t h o r t h a t t h e
r e a d e r s t u d i e s . R e a d e r s p a r t i c i p a t e in a u t h o r i a l / t e x t u a l m e a n i n g by
s t u d y i n g t h e exegetical aspects ( c o n t e x t , g r a m m a r , s e m a n t i c s , b a c k -
g r o u n d ) t h a t p r o v i d e clues t o m e a n i n g a n d t h e n b y l i s t e n i n g t o a n d
p a r t i c i p a t i n g in t h e d e m a n d s of t h e text. As readers w e recognize t h e
g u i d i n g i n f l u e n c e of o u r p r e u n d e r s t a n d i n g b u t place this in f r o n t of
t h e text (with t h e text g u i d i n g t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f m e a n i n g ) r a t h e r
21
t h a n b e h i n d t h e text ( w i t h us c o n t r o l l i n g t h e t e x t ) .
B. Literary Criticism
The first stage o f evangelical criticism o b v i o u s l y deals w i t h t h e

larger q u e s t i o n s o f g e n r e , p l o t , n a r r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e , a n d t h o u g h t d e -
v e l o p m e n t . T h e best c o n t r o l over t h e t e n d e n c y t o a t o m i z e i n d i v i d u a l
s t a t e m e n t s is c o n s t a n t c o g n i z a n c e of t h e e n t i r e c o n t e x t w i t h i n w h i c h
assertions are f o u n d . T h u s serious Bible s t u d y begins w i t h r h e t o r i c a l
c r i t i c i s m , t h e s t u d y o f t h e logical p a t t e r n s w h i c h c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e
total message. S o m e t e x t b o o k s o n h e r m e n e u t i c a l t h e o r y h a v e d i s -
cussed g e n r e u n d e r t h e r u b r i c "special r e v e l a t i o n . " H o w e v e r , these
texts are s e l d o m holistic o n g e n r e , for w h i l e t r a d i t i o n a l aspects like
figures o f s p e e c h , p a r a b l e s , a n d a p o c a l y p t i c are discussed, t h e r e is
s e l d o m coverage of gospels o r n a r r a t i v e h e r m e n e u t i c s . A n excellent
w o r k w h i c h rectifies this is How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth
by G o r d o n D . Fee a n d D o u g l a s S t u a r t , w i t h successive c h a p t e r s o n
19
Klein, Blomberg, H u b b a r d , Biblical Interpretation, 136.
H!
Thiselton, New Horizons, 61 1-19.
:
' See Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduc-
tion to Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity Press, 1991) 3 1 0 - 1 1 .
the basic genres: the epistles, O l d Testament narratives, Acts, the

Gospels, parables, the law(s), the p r o p h e t s , the Psalms, w i s d o m ,
and Revelation.
G e n r e has c o m e increasingly t o t h e fore in r e c e n t d e b a t e s o n t h e
G o s p e l s . N o t o n l y h a s a p l e t h o r a of w o r k s a p p e a r e d o n t h e gospel
g e n r e , b u t also it has led t o several s t u d i e s p u r p o r t i n g t o i n t e r p r e t t h e
gospel narratives o n t h e basis of g e n e r i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . This m a y
2 2
best b e exemplified by R o b e r t G u n d r y ' s c o m m e n t a r y o n M a t t h e w .
H e states t h a t s o m e of t h e M a t t h e a n p o r t i o n s of this gospel (e.g., t h e
M a g i ) are n o t historical b u t are "creative m i d r a s h , " Jewish fictional
pieces w h i c h w e r e m e a n t t o be i n t e r p r e t e d as s u c h b y his J e w i s h a u -
d i e n c e . H o w e v e r , m a n y feel t h a t G u n d r y has n o t d e f i n e d m i d r a s h
p r o p e r l y n o r h a s h e a p p l i e d p r o p e r parallels. G e n r e m u s t first be
i d e n t i f i e d correctly a n d t h e n t h e characteristics m u s t be d r a w n a d -
e q u a t e l y b e t w e e n t h e pieces o f l i t e r a t u r e .
O n c e t h e g e n r e has b e e n isolated, an e v e r - n a r r o w i n g series o f
c o n c e n t r i c a p p r o a c h e s delve d e e p e r a n d d e e p e r i n t o t h e text. H e r e
t h e evangelical h e r m e n e u t i c d e m o n s t r a t e s an affinity w i t h m o d e r n
t r e n d s , as r e c e n t schools (e.g., s t r u c t u r a l i s m , c a n o n c r i t i c i s m , r h e -
torical criticism) have m o v e d away from a stress o n t h e p a r t s ( t h e
e r r o r of f o r m criticism) t o t h e c e n t r a l i t y o f t h e w h o l e . Literary criti-
cism a s s u m e s t h a t t h e " w o r l d o f t h e text" as well as historical-critical
c o n c e r n s is a valid s o u r c e for study. The s y m m e t r y of t h e final p r o d -
u c t t h e r e f o r e is a p r i m a r y focus, a n d evangelical a p p r o a c h e s have
historically stressed this c o n t e x t u a l aspect. Interestingly, t h e m a j o r
Bible s t u d y a p p r o a c h s t e m m i n g from t h e " C o m m o n Sense R e a l i s m "
s c h o o l at t h e t u r n o f t h e c e n t u r y was t h e s y n t h e t i c m e t h o d d e s c r i b e d
in J a m e s Gray's How to Master the Bible ( 1 9 0 4 ) , w h i c h a s s u m e d t h e
23
priority of the w h o l e .
This r e m a i n s t h e c o r e o f m o d e r n - d a y i n d u c t i v e m e t h o d o l o g y ,
w h i c h begins b y c h a r t i n g t h e w h o l e s t r u c t u r e of a b o o k , d e l i n e a t i n g
t h e p a t t e r n of its a r g u m e n t a t i o n a n d its m a j o r t h e m e s . W i t h o u t t h e
s o p h i s t i c a t e d s t u d y o f c o m p o s i t i o n a l t e c h n i q u e s e x h i b i t e d in t h e
w o r l d of a c a d e m i a , t h e i n d u c t i v i s t still seeks t h e i n t e r p l a y of n a r r a -
" Roberr G u n d r y , Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological

Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981). See m y review arricie in TSF (Theological
Students Fellowship) Bulletin 61A (March-April 1983) 14-16, w h i c h relares the
c o m m e n t s of the symposia o n his work at ETS and AAR in D e c e m b e r 1982.
" See rhe discussion in Weber, " T h e T w o - E d g e d Sword," The Bible in America,
111-14. Weber describes this synthetic m e t h o d in this way: " O n c e the whole was
in h a n d , one could t u r n one's artention to a m o r e detailed srudy of its c o m p o n e n t
parts . . ." ( 1 1 2 - 1 3 ) .
rive factors in t h e text. Evangelical scholars are m o r e a n d m o r e b e i n g

t r a i n e d in literary t h e o r y a n d p r o d u c i n g w o r k s in this field. Yet t h e
so-called "Active" (rhetorical s c h o o l s a r g u e t h a t all narratives have
t h e basic e l e m e n t s o f "fiction," i.e., p l o t , s t r u c t u r e , character, c o n -
flict) c o m p o n e n t s s t e m m i n g from t h e s c h o o l o f n a r r a t i v e h e r m e n e u -
tics are s t r o n g l y criticized for t h e facile a s s u m p t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e
a e s t h e t i c e l e m e n t o f S c r i p t u r e . Evangelicals w o u l d w a n t t o restrict
fictive factors to t h a t g e n r e r a t h e r t h a n e x t e n d t h e m t o historical a n d
d i d a c t i c p o r t i o n s o f t h e Bible. W i t h respect to p a r a b l e s , for i n s t a n c e ,
evangelicals w o u l d utilize m o d e r n p a r a b l e research r e g a r d i n g t h e c o m -
plexity o f t h e interpretive task b u t w o u l d still seek t h e i n t e n d e d m e a n -
i n g of t h e p a r a b l e in its s e t t i n g as o p p o s e d t o t h e m u l t i p l e m e a n i n g s
a t t r i b u t e d b y s t r u c t u r a l i s t s . H o w e v e r , t h e y w o u l d differ in o t h e r re-
spects, w i t h s o m e still h o l d i n g t o t h e "single m e a n i n g " a p p r o a c h o f
21
Jiilicher a n d J e r e m í a s , b u t w i t h o t h e r s t a k i n g a m o d i f i e d "allegori-
2
cal" a p p r o a c h . '
C . Textual C r i t i c i s m
Evangelicals, w i t h their stress o n t h e p r o p o s i t i o n a l c o n t e n t of

S c r i p t u r e , are n a t u r a l l y very c o n c e r n e d t o ascertain t h e original w o r d s
of t h e biblical text. The description of t h e task by Professor H a r r i n g t o n
26
is very s i m i l a r to t h a t e m p l o y e d b y e v a n g e l i c a l s . Issues, however,
are slightly different. O n e m a j o r d e b a t e b e t w e e n f u n d a m e n t a l i s t s a n d
evangelicals c e n t e r s u p o n t h e textus receptus, t h e "received text" d e -
v e l o p e d b y E r a s m u s a n d t h a t b e h i n d t h e K i n g J a m e s Bible. Those
b e h i n d t h e " K i n g J a m e s o n l y " m o v e m e n t a r g u e for t h e " m a j o r i t y
text," i.e., t h e text s u p p o r t e d b y t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e a n c i e n t m a n u -
scripts. H o w e v e r , since m o s t e x e m p l a r s c o p i e d before A . D . 8 0 0 have
b e e n d e s t r o y e d , t h e m a j o r i t y of evangelical scholars a c c e p t t h e eclec-
tic m e t h o d d e v e l o p e d b y W e s t c o t t a n d H o r t r a t h e r t h a n t h e "received
text."
In s p i t e o f t h e c o m m i t m e n t t o t h e text, however, t h e r e is also a
p a u c i t y o f evangelical text-critics. M a n y h a v e d o n e text-critical re-
search in their d o c t o r a l w o r k , largely d u e t o t h e fact t h a t several g r a d u -
M
Sec Robert H . Stein, An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1981).
5
' See m y Hermenéutica/ Spiral, 2 3 5 - 4 9 , and Craig Blomberg, Interpreting
the Parables ( D o w n e r s Grove, 111.: InterVarsity Press, 1990). T h i s holds that Jesus
utilized allegory in his parables, and that there is no "single" thrust, b u t several
theological thrusts in Jesus' parables.
6
' See the chapter by Daniel H a r r i n g t o n in this volume.
ate p r o g r a m s will n o t allow exegetical s t u d i e s from an evangelical

p e r s p e c t i v e . H o w e v e r , few follow u p this p r o g r a m w i t h f u r t h e r text-
critical research. The reasons g i v e n b y Professor H a r r i n g t o n for t h e
p o o r state of textual criticism in C a t h o l i c circles a p p l y also t o t h e
evangelical s i t u a t i o n .
D . The Historical-Critical Method
T h e r e is a great d e b a t e in b o t h evangelical a n d n o n e v a n g e l i c a l
circles r e g a r d i n g t h e validity of historical-critical research. T h e pessi-
m i s m o f t h e a p p r o a c h a n d t h e a b s e n c e of c o n s t r u c t i v e results have
m a d e scholars from m a n y t r a d i t i o n s leery a b o u t its value. H o w e v e r ,
o n e m u s t differentiate various aspects o f a p a r t i c u l a r m e t h o d a n d
a v o i d l a b e l i n g t h e e n t i r e s c h o o l by its negative characteristics. This is
t h e d e b a t e w i t h i n evangelicalism a t t h e p r e s e n t t i m e . B o t h f o r m a n d
r e d a c t i o n criticism have b e e n closely identified w i t h t r a d i t i o n criti-
cism, w h i c h t e n d s t o d e t e r m i n e t h e a u t h e n t i c i t y of a p e r i c o p e or
s t o r y o n t h e basis o f its f o r m . If t h e s a y i n g o r s t o r y is s i m p l e r a t h e r
t h a n c o m p l e x , it is m o r e likely t o be a u t h e n t i c , t h a t is, t o s t e m from
t h e historical Jesus r a t h e r t h a n t h e later c h u r c h . T h e s e scholars t h e o -
rize t h a t t h e n e e d s of t h e C h u r c h w e r e r e a d b a c k o n t o t h e lips of
Jesus. Tradition critics t e n d to d e t e r m i n e t h e a u t h e n t i c i t y o f Jesus'
27
sayings in t h e G o s p e l s o n t h e basis o f t h r e e c r i t e r i a : (1) dissimilar-
ity, w h i c h a s s u m e s t h a t a s a y i n g is a u t h e n t i c o n l y if it c a n n o t be
paralleled e i t h e r in J u d a i s m o r in t h e early c h u r c h , (2) m u l t i p l e attes-
t a t i o n , w h i c h views a s a y i n g / p e r i c o p e as a u t h e n t i c if it can be t r a c e d
t h r o u g h several sources or layers of t r a d i t i o n , a n d (3) c o h e r e n c e , w h i c h
accepts a t r a d i t i o n t h a t is c o n s i s t e n t w i t h passages w h i c h have al-
ready been authenticated. However, the philosophical skepticism
b e h i n d these has b e e n c h a l l e n g e d from m a n y q u a r t e r s , a n d t h e a p -
p r o a c h is u n a c c e p t a b l e to evangelicals.
S o m e believe t h a t s u c h m e t h o d o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m s belie t h e m e t h o d
28
as w h o l e . They a r g u e for a h i s t o r i c a l - t h e o l o g i c a l r a t h e r t h a n a h i s -
torical-critical m e t h o d o n t h e g r o u n d s t h a t t h e f o r m e r is in closer
'•' For evangelical responses, see my " T h e F.vangelical and Traditionsgeschichte"

in The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 2 1 / 2 (1978) 1 17-30, and R.
H . Siein, " T h e 'Criteria' for Authenticity,'' Gospel Perspectives /, ed. R. T. France
and David W e n h a m (Sheffield: J S O T Press, 1980) 225-6.3.
See Gerhard Maier, The End of the Historical Critical Method (Sr. Louis:
C o n c o r d i a , 1977), and G e r h a r d Hasel, Understanding the Living Word of God
(Motinrain View, Calif.: Pacific Press, 1980).
p r o x i m i t y to t h e biblical view o f itself. The r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e

"original e v e n t " is v i e w e d as a s p e c u l a t i v e e n t e r p r i s e w h i c h c a n never
p r o v i d e a c o n s t r u c t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e to t h e text as it is. O t h e r s , like t h e
c a n o n critics, a c c e p t t h e criticisms b u t assert t h a t o n e m u s t n o t t a k e
a "naive" a p p r o a c h t o t h e text. Evangelicalism is d i v i d e d o n t h e issue,
a l t h o u g h I a d m i t t h a t I s t a n d m o r e closely t o t h e l a t t e r p o s i t i o n .
R e d a c t i o n criticism is a case in p o i n t . W h i l e f o r m criticism s o u g h t
t h e Sitz irn Leben or social m a t r i x from w h i c h various s t r a t a of t r a d i -
t i o n s t e m m e d , r e d a c t i o n criticism has s t u d i e d t h e final a u t h o r ' s c o n -
t r i b u t i o n . In so d o i n g , m a n y critics have a s s u m e d t h a t o n l y t h o s e
s e g m e n t s p e c u l i a r t o a n i n d i v i d u a l evangelist carry his i m p r i m a t u r .
H o w e v e r , s u c h a s u p p o s i t i o n lacks proof, for t h e biblical w r i t e r s used
t h e t r a d i t i o n s t h e m s e l v e s as well as a d d i t i o n s / o m i s s i o n s in p r e s e n t -
i n g t h e i r messages. M o r e o v e r , m o s t evangelicals are n o t s o s e t t l e d o n
t h e classical form of t h e d o c u m e n t a r y h y p o t h e s i s ( M a t t h e w a n d L u k e
u t i l i z i n g M a r k a n d Q ) t h a t t h e y will b u i l d e n t i r e edifices of i n t e r p r e -
t a t i o n u p o n it. W h i l e it is c o m m o n l y a c c e p t e d as a w o r k i n g h y p o t h -
esis, few w o u l d wish to m a k e it t h e core of r e d a c t i o n - c r i t i c a l research.
Therefore, b o t h in t e r m s o f t r a d i t i o n a n d s o u r c e criticism, t h e r e is a
degree of caution toward a full-blown redactional p r o g r a m .
N e v e r t h e l e s s , a t a r e c e n t E'TS (Evangelical 'Theological Society)
m e e t i n g ( 1 9 8 2 ) t h e basic a p p r o a c h was affirmed. The theological
goals of r e d a c t i o n criticism parallel b o t h r h e t o r i c a l criticism (in t h e
c e n t r a l i t y o f s t r u c t u r e ) a n d biblical t h e o l o g y (in t h e d e l i n e a t i o n of
t h e i n d i v i d u a l a u t h o r ' s message). I n d e e d , t h e basic desire t o p r o t e c t
t h e a u t h o r ' s i n t e n d e d m e a n i n g is best fulfilled b y r e d a c t i o n c r i t i c i s m ,
w h i c h accents t h e final f o r m over t h e s e p a r a t e t r a d i t i o n s . For these
reasons t h e r e is a g r o w i n g a f f i r m a t i o n of a n u a n c e d m e t h o d o l o g y
w i t h i n evangelicalism. In similar fashion, a carefully c o n t r o l l e d his-
torical-critical m e t h o d is s t r o n g l y q u e s t i o n e d b u t n o t n e g a t e d , a n d
t h e q u e s t i o n s a d d r e s s e d t o it are very s i m i l a r t o t h o s e a s k e d b y t h e
broader spectrum of scholarship.
E. Biblical B a c k g r o u n d s
D i s c i p l i n e s w h i c h u n c o v e r d a t a b e a r i n g u p o n biblical h i s t o r y
a n d c u s t o m s h a v e always b e e n r e p r e s e n t e d heavily in t h e evangelical
s c h o o l . The c o n c e r n for t h e exact m e a n i n g o f t h e text n a t u r a l l y leads
t o a n e m p h a s i s u p o n t h e fields o f archaeology, a n c i e n t l a n g u a g e s ,
a n d history. A t t i m e s t h e r e h a v e b e e n hasty c o n c l u s i o n s d r a w n re-
g a r d i n g t h e a p o l o g e t i c value of such finds as J e r i c h o o r t h e H i t t i t e s ,
a n d careful scholars n o w p r o c l a i m correctly t h a t t h e p r i m a r y value
of a r c h a e o l o g y is d e s c r i p t i v e ( p r o v i d i n g d a t a for u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e
biblical w o r l d ) r a t h e r t h a n a p o l o g e t i c ( p r o v i n g t h e historical reliabil-
19
ity of a c c o u n t s ) , since results are so t e n t a t i v e . H o w e v e r , t h e value o f
s u c h discoveries is i m m e n s e , a n d o u r k n o w l e d g e o f t h e biblical w o r l d
has increased d r a m a t i c a l l y in r e c e n t years.
There are several criteria for d e c i d i n g w h e n an extrabiblical p a r -
allel m a y b e a d d u c e d in e l u c i d a t i n g a text: (1) D o n o t a s s u m e t h a t
a n y t h e m a t i c l i n k c o n s t i t u t e s a genealogical r e l a t i o n s h i p . H i s t o r y -
of-religions scholars have often a s s u m e d t h a t H e l l e n i s t i c parallels were
s u p e r i o r t o J e w i s h parallels; o n e m u s t see w h i c h m o r e closely eluci-
dates t h e text. (2) M a k e c e r t a i n t h a t it c o m e s from t h e s a m e p e r i o d ;
t h e m y s t e r y religions, for i n s t a n c e , s t e m from a later p e r i o d a n d c a n -
n o t b e b e h i n d s u c h N e w 'Testament practices as b a p t i s m . Also Tal-
m u d i c e v i d e n c e has often b e e n u s e d t o o casually w i t h o u t a s k i n g
w h e t h e r it t r u l y s t e m m e d from t h e p r e - A . D . 7 0 J e w i s h s i t u a t i o n . (3)
W o r k n o t o n l y w i t h t h e c u r r e n t s i t u a t i o n at t h e t i m e of w r i t i n g b u t
also w i t h t h e historical d e v e l o p m e n t b e h i n d it. I n t e r t e s t a m e n t a l al-
l u s i o n s are critical for u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e m i n d s e t o f t h e N e w 'Testa-
m e n t w r i t e r s . (4) Be holistic in y o u r search. W e can n o l o n g e r as-
s u m e t h a t e i t h e r J u d a i s m or H e l l e n i s m is solely r e s p o n s i b l e for N e w
Testament ideas, n o r t h a t C a n a a n i t e practices are r e s p o n s i b l e for O l d
Testament d e v e l o p m e n t . R e c e n t s t u d i e s have s h o w n h o w c o s m o p o l i -
t a n t h e a n c i e n t w o r l d actually w a s . (5) L o o k a t w o r d i n g a n d style. If
t h e c o n n e c t i o n is n o m o r e t h a n c o n c e p t u a l , it is possible b u t less
likely t h a n if o n e can d e n o t e a n allusion t o t h e parallel piece. (6) If
differences o u t w e i g h similarities, o n e s h o u l d c o n s i d e r o t h e r o p t i o n s .
Preliminary theories regarding the influence of Q u m r a n on the N e w
' T e s t a m e n t (e.g., w i t h Jesus o r J o h n t h e Baptist) h a v e b e e n d i s c a r d e d
b e c a u s e t h e similarities were o v e r d r a w n .
M o s t i m p o r t a n t l y , historical b a c k g r o u n d is d e e m e d a b s o l u t e l y
critical for a p r o p e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e text. The evangelical d e -
m a n d for p r o p o s i t i o n a l t r u t h has always p r o d u c e d a g r e a t desire to
d e t e r m i n e t h e literal m e a n i n g o f S c r i p t u r e . This c a n n o t be d o n e a d -
e q u a t e l y w i t h o u t a p p l y i n g t h e b a c k g r o u n d b e h i n d t h e biblical s t a t e -
m e n t s , for o n e m u s t r e c o g n i z e t h e analogical n a t u r e o f biblical l a n -
g u a g e a n d t h e c u l t u r a l g a p b e t w e e n it a n d o u r day. To o v e r c o m e t h a t
g a p , historical d a t a is a critical n e e d .
"' See E d w i n Y a m a u c h i , The Stones and the Scriptures (Philadelphia:

I.ippincott, 1972) 146-57.
F. Semantics and Grammar
M a n y evangelical schools still r e q u i r e G r e e k a n d H e b r e w , a n d

t h e biblical l a n g u a g e s are d e e m e d necessary for p r o p e r i n t e r p r e t a -
t i o n . T h e classical t e n e t s of g r a m m a t i c a l - s y n t a c t i c a l exegesis are at
t h e h e a r t o f t h e h e r m e n e u t i c a l task. S t u d e n t s are r e q u i r e d t o s t u d y
a r d u o u s l y t h e classical g r a m m a r s s u c h as B l a s s - D e b r u n n e r - F u n k ,
M o u l t o n - H o p e - 1 u r n e r , Z e r w i c k a n d M o u l e for G r e e k , o r G e s e n i u s -
K a u t z s c h , H a r t m a n n , a n d L a m b d i n for H e b r e w . M o r e o v e r , t h e c o g -
n a t e l a n g u a g e s s u c h as A k k a d i a n , S u m e r i a n , U g a r i t i c , a n d A r a m a i c
are t a u g h t t o t h o s e w h o wish t o specialize. In fact, T r i n i t y Evangeli-
cal D i v i n i t y S c h o o l is o n e o f t h e c e n t e r s d e v e l o p i n g a n e x c i t i n g t o o l
for g r a m m a t i c a l research, called G R A M C O R D , i.e., a G r a m m a t i c a l
C o n c o r d a n c e for t h e biblical l a n g u a g e s e m p l o y i n g c o m p u t e r p r o -
g r a m m i n g . T h e g r a m m a t i c a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n of t h e e n t i r e N e w Testa-
m e n t in G r e e k has b e e n c o d e d i n t o t h e c o m p u t e r , a n d s i m i l a r p r o -
g r a m s are in process for t h e H e b r e w O l d T e s t a m e n t as well as for t h e
S e p t u a g i n t a n d s u c h extrabiblical l i t e r a t u r e as J o s e p h u s a n d P h i l o .
G r a m m a t i c a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n s can n o w b e t r a c e d w i t h p r e c i s i o n a n d
s p e e d , a n d s t u d e n t s in o u r a d v a n c e d g r a m m a r c o u r s e are already re-
w o r k i n g m a j o r g r a m m a t i c a l c o n c e p t s . J u d g i n g from t h e g r o w i n g
n u m b e r of S B L (Society of Biblical L i t e r a t u r e ) s e m i n a r s a n d p a p e r s
o n this t o p i c , this is clearly o n e o f t h e m a j o r m o v e m e n t s for t h e n e x t
decade.
L e x i c o g r a p h y , t h e m e a n i n g o f i n d i v i d u a l w o r d s a n d c o n c e p t s , is
also receiving n e w i m p e t u s in o u r day. T h e n u m b e r o f tools available
for w o r d studies has risen r e m a r k a b l y , a n d h i g h l y s o p h i s t i c a t e d s t u d -
ies a l o n g t h e lines o f J a m e s Barr's classic Semantics of Biblical Lan-
guage ( 1 9 6 1 ) are readily available. In a d d i t i o n to t h e t e n - v o l u m e
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, t h e r e is t h e w e l l - w r i t -
t e n t h r e e - v o l u m e New International Dictionary of New 'Testament
Theology, t h e t h r e e - v o l u m e Exegetical Dictionary of the New 'Testa-
ment, a n d m a n y similar w o r k s . W h i l e t o an e x t e n t m a n y fall i n t o
Barr's criticism o f "illegitimate t o t a l i t y transfer" (i.e., t h e t e n d e n c y t o
r e a d t h e w h o l e t h e o l o g y b e h i n d a c o n c e p t i n t o i n d i v i d u a l uses o f a
t e r m ) , t h e r e is e v i d e n c e for a g r o w i n g a p p r e c i a t i o n for p r o p e r lexical
t e c h n i q u e s (e.g, Silva's w o r k in n. 14).
O n e m a j o r i m p r o v e m e n t lies in t h e use of parallels. In t h e p a s t it
has b e e n c o m m o n t o read a n y possible parallel passage i n t o t h e m e a n -
i n g o f an i n d i v i d u a l s t a t e m e n t . T h u s t h e r e w o u l d be articles o n t h e
Essene b a c k g r o u n d of t h e i n c a r n a t i o n a l t h e o l o g y of H e b r e w s 2 a l o n g -
side articles o n t h e H e l l e n i s t i c o r i g i n of t h a t passage. N o w t h e r e is a
g r e a t e r t e n d e n c y to differentiate s e e m i n g parallels from t r u e p a r a l -

lels. N o l o n g e r can w e i n t e r p r e t James's d i s c u s s i o n o f faith a n d w o r k s
s i m p l y o n t h e basis o f Paul's t e a c h i n g . N o w w e m u s t e x a m i n e t h e
s e m a n t i c l i n k a g e a n d t h e c o n t e x t u a l m e a n i n g in b o t h c o n t e x t s b e -
fore w e establish c o n n e c t i v e lines b e t w e e n t h e t w o . I believe t h a t t h e
differences o u t w e i g h t h e similarities a n d t h a t t h e r e f o r e w e c a n n o t
establish a valid l i n k b e t w e e n Paul a n d J a m e s .
The evangelical heritage, from A. T. R o b e r t s o n a n d J. B. L i g h t f o o t
at t h e t u r n of t h e c e n t u r y t o F. F. B r u c e a n d I. H o w a r d M a r s h a l l
today, has always s h o w n p r i m a r y i n t e r e s t in this a s p e c t o f h e r m e n e u -
tics. T h e m i n u t i a e o f t h e text h a v e always h a d a p a r t i c u l a r fascina-
t i o n for evangelical p r e a c h e r s , as w i t n e s s t h e n u m b e r o f years M a r t i n
Lloyd-Jones s p e n t p r e a c h i n g o n R o m a n s or J a m e s M o n t g o m e r y Boice
o n t h e G o s p e l o f J o h n . T h i s of c o u r s e is i n t i m a t e l y c o n n e c t e d to t h e
view o f S c r i p t u r e , b u t it also is seen in t h e c o n c o m i t a n t d e m a n d for
accuracy, t h a t is, t h e n e e d t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e p a r t s before e x p o u n d -
ing the whole.
G. Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology
T h e q u e s t i o n o f u n i t y a n d diversity in t h e Bible has l o n g fasci-

n a t e d scholars. R e c e n t l y it has c o m e t o t h e fore in t h e d e b a t e o n t h e
validity of s y s t e m a t i c theology. The r e f o r m e r s stressed t h e p r i n c i p l e
of analogia fidei, t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l p o r t i o n s of S c r i p -
t u r e o n t h e basis o f o t h e r p o r t i o n s . S i n c e t h e rise of t h e biblical t h e -
o l o g y m o v e m e n t in G e r m a n y in t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y , this p r i n -
ciple has b e e n u n d e r attack. T h e diverse e m p h a s e s o f i n d i v i d u a l p o r -
t i o n s of t h e Bible h a v e so b e e n stressed t h a t any possibility of a t t a i n -
i n g a unified field o f m e a n i n g w h i c h cuts across t h e differences has
often b e e n rejected as an i m p o s s i b l e task. T h e o l o g y , it is n o w b e i n g
said, is d e s c r i p t i v e r a t h e r t h a n n o r m a t i v e .
Evangelicals have always rejected this d i c h o t o m y as u n n e c e s s a r y
(see C a r s o n ' s article in n. 16). T h e basic u n i t y is n o t a given, for it
m u s t be d e m o n s t r a t e d . D i v e r s i t y is c e r t a i n l y p r e s e n t b e t w e e n t h e
d o c u m e n t s . Yet t h i s diversity d o e s n o t rule o u t o f h a n d t h e unity,
a n d scholars a r g u e t h a t an i n t e r p r e t e r can a m a l g a m a t e i n d i v i d u a l
s t a t e m e n t s i n t o " c o v e r i n g m o d e l s " w h i c h unify t h e diverse a p p r o a c h e s
t o an issue i n t o an overall biblical theology. Evangelicals w o u l d seek
t o m a i n t a i n diversity (biblical t h e o l o g y ) a n d yet to d e t e r m i n e t h e
u n d e r l y i n g u n i t y b e h i n d it ( s y s t e m a t i c t h e o l o g y ) . T o stress t h e diver-
sity a t t h e e x p e n s e o f t h e u n i t y is r e d u c t i o n i s t i c ; t o stress t h e u n i t y
a n d i g n o r e t h e diversity is s p e c u l a t i v e a n d subjective. W h e n o n e goes
b e y o n d t h e surface l a n g u a g e to t h e u n d e r l y i n g c o n c e p t s , t h e diverse
s t a t e m e n t s are often seen to be c o m p a t i b l e .
N e v e r t h e l e s s , o n e c a n n o t ignore t h e surface m e a n i n g a n d "proof-
text" d o g m a . It is also increasingly r e c o g n i z e d t h a t isolated biblical
s t a t e m e n t s d o n o t s t a t e d o g m a t i c t r u t h s as m u c h as a p p l y aspects of
t h e larger t r u t h t o c i r c u m s t a n t i a l n e e d s in t h e c o m m u n i t y a d d r e s s e d
by t h e b o o k . D o g m a is d e t e r m i n e d b y a c o m p l e x p r o c e s s . First, o n e
n o t e s all t h e biblical passages w h i c h address a p a r t i c u l a r t o p i c a n d
exegetes t h o s e passages in t e r m s o f t h e i r o r i g i n a l , i n t e n d e d m e a n i n g .
H e r e i n o n e n o t e s t r e m e n d o u s diversity o f e m p h a s i s a n d expression.
N e x t , t h e t h e o l o g i a n b e g i n s t h e task of c o m p i l a t i o n . First, he or
s h e e l u c i d a t e s t h e biblical t h e o l o g y o f b o o k s a n d t h e n a u t h o r s o n
t h i s t o p i c . S e c o n d , o n e d e t e r m i n e s t h e larger u n i t y w i t h i n m a j o r tra-
d i t i o n s , e.g., t h e p a t r i a r c h a l / m o n a r c h i c a l o r p r o p h e t i c p e r i o d s in t h e
O l d T e s t a m e n t o r t h e Palestinian o r G e n t i l e m i s s i o n p e r i o d s of t h e
N e w T e s t a m e n t . T h i r d , t h e full-fledged d o c t r i n e is t r a c e d t h r o u g h
t h e biblical p e r i o d , n o t i n g shifts o f i n t e r e s t a n d t h e p r o g r e s s o f rev-
e l a t i o n in s a l v a t i o n - h i s t o r y . This o c c u r s u n d e r t h e aegis of biblical
theology. Finally, t h e s y s t e m a t i c t h e o l o g i a n takes this d a t a , seen in its
diversity a n d unity, a n d restates it a l o n g t h e lines first of t h e h i s t o r y
of d o g m a a n d s e c o n d of t h e cultural expressions of t h e c u r r e n t
a g e . In s h o r t , h e o r s h e r e w o r k s t h e b i b l i c a l m a t e r i a l s o t h a t it
m a y be u n d e r s t o o d logically, in its w h o l e a n d in its p a r t s , b y t h e
modern person.
H . Contextualization
W e have m o v e d f r o m " w h a t it m e a n t " ( t h e task o f exegetical

t h e o l o g y a n d biblical t h e o l o g y ) t o " w h a t it m e a n s " (the task of sys-
tematic theology a n d homiletical theology). Contextualization, the
h e r m e n e u t i c a l side of h o m i l e t i c a l theology, is t h e final s t e p , l i n k e d
w i t h t h e task o f p r o c l a m a t i o n . "Fhe t h e o r y has b e e n d e v e l o p e d b y
missiologists w h o are c o n c e r n e d for cross-cultural c o m m u n i c a t i o n .
Evangelicals, historically l i n k e d t o pietistic a n d revivalist c o n c e r n s ,
have always stressed this aspect. C o n t e x t u a l i z a t i o n says t h a t t h e task
of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is never c o m p l e t e u n t i l o n e has w e d d e d t h e exegesis
of t h e W o r d t o an exegesis of t h e w o r l d . F h e d e b a t e o n this issue
c e n t e r s u p o n t h e interface b e t w e e n t h e t w o s p h e r e s . If t h e W o r d of
G o d is p r o p o s i t i o n a l , o n e can " c o n t e x t u a l i z e " t h e f o r m b u t n o t t h e
c o n t e n t of t h e biblical m e s s a g e . If it is f u n c t i o n a l (see n. 1 2 ) , t h e
current context would control the interpretation and one would de-
v e l o p an " i n d i g e n o u s t h e o l o g y " (the claim of t h e l i b e r a t i o n t h e o l o -
g i a n , for i n s t a n c e ) . T h e evangelical has always a r g u e d for t h e f o r m e r

stance.
The c o n t e x t u a l i z a t i o n c o n c e r n s t h e q u e s t i o n o f n o r m a t i v e ver-
sus c u l t u r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . T h e i n t e r p r e t e r asks w h e t h e r t h e biblical
c o m m a n d o r p r i n c i p l e is totally l i n k e d t o t h e c u l t u r a l s i t u a t i o n (e.g.,
Paul's u r b a n - c e n t e r e d e v a n g e l i s m at E p h e s u s in Acts 19) or w h e t h e r
t h e t e a c h i n g t r a n s c e n d s t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s a n d is n o r m a t i v e for all
ages (e.g., t h e S e r m o n o n t h e M o u n t ) . For i n s t a n c e , this q u e s t i o n is
b e h i n d t h e w i d e s p r e a d d e b a t e o n t h e o r d i n a t i o n o f w o m e n in light
of 1 C o r . 1 4 : 3 4 - 3 6 a n d 1 T i m . 2 : 8 - 1 5 . S o m e a r g u e t h a t t h e use of
c r e a t i o n a n d t h e fall in t h e s e passages a n c h o r s t h e c o m m a n d t o si-
lence ( n o t t o teach) in G o d ' s r e d e m p t i v e d e c r e e s , a n d t h e r e f o r e it is
m e a n t for all ages. O t h e r s a r g u e t h a t t h e c u l t u r a l b a c k g r o u n d a n d
the distance between the underlying principle (submission to hus-
b a n d s ) a n d t h e c o m m a n d ( n o t t o teach) d e m o n s t r a t e s a cultural rather
t h a n s u p r a c u l t u r a l n o r m . T h e p r i n c i p l e is t h a t t h e s u p r a c u l t u r a l c o n -
t e n t o f S c r i p t u r e is e t e r n a l / u n i v e r s a l w h i l e c u l t u r a l f o r m s will a p p l y
t h e u n d e r l y i n g p r i n c i p l e differently d e p e n d i n g u p o n t h e c o n t e x t .
C o n t e x t u a l i z a t i o n w o r k s w i t h t h e results o f t h e exegesis a n d c u l -
t u r a l / s u p r a c u l t u r a l d e l i n e a t i o n . It applies t h e biblical t e a c h i n g t o t h e
r e c e p t o r c u l t u r e , a n d its p u r p o s e is t o allow t h e W o r d t o e n c o u n t e r
t h e w o r l d . A t t i m e s it will c o n f o r m to c u r r e n t c u l t u r e , a n d at o t h e r
t i m e s it will c o n f r o n t m o d e r n m a n . I n t h e latter sense, S c r i p t u r e will
c h a l l e n g e a n d t h e n t r a n s f o r m t h a t c u l t u r e . For t h e evangelical, it is
i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e , this is n o t a subjective d e c i s i o n . T h e a u t h o r i t y of
t h e a p p l i c a t i o n varies in d i r e c t p r o p o r t i o n t o its c o n f o r m i t y to t h e
m e a n i n g of t h e text. F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e level of a u t h o r i t y lessens as
o n e m o v e s a w a y f r o m t h e S c r i p t u r e itself. I n t e r p r e t a t i o n , since it is
finite, has less a u t h o r i t y t h a n the text, a n d contextualization, a n o t h e r
step away from interpretation, has even less authority. Therefore, for t h e
evangelical, t h e process of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n - c o n t e x t u a l i z a t i o n m u s t re-
m a i n tied t o t h e p r o p o s i t i o n a l c o n t e n t of G o d ' s revelation. A g a i n ,
it is t h e d y n a m i c o r f u n c t i o n a l a s p e c t o f b i b l i c a l a u t h o r i t y .
I. H e r m e n e u t i c s : A S u m m a r y
It is i m p o r t a n t to realize t h a t t h e evangelical p r i n c i p l e s eluci-

d a t e d a b o v e are q u i t e d i s t i n c t f r o m t h e lines of a u t h o r i t y e l u c i d a t e d
by H a r r i n g t o n , P r o k u r a t , a n d Burgess (in t h i s v o l u m e ) . The Refor-
m a t i o n p r i n c i p l e of sola scriptura a n d t h e S c o t t i s h C o m m o n Sense
Realism o f t h e last c e n t u r y h a v e p r o d u c e d an e x t r e m e l y eclectic s i t u -
a t i o n . There is n o t t h e t y p e o f u n i f o r m i t y s t e m m i n g from t h e C a t h o -
lie p r i n c i p l e o f t h e m a g i s t e r i u m . The sense of t r a d i t i o n is still t r u e in

e v a n g e l i c a l i s m , b u t it is u n d e r t h e surface of c o n t e m p o r a r y e x p o s i -
t i o n a n d is r e s t r i c t e d t o d e n o m i n a t i o n a l d i s t i n c t i v e s . This f r e e d o m
has forced m e to discuss c o n s t a n t l y the different c a m p s w i t h i n
evangelicalism o n e a c h of t h e issues a b o v e .
A b o v e all, t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f d i a l o g u e , or w h a t I m a y call " c o m -
m u n i t y exegesis," m u s t b e stressed. It is t h r o u g h t h e i n t e r a c t i o n of
t h e t r a d i t i o n s t h a t c o n s e n s u s is r e a c h e d . This relates t o t h e issue o f
s e p a r a t i o n d i s c u s s e d a b o v e a n d d e p e n d s largely u p o n t h e evangelical
w i l l i n g n e s s to d i a l o g u e w i t h diverse t r a d i t i o n s in o r d e r to arrive at
" t r u t h . " F o r i n s t a n c e , w h i l e t h e r e is d e b a t e r e g a r d i n g t h e e x t e n t o f
i n e r r a n c y , t h e r e is c o n s e n s u s w i t h respect t o t h e p r o p o s i t i o n a l c o n -
t e n t of Scripture a n d the presence of b o t h static a n d d y n a m i c aspects
of i n s p i r a t i o n . T h e Bible deals w i t h u n i v o c a l t r u t h s e x p r e s s e d in a n a -
logical l a n g u a g e , a n d so it is i m p o r t a n t t o d i s t i n g u i s h f o r m from
c o n t e n t . T h e exact details a n d significance of specific s t a t e m e n t s m a y
differ, b u t t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e Bible for m o d e r n life is u n i l a t e r a l l y
a c c e p t e d . As is t h e case w i t h C a t h o l i c i s m , evangelicalism is tied m o r e
t o t h e C h u r c h t h a n t o t h e a c a d e m y . T h e issues o f o u r d a y set t h e
a g e n d a for m u c h o f s c h o l a r l y research, a n d it is s t r o n g l y a r g u e d t h a t
t h e Bible m u s t relate t o m o d e r n life if it is t o b e relevant. T h e steps of
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n as e x p l i c a t e d a b o v e are all necessary to t h i s task.
II. CASE STUDY—EPHESIANS 2 : 1 - 1 0
W h i l e t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e a u t h o r s h i p o f E p h e s i a n s is n o t c r u c i a l
t o t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h i s b o o k , m o s t evangelicals w o u l d affirm
JO
t h a t Paul has w r i t t e n i t . It is p a r t of t h e g r o u p called t h e p r i s o n or
c a p t i v i t y epistles ( E p h e s i a n s , P h i l i p p i a n s , C o l o s s i a n s , P h i l e m o n ) .
M a n y believe t h a t it was a c i r c u l a r letter, s e n t t o Asia M i n o r , since en
Ephesb is m i s s i n g in m a n y a n c i e n t m a n u s c r i p t s a n d it has t h e t o n e
in p l a c e s o f a t r e a t i s e . T h e m a t i c a l l y it c e n t e r s u p o n a n e x a l t e d
C h r i s t o l o g y , t h a t is, it p r e s e n t s t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h e exalted C h r i s t
for t h e life of t h e C h u r c h , p a r t i c u l a r l y for its u n i t y a n d m i s s i o n . As
s u c h , E p h e s i a n s focuses u p o n t w o aspects, t h e a b o v e a n d t h e below,
t h e already a n d t h e n o t yet. In t h i s s e n s e , t h e crucial p h r a s e is "in t h e
heavenlies," that realm where the exalted C h r i s t operates (1:20) a n d
w h e r e w e p r e s e n t l y reign w i t h h i m ( 2 : 6 ) . A t t h e s a m e t i m e it is t h e
"' See A. van R o o n , The Authenticity of Ephesians (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974).

For furrher dara, see A n d r e w Lincoln's review article in Westminster Theological
Journal 4 0 ( 1 9 7 7 - 7 8 ) 1 7 2 - 7 5 .
s p h e r e o f c o s m i c warfare ( 6 : 1 2 ) , a n d G o d ' s activity in r e d e m p t i o n

m a k e s t h e C h u r c h a living t e s t i m o n y t o t h e c o s m i c forces of G o d ' s
w i s d o m (3:10). Ephesians thus amalgamates the two spheres.
This t e n s i o n is seen in c h a p t e r s 1 to 3 , w h i c h regulate G o d ' s
activity in t e r m s of his e l e c t i n g will ( 1 : 3 - 1 0 ) a n d t h e u n i o n of J e w
a n d G e n t i l e in t h e C h u r c h ( 1 : 1 1 - 1 4 ) . E p h . 2 : 1 - 1 0 occurs at t h e j u n c -
t u r e b e t w e e n t h e p o w e r o f G o d o p e r a t i v e in t h e C h u r c h ( 1 : 1 9 b - 2 3 )
a n d the w o r k of corporate salvation, centering u p o n the unity be-
t w e e n J e w a n d G e n t i l e , in 2 : 1 1 - 2 2 . T h i s p a r a g r a p h describes t h e re-
sults of t h e d i v i n e salvific love u p o n t h o s e , J e w a n d G e n t i l e alike,
w h o w e r e d e a d in sin.
The N e w I n t e r n a t i o n a l Version o f t h e Bible, w h i c h was p r o d u c e d
by an i n t e r n a t i o n a l g r o u p o f P r o t e s t a n t scholars " c o m m i t t e d t o t h e
full a u t h o r i t y a n d c o m p l e t e t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s of t h e S c r i p t u r e s , " t r a n s -
lates E p h . 2 : 1 - 1 0 as follows:
'As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 'in
which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world
and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at
work in those who are disobedient. 'All of us also lived a m o n g
them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and
following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature
objects of wrath. 'But because of his great love lor us, G o d , who is
rich in mercy, 'made us alive with Christ even when we were dead
in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. "And G o d
raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly
realms in Christ Jesus, 'in order that in the coming ages he might
show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kind-
ness to us in Christ Jesus. T o r it is by grace you have been saved,
through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of G o d —
''not by works, so that no one can boast. '"For we are God's work-
manship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God
prepared in advance for us to do.
T h e evangelical w o u l d first a t t e m p t a d e t a i l e d g r a m m a t i c a l a n d
s t r u c t u r a l analysis o f t h e p a r a g r a p h . In t h e original G r e e k , t h e r e are
t w o s e n t e n c e s (vv. 1-7, 8 - 1 0 ) , w i t h t h e first s e n t e n c e n a t u r a l l y c o m -
p r i s i n g t w o sections ( w . 1-3, 4 - 7 ) . T h u s t h e r e is a t r i p a r t i t e s t r u c -
t u r e , m o v i n g from t h e sinfulness o f m a n k i n d (1-3) t o t h e g r a c i o u s
p r o v i s i o n o f G o d in C h r i s t (4-7) a n d c o n c l u d i n g w i t h a s w e e p i n g
s u m m a r y o f this G o d - g i v e n salvation ( 8 - 1 0 ) . T h e t o n e is clear: Sin is
a result of i n f l u e n c e from secular influences as well as hostile p o w e r s
a n d results in r e b e l l i o n , sensuality, a n d s e l f - a g g r a n d i z e m e n t . The re-

s u l t is t h a t all m a n k i n d is u n d e r t h e w r a t h of G o d .
G r a m m a t i c a l l y it is i m p o r t a n t t o realize t h a t t h e m a i n verb for
verse 1 d o e s n o t a p p e a r u n t i l verse 5. As a result Paul keeps t h e reader
in a s t a t e of t e n s i o n as t o t h e effects o f "sin": C a n it b e o v e r c o m e or
1
n o t ? The " t h e n " a n d t h e " n o w " t e n s i o n is clearly stressed,' for Paul
32
c o n t i n u e s his a c c e n t u p o n t h e i n d i v i d u a l believer's privileges. The
realized side o f salvation is c e n t r a l , a n d t h e basis is t h e sovereign act
of G o d . It is n o t o n t h e basis o f p e r s o n a l m e r i t or " w o r k " b u t solely
by d i v i n e " g r a c e . " The t e r m i n o l o g y utilized to describe this m e r c y
s h o w s h o w i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e it is t o m a n . N o single t e r m can d e -
scribe it. The G o d w h o has p r o c u r e d salvation o n o u r b e h a l f is "rich
in m e r c y " ("rich" is f o u n d six t i m e s in E p h e s i a n s , m o r e often t h a n in
a n y o t h e r N e w T e s t a m e n t b o o k , a n d in E p h e s i a n s - C o l o s s i a n s it is
always u s e d of G o d ) a n d is c h a r a c t e r i z e d by "great love," a "grace"
(twelve t i m e s in Ephesians!) w h i c h is " i m m e a s u r a b l y r i c h , " a n d b y
" k i n d n e s s . " A l l t h e s e r e f l e c t t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t hesed the
" l o v i n g k i n d n e s s " w h i c h is t h e basic relational a t t r i b u t e o f G o d .
The sovereign c o n t r o l o f G o d is clearly seen in t h e c h o i c e o f
l a n g u a g e . It is G o d w h o has " m a d e us alive"; w e were " d e a d in t r a n s -
gressions" (v. 5, r e s t a t i n g v. 1) a n d t h e r e f o r e c o u l d e x p e c t o n l y d i v i n e
" w r a t h " (v. 3 ) . Salvation c o m e s via "grace" ( w . 5 b , 8a) a n d is t h e "gift
of G o d " (v. 8c); it is " n o t via w o r k s , " w h i c h w o u l d lead t o " p r i d e " (v.
9 ) . It is clear t h a t G o d a l o n e d i s t r i b u t e s his salvific p o w e r ; r e d e m p -
t i o n c a n n o t be c l a i m e d o n t h e basis o f h u m a n m e r i t (for t h e J e w this
specifically referred t o legalistic r i g h t e o u s n e s s ; see P h i l . 3 : 9 ) . In
E p h e s i a n s 1 - 2 , w i t h a s t r o n g stress o n G o d ' s e l e c t i n g will as t h e basis
of C h r i s t i a n blessings, Paul w a n t s t h e reader t o u n d e r s t a n d perfectly
t h a t G o d , n o t m a n , is r e s p o n s i b l e for t h e basic privilege, salvation. It
is clear in t h e c o n t e x t t h a t "saved" (v. 8) is e m p l o y e d m o r e n a r r o w l y
of "justification" r a t h e r t h a n b r o a d l y of t h e C h r i s t i a n life.
Yet t h e believer does have a p a r t in t h e p r o c e s s . The "faith" re-
s p o n s e (v. 8) o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l entails a c o m p l e t e o p e n n e s s o r s u r r e n -
d e r o f t h e self t o G o d ' s salvific a c t i o n . It is clear h e r e t h a t even t h i s
f a i t h - r e s p o n s e is n o t a w o r k b u t itself is a "gift o f G o d " (see P h i l .
1:29); it is " n o t of ourselves" b u t is p o s s i b l e o n l y b e c a u s e o f t h e e n -
" For derailed discussions of rhe r h e n - n o w schema, see A n d r e w Lincoln,

Ephesians ( W B C 4 2 ; Dallas; W o r d , 1990) 8 7 - 8 8 .
" For rhe corporare versus individual srress in Ephesians 1 - 2 , see C . L. M i r r o n ,
Ephesians (New C e n t u r y Bible; G r e e n w o o d , S.C.: Attic Press, 1976) 7 9 - 8 0 . W h i l e
he overdoes rhe individualistic aspect somewhat, he is basically correcr that Paul
here is looking at the individual within the C h u r c h .
a b l i n g p o w e r of G o d . " Ar t h e s a m e t i m e it is i m p o r t a n t t o realize
t h a t Paul is n o t b y p a s s i n g h u m a n c h o i c e , i.e., free will. O f c o u r s e
t h e r e are m a n y different f o r m u l a t i o n s o f this d e b a t e , from A u g u s t i n e
versus Pelagius in t h e fifth c e n t u r y t o t h e C a l v i n i s t versus A r m i n i a n
controversies o f o u r o w n t i m e . W h a t e v e r one's p e r s p e c t i v e ( a n d I
confess t h a t I a m nearer t o A r m i n i a n i s m o n this issue), it is crucial
h e r e t o preserve b o t h s o v e r e i g n t y a n d free will in t h e f o r m u l a .
M o r e o v e r , I w o u l d stress t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f c o m m u n i t y exegesis
h e r e . The i n t e r p r e t e r m u s t be in c o n s t a n t d i a l o g u e w i t h t h e past c o m -
m u n i t y of faith (the h i s t o r y of d o g m a ) a n d t h e c u r r e n t c o m m u n i t y
of faith ( r e c e n t c o m m e n t a r i e s , etc.) o n this p o i n t as well as o t h e r s .
The p r e s e n t a n d future results o f this c o n g r u e n c e b e t w e e n d i -
v i n e grace a n d h u m a n faith in salvation are also h i g h l i g h t e d in 2 : 1 -
10. These are f o u n d in verses 5 - 7 , 10. First, t h e believer has b e e n
" m a d e alive" o r "raised u p " (from spiritual d e a t h — v . 5a). F o r Paul
t h e b i r t h of faith is t h e h o u r of r e s u r r e c t i o n (see R o m . 6 : 8 ; G a l . 2 : 1 6 ,
2 0 ; C o l . 2 : 1 2 ; 3:1) a n d leads t o " n e w n e s s o f life" ( R o m . 6:6; 2 C o r .
5 : 1 7 - 2 0 ; E p h . 4 : 2 2 - 2 4 ; C o l . 3 : 8 - 1 0 ) . S e c o n d , G o d has " m a d e ( t h e
believer) sit in t h e heavenlies w i t h C h r i s t , " a r e m a r k a b l e passage in
t h a t it a d d s to Jesus' e x a l t a t i o n in 1:20 t h e C h r i s t i a n ' s e x a l t a t i o n here.
The believer shares n o t o n l y C h r i s t ' s r e s u r r e c t i o n b u t also his exalta-
t i o n . Yet, as L i n c o l n says, '"The p h r a s e . . . at his r i g h t h a n d ' in 1:20
is reserved for C h r i s t a n d n o t r e p e a t e d in t h e case o f believers in 2 : 6 .
A l t h o u g h believers share in Christ's e x a l t a t i o n , his p o s i t i o n in t h e
3 1
h e a v e n l y realm a n d his r e l a t i o n s h i p t o G o d are u n i q u e . " It is i m -
p o r t a n t t o n o t e t h e p a s t tense, w h i c h indicates t h a t this eschatological
e x a l t a t i o n is n o t a future p r o m i s e b u t a p r e s e n t reality, b a s e d u n -
d o u b t e d l y o n t h e P a u l i n e m e t a p h o r of a d o p t i o n . D u e to G o d ' s gra-
cious i n c l u s i o n o f us in his family, w e are " j o i n t - h e i r s " ( R o m . 8 : 1 5 -
17) a n d t h u s share Jesus' e x a l t e d s t a t u s .
'The final p r e s e n t blessing is f o u n d in verse 10, w h i c h describes
o u r " c r e a t i o n " as G o d ' s " w o r k m a n s h i p " in o r d e r t h a t w e m i g h t p e r -
f o r m " g o o d w o r k s . " This is i m p o r t a n t as a clarification of t h e c o m -
m o n belief t h a t Paul a n d J a m e s are at o d d s o n faith a n d w o r k s . A
s e m a n t i c m a p w o r k o f their use o f t e r m s i n d i c a t e s t h e i r basic agree-
m e n t : A professed ( b u t false) faith (James) w h i c h seeks w o r k s - r i g h -
t e o u s n e s s (Paul) is useless (Paul a n d J a m e s ) ; o n l y a t r u e faith (Paul)
" See the fine discussion of this p o i n t in M a r k n s Barth, Ephesians (Anchor

Bible; G a r d e n City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1974) 2 2 4 - 2 5 . H e p o i n t s to the conjunction
here of God's (and Christ's) faithfulness with o u r faith.
4
' Lincoln, Ephesians, 107.
w h i c h leads t o g o o d w o r k s (James a n d Paul h e r e in 2 : 1 0 ) is valid.

The c o n c e p t of faith p u t t o w o r k in acts o f c h a r i t y is c e n t r a l in t h e
p a s t o r a l epistles, w h e r e " g o o d w o r k s " a p p e a r s e i g h t t i m e s .
The f u t u r e a s p e c t is f o u n d in verse 7 a n d is i m p o r t a n t for t h e
a l r e a d y / n o t yet t e n s i o n in E p h e s i a n s (see a b o v e ) . W h i l e t h e r e is d e -
b a t e as t o w h e t h e r t h e " c o m i n g ages" m e a n s future g e n e r a t i o n s o f
C h r i s t i a n s or t h e e s c h a t o n , it is likely t h a t n o e i t h e r - o r r e s p o n s e is
possible. B o t h are p r o b a b l y in m i n d . The " i m m e a s u r a b l e riches" m a n i -
fested in his " k i n d n e s s t o w a r d u s " will b e e x p e r i e n c e d b y all f u t u r e
ages o f t h e C h u r c h a n d will b e c o n s u m m a t e d in t h e s e c o n d c o m i n g
of C h r i s t .
T h e c o n t e x t u a l i z a t i o n (or "transfer v a l u e , " t o use H a r r i n g t o n ' s
p h r a s e ) of t h i s passage is very d i r e c t for t h e evangelical. M e d i t a t i o n
u p o n one's p a s t s t a t e in sin is integral t o t h e m e a n i n g o f s a l v a t i o n .
T h e t h r e e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of verses 2 - 3 ( r e b e l l i o n , s e n s u a l i t y , self-
centeredness) describe t h e c o m m o n d i l e m m a o f m a n , as d e m o n s t r a t e d
in r e c e n t sociological a n d p s y c h o l o g i c a l profiles o f m e n a n d w o m e n
in this m o d e r n p o s t i n d u s t r i a l society. This, w e w o u l d a r g u e , is t r u e
of b o t h secular m a n a n d t h o s e w h o n o w b e l o n g t o t h e C h u r c h . "
The d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n c o n v e r s i o n l a n g u a g e a n d m a i n t e n a n c e
l a n g u a g e p o s e d b y H a r r i n g t o n m a k e s a g r e a t deal o f sense h e r e . Yet at
t h e s a m e t i m e I d o u b t w h e t h e r Paul w o u l d s t r o n g l y e m p h a s i z e t h e
difference. T h e a o r i s t (past) tenses of t h e verbs ( " m a d e alive," "raised
u p , " " m a d e to sit") m u s t b e seen in t h e l i g h t o f t h e p e r f e c t p e r i p h r a s -
tic " h a v e b e e n saved," w h i c h stresses t h e p r e s e n t c o n d i t i o n . Paul ac-
tually is stressing t h e p r e s e n t C h r i s t i a n s i t u a t i o n of r e s u r r e c t i o n life
w h i c h has r e s u l t e d from t h e p a s t c o n v e r s i o n . O n c e a g a i n , it is n o t a n
e i t h e r - o r . For this reason, t h e d y n a m i c p o w e r , t h e e x a l t e d s t a t u s , a n d
t h e c o n c o m i t a n t d e m a n d for g o o d w o r k s are e m i n e n t l y a p p l i c a b l e .
Finally, t h e evangelical e n d o r s e s t h e necessity o f c o n v e r s i o n l a n g u a g e
for o u r day. T h e d e p r a v i t y o f m a n , t h e salvific sacrifice of C h r i s t , a n d
t h e i n d i s p e n s a b i l i t y of f a i t h - d e c i s i o n are a t t h e h e a r t o f t h e revivalist
spirit so e n d e m i c to t h e m o v e m e n t .
III. SUMMARY
Evangelicals h a v e always m a d e a " h i g h " v i e w o f biblical a u t h o r -

ity a b a s i c t e n e t o f t h e i r faith. In spite of t h e w i d e s p r e a d d e b a t e t o d a y
" Here the application d e p e n d s u p o n one's view of the s a c r a m e n t of b a p t i s m .

M o s t evangelicals, even from a srrongly sacramental posirion, would argue rhar a
later fairh-discussion parallel to rhat in this passage must occur.
over t h e exact f o r m u l a t i o n o f s u c h issues as " i n e r r a n c y , " evangelicals

c o n s i s t e n t l y stress t h a t S c r i p t u r e a l o n e m u s t d i c t a t e o u r faith. W h i l e
t h e r e is c o g n i z a n c e of t h e c o m p l e x n a t u r e o f t h e i n t e r p r e t i v e task a n d
t h e factor o f p r e u n d e r s t a n d i n g as s h a p i n g t h a t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , t h e r e
is u n a n i m i t y t h a t t h e i n t e n t i o n o f t h e a u t h o r is b o t h a possible goal
a n d a necessary e l e m e n t in d e t e r m i n i n g t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e Bible in
o u r day. At t h e s a m e t i m e , t h e relevant significance of S c r i p t u r e is
also stressed, a n d t h e i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e b e t w e e n exegesis, biblical t h e -
ology, historical theology, s y s t e m a t i c theology, a n d c o n t e x t u a l i z a t i o n
forms t h e c o r e o f evangelical h e r m e n e u t i c s .
The g r a m m a t i c a l - h i s t o r i c a l m e t h o d p r e d o m i n a t e s . The tools of
textual a n d source criticism, syntactical (grammar) a n d s e m a n t i c
( w o r d ) study, a n d f o r m , r e d a c t i o n , a n d n a r r a t i v e criticisms are all
s u b o r d i n a t e to t h e task of e l u c i d a t i n g t h e text. After several d e c a d e s
of i s o l a t i o n , t h e r e is a g r o w i n g desire o n c e again to e n g a g e in d i a -
l o g u e w i t h o t h e r t r a d i t i o n s , a n d i n d e e d this b o o k is an i m p o r t a n t
p a r t o f t h a t m o v e m e n t . A n "evangelical" r e a d i n g o f E p h . 2 : 1 - 1 0
stresses t h e P a u l i n e o r i g i n o f t h e t e a c h i n g a n d its c o n n e c t i o n w i t h
R o m a n s 1-8 a n d related texts. The progress of t h e passage fits t h e
d i l e m m a o f m o d e r n h u m a n i t y , l o c k e d in sin a n d n e e d i n g t o a p p l y
t h e salvific grace o f G o d a n d t h e sacrifice of C h r i s t in a c o n v e r s i o n
e x p e r i e n c e . D i v i n e grace a n d h u m a n faith m e e t in t h e s u p r e m e gift
of f a i t h - d e c i s i o n . This u n l o c k s G o d ' s w o r k m a n s h i p i n h e r e n t in m a n /
w o m a n , leading to the "good works" which characterize the presence
of G o d in t h e c o m m u n i t y .
R E C O M M E N D E D READINGS
Black, D a v i d A l a n a n d D a v i d S. D o c k e r y , cds. New Testament Criti-

cism and Interpretation. G r a n d Rapids: Zondcrvan, 1991. An
excellent series of articles o n critical m e t h o d s such as text a n d source
criticism a n d schools such as form, redaction, a n d literary criticism.
C a r s o n , D . A. a n d J o h n W o o d b r i d g e , eds. Scripture and 'Truth. G r a n d

Rapids: Z o n d c r v a n , 1 9 8 3 . A series of essays centering u p o n t h e i m -
p o r t a n c e of inerrancy a n d a propositional a p p r o a c h to Scripture.
. Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon. Grand Rapids:

Z o n d c r v a n , 1 9 8 6 . A s e c o n d series of articles s i m i l a r t o t h e 1 9 8 3
volume.
Fee, G o r d o n a n d D o u g l a s S t u a r t . How to Read the Bible for All Its

Worth. P h i l a d e l p h i a : W e s t m i n s t e r , 1 9 8 2 . A n excellent general dis-
c u s s i o n o n t h e p r o p e r a p p r o a c h t o specfic g e n r e s , e.g., p o e t r y , w i s -
d o m , gospels, Acts.
Hatch, Nathan O. a n d M a r k A. N o l l , eds. 'The Bible in America:

Essays in Cultural History. N e w York: O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press,
1 9 8 2 . A series o f essays t r a c i n g t h e progress of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n in
various traditions in A m e r i c a n C h r i s t i a n i t y .
Klein, William, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. Introduction

to Biblical Interpretation. Dallas: W o r d , 1993. A n excellent, up-to-date
i n t r o d u c t i o n to h e r m e n e u t i c s from an evangelical perspective.
M a r s d e n , G e o r g e B . Fundamentalism and American Culture: The

Shaping of'Twentieth Century Evangelicalism 1870-1925. New
York: O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 8 0 . A m a j o r w o r k o n t h e factors
w h i c h led t o t h e f u n d a m e n t a l i s t / e v a n g e l i c a l m o v e m e n t .
M a r s h a l l , I . H o w a r d , ed. New Testament Interpretation: Essays on

Principles and Methods. G r a n d R a p i d s : E e r d m a n s , 1 9 7 7 . Essays
t r a c i n g various schools a n d issues in t h e field of h e r m e n e u t i c s , d e m -
o n s t r a t i n g t h e m a n y differences in t h e a p p r o a c h e s o f evangelicals
as t h e y i n t e r a c t w i t h diverse critical issues.
N i c o l e , R o g e r R. a n d J. R a m s e y M i c h a e l s , eds. Inerrancy and Com-

mon Sense. G r a n d R a p i d s : Baker, 1 9 8 0 . Essays t r a c i n g v a r i o u s as-
p e c t s , b o t h a c a d e m i c a n d practical, o n t h e issue o f biblical a u t h o r -

ity. M o r e t h a n o t h e r w o r k s o n inerrancy, this d e m o n s t r a t e s t h e
v a r i o u s evangelical a p p r o a c h e s .
O s b o r n e , G r a n t R. The Hermeneutical Spial: A Comprehensive In-

troduction of Biblical Interpretation. D o w n e r ' s G r o v e , 111.:
I n t e r V a r s i t y Press, 1 9 9 1 . A n a t t e m p t t o i n t e g r a t e every a s p e c t (ex-
egesis, biblical a n d systematic theology, c o n t e x t u a l i z a t i o n ) o f h e r m e -
neutical inquiry into a comprehensive whole.
R o g e r s , J a c k a n d D o n a l d M c K i m . Authority and Interpretation of

the Bible: An Historical Approach. N e w York: H a r p e r a n d Row,
1 9 7 9 . A n a t t e m p t t o s h o w t h a t a m o r e d y n a m i c m o d e l o f biblical
a u t h o r i t y existed from t h e p a t r i s t i c p e r i o d u n t i l t h e P r i n c e t o n i a n s
o f t h e last c e n t u r y .
Silva, M o i s e s . Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction

to Lexical Semantics. G r a n d R a p i d s : Z o n d e r v a n , 1 9 8 3 . N o t o n l y a
s t u d y of t h e m e t h o d s of lexical s t u d y b u t also an i l l u s t r a t i o n o f t h e
i m p l i c a t i o n s of a p r o p o s i t i o n a l a p p r o a c h t o S c r i p t u r e .
Tate, W. R. Biblical Interpretation. Peabody, Mass.: H e n d r i c k s o n ,

1 9 9 1 . Provides g o o d discussion of c u l t u r a l issues in h e r m e n e u t i c s
like a u t h o r a n d reader or t h e i n t e r p r e t i v e s c h o o l s .
T h i s e l t o n , A n t h o n y C . The Two Horizons: New Testament Herme-

neutics and Philosophical Description. G r a n d Rapids: Eerdmans,
1 9 8 0 . A m a j o r d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e h e r m e n e u t i c a l p r o b l e m of t h e
p a s t ( w h a t it m e a n t ) a n d p r e s e n t ( w h a t it m e a n s ) p r o b l e m in inter-
p r e t a t i o n theory, u s i n g t h e a p p r o a c h e s of H e i d e g g e r , B u l t m a n n ,
a n d G a d a m e r as t h e c o n t r o l .
. New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice

of'Transforming Biblical Reading. G r a n d R a p i d s : Z o n d e r v a n , 1 9 9 2 .
A n u n b e l i e v a b l y c o m p r e h e n s i v e i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h every m o d e r n
s c h o o l o f h e r m e n e u t i c a l t h o u g h t . Difficult, yet m u s t r e a d i n g for
the serious student.
W o o d b r i d g e , J o h n D . Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/

McKim Proposal. G r a n d R a p i d s : Z o n d e r v a n , 1 9 8 2 . A r g u e s c o n -
tra R o g e r s a n d M c K i m (above) t h a t t h e C h u r c h d o w n t h r o u g h t h e
ages h e l d a v i e w o f p r o p o s i t i o n a l a u t h o r i t y or total infallibility.
REFORMED INTERPRETATION
OF SCRIPTURE
by
MARION L. SOARDS
A
t t h e h e a r t of C h r i s t i a n faith a c c o r d i n g t o t h e R e f o r m e d Tra-
d i t i o n ' is t h e word of G o d , w h i c h is u n d e r s t o o d to be G o d ' s
.self-revelation to h u m a n k i n d t h r o u g h o u t the centuries of
creation's existence. " R e f o r m e d " C h r i s t i a n s believe G o d ' s Word in-
carnate is Jesus C h r i s t . M o r e o v e r , t h e y regard t h e Bible as G o d ' s writ-
ten word, a n d t h e y view C h r i s t i a n p r e a c h i n g as G o d ' s word pro-
claimed. In t h e o l o g i c a l d i s c u s s i o n s , R e f o r m e d t h e o l o g i a n s often use
a capital " W " in reference t o t h e W o r d i n c a r n a t e in d i s t i n c t i o n from
t h e use of a lowercase " w " for references t o t h e word of G o d in its
w r i t t e n a n d p r e a c h e d f o r m s . The a u t h o r i t y of G o d ' s W o r d , i n c a r n a t e
a n d living, is h e l d t o be t h e f o u n d a t i o n of t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e Bible.
I n d e e d , t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e Bible is u n d e r s t o o d to reside in t h e s u b -
ject t o w h i c h it w i t n e s s e s , n o t in t h e b o o k itself. N e v e r t h e l e s s , b e -
cause o f t h e i n t i m a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e W o r d i n c a r n a t e , t h e
w o r d p r o c l a i m e d , a n d t h e w o r d as w r i t t e n , t h e R e f o r m e d t r a d i t i o n
h o l d s a h i g h view o f s c r i p t u r e .
Historically, o r d a i n e d m i n i s t e r s o f t h e R e f o r m e d t r a d i t i o n are
e x p e c t e d t o be well-versed, h i g h l y literate, critical i n t e r p r e t e r s of t h e
B i b l e . T h u s , in t h e d e n o m i n a t i o n s o f t h e R e f o r m e d t r a d i t i o n ,
c l e r g y p e r s o n s are r e q u i r e d t o s t u d y a n d d e m o n s t r a t e proficiency in
t h e use of o r i g i n a l biblical l a n g u a g e s , t h e c o n t e n t s of b o t h t h e O l d
a n d N e w ' T e s t a m e n t s , a n d t h e necessary tools o f scholarly i n t e r p r e t a -
t i o n o f t h e Bible. In t h e c o u r s e o f r e q u i r e d s e m i n a r y e d u c a t i o n t h a t
is p r e r e q u i s i t e for o r d i n a t i o n , t h e r e are m a n d a t o r y classes a n d s t u d -
ies in H e b r e w , G r e e k , i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e O l d a n d N e w 'Testaments,
a n d original l a n g u a g e exegesis o f t h e biblical texts. F u r t h e r m o r e , c a n -
d i d a t e s for o r d i n a t i o n are r e q u i r e d t o pass e x a m i n a t i o n s in "Bible
:
Hisrorically, rhe "Reformed" Tradirion refers to Calvinisr bodies as distin-
guished from rhe Lutherans.
160 REFORMED INTERPRETATION OP SCRIPTURE
c o n t e n t " a n d exegesis of t h e biblical texts ( u s i n g t h e o r i g i n a l l a n -

g u a g e s ) . The i m p o r t a n c e o f a n e d u c a t e d clergy in t h e R e f o r m e d tra-
d i t i o n is n o t t o create a special class o f Bible readers a n d i n t e r p r e t e r s
in t h e c h u r c h , b u t t o i n s u r e a n d facilitate t h e e d u c a t i o n o f all believ-
ers so t h a t all m e m b e r s o f t h e c h u r c h are skilled s t u d e n t s of s c r i p t u r e .
I. T H K PLACE OF SCRIP TURF IN THE REFORMED TRADITION
The a u t h o r i t y o f t h e Bible is a n i r r e l i n q u i s h a b l e a s s u m p t i o n of
t h e R e f o r m e d t r a d i t i o n . Yet, t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e Bible is a t h e o l o g i -
cal c l a i m t h a t c a n n o t b e logically d e m o n s t r a t e d . R a t h e r , t h i s c o n t e n -
t i o n rests in t h e c o n v i c t i o n t h a t G o d is u n i q u e l y related b o t h t o t h e
o r i g i n s o f t h e s c r i p t u r e s in t h e p a s t a n d t o t h e use of t h e s c r i p t u r e s
n o w . T h e Bible h a s a u t h o r i t y b e c a u s e t h e H o l y S p i r i t takes h u m a n
w i t n e s s e s a n d t h r o u g h t h e i r w i t n e s s b r i n g s a b o u t faith a n d o b e d i -
e n c e t o Jesus C h r i s t . Persons in t h e R e f o r m e d t r a d i t i o n r e c o g n i z e t h e
a u t h o r i t y o f t h e Bible "in d e p e n d e n c e o n t h e i l l u m i n a t i o n o f t h e
2
Holy Spirit."
O n e c a n a n d m u s t d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n t h e Bible as t h e w o r d o f
G o d a n d Jesus C h r i s t as G o d ' s W o r d , b e t w e e n G o d in t h e m i d s t of
h u m a n i t y a n d a b o o k a b o u t G o d ' s will a n d w o r k . Yet, o n e s h o u l d see
t h a t t h e r e is a s o l i d a r i t y b e t w e e n Jesus C h r i s t a n d t h e Bible; for t h e
Reformed tradition contends that one knows the incarnate and per-
s o n a l W o r d o f G o d o n l y as o n e e n c o u n t e r s h i m in a n d t h r o u g h t h e
w r i t t e n w o r d of G o d . T h u s , t h e R e f o r m e d t r a d i t i o n has a n d m a i n -
tains a h i g h view o f s c r i p t u r e , so t h a t in t h e official d o c u m e n t s o f t h e
P r e s b y t e r i a n C h u r c h ( U . S . A . ) o n e reads in p o r t i o n o f t h e church's
c o n s t i t u t i o n e n t i t l e d 'The Book of Confessions:
As we believe and confess the Scriptures of G o d sufficient to in-

struct and make perfect the m a n of G o d , so d o we affirm and
avow their authority to be from God, and not to depend on m e n
or angels. W e affirm, therefore, that those who say the Scriptures
have no other authority save that which they have received from
the [Church] are blasphemous against God a n d injurious to the
true [Church], which always hears and obeys the voice of her own
Spouse and Pastor, but takes not u p o n her to be mistress over the
same ("The Scots Confession": 3.19).
' The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.): Part I: The Book of
Confessions. " T h e Confession of 1 9 6 7 ' : 9.30.
MARION L . SOARDS 161
CAN'ONK:AI. SCRIPTURE. We believe and confess the canonical Scrip-

tures of the holy prophets and apostles of both Testaments to be
the true Word of God, and to have sufficient authority of them-
selves, not of men. For God himself spoke to the fathers, proph-
ets, apostles, and still speaks to us through the Holy Scriptures.
And in this Holy Scripture, the universal Church of Christ has
the most complete exposition of all that pertains to a saving faith,
and also to the framing of a life acceptable to God; a n d in this
respect it is expressly c o m m a n d e d by G o d that nothing be either
added to or taken from the same.
SCRIPTURE T E A C H E S FULLY A n . G O D L I N E S S . W e judge, therefore,

that from these Scriptures are to be derived true wisdom and god-
liness, the reformation and government of the churches; as also
instruction in all duties of piety; and, to be short, the confirma-
tion of doctrines, and the rejection of all errors, moreover, all ex-
hortations according to that word of the apostle, "All Scripture is
inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof," etc. (2
Tim. 3:16-17) ("The Second Helvetic Confession": 5.001-5.003a).
Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written,

are now contained all the books of the Old and N e w Testaments
. . . . All which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of
faith and life ("The Westminster Confession of Faith": 6.002).
T h e whole counsel of G o d , concerning all things necessary for his

own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set
down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be
deduced from Scripture: unto which n o t h i n g at any time is to be
added, whether by new revelations or the Spirit, or traditions of
men. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the
Spirit of G o d to be necessary for the saving understanding of such
things as are revealed in the Word; a n d that there are some cir-
cumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government
of the C h u r c h , c o m m o n to h u m a n actions a n d societies, which
are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence,
according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be
observed ("The Westminster Confession of Faith": 6.006).
T h e Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to

be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient
writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined,
and in whose sentences we are to rest, can be n o other but t h e
Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture ("The Westminster Confes-
sion of Faith": 6.010).
162 REFORMED INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE
Q . 3. W h a t d o the Scriptures principally teach?

A.The scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concern-
ing G o d , and what duty God requires of man ("The Shorter Cat-
echism": 7.003).
Q . 3. W h a t is the Word of God?

A . T h e holy Scriptures of the Old and N e w Testaments are the
Word of God, the only rule of faith and obedience.
Q . 4 . H o w doth it appear that the Scriptures are the W o r d of
God?
A . T h e Scriptures manifest themselves to be the W o r d of G o d , by
their majesty and purity; by the consent of all the parts, and the
scope of the whole, which is to give all glory to G o d ; by their light
and power to convince and convert sinners, to comfort and build
up believers u n t o salvation. But the Spirit of God, bearing witness
by and with the Scriptures in the heart of man, is alone able fully
to persuade it that they are the very word of God.
Q . 5. W h a t d o the Scriptures principally teach?
A . T h e Scriptures principally teach, what man is to believe con-
cerning God, and what duty God requires of m a n ("The Larger
Catechism": 7.113-7.115).
T h e one sufficient revelation of G o d is Jesus Christ, the Word of

G o d incarnate, to w h o m the Holy Spirit bears unique and au-
thoritative witness through the Holy Scriptures, which are received
a n d obeyed as the word of G o d written. T h e Scriptures are not a
witness a m o n g others, but the witness without parallel. T h e church
has received the books of the O l d and N e w Testaments as pro-
phetic and apostolic testimony in which it hears the word of G o d
and by which its faith and obedience are nourished and regulated
("The Confession of 1967": 9.27).
We trust in God the Holy Spirit . . . the same Spirit w h o inspired

the prophets and apostles [andl rules our faith and life in Christ
through Scripture . . . ("A Brief Statement of Faith": 10.4).
II. A DISTURBING G L I T C H IN THE T R A D I T I O N
D e s p i t e t h e regular avowal of p r i m a r y c o n c e r n w i t h t h e Bible,

t h e r e is a b u n d a n t e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e s c r i p t u r e s are s o m e w h a t t a k e n
for g r a n t e d a n d n o t r e g u l a r l y s t u d i e d w i t h c a r e . C o n s i d e r this
evidence:
A. R e c e n t l y a biblical s c h o l a r w a s a s k e d to s p e a k at a m a j o r Bible
c o n f e r e n c e in t h e e a s t e r n U n i t e d States. T h e s e t t i n g w a s a n e v e n i n g
e v e n t in a large p a v i l i o n w h e r e several h u n d r e d p e o p l e g a t h e r e d for
JMARION L . SOARDS 163
Bible s t u d y in t h e c o n t e x t o f a w o r s h i p service. A b o u t five m i n u t e s

before t h e session was t o b e g i n several of t h e w o r s h i p leaders were
s c u r r y i n g a m o n g t h e p e o p l e s p e a k i n g w i t h o n e g r o u p after a n o t h e r .
S h o r t l y thereafter t h e m a i n liturgist sheepishly a p p r o a c h e d t h e speaker
a n d said, "It's t i m e t o s t a r t b u t w e can't find a Bible t o r e a d t h e s c r i p -
t u r e lesson. D o y o u have o n e w e c o u l d use?" The s p e a k e r h a d o n l y a
G r e e k N e w T e s t a m e n t , w h i c h p r o v e d u n h e l p f u l for t h e liturgist. S o ,
the assembly spent twenty m i n u t e s singing while s o m e o n e drove to
t h e nearest c h u r c h t o b r i n g b a c k a c o p y o f an English Bible. It m a y
have b e e n a sheer a n o m a l y , b u t at least o n c e p e o p l e d i d n ' t even b o t h e r
t o b r i n g t h e i r Bibles t o a Bible c o n f e r e n c e .
B. A t t h e level o f t h e m o s t basic i n f o r m a t i o n m e m b e r s of t h e
c h u r c h d e m o n s t r a t e a lack of k n o w l e d g e of t h e m o s t e l e m e n t a r y m a t -
ters o f c o n t e n t o f t h e Bible:
1. A large S u n d a y S c h o o l class o f h i g h s c h o o l s t u d e n t s was asked,
" H o w m a n y disciples d i d Jesus have?" O n l y o n e b o y k n e w t h a t t h e r e
were twelve disciples; b u t w h e n asked to n a m e t h e m he c o u l d o n l y c o m e
u p with "Peter a n d Paul." Paul was in fact n o t o n e of t h e twelve disciples.
2 . Even s e m i n a r i a n s a n d p a s t o r s s o m e t i m e s c o m e u p s h o r t o n
p r i m a r y facts. A n u n a n n o u n c e d Bible c o n t e n t e x a m i n a t i o n was given
t o an a s s e m b l y o f o r d a i n e d clergy a n d s e m i n a r y s t u d e n t s at a reli-
g i o u s c o n f e r e n c e a n d o n l y a small m i n o r i t y o f t h e p e r s o n s tested
c o u l d a n s w e r t h e following four q u e s t i o n s accurately:
(a) H o w m a n y b o o k s are in t h e Bible? There are sixty-six.
(b) H o w m a n y b o o k s are in t h e N e w Testament? There are t w e n t y -
seven.
(c) W h i c h N e w ' T e s t a m e n t a u t h o r w r o t e t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e m a -
terials in t h e N e w 'Testament? L u k e , t h e a u t h o r o f L u k e a n d Acts.
Even t h e t h i r t e e n letters a t t r i b u t e d t o Paul in t h e N e w ' T e s t a m e n t
a m o u n t t o less m a t e r i a l t h a n t h a t f o u n d in L u k e a n d Acts.
(d) In w h i c h t e s t a m e n t is t h e b o o k of " H e z e k i a h " ? N e i t h e r . The
p e r s o n , H e z e k i a h , is in t h e O l d Testament, b u t t h e r e is n o b o o k called
by t h a t n a m e .
'This level of familiarity w i t h scripture m a y seem t o be q u i t e trivial,
a n d w h i l e m a s t e r i n g "Bible facts" d o e s n o t g u a r a n t e e a c o n c e r n w i t h
t h e Bible as a u t h o r i t a t i v e t e s t i m o n y t o G o d ' s w o r d a n d w o r k for
s a l v a t i o n , n o r m a l l y a h i g h view o f t h e Bible s h o u l d result in serious
s t u d y of s c r i p t u r a l w r i t i n g s . Yet, t h e e v i d e n c e seems t o i n d i c a t e , d e -
spite t h e s t a t e d , official p o s i t i o n of t h e R e f o r m e d t r a d i t i o n , t h a t t h e r e
is a lack of c o n c e r n w i t h t h e Bible or t h a t t h e Bible is n o t b e i n g
s t u d i e d seriously.
I I I . T H E HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE OI SCRIPTURE
A p r a g m a t i c a r g u m e n t o n l y illustrates a n d d o e s n o t establish t h e
a u t h o r i t y o f s c r i p t u r e , b u t t h e fact is t h a t t i m e a n d a g a i n , C h r i s -
t i a n s — t h r o u g h involvement with the Bible—have found themselves
j u d g e d , called, a n d c o m p e l l e d t o a n essentially C h r i s t i a n faith a n d
life. In t h e R e f o r m e d t r a d i t i o n o n e n e e d s o n l y to recall t h e i m p o r -
t a n c e a n d t h e effect of t h e Bible o n t h e leaders o f t h e R e f o r m a t i o n —
M a r t i n L u t h e r , J o h n C a l v i n , a n d o t h e r s — t o u n d e r s c o r e t h e crucial
role t h a t t h e Bible has p l a y e d in t h e life of t h e c h u r c h . T h e R e f o r m e d
t r a d i t i o n h o l d s t h a t t h e very f o r m a t i o n a n d t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of life
o c c u r s t h r o u g h e n g a g e m e n t w i t h t h e s c r i p t u r e s b e c a u s e t h e Bible
is...
Vital - The s c r i p t u r e s s t a n d in p r o x i m i t y t o t h e o r i g i n a l events
t h a t e v e n t u a t e d in t h e c h u r c h . T h e y testify t o G o d ' s w o r k a m o n g
Israel, a n d especially t o t h e life, d e a t h , r e s u r r e c t i o n , a n d e x a l t a t i o n of
Jesus C h r i s t . The Bible bears witness t o G o d ' s formative activity a m i d s t
t h e p e o p l e of Israel a n d t h e earliest C h r i s t i a n s .
D i s c e r n i n g — In its a r t i c u l a t i o n o f Israel's a n d early C h r i s t i a n i t y ' s
beliefs a n d p r a c t i c e s , t h e Bible testifies t o t h e p r o f u n d i t y of J e w i s h
a n d C h r i s t i a n p e r c e p t i o n a n d reflection o n G o d ' s self-revelation.
T r u s t w o r t h y - T h e s c r i p t u r e s w e r e w r i t t e n as i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t
e x p e r i e n c e s , beliefs, a n d p r a c t i c e s in o r d e r to p r o v i d e g u i d a n c e ; a n d
s u b s e q u e n t g e n e r a t i o n s o f believers h a v e p r o v e n t h e Bible's useful-
ness over a n d over.
N o r m a t i v e — A b o v e all, t h e s c r i p t u r e s p r o v i d e believers w i t h a
n o r m or a m e a n s to j u d g e b e t w e e n t h e Spirits. The Bible g u i d e s b e -
lievers as t h e y seek faithfully t o d e c i d e a m o n g t h e c o m p e t i t i v e claims
t h a t arise in t h e life of t h e c h u r c h . It is " t h e w i t n e s s w i t h o u t parallel"
("The Confession of 1967": 9.27).
I V . T H E NECESSITY OF INTERPRETATION
After r e c o g n i z i n g t h e c e n t r a l place of t h e Bible in t h e life of t h e

R e f o r m e d t r a d i t i o n , o n e m u s t also r e c o g n i z e t h a t u s i n g t h e Bible as
t h e authoritative source for t h e belief a n d practice of t h e c h u r c h is n o t
w i t h o u t its difficulties. T h e Bible was w r i t t e n l o n g ago a n d far away:
A . in a different t i m e - from m o r e t h a n a t h o u s a n d years before
C h r i s t t o several d e c a d e s after his d e a t h ;
B . in a different place - t h e M e d i t e r r a n e a n a n d t h e N e a r East;
C . in a different culture or different cultures - S e m i t i c a n d G r e c o -
Roman;
D . in different languages — Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, with

reference to a n d e v i d e n c e o f t h e i n f l u e n c e o f L a t i n .
O n e c a n n o t i g n o r e these a n d m a n y o t h e r factors as o n e t u r n s t o
r e a d t h e Bible. Frankly, t h e s e differences f o r m barriers, so t h a t o n e
n e e d s h e l p in r e a d i n g w i t h real u n d e r s t a n d i n g , b e c a u s e all r e a d i n g of
t h e Bible requires i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e texts.
In fact, all reading of the Bible is interpretation. In t h e first place,
p e o p l e frequently m a k e a u t o m a t i c distinctions as t h e y read t h e B i b l e —
for e x a m p l e , t h e y d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n " p o e t i c " a n d n o n - p o e t i c ele-
m e n t s in t h e biblical texts. T h u s , w h e n t h e Elder addresses his a u d i -
e n c e in 1 J o h n as "little c h i l d r e n " readers d o n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e
Elder's r e m a r k s w e r e a i m e d a t a n a s s e m b l y of infants a n d y o u t h s . Yet,
w h e n t h e G o s p e l s tell t h e r e a d e r t h a t Jesus w e n t t o C a p e r n a u m —
unless t h e y are a r d e n t d e v o t e e s o f w i l d a l l e g o r i z a t i o n — t h e readers
c o n c l u d e t h a t Jesus w e n t t o a p a r t i c u l a r g e o g r a p h i c a l l o c a t i o n . M o r e -
over, w h e n t h e G e n e s i s s t o r y tells readers t h a t "Fisau is a h a i r y m a n , "
t h e y d o n o t e x p e c t t o g a i n m u c h s p i r i t u a l edification from t h e infor-
m a t i o n . A l t h o u g h , w h e n Paul discusses "the flesh" in G a l a t i a n s , readers
l o o k for s p i r i t u a l insights r a t h e r t h a n a b i o l o g y lesson.
In t u r n , readers a u t o m a t i c a l l y d o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n b a s e d o n these
distinctions:
" T h e L o r d is m y s h e p h e r d " is n o t i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t d i v i n e a n i -
m a l h u s b a n d r y , n o r is it a c l a i m b y t h e p s a l m i s t t o be a s h e e p . T h e
Psalm is a p r o f o u n d s t a t e m e n t o f faith a b o u t G o d ' s care for h u m a n -
ity a n d a b o u t t h e s e c u r i t y of t h e believer, o r as C a l v i n w o u l d p u t it,
a b o u t "sovereignty" a n d "perseverance o f t h e s a i n t s . "
" B e h o l d t h e L a m b o f G o d " is n o t J o h n t h e Baptist's m i s t a k i n g
Jesus for a s h e e p . It is a christological confession t h a t recognizes "Jesus
is t h e paschal L a m b o f t h e C h r i s t i a n Passover w h o b y his d e a t h (at
t h e very m o m e n t t h e paschal l a m b s w e r e b e i n g killed in t h e T e m p l e )
delivered t h e w o r l d from sin, as t h e original paschal Iamb's b l o o d
delivered t h e Israelites from t h e d e s t r o y i n g a n g e l . " '
In i n s t a n c e s s u c h as these, t h e necessity a n d p r a c t i c e o f i n t e r p r e -
t a t i o n o c c u r naturally. B u t , t h e r e are t i m e s in r e a d i n g s c r i p t u r e w h e n
t h e readers m a y n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y m a k e d i s t i n c t i o n s , a n d t h e r e f o r e
m a y n o t d o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n (correctly), a n d so, t h e y m a y m i s u n d e r -
s t a n d . For e x a m p l e : In J o h n 3 Jesus tells N i c o d e m u s t h a t he m u s t be
b o r n o n d f t u G e i ' [ a n o < - > t h e n ] . H e r e , dfojOev [ a n o < - > t h e n J is a n a m -
b i g u o u s G r e e k w o r d t h a t can m e a n "again" o r "from a b o v e , " a n d
' R. E. Brown, The Gospel and Epistles of John: A Concise Commentary (4th
ed.; Collegeville, M i n n . : T h e Liturgical Press, 1988) 2 5 .
N i c o d c m u s hears "again" r a t h e r t h a n "from a b o v e , " so t h a t his s u b s e -

q u e n t r e m a r k s are a t least as c o m i c a l as t h e y are tragic. Jesus declares
t h a t h u m a n s m u s t be b o r n "from a b o v e " — t h a t is, b y t h e p o w e r of
G o d r e n e w i n g t h e i r lives. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , N i c o d c m u s is n o t t h e o n l y
o n e w h o fails t o g r a s p Jesus' m e a n i n g , for m a n y in t h e w o r l d t o d a y
cheerfully use t h e l a n g u a g e o f N i c o d e m u s ' s m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g to d e -
scribe t h e i r t h e o l o g i c a l c o n v i c t i o n t h a t t h e y are " b o r n a g a i n . "
Similarly, in J o h n 1 2 : 3 2 Jesus said, " A n d I, w h e n I a m lifted u p
from t h e e a r t h , will d r a w all p e o p l e t o myself"; a n d t h e reader is
forced t o ask, W h a t d o e s " b e i n g lifted u p " m e a n ? D o e s it refer to
crucifixion, t o e x a l t a t i o n , or t o b o t h ? In an effort to a n s w e r this q u e s -
t i o n , careful s t u d y of t h e w o r IR|X'XJJ Lhypsoo<->J, "lifted u p " in this
passage, or even careful s t u d y o f t h e larger s p e e c h in w h i c h Jesus
m a k e s this s t a t e m e n t , p r o b a b l y w o n ' t m a k e a final d e c i s i o n possible;
for, in c o n t e x t , t h e s t a t e m e n t f u n c t i o n s as a p r o p h e c y of Jesus' d e a t h .
Yet, in t h e b r o a d e r r a n g e o f John's theological reflection as it is k n o w n
f r o m t h e e n t i r e G o s p e l , it is t h e crucified a n d e x a l t e d L o r d w h o
( t h r o u g h t h e Spirit) d r a w s h u m a n i t y t o himself.
T h i s o b s e r v a t i o n a b o u t J o h n 1 2 : 3 2 leads t o a larger issue r e g a r d -
ing t h e Bible: A t its very h e a r t , t h e Bible r e c o r d s a n d c o m m u n i c a t e s
i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t requires i n t e r p r e t a t i o n in o r d e r t h a t t h e i n f o r m a -
tion have relevance for faith a n d life. Indeed, it is in the process of inter-
pretation that the biblical information becomes relevant Moreover, the
Bible itself bears witness t o the necessity of o u r interpreting its message
as the biblical a u t h o r s themselves engage in theological interpretation.
C o n s i d e r , for e x a m p l e , the death of Jesus: O n t h e surface, as a
m e r e fact, Jesus' d e a t h is b u t a tragic e n d i n g t o t h e life of a s e e m i n g l y
g o o d b u t p r o b a b l y i m p r u d e n t first-century Jew. But, t h r o u g h Jesus'
o w n t e a c h i n g a n d t h e disciples' experience o f t h e resurrection of Jesus,
t h e early c h u r c h k n e w Jesus' d e a t h t o be m o r e t h a n a fact of history.
T h e r e f o r e , t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t never really speaks o f Jesus' d e a t h at
its p u r e l y historical level—Jesus' d e a t h is always s p o k e n o f in a n d
through interpretation. Indeed, t h a t the church's interpretation of
Jesus' d e a t h d i d n o t o c c u r s i m p l y o n c e - u p o n - a - t i m e . . . t h a t in t h e
light o f t h e r e s u r r e c t i o n t h e earliest believers s t r u g g l e d t o g r a s p t h e
d e p t h s o f t h e m e a n i n g o f C h r i s t ' s d e a t h . . . b o t h are clear from t h e
w e a l t h o f images r e c o r d e d in t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t offering i n t e r p r e t a -
tion of Jesus' death.
C o n s i d e r o n l y Paul: F o r h i m ( a n d o t h e r early C h r i s t i a n s ) Jesus'
d e a t h was the fulfillment of scripture; a n d s o , Jesus' d e a t h w a s d e -
s c r i b e d a n d e x p l a i n e d in s c r i p t u r a l t e r m s ( O l d T e s t a m e n t ) — a s an
e x p i a t o r y sacrifice (1 C o r . 5:7; R o m . 3 : 2 5 — s e e Lev. 1 6 : 1 3 - 1 5 ; E x o d .
JMARION L . SOARDS 167
1 2 : 2 1 - 2 7 ) ; as d i v i n e h u m i l i a t i o n in o b e d i e n c e (Phil. 2 : 6 - 1 1 — s e e Isa.
5 3 : 3 , 1 1 ; 4 5 : 2 2 - 2 3 ) ; as d i v i n e r e d e m p t i o n o n t h e m o d e l o f b u y i n g
o u t o f c o n s e c r a t e d service i n t o f r e e d o m (1 C o r . 6 : 2 0 , 7 : 2 3 — s e e Lev.
2 7 : 1 - 2 1 ) ; a n d as rescue o n t h e m o d e l s of t h e E x o d u s o r t h e a p p e a l s
of t h e Psalms for d e l i v e r a n c e f r o m peril ( R o m . 7 : 2 4 ; 2 C o r . 1:10; 1
T h e s s . 1 : 1 0 — s e e , for e x a m p l e , E x o d . 5 : 2 3 ; 6 : 6 ; 1 2 : 2 7 ; 1 4 : 3 0 ; Pss.
6:4; 7 : 1 ; 17:13; 18:17; 56:13).
All t h e s e i m a g e s are m e t a p h o r s for e x p r e s s i n g t h e crucial c o n v i c -
t i o n t h a t Jesus' death brings salvationl S o , o n e sees t h a t Paul d e c l a r e d
t h e s a v i n g significance of Jesus' d e a t h in t h e l a n g u a g e of O l d Testa-
m e n t salvific m o t i f s .
The Bible itself s h o w s t h e r e a d e r t h a t early C h r i s t i a n s t u r n e d t o
t h e s c r i p t u r e s in o r d e r t o c o m p r e h e n d in g r e a t e r d e p t h t h e m e a n i n g
of C h r i s t ' s d e a t h . Similarly, today's readers m u s t e n g a g e in s t u d y a n d
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e s c r i p t u r e s in o r d e r t h a t t h e s c r i p t u r e s m a y s p e a k
a n e w to believers t o d a y as t h e y s p o k e t o t h o s e first C h r i s t i a n s . P e o p l e
t o d a y m u s t c o m e t o k n o w w h a t it m e a n s to confess t h a t " C h r i s t d i e d
for o u r sins in accordance w i t h t h e s c r i p t u r e s . . . a n d t h a t h e was raised
o n t h e third d a y in accordance with the scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3-4).
V . C H R I S T O U R HERMENEUTIC
W h a t , t h e n , is t h e basis o f r e s p o n s i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n for p e r s o n s
in t h e R e f o r m e d t r a d i t i o n ? H o w shall believers g o a b o u t t h e crucial
w o r k of m a k i n g sense of t h e a u t h o r i t a t i v e texts o f t h e Bible? H e r e ,
o n e sees t h a t t h r e e c o n c e r n s coalesce:
1. W h a t t h e Bible says t o e a c h p e r s o n as a n i n d i v i d u a l .
2 . W h a t t h e Bible h a s said t o t h o s e in t h e c h u r c h before t o d a y
a n d so with today's r e a d e r in t h e life of t h e c h u r c h .
3 . W h a t t h e biblical w r i t i n g s s a i d t o t h e i r first readers, or w h a t
t h e later i n f o r m e d r e a d e r perceives t h a t t h e a u t h o r i n t e n d e d to say t o
the original audience.
These are all valid ( t h o u g h debatable) questions, b u t a key for accu-
rate interpretation is t h e sequence in w h i c h o n e poses these questions.
I w o u l d a r g u e t h a t t h e p r i m a r y task for p e r s o n s in t h e R e f o r m e d
t r a d i t i o n t o d a y w h o seek t o b e r e s p o n s i b l e i n t e r p r e t e r s is t o b e g i n b y
a s k i n g Q u e s t i o n # 3 . O n l y w h e n readers h a v e resolved t h i s issue are
t h e y in a p o s i t i o n to ask a n d , t h e n , c r i t i q u e t h e a n s w e r s t o Q u e s t i o n
# 2 a n d Q u e s t i o n # 1 . I n t e r p r e t i n g in t h i s m a n n e r is n o t t o d e n y t h a t
t h e Bible can s p e a k in d i s t i n c t w a y s in different t i m e s a n d places, b u t
t o d e t e r m i n e t h e v a l i d i t y of w h a t a n y a n d all believers c o n c l u d e t h e
Bible m e a n s , o n e m u s t ask w h e t h e r t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s offered are
c o n g r u e n t w i t h t h e "plain sense" o f t h e s c r i p t u r e s . In o r d e r t o c o n -
trol, t o g u i d e , t o criticize, a n d t o g u a r a n t e e a p p r o p r i a t e i n t e r p r e t a -
t i o n , readers m u s t b e c o m e i n f o r m e d a n d active. T h e y m u s t e d u c a t e
t h e m s e l v e s in t e r m s o f history, a n c i e n t p h i l o s o p h y a n d religion, l a n -
g u a g e s , theology, a n d h e r m e n e u t i c s . T h i s strategy for r e a d i n g s c r i p -
t u r e d o e s n o t m e a n t h a t C h r i s t i a n s o t h e r t h a n t h o s e w h o are biblical
scholars are u n a b l e t o read t h e Bible w i t h p e r c e p t i o n a n d insight.
Yet, t h e d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n today's readers a n d t h e Bible a n d t h e l o n g
history of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n — w i t h seemingly myriad explanations t h a t
s o m e t i m e s conflict or c o n t r a d i c t each o t h e r — m e a n s t h a t scholars
have a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e s t u d y of t h e s c r i p t u r e s in
t h e life of t h e c h u r c h . T h u s , t h e R e f o r m e d tradition's insistence o n
an e d u c a t e d r e a d i n g a n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e texts.
The i n t e r p r e t i v e e l e m e n t s of history, p h i l o s o p h y a n d religion,
l a n g u a g e s , a n d t h e o l o g y are fairly s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d — a l t h o u g h t h e y
i m p l y a h i g h degree o f s o p h i s t i c a t i o n for t h e i n t e r p r e t e r ; b u t b e c a u s e
o f its c o m p l e x i t y t h e following p a r a g r a p h s focus o n t h e issue o f h e r m e -
n e u t i c s , especially in relation t o t h e R e f o r m e d t r a d i t i o n . S i m p l y d e -
fined, hermeneutics d e s i g n a t e s t h e m e t h o d s , t h e m e a n s , a n d t h e m e a -
sure o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s .
W h a t is t h e s t a n d a r d o f R e f o r m e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f scripture?
S o m e p r o p o s e justice, o t h e r s liberation, still o t h e r s love—all o f w h i c h
are n o b l e s t a n d a r d s — b u t t h e confessions o f t h e R e f o r m e d t r a d i t i o n
s e e m clearly t o insist t h a t t h e c r i t e r i o n for valid u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e
Bible is Jesus Christ himself. " T h e o n e sufficient revelation o f G o d is
Jesus C h r i s t , t h e W o r d o f G o d i n c a r n a t e . . ." ( " T h e C o n f e s s i o n of
1 9 6 7 " : 9 . 2 7 ) ; a n d "the Bible is t o b e i n t e r p r e t e d in t h e light of its
w i t n e s s t o G o d ' s w o r k of r e c o n c i l i a t i o n in [Jesus] C h r i s t " ( " T h e C o n -
fession o f 1 9 6 7 " : 9 . 2 9 ) .
If Jesus C h r i s t is confessed t o b e t h e i n c a r n a t e W o r d o f G o d ,
t h e n , t h e R e f o r m e d i n t e r p r e t e r o f s c r i p t u r e m u s t h o l d h i m at t h e
b e g i n n i n g a n d at t h e c e n t e r of faith a n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e Bible.
The d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r o f C h r i s t i a n i t y as u n d e r s t o o d in t h e R e -
f o r m e d t r a d i t i o n is t h a t C h r i s t i a n i t y focuses o n G o d a n d t h e rela-
t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n G o d a n d h u m a n i t y ( a n d , for t h a t m a t t e r , t h e cos-
mos!) by f o c u s i n g o n t h e person o f Jesus C h r i s t a n d t h e personal
relationship w i t h Jesus C h r i s t t h a t h u m a n i t y a n d c r e a t i o n enjoy.
I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of s c r i p t u r e is an e n c o u n t e r w i t h a text, n o t w i t h
a p e r s o n . B u t , b e c a u s e believers k n o w t h e p e r s o n of Jesus C h r i s t as
h e is m e d i a t e d t o t h e m t h r o u g h t h e s c r i p t u r e s , n o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f
t h e Bible can be called C h r i s t i a n t h a t is d e v o i d of t h e i n h e r e n t p e r -
sonal q u a l i t y o f C h r i s t i a n faith. In o n e way, valid historical i n t e r p r e -
t a t i o n o f t h e Bible can be d o n e b y an h o n e s t a t h e i s t , b u t in t h e c o n -
text o f t h e c o m m u n i t y o f faith i n t e r p r e t e r s s h o u l d strive t o effect a
p e r s o n a l q u a l i t y in t h e i r historical a n d critical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e
Bible.
A t a s t a r k m i n i m u m this w o r k in i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e Bible s h o u l d
be a t h r e e - w a y e n c o u n t e r — b e t w e e n t h e texts, t h e believers, a n d t h e
p e r s o n a l p r e s e n c e of t h e risen L o r d Jesus C h r i s t — a l l " u n d e r t h e g u i d -
a n c e o f t h e H o l y Spirit" ( " T h e C o n f e s s i o n o f 1 9 6 7 " : 9 . 2 9 ) . M o r e -
over, an awareness o f t h e p r e s e n c e of C h r i s t in t h e life o f t h e c h u r c h ,
especially in t h e w o r k o f i n t e r p r e t i n g s c r i p t u r e , s h o u l d i m m e d i a t e l y
r e m i n d s t u d e n t s of s c r i p t u r e t h a t t h e y are n o t i n v o l v e d in an i n d i -
v i d u a l i s t i c s o j o u r n , w h e r e i n d i v i d u a l or g r o u p s , a l o n g w i t h Jesus
C h r i s t a n d t h e Bible, "get a g o o d t h i n g g o i n g . "
P e r h a p s t h e best i m a g e for w h a t it m e a n s t o d o valid i n t e r p r e t a -
t i o n o f t h e Bible (in t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g f o r m u l a t e d in t h e R e f o r m e d
t r a d i t i o n ) is t h e idea of an o p e n r o u n d - t a b l e d i s c u s s i o n . O n e can
i m a g i n e t h e Bible (even its a u t h o r s ) at table w i t h t h e m o d e r n read-
ers, w i t h Jesus C h r i s t , a n d w i t h representatives o f t h e e n t i r e c o m m u -
n i t y o f C h r i s t i a n faith. T h e Bible is n o t t h e p r o p e r t y of an i n d i -
v i d u a l , a g r o u p , or even o f a d e n o m i n a t i o n a l o n e . It is t h e s c r i p t u r e
of t h e c h u r c h universal; it is t h e m o s t basic t e s t i m o n y t o t h e L o r d
a n d G o d o f all believers. T h u s , t h o s e s e t t i n g o u t t o r e a d t h e Bible
s h o u l d invite all Christ's p e o p l e t o t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n .
By necessity, a significant n u m b e r o f t h o s e at t h e i n t e r p r e t i v e
table will be scholars a n d p r o m i n e n t leaders o f t h e c h u r c h w h o have
l o n g s i n c e read a n d i n t e r p r e t e d t h e Bible. N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e c h u r c h as
t h e b o d y o f C h r i s t is m o r e t h a n a b r a i n or a m o u t h . T h e w h o l e b o d y
of C h r i s t c o m p r i s e s eyes, ears, h a n d s , feet, a n d h e a r t . A n d so, in
a t t e m p t i n g t o h e a r t h e voice of s c r i p t u r e — o r , t h e voices of t h e B i b l e —
readers m u s t carefully call for t h e insights of all Christ's p e o p l e — n o t
merely those m o s t c o m p a t i b l e with one's or one's group's p o i n t s of view.
As believers w o r k w i t h s c r i p t u r e , t h e y m u s t u n d e r s t a n d t h a t in
t h e overall process o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , t h e y t h e m s e l v e s — t h e i r very p e r -
s o n s a n d lives—are b e i n g called i n t o q u e s t i o n . T h e l a b o r of i n t e r -
p r e t i n g t h e Bible does n o t necessarily lead t o a c o m f o r t i n g c o n f i r m a -
t i o n o f w h o w e h u m a n s are a n d w h a t w e d o . I n d e e d , n o i n t e r p r e t a -
t i o n o f t h e Bible is t r u l y valid w h e r e i n t h e i n t e r p r e t e r s are n o t as
equally v u l n e r a b l e as are texts t h e y seek t o i n t e r p r e t . Believers e n -
c o u n t e r t h e Bible in t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e total c o m m u n i t y o f f a i t h —
a n d they, o t h e r s , a n d t h e s c r i p t u r e s are all t o g e t h e r u n d e r t h e L o r d -
s h i p o f Jesus C h r i s t . In t h e give a n d t a k e o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n readers
m u s t c o n s t a n t l y h o l d t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of all p a r t n e r s in t h e c o n -
versación u p a g a i n s t t h e p e r s o n o f C h r i s t , w h o is t h e final c r i t e r i o n
for valid u n d e r s t a n d i n g .
As t h e W o r d of G o d , Jesus m e a n s f r e e d o m . T h e call o f C h r i s t is
a call t o f r e e d o m — t o l i b e r a t i o n f r o m all i n v o l v e m e n t s t h a t enslave
a n d t h e r e b y , r e d u c e h u m a n lives t o levels less t h a n t h a t i n t e n d e d b y
G o d in c r e a t i o n a n d r e d e m p t i o n . M o r e o v e r , believers are n o t o n l y
freed from o p p r e s s i o n , t h e y are freed for a rich, r e w a r d i n g r e l a t i o n -
s h i p t o C h r i s t t h a t m e a n s a life o f l o v i n g service t o o t h e r s a c c o r d i n g
to C h r i s t ' s will. T h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e Bible m u s t b e d o n e in t h e
context of these concerns a n d c o m m i t m e n t s . Interpretation must
always raise t h e C h r i s t - c e n t e r e d q u e s t i o n s o f l i b e r a t i o n a n d o b l i g a -
t i o n , o f f r e e d o m a n d service.
P e r s o n s in t h e R e f o r m e d t r a d i t i o n seek t o find t h e i r w a y f o r w a r d
as G o d w o u l d h a v e t h e m g o as t h e y r e a d t h e Bible a n d a t t e n d t o its
message as i l l u m i n a t e d b y t h e H o l y Spirit. W i t h o u t t h e gifts o f t h e
w o r d o f G o d w r i t t e n a n d t h e g u i d a n c e o f t h e Spirit readers are left to
t h e i r o w n d e v i c e s — a n d as J o h n C a l v i n said, " T h e w h o l e w o r l d lies
1
in w i c k e d n e s s " a n d t h e m i n d o f this w o r l d is "a false i m a g i n a t i o n . "
Yet, a g a i n s t t h a t n e g a t i v e s i t u a t i o n , G o d w h o reconciles t h e believers
in J e s u s C h r i s t gives s c r i p t u r e a n d t h e S p i r i t t o d i r e c t believers in
faithfulness.
V I . CASK STUDY - EPHESIANS 2 : 1 - 1 0
In t h e late t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y , p e r h a p s t h e m o s t e c u m e n i c a l d i s -
c i p l i n e in t h e r a n g e o f t h e o l o g i c a l s t u d i e s has b e c o m e biblical in-
t e r p r e t a t i o n . T o d a y vast n u m b e r s of specialists from essentially every
d e n o m i n a t i o n a n d t r a d i t i o n ( i n c l u d i n g p e r s o n s w h o d i s a v o w reli-
g i o u s affiliations) m e e t a n d w o r k t o g e t h e r in large o r g a n i z a t i o n s s u c h
as t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l S o c i e t y o f Biblical L i t e r a t u r e . S t a n d a r d s for criti-
cal exegetical research are a f f i r m e d a n d s h a r e d b y p e r s o n s f r o m a
w i d e array o f traditions. Thus, exegesis as a historical-critical enterprise is
n o t necessarily confessional in its m e t h o d s or conclusions. Nevertheless,
after t h e w o r k of exegesis has been d o n e , it is easier to find consensus
c o n c e r n i n g w h a t a text " m e a n t " t h a n regarding w h a t a text " m e a n s . "
T h e f o l l o w i n g b r i e f exegetical essay a s s u m e s t h e s h a r e d m e t h o d s
( a n d m a n y c o n c l u s i o n s ) o f t h e g u i l d o f biblical s c h o l a r s . T h e n , w o r k -
i n g f r o m s u c h scholarly i n s i g h t s , I h a v e t r i e d t o "read" t h e t e x t in
relation t o t h e religious sensibilities of t h e R e f o r m e d t r a d i t i o n . A b o v e
4
J o h n Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Ro-
mans (Grand Rapids: F.erdmans, 1959) 4 5 3 - 5 5 .
all, I h a v e s o u g h t t o b e g e n u i n e l y t h e o l o g i c a l in this w o r k , n o t s i m p l y
to register historical a n d sociological i n s i g h t s . W h a t follows is devel-
o p e d w i t h t h e ecclesiastical e n v i r o n m e n t in m i n d ; t h u s , I shall at-
t e n d t o t h e literary a n d historical s e t t i n g o f t h e passage from Ephesians,
a n d t h e n I shall focus o n t h e s t r u c t u r e of t h e m a t e r i a l s , a n d finally I
shall r e m a r k o n t h e t h e o l o g i c a l significance of t h e m a t e r i a l s for t h e
life o f believers a n d t h e c h u r c h .
VII. Ephesians 2:1-10

W H A T I T MKANS TO BK A BELIEVER
S e t t i n g . The letter t o t h e " E p h e s i a n s " s e e m s u n r e l a t e d t o any

specific s i t u a t i o n , b u t it is clearly c o n c e r n e d w i t h every d i v i n e a n d
h u m a n m o m e n t . The e n t i r e epistle falls i n t o t w o b r o a d p a r t s : c h a p -
ters 1-3 are a n e l a b o r a t e , p r o f o u n d l y t h e o l o g i c a l s t a t e m e n t , w h i c h
are a l m o s t esoteric in n a t u r e b e c a u s e t h e y are so lofty, c o m p l e x , a n d
even e l e g a n t ; c h a p t e r s 4 - 6 are also q u i t e elevated in style, e x p r e s s i o n ,
a n d o u t l o o k , b u t h e r e t h e r e a d e r finds s t a t e m e n t s a b o u t t h e practical
o r d e r i n g o f t h e every d a y life o f believers. The g e n e r a l t h e m e o f this
epistle, h o w e v e r , in b o t h its theological a n d practical p a r t s , is c o s m i c
r e c o n c i l i a t i o n a n d t h e m e a n i n g o f s u c h h e g e m o n y for all of life.
T h e first t w e n t y - t w o verses o f c h a p t e r o n e are f o c u s e d o n t h e
i n d i v i d u a l believer, a n d o n l y a t 1:23 d o e s t h e a u t h o r i n t r o d u c e t h e
C h u r c h as t h e universal b o d y of C h r i s t . Yet, t o p r e v e n t o n e f r o m
m o v i n g f r o m t h e level of t h e i n d i v i d u a l believer t o t h a t of t h e C h u r c h
universal a n d , in t u r n , f o r g e t t i n g t h e crucial i m p l i c a t i o n s o f salva-
t i o n for t h e i n d i v i d u a l m e m b e r s o f t h e b o d y , t h e a u t h o r d r o p s b a c k
in 2 : 1 - 1 0 t o c o n t r a s t t h e pitiful life w i t h o u t C h r i s t t o t h e glories of
life b r o u g h t b y t h e p o w e r o f C h r i s t ' s s a l v a t i o n .
S t r u c t u r e . T h e reflection in t h e s e verses is elevated a n d a b s t r a c t ,
b u t t h e logic is progressive a n d clear. T h e lesson articulates t h e s u b -
s t a n c e of salvation, p o n d e r s t h e way t h a t salvation c o m e s t o t h e b e -
liever a n d t h e w a y it d o e s n o t , a n d declares t h a t t o w h i c h s a l v a t i o n
leads. The p a t h of t h e logic is from s a l v a t i o n t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l b e -
liever t o t h e life o f t h e C h u r c h . T h u s , w h i l e salvation is t h e o v e r a r c h i n g
t h e m e , t h e verses m e d i t a t e o n b o t h t h e i n d i v i d u a l a n d c o r p o r a t e d i -
mensions of salvation a n d the relationship between the two.
S i g n i f i c a n c e . The h e a r t o f t h i s passage is a c o n t r a s t b e t w e e n t h e
g l o o m y p r e d i c a m e n t o f a h u m a n life lived w i t h o u t C h r i s t a n d t h e
g r a c i o u s glories o f life lived in his h e a l i n g r e s u r r e c t i o n p o w e r . H a v -
ing m e n t i o n e d the C h u r c h (1:23, "his body"), the author's m i n d
recoils t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l believer. A r e a d e r c o u l d c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e
b o u n t e o u s benefits o f faith are f o u n d t h r o u g h merely j o i n i n g t h e

C h u r c h , b u t t h e a u t h o r u n d e r m i n e s s u c h faulty logic. For E p h e s i a n s
t h e C h u r c h is t h e c o r p o r a t e c o m m u n i t y o f saved i n d i v i d u a l s . U n l e s s
salvation has m e a n i n g for t h e i n d i v i d u a l , t h e r e is n o t h i n g p e r s o n a l
or c o m p e l l i n g a b o u t t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f C h r i s t . Yet, clearly i n d i v i d u a l s
d o n o t simply derive benefits from attaching themselves to the
C h u r c h . Rather, the only legitimate way to b e c o m e a m e m b e r of the
C h u r c h is t o b e a believer. C h u r c h m e m b e r s h i p d o e s n o t m a k e o n e a
C h r i s t i a n . W e are C h r i s t i a n s t h r o u g h o u r i n d i v i d u a l a n d p e r s o n a l
e x p e r i e n c e s . Yet, C h r i s t i a n i t y is n o t i n d i v i d u a l i s m . B e i n g a C h r i s t i a n
m e a n s , in t u r n , affiliation w i t h a n d p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h e life of t h e
C h u r c h — E p h e s i a n s m a k e s this p l a i n ; b u t this passage labors t o m a k e
sure t h a t readers d o n o t miss t h e i n d i v i d u a l m e a n i n g of salvation
t h r o u g h artificially f o c u s i n g o n t h e m e a n i n g o f C h u r c h m e m b e r -
s h i p . As believers w e n e i t h e r s t a n d a l o n e n o r h i d e in t h e C h u r c h ;
rather, w e are i n d i v i d u a l s m u t u a l l y related t o o n e a n o t h e r t h r o u g h
o u r u n i q u e r e l a t i o n s h i p s t o C h r i s t as i n d i v i d u a l believers. T h e verti-
cal d i m e n s i o n of faith is t h e s o u r c e a n d p o w e r of t h e h o r i z o n t a l d i -
m e n s i o n of life in Christ. Part of w h a t Christian life m e a n s for indi-
vidual Christians is t h a t because of their personal relationships t o Christ,
they are led to b e c o m e m e m b e r s of t h e corporate b o d y o f Christ.
B e y o n d this crucial basic m a t t e r , t h r e e s t r i k i n g t h e m e s in this
text r e q u i r e r e c o g n i t i o n a n d , p e r h a p s , t r e a t m e n t in t h e o l o g i c a l re-
flection. First, t h e difference b e t w e e n life before a n d after C h r i s t is
t h e difference b e t w e e n life a n d d e a t h , n o w a n d forever. This is a
m a t t e r o f t h e q u a l i t y o f life as well as t h e e n e r g y o r e n d u r i n g value o f
life. S e c o n d , t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f life, f r o m d e a t h t o life, c o m e s
t h r o u g h t h e believer's r e l a t i o n s h i p t o C h r i s t h i m s e l f a n d c o m e s by
t h e grace of G o d . The e x p e r i e n c e o f salvation, m e a n i n g t h e real t r a n s -
f o r m a t i o n of existence, is t h e w o r k o f G o d . T h e text tells t h e g o o d
n e w s o f G o d ' s s a v i n g grace in C h r i s t , a n d it b l u n t l y p u t s believers in
t h e i r p r o p e r places (see vv. 8 - 9 ) . T h i r d , in expressing t h e t r u l y inex-
pressible c h a r a c t e r o f C h r i s t i a n life, E p h e s i a n s d r a w s o n t h e s t o r y o f
C h r i s t h i m s e l f t o explicate t h e m e a n i n g of salvation for t h e believer.
T h e a u t h o r goes f u r t h e r t h a n a n y o t h e r N e w T e s t a m e n t w r i t e r in
u s i n g t h e s t o r y o f C h r i s t for d e c l a r i n g t h e glories of C h r i s t i a n life.
Believers have d i e d w i t h C h r i s t , t h e y are raised w i t h C h r i s t , a n d t h e y
are exalted w i t h C h r i s t i n t o t h e heavenly places. This m a n n e r of speak-
i n g m a y s e e m t o e x p o u n d a p u r e l y realized eschatology, b u t n o t i c e
t h e r e is a future t h a t is o p e n t o , b u t different from, t h e p r e s e n t ; in-
d e e d , t h e future is a n t i c i p a t e d as g r e a t e r t h a n t h e p r e s e n t (v. 7 ) .
RECOMMENDED READING
A c h t e m e i e r , Paul J. The Inspiration of Scripture: Problems and Pro-

posals. P h i l a d e l p h i a : W e s t m i n s t e r , 1 9 8 0 .
B a i r d , W i l l i a m . History of New 'Testament Research: Volume One.

From Deism to 'Tubingen. M i n n e a p o l i s : Fortress, 1 9 9 2 . P p . xiii-
xix.
Fee, G o r d o n D . New 'Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students

and Pastors. Rev. ed. Louisville: W e s t m i n s t e r / J o h n K n o x , 1 9 9 3 .
G e r r i s h , Brian A. Grace and Gratitude: The Eucharistic Theology of

John Calvin. M i n n e a p o l i s : Fortress, 1 9 9 3 .
G r a n t , R o b e r t a n d D a v i d Tracy. A Short History of the Interpreta-

tion of the Bible. 2 n d ed. P h i l a d e l p h i a : Fortress, 1 9 8 4 .
Harrisville, R o y A. a n d W a l t e r S u n d b e r g . 'The Bible in Modern Cul-

ture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to
Kasemann. G r a n d R a p i d s , M i c h . : W m . B. E e r d m a n s , 1 9 9 5 . P p .
10-31.
H a y e s , J o h n H . a n d C a r l R. H o l l a d a y . Biblical Exegesis: A Beginner's

Handbook. Atlanta: John Knox, 1982.
Kelsey, D a v i d . " S c r i p t u r e , D o c t r i n e of." In The Westminster Dictio-

nary of Christian 'Theology, e d i t e d by A l a n R i c h a r d s o n a n d J o h n
Bowden. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983. Pp. 5 2 9 - 3 1 .
M a r s h a l l , I. H o w a r d , ed. New Testament Interpretation: Essays on

Principles and Methods. G r a n d R a p i d s , M i c h . : W m . B. E e r d m a n s ,
1977.
M c K i m , D o n a l d . " S c r i p t u r a l A u t h o r i t y ( a n d t h e P r o t e s t a n t Refor-
m a t i o n ) . " In The Anchor Bible Dictionary: Volume 5, e d i t e d b y
D a v i d N o e l F r e e d m a n . N e w York: D o u b l e d a y , 1 9 9 2 . P p . 1 0 3 2 -
35.
M e e k s , W a y n e A., ed. The HarperCollins Study Bible: New Revised

Standard Version—with ApocryphallDeuterocanonical Books. S a n
Francisco: Harper, 1993.
Neill, S t e p h e n a n d N . T. W r i g h t . The Interpretation of the New Tes-

tament 1861-1986. O x f o r d : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 8 8 .
P a r k e r , T. H . L. Calvin's New Testament Commentaries. 2 n d ed.

Louisville: W e s t m i n s t e r / J o h n K n o x , 1 9 9 3 .
. Calvin's Old Testament Commentaries. 1st A m e r i c a n e d . L o u -

isville: W e s t m i n s t e r / J o h n K n o x , 1 9 9 3 ; o r i g i n a l l y p u b l i s h e d :
Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986.
R o g e r s , J a c k a n d D o n a l d M c K i m . Authority and Interpretation of

the Bible: An Historical Approach. N e w York: H a r p e r a n d R o w ,
1979.

tion of Scripture: Toward a Hermeneutics of Consent. Philadel-
p h i a : Fortress, 1 9 7 7 .
SCRIPTURE AS WORD OF G O D
AND THE ECUMENICAL TASK
by
GF.ORGF. H . TAVARD, A.A.
T h e i n t e n t o f t h i s essay is t o e x a m i n e a q u e s t i o n t h a t has b e e n
i m p l i c i t l y at t h e c e n t e r o f d e b a t e s b e t w e e n C a t h o l i c s a n d P r o -
t e s t a n t s , b o t h in t h e p o l e m i c a l t i m e s o f t h e R e f o r m a t i o n a n d
C o u n t e r R e f o r m a t i o n a n d in t h e e c u m e n i c a l d i a l o g u e s of t h e t w e n t i -
eth c e n t u r y . W h a t d o w e affirm w h e n w e d e s i g n a t e S c r i p t u r e as t h e
W o r d of G o d ? 1 am n o t asking a b o u t w h a t various theologians have
u n d e r s t o o d b y t h e expression; n o r a m I c o n c e r n e d w i t h varieties of
i n t e t p r e t a t i o n , b u t w i t h essential s t a t e m e n t . In a d d i t i o n , m y c o n -
c e r n is n o t w i t h specific t h e o l o g i e s b u t w i t h t h e C h u r c h a n d its o r -
g a n i c t r a d i t i o n as a w h o l e . T h e ecclesial c o n t e x t s h a p e s t h e a p p r o a c h
of t h e o l o g i a n s a n d of t h e e d u c a t e d faithful, at least in t h e i r m a i n
lines, as t h e y i n t e r p r e t , s p o n t a n e o u s l y o r reflexively, w h a t S c r i p t u r e
says. In this ecclesial c o n t e x t I w i s h t o deal m o r e specifically w i t h
w h a t m e a n i n g t h e C a t h o l i c t r a d i t i o n has given t o t h e a s s e r t i o n t h a t
S c r i p t u r e is t h e W o r d of G o d .
The q u e s t i o n is o f i m p o r t a n c e for t h e s t r u c t u r e o f d i a l o g u e ,
w h i c h , as P o p e Paul VI a f f i r m e d in his encyclical Ecclesiam suam (in
1 9 6 4 , t h e t h i r d year o f V a t i c a n I I ) , b e l o n g s t o t h e essence of t h e
C h u r c h . T h e m u l t i f a c e t e d d i a l o g u e in w h i c h t h e C h r i s t i a n w o r l d is
n o w e n g a g e d is first of all i n t e r n a l , as b e t w e e n O r i e n t a l O r t h o d o x ,
B y z a n t i n e O r t h o d o x , C a t h o l i c s , a n d P r o t e s t a n t s , a n d also, less m a r k -
edly, classical P e n t e c o s t a l a n d f u n d a m e n t a l i s t c h u r c h e s . It is also in-
creasingly e x t e r n a l , t h a t is, w i t h o t h e r religions, several of w h i c h also
h a v e S c r i p t u r e s t h a t t h e y r e g a r d as b e i n g in s o m e sense W o r d o f G o d .
I. ECCLKSIAL C O N T E X T
T h e ecclesial c o n t e x t of c a t h o l i c i t y m a y b e l o o k e d a t f r o m t w o
angles. S y n c h r o n i c a l l y , t h i s c o n t e x t is t h e C a t h o l i c c o m m u n i o n as it
176 SCRIPTURE AS W O R D OF G O D
n o w lives u n d e r t h e p r i m a c y o f P o p e J o h n Paul II, in t h e p u z z l i n g

c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h e p o s t c o n c i l i a r p e r i o d , t h e c o m i n g e n d of t h e
t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y , t h e e n s u i n g d a w n o f t h e t h i r d m i l l e n n i u m after
C h r i s t , a n d t h e t u r m o i l a n d u n c e r t a i n t y t h a t are following t h e b r e a k u p
of t h e Soviet U n i o n , t h e d i s a p p e a r a n c e o f C o m m u n i s t d i c t a t o r s h i p s
in E a s t e r n E u r o p e , a n d t h e i r resilience in Asia. D i a c h r o n i c a l l y , this
c o n t e x t is t h e C a t h o l i c t r a d i t i o n . H i s t o r i a n s o f religious ideas a n d
i n s t i t u t i o n s can c o m p a r e it w i t h parallel t r a d i t i o n s in o t h e r C h r i s -
t i a n c o m m u n i o n s , a n d even w i t h c o r r e s p o n d i n g , if n o t parallel, t r a -
d i t i o n s in s o m e o f t h e o t h e r g r e a t w o r l d religions. This t r a d i t i o n has
h a d a n u n d e n i a b l e c o n t i n u i t y t h r o u g h t i m e e v e n if it has u n d e r g o n e
c e r t a i n shifts a n d t u r n s . This c o n t i n u i t y has given t h e C a t h o l i c real-
ity a r e c o g n i z a b l e consistency, a s o r t o f t h i c k n e s s t h a t m a y n e e d t o b e
p e e l e d off if w e are t o g r a s p t h e h e a r t of t h e C a t h o l i c r e a d i n g o f
S c r i p t u r e as W o r d o f G o d .
C a t h o l i c t h e o l o g y a n d p r a c t i c e , h o w e v e r , h a v e also c o n v e y e d t h e
i m p r e s s i o n t h a t t h e n o r m a t i v i t y o f S c r i p t u r e has b e e n q u a l i f i e d in
C a t h o l i c c o n t e x t , n o t o n l y b y reference t o a n o r m a t i v i t y of t r a d i t i o n ,
b u t also b y o b e d i e n c e to t h e a u t h o r i t y t h a t has b e e n r e c o g n i z e d t o ,
or a s s u m e d by, t h e l i v i n g m a g i s t e r i u m o f b i s h o p s . This was of c o u r s e
t h e m a i n reason w h y t h e n o r m a t i v i t y of t h e W o r d o f G o d was p o i n t -
edly u n d e r l i n e d b y t h e R e f o r m e r s in t h e i r a p p e a l t o S c r i p t u r e a l o n e .
II. TRADITION
The C a t h o l i c e t h o s has i n d e e d given p a r t i c u l a r i m p o r t a n c e t o

t h e w e i g h t of t r a d i t i o n . The p r e s e n t m o m e n t is n e v e r seen a p a r t f r o m
its o r i g i n a t i o n in t h e p a s t . T h e c o n t e m p o r a r y c o o r d i n a t e s o f a d o c -
t r i n e , t e a c h i n g , i n s t i t u t i o n , o r p r a c t i c e are n e v e r sufficient t o explain
it. O n e also n e e d s t o trace its r o o t s . S e a r c h i n g t h e g r o u n d of c o n t e m -
p o r a r y d o c t r i n e , t h e C a t h o l i c d i v i s i o n o f h i s t o r y h a s p i n p o i n t e d cer-
t a i n m o m e n t s , chiefly t h o s e of e c u m e n i c a l c o u n c i l s , as b e i n g n o r m a -
tive for t h e p r e s e n t . T o t h e critical o b s e r v e r it w o u l d t h e n s e e m t h a t
t h e p r e s e n t c h u r c h b o w s t o selected e p i s o d e s in t h e p a s t . T o t h e b e -
liever, critical o r naive, it m e a n s t h a t t h e C h u r c h lives from m e m o r y ,
a n d t h a t this m e m o r y , like all m e m o r i e s , has b e e n selective. If it is
healthy, t h e C h u r c h ' s m e m o r y selects t h o s e e v e n t s t h a t h a v e b o r n t h e
clearest w i t n e s s , given t h e i r t i m e a n d place, t o t h e o r i g i n a l m e m o r y
t h a t lies at t h e very h e a r t of t h e C h r i s t i a n c o n s c i o u s n e s s , namely, t h e
m e m o r y of t h e L o r d .
I n d e e d , C h r i s t i a n c h u r c h e s differ a t t h e level of these r e m e m -
b e r e d e v e n t s . They d o n o t r e m e m b e r t h e R e f o r m a t i o n or t h e C o u n -
G E O R G E H . TAVARD, A.A. 177
cil of T r e n t in t h e s a m e way. Yet t h e y also differ at t h e v e r y level o f t h e

o r i g i n a l m e m o r y , if at least s o m e o f t h e m identify t h e c e n t r a l l y re-
m e m b e r e d e v e n t as t h e Last S u p p e r , o t h e r s as t h e c r u c i f i x i o n , a n d
o t h e r s p e r h a p s as t h e r e s u r r e c t i o n . E a c h o f t h e s e r e m e m b e r e d m o -
m e n t s is t h e n h a l o e d w i t h a u n i q u e t h e o l o g i c a l e m p h a s i s : t h e Last
S u p p e r evokes t h e real p r e s e n c e of t h e L o r d a m o n g his p e o p l e o n
e a r t h ; t h e cross o f Jesus u n d e r l i n e s g r a t u i t o u s s a l v a t i o n ; t h e r e s u r r e c -
t i o n h i g h l i g h t s t h e p r e s e n t a n t i c i p a t i o n o f eschatological transfor-
m a t i o n . I n t o t h e i r c e n t r a l m e m o r y of t h e p r e s e n c e , C a t h o l i c s h a v e
also, a n d m o r e t h a n ever since t h e e n d o f t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y ,
i n s e r t e d t h e s o u n d of t h e living magisterial v o i c e , b o t h t h a t o f b i s h -
o p s at large a n d t h e i n c r e a s i n g l y s t r i d e n t voice of t h e b i s h o p o f R o m e
in t h e exercise o f w h a t is believed t o b e t h e c o n t i n u i n g m i n i s t r y of
t h e first of t h e apostles.
A u t h o r i t y for t h e C a t h o l i c m i n d has t h u s b e e n n o t o n l y t h a t of
t h e W o r d o f G o d in S c r i p t u r e ; it h a s also b e e n t h a t o f t h e t r a d i t i o n .
O r , in t h e m o r e r e c e n t f o r m u l a t i o n t h a t was e n d o r s e d , p e r h a p s t o o
hastily, b y V a t i c a n II, it h a s b e e n t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e t r a d i t i o n a n d of
t h e m a g i s t e r i u m . I say, hastily, b e c a u s e if t h e m a g i s t e r i u m is n o l o n g e r
seen as p a r t of t h e t r a d i t i o n b u t as an a d d i t i o n a l s o u r c e of a u t h o r i t y
t h a t is c o n n u m e r a t e d w i t h S c r i p t u r e a n d t h e t r a d i t i o n , its s e e m i n g
i m p o r t a n c e h i d e s t h e fact t h a t it has lost its f o u n d a t i o n t h a t c a n lie
n o w h e r e else t h a n in S c r i p t u r e a n d in t r a d i t i o n . Yet, w h e t h e r o n e
c o u n t s t w o or t h r e e p o i n t s of reference in t h e C a t h o l i c p a t t e r n of
authority, o n e c a n n o t assume that the relationships between the t w o
o r t h e t h r e e are n e v e r c o n f l i c t u a l . H i s t o r i a n s h a v e t o l d t h e s t o r y o f
p e r i o d s of crisis w h e n conflicts surfaced. In o r d e r t o illustrate t h e
q u e s t i o n , w e will n e e d t o l o o k briefly a t w h a t t h e c o u n c i l s of T r e n t
a n d o f V a t i c a n II said a b o u t t r a d i t i o n .
III. T I M E AND TRADITION
T h e r e is, it w o u l d s e e m , a p r e l i m i n a r y q u e s t i o n in regard t o t r a -
d i t i o n . T h e r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t t r a d i t i o n is a m a j o r i n g r e d i e n t in t h e
C h r i s t i a n self-definition t h r o w s l i g h t o n a p r o b l e m t h a t h a s b e e n
s e l d o m a d d r e s s e d in m o d e r n theology, t h e p r o b l e m o f t h e n a t u r e of
time.
St. A u g u s t i n e e x a m i n e d this q u e s t i o n at l e n g t h in t h e Confes-
sions. T h a t t i m e h e l d a p r o m i n e n t p l a c e in A u g u s t i n e ' s reflection
a b o u t t h e p r o c e s s o f his c o n v e r s i o n is often d i s c o n c e r t i n g t o readers
of t h e Confessions w h o are chiefly l o o k i n g for e d i f i c a t i o n . T h i s is
easily u n d e r s t a n d a b l e s i n c e c a t e c h e t i c a l p r a c t i c e h a s f r e q u e n t l y s e p a -
r a t e d scholarly k n o w l e d g e a n d piety. As I will p o i n t o u t f u r t h e r b e -

low, t h e C a t e c h i s m of t h e C a t h o l i c C h u r c h , p u b l i s h e d b y v i r t u e of
t h e a p o s t o l i c c o n s t i t u t i o n Fidei depositum ( O c t o b e r 1 1 , 1 9 9 2 ) , is
n o t e x e m p t from this failing.
By c o n t r a s t , t h e early reflection o f t h e b i s h o p o f H i p p o t u r n e d
a r o u n d t h e ways of d i v i n e grace. As he l o o k e d over t h e c o u r s e of his
life from his i n f a n c y t h r o u g h his years in Italy t o his r e t u r n h o m e t o
Africa, A u g u s t i n e c o u l d see t h a t G o d h a d m y s t e r i o u s l y led h i m from
a practical p a g a n i s m t h r o u g h t h e d o c t r i n e s o f t h e M a n i c h e e s t o t h e
b o o k s o f C i c e r o a n d of N e o - P l a t o n i s t s t o t h e epistles o f Paul. H e h a d
b e e n led, slowly a n d painfully, t o t h e faith t h a t t h e Logos o f G o d , t h e
V e r b u m t h a t is s e c o n d in t h e eternal Trinity, h a d t r u l y b e c o m e m a n ,
s h a r i n g t e m p o r a l existence w i t h us as Jesus o f N a z a r e t h . W h a t t h e n
can it m e a n t h a t t h e E t e r n a l has lived t e m p o r a l l y ? The theological
a n s w e r o f t h e G r e e k s , t h a t h a d b e e n effectively u s e d against t h e d o c -
t r i n e s of A r i u s , p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e Logos has b e e n m a d e flesh so
t h a t his followers m a y be in s o m e sense deified. The d i v i n e W o r d
s h a r e d t e m p o r a l i t y so t h a t t h o s e w h o are by n a t u r e t e m p o r a l c o u l d
s h a r e e t e r n i t y by grace. 'Phis o f c o u r s e was n o t t o be d e n i e d in t h e
c o n t e x t of Latin theology. B u t it was an a p p e a l t o mystery. T h e G r e e k
m i n d c o u l d be familiar w i t h this: O n e does n o t u n d e r s t a n d a m y s -
t e r y b y dialectics b u t b y p a r t i c i p a t i o n , as it were from t h e inside; o n e
e n t e r s it by faith.
Phis, h o w e v e r , p o s e d serious p h i l o s o p h i c a l q u e s t i o n s t o t h e d i a -
lectical m i n d of t h e Latin r h e t o r i c i a n t h a t A u g u s t i n e still was in his
early years as b i s h o p o f H i p p o . H e t h e r e f o r e d e v o t e d c o n s i d e r a b l e
a t t e n t i o n , n o t t o m y s t e r y as s u c h , b u t t o t h e n a t u r e o f t i m e in B o o k
XI o f t h e Confessions. 'Lime is c o m p a r e d t o t h e slow flow of w a t e r
falling d r o p b y d r o p , p r e s u m a b l y o n t h e m o d e l o f t h e w a t e r clocks
t h a t existed at t h e p e r i o d or o n t h a t o f a n h o u r g l a s s in w h i c h g r a i n s
fall t h r o u g h a n a r r o w n e c k , m a r k i n g t h e passage of t i m e . " T h e d r o p s
of t i m e are d e a r t o m e , " ' A u g u s t i n e declares. W h y ? Because each o n e
of t h e m can a n d s h o u l d be d e v o t e d t o t h e praise a n d glory of G o d .
Thus t h e passage o f t i m e , d i s c o n c e r t i n g as it m a y b e w h e n o n e feels
t h e m a r k s o f a g i n g in one's o w n b o d y o r w h e n o n e o b s e r v e s t h e insta-
bility of civilizations t h a t g o t h r o u g h p e r i o d s o f decay after p r o m i s -
i n g p e r i o d s of rise, is also t h e p r o v i d e n t i a l offer o f m o m e n t s o f praise
for t h e C r e a t o r . For, A u g u s t i n e asks himself, h o w is t h e p a s s i n g of
t i m e lived? T h e c o m m o n l a n g u a g e refers t o t i m e past, p r e s e n t , a n d
:
Confessions, XI, ii, 2; see G e o r g e H . Tavard, Les jardins de Saint Augustin.
Lecture des "Confessions" (Montreal: Bellarmine, 1988) 18-22.
f u t u r e . B u t this is illusionary. I n reality t h e r e is o n l y t h e p r e s e n t , b u t

this p r e s e n t is itself successive: " T h e r e are t h r e e t h i n g s in t h e soul,
a n d I d o n o t see t h e m a n y w h e r e else: t h e p r e s e n t m e m o r y o f t h i n g s
past, t h e p r e s e n t a t t e n t i o n t o t h i n g s p r e s e n t , a n d t h e p r e s e n t e x p e c t a -
1
t i o n o f t h i n g s f u t u r e . " O n e m a y c o n c l u d e from this t h a t "there are
t h r e e t i m e s : t h e p r e s e n t of w h a t is past, t h e p r e s e n t o f w h a t is p r e s e n t ,
a n d t h e p r e s e n t of w h a t is f u t u r e . "
N o w , as h e reflected o n t h e n a t u r e o f t i m e A u g u s t i n e was raising
t h e m o r e i m m e d i a t e l y t h e o l o g i c a l q u e s t i o n of t h e n a t u r e o f t r a d i -
t i o n . H e d i d n o t , I believe, realize this as h e w r o t e t h e Confessions,
for t h e s i m p l e reason t h a t h e was n o t yet sufficiently i n v o l v e d in t h e
t h e o l o g i c a l controversies t h a t w e r e t o o c c u p y m u c h of his life, o n
revelation (against t h e M a n i c h e a n s ) , o n grace (against Pelagius a n d
his followers), o n t h e s a c r a m e n t s a n d t h e C h u r c h (against t h e
D o n a t i s t s ) . As was m a d e e v i d e n t in these c o n t r o v e r s i e s , n e i t h e r t h e
m e a n i n g of S c r i p t u r e n o r t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f d o c t r i n e was e n s u r e d
o n c e for all w i t h t h e a d o p t i o n o f t h e b i b l i c a l c a n o n a n d t h e
a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t of t h e faith t h a t was f o r m u l a t e d at N i c a e a . The
necessity to call c o u n c i l s a n d s y n o d s , in s o m e of w h i c h A u g u s t i n e
h i m s e l f was t o take p a r t , as at t h e a n t i - P e l a g i a n s y n o d o f C a r t h a g e in
4 1 6 , i l l u s t r a t e d t h e fact t h a t as t h e life o f t h e C h u r c h flows o n it
follows a t i m e of its o w n .
Ecclesial t i m e is n o t i d e n t i c a l w i t h g e n e r i c t i m e . N o r d o e s it
c o i n c i d e w i t h i m p e r i a l o r political t i m e . T h a t is, t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n of
t r u e d o c t r i n e in fidelity t o t h e S c r i p t u r e s is n o t a m e r e succession o f
teaching. Teaching u n d e r g o e s successive b u t n o t h o m o g e n e o u s phases,
t h a t are m a r k e d b y t h e discussion of h y p o t h e s e s , t h e raising of q u e s -
t i o n s , t h e a d o p t i o n of w r o n g s o l u t i o n s , t h e e m e r g e n c e o f false d o c -
t r i n e s , t h e i r d e n u n c i a t i o n s as heresies, t h e conciliar d e t e r m i n a t i o n of
t r u e d o c t r i n e . The difficulty of d e c i d i n g w h a t is correct t e a c h i n g o f
t h e faith, t r u e praise o f G o d , faithful a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t o f t h e W o r d
at w o r k in c r e a t i o n a n d o f t h e Spirit at w o r k in t h e C h u r c h a n d in
C h r i s t i a n life illustrates w h a t t h e later A u g u s t i n e will d i a g n o s e as t h e
c o e x i s t e n c e o f t h e C i t y o f G o d , civitas sanctorum, t h a t is b a s e d o n
love o f G o d g o i n g t o c o n t e m p t o f self, w i t h t h e city o f evil, t h a t is
b a s e d o n love of self g o i n g t o c o n t e m p t of G o d , a n d t h e practical
i m p o s s i b i l i t y of s o r t i n g t h e m o u t in t h e c o n c r e t e reality of t h e ecclesia
in its t e m p o r a l existence. T h u s t h e t i m e o f t h e C h u r c h , ecclesial t i m e ,
is identical w i t h t h e t r a d i t i o n o f d o c t r i n e . A n d this is n o t , except in
an idealizing o v e r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n of facts, a h a r m o n i o u s succession of
Confessions, XI, xx, 2 6 .

t e a c h i n g "from p a r e n t to c h i l d . " ' It is a r e c u r r i n g s t r u g g l e of g o o d

a n d evil as these affect t h e soul a n d t h e m i n d , a n d t h e r e b y t h e selec-
t i o n a n d f o r m u l a t i o n o f w h a t is t a u g h t a n d believed.
The succession o f t e a c h i n g (giving, p a s s i n g o n ) a n d b e l i e v i n g
(receiving), a n d t h e n t e a c h i n g a g a i n , a n d so o n indefinitely, is n o t
exempt from the ambiguity of time. For the experience of the present
necessarily colors b o t h one's m e m o r y of t h e p a s t a n d one's a n t i c i p a -
t i o n o f t h e future. The C h r i s t i a n as individual believer a n d t h e C h u r c h
as t h e local a n d universal c o n g r e g a t i o n o f t h e faithful are affected by
t h e s a m e k i n d of a m b i g u i t y . N e i t h e r t h e believer n o r t h e collectivity
is infallibly p r o t e c t e d from t h e e q u i v o c i t i e s of t e m p o r a l existence.
T h e m a r k o f s i n f u l n e s s , w h i c h A u g u s t i n e d e t e c t e d in t h e massa
perditionis of h u m a n i t y , is b o u n d t o affect t h e c h u r c h m i l i t a n t as
l o n g as C h r i s t has n o t yet w i t h d r a w n it from t h e t e m p o r a l i t i e s o f t h e
w o r l d , as l o n g as it d o e s n o t fully c o i n c i d e w i t h t h e c h u r c h t r i u m -
p h a n t in h e a v e n , as l o n g as t h e C i t y o f M e n is n o t i s o t o p i c w i t h t h e
C i t y o f t h e Saints t h a t is t h e eternal C i t y o f G o d . Even t h e p r e d e s -
t i n e d , in A u g u s t i n e ' s theology, d o n o t k n o w t h a t t h e y are p r e d e s t i n e d
and must go on struggling with ambiguity.
W h a t d o e s this m e a n r e g a r d i n g t h e n a t u r e of ecclesial t i m e ? O n e
m a y take a c u e from t h e l a n g u a g e o f late m e d i e v a l t h e o l o g y a n d t h e
C o u n c i l o f T r e n t as it s p o k e of S c r i p t u r e a n d t h e a p o s t o l i c t r a d i t i o n s .
T h e y d i d n o t , as was seen earlier, p e r s o n a l i z e t r a d i t i o n in t h e s i n g u l a r
as o n e reality n e x t t o S c r i p t u r e . T h a t t h e y saw it as t r a d i t i o n s in t h e
plural implies t h a t w h a t t h e C o u n t e r R e f o r m a t i o n c o n s t r u e d as a
u n i f i e d traditio, as o n e u n i f o r m o r c o n t i n u o u s s t r e a m o f t r a n s m i s -
s i o n o f d o c t r i n e o r of t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f S c r i p t u r e , p r o t e c t e d from
e r r o r ( w i t h Vatican I a n d I I , b y t h e ecclesial, conciliar, a n d p a p a l
c h a r i s m of infallibility t h a t e n s u r e s t h e f o r m u l a t i o n o f i r r e f o r m a b l e
d o c t r i n e s ) , w a s p r e v i o u s l y p e r c e i v e d as a d i s c o n t i n u o u s series o f m o -
m e n t s , d r o p s o f t h e flow o f t i m e , in w h i c h t h e face o f t h e past m o v e s
is r e s h a p e d a n d r e p a i n t e d by t h e c o n v i c t i o n s of t h e p r e s e n t , a n d t h e
h o p e d for perfection t o c o m e varies w i t h t h e lacks, wishes, a n d projects
of t h e p r e s e n t .
In this p e r s p e c t i v e , t h e A u g u s t i n i a n m e d i t a t i o n o n t h e n a t u r e o f
t i m e i n t r o d u c e s a p r i n c i p l e of u n c e r t a i n t y in t h e t r a d i t i o n . In t h e
t h r e e f o l d reference of t i m e t o t h e past, t h e p r e s e n t , a n d t h e f u t u r e ,
t h e r e is a necessary p r i o r i t y o f t h e p r e s e n t . For it is in t h e p r e s e n t t h a t
o n e r e m e m b e r s a n d m e n t a l l y r e c o n s t r u c t s t h e p a s t a n d t h a t o n e looks
f o r w a r d to t h e future a n d t o t h e fulfillment of t h e p r o m i s e s t h a t have
1
See G e o r g e H . Tavard, The Seventeenth-Century Tradition. A Study in
Recusant Thought (Leiden: E . J . Brill, 1978) 1 8 8 - 8 9 .
b e e n r e a d in t h e p a s t a n d t h a t are s e n s e d in t h e p r e s e n t . Likewise it is
always in t h e light o f t h e p r e s e n t t h a t S c r i p t u r e is read, p r e a c h e d ,
t a u g h t , a n d i n t e r p r e t e d . A n d it is in t h e s a m e l i g h t o f t h e p r e s e n t a n d
in t h a t o f t h e p a s t t h a t has b e e n t h u s r e i n t e r p r e t e d t h a t o n e h o p e s for
t h e f u t u r e , w h e t h e r this is t h e t w e n t y - f i r s t c e n t u r y a n d t h e t h i r d m i l -
l e n n i u m o r t h e e s c h a t o n . T h u s t h e C h u r c h ' s self-awareness in t h e
p r e s e n t h o l d s t h e key t o its m e m o r y a n d m e n t a l r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of
t h e past, t o its r e a d i n g , p r e a c h i n g , t e a c h i n g , a n d i n t e r p r e t i n g of S c r i p -
t u r e , t o its f o r m u l a t i o n of faith, a n d t o its p r o m i s e a n d t e n t a t i v e
c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e f u t u r e .
B u t in this case w h a t t h e late C a r l Peter liked to call t h e C a t h o l i c
1
p r i n c i p l e — n a m e l y , t h e n o t i o n t h a t t h e grace of G o d is so e m b o d i e d
in t h e e a r t h l y reality o f t h e Ecclesia t h a t it b r i n g s t o C h r i s t i a n life
a n d d o c t r i n e an e l e m e n t o f a b s o l u t e a n d total c o n f i d e n c e — c a n n o t
be a c c e p t e d w i t h o u t c o n s i d e r a b l e q u a l i f i c a t i o n . If i n d e e d t h e s u b j e c -
tive e l e m e n t in t h e A u g u s t i n i a n analysis of t i m e is in fact at w o r k at
t h e very h e a r t of t h e t r a d i t i o n , t h e n t h e r e is n o t h i n g in t h e t r a d i t i o n
t h a t is given t o us as a p u r e a n d totally objective d a t u m . It all n e e d s
t o be sifted t h r o u g h faith w h i c h , b e i n g objectively t r u e in C h r i s t , is
subjectively received a n d p e r s o n a l l y assimilated. A t this p o i n t t h e
analysis of t i m e as a p p l i e d t o t h e ecclesial t i m e t h a t flows t h r o u g h
t h e C h u r c h ' s t r a d i t i o n converges o n Luther's i n s i g h t t h a t justifica-
t i o n , w h i c h is totally G o d ' s gift in C h r i s t a l o n e , is in us t h r o u g h
faith, w h i c h is itself totally G o d ' s gift in t h e H o l y Spirit. Every ecclesial
d o c t r i n e a n d i n s t i t u t i o n n e e d s t o be sifted t h r o u g h it.
I w o u l d therefore n o t p u t S c r i p t u r e a n d t r a d i t i o n side b y side o r
face t o face, even in an existential dialectic as in Paul Tillich's t o o
n e a t d i c h o t o m y of P r o t e s t a n t p r i n c i p l e a n d C a t h o l i c s u b s t a n c e . B u t
I w o u l d r e c o g n i z e a fact t h a t is at t h e h e a r t of t h e t r a d i t i o n u n d e r -
s t o o d in its m o d e r n i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h t h e t o t a l life o f t h e C h u r c h ,
liturgical, d o c t r i n a l , a n d m o r a l . The t r a d i t i o n t h a t has b e e n i n h e r -
ited in t h e C h u r c h from past ages i n c l u d e s b a d l i t u r g y as well as
g o o d , false d o c t r i n e as well as t r u e , sinfulness as well as v i r t u o u s n e s s .
U l t i m a t e l y it is n o t t h e t r a d i t i o n of received d o c t r i n e s t h a t p r o v i d e s
t h e c e r t a i n t y o f faith, w h e t h e r d e f i n e d in its subjective s t r e n g t h o r in
its objective i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f belief. The c e r t a i n t y of faith can o n l y
d e r i v e — n o t from a t e n t a t i v e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e past, from a t r a n s -
m i s s i o n o f w h a t has b e e n r e m e m b e r e d , a n d still less f r o m t h e n u m e r -
o u s t r a d i t i o n s t h a t have c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e church's h i s t o r y — b u t
•* H . George Anderson, T. Austin Murphy, and Joseph A. Burgess, eds. Justifi-

cation by Faith. Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII (Minneapolis: Augsburg,
1985) 3 0 4 - 1 5 .
from t h e W o r d w h o m a y a t t i m e s , d i s c o n t i n u o u s l y , be h e a r d t h r o u g h
t h e m u l t i p l i c i t y o f h u m a n w o r d s t h a t are s p o k e n in t h e C h u r c h a n d
r e a d in t h e S c r i p t u r e s , a n d from t h e Spirit w h o m a k e s t h e W o r d
s p e a k a n d live in t h e h e a r t o f t h e faithful as these are m a d e a w a r e o f
b e i n g justified b y faith a l o n e in C h r i s t a l o n e .
The q u e s t i o n o f t h e n a t u r e of t i m e was still e x a m i n e d b y t h e
Scholastics in t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e t h e o l o g y o f c r e a t i o n , specifically of
t h e c r e a t i o n of m a t t e r ( t i m e p r o p e r l y so called, in c o m m e n t a r i e s o n
t h e Sentences, B o o k II, D i s t i n c t i o n I) a n d o f t h e c r e a t i o n of angels
(aevum, or a n g e l i c d u r a t i o n , in D i s t i n c t i o n II). In m o r e r e c e n t c e n -
t u r i e s , however, t h e q u e s t i o n has c o m m o n l y b e e n left o u t o f t h e t h e o -
logical field of vision, a l o n g w i t h a general lack o f interest in a t h e o l -
o g y o f c r e a t i o n a n d of n a t u r e . The q u e s t i o n of t h e n a t u r e o f t i m e is
5
t h e n a b a n d o n e d t o p h i l o s o p h e r s , s u c h as H e i d e g g e r a n d J e a n Paul
6
S a r t r e . S i n c e E i n s t e i n a n d t h e t h e o r y o f g e n e r a l i z e d relativity, t i m e
can also be i d e n t i f i e d as a scientific p r o b l e m . It has t h u s b e c o m e a
natural p h e n o m e n o n t h a t can be investigated by t h e sciences of
n a t u r e a n d , as w i t h S t e p h e n H a w k i n g , b y a d v a n c e d p h y s i c s a n d
7
mathematics.
T h e o l o g y , however, n e e d s t o c l a i m it b a c k , t h a t is, to recover t h e
sense t h a t it h o l d s a u n i q u e key t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e n a t u r e o f t i m e .
The q u e s t i o n of t i m e b e l o n g s directly to t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f H o l y
S c r i p t u r e . For, as was n o t e d b y A u g u s t i n e in a passage t h a t is q u o t e d
in t h e Catechism of the Catholic Church, t h e i n c a r n a t i o n r e q u i r e d
t h e s u b m i s s i o n t o t i m e o f O n e w h o lives o u t o f t i m e : " R e m e m b e r
t h a t o n e W o r d o f G o d is s p r e a d o u t t h r o u g h all t h e S c r i p t u r e s , t h a t
O n e W o r d r e s o u n d s in t h e m o u t h of t h e sacred w r i t e r s , t h e O n e
w h o , b e i n g at t h e b e g i n n i n g w i t h G o d , has n o n e e d of syllables t h e r e
8
b e c a u s e t h e r e h e is n o t s u b j e c t t o t i m e . " In c o n t r a s t , t h e s u b j e c t i o n
of t h e d i v i n e W o r d t o t i m e as Jesus of N a z a r e t h e n t a i l e d his s p e a k i n g
in t h e b r o k e n l a n g u a g e o f h u m a n i t y a n d t h e w r i t i n g of t h e S c r i p -
tures as t h e p r i m a r y e m b o d i m e n t of this s p e a k i n g . Likewise it is b e -
cause of t h e n a t u r e of t i m e t h a t t h e d i v i n e revelation given in C h r i s t
reaches d i s t i n c t g e n e r a t i o n s of believers in t h e i r o w n t i m e s a n d places
t h r o u g h t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n or t r a d i t i o n o f t h e faith.
!
Being and Time ( N e w York: H a r p e r and Row, 1962); original G e r m a n , Sein
undZeit ( T u b i n g e n : N e o m a r i u s Verlag, 1927).
6
L'Etre et le néant. Essai d'ontologie phénoménologique (Paris: G a l l i m a r d ,
1943).
Stephen H a w k i n g , A Brief History of Time. From the Big Bang to Black
Holes (New York: B a n t a m Books, 1988).
8
Catéchisme de l'Eglise catholique (Paris: M a m e / P l o n , 1 9 9 2 ) , n. 102, p . 3 5 ,
from Enarr. In Ps. 1 0 3 , 4 , 1 .
GEORGE. H . TAVARD, A.A. 183
IV. T H K COUNCIL OF T R E N T
The d e c r e e t h a t was p r o m u l g a t e d at t h e C o u n c i l o f T r e n t o n t h e
8 t h of A p r i l , 1 5 4 6 , was s h o r t . B u t a g r e e m e n t a b o u t its m e a n i n g a n d
s c o p e has b e e n l o n g t o c o m e . Strictly s p e a k i n g , t h e d e c r e e d i d n o t
b e a r o n S c r i p t u r e as s u c h , b u t o n t h e f o u n d a t i o n o n w h i c h t h e c o u n -
cil w i s h e d t o base its f u t u r e d e c i s i o n s . In t h e T r i d e n t i n e l a n g u a g e ,
these w o u l d b e b a s e d o n t h e g o s p e l , a n d t h e g o s p e l w o u l d b e k n o w n
through Scripture a n d the traditions.
S c r i p t u r e w a s i d e n t i f i e d as t h e b o o k s o f t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t
S e p t u a g i n t a l o n g w i t h t h o s e of t h e N e w Testament, b o t h o f w h i c h
w e r e t h e n familiar t o t h e W e s t chiefly in t h e i r r e n d e r i n g in t h e L a t i n
V u l g a t e . B u t t h e r e was little c o n c e r n r e g a r d i n g t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a n d
use of S c r i p t u r e . O n t h e o n e h a n d t h i s q u e s t i o n was n o t faced as
s u c h in t h e d e c r e e . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , an e l e m e n t o f a m b i g u i t y was
i n t r o d u c e d b y t h e w a y S c r i p t u r e was j o i n e d t o t h e t r a d i t i o n s .
The t r a d i t i o n s in q u e s t i o n w e r e u n d e r s t o o d t o b e t h o s e t e a c h -
ings t h a t f o r m u l a t e d o c t r i n e ( n o t d i s c i p l i n e ) a n d t h a t also h a v e b e e n
t r a n s m i t t e d from t h e apostles d o w n t o o u r d a y ( a n d t h e r e f o r e n o t
t r a d i t i o n s o f m o r e r e c e n t o r i g i n ) . In c o n t e x t , t h e apostles w e r e t h e
twelve apostles m e n t i o n e d in t h e N e w ' T e s t a m e n t , p l u s o f c o u r s e St.
Paul. B u t it is a g r e e d t o d a y t h a t t h e g r o u p o f a p o s t l e s was b r o a d e r
a n d m u s t i n c l u d e t h e o t h e r m i s s i o n a r i e s w h o , like Paul, b r o u g h t t h e
gospel t o t h e n a t i o n s . In l i g h t of m o d e r n views of history, h o w e v e r ,
t h e t r a d i t i o n s t h u s i d e n t i f i e d d o n o t c o n s t i t u t e a sufficient a n d c o m -
p r e h e n s i v e tool for t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f d o c t r i n e . F o r it is practically
i m p o s s i b l e to a s c e r t a i n t h e a p o s t o l i c i t y o f specific d o c t r i n e s . W h a t
goes b a c k t o t h e apostles t h e m s e l v e s is a m o o t p o i n t .
S c r i p t u r e a n d t h e a p o s t o l i c t r a d i t i o n s are j o i n e d in t h e T r i d e n t i n e
d e c r e e b y t h e w o r d , et, " a n d . " M a n y q u e s t i o n s w e r e raised in t h e
1 9 5 0 s a b o u t t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s c o p u l a . Are t h e t r a d i t i o n s p l a c e d
o n a n e q u a l basis w i t h S c r i p t u r e ? A r e t h e t w o c o n n u m e r a t e d as i n d e -
p e n d e n t a n d parallel s o u r c e s o f C h r i s t i a n d o c t r i n e ? Is o n e of t h e m
s u b o r d i n a t e d t o t h e o t h e r ? A r e t h e y m u t u a l l y i m p l i e d in each o t h e r ?
A r e t h e y c o m p l e m e n t a r y in t h e i r c o n t e n t s , o r o n l y in t h e i r t o n e a n d
t h e i r a p p r o a c h to d o c t r i n e ? Is e a c h o n e c o m p l e t e w i t h o u t t h e o t h e r ?
O r are t h e t r a d i t i o n s n o m o r e t h a n historical c h a n n e l s t h r o u g h w h i c h
S c r i p t u r e h a s b e e n t r a n s m i t t e d f r o m age t o age? W h a t d i d Trent m e a n
w i t h its s t a t e m e n t t h a t it regards S c r i p t u r e a n d t h e a p o s t o l i c t r a d i -
t i o n s pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia, " w i t h a n e q u a l affection of
piety a n d veneration"?
These a n d related q u e s t i o n s w e r e d e b a t e d in C a t h o l i c t h e o l o g y
s h o r t l y before Vatican II. A c c o r d i n g t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t I m y s e l f
9
r e a c h e d at t h e t i m e , Trent b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e m e a n i n g of S c r i p t u r e
e m e r g e s in t h e a p o s t o l i c t r a d i t i o n s . In t h e l a n g u a g e o f " w o r d a n d
s a c r a m e n t , " d e a r t o t h e R e f o r m e r s , t h e m e a n i n g of t h e w r i t t e n w o r d
is elicited b y faithful p r a c t i c e o f t h e s a c r a m e n t s , for t h e s a c r a m e n t s
t h e m s e l v e s d r a w t h e i r graceful c o n t e n t s from t h e p r o m i s e of C h r i s t
t h a t is c o n v e y e d in t h e w o r d , t h i s p r o m i s e b e i n g called, in classical
C a t h o l i c l a n g u a g e , t h e i r d i v i n e i n s t i t u t i o n . ' T h u s , in t h e T r i d e n t i n e
f o r m u l a t i o n , S c r i p t u r e a n d t h e t r a d i t i o n s deserve " o n e a n d t h e s a m e
affection of p i e t y " b e c a u s e t h e y are i n s e p a r a b l e . In t h e m e s s a g e o f
S c r i p t u r e t h e t r a d i t i o n s find t h e i r u l t i m a t e o r i g i n a n d j u s t i f i c a t i o n ;
a n d it is t h r o u g h t h e t r a d i t i o n s t h a t t h e m e s s a g e o f S c r i p t u r e is car-
ried t o t h e p o s t a p o s t o l i c g e n e r a t i o n s . The C h u r c h ' s t e a c h i n g a n d b e -
lief as t h e y are b e i n g lived u n f o l d t h e m e a n i n g of S c r i p t u r e in t h e
h e a r t s o f t h e faithful.
V. VATICAN C O U N C I L II
The d i s c u s s i o n s of t h e 1 9 5 0 s a b o u t t h e decree o f T r e n t r e m o t e l y
p a v e d t h e w a y for t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n Dei Verbum o f Vatican II ( N o -
v e m b e r 1 8 , 1 9 6 5 ) . In c o n t r a s t w i t h t h e Tridentine e m p h a s i s o n t h e
g o s p e l , a t t e n t i o n was t h e n focused o n r e v e l a t i o n . It is t h e d i v i n e rev-
e l a t i o n t h a t is w r i t t e n in S c r i p t u r e a n d t r a n s m i t t e d b y t r a d i t i o n ( n o w
u s u a l l y c o n c e p t u a l i z e d in t h e s i n g u l a r ) . As t o t h e m e a n i n g o f S c r i p -
t u r e , it is a p p r o a c h e d f r o m t w o different angles.
F r o m a " m a t e r i a l " p o i n t o f view, Vatican II e q u a t e s this m e a n i n g
w i t h " w h a t t h e s a c r e d w r i t e r s t r u l y m e a n t a n d G o d gracefully re-
vealed t h r o u g h t h e i r w o r d s " (ch. 3 , n o . 12). 'Two p r i n c i p l e s s h o u l d
b e at w o r k in t h e process o f u n c o v e r i n g this m e a n i n g . First, o n e s h o u l d
take a c c o u n t of the "literary forms" a n d the "customary, indigenous
ways of feeling, of s p e a k i n g , o r o f telling a tale t h a t o b t a i n e d in t h e
s a c r e d a u t h o r s ' t i m e s , a n d o f t h o s e c o m m o n l y u s e d in h u m a n rela-
t i o n s at t h a t p e r i o d . " S e c o n d , " S c r i p t u r e m u s t b e r e a d a n d i n t e r -
p r e t e d in t h e s a m e spirit in w h i c h it was w r i t t e n . " O n e c a n also r e a d
t h i s s e n t e n c e in t h e m a s c u l i n e : "in t h e s a m e S p i r i t in w h o m it was
w r i t t e n . " In e i t h e r case t h e H o l y S p i r i t is a t w o r k , w h e t h e r d i r e c t l y o r
in t h e effects of d i v i n e i n s p i r a t i o n . B u t h o w are w e t o identify t h e
sense of t h e Spirit? Dei Verbum suggests a t r i p l e c r i t e r i o n : t h e c o h e r -
'' George H . Tavard, Holy Writ or Holy Church. The Crisis of the Protestant
Reformation ( N e w York: H a r p e r & Row, 1959) 2 0 7 - 9 .
e n c e of t h e w h o l e S c r i p t u r e , h a r m o n y w i t h t h e C h u r c h ' s living t r a d i -
t i o n , a n d t h e a n a l o g y o f faith. B u t t h e l i v i n g t r a d i t i o n will n o t b e
c o m p l e t e before this w o r l d e n d s a n d t h e N e w J e r u s a l e m is m a d e m a n i -
fest. In o t h e r w o r d s , t h e full m e a n i n g o f S c r i p t u r e will b e a n
e s c h a t o l o g i c a l e v e n t , w h a t t h e c o u n c i l calls " t h e w o n d r o u s d e s c e n t of
e t e r n a l W i s d o m t o o u r level" ( n o . 1 3 ) . Before t h e e s c h a t o n , t h e n e a r -
est a p p r o x i m a t i o n o f t h i s W i s d o m is n o o t h e r t h a n t h e s u m total of
t h e living t r a d i t i o n u n t i l o u r o w n t i m e , t h e C h u r c h o f t h e p a s t a n d
t h e p r e s e n t s e e n a n d e x p e r i e n c e d as o n e , in a n t i c i p a t i o n o f t h e
eschatological fulfillment.
A s e c o n d p o i n t of view, t h a t o n e m a y call "final," is t h u s i n t r o -
d u c e d , w h i c h is d e v e l o p e d in t h e last c h a p t e r o f Dei Verbum: The
w r i t t e n W o r d o f G o d is n o t given o n l y for t h e sake o f t h e objective
t r u t h of its c o n t e n t s as d i v i n e r e v e l a t i o n b u t also for t h e p u r p o s e of
n u r t u r i n g t h e life o f t h e faithful, for its v a l u e as s p i r i t u a l n o u r i s h -
m e n t . T o believers it s h o u l d b e " s t r e n g t h of t h e i r faith, food for t h e i r
s o u l , p u r e a n d p e r e n n i a l f o n t o f t h e i r s p i r i t u a l life" ( n o . 2 1 ) . W o r d
a n d s a c r a m e n t are t h e n j o i n e d t o g e t h e r , for t h e e u c h a r i s t i c table is
" b o t h t h a t of t h e W o r d o f G o d a n d t h a t o f t h e b o d y o f C h r i s t . "
W o r d a n d s a c r a m e n t , t h e text affirms, h a v e always b e e n c o n s i d e r e d
by t h e C h u r c h " a l o n g w i t h H o l y T r a d i t i o n , as t h e s u p r e m e r u l e of
h e r f a i t h . " In t u r n , " t h e o l o g y rests u p o n t h e w r i t t e n W o r d o f G o d
in u n i t y w i t h H o l y T r a d i t i o n " ( n o . 2 4 ) . This is t h e s o u r c e o f all
ministry.
The d o c t r i n e o f V a t i c a n II m a y t h e n b e s u m m e d u p in t h e idea
t h a t S c r i p t u r e has a twofold relevance: to the f o r m u l a t i o n of d o c -
t r i n e , i n s o f a r as it d e p i c t s t h e e a r l i e s t r e c e p t i o n o f t h e r e v e l a t i o n
t o t h e a p o s t l e s ; a n d t o t h e g r o w t h o f f a i t h , t h a t is i n s p i r e d a n d
i l l u s t r a t e d b y it as a G o d - g i v e n p a r a b l e o f t h e b e l i e v e r s ' e x p e r i -
ence of grace.
V I . PATRISTIC ORIGINS
The d o c t r i n e o f S c r i p t u r e as W o r d o f G o d b e l o n g s t o a l o n g
t h e o l o g i c a l t r a d i t i o n . In t h e first c e n t u r i e s t h e Fathers o f t h e C h u r c h ,
t h e G r e e k s first, followed a n d e c h o e d by t h e L a t i n s , v i e w e d o n l y t h e
O l d T e s t a m e n t as S c r i p t u r e , w h i c h w i t n e s s e d t o t h e f u t u r e c o m i n g o f
t h e L o r d , t h e L i v i n g W o r d . W h e n C h r i s t c a m e as its fulfillment, n o
o t h e r S c r i p t u r e s w e r e , in p r i n c i p l e , n e e d e d . The i n c a r n a t e W o r d was
h i m s e l f k n o w n f r o m t h e "rule of faith" [regula fidei), w h i c h m a y b e
p r a c t i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d w i t h t h e b a p t i s m a l creed, t h e c o n t e n t s o f w h i c h
w e r e s u p p o r t e d b y t h e a p o s t o l i c w r i t i n g s . B u t in t h e c o n t r o v e r s i e s
a g a i n s t t h e G n o s t i c s a n d against M a r c i o n t h e s e a p o s t o l i c w r i t i n g s
w e r e r e c o g n i z e d as, or, if o n e prefers, p r o m o t e d t o t h e r a n k of, S c r i p -
t u r e ; a n d s i n c e t h e y differ f r o m t h e p r e v i o u s Bible in t h a t t h e y s p e a k
directly a n d explicitly of C h r i s t , t h e y q u i c k l y b e c a m e t h e p r i m a r y
S c r i p t u r e s of C h r i s t i a n s . O n c e t h e a c c r e t i o n o f t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t
t o t h e S c r i p t u r e s was finalized, t h e c h r i s t o c e n t r i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of
all S c r i p t u r e , O l d a n d N e w , b e c a m e m o r e m a r k e d , a n d S c r i p t u r e
g a i n e d a p r i o r i t y o f its o w n as t h a t e l e m e n t in t h e t r a d i t i o n t h a t
reveals t h e ways of t h e d i v i n e W o r d o n e a r t h .
As is p a t e n t t o a n y r e a d e r o f h o m i l e t i c l i t e r a t u r e , h o w e v e r , S c r i p -
t u r e s o o n a c q u i r e d , especially a m o n g t h e later fathers, a m u l t i t u d e of
senses. A l r e a d y for O r i g e n t h e historical o r literal s e n s e s e r v e d as
s t a r t i n g p o i n t for s p i r i t u a l a p p l i c a t i o n s . S c r i p t u r e is t h e f o o d of t h e
s o u l . A n d if t h e C h r i s t i a n soul lives b y faith, t h i s faith is n u r t u r e d b y
t h e experience of C h r i s t i a n love a n d by t h e i m a g i n a t i o n w h i c h projects
the present into the eschatological future and anticipates the
e s c h a t o l o g i c a l f u t u r e in t h e p r e s e n t — w h i c h is t h e c o r e o f t h e C h r i s -
t i a n h o p e . In its early stages, t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n of s p i r i t u a l senses m a y
h a v e b e e n i n d e b t e d to t h e h e r m e n e u t i c s of P h i l o a n d to t h e ways of
H e l l e n i s t i c r h e t o r i c . B u t it was s o o n c h a n n e l e d i n t o t h r e e p r i v i l e g e d
senses t h a t w e r e c o n n e c t e d w i t h faith, love, a n d h o p e . In his Moralia
in Job G r e g o r y t h e G r e a t was less i n t e r e s t e d in t h e literal t e x t u a l
sense t h a n in its relevance t o t h e s e t h r e e aspects o f C h r i s t i a n life.
V I I . T H E MEDIEVAL EPISODE
In its m o n a s t i c f l o w e r i n g f r o m t h e e i g h t h t o t h e twelfth c e n t u r y ,
the medieval tradition shared the patristic concern a b o u t the three-
fold a p p l i c a t i o n o f S c r i p t u r e . Yet w i t h t h e e n d of t h e twelfth c e n t u r y
a n d t h e b l o s s o m i n g of s c h o l a s t i c t h e o l o g y in t h e t h i r t e e n t h , s y s t e m -
atic t h o u g h t i n c r e a s i n g l y s h a p e d t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f S c r i p t u r e a n d
t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f its m e a n i n g o r m e a n i n g s . W h e r e r h e t o r i c for-
m e r l y a c t e d as t h e chief a n c i l l a r y s u p p o r t of biblical h e r m e n e u t i c s ,
g r a m m a r first, t h e n logic, a n d finally m e t a p h y s i c s a c q u i r e d s t a t u s as
tools for s c r i p t u r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . In t h e p r o c e s s , h o w e v e r , m e a n i n g
c h a n g e d . It c a m e t o b e m o r e closely related t o t h e r e c i p i e n t s o f t h e
W o r d . T h u s , i n n u m e r a b l e m e d i e v a l a u t h o r s f o u n d t h e sense of S c r i p -
t u r e in t h e C h u r c h seen m e t a p h o r i c a l l y as t h e universal b r i d e of C h r i s t ,
in t h e souls of t h e faithful as C h r i s t ' s i n d i v i d u a l b r i d e s , a n d in t h e
V i r g i n M a r y as t h e typical, i c o n i c b r i d e in w h o m b o t h t h e C h u r c h
a n d t h e s o u l are given a graceful m o d e l . F a i t h , love, a n d h o p e — e a c h
of t h e m a gift o f G o d , b u t a gift t h a t c o m e s alive in t h e believer's
h u m a n c o n s c i e n c e — d e t e r m i n e d the chief variants of spiritual in-

terpretation, namely, the analogical, tropological, and anagogical
senses.
The basic process was neatly s u m m e d u p by H u g h o f St. V i c t o r ,
w h o , in t h e twelfth c e n t u r y , was d e e p l y c o n c e r n e d a b o u t C h r i s t i a n
symbols:
T h e exposition [of Scripture] contains three points, the letter, the

sense, the sententia [doctrine]. T h e letter is the proper ordering of
discourse. T h e sense is the easy and obvious signification that the
letter presents at face-value. T h e sententia is the deeper under-
standing that cannot be found without exposition and interpreta-
tion. . . . First the letter, then the sense, then the sententia: when
this is done the explanation is finished.'"
In this general f r a m e w o r k a n u m b e r o f a u t h o r s — s u c h as t h e
Cistercian a b b o t , Baldwin of C a n t e r b u r y , a n d the Franciscan
B o n a v e n t u r e — m a d e it clear t h a t t h e literal sense o f t h e N e w Testa-
m e n t is already s p i r i t u a l . It is t h e letter itself, littera, a n d n o t t h e
reader's i m a g i n a t i o n , t h a t is t h e locus of t h e s p i r i t u a l senses, t h a t
i m p l i e s b o t h sensus and sententia. W h a t is t o be believed, w h a t is t o
be d o n e , w h a t is t o be h o p e d for are n o o t h e r t h a n w h a t t h e letter
says as it s p e a k s of t h e p e r s o n , t h e w o r d s , a n d t h e a c t i o n s o f C h r i s t .
In this case s p i r i t u a l d i m e n s i o n s are n o t a d d e d t o t h e letter. B u t t h e
letter is itself fully s p i r i t u a l . It o p e n s w i n d o w s o n t h e basic d i m e n -
sions of faith w h i c h t h e Scholastics i t e m i z e d , in light of t h e i r faculty
psychology, as t h e t h e o l o g i c a l virtues o f faith, love, a n d h o p e . As to
t h e letter o f t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t , it finds its s p i r i t u a l m e a n i n g , as
B o n a v e n t u r e e x p l a i n e d , n o t in itself b u t in t h e N e w , for A b r a h a m ,
M o s e s , a n d t h e p r o p h e t s said a n d d i d n o t h i n g t h a t d i d n o t e v e n t u -
ally refer to C h r i s t .
T h e p r o p h e c y o f J o a c h i m o f Fiora was n o t entirely alien t o this
logic, w h e n , p u s h i n g t h e process further, t h e C a l a b r i a n a b b o t af-
firmed t h a t t h e m e a n i n g of t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t is n o t t h e last t h a t is
i n t e n d e d b y G o d . A n eschatological m e a n i n g is still to be revealed, a
m y s t e r y to be u n f o l d e d . W h a t t h e c h u r c h d i d n o t a c c e p t in t h e t h i r -
t e e n t h c e n t u r y ( L a t e r a n C o u n c i l IV, 1 2 1 5 ) was J o a c h i m ' s n o t i o n t h a t
t h i s u n f o l d i n g will lead t o a n e w revelation o f t h e Spirit in a p u r e l y
m o n a s t i c ecclesia, b e y o n d C h r i s t a n d t h e p r e s e n t f o r m of t h e C h u r c h .
M a r t i n leather h i m s e l f s t o o d s q u a r e l y in t h e line of m o n a s t i c
t h e o l o g y a n d t h e basic m e d i e v a l t r a d i t i o n w h e n , w i t h o u t a b a n d o n -
° Diditscaiion, Ii, 9.
i n g rhc v o c a b u l a r y of t h e s p i r i t u a l s e n s e , h e f o c u s e d t h e r e a d i n g o f
t h e Bible o n " w h a t carries C h r i s t " {was Christum treibet), what the
letter of S c r i p t u r e says of C h r i s t ' s s a v i n g w o r k t h a t is effective in t h e
justification o f t h e s i n n e r . In this case, faith a l o n e , t h e pistis o f St.
Paul, a l r e a d y c o n t a i n s e v e r y t h i n g s p i r i t u a l , b o t h t h e love t h a t is alive
in g o o d w o r k s a n d t h e h o p e t h a t is t o t a l reliance o n t h e p r o m i s e s o f
Christ.
V I I I . THOMAS AQUINAS
In t h e t h e o l o g i c a l m e t h o d of T h o m a s A q u i n a s , S c h o l a s t i c i s m
t u r n e d C a t h o l i c h e r m e n e u t i c s a r o u n d . I n d e e d , as p r e a c h e r a n d as
p o e t t h e A n g e l i c D o c t o r w a s n o t averse t o p r o v i d i n g s p i r i t u a l senses
t h a t w e r e familiar t o his t i m e s . Yet as t h e o l o g i a n h e was q u i t e clear
t h a t " o n l y t h e literal sense p r o v i d e s d e m o n s t r a t i v e a r g u m e n t s . " " In
o t h e r w o r d s , w h a t e m e r g e s f r o m s p i r i t u a l or allegorical i n t e r p r e t a -
t i o n s is n o t t h e r e v e l a t i o n . This is given b y t h e very letter of S c r i p -
t u r e . The s p i r i t u a l senses s u g g e s t a p p l i c a t i o n s t o t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s
of life as faith inspires c h a r i t y a n d h o p e . Yet t h e letter itself, sacra
pagina, " t h e sacred p a g e , " is t h e n o r m of faith a n d t h e r e b y o f t h e o -
logical j u d g m e n t . In t h e s t r u c t u r e of t h e Summa, "authorities," that
is, a p p r o p r i a t e passages f r o m S c r i p t u r e o r f r o m s o m e of t h e Fathers
of t h e C h u r c h , c o n s t i t u t e t h e p r i n c i p l e o f ' T h o m a s ' s r e s p o n s e ( i n t r o -
d u c e d b y sed contra) to the various opinions t h a t have just been
listed. Sed contra d e t e r m i n e s t h e m o m e n t w h e n t h e diverse sugges-
t i o n s o f t h e o l o g i a n s a n d d o c t o r s are b r o u g h t t o a s t o p by t h e testi-
m o n y of t h e w r i t t e n W o r d . It is in t h i s t e s t i m o n y t h a t Thomas's s o l u -
t i o n , e x p o u n d e d in t h e b o d y of his r e s p o n s e , finds its s t a r t i n g p o i n t
a n d its u l t i m a t e j u s t i f i c a t i o n .
W h e n medieval theologians used formulations that anticipated
t h e R e f o r m e r s ' p r i n c i p l e of Scriptura sola, t h e y still g e n e r a l l y m e a n t
S c r i p t u r e w i t h t h e s p i r i t u a l senses t h a t h a d b e e n e x p o u n d e d in n u -
m e r o u s c o m m e n t a r i e s . S c r i p t u r e a l o n e , in this case, i n c l u d e d its s u b -
s e q u e n t h e r m e n e u t i c a l t r a d i t i o n . B u t the theological m e t h o d of
A q u i n a s u n d o u b t e d l y c o n t r i b u t e d to d o w n g r a d i n g t h e search for spiri-
tual senses t h a t c o u l d b e d i s t i n c t f r o m t h e literal m e a n i n g of S c r i p -
t u r e . W i t h A q u i n a s , t h e "sacred p a g e , " S c r i p t u r e , d e s i g n a t e s t h e lit-
eral m e a n i n g a l o n e . A t t h e s a m e t i m e , h o w e v e r , A q u i n a s k e p t t h e
e s t a b l i s h e d s c h o l a s t i c p r a c t i c e of a r g u i n g from isolated s e n t e n c e s . The
use of p i n p o i n t e d references t o S c r i p t u r e m a y h a v e b e e n p a r t l y d u e
" Summa theologiae, I, q. 1, a. 10, ad 1.

to t h e necessity o f often w o r k i n g w i t h c o l l e c t i o n s o f excerpts r a t h e r

w i t h full texts. In a n y case, it also favored an u n f o r t u n a t e c o l l a p s i n g
of biblical a r g u m e n t a t i o n i n t o a few w o r d s w h i c h t h e r e b y t e n d e d t o
b e given a b s o l u t e v a l u e .
A l o n g w i t h q u o t a t i o n s from S c r i p t u r e t h e Scholastics a r g u e d from
q u o t a t i o n s from t h e F a t h e r s o f t h e C h u r c h , from t h e i r o w n m o r e
r e c e n t f o r e r u n n e r s , a n d also o c c a s i o n a l l y f r o m A r i s t o t l e a n d his c o m -
m e n t a t o r s . B u t t h i s , in lesser m i n d s , c o u l d m a k e S c r i p t u r e as r e m o t e
f r o m religious c o n c e r n s as A r i s t o t l e was or, reversely, it c o u l d give
r e v e l a t o r y v a l u e t o A r i s t o t l e a n d t o w h a t was t a k e n to b e t h e n a t u r a l
law. S u c h a n a s s u m p t i o n w a s n o t u n k n o w n in t h e t h e o l o g i c a l text-
b o o k s of t h e early t w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y , w h e n Leo XIII's e n d o r s e m e n t
of N e o - S c h o l a s t i c i s m as t h e official t h e o l o g y of C a t h o l i c s e m i n a r i e s
p r o m o t e d t h e q u a s i c a n o n i z a t i o n of w h a t was t a k e n t o b e t h e C h r i s -
tian reading of Aristotle.
I X . RECENT QUESTIONS
T h e place o f S c r i p t u r e in C a t h o l i c t h e o l o g y b e g a n t o c h a n g e ,
t h o u g h slowly, w i t h t h e s p r e a d of m o d e r n scientific exegesis. B u t w e
h a v e t h e n r u n i n t o o t h e r p r o b l e m s . W h e n t h e literal sense is n o l o n g e r
i d e n t i f i e d w i t h w h a t Jesus s a i d a n d d i d , b u t w i t h w h a t v a r i o u s a u -
t h o r s , c o n v e y i n g t h e c o n c e r n s of w h a t e v e r local c h u r c h t h e y k n e w ,
i n t e r p r e t e d h i m as s a y i n g a n d d o i n g , t h e p r i o r i t y o f t h e literal sense
n e e d s t o b e qualified. Was Christum treibet, t o use L u t h e r ' s f o r m u l a ,
is t h e n far f r o m e v i d e n t , unless o n e can d r a w o n a special i n s i g h t i n t o
t h e g o s p e l . S u c h a n i n s i g h t m i g h t c o m e from t h e p r e v i o u s t r a d i t i o n
or f r o m t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h e S p i r i t i n d e p e n d e n t l y of t h e p r e s e n t
r e a d i n g of S c r i p t u r e . In t h e a b s e n c e o f a clear c r i t e r i o n for i n t e r p r e t -
i n g S c r i p t u r e a n d d i s c e r n i n g t h e W o r d of G o d in it, t h e w a y is w i d e
o p e n t o n e w k i n d s o f s p i r i t u a l senses.
In fact, n e w m e a n i n g s n e e d n o t r e q u i r e d r a s t i c revisions o f p r e -
vious principles o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . A small qualification m a y be e n o u g h
t o c h a n g e t h e w h o l e t o n e of biblical r e a d i n g . By d r a w i n g a t t e n t i o n t o
the self-transcendent potentialities of creation, transcendental
T h o m i s m itself o p e n s u p n o t o n l y a n e w e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e h u m a n
b u t also a s y m p a t h e t i c h e a r i n g o f t h e Utopian h o p e s o f N e w Age.
A d m i t t e d l y , this is n o t w i t h o u t d a n g e r a n d s h o u l d n o t b e h a i l e d n a -
ively as a b r e a k t h r o u g h . It calls for critical a p p r a i s a l . O r let us focus
o n t h e preferential o p t i o n for t h e p o o r , a n d politics c a n b e c o m e a
key for i n t e r p r e t i n g S c r i p t u r e , w i t h t h e u n a v o i d a b l e c o n s e q u e n c e t h a t
c o n f l i c t i n g political readings of S c r i p t u r e will arise. Bossuet's Politique
190 SCRIPTURK AS W O R D OF G O D
tirée de l'Ecriture Sainte was cast precisely in t h a t m o l d , a n d w h a t h e

f o u n d in S c r i p t u r e was a justification o f L o u i s X I V ' s a b s o l u t e m o n -
archy. In t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y t h e f r e q u e n t a p p e a l of p i o u s t h e o l o -
gians t o d i v i n e p r o v i d e n c e t o e x p l a i n t h e existence o f p o v e r t y a n d
t h e p o o r was in t h e s a m e vein. T h e d o u b l e l a n g u a g e o f a preferential
o p t i o n for t h e p o o r a n d o f s p e n d i n g m i l l i o n s o f dollars o n p a p a l
j o u r n e y s is n o t e x e m p t f r o m t h e a m b i g u i t y o f politics b a s e d u p o n
the Scriptures. A n d whatever their c o n t e m p o r a r y justification, the
insights a n d also t h e p r o b l e m s o f l i b e r a t i o n t h e o l o g y c a n n o t b e t o -
tally s e p a r a t e d f r o m a s i m i l a r a m b i g u i t y . O r let us c h o o s e a n e x i s t e n -
tial key. If this is t h a t of B u l t m a n n , o n e o b t a i n s a d e m y t h o l o g i z e d
a n d in fact s o o n d i s i n c a r n a t e r e a d i n g o f S c r i p t u r e . B u t let it b e t h e
n e w a w a r e n e s s o f f e m i n i n e e x i s t e n c e , a n d h e r m e n e u t i c s is h a n d e d
a n o t h e r key that opens new insights into the implications of the gos-
p e l . O r let us find a h e r m e n e u t i c a l key in h u m a n i t y ' s general s e a r c h
for t h e U l t i m a t e , a n d t h e J e w i s h a n d C h r i s t i a n S c r i p t u r e s b e c o m e
o n e o f m a n y sets in a universal c o l l e c t i o n o f r e v e l a t o r y t e x t s .
Thus o u r t i m e s are w i t n e s s i n g a n e w i n c a r n a t i o n of t h e o l d search
for s p i r i t u a l m e a n i n g s in t h e s a m e texts t h a t h a v e b e e n read, in dif-
ferent w a y s , from t h e b e g i n n i n g . B u t this search h a s n o w b e e n freed
from t h e classical c o n c e r n for t h e t h e o l o g i c a l v i r t u e s o f faith, love,
a n d h o p e , w h i c h , all o f t h e m b e i n g c e n t e r e d in C h r i s t , s e r v e d to
c o n t r o l t h e o l d s p i r i t u a l exegesis. A t this p o i n t in t h e h i s t o r y o f b i b -
lical r e a d i n g , h o w e v e r , t h e p a t r i s t i c - m e d i e v a l c o n c e r n for active faith,
a n d t h e c h r i s t o c e n t r i c a n d soteriological p r i n c i p l e o f M a r t i n L u t h e r ' s
exegesis, are b o t h in d a n g e r o f b e i n g stifled precisely b y n e w keys t o
the Scripture.
X . LESSONS OF M O D E R N LINGUISTICS
It s e e m s t o m e difficult t o s p e a k of r e a d i n g t h e W o r d t o d a y w i t h -
o u t l i s t e n i n g t o t h e m o d e r n sciences of l a n g u a g e . W h e n o n e s p e a k s
of t h e W o r d of G o d in a C h r i s t i a n c o n t e x t , o n e affirms t h e existence
of a b o d y o f w r i t i n g s in w h i c h c o n t e m p o r a r y C h r i s t i a n s believe t h a t
t h e y h a v e f o u n d t h e W o r d o f G o d . B u t t h i s is n o t o n l y t o say t h a t
successive c o m m u n i c a t i o n s from G o d w e r e w r i t t e n d o w n in biblical
t i m e s a n d in t h e c e n t u r y t h a t f o l l o w e d t h e d e a t h o f J e s u s o f N a z a r e t h ,
or t h a t t h e h i s t o r y o f d i v i n e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s t o a c h o s e n p e o p l e c a n
b e r e c o n s t r u c t e d w i t h t h e h e l p of t h e O l d a n d t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t
w r i t i n g s . G i v e n t h e t h e o l o g y of t h e Trinity, it is also s a y i n g t h a t S c r i p -
t u r e is b o t h t h e W o r d o f G o d w r i t t e n a n d also o n e m o d e of t h e
p r e s e n c e o n e a r t h , a m o n g h u m a n s , o f t h e e t e r n a l W o r d o f G o d . The
e t e r n a l W o r d is also called t h e e t e r n a l S o n , t h e S e c o n d P e r s o n , t h e
L o r d , t h e R e d e e m e r a n d Savior, t h e W i s d o m , I m a g e o r I c o n of G o d .
In r e l a t i o n to h i m G o d is called Father, t h e U n o r i g i n a t e d , t h e First
P e r s o n . A n d his Spirit, t h e T h i r d P e r s o n , s p o k e t h r o u g h t h e p r o p h -
ets a n d n o w , as Paraclete a n d C o m f o r t e r , a b i d e s in t h e C h u r c h a n d
in t h e faithful s o u l .
A special r e l a t i o n s h i p is t h u s suggested b e t w e e n S c r i p t u r e as W o r d
of G o d a n d t h e d i v i n e T r i n i t a r i a n life. S c r i p t u r e has r e c o r d e d t h e
w o r d s p o k e n t o t h e p r o p h e t s a n d t h r o u g h t h e evangelists a n d epistle
w r i t e r s o f t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t . B u t t h e r e is m o r e t o it. It also e m b o d -
ies t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e d i v i n e W o r d t h a t n o c r e a t e d m i n d a n d m o u t h
c a n speak, a n d t h a t m a y b e d i s c e r n e d o n l y t h r o u g h faith in a n e x p e -
r i e n c e t h a t is s i m i l a r t o w h a t J e a n C a l v i n d e s i g n a t e d as t h e i n t e r i o r
t e s t i m o n y o f t h e H o l y S p i r i t . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e C h r i s t i a n faith, it is
t h i s d i v i n e W o r d w h o w a s i n c a r n a t e as t h e p r o p h e t Jesus o f N a z a r e t h ,
b e c o m i n g o n e o f us, b e i n g s e e n , h e a r d , a n d t o u c h e d , a n d l e a v i n g a
m e m o r i a l o f his p r e s e n c e in t h e e u c h a r i s t i c m e a l . S c r i p t u r e is t h u s
p r o f o u n d l y c h r i s t o c e n t r i c , f o c u s e d f o r w a r d , in t h e O l d T e s t a m e n t ,
a n d , as it w e r e , b a c k w a r d , in t h e N e w , o n t h e events o f t h e b i r t h , life,
a n d d e a t h of J e s u s , a n d o n t h e r e n e w e d e x p e r i e n c e o f his p r e s e n c e
w h i c h t h e disciples called his r i s i n g f r o m t h e d e a d .
W h e n w e s p e a k o f t h e S e c o n d P e r s o n as W o r d , w e o f c o u r s e
s p e a k analogically. W e m o v e in t h e area of s e m i o t i c s a n d s y m b o l i s m .
W e affirm in G o d t h a t w h i c h allows us to use c o m p a r i s o n s from
h u m a n l a n g u a g e a n d e x p e r i e n c e t o p o i n t t o G o d . A n d as, in h u m a n
l a n g u a g e , w r i t i n g is t h e sign of s p e e c h a n d s p e e c h t h e sign a n d in-
s t r u m e n t of t h o u g h t , so S c r i p t u r e is t h e sign o f p r o p h e t i c w o r d s s p o -
k e n o n e a r t h , w h i c h are t h e m s e l v e s t h e sign a n d i n s t r u m e n t o f G o d ' s
e t e r n a l W o r d . B e t w e e n S c r i p t u r e a n d t h e e t e r n a l W o r d t h e r e is a
s e m i o t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p . T h e u l t i m a t e m e a n i n g o f S c r i p t u r e is t h e eter-
nal W o r d as it " b e c a m e flesh for us a n d for o u r s a l v a t i o n . "
X I . T H E ULTIMATE MEANING
W e are t h u s faced w i t h t h e p a r a d o x t h a t t h e u l t i m a t e m e a n i n g o f
S c r i p t u r e is, in final analysis, ineffable. It lies b e y o n d a n y a t t e m p t at
f o r m u l a t i o n , w h e t h e r in a t h e o l o g y o f g l o r y o r in a t h e o l o g y o f t h e
C r o s s . " T h e o l o g i a n s o f g l o r y " h a v e c l a i m e d g l o w i n g success for t h e i r
i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of G o d a n d t h e d i v i n e r e v e l a t i o n . M o r e h u m b l y b e -
fore t h e m y s t e r y o f t h e d e a t h o f C h r i s t , " t h e o l o g i a n s of t h e C r o s s , " as
L u t h e r p e r c e i v e d , h a v e c o n t e m p l a t e d t h e infinite c o n d e s c e n s i o n o f
G o d w h o in t h e d e a t h of C h r i s t p r o c l a i m s s i n n e r s just. Yet in b o t h
cases t h e reality o f G o d r e m a i n s h i d d e n — D e u s absconditus—be-

y o n d w h a t is said a n d i m a g i n e d , a n d n o less b e y o n d t h e h u m a n face
of Jesus, living, d y i n g , or rising, t h a n b e y o n d t h e h o p e d for g l o r y o f
h u m a n a c h i e v e m e n t s . T h u s t h e r e always r e m a i n s a p r i n c i p l e o f u n -
c e r t a i n t y in o u r r e a d i n g of S c r i p t u r e . O n e m a y find in this t h e rea-
s o n w h y each c o m i n g C h r i s t i a n g e n e r a t i o n c a n n o t s i m p l y take t h e
S c r i p t u r e s a n d t h e W o r d of G o d for g r a n t e d b u t has t o receive t h e m
anew. This is w h y t h e t o n e a n d c o n c e r n s of scientific exegesis vary
every five t o t e n years, w h y each c u l t u r e w h e r e t h e C h r i s t i a n faith has
t a k e n h o l d has c o m e u p w i t h n e w a p p r o a c h e s t o theology, w h y in t h e
R o m a n E m p i r e a n d in later E u r o p e E a s t e r n a n d W e s t e r n insights
have differed, a n d w h y a t t h e p r e s e n t t i m e Africa, Asia, a n d L a t i n
A m e r i c a are o p e n i n g n e w a v e n u e s t o t h e S c r i p t u r e s , as are likewise
d o i n g s o m e s e c t i o n s o f C h r i s t i a n society for w h i c h S c r i p t u r e w a s ,
u n t i l recently, a relatively closed b o o k . N o h u m a n c u l t u r e a n d n o
s u m total o f h u m a n c u l t u r e s can a d e q u a t e l y g r a s p t h e m e a n i n g o f
S c r i p t u r e as t h e i m p r i n t o f t h e eternal W o r d .
O n e m a y be t e m p t e d to c o n c l u d e from this to a r e v e r e n t a g n o s -
ticism r e g a r d i n g t h e possibility of f o r m u l a t i n g t h e m e a n i n g of S c r i p -
t u r e in h u m a n l a n g u a g e . A n d this c o u l d o p e n u p t h e gate to a m a n i -
fold e x p l o i t a t i o n of S c r i p t u r e b y p a r t i s a n c o n c e r n s . For if, t h e u l t i -
m a t e m e a n i n g b e i n g ineffable, t h e r e is n o recognizable s t a n d a r d of
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , t h e n t h e r e w o u l d s e e m t o b e n o c h e c k s a n d balances
o n misuses o f t h e text. The p r o p e r c o n t r o l , h o w e v e r , is already avail-
able in t h e f u n d a m e n t a l p r i n c i p l e t h a t S c r i p t u r e is n o t given in o r d e r
to be used. S c r i p t u r e is u s e d w h e n w e p l a c e ourselves above t h e text
in o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e its m e a n i n g . W h e n o n e realizes t h a t t h e o n l y
possible place for t h e C h u r c h , its m e m b e r s , a n d its officers is b e l o w
t h e W o r d , in a s t a n c e o f expectancy, o f a t t e n t i o n , of l i s t e n i n g , t h e n
t h e text itself a c q u i r e s its c o r r e c t d i m e n s i o n . It b e c o m e s a m e d i u m
for o b e d i e n t e n c o u n t e r w i t h t h e W o r d . O n e m a y t h e n rightly l o o k
for a c a n o n w i t h i n t h e c a n o n , for a sign, w i t h i n t h e s e m i o t i c s y s t e m
or systems o f S c r i p t u r e , t h a t t h e W o r d is p r e s e n t . L u t h e r ' s search for
was Christum treibet c o n s t i t u t e s historically t h e first m a j o r a t t e m p t
to d i s c e r n s u c h a n o r m . Yet even this does n o t solve t h e p r o b l e m o f
the m e a n i n g of Scripture.
T o say t h a t S c r i p t u r e is a w r i t i n g , a text, a d i s c o u r s e is t o i m p l y
t h a t , w h a t e v e r its u l t i m a t e m e a n i n g as W o r d of G o d , it falls w i t h i n
t h e s t r u c t u r e s of h u m a n l a n g u a g e . If G o d c o m m u n i c a t e s w i t h us
t h r o u g h p r o p h e t s a n d apostles, t h e n G o d has n o c h o i c e b u t t o s p e a k
a h u m a n l a n g u a g e . A text d e p e n d s originally o n t h e i n t e n t i o n of its
a u t h o r a n d e v e n t u a l l y o n t h a t of its r e d a c t o r o r r e d a c t o r s . Yet, like a
w o r k o f art, it s o o n a c q u i r e s a life of its o w n , i n d e p e n d e n t l y of t h e

a u t h o r ' s i n t e n t . The l a n g u a g e u s e d follows its o w n laws, o f w h i c h t h e
w r i t e r s m a y well h a v e b e e n u n a w a r e , b u t w h i c h are n o less effectively
at w o r k for t h e i r u n a w a r e n e s s . The l a n g u a g e follows n o t o n l y t h e
laws o f its f o r m u l a t i o n at t h e m o m e n t w h e n it is s p o k e n , b u t also t h e
laws o f its r e c e p t i o n at t h e m o m e n t w h e n it is h e a r d o r read. Like all
language, t h e n , Scripture becomes a s y n t a g m a t h a t may be analyzed
a n d f o r m a l i z e d . It lies o p e n t o t h e test o f p a r a d i g m a t i c c o m m u t a -
t i o n . A b o v e all, it d e v e l o p s t h e m y t h i c a l d i m e n s i o n t h a t is to b e f o u n d
in all w r i t i n g a b o u t t h e a b s o l u t e a n d t h e t r a n s c e n d e n t . S c r i p t u r e b e -
comes the written m y t h of Christianity, w h i c h may be systematically
c o m p a r e d w i t h o t h e r m y t h s o f h u m a n k i n d , even t h o u g h , in t h e ex-
p e r i e n c e of t h e faithful it b e l o n g s t o a level t h a t is n o t r e a c h e d b y
o t h e r m y t h s , t h e level of t h e e t e r n a l W o r d , a n d t o a n e v e n t t h a t s h a t -
ters t h e n u m i n o u s c o n t e n t of all m y t h s , t h e e v e n t o f t h e C r o s s of
Jesus.
H u g h ' s p a t t e r n o f letter, sense, a n d sententia can n o w be reinter-
p r e t e d . A t t h e m o m e n t o f letter, research leads t h e r e a d e r i n t o t h e
s e m i o t i c s o f s c r i p t u r a l d i s c o u r s e . A t t h e m o m e n t of sense, several
levels of significance are u n v e i l e d in t h e d i s c o u r s e . As t o t h e m o m e n t
of sententia, it is a p r e s u m a b l y rare ineffable i n s t a n t w h e n t h e r e a d e r
is lifted a b o v e t h e letter a n d its i m m e d i a t e m e a n i n g i n t o t h e r e a l m of
t h e Spirit. C a r r i e d b y G o d ' s love f r o m g r a c e t o g r a c e , o n e m a y t h e n ,
like St. Paul, " h e a r ineffable w o r d s t h a t it is n o t p e r m i t t e d t o m a n to
r e p e a t " (2 C o r . 1 2 : 4 ) . In s u c h w o r d s t h e u l t i m a t e m e a n i n g o f S c r i p -
t u r e is r e a c h e d : it is i d e n t i c a l w i t h t h e e t e r n a l W o r d .
X I I . T H E ECUMENICAL TASK
In all o f today's c h u r c h e s , I a m afraid, t h e actual a n d even t h e

official r e s o n a n c e o f S c r i p t u r e falls s h o r t of w h a t it s h o u l d b e . W e are
n o t y e t far r e m o v e d f r o m t h e c o n c e p t i o n o f S c r i p t u r e as w o r d s d i c -
t a t e d b y G o d , w h i c h c o n v e y t h e d i v i n e r e v e l a t i o n in p r o p o s i t i o n a l
f o r m . A t t h e s a m e t i m e t h e c h u r c h e s h a v e n o t effectively r e n o u n c e d
t h e n o t i o n t h a t S c r i p t u r e is at t h e disposal o f m i n i s t e r s as a q u a r r y o f
q u o t a b l e m a t t e r . P r o o f texts or i l l u s t r a t i o n s are e x t r a c t e d regardless
of t h e i r sense in c o n t e x t . If t h e y c a n n o t b e t a k e n literally, t h e n o n e
c a n still rely o n allegory t o m a k e a p o i n t , y e t w i t h o u t t h e s o p h i s t i -
c a t e d u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f a l l e g o r y t h a t was familiar t o o u r m e d i e v a l
a n c e s t o r s . Even p a p a l d o c u m e n t s a n d t h e decrees o f V a t i c a n II m i n e
S c r i p t u r e for i l l u s t r a t i o n of t h e m e s r a t h e r t h a n as t h e o n e s o u r c e a n d
n o r m of t h e l a n g u a g e of faith. B e t w e e n t h e f u n d a m e n t a l i s t a n d t h e
liberal w i n g s of C h r i s t i a n t h o u g h t , m o s t t h e o l o g i a n s refer to S c r i p -
t u r e as f r o m t h e o u t s i d e , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e s p e c u l a t i v e c o n c e r n s a n d
n e e d s of t h e m o m e n t .
This, t h e n , p o i n t s t o t h e r e m a i n i n g e c u m e n i c a l task. V a t i c a n II
d e c l a r e d : " L i k e t h e C h r i s t i a n religion itself, all c h u r c h p r o c l a m a t i o n
m u s t feed o n , a n d b e r u l e d by, H o l y S c r i p t u r e . T h e W o r d of G o d
c o n t a i n s s u c h force a n d efficacy t h a t it s t a n d s o u t for t h e C h u r c h as
n o u r i s h m e n t a n d h e a l t h a n d for t h e C h u r c h ' s c h i l d r e n as s t r e n g t h of
t h e i r faith, f o o d for t h e i r s o u l , p u r e a n d p e r e n n i a l f o n t o f t h e i r s p i r i -
tual life" {Dei Verbum, n o . 2 1 ) . A n d a g a i n : ". . . t h e s t u d y o f t h e
s a c r e d text s h o u l d b e , so to s p e a k , t h e s o u l o f sacred t h e o l o g y " ( n o .
2 4 ) . T h e task a h e a d for t h e c h u r c h e s t h a t desire r e c o n c i l i a t i o n is t o
find t h e i r c o m m o n s o u l . The p r o c e s s c a n b e p u t s i m p l y , in w o r d s of
a d m o n i t i o n t h a t are a d d r e s s e d t o a n e w b i s h o p in t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y
R o m a n ritual for t h e o r d i n a t i o n of a b i s h o p : "Believe w h a t y o u read,
p r a c t i c e w h a t y o u believe, p r e a c h w h a t y o u p r a c t i c e . "
This p o i n t s h o u l d t h r o w l i g h t o n t h e i n t e r n a l a n d t h e e x t e r n a l
d i a l o g u e of t h e c h u r c h e s . In t h e i r i n t e r n a l d i a l o g u e w i t h i n t h e i r c o m -
m o n profession of t h e C h r i s t i a n faith, it is m y o p i n i o n t h a t t h e first
p h a s e o f e c u m e n i c a l c o n v e r s a t i o n s is n o w over. T h e d o c t r i n e s over
w h i c h C a t h o l i c s a n d P r o t e s t a n t s h a v e differed h i s t o r i c a l l y h a v e b e e n
a b u n d a n t l y d e b a t e d . A n d a series of a g r e e d s t a t e m e n t s h a v e c o n s i d -
e r a b l y n a r r o w e d t h e field of d i v e r g e n c e . The official d i a l o g u e s h a v e
s u c c e e d e d in r e d u c i n g t h e differences to a m i n i m u m w h i c h , I s h o u l d
t h i n k , h a r d l y justifies t h e c o n t i n u i n g s e p a r a t i o n o f t h e c h u r c h e s at
t h e level o f faith. These a g r e e m e n t s o f c o u r s e still n e e d to b e received
a n d a s s i m i l a t e d . B u t this will b e chiefly a m a t t e r o f t i m e . In t h e m e a n -
w h i l e o n e has t o start t h i n k i n g a b o u t o p e n i n g t h e s e c o n d p h a s e . C h r i s -
tians n o w n e e d t o d i a l o g u e a b o u t t h e i r use, m i s u s e , a n d a b u s e of t h e
S c r i p t u r e s , w h i c h w e r e n o t m e a n t , in t h e first place, t o b e used. They
s h o u l d t o g e t h e r — n o t s e p a r a t e l y — l e a r n h o w n o t t o b e "above G o d ' s
w o r d , " a n d h o w t o serve "the W o r d , t e a c h i n g o n l y w h a t has b e e n
t r a n s m i t t e d . . . " {Dei Verbum, n o . 10). 'This d i a l o g u e s h o u l d b e g i n
w i t h a f u n d a m e n t a l r e e x a m i n a t i o n of p r i n c i p l e s a n d practices in t r y -
i n g t o listen t o t h e W o r d o f G o d a n d t o d r a w f r o m t h i s t h e p r o p e r
c o n c l u s i o n s r e g a r d i n g p r a c t i c a l C h r i s t i a n living. W e h a v e a l o n g w a y
t o g o before t h i s s e c o n d p h a s e c a n b e satisfactorily i m p l e m e n t e d .
X I I I . T H E CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC C H U R C H
'This sense of a n u n f i n i s h e d task h a s b e e n h e i g h t e n e d for m e b y

r e a d i n g t h e Catechism of the Catholic Church as issued in F r e n c h at
t h e e n d of 1 9 9 2 . Parallel to t h e Catechismus romanus or " C a t e c h i s m

of t h e C o u n c i l o f f r e n t , " w h i c h e m b o d i e d t h e T r i d e n t i n e t e a c h i n g s ,
this v o l u m e p u r p o r t s to e m b o d y t h e t e a c h i n g s o f V a t i c a n II in a
s i m p l e f o r m t h a t m a y serve as a m o d e l for t h e t e a c h i n g of c a t e c h i s m .
It follows t h e g e n e r a l p l a n of t h e C a t e c h i s m o f t h e C o u n c i l o f f r e n t ,
as it d r a w s a t t e n t i o n , possibly b o r r o w i n g t h e l a n g u a g e of Islam, t o
"four pillars," namely, t h e creed or profession o f faith, t h e s a c r a m e n t s
of faith, t h e c o m m a n d m e n t s or life o f faith, a n d t h e Lord's Prayer or
prayer of t h e believer. T h e text is m a d e of q u o t a t i o n s from t h e C o u n c i l
w i t h occasional a d d i t i o n s a n d c o m m e n t s .
1
S t a r t i n g from t h e assertion t h a t " m a n is capax D e i " b y c r e a t i o n , '
t h e First P a r t explains t h a t G o d revealed h i m s e l f from t h e b e g i n n i n g ,
a n d t h e n t h r o u g h N o a h , A b r a h a m , t h e p e o p l e of Israel, a n d finally
t h r o u g h " C h r i s t Jesus, t h e M e d i a t o r a n d t h e Fullness of all t h e Rev-
3
e l a t i o n . " ' This revelation has b e e n " t r a n s m i t t e d " b y t h e " a p o s t o l i c
t r a d i t i o n " w h i c h is m a d e of "the a p o s t o l i c p r e a c h i n g " a n d " a p o s t o l i c
s u c c e s s i o n . " As w r i t t e n d o w n after "the first g e n e r a t i o n o f C h r i s -
t i a n s , " t h e S c r i p t u r e o f t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t "testifies to t h e process o f
1
t h e living T r a d i t i o n . " ' '
This a p p r o a c h , however, does n o t lead t h e c a t e c h i s m to c o n s i d e r
t h e variety o f a n d t h e d y n a m i c e x c h a n g e s w i t h i n t h e living t r a d i t i o n
t h a t e m e r g e from t h e c h r i s t o l o g i c a l diversity o f t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t .
N o r d o e s it lead, as it c o u l d c o n c e i v a b l y d o , to an A u g u s t i n i a n a n a l y -
sis o f s e l f - k n o w l e d g e in t h e light o f G o d - k n o w l e d g e , as at t h e b e g i n -
n i n g o f Calvin's I n s t i t u t e s . In a typical m o v e in t h e s p i r i t o f t h e
C o u n t e r R e f o r m a t i o n , it leads to t h e r e m a r k a b l e feat o f a f f i r m i n g
"the m a g i s t e r i u m of t h e C h u r c h , " i m m e d i a t e l y identified as "the bish-
1
ops in c o m m u n i o n w i t h t h e successor of Peter, t h e b i s h o p o f R o m e , " '
even before any c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e W o r d of G o d in S c r i p t u r e a n d
in t h e e a r l y t r a d i t i o n b e f o r e t h e e p i s c o p a l h i e r a r c h y h a d b e c o m e
effective.
T h e m o r e d e t a i l e d article o n H o l y S c r i p t u r e c o m e s last in a t h r e e -
p r o n g e d p r e s e n t a t i o n o f " G o d e n c o u n t e r i n g M a n " (ch. 2 ) , t h a t is, in
revelation (art. 1), in t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n o f revelation (art. 2 ) , in t h e
H o l y S c r i p t u r e (art. 3 ) . T h i s article is a very brief s u m m a r y o f t h e
c o n s t i t u t i o n Dei Verbum (five p a r a g r a p h s : C h r i s t as t h e o n e W o r d
of S c r i p t u r e , i n s p i r a t i o n a n d t r u t h o f S c r i p t u r e , t h e H o l y Spirit as
i n t e r p r e t e r of S c r i p t u r e , t h e c a n o n of t h e S c r i p t u r e s , S c r i p t u r e in t h e
:
' Catéchisme, seer. I, ch. 1, p . 21.
" Ibid., p . 2 8 .
Ibid., ch. 2, p . 3 2 .
-•• Ibid., p . 3 2 .
c h u r c h ' s life). T h e c o m m e n t a r y insists o n " t h e i n t e n t i o n o f t h e sa-

c r e d a u t h o r s , " b u t it m a k e s n o allusion t o c o n t e m p o r a r y d e b a t e s o n
h e r m e n e u t i c s ; a n d it i n c l u d e s a s e c t i o n o n t h e f o u r senses o f S c r i p -
6
ture a n d their "profound c o n c o r d a n c e . " '
T h i s , in m y j u d g m e n t , d o e s justice n e i t h e r t o t h e p r e s e n t w e a l t h
of biblical s t u d i e s in C a t h o l i c circles, n o r t o t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e t h e -
o l o g y of t r a d i t i o n t h a t p r e c e d e d a n d followed V a t i c a n II, a n d still
less t o t h e r i c h n e s s of t h e C a t h o l i c reflection o n S c r i p t u r e a n d its
t r a d i t i o n t h a t was n u r t u r e d b y t h o s e d e v e l o p m e n t s .
X I V . T H K EXTERNAL DIALOGUE
Still a n o t h e r p e r s p e c t i v e can b e o p e n e d , even if it is difficult to

l o o k far d o w n i n t o it. As was s u g g e s t e d a b o v e in relation t o t h e avail-
able h e r m e n e u t i c a l keys t h a t lie a r o u n d t h e p r e s e n t theological w o r k -
s h o p , t h e e c u m e n i c a l h o r i z o n has b e e n c o n s i d e r a b l y b r o a d e n e d in
r e c e n t years in t h e c o n t e x t o f w h a t w a s called for s o m e t i m e " t h e
w i d e r e c u m e n i s m " a n d is n o w called "the e n c o u n t e r o f religions" o r
t h e " d i a l o g u e b e t w e e n r e l i g i o n s . " This u n d o u b t e d l y raises n e w q u e s -
t i o n s for t h e C h r i s t i a n d o c t r i n e of t h e W o r d o f G o d . There is also, or
t h e r e s h o u l d b e , n e x t t o t h e i n t e r n a l d i a l o g u e of C h r i s t i a n s a b o u t t h e
W o r d o f G o d , a n external d i a l o g u e . The c h u r c h ' s e x t e r n a l d i a l o g u e is
this b e g i n n i n g e n c o u n t e r b e t w e e n all t h e g r e a t religions o f t h e w o r l d .
W i t h o u t p a s s i n g j u d g m e n t o n t h e i n t r i n s i c values o f t h e w o r l d reli-
g i o n s as ways o f k n o w i n g a n d l o v i n g G o d , a n d even w h i l e h o l d i n g
t h a t t h e r e c a n o n l y b e i d o l a t r y o u t s i d e o f t h e d i v i n e grace a n d revela-
t i o n given in C h r i s t , o n e m a y see t h e religions as c u l t u r a l d e v e l o p -
m e n t s t h a t h a v e specified p a r t i c u l a r ways o f b e i n g h u m a n .
W h a t e v e r o n e prefers t o n a m e this m o v e m e n t , it is clear t h a t
m a n y religions o u t s i d e t h e biblical s t r e a m r e c o g n i z e s o m e S c r i p t u r e s
as s o m e h o w d i v i n e r e v e l a t i o n . I n d e e d , t h e C h r i s t i a n i n q u i r y i n t o t h e
m e a n i n g of S c r i p t u r e p o i n t s t o t h e n e e d o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e place
of s a c r e d w r i t i n g s in t h e o t h e r religions t h a t claim t o h a v e s o m e . O n e
m a y t h e n w o n d e r h o w a C h r i s t i a n m a y read t h e S c r i p t u r e s t h a t h a v e
developed outside the Judeo-Christian stream.
I n d e e d o n e m a y view t h e K o r a n as a l e n g t h y m e d i t a t i o n o n t h e
C r e a t o r , t h a t is precisely f o c u s e d o n t h e c e n t r a l a f f i r m a t i o n of t h e
g r e a t n e s s a n d s o v e r e i g n t y of t h e C r e a t o r . M o r e o v e r , t h e n i n e t y - n i n e
" b e a u t i f u l n a m e s " o f G o d — t h e n a m e s t h a t are f o u n d in t h e K o -
r a n — i n v i t e C h r i s t i a n believers t o f u r t h e r reflection o n t h e d i v i n e
Ibid., p. 3 7 .
a t t r i b u t e s . T h e r e are also t h e sacred w r i t i n g s o f t h e m o n o t h e i s t i c re-

l i g i o n s , o l d as in Z o r o a s t r i a n i s m ( t h e G a t h a s a n d o t h e r texts o f t h e
Avesta), or m o r e r e c e n t l y like t h e s a c r e d w r i t i n g s o f t h e S i k h s . A n d
o n e m a y a d d t h e q u a s i - s c r i p t u r a l s t a t u s of t h e T a l m u d o r of t h e
K a b b a l a h in s o m e f o r m s of later J u d a i s m . A n d w h a t of t h o s e w r i t -
ings t h a t h a v e c o m e t o f u n c t i o n as a d d i t i o n a l t o t h e Bible in m a n y
heterodox m o v e m e n t s that have grown o u t of Christianity?
There are f u r t h e r p r o b l e m s in r e l a t i o n t o t h e m e a n i n g o f S c r i p -
tures o u t s i d e o f t h e m o n o t h e i s t i c religions in t h e s t r i c t sense. W h a t
c a n it m e a n t h a t s o m e w r i t i n g s are r e c o g n i z e d as s a c r e d w h e n t h e r e is
n o belief in o n e a b s o l u t e C r e a t o r w h o speaks t h r o u g h t h e m o r has
i n s p i r e d t h e m ? 'There are t h e V e d a s , t h e U p a n i s h a d s a n d t h e g r e a t
epics of H i n d u i s m , t h a t i n c l u d e t h e B h a g a v a d G i t a . 'There is t h e
T r i p i t a k a o f B u d d h i s m in b o t h t h e Small a n d t h e G r e a t Vehicles.
W h a t d o e s it m e a n for H i n d u s t o h a v e S a c r e d W r i t i n g s , w h e n o r t h o -
d o x H i n d u i s m is d i v i d e d in six d a r c a n a s , o r s c h o o l s o f t h o u g h t , s o m e
o f w h i c h a p p e a r t o h a v e little in c o m m o n ? W h a t d o e s it say a b o u t
t h e C h r i s t i a n c o n c e p t i o n of S c r i p t u r e as d i v i n e W o r d t h a t t h e 'Triple
Basket o f t h e B u d d h i s t S c r i p t u r e s has b e c o m e so h u g e a n d c o n t a i n s
so m a n y w r i t i n g s t h a t it is q u i t e i m p o s s i b l e t o r e a d t h e m all?
Even a p a r t f r o m t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e s o f h o l y s c r i p t u r e s , H i n d u i s m
a n d B u d d h i s m raise q u e s t i o n s t h a t c a n n o t b e e l u d e d indefinitely.
V e d a n t a challenges C h r i s t i a n i t y in r e g a r d to t h e d i v i n e a t t r i b u t e of
e t e r n i t y a n d its relevance t o t h e t r a n s c e n d e n c e a n d t h e i m m a n e n c e
of G o d . B u d d h i s m c h a l l e n g e s C h r i s t i a n t h e o l o g y in r e g a r d t o t h e
a p o p h a t i c k n o w l e d g e o f t h e t r a n s c e n d e n t t h a t is t o u c h e d u p o n b u t
h a r d l y d e v e l o p e d in classical S c h o l a s t i c i s m . S u c h q u e s t i o n s are g r o w -
i n g at t h e e c u m e n i c a l h o r i z o n .
X V . CONCLUSION
There are n o w s o m e d i s c o u r a g e d e c u m e n i s t s . They are g e n e r a l l y

w a i t i n g for c h u r c h a u t h o r i t i e s a n d agencies t o c o m m i t t h e c h u r c h e s
t o a c t i o n o n t h e basis of t h e f i n d i n g s o f official a n d o t h e r c o m m i s -
s i o n s . A n d t h e y are t e m p t e d t o give u p t h e h o p e t h a t p r o m i s e s , bril-
l i a n t as t h e y w e r e at o n e t i m e , will b e f o l l o w e d b y a c t i o n . W h e n it
s t a r t e d in t h e early years o f o u r f i n i s h i n g c e n t u r y , t h e e c u m e n i c a l
m o v e m e n t was i n t e n d e d t o m o v e t h e c h u r c h e s a n d t h e C h u r c h . B u t
it d o e s n o t s e e m to h a v e m o v e d m u c h m o r e t h a n itself. Yet if t h e r e is
a lesson t o learn f r o m t h e p r e s e n t s t a g n a n t state o f r e l a t i o n s a m o n g
C h r i s t i a n c h u r c h e s a n d t h e i r leaders, it is n o t t h a t h o p e c a n b e given
u p . It is t h a t , w h a t e v e r c o n v i c t i o n s t h e y h a v e c o r r e c t l y r e a c h e d , t h e
bilateral a n d o t h e r c o m m i s s i o n s of d i a l o g u e h a v e n o t m a d e a p e r s u a -
sive case for t h o s e w h o h a v e n o t t a k e n p a r t in t h e i r d i a l o g u e s a n d
r e a d t h e i r agreed o r j o i n t s t a t e m e n t s w i t h t h e critical eyes o f o u t s i d -
ers. I n d e e d " t h e h a r v e s t is ready" b u t t h e c h u r c h e s a t large are n o t
q u i t e ready for it. The tools n e e d f u r t h e r s h a r p e n i n g . T h e r e is still a
great deal o f w o r k t o d o .
Index
A Authenticity 143
exclusivistic 68
Abbott, Lyman 131 Authority 156-57, 176-77
A b r a h a m ' 4 - 5 , 16, 187, 195 biblical 14, 114, 149, 154, 15
Academy 26, 4 9 , 150 160, 163-64
Achtemeier, Paul J. 139, 173 canonical 109
Acts 3 7 , 119, 1 4 1 , 163 claims to 139
Actualization 54, 56 divine 1 0 1 , 160
A d a m 79 internal experience 110
A d o p t i o n 153 a n d interpretation 174
African C o d e , C a n o n 24 75 a n d language games 139
Agnosticism, reverent 192 Petrine 30
Aion 122, 124 propositior.al 157
Al-Gazzali 85 of texts and writing 20, 167
Aldridge, J o h n W. 2 7 of the tradition/magisterium 17^
Alexander 6 9 - 7 0 Authorship, scriptural 20
Alexandrian School 71 Ephesians
Ambrose 13 non-Pauline 5 1 , 119
Ambrosiaster 80 Pauline 5 3 , 96, 108
American Council of Christian p s e u d o n y m o u s 53
C h u r c h e s 135 traditional 131
Amphilocius, Bishop of Seleucus 74 G o d / H o l y Spirit 8
Anderson, H . G e o r g e 181 intention 137
A n d r o n i c u s 108 Autographs 40
Anthropology, Christian 80
Apocalypse 3 7 B
of Peter 109
Apocalypticism 4 2 , 6 7 Babylonian Exile 6 6
Apocrypha 84, 8 9 , 107 Bacon, Francis 129
Apologetics 132 Baconianism 130
Apostles 108, 162, 177, 183, 192 Baird, William 173
apostolic succession 195 Baldwin of C a n r e r b u r y 187
Apostolic C a n o n 85 7 2 - 7 3 , 7 5 , 7 7 Baptism 54, 56, 7 9 - 8 0 , 103,
Archaeology 4 1 , 144 107, 1 2 0 - 2 1 , 1 2 3 , 125, 145
Arianism 72 and grace 80
Aristotle 2, 6-7, 8 6 , 189 infant 81
Arius 178 Barnabas 108
Arseniev, N . S. 9 3 Barr, James 127, 146
Athanasius 72, 8 1 , 108 Barrois, Georges 6 1 , 99
Atheism 106 Barth, Markus 1 52
A t o n e m e n t 59, 132 Barthélémy, D o m i n i q u e 40
Augustine 1, 3 - 5 , 8-9, 13, 16-17, Baruch 64
2 6 , 7 8 - 8 0 , 1 5 3 , 1 7 7 - 8 0 , 182, Beecher, H e n r y Ward 130
195 B e n S i r a c h 6 8 - 6 9 , 75
a n t h r o p o l o g y of 79 Bengel, J o h a n n 24, 106
Confessions 178-79 Berdyaev, N . 6 3
massa perditionis 180 Bergant, D i a n e 57
200 T H E BIBLE IN T H E C H U R C H E S
Bible 14, 2 5 , 6 6 O l d Latin editions 81

as b o o k of faith 128 Ostrog 87-88
in church life 56, 58 Philaret 9 3
discussion groups 54 questions about 95
editions, critical 11-12 Revised New American Bible 51
h u m a n a n d divine 106 Revised Standard 4 7 , 6 1 , 9 5 ,
o n inspiration 104 121-23
i n t r o d u c t i o n s 19, 2 2 - 2 3 , 25 Russian 91
humanist-rationalist 2 3 Septuaginr see Septuagint
languages 11, 30, 4 0 , 4 2 , Slavic 8 2 , 8 4 , 8 6 - 8 8 , 92
145, 165, 168 textus receptus 24, 142
A k k a d i a n a n d Ugaritic 4 0 Vulgate 4 7 , 7 8 , 8 1 , 8 6 ,
ancient 4 0 , 144 8 8 , 183
Aramaic 3 9 - 4 0 , 4 7 C l e m e n t i n e version 8 7
A r m e n i a n 39 Bible Institute m o v e m e n t 132
cognates 146 Bible Society 91
Cyrillic alphabet 82 Biblical Institute Press 41
dictionaries 59 Bishops 1 7 6 - 7 8 , 194-95
Ethiopic 39 Black, David Alan 156
g r a m m a r s , classical 146 Blomberg, Craig I.. 138, 140,
Greek 3 9 , 4 7 , 6 6 , 145, 159 142, 156
H e b r e w 4 7 , 6 6 , 90, 145, Boice, James M o n t g o m e r y 147
159 Bonaventure 187
H o l y Ghost Greek 4 2 Boris of Bulgaria 8 3
Latin 30, 3 9 , 78 Bornkamm, Gtinther 44
lexical semantics 157 B o r n k a m m , H e i n r i c h 127
original 11, 159 Bossuet, Jacques 189
Semitic 51 Bowden, J o h n 173
Slavic 8 2 - 8 3 , 85 Bratcher, Robert G. 6 2
Syriac 39 Breck, J o h n 6 1 - 6 2 , 9 9
as literature 2 2 , 3 8 - 3 9 Brethren of the C o m m o n Life 13
must be interpreted 114 Brown, R a y m o n d E. 5 7 - 5 8 , 165
post-Gutenbergian 66 Bruce, E. E. 147
as a Protestant b o o k 31 Bryan, William Jennings 133
versions B u d d h i s m 197
Aquila 8 3 Bulgakov, S. 6 3
C h u r c h Slavic 92 B u l t m a n n , Rudolf 4 5 , 157, 190
C o m p l u t e n s i a n Polyglot 24, 8 8 Burgess, Joseph A. 101, 149, 181
Gennadius 86-87
G o o d N e w s Bible 4 7 c
Greek 8 3
Jerusalem Bible 4 7 Calvin, J o h n 1 4 - 1 5 , 2 6 , 7 9 , 1 6 4 - 6 5 ,
King James 6 5 , 9 5 , 104, 142 170, 1 7 3 - 7 4 , 1 9 1 , 195
Latin 1 1 Institutes of the Christian Religion
N e w American Bible 4 7 , 14
Calvinism 136, 153, 159
59, 9 5
C a n o n 7 6 - 7 7 , 8 8 , 106, 108. 156
N e w English Bible 104
apostolic 108
N e w International 151
Calvinist 89
N e w Jerusalem Bible 52
d e v e l o p m e n t 109
N e w Revised Standard 6 1 , 81
Index 201
in early C h u r c h and creeds 108-9 promise in 118

historical and theological 110 revelation, sufficient 168
N e w Testament 7 4 , 107, 109 Son of G o d 11 5
O l d Testament 7 3 the t r u t h 116, 118, 126,
of t r u t h 7 2 Word of G o d (Logos) 16, 160, 178
w h a t t h e C h u r c h establishes 108 Word of G o d Incarnate 162
within the canon 110, 192 words and sayings 6 9 , 109
Carpenter, Joel 134 at work in the W o r d 15
Carroll, J o h n 58 Christ-event 55
Carson, D . A. 137, 139, 147, 156 Christianity
Cassian, J o h n 7 8 American 156
Catechisms conservative 135
Catechism of the Catholic C h u r c h E n l i g h t e n m e n t 21
178, 182, 194 not individualism 172
Catechism of the C o u n c i l of Trent Christians
(Calechismus romanus) 195 Evangelical 3 6
Larger Catechism 162 faith and practice 55
Shorter Carechism 162 G e n t i l e 5 1 - 5 3 , 122-23
C a t h o l i c Biblical Association of as individual believers 180
America 4 7 - 4 8 Jewish 5 1 , 122
C a t h o l i c Biblical Quarterly 4 8 life of 54, 152, 172, 181
C h a d w i c k , H e n r y 7 1 , 79 Lutheran 3 6
C h a u , Wai-Shing 2 7 Orthodox 62, 65, 91, 97
Christ, Jesus 3-5, 8-9, 14, 16, 34, Reformed 159
45, 46, 4 9 , 52-53, 55, 57, 6 1 , Christology 7 1 , 125, 150
63-64, 69-70, 72, 79, 8 1 , 83, C h r y s o s t o m , J o h n 9 5 , 106
8 5 , 9 3 , 9 8 , 106, 112, 114-16, C h u r c h 2, 4, 8, 15, 32, 34, 4 8 ,
1 2 3 - 2 5 , 132, 1 4 2 - 4 3 , 145, 150, 59, 8 9 , 108, 116, 1 19-20, 126,
1 5 2 - 5 5 , 160, 162, 1 6 4 - 6 6 , 169, 1 2 9 - 3 0 , 1 4 3 , 1 5 0 - 5 2 , 154, 160,
172, 176, 178, 1 8 0 - 8 2 , 185, 172, 175, 179, 182, 1 8 5 - 8 7 ,
187, 1 8 9 - 9 1 , 196 192, 194, 197
alone 1 1 3 , 116-17, 126, 181 African 7 5
t h e answer 1 10 Anabaptist 134, 136
death of 166, 167 Anglican (Episcopal) 3 1 , 106
example of 13 A r m i n i a n 133, 136, 153
of faith 18, 168 body of Christ 169, 171-72, 185
gives Scripture its authority 116 bride of Christ 120
and Gospel 16, 9 9 , 117 Catholic 10, 2 9 , 3 5 , 3 9 , 4 9 ,
historical 18, 35 106, 108, 150
h u m a n i t y of 106 international character of 4 9
life in 120 C o p t i c , E t h i o p i a n 109
horizontal d i m e n s i o n 172 early 1, 108, 1 4 3 , 166
lordship of 169 ecclesial time 179
means freedom 170 Evangelical 6 3
as m e d i a t o r 195 Fundamentalist 175
m u s t be proclaimed 119 Holiness 133
o u r h e r m e n e u t i c 167 intetprets the Bible 1 14
personal relationships to 172 life of the 15, 3 5 , 150, 169, 172
p h i l o s o p h y of 13 liturgical 65
presence of 169 local and universal congregation 180
202 T H E BIBLE IN THE C H U R C H E S
L u t h e r a n 3 1 , 102 christological 165

M e t h o d i s t 31 Confession of 1967 162, 164, 168
Millenarian 133 Formula C o n s e n s u s Helvetica 105
M o d e r n 18 Formula of C o n c o r d 102
m o r e authoritative t h a n Bible 109 I.urheran 106
Nestorian 109 Scors Confession 160
order 3 0 Second I lelvetic Confession 161
O r t h o d o x , Byzanrine 175 Westminster Confession o f Fairh
O r t h o d o x , Eastern 6 1 , 7 3 , 8 8 - 7 7 , 161
8 9 , 9 4 , 9 6 , 9 7 , 100, 108 Consciousness
p n e u m a t o l o g y , ecclesiology, and Chrisrian 176
tradition 8 9 eschatological 41
O r t h o d o x , Oriental 175 hisrorical 1 1 , 19, 25
Peiuecosial 133, 175 h u m a n 106
Presbyterian 3 1 , 160 Conservatism, hierarchical 9 2
p r o b l e m s today 4 9 C o n s t a n t i n e of O s t r o g 88
Protestant 10, 31 C o n s t i t u t i o n s of C l e m e n t 7 3 , 7 6
reform of the 14 Contextualization 1 4 8 - 4 9 , 1 5 4 - 5 5 ,
o f the Reformarion 7 9 157
Reformed 105, 133 C o n v e t s i o n 54, 154
Russian 6 1 , 7 1 , 7 3 , 9 3 adult 56
ecclesiastical life 8 7 experience 54, 155
self-awareness of 181 language of 54, 154
Slavic 7 3 , 9 1 - 9 2 Conzelmann, Hans 44
universal 119, 169, 171 C o p e r n i c u s 105
Wesleyan 133-34 Correlation, principle of 4 6
Western 61 Councils a n d Synods 71
Zoroastrian 197 C a r r h a g e 108, 179
Cicero 178 C o n s t a n t i n o p l e , Synod of 89
C l e m e n t of O h r i d 8 3 ecumenical 7 1 , 7 9 , 107
Collins, J o h n J. 57 First Ecumenical 7 2
Collins, R. P. 62 Florence 108
Colossians 5 1 , 119-20, 150, 152 H i p p o 108
C o m m e n t a r i e s 6,-7, 13, 4 1 , 132, H i p p o (393)
136, 1 5 3 , 165, 195 C a n o n 36 75
glosses 7 Jamnia 77
O r t h o d o x 78 Jassy 89
C o m m o n Sense Realism, Scottish Jerusalem 8 8 - 8 9
129, 132, 136, 1 4 1 , 149 l.aodicea 88
C o m m u n i t y 6 5 , 155, 169 C a n o n 59 74
of faith 6 5 , 1 5 3 , 169 Canon 60 75
monastic 2 Lateran IV 187
prayers of the 62 Moldavia (1642) 8 9
p r o c l a m a t i o n of the W o r d 6 6 Seven Ecumenical 71
Confession 8 9 - 9 0 Sevenrh Ecumenical C o u n c i l ,
Confessions Canon 1 76
Book of Concord 105, 117 Trent 10, 15, 7 7 , 176-77, 180,
Book of Confessions 160 183
Brief Sratement of Faith 162 Trullo 7 3 , 7 6
Calvinisr 88 Varican 1 3 2 , 180
Index 203
Vatican II 2 9 - 3 1 , 3 5 , 4 5 , 4 7 , 5 6 , D e u t e r o n o m y 64
58, 175, 177, 180, 184-85, Devotio moderna 10, 13
193-96 Dibelius, M a r t i n 4 5
C o n s t i t u t i o n o n Divine Revela- Didache 107
tion (Dei Verbum) 3 1 , 3 5 - Dionysius (Pseudo) 8
36, 3 8 , 4 5 , 56, 58, 184, Dispensational m o v e m e n t 133
194-95 D i t m a n s o n , H a r o l d H . 127
C o u n t e r (Catholic) Reformation 10, Diversity 136, 147
175, 180, 195 christological 195
C o v e n a n t 11 1 and unity 148
berith 70 Dockery, David S. 156
and will or testament 6 9 - 7 0 Doctors of the Western C h u r c h 78
Creation 4, 7 9 , 149, 153 Docrrine 4 - 5 , 181
new 125 reform of 16
Creeds 109, 117, 195 D o g m a 2 5 , 135
Apostles' 117, 119 D o n a t i s m 179
Athanasian 1 17 Dosirheus 8 8 - 9 0
baptismal 185 D u n s Scotus, John 1 3
N i c e n e 7 2 , 117
N i c e n e - C o n s t a n t i n o p o l i t a n 6 3 , 71 E
Cross 166, 193
alone 1 1 8 , 126 Ecclesiology 125, 179, 181
and resurrection 115, 118 F.cclesiam suam 175
Cross, Frank M . 40 monastic 187
Crossan, D o m i n i c 5 / time, ecclesial 179
Cultures universalism 125
of the biblical world 41 F.cumenism 2 9 , 3 1 , 4 8 , 5 6 - 5 7 ,
Gteek 6 6 106, 170, 175, 193, 196, 197
historical situation and 3 3 Bible research 4 4
otal 64 cooperation 48
Russian 6 6 , 7 8 dialogues 4 8 , 107, 155, 194
Slavic 8 3 m o v e m e n t 127, 197
Cyprian 12 Eichhorn, J o h n 2 3
Cyril-Constantine 81-84, 88-90 Einsrein, Albert 106, 182
Cyril VI 92 Eliade, Mircea 6 3
El/evir 24
D Enlightenment 23
E p a p h r o d i t u s 108
Darrow, Clarence 133 Ephesians 5 1 - 5 4 , 9 4 - 9 6 , 119-20,
D a r w i n , Charles 105 1 2 4 - 2 5 , 150, 1 5 3 , 171-72
David 9, 111 authenticity 150
D c Lubac, H e n r i . 2 7 historical setting 40
Dead Sea Scrolls 3 9 , 4 2 F.phrem the Syrian 95
Dead Sea Scrolls ( Q u m r a n ) 3 9 , 4 1 - Epistles 3 8 , 7 3 , 84, 8 7 , 94
4 2 , 6 4 , 6 9 - 7 1 , 145 captivity 5 1 , 150
D e a t h 122, 153 o( C l e m e n t 7 3
Deism 2 1 , 2 3 Pauline 2 7 , 3 5 , 109
and rationalism 1 9-20 Erasmus 1, 12-13, 24, 142
Deliverance 167 Greek New Testament 24
Deutcrocanonical books 6 2 , 7 3 - 7 5 , 8 4 h e r m e n e u t i c of 27
F.schatology 5 3 , 5 9 , 1 2 3 , 125, language of 193

172, 185, 186 life of 1 6 1 - 6 2 , 164, 166, 186,
dialectic of justification 124 195
exaltation 153 love a n d h o p e 1 8 6 - 8 8 , 190
issues 134 a n d obedience 160, 162
m e a n i n g 187 rule of (regula fidei) 185
transfot m a t i o n 177 seeking u n d e r s t a n d i n g 6
F.schaton 154, 185 s t a t e m e n t of 165
Essenes 146 vertical d i m e n s i o n of 172
Esther 3 8 , 7 4 a n d works 146, 153
Eusebius o f Caesarea 7 0 Fall 149
Evangelical Alliance 131 Falwell, Jerry 135
Evangelical Theological Society F a t h e r s / M o t h e t s of the C h u r c h 98
136, 144 Fathers o f t h e C h u r c h 1, 3 , 7, 12-
F.vangelicalism 129, 134, 136, 13, 2 8 , 7 4 , 117, 1 3 0 , 157,
1 4 3 - 4 4 , 1 4 9 - 5 0 , 156 185, 1 8 8 - 8 9
Evangelism homilies 95
cooperative 134 Federal C o u n c i l of C h u r c h e s 131,
urban-centered 149 135
Evangelists 191 Fedorov, George P. 84, 9 9
Evgenii (Bolhovitinov) 84 Fee, G o r d o n D. 140, 156, 173
Evolution 105, 130-31 Feminism 4 9 - 5 0 , 190
Exaltation 166 Fitzmyet, Joseph A. 5 7
o f C h r i s t 52, 153 Flacius Illyricus, M a t t h i a s 20, 22,
o f the C h r i s t i a n 153, 172 105
eschatological 153 Flannery, A. 31
Exegesis 9 6 Flesseman-van Leer, Ellen 127
c o m m u n i t y 150, 153 Florovsky, Georges 8 5 , 8 7 , 9 0 - 9 3 ,
Jewish 5 99
medieval 28 Fogarty, G e t a l d R 57
Third World 49 Free will 152
Exodus 167 Freedman, D a v i d Noel 9 9 , 173
Experience Freedom 149
o f faith 118 a n d gratitude 125
o f forgiveness 16 a n d service 170
of gtace 185 radical 104
subjective 25 French Revolution 105, 112
Kxrernalization/internalizarion 2 5 Freud, S i g m u n d 106
Ezra 6 2 , 64, 6 7 Prick, David A. 88
F u n d a m e n t a l i s m 102, 129, 1 3 2 - 3 5 ,
F 142, 156, 193
militant 134
Faith 4, 54, 112, 1 1 4 - 1 5 , 117,
Fundamentalism/evangelicalism 129-30
1 5 2 - 5 3 , 155, 1 8 1 , 194
Furniss, N o r m a n F. 133
alone 118, 124, 126, 182, 188
ancestors of 4 G
certainty of 181
as decision 154-55 Galatians 2 7 , 5 3 , 165
deposit of faith (fidei depositum) Gamaliel 131
178 G a m b l e , Harry Y. 9 9
Index 205
Gasparov, Boris 85 Hahn, Herbert E 27

Gasper, Louis 133 H a r r i n g t o n , Daniel J. 2 9 , 5 8 , 7 7 ,
Genesis 6 6 , 165 1 4 2 - 4 3 , 149, 154
G e n n a d i u s of Novgorod 8 6 Harrisville, Roy A. 173
G e r h a r d , Paul 105 Hasel, G e r h a r d 143
Gerrish, Brian A. 173 H a t c h , N a t h a n O . 131, 156
Gerstenberger, Erhard S. 81 H a u g h , Richard S. 99
Glukharev, Makarii 90 H a w k i n g , Stephen 182
Gnosticism 7 2 - 7 4 , 8 0 - 8 1 , 1 2 3 , 186 Haves, J o h n H . 173
Gold, Victor R. 61 Hebrews 108
Golitsyn, A. N . 91 Heidegger, M a r t i n 157, 182
Golitzin, Alexander 100 Hellenism 145
Gorskii-Platonov, P. 90 H e m m i n g s e n , Nils 19-20, 2 2
Gospel 6 9 , 84, 9 3 , 117, 119, 126, H e n n a s , Shepherd of 109
1 3 1 , 1 4 1 , 166, 1 8 3 , 184, 189 H e r m e n e u t i c s 5, 2 5 , 4 8 , 50, 54,
gift 16 57, 110, 1 3 7 - 3 8 , 146-49, 156-
m u s t be proclaimed 14 57, 168, 174, 186, 190, 196
narratives 3 8 , 141 biblical 5 8 , 186
simple 136 Catholic 188
Gospels 3 0 , 3 4 , 4 6 , 56, 7 3 , 9 1 , evangelical 1 4 0 - 4 1 , 155
1 3 1 , 140, 1 4 3 , 165 of t h e Gospel 1 10
synoptic 4 3 - 4 4 Lutheran 127
Govorov, I". 90 m o d e m 20
Grabar, A. N . 9 3 narrative 140
Grace 5 3 , 5 5 - 5 6 , 7 9 , 1 1 1 , 120, new 7
1 2 3 - 2 5 , 152, 155, 172, 1 7 8 - 7 9 , N e w Testament 139
1 8 1 , 1 9 3 , 196 O r t h o d o x and Evangelical 6 3
actual 117 questions 5 8 , 137
alone 117, 124, 126 spiral 140
natural 117 theological 6 3 , 138
prevenient 117 theory of 4 9 , 140
radical 122 transfer value 54
G r a h a m , Billy 134 as translation, interpretation,
crusades 134 u n d e r s t a n d i n g 25
G R A M C O R D 146 Hesed (lovingkindness) 1 52
Grant, Robert 2 7 , 173 Hesychius 7 0
Gray, James 141 Heterodoxy 68
Gregory Nazianzen 68 High M i d d l e Ages 1, 5
Gregory the Great 186 H i n d u i s m 197
Gregory the T h e o l o g i a n 74 Hirsch, E. D . 138
Metered Poems 7 3 Historicism 106
Gregory XIII 87 Historicity 34
Griesbach, J o h a n n 24 History
G r u d e m , Wayne A. 139 of d o g m a 148, 153
G u n d r y , Robert 141 of religions 145
of transmission 69
H H o d g e , Atchibald A. 129
H o d g e , Charles 129
Hagen, K e n n e t h 1,9, 19, 2 7 Holladay, Carl R. 173
Haggai 6 7 Homoousios (consubstantial) 7 2
H u b b a r d Jr., Robert I.. 138, 140, 156 Isaiah 9 0

H u g h of St. Victor 187, 193 Islam 6 5
H u m a n i s m 1 0 - 1 1 , 15, 17-18, 2 5 Israel 3, 9, 4 6 , 6 4 , 164, 195
Ivan III 85
I
J
Iconogtaphy 71
Ignatius o f Antioch 120 Jakobson, R o m a n 82
Letters of 107, 109 James 105, 146, 153
Inerrancy 2 1 , 3 3 , 1 2 9 - 3 0 , 132, Jeremiah 6 4 , 6 8 , 115
136, 154, 156-57 J e r o m e 13, 6 8 , 7 8 , 8 1 , 8 6
limited 3 3 , 3 6 Jewish writings, intcrtesramental 4 2
Infallibility 7 8 - 7 9 , 1.30, 157, 180 Joachim of Fiora 187
biblical 1 3 1 , 137 J o b 9 0 , 115
I n n o c e n t I 108 J o h n , Gospel of 7 4 , 8 1 , 1 0 8 - 1 0 ,
Inspiration 3 2 , 57, 102-3, 106, 113, 147, 1 6 5 - 6 6
150, 1 7 3 , 195 J o h n of Bulgaria 8 4
for action 51 J o h n of Damascus 95
as dictation 2 1 , 6 4 J o h n Paul II 176
d o c t r i n e of 102 J o h n the Baptist 145, 165
o f the H o l y Spirit 3 3 , 103 J o h n s o n , Elliott 138
h u m a n a u t h o t s as i n s t a l m e n t s 8 Jonah 3 8
a n d inerrancy 3 3 Jones, Bob 135
inspired events 106 Joseph of Volok 85
m a n t i c theory of 104-6 Joseph us, Elavi us 4 2 , 6 9 , 105, 146
means " G o d - b r e a r h e d " 104 Josiah 6 4
plenary 21 Judaism 1 4 3 , 145
as a process 139 Hellenistic 105
theories of 105 Judaizers 8 5
verbal 21 Jude 108
Intentionality 137 Judith 3 8
International C o u n c i l on Biblical Jugie, M a t t i n 9 9
Inerrancy 136 Juhl, P. D . 138
Intetpretation of Scriprure 2, 7, 3 3 , Justice, social 131
165-69 Justification 152, 1 8 1 , 188
all Bible reading is 165 by faith 16, 125, 181
authoritative 1 5 of the ungodly 117
christological 9 3
as c o m m e n t a r y , a n n o t a t i o n , a n d K
exposition 15
L u t h e r a n 25 Kabbalah 197
only wirhin the C h u r c h 116 Kadloubovsky, E. 9 6
Orthodox 6 1 , 95 Kaiser, Walter 137-38
process of inrerprerarion/con- Kanrzer, K e n n e t h 138
textualization 149 Karris, Robert J. 5 7
Reformation 16 Kelsey, David H . 138, 173
Reformed 159 Kesich, Veselin 6 1 , 9 9
between text/believer/Christ 168 Klein, William W. 138, 140, 156
theological 166 Klocek, T h o m a s 8 2
Irenaeus 105 K o o i m a n , Willen J. 2 7
Index 207
Koran 6 5 , 196 poetic-mythic 6 3

Krenrz, Edgar 127 usage and proclamation 9 7
Kiimmel, W e r n e r G e o r g 2 7 , 127 Lloyd-Jones, Martin 147
Locke, John 22
L Lord's Prayer 195
Lossky, Vladimir 7 8 , 100
I.achmann, Karl 24
Lucian 7 0
Language, m a i n t e n a n c e I 54
Lucianic Recension 83
Last j u d g m e n t 124
Lukaris, Cyril 8 8 , 89
Late Medieval Period 1, 7, 9
Luke, Gospel of 4 3 , 94, 108, 144,
Law 6 9 - 7 0 , 117, 124-25, 141
163
c a n o n 73
Luther, M a r t i n 1, 13-14, 16-17,
d e m a n d s of the 118
19-20, 2 6 - 2 7 , 7 9 , 115, 119,
Mosaic 16
127, 164, 1 8 1 , 187, 189-92
new and old 8
approach to Scripture 127
Law and Gospel 16, 2 7
prayer/meditation/experience 20
I.awes, C u r t i s 131
Was Christum treibet 17, 116,
Lazareth, William 58
1 8 8 - 8 9 , 192
Leo XIII 189
christocentric 190
Lessing, G o t t h o l d 2 3
Lyonner, Stanislas 78
Letter of 1 C l e m e n t 107
Letter to the Laodiceans 107 M
Lexicography 146
Liberal m o v e m e n t 132 Maccabees 7 3 , 75
Liberation 50, 170 iVlachen, J. G r e s h a m 132
and obligation 170 Magi 141
Lienhard, Joseph T. 58, 6 2 Magisferium 3 2 , 36, 4 9 , 149,
Lightfoot, J. B. 147 1 7 6 - 7 7 , 195
Lincoln, Andrew 150, 152-53 Maier, Gerhard 143
Lindbeck, George 58 M a i m o n i d e s 85
I.indsell, Harold 136 M a n i c h e a n s 80, 178-79
I.irrera 187 M a n u s c r i p t s 142
Lirurgy and worship 2 9 , 56, 6 2 , 181 Codex Vaticanus 72
Catholic 29 and codices 11
as celebration 6 3 , 6 5 families 24
cycles and seasons 7 7 , 9 6 Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek 39
doxologies 124 Jewish and Christian 4
institution of Eucharist 70 O l d and N e w Testaments 3 9
language of 3 1 , 6 3 , 6 5 , 120 M a r c i o n 186
lectio contimta 94 M a r k , Gospel of 4 3 , 108, 144
lectio divina 54-56 Mark the Ascetic 96
lecrionaries 6 5 , 94, 9 6 - 9 7 Marsden, George B. 129, 134, 156
C a t h o l i c 31 Marshall, 1. H o w a r d 147, 156, 173
O l d Testament 84 M a r t i n i , Carlo M . 40, 54
O r t h o d o x 94 Marxsen, Willi 44
three-year cycle 30 Masoreric texts 6 8 , 7 1 , 90-91
lex orctndi est lex credendi 77 M M T Hebrew 8 8 , 91
Liturgy, Divine 94 Matthew, Gospel of 30, 4 3 , 110,
rhe Mass 29 1 4 1 , 144
O r r h o d o x 99 Matthias 108
208 T H K BIBLE IN T H E C H U R C H E S
McCo.sh, James 131 rhetorical criticism 1 4 0 - 4 2 , 144

M c D o n a l d , Lee M . 77 semiotics 193
M c l n t i r e , Carl 135 and symbolism 191
M c K i m , D o n a l d 130, 157, 173-74 source criticism 4 3 - 4 4 , 5 6 , 144,
M c Q u i l k i n , J. Robertson 137 155-56
Medieval-early Reformation period 25 structuralism 3 8 , 141-42, 171
Meeks, Wayne A. 173 textual criticism 19, 24, 3 9 - 4 0 ,
Mcgivern, James J 5 8 56, 1 4 2 - 4 3 , 1 5 5 - 5 6
M e l a n c h t h o n , Philip 19 tradirion history 144
M e n c k e n , J. I.. 106 trans-historical 6 3
Mercy 5 2 , 123, 152 Meyendorff, J o h n 8 6 , 100
Messianism 9 3 Michael III 82
Methodius 82-83 Michaelis, J o h n D. 22
Methodology, scriptural 19-20, 136 Michaels, J. Ramsey 157
c a n o n criticism 1 4 1 , 144 M i l l e n n i u m 176
deconstruction 38 Miracles 112-13
d o u b t , methodological 4 6 Missions 108, 148
cisegesis 9 6 agencies 135
extrabiblical evidence 4 2 Byzantine-Slavic 8 3
form criticism 3 7 - 3 8 , 4 5 , 56, M i t t o n , C. I.. 152
9 1 , 9 6 , 1 1 1 , 113, 141-44, Monasticism 2 - 3 , 10, 54
1 5 5 - 5 6 , 184 life a n d practices 12
Sitz im I.eben 6 2 , 144 scriptorium 2
grammarical-historical 155 M o n k e y rrial 133
grammatical-syntactical 146 M o n t a n i s m 105, 108
historical-critical 1, 18, 2 1 , 2 3 , M o o d y Bible Institute 135
25-26, 34-35, 45-47, 50-51, Moody, D w i g h t L. 131
5 6 - 5 7 , 9 7 , 102, 1 1 0 - 1 4 , 116, Moses 4, 103, 187
1 18-19, 127, 1 4 1 , 1 4 3 - 4 5 , Murphy, Roland E. 57
170, 173-74 Murphy, T. Austin 181
n o t a philosophy 112 Mysticism, G e r m a n 10
historical-grammatical 110, 113
historical-theological 143 N
inductive 132, 137, 141
linguistics/word s t u d y 10, 4 2 , 5 6 , Nafzger, Samuel H . 127
190 N a t i o n a l Ass'n. of Evangelicals 1 35
philological research 4 3 National C o u n c i l o f C h u r c h e s 135
s e m a n t i c s / g r a m m a r 145, 155 Naturalises, French 21
semantics, lexical 138 Neill, Srephen 127, 174
literary-critical 19, 2 5 , 3 3 , 3 5 , Neo-Scholasricism 189
3 7 - 3 8 , 4 5 , 56, 94, 9 6 , 138, N e u h a u s , Richard J o h n 58
1 4 0 - 4 1 , 156 New Age 189
mid tash 141 New Testament 3, 5, 8-9, 13, 16,
narrative analysis 137, 155 18, 2 2 - 2 3 , 2 7 , 2 9 , 3 4 - 3 5 , 3 7 ,
perception/speech/narrative .33 3 9 - 4 2 , 4 6 - 4 7 , 4 9 , 54, 5 8 ,
philosophical 6 7 3 - 7 5 , 9 1 , 9 3 , 104, 108, 120,
proof-texting 132, 1 3 6 - 3 7 , 147, 1 2 6 - 2 7 , 139, 1 4 5 , 1 4 8 , 152,
193 156, 159, 1 6 2 - 6 3 , 166, 172,
redaction 4 4 - 4 5 , 56, 143-44, 183, 186-87, 190-91, 195
155-56 authors 70
Index 209
concealed in the O l d 4 Palmer, G . E. H . 9 6

Greek 12-13, 40 Pamphilus 70
interprets/fulfills the O l d 115 Papacy 15
i n t r o d u c t i o n to 2 2 primacy and infallibility 106
tradirion 9 7 Papias 109
Nicholas of Lyra 7, 86 Parables 141-42
Nicole, Roger R. 157 Paraclete 191
Nilus of Sora 85 Parallels 4 2 , 145-46
N o a h 195 Parker, T. H . L. 174
Noll, M a r k A. 1 3 1 , 156 Paul 13, 16, 3 7 , 5 1 - 5 4 , 56, 6 3 ,
N o m i n a l i s m 10 7 0 , 7 2 , 7 8 - 7 9 , 8 1 , 104, 1 0 7 - 8 ,
110, 1 1 2 - 1 3 , 119, 122-25, 146,
o 1 4 9 - 5 3 , 163, 165-67, 178, 183,
188, 193
Obolensky, Dimirri 8 3 , 100
Paul VI 175
O c c a m , William of 15
Pavskii, Gerasim 9 0
O l d Testament 3 - 5 , 8-10, 13,
Pelagianism 80, 179
16-17, 2 3 , 2 7 , 2 9 , 3 4 - 3 5 , 3 7 - Pelagius 153, 179
4 0 , 4 2 - 4 3 , 56, 5 8 - 5 9 , 7 3 , 8 4 - Pelikan, Jaroslav 8 0 , 100
8 5 , 9 1 , 9 3 , 1 0 1 , 1 0 4 - 1 0 5 , 107, Penrareuch 4 3 , 6 4 , 6 7 , 6 9
1 2 6 - 2 7 , 139, 145-46, 148, 152, Samariran 6 8
159, 1 6 2 - 6 3 , 166-67, 183, 185, People of rhe Book 65
187, 190-91 Peschirta 109
c a n o n 74 Peter 163, 195
commentaries 93 Perer, Carl 181
crirical hisrory of 22 Pererson, Michael D . 100
as firsr covenant 6 8 , 7 3 , 9 8 Philaret 9 1 - 9 2 , 96
four sources 4 3 Philaret (Amfirearrov) 92
narratives 141 Philaret (Drozdov) 91
research 4 2 Philaret of M o s c o w 7 1
two sources 4 3 P h i l e m o n 5 1 , 150
uncovered in rhe N e w 4 Philippians 5 1 , 150
O r d i n a r i o n of w o m e n 4 9 , 149 Philo of Alexandria 4 2 , 6 9 , 105,
O r i g e n 13, 2 7 , 7 0 - 7 1 , 186
146, 186
Orlinsky, H a r r y M . 6 2
Philosophy 2 5 , 4 9
O r r h o d o x 2 5 , 6 3 , 7 8 - 7 9 , 81
Aristotelian 6
O r r h o d o x y 2 0 - 2 1 , 4 4 , 105
N e o - P l a t o n i s m 178
and heresy 107
Platonism 2, 6-7
Lurheran and Reformed 20 Photius 82
seventeenth century 105 Pietism 2 0 - 2 1 , 25
O r r h o p r a x y 71 Piety 12-13, 131
O s b o r n e , Granr R. 6 3 , 129, 140, in Bible reading 14
157 pracrical 131
Osrrog Circle 8 7 Pius XII 2 9 , 3 2 , 58
Osrrozhskii, Konsranin 8 7 Divino Spiritu Afflante 18, 2 9 ,
Oxford M o v e m e n r 106 32-33, 45, 47
Poetry, H e b r e w 4 2
P
Pontifical Biblical C o m m i s s i o n 58
Packer, J. I. 137 Pontifical Biblical Institute 41
Palaea 84 Preaching 14, 3 5 , 9 7
of the Gospel 17, 9 4 Revelation 3 , 8, 12, 14, 2 1 , 3 2 -

in the vernacular 14 3 3 , 6 6 , 7 3 - 7 5 , 7 7 , 106, 108,
Princetonians, Old 129-30, 157 110, 139, 1 4 1 , 182, 184, 187,
Principle 1 9 1 , 1 9 3 , 195-96
o f analogy 4 6 G o d ' s self-revelation 164
o f correlation 4 6 higher 3
o f uncertainty 192 a n d inspiration 21
Proclamation 15, 118, 148, 194 personal 35
Prokurat, Michael 6 1 , 6 7 , 100, 149 primacy of 3 2
Promises, scriptutal 16, 119, 184 progressive 3 , 148
are self-authenticating 119 propositional 3 5 , 139
Prophecy 70, 8 4 , 103, 132, 141, Revelation o f J o h n 74
162, 'l 8 7 , 1 9 1 , 192 Revivalism 1 3 1 , 148, 154
a n d history 6 9 R h e t o t i c 3 8 , 123, 186
Psalms 3 0 , 3 7 , 4 1 , 4 7 , 6 9 , 7 5 , Riasanovsky, Nicholas V. 8 6 , 100
8 1 , 109, 1 4 1 , 165, 167 Richardson, Alan 173
prayerbook of the C h u r c h 62 Ricoeur, Paul 5 0
Psalrer 84, 91 Robertson, A. T. 147
Rogers, Jack 130, 157, 174
Q R o m a n s 5 3 , 147
Romanticism 23
Q 4 3 , 144 Rostislav of Moravia 8 2
Quinisext, C a n o n 2 76
Rostovtsev, M . I. 9 3
Russian Bible Society 9 0 - 9 2
R
Raevsky-Hughes, Olga 85
s
Rationalism 2 1 , 2 3 - 2 5 Sabbatarianism 131
Ratzinger, Joseph 58
Salvation 3-4, 34, 5 3 - 5 4 , 5 6 , 117,
Reason 7, 111-12
124, 1 5 1 - 5 2 , 1 6 1 - 6 3 , 1 7 1 - 7 2 ,
Reconciliarion 168, 194
191
R e d e m p t i o n 125, 150, 167
in Ghrisr alone 16
a n d forgiveness 120
corporare 1 51
Reformation 1, 7, 10, 14, 80,
gift of 55
105, 149, 164, 1 7 3 , 1 7 5 - 7 6 ,
by grace 121
184
healing 4
C a t h o l i c 10
history 9, 106, 111, 148
early 1, 14, 18
individual 6 6
Relativism 102, 106
unmerited 53
Religion
Sandeen, Ernest 130, 133
history of 18
Sanders, James A. 100
a n d myrh 6 3 Sartre, Jean Paul 182
narural 21 Scanlin, Pace H a r o l d 7 3
Religions, mystety 145 Schaff, P. 15
Renaissance 2 , 14 Schleiermacher, Eriederich 106
Renan, Joseph E. 9 3 S c h m e m a n n , Alexander 6 5 , 100
R e p e n t a n c e 131 Schneiders, Sandra M . 58
Resurrection 132, 153-54, 164, Scholarship, biblical 3 6
166, 177 Scholasticism 1, 5, 7, 1 0 - 1 3 , 8 6 ,
R e u m a n n , John 127 182, 1 8 7 - 8 9 , 197
Index 211
Schwarmer 115 and the tradirions 1 8 3 - 8 4

Scicntism 106 and t r u t h 156
Scopes, J o h n 133 unity of I I I
Scripture as W o r d of G o d 175
all leads to Chrisr 17 Scripture, approaches ro
alone (sola Scriptural 14, 101-2, Catholic 1, 18
118, 126, 149, 154, 188 centrist exegesis 57
a u t h o r i t y 14, 116 language 184
canonical 75 Tfidentine 183
centrality of the whole 141 monastic 15
christocentric 191 oratiolmeditatiolcontcmplatiol
clarity is internal, theological 1 15 actio 5 4 - 5 6
and Eucharist 35 research 3 6
and faith 51 tradition-conscious 44
fulfillment of 166 historical 130
inspired 161 Lutheran 114, 116
interprets itself 15, 19, 115, 126 principles 115-16, 126
in the life of the C h u r c h 35 medieval 18
liturgical/homilerical use 6 2 , 9 7 m o d e r n 18
m u l t i n u a n c e d view of 5, 4 2 , 137 orthodox
propositional c o n t e n t of 1 3 9 , Bible as source of doctrine 21
142, 150 propositional 156-57, 193
ptovidcntial/hetmeneufical foci 9 Protestant 1, 18
sacra doctrina (sacred doctrine) 6- should be doxological 104
7, 10 University (sacra doctrina) 17
sacra littera (sacred letter) 10, 17 Second c o m i n g 132, 154
sacra pagina (sacred page) 6, 10, Sectarianism 134
14, 17, 3 5 , 188 Secularism 106
n o r m of faith 188 Selah 109
senses of 2, 186 Semi-Pelagianism 78
allegorical 3, 5, 7 - 8, 17, Semiotic system 192
188, 193 Senior, D o n a l d 59
anagogical 3, 7-8, 187 Separation 1 50
double-literal 7, 10, 17 radical 134
fourfold 3 , 7, 10, 196 second-degree 135
Quadriga 3 Septuagint 4 2 , 7 1 , 8 3 , 90, 92,
grammatical - simplest 17 146, 183
historical-literal 3 , 5, 7-8, 186 Aldine 88
letter/spirit d i c h o t o m y 5 Lucianic 70, 7 3
literal 5-8, 13, 1 10, 187-89 three different 70
literal textual 186 Service, life of 167, 170
litctal-spiritual 3 Sikhs 197
prophetic-literal 7 Silva, Moisés 138, 146, 157
sensus a n d sententia 187, 193 Simon, Richard 22
spiritual 8, 186-89 Sin 121-22, 1 5 1 , 165
ttopological 3 , 7 - 8 , 13, 187 original 7 9 - 8 0 , 123
as soul of theology 57 foundarional ro Wesrern a n t h r o -
and theology 5, 9 pology 78
and ttadition 3 2 , 3 5 , 56, 107, radical 122
128, 181 and spiritual death 52
212 T H K BIBI.K IN i HI. C H U R C H E S
Sins, forgiveness of 118 N a g H a m m a d i 41

Smalley, Beryl 28 Sumerian a n d Egyptian 4 0
Smotritsky, Melerii 88 Ugatitic 4 0 - 4 2
Soards, M a r i o n C . 1 59 T h e o d o r e of Mopsuestia 78
Social actions 50 1 h e o d o r e t o f C y r r h u s 95
Society of Biblical Literature 4 8 , Theology
135, 146, 170 apocalyptic 125
Society of N e w Testament Studies 48 biblical 1-2, 15, 19, 2 2 - 2 3 , 2 5 ,
Society of O l d Testament Studies 48 4 2 , 5 9 , 144, 1 4 7 - 4 8 , 155,
S o l o m o n 7, 9 157
Soteriology 5, 190 Latin American 4 9
Sovereignty 165 C a t h o l i c 30, 4 1 , 4 5
Spirit, H o l y 4, 6-7, 13, 2 1 , 4 9 , covenantal 105
90, 97, 103-4, 106-7, 119, 132, o f c i c a t i o n 182
160, 162, 169. 179, 1 8 1 , 184, of the cross 191
187, 189, 1 9 3 , 195 d e v e l o p m e n t / r r a n s f o r m a t i o n 17
expressed by the text 7, 161 dogmatic 23, 25, 30
internal testimony of 15, 109, eucharistic 173
189, 191 exegetical 6, 137, 148
inward illumination of 1 6 1 , 170 of glory 191
scriptural a u t h o r 4 historical 155
of t r u t h 3 4 homilctical/liturgicil 15, 100, 148
at w o t k in the C h u r c h 179 incarnational 146
Stein, Robert H . 142-43 indigenous 148
Stephanus, Robert 24 Latin 178
Stonehouse, N e d 1.32 liberation 50, 148, 190
:
Strauss, David 1 . 9 3 Latin American 4 9 - 5 0
Stuart, Douglas 140, 156 L u t h e r a n 1 18
Stuhlmacher, Peter 2 8 , 127, 174 monastic 187
Stuhlmueller, Carroll 59 moral 3 0
Stylianopoulos, Theodore 100 narrative 38
Subjectivity 138, 181 O r t h o d o x , Russian 6 2 , 8 5 , 9 9
S u n d b c r g , Albert 7 7 Pauline 57, 80, 122, 124-25
Sundberg, Walter 173 polemical 16
Symbolism 3 7 , 187 Reformed covenantal 106
Synagogue 6 7 Scholastic 1 2 - 1 3 , 3 6 , 186
speculative 6
T systematic 30, 139, 1 4 7 - 4 8 , 155,
157
T a l m u d 6 9 , 105, 145, 197
T h i s c l t o n , A n t h o n y C. 139, 157
Targums 69
T h o m a s Aquinas 1, 5, 7-9, 2 6 , 188
Tate, W. R. 157
Aristotelian perspective 7
Tavard, George H . 175, 178, 180,
Summa theologiae 6 - 8 , 188
184
T h o m i s m , Transcendental 189
l e m p l e 6 7 , 165
I h o m s o n , l'rancis J. 8 5
liturgy of 62
Tillich, Paul 181
Ten C o m m a n d m e n t s 103
T i n d a l , M a t t h e w 22
Testament (will, promise) of C h r i s t 17
Titus 107
Texts, ancient
'Poland, J o h n 2 2
extrabiblical 4 3
Tolstoi, A. 92
Index 213
Torah 6 4 , 6 6 - 6 7 Truth
and canon 100 d y n a m i c , personal, relational 1 14
law and instruction 6 9 - 7 0 p o i n t s to Christ 114, 119
Torrey, Reuben 131-32 propositional 114
Tracy, David 27, 173 of Scripture 195
Tradition a n d traditions 2, 4 3 , 4 5 - Types and signs 8
4 6 , 6 5 - 6 6 , 6 8 , 7 1 - 7 2 , 8 7 , 143, Tyson, Vinson 133
1 4 9 - 5 0 , 162, 170, 1 7 6 - 7 7 , 179-
8 1 , 183, 185 u
ancient 71
apostolic 183-84, 195 Ugrinova-Skalovska, Radmila 82
A t m i n i a n 133 Uniatism 8 7
C a t h o l i c 2 5 , 4 8 , 56, 80, 100, Unity 4, 3 1 , 147
175-76 in Christ 51
Christian 7 8 , 80, 100, 116 and diversity 139
C h u r c h 10, 2 4 - 2 5 , 4 6 , 181 of Jew and Gentile 150
basis for authority 105 and mission 150
of docrrine 179 mystery of 1 11
earliest 108 organic 9
Evangelical 147
V
of the faith 182
Gospel 4 9 van R o o n , A. 150
Jewish 120 Vatican Library 39
J u d e o - C h r i s t i a n 64 Veniamin, Benjamin 86
living 9 7 , 185, 195 Victorines 5
L u t h e r a n 106 Virgin birth 132
medieval 186-87 Voetius 105
oral 65
organic 175 w
O r t h o d o x , Eastern 6 1 , 8 7
parallel 179 Ware, Kallistos 2
Reformed 2 5 , 159-60, 163-64, Ware, T i m o t h y 8 8 , 100
167, 169-70 Warfield, Benjamin B. 129
Shechemite 6 8 Weaver, David 78
synoptic 4 5 Weber, T i m o t h y P. 131, 141
theological approach to 110 Wells, David F. 133
1'raditio 180 Wettstein, J o h a n n 24
Ifakarellis, D e m e t r o i s 95 Will and testament 17
Transfer value 54, 154 Wilson, Robert Dick 133
Translations 2 5 , 3 9 , 4 7 , 56, 7 8 , W i s d o m (Sitach, Ecclesiasticus) 6 8 ,
8 3 , 8 7 , 9 1 , 104 7 3 , 7 5 , 84, 141
equivalence 4 7 Wittgenstein, Ludwig 138
into Greek and Aramaic 6 8 W o o d , Charles M . 138
only from the I [cbrew 85 Woodbridge, J o h n D . 130, 133,
priorities of 91 137, 156-57
Russian 7 1 , 8 1 , 90 Word of G o d 14-15, 3 2 , 6 5 - 6 6 ,
Slavic 8 1 , 86, 91 1 1 1 , 128-29, 139, 148-49, 159-
vernacular 10, 12 6 3 , 168, 170, 175, 1 7 7 - 7 8 ,
Trinity 111, 178, 190-91 182, 185-86, 188-92, 194-96
Troeltsch, Ernst 4 6 Christ, Scripture, preaching 14
214 T H E BIBL
Incarnate 159, 168, 185

Jesus C h r i s t 1 15, 126
liturgical 6 3
living 9 8 , 185
ministry of t h e 3 4 - 3 5
p r e a c h e d / p r o c l a i m e d 64, 1 1 4 - 1 5 ,
126, 159
a n d sacrament 16, 3 6 , 184-85
service ro 3 2 , 194
at w o r k in creation 179
as w t i t t e n W o r d 1 1 5 , 1 59
Works 5 3 , 5 6 , 117, 1 2 1 , 124-
2 5 , 1 5 2 - 5 3 , 155, 188
World Council o f C h u r c h e s 107, 127
Wright, N . T . 174
Yamauchi, Edwin 145
z
Zernov, N . M . 9 3
Zwingli, Ulrich 14
Index 215
Scripture Citations
F.xod. 5:23; 6:6 167 Acts 19 149

F.xod. 12:21-27 166 Rom 1-8 155
F.xod. 14:30 167 Rom 1:5 125
F.xod. 2 4 : 4 , 12; 3 4 : 1 , 2 8 103 R o m 3:24 124
I.ev. 16:13-15 166 R o m 3:25 166
I.ev. 27:1-21 167 R o m 4:2 125
N u m . 4 : 1 5 , 19-20 101 Rom 4 : 2 , 6 124
D e u t . 6:4f 64 Rom 4:5 117
D e u t . 13:1-5 103 Rom 5:9-10 124
D e u t . 31:12f. 65 Rom 5:12 7 8 - 7 9 , 122
1 Sam. 2:6 115 R o m 5:12, 21 122
2 Sam. 24:1 111 Rom 5:12-21 79
1 Kings 18:28-29 104 Rom 6:6 153
1 Kings 2 2 : 2 8 103 Rom 6:8 123, 153
2 Kings 3:15 104 Rom 6 : 1 5 - 2 3 79
1 Chr. 13:9-10 101 Rom 6:16-18 125
1 Chr. 21:1 111 Rom 6:17 107
1 C h r . 25:1 104 R o m 6:17-22 120
N e h . 8 64, 67 Rom 6:23 122
Ps. 6:4; 7 : 1 ; 17:13; 18:17 167 Rom 7:24 167
Ps. 51:5 81 Rom 8:11 123
Ps. 5 6 : 1 3 167 Rom 8:15-17 153
Wis. 13:1 123 Rom 9:32 125
Isa. 4 5 : 2 2 - 2 3 167 Rom 10:6 124
Isa. 5 3 115 R o m 11:6 125
Isa. 53:3,11 167 Rom 13:11 124
Jer. 4 1 : 5 104 Rom 16:7 108
Zech. 1-8 67 1 Cor. 1:18-25 112
Zech. 13:4-6 104 1 C o r. 1:22 113
Matt. 22:42 104 1 C o r. 1:22-24 118
M a t k 3:22 112 1 C or. 1:28-31 125
Luke 1:2-4 35 1 C or. 2:2 113
J o h n 1:1-14 115 1 Cor. 2:9 107
John 2:23-25 113 1 Cor. 2:13 104
John 3 165 1 C or. 4:7 125
J o h n 3:16 110 1 C or. 5:7 166
J o h n 3:2; 6:26 113 1 C or. 6:20, 7:23 167
J o h n 8:56 4 1 C o r. 7 120
J o h n 1 0 : 1 9 - 2 1 ; 11:45-48 113 1 Cor. 7:6, 10, 12, 2 5 , 4 0 104
J o h n 12:32 166 1 C or. 8:6 109
J o h n 14:6 114, 117 1 C or. 1 1 ; 15 72
J o h n 14:26 104 1 Cor. 14:34-36 149
J o h n 20:29-31 113 1 Cor. 15:2 124
Acts 1:1-2 34 1 C or. 15:3-4 167
Acts 1:26; 14:4, 14 108 1 C or. 15:3-5 109
Acts 5:38-39 131 1 Cor. 15:9 119
216 T H E BIBI.K IN T H E C H U R C H E S
1 Cor. 15:22, 52 123 F.ph. 2:4-5 52

1 Cor. 15:29 115 F.ph. 2:4-7 151
1 Cor. 15:40-49 79 F.ph. 2:4-10 5 2 - 5 3 , 94
1 Cor. 15:47 124 F.ph. 2:5 121-22, 124, 151
1 Cor. 15:56 122 F.ph. 2:5a 15.3
2 Cor. 1:10 167 F.ph. 2:5b, 8a 152
2 Cor. 1:12 122 F.ph. 2:5-6 53, 120, 123
2 Cor. 3:6 3 Eph. 2:5-7, 10 153
2 Cor. 5:17 125 F.ph. 2:6 52, 5 5 , 125, 150
2 Cor. 5:17-20 153 Eph. 2:7 53, 124, 15.3
2 Cor. 6:2 124 Eph. 2:8 152
2 Cor. 8:24 108 Eph. 2:8-9 53, 124, 172
2 Cor. 10:5 112 Eph. 2:8-10 123, 151
2 Cor. 12:4 193 Eph. 2:9 152
2 Cor. 12:9-13 113 Eph. 2:10 5 3 , 55, 1 2 1 , 125, 153
Gal. 1:6-9 103 F.ph. 2 : 1 1 - 2 2 5 1 , 151
Gal. 1:13 119 Eph. 2:15 125
Gal. 2:16, 20 153 Eph. 2 : 1 9 - 2 2 120
Gal. 4:8 123 Eph. 2 : 2 3 - 2 5 113
Gal. 4:8-9 120 Eph. 3:1 94
Gal. 6:15 125 Eph. 3 : 1 , 14 120
Gal. 6:16 107 Eph. 3:1-21 95
F.ph. 1-3 94, 150, 171 Eph. 3:9, 1 1 , 2 1 124
F.ph. 1:3, 2 0 - 2 2 124 Eph. 3:10 150
F.ph. 1:3-10 150 F.ph. 3:19 124
F.ph. 1:4-5, 11-12 125 Eph. 4 : 1 - 6 : 2 0 95
F.ph. 1:5 123 Eph. 4-6 5 3 , 171
F.ph. 1:7 120, 124-25 Eph. 4 - 7 151
F.ph. 1:9 124 Eph. 4 : 9 - 1 0 , 15-16 124
F.ph. 1:10 120 Eph. 4 : 2 2 - 2 4 153
F.ph. 1:11-14 151 F.ph. 4 : 2 4 125
F.ph. 1:14 123 Eph. 4 : 2 7 125
F.ph. 1:15 120 Eph. 5 : 2 , 8 , 15 122
F.ph. 1:15-2:22; 3:1-21 95 Eph. 5 : 2 , 2 5 123
F.ph. l:19b-23 151 Eph. 5:6 123, 125
F.ph. 1:20 120, 123, 150, 153 Eph. 5:8 120
F.ph. 1:21 122, 124 Eph. 5:22-33 120
F.ph. 1:22-2:3 94 Eph. 6 : 1 1 , 16 122
F.ph. 1:23 120, 171 Eph. 6 : 1 1 - 1 2 122
F.ph. 2:1 1 2 2 - 2 3 , 151 Eph. 6:1 1-17 125
F.ph. 2:1-3 5 2 - 5 3 , 151 Eph. 6:12 150
F.ph. 2:1-3,4-7 151 Eph. 12:2 120
F.ph. 2:1-7, 8-10 151 Eph. 2 3 122
F.ph. 2:1-10 5 1 , 54-56, 93, 121, Phil. 1:29 152
1 5 0 - 5 1 , 153, 155, 170-71 Phil. 2:5f 79
F.ph. 2:1-20 123 Phil. 2:6-11 167
F.ph. 2:2 122, 124 Phil. 2 : 1 2 - 1 3 125
F.ph. 2:2-3 1 2 1 , 154 Phil. 2:25 108
F.ph. 2:3 152 Phil. 3:3 125
F.ph. 2:4 55, 1 2 2 - 2 3 Phil. 3:20 124
Index
Phil. 3:9 152

Phil. 3:9-1 1 123
Col. 1:13 122
Col. 1:21-22 120
0)1.2:11-13 123
Col. 2:12; 3:1 153
Col. 2:13 122-23
Col. 3:8-10 153
Col. 3:9-10 125
Col. 4:16 107
1 Thcss. 1:10 167
1 Thcss. 4:16 124
1 T h c s s . 5:8-9 124
2 Thcss. 2:3 132
1 T i m . 1-2 107
1 T i m . 2:8-15 149
1 T i m . 3:15 122
2 T i m . 2:18 123
2 T i m . 3:16 104
2 Tim. 3:16-17 161
Titus3:5 123
Heb. 2 146
H e b . 10:1 8
Heb. 1 1 4
1 Pet. 1:3 123
1 Pet. 2:10 121
2 Pet. 1:21 104
1 J o h n 4:1-4 110
Jas. 2:19 1 14
J u d e 14-15 107
Rev. 1:10 104
LIST OF C O N T R I B U T O R S
Rev. D r . J o s e p h A. Burgess, D i r e c t o r
I n s t i t u t e for L u t h e r a n H i s t o r i c a l Studies
R e g e n t L u t h e r a n Parish
Regent, N o r t h Dakota
Prof Kenneth Hagen

D e p a r t m e n t of T h e o l o g y
M a r q u e t t e University
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Rev. D a n i e l J. H a r r i n g t o n , S.J.
W e s t o n J e s u i t S c h o o l of T h e o l o g y
C a m b r i d g e , Masssachusetts
Prof. G r a n t R. O s b o r n e
Trinity Evangelical D i v i n i t y S c h o o l
D e e r f i e l d , Illinois
V. Rev. D r . M i c h a e l P r o k u r a t
Assistant Professor o f Sacred S c r i p t u r e
U n i v e r s i t y o f St. T h o m a s
S c h o o l o f ' T h e o l o g y at St. M a r y ' s S e m i n a r y
H o u s t o n , 'Texas
The Rev. D r . M a r i o n L. Soards

Professor of N e w ' T e s t a m e n t S t u d i e s
Louisville P r e s b y t e r i a n Theological S e m i n a r y
Louisville, K e n t u c k y
Rev. G e o r g e H . T a v a r d , A.A.
Professor E m e r i t u s of T h e o l o g y
M e t h o d i s t Theological S c h o o l in O h i o
Delaware, O h i o

Pub - The Bible in The Churches How Various Christians I PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pub - The Bible in The Churches How Various Christians I PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The BIBLE

KENNETH HAGEN, EDITOR

Cover design by Joan Skocir

Copyright © 1 9 9 8 by Joseph A. Burgess, Kenneth Hagen, Daniel J.

MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY PRESS

T h e A—ucialioii of Jesuit l/niver^ily P r e s s e s

The History of Scripture in the Church

Catholic Interpretation of Scripture

Orthodox Interpretation of Scripture

Lutheran Interpretation of Scripture

Evangelical Interpretation of Scripture

Reformed Interpretation of Scripture

Scripture as the Word of Cod and the Ecumenical Task

Index and Scripture Citations 199

Everything stated in the prefaces t o t h e first a n d s e c o n d edition c o n -

For t h e record: M a r q u e t t e U n i v e r s i t y Press in A u g u s t 1 9 9 6 ran a

In 1 9 8 5 I h e Bible in t h e C h u r c h e s (Paulist), w h i c h essentially

The idea for this v o l u m e o n biblical i n t e r p r e t a t i o n in t h e c h u r c h e s

PARI' O N K : EARLY C H U R C H TO THE REFORMATION

A. T h e Place o f the Bible in T h e o l o g y

For a b o u t t h e first t h o u s a n d years t h e o l o g y was sacrapagina (sa-

B. T h e Interpretation o f the Bible

'The Bible was seen t o c o n t a i n v a r i o u s senses o r levels o f m e a n -

The reality is t h e fuller m e a n i n g . As t h e m o n a s t i c s read S c r i p t u r e

C . T h e Key Figure is St. A u g u s t i n e

A . T h e Place o f the Bible in T h e o l o g y

have p i c t u r e d t h e m o n a s t i c s living, p r a y i n g , eating, a n d sleeping Scrip-

' Simon of Tournai (d. 1201), t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t Parisian (early Scholastic)

In t h e m o d e r n p e r i o d T h o m a s is f a m o u s for his Summa theologiae

T h e author of Holy Scripture is God, in whose power it is to sig-

theology, a n d his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of S c r i p t u r e fits w i t h i n t h a t o r g a n i c

III. T H E LATE MEDIEVAL PERIOD

A. T h e Place o f the Bible in T h e o l o g y

' C i t e d in K e n n e t h H a g e n , A Theology of Testament in the Young Luther

B. T h e Interpretation o f the Bible

The fourfold m e t h o d c o n t i n u e d . The d o u b l e - l i t e r a l sense was

The effect o f t h e H u m a n i s t s o n t h e place a n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f

a n d p r i n t i n g o f early H e b r e w a n d G r e e k codices o f t h e Bible. In

C . T h e Key Figure is Erasmus o f R o t t e r d a m

Let me mention another requirement for a better understanding

of t h e R e n a i s s a n c e calls for a p i o u s r e a d i n g of t h e Bible as t h e s o u r c e

A. T h e Place o f the Bible in T h e o l o g y

m a n i s t sense o f t h e d i s t a n c e o f S c r i p t u r e from t h e p r e s e n t was n o t

The early reformers w e r e p r e m o d e r n ; t h e y c o n t i n u e d t h e g e n -

that no one, relying on his own skill, in matters ol faith, and of

8 P Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, Vol. 2 (New York: Harper, 1919) 8 3 .

C . T h e Key Figure is M a r t i n Luther

Basic for L u t h e r ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f S c r i p t u r e is his d i s t i n c t i o n

m e a n s o f grace ( h e a l i n g salvation for A u g u s t i n e ) . T h e c e n t e r o r c o r e

'' K. H a g e n , ' " D e exegetica m e t h o d o , ' Niels H e m m i n g s e n ' s D e M e t h o d i s

3 . T h e disciplines o f biblical i n t r o d u c t i o n a n d biblical theology.

cal? W h a t is its c o n t e n t ? In this I i n c - u p t h e r e are t e n q u e s t i o n s raised

R a t i o n a l i s m , c o n n e c t e d w i t h D e i s m , led to t h e rise of biblical

4 . Textual criticism. Textual criticism as a p p l i e d t o t h e Bible c o n -

E r a s m u s ' s text was b a s e d o n late e v i d e n c e b u t also b e c a u s e it has

5. Historical c o n s c i o u s n e s s . Historical consciousness is t h e d a w n -

A l d r i d g c , J o h n W. The Hermeneutic of Erasmus. R i c h m o n d : J o h n

Cambridge History of the Bible, 3 v o l u m e s . C a m b r i d g e : U n i v e r s i t y

C h a u , W a i - S h i n g . The Letter and the Spirit: a History of Interpreta-

G r a n t , R o b e r t . A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible.

H a g e n , K e n n e t h . Luther's Approach to Scripture as seen in his "Com-

H a h n , H e r b e r t F. The Old Testament in Modern Research. P h i l a d e l -

K o o i m a n , W i l l e n J. Luther and the Bible. Translated b y J o h n S c h m i d t .