On the Word of God

Interesting piece by Father de Souza in today's Post

On the Word of God

Father Raymond J. de Souza,

National Post
Can the Bible be rescued from Biblical scholarship?

That's putting it too strongly, but in broad terms that is the question before a major international meeting at the Vatican. It's called a "Synod of Bishops," a triennial meeting of the pope and several hundred Catholic bishops regarding matters of Catholic faith and practice. At this session of the synod, Quebec's Cardinal Marc Ouellet has the central role after Pope Benedict himself.

The topic this time is the Word of God -- the sacred scriptures in the life of the Church. Yet the questions being dealt with are of wider interest; the same issues are being dealt with in the fissiparous Protestant mainstream, in the expanding worlds of evangelical Christians and beyond the Christian world -- they are highly relevant to shape of Islam in the 21st century.

Catholics are not fundamentalists, meaning the scriptural word is not read simply as bald fact. The long tradition holds that the scriptures are intended to teach what is true about salvation, using the literary and historical techniques that human writers use. Unlike the Koran, which pious Muslims believe is the Word of God written in the words of God, Catholics have held the scriptures to be the Word of God written in the words of men. Hence literary and historical analysis is needed to understand the Bible properly -- along with the structure of the faith itself.

The last bit has been neglected. In the 19th century, techniques of historical and literary criticism were increasingly used in Biblical scholarship. Enormous attention was paid to ancient languages and archaeological finds. There was painstaking effort to peer behind centuries of translations to what the original texts said. With fits and starts, this "historical-critical" method was given support by the Catholic Church and mainstream Protestant denominations. A great enthusiasm accompanied studies that would reveal what the Bible really said.

The results, though academically impressive to the guild of Biblical scholars, were ambiguous for the Church as a whole. The long tradition of Biblical preaching, beginning with the Church fathers, was set aside in favour of more and more

intensive examination of less and less. Entire doctoral theses were written on two or three Biblical phrases, and the whole field came to resemble linguistics and anthropology more than theology. It ceased to nourish the faith of ordinary people and impoverished the preaching of clergy. The centuries-long drive to make the Bible more accessible to ordinary Christians resulted in Biblical study being reserved to the scholars' guild, of which many considered faith itself to be an obstacle to the correct reading of the texts.

"Either the [Biblical scholars] and theologians rigorously interpret the Bible in faith and listening to the Spirit," Cardinal Ouellet said in his opening address to the synod, "or they hold to the superficial characteristics of the text, limiting the considerations to historical, linguistic or literary ones."

Pope Benedict appointed Cardinal Ouellet as "relator" of the synod, the person responsible for framing the issues in the opening address and summarizing the three weeks of discussions which conclude this week. It's an influential role, as the synod's deliberations will likely shape how scripture is taught in seminaries, for example, in the next generation. If Cardinal Ouellet carries the day, the superficial -- history and literature -- will lead to, not obscure, the Biblical word in its depth, as an account of God's saving action.

The synod has not called for abandoning the historical-critical approach, but rather wishes to balance it with the witness and tradition of the faith. Existing Biblical scholarship peels away layers of faith and tradition to get at a "scientific" reading of the Bible, but succeeds in peeling so much away that there is little left of interest. A recent book about Jesus was entitled A Marginal Jew -- which is more or less what historical analysis alone would tell us. But why should anyone be interested in a marginal Jew from a time long ago in a place far away?

In a devastating remark at the synod, Pope Benedict said of German Biblical scholars -- his former colleagues -- that they too often leave Jesus still in the tomb. They are not unlike Thomas Jefferson, who edited his own version of the Gospels, literally snipping out with scissors all the supernatural and miraculous bits. Jefferson though he was getting at the real Jesus.

The real Jesus is both a man of history and an object of faith. Biblical studies have been rather long on the history and short on the faith for nearly 150 years. The synod in Rome -- led by Quebec's archbishop -- seeks to change that.