No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
Benedict XVI’s Hermeneutic of Reform:Towards a Rapprochement of the Magisterium and Modern Biblical Criticism Matthew J. Ramage Introduction Even a cursory overview of Pope Benedict XVI’s exegetical approach reveals dramatic contrasts with magisterial teaching of previous epochs. With appropriate reservations and criticisms, Benedict strongly advocates the use of modern scholarly methods to help Christians better discern the face of Christ revealed in Scripture. In adopting many of these modern findings, however, it almost seems as if Benedict has forgotten or neglected principles enforced by the magisterium no less than a century earlier. Though one may argue that the Church’s stance on modern biblical scholarship only indirectly bears upon faith and morals, the issue remains timely today insofar as a divide persists in the Church concerning the extent to which it is appropriate to incorporate the tools and findings of modern exegesis in Catholic theology. Aside from Benedict’s own comments on his project, it is difficult still today to find an adequate account of how exegesis under his pontificate is reconcilable with many of the venerable traditions that preceded it and, in particular, with a magisterial approach that generally viewed modern scholarship with skepticism.1 [End Page 879] Benedict dedicated a significant portion of his scholarly life precisely in the endeavor to combat the false dichotomy between the pre-conciliar and post-conciliar Church and to develop a balanced hermeneutic that takes seriously the presence of both continuity and discontinuity in Catholic doctrine throughout the ages.2 The aim of the present work is to face head-on patent discrepancies in the Church’s approach to the Bible over the past century and, so doing, to offer the principles needed for a robust apologia of Catholicism in its relationship with modern biblical scholarship.3 The principles needed for this account are found in Benedict’s “hermeneutic of reform” and its key endeavor to discern the permanent theological core of Catholic magisterial teachings that have withstood the vicissitudes of history and the challenges of the modern scholarly world. Leo XIII and Pius X: Rejection of Higher Criticism To get a sense of the magisterium’s past attitude concerning the extent to which one can appropriate modern biblical scholarship, it is fitting to begin by examining the writings of two Pontiffs who wrote at the height of the modernist controversy, Pope Leo XIII and Pope St. Pius X. In his encyclical Providentissimus Deus, Leo criticized the rise of modern biblical scholarship in no uncertain terms: “There has arisen, to the great detriment of religion, an inept method, dignified by the name of the ‘higher criticism,’ which pretends to judge of the origin, integrity and authority of each Book from internal indications alone.”4 Leo’s words are harsh but reasonable enough, for in the discipline of history, it is proper to be cautious of adjudicating issues concerning texts without any reference to the witness of how they have been [End Page 880] received and interpreted. Leo, however, goes farther than this: “It is clear, on the other hand, that in historical questions, such as the origin and the handing down of writings, the witness of history is of primary importance, and that historical investigation should be made with the utmost care; and that in this matter internal evidence is seldom of great value, except as confirmation.”5 Why is internal evidence prized so little by Leo? With the rise of rationalism in his day, there was a legitimate fear of a slippery slope, the fear that accepting the methods and conclusions of modern criticism would lead to a loss of the sense of the Bible’s sacredness and, ultimately, to the loss of the Christian faith itself: To look upon it in any other light will be to open the door to many evil consequences. It will make the enemies of religion much more bold and confident in attacking and mangling the Sacred Books; and this vaunted “higher criticism” will resolve itself into the reflection of the bias and the prejudice of the critics. It will not throw on the Scripture the light which is sought, or prove of any advantage to doctrine; it will only give...
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 12 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.