¹ Acta Apostolicae Sedes 35 (1943), 297–326.Google Scholar An English translation is available in Bible Interpretation [Official Catholic Teachings] ed. McGivern, J. J. (Wilmington, NC: McGrath, 1978), pp. 316–42.Google Scholar

² A.A.S., 58 (1966), 817–35.Google Scholar Eng. tr. McGivern, pp. 403-17.

³ See, for example, McNeill, J. J., The Church and the Homosexual (Kansas City, KS: Sheed, Andrews and McMeel, 1976)Google Scholar in contrast to the document of Quinn, John R. Archbishop, “Pastoral Letter on Homosexuality,” The Monitor [San Francisco], May 15, 1980, pp. 7–8.Google Scholar

⁴ A very illuminating paper on the biblical material on divorce and its possible relevance for current pastoral practice is J. R. Donahue's address to the convention of the Midwest Canon Law Society, “Divorce: New Testament Perspectives,” Nashville, April 21, 1980.Google Scholar This paper, to be published in the proceedings of the MCLS, contains a useful bibliography of recent work in this area.

⁵ See the statement of the Catholic Biblical Association's Task Force on the Role of Women in Early Christianity, “Women and Priestly Ministry: The New Testament Evidence,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41 (October 1979), 608–13Google Scholar in contrast to the article by Quinn, J. D., “New Testament Data on Priestly Ordination,” America 143 (August 30-September 6, 1980), 94–97.Google Scholar

⁶ For a comprehensive introduction to Black Theology, including pertinent documentation and extensive bibliography as well as studies of the interrelation of Black, liberation, and feminist theologies and discussions of the current debates of Black theologians among themselves, see Black Theology: A Documentary History 1966-1979, ed. Wilmore, G. S. and Cone, J. H. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1979).Google Scholar

Perhaps the best known Catholic exegete involved in liberation theology is J. P. Miranda. See his Marx and the Bible, tr. Eagleson, J. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1974).Google Scholar Protestant Biblical scholars in this field include Walter Brueggemann and Norman Gottwald.

⁷ The Catholic Charismatic 1 (February–March 1977)Google Scholar carried four articles on biblical material concerning women, by E. Schiissler-Fiorenza, C. Stuhlmueller, S. Schneiders, and R. J. Karris, in a concerted effort to counteract the misuse of Scriptural material to justify the subordination of women.

⁸ Probably the most able and prolific Catholic biblical scholar writing on the relation of biblical material to feminist concerns is E. Schüssler-Fiorenza. See, for example, her “You Are Not to be Called Father: Early Christian History in a Feminist Perspective,” Cross Currents 29 (Fall, 1979), 301–23Google Scholar; “Word, Spirit and Power: Women in Early Christianity,” in Women of Spirit, ed. Ruether, R. and McLaughlin, E. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1979), pp. 29–70Google Scholar; “The Apostleship of Women in Early Christianity,” in Women Priests: A Catholic Commentary on the Vatican Declaration, ed. Swidler, L. and Swidler, A. (New York: Paulist, 1977), pp. 114–22.Google Scholar In this latter volume are articles on the same topic, women and ministry in relation to the biblical data, by C. Stuhlmueller, J. M. Ford, M. Boucher, P. Perkins, M. A. Getty, J. Casey, R. J. Karris, J. L. McKenzie, S. Schneiders, among others.

⁹ The work of M. J. Lagrange, who founded the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem in 1890 and the prestigious Revue Bibiique in 1892, is the best example of pre-Pius XII scientific Catholic biblical and archaeological work. He was not alone in his efforts but it must be said that there were very few Catholic exegetes of note during the early part of the twentieth century, largely because the official ecclesiastical attitude was hostile to critical biblicalstudy.

¹⁰ Divino Afflante Spiritu [henceforth DAS], esp. paragraphs 11-48.

¹¹ DAS, par. 34.

¹² DAS, par. 46-47.

¹³ Among the first class scholars who did the most to expose the ordinary lay Catholic and the diocesan clergy to contemporary biblical research were B. Ahern, R. Brown, E. Maly, R. A. F. MacKenzie, J. L. McKenzie, R. Murphy, C. Stuhlmueller, and B. Vawter.

¹⁴ The Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. Brown, R. E., Fitzmyer, J. A., Murphy, R. E. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1968).Google Scholar

¹⁵ For an excellent commentary on Dei Verbum which gives the flavor of the Conciliar debates surrounding its production, see Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, ed. Vorgrimler, H. (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), vol. IIIGoogle Scholar, “Commentary on Dei Verbum,” by Ratzinger, J., Grillmeier, A., Rigaux, B., pp. 155–272.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Some of the most important work done on inspiration, revelation, and canonicity by Catholic scholars during the 1960's and 1970's are the following: Alonso-Schökel, L., The Inspired Word: Scripture in the Light of Language and Literature, tr. Martin, F. (New York: Herder and Herder, 1972)Google Scholar; Audinet, J.et al., Révélation de Dieu et Iangage des homines (Paris: Cerf, 1972)Google Scholar; Benoit, P., Inspiration and the Bible, tr. Murphy-O'Connor, J. and Keverne, M. (London/New York: Sheed and Ward, 1965)Google Scholar; Bulst, W., Revelation, tr. Vawter, B. (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1965)Google Scholar; Dulles, A., Revelation Theology: A History (New York: Seabury, 1969)Google Scholar; Theology, Exegesis, and Proclamation, ed. Murphy, R. E.. Concilium, vol. 70 (New York: Herder and Herder, 1971)Google Scholar; Schillebeeckx, E., Revelation and Theology, tr. Smith, N. D., 2 vols. (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1967–1968).Google Scholar

¹⁷ For an interesting summary of the present situation of biblical studies in the U.S.A. and a comparison and contrast of the university vs. seminary context, see Achtemeier, P. J. and Tucker, G. M., “Biblical Studies: The State of the Discipline,” and Brueggemann, W. and Knight, D. A., “Why Study the Bible?”, Bulletin of the Council on the Study of Religion 11 (June 1980), 72–76 and 76–81Google Scholar respectively. See also Henry, P., New Directions in New Testament Study (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979), esp. pp. 17-20 and 264–66Google Scholar, and “The Plate Tectonics of New Testament Study,” Theology Today 37 (April 1980), 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁸ It is extremely interesting to note the five headings under which the Society for Biblical Literature organized its Centennial Program in Dallas, TX, November 5-9, 1980: Approaches to the Bible through Language Analysis; Approaches to the Bible through Social Analysis; Approaches to the Bible through the Question of Meaning (hermeneutics); Approaches to the Bible through History and Archaeology; The History and Sociology of Biblical Scholarship.

¹⁹ This is easy to verify by consulting recent issues of popular reviews for the laity. For example, Today's Parish 12 (September 1980) was virtually completely devoted to a “Symposium: Bible in the Parish,” made up of articles by M. Boucher, E. Maly, S. Schneiders, G. Martin, D. Senior, and E. Trester. Several new middle level biblical commentaries have been inaugurated in the past few years to answer the growing demand of the laity for sound nontechnical aids to Bible study, e.g., The Doubleday New Testament Commentary Series and the New Testament Message Series, ed. by D. Senior and W. Harrington and published by M. Glazier.

²⁰ Two major recent examples of biblically based theological efforts are Schillebeeckx's, E. monumental two-volume study in christology, Jesus: An Experiment in Christology, tr. Hoskins, H. (New York: Seabury, 1979)Google Scholar and Christ: The Christian Experience and the Modern World, tr. Bowden, J. (New York: Seabury, 1980)Google Scholar; Küng, H., On Being a Christian, tr. Quinn, E. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976).Google Scholar For speculative efforts to explain how Scripture functions in the theological project, see Tracy, D., Blessed Rage for Order: The New Pluralism in Theology (New York: Seabury, 1975), esp. pp. 49–87Google Scholar; Lonergan, B., Method in Theology (New York: Seabury, 1972), esp. pp. 153–73.Google Scholar

²¹ The reaction within and outside the Church to Inter Insigniores, the Vatican Declaration on the Question of the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood, especially in view of the nonsupport of the Declaration's position by the conclusions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, was a good example of this problem.

²² This is most likely to happen in exhortatory situations. See, for example, the encouragement offered religious in Perfectae Caritatis, the Decree on the Adaptation and Renewal of Religious Life, par. 6, to read the Scripture daily “in order that, by reading and meditating on Holy Writ, they may learn ‘the surpassing worth of knowing Jesus Christ’” (Phil. 3:8). Certainly Scripture reading is conducive to knowledge of Christ, but the context of the Philippians passage is not concerned with reading Scripture but with the knowledge of faith experienced through baptismal incorporation into the paschal mystery.

²³ An example of this is the attempt to use Dt. 4:24 and 2 Cor. 11:12 on the “jealousy of God” and Paul's “jealousy” for the fidelity of his converts to support a repressive insistence on physical cloister for nuns in Venite Seorsum, the Instruction on the Contemplative Life and on the Enclosure of Nuns, sect. 4. Numerous examples of indefensible use of Scripture texts can be found in Inter Insigniores, e.g., the attempt to make a distinction between Paul's “fellow workers” (Rom. 16:3, Phil. 4:2-3) and “God's fellow workers” (1 Cor. 3-9) which would ground a supposedly pauline distinction between those not called and those called (only men) to official public ministry (and thus to ordination!).

²⁴ For a brief introduction to Ricoeur's thought on first and second naïveté, see Ricoeur, P., “The Hermeneutics of Symbols and Philosophical Selection,” tr. Savage, D., International Philosophical Quarterly 2 (1962), 191–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁵ A rather succinct statement of this approach was given by Butterworth, R., “Liberal Theologians and the Vatican,” The Month 13 (February 1980), 47–49.Google Scholar He defends the right of biblical scholars to prescind from the dogmatic tradition in doing their work. There is something to be said for this contention but it can easily lead to a neutralizing of the biblical scholar's work in relation to the Church.

²⁶ Brown, R. E. in “The Current Crisis in Theology as it Affects the Teaching of Catholic Doctrine,” Biblical Reflections on Crises Facing the Church (New York: Paulist, 1975), pp. 3–19Google Scholar, gives a nuanced treatment of the question of the mutual influence of biblical data, theology, and dogma.

²⁷ The ongoing discussion among biblical scholars about the use of biblical materials in such works as Kiing's On Being a Christian, Schillebeeckx's two-volume christology (see note 20 above), and the CTSA study by Kosnik, A.et al., Human Sexuality (New York: Paulist, 1977)Google Scholar, as well as in official Church documents are examples of this vigilance on the part of the professional community.

²⁸ It is to be noted that Dei Verbum, while it did not reaffirm the post-Tridentine position that there are two distinct sources of revelation, but insisted on the unity of Scripture and Tradition as the one sacred deposit of the Word of God committed to the Church, nevertheless did not resolve the tension between these two aspects to the satisfaction of either Catholic or Protestant theologians (see pars. 8-10 of Dei Verbum and Ratzinger's commentary).

²⁹ See note 25 above.

³⁰ Some influential contributions to this recent discussion are Wink, W., The Bible in Human Transformation: Toward a New Paradigm for Biblical Study (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973)Google Scholar and Stuhlmacher, P., Historical Criticism and Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Towards a Hermeneutics of Consent, tr. and introd. Harrisville, R. A. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).Google Scholar See also Steinmetz, D. C., “The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis,” Theology Today 37 (April 1980), 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³¹ See Dei Verbum 21.

³² Perhaps the clearest discussion of the plurality of meanings attached to the term “hermeneutics” and the relationships among them is Palmer, R. E., Hermeneutics: Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gadamer (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1969), esp. pp. 3–71.Google Scholar

³³ Gadamer, H. G., Truth and Method (New York: Seabury, 1975).Google Scholar

³⁴ Ricoeur, P., Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning (Fort Worth, TX: The Texas Christian University Press, 1976).Google Scholar

³⁵ Ibid., pp. 25-44.

³⁶ Ibid., p. 32.

³⁷ Ibid., pp. 25-37.

³⁸ Ibid., pp. 32-34.

³⁹ Ibid., pp. 31-32.

⁴⁰ Ibid., pp. 34-37.

⁴¹ This openness to a plurality of interpretations is grounded in what Ricoeur calls “the surplus of meaning.” Gadamer, , in Truth and Method, p. 264Google Scholar, says, “Not occasionally only, but always, the meaning of a text goes beyond its author.”

An interesting, and convincing, experiment in establishing criteria of validity for multiple interpretations is Tolbert's, M. A.Perspectives on the Parables: An Approach to Multiple Interpretations (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979).Google Scholar Her work is grounded in that of Perrin, N., especially in his Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom: Symbol and Metaphor in New Testament Interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976)Google Scholar which is explicitly indebted to Ricoeur's theory.

⁴² This analogy with musical interpretation, which I first explored in “Faith, Hermeneutics, and the Literal Sense of Scripture,” Theological Studies 39 (December 1978), 719–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar, occurred to me as I meditated on Gadamer's illuminating analysis of the play as clue to ontological explanation in Truth and Method, pp. 91-118. It has proven useful for discussing the tension between fidelity and originality in interpretation.

⁴³ This is the burden of Part II, section II of Truth and Method, pp. 235-341.

⁴⁴ See Truth and Method, pp. 325-41. This difference between Ricoeur and Gadamer on the subject of the dialogue as model for interpretation is not contradictory. Ricoeur regards dialogue from the standpoint of its character as event (which is superceded by writing) in contrast to its meaning which survives transcription. Gadamer, however, is focussing on the characteristic of dialogue as genuine engagement of a mutually interesting subject-matter by two partners (which interpretation implies) as opposed to a purely phenomenological description or reconstruction of what was said.

⁴⁵ Gadamer, , Truth and Method, pp. 262–64.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Ibid., pp. 267-70.

⁴⁷ Ibid., pp. 270-74.

⁴⁸ Ibid., pp. 289-305.

⁴⁹ Ibid., p. 333.

⁵⁰ Ibid., pp. 333-41.

⁵¹ See Donahue, “Divorce: New Testament Perspectives.”

⁵² See Steinmetz, “The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis.” I am grateful to Raymond Brown whose helpful reflection on this section of the paper led me to formulate this paragraph.

⁵³ For example, Ex. 3:14 has been used as a proof-text for the theoretical assertion of God's aseity; 1 Cor. 11:3 has been used as a proof-text for the practical dispensation of the subordination of women to men in marriage.

⁵⁴ This is what R. E. Brown does, for example, in Crises Facing the Church and in The Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist, 1979).Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Again, the use of biblical data in official documents such as those on contraception, the ordination of women, and sexual ethics must be recalled with regret.

⁵⁶ This is the point of Gadamer's treatment of application as essential to the work of interpretation.

⁵⁷ This is strikingly true of the documents mentioned in note 55.

⁵⁸ I have argued this position at length in a paper entitled, “Freedom: Response and Responsibility—The Vocation of the Biblical Scholar in the Church,” which will be published in the forthcoming volume of the Proceedings of the Villanova Theology Institute, 1981.

⁵⁹ An excellent treatment of the relationship of knowledge to teaching and both to authority in the Church can be found in Cooke, B., Ministry to Word and Sacraments (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), pp. 405–521Google Scholar, esp. pp. 513-20.