On Principles of Biblical Exegesis

As regular readers of this blog will have noticed, the subject of biblical exegesis is one close to the heart of your humble writer. Several fragmentary articles treating aspects of the matter have appeared on this blog, two of which I would like to highlight:

• On the Interpretation of Sacred Scripture, or the Fissure of Pope Paul VI
• On the Raison d'Être of Modernism

Given my interest in biblical exegesis and its role in the Modernist crisis - as well as my propensity to speak about it whenever given the chance - I was invited by some of my fellow parishioners to organize a private Bible study of sorts. After an ample amount of thoughtful consideration, I decided that the best way to begin such a study is to return to the essentials as taught by the Magisterium and the Church Fathers.

The following brief document - which can be viewed and/or downloaded for private use - represents the fruit of my search for the principles of an authentically Catholic biblical exegesis:

Principles of Biblical Exegesis

In form, it vaguely resembles Fr. Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, from which I took much inspiration, insofar as it presents a series of theses and then lists passages from Magisterial documents and the writings of the Church Fathers which substantiate each. Though I do not venture to determine the degree of theological certainty of each thesis - I'm no certified theologian - I feel relatively confident that, in an age of ecclesial sanity, all of them would be considered either de fide or, at least, sententia proxima fidei.

For the faithful Catholic, there is absolutely nothing controversial about any of these theses. In fact, they seem so obvious that one might wonder why it is necessary to even mention them. For one, I was somewhat disappointed that Fr. Ott did not include any dogmas on biblical exegesis in his otherwise excellent Fundamentals - despite the fact that the Magisterium has made numerous pronouncements on the subject. For another, it is important to note that, since the publication of Divino afflante Spiritu by Pius XII in 1943, nearly all of these theses have been either thrown into doubt or rejected outright by numerous exegetes. To name but one example: In the most recent edition of the massive Stuttgarter Commentary on the Old Testament - published with the approval of the German Bishops Conference and produced by a small battalion of German theologians - the rejection of the subject-matter of these theses is absolutely prerequisite. And for any who might happen upon the Commentary without having already jettisoned their faith in Revelation, there are numerous instances where they are actively encouraged to do so. Thus, though they may seem obvious, it appeared nonetheless important to restate such essential principles in clear language and with ample references before engaging in any kind of Bible study - just to make sure everyone is on the same page, so to speak.

I hereby offer them to you, gentle reader, in the hope that you may draw some use from them. They are, however, by no means exhaustive; if you notice any considerable deficiency - or if you know of patristic sources which substantiate those theses already included - please feel free to let me know in the comments section.

On the Raison d'Être of Modernism

[Note: This post was born out of a recent discussion on the always thoughtful and engaging OnePeterFive with fellow Catholic Murray. As my response grew too long to post in the discussion thread, I decided to place it here rather than clog up the board over there. -RC]

St. Pius X's Pascendi Dominici Gregis diagnoses Modernism as resting upon a two-sided foundation: Agnosticism and Vitalism. The first teaches that "human reason is confined entirely within the field of phenomena, that is to say, to things that are perceptible to the senses, and in the manner in which they are perceptible" and that, as a consequence, "it has no right and no power to transgress these limits;" the second teaches that "faith, which is the basis and the foundation of all religion, consists in a sentiment which originates from a need of the divine."

Everything in St. Pius' treatment of Modernism follows necessarily from this two-sided foundation, as he very ably demonstrates. The only deficiency I would ascribe to the great Saint's work - a lack which has not been supplied in the intervening century, as far as I can tell - is that of failing to make a sufficient inquiry into the motivation behind the adoption of that foundation on the part of the Modernists.

I contend that the adoption of that foundation was ultimately driven by the desire to insulate religious faith from the attacks of post-Enlightenment science. Before I am lambasted for sympathizing with the Modernists, let me explain:

Even a cursory examination of Kant, for example, reveals that the driving force in his huge body of work is the desire to make the core claims of religion and ethics as he understood them impervious to the attacks of the new science. His deep forays into epistemology and metaphysics, while they do represent attacks on Scholasticism, were actually the by-products of his searching for a more resilient foundation for religion, and to correctly understand the three Critiques one has to read them in reverse order. His true goal was to produce a rational proof for the existence of God and an objective foundation for morality which would be impervious to the attacks which had been launched against the classical-scholastic proofs since the days of Descartes. He pursued this goal relentlessly, and was willing to sacrifice anything in order to accomplish it - including that most fundamental and natural of all presuppositions, Epistemological Realism, i.e. the belief in the ability of man to know the world as it really is. Once he had loosed himself from this foundation, he was able to go about the work of setting up a new foundation which would lead inescapably to the end he desired.

I mention this because the failure of Catholic intellectuals to successfully combat German Idealism stemmed in large part from their failure to identify the motivation at work. Kant, for his part, was cast in the role of 'enemy of traditional metaphysics' - which he was, but by circumstance, not by design. As I said, his opposition to Scholasticism was not the product of animosity towards God or even the Schoolmen, but rather of the desire to circumvent what he saw as its weaknesses in defending a reasonable faith in God and the objective moral order. Attacking Kant as an infidel metaphysicist, which was the common reaction in Catholic circles, missed the point Kant was making: advances in science - both those made in his own day as well as those which he could see just over the horizon - possessed enough explosive force to threaten the very foundations of traditional Natural Theology and Morality, and if drastic measures were not taken, the whole edifice could come crashing down. The tragic irony here is, of course, that he himself became instrumental in the tearing down of the very edifice he sought to reinforce.

I see old-school Modernists - I do not refer to the present generation of apostates usually subsumed under that name, who are true revolutionaries - in much the same way, i.e. as men seeking to insulate their badly shaken faith by resorting to means which ultimately destroy more than they preserve. What is the Agnosticism of which St. Pius speaks if not the attempt to place the object of religious knowledge, e.g. God and His Revelation, beyond the destructive reach of science? Regarding this Agnosticism, he writes: "From this it is inferred that God can never be the direct object of science, and that, as regards history, He must not be considered as an historical subject." Indeed; but removing God from the field of scientific inquiry was not by design, but rather by apparent necessity: the Modernists let themselves become convinced that faith in God cannot be confirmed by science, and that the impartial study of history will conclude any investigation by finding no place for Him. As Laplace remarked to Napoleon, God had become "an unnecessary hypothesis." If, in order to accomplish this feat, the Modernist must deny man's ability to know objective reality, so be it. This leaves the field of subjective experience, upon which ground science has precious little authority, and the doctrine of Vital Immanence as the positive foundation for religion and morality is born.

I take no exception to St. Pius X's reaction to the Modernist threat of his day: the house was on fire and a heavy hand was needed to smother the flames. But he was unsuccessful in putting out the embers, which flared up again no later than with the reign of Pius XII, because nothing substantial had been done to transcend the now open antagonism between modern science and Sacred Scripture. As I discussed in a previous article (On the Interpretation of Sacred Scripture, or The Fissue of Pope Paul VI), the Popes from Pius IX to Benedict XV had undertaken dramatic measures to shore up the defences of traditional biblical exegesis against the attacks of modern science - all of which, however, was undone with the fateful publication of Divino Afflante Spiritu in 1943, which opened the crack through which the smoke of Satan, in the form of the previously condemned historical-critical method, entered the sanctuary and fanned the embers of Modernism into the raging inferno otherwise known as Vatican II. While new priests were swearing the famously defunct Oath Against Modernism, they were at the very same time eating away at the substance of the faith in God's Revelation - namely, the claim to objective reality - like "ecclesiastical termites," to borrow an arrow from Christopher Ferrara's quiver. Once the historical-critical method caught aflame, the Church Militant found itself theologically gutted.

And we have yet to transcend - I use the term judiciously - the conflict which has been raging for the better part of 500 years. The reason the defenders of scriptural authority have languished as they have is because they have failed to appreciate not merely the effect the Enlightenment has had on the thinking of modern man (for example, that he has been rendered effectively blind to what physicist and philosopher Wolfgang Smith refers to as "vertical causation", so crucial to a correct understanding of both theology and nature), but also the motivation behind those who have succumbed to its allure: the desire to defend their own faith - warped though it is - in God, Man and the Natural World. Any attempt to engage with Neo-Modernists of a more 'classical' bent - and they are everywhere today - must start from this position.

We're All Thessalonians Now

Last week, I came across an article over at The Remnant entitled "Global Catastrophe Rising: So now what do we do?" by the always delightful Hilary White. If you're not familiar with her impressive body of work, you should be. She's LifeSite's Rome Correspondent, so chances are good that you've been reading her writing for some time now. Besides that, anyone who has been lambasted as a "radical Catholic reactionary" by Dave Armstrong is worth keeping tabs on, in my opinion. And the fact that she once consigned a copy of Understanding Difficult Scriptures in a Healing Way to the flames of a Norcian bonfire makes my inner medievalist smile rather impishly.

Those of you who follow me on Google+ might recall that I linked to this article when it first appeared, and I've been meaning to comment on it ever since. I've kept an eye on the comments section, and, except for one or two dismissive remarks calling the article "sensationalism," an "exercise in futility," and even "hysterical," the contributions demonstrate that people are taking the matter quite seriously, and are appreciative of Ms. White's refreshingly open and unapologetic inquiry. I warmly recommend the article to you, gentle reader, as it's a good opportunity to sit down and take stock of your options. (ProTip: Wikkimissa)

Obviously, I don't have the answers to the questions posed in the article. Besides, I don't think having an answer for all of them is either necessary or even possible at this time. We're talking about what the Germans would call a Super-GAU situation [English: Maximum Credible Accident (MCA), which is not nearly as much fun to say out loud], the planning for which is often little more than an exercise in creating the illusion of preparedness. Nonetheless, I would like to contribute something to the discussion. Consider it appropriate reading material for your private deliberations.

As you might have guessed from the title of this post, the reading selection is from Sacred Scripture. Before you click away in a fit of TL;DR, please note that what I'm about to present is a little different from what you're likely used to reading. It's from the 1635 edition of the Douay-Rheims Bible - the Catholic English-language Bible of the Counter-Reformation - before Bishop Challoner's 18th century revision. (Have you met my inner medievalist yet? I've told him that, historically speaking, 1635 is far too late to be considered medieval, but he doesn't seem to care. Did I mention he's impish? I allow him to call it very late medieval, and in return he allows me to update the archaic spelling.) I'm presenting it as the letter it is, written by the Apostle Paul to the Christians at Thessaloniki, and I ask you to keep in mind the challenges we face today while you read it. I think that, once you've finished, you'll be able to understand why this particular epistle is so pertinent to our own situation: We're all Thessalonians now.

Ruins of the Roman Agora at Thessaloniki

***

The Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Thessalonians

Paul and Silvanus and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ:

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ!

We ought to give thanks always to God for you, brethren, as is meet, because your faith increaseth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you aboundeth towards each other, so that we ourselves also glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations which you sustain for an example of the just judgment of God, that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which also you suffer. If yet it be just with God to repay tribulation to them that vex you, and to you that are vexed, rest with us in the revelation of our Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels of His power, in flame of fire, giving revenge to them that know not God and that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall suffer eternal pains in destruction from the face of our Lord and from the glory of his power when He shall come to be glorified in His saints and to be made marvelous in all them that have believed, because our testimony concerning you was credited in that day. Wherein also we pray always for you, that our God make you worthy of His vocation, and accomplish all the good pleasure of His goodness and the work of faith in power, that the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and you in Him, according to the grace of our God and of our Lord Jesus Christ.

And we desire you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and by our congregation into him, that you be not easily moved from your sense, nor be terrified, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by epistle as sent by us, as though the day of our Lord were at hand. Let no man seduce you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, who is an adversary and is extolled above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as though he were God. Remember you not that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now what letteth you know, that he may be revealed in his time. For now the mystery of iniquity worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom our Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the manifestation of His advent, him whose coming is according to the operation of Satan, in all power and lying signs and wonders, and in all seducing of iniquity to them that perish, for that they have not received the charity of the truth that they might be saved. Therefore God will send them the operation of error, to believe lying, that all may be judged which have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.

But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of God, that He hath chosen you first-fruits unto salvation, in sanctification of spirit and faith of the truth into which also He hath called you by our Gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether it be by word or by our epistle. And our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who hath loved us and hath given eternal consolation and good hope in grace, exhort your hearts and confirm you in every good work and word.

For the rest, brethren, pray for us, that the word of God may have course and be glorified as also with you, and that we may be delivered from importunate and naughty men; for all men have not faith. But our Lord is faithful, who will confirm and keep you from evil. And we have confidence of you in our Lord that the things which we command you both do and will do. And our Lord direct your hearts in the charity of God and the patience of Christ.

And we denounce unto you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking inordinately and not according to the tradition which they have received of us. For yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, for we have not been unquiet among you; neither have we eaten bread of any man gratis, but in labour and in toil, night and day working, lest we should burden any of you. Not as though we had not authority, but that we might give ourselves a pattern unto you for to imitate us. For also when we were with you, this we denounced to you: that if any will not work, neither let him eat. For we have heard of certain among you that walk unquietly, working nothing, but curiously meddling. And to them that be such we denounce and beseech them in our Lord Jesus Christ that, working with silence, they eat their own bread.

But you, brethren, faint not in well-doing. And if any obey not our word, note him by an epistle, and do not take company with him that he may be confounded. And do not esteem him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

And the Lord of peace Himself give you everlasting peace in every place. Our Lord be with you all.

The salutation, with mine own hand: Paul, which is a sign in every epistle, so I write. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.