Class Notes

Introduction

Much of this little book is taken from a thesis I wrote in the seminary. Since then I have had some experience in inner city ministry and also in our schools. The bible is very important and is often a source of contention among people. Often the interpretation of the bible is something many choose to take different approaches.

I hope to provide a framework for teachers in Catholic schools to have a reference for a Catholic approach to the Sacred Scriptures. Teachers should exercise great judgement in how they present the bible to our children. We first of all must be very humble in our approach to interpreting the bible. Scholarly interpretations sadly seem to be often driven by novelty, as opposed to glean the fuller sense (sensus plenoir) from the text.

A few sad anecdotes,

A young high school student belligerently questions the priest, “Hey, what is this that Matthew, did not write Matthew?” The priest went on to accurately and calmly present the teaching that the bible was written by apostles and apostolic men under the inspiration of the holy spirit, while it is indeed likely that Matthew did not write the gospel in its entirety, it is non-the-less the inspired word of God.

The story even gets better, when the priest related to one of the teachers, “I cannot believe someone told these children, “Matthew did not write Matthew”, only to be met with an emotionly filled response by the teacher, “Well Matthew did not write Matthew, Have you studied scripture?”

A teacher reported to some elementary students,

“Well you see, the manna that came down from heaven is really just bird doo-doo.” The implication being that it really was not supernatural.

True knowledge is a wonderful thing, but to speculate on scholarly opinion to young children is not reasonable.

We need to present the scriptures honestly, and not overly simplistically to them. Did God create Adam and Eve? The answer is, God did create our first parents, whether or not the creation story in chapter 2 of the book of Genesis gives us accurate historical detail is an altogether different question. If one reads carefully chapters one and two of Genesis we see how the order of creation is quite different. The point that we must relate to the children is that God did create us and is there to help us. Our task is to give our children a mature understanding of the bible and a knowledge of the Sacred Scriptures that will help them in there faith and there ability to intelligently understand the message that God intended to give through the scriptures. Namely, Jesus is Lord and He is our Savior who comes to save the world. Fundamental to the Catholic understanding to the scriptures would be the importance of interpreting the bible in a context of the Church. The bible was written by a community of believers for a community of believers that was meant to be proclaimed. In other words the bible is a book to be heard more than read. In 2 Theselonians 2:15 the author enjoins the people to believe not only the written word but that which has be handed on orally. Catholics believe this to be the Apostolic Tradition. The bible teaches that it is not the sole source for the Christian faith. Catholics can never rely on the bible alone, but must always interpret it in the context of the Church. Some scholars want to limit themselves to the text itself, this is fundamentally opposed to a Catholic understanding of Revelation.

I myself come from what could be called the Bible Belt. In my own faith journey the Bible had been very meaningful to me even prior to being a student of theology. I knew that the Church had always revered the Bible, but I was exposed to some friends of mine who constantly charged that Catholics did not believe in the Bible. Being a Catholic myself this was news to me. I was studying mechanical engineering at the time, so my own intellectual formation was influenced by the scientific method and the rigors of such approaches. After having received a Master's degree in Mechanical Engineering, and a Master of Divinity from a graduate school of theology, I find myself with a somewhat unique set of skills.

By 1988 I was a student of theology and in fact studying Scripture in some classes. A classmate brought to my attention a copy of the Erasmus Lecture of 1988 given by Cardinal Ratzinger on interpreting the Bible.^{^[1]} I read the text of the lecture and found it quite fascinating; particularly the aspects concerning the philosophical foundations that underlie one's method of interpretation. I was somewhat early in my theological studies, and since then have had the opportunity to study in some detail particular aspects of hermeneutical methods. The goal of this thesis is to present a method of scriptural interpretation rooted in concrete experience. I believe that I have some insight into how one approaches problems from my engineering problem-solving background. The first step in any attempt at a reasonable solution is to put forth one's assumptions. Most often these are self-evident, but for clarity I will attempt to state mine.

The first assumption is truth has an infinite character and can thus never be known in a comprehensive and total way. There is a transcendent character to truth. At the same time the human person, him or herself, in some way can gain concrete immutable insight into aspects of the truth. I consider that concrete immutable, subjective - (in the sense of personal), insight to be knowledge of the truth. Knowledge is distinct from opinion when it is in accord with the truth, the concrete reality. Concerning interpretation, an interpretation would only be accurate if it is in accord with the intention of the author or subject who is trying to convey some meaning or message. Ultimately what I am trying to avoid is the common presupposition that it is the human interpreter who imparts meaning. I am taking for granted that it is the human person who is engaged in the task of understanding and discovery. Truth is not at all contingent upon the human person's ability to perceive it, but rather on what truth is, a reality that is concrete, real, and possessing an infinite and transcendent character.

Since truth is assumed to have this infinite character, it would seem reasonable to suggest that deeper and deeper insight can be gained into this truth as the ages pass. Consider the field of our contemporary sciences. The dynamic growth of the human person's insight and knowledge only recently acquired by no means diminishes insights from the past but rather the individual learns from the past and builds upon those past insights. The saving truth found in the scripture assuredly shares this unique transcendent characteristic which allows for burgeoning insight as well as deeply penetrating knowledge that can increase.

Another fundamental assumption is faith, faith in the God of Jesus Christ who chose to reveal Himself in human history. History can be pieced together and interpreted accurately through the holy writings of authors which have been inspired by the Holy Spirit, and written for a community of believers.

A final assumption is that Jesus Christ inaugurated or established a group of individuals to proclaim the Good News to the nations. Christ will not leave this group orphans, a group whose members will be permeated with the Spirit of God. This group today is to some degree recognizable as the Catholic Church. This Church is a reliable guide only because it is Christ's Mystical Body. Obviously this is a faith statement and cannot be seen as a proof in any way, shape or form, but I choose to operate from the context which Dei Verbum clearly states that both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are reliable ecclesial guides in the human person's pursuit of truth, which ultimately is Jesus Christ.

One must rely on these assumptions if the following study is to have any coherence. The proposed method will be gleaned from a study of pertinent ecclesial documents and will be consistent with an epistemological view (the way we see truth - idealistic vs. A realistic world view) that assumes that concrete, immutable, trans-historical insight is possible, though very difficult to attain and always incomplete.

Hermeneutics (the art of Interpretation) are of paramount importance. Today there are diverse ways to approach a problem and that is to be applauded. It is very important though to be able to ask the questions that are appropriate to the task at hand. A simple but important question is, "What is the purpose of biblical interpretation? How one answers this question makes an incredible difference in the particular approach. There are many books that seem to pursue the illusory "historical Jesus", e.g. John Meier's book, The Marginal Jew^{^[2]}, and the recent book, The Five Gospels^{^[3]}, which is the result of the Jesus Seminar held annually. These books beg the question, "What are they seeking?" The Catholic response to this question gleaned from sections 101-141 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, CCC. Quite simply put, the Church is trying to come to a more profound understanding of the "single Word, His one Utterance in whom he expresses Himself completely"^{^[4]} This has been her task from the beginning and has traditionally been concerned with two senses of Scripture, the literal sense and the spiritual sense.^{^[5]}

The proposed method suggests that past techniques of interpretation contribute to a broader grasp of the reality that is being expressed. By broader grasp, I mean to suggest that the serious consideration of the spiritual sense can serve to enhance and truly deepen insight into the full meaning of the text. The Church's experience seems to be an undeniably valid resource from which to draw. Today's interpreter must be aware that the questions that are sought to be answered by the study of the scriptural text today are quite different from the questions posed by the patristic fathers or the scholastic doctors of the past. It would seem helpful in our study to attempt to gain insight into the heritage of the past and the contemporary strides that have been made.

The task at hand is quite straightforward. First we will review some of the ecclesial documents on the subject of biblical interpretation, namely from Providentissimus Deus to the recent document issued by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. The second chapter relates three key interpreters generally accepted by the Church: St. Jerome, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Raymond Brown. The third chapter attempts to present an appropriate hermeneutic which leads to a synthesis of the Catholic interpreters’ methods which are in accord with the ecclesial tradition. As a demonstration, the method will be applied to a passage from John's Gospel 6:63 - It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is useless, these are the words of spirit and life. Finally there will be a brief discussions of such a method.

Chapter I - A Survey of the Ecclesial Documents on Biblical Interpretation

Before discussing a particular methodology for the study of Sacred Scriptures, I shall discuss the pertinent ecclesial documents on the interpretation of the Bible. The documents are the major papal teachings on biblical interpretation during the last hundred years and also those from the second Vatican Council, and the most recent document issued by the Pontifical Biblical Commission. There seems to be both development in the Church’s understanding and also a real consistency in presentation.

Providentissimus Deus Providentissimus Deus is an encyclical letter issued by Pope Leo XIII on the 18th of November, 1893.^{^[6]} The document relates that some of the contemporary perspectives in the field of theological investigations concerning Sacred Scripture were questionable and indeed destructive. It is important to keep in mind that this document was written when the effects of the enlightenment were still flourishing. The document chooses to use the category of "rationalists" as those individuals who would subscribe to radical Enlightenment ideas. The document points out that in the past the main issue relating to the Scriptures themselves concerned those individuals who believed that the Scriptures were not only the sole source of revelation but also the final appeal on matters of faith. The document portrays the rationalists as those who have inherited this conception of viewing the Scriptures as the only source of saving truth, and in fact denied the integrity, or inspired character, of the sacred page. The document states:(brackets mine)

[The Rationalists] .. deny that there is any such thing as revelation or inspiration or Holy Scriptures at all; they see, instead, only the forgeries and the falsehoods of men; they set down the Scripture narratives as stupid fables and lying stories; the prophecies and the oracles of God are to them either predictions made up after the event or forecasts formed by the light of nature; the miracles and the wonders of God's power are not what they are said to be, but the startling effects of natural law, or else mere tricks and myths; and the apostolic Gospels and writings are not the work of the Apostles at all.^{^[7]}

The document goes on to be critical of so called "free science", a "science, however, which is so far from final that they [the rationalists] are perpetually modifying and supplementing it."^{^[8]} This last statement could be easily misinterpreted to mean that "true science" is somehow static and immobile. This issue concerning "free science" seems to illustrate what is at the very heart of the conflict between the supposed epistemology of the rationalists and the philosophical framework that the Church wants to sanction.

If one understands science as that activity by which we learn or come to understand things as they are, all can recognize the need for understanding to grow in any learning process. Also after a valid and true insight has been reached and is essentially verifiable, one need not expend a great deal of energy trying to re‑invent the wheel so to speak. Since later in the document the Pope refers to "approved philosophy" it seems fair to assert that the "free science" would be one that is not bound by acceptable epistemological constraints. "Free science" would seem to include rationale that is not bound by any past experience; rather the historical implications or limitations are prioritized in such a way as to relativize any past understanding. I will attempt to give an example which may illustrate what is meant by "free science".

One comes to the insight that a dry piece of wood floats. In antiquity, the best "scientific" explanations of that time are unsatisfying by today's standards. At some point a shift in paradigms was needed. The shift in paradigms did not entail "dry wood sinks", instead new reasons to explain the phenomena of floating wood were offered. Since we have faith in God and God's promise to abide with His Church, I believe that it is reasonable to assert with regard to Catholic theology, that one can associate Tradition analogously with the floating piece of dry wood. The Church must be true to her experience and open to new paradigms for making reasonable and understandable interpretations of God's revelation through Jesus the Christ in time and space.

The floating piece of wood remains the same throughout the ages, however our understanding which explains what we experience is always open to revision. The encyclical would seem to understand the "free science" as that organized system of thought which rationalizes why the dry piece of wood sinks, when indeed "free scientists" miss the most fundamental observation, "the wood floats".

The criteria that the document requires for the study of Scripture is reasonable and seemingly prudent. The first objective set in the encyclical is that the professor must help the student to be certain of the Scriptures' integrity and hence be able to defend the truthfulness or reliability of the sacred text. It seems that the documents imply by the use of the term integrity the worth or the value, even the inspired character that the Scriptures possess. This integrity makes Scripture the norm and a reliable source for inerrant saving truth. After this integrity of the Scriptures has been established one is encouraged to turn to the pursuit of interpretation.

The ultimate purpose is to advocate such a method of interpretation that uses "the Word of God for the advantage of religion and piety".^{^[9]} The encyclical calls for a method which will be generally applicable to all the books in the Bible. The document, citing Trent states that the Vulgate is to be used as the authoritative scriptural text. While stating that the Vulgate is the "authentic" or "authoritative" text, other versions which have been approved by Christian antiquity are not to be neglected.^{^[10]} It is important to recognize the significance of this statement. Use of the Oriental languages is acknowledged as something which cannot be overlooked. This document does open up the avenues for critical study of Scripture, but qualifies this endorsement:

whilst weighing the meanings of words, the connection of ideas, the parallelism of passages, and the like, we should by all means make use of such illustrations as can be drawn from apposite erudition of an external sort; but this should be done with caution, so as that not to bestow on questions of this kind more labor and time than are spent on the sacred books themselves, and not to overload the minds of students with a mass of information that will be rather a hindrance than a help.^{^[11]}

This quote points to the appreciation of the types of criticism but reminds one that we are not just dealing with any book, but rather a book inspired by God. The document further states the criteria of authentic interpretation, drawing from previous pronouncements^{^[12]}. The encyclical states that no one can interpret the Scriptures in such a way that is contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers. As a matter of fact the Fathers most often were divergent in their own interpretations of the Scriptures. It seems clear that the intent of this statement is to give the Fathers recognition as faithful interpreters, even though their methods would be quite alien to most people today. The document goes on to recognize explicitly the wide breadth of interpretation left open for the student with hermeneutical skill.^{^[13]} The encyclical also makes clear that even when there is consensus among the Fathers, study may still be fruitful to help people more readily grasp this wider aspect of interpretation. In short, the document enjoins those entrusted to the task of teaching Scripture to be very familiar with the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church.

The document operates from some basic presuppositions, namely that the doctrine authoritatively proposed by the Church should be held as the supreme law. This reasoning stems from the recognition that God is the ultimate author of both the Bible and the doctrine committed to the Church.^{^[14]} From this assertion it is assumed to be untenable that there would be any interpretation of the sacred text that could be in conflict with the Church doctrine.

The encyclical notes how "desirable is it, and most essential, that the whole teaching of theology should be pervaded and animated by the use of the divine Word of God."^{^[15]} Theology is to be informed by the Scriptures in a singular and unique way. Reason is to be utilized but only as a handmaid to the revelation of God found in Scripture. The Pope affirms the use of reason and recognizes the proper place it plays in service of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The document points to the method which was laid down by what he calls the prince of theologians, Thomas Aquinas.^{^[16]} Thomas himself admits that if one denies the divine aspect of revelation then it will be impossible to prove the content of the faith by argumentation. Thomas goes on to argue that faith rests on infallible truth which can never be proven to the contrary.^{^[17]} In other words, even though one’s faith cannot be proven as such, neither can it be demonstrable false. The encyclical enjoins one to have a deep and real appreciation of philosophy and theology that would be consonant with or under the guidance of Thomas Aquinas.

Philosophy is integral in any attempt at interpretation. The Church assumes a realistic conception of the world. The epistemology that the Church would endorse is one that is open to real objective insight. Thomas would use the Aristotelian conception of form and matter; once a person grasps those dimensions of the "object" the person has gained insight, or knowledge of the essence of the object. The type of philosophy which seems here to be criticized obliquely would be a philosophy which denies any access to the essence of the object, or a philosophy which would deny any real perduring value to insight. Truth and understanding are relegated merely to a subjective and relativistic realm. This conception precludes the possibility of objective understanding or insight that would be valid for all people. This conception of philosophy would seem to collapse the distinction between personally apprehended knowledge, and concrete objective, immutable insight, the latter of which is impossible for an overly subjective, relativistic philosophy.

The document states that it is important, and admittedly difficult, to prove, expound, and illustrate Catholic doctrine by the "legitimate and skillful interpretation of the Bible"^{^[18]}, but nonetheless wants to strive to maintain the full authority that the Bible carries in the work of defending and explaining the faith. It recognizes that the integrity of the magisterium and its claim to infallibility rest on the sacred records. The context of these statements clearly alludes to a posture of defense against rationalist thinking.

The encyclical explicitly states that use of the Oriental Languages is appropriate for the clergy to help them more clearly understand the sacred texts. In a particular way scholars must have a ready proficiency in the languages so that one can be ""all things to all men" (1 Cor 9:22), always "ready with an answer to everyone who asks a reason for the hope that is in you"(1 Pet.3:15)".^{^[19]} The document is very cautious, and warns that one cannot rely on just internal indications alone to judge the integrity of the scriptural book. The encyclical does point to the importance of the historical questions which concern the origin of the text and the handing down of writings, and sees that the witness of history is of primary importance. It is interesting that the document suggests that this ""higher criticism" will resolve itself into the reflection of the bias and the prejudice of the critics.^{^[20]} In other words the interpretations may be unduly influenced by the particular theological and philosophical presuppositions or the operative framework of the interpreter rather than what is truly the more accurate, objective interpretation of the inspired text. The encyclical seems to suggest by this statement that "higher criticism" will ultimately sort out what is true and good insight as well as baseless and superfluous speculation. For if higher criticism is done well, then there should be no fear of losing the original meaning based on the intention of the author, for the document would grant the presupposition that truth cannot contradict truth.

The aspect of the natural sciences is addressed as well. There is no hesitation to discuss the right application of such sciences for the interpretation of Sacred Scripture. The document is critical of those who would attempt to use such sciences solely for the purpose of trying to discredit the integrity of Scripture. In the explication of these matters there seems to be some development in insight from previous magisterial documents. For example further distinctions are drawn. The inerrancy of Scripture is not concerned with those things that pertain to the essential nature of the visible universe, but rather those things which are profitable for salvation.^{^[21]} The encyclical also acknowledges that biblical ideas concerning physical matters "sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus make statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect".^{^[22]} A humble posture is adopted, quoting Thomas:

When philosophers are agreed upon a point, and it is not contrary to our faith, it is safer in my opinion, neither to lay down such a point as a dogma of faith, even though it is perhaps so presented by the philosophers, nor to reject it as against faith, lest we thus give to the wise of this world an occasion of despising our faith.^{^[23]}

The encyclical calls for the Catholic scholars to engage in the struggles in which the contemporary academy is immersed; the Catholic scholars must take seriously hostile arguments so that the truth may be more fully understood:

Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth cannot contradict truth, and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words or in the polemic discussion itself; and if no such mistake can be detected, we must then suspend judgement for the time being.^{^[24]}

The document recognizes that all students and ministers need to have deep reverence and piety for the Sacred Page. The encyclical suggests that "it is impossible to attain to a profitable understanding thereof unless the arrogance of "earthly" science be laid aside, and there be excited in the heart the holy desire for that wisdom "which is from above"".^{^[25]}

In summary this document really had profound significance as regards the study of Scripture. It attempted to appreciate the positive aspects that contemporary erudition had to offer the ecclesial scholar. It even challenged the clergy to have a deeper and more profound understanding of what the Scriptures really meant. Even though there was an authoritarian tone to some segments of the document, Providentissimus Deus held up humility as a primary virtue when one is to assert anything about the true meaning of the Sacred Page. If the document was cautious and called for prudential use of contemporary tools, it was even more cautious when it came to making any attempt to limit the true sense or meaning of any particular text in question. This document spawned debate and other documents, both of which would contribute to the way in which the Catholic scholar was to approach the Sacred Page.^{^[26]} A brief discussion of the major subsequent documents follows.

Vigilantiae Vigilantiae^{^[27]} is an apostolic letter of Pope Leo XIII issued in 1902. This document resulted in the institution of a commission for Biblical Studies. Written almost nine years after Providentissimus Deus, Vigilantiae reaffirms the teaching of that encyclical letter. After encouraging the use of science the document states that one cannot rely solely on hermeneutics but rather must have recourse to the Church and her tradition. The purpose of the commission was to maintain and develop pertinent areas appropriate to the study of Scripture. The document seems to reacting to the times:

...to institute a council ... whose duty shall be to effect that in every possible manner the divine text will find here and from every quarter, the most thorough interpretation which is demanded by our times, and be shielded from every breath of error, but also from every temerarious opinion.^{^[28]}

The document assumes that the Church "has been given to mankind as a guide and teacher".^{^[29]} The document also recognizes the contribution of scholars outside the Church, particularly in the areas of criticism.^{^[30]} Ultimately the commission's task originally was to address questions among Catholic scholars so that a solution to particular questions may be obtained.^{^[31]} The commission was to be composed of some cardinals and also persons accomplished in Biblical Studies. Actually before the promulgation of the document a preparatory committee was appointed by Leo XIII on August 30, 1901.^{^[32]}

Some may believe that to suggest that the Church's Tradition must be consulted will bias the results of interpretation which are sought to be wholly "objective". To put such constraints on the study of Scripture could be perceived to be an affront to academic freedom. I would maintain that this was not the intent of the document. This can be substantiated by the fact that the same document opened access to the Vatican library for the pursuit of such studies.

There are implicit biases in any attempt at interpretation. These biases may be the result of a particular philosophical framework or underlying theological concerns. The key is being aware of such biases. It seems as though the Church is just asking in this letter that the Scriptures be placed in their appropriate context. We as Catholics can never forget that the Sacred Scriptures were written, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by a community of faith for a community of faith. To imagine somehow that the Scriptures can be seized from their proper context within a community and studied alone or in isolation is untenable from a Catholic perspective. To use an analogy it would be like trying to attempt to study a human soul isolated and distinct from the body it animates. This comparison is to suggest that Sacred Scripture is the very soul that animates the Church. The document posits that the Church has nothing to fear from scholarship done well in the service of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for He cannot be unfaithful to Himself.

Quoniam in re Biblica Quoniam in re Biblica^{^[33]}, promulgated in 1906 by Pius X, contributes to this growing body of literature on Biblical Interpretation,. Again there is a reaffirmation of Providentissimus Deus along with eighteen rules to be observed in pursuing biblical studies in seminaries. The document recognizes the necessity of embracing the following:

the principal ideas concerning inspiration, the canon of the Scripture, the original text and the most important versions, the laws of hermeneutics; secondly, the history of both Testaments; and, thirdly, the analysis and exegesis of the different books according to the importance of each.^{^[34]}

In the thirteenth rule, the document argues that we must "make use of the real additions to our knowledge which modern research supplies".^{^[35]} It is interesting to note that students in seminaries "should endeavor" to study the whole of Sacred Scripture to make up for that which cannot be covered exhaustively in their respective classes. It is clear that the Scriptures are to be understood as something more than a secular literary source. The Scriptures are to be a source of spiritual nourishment that must never be neglected.

Spiritus Paraclitus Spiritus Paraclitus ^{^[36]} is the next major encyclical letter which speaks to the issue of biblical interpretation. The document focuses on St. Jerome as the preeminent Catholic Biblical scholar. I would suggest that Jerome is held to be the example not only because he had an insatiable desire to study and learn from the sacred texts, but also because he never doubted the inspired character of the texts. He also seemed to possess great dedication in trying to understand the various schools of interpretation of his time. He studied for a time at Antioch under Apollinarius of Laodicea, then went to the desert of Chalcis in Syria. Later he undertook the difficult study of Semitic Languages from a Jewish convert. He also went to Constantinople, where he studied for three years.^{^[37]} Jerome also pursued the school of Alexandria in his biblical studies. Jerome was not content with the thoughts of his contemporary teachers; he assiduously gathered texts and documents that would contribute to his study.

The encyclical is critical of those scholars who appear to relativize the accuracy of the historical dimension of the scriptural accounts. Leo XIII made provision for the description of the things in nature.^{^[38]} Leo XIII in the encyclical Providentissimus Deus made the point that the inspired authors, when they discuss things concerning nature, may be bound or influenced by the conceptions of their time.^{^[39]} The distinction made is between those things in the visible universe concerning scientific natural phenomena and those things or truths which are profitable for salvation. Pope Benedict XV is critical of those scholars who extend this provision for those things visible in nature and then use this principle to equate rigorous scientific knowledge with the historical rendering of saving events related in the Scriptures. The inadequacies regarding scientific truth resulting from the limited scientific knowledge of the times cannot diminish in the same way the sacred authors’ credibility regarding the historical events they intended to convey. It would seem fair to assume that this sharp criticism is to respond to a tendency of some contemporary scholars to relativize the historicity of the scriptural text. For example in 1919 K. L. Schmidt had published Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu (The Framework of the History of Jesus). This work posited that the Synoptic Gospels were simply mosaic-like collections of short episodes from the life of Jesus, which were thought to be independent units.^{^[40]} Also Bultmann, just one year after this encyclical was promulgated, published The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Ger 1921, Eng 1963). This work ascribes most of the Tradition to be merely the result of the creative imagination of the early Christian communities.^{^[41]} The tenor of the document is more understandable in light of these trends prevalent in scholarship of the times.

This encyclical is extremely critical of those who suggest that since the Bible is composed of diverse sources that would somehow implicitly weaken the authority of the sacred text.^{^[42]} It is important to recognize that doctrinal conceptions of inspiration, like all doctrines, are open to development in the sense of a more penetrating understanding. Spiritus Paraclitus enjoins contemporary scholarship to contribute not by novelty but by appreciating the method St. Jerome employed.^{^[43]} The important aspect which the document wants to preserve is the undeniable action of God through the whole composition of Scripture. This development will be made more apparent in the documents of Divino Afflante Spiritu and Dei Verbum. Spiritus Paraclitus next turns to more practical concerns. The document speaks of more important issues that concern our inner dispositions toward the Sacred Page. Jerome is termed the "Greatest of Doctors" precisely because of his deep and profound love of the Bible. To quote the document:

St. Jerome's love of the Bible: this is so conspicuous in his letters that they almost seem woven out of Scripture texts; and , as St. Bernard found no taste in things which did not echo the most sweet Name of Jesus, so no literature made any appeal to Jerome unless it derived its light from Holy Scripture.^{^[44]}

The document recognizes some additional prerequisites for the fruitful study of Scripture. It may seem a little out of vogue today but among these preconditions would be virtue. Faith would also be included, a faith in the Church. Other aspects include "piety and humility of the mind".^{^[45]} The encyclical suggests from Jerome's insistence that one reads the Scriptures daily. St. Jerome states, "Provided our bodies are not the slaves of sin, wisdom will come to us; but exercise your mind, feed it daily with Holy Scripture".^{^[46]} The Scriptures themselves are understood to be a type of "manna from heaven". Aside from aspects of knowledge which concern the pursuit of spiritual perfection and help to make Catholic teaching more coherent, the document states some rules for interpretation. Following Jerome, the encyclical states that the "literal or historical" meaning is to be primary.^{^[47]} St. Jerome is very cautious in relying too heavily on the allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures: "lest in our search for spiritual riches we seem to despise the history as poverty‑stricken". Following this quote the document states:

Consequently he repudiates many mystical interpretations alleged by ancient writers; for he feels that they are not sufficiently based on the literal meaning.^{^[48]}

The encyclical by no means diminishes that aspect of the allegorical interpretation but rather wants to keep it in its proper context:

if they would obey the directions of Leo XIII, and not neglect "those allegorical or similar explanations which the Fathers have given, especially when these are based on the literal sense, and are supported by weighty authority; if they would pass from the literal to the more profound meaning in temperate fashion, and thus lift themselves to a higher plane, they would, with St. Jerome, realize how true are St. Paul's words:"All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproving, for correction, for instructing in justice" [2 Tim 3:16]".^{^[49]}

The document states the importance of trying to uncover the intention of what the author really meant. The expositor of Scripture must adhere to a style that "while leaving no impression of haziness ... yet explains things, sets out the meaning, clears up obscurities, and is not mere verbiage."^{^[50]} The study of Scripture will not only be a source of delight for our spirit, but it will foster a true and legitimate zeal for Christ and his kingdom. Jerome states bluntly, "Ignorance of the Bible is ignorance of Christ".^{^[51]}

Finally the letter enjoins the "Venerable Brethren to impart this teaching that has been set out". The purpose of the encyclical is succinctly stated:

Our one desire for all the Church's children is that, being saturated with the Bible, they may arrive at the all‑surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ.^{^[52]}

Divino Afflante Spiritu Divino Afflante Spiritu^{^[53]} is another important encyclical which concerns itself with the study of Scripture. This document was promulgated in 1943 by Pope Pius XII. The document begins by recognizing that the sacred writings were composed through the inspiration of God. The document affirms the teaching of Providentissimus Deus and in these days concerning the study of Scripture desires "to incite ever more earnestly all those sons of the Church who devote themselves to these studies".^{^[54]}

After affirming the other contributions from some of the various documents, (e.g. Quoniam in re biblica, Vigilantiae, and Spiritus Paraclitus), there seems to be a marked development in the openness towards some of the contemporary tools. Admittingly the document recognizes that there had been great changes in the methods of Biblical studies:

There is no one who cannot easily perceive that the conditions of biblical studies and their subsidiary sciences have greatly changed within the last fifty years.^{^[55]}

The document encourages more adamantly the use of these tools because the precision with which they can be applied has become more objectively reliable. The interpretation of the Fathers is still to be considered, but a clear recognition of the value of new insight is affirmed.

In much of Western civilization from the scholastic period until the early twentieth century knowledge of the Greek by doctors and commentators of the bible was somewhat limited, usually the Vulgate was utilized as a primary text. Regarding languages, the encyclical notes that knowledge of the Oriental languages has become more widespread among commentators recently. Therefore knowledge of these languages is an important tool for the interpretation of the scriptures, the document points out:

On the contrary in this our time, not only the Greek language, which since the humanistic renaissance has been, as it were, restored to new life, is familiar to almost all students of antiquity and letters, but the knowledge of Hebrew also and of other Oriental languages has spread far and wide among literary men.^{^[56]}

Clearly the document appreciates the advancement of the sciences connected with the more historically critical approaches to biblical scholarship. Textual criticism in particular is noted to be of great value particularly because of the advances made in determining reliable rules for its application.^{^[57]}

The document also points to the Tridentine decree, which by no means neglected the importance of the original languages. It is noteworthy to point out that the texts of the Scriptures in their original languages were to be corrected, as far as possible.^{^[58]} The document clearly notes that the authority of the Vulgate does not stem from its critical integrity but rather because of its longstanding use in the Church. The encyclical concludes that in the milieu of the day it is almost indispensable that “the corroboration and confirmation" of doctrines make sense in light of the original texts.^{^[59]} This suggests that the interpretations from the Vulgate and the ancient texts must not be in opposition to one another. The use of the ancient languages will only facilitate a more complete understanding of meaning and doctrines.

Regarding interpretation in particular, the document affirms the emphasis on the literal sense of the Sacred Books. This literal sense is understood to entail the discovery of the genuine meaning of the texts.^{^[60]} The interpretation cannot be accomplished isolated or distinct from the inspired nature of the texts themselves. The document cites the reference of Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus, to the principle of the "analogy of faith" which amounts to assuming that God cannot contradict Himself in all that God intends to convey through the Sacred Scriptures.^{^[61]} This principle seems almost to be a truism but the encyclical merely suggests that one must believe in the inspired character of the Scriptures to interpret them well.

In citing the principle, "The rule of prayer is the rule of faith", the encyclical notes the value of the spiritual sense of the Sacred Scriptures. It states that which is echoed in Dei Verbum^{^[62]}:

For what was said and done in the Old Testament was ordained and disposed by God with such consummate wisdom, that things past prefigured in a spiritual way those that were to come under the new dispensation of grace.^{^[63]}

At the same time the document states that Catholic exegetes must "scrupulously refrain from proposing as the genuine meaning of Sacred Scripture other figurative senses.^{^[64]}

A key point is made regarding a proposed methodology for the Catholic exegete and his or her study of Scripture:

In the accomplishment of this task the Catholic Exegete will find invaluable help in an assiduous study of those works, in which the Holy Fathers, the Doctors of the Church and the renowned interpreters of past ages have explained the Sacred Books. For, although sometimes less instructed in profane learning and in the knowledge of languages than the Scripture scholars of our time, nevertheless by reason of the office assigned to them by God in the Church, they are distinguished by a certain subtle insight into heavenly things and by a marvelous keenness if intellect, which enables them to penetrate to the very innermost meaning of the divine word and bring to light all that can help to elucidate the teaching of Christ and promote holiness of life.^{^[65]}

This document adds refinement to the issue of what is intended or meant by the author of Scripture. The paramount issue becomes what the author intended as opposed to what may be apparent. The distinction here concerns the historical context by which the human author was constrained or bound. This by no means limits the validity or truth of what is being stated but rather contextualizes that which is stated. Knowledge of this context is necessary, less "we miss the real meaning of the author.^{^[66]}

The encyclical also notes the necessary study of various aspects of the particular culture in which the author wrote. This recognizes the value of literary criticism in the task of Biblical Studies. This literary mode impacts how we understand the intention of the author.^{^[67]} The study of biblical antiquities is also seen as necessary. The knowledge of the culture can provide the exegete with invaluable insight regarding the inspired author's world.

The encyclical recognizes the great value of the contemporary tools in probing the more difficult questions that arise from the study of the Sacred Texts. In fact some of these tools have been used to corroborate some of the historical aspects of the Sacred Books that years before had been called into question.^{^[68]} The document also notes the real difficulties that are not yet solved, but the quest for solutions is to continue. The encyclical exhorts the faithful not to suspect or be opposed to approaches only because they are new. Likewise the encyclical notes that the Church has only defined authoritatively the meaning of a few texts and also points out that the Fathers have not agreed unanimously on the meaning of a great many texts either.^{^[69]}

The encyclical concludes by noting the importance of the exegetical explanations in service of the both the literal sense and the theological sense. The "document expounded and recommended those things which are required for the adaptation of Scripture studies to the necessities of the day"^{^[70]} and recognized the importance of the task:

We say; for what is more sublime than to scrutinize, explain, propose to the faithful and defend from unbelievers the very word of God, communicated to men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.^{^[71]}

The Historicity of the Gospels The Historicity of the Gospels^{^[72]} was promulgated just one year prior to the second Vatican Council's document on revelation, Dei Verbum, by the Pontifical Biblical Commission. This document, an Instruction, after praising the work of Catholic exegetes notes the recent advances in biblical scholarship and articulates the three stages of Gospel composition. The first stage is comprised of the words of Jesus our Lord, teaching that was orally expressed in "the forms of thought and expression prevailing at the time."^{^[73]} The next stage is the apostles' proclamation of Christ's teaching; a proclamation which utilized the type of presentation appropriate to their purpose and the mentality of their listeners."^{^[74]} The third stage is the apostolic proclamation set down in writing. The instruction notes that from "the material available to them the Evangelists selected those items most suited to their specific purpose and to the condition of a particular audience" ... and "narrated these events in the manner most suited to satisfy their purpose and their audience's condition".^{^[75]} Clearly a chronological reporting of the saving events is not endorsed; rather these events are recalled in order to relate the saving truth in a way which may be helpful in a particular context or community. This observation is nothing new, even Chrysostom notes the variance in how the human authors chose to report the saving events.^{^[76]}

The exegete must attempt to the best of his or her ability to determine what the sacred authors really said and even intended in the Sacred Scriptures.^{^[77]} The document states that the ultimate purpose of the study of Scripture is to benefit the faithful and instruct them (citing St. Paul) "for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus".^{^[78]}

Dei Verbum Dei Verbum^{^[79]} is the document from the Second Vatican Council. The document was not considered merely a theological document but a fresh proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the world. Nonetheless it has much to contribute to our theological discussion. Revelation is God revealing himself fully in Jesus Christ. This revelation is promulgated by "apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing."^{^[80]} This marks a definite shift in the language used in describing the transmission of divine revelation. Previous documents never appeared to affirm the significance of apostolic men. The document notes how the understanding of the revelation unfolds and deepens throughout the ages.

For, as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.^{^[81]}

Chapters three through five of the document turn more explicitly towards the task of interpretation. While explicitly mentioning the Fathers in chapter two, the council’s own reference to the Fathers in the footnotes suggests the importance of their contributions. Augustine, Ambrose, Ireneus, Jerome and John Chrysostom are referenced some fifteen times all together in the document. The document reaffirms the development in Divino Afflante Spiritu concerning literary forms and the sensitivity to the historical context in which the documents where written.^{^[82]} Regarding the Old Testament it is seen as fundamentally ordered towards preparing the way for the coming "both of Christ, the Universal Redeemer, and of the messianic kingdom".^{^[83]}The relationship between the Old and New Testament is succinctly stated:

God, the inspirer and author of both testaments, wisely arranged that the New Testament be hidden in the Old and the Old be made manifest in the New.^{^[84]}

The Gospels in the New Testament hold a specific pre-eminence among all of the Sacred Scriptures because of their principal witness to the life and teaching of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word. The document "unhesitatingly asserts" that the Gospels posses a historical character that cannot be denied. The position is nuanced though:

The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explicating