FROM EXEGESIS TO HERMENEUTICS - Rice School of Pastoral ...

FROM EXEGESIS TO HERMENEUTICS: THEPROBLEM OF THE CONTEMPORARYMEANING OF SCRIPTURESandra M. Schneiders, I.H.M.Jesuit School of Theology at BerkeleyGraduate Theological UnionABSTRACTPart I discusses the recent history of Roman Catholic biblical scholarshipwhich has led to the emergence of the problem of how theresults of scientific biblical research can and should be integratedinto the pastoral project of the Church. It suggests that the originaldivision of labor among biblical scholars, theologians, and pastors isno longer visible (if, indeed, it ever was).Part II describes three models of biblical research in terms of theconception of Scripture and the theory of interpretation operative ineach. The three models are not proposed as equally adequate. Prooftextíng,the model which was paradigmatic prior to Divino AfflanteSpirito (1943), is presented as seriously defective. Historical criticalexegesis, the model which has been, and to a large extent remains,paradigmatic is shown to be considerably more adequate. However, avariety of forces is placing pressure on this model, revealing itsinadequacies when it terminates in historical reconstruction. Thethird model, the hermeneutícal, seems capable of integrating exegesisinto a process of interpretation which will prove more adequate to thetask of revealing both what the text meant in its own time and cultureand what the text means today.Part ΙΠ draws out the implications of each of the three models forthe relationship between biblical research and pastoral practice.I. Background of the Present Roman Catholic SituationIf any light is to be shed on the present tension in the Catholiccommunity between biblical scholarship on the one hand and the biblicaldimension of the exercise of the pastoral magisterium on the other, itseems necessary to cast at least a glance backward to recall the two majorphases of biblical renewal in Roman Catholicism since the Council ofTrent. Each phase, that symbolically inaugurated by Pius XIV s EncyclicalDivino Alante Spiritu (1943) 1 and that symbolically inaugurated by1Acta Apostolícete Sedes 35 (1943), 297-326. An English translation is available inBible Interpretation [Official Catholic Teachings] ed. J. J. McGivern (Wilmington, NC:McGrath, 1978), pp. 316-42.Sandra M. Schneiders, Í.H.M., is Assistant Professor of New Testament and Spirituality atthe Jesuit School of Theology and the Graduate Theological Union (Berkeley, CA 94709).She received the S.T.L. from Institut Catholique, Paris, in 1971 and the S.T.D. from theGregorian University, Rome, in 1975. She serves on the editorial boards of the CatholicBiblical Quarterly and ofthePaulist "Classics of Western Spirituality." She has publishedover twenty-five articles in reviews such as Thought, Theological Studies, Biblical TheologyBulletin, Chicago Studies, and Spirituality Today.HORIZONS 8/1 (1981), 23-39

24 HORIZONSVatican IPs dogmatic constitution on divine revelation, Dei Verbum(1965), 2 emphasized a very different aspect of the Church's ongoing taskof becoming ever more responsive to the Word of God whose privilegedwitness in the historical community of faith is the Sacred Scriptures. Thetwo phases, that of the breakthrough of scientific exegesis and that of theBible's assumption of a central role in Church life, are causally related.But little serious reflection has been done in these forty years on just howthe astounding results of modern biblical scholarship can be responsiblyincorporated into the thought and life of a Church which is ever moreconvinced of the centrality of the Word of God. The resulting tensionbetween biblical scholars on the one hand and laity and pastors on theother appears, rash-like, on the epidermis of Church life in debates overwhat the Bible says about homosexuality, 3 divorce and remarriage, 4 orthe ordination of women 5 and in the not always defensible use of biblicaldata in liberation and Black Theology, 6 in support of apocalypticspirituality and male authoritarianism in some charismatic communities,7 in feminist critiques of clericalism and patriarchy in theChurch, and so on. 8 What is needed is a thoroughgoing reexamination of2 A.A.S., 58 (1966), 817-35. Eng. tr. McGivern, pp. 403-17.3 See, for example, J. J. McNeill, The Church and the Homosexual (Kansas City, KS:Sheed, Andrews and McMeel, 1976) in contrast to the document of Archbishop JohnR. Quinn, "Pastoral Letter on Homosexuality," The Monitor (San Francisco], May 15,1980, pp. 7-8.4 A very illuminating paper on the biblical material on divorce and its possiblerelevance for current pastoral practice is J. R. Donahue's address to the convention of theMidwest Canon Law Society, "Divorce: New Testament Perspectives," Nashville, April 21,1980. This paper, to be published in the proceedings of the MCLS, contains a usefulbibliography of recent work in this area.5 See the statement of the Catholic Biblical Association's Task Force on the Role ofWomen in Early Christianity, "Women and Priestly Ministry: The New Testament Evidence,"Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41 (October 1979), 608-13 in contrast to the article byJ. D. Quinn, "New Testament Data on Priestly Ordination," America 143 (August 30-September 6, 1980), 94-97.6 For a comprehensive introduction to Black Theology, including pertinent documentationand extensive bibliography as well as studies of the interrelation of Black, liberation,and feminist theologies and discussions of the current debates of Black theologians amongthemselves, see Black Theology: A Documentary History 1966-1979, ed. G. S. Wilmoreand J. H. Cone (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1979).Perhaps the best known Catholic exegete involved in liberation theology is J. P.Miranda. See his Marx and the Bible, tr. J. Eagleson (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1974). ProtestantBiblical scholars in this field include Walter Brueggemann and Norman Gottwald.7 The Catholic Charismatic 1 (February-March 1977) carried four articles on biblicalmaterial concerning women, by E. Schüssler-Fiorenza, C. Stuhlmueller, S. Schneiders,and R. J. Karris, in a concerted effort to counteract the misuse of Scriptural material tojustify the subordination of women.8 Probably the most able and prolific Catholic biblical scholar writing on the relationof 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," CrossCurrents 29 (Fall, 1979), 301-23; "Word, Spirit and Power: Women in Early Christianity,"in Women of Spirit, ed. R. Ruether and E. McLaughlin (New York: Simon and Schuster,1979), pp. 29-70; "The Apostleship of Women in Early Christianity," in Women Priests: ACatholic Commentary on the Vatican Declaration, ed. L. Swidler and A. Swidler (NewYork: Paulist, 1977), pp. 114-22. In this latter volume are articles on the same topic, women

Schneiders: From Exegesis to Hermeneutics 25the subject of biblical hermeneutics as the question appears in thetheological and community context of the twentieth century Church.Divino Afflante Spirita is often called the Magna Carta of modernRoman Catholic biblical scholarship. Like its thirteenth centuryanalogue the encyclical did not so much give birth to as symbolicallyrecognize and legitimate what was already well underway amongCatholic scholars despite official resistance. 9 From the standpoint of thescholarly community the major contribution of the 1943 encyclical wasthe clear approval it gave for the unhampered use of modern methods ofbiblical criticism by Roman Catholic exegetes. 10 The methods in questionwere historical, philological, and literary and the purpose whichthese methods were to serve was "to discover and define what the[sacred] writers intended to express." nWith the removal of official hindrances to scientific research, PopePius XIFs warm encouragement to Catholic scholars "inspired by anactive and ardent love of [their] subject and sincerely devoted to HolyMother Church" to grapple with the unsolved problems in the sacredtext, and his equally forceful restraint on those self-appointed guardiansof the faith whose "intemperate zeal... imagines that whatever is newshould for that very reason be opposed or suspected," 12 Catholic scholarsplunged into the mainstream of modern biblical research with suchenergy and devotion that they soon took their places as peers with theirProtestant colleagues. They revelled in the intellectual excitement ofseemingly daily breakthroughs in knowledge in the historical setting,literary forms, and tradition history of the biblical texts.This scholarly development did not stay within the walls ofacademe nor between the covers of professional journals. The sometimesstartling results of biblical scholarship, first in a trickle and then in aflood, inundated the Church at large during the religiously sensitivepost-war years. During the fifties and sixties biblical scholars in thiscountry mounted strong competition to liturgists as the stars of summerschools of theology and religious education and on the middle-levellecture circuit. 13 There was undoubtedly some imprudence and specandministry 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 andthe prestigious Revue Biblique in 1892, is the best example of pre-Pius XII scientificCatholic biblical and archaeological work. He was not alone in his efforts but it must besaid that there were very few Catholic exegetes of note during the early part of the twentiethcentury, largely because the official ecclesiastical attitude was hostile to critical biblicalstudy.10 Divino Afflante Spiritu [henceforth DASL esp. paragraphs 11-48."DAS, par. 34.12 DAS, par. 46-47.13 Among the first class scholars who did the most to expose the ordinary lay Catholicand the diocesan clergy to contemporary biblical research were B. Ahem, R. Brown,E. Maly, R. A. F. MacKenzie, J. L. McKenzie, R. Murphy, C. Stuhlmueller, and B. Vawter.

26 HORIZONStacularism on the part of second class scholars but on the whole theresult was positive. The educated Catholic population, virtually ignorantof the Scriptures two decades before, became not only scripturallyliterate but enthusiastic about the role of the Word of God in theirpersonal and communal lives. Thus official approval, professional challenge,and popular appreciation combined to stimulate a prodigiousscholarly output which reached a certain symbolic highpoint in 1968with the publication of The Jerome Biblical Commentary. 14The fact that the Bible had become a vital factor in Roman Catholiclife and that biblical scholarship was perhaps the most completelyecumenical endeavor in the contemporary church profoundly influencedthe production of Dei Verbum. This dogmatic constitution ofVatican II, one of the most hotly debated of the Council, had to come togrips with the Reformation's contributions regarding the nature of biblicalrevelation and its transmission, with questions concerning the meaningof inspiration and inerrancy which had emerged as scientific criticismchallenged naïve positions on historical facticity and biblical truth,and with the greatly enlarged role of Scripture in the life of the posttridentineChurch. 15 The ecumenical, scholarly, and pastoral dimensionsof the Church's biblical concerns surface in the constitution, oftenin unresolved tension with each other. The document is the symbolicarticulation of the second phase of modern biblical renewal in RomanCatholicism.This second phase is much more complex and tension-laden thanthe first, but potentially even more exciting and fruitful. In the first phasescientific method was the determining voice in biblical scholarship. Themethod was historical criticism with its ancillary disciplines and themethod determined its object which was defined as the literal sense ofthe text, i.e., the meaning which the human author intended to communicateto his original audience. Although there were notable exceptions,the exegetes in general did not much concern themselves withtheories of revelation, inspiration, and canonicity because, whatevereffects these had on the sacred text, they did not affect the methods bywhich the scholar tried tò get back to the author's intended meaning. 1614 The Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. R. E. Brown, J. A. Fitzmyer, R. E. Murphy(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1968).15 For an excellent commentary on Dei Verbum which gives the flavor of the Conciliardebates surrounding its production, see Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, ed.H. Vorgrimler (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), vol. ΙΠ, "Commentary on Dei Verbum,"by J. Ratzinger, A. Grillmeier, B. Rigaux, pp. 155-272.16Some of the most important work done on inspiration, revelation, and canonicity byCatholic scholars during the 1960's and 1970's are the following: L. Alonso-Schökel, TheInspired Word: Scripture in the Light of Language and Literature, tr. F. Martin (New York:Herder and Herder, 1972); J. Audinet et al., Révélation de Dieu et langage des hommes(Paris: Cerf, 1972); P. Benoit, inspiration and the Bible, tr. J. Murphy-O'Connor andM. Keveme (London/New York: Sheed and Ward, 1965); W. Bulst, Revelation, tr. B. Vaw-

Schneiders: From Exegesis to Hermeneutics 27Nor did the exegete have to deal with the theological and pastoralimplications of what he or she uncovered. The exegete's task was touncover and deliver what the sacred author meant to say. It was theproblem of the theologian to figure out what that might mean today andof the pastor to apply it to the life of the Church.However, this relatively airtight division of labor within which thebiblical exegete engaged in a purely scientific investigation of historicaldata innocent of responsibility for its theological or pastoral implications, broke down during the second phase. There were several factors inthe breakdown, but I will mention only two, one extra-ecclesial and oneintra-ecclesial. First, let us look at the outside influence. Since WorldWar Π, religious studies departments have been springing up on universitycampuses all over the country while divinity schools and theologateshave increasingly sought the university milieu rather than theisolated seminary as the proper context for the preparation of theologiansand ministers. 17 Consequently, biblical studies has found itself inthe midst of the multi-disciplinary and increasingly inter-disciplinaryatmosphere of the modern world of higher education. No longer isbiblical study defined exclusively by the historical disciplines. Sociology,psychology, literature, philosophy, and aesthetics are also raisingquestions in regard to the interpretation of biblical texts. 18 As a widevariety of nonhistorical humanistic disciplines has been applied toscriptural materials the focus of interest has shifted from an exclusiveconcern with what the text meant in the past to a concern with what thetext has meant in the course of its transmission and especially to what itmeans today. Once the Catholic biblical scholar begins to see the contemporarymeaning of the text, rather than its original meaning, as theultimate object of biblical interpretation he or she is no longer immunefrom the theological or pastoral consequences of his or her work.The effect of this extra-ecclesial influence toward concern with thecontemporary meaning of the text has been reinforced by the changingter (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1965); A. Dulles, Revelation Theology: A History (NewYork: Seabury, 1969); Theology, Exegesis, and Proclamation, ed. R. E. Murphy. Concilium,vol. 70 (New York: Herder and Herder, 1971); E. Schillebeeckx, Revelation andTheology, tr. N. D. Smith, 2 vols. (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1967-1968).17For 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 P. J. Achtemeierand G. M. Tucker, "Biblical Studies: The State of the Discipline," and W. Brueggemannand D. A. Knight, "Why Study the Bible?", Bulletin of the Councu on the Study of Religion11 (June 1980), 72-76 and 76-81 respectively. See also P. Henry, New Directions in NewTestament Study (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979), esp. pp. 17-20 and 264-66, and "ThePlate Tectonics of New Testament Study," Theology Today 37 (April 1980), 51-58.18It is extremely interesting to note the five headings under which the Society forBiblical Literature organized its Centennial Program in Dallas, TX, November 5-9,1980:Approaches to the Bible through Language Analysis; Approaches to the Bible throughSocial Analysis; Approaches to the Bible through the Question of Meaning (hermeneutics);Approaches to the Bible through History and Archaeology; The History and Sociology ofBiblical Scholarship.

28 HORIZONSrole of the Bible within the Church. The educated laity is becoming evermore biblically literate and increasingly scriptural in its liturgical andpersonal spirituality 19 but, simultaneously, less impressed with abstractbiblical esoterica from the experts. At the same time, respectable contemporarytheologians have come to an operative conviction that alltheology, however speculative in nature and philosophical in structure,must be firmly rooted in biblical revelation if it is to convincingly claimthe modifier "Christian." 20 And pastors, from pope to parish priest, arebeing confronted with the fact that moral or spiritual teaching that is notbiblically based will not be very credible either in the increasinglyecumenical world forum or even within Roman Catholicism itself. 21 But,if spirituality, theology, and pastoral morality are to be rooted in andinformed by biblical revelation the question of the contemporary meaningof the text cannot be avoided.In short, for both academic and pastoral reasons the question of thecontemporary meaning of the Bible is gaining ascendancy over the questionof authorial intent. Let me hasten to add, lest anyone conclude thatrigorous historical criticism is optional or can be bypassed in the interpretativeprocess, that the exegetical task of trying to discover what theauthor intended to say retains its full importance as an indispensableelement in biblical research because no interpretation which runscounter to the author's intent taken in its total context can be consideredvalid. But it is becoming ever more obvious that biblical interpretationis a far larger enterprise than it appeared to be in the 1940's and thathistorical criticism, although indispensable, is only one of a complex ofmethods and procedures that must be applied in the understanding of anancient text."This is easy to verify by consulting recent issues of popular reviews for the laity. Forexample, 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 biblicalcommentaries have been inaugurated in the past few years to answer the growing demandof the laity for sound nontechnical aids to Bible study, e.g., The Doubleday New TestamentCommentary Series and the New Testament Message Series, ed. by D. Senior and W. Harringtonand published by M. Glazier.20 Two major recent examples of biblically based theological efforts are E. Schillebeeckx'smonumental two-volume study in christology, Jesus: An Experiment in Christology,tr. H. Hoskins (New York: Seabury, 1979) and Christ: The Christian Experience andthe Modern Worid, tr. J. Bowden (New York: Seabury, 1980); H. Küng, On Being α Christian,tr. E. Quinn (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976). For speculative efforts to explainhow Scripture functions in the theological project, see D. Tracy, Blessed Rage for Order:The New Pluralism in Theology (New York: Seabury, 1975), esp. pp. 49-87; B. Lonergan,Method in Theology (New York: Seabury, 1972), esp. pp. 153-73.21The reaction within and outside the Church to Inter Insigniores, the Vatican Declarationon the Question of the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood, especiallyin view of the nonsupport of the Declaration's position by the conclusions of the PontificalBiblical Commission, was a good example of this problem.

Schneiders: From Exegesis to Hermeneutics 29II. Models for the Use of the Bible in the Church and theImplied Theories of Text and InterpretationIn the second part of this paper, I would like to describe threemodels for the theological, spiritual, and pastoral use of biblical materialand point out the governing theory of Scripture and of interpretationoperative in each. This should give us some basis for a response to ourquestion concerning the nature of the data derived from biblical research.The first model, to which we will devote very little time, is theproof-text model with which we are all quite familiar. In this model thetheological, spiritual, moral, or pastoral positions in question have beenderived, legitimately or otherwise, from non-biblical sources such asphilosophy, canon law, or church discipline, and biblical texts, extractedfrom their contexts, are adduced in support or proof of thepositions. Although such texts might, on occasion, be legitimate buttressesof the position in question, 22 the approach itself is fundamentallyinadequate and usually results in highly questionable argumentation. 23The major problem with the proof-text approach lies in its conceptionof Scripture as a collection of discrete texts which are, in principle,completely separable, essentially unconditioned by history, and equallyauthoritative. Actually, of course, Scripture is a canonized collection ofliterary units each governed by the codes of some literary genre such asnarrative, history, or poetry. Individual texts are meaningful only withinthe literary structure which are themselves parts of larger units which,together, constitute a canon. Not only are individual texts relative to thelarger units in which they occur, but also to the historical situation inand for which they were composed. And finally, various texts, becauseof the purposes for which they were written and the situations whichthey addressed, have quite various degrees of authority. Disciplinaryinjunctions to local churches, such as that women shall have their headscovered in the liturgical assembly (see 1 Cor. 11:5) or that bishops shouldbe married (see 1 Tim. 3:2), do not carry the same weight as major22 This is most likely to happen in exhortatory situations. See, for example, the encouragementoffered religious in Perfectae Caritatis, the Decree on the Adaptation and Renewalof Religious Life, par. 6, to read the Scripture daily "in order that, by reading andmeditating 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 contextof the Philippians passage is not concerned with reading Scripture but with the knowledgeof 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 ofGod" and Paul's "jealousy" for the fidelity of his converts to support a repressive insistenceon physical cloister for nuns in Venite Seorsum, the Instruction on the ContemplativeLife and on the Enclosure of Nuns, sect. 4. Numerous examples of indefensible use ofScripture texts can be found in Inter Insigniores, e.g., the attempt to make a distinctionbetween 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 notcalled and those called (only men) to official public ministry (and thus to ordination!).

30 HORIZONStheological statements such as that God raised Jesus from the dead (seeActs 2:24), that the union of the baptized in Christ renders inoperative inthe Christian community all inequalities based on race, sex, or servitude(see Gal. 3:28), or that one who communicates in the Eucharist unworthilyeats and drinks condemnation to him or herself (see 1 Cor. 11:27-29).The theory of interpretation operative in the proof-text model isfirst-naïveté reading in the sense Paul Ricoeur gives to the term. 24 Itinvolves an uncritical, prima facie reading of the text which understandsthe words, without further ado, to mean what they mean today. Itis unconscious of the effect on the texts of historical conditioning, genrecodes, the development of languages, the effects of translation, immediateand global literary contexts, theological and ecclesial problematics,or even individual differences among authors.Proof-texting occasionally achieves a happy coincidence of meanings,but often results in illegitimate accommodation, allegorizing, andeven total misinterpretation. Even if it were more often successful than itis, proof-texting as a model for the ecclesial use of biblical materialshould be repudiated because it is based on a totally inadequate theory ofthe nature of Scripture and an uncritical theory of interpretation.The second model for the use of biblical material is the one whichenjoys relative hegemony in academic circles at the present time and is,at least in principle, accepted by ecclesiastical authorities. I shall call itthe "Bible as theological source book" model or, more mundanely, theexegetical model. Exegetes working within this model are committed tothe historical critical method and see their task, as we have alreadymentioned, to be that of discovering and delivery, in as nearly exact aform as possible, the "literal sense" of the text, i.e., the meaning intendedby the biblical author as it was understood by his original audience.Such scholars are not biblical fundamentalists insisting that theChurch today must replicate the theology, structure, morality, or disciplineof the New Testament communities. They simply contribute theirdata concerning the earliest Church to the corporate theological effort toset forth the Christian faith in a manner adequate to our times so that thepastoral office can function in an informed and compassionate way. 25The biblical data is normative, to be sure, but not autonomously orexclusively so. 26 Indeed the biblical scholars do not even attempt to24 For a brief introduction to Ricoeur's thought on first and second naïveté, seeP. Ricoeur, "The Hermeneutics of Symbols and Philosophical Selection," tr. D. Savage,International Philosophical Quarterly 2 (1962), 191-218.25 A rather succinct statement of this approach was given by R. Butterworth, "LiberalTheologians and the Vatican," The Month 13 (February 1980), 47-49. He defends the rightof biblical scholars to prescind from the dogmatic tradition in doing their work. There issomething to be said for this contention but it can easily lead to a neutralizing of thebiblical scholar's work in relation to the Church.26 R. E. Brown in "The Current Crisis in Theology as it Affects the Teaching of CatholicDoctrine," Biblical Reflections on Crises Facing the Church (New York: Paulist, 1975),

Schneiders: From Exegesis to Hermeneutics 31decide how the normativity of biblical material is to be understood or tofunction. The nature of Scripture as inspired literature, its relation todivine revelation, and its function as canonical text in the Church areregarded as fundamentally theological rather than biblical questions.The task of the biblical scholar is to deliver the contents of the Book to theChurch for use in its ongoing theological-pastoral enterprise and then towatch vigilantly over the use of those contents to make sure that they arenot violated by their integration into the larger project. 27The theory of Scripture operative in this second model is obviouslymuch more adequate than that of the proof-text model. Scripture isregarded as the source of a foundationally normative contribution to theongoing tradition of Christian life and thought, but as a source whichwas composed in a distant time, place, and culture and which was fixedin the circumstances in which it was composed. Consequently, thetheory of interpretation in this model is essentially that determined byhistorical critical methodology in conjunction with a theology whichtakes seriously both Scripture and Tradition as two aspects of the singlereality of divine revelation. 28There are two separate tasks implied in this theory: the task offinding out what the text meant, and the task of figuring out what the textmeans. The first, which is essentially a matter of disinterested researchinto objective and unalterable historical facts, is the primary work of theexegete who can certainly be held responsible for the correct use of thebest available methods and the prudent presentation of his or her findingsbut who cannot be held responsible for the content of the data itselfwhich would be the same whether or not it was ever brought to light. 29The second task, figuring out what the data means for today's church, isessentially a theological and pastoral task. The theologian incorporatesthe biblical data into the theoretical syntheses which give contemporaryexpression to the faith and pastors work out the implications of the faithso expressed for contemporary Christians. As I have said, this model ofthe Bible as theological source book with its implied theory of interpretationas historical critical exegesis is the most widely accepted todaypp. 3-19, 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 materialsin such works as Küng's On Being α Christian, Schillebeeckx's two-volume christology(see note 20 above), and the CTSA study by A. Kosnik et al., Human Sexuality (New York:Paulist, 1977), as well as in official Church documents are examples of this vigilance on thepart of the professional community.28It is to be noted that Dei Verbum, while it did not reaffirm the post-Tridentineposition that there are two distinct sources of revelation, but insisted on the unity ofScripture and Tradition as the one sacred deposit of the Word of God committed to theChurch, nevertheless did not resolve the tension between these two aspects to the satisfactionof either Catholic or Protestant theologians (see pars. 8-10 of Dei Verbum and Ratzinger'scommentary).29See note 25 above.

32 HORIZONSamong responsible biblical scholars and theologians. It is the modelinsistently proposed by the theological community to pastors as analternative to either ignoring the biblical data altogether or misusing it insuperficial proof-texting. There is no question about its theoretical andfunctional superiority to the first model. But there is some questionamong increasing numbers of biblical scholars about whether it is a fullyadequate model. 30Let us turn then to our third model for the use of biblical materialswhich I shall call, in the language of Vatican II, the "Bible as pure andperennial source of spiritual life" 31model or, more prosaically, thehermeneutical model. The contemporary philosophical discipline ofhermeneutics, which involves both a global theory of human understandingand a special theory of the understanding of texts, 32particularlyancient and classical texts, is beginning to influence the field ofbiblical studies. Indeed it is raising a certain challenge to the hegemonyand exclusivity of the exegetical model we have discussed. Again, let meinsist that the work of historical criticism remains and will alwaysremain an essential element in biblical research. The question is notwhether it should be done, but whether it is enough. Hermeneuticaltheory suggests that while it absolutely must be done it is definitely notenough and that rather than seeing historical criticism as the definingmethodology of biblical interpretation we should see it as one method(although not an optional one) along with others which should be usedin an interdisciplinary analysis of the text as one important step in theinterpretative process. (One almost hesitates to make this last point insome Roman Catholic circles lest the fundamentalistically inclined whohave never understood or accepted the essential role of historical criticismin biblical interpretation take it as license to bypass the seriouseffort to understand the text in its historical context. But the point has tobe made in learned circles because the time has come to incorporatehistorical critical methodology into a larger interpretive model.)The two major figures in the development of contemporary hermeneuticaltheory are Hans-Georg Gadamer, author of Truth andMethod, 33 and Paul Ricoeur, among whose most important works is his30Some influential contributions to this recent discussion are W. Wink, The Bible inHuman Transformation: Toward a New Paradigm for Biblical Study (Philadelphia: Fortress,1973) and P. Stuhlmacher, Historical Criticism and Theological interpretation ofScripture: Towards a Hermeneutics of Consent, tr. and introd. R. A. Harrisville (Philadelphia:Fortress, 1977). See also D. C. Steinmetz, "The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis,"Theology Today 37 (April 1980), 27-38.31See Dei Verbum 21.32Perhaps the clearest discussion of the plurality of meanings attached to the term"hermeneutics" and the relationships among them is R. E. Palmer, Hermeneutics: interpretationTheory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gadamer (Evanston, IL:Northwestern University Press, 1969), esp. pp. 3-71.ωΗ. G. Gadamer, Truth and Method (New York: Seabury, 1975).

Schneiders: From Exegesis to Hermeneutics 33Interpretation Theory. 34 Obviously, I cannot summarize in this paper themonumental work of these two thinkers, but I will extract a central ideafrom each in order to illustrate how the evolving hermeneutical modelwould affect our understanding of biblical scholarship and its relationshipto the pastoral work of the Church.A major contribution of Ricoeur is his masterful analysis of thenotion of "text." 35 He challenges our naïve conception that a text issimply "talk writ down," a dialogue fixed on paper. He maintains thatthe act of writing fundamentally alters the nature of the communicationand calls into play a different set of operations from those we use intrying to understand our partner in a conversation. Hermeneutics, saysRicoeur, begins when dialogue ends. 36 Now, exegesis as we described itin the second model is based on an unexamined assumption of theessential identity of text with talk, precisely the identity Ricoeur challenges.When a text is composed, says Ricoeur, several sea-changes occur.First, the text becomes semantically independent of the intention of itsauthor. 37 It now means whatever it actually says, not necessarily whatthe author intended to say. By way of analogy, if a student objects to thefailing grade I gave her on an exam by saying that I did not understandwhat she meant to say, my response can only be that I had to grade whatshe actually wrote, not what she meant. To write what she meant was hertask. Once the text was written her intention ceased to play a determiningrole. The meaning of the text is now independent of its author.Unlike the conversation partner who can continually re-express herthought until she makes herself understood, the author ceases to functiononce the text is completed.Secondly, a text is always composed within some form, such asnarrative, poetry, play, or the like. Literary genre is not simply a usefuldevice for classifying texts but is actually a code which shapes thematerial in a certain way and also determines in certain ways the interpretiveactivity of the reader. 38 In other words, a text is not astraightforward communication of factual data which the reader absorbsbut a strategy for involving the reader in a certain way and on severallevels with the subject matter of the text.Thirdly, a text once written is no longer determined by the understandingof the original audience. 39 It is now open to whoever can read itand different audiences will read it from within their own situations.34 P. Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning (FortWorth, TX: The Texas Christian University Press, 1976).35 Ibid., pp. 25-44.m Ibid., p. 32.37 Ibid., pp. 25-37.38 ibid., pp. 32-34.m Ibid., pp. 31-32.

34 HORIZONSTheir reading is no less valid than that of the original audience becausethe text, unlike talk, transcends its originating circumstances. Thistranscendence is, of course, not absolute. The reading of successiveaudiences cannot be completely contradictory to the reading of theoriginal audience and still be valid. But it can be different, richer or moreimpoverished. For example, later readers may be able to relate explicitlyto aspects of the text with which the original audience could not havedealt consciously, e.g., to psychological structures which were not articulateduntil a later time or to sociological processes not visible tothose involved in them. And, as we know, it is frequently the case thatwhat seems most significant to the contemporaries of a work of art is notwhat history proves to be most significant for later readers.Fourthly, once a text is written, its sense, i.e., what it says, is nolonger in a direct one-to-one relation to its reference, i.e., what it isabout. 40 The reference is freed from its situational limits and opens up awhole world of meaning. For example, the play Hamlet says thingsabout a Danish prince and his exploits, i.e., the sense of the text is thestory of Hamlet, a particular character and his particular adventures. Butthe text's reference, what it is really about, far transcends the doings ofthe Danish court. It is about the struggle between good and evil in thecontext of power and vengeance, about what life and death really signify.What the text is about, in other words, transcends what it says and iscontemporaneous with every reader involved in the existential complexitiesof the human situation.What Ricoeur's theory of the text suggests for biblical interpretationis that the ultimate question facing the scholar is not what the authorintended or what the text meant to its original audience or even what thetext factually says, but what the text as it now stands means to thecontemporary reader. Obviously, this is not arbitrary. The meaning iscontrolled by the text, and interpretation, to be valid, must submit to thatcontrol. This is one reason why historical and literary criticism areimportant in establishing the text, clarifying the genre, getting to the realmeaning of the words themselves in their own historical context, and soon. Nevertheless, a plurality of valid interpretations is not only possiblebut actually demanded by every great text 41 precisely because the readeris not a tabula rasa or an empty vessel but a participant with the text in40 Ibid., pp. 34-37.41 This openness to a plurality of interpretations is grounded in what Ricoeur calls "thesurplus of meaning. "Gadamer, in Truth and Method, p. 264, 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 formultiple interpretations is M. A. Tolbert's Perspectives on the Parables: An Approach toMultiple interpretations (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979). Her work is grounded in that ofN. Perrin, especially in his Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom; Symbol and Metaphorin New Testament Interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) which is explicitly indebtedto Ricoeur's theory.

Schneiders: From Exegesis to Hermeneutics 35the new event of meaning which reading constitutes. Like the musicianplaying Mozart or the actor playing Hamlet, the interpreter is "performingthe text" and the performance is satisfying, illuminating, and transformingto the extent that it is both faithful to the text and creativelyoriginal in execution. 42The aspect of Gadamer's thought which is most important for ourpresent discussion is his analysis of the act of understanding a text. 43Gadamer, unlike Ricoeur, regards the dialogue as an illuminatinganalogue for interpretation. 44 He maintains that in reading a text, as in areal conversation, the purpose is not simply to understand the other or toagree with the other but to come, with the other, to an understanding ofthe truth about the subject matter under discussion. 45 He critiques classicalnineteenth century historical criticism for refusing to engage thesubject matter of the biblical text at the level of its truth claims. Theromanticist historical critic, says Gadamer, stops short at the question,what does the text say? By isolating the text's content in its own historicalworld which is assumed to be a closed horizon of meaning completelyisolated from the horizon of the contemporary reader, the criticrefuses to really dialogue about the subject matter. 46Such a critic,Gadamer implies, is like the person who says to a conversation partner,"I understand what you are saying and can see why you think and feel asyou do" but who refuses to say whether he or she agrees with the speakeror not. The listener records what the other says but refuses to talk aboutthe subject matter. Thus, neither partner risks his or her position, i.e.,faces the challenge to change.For a real conversation, says Gadamer, and thus for a real interpretationof a text, the partner must indeed make every effort to understandwhat the other is saying but also enter into serious discussion aboutwhether what the other is saying is the truth about the subject matter ornot. This cannot be done without bringing into play what one thinksabout the subject, being unwilling either to simply give it up if itdisagrees with the text's position nor to nullify the text's position be-42This analogy with musical interpretation, which I first explored in "Faith, Hermeneutics,and the Literal Sense of Scripture," Theological Studies 39 (December 1978),719-36, occurred to me as 1 meditated on Gadamer's illuminating analysis of the play asclue to ontological explanation in Truth and Method, pp. 91-118. It has proven useful fordiscussing the tension between fidelity and originality in interpretation.43This is the burden of Part Π, section II of Truth and Method, pp. 235-341.44See Truth and Method, pp. 325-41. This difference between Ricoeur and Gadameron the subject of the dialogue as model for interpretation is not contradictory. Ricoeurregards dialogue from the standpoint of its character as event (which is superceded bywriting) in contrast to its meaning which survives transcription. Gadamer, however, isfocussing on the characteristic of dialogue as genuine engagement of a mutually interestingsubject-matter by two partners (which interpretation implies) as opposed to a purelyphenomenological description or reconstruction of what was said.45Gadamer, Truth and Method, pp. 262-64.^Ibid., pp. 267-70.

36 HORIZONScause it challenges one's own. The purpose of interpretation is to comecloser to the truth on the subject by letting the text challenge our preconceptionsand by questioning the text from our perspective so that ityields more, in the light of our shared tradition, than it could whenoriginally composed. 47Gadamer says that biblical hermeneutics is much like legal hermeneutics.48 One must know what the law says, but even more importantis figuring out how the law applies to the present case. Surely the framersof the American Declaration of Independence, in saying that "all men arecreated equal" understood "men" to mean adult, white, propertyholding,male colonists. But is that how we should understand thepreamble today? And if we are to understand "all men" today as meaningall human beings how can we justify this seeming departure from theintention of the authors ? Gadamer would reply that the act of interpretationinvolves first discerning the question behind the text. 49 What questionwere the founding fathers answering in the preamble? They wereanswering a question somewhat like this: "What really grounds ourclaims to political and personal self-determination?" Their answer wasthe divinely ordained natural equality of men as human beings. They didnot really think blacks or native Americans were fully human nor didthey attend to the humanity of women or children. When we addressourselves to the same question about what grounds the claim of peopleto self-determination we can affirm the insight of the founding fathersthat it is the divinely ordained equality of human beings. But we affirm itwithin our much expanded horizons of understanding of what thecategory "human" includes because history has led us to reflectexplicitly on the real humanity of blacks, native Americans, women,children, the poor, and foreigners. In other words, because we and thefounding fathers share a common tradition which leads us to be concernedwith the same great issues, we can discuss the question behindthe text in terms of the direction of the original answer. 50 But because ofour own historical situation we can also raise to the light new aspects ofthe question and extract an expanded meaning from the text which isboth faithful to the text and more adequate to the reality which both itand we are addressing.The same is true of our approach to biblical texts. To exegete a text inthe sense of establishing what the author said about an important issue isnot enough. We might, for example, establish that Paul forbade divorceamong the baptized. But is the real question behind the text, "Is divorceallowed?" or is the real question something about how the baptized areto manifest the great mystery of the union of Christ and the Church and47 Ibid., pp. 270-74.48 Ibid., pp. 289-305.49 Ibid., p. 333.50 Ibid., pp. 333-41.

Schneiders: From Exegesis to Hermeneutics 37respond to God's call of Christ's members to peace? 51 If we try to getbiblical texts to supply straightforward answers to modern questionsrather than trying to dialogue from the standpoint of our questions withthe text about its questions, we vitiate the hermeneutical process. Wemust engage the text's questions so as to illuminate our world with itsinsights and allow our new questions about the same subject matter toextract from the text the riches which are grounded in the author'sintention but which can only emerge in a later event of meaning.As Catholics we can recall that this approach is not entirely new.Patristic, and especially medieval exegesis with its interpretive theory ofthe plurality of levels of meaning in the text, were quite sensitive to thevery problem Gadamer raises. 52 However, the medievale did not have thesame scientific capacity to recover the original meaning of the text thatwe do. While we need tò reappropriate their sense of the nature of thebiblical text as many-leveled religious literature and their concern forthe truth claims of the inspired text we must also continue to wrestlewith the tension they did not experience between what the text meantand what the text means. An exclusively historical critical approach thatis one-sidedly concerned with the former is sterile. But an exclusive anduncritical concern with the latter will result in fundamentalism or uninformedpietism. The task of our own time is to appreciate and exploit thecreative possibilities of the tension between what the text meant andwhat the text means.In summary then, our third model, the hermeneutical model, isbased on a new understanding of the text as written work and a newunderstanding of the act of interpretation as a fusion of our own horizonwith that of the text on the basis of a shared tradition of concerns. Theultimate object of the biblical research, in other words, is precisely thecontemporary meaning of the text.HI. Implications of the Three Models for the Question ofPastoral Use of the Results of Biblical ResearchIn this final section I would like to suggest that the answers to thequestions of whether biblical research is a practical or speculative disciplineand whether biblical data is pastoral or theoretical is that it alldepends on what model of biblical interpretation one is using.If one is working within the proof-text model then biblical researchis eminently practical. Its task is to find texts to support either speculativetheological positions or pastoral prescriptions. The texts themselvesare presented as theoretical or practical depending on the context in51 See Donahue, "Divorce: New Testament Perspectives."52 See Steinmetz, "The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis." I am grateful to RaymondBrown whose helpful reflection on this section of the paper led me to formulate thisxParagraph.

38 HORIZONSwhich they are used. 53 Since I consider the proof-text model completelyinadequate, I will not take time to evaluate the quality of the researchwhich produces the "appropriate" texts nor the character of the texts inrelation to their theological or pastoral contexts.The historical-critical model of exegesis is, as I have said, the modelwithin which most reputable biblical scholars are presently working.Insofar as the researcher assigns him or herself the sole task of discoveringwhat the ancient author said and meant within his own historicalcontext the historical data discovered may be more theological or practicalin content depending on the context, but it has a predominantlytheoretical relationship to pastoral activity in the contemporary Church.In other words, the scholar is explicitly refusing to draw conclusionsfrom what the biblical author thought or said to what the contemporaryChurch should think or do. Now, obviously, if the results of biblicalresearch are to have any impact on contemporary faith and practice,someone has to work out the implications of the historical data for thepresent time. In fact, what tends to happen is that ecclesially-mindedexegetes who are theologically informed and pastorally sensitivesuggest areas in which their data might have a bearing 54 and theologiansgo to work to incorporate the data into speculative positions and syntheseswhile pastors try to apply the data to practical questions and situations.So far, this division of labor has not proven highly successfulalthough the speculative work of the theologians has been somewhatmore impressive than the practical performance of pastors. 55 In myopinion, the fundamental reason for the limited success of this model isthat biblical research which stops short at exegesis is truncated andtherefore does not produce a full and mature understanding of the text 56and theological interpretation which does not engage the text itself but atruncated report of the text's meaning is biblically stunted fromthe start.The pastoral problem is even greater because it is frequently involved ina naïve direct application to the present situation of material whose realapplication is to another time and culture. This often results in rigid,unnuanced moral positions which are strangely out of touch with contemporaryexperience precisely because nothing in the historical biblicaldata directly addresses the modern aspects of the issues whichactually gave rise to the problem at this point in time. 57M For example, Ex. 3:14 has been used as a proof-text for the theoretical assertion ofGod's aseity; 1 Cor. 11:3 has been used as a proof-text for the practical dispensation of thesubordination of women to men in marriage."This is what R. E. Brown does, for example, in Crises Facing the Church and in TheCommunity of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist, 1979)."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.^This is the point of Gadamer's treatment of application as essential to the work ofinterpretation.57 This is strikingly true of the documents mentioned in note 55.

Schneiders: From Exegesis to Hermeneutics 39The third model, the hermeneutical, offers some possibilities that anexclusively exegetical model does not. But it also places heavy demandsand responsibilities on the Catholic biblical scholar. In this model theinterpreter is not permitted to stop short with what the ancient authorsaid but must wrestle with the impact of what was said upon today'sfaith. The exegete, in other words, must become both spiritually maturebeliever and adequately trained theologian. 58 He or she must face theresponsibility of really interpreting the biblical text, not just decipheringan ancient document. But, to do this, the biblical scholar must not onlybe allowed the freedom to apply appropriate methods of research andreport neutral data, but also must be respected in the exercise of ecclesiallyresponsible theological and pastoral initiative within the commontradition. Biblical scholars, if they are to be prophetic servants of theWord in the Church and not just impassive academic valets bringing outthe dusty papers from the family archives, must become full partnerswith theologians and pastors in the exercise of the Church's teachingmission.Conversely, theologians must become sufficiently able in the biblicaldisciplines that they can enter into the process of interpretation of thebiblical scholars and not just pick up the latters' conclusions. Andpastors must learn to contribute to this collaborative project their ownexperience and concerns. They must learn to formulate the speculativequestions from a pastoral perspective and surface the practical implicationsof academic proposals without claiming to teach what they do notunderstand or substituting the exercise of official authority for the realauthority of learning and compassionate love. 59 In short, the teachingministry of the Church, it seems to me, must cease to be a fragmentedoperation of competing experts attempting to fence off their own sphereof influence, and become a cooperative service of fully and equallyparticipating members who strive to enhance and enlarge each other'scontribution while trying to improve the quality of their own. Such aministry would not only call the members of the Christian community tothe table of the Word, but prepare that table with the nourishment thatproduces mature sharers in the mission of preaching the Gospel to everycreature.58 1 have argued this position at length in a paper entitled, "Freedom: Response andResponsibility—The Vocation of the Biblical Scholar in the Church," which will bepublished in the forthcoming volume of the Proceedings of the Villanova TheologyInstitute, 1981.59 An excellent treatment of the relationship of knowledge to teaching and both toauthority in the Church can be found in B. Cooke, Ministry to Word and Sacraments(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), pp. 405-521, esp. pp. 513-20.

^ sCopyright and Use:As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journaltypically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or coveredby your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding thecopyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).About ATLAS:The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previouslypublished religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAScollection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.