Kurz, William

English

epublications@Marquette

Marquette Universitye-Publications@MarquetteTheology Faculty Research and Publications Theology, Department of3-1-2003Review of "Catholic Principles for InterpretingScripture: A Study of the Pontifical BiblicalCommission’s 'The Interpretation of the Bible inthe Church'" by Peter S. WilliamsonWilliam KurzMarquette University, william.kurz@marquette.eduPublished version. Theological Studies, Vol. 64, no. 1 (March 2003): 155-157. Permalink. © 2001Theological Studies, Inc. Used with permission.Phrygian cult marked by Rosalienfest of roses and wreaths placed at aco-worshiper’s grave by night—disapproved in 1 Thessalonians 5:7 (114–128).A major warning is 1 Thessalonians 2:3–6.13 against “sophists and char-latans” (148, Goe¨ten) who beg a living by flattery, as in Lucian’s satire—unlike Paul’s self-support by manual labor. Allusion to “holding out againstsymphyle´tai, persecutors like their Judean coreligionist victims of the Jews”(1 Thess. 2:14), is no parallel to Acts 17:5, as is shown by a lengthy analysisof the four local phylae to which Paul’s converts had belonged (153–65).Also criticized in 1 Thessalonians 5:3 are political slogans like “Peace andsecurity!” (174).Canonical 2 Thessalonians is nowhere mentioned in the index or per-ceptibly elsewhere, though perhaps “the Thes.-letter” is a lapsus (167). Thistacit cry is doubtless justified by concern only with the city known to Paul’svisit around 50 A.D. (141). But an explanation would not have been amiss,since secular data around 200 are freely cited (77–85, examples). Recentlyclaimed deutero-Pauline authorship (from around 50 to 100) is irrelevantinsofar as a quasi-secretary or “pious forger” would have sought factuallyto gain credibility.B.’s final chapter, entitled “Lukas,” is dominated by the Via Egnatia,with a lucid map and king-size facsimile of the 260th milestone (post-150A.D.) near Thessalonica, warrant of the Via’s creation by the proconsulGnaeus Egnatius (145–120 B.C.) (189, 191). Yet the Via is not relatedexplicitly to Paul in Acts 17:1 (191). Acts 17:10 on Paul’s nocturnal flight toBeroea by land would involve a turnoff south from Egnatia near Thessa-lonica (203 map; 269); the audacious view of A. Suhl that Paul really tookEgnatia all the way to (a western) Apollonia on the Illyrian gulf and thenturned southwest to Athens (199) leaves Beroea hanging (205).The final inquiries concern the possible relation of Thessalonian Jews tothe famed theo`s hy´psistos inscription (220) and Paul as house guest ofJason, involved with him in attacks on the “Jesus trouble-makers” (1 Thess.17:7). The second Anhang on the night flight (204, 269) might well havebeen replaced by a final summation in which the book’s data judged mostnew and useful could have been interrelated. There is, however, a bibli-ography of 350 current authors, plus 80 Greek titles and inscriptional/ancient materials and indexes.Marquette University, Milwaukee (retired) ROBERT NORTH, S.J.CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES FOR INTERPRETING SCRIPTURE: A STUDY OF THEPONTIFICAL BIBLICAL COMMISSION’S THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE INTHE CHURCH. By Peter S. Williamson. Preface by Albert Vanhoye, S.J.Subsidia Biblica, 22. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico / Chicago: Loyola,2001. Pp. xvii + 400. Paper. $28.Williamson’s book will probably be controversial but needed. He per-sistently emphasizes the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s (PBC) recom-155BOOK REVIEWSmendation that Catholic biblicists add spiritual and pastoral interpretationand application to their exegetical tasks. His frequent complaints abouthistorical-criticism’s failures to meet the needs of Catholics will surelyupset many Catholic exegetes. Yet his principles seem adequatelygrounded in the PBC’s text, even if he is more vocal than the PBC con-cerning both their reservations regarding historical-critical methods andtheir reaffirmation of Dei Verbum’s commissioning Catholic biblicists toadd spiritual interpretation to literal exegesis.Whether or not the PBC envisaged it, an attempt like W.’s to extractfrom their document “principles of Catholic interpretation”—which W.defines as “the presuppositions and procedures appropriate to interpretingScripture in the life of the Catholic Church” (3, his emphasis)—is timely anddesirable. However, because so many Catholic exegetes have striven solong to be accepted within the exegetical mainstream, this focus on anexplicitly Catholic interpretation is likely to jar some sensitivities. Never-theless, after wrestling with the issues W. raises, I judge his effort to be anurgent pastoral necessity in view not only of communication failures be-tween Catholic exegesis and pastoral catechesis but also of the manyCatholics leaving the Church because “they are not being fed” with Bibleteaching as rival congregations are.At the very least, W.’s book provides a competent initial articulation ofa desirable characteristic for contemporary Catholic exegesis. It is not onlythe first book-length analysis of the PBC’s The Interpretation of the Biblein the Church (IBC, 1994), but a proficient one. Its thesis, principles, andarguments complement some concerns and proposals raised by LukeTimothy Johnson and myself in The Future of Catholic Biblical Scholar-ship: A Constructive Conversation (2002)—which might prove no less con-troversial, although the two books are different in scope and approach.Following the introductory material, W.’s book has 20 chapters, one foreach of his principles, which he divides into six groups: (1) his foundationalprinciple, that Scripture is “the word of God expressed in human language”(7); (2) Scripture’s “human language” and its scholarly interpretation (7);(3) relating the interpretation of Scripture as “the word of God” to Chris-tian faith (7–8); (4) the senses of Scripture, typology, and “fuller sense”; (5)principles for human exegetical methods and approaches; and (6) prin-ciples for biblical interpretation in the life of the Church (8). W. aims tofacilitate both lay and professional Catholics’ finding in Scripture God’smessage (10).W.’s conclusion recommends further discussion in four areas: the dualnature of Scripture as divine and human; the meaning of biblical theologyfor the Church; problems of biblical historicity and consequent scandals tothe “little ones”; and the relationship of Catholic exegesis to the secularacademy with its very different presuppositions (331–32). He also liststhree challenges that require clarification from Catholic biblicists: prin-ciples of Catholic interpretation; Catholic exegesis as a theological disci-pline in service of faith (he refers to a growing generation gap among156 THEOLOGICAL STUDIESexegetes on this issue, and the need for a different training of exegetes,335–36); and how to make Scripture spiritually nourishing.Countering claims of some Catholic exegetes, the book tellingly critiquesthe tenet that historical criticism is neutral, especially in view of its anti-dogmatic and rationalist origins and purposes. W. also makes a defensiblecase that the historical criticism recommended so strongly in the IBC is asanitized version, filtered from presuppositions incompatible with faith(328–29). Even if some Catholic exegetes, such as those on the PBC, usehistorical criticism without harmful effects, many other contemporary prac-titioners continue to exploit presuppositions detrimental to the faith ofordinary Catholics (154–56). W.’s concern for “the little ones” vs. the mind-set of professionals (“scribes”) helps explain several tensions between W.and some other Catholic exegetes.Overall, W. deals competently with many diverse issues in Catholic in-terpretation of Scripture (from historicism, to preunderstanding of faith, toliteral and spiritual senses). Even his controverted positions invite a Catho-lic approach to biblical interpretation more attuned to the needs of ordi-nary Catholics (with analogous promise for other Christians). This read-able book is important not only for exegetes but for all who are concernedthat biblical interpretation more directly address the lives of contemporarybelievers.Marquette University, Milwaukee WILLIAM S. KURZ, S.J.THEOLOGEN DER CHRISTLICHEN ANTIKE: EINE EINFU¨HRUNG. Edited byWilhelm Geerlings. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2002.Pp. 226. €29.90.This introduction to the major thinkers of the early Church gatherstogether twelve essays by Germany’s leading patristic scholars. Each entrybegins with a helpful biography, treats the major themes of each theolo-gian, and concludes with very useful bibliographical information. WilhelmGeerlings (University of Ruhr, Bochum) opens by tracing the various un-derstandings of theology, with a special emphasis on the major differencesbetween East and West, during Christianity’s first five centuries.In “Theology as Law” Eva Schulz-Flu¨gel (Eberhard-Karls University,Tu¨bingen) presents Tertullian’s theological approach as the continuationof Paul’s understanding of faith as skandalon: Christian theology must notrely on human reason but on the regula veritatis (the essential content offaith). Examples of this reliance on the Church’s nascent tradition are givenin Tertullian’s explication of the Trinity, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. In “ATheology of Episcopal Authority,” Andreas Hoffmann (University of Lu¨-dinghausen) treats Cyprian as one whose thinking is derived more from theimportance of ecclesial unity than from theological principles. Hoffmannclearly explains both how Cyprian’s ecclesiology allowed him to leave hisdiocese during times of persecution and the schism between Carthage and157BOOK REVIEWS

Review of  Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture: A Study of the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s \u27The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church\u27  by Peter S. Williamson

https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1137&amp;context=theo_fac

Review of Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture: A Study of the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s \u27The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church\u27 by Peter S. Williamson

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

epublications@Marquette