Learning to read with the Pope

Initial comment on reading the Pope:

I was raised in a non-denominational, charismatic, evangelical, church tradition. As such, I have read and heard very little from the Pope. Yet, as I sit and read a recent publication of his, Jesus of Nazareth, I am already finding that I have invested a certain degree of authority in his words. He speaks from a tradition that carries weight, and it is a weight that I am glad to feel. Too often it feels as if an author writes without considering the weight of words. When reading the Pope I get a sense that the  author himself acknowledges the weight of  his words, and that his readers recognise this weight as they read. It just seems to add significance to the entire dialogue.

In the forward of the book the Pope sets the stage for his depiction of Jesus of Nazareth by delineating the methods of exegesis that he feels are necessary for theology. Forgive my ignorance, but I found it encouraging to realize that the Pope is well read, thoughtful, and sharp. I don’t know what I expected, but as I said, my upbringing hasn’t really created a realistic presentation of him or his position.

These are just notes from the forward of the book Jesus of Nazareth, a book published in 2007. The forward mainly deals with the way that the Pope reads and understands the Bible, the book mainly deals with the way that the Pope reads and understands the Gospels and the person of Jesus Christ.

 

The Pope and the ‘historical-critical’ method:

First he describes the historical-critical method of Biblical exegesis that has dominated modern biblical scholarship as being an ‘indispensable tool’, nevertheless, it is also a tool that also has limits. He comes about this rather simply, yet with profundity, saying that historical criticism cannot be done away with because “it is of the very essence of biblical faith to be about real historical events… It does not tell stories symbolizing supra-historical truths, but is based in history, history that took place here on this earth.” (2007: xv). The claim that God actually enters history is foundational for everything else which we might speak of. It is with this foundation that we can recognise the important role historical-critical methods of exegesis have played, and continue to play, in the work of theology.

The limits of this method, according to the Pope, are the same as its strength. That it is a historical work which deals with constructing an account of the past means it is not immediately conducive to present day application. He says it this way, “for someone who considers himself directly addressed by the Bible today, the method’s first limit is that by its very nature it has to leave the biblical world in the past” (2007: xvi). To consider oneself as being directly addressed by the Bible today is a thing in and of itself. Vigilance in guarding ourselves from seeing this old collection of books and writings as merely historical documents is a discipline. This is where historical-critical methods are both helpful and unhelpful. Helpful, because it is important to know the past, the origin, the context, and the culture of the readers and writers of the books. Unhelpful because the Bible is more than that, it is also God’s word speaking presently.

Secondly, he points to the practice of separating individual books out of the canon for individual study, a practice which cannot readily recognize the final destination of each piece, the Bible itself. Again, this means that they are primarily read in their past context, not their present context.

The strength, and limits of this method push the exegete to compliment the historical-critical method. A ‘push’ which the Pope sees as being inherent in the method itself. He states that “the inner nature of the method points beyond itself and contains within itself an openness to complementary methods” (2007: xviii).

 

Complementary Methods: Canonical exegesis and the community

This leads to another method which the Pope finds necessary to exegesis: the project of ‘canonical exegesis’. A project which works towards establishing the present context of the words of Scripture.

This is a practice which begins from the unity of Scripture. A unity which the Pope believes has arisen out of the texts as they mingle with experience and life of the communities and suffering. It is not something forced on a group of previously disjointed texts. “This process is certainly not linear, and it is often dramatic, but then you watch it unfold in light of Jesus Christ, you can see it moving in a single overall direction; you can see that the Old and New Testaments belong together” (2007: xix). It is a practice of reading the Bible from the starting point of unity – as if they were all part of one overarching narrative. Allowing the other parts of the story which they are a part of to interpret and shape the meaning of each of the individual pieces.

Finally, the Pope discusses the role of the interpretive community. Again, emphasizing the present context of the Scripture.

He holds it to be true that the authors themselves never arose from a private self-contained sphere, rather that the author “speaks in a living community, that is to say, in a living historical movement not created by him, nor even by the collective, but which is led forward by a greater power that is at work” (2007: xx). Thus, the Scripture must also be held to be a word which has emerged from a living subject – the pilgrim people of God – and lives within this same subject. Therefore reading the Scripture always involves interacting subjects (2007: xx).

Here the Pope makes a significant move, saying that “the People of God – the church – is the living subject of Scripture; it is in the Church that the words of the Bible are always in the present… This also means, of course, that the People has to receive its very self from God, ultimately from the incarnate Christ; it has to let itself be ordered, guided, and led by him” (2007: xxi).

From this it is clear that the Pope invests heavily in the authority of the Scriptures, while simultaneously being sure that the interdependence is established between the text and the readers. The interaction is crucial – for it is out of interaction that the Scriptures have come and it is in interaction that they continue to form and shape the people of God.

 

The Pope and his foundations for exegesis:

This places the Pope in a position where he can speak of Jesus with conviction, first established by faith, but deepened and enlightened by historical and critical study. He does not counter modern exegesis, instead he says that “it has opened up to us a wealth of material and an abundance of findings that enable the figure of Jesus to become present to us with a vitality and depth that we could not have imagined even just a few decades ago” (2007: xxiii). It is with this perspective then, that he writes this book which is to him a matter of personal searching.

As I said before, I appreciated the way he deals with the various methods of interpretation. I think that he has a healthy and resolute understanding of Scripture, and he does a good job showing how he has learned to glean the fruit that the various theological schools and movements have borne. What he says about ensuring that the Bible is understood as words speaking ‘presently’ is particularly challenging. That the Bible speaks of God’s presence in the world is a foundational claim that allows for the kind of searching and prodding of it’s words that leads the church into deeper fidelity with God himself. Fidelity, which the Pope claims, is no less than salvation for humanity.

 

Advertisement