Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2024
This article examines the retrieval of patristic exegesis in two major figure in Catholic Ressourcement theology: Henri de Lubac and Yves Congar. Henri de Lubac's driving concern in his biblical writings is not so much to chronicle the history of interpretation as it is to explicate the great theological synthesis, which underlies the doctrine of the fourfold sense of Scripture. For de Lubac, this synthesis, wherein the totality of Christian doctrine and practice is centered in Christ and grounded in the reading of Scripture, is an essential component of Christianity. De Lubac encourages the integration of this theological vision with modern biblical studies, but he does not offer much as to what such an integration might look like in practice. Congar, building upon de Lubac's work, goes beyond de Lubac in making concrete efforts to integrate some of the theory and practice of patristic interpretation with modern exegesis. Important here is Congar's notion of “typological tradition” whereby the divine mystery concealed and revealed in the realities presented by the biblical text, unfold in the tradition, doctrine, and practice of the Church.
1 Lubac, Henri de, Medieval Exegesis: The Four Senses of Scripture, trans. Sebanc, Mark and Macierowski, E. M., 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998–2009), vol. 2, p. 262Google Scholar.
2 This is aptly argued in Hughes, Kevin L., “The ‘Fourfold Sense’: De Lubac, Blondel, and Contemporary Theology,” Heythrop Journal 42 (2001), pp. 456–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also de Lubac, Medieval Exegesis, vol. 1, p. xiv; ibid., “Doctrine of the ‘Fourfold Sense’ in Scripture,” in Theological Fragments, trans. Balinski, Rebecca Howell (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989), p. 119Google Scholar; D'Ambrosio, Marcellino, “Henri de Lubac and the Critique of Scientific Exegesis,” Communio 19 (1992), pp. 373–376Google Scholar.
3 Lubac, Henri de, History and Spirit: The Understanding of Scripture According to Origen, trans. Nash, Anne Englund and Merriell, Juvenal (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2007), p. 431Google Scholar.
4 See Wright, William M. IV, “The Literal Sense of Scripture according to Henri de Lubac: Insights from Patristic Exegesis of the Transfiguration,” Modern Theology 28 (2012), pp. 252–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 Ibid., p. 262.
6 Because God has revealed himself and acted in history, de Lubac (Medieval Exegesis, vol. 2, p. 44) writes, “it will never be possible to forget history, nor to put it into question again, nor to free oneself of it or spurn it. One must endeavor to receive and preserve its testimony.”
7 De Lubac, “Doctrine of the ‘Fourfold Sense’,” p. 114.
8 De Lubac, Medieval Exegesis, vol. 2, p. 43.
9 De Lubac here builds upon the critique of historicist positivism and its confusing of “critical history” (that which can be known by critical historical method) and “real history” (past human realities in all their fullness) offered by Maurice Blondel in his “History and Dogma. See Blondel, Maurice, The Letter on Apologetics & History and Dogma, trans. Dru, Alexander and Trethowan, Illtyd (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), pp. 236–239Google Scholar. Cf. D'Ambrosio, “Critique of Scientific Exegesis,” pp. 375–376.
10 Lubac, Henri de, Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man, trans. Sheppard, Lancelot C. and Englund, Sister Elizabeth O.C.D., (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), p. 165Google Scholar.
11 See Boersma, Hans, Nouvelle Théologie and Sacramental Ontology: A Return to Mystery (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), pp. 154–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
12 De Lubac, Catholicism, p. 169.
13 De Lubac, Medieval Exegesis, vol. 2, p. 86.
14 Ibid.
15 Francis Martin, “Election, Covenant, and Law,” Nova et Vetera, English edition 4 (2006): 867. Boersma (Nouvelle Théologie, p. 151) similarly writes that for de Lubac, “the spiritual meaning constituted a deeper dimension of reality, one that was contained within the historical event conveyed by Scripture”
16 De Lubac, Medieval Exegesis, vol. 2, p. 139.
17 Ibid., p. 202.
18 De Lubac (“Doctrine of the ‘Fourfold Sense’,” 124) writes, “Does this mean what we would propose returning to it as a guide for today's exegesis and theology? No one would seriously dream of that. Little by little, its sap has dried up. … [But] Preserving or rediscovering its spirit is not the same thing as literally reestablishing it.” Cf. Ibid., Medieval Exegesis, vol. 1, p. xix–xxi.
19 Ibid., History and Spirit, pp. 491–495, quotation from p. 492.
20 Congar, Yves M.-J. O.P., Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and Theological Essay, trans. Naseby, Michael and Rainborough, Thomas (London: Burns & Oates, 1911 [1960, 1963])Google Scholar.
21 Ibid., p. 399.
22 Ibid., p. 399.
23 Congar, Yves O.P., The Revelation of God, trans. Manson, A. and Sheppard, L. C. (New York: Herder and Herder, 1968 [1962]), p. 6Google Scholar; ibid., Tradition and Traditions, pp. 403–406; ibid., “Sur la valeur sacramentelle de la Parole,” La Vie spirituelle 135 (1981), pp. 379–389.
24 Congar, Tradition and Traditions, p. 281 n.2. Cf. de Lubac, History and Spirit, pp. 385–426.
25 Congar, Tradition and Traditions, p. 281.
26 Ibid., pp. 404–405; Congar, Yves O.P., The Meaning of Tradition, trans. Woodrow, A. N. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004 [1964]), p. 91Google Scholar.
27 Congar, Tradition and Traditions, p. 404.
28 Congar (Tradition and Traditions, p. 280) so defines the res tantum: “it gives knowledge and produces an effect.”
29 Ibid., pp. 387–389, 405–406.
30 Congar, Tradition and Traditions, p. 69.
31 Ibid., p. 69 n. 1.
32 Ibid., p. 75.
33 For Congar (Tradition and Traditions, 69), typological exegesis “consists in drawing out the relation between the various realities involved in the history of salvation of the unveiling and accomplishment of the plan of God.” Responding to Jean Daniélou, de Lubac criticized the legitimacy of the categorical distinction between typology and allegory as two fundamentally different ways of reading Scripture in a more-than-literal way. See Henri de Lubac, “Typology and Allegorization,” in Theological Fragments, pp. 129–164; Boersma, Nouvelle Théologie, pp. 180–190; Martens, Peter W., “Revisiting the Allegory/Typology Distinction: The Case of Origen,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 16 (2008), pp. 283–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar .
34 O'Keefe and Reno likewise stress the importance of the divine economy for patristic, more-than-literal exegesis in O'Keefe, John J. and Reno, R. R., Sanctified Vision: An Introduction to Early Christian Interpretation of the Bible (Baltmore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005), 107–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
35 Congar, Tradition and Traditions, pp. 75–77.
36 Ibid., p. 75.
37 Ibid., p. 76.
38 Congar, Yves M.-J. O.P., The Mystery of the Temple, or The Manner of God's Presence to His Creatures from Genesis to the Apocalypse, trans. Trevett, Reginald F., (London: Burns & Oates, Ltd., 1962 [1958]), 254–261Google Scholar. Congar's The Mystery of the Temple, which, although published prior to Tradition and Traditions, nevertheless reflects may of the programmatic claims, which Congar makes in the later work.
39 Congar, Mystery of the Temple, p. 256. See Brown, Raymond E. S.S., The Birth of the Messiah, New Updated Edition (New York: Doubleday, 1993 [1977]), pp. 327–328, 344–345Google Scholar.
40 Congar, Mystery of the Temple, p. 257 n. 9, referencing Laurentin, René, Structure et Théologie de Luc, I–II (Paris: 1957), p. 27 n.8Google Scholar.
41 Fitzmyer likewise notes these similarities between Mary and the Ark but seems to think them too subtle to be intended psychologically by Luke. See Fitzmyer, Joseph A. S.J., The Gospel according to Luke, 2 vols., Anchor Bible 28–28A (New York: Doubleday, 1970–1985), vol. 1, p. 364CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For more developed argumentation against an intended link with 2 Sam 6, see Brown, Birth of the Messiah, pp. 344–345.
42 See Rowe, C. Kavin, Early Narrative Christology: The Lord in the Gospel of Luke (Berlin and Grand Rapids: Walter de Gruyter and Baker Academic, 2006), pp. 31–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
43 See McKenzie, John L. S.J., “A Chapter in the History of Spiritual Exegesis: De Lubac's Histoire et Espirit,” Theological Studies 12 (1951), pp. 365–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fitzmyer, Joseph A. S.J., Scripture: The Soul of Theology (Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1994), pp. 59, 91 n. 70Google Scholar; Ibid., The Interpretation of Scripture: In Defense of the Historical-Critical Method (Mahwah: Paulist, 2008), pp. 91–96.
44 Compare Dei Verbum §12 with Congar's essay “The Bible and the Word of God” in his Revelation of God, pp. 16–33.
45 See Ratzinger, Joseph/Benedict, Pope XVI, Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration, trans. Walker, Adrian J. (New York: Doubleday, 2007), pp. xv–xxivGoogle Scholar; Ibid., Jesus of Nazareth Part Two: Holy Week—From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration, trans. Whitmore, Philip J. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2011), pp. xiv–xvii1Google Scholar. For secondary discussion, see Wright, William M. IV, “A ‘New Synthesis”: Joseph Ratzinger's Jesus of Nazareth,” Nova et Vetera, English edition 7 (2009), pp. 37–45Google Scholar; ibid., “Patristic Biblical Hermeneutics in Joseph Ratzinger's Jesus of Nazareth,” Letter and Spirit 7 (2012), pp. 193–209Google Scholar.
46 See Benedict XVI, Verbum Domini §86–87.
