What do you think?
Rate this book
The Interpretation of Scripture: In Defense of the Historical-Critical Method
The book seeks to establish the properly oriented use of the historical-critical method as the mode of ascertaining the sense of the written Word of God. Pastors, preachers, students in biblical disciplines, and scholars will appreciate the discussion of the role of the Bible in Catholic life since Vatican Council II, the discussion that the Biblical Commission devoted to the historical truth of the Gospels, the relation of the historical-critical method of interpreting Scripture to the life of the Church, and a serious discussion of the “senses” of Scripture. The book ends with a tribute to Raymond E. Brown, SS, as a renowned representative of biblical interpretation. Unique aspects of this collection of - Emphasis on the historical-critical method that is often impugned today - Recalling of a Scripture controversy in Rome because of this methodology - Importance of proper biblical interpretation in life of the Church †
- GenresBiblical Studies
168 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 2008
7 people are currently reading
16 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
March 2, 2025
A set of essays looking at issues around the (Catholic) Interpretation of the bible over the last fifty years.
The essays are all stand alone pieces, but their core themes overlap. Essentially the interpretation of the bible begins with clarifying the literal meaning of the text. That is sometimes expressed in terms of authorial intent, but at times it is understood more as a literary meaning, albeit one which is determined text by text, according to when where and how those texts were written.
Lurking in the background of many of the papers is a separate set of issues to do with a broader meaning which emerges from the bible as a whole. We see this particularly in the way New Testament texts will take Old Testament texts and talk of Jesus fulfilling them.
That style of infra-biblical interpretation raises a question. Are we to think that Isaiah, Hosea and other Old Testament writers deliberately intended to refer to Jesus, especially when those Christological quotes crop up in the middle of Old Testament passages which can otherwise be interpreted as applying to their own day? Or are we to say that there is some kind of holistic meaning which exists across the breadth of the bible, ie across the many authors who did not know each other, and who wrote at very different times and with very different perspectives?
The author notes that that broader holistic reading of the bible is sometimes called a ‘spiritual sense’ of the text. But he takes issue with that phrase, calling it ‘weasel words’ (Chp.6) as the phrase is used in so many different ways and as it is trotted out to explain a mode of infra-biblical interpretation, without actually explaining anything at all.
If there is a holistic meaning of the bible, then clearly it cannot be one intended by the specific authors of specific parts of the text, as they wrote independently of each other. It is all very well to say that God, the divine author put the meaning there, but if God’s inspiration is supposed to work with intentional human agents, how can it have put a holistic meaning in the text which the human authors could not even be aware of and so they could not have intended it? That sounds like saying that there is an intended non-intentional content to the text. And that raises questions of coherence.
One of the disappointments with this book is that the heart of this problem of meaning is a philosophical one. It is partly a question about the meaning of meaning, but it also a question about inspiration, and what it means to talk of a God inspiring human authors. Yet there is absolutely no discussion of inspiration in the book.
This shows the limitations of trying to theologise in silos. Problems of inspiration and meaning are of course biblical questions, but they are not purely biblical questions. They go beyond what a biblical scholar might have to say about the biblical text, and so it would have made sense for the author to collaborate with someone who could provide those additional philosophical inputs, and thus attempt to address the problem of 'meaning' which is at the heart of the book.
Instead, what we get are some interesting essays about biblical interpretation, but they skim the surface of the problem and never actually try to solve it. That was a bit disappointing, and it began to be a bit frustrating when the issue kept recurring in different essays.
Textually, this was a well-produced book with copiously end-noted essays. Around a quarter of the book is notes, so there is a lot of follow up and reference material.
Overall, this is a very readable set of essays which explore some important ideas. The fact that the essays are stand-alone pieces means that they can be read in any order, and readers can dip in to pieces as they wish. The essays are interesting and thought provoking as far as they go, I just wish they had gone a little further and offered more towards a solution of the problem of textual meaning which lies at the heart of biblical interpretation.
The essays are all stand alone pieces, but their core themes overlap. Essentially the interpretation of the bible begins with clarifying the literal meaning of the text. That is sometimes expressed in terms of authorial intent, but at times it is understood more as a literary meaning, albeit one which is determined text by text, according to when where and how those texts were written.
Lurking in the background of many of the papers is a separate set of issues to do with a broader meaning which emerges from the bible as a whole. We see this particularly in the way New Testament texts will take Old Testament texts and talk of Jesus fulfilling them.
That style of infra-biblical interpretation raises a question. Are we to think that Isaiah, Hosea and other Old Testament writers deliberately intended to refer to Jesus, especially when those Christological quotes crop up in the middle of Old Testament passages which can otherwise be interpreted as applying to their own day? Or are we to say that there is some kind of holistic meaning which exists across the breadth of the bible, ie across the many authors who did not know each other, and who wrote at very different times and with very different perspectives?
The author notes that that broader holistic reading of the bible is sometimes called a ‘spiritual sense’ of the text. But he takes issue with that phrase, calling it ‘weasel words’ (Chp.6) as the phrase is used in so many different ways and as it is trotted out to explain a mode of infra-biblical interpretation, without actually explaining anything at all.
If there is a holistic meaning of the bible, then clearly it cannot be one intended by the specific authors of specific parts of the text, as they wrote independently of each other. It is all very well to say that God, the divine author put the meaning there, but if God’s inspiration is supposed to work with intentional human agents, how can it have put a holistic meaning in the text which the human authors could not even be aware of and so they could not have intended it? That sounds like saying that there is an intended non-intentional content to the text. And that raises questions of coherence.
One of the disappointments with this book is that the heart of this problem of meaning is a philosophical one. It is partly a question about the meaning of meaning, but it also a question about inspiration, and what it means to talk of a God inspiring human authors. Yet there is absolutely no discussion of inspiration in the book.
This shows the limitations of trying to theologise in silos. Problems of inspiration and meaning are of course biblical questions, but they are not purely biblical questions. They go beyond what a biblical scholar might have to say about the biblical text, and so it would have made sense for the author to collaborate with someone who could provide those additional philosophical inputs, and thus attempt to address the problem of 'meaning' which is at the heart of the book.
Instead, what we get are some interesting essays about biblical interpretation, but they skim the surface of the problem and never actually try to solve it. That was a bit disappointing, and it began to be a bit frustrating when the issue kept recurring in different essays.
Textually, this was a well-produced book with copiously end-noted essays. Around a quarter of the book is notes, so there is a lot of follow up and reference material.
Overall, this is a very readable set of essays which explore some important ideas. The fact that the essays are stand-alone pieces means that they can be read in any order, and readers can dip in to pieces as they wish. The essays are interesting and thought provoking as far as they go, I just wish they had gone a little further and offered more towards a solution of the problem of textual meaning which lies at the heart of biblical interpretation.
November 5, 2022
A good collection of essays—essays 4, 5, and 6 stand far above the rest and are tremendously helpful. The concluding piece on the legacy of Raymond Brown is also good. My esteem for the Roman Catholic tradition of biblical scholarship is greatly increased after reading this book and it helps situate that tradition in light of Vatican II and the subsequent decades.
August 8, 2021
A worthy compilation of Fitzmyer's essays on subjects relating to the interpretation of Scripture, particularly as it relates to the historical-critical method. This objective is to defend it for the upcoming generation. Did he intuit the rise of fundamentalism in Catholic circles, or had he already seen evidence of it? Either way, he was unfortunately correct in his assumption, which only adds to the timeliness of this book.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews