Synod of Bishops : Historical-critical method of studying the Bible not enough

The Catholic bible scholarship of the past 40 years have been mostly using the historical-critical method that involves studying the biblical texts in its various stages of development (oral tradition to final redaction). The focus was mainly on the text as read in its historical context; what the author meant and how the original or early readers understood it.

The Synod bishops have observed that this has relegated the Bible to an ancient text relevant to the past and not linked to the present readers’ life situations. The bishops’ reactions are summarized in the following:

The historical-critical method is valuable, but it's not enough. It has to be integrated into the broader theological reflection of the church, which implies that theologians and exegetes need to work and play well together.  

The devil, however, is in the details. Some in the synod clearly strike a more positive tone with regard to academic study of the Bible, using the essentially secular tools of historical research and literary criticism, than others. Bishop Levada characterized the contrast: "Some have criticized the historical-critical method, on the grounds that it's difficult to overcome the philosophical suppositions which formed its basis for many of the method's original followers," he said. "Others see it as a useful tool for coming to a better understanding of the literal and historical sense of scripture."  

In his lone talk to the synod so far, Pope Benedict XVI touched on precisely this point, essentially arguing that scholars using the historical-critical method need to take the faith of the church as their point of departure.  

On this point, two challenges present themselves.  

First, the proper balanced has to be struck in the synod's concluding documents. If there's too much criticism of exegetes and the historical-critical method, Catholic Biblical scholars may feel under attack, or that the clock is being rolled back on tools they now take for granted. If the language is too soft, however, then the clear desire for a more "theological" reading of scripture could get lost in the mush.  

Second, there's the practical question of how, exactly, to put theologians and exegetes into deeper conversation, especially given the hyper-compartmentalized nature of academic life these days. This may well be the point upon which much drama turns -- will the synod restrict itself to a fervorino about the relationship between exegesis and theology, simply echoing the basic points made by Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday, or will it actually offer concrete suggestions for fostering closer links among Biblical specialists, theologians, and pastors?  

Basilian Fr. Thomas Rosica, a Canadian who's handling press briefings for the synod in English, and who is also a biblical scholar himself, offered a memorable metaphor for what's at stake.  

"Most of us were trained as surgeons," he said on Thursday, by which he meant that exegetes learn to make very precise cuts on the Biblical text -- determining what the exact meaning of a given verb form is, for example, detailing the social contexts of the Johannine and Lucan communities.  

"What we sometimes forgot is that we're operating on a living body, not a corpse," Rosica said. "We're supposed to be heart surgeons, not coroners. Success is defined by whether the body survives the surgery."