De Lubac - Medieval Exegesis

Front 1

de Lubac (who)

Back 1

Henri-Marie de Lubac, SJ (February 20, 1896 – September 4, 1991) was a French Jesuit priest who became a Cardinal of the Catholic Church, and is considered to be one of the most influential theologians of the 20th century. His writings and doctrinal research played a key role in the shaping of the Second Vatican Council.

Studied:
Society of Jesus in 1913
Canterbury and St. Helier (England) 1920
Lyons 1926

Professor:
Fundamental theology, Catholic University of Lyons, 1929-1961

Teacher of Jean Daniélou and Hans Urs von Balthasar

Removed from professorship (along with other new theology theologians) from 1950-1958 b/c of his views on supernaturalism and grace. Pope Pius XII's Humani generis to look into the matter, which allowed de Lubac the opportunity to return to teaching. Link to Humani generis: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Peritus (theological expert) of Vatican II.

Friend and defender of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

Only cardinal after 1962 to become a cardinal and not a bishop first.

Ignatius Press Link: http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/authors/henridelubac.asp

Front 2

de Lubac (major works)

Back 2

-Catholicism: Christ and Common Destiny of Man, 1938
-Supernatual: Historical Studies
-Other works on Buddhism, atheism, etc.
-Co-founded series, Sources Chrétiennes (co-edited with Jean Daniélou (revived interest in early church interpretation of Scripture)
-Medieval Exegesis, 1959-1965 (revived interest in spiritual exegesis of Scripture)
-Co-founder, Communio (theological journal), 1972

Front 3

de Lubac (nouvelle théolgia)

Back 3

nouvelle théologie school returned to patristic writings ("ressourcement" = return to the sources) to purify the church through purer expression and teaching. Along with this, the movement adopted a systemic openness to dialogue with the contemporary world on issues of theology. They developed also a renewed interest in biblical exegesis, typology, art, literature and mysticism.

Participants included: Daniélou, Y. Congar, de Lubac, Chenu, Bouyer, and in association, Urs von Balthasar.

Front 4

de Luback (Medieval Exegesis part of the Ressourcement Series)

Back 4

This series aimed at:
1. return to classical (patristic and medieval sources)
2. renewal of Aquinas's interpretations
3. dialogue with 20th century thinkers with particular attention to the Enlightenment, liberalism, and modernity.

Front 5

de Lubac (agenda)

Back 5

Defense of spiritual interpretation of the Bible. "Spiritual exegesis is the interpretation of the Old Testament in light of Christ and the New Testament" (ix). Thus, primary focus on P. and M. interpretation of the OT. "The greatest accomplishment of P. exegesis it to offer an interpretation of the whole."

Interpretation in the modern era must consider the spiritual exegesis of the fathers and medievalists.

Front 6

de Lubac (impetus for book)

Back 6

1. dL encountered many ancient references to spiritual exegesis
2. contemporary theologians acknowledge the spiritual exegesis of the OT and its relationship to the NT but don't explain HOW they are related. They link to Philo and not Paul.

Front 7

de Lubac (thesis)

Back 7

Modern biblical interpretation should employ spiritual exegesis as valued and practiced by the Christian tradition (261-67).
_____
"Spiritual exegesis or allegory is not a borrowing of literary techniques from the Greeks but rather a distinctly Christian approach to the Old Testament as found in the New Testament," particularly in the letters of St. Paul" (xi-xii).

Key quote:
"The conversion of the Old Testament to the New or of the letter of Scripture to its spirit can only be explained and justified, in its radicalness, by the all-powerful and unprecedented intention of him, who is himself at once the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last. . . . Therefore Jesus Christ brings about the unity of Scripture, because he is the endpoint and fullness of Scripture. Everything in it is related to him. In the end he is its sole object. Consequently, his is, so to speak, its whole exegesis" (235, 237).

Front 8

de Lubac (Introduction)

Back 8

Doctrine of the four-fold senses of Scripture has long been classic and unquestioned.

historia
allegorical
tropological (moral)
anagogical

Indeed, the four-fold sense was at the base of biblical interpretation and not an aberration or exaggeration of a few exegetes.

Front 9

de Lubac (chapter 1)

Back 9

Medieval interpretation was disciplined. Spiritual interpretation had objective structure.

Scripture (God's Word, no man's) contains all of revelation in a sense and is the grounds for theology (25). It had to be read from within the Catholic faith. Theology and exegesis one and the same. Development of dogma/doctrine was the outworking of multiple meanings of Scripture 29.

Different interpretations must hold to the unity of the faith, but these differences were worked out "disputatio." Even still commentators raised all types of questions about various interpretations of Scripture and its theology.

Allegorist and dialectician camps formed but not over the nature of the text, but about how it should be interpreted 67. Despite disputes, theology was not separate from exegesis. Nevertheless, mutual respect existed for both "disciplines."

Growing division between theology and exegesis became complete in the mid-13th century at Paris and Bologna where the Bible plays a minor role in Abelard's Sentences 72. Dialectics, its questions, and Aristotelian philosophy won the day. The four-senses began to be reduced to one 73-74.

Front 10

de Lubac (chapter 2)

Back 10

Scripture is mysterious in multiple meanings. Exegetes followed one of two formulates for meaning. 1) historical, moral/tropological, spiritual/allegorical. 2) historical, spiritual/allegorical, moral/tropological, anagogical (most common formula). Order is significant; one leads to the others.

Sometimes authors would use both formulae, each in different works.

Front 11

de Lubac (chapter 3)

Back 11

Debate exists over the patristic origins of the four-fold sense of Scripture: Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, Gregory, Cassian, and Eucher, Origen.

Front 12

de Lubac (chapter 4)

Back 12

Translations of Origen into Latin made him the household name in the Middle Ages. He was cited, referred to, plagiarized, etc. E.g., his interpretation of Songs became the standard definition. He provided continuity between the two renaissance of the 9th and 13th centuries.

Origen's method came into disrepute and also his character after his failing to become a martyr. When cited Origen, he was qualified. Nevertheless, every father used him and gradually he regained favor by the 13th century.

Front 13

de Lubac (chapter 5)*

Back 13

"To summarize the whole thing briefly: the Christian tradition understands that Scripture has two meanings. The most general name for these two meanings is the literal meaning and the spiritual ("pneumatic") meaning, and these two meanings have the same kind of relationship to each other as do the Old and New Testaments to each other. More exactly, and in all strictness, they constitute, they are the Old and New Testaments" 225.

Spiritual interpretation is the goal; it bursts forth from the letter. Letter necessary but must give way to the spirit.

Not two books, but two economies, two dispensations 227.

Christ is the "critical instant" that moves from the letter to the spirit. In the fullness of time . . . 232-35. "Christ is a scriptural exegete by virtue of himself, by virtue of all his being, and by virtue of all his mystery" 239. Christ is the interpretive key to the whole of Scripture.

Harmony exists betweens the two testaments when Christ as the interpretive key is used to go beyond the letter. They are one, unified in Christ.

Letter kills, spirit gives life. Formula one (historical, moral, allegorical) emphasize the Holy Spirit as interior principle of spiritual understanding. Formula two sees Christ in this role. However, both affirm the other's position.

Spiritual sense is the full sense. This does not discount scientific method. However, SM has absorbed the spiritual sense. Spiritual sense not opposed to science, but goes beyond it and encompasses it. Thus, the fuller sense.