Compared to the treatment of the theme of inspiration, it seems to me that the way in which the Verbum Domini describes the relationship between the various methods of exegesis leaves more to be desired. Again, the new document follows the guidelines of Dei Verbum, at least in principle, seems to accept without reservation the use of historical-critical method, which is even recognized the benefits of the life of the church (no. 32) .
Obviously, the appearance problematic issue arises when defining the relationship between historical-critical analysis and theological interpretation, since Ratzinger, citing his own action, immediately points out that only when it is respected faith tradition of the church you get a "worthy of exegesis this book ', that' the Bible (34). How can we describe this "respect" each other?
here is a very important issue that, once again, was left rather vague by Vatican II. Now, however, Ratzinger seems to have much less hesitation and indeed says that the two methods not only can not be opposed, but even juxtaposed, otherwise, the risk would be to get the denial della possibilita' di intervento del divino nel mondo (35). Si presenta qui quello che mi pare essere il problema piu' grosso dell'intera trattazione: il metodo storico e' descritto in modo caricaturale o, a voler essere piu' caritatevoli, come se la ricerca storica fosse ferma alle pretese di naturalismo assoluto tipiche del positivismo ottocentesco.
Leggendo queste pagine, si ha l'impressione che tale idea non sia una mera finzione polemica, ma che arrivi perfino a definire quello che dovrebbe essere il modo di operare degli esegeti cattolici che impiegano il metodo storico. In questo senso, il paragrafo 34 riprende uno dei passaggi piu' problematici della Dei Verbum, nel quale il significato che gli autori sacri "avevano veramente in mente" and 'defined as identical with what' that 'God had deemed it right to communicate through their words. " In practice, the content of the inspired Scripture seems to be identical to the intention of the author's intention that by now most historians' advised by the methodological point of view considered impossible to acquire the means of scientific research. Why
'bind the nineteenth-century historical research in this vision? I have the impression that Ratzinger has a great fear of the doubt (and 'made it clear again in paragraph 35) and, realizing that the only force of faith is not' sufficient to give absolute certainty on issues such as the resurrection or the Eucharist, tries to find a substitute in a too absolute conception of science and history. As 'doing, but', holds the two methods in a deadly embrace that, contrary to its stated intentions, the perverts and the other one.
0 comments:
Post a Comment