Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T03:32:45.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Exegesis and Easter

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The problems which biblical criticism creates for Catholics cannot be disposed of so summarily as Michael Dummet thinks. He dismisses “ most modern Catholic Biblical exegesis” on the grounds that it is “dishonest”, in the sense that exegetes arbitrarily postulate ancient literary forms among which they proceed to classify parts of the New Testament they cannot take literally, without their having to admit that such parts are thus either fiction or fraud. The dishonesty lies in claiming texts as divinely inspired while refusing to take them at face value. It seems to me, however, for a start, that Mr. Dummett goes wrong on two important matters of fact.

First, as to pseudonymous writing, it is just not true that exegetes have invented the existence of such literature in order to place a document such as the Second Epistle of St. Peter within a well-known ancient literary convention, i.e. the convention of writing letters as if they were being written by some famous man already deceased. Not only was there an abundance of such pseudonymous writing in the ancient world at large but evidence for it exists in Judaism as well as in early Christianity. In spite of much research and speculation (see Kummel, page 362 for bibliography), many questions remain unanswered, particularly about the motives of such writing. The principle of pseudonymous writing was not generally questioned, though cases of forgery and fraud were certainly denounced. It should not be lightly assumed that New Testament writings are pseudonymous, but there are no grounds for asserting that pseudonymous writing was necessarily dishonest, less still for asserting that as a literary convention it never existed or was soon forgotten (think of the apocryphal Christian literature of the second century and later).

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1977 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers

References

Benoit, Pierre, Marie Madeleine et les disciples au tombeau vide selon Jean 20, 1–8, Exegese et theologi, III, Paris, 1968.Google Scholar
Bloch, Renee, Midrash, Supplement au Dictionnaire de la Bible, Vol 5, Paris, 1957.Google Scholar
Cousin, Hugues, Le Prophete assassine–Histoire des textes evengeliques de la Passion, Paris, 1976.Google Scholar
Delorme, Jean, Resurrection et tombeau de Jesus, in La resurrection du Christ et l'exegese moderne, Paris, 1969.Google Scholar
Kummel, Werner George, Introduction to the New Testament, London, 1975.Google Scholar
Lacomara, Aelred, Deuteronomy and the Farewell Discourse, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, January 1974.Google Scholar
Le Deaut, Roger, Apropos a Definition of Midrash, Interpretation, July 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Karl, Auferweckt am dritten Tag nach der Schrift, Quaestiones Disputatae 38, Freiburg, 1968.Google Scholar
Lindara, Barnabas, New Testament Apologetic, London, 1961.Google Scholar
Linnemann, Eta, Studien zur Passionsgeschichte, Gottingen, 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schenke, Ludger, Auferstehungsverkundigung and leeres Grab, Stuttgart, 1968.Google Scholar
Schneider, Gerhard, Die Passion Jesu nach den drei alteren Evangelien, Munchen, 1973.Google Scholar
Venues, Geza, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, Leiden, 1961.Google Scholar