Papa Benedict al XVI-lea (ex cardinal Ratzinger) şi criza interpretării biblice contemporane

Actualul Papă, dincolo de faptul că este Papă, a fost şi a rămas un excelent teolog. Catolic, se înţelege, dar mintea şi inteligenţia, ca şi prostia şi păcatul, nu au graniţe etnice sau confesionale. N-am devenit catolic, nici fan al dînsului, dar nu pot trece peste o excelentă analiză a unui domeniu care mă interesează, exegeza biblică.

Avînd la bază o excelentă conferinţă, dezvoltată mai apoi într-o carte, textele despre interpretarea biblică contemporană cuprind idei foarte seminale.

But how is it possible to come to an understanding which on one hand is not based on some arbitrary choice of particular aspects, but on the other hand allows me to hear the message of the text and not something coming from my own self? Once the methodology has picked history to death by its dissection, who can reawaken it so that it can live and speak to me? Let me put it another way: if „hermeneutics” is ever to become convincing, the inner harmony between historical analysis and hermeneutical synthesis must be first found.


We need to introduce at this point what I have already called the diachronic approach to exegetical findings. After about two hundred years now of exegetical work on the texts, one can no longer give all their results equal weight. Now one has to look at them within the context of their particular history. It then becomes clear that such a history is not simply one of progress from imprecise to precise and objective conclusions. It appears much more as a history of subjectively reconstructed interrelationships whose approaches correspond exactly to the developments of spiritual history. In turn, these developments are reflected in particular interpretations of texts. In the diachronic reading of an exegesis, its philosophic presuppositions become quite apparent. Now, at a certain distance, the observer determines to his surprise that these interpretations, which were supposed to be strictly and purely „historical,” reflect their own overriding spirit, rather than the spirit of times long ago. This insight should not lead us to skepticism about the method, but rather to an honest recognition of what its limits are, and perhaps how it might be purified.


After these remarks on the challenge of a self-critique of the historical method, we now find ourselves confronted with the positive side of the problem, how to join its tools with a better philosophy which would entail fewer drawbacks foreign to the text which would be less arbitrary, and which would offer greater possibilities for a true listening to the text itself. The positive task is without a doubt even more difficult than the critical one. I can only try to conclude these remarks by trying to carve out a few narrow footpaths in the thicket, which may perhaps point out where the main road lies and how it is to be found.

In the midst of the theological, methodological debate of his day, Gregory of Nyssa called upon the rationalist Eunomius not to confuse theology with the science of nature. (Theologein is not physiologein.) [23] The mystery of theology is one thing,” he said, „the scientific investigation of nature is quite another.” One cannot then „encompass the unembraceable nature of God in the palm of a child’s hand.” Gregory was here alluding to one of the famous sayings of Zeno: „The open hand is perception, the clapping hand is the agreement of the intellect, the hand fully closed upon something is the recording of judgment, the one hand clasped by the other is systematic science.” [24]

In the last hundred years, exegesis has had many great achievements, but it has brought forth great errors as well. These latter, moreover, have in some measure grown to the stature of academic dogmas. To criticize them at all would be taken by many as tantamount to sacrilege, especially if it were to be done by a non-exegete. Nevertheless, so prominent an exegete as Heinrich Schlier previously warned his colleagues: „Do not squander your time on trivialities.” [31] Johann Gnilka gave concrete expression to this warning when he reacted against an exaggerated emphasis by the history-of-traditions school. [32]

Vezi AICI.

Iată şi o reacţie AICI.

Despre Marius David

soțul Nataliei, tată și proaspăt bunic
Acest articol a fost publicat în Citate, Dezbatere, Linkomandări. Pune un semn de carte cu legătura permanentă.

14 răspunsuri la Papa Benedict al XVI-lea (ex cardinal Ratzinger) şi criza interpretării biblice contemporane

  1. naomi zice:

    „N-am devenit catolic, nici fan al dînsului” – m-am mai linistit …. 🙂
    Hmm, ce ziceti sa-l folosesc pe Goguta?

  2. Liviu zice:

    Daca precedentul papa a fost unul ”al imaginii” (si diplomatiei), mai ales, iata un papa ”al intelectului” (desi si polonezul a fost foarte inteligent si abil).
    Poate n-ar strica si ceva pareri, recenzii, de la cine a citit cartea neamtului despre Domnul:

  3. Nicu zice:

    De ce te-ai mai linistit, Naomi?

  4. adrian zice:

    interesant text! multumesc pentru semnalare!

  5. moreoc zice:

    Zice in text: „In the last hundred years, exegesis has had many great achievements, but it has brought forth great errors as well.”

    Eu unul as fi chiar curios sa stiu care sunt marile REALIZARI ale exegezei în opinia Papei (ca ce percepe Papa a fi „marile erori”, asta e chiar relativ simplu de intuit); am parcurs lungul si plictisitorul text, insa Papa e cam tare fugaretz, ca zice si dupa aia da bir cu fugitii…

    Mai scrie acolo: „These latter, moreover, have in some measure grown to the stature of academic dogmas. To criticize them at all would be taken by many as tantamount to sacrilege, especially if it were to be done by a non-exegete.”

    Mi se pare ca Papa Ratzinger (si in definitiv orice Papa) nu prea e in pozitia ideala sa vorbeasca despre „dogme academice”, tinand cont ca e leaderul unei institutii care istoric vorbind a insistat prin a defini si apara biserica si crestinismul prin… dogme. Sa le lase el de-o parte, dogmele, si poate castiga emuli si prin academie!

    In plus, e un pic contradictoriu sa te plangi in acelasi timp de existenta unor „dogme academice” in exegeza stiintifica dar si sa amintesti de profuziunea de ipoteze, teorii si „scoli” exegetice. Biblia este un material complex (din toate punctele de vedere)! Ideile exprimate in ea au dat nastere practic la trei religii (ma refer la iudaism, crestinism siislam) si in interiorul crestinismului la trei mari „tendinte” sau biserici (catolica, ortodoxa si protestanta). Ori daca credinciosii insisi s-au sfadit pe teme teologice importante atata timp (si sfaditi au ramas, caci nu s-a ajuns la un acord pe criterii rationale, ci pur si simplu prin impozitia celui mai puternic, in sensul cam tare fizic al termenului, daca luam in considerare istoria sinoadelor…) si pana la urma n-au reusit sa determine exact si satisfacator dpdv intelectual cum e posibila pana la urma Treimea dumnezeiasca, sau care e natura lui Hristos, cum mai poti sa te miri ca studiul textului biblic, care e atat de îmbâcsit, confuz si contradictoriu poate sa produca o unica intelegere stiintifica a lui!?

    La un moment in articol dat Ratzinger scrie referindu-se la exeget:

    „He may not exclude a priori that (almighty) God could speak in human words in the world, He may not exclude that God himself could enter into and work in human history, however improbable such a thing might at first appear.”

    Asta nu se poate din pacate cat timp exegetul se mai vrea totusi a fi om de stiinta: nu poti sa iei drept adevarat faptul ca Dumnezeu a vorbit oamenilor, sau ca a fost parte a si a actionat in istoria umana, cat timp n-ai dovedit ca Dumnezeu exista (si altundeva decat in mintea sau imaginatia umana). Ori nu e pentru nimeni un secret prea mare, banuiesc ca existenta lui Dumnezeu nu este dovedita obiectiv, stiintific.
    Asta nu inseamna ca nu pot exista exegeti filozofi, sau teologi, care ei pot avea libertatea de a pleca de la postulatul existentei lui Dumnezeu si a construi o exegeza pe masura.

  6. alterema zice:

    o cautare pe google dupa „Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” va revela importantul post detinut de cardinalul Ratzinger inainte de a fi Papa. Jos cu palaria!

    Multumesc pentru text. Pica la tzanc pentru unele aspecte pe care le studiez in prezent.

  7. al teremah zice:

    of, micile rautati: mai e mult pana la 240 de comentarii…se pare ca metodologia exegezei biblice nu e „un domeniu care ma intereseaza” pentru prea multi.

Lasă un răspuns

Completează mai jos detaliile cerute sau dă clic pe un icon pentru a te autentifica:


Comentezi folosind contul tău Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Poză Twitter

Comentezi folosind contul tău Twitter. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Fotografie Facebook

Comentezi folosind contul tău Facebook. Dezautentificare /  Schimbă )

Conectare la %s

Acest site folosește Akismet pentru a reduce spamul. Află cum sunt procesate datele comentariilor tale.