The Problems of a Biblical Mariology

Marian Studies Volume 11 Article 6 1-14-1960 The Problems of a Biblical Mariology Eric May Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/marian_studies Part of the Catholic Studies Commons, Christianity Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation May, Eric (1960) "The Problems of a Biblical Mariology," Marian Studies: Vol. 11, Article 6, Pages 21-59. Available at: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/marian_studies/vol11/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Marian Library Publications at eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marian Studies by an authorized editor of eCommons. For more information, please contact , . May: The Problems of a Biblical Mariology THE PROBLEMS OF A BffiLICAL MARIOLOGY This first paper of the conference is general, and has one purpose: to discuss some of the more pressing problems confronting a biblical Mariology. This, by way of background for the later papers. We hope to give information-not cause consternation, although something of the latter might be occasioned by the former. We will attempt, then, an over-all factual summation of some of the problems affecting biblical Mariology, without offering any solutions or even personal opinions about them. As a conclusion, however, we shall offer briefly, for what it is worth, our own evaluation of modem trends in this field. I DEFINITION OF TERMS First, a definition of terms. We ask ourselves: granting that a distinction is to be made between biblical theology and other forms of theology, what then is biblical theology? And in particular, what is biblical Mariology? It would seem that biblical theology might fairly be defined as: the scientific and systematic treatment of divine revelation as known from Sacred Scripture, the primary source of theology. 1 In a recent article Fr. Ceslaus Spicq, O.P., who has written more than once on the subject, offers the following descriptive analysis of biblical theology: Biblical theology is specifically distinct from a Religionsgesckickte, from a religious history of revelation, its genesis and 1 Another suggested definition of biblical theology: "It is the science which studies divine revelation as it is recorded in the inspired Word of God, and combines it into an intelligible body of doctrine according to the concepts and patterns of the inspired writers;" R. A. F. MacKenzie, S.J., The Concept of Biblical Theology, in PCTSA (1955) 63. Cf. also P. Heinisch-W. G. Heidt, Theology of the Old Testament (Collegeville, 1955) 5-6; M. Meinertz, Theologle des Neuen Testaments 1 (Bonn, 1950) 1-7. 21 Published by eCommons, 1960 1 Marian Studies, Vol. 11 [1960], Art. 6 22 The Problems of a Biblical Mariology evolution, and even from exegesis properly so-called. As a scientific expression of the Word of God, it goes beyond the descriptive stages of semantics or history, or textual analysis, in order to gather and synthesize their data into its own unity. Though it remains an historical discipline by reason of its material object, it is theological by reason of its formal object and by its elucidations. It elaborates-by .a union of human knowledge and faith-revealed truth as such. Furthermore, it cannot help taking account of tradition, the Church, and the analogy of faith. So its method has indeed strict affinities with that of speculative theology; both are "architectonic." 2 · Biblical theology, then, is commonly thought of as a positive discipline (as distinct from speculative theology), supported by the analogy of faith, but objective in the sense that its re2 C. Spicq, O.P., NouveUes reftexions sur la theologie biblique, in RSPT 42 (1958) 209-219; translated and abridged in TkD 7 (1959) 29. In the course of the article Father Spicq associates himself with the growing tendency to insist on the profound unity of biblical revelation. He disassociates himse1f from an attitude toward bibllcal theology which would make it no more than a systematic presentation of the religious teaching contained in the Bible. "It is here," he says, "that I differ from most of my predecessors. They insist on keeping the conceptual and historical categories of each inspired writer. Even when they seek to make a synthesis and recognize that a scientific theology should be unified and systematic, theft dare not go beyond the partitioned multiplicity in which the bibllcal message happens to have been concretely imparted. Now it seems to me that pibllcal theology is at an impasse unless it comes to, grips with the object of fjdth, with revealed truth, by freeing itself from such limitations. There is no question here of identifying this effort with that of speculative theology. This latter must give an account of the divine mystery in the light of human reason; this calls for the intervention of philosophy, especially metaphysics and logic, to elaborate the notions of being, cause, creation, nature and so on. Bibllcal theology, on the contrary, presupposes no philosophy (save that of common sense), no rational scheme; no intellectual co-ordinates; or rather, it adopts the Semitic and Hellenistic categories of thought which were those of the inspired authors; only it rethinks them, decants the meaning of words, purifies concepts, and translates them into a language which is eternally valid,' 0 30-31. https://ecommons.udayton.edu/marian_studies/vol11/iss1/6 2 May: The Problems of a Biblical Mariology The Problems of a Biblical Mariology 23 suits are drawn from the sacred text itself as illumined by the light of modem research. 3 .... In view of such a definition, however, there are several other questions raised. Just what is an exegete, for instance? Is he to be identified with the biblical theologian, or not? In fact, what is the relationship between exegesis and biblical theology? There is a tendency on the part of some authors ·to dis.tinguish between the function of exegesis and that of biblical theology, almost as though it were the task of the exegete to lay the foundation, that of the biblical theologian to erect the structure (and that of the speculative theologian, perhaps, to adom the structure?). Fr. ,Max Meinertz finds place among those who separate the exegete from the biblical theologian. 4 And there are others. On the other hand, some writers tend to identify the work of the exegete with that of the biblical theologian-or at least hope for such an identification. As Fr. R. A: F. MacKenzie, S.]., has put it: It is very much to be hoped, too, that with all the growth of our specializations, the unfortunate separation between dogmatic 3 Cf. J. L. McKenzie, S.J ., reviewing De Lubac's Histoire et Esprit: L'intelligem;e de Z'Ecriture d'apres Orighle, in TS 12 (1951) 381. 4 M. Meinertz, op. cit., 1; p. 4: "Die biblische Theologie ist systematischer und verzichtet auf der die Darstellung der geschichtlichen Einzelnbeiten sowie die des iusseren Verla (...truncated)