In recent years, I’ve become increasingly aware that the Church Fathers approached Scripture quite differently than the literal, historical approach which my scientific mind gravitates toward. My several-year-long struggle with fruitfully praying the Liturgy of the Hours (LOTH) arose out of the tension between my literal, historical reading of the Psalms in their original context and my Christian faith. Reading Fr. Frank Matera’s Book “Praying the Psalms in the Voice of Christ” (which I reviewed here last year) connected me to the symbolic and Christological reading of the Psalms which I had long been ignorant of (or which I might have dismissed as “eisegesis” i.e., reading later Christian meaning back into the Old Testament in places where it didn’t belong).
Toward the end of last year, I decided to take a much larger step toward understanding how the Church Fathers approached the Scriptures. I bought a Kindle version of The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Biblical Interpretation. This was no small undertaking. The book is a 750-page scholarly anthology with chapters by many prominent scholars of the early Church (from a variety of religious backgrounds: Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox). Each chapter contains copious citations to the scholarly literature and a bibliography of further books to consider. My Amazon wish list has ballooned in size as I looked at the bibliographies after completing each chapter!
The process of reading the book from start to finish took me approximately 2.5 months. I took a bunch of notes on the book as I went along, and I must say it was extremely rewarding to put in the effort. Although I am far from being a specialist, I found most of the chapters to be very readable. Many topics were new to me, and I needed to read slowly and carefully to grasp the concepts, but I rarely felt overwhelmed by technical jargon. The length of each chapter is also approachable and not overly intimidating: on average, each chapter is about 20 pages. There is an incredible wealth of information in this volume, and some really surprising nuggets of insight also.
Foundational Ideas of Patristic Exegesis
It’s worth highlighting a couple of concepts from the early sections of the book that set the stage for understanding the patristic approach to Scripture. One is the “rule of faith.” As Fr. Joseph T. Lienhard S.J. explains in one of the chapters, this “rule” was a summary of core apostolic teaching. It wasn’t a fixed formula but rather a concise summary of belief, often Trinitarian in structure, concerning God the Father, Jesus Christ His Son, and the Holy Spirit, along with the narrative of salvation. Later creeds may have grown out of earlier informal expressions of the rule of faith, but the earliest expressions vary in wording.
Early Christian writers understood the rule of faith as the truth received at baptism, written in the hearts of believers. Irenaeus described how the rule functions as an interpretive key for Scripture using the analogy of a mosaic: the heretics, he argued, took the same scriptural “tiles” but rearranged them to form a distorted image (like a fox), whereas the rule of faith provided the correct pattern for arranging the tiles to see the true image of the King (Christ). Without the rule of faith, Scripture would not make sense as God intended it.
Another pervasive influence was the cultural understanding of prophecy. As Methodist scholar Frances Young and other contributors to this Handbook illustrate, the ancient world, both Jewish and Greco-Roman, was steeped in prophetic traditions, oracles, and the idea that sacred texts often contained hidden, enigmatic meanings that were only unveiled by later events or inspired interpreters. This is quite different from a modern context, where it is common to view purported prophecies with suspicion and skepticism.
For early Christians, the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus were the ultimate fulfillment that unlocked the true, deeper meaning of the Old Testament Scriptures. This perspective meant that Scripture was not primarily a historical record in the modern sense, but a divinely inspired collection of writings pointing forward to, and finding their ultimate coherence in, Christ. This understanding helps explain why early Christian writers felt confident finding Christological significance in passages where a strictly historical reading might not see it.
Surprising Insights and Challenges
As I worked through the Handbook, there were a few chapters and themes that really jumped out at me. John C. Cavadini, a professor of theology at Notre Dame and a member of the International Theological Commission (ITC) under Pope Benedict XVI from 2009-2013, wrote a bold, thought-provoking chapter titled, “From Letter to Spirit: The Multiple Senses of Scripture.” This chapter challenged me head-on for my tendency to focus on the literal, historical meaning of Scripture. Early in the chapter, he jolted me with the bold assertion that “without figurative exegesis, there is no Bible.” He justifies this as follows:
…this idea that there is revealed Scripture, and that it is a coherent, authoritative whole, both implies and depends on the intertextual cohesion which figurative exegesis constitutes. Thus to the extent that figurative exegesis is dismissed, on whatever grounds, as ‘fanciful,’ as ‘eisegesis,’ as ‘anachronistic,’ as ‘pre-critical,’ as merely cultural revision, and not a true claim on meaning, the canon of Scripture itself is dismissed both as a concept and as a concrete reality.
John C. Cavadini, “From Letter to Spirit: The Multiple Senses of Scripture,” published in The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Biblical Interpretation
In other words, figurative interpretation of the Bible is necessary for seeing the Scriptures as a coherent whole. Without it, the Scriptures fall apart into a disjointed jumble of disparate texts with different historical concerns and contexts. This was a bold and shocking claim to me, and I’m still wrestling with it. Based on my difficulty with praying the Psalms, the claim makes intuitive sense to me. But I wonder whether an alternative approach is to read Scripture in terms of salvation history (God’s unfolding plan to eventually reveal himself in Christ and redeem us).
Orthodox scholar Fr. John Behr addresses that very question in a chapter entitled “The Cross.” He argues powerfully that the early Christians did not approach Scripture through a simple “salvation history” lens where one reasons forward from the Old Testament to Christ. Instead, the Paschal mystery (Jesus’s Cross and Resurrection) was such an earth-shattering event that it transfigured the Scriptures. The apostles and early Christians didn’t deduce Christ from the Old Testament; rather, Christ illuminated the Old Testament, revealing its true meaning. As Paul says, the veil is lifted only in Christ (2 Cor 3:14-16). This “word of the cross,” Behr suggests, became the lens through which Christians reread the Scriptures and understood them with a profound new symbolic coherence.
Other Interesting and Notable Chapters
There were many other highlights of the book which expanded my understanding. Orthodox scholar Michael C. Legaspi’s chapter, “Modern Biblical Criticism and the Legacy of Pre-Modern Interpretation,” traced the history of how biblical interpretation developed away from the patristic approach and toward the modern historical-critical approach.
Lewis Ayres’ chapter on “Scripture in the Trinitarian Controversies” showed how early Christian arguments, which can look “forced” when thinking only about the original historical context of Scripture, were working from the assumption of Scripture’s unity and divine guidance. Ayres raises the thought-provoking question: as heirs of the Nicene Fathers’ teaching, must we also be committed to their style of reading and interpreting Scripture? Some aspects of that style are rooted in Christian faith and probably are relevant to many different contexts (such as reading Scripture according to the rule of faith). But other aspects of it were based on Greek and Roman literary methods and conventions.
A final highlight for me was a chapter by Protestant scholar Charles E. Hill on the Gospel of John. Hill briefly reviews the history of Johannine scholarship, including the work of Catholic scholar Fr. Raymond E. Brown. He then presents a fascinating look at how physical manuscript evidence (examining features of gospel fragments and the style of writing used on them) supports the claim that the earliest fragments of John align far more closely with orthodox Christian scribal practices than with gnostic ones. This was fascinating to me and helped restore a little bit of my faith in the ability of scholarly methods to make progress toward genuine understanding, rather than being mere speculation.
Conclusion
I’m deeply grateful to have read this book. It expanded my knowledge of the early Church Fathers by leaps and bounds. It’s certainly not for the faint of heart (750 pages of scholarly chapters), but on the other hand, I think it’s approachable for a person who is comfortable reading study bible notes (for example, the NABRE footnotes). It’s not written at a beginner level, but for the most part, the chapters are written without an overwhelming amount of technical jargon. They are manageable in length (about 20 pages per chapter). A person could easily skip around and read chapters that spark interest.
Prices on this book are variable. I purchased the Kindle edition for $41.49, and the paperback edition is currently listed for $59 on Amazon. Oxford University Press usually offers a sale on many of their titles at least one a year (often in January or February).
This looks great, Mark!
I love reading John Behr. He is a very interesting thinker.
I have become increasingly disenchanted with generic “ecumenical” books about the Fathers, because these works seem to exert enormous effort to deny that they said what they said. They will accurately quote what the Fathers said, and then try to fit into conventional evangelical theology, usually twisting it like a pretzel. It quickly becomes tiresome. Evangelicals have no idea just how of their theology depends very much on reading everything in the context of 21st century America.
I didn’t find that at all in this Oxford Handbook. It consistently attempts to “transport” the reader back in time and explain the historical, cultural, philosophical, and theological context in which the Fathers lived and wrote. Despite the diverse group of scholars who contributed to this book, I’m having trouble thinking of a single example where I felt the authors were trying to force fit the Fathers into a modern Evangelical mold.
That is good to know. Thank you/
Another resource to consider is Frans van Liere’s “An Introduction to the Medieval Bible” (Cambridge). It is by a Protestant scholar – and I share Biblical Catholic’s concerns – but Trent Horn’s recommendation put me on to this. An obvious next step if you want to understand how different methods of interpretation can be applied to scripture is to read Joseph Ratzinger’s Jesus of Nazareth trilogy. One of Ratzinger’s influences was Henri de Lubac, who did so much to recover the different senses of scripture. And I see that Emmaus Academic (St Paul’s Center for Biblical Theology) has brought out a second volume in its Glossa Ordinaria series, a welcome alternative to the “ecumenical” Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture from Varsity. Lastly, St Thomas’ Catena Aurea, translated by St John Henry Newman, is a wonderful source of Patristic exegesis.
I, too, discovered the other day that the Matthew volume of Emmaus Academic’s Glossa Ordinaria finally came out, and instantly ordered it. (It just shipped today!) Funny enough, I wasn’t expecting it till next year, and only discovered that it’d been released when I decided to browse the Emmaus website for a completely different book! I’m happy to add it to my Genesis volume, and wonder when Emmaus will decide to tell people that they even released it!
As for Marc, I was actually recently gleaning from The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in Early Modern England, 1530-1700, specifically the chapter on the “Paratextual Architecture of the Rheims New Testament and the King James Bible,” and was wondering if I was the only layman digging through these Oxford tomes!
I (somehow) already own this book in Verbum, and it sounds like useful reading, but I’m not sure I’m stouthearted enough to read 750 pages of scholarly analysis. But I think I’ll at least take a look at it.
It may well be that without the figurative understanding, you have no Bible. But it is also true that without the literal sense as your starting point, you have no Bible either — just a hodgepodge of theological speculation based on nothing substantial. First understand what the Biblical writer was trying to get across, and then you can theologize to your heart’s content.
I know non Catholic editors put the Ancient Christian Commentary together, but with something like this I do not care in the last. If Catholics had done it, I suspect that I would not be able to afford them, they would edit out the weird stuff from the fathers, and/or they would turn it apologetical instead of exegetical.
Please don’t misunderstand me. I think the Ancient Christian Commentary series is a reliable and valuable resource. I have no fundamental issue with its ecumenical pedigree. Without wishing to sound a critical note, I’m puzzled by the disparaging remarks Catholic scholars or editors. Perhaps there’s an American nuance I’m missing here. Is Catholic biblical scholarship somehow unreliable?
Catholic scholarship is reliable. My issue is with Catholic publishing.
I have so many questions–where is a modern edition of Chrysostom’s homilies on Matthew? Why hasn’t the last volume of Henri de Lubac’s Medieval Exegesis been translated into English? Did the CUA Fathers series give up on finishing all 5 books of Irenaeus’ Against Heresies
I suspect less copies of these Catholic resources get printed because there is less demand for them by non Catholic seminaries. Thus, while I have been able to slowly buy copies of the Ancient Christian Commentary set for 15-25 dollars per copy on the secondary market, I do not anticipate ever seeing a copy of the new printing of the Glossa Ordinaria for less than 65 dollars. I hope to be proven wrong in time.
I am very glad to have squirreled away the money four years ago to get a copy of Baronius’ Catena Aurea, but the entire apparatus is very 19th century.
Too many bible resources coming out exist in what I refer to as the apologetics industrial complex. I know this comment has been a list of cranky complaints, but i am convinced that interpreting scripture from the heart of the Church should require more of me than knowing that the eucharist is defended in John 6 the anointing of the sick in the Letter of James.
Thanks for this elucidation. That’s really helpful. I’m beginning to grasp what your reference to apologetics is getting at. I have a personal – and no doubt irrational – antipathy towards apologetics, but the context seems so different here in the UK. Perhaps my outlook is coloured by being a Brother of the Secular Oratory, where the emphasis on drawing people to the faith is on truth, beauty, joy, the daily distribution of the Word and Sacraments, rather than on disputation.
>where is a modern edition of Chrysostom’s homilies on Matthew?
>Why hasn’t the last volume of Henri de Lubac’s Medieval Exegesis been translated into English?
Both are completely valid questions. I’m constantly looking at the latest offerings of CUA’s Fathers of the Church series, Newman’s Ancient Christian Writers series, and SVS’s Popular Patristics series. Next up from FOTC is Didymus the Blind’s On Job, coming in September. On more than one occasion, I’ve gone to look for St. Chrysostom’s Homilies on Matthew, only to be disappointed that the only English edition available is still the translation by George Prevost in the old NPNF collection. The fact that the entire Protestant collection hasn’t been able to be replaced after over a century, despite multiple Catholic and Orthodox publishers taking up the task of Church Fathers translation from authoritative critical editions, is a shame.
>Did the CUA Fathers series give up on finishing all 5 books of Irenaeus’ Against Heresies
CUA? They never started. If you mean Newman Press and their ACW translation series, however, St. Irenaeus’s Against Heresies was completed last year with the publication of volume 4, “Books 4 and 5.” It’s done.
Thanks for the correction! It wouldn’t be a hot take on this site by me without a factual error.
Great news about Against Heresies!
Another example is Cornelius a’Lapide’s Commentaries. Loreto is taking forever on translating just the New Testament, although they just released another volume. At this rate, the Old Testament volumes won’t be complete before 2100. Why haven’t all these been translated from Latin decades ago?
Because stuff slips through the cracks; it’s as simple as that. There’s so much stuff to translate and not enough people, time, or individual interest. For example, one of the main sources cited for the notes in the great English Haydock Bible, which Loreto today publishes, is the multi-volume commentary on the full Bible by the French Benedictine Augustin Calmet, probably the greatest French commentary on the Bible of the eighteenth century, one that went through a large number of editions, was translated into Latin by Mansi (of Sacrorum Conciliorum fame) to gain even wider usage across the continent, and found itself respected even by Protestants in a very pre-ecumenism age. But it was never translated into English in its day or after, aside from the select comments Haydock took from it, translated, and rightly credited to Calmet, and it probably never will be translated into English.
What’s this that was in an email I got from Verbum?
“Been holding out on the NRSV Catholic Edition (NRSVCE) or reverse interlinear version for your Verbum library? Now’s the time.
After May 31, these resources will be going out of print (even digitally). That means this is your final opportunity to add these trusted titles to your digital library and take up to 55% off while you’re at it.“
Is the NRSV-CE indeed going out of print???
Yes, it is indeed true. But given that most of the sales of the NRSV are in the Catholic Edition, I have to assume it is because they are trying to transition to the 2021 text, which is not yet available, and may never be available, in a Catholic Edition, unless they know something we don’t.
Clinging tight to my Word on Fire Bible volumes, then! That and my Cambridge NRSVw/A Reference Edition.
That’s kind of a shame… NRSVCE is like the younger brother that always gets picked on, but is generally the most pleasant sibling of the brood.
It is the one that gets all the sales. And it isn’t just the CE that is going out of print, it is all versions of the NRSV. They are moving to fully implement the UE as the only published version.
I hope the NRSV-CE stays in print, although it’s clear the 1989 (ecumenical) NRSV is making way for the NRSV-UE on publishers’ lists. There are still three volumes to go for the Word on Fire series in the NRSV-CE so there’s life in the not so old dog yet. I too have a fondness for the NRSV, despite its non-christological translation choices, because of its “readability”. I never did get a convincing answer from the Bible Society as to why they went ahead with an NRSVUE-CE, given that it’s unlikely to receive an imprimatur any time soon.
Thanks so much for the heads up! I’ve had a NRSV:CE eBook on my kindle wish list for a few months now, kept figuring I’d get it eventually but I didn’t feel like it was urgent. Just rushed over and nabbed it!
Yes, I saw the announcement: https://community.logos.com/discussion/249544/important-update-nrsv-nrsvce-and-reverse-interlinear-versions-leaving-logos
I wonder if that means that Word On Fire will be updating the latest editions to the NRSVUE if they get a Catholic Edition? Or maybe they already got permission to use the NRSV-CE for the rest of the series. I only have the first volume but already have the Great Quotes edition from Catholic Bible Press as well as the Verbum edition.
I’ve reached out to Friendship Press (which has been involved with licensing the NRSVue) to seek more information on this.
Four days ago, Cindy Riggins made the following statement on the Fans of the NRSV Facebook page:
“Due to the delay on the Imprimatur of the NRSVue-CE, all publishers are granted extensions to be able to continue to sell the NRSV-CE.”
My personal suspicion is that publication of the NRSV-CE will be allowed to continue until there is an NRSVue-CE available with an imprimatur, but publishers are likely to not schedule new print runs of the NRSV-CE in anticipation of a new edition getting approved.
It sure looks like Friendship Press wants to phase out the old NRSV entirely. In the event that the NRSVue receives an imprimatur in the near future, my hunch is that the final volume or two of the WOF Bible might use the NRSVue-CE text, instead of the NRSV-CE. That would be consistent with WOF being listed as a publication partner for the NRSVue when it was first released.
“Due to the delay on the Imprimatur of the NRSVue-CE…” Does that mean that someone has submitted the NRSVue-CE for an imprimatur?
Yes. The National Council of Churches submitted it to the USCCB for an imprimatur. I made a brief post about it on this blog in July of 2024:
https://catholicbibletalk.com/2024/07/ncc-has-applied-for-imprimatur-on-nrsvue/
So my question is, according to the link at Verbum, everyone has to stop publishing the NRSV-CE as of May 31. Everyone. Now WOF has Vol 5 already typeset and at the printer. What happens there? Is Vol 5 delayed?
I heard back from WOF and got a disappointing response. “Maddie” at WOF said “It appears only Verbum is discontinuing the NRSV-CE and they have nothing to do with us, thank you.”
I think “Maddie” just read my email with the quote from the Verbum email and never bother to do any research.
Oh well
You seem convinced that only Verbum can be right about this. Why must Maddie@WOF be wrong?
I can’t imagine that the rug will be pulled from underneath WOF. That would be a monumental business screwup. I think it’s more likely that one person at Verbum who is responsible for updating their web page is misinformed.
Or, more likely than not, companies like WOF, with existing long-term contracts negotiated and signed years ago, will be exempt from any such changes, thus allowing them to continue to use the NRSV-CE through to Volume 7. Not to mention the entire country of Canada will probably have to be exempt at least on the printed side, lest the entire country lose access to their Bible translation overnight. Needless to say, if the entire NRSV-CE translation was disappearing at the end of the week, you wouldn’t just be hearing about it from some random Verbum link. There’d be a press release and a bunch of articles in Catholic publications.
I trusted those who assured me the NRSV was a liberal debasement of the scriptures, but I was wrong. It isn’t my main translation, nor will it ever be, but using the St Johns Bible and the Benedictine Daily Prayer breviary, I have grown to appreciate what it brings to the table. I also own and like the Catholic Illustrated Bible, but the Word on Fire Bible looks a bit too much like a magazine to me. I have respect for what it is trying to do, but it is not for me.
It is a shame that the NRSV will be going away. I have never read a verse, but it does seem like aspects of the updated version are questionable. Also, while colloquial English is in constant flux, formal English has been fairly stable since the 50s. I am unsure why the NRSV had to be updated at all. I have never read a verse of it which seemed dated in the least!
I wonder if Catholic publishing will be the home for the NRSV in the future. It is a bit wryly funny to me how much we American Catholics learn to love the translation work of last generation’s liberal protestantism. Lovers of the Ignagius Bible would probably be surprised to hear that fundamentalists were burning RSVs in the 50s.
The problem is there isn’t a Catholic translation (meaning done from scratch all or almost exclusively by Catholics) in English that is an essentially literal translation like the ESV or NASB and that doesn’t use inclusive language. Besides the DR, which is from the Vulgate.
Holding out hope for the NAB revision!
The NABRE is a literal translation, and the new revision, whenever it is published, is expected to be even more literal.
The NABRE, despite being unfairly maligned as dynamic equivalence due to its 1970s predecessor, is pretty much in the same literal-dynamic zone as the NRSV, CSB, and NET. In fact, probably the most annoying bits of the NABRE translation come from being too literal to the point of sacrificing good English, such as infamously in Isaiah 9, rather than from it being too dynamic. Seriously, if it weren’t for the footnotes, the popular discussion about the translation would be very different than it is.
And if the Augustine Institute continues with their CSV translation (I’m still waiting on word of the Luke volume), that will presumably be the long-awaited answer for an “essentially literal translation from scratch exclusively by Catholics,” since the CSV, based on the available Matthew and Mark volumes, is pretty much an RSV-3CE without the direct lineage.
The Lectionary version of the ESV-CE used in Britain and elsewhere uses inclusive language to a large extent in NT passages, based on the alternative readings in the translation footnotes. However, it avoids turning the singular into plural to achieve this, which in the NRSV largely eliminates possible Christological readings of some OT texts.
I place no inherent benefit to a translation being done “by Catholics”. I know Catholics for and against gay marriage, or female priests, or married priests, or abortion, or Latin mass, or… The simple fact is I do not personally know the people doing a translation so I certainly do not know what their biases are. Similarly, I am skeptical of people who think a list of names of translators makes it better: does that so-called “transparency” mean they did a better job?
The fact that somebody listens to a priest once a week, instead of a minister, preacher, or vicar, does not make them better qualified to do a translation. Frankly, I think there arguments to be made that the most unbiased literal translations would be made by atheists or agnostics, or even an AI. I think what matters most for a translation effort is that God works through the translators, and that those people be passionate and diligent about their work.
To be clear, though, I prefer literal translations. If you want a dynamic translation then, yes, I suppose you want Catholic translators. Similarly for study guides or commentary.
I agree that the gender neutral plural looks barbaric in formal English. I was born in the mid 80s, though, so I use it verbally more often than I would care to admit. (Using “they” to mean an unknown individual, especially.)
As I dug deeper into the Fathers one thing that surprised me, is that from the way people discuss translation issues in the psalms I expected them to be citing Psalm 1 to be about Jesus all the time, but I have never seen it. Perhaps Augustine does it in his Ennarations on the Psalms.
Learning about the four senses of scripture has made me less touchy about certain translation issues. (That and Augustine talking about how he constantly has a bunch of translations on hand). What I mean is this: whether Psalm 1 is Blessed is the man or Blessed is the one or Blessed is anyone, no damage is to be done to its spiritual sense.
That being said, translations to be used in the liturgy are quite another matter.
An excellent book on issues related to translation is “The Word: How We Translate the Bible and Why It Matters” by John Barton. It is an introductory text on the philosophy of translation, not just of the Bible but of all texts.
Mark Giszczak, of the Augustine Institute, in his book “Bible Translation and the Making of the ESV Catholic Edition”, makes a compelling argument for retaining the singular in translating Psalm 1, in line with a traditional Christological, typological and spiritual sense of the Psalms referred to by Liturgiam Authenticam. This chimes with St Augustine’s reading. By opting for a plural rendering, as in the NRSV, we are directed to a moralistic reading. In other words, everything comes down to my personal behaviour. I would argue that the singular rendering opens up to text to both Christological and personal interpretation, although in the interests of inclusion, “Blessed is the one” might be a better translation choice than “Blessed is the man”. There does seem to be some squeamishness about emphasising Christological readings of OT texts, even among Catholics, which is perhaps a consequence of the dominance of the historical critical method over a long period of time.
I’m with Augustine in this one – we should never have abandoned the LXX in the Latin Church. A good number of the Christological and liturgical texts (as well as NT citations) come alive in the Greek, but one kind of has to squint to see them in translations from the Hebrew.
In my opinion, this is a place where the ESV wins some points. The footnotes with alternate readings from the LXX and ancient translations are very thorough.
I have some sympathy with what you say. Do you spend much time with the septuagint? What edition?
Well, “Blessed are they” is definitely more problematic.