|
Article Excerpt
THE PLACE OF JOHN HENRY NEWMAN (1801-90) in the history of Christianity stands tall not only for his writings and leadership as a member of the Oxford Movement within the Anglican Church during the 1830s, but for the public character of his conversion to the Roman Catholic Church in 1845 and his subsequent involvement in several controversies, most notably one with Charles Kingsley leading to the publication of Newman's famous autobiography, Apologia pro Vita Sua (1864). One of the controversies that Newman faced, on the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture, is particularly interesting for its function as a microcosm of the larger issues facing Christian thinkers in his day. The rise of historical criticism in the 19th century brought change to many churches, where previously it had remained on the margins of orthodox thinking during the heyday of the Enlightenment. Yet, change was in the air, and continental ideas were slowly emerging on British soil. Certainly, S. T. Coleridge's posthumously published Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit (1840), which denied the plenary inspiration of Scripture, marked a significant stage in the altered landscape. However, in England, the tide of liberalism was likely felt strongest with the publication of Essays and Reviews in 1860, which so scandalized the nation that 11,000 clergymen signed a statement supporting the inspiration of Scripture. In such a charged environment of transition, it comes as no surprise that Newman's publication of two short apologetic works, "On the Inspiration of Scripture" (1884), brought allegations of Modernism by those who questioned his orthodoxy as a Roman Catholic.
Today, it is Newman's late writings on the doctrine of inspiration that have largely dominated studies on his understanding of Scripture. My article arises from the relative neglect of Newman's conception of the interpretation of Scripture during his years as an Anglican. More specifically, I argue that scholarship on these years has been reduced to largely broad sweeping, systematic statements when in fact a more historically accurate portrait necessitates a detailed analysis of each work.
The first part of this article offers a brief review of scholarship about studies on Newman and Scripture during the latter half of the 20th century. My research shows that the influence of a single monograph written in 1953 set the course for all subsequent studies on Newman and Scripture, even though the work in question came under significant criticism. The second part of my study turns to two key works published in 1838 in order to make a distinction between the way scholars have characterized his works and what a close analysis of the literature actually reveals. First, this section examines Newman's Lectures on the Doctrine of Justification (March 1838). Here, Newman, in a brief section of the text, argues on the basis of a patristic distinction between a sign and a thing that historical criticism alone is insufficient for the uncovering of spiritual truth. Then, the article explores Newman's Tract 85 of the Tracts for the Times, entitled "Lectures on the Scripture Proofs of the Doctrine of the Church" (May-August 1838); in this tract, Newman employs some of the insights of modern criticism to illustrate that Scripture alone is an insufficient basis for Christian doctrine. By examining these two works, one gains a more accurate portrait of how Newman understood Scripture and the place of critical methodologies in these momentous years and one recognizes the need for future reevaluation of the period.
20TH-CENTURY NEWMAN STUDIES ON SCRIPTURE
Surprisingly, the amount of critical scholarship on Newman's conception of Scripture and related doctrines is relatively meager. During the latter half of the 20th century, one finds that the first major study of Newman and Scripture remains the standard on the subject today. Further, one finds that scholars have emphasized, almost to the exclusion of his earlier works, Newman's work on inspiration subsequent to his entrance into the Roman Catholic Church.
Without doubt, the standard study of Newman and Scripture remains Jaak Seynaeve's Cardinal Newman's Doctrine on Holy Scripture (1953). (1) After a brief introductory chapter that places Newman's doctrines of the Bible in their historical setting, Seynaeve focuses specifically on the doctrine of inspiration. Here, he is almost exclusively concerned with two works from Newman's Roman Catholic years: the "Inspiration Papers" of 1861-1863 (2) and "On the Inspiration of Scripture" which appeared publicly in 1884. (3)
The second part of Seynaeve's study addresses more generally Newman's hermeneutics. As opposed to the first part, where each document was placed within a carefully grounded historical setting, Seynaeve does not write an account that chronologically examines the development and changes in Newman's hermeneutics by tracing individual texts, sermons, and lectures; rather, while treating mostly Anglican works, the author reduces the period to a broadly systematic and thematic account. On one hand, in this section he reveals a thorough knowledge of material from all phases of Newman's life and displays a unique ability to weave passages together for a single thematic account. On the other hand, this method often becomes problematic as it admits to little, if any, development in Newman's thought and inadequately explores the implications of apparent contradictions to larger themes. For example, Seynaeve argues that Newman's concept of biblical interpretation maintains chronological unity having "remained to a large extent the same" during his life, but later excludes an important aspect of the Sacramental Principle, "as regards the literal and mystical sense," as a Catholic development. (4) Additionally, working from the presumption of consistency of thought, Seynaeve often unflinchingly quotes Newman with little regard for contextual difference. As a result, it is no surprise that Seynaeve offers little historical context for the appearance of an important anomaly in Newman's thought: after an extended treatment of the continuity of the two testaments and the importance of the typological and allegorical senses of Scripture, Seynaeve notes with surprise Newman's appropriation of Hooker's dictum on the priority of the literal construction, but only concludes "this leads us to the further conclusion that he was not so much alien to that sense as some authors assume." (5) In all, Seynaeve's study is rightly an authoritative work for its breadth and remains the standard examination of Newman and Scripture to this day; yet, its systematic methodology and lack of historical context...
|
