1.1 Christian Sensus Fidelium and the “Jewish Scriptures”?

The relationship between scripture and sensus fidelium has, indeed, been developed in theological concepts. In 2014 for example, the International Theological Commission (2014: 5) tried to clarify the biblical sources of sensus fidelium, and Ormond Rush (Reference Rush2009: 7) developed a “theology of a ‘sense of faith’” which relates the question of sensus fidelium to revelation and scripture. However, in both cases, the main focus rests on the New Testament. The International Theological Commission only mentions the Old Testament in reflecting on the meaning of faith in general (2014: 8, 12) and, remarkably, speaks about the faith of “the ‘holy remnant’ of believers” (2014: 118), who witnessed to it even against powerful majorities. Thus, the reference to the Old Testament remains superficial.

Rush argues that the “Jewish Scriptures…constitute the interpretative matrix” (2009: 103) for the first disciples, which allowed them already to interpret Jesus “analogously” (2009: 93) with a sense of faith. Although he emphasises that, for the church, the “Jewish Scriptures” remain important, the name “Jewish Scriptures” for the Old Testament already displays that, for Rush, it is difficult to see continuity between the faith of Israel and the church. For him, real sensus fidelium originates in the encounter with Jesus and is a “reception of the Christ event” (Rush Reference Rush2009: 158). Surely, it is important to emphasize that the Old Testament or Tanakh is the scriptures of Judaism and that “the covenant of God with Israel has never been revoked” (Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews 2015). However, the term “Jewish Scriptures” for the Old Testament appears inadequate, because it creates the impression of it not as sacred for Christians as the New Testament (Reid Reference Reid, Wacker, Dempsey and Reid2016: xxxi). Furthermore, Rush (Reference Rush2009: 130) depicts the whole formation process of the New Testament and only the inclusion of the Old Testament into the canon as an expression of sensus fidelium. The origins and development of the Old Testament in Israel seem to be cut off from such an intuition of faith. Thus, the Old Testament appears to have a subordinate role in the on‐going process of sensus fidelium in the church.

1.2 Learning from Israel's Faith

As the church believes that the Old Testament is equally the “written word of God” (DV 24), it can be doubted whether a largely exclusive focus on the New Testament for questions of sensus fidelium is adequate. In turn, it can be asked what the church might learn from the Old Testament and Israel's faith for the notion of sensus fidelium. This question presupposes that the Old Testament is not just seen as “Jewish Scriptures”, which are included in the Christian faith as a relatively foreign element. This contrasting position builds upon results from historical research that contemporary Judaism and Christianity both have their roots in Second Temple Judaism and the Old Testament. According to Levenson (Reference Levenson2007: 3), these can be seen as a “common parent” to both religions. As Judaism sees its foundation in the Tanakh, but is also heavily reliant on the Mishna and subsequent Rabbinic teaching (Levenson Reference Levenson2004: 12), so the church with its New Testament and later traditions has to remain aware of its connectedness to Israel and to those Gentiles who came to believe in the God of Israel.

This essay argues that the church can indeed learn from Israel and its faith for a deeper understanding of the notion of sensus fidelium in the church. It will show that such learning from Israel's faith also means learning from the experiences of communal sin, repentance and God's forgiveness. These realities are difficult to include in a concept of sensus fidelium that emphasises the infallibility of the “entire body of the faithful” (LG 12). Nevertheless, this exercise appears to be extremely important.

To develop this further, this essay will rely on insights from the so‐called ‘canonical approach’ in exegesis. It will propose the latter as one possible methodology for the way the church can learn from Israel by bringing the expressions of faith in both communities into relation with each other. In the third part, it will present and discuss an exemplary interpretation of the “penitential prayer” of Baruch 1:15–3:8, for Roman Catholics a part of the Old Testament, for Jews an apocryphal writing from Second Temple Judaism (Wacker Reference Wacker, Dempsey and Reid2016: xxxv). The interpretation by Marie‐Theres Wacker (Reference Wacker, Dempsey and Reid2016: 4) understands Baruch as a “guide to ‘mend’ or to ‘heal’ a distorted community”. Thus, it appears especially useful to reflect upon the notion of sensus fidelium and sin in the church in relation to an Old Testament text and its model of communal sin, repentance and reconciliation.

2. The ‘Canonical Approach’ and the Church as a Reading Community

Dei Verbum (24) determines a clear role for scripture as the church's foundation. However, while permitting historical criticism (DV 12), it does not dictate a specific methodology (DV 23). In the increasingly diverse exegetical field, in which several approaches complement classical historical criticism (Schneiders Reference Schneiders and Barton2006: 99), the so‐called ‘canonical approach’ appears to be especially useful for bringing Israel into conversation with the contemporary church and its traditions.

2.1 A Focus on Many Generations of Faith

The ‘canonical approach’ originated in the second half of the twentieth century as part of a broader development in Biblical Studies that questioned the hegemony of historical criticism and its paradigm to “interpret the Scripture like any other book” (Jowett Reference Jowett and Jowett1862: 327). Insights from secular literary scholarship were introduced into the exegetical debate and suggested that historical criticism had neglected important hermeneutical questions (Schneiders Reference Schneiders and Barton2006: 98). Moreover, several exegetes criticised historical criticism for systematically excluding questions of faith. They demanded the removal of the “iron curtain” (Childs Reference Childs1992: xvi) between the historical and philological exegesis of a text and its theological interpretation. They aimed at including “questions of identity, allegiance, life‐practices, or trust” (Moberly Reference Moberly, Porter and Malcolm2013: 109) and at putting more focus on the preparation of ministers to preach to their religious communities (Moberly Reference Moberly2010: 97). It is not possible here to present the debates about different exegetical approaches and their respective suitability for putting questions to the texts. However, it can be seen that the ‘canonical approach’ has the intention of opening Biblical Studies to the specific questions of church communities with their traditions and encouraging the interplay between the Bible as a foundation of faith and the faithful with their sensus fidelium.

Moreover, the ‘canonical approach’ establishes the term ‘canon’ as a central hermeneutical category (Steins Reference Steins1999: 10) for a new vision of the text: ‘canon’ implies several diachronic and synchronic communities that develop, hand down and read the texts. The response of contemporary readers as well as the on‐going process of interpretation in the traditions of faith‐communities, explicitly included in the interpretation of a text, represent an outer‐layer (Childs Reference Childs1992: 70–71). According to Rush (Reference Rush2009: 109), the interplay between author, text and contemporary readers, i.e. the interpretation as “productive imagination of the receiver”, can be judged as part of the sensus fidelium. This combination of both concepts shows how the ‘canonical approach’ and the notion of sensus fidelium can enrich each other: The former offers an exegetical concept to focus on the reading community with its sensus fidelium. The latter, in turn, demands that the voices of all members of the church are heard in the process of interpretation (LG 12). ‘Canon’ must not become the justification of an “authoritative interpretation” (Moberly Reference Moberly, Porter and Malcolm2013: 121) that prioritises the strong voices of tradition, but it needs to overcome Eurocentrism and gender bias for a fuller representation of the sensus fidelium.

Furthermore, the textual canon as such, the different biblical books, narrative cycles and their order have been developed in a long canonisation process over many generations (Seitz Reference Seitz and Vanhoozer2005: 101). This can be seen as a second layer of the term ‘canon’ that focuses on the innumerable generations who have adapted the testimonies of their parents in faith. For Rush (Reference Rush2009: 129), the “whole canonization process of the bipartite Christian Bible can be modelled as an operation of the individual and communal organon of sensus fidei”. In Judaism, Franz Rosenzweig emphasized the value of those who developed the original texts further into the final form of the Pentateuch. Accepting the insights of historical criticism that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses as one inspired author, he argued that one could also understand the “R”, used by historical criticism to refer to the presumed final redactor, as an abbreviation for “rabbenu” (Rosenzweig Reference Rosenzweig, Buber, Rosenzweig, Rosenwald and Fox1994: 23). Thus, even though the redactors are unknown, their faith and activity in the canonical process make them teachers for contemporary readers.

Finally, the term ‘canon’ implies valuing the final form of each text (Seitz Reference Seitz and Vanhoozer2005: 101). Instead of reconstructing an original version and judging later textual developments to be a corruption of the text, exegetes can value the final form after its long formation process. Birch (1980: 123) even proposes to not only reflect upon the meaning of the final form but also to include possible meanings from older layers into the analysis of the text. In this way, the long process can be appreciated in which textual meanings were developed by believers in the God of Israel. Unfortunately, Rush's understanding of sensus fidelium in the canonisation process does not include these elements because of his strict separation between the sensus fidelium in Christianity and the “Jewish Scriptures” that I have already criticised above. He only mentions the act of including the “Jewish Scriptures” into the Christian canon as an act of sensus fidelium (Rush Reference Rush2009: 129–30). Thus, he falls short of emphasizing the continuities between the faith of Israel and the church alongside the new belief in Christ. By contrast, the ‘canonical approach’ values all these different layers as witnesses of faith to the One handed down from many generations in Israel to contemporary Judaism and Christianity.

2.2 A Focus on Dispositions for Sensus Fidelium

The ‘canonical approach’ not only appears to be useful because of its focus on the reading communitie that engage in the sensus fidelium, but also because of its intention to ensure certain criteria in the difficult process of interpretation. In its report of 2014, the International Theological Commission names six main “dispositions needed for authentic participation in the sensus fidei” (88‐105), which are to be understood as heuristic devices for making decisions in matters of faith: “Listening to the word of God” (92‐94), “participation in the life of the Church” (89‐91), “seeking the edification of the Church” (104‐05), “adherence to the magisterium” (97‐98), “openness to reason” (95‐96) and “holiness – humility, freedom and joy” (99‐103). With the help of methodological considerations, the ‘canonical approach’ tries to propose an exegesis that takes these demands seriously:

As “listening to the word of God” (92‐94) is the main task of biblical interpretation, it is ensured by the ‘canonical approach’. The latter might even move beyond the requirement formulated by the commission that the laity should listen to the scriptures in the liturgy (93). Valuing the church as a reading community might support not just the clergy and experts, but also the laity in actually reading the Bible for themselves and studying it together, which is also a request of the Second Vatican Council (DV 25).

The idea of participation in the life of the church with its impetus to work on its edification and to be loyal to the magisterium is one of the key intentions of the ‘canonical approach’. The use of the ancient notion of a rule of faith has been proposed (Cosgrove Reference Cosgrove and Cosgrove2004) to provide an overarching sense of the content of scripture and Christian faith into which the different texts and their meanings can be inserted like “pieces of a mosaic” (Young Reference Young2002: 47). This would facilitate a reading of the biblical texts in conversation with the faith community's traditions, convictions and customs (Moberly Reference Moberly, Porter and Malcolm2013: 119). However, it has been said that such an approach is too authoritative, in the sense that it belittles the spirit of criticism in historical‐critical exegesis, which asks, according to Barton (Reference Barton1993: 10), “What does the text say? – rather than, What have we always been told that the text says?” Thus, it is important to not understand loyalty to the magisterium and engagement in the church as a rejection of criticism. By contrast, Newman (Reference Newman1986: 56) includes in the notion of sensus fidelium the idea that lay people and theologians should be “enthusiastic” about the church and its teachings. The magisterium, in turn, should be interested in the perspective of the faithful in matters of faith and morals (Newman Reference Newman1986: 56). As an example, he describes the Arian controversy as an instance in which the laity's faithfulness to and insistence on the true faith against most of the clergy supported the edification of the church (Newman Reference Newman1986: 86–101).

Critical loyalty is also encouraged by the demand to be open to reason and to strive for holiness, expressed in “humility, freedom and joy” (International Theological Commission 2014: 99). Applied to the ‘canonical approach’ this means that we take seriously the insights of historical criticism and be as objective as possible in the acceptance of conflicting results (Cosgrove Reference Cosgrove and Cosgrove2004: 41–43). The notion of “holiness” requires that we observe ethical considerations in biblical interpretation (Cosgrove Reference Cosgrove and Cosgrove2004: 43). Humility, one of the central elements that the Commission (2014: 103) mentions as signs of holiness, is achieved by “‘regarding others as better than yourselves’ (Phil 2:2‐3)”. Applied to exegesis, this means being attentive to other perspectives, especially to those of marginalized voices inside the church, e.g. contributions from feminist exegesis or post‐colonial criticism, as well as from outside, especially the Jewish tradition (Reid Reference Reid, Wacker, Dempsey and Reid2016: xv). In contrast to a triumphalist Christian reading of the Old Testament, humility means openness to finding true and valuable interpretations in the tradition of our Jewish brothers and sisters as well. The other central terms, joy and freedom, can enable marginalized groups to share their insights and hopes within their sensus fidelium. In attempting to follow these dispositions in biblical interpretation, the ‘canonical approach’ can become one possible tool to enhance the dialogue between the faith of the original authors of the Old Testament texts and their communities in Israel, the faith of the following generations who held them dear, and the faith of contemporary readers in their reading communities in synagogue and church.

3. Sensus Fidelium, the Old Testament and Communal Repentance

Having reflected upon one possible approach that relates the interpretation of the Old Testament to the sensus fidelium of the church, I now suggest one practical example of what the church might learn from Israel for the notion of sensus fidelium. I will argue that Israel can become a role model for the church in speaking about its own reality of communal sin, repentance and hope for God's forgiveness. To do so I will first introduce the question of how to mediate between the infallibility of the sensus fidelium and the reality of communal sin and repentance in the church. Second, I will ask how the book of Baruch reacts to the communal sin of the people of Israel and how a contemporary interpretation of the text might help to bring Israel and the sensus fidelium of the church into conversation.

3.1 Sensus Fidelium, Infallibility and Sin

Reacting to the Vatican's Secretary of State, who had called Ireland's vote to approve same‐sex marriage a “defeat for humanity” (Kirchgaessner Reference Kirchgaessner2015), the comedian John Oliver (Reference Oliver2015) answered: “Remember, you are an organisation, whose ‘victories for humanity’ include the crusades, forced adoptions and running a widely successful, international paedophile‐exchange‐program.” Such a voice from the public sphere appears to capture a widespread perception of Christianity, the Roman Catholic Church in particular. Acknowledging the reality of sin in the Church, officials have started to admit mistakes and John Paul II (Reference Paul2000) has even apologised in the name of the Church. One especially important example is the apology regarding Judaism:

How is it possible to keep both elements in tension: the confession of unspeakable horrors done in the name of Christianity and the belief that the Church as a whole cannot err “in matters of faith and morals” (LG 12)?

Three answers from the literature on sensus fidelium suggest themselves that may be related to Baruch: first, Löhrer (Reference Löhrer, Feiner and Löhrer1965: 545), the first to discuss the concept of sensus fidelium after the Second Vatican Council (Burkhard Reference Burkhard1993: 41), describes the tension between the indefectibility of the church as a whole and the failing of its members as the foundational tension of church history. However, he remarks that the church as such cannot “herausfallen” (Löhrer Reference Löhrer, Feiner and Löhrer1965: 545) or ‘fall away’ from Christ's truth, because otherwise it would not be Christ's church anymore. This verb is remarkable as it puts the church into a passive role. It does not actively decide to leave Christ's truth or even go astray accidentally, but is held in the truth by someone else, Christ.

Second, Wagner (Reference Wagner1979) makes this notion explicit by arguing for a Christological understanding of the infallibility of the church. The magisterium as well as the faithful do not bring forth the truth themselves, but give witness to Christ and, in that way, experience Christ as the principle of identity and truth in the church (Burkhard Reference Burkhard1993: 55).

The focus on Christ does not seem to support a connection between sensus fidelium and the Old Testament. However, the third example by the International Theological Commission (2014: 118) creates a link between the two: it reminds readers that in Israel as well as the church, it was often only a “holy remnant” that remained faithful in conflict with authorities and, thus, ensured that the community did not fully lose God's way. These “holy remnants” (cf. Isa 10:21; 1 Kgs 19:18) often appear to be placed in the context of prophecy and hope for a better future. Their faithfulness could provoke repentance and show that, even though a majority of the community was not faithful, the general identity of the community belonged to God who could restore it in truth and love.

3.2 Baruch and the “Guilt of Fathers and Rulers”