LAUSR

has written it to mean” (985). Yet how can we establish what God intended to say, except by examining the (divinely inspired) intentions of the human authors? And what authoritative role should the church community and its tradition play in a biblical interpretation that begins with the literal meaning intended by the human authors? Apropos of Catholic teaching, one could agree with Carson: “Catholicism has held that tradition has an authority comparable to that of Scripture” (1163; see 292). After all, Vatican II’s Constitution on Divine Revelation insisted on Scripture and tradition being closely bound together: “they flow from the same divine well-spring [revelation], come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move toward the same goal” (Dei Verbum [DV] 9). Since the origin, function, and finality of Scripture and tradition are so intimately linked, one should agree that their authority is at least “comparable.” Carson, however, presses on to claim in an unqualified fashion that in the Catholic view “the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the church, alone determines what Scripture and tradition mean” (1163; emphasis mine). Vatican II teaches rather that the “task of authentically [i.e. authoritatively] interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed down, has been entrusted only to the living teaching office of the church” (DV 10). The Council then states that “interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject” to the judgment of the church [i.e. the magisterium] (DV 12). This corresponds to practice. On a day-to-day basis, the magisterium is far from determining alone what Scripture and tradition mean. It does so rarely, as the ultimate, authoritative interpreter of divine revelation. Earlier Carson rightly speaks about the “ultimate” teaching authority claimed for the Magisterium (24). Being “ultimate” is not the same as standing “alone.” A further statement by Carson about the “exclusive sufficiency” of Scriptures also calls for qualification (1163). Very many Catholics have accepted their “material” sufficiency, in that they convey the full truth of divine revelation, but not their “formal” sufficiency. The Scriptures need to be interpreted by tradition, church teachers, and Christian believers. Those who return to the language about the “sufficiency” of the Scriptures need to distinguish between “material” and “formal” sufficiency (see 294, 305–7). All in all, this volume should be welcomed not only for its invitation to let the Scriptures guide Christian thinking and acting, but also for its repeated message that sinful human beings can evade or distort what the Holy Spirit wishes to say to us through the inspired Word of God.