Lecture given by father Dominic, 11 November 2009

There are many different methods to interpret the Scriptures. In this talk I will bring out some  Catholic’s principles and other common principles concerning the interpretation of the Scriptures in the light of Dei Verbum  and other documents which relate to the  interpretation of the Scriptures.

SCRIPTURES – TRADITION – MAGISTERIUM

Before saying anything about the Catholic’s principles concerning interpretation of the Scriptures, I think we must look at the relationships of Scriptures, Tradition and Magisterium, (S. T. M.) because all the interpretation/understanding of Scriptures in the Catholic Church must be taken into account the  S. T. M. triad. According to the Dei Verbum 9 it says,

“sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal. Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. And the Tradition transmits its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit…. Thus, Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal feelings of devotion and reverence (DV9).”  The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully… It is clear, therefore, that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot sand without the others (DV 10)”.

Thus, the Scriptures have to be read within the living tradition of the Church and the “analogy of faith“: i.e. the interconnection of the mysteries amongst themselves. Again, the Magisterium as servant of the Word of God concerning its interpretation has the responsibility of authoritatively  interpreting the Scriptures: not in the sense that nobody else can, but that of giving an interpretation that is normative for the Church’s life, faith and morals.

SOME PRACTICAL PRINCIPLES IN INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE

There are two main methods for interpreting the Scriptures namely, the classical interpretation  and the modern one. The classical methods of exegesis were concerned primarily with the meaning of the texts for us; they took and an above-down descending approach, by seeing  that these are Divine texts containing meaning for us humans: i.e. they must be studied in order to ascertain what they mean for us. By contrast, modern exegesis takes these texts in a below-up ascending approach, as human texts that contain a Divine meaning for us. Thus, classical interpretation saw two senses/meanings in Scripture, the literal and the spiritual, the spiritual is subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogic senses. It was the concordance of the four senses that guaranteed a living reading of Scripture within the Church:

a) The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation and analysing its literary and historical context. The literal sense is that sense intended by the author and “all other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on literal” (Aquinas ST I.1.10 ad 1).

b) The spiritual sense treats the words of Scripture as ‘symbolic’ and yielding the meaning when read under the influence of the Holy Spirit and in the context of the Paschal Mystery and new life that flows from it (cfr. PBC 81). The spiritual sense was formed of  a 3-fold deeper meaning.

- The allegorical sense: i.e. events seen in relation to Christ (e.g. crossing the Read Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and of Christian Baptism (cfr. 1 Cor. 10:2); Adam as a type of Christ (Romans 5:14) etc. Typology was much used by the Fathers as a means of reading the Scriptures whereby older realities (types) are seen as foreshadowing in God’s plan later realities, particularly events in the life of Christ and of the Paschal Mystery. Many of the Fathers argued for the unity of the two testaments precisely on this basis and for a Christian re-reading of the OT: PBC quotes the dictum of Augustine: Novum Testamentum in Vetere latet, et in Novo Vetus patet ( The NT lies hidden in the Old, and the Old becomes clear in the New) cfr. PBC p.103.

- The moral sense: i.e. what these events teach us to do in order to live morally good lives.

- The anagogic sense: i.e. realities and events seen in relation to heaven (anagogein is to lead).

The PBC summarises the significance of the four senses: Lettera gesta docet, quid credas allegoria, moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia (The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith; the Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny) (PBC p.78; thought to originate in 13C with Augustine of Denmark).

Modern exegesis: Modern 20C methods of exegesis are concerned first with the meaning of the texts in their original context; they take a from below-up ascending approach that treats human authorship as the route to understanding the Divine intention, i.e. the meaning God intends to communicate to us. These are human texts containing a divine meaning. The Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC) pp. 34-72 critically evaluates some of these methodologies:

a) Historical-Critical Method (HCM): The PBC gives one of the strongest ever recommendations for using the HCM. It sees it as the

“indispensable   method for the scientific study of the meaning of ancient texts. Holy Scripture, in as much as it is the Word of God in human language, has been composed by human authors in all its various parts and in all the sources that lie behind them. Because of this, its proper understanding not only admits the use of this method but actually requires it” (PBC p.34).

The HCM comprises 3 tools: Textual Criticism; Form Criticism; and Redaction Criticism. The Church former ambivalence towards  this method derives from its origins within 19C German liberalism that tended to treat the Scriptural texts as purely human constructions and not as texts of faith within a tradition. Moreover, modernism was a warning against reductionist philosophies and theologies that a priori demythologises the events and realities of Scripture, reduce them to personal experience (= Modernism) or suggest, contrary to the demands of canonical criticism, that the older a text is the more authentic it is (= historical positivism). However, on its own, the HCM is insufficient for interpreting Scripture  since its strength is also its weakness: it seeks to establish the meaning of the text within its original context, yet there is also need to apply the text for us today (cfr. PBC p.41). This is why other methods are variously also in use:

b) Literary Analysis: The PBC on pp. 41-50 describes the 3 principles methods of literary analysis presently operative, the first 2 being diachronic, and the third, synchronic methods:

- Rhetorical Analysis: i.e. takes seriously the communicative function of the biblical text, that every passage is aimed at convincing the listener, appealing to him/her to change and be converted. Rhetorical analysis thus tries to identify stylistic features, literary stratagems, Greco-Roman oratorical forms etc.

- Narrative Analysis: identifies elements of story and personal testimony and how they influence writer/reader.

- Semiotic Analysis: i.e. considers the significance of Scripture in terms of its symbolic communication to the reader (cfr. PBC p.47).

c) Approaches based on Tradition. These see the task of interpretation as trying to situate a text within the Bible as a whole and as a document of faith, thus complimenting the use of the HCM. The PBC identifies 3 particular methods:

- Canonical criticism: situating a text within the whole book of Scripture and then tracing its influence within the whole canon (cfr. not taking a line of Scripture out of its context PBC pp. 50-53).

- Jewish interpretation: i.e. recourse to Jewish traditions of interpreting the Scriptures.

- History of Influence Approach (Wirkungsgeschichte): i.e. tracing the influence of the text within individuals and communities.

There are other models in modern methods in interpreting the Scripture, such as human sciences; contextual approaches, and fundamentalism.

HERMENEUTICS

Hermeneutics is a theory of interpretation, especially of biblical texts. It includes: (a) exegesis (phase of retrieval FS 1-4), the method for establishing original text, ascertaining its meaning, what was going on at the time, what its purpose was in the issues of the day and; (b) criticism  (phase of engagement FS 5-8): the reader enters into conversation with the text itself and what it means for us today.

The term is somewhat not solid: exegesis tends to mean the meaning of the original author, hermeneutics is what that meaning means for us. Hermeneutics is the theory taking seriously that the Word of God is “ living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12). The classical instance of hermeneutics would be the way the Early Church saw Jesus Christ as the hermeneutical key to the Old Testament; they now reread the OT in the light of the Gospel. Thus, Jerome could say that every line of the OT already implies the New Testament. But the problem of interpretation has really only arisen today with the impact of the historical differentiation: the realisation that we now inhabit a totally different world-view from the authors of the sacred texts. We thus have to retrieve the meaning and value of what that text meant for its writers and listeners before we can allow the text to speak to us today in our situation. In other words, the spiritual meaning depends upon the literal (cfr. PBC p.82). Or to put it theologically, there are three levels of reality at work: (a) the biblical text itself with its literal meaning; (b) the paschal mystery, the key for both the writer and for us; (c) life in the Spirit, poured out then and now for us today.

SOME PRINCIPLES OF CATHOLIC INTERPRETATION

In the Scriptures, God speaks to people in a human way, thus, the Scripture has two authors the main author is God and the other is human. Therefore to interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words. This is why

” the primary task of the exegete is to determine as accurately as possible the meaning of biblical texts in their proper context, that is, first of all, in their   particular literary and historical context and then within the wider canon of Scripture” (PBC p.111).

Yet Catholic exegesis is also deliberately ecclesial in the full  sense. The Bible attests the revelation given in Christ through the Holy Spirit to the Church: it is the same community reading the Scriptures that wrote it. Consequently, Dei verbum 11-12 offer 3 clear guidelines for interpretation  of Scripture. These avoid fundamentalism, individualism and academic rationalism, while at the same time upholding the sacredness of God’s Word and acknowledging the importance of scientific study of the Bible.

a) The first guideline for the interpretation of Scripture is to read the text within the whole. Despite the tremendous variety of material in the Bible, there is also  an essential unity:

“But since sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted with its divine authorship in mind, no less attention must be devoted to the content and unity of the whole Scripture” (DV 12).

Besides, the CCC also says that Scripture is a unity “by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Jesus is the centre and heart” (CCC 112).

b) The second guideline is to read the Scripture within Tradition. This is clear from the Scripture-Tradition-Magisterium triad. The CCC quotes Origen that Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather in documents and records “for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word” (n.13).

c) The third guideline is to read the text within the analogy of faith: i.e. the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

CONCLUSION:

There are many more issues to be considered when we talk about the interpretation of Scripture. An important issue for ecumenical  today is: What is the Bible? How is normative or authoritative for Christians? Functional of Scripture in the life of  Church differs from non-Catholic understandings (cfr. S-T-M triad):

“But when Christians separated from us affirm the divine authority of the sacred books, they think differently from us – different ones in different ways- about the relationship between the Scripture and the church. For in the Church, according to Catholic belief, its authentic teaching office has a special place in expounding and preaching the written Word of God” (Unitatis Redintegratio 21).

Reformed theology tends to speak of the “authority” of Scripture, Catholics of its inerrancy and inspiration. Of course the authority of Scripture derives from the fact that the Scriptures have been inspired by the Holy Spirit and are revered as a quasi-sacrament of the Word of God. Besides, for a proper understanding of the Catholic approach to Scripture, the doctrine of tradition is essential. According to Avery Dulles in his book The Craft of Theology: From Symbol to System he argues that there were 3 main schools of thought, in the 16th century just before the Council of Trent.

a) “According to one school all the truth needed for salvation was contained explicitly or implicitly in the  canonical Scriptures.  Tradition was required for the correct interpretation of Scripture, especially for spelling out what was merely implicit in the text. This view, which some scholars regard as the ‘classical’ one, is represented by many church fathers and others”.[1]

b) A second view held that Christian revelation is partly contained in the canonical Scripture and partly in apostolic traditions passed down orally from the apostles through their disciples.

c) According to the third view, dominant among curial canonises and curial theologians in the late Middle Ages, the Holy Spirit abides constantly with the Catholic Church, giving new inspiration or illumination. The teaching of popes and councils, even though not supported by canonical Scriptures or by apostolic traditions, is binding on all the faithful.

BIOGRAPHY

Avery Dulles, S.J., The Craft of Theology: From Symbol to System , USA (1992)
Vatican Council II: The Conciliar And Post Conciliar Documents, Dublin, (1992)
Lectures notes from FT
The Pontifical Biblical Commission documents 6
[1] Avery Dulles, S.J., The Craft of Theology: From Symbol to System , p.87 USA (1992)