"contextual approach" to Scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jeanne17
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jeanne17

Guest
The Catholic high schools in Cincinnati, Ohio seem to consistently teach the “contextual approach to Scripture.” What does this mean? My son attends a Jesuit high school and they seem to use this approach and are teaching my son that Scripture is strictly to teach us faith and morals and historically full of error. Is that what “contextual approach” is? Is there an instance where the “contextual approach” would be an appropriate manner of studying Scripture? Thank you, Jeanne
 
Jeanne17 said:
The Catholic high schools in Cincinnati, Ohio seem to consistently teach the “contextual approach to Scripture.” What does this mean? My son attends a Jesuit high school and they seem to use this approach and are teaching my son that Scripture is strictly to teach us faith and morals and historically full of error. Is that what “contextual approach” is? Is there an instance where the “contextual approach” would be an appropriate manner of studying Scripture? Thank you, Jeanne
Click to expand...
Contextualisation is part of a historicist approach to reading. The idea is that you cannot understand a text properly unless you understand the situation in which it was created and then use that understanding to approach the meaning which the text had for the person who originally wrote it and the people who originally read it.

While it seems like a very good idea, truly understanding the situation at any point in history is nowhere near as easy as it sounds. Consider how many people do not understand the world around them today!

As for historical errors, there are certain issues which are difficult to resolve. Luke, for instance, makes a perplexing reference to Quirinius, governor of Syria, which seems to be at odds with other historical sources. Of course, this does not make the Bible authors wrong about everything else that they say. Historical sources very commonly contradict one another about all kinds of things. That is the reason why historians spend so much reading: they have to read through all of the conflicting accounts so that they can draw a line of agreement through all of the most common points, and then say, “This is the version of history which has the greatest support, and so we currently believe that this probably happened.”

Contextualisation is a good tool for reading texts. It is not the only one, nor is it completely reliable, but it is always useful when reading any text, Bible texts included, to think about what this may have meant for the person who was writing and his/her target audience. If you really want to help your son out in this situation, direct confrontation with the ideology being presented at school is unlikely to be beneficial, but subversion of it can be.

Ask him to turn this critical reading back onto the readers: what are the current contextual considerations which make people read this text as being ‘full of errors’? If you can lead him to do this, he might just end up being a very good reader, although I ought to warn you that, should he ultimately decide upon a career in literary studies, he will never make any money! :o
 
Jeanne17 said:
The Catholic high schools in Cincinnati, Ohio seem to consistently teach the “contextual approach to Scripture.” What does this mean? My son attends a Jesuit high school and they seem to use this approach and are teaching my son that Scripture is strictly to teach us faith and morals and historically full of error. Is that what “contextual approach” is? Is there an instance where the “contextual approach” would be an appropriate manner of studying Scripture? Thank you, Jeanne
Click to expand...
Contextualisation is part of a historicist approach to reading. The idea is that you cannot understand a text properly unless you understand the situation in which it was created and then use that understanding to approach the meaning which the text had for the person who originally wrote it and the people who originally read it.

While it seems like a very good idea, truly understanding the situation at any point in history is nowhere near as easy as it sounds. Consider how many people do not understand the world around them today!

As for historical errors, there are certain issues which are difficult to resolve. Luke, for instance, makes a perplexing reference to Quirinius, governor of Syria, which seems to be at odds with other historical sources. Of course, this does not make the Bible authors wrong about everything else that they say. Historical sources very commonly contradict one another about all kinds of things. That is the reason why historians spend so much reading: they have to read through all of the conflicting accounts so that they can draw a line of agreement through all of the most common points, and then say, “This is the version of history which has the greatest support, and so we currently believe that this probably happened.”

Contextualisation is a good tool for reading texts. It is not the only one, nor is it completely reliable, but it is always useful when reading any text, Bible texts included, to think about what this may have meant for the person who was writing and his/her target audience. If you really want to help your son out in this situation, direct confrontation with the ideology being presented at school is unlikely to be beneficial, but subversion of it can be.

Ask him to turn this critical reading back onto the readers: what are the current contextual considerations which make people read this text as being ‘full of errors’? If you can lead him to do this, he might just end up being a very good reader, although I ought to warn you that, should he ultimately decide upon a career in literary studies, he will never make any money! :o
 
My apologies for the double-posting there. The bullock-carts which carry the data packets to and from the internet broke down again, and things became a bit confused.
 
Jeanne17 said:
The Catholic high schools in Cincinnati, Ohio seem to consistently teach the “contextual approach to Scripture.” What does this mean? My son attends a Jesuit high school and they seem to use this approach and are teaching my son that Scripture is strictly to teach us faith and morals and historically full of error. Is that what “contextual approach” is? Is there an instance where the “contextual approach” would be an appropriate manner of studying Scripture? Thank you, Jeanne
Click to expand...
Yes, the contextual approach is very important, as is indicated in the following quote from Pope Paul VI in Dei Verbum (The Dogmatic Consititution on Divine Revelation):

*The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. *

Contextualism is one of the many tools to be used in scriptural analysis - not the only one but certainly a very essential one.

The “full of error in non faith and morals” issue is a matter of constant and impassioned debate throughout the church and its members (there are dozens of threads discussing it just on these forums). Regardless of which side one takes, both sides usually agree that it is the Truth which matters - not whether the truth is told with fiction or with history.
 
Jeanne17,

As patg stated contextualism is simply an approach to understanding what the bible is getting at in a given situation. The question whether the Bible is of use as an historical document is another issue entirely.

While I would agree that the Bible’s primary purpose is to instruct in matters spiritual and moral. I think that it is a mistake to simply ignore its contribution to the historical.
 
From the Catechism:

The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

[116](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/116.htm’)😉 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
[117](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/117.htm’)😉 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
  1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
  2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
  3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses: The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 [119](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/119.htm’)😉 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89
 
rtconstant said:
Jeanne17,

As patg stated contextualism is simply an approach to understanding what the bible is getting at in a given situation. The question whether the Bible is of use as an historical document is another issue entirely.

While I would agree that the Bible’s primary purpose is to instruct in matters spiritual and moral. I think that it is a mistake to simply ignore its contribution to the historical.
Click to expand...
I would agree, because obviously there are points where historical error would be an error in faith and morals. If, for instance, Jesus did not really rise from the dead (in a physical manner), or if He was not really born of a virgin, or if God did not really lead Israel out of Egypt, then the entire structure of the Faith collapses (of the three things I’ve cited, this is truest of the bodily resurrection and least true of the Virgin Birth, but I think it’s true of all three).

But I don’t believe in historical inerrancy for its own sake. In places where historical accuracy is not essential to the point the Holy Spirit intended, I would say that the Bible is no more inerrant than any other ancient text.

In other words, I don’t think it’s true that if the Bible has any historical or scientific error, however tiny and inconsequential, this would somehow make God a liar.

Edwin
 
“,historically full of error.” This “contextual approach,” sounds suspiciously like “historical critical,” which can be read as “revisionist.”

CCC # 106 God insired the human authors of the sacred books. “To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.”

The full section on Sacred Scripture in the CCC, #;'s 101 – 133 puts to the lie that Sacred Scripture is “historically full of error,” unless, of course, one believes God is “full of error.”
For my part, I do not.
The Catechism instructs the faithful in regards to the senses of Scripture and how it should be read. The Bible is not a history book, but neither is it full of historical error.
 
Strider said:
“,historically full of error.” This “contextual approach,” sounds suspiciously like “historical critical,” which can be read as “revisionist.”
Click to expand...
See Jeanne, I told you there was significant disagreement in this area! And there are few surer ways to get a heated argument going on these forums than to start a scriptural inerrancy thread! This only took about 6 posts.

Anyway, there are many tools for analyzing scripture and we are all searching for the truth - and historical critical is just as valid and useful as literal fundamentalism in that regard.

Since others have done so, I will put my stake in the ground and state that the bible clearly full of errors - in history, geography, geology, cosmology, medicine, and so on. However, these errors do not matter at all when one is using the bible as a lens to learn and understand the truth about God. And my position is just as supported by the church as the others (except for the extreme literalistic fundamentalists - the church never has thought much of that approach).

Your son is probably doing just fine and is probably learning from teachers who are more experienced and qualified that any of the random strangers you will hear from here.
 
Beware that the teacher does not read/interpret scripture through a modernist lens.

An example would be - let’s see - I just can’t believe Jesus meant what He said for all ages - He was addressing people of limited intellect and so it doesn’t apply to me. That is a no no. Look for signs of this. :tsktsk: You as a parent will have to answer this kind of thinking.

Some good reading:

THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS [According to the Clementine Tradition]
By
Dennis Barton
**
The Gospels are Historical**

and for the OT -

A Father Who Keeps His Promises
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top