Correct interpretations

[thomat65]

I have two questions:

1. Objectively: what justifies an interpretation of scripture?
2. Subjectively: why do you feel that a particular interpretation is correct?

I would answer those two questions in this way:

1. An interpretation is correct if it accurately explains the (probably single) intention of the original author.
2. One might believe an interpretation is correct through both internal and external factors.
   • Internally, trust can be exchanged, added, and subtracted. For example, one may more strongly believe the correctness of an interpretation by seeing it jive with other interpretations. Or subtleties that are difficult to express may weigh in, such as a perceived interruption in the author’s otherwise clear flow of thought, which would lead one to doubt the interpretation.
   • Externally, trust can be exchanged, added, and subtracted. God is certainly capable of gifting a feeling of trust to someone. Or perhaps one trusts something because they did a lot of historical research.

I’ll further comment that these things appear to be true:

• The authors of the scriptures actually communicated ideas to their audiences. Implying:
  • The authors had real and specific ideas. They didn’t write nonsense.
  • The authors believed they could successfully put those ideas into writing. They didn’t think other mediums were always necessary.
  • The authors believed their audiences could successfully understand those ideas through reading. They didn’t think their audience would always be confused.
• What we have today very accurately contains the same communication.
• It is often possible for us today to correctly understand scriptures in spite of them being ancient communications.

Note I am not discounting these things:

• The Holy Spirit is necessary for correctly understanding scripture.
• Many scriptures are quite difficult to understand and are not clear.
• People often do not recognize correct interpretations, and often believe incorrect interpretations.

Now as an illustrative example, take John 6. I believe that the correct interpretation of “feeding on Christ” is “believing in Jesus” (with a certain nuanced definition of “believing”). In the spirit of this thread please feel free to make me justify this interpretation.

Some definitions:

• Interpretation: an explanation of something. The success of an interpretation depends on things like how well it is communicated and how well it is understood. Correctness is an attribute of an interpretation. I’ll note that the loose consensus in a different thread here was that all scriptures require interpretation.
• Scripture: the documents one considers to be canonical. Catholics and Protestants have different definitions of “scripture”, so be aware of your audience when you make a statement concerning scripture.

 

[chessnerd321]

An interpretation is correct if it accurately explains the (probably single) intention of the original author

From what little I know about even non-biblical literary criticism this isn’t the generally accepted conclusion. For example, does it make sense to look into the authors own life to see what point they might be trying to make, or does it make sense to look at the specific work and interpreting in context of the work only.

The answer isn’t so clear. But when we’re talking about the Bible there’s an even more obvious problem. Take something like the story of Issac being sacrificed by Abraham. It’s often interpreted as a statement against human sacrifice. And that it probably is. BUT it also prefigured the crucifixion. “God Himself will provide the sacrifice”.

So I guess you could be right if you modify it to say something like:

“The right interpretation is the one that matches what God intended to communicate, filtered through the lense of a specific person in a specific culture context, written in a specific genre.”

 

[nightshade]

The correct interpretation is that of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. It’s that simple. After all they are the ones, through the Holy Spirit, that determined which books are indeed “sacred scripture.”

 

[edwest211]

Catechism of the Catholic Church

III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. 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.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention , the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

**[112] 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture” . Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79

The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80

**[113] 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church” . According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

**[114] 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith .82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

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] 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

 

[edwest211]

**[117] 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] "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

 

[ZMystiCat]

I think a minor part of me becoming Catholic was general frustration at getting to a good interpretive model that didn’t rely on some infallible, external source. It was definitely one that grew considerably leading up to my decision to enter RCIA, thought it was drive a bit by other factors.

With that said, I would say that we can only know that an interpretation is true if it agrees with what the Catholic Church has taught, and beyond that it can only be accepted if it stays within what the Church teaches. I find it unbelievable that a wise, loving, omniscient God Who desired to reveal Himself to us wouldn’t also give us some infallible source of dogmatic interpretation, lest what He reveal become mangled by thousands of individual interpretations of fallible sinners. And, historically, the Catholic Church seems to be the closest thing we have to that interpreter.

From what little I know about even non-biblical literary criticism this isn’t the generally accepted conclusion.

Yes, it is the basis behind The Death of the Author. While I’m not entirely sold on all the ways it is used, it does raise a couple very good points:

1. You can’t know if there was a single intended interpretation. In fact, it seems more likely there wasn’t.
2. You can’t know the intent with certainty.

One could even argue that the Bible is an extreme case of these concerns, since we are 1900+ years detached from its writings, have little extra-Biblical knowledge of these people, and may have trouble understanding dead dialects of these languages. This is before getting into the fact that the Bible is a collection, not a single person’s work.

This isn’t to say that the Bible is inscrutable. It’s to say that the model doesn’t make much sense, and this is on top of coming across as a little arrogant.

 

[chessnerd321]

Interesting information about literary criticism, thanks for the back up on that one, I’ve only had one course on the topic.

I would also like to second the infallibility of the church and it’s teaching as probably THE reason I even started to seriously consider converting.

 

[ZMystiCat]

I would also like to second the infallibility of the church and it’s teaching as probably THE reason I even started to seriously consider converting.

I know I’ve quoted this a million times around here, but I really, really like this quote from St. Vincent of Lerins, who spoke on this matter around 1000 years before Protestantism:

But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason — because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

Or to go so extreme as to perhaps make even some Catholics uncomfortable, we can look to St. Augustine:

I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.

 

[adf417]

I have two questions:

1. Objectively: what justifies an interpretation of scripture?
2. Subjectively: why do you feel that a particular interpretation is correct?

1. The Holy Spirit of course. The question remains, objectively, what justifies ones interpretation is actually from the HS since all who have their own interpretation say it is from the HS.
2. Not by my own understanding but by the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Peace!!!

 

[Dovekin]

The authors of the scriptures actually communicated ideas to their audiences. Implying:

• The authors had real and specific ideas. They didn’t write nonsense.
• The authors believed they could successfully put those ideas into writing. They didn’t think other mediums were always necessary.
• The authors believed their audiences could successfully understand those ideas through reading. They didn’t think their audience would always be confused.

“Communicating ideas” is alright as a generic description, but its limitations need to be remembered.
Does a Psalm intend to convey an idea? It does convey ideas, but its purpose is broader usually. Psalms give a voice to a person and to a congregation. It is not a transference of ideas from one to another, but a shared recitation. Ot it may have music, the particulars of which are not in the text. Sung, not recited.
The authors of psalms believe there is a reason for writing, but they may think the written form is inadequate. The psalm is made to be sung, the written format is a means to create a different medium, a song sung by a group.
One could talk about other formats similarly. Job or Jonah sometimes convey ideas, and at other times convey relationships.

Communicating ideas is a reasonable way to approach these thigs, but someplace in our minds we havr to provide room for Scripture that are not meant just for reading and analysis, but also worship and prayer

 

[TULIPed]

Do you ever teach Bible studies? If so, do you use commentaries to prepare them? If so, why, and how do you pick the commentary to use, i.e. which author?

 

[knightfall]

Hello Matt

Thank you for starting this thread.

I don’t often get the time to respond, so please pardon me if my interaction is sporadic.

An interpretation is correct if it accurately explains the (probably single) intention of the original author.

As others have already pointed out, why should we believe that the author probably had a single intention? And as an aside, did you mean the divine author or the human one?

The obvious question would be, how would one objectively determine the intention of the author? I think you make an attempt to answer this with your following points.

One might believe an interpretation is correct through both internal and external factors.

• Internally, trust can be exchanged, added, and subtracted. For example, one may more strongly believe the correctness of an interpretation by seeing it jive with other interpretations. Or subtleties that are difficult to express may weigh in, such as a perceived interruption in the author’s otherwise clear flow of thought, which would lead one to doubt the interpretation.

If I may summarize, do you mean that each person determines for themselves the correctness of an interpretation based on the other interpretations they have concluded and how well these mesh together? Is it possible that if initial suppositions skew initial interpretations, subsequent interpretations may be affected?

Externally, trust can be exchanged, added, and subtracted. God is certainly capable of gifting a feeling of trust to someone.

Agreed. He is capable of gifting person X with a feeling of trust regarding a particular interpretation. But how would person Y objectively know to trust person X was correct?

And again as an aside (and at the risk
of derailing this topic), could God gift the pope with such a feeling of trust?

They didn’t think other mediums were always necessary.

Did the authors ever mention that mediums other than writing were sometimes necessary?

They didn’t think their audience would always be confused.

Did they ever think that their audience would sometimes be confused?

It’s possible that we agree on much, e.g. that the study of historical context would be helpful. And I do not contend that the Bible is unknowable. I’m keen to explore how we objectively determine a correct interpretation when contradictory interpretations are presented, and both sides claim to have studied and to be led by the Holy Spirit. Did God leave us a way to arrive at the Truth in those cases?

Yours in Christ
(Battery at 2%, please forgive any typos)

 

[awesomecatholic]

I rely on the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. It was the idea of authority that lead me to Catholicism.

 

[Sbee0]

Clipped
it is easy to interpert scripture when you are guided by the Holy Spirit.

i had a prophet lay hands on me and i got baptised with the holy spirit and now function in the 9 gifts of the spirit
(Snip)

This is spam. Promote Roberson somewhere else please. Flagged

 

[Magnanimity]

• Objectively: what justifies an interpretation of scripture?
• Subjectively: why do you feel that a particular interpretation is correct?

I understand what you’re trying to do and why a Christian who is outside of the historical communions (Catholic/Orthodox) would feel the need to approach the scriptures in the way that you have here. But may I present to you an ancient and medieval alternative (as in, the way the church did things for 1,500 years)?

As David Bentley Hart masterfully points out, the oracularist literalism approach to the Bible, which is produced by Modernism has no connection with the ancient church or even with the church of the Middle Ages.

Allegorically finding Christ in the narrative, illumined by the Holy Spirit, and in keeping with the whole Tradition was the way in which the church fathers and scholastics interpreted the sacred scriptures. They looked for Christ everywhere throughout the scriptures because they thought (quite rightly) that the “word of God” in a unique way applies to one singular being—to Christ. He is the word of God—the fullness of expression of divinity.

Also, with the widespread allegorical approach of the church, one went looking for truth within the writings. What truths are being communicated in the Genesis 1-11? Or 1 Samuel 15:33? “And Samuel said, ‘As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women.’ And Samuel hacked Agag to pieces before the Lord in Gilgal.”

Correctness is an attribute of an interpretation.

I think the above is way off base. I really have no idea what it might mean for an interpretation to be “correct.” Perhaps, this implies the one-and-only meaning of a text?

What we’re all looking for is truth, goodness and beauty. All three can be found throughout the scriptures if you stick with the ancient and medieval approach. You’re looking for a “true” reading every time you approach the sacred writings, not “the correct” reading.

 

[thomat65]

The correct interpretation is that of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. It’s that simple. After all they are the ones, through the Holy Spirit, that determined which books are indeed “sacred scripture.”

Are you saying the following?

1. The RCC created the correct table of contents
2. A document is only infallible as a consequence of being in the correct table of contents
3. Therefore, the bible books referenced by the RCC table of contents are infallible
4. Because the RCC has this authority to cause things to be infallible when they weren’t before, it has authority to infallibly interpret those things

Catechism of the Catholic Church

How do you interpret that to answer questions #1 and #2? And my next question will be: why do you trust your interpretation of the CCC #109-119?

I would say that we can only know that an interpretation is true if it agrees with what the Catholic Church has taught, and beyond that it can only be accepted if it stays within what the Church teaches. I find it unbelievable that a wise, loving, omniscient God Who desired to reveal Himself to us wouldn’t also give us some infallible source of dogmatic interpretation, lest what He reveal become mangled by thousands of individual interpretations of fallible sinners. And, historically, the Catholic Church seems to be the closest thing we have to that interpreter.

Can you expand on why you believe humans having infallible knowledge necessarily follows from God’s attributes? What if God instead has given means and methods which only yield a high level of confidence instead of absolute certainty?

To build on that, why is a fourth party not necessary to infallibly interpret the outputs of the third-party Magisterium, since infallible documents produced by the RCC would presumably also have to be interpreted by fallible humans? And why not a fifth, a sixth, etc?

Yes, it is the basis behind The Death of the Author . While I’m not entirely sold on all the ways it is used, it does raise a couple very good points:

1. You can’t know if there was a single intended interpretation. In fact, it seems more likely there wasn’t.
2. You can’t know the intent with certainty.

I’m not sure about the number of intended interpretations. I’d be interested in hearing some examples of passages that require multiple interpretations.

Regarding certainty, why is it necessary to infallibly know the intent? Why is it not sufficient to only know the intent with high certainty?

coming across as a little arrogant

In that case my writing is true to my nature, although not intentionally I will gently point out in a self-incriminating fashion that pointing out arrogance can come across as arrogant.

 

[thomat65]

1. The Holy Spirit of course. The question remains, objectively, what justifies ones interpretation is actually from the HS since all who have their own interpretation say it is from the HS.

I think the question that remains is the subjective one: objectively what justifies that one interpretation is actually from the Holy Spirit is if it was actually given by him.

1. Not by my own understanding but by the pillar and foundation of the truth.

If I may be a bit of a troll: but you personally understand the pillar and foundation of the truth to be the RCC, correct? And so you are relying on your personal understanding.

And surely it isn’t good to trust an interpretation because an external entity brought it forward who merely claims to be the pillar and foundation (in the sense that you already personally thought pillar and foundation meant)?

we havr to provide room for Scripture that are not meant just for reading and analysis, but also worship and prayer

Amen. It’s easy to lose sight of that when trying to be so terse and technical.

Do you ever teach Bible studies? If so, do you use commentaries to prepare them? If so, why, and how do you pick the commentary to use, i.e. which author?

Yes. I tend to derive trust in a commentary from things like:

• What people I trust say about it, especially their opinions on how it treats the text
• How its interpretations align with what I already understand about the text

I also like to study conflicting ideas (like by posting questions on a Catholic apologetics forum). Great way to find thin spots quickly.

Certainly not an infallible method

 

[thomat65]

Thank you for starting this thread.

I don’t often get the time to respond, so please pardon me if my interaction is sporadic.

My pleasure. And no worries. I’m having increasingly less time myself.

why should we believe that the author probably had a single intention?

This is just something I’m inclined to believe. I’d be hard pressed to prove it, but I think things like these are interesting:

• Acts 2:29-31 says “this specific thing was David’s purpose in writing that specific thing”
• Ephesians 5:31-32 says “this specific thing is what God was talking about all along”

I am starting a collection of passages which might require multiple interpretations. Know of any?

did you mean the divine author or the human one?

Both. 1 Peter 1:10-12 indicates that the prophets were self-aware of divine inspiration and were active agents. The documents themselves expose the authors’ unique personalities and wills. Yet 2 Timothy 3:16 remains true: all scripture is breathed out by God.

The obvious question would be, how would one objectively determine the intention of the author? I think you make an attempt to answer this with your following points.

Actually what you quoted was me talking about the subjective aspects. But I don’t think this changes what you’re saying.

If I may summarize, do you mean that each person determines for themselves the correctness of an interpretation based on the other interpretations they have concluded and how well these mesh together?

That sounds accurate, inasmuch as “determine for themselves the correctness” means “become convinced” and not “make correct”.

Is it possible that if initial suppositions skew initial interpretations, subsequent interpretations may be affected?

Yes. And here I would highlight the distinction between possible and probable. All kinds of things are possible: the sun might not rise tomorrow, every document produced by the RCC you’ve ever read might have been altered in transit such that you don’t actually know what the RCC teaches, etc. So I think the more interesting question is: how likely is it?

Agreed. He is capable of gifting person X with a feeling of trust regarding a particular interpretation. But how would person Y objectively know to trust person X was correct?

It depends on what you mean by “objectively know to trust”. If you mean “believe person X with very high certainty” then that’s subjective, not objective, and might involve those factors like God gifting a subjective feeling of trust. If you mean “infallibly know person X is correct” then I would say it would be impossible for person Y (where person Y is not God).

 

[thomat65]

could God gift the pope with such a feeling of trust?

Yes.

Did the authors ever mention that mediums other than writing were sometimes necessary?

I’m not sure. I’m having a hard time thinking of an example but I’d be very interested to see one in scripture. I’m running my brain through things like Paul’s visits to the churches in person and whether he ever said any of those were necessary for their understanding, but I’m getting tired

Did they ever think that their audience would sometimes be confused?

Yes. 2 Peter 3:16 says that some of Paul’s writings are difficult to understand, implying Peter thought his audience would sometimes be confused. Edit: I’ll add that Peter wrote some very confusing things himself, like 1 Peter 3:19-20

I’m keen to explore how we objectively determine a correct interpretation when contradictory interpretations are presented, and both sides claim to have studied and to be led by the Holy Spirit. Did God leave us a way to arrive at the Truth in those cases?

Many examples of contradictory interpretations are easily solved just by reading more scripture. For example, people saw God in the Old Testament while Jesus said no one has ever seen God. One interpretation is that Jesus meant “God” in the same way as people seeing God in the Old Testament and so the bible is contradictory. Another is that Jesus meant God the Father and people in the Old Testament saw God the Son.

So one reads the verses around John 1:18 and the first interpretation becomes becomes less convincing while the second becomes more convincing. Then one reads other verses about how it was Christ who led the people out of Egypt (Jude 1:5) when the Old Testament just says YHWH and the scales shift even further. Then one finds small crumbs like the Angel of the Lord holding a sword and fighting for God’s people in the Old Testament and compare to Christ wielding the sword in Revelation and the scales shift even further. One continues accumulating data points in scripture until a picture is formed to one’s own ability and satisfaction (and yes, hopefully resulting in worship of God).

I might be wrong drawing a parallel in swords, but you can see how the scriptures are clear enough to convincingly require the second interpretation. And this is not even a very important thing.

Things which are more important are even more clear in scripture. For example: God created everything; the Trinity; Christ’s virgin birth; Christ’s crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension; Christ’s coming judgment and reign; the existence of a unified church (unified in the sense that the scriptures use); the forgiveness of sins; the future resurrection; eternal life. Those things are all very clear in the scriptures and quite possible to establish and defend without appealing to a third party’s stamp of approval on the Apostle’s Creed. All one has to do to see the intention of the original authors in these cases is just keep reading.

 

[thomat65]

Correctness is an attribute of an interpretation.

Truth is correct by definition.

“Correctness is an attribute of an interpretation” means “an interpretation can be correct or incorrect”. God’s word is correct since God cannot lie. God’s word also communicates real meaning since it reveals himself and he knows himself perfectly and God himself is real. So God’s word correctly and objectively communicates real meaning.

So I find it quite natural to say an interpretation is objectively good if it properly reflects the objective intention of God’s word.

I also find some irony in being able to correctly determine what a group of people thought, did, and meant 1500 years ago by studying fallible sources, while at the same time discounting using the infallible words of scripture to determine the meaning, action, and thoughts of the authors. Scripture does know allegory and I don’t doubt your recounting of history, but I’m saying it doesn’t make sense to say an infallible document ought not be used to find correctness.

I may have misunderstood you, but not if there’s no correct interpretation of your words, because then how could it be said that I misunderstood you?