Do all verses in scripture require interpretation?

[thomat65]

What do you think? Does there exist at least one verse in scripture which does not require interpretation? Or do all verses in scripture require interpretation?

Whichever you pick, are you able to justify your position?

I’m trying to learn what Catholics believe, so expect me to be asking more questions than I answer. But I’ll try not to be a total brick wall.

P.S. I’m crossposting this here: https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/t...ll-verses-in-scripture-require-interpretation
Let me know if I shouldn’t do that, but I’m genuinely interesting in better understanding a proper hermeneutic and would like to be challenged by Catholic answers

 

[Catholic_Sheep]

Some verses are obvious aren’t they? James 2:24?

 

[thomat65]

are obvious

Would you say that obviousness is justification?

 

[Catholic_Sheep]

You asked about verses which people think need no interpretation. How can you interpret James 2:24? It’s pretty self-explanatory.

 

[thomat65]

which people think need no interpretation

It’s interesting that you used the words “people think” in the middle of what otherwise were roughly my words. I’m interested to learn more about precisely what you would say is the relationship between what someone thinks and the need for interpretation.

Would you say that some verses do require interpretation even when someone thinks it’s quite obvious that they don’t?

And conversely, would you say that some verses do not require interpretation even when someone thinks it’s quite obvious that they do?

I think James 2:24 is an example of the former. As soon as anyone says “yeah, but Romans 3:28” then immediately the interpretations begin, and few people are satisfied until they have reconciled the two verses in their head. So it turns out that what you said did not require interpretation actually does require it.

I wouldn’t be surprised if you thought Matthew 26:26 is an example of the latter.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

What do you mean by interpretation?.. Personal cognition? Exegesis? Opinion? Official declarations by an authority?

It can be an awfully loaded question.

FWIW, I’ve heard that quite a bit of scripture is veiled. What is required to lift the veil?

 

[thomat65]

You’d think there would be plenty of verses that don’t need interpretation, but apparently that’s not the case.

Am I correct to summarize your statement in this way? “All verses require interpretation. My justification is that I looked at them all and determined that they all require it.”

If so, by what method did you determine that a verse required interpretation?

 

[thomat65]

What do you mean by interpretation?

Excellent question. I think a refined definition would certainly help my quest.

I would define a correct interpretation as being this: the original meaning correctly applied to a present situation.

I hope it doesn’t move the goalposts too much by avoiding a definition of “correctly applied”. Squeeze me and maybe that definition will come out

 

[Popof]

I was asking myself that question as our Bible Study group is struggling with Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. It’s a very complex and circumvoluted text. I am the junior in our group and I am 60 y.o.; all others are at least 10 years older and have a lifetime of experience of studying the Scriptures, including the 80 y.o. Sister leading the group.

As, month after month, we struggle in our understanding of Romans, we dig into various studies, we formulate various theories, it occurred to me that understanding and analyzing every single word may not be the right approach.

When you listen to the music of Bach or Bruckner (2 great composers who have dedicated all their music to God), you don’t necessarily study the meaning of every single note… yet you may see (or hear) God in the score. If you are not a musician or a musicologist, you can still appreciate their music, and you can still be transported by it.

Same could apply to Romans and to all scriptures.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I would define a correct interpretation as being this: the original meaning correctly applied to a present situation

The original meaning has to be brought out, for most of us, by a translation of the original text. So just from that standpoint all of scripture must be “interpreted”, as you are defining it.

Correctly applying it to a present situation would require virtue, like prudence.

 

[catholicray]

All doctrine that is in fact binding on Christians requires correct interpretation of Scripture.

 

[Dlee]

John 11:35

 

[Justin_Mary]

Jesus wept.

I would define a correct interpretation as being this: the original meaning correctly applied to a present situation.

I believe there are layers of “present situation.”

First & foremost our tradition tells us the bible is God’s Revelation of Himself to us. So as far as applying that revelation to our present situation as God’s people we must rely on the Church’s teaching.

However, prayerful reading the bible & applying it to your present situation may have another meaning just for you… but it can’t contradict the Church’s teaching.

 

[Dlee]

And remember that “verse numbers” are not original. So you do need to look at the whole of the narrative.

 

[De_Maria]

@thomat65

What do you think?

I think you’re looking at this from a Protestant point of view. The Catholic view is different.

First of all, the Catholic Church Teaches that she was established by Jesus Christ for the precise purpose of Teaching the Word of God in every format. As you know, we believe the Word of God comes to us in Sacred Tradition and Scripture. But Sacred Tradition includes many formats. Rituals, Customs, Teachings and other things. Examples of each, the Mass, keeping the Holy Day, Ecumenical councils and Papal Teachings.

Does there exist at least one verse in scripture which does not require interpretation?

That depends on the individual’s level of understanding. The Catholic Church, however, can adapt to individual learning and provide the proper teaching at every level.

Or do all verses in scripture require interpretation?

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are the first level of interpretation or explanations of the Word of God. This is considered the “ordinary” definition or teaching of all doctrine. It is considered infallible. This is why Sacred Scripture is considered to be without error.

If the Church discovers, as has happened frequently throughout her 2000 year history, that certain doctrines are being misunderstood or erroneously explained, she offers an “extra-ordinary” definition. And she “anathematizes” anyone who proposes doctrines which she has deemed heretical. See the Council of Trent for examples.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/trent4.htm

http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/trent6.htm

Whichever you pick, are you able to justify your position?

I hope I’ve provided an adequate explanation above.

I’m trying to learn, so expect me to be asking more questions than I answer. But I’ll try not to be a total brick wall.

Thanks for the question.

 

[De_Maria]

What do you think? Does there exist at least one verse in scripture which does not require interpretation? Or do all verses in scripture require interpretation?

That is basically, the Protestant way of viewing things.

The Catholic Church sees it differently. She was instituted to TEACH the Word of God. As such, she is God’s official interpreter. As such, ipso facto, she is also the Teacher and Explainer of Scripture which is the written record of that which God wishes to be revealed to the world.

Whichever you pick, are you able to justify your position?

Not sure what you mean. I don’t think your choices are all encompassing. But, I’ll address each:

Does there exist at least one verse in scripture which does not require interpretation?

a. That depends on the individual. The Church is here as a living entity because she can accomodate individual levels of understanding.

b. Basically, Scripture is the first explanation of the Revelation of God. But an explanation of the written explanation is frequently required.

Or do all verses in scripture require interpretation?

All writings of any genre require interpretation. That is what we do when we read them. I think you must mean in an official declaration. When the Church feels that a certain doctrine has been misunderstood by a sufficient number of people to cause concern that the People of God are being misled, she steps in and offers extra-ordinary definitions. Tradition and Scripture are examples of ordinary definitions.

I’m trying to learn what Catholics believe, so expect me to be asking more questions than I answer. But I’ll try not to be a total brick wall.

That is much appreciated.

P.S. I’m crossposting this here: https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/t...ll-verses-in-scripture-require-interpretation

That’s the anti-Catholic forum where I posted your other question. Only one post so far. I go by the same user id over there if you want to look me up. Although, you might not like me over there. Lol!

Let me know if I shouldn’t do that, but I’m genuinely interesting in better understanding a proper hermeneutic and would like to be challenged by Catholic answers

I’m sure the monitors will remove the reference if you’ve broken a rule.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Rarely do words have only one meaning so that when it is used there is no ambiguity as to what is meant.

The shortest verse in the New Testament, John 11:35, is variously translated into English. Most often as “Jesus wept.” However, other English translations seem to be possible, such as “Jesus began to weep,” Jesus cried," “Jesus began to cry,” “Jesus started to cry,” “Jesus started crying,” “Tears streamed down the face of Jesus,” “Jesus burst into tears,” “Tears came to Jesus’ eyes.” (source)

If Jesus cried, did Jesus cry silently or did he also make inarticulate sounds?

A big unanswered question concerning this very short verse is, Exactly why did Jesus weep? Was it to express pain, grief, sorrow or some other overpowering emotion over the death of his friend or over the reaction of the others to the death of their friend?

 

[Dovekin]

Does there exist at least one verse in scripture which does not require interpretation? Or do all verses in scripture require interpretation?

Well, it depends on what you mean.

Does your question require interpretation? Can you give us an example of a sentence that does not require interpretation?

Take the old Smothers Brothers song about the gentleman who fell into a vat of chocolate.
“What did you do inside that vat of chocolate?”
“I yelled FIRE! when I fell into that vat of chocolate.”
It turns out, he did not think anyone would come if he yelled Chocolate

Fire did not mean fire, but come quickly I urgently need help. The word needed interpretation. And in light of that, you know fire may not mean fire, but rather an urgent need for help.

If I am understanding your question correctly, and I may not be, I would have to say every verse requires interpretation. Because that is what we do with words and language.

 

[po18guy]

C.A.R.M.?

AYKM?

Directly opposing our Lord, C.A.R.M.'s Slick Matt claims that baptism is not necessary.

Saint Peter wrote that “Baptism now saves you”

Slic Matt writes “No, it doesn’t”

Put C.A.R.M. in your rear view mirror and you will be far better off.

 

[thomat65]

The original meaning has to be brought out, for most of us, by a translation of the original text. So just from that standpoint all of scripture must be “interpreted”, as you are defining it.

Sounds straightforward enough.

John 11:35

Jesus wept.

Hmm, let’s see if I can make this more difficult than it ought to be…

Actually, it is interesting that there’s a whole section called “Interpretation” in Wikipedia for that verse:

Jesus wept - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So if I really wanted to be contrary, I could just ask “does that demonstrate that Jesus was a true man?” and then you would have to interpret the verse to me, saying “yes, for this and this reason”

Continuing to read the rest of the posts, I see this is basically what @Todd_Easton said:

The shortest verse in the New Testament, John 11:35 [cue interpretations]

I don’t think your choices are all encompassing.

Whoops. I thought I made a true dichotomy. Anyone want to help me with the proper negation of “all verses in scripture require interpretation”?

That depends on the individual.

All writings of any genre require interpretation. That is what we do when we read them.

Interesting things to think about. Thank you.

I think you must mean in an official declaration.

I’m not really sure what I mean. It’s terrible when that happens, but alas. The upside is now I know that “officialness” might be a relevant attribute to consider. So maybe my next question will be better… maybe. One can always hope

Can you give us an example of a sentence that does not require interpretation?

“No, I cannot give a sentence that does not require interpretation.” <== is that one?

I guess even that isn’t. You could say, “Does your inability to give a sentence have anything to do with why you enjoy annoying recursive jokes?” To which I would respond, “No, because of X Y Z. So you see, that is just proof that I cannot give a sentence that does not require interpretation.”

If I am understanding your question correctly, and I may not be, I would have to say every verse requires interpretation. Because that is what we do with words and language.

I think you’ve interpreted my question correctly.