interpreting scripture

[rivera01]

I’ve been searching for this, but havent received found it yet. I know that there are, if I am correct, 3 ways of interpreting scripture:

1. Literal
2. Allegorical
3. ?

I cant figure out which is the third one, if there are more than 3 ways of interpreting scripture please feel free in correcting me.

 

[Todd_Easton]

From paragraph 115 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
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. (link)

 

[rivera01]

Thank you!!!

 

[djeter]

In the history of exegesis, there has been something of a struggle to keep people’s interest in the literal sense of the biblical text. Lots of people, anxious to get at a meatier, more religiously relevant meaning in the Bible, tend to rush past the literal sense, hardly giving it a second glance.

But as St. Thomas points out, the literal sense must be the primary sense of Scripture in the sense of being the necessary foundation for any other senses that Scripture may carry. Whether or not the literal sense is always the most important sense, it has to be the foundational sense. The meaning the inspired authors attached to their own words must be the starting point of our investigation, even though it is certainly not the final goal. Whatever additional sense or senses we may feel able to postulate in the Bible, everything must have some continuity with the original meaning the authors intended.

Four Movements In Church History To Preserve Or Recover The Literal Sense Of Scripture
Very roughly, we can say that there have been four outstanding movements to preserve or recover the literal sense of Scripture in the history of the Church.

1. 
   *]The first, in the fifth century, is associated with Jerome of Bethlehem, whose literal exegesis, possibly inspired by that of the school of Antioch, was eventually pushed aside by the spiritual exegesis of Origen, championed as that was by no less a figure than Augustine. For Jerome, see A. Penna, Principi e carattere dell ‘esegesi di S. Gemlamo (Rome: 1950); for a comparison of the schools of Antjoch and Alexandria, see J. Guillet, “Les exegeses d’Alexandrie et d’Antioche. Conflit ou malentendu?” Recherches de science religieuse 34 (1947) 257-302. For Augustine, see M. Pontet, L’exégèse de saint Augustin prédicateur (Paris: 1944).]
   *]The second movement in favor of the literal sense is associated with the canons of the abbey of St. Victor in the northern France of the twelfth century. Although the influence of the Victorine school can still be seen in St. Thomas, it evaporated in later Scholasticism, which was too concerned to get theological mileage out of Scripture to have much patience with literal exegesis. [See C. Spicq, Esquisse d’une histoire de l’exégèse latine au Moyen Age (Paris: 1944); B. Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (New York: 1952).]
   *]Third, in the seventeenth century, the French Oratorian priest Richard Simon revived interest in the literal sense in various circles, but this soon died away.[H. Graf Reventlow, “Richard Simon und seine Bedeutung für die kritische Erforschung der Bibel,” in Historische Kritik in der Theologie, ed. C. Schwaiger (Göttingen: 1980) 11-36.]
   *]Finally, in the last hundred years (or more), there has been an unprecedented explosion of interest in the literal sense, and a proliferation of new methods for reaching it? [O. Kaiser and W. C. Kümmel, Exegetical Method: A Student’s Handbook (English trans., New York: 1967]
   

   ---

   Overkill I realize but this is what Aidan Nichols has to say about the development of exegesis (the interpretation of Scripture).
   
   You might also be interested in this which begins the answer to a question: How do we know what kind of biblical exegesis is right? In his book Participatory Biblical Exegesis, author Matthew Levering explores the question why one form of biblical exegesis lost its appeal and another form became appealing. He develops strong reasons for considering a connection between biblical exegesis and metaphysical presuppositions regarding historical reality. First he explores the metaphysical shift that came about in the 14th century here:
   
   payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/06/11/the-fourteenth-century-metaphysical-shift/
   
   I have an example of Thomas Aquinas’ exegesis of John 3:27-36 and someday will get around to showing the contrast with more modern examples of other biblical scholars and what the modern day interpretations are missing (according to Levering)
   
   You can read that here:
   
   payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/06/17/aquinas%e2%80%99-exegesis-of-john-327-36/
   
   So there is a lot more than just literal, allegorical, moral and anagogical – a marvelous can of worms if I don’t say so myself. I know, I know…“Thanks for sharing.” hehehe
   
   dj

 

[Crumpy]

I don’t have my Eerdman’s History of Christianity handy, but I recall that in it, it says that St. Bonaventure described eight senses of scripture.

I like reading the commentaries on the books of the Torah published by the Jewish Publication Society. These commentaries are mostly in the literal sense, or peshat, as they call it.

As I recall, the commentary on Genesis runs around 500 pages, because there’s a lot to say about the literary sense of that book.

The language is so ancient in Genesis, that it is a real struggle to make the correct translation. The Jewish exegetes often have to compare the other languages of the middle east to get the correct sense of the Hebrew. That situation arises when a word is used only once there, and so there are not many contexts to form a confident basis of translation and meaning.

It would be an incorrect snap judgment to say that the Old Testament wasn’t important, because of the New Testament. Pope Benedict said that the New Testament makes no sense without the Old Testament. To oversimplify, it’s really a big deal that the Bible contains the Old Testament.

I see Protestants taking a much more serious view of the OT than Catholics do.

 

[rivera01]

Thanks for your information.

 

[Pitcharan]

In the history of exegesis, there has been something of a struggle to keep people’s interest in the literal sense of the biblical text. Lots of people, anxious to get at a meatier, more religiously relevant meaning in the Bible, tend to rush past the literal sense, hardly giving it a second glance.

But as St. Thomas points out, the literal sense must be the primary sense of Scripture in the sense of being the necessary foundation for any other senses that Scripture may carry. Whether or not the literal sense is always the most important sense, it has to be the foundational sense. The meaning the inspired authors attached to their own words must be the starting point of our investigation, even though it is certainly not the final goal. Whatever additional sense or senses we may feel able to postulate in the Bible, everything must have some continuity with the original meaning the authors intended.

Four Movements In Church History To Preserve Or Recover The Literal Sense Of Scripture
Very roughly, we can say that there have been four outstanding movements to preserve or recover the literal sense of Scripture in the history of the Church.

1. 
   *]The first, in the fifth century, is associated with Jerome of Bethlehem, whose literal exegesis, possibly inspired by that of the school of Antioch, was eventually pushed aside by the spiritual exegesis of Origen, championed as that was by no less a figure than Augustine. For Jerome, see A. Penna, Principi e carattere dell ‘esegesi di S. Gemlamo (Rome: 1950); for a comparison of the schools of Antjoch and Alexandria, see J. Guillet, “Les exegeses d’Alexandrie et d’Antioche. Conflit ou malentendu?” Recherches de science religieuse 34 (1947) 257-302. For Augustine, see M. Pontet, L’exégèse de saint Augustin prédicateur (Paris: 1944).]
   *]The second movement in favor of the literal sense is associated with the canons of the abbey of St. Victor in the northern France of the twelfth century. Although the influence of the Victorine school can still be seen in St. Thomas, it evaporated in later Scholasticism, which was too concerned to get theological mileage out of Scripture to have much patience with literal exegesis. [See C. Spicq, Esquisse d’une histoire de l’exégèse latine au Moyen Age (Paris: 1944); B. Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (New York: 1952).]
   *]Third, in the seventeenth century, the French Oratorian priest Richard Simon revived interest in the literal sense in various circles, but this soon died away.[H. Graf Reventlow, “Richard Simon und seine Bedeutung für die kritische Erforschung der Bibel,” in Historische Kritik in der Theologie, ed. C. Schwaiger (Göttingen: 1980) 11-36.]
   *]Finally, in the last hundred years (or more), there has been an unprecedented explosion of interest in the literal sense, and a proliferation of new methods for reaching it? [O. Kaiser and W. C. Kümmel, Exegetical Method: A Student’s Handbook (English trans., New York: 1967]
   

   ---

   Overkill I realize but this is what Aidan Nichols has to say about the development of exegesis (the interpretation of Scripture).
   
   You might also be interested in this which begins the answer to a question: How do we know what kind of biblical exegesis is right? In his book Participatory Biblical Exegesis, author Matthew Levering explores the question why one form of biblical exegesis lost its appeal and another form became appealing. He develops strong reasons for considering a connection between biblical exegesis and metaphysical presuppositions regarding historical reality. First he explores the metaphysical shift that came about in the 14th century here:
   
   payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/06/11/the-fourteenth-century-metaphysical-shift/
   
   I have an example of Thomas Aquinas’ exegesis of John 3:27-36 and someday will get around to showing the contrast with more modern examples of other biblical scholars and what the modern day interpretations are missing (according to Levering)
   
   You can read that here:
   
   payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/06/17/aquinas%e2%80%99-exegesis-of-john-327-36/
   
   So there is a lot more than just literal, allegorical, moral and anagogical – a marvelous can of worms if I don’t say so myself. I know, I know…“Thanks for sharing.” hehehe
   
   dj

1. 
   What method do you think St. Paul followed when he interpreted so perfectly about the descendants of Abraham through his maid servant Hagar (Gal 4:23-26)?
   
   His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise. These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.
   
   The two Jerusalems mentioned - are they the present Israeli and Palestinian Jerusalems?

 

[djeter]

What method do you think St. Paul followed when he interpreted so perfectly about the descendants of Abraham through his maid servant Hagar (Gal 4:23-26)?

His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise. These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.

The two Jerusalems mentioned - are they the present Israeli and Palestinian Jerusalems?

At the risk I’m getting my leg pulled,

1. the present city of Jerusalem
2. the Jerusalem that is above (i.e. the heavenly city of Jerusalem)

dj

 

[COPLAND_3]

There are two ways, literal and spiritual. The literal is the straightforward meaning of the words to the full intention of the author. The spiritual can be broken up into different categories, the allegorical, moral, analogical, and anagogical. The allegorical is how something in the passage is a type of something else, usually something from the Old Testament being a type of something in the New. The moral sense is when you apply something to your life. The analogical is when there is a resemblance of a passage to another passage. And the anagogical is when something of the New Testament is a type of something in the future glory.

 

[kepha1]

In the ancient eastern church, there were (broadly) 2 schools of biblical studies: the Antiochene and the Alexandrian. Antiochene scholars emphasized the literal, historical method whereas Alexandrians were more prone to allegorization. Origen was an Alexandrian.
But Arius, Sabellius, Nestorious, and Apollonarius were of the Antiochene school and this method eventually gave rise to the Bogomil and Paulician heretics.

Theodore of Mopsuestia was another scion of this school who was never condemned in life but whose works were later censured after his death at the Councils of Ephesus and Constantinople. Orthodox members of the Antiochene school included St. John Chrysostom.

Protestants in the 16th Century would look back to the Antiochene school as their intellectual forbears. That is one reason why St. John Chrysostom has always been unpopular with them.
But a careful study of Church History shows that the desire to be crassly literal lay at the root of all the heresies of the Patristic period. The willingness to be flexible and to interpret difficult passages allegorically has been the usual manner of orthodoxy.
By doing so, paradoxes and outright contradictions are avoided. It also allows one to move beyond the literal meaning of the text to discern larger patterns of similarity between various portions of the Bible.

Scott Hahn has championed this understanding and has pointed out in some of his recent talks on a biblical worldview that the NT writers used allegorical methods in interpreting the OT.
The reformers and their descendants have stated that this method cannot be used ‘safely’ in the Church because the Holy Spirit alone can do this safely and he no longer works within the Church as he did among the Apostles. This is one consequence of denying the existence and charism of the Magisterium.

Bottom line: People who want to interpret the Bible for themselves always prefer the Antiochene literal to the Alexandrian allegorical. They think that they can be guided by sound methodology which will lead to logical results. They denounce the Alexandrian method as a flight of fancy that may lead to wild conclusions.
The reality is that without allegorization, people get carried away by their method into atomized conclusions that cannot be harmonized with other parts of the Bible and Tradition.

Virtually every major heresy has been the result of being too rigid and methodical in interpreting the Bible while not being willing to interpret the Bible in the light of the Holy Spirit. IMHO, this is the opposition of Spirit and letter, which St. Paul warned against:

2Cor 3:5 Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God, 6who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

This error is a form of Pelagianism where human effort is pitted against the superintendence of the Holy Spirit.
What’s great about the Catholic Church is that she accepts both of the methods of Antioch and Alexandria. She sees them as two gifts.

 

[Pitcharan]

At the risk I’m getting my leg pulled,

1. the present city of Jerusalem
2. the Jerusalem that is above (i.e. the heavenly city of Jerusalem)

dj

Thank you DJ.
warm regards
Pitcharan

P.S. No, I was not pulling your leg.

 

[MichaelKing]

Well, a couple of points that I was taught that stuck with me:

Truth is truth is truth, and truth is God. If we find a conflict between our faith and our daily studies (the priest was talking to university students; he’s a chaplain), be it science, history, language… we are looking at one or both the wrong way.

The second is that it is not so much the words that are important, but the truth behind the words.

 

[rcjones]

[O. Kaiser and W. C. Kümmel, Exegetical Method: A Student’s Handbook (English trans., New York: 1967]

It is W. Kaiser. He is not so much interested in recapturing the literal as denying anything more than the literal. His basic premise is that the Bible contains no more than what each individual human author was capable of comprehending himself.

Kaiser will go so far a to say that one attempting to obtain anything more, places their salvation in jeopardy, This is comical since I am pretty sure he believes in security of the believer.

Kaisers method leaves the scriptures devoid of divine inspiration and the method, promulgated by seminaries is likely the cause that many protestant pastors can’t find anything to preach on in the OT anymore.

All the previous attempts to rid the church of allegory have failed because people hear the voice of God telling of Christ in all the scriptures.

Bottom line: People who want to interpret the Bible for themselves always prefer the Antiochene literal to the Alexandrian allegorical. They think that they can be guided by sound methodology which will lead to logical results. They denounce the Alexandrian method as a flight of fancy that may lead to wild conclusions.
The reality is that without allegorization, people get carried away by their method into atomized conclusions that cannot be harmonized with other parts of the Bible and Tradition.

Yours is a great post on the subject. However, the reason the allegorical method has fallen into disrepute is because of abuses of it. There are rules which are largely ignored, but when followed generate reproducible and verifiable sensus plenior.

sensusplenior.net/?page_id=379

You are correct that sensus plenior resolves the apparent contradictions generated by the literal historical methods.