Is there room in Catholicism for this type of interpretation?

[Taestron]

So based on my discussion of which I’ve been a part in the past, I think I know the answer to this question, but I wanted to get your opinions anyway.

In my studies in biblical interpretation from the Protestant perspective, we focus on trying to strip away as much as possible any contemporary preconceptions that are not necessarily part of the communicative intention of the original human author. Now, I want to be careful here. This does not mean that we ignore that which tradition (or Tradition) tells us Scripture means, but it does mean that no tradition (with a capital T or not) has the sole monopoly on all truth which Scripture communicates. By performing this type of methodology, we hope to put forth interpretations that even though they may be different than the traditional interpretations they also might be just as true (and possibly just as authoritative).

By different, I do not mean contradictory. Perhaps this is most clear in example. Say that I am going along reading Scripture and I come across the Greek word sozo. This verb is translated both “to save” and “to heal.” In studying this word in its ancient use, it seems pretty safe to say that the two concepts of soul healing (save) and physical healing were not very well distinguished in Greek thought as it is in modern English. So as I reading along in the Greek and I see this word sozo, and I think to myself, “traditionally this is taken to mean save but I think it makes more sense that Paul is talking about physical healing.” So my question is this: could a biblical scholar, if they have good reason to think that originally the text could be about physical healing say something along the lines like ‘this text is also about physical healing and not just salvation.’?" Is this an acceptable way to do biblical interpretation?

 

[Nan_S]

By “contemporary” do you mean modern interpretation or original interpretation?

There is justification for stripping away modern interpretation when the historical perspective was significantly different.

There is not so much justification for stripping away historical interpretation. Doing so isolates the passage from its cultural context, leaving us with nothing but modern viewpoints and myopic speculation as to what the passage might have meant. The result is that we often get the meaning wrong.

As a Catholic, when faced with a scripture passage that could be interpreted in alternate ways, my first question is, “How did the people who knew the apostles personally understand this passage?” What did the apostles themselves, and their first few generations of students understand that passage to mean? IOW, I go to the Early Church Fathers.

Is the bread and wine truly transformed into Body and Blood, or is it merely a memorial meal? Read the Early Church Fathers.

Should sins be confessed to a priest? Read the Early Church Fathers.

Is a passage about physical or spiritual healing, or about both, or about something else entirely? Read the cross-referenced passages. (Thank you Protestants for the NIV Study Bible with its extensive cross references.) Read about the people who were the initial recipients of the message. Learn about the language idioms in use during the time when the passage was written.

IOW, understand scripture not by viewing verses in isolation, but by viewing whole passages in context.

 

[Della]

So based on my discussion of which I’ve been a part in the past, I think I know the answer to this question, but I wanted to get your opinions anyway.

In my studies in biblical interpretation from the Protestant perspective, we focus on trying to strip away as much as possible any contemporary preconceptions that are not necessarily part of the communicative intention of the original human author. Now, I want to be careful here. This does not mean that we ignore that which tradition (or Tradition) tells us Scripture means, but it does mean that no tradition (with a capital T or not) has the sole monopoly on all truth which Scripture communicates. By performing this type of methodology, we hope to put forth interpretations that even though they may be different than the traditional interpretations they also might be just as true (and possibly just as authoritative).

By different, I do not mean contradictory. Perhaps this is most clear in example. Say that I am going along reading Scripture and I come across the Greek word sozo. This verb is translated both “to save” and “to heal.” In studying this word in its ancient use, it seems pretty safe to say that the two concepts of soul healing (save) and physical healing were not very well distinguished in Greek thought as it is in modern English. So as I reading along in the Greek and I see this word sozo, and I think to myself, “traditionally this is taken to mean save but I think it makes more sense that Paul is talking about physical healing.” So my question is this: could a biblical scholar, if they have good reason to think that originally the text could be about physical healing say something along the lines like ‘this text is also about physical healing and not just salvation.’?" Is this an acceptable way to do biblical interpretation?

Sure, that’s fine. The Church understands that words can have ambigious meanings and various interpretations. An older Bible commentary, written well before Vatican II demonstrates this quite well in it’s comments: Haydock Bible Commentary.

There’s a vital difference in how the Church uses biblical interpretation vs Protestants. The Church doesn’t see the Scriptures as proof texts for doctrines–because the doctrines came from Christ who handed them on verbally to his Apostles before the NT was written. The Bible, even the OT is considered one of three witnesses to the truths taught by the Church, but not as the basis for those teachings, in the hard and fast sense. I think it’s important for our Protestant brethren to know this so there is no misunderstanding when discussing this issue.

 

[Patrick1540]

So based on my discussion of which I’ve been a part in the past, I think I know the answer to this question, but I wanted to get your opinions anyway.

In my studies in biblical interpretation from the Protestant perspective, we focus on trying to strip away as much as possible any contemporary preconceptions that are not necessarily part of the communicative intention of the original human author. Now, I want to be careful here. This does not mean that we ignore that which tradition (or Tradition) tells us Scripture means, but it does mean that no tradition (with a capital T or not) has the sole monopoly on all truth which Scripture communicates. By performing this type of methodology, we hope to put forth interpretations that even though they may be different than the traditional interpretations they also might be just as true (and possibly just as authoritative).

By different, I do not mean contradictory. Perhaps this is most clear in example. Say that I am going along reading Scripture and I come across the Greek word sozo. This verb is translated both “to save” and “to heal.” In studying this word in its ancient use, it seems pretty safe to say that the two concepts of soul healing (save) and physical healing were not very well distinguished in Greek thought as it is in modern English. So as I reading along in the Greek and I see this word sozo, and I think to myself, “traditionally this is taken to mean save but I think it makes more sense that Paul is talking about physical healing.” So my question is this: could a biblical scholar, if they have good reason to think that originally the text could be about physical healing say something along the lines like ‘this text is also about physical healing and not just salvation.’?" Is this an acceptable way to do biblical interpretation?

Hi Taestron, I’m not an expert on Catholic Teaching,jut coming back to the Catholic Faith myself. I asked almost the question myself on another thread, but it was worded different.The Catholic Faith has the Chair of Peter to interpret the Bible through the Holy Spirit.This is put into the Catacism of the Catholic Church.That being said you will find sozo already interpreted in the CCC # 2003 gifts of the Holy Spirit and one of the gifts is sozo the gift of healing. But in the CCC you will also find it relating to the healing of our soul. It is ok to read the Bible and apply it to our ever day life, that interpretation is ok. But need to know the history,Sacred Tradition,and language the Sacred text was written in is not subject to individual interpretation. I found that the CCC has answered most of my questions on the Bible text. This totally amazed me when I thought I was having some new revelation or interpretation it was already in the Churches teaching. I would say no to a biblical Scholar who steps outside the bounds of the Faith,because the Bible is not subject to individual interpretation. For this very reason I came back home to the Catholic Church. I found so many different faiths trying to interpret the Bible through,Greek it was this,than Hebrew it said this. Confused the heck out of me.Thank God for a Church who’s teaching on the Sacred text has not changed in 2,000 years. I was getting tired from having a head ache from all these different Biblical Scholars, interpreting the Word in so many different ways.Made my head spin.God Bless

 

[po18guy]

Keep in mind that it is the oral Apostolic Tradition that produced the scriptures. See the prologue to Luke (Luke 1:1-4). Therefore, disregarding that vital component allows for error. The danger here is that you may never know what that error is, or how erroneous one’s interpretation has become. The more pleasing and agreeable the interpretation is, most likely the further from revealed truth it risks being. The fact that the Church was established solely upon the oral teaching of the Apostles; did not have a single jot of NT scripture for 20-30 years; did not have a collection of vetted scriptures for 80-100 years, and did not have an agreed upon canon for 350 years is a testament to the absolute value of the oral Tradition. Each and every wildly divergent interpretation, from LDS to JW to all of the others claims to have been lead by the Holy Spirit. Who’s wrong and who’s right?

 

[stephe1987]

Usually, there is room for disagreement over interpretation as long as it doesn’t conflict with doctrine and teachings that have already been established. But it is always best to look for the original meaning the author was trying to convey.

 

[COPLAND_3]

If someone is reading a Greek text and they run upon sozo and put a lot of thought into whether the text is talking about save or heal, that is if the sense of the word doesn’t become clear by the context of the rest of the Greek phrase, then that probably means that the reader does not know Greek well enough to be laying down any groundbreaking interpretation. It is common anymore for people to take a Greek course or two and think they are going to unlock the truth in Scripture that translations have not already brought out. Until someone is completely fluent and are to the point where they not only read the text and understand it, and also get to where they are not only undersstanding that this or that Greek wword means this in English, but get to where they actually are reading Greek and thinking in Greek, then they are not even close to truly grasping it well enough to be laying down interpretations based upon the Greek. Anymore there are just as many contrary interpretations that people consult the Greek as there those who are consulting the English translation.

 

[po18guy]

If someone is reading a Greek text and they run upon sozo and put a lot of thought into whether the text is talking about save or heal, that is if the sense of the word doesn’t become clear by the context of the rest of the Greek phrase, then that probably means that the reader does not know Greek well enough to be laying down any groundbreaking interpretation. It is common anymore for people to take a Greek course or two and think they are going to unlock the truth in Scripture that translations have not already brought out. Until someone is completely fluent and are to the point where they not only read the text and understand it, and also get to where they are not only undersstanding that this or that Greek wword means this in English, but get to where they actually are reading Greek and thinking in Greek, then they are not even close to truly grasping it well enough to be laying down interpretations based upon the Greek. Anymore there are just as many contrary interpretations that people consult the Greek as there those who are consulting the English translation.

A prime example of this is the person who spoke conversational Greek and participated in the translation of the JW’s bible.

 

[edwest2]

So based on my discussion of which I’ve been a part in the past, I think I know the answer to this question, but I wanted to get your opinions anyway.

In my studies in biblical interpretation from the Protestant perspective, we focus on trying to strip away as much as possible any contemporary preconceptions that are not necessarily part of the communicative intention of the original human author. Now, I want to be careful here. This does not mean that we ignore that which tradition (or Tradition) tells us Scripture means, but it does mean that no tradition (with a capital T or not) has the sole monopoly on all truth which Scripture communicates. By performing this type of methodology, we hope to put forth interpretations that even though they may be different than the traditional interpretations they also might be just as true (and possibly just as authoritative).

By different, I do not mean contradictory. Perhaps this is most clear in example. Say that I am going along reading Scripture and I come across the Greek word sozo. This verb is translated both “to save” and “to heal.” In studying this word in its ancient use, it seems pretty safe to say that the two concepts of soul healing (save) and physical healing were not very well distinguished in Greek thought as it is in modern English. So as I reading along in the Greek and I see this word sozo, and I think to myself, “traditionally this is taken to mean save but I think it makes more sense that Paul is talking about physical healing.” So my question is this: could a biblical scholar, if they have good reason to think that originally the text could be about physical healing say something along the lines like ‘this text is also about physical healing and not just salvation.’?" Is this an acceptable way to do biblical interpretation?

Biblical interpretation must be done by Biblical scholars following strict rules of interpretation, which include knowledge of Greek and other languages, the study of the cultures of the time period and their worldviews, and other writings that provide a clearer picture of how thoughts were expressed at the time. It’s already been done. Today, one of the Church’s major concerns is people who say, “It’s not explicitly mentioned in the Bible so I can ignore certain prohibitions,” even though the Church has explained its reasons for being against something.

The Teaching Authority of the Church is the final word, though the Church is challenged on a regular basis.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Cranch]

Keep in mind that it is the oral Apostolic Tradition that produced the scriptures…

At the risk of going off-topic, I have seen this idea many times and every time it raises the same red flag for me. Given how difficult it can be to grasp someone’s entire meaning in these brief posts, it is certainly possible I am misunderstanding you. One point concerning your formulation is it is incomplete given that the Old Testament is Sacred Scripture and was recognized as such before the Apostles. In any case, the Church teaches that both Sacred Scripture and Tradition share the same source, NOT that one produced the other:

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, 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.” Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81"Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."
“And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.”

For me, the idea that Tradition gave rise to Scripture just does not account for the “distinctiveness” the Church teaches.

 

[po18guy]

At the risk of going off-topic, I have seen this idea many times and every time it raises the same red flag for me. Given how difficult it can be to grasp someone’s entire meaning in these brief posts, it is certainly possible I am misunderstanding you. One point concerning your formulation is it is incomplete given that the Old Testament is Sacred Scripture and was recognized as such before the Apostles. In any case, the Church teaches that both Sacred Scripture and Tradition share the same source, NOT that one produced the other:

For me, the idea that Tradition gave rise to Scripture just does not account for the “distinctiveness” the Church teaches.

I should have been more clear. I was speaking in terms of the NT. Since we are bound by the new covenant, it is the one most generally disputed as to meaning and intent. It is the one which was handed on orally and written only much later in time - as much as 20-60+ years later. In the OT, Moses is generally credited with the first five books (the Pentateuch), but he clearly could not have been the author of the chapter on his own death and burial. Clearly, even that had to be produced by Tradition - especially since no one knows the location of Moses’ grave.

The prologue to Luke (Luke 1:1-4) reveals that Theophilus had already been well-trained in the Gospel via the Apostolic Tradition some time before Luke wrote his Gospel. Theophilus learned zero from Luke’s Gospel - Luke wrote it only to confirm the oral teaching that Theolphilus had already received. This is an often overlooked prologue that directly touches on the validity of the Apostolic Tradition. We have this tendency, in a protestant-founded nation, to view Jesus’ teachings are being found in the bible. In truth, a tiny portion of them are. Jesus did not send scripture forth, He sent teaching forth.

Why the difference between the transmission of the OT and the NT? We see that Jesus constantly up braided the Pharisees for their making void the Word of God - written words. Jesus did not write a single jot of His Gospel. He taught it to the twelve and the Holy Spirit reminded them, and taught them of all that was needed. Printed words are easily twisted, as Peter writes of in 2 Peter 3:16. However, the Apostolic Tradition was not originally printed - it was living, breathing men who could correct misperceptions and distortions in real time. It was a Word that could be questioned, and would answer back.

Every bit written in the Gospels had to be known by someone before it was written down, since it was written decades later. And, only Peter, Matthew and John were eyewitnesses to what they wrote about (Also Paul, in the narrative of his conversion). Paul’s letters are not Gospels, and were written to address disciplinary matters or to correct those who had departed from the Apostolic Traditions.

Of course, the Holy Spirit is the author of all scripture - that should never be in dispute. And, this is not off-topic, as it reflects on the proper transmission of God’s Word (Scripture + Tradition). The New Testament is incomplete as a record of the Gospels, and tells us so in numerous places. Is it “sufficient”? The debate rages on, since it was not the manner in which our Lord taught. Neither was it the manner in which He commanded the Apostles to teach it. We are absolutely blessed to have the scriptures, but our faith would exist without the scriptures - just as the faith of the early Church, taught via the Apostolic Tradition, did.

The danger is when the Apostolic Tradition is discarded and private interpretation is applied as the primary means of establishing a translation.

 

[Taestron]

Thanks for all the responses. Here are some of my thoughts.

There is not so much justification for stripping away historical interpretation. Doing so isolates the passage from its cultural context, leaving us with nothing but modern viewpoints and myopic speculation as to what the passage might have meant. The result is that we often get the meaning wrong.

As a Catholic, when faced with a scripture passage that could be interpreted in alternate ways, my first question is, “How did the people who knew the apostles personally understand this passage?” What did the apostles themselves, and their first few generations of students understand that passage to mean? IOW, I go to the Early Church Fathers.

Perhaps, stripping away traditional interpretation is too harsh of term. What I meant is to say that we should temporarily bracket out traditional interpretations in order to explore other possible ways to interpret Scripture. Afterwards, we need to compare and contrast with tradition since even in the Protestant viewpoint sometimes tradition is authoritative.

There’s a vital difference in how the Church uses biblical interpretation vs Protestants. The Church doesn’t see the Scriptures as proof texts for doctrines–because the doctrines came from Christ who handed them on verbally to his Apostles before the NT was written. The Bible, even the OT is considered one of three witnesses to the truths taught by the Church, but not as the basis for those teachings, in the hard and fast sense. I think it’s important for our Protestant brethren to know this so there is no misunderstanding when discussing this issue.

Ah but this is technically true for Protestants as well. The words of Scripture should not be viewed as the basis for doctrine; Scripture functions this way because it is the very Word of God (and His words are completely reliable for doctrine). But it is good to remember that our Catholic brethren have more than one witness to the truth.

Hi Taestron, I’m not an expert on Catholic Teaching,jut coming back to the Catholic Faith myself. I asked almost the question myself on another thread, but it was worded different.The Catholic Faith has the Chair of Peter to interpret the Bible through the Holy Spirit.This is put into the Catacism of the Catholic Church.That being said you will find sozo already interpreted in the CCC # 2003 gifts of the Holy Spirit and one of the gifts is sozo the gift of healing. But in the CCC you will also find it relating to the healing of our soul. It is ok to read the Bible and apply it to our ever day life, that interpretation is ok. But need to know the history,Sacred Tradition,and language the Sacred text was written in is not subject to individual interpretation. I found that the CCC has answered most of my questions on the Bible text. This totally amazed me when I thought I was having some new revelation or interpretation it was already in the Churches teaching. I would say no to a biblical Scholar who steps outside the bounds of the Faith,because the Bible is not subject to individual interpretation. For this very reason I came back home to the Catholic Church. I found so many different faiths trying to interpret the Bible through,Greek it was this,than Hebrew it said this. Confused the heck out of me.Thank God for a Church who’s teaching on the Sacred text has not changed in 2,000 years. I was getting tired from having a head ache from all these different Biblical Scholars, interpreting the Word in so many different ways.Made my head spin.God Bless

There is a movement in Protestant Biblical Interpretation called Theological Interpretation of Scripture (TIS). What it says is that the theological doctrines we have inherited (at least those that are perceived as dogma) are the sounding board for any new interpretation. For example, if a certain interpretation of Christ’s divinity contradicts the Ecumenical Councils, then it cannot be a valid interpretation. Now, this does not solve every problem (for example, whose traditions are we going to follow?), and I think any Protestant methodology worth its salt already had this as an unstated premise. But it does provide some protection against interpretations that willfully try to make Scripture say something that tradition explicitly denies.

The danger is when the Apostolic Tradition is discarded and private interpretation is applied as the primary means of establishing a translation.

I didn’t mean to imply that we are completely disregarding Apostolic Tradition. Even under the most staunchly Protestant ideologies, Apostolic Tradition is very important. To think that we moderns could ever have a better understanding of Scripture than those who lived within a generation or two of its writing is the epitome of pride. However, there are certain contemporary interpretations that can supplement traditional understanding. For example, Matthew 4:19. Everything that I have seen personally says that the Greek says “repent” but for some reason Jerome saw fit to translate it “do penance.” Now these two translations are not contradictory, so it seems rather obvious to me that we should think of this verse saying both things. But if I would then proceed to say that “do penance” is a mistranslation of the text, then that would be taking this methodology too far. Does that make sense?

 

[Cranch]

We are absolutely blessed to have the scriptures, but our faith would exist without the scriptures - just as the faith of the early Church, taught via the Apostolic Tradition, did.

The danger is when the Apostolic Tradition is discarded and private interpretation is applied as the primary means of establishing a translation.

I certainly have no quarrel with these sentiments. While we obviously agree God is the author of Scripture, how that was accomplished through the unique agency of the Holy Spirit as described in the Papal excerpts below, indicates to me why the CCC says “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.” You speak of how the faith embodied in Tradition would exist even without Scripture. Conversely, for me the Holy Spirit would (hypothetically) not require even the New Testament human authors to be cognizant of Apostolic Tradition. Again, Scripture and Tradition are “two distinct modes of transmission” of the Word of God. The Church always speaks of Scripture and Tradition, not Scripture from Tradition. That’s the best way I can explain my view. Thankfully, beyond my hair-splitting, what we share is more important: knowing Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

For the Sacred Scripture is not like other books. Dictated by the Holy Ghost, it contains things of the deepest importance, which in many instances are most difficult and obscure. To understand and explain such things there is always required the “coming” of the same Holy Spirit; that is to say, His light and His grace; and these, as the Royal Psalmist so frequently insists, are to be sought by humble prayer and guarded by holiness of life.

— Leo XIII, PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS​

You will not find a page in his [Jerome’s] writings which does not show clearly that he, in common with the whole Catholic Church, firmly and consistently held that the Sacred Books - written as they were under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - have God for their Author, and as such were delivered to the Church. Thus he asserts that the Books of the Bible were composed at the inspiration, or suggestion, or even at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; even that they were written and edited by Him. Yet he never questions but that the individual authors of these Books worked in full freedom under the Divine afflatus, each of them in accordance with his individual nature and character.

If we ask how we are to explain this power and action of God, the principal cause, on the sacred writers we shall find that St. Jerome in no wise differs from the common teaching of the Catholic Church. For he holds that God, through His grace, illumines the writer’s mind regarding the particular truth which, “in the person of God,” he is to set before men; he holds, moreover, that God moves the writer’s will - nay, even impels it - to write; finally, that God abides with him unceasingly, in unique fashion, until his task is accomplished.

—Benedict XV, SPIRITUS PARACLITUS​

 

[po18guy]

I didn’t mean to imply that we are completely disregarding Apostolic Tradition. Even under the most staunchly Protestant ideologies, Apostolic Tradition is very important. To think that we moderns could ever have a better understanding of Scripture than those who lived within a generation or two of its writing is the epitome of pride. However, there are certain contemporary interpretations that can supplement traditional understanding. For example, Matthew 4:19. Everything that I have seen personally says that the Greek says “repent” but for some reason Jerome saw fit to translate it “do penance.” Now these two translations are not contradictory, so it seems rather obvious to me that we should think of this verse saying both things. But if I would then proceed to say that “do penance” is a mistranslation of the text, then that would be taking this methodology too far. Does that make sense?

What is paramount is to maintain what was intended by the Holy Spirit through the sacred author. As Catholics, we hold absolutely to the Sacraments, as did Jerome. Thus, he speaks of penance rather than mere repentance - there is a difference. Penance is not only repentance - a turning away form - but a paying back the debt that our sin has incurred. From it, we get the term “penitentiary.” Prisoners do not simpy repent, but pay back their debt to society. Sin has a cost attached, and penance is a way of making up for the damage we have done through our sin. I note that all of the early translations, from the Vulgate (382-405), to Wycliffe (14th century), to the Douay-Rheims (16th-17th century) to the King James Version (early 17th century) all use “penance”, whereas modern revisions - those preferred by the post-reformation communities who have rejected the Sacraments, use “repentance”. This reflects the sea change in Christian thought since the reformation.

On a bit of a tangent, the reformation, through its rejection of the Sacraments, opened the door to the “great apostasy” theory that has appeared in recent times. I recall here that we must keep the intent of the Holy Spirit in mind, and not denominational or cultural preference.

You have a mature concept of translation. But, we look must both with horror at those who have completely separated the Apostolic Tradition from the scriptures. Perhaps the worst example is the totally modern belief that baptism is no longer necessary. Christ clearly specified that both faith and baptism are necessary (Mark 16:16).

 

[edwest2]

Thanks for all the responses. Here are some of my thoughts.
Perhaps, stripping away traditional interpretation is too harsh of term. What I meant is to say that we should temporarily bracket out traditional interpretations in order to explore other possible ways to interpret Scripture. Afterwards, we need to compare and contrast with tradition since even in the Protestant viewpoint sometimes tradition is authoritative.

Ah but this is technically true for Protestants as well. The words of Scripture should not be viewed as the basis for doctrine; Scripture functions this way because it is the very Word of God (and His words are completely reliable for doctrine). But it is good to remember that our Catholic brethren have more than one witness to the truth.

There is a movement in Protestant Biblical Interpretation called Theological Interpretation of Scripture (TIS). What it says is that the theological doctrines we have inherited (at least those that are perceived as dogma) are the sounding board for any new interpretation. For example, if a certain interpretation of Christ’s divinity contradicts the Ecumenical Councils, then it cannot be a valid interpretation. Now, this does not solve every problem (for example, whose traditions are we going to follow?), and I think any Protestant methodology worth its salt already had this as an unstated premise. But it does provide some protection against interpretations that willfully try to make Scripture say something that tradition explicitly denies.

I didn’t mean to imply that we are completely disregarding Apostolic Tradition. Even under the most staunchly Protestant ideologies, Apostolic Tradition is very important. To think that we moderns could ever have a better understanding of Scripture than those who lived within a generation or two of its writing is the epitome of pride. However, there are certain contemporary interpretations that can supplement traditional understanding. For example, Matthew 4:19. Everything that I have seen personally says that the Greek says “repent” but for some reason Jerome saw fit to translate it “do penance.” Now these two translations are not contradictory, so it seems rather obvious to me that we should think of this verse saying both things. But if I would then proceed to say that “do penance” is a mistranslation of the text, then that would be taking this methodology too far. Does that make sense?

Unless you are, in fact, a Bible scholar, I don’t see how your comments are relevant. No offense, but only the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church is competent to interpret scripture.

So no, there is no room for other interpretations.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Taestron]

Unless you are, in fact, a Bible scholar, I don’t see how your comments are relevant. No offense, but only the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church is competent to interpret scripture.

So no, there is no room for other interpretations.

And no offense to you as well, but how is this response helpful. If I was a biblical scholar, would you start answering my questions instead of saying that only the experts opinions matter? What if I felt that God is calling me to be a Biblical Scholar? What if I were a Protestant in RCIA and needed to understand what is proper interpretation for non-experts to do? What if I were a teenager who needed to learn how to read Scripture properly so as to not fall away from the faith as an adult? Would you then actually respond to my opinions and observations and teach me where exactly I am going wrong instead of saying ‘this is dangerous and must be left to the experts?’"

I’m sorry if I am coming across too harshly, but this is one of my biggest frustrations with this forum. I am baffled that views are condemned up front without even an attempt to address the actual issues presented. Now the condemnations are good discussion in themselves and are not done spitefully and without charity, (this makes the people on this forum infinitely better than those on others), and my own thinking has matured in my time here from them. However, I do get frustrated that some people don’t seem to see the need to interact with the actual issues and merely make things about the Catholic/Protestant divide.

That being said I would like to share my concerns with your view about biblical interpretation. I see the need for having the experts who can speak with authority concerning biblical interpretation. I even acknowledge the value of having the Magisterium being the final authority of interpreting biblical texts. But what you seem to be advocating goes beyond that. Whether you meant this or not, the implication is that there is no value in reading the Scripture at all if you are not an expert.

Here is why I think this. I have heard it from both Protestants and Catholics that the average Protestant reads Scripture more than the average Catholic. Now without claiming any one cause, I wonder if part of the reason is because of this very attitude that only experts can interpret Scripture, something which I have heard much more often out of the mouths of Catholics than Protestants. This does two things. First, it squashes any sort of curiosity that is necessary to be a good interpreter of Scripture; with or without meaning to it says “Scripture means one thing and one thing only and this has been delineated from ages past.”

Second, it instills a fear of Scripture; imagine that, the very thing meant to give life and joy is said to be too dangerous for the likes of mere mortals like me. Now there is an element of truth to this. After all, water and oxygen are both necessary for the body to live but are both very dangerous in improper contexts. This is something to which Protestantism as a whole needs to be introduced. But I do not think our primary view of Scripture should be one of fear.

Again, I see the need for the experts and the authorities because Scripture can be a very dangerous tool. But are these experts more akin to pioneers who blaze a trail that all must follow, or are they more like ranchers who let their cattle roam within certain established fences? If one of the goals of Scripture is to produce wise men and women of God, then I think we must train people to interpret Scripture for themselves within the proper parameters. Otherwise, are we not just treating everyone who is not an expert like babies, always feeding them milk, refusing to let them grow up and start feeding themselves?

And feed themselves they must learn to do. The Magisterium, the experts, even priests and deacons, cannot always be around to make sure interpretation is done properly. There are two steps to interpretation: 1)Exegesis: what a text means and 2)Contextualization: what do I do with this text. That is a simplified viewpoint of what happens. But there is organization that can do both steps for everyone, nor should there be. When we say that the experts are the only ones competent to interpret Scripture (which may be true in regards to step 1), we must carefully distinguish that this does not absolve us of our responsibility in step 2.

 

[Mintaka]

Most Catholics aren’t afraid of reading or studying Scripture, or of knowing Scripture from hearing it at Mass. (“Faith comes by hearing.”) Most Catholics are afraid of having Scripture misquoted and misinterpreted so as to trick them, and of reading Bibles with weird footnotes and weird lacunas that are like drinking from a poisoned well. Since most bishops don’t seem too anxious yet to give imprimaturs and nihil obstats to good stuff, and to warn people against bad stuff, Catholics are hesitant to commit to what might harm them.

And that’s very reasonable, given the history of anti-Catholic Bible scholarship, anti-Catholic Bible societies and Bible studies, and heretical Catholic theologians getting away with murder, constantly bombarding people in the last five hundred years or so.

I study the Bible because I’m arrogant enough to think I can strain out the bad stuff. But I’m a long way from having the medieval Catholic’s comfort with quoting the Bible; I don’t know all the Psalms by heart or anything like it. I’m consistently surprised by the patristic and medieval scholars’ casual ability to connect verses of the Bible that illuminate each other, and to call up memories of an entire passage by just quoting a few bits.