Jesus of Nazareth

[oikumene]

I am reading Pope Benedict’s book Jesus of Nazareth. In the Foreword Page 20, the Pope states:

The process of continually rereading and drawing out new meanings from words would not have been possible unless the words themselves were already open to it from within.

The words that he is talking about are words from the Gospel. What does he means from within?

 

[Harmony1988]

He probably means the authors, they did not seek to hide anything in the words. Not sure, though, not read the book.

 

[FCEGM]

I am reading Pope Benedict’s book Jesus of Nazareth. In the Foreword Page 20, the Pope states:

The process of continually rereading and drawing out new meanings from words would not have been possible unless the words themselves were already open to it from within.

The words that he is talking about are words from the Gospel. What does he means from within?

I believe the Holy Father is referring to the fact that the inspired words spring from The Word Himself - they have their source IN The Word; thus they a depth to them that is continually plummeted by the Church to draw out ever-deeper significance without changing the original intent of the human author. (This, btw, is the function of the Magisterium: to protect the initial Revelation of God in Christ, while delving further into the meaning of the Word-Become-Flesh.)

 

[Joe_5859]

This sentence comes at the end of a paragraph on the canonical exegesis of Scripture (interpreting Scripture in light of the whole). Basically, he means that the meaning of the words of Scripture is continually being fleshed out because they contain more than what the original authors were aware of.

It also means that we do not impose our own interpretations on to the text of Scripture, but we draw them out of the text. Or else we’re just making Scripture say whatever we want it to say rather than paying attention to what God means to say to us through Scripture.

Perhaps it might be helpful to post the entire paragraph for those who do not have the book:

“Canonical exegesis”–reading the individual texts of the Bible in the context of the whole–is an essential dimension of exegesis. It does not contradict historical-critical interpretation, but carries it forward in an organic way toward becoming theology in the proper sense. There are two further aspects of theological exegesis that I would like to underscore. Historical-critical interpretation of a text seeks to discover the precise sense the words were intended to convey at their time and place of origin. That is good and important. But–aside from the fact that such reconstructions can claim only a relative certainty–it is necessary to keep in mind that any human utterance of a certain weight contains more than the author may have been immediately aware of at the time. When a word transcends the moment in which it is spoken, it carries within itself a “deeper value.” This “deeper value” pertains most of all to words that have matured in the course of faith-history. For in this case the author is not simply speaking for himself on his own authority. He is speaking from the persepctive of a common history that sustains him and that already implicitly contains the possibilities of its future, of the further stages of its journey. The process of continually rereading and drawing out new meanings from words would not have been possible unless the words themselves were already open to it from within.

-Pope Benedict XVI. Jesus of Nazareth. New York: Doubleday, 2007. pp. xix-xx.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I am reading this book very slowly. I am astounded at the clarity and precision with which this book is written and pray that God will grant B16 the time with us to publish Part 2.

 

[idrum677]

I’m working on the book as well. The only place I seem to be able to understand the concepts is when I am in front of the Blessed Sacrament.

Light reading it is not! :hypno:

 

[oikumene]

This sentence comes at the end of a paragraph on the canonical exegesis of Scripture (interpreting Scripture in light of the whole). Basically, he means that the meaning of the words of Scripture is continually being fleshed out because they contain more than what the original authors were aware of.

It also means that we do not impose our own interpretations on to the text of Scripture, but we draw them out of the text. Or else we’re just making Scripture say whatever we want it to say rather than paying attention to what God means to say to us through Scripture.

Perhaps it might be helpful to post the entire paragraph for those who do not have the book:

Thanks Joe. I now understand the text. God Bless You.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Rereadings or “the interpretation of biblical texts that occurs within the Bible itself” is also briefly discussed in The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church by the Pontifical Biblical Council: “One thing that gives the Bible an inner unity, unique of its kind, is the fact that later biblical writings often depend upon earlier ones. These more recent writings allude to older ones, create “rereadings” (relectures) which develop new aspects of meaning, sometimes quite different from the original sense. A text may also make explicit reference to older passages, whether it is to deepen their meaning or to make known their fulfillment.”

One example of a rereading or interpretation that is “quite different from the original sense” is Paul’s use of Deuteronomy 25:4, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain.” Paul “rereads” this text as a justification for paid ministry:

“Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? For it is written in the Law of Moses, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.’ Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop” (1 Cor 9:8-10).

This interpretation is in one way “quite different from the original sense”, almost to the point of suggesting that God does not even care for oxen. But we can also see a shared principle between the original text and the rereading of it, and that the original “words themselves were already open to it from within.”

 

[RobbyS]

Rereadings or “the interpretation of biblical texts that occurs within the Bible itself” is also briefly discussed in The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church by the Pontifical Biblical Council: “One thing that gives the Bible an inner unity, unique of its kind, is the fact that later biblical writings often depend upon earlier ones. These more recent writings allude to older ones, create “rereadings” (relectures) which develop new aspects of meaning, sometimes quite different from the original sense. A text may also make explicit reference to older passages, whether it is to deepen their meaning or to make known their fulfillment.”

One example of a rereading or interpretation that is “quite different from the original sense” is Paul’s use of Deuteronomy 25:4, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain.” Paul “rereads” this text as a justification for paid ministry:

“Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? For it is written in the Law of Moses, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.’ Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop” (1 Cor 9:8-10).

This interpretation is in one way “quite different from the original sense”, almost to the point of suggesting that God does not even care for oxen. But we can also see a shared principle between the original text and the rereading of it, and that the original “words themselves were already open to it from within.”

As the Holy Father says elsewhere, words are images of truth, and different writers will draw on those images and invest them
with meaning revealed to the faithful in the course of time. Thus the meaning of Creation “develops,” from a reflection on the Sabbath in Genesis to the pithy summary that opens the Gospel of John.

 

[Joe_5859]

Thanks Joe. I now understand the text. God Bless You.

Your welcome! :tiphat: I’m glad I was intelligible!

 

[ryanoneil]

This might help.

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.”

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.
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”.
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.

Peace,

Ryan