Modern Biblical Interpretation

[myersdad]

First let me state that I am a former protestant children’s pastor with a wesleyan-armenian theological heritage. I have since been looking into the catholic faith and have a desire to become catholic…one thing that I want to know is how does the catholic church view modern biblical criticism methods?

For example, the hypothesis that much of the Torah and OT was not fully put together until the exile and thus it may not be a historical document(meaning that what is written in genesis to say 2nd kings may not be hard fact) but it may be a theological document, meaning that what it reports isn’t the focus…but why it reports what it does…

Also, I don’t remember the arguement on why the deuterocanonical books are included…especially since the hebrew text of the jews omits those books…

A different example in the NT would be what do you think of literary criticism in regards to some of the letters of paul might not be written by him…or that the 2 letters to the Corinthians may actually be 4…

Really I’m not trying to argue these points, but would like some feedback on what the newer interpretative methods mean to catholics…

Thanks.

Also, one more question. Am I the only one who sees the futility of a ‘proof-texting’ arguement?

 

[Fidelis]

Hi, and welcome to the forums (and hopefully, please God, to the beginning of your journey to the Catholic Faith).

It’s kind of hard to answer so many questions at one time, and it might be better to start a seperate thread on each.

The quick answer on modern biblical criticism is the the Church does not wed itself to any one method of interpretation. She recognizes the benefits that each method brings, but also recognizes their limitations, especially when a method comes with a “hermenuetic of suspicion” that holds Divine revelation up to the scrutiny of the method, rather than the other way around. Suffice to say, that when the resuppostions or conclusions of any one method denies or conflicts with the defined teachings of the Church, they cannot be safely held.

If you’re new to what the Church teaches about the Sacred Scriptures, I invite you to visit the link below to a page on my website that will provide you with some resources.

members.cox.net/fidelis927/cc_on_reading_bible.htm

 

[richardeekw]

Hi myersdad;1817599

The best way to understand the Roman Catholic teachings on Biblical Interpretation is to study the Chuirch’s Official documents.

1 Leo XIII - Providentissimus DeusEncyclical Providentissimus Deus of Leo XIII, 18 November 1893.www.vatican.va/…/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html - 74k - Cached - Similar pages

2 Divino Afflante SpirituEncyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu of Pius XII, 30 September 1943.www.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html - 67k - Cached - Similar pages

3 DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION "DEI VERBUM"DEI VERBUM SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965,. PREFACE. 1. Hearing the word of God with reverence and proclaiming it …benedettoxvi.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html - 38k - Cached - Similar pages

4 Interpretation of the Bible in the Church: OutlineTable of Contents of The Interpretation of the Bible in the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church: Outline - 7k - Cached - Similar pages

God Bless

 

[ricmat]

Also, I don’t remember the arguement on why the deuterocanonical books are included…especially since the hebrew text of the jews omits those books…

The short answer here is…late in the BC era, the Jews were dispersed over most of the world, and most of the Meditereanean world at that time spoke Greek, Jews included. Some 70 Jewish scholars in Alexandria translated the biblical writings into Greek - and this became known as the Septuagint. The Septuagint includes the Deuterocanonical books.

This is the version of Scripture that Jesus actually read from in the Gospels, and which is referred to by the NT scriptures. This is the same canon which the Catholic Church has used from the beginning, and which was formalized in the late 300AD’s.

Soon after the destruction of the Temple in 70AD, the Jews revised their scriptures to remove some of the books that might be seen as supporting the Christian heretics. When the reformation came along, the Protestants actually removed books from the canon for a similar reason, because they pointed to Catholic teachings that they didn’t want to address.

BTW - I believe that the original version of the King James Bible actually included these books.

This is all from my own Catholic perspective, so I admit that there is controversy about what I said above

 

[myersdad]

The short answer here is…late in the BC era, the Jews were dispersed over most of the world, and most of the Meditereanean world at that time spoke Greek, Jews included. Some 70 Jewish scholars in Alexandria translated the biblical writings into Greek - and this became known as the Septuagint. The Septuagint includes the Deuterocanonical books.

This is the version of Scripture that Jesus actually read from in the Gospels, and which is referred to by the NT scriptures. This is the same canon which the Catholic Church has used from the beginning, and which was formalized in the late 300AD’s.

Soon after the destruction of the Temple in 70AD, the Jews revised their scriptures to remove some of the books that might be seen as supporting the Christian heretics. When the reformation came along, the Protestants actually removed books from the canon for a similar reason, because they pointed to Catholic teachings that they didn’t want to address.

BTW - I believe that the original version of the King James Bible actually included these books.

This is all from my own Catholic perspective, so I admit that there is controversy about what I said above

My protestant education doesn’t really disagree with you… I had forgotten about the LXX. Interestingly enough, we used the NRSV with the deuterocanoncal books as our standard text. So I’ve never had problems with the books being there…

So…what do you think of the jewish ordering of the books of the OT though? (in the hebrew text) as opposed to the christian and LXX ordering of the books? I’m not saying our christian way is right…but with the hebrew bible including Joshua through 2nd kings(minus ruth) as as ‘early prophetic books’…would that make you read those texts in a different light?

 

[ricmat]

My protestant education doesn’t really disagree with you… I had forgotten about the LXX. Interestingly enough, we used the NRSV with the deuterocanoncal books as our standard text. So I’ve never had problems with the books being there…

So…what do you think of the jewish ordering of the books of the OT though? (in the hebrew text) as opposed to the christian and LXX ordering of the books? I’m not saying our christian way is right…but with the hebrew bible including Joshua through 2nd kings(minus ruth) as as ‘early prophetic books’…would that make you read those texts in a different light?

Some others who are more knowledgable in this can provide a better answer. From my own (novice) perspective, I see the entire Bible as a book not necessarily of literal history (although there is some of that) but rather as a book of salvation history.

The religious message is imporant. The exact historical details may in fact be accurate, or not, but in any case are not as important as the religious message.

This is not my area of expertise, nor is is really an area of interest to me, but there are some other folks who I’m sure will answer you in more detail than you really wanted

God bless us all on our journeys!