Unanswered problem #1 (Scripture interpretation)

[Spock]

I am going to start with a simple question. (There will be more later on. )

We all know that interpreting the Bible is not obvious. There are passages which are supposed to be taken as literal descriptions of events, and there are other passeges which are understood in an allegorical fashion.

It is the Catholic stance that only the Catholic church is qualified to interpret the Bible. For the sake of this conversation I will accept this. So the question is: “if the Catholic Church is the only authority to interpret the Bible, then why doesn’t the CC do it?”. Let me make sure the question is clear:

Why isn’t there a Catholic Annotated Bible, where the Church would point for each verse and chapter if that specific verse must be taken literally or allegorically? And if it is to taken allegorically, then how should that allegory be understood?

In many conversations I saw that an atheist quotes something for the Bible, and the believer immediately retorts: “you are misinterpreting it”, or “you should not take one verse, look at the whole picture” or “you are not qualified…” or something along these lines. Of course these believers cannot give a “proper” interpretation, since there is none. It would be the Church’s duty to officially interpret the Bible.

I don’t give a specific example, because it is the nature of these conversations that the big picture gets forgotten and people start to concentrate on the example.

 

[danserr]

I think you have to distinguish between a couple things. The Church’s concern with interpreting the Bible is to present and preserve correct theological and moral doctrine. So they claim final authority to interpret the Bible in terms of things like Biblical indications of the Trinity, Eucharistic theology, Incarnation, Soteriology etc. The point is that individuals may not simply say “well, I read the Bible and think Jesus’s wasn’t God, so I will believe that.”

So, I think much of the Church’s concern to be the final authority on the Bible is to preserve correct theological and moral doctrine. Some things in the Bible just don’t fall into this category. Was Jonah really in the belly of a whale for 3 days? This just doesn’t have the same doctrinal relevance as other cases. It does not effect the central doctrines of Christianity so a judgment is not required. To say that the Church has the final authority to interpret the Bible is not to say they must or expect to give an interpretation of every single line. One Christian may take Jonah literally, another may not, and there is no harm in that. It is enough that there are several responses compatible with Christianity.

Second, I think you need to understand that on some issues the Church does not take a definite stand because it recognizes that there is room for different views among Christians that still do not lead to doctrinal error. Jonah might be an example. In many cases there many be several doctrinally orthodox understandings of a text so the Church does not insist on a single interpretation. In other cases, the Church recognizes that research continues to be done on the social, historical, and linguistic context of the Bible and that where correct doctrine is not imperiled, they simply allow for the consideration of various viewpoints and improved understanding as research progresses. They recognize that research is continuously being done to improve our understanding of the Bible. Of course, if a point did become of serious doctrinal relevance, they Church would have the right of final interpretation.

atheist quotes something for the Bible, and the believer immediately retorts: “you are misinterpreting it”, or “you should not take one verse, look at the whole picture” or “you are not qualified…”

Obviously though, in many cases such a response is appropriate, I gather you are referring to the supposed OT atrocities or troubling passages. A popular one is for atheists to say that “well, what about that psalm that talks about dashing babies’ heads on rocks. is that your God?” Clearly, here the believer’s response would be correct. He is right to be irritated at the atheist game of taking a line out of context and saying “so there.” Of course, it would be better if the believer could give some better reply, such as pointing out that the psalmist had just seen his City razed, and his people dragged into captivity and was expressing his very understandable hatred of Babylon. However, one is justified in calling a wrong interpretation wrong, even if one is not sure of the correct one.

 

[david_friol_1]

I am going to start with a simple question. (There will be more later on. )

We all know that interpreting the Bible is not obvious. There are passages which are supposed to be taken as literal descriptions of events, and there are other passeges which are understood in an allegorical fashion.

It is the Catholic stance that only the Catholic church is qualified to interpret the Bible. For the sake of this conversation I will accept this. So the question is: “if the Catholic Church is the only authority to interpret the Bible, then why doesn’t the CC do it?”. Let me make sure the question is clear:

Why isn’t there a Catholic Annotated Bible, where the Church would point for each verse and chapter if that specific verse must be taken literally or allegorically? And if it is to taken allegorically, then how should that allegory be understood?

In many conversations I saw that an atheist quotes something for the Bible, and the believer immediately retorts: “you are misinterpreting it”, or “you should not take one verse, look at the whole picture” or “you are not qualified…” or something along these lines. Of course these believers cannot give a “proper” interpretation, since there is none. It would be the Church’s duty to officially interpret the Bible.

I don’t give a specific example, because it is the nature of these conversations that the big picture gets forgotten and people start to concentrate on the example.

Hey Spock
That is a great question. I wish that the CC would do this for us so we all could have perfect knowledge of and perfect understanding of just what Sacred Scripture has to teach us. Unfortunately this is not the case. However, that is not so bad either because while the Bible was given to us by/through the Church and it is considered a great gift to the Church-the people of God-I would say that its very purpose is not so much for us to have perfect knowledge of or perfect understanding of it. But rather it is viewed as something that goes deeper into our very being than just our mind-though that is important, so don’t get me wrong. Scripture is understood to be something alive, the very word of God that penetrates the heart of those who truly seek God with their heart, mind and will turned toward him. It is not simply a book that needs to be understood word for word and verse for verse but it is lived out in the life of the Church, especially through the Sacraments and through the life of the individual. Its meaning is multi-layered and giving a concrete verse by verse and word for word official interpretation of it would actually reduce it to something ordinary. It is something Sacred to the Church and so though the Church is the guardian of the Scriptures it also must be understood that it is the Holy Spirit that is the true interpreter of Scripture.
Thanks for the question Spock and for responding to my PM
God bless you and your family!

 

[Glorthac]

I am going to start with a simple question. (There will be more later on. )

We all know that interpreting the Bible is not obvious. There are passages which are supposed to be taken as literal descriptions of events, and there are other passeges which are understood in an allegorical fashion.

It is the Catholic stance that only the Catholic church is qualified to interpret the Bible. For the sake of this conversation I will accept this. So the question is: “if the Catholic Church is the only authority to interpret the Bible, then why doesn’t the CC do it?”. Let me make sure the question is clear:

Why isn’t there a Catholic Annotated Bible, where the Church would point for each verse and chapter if that specific verse must be taken literally or allegorically? And if it is to taken allegorically, then how should that allegory be understood?

In many conversations I saw that an atheist quotes something for the Bible, and the believer immediately retorts: “you are misinterpreting it”, or “you should not take one verse, look at the whole picture” or “you are not qualified…” or something along these lines. Of course these believers cannot give a “proper” interpretation, since there is none. It would be the Church’s duty to officially interpret the Bible.

I don’t give a specific example, because it is the nature of these conversations that the big picture gets forgotten and people start to concentrate on the example.

Why isn’t there a “Catholic Annotated Bible”? Probably to avoid it falling into the hands of angry atheists!

Jokes aside, I doubt the Church has an infallible opinion on a lot of controversial Bible verses. In Genesis, the Church has authoritatively said that we descend from only one human couple (monogenism), and not many (polygenism). But the Chuch has not said if this happened six-thousand years ago, or millions of years ago.

So its up to the individual to choose what he believes, until the Church gives an infallible opinion on it. I personally believe in evolution, but I know a lot of Catholics who do not. And that’s perfectly fine, St. Augustine said “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, diversity; in all things charity.”

But to the point, even if the Church created a “Catholic Annotated Bible” which told us how to interpret the Bible, what benefit would that be for you, Spock? You yourself said the Bible is hard to interpret. So from your own words, would it make sense to try to pit the Bible against the Church’s interpretation? I don’t think so!

And more importantly, why even try to do so? Atheists are so against religion because it causes division, but they’re causing division by attacking Christians! Can’t we just get along?

 

[danserr]

St. Augustine said “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, diversity; in all things charity.”

I haven’t heard that before, I like that.

 

[DianaCC]

Why isn’t there a Catholic Annotated Bible,

I wish that the CC would do this…

This has already been done, at least twice:

• Thomas Aquinas, *Catena Aurea *(gospels only): books.google.com/books?id=F3UuAAAAYAAJ [link to Matthew; search for other volumes]
• Cornelius à Lapide, Great Commentary: books.google.com/books?id=6PopAQAAIAAJ [link to Matthew; search for other volumes]

 

[jmcrae]

I have a Douay-Rhiems Bible that came out in 1960, that has an Index of Doctrine within the study helps at the end of the book, that shows where various teachings of the Church are found in Scripture, which would probably suit the purposes of anyone who was trying to find the “official” Catholic interpretations of various passages of Scripture.

 

[Spock]

Let me answer en-masse

I think that none of you guys and gals tried to imagine yourselves as apologists who wish to convice or convert a non-Catholic, especially an atheist. You do not look at the Bible with a predominantly critical eye. Maybe some parts are not as important for you as others. Let’s just look at danserr’s example of Jonas. For an atheist it is just a crazy story, without any significance. But some parts are not insignificant. For example, the whole concept of “original sin” and its alleged consequences. Was there really a talking snake in the Garden? Was there a Garden? Or is that all just a fairy tale? And if it is, what was behind the story? Not so insignificant, is it?

As far as the fundamentialist Protestants are concerned, the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Catholics view it differently. But some parts should have originated from God, otherwise the whole shebang is just a collection of the writings of some superstitious people. Which are the parts that come from God? And how do you know it?

Remember, you are the ones who try to spread the “word”. At the very least the interpretation should be clearer than the original. Of course, if the Bible would have really come from God, it would need not interpretation, it would be crystal clear, and unambiguous.

 

[davidv]

Let me answer en-masse

I think that none of you guys and gals tried to imagine yourselves as apologists who wish to convice or convert a non-Catholic, especially an atheist. You do not look at the Bible with a predominantly critical eye. Maybe some parts are not as important for you as others. Let’s just look at danserr’s example of Jonas. For an atheist it is just a crazy story, without any significance. But some parts are not insignificant. For example, the whole concept of “original sin” and its alleged consequences. Was there really a talking snake in the Garden? Was there a Garden? Or is that all just a fairy tale? And if it is, what was behind the story? Not so insignificant, is it?

As far as the fundamentialist Protestants are concerned, the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Catholics view it differently. But some parts should have originated from God, otherwise the whole shebang is just a collection of the writings of some superstitious people. Which are the parts that come from God? And how do you know it?

Remember, you are the ones who try to spread the “word”. At the very least the interpretation should be clearer than the original. Of course, if the Bible would have really come from God, it would need not interpretation, it would be crystal clear, and unambiguous.

I see many erroneous presumptions in your first paragraph, not to meantion the last sentence. I think you know what they are.

The fundamental problem with your dissatisfaction with the answers given so far are in fact these very same presumptions. Words on a page convert no one. Only the Holy Spirit converts. The best an apologist can do is present the truth in the most loving way possible. That things aren’t they way you imagine them only proves that you are not God, and also don’t know His ways.

 

[jmcrae]

Let me answer en-masse

I think that none of you guys and gals tried to imagine yourselves as apologists who wish to convice or convert a non-Catholic, especially an atheist.

I don’t really see it as my job to “convince” anybody - certainly not against their better inclinations.

We’re not selling snake oil, here, and nobody “wins” if someone is convinced into believing in it by some kind of slick presentation - either the Holy Spirit will show it to you and you’ll understand and believe, or He won’t, and in either case, I really have no control over it.

Also, it’s not the Bible that we need to convince you of, but rather, what you need to become convinced of is your need for God, and your desire for Heaven. As long as you see yourself as being completely self-sufficient, with no need of God and no desire for Heaven, there’s not a sales pitch in the world, regardless of how slick it may be, that is going to convince you of anything in the Bible - it just won’t be relevant to your day-to-day life.

If you want to convert, then do so, without waiting for someone to “convince” you. If you wait for that, you could be waiting a really long time. It’s your eternal destiny that’s on the line here - no one else’s. And quite honestly, there are very few people who are going to risk getting into a long drawn-out argument with you, just to save your soul for you. If you want your soul saved, you have to be pro-active. You can’t wait around for someone to prove something to you beyond the shadow of a doubt, because the most likely scenario is that nobody ever will - you’re just going to have to take a leap of faith.

 

[Spock]

I don’t really see it as my job to “convince” anybody - certainly not against their better inclinations.

I think we are still not on the same “page” so to speak. I do not wish to tell you what your “job” is supposed to be, that would be presumptuous on my part. And I have no “special” inclination in the matter.

We can have a nice conversation, without any stake in the matter. But that is not apologetics, is it? As stated in Wiki: “Apologetics (from Greek απολογία, “speaking in defense”) is the discipline of defending a position (usually religious) through the systematic use of reason”. I am always interested in a rational or reasonable discourse.

We’re not selling snake oil, here, and nobody “wins” if someone is convinced into believing in it by some kind of slick presentation - either the Holy Spirit will show it to you and you’ll understand and believe, or He won’t, and in either case, I really have no control over it.

But isn’t it your “job” to go and spread the “good news” as convincingly as possible? I understand that you are not a missionary, to go and convert the “heathens”, but in this case the “heathen” comes to you and asks for your best “sales pitch”. If you do not wish to do it, I would not want to force you to do it against your better judgment, of course.

Also, it’s not the Bible that we need to convince you of, but rather, what you need to become convinced of is your need for God, and your desire for Heaven. As long as you see yourself as being completely self-sufficient, with no need of God and no desire for Heaven, there’s not a sales pitch in the world, regardless of how slick it may be, that is going to convince you of anything in the Bible - it just won’t be relevant to your day-to-day life.

I think it is enough that I am staying open to the possibility.

If you want to convert, then do so, without waiting for someone to “convince” you. If you wait for that, you could be waiting a really long time. It’s your eternal destiny that’s on the line here - no one else’s. And quite honestly, there are very few people who are going to risk getting into a long drawn-out argument with you, just to save your soul for you. If you want your soul saved, you have to be pro-active. You can’t wait around for someone to prove something to you beyond the shadow of a doubt, because the most likely scenario is that nobody ever will - you’re just going to have to take a leap of faith.

I am proactive by coming to you and asking. I am not willing to accept anything without investigating what is being “sold”. Let me refer you back to the meaning of apologetics: “defending a position (usually religious) through the systematic use of reason”. The buzzword is “reason” here, which is not supposed to be confused with “faith”.

Just a short addendum: I have MANY questions, the one concerning the Bible is just one of them. I started this thread to give you guys the opportunity to show that your “apologetics” skills are not as “mene, tekel, ufarsin” - as I found so far…

 

[jmcrae]

I think it is enough that I am staying open to the possibility.

Are you? My experience of previous interactions with you is that you shoot down every reasonable presentation with a shrapnel bomb of endless nit-picking. It’s like trying to prove to a man born blind that the sky is blue, when he cannot comprehend either the terms “sky” or “blue” but thinks that somehow, if someone could just explain it in a way that he would consider “reasonable,” then he could believe it.

Unfortunately, just as there is no common ground of experience between a blind person and a sighted person that would provide the means for such a proof to be presented, so also, it seems as if there is no common ground of experience between you and most believers, that would provide a means for anybody to be able to prove the existence of God to you.

In the end, just as blind men have to take it on faith that there is a sky, and it’s blue, so also, you might just have to take God on faith, as well. Which would be fitting, I think.

 

[Spock]

Are you? My experience of previous interactions with you is that you shoot down every reasonable presentation with a shrapnel bomb of endless nit-picking. It’s like trying to prove to a man born blind that the sky is blue, when he cannot comprehend either the terms “sky” or “blue” but thinks that somehow, if someone could just explain it in a way that he would consider “reasonable,” then he could believe it.

Unfortunately, just as there is no common ground of experience between a blind person and a sighted person that would provide the means for such a proof to be presented, so also, it seems as if there is no common ground of experience between you and most believers, that would provide a means for anybody to be able to prove the existence of God to you.

In the end, just as blind men have to take it on faith that there is a sky, and it’s blue, so also, you might just have to take God on faith, as well. Which would be fitting, I think.

I don’t think that your analogy fits. We have exactly the same senses, you and I. God cannot be experienced via the senses. What I do not have is “faith”, in that you are correct. But you said that you do not sell snake-oil, you sell the real McCoy. And my experience is that only the snake-oil salesmen are the ones who keep asserting: “trust me!”, and “have faith” when it comes to their product. The ones who actually sell the real thing are able to demonstrate their product. And my openness extends all the way to check and accept the rational demonstration, if and when it is forthcoming. I have to remind you again, that apologetics uses reason and not faith. And we are on an apologetics board here.

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t think that your analogy fits. We have exactly the same senses, you and I. God cannot be experienced via the senses.

Maybe not, but for me, there is a definite sense-able difference between a room in which the Tabernacle is, and a room in which there is no Tabernacle, or where the Tabernacle is empty - a difference that you are not able to perceive, I think. I can also experience God communicating with me - and again, not through any of the five senses, and yet, I am aware of God communicating with me, and I know what He is saying, most of the time. Again, this is not an experience that you are having - or if you are, you aren’t recognizing it as God’s “voice.” (If you were, you would naturally believe in God, and it wouldn’t occur to you not to.)

What I do not have is “faith”, in that you are correct. But you said that you do not sell snake-oil, you sell the real McCoy. And my experience is that only the snake-oil salesmen are the ones who keep asserting: “trust me!”, and “have faith” when it comes to their product. The ones who actually sell the real thing are able to demonstrate their product. And my openness extends all the way to check and accept the rational demonstration, if and when it is forthcoming. I have to remind you again, that apologetics uses reason and not faith. And we are on an apologetics board here.

I have seen you presented with many, many very reasonable arguments.

No argument is unassailable - not even scientific proofs.

If you wanted to, you could argue that the Earth is flat, and those who have proof that it’s round would have a difficult time convincing you of their proofs, if you were choosing not to believe them, or choosing to misinterpret them and make them out to be ridiculous.

Why would you expect the proofs for God to be more unassailable that the proof that the Earth is round?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I don’t think that your analogy fits. We have exactly the same senses, you and I. God cannot be experienced via the senses. What I do not have is “faith”, in that you are correct. But you said that you do not sell snake-oil, you sell the real McCoy. And my experience is that only the snake-oil salesmen are the ones who keep asserting: “trust me!”, and “have faith” when it comes to their product. The ones who actually sell the real thing are able to demonstrate their product. And my openness extends all the way to check and accept the rational demonstration, if and when it is forthcoming. I have to remind you again, that apologetics uses reason and not faith. And we are on an apologetics board here.

You sure can talk a lot about snake oil salesman and “faith”, “trust” and reasons to believe what we believe. Yet when you are confronted about what you believe, you expect us to accept your beliefs by fiat. You aren’t doing anything different than the very thing you condemn.

If you cannot or will not defend the standard of proof you expect us to meet, then why should we accept what you say? Isn’t that pretty much what you are claiming “snake oil salesmen” are doing? You’re just saying “trust me” yourself.

 

[guanophore]

I think that none of you guys and gals tried to imagine yourselves as apologists who wish to convice or convert a non-Catholic, especially an atheist. You do not look at the Bible with a predominantly critical eye.

There is an extent to which I think you are right. The Bible was written by, for, and about Catholics. It is a reflection of the One Faith committed to the Apostles. It is not that we don’t use historical or textual criticism to understand it, it is that when we do so, it is with some presuppositions about the origin and nature of the book.

As far as the fundamentialist Protestants are concerned, the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Catholics view it differently.

No, we don’t. This just happens to be one of the Catholic beliefs that was retained when the spiritual ancestors of modern day fundamentalists departed from the One Faith.

But some parts should have originated from God, otherwise the whole shebang is just a collection of the writings of some superstitious people. Which are the parts that come from God? And how do you know it?

We accept that all of it is inspired by God, and inerrant. ALL of it is written for our instruction.

Remember, you are the ones who try to spread the “word”. At the very least the interpretation should be clearer than the original.

There are two errors here. One is that the “word” refers to the book. While the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God, the “word” we are trying to spread is not a something, it is a SOMEBODY. The Word of God is Jesus Christ.

The other error is that the interpretation "should be clearer: than the original. By nature, human beings are unable to have more “clarity” about God than God does. There are many mysteries in our faith that are beyond human understanding to grasp.

Of course, if the Bible would have really come from God, it would need not interpretation, it would be crystal clear, and unambiguous.

This is a false conclusion, based upon a false premise.

 

[jmcrae]

If Science were really true, you wouldn’t need a Doctoral degree to be able to understand it.

 

[david_friol_1]

This has already been done, at least twice:

• Thomas Aquinas, *Catena Aurea *(gospels only): books.google.com/books?id=F3UuAAAAYAAJ [link to Matthew; search for other volumes]
• Cornelius à Lapide, Great Commentary: books.google.com/books?id=6PopAQAAIAAJ [link to Matthew; search for other volumes]

Thomas Aquinas is a great saint and his works are very good I’m sure but he is not the Catholic Church. So i don’t know where you get the idea that if a person who is Catholic writes something that that make it official Church teaching even if it is in line with the Catholic view.

 

[david_friol_1]

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION
ON DIVINE REVELATION
DEI VERBUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED
BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965

CHAPTER III

SACRED SCRIPTURE, ITS INSPIRATION AND DIVINE INTERPRETATION

1. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.(1) In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

1. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)

But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)

1. In Sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God always remains intact, the marvelous “condescension” of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, “that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature.” (11) For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men.

 

[david_friol_1]

I don’t give a specific example, because it is the nature of these conversations that the big picture gets forgotten and people start to concentrate on the example.

I just wanted to remind every one of the topic and bring you back to the “big picture”

The original question was:Why isn’t there a Catholic Annotated Bible, where the Church would point for each verse and chapter if that specific verse must be taken literally or allegorically? And if it is to taken allegorically, then how should that allegory be understood?