Reading sacred scripture.

[Xeno.of.athens]

I want to say, first off, that by sacred scripture I mean the 73 canonical books in Catholic Bibles. I do not mean 66 books, or Jewish Tanakh, or a larger number of canonical books according to some other tradition.

When reading sacred scripture there are a number of ways one can approach the text. One is called "historical critical method" and it involves learning the nuances of the languages spoken and written at the time in which particular passages being read were written. It also means learning about the literary forms in use and identifying the form used in the passage under study. Further, it means attempting to discover the intended meaning of the author of the passage.

There is a great deal to be gained from this approach. Some may see it as "the right way" to read the sacred scriptures. But is it? Really?

 

[chevyontheriver]

I want to say, first off, that by sacred scripture I mean the 73 canonical books in Catholic Bibles. I do not mean 66 books, or Jewish Tanakh, or a larger number of canonical books according to some other tradition.

When reading sacred scripture there are a number of ways one can approach the text. One is called "historical critical method" and it involves learning the nuances of the languages spoken and written at the time in which particular passages being read were written. It also means learning about the literary forms in use and identifying the form used in the passage under study. Further, it means attempting to discover the intended meaning of the author of the passage.

There is a great deal to be gained from this approach. Some may see it as "the right way" to read the sacred scriptures. But is it? Really?

Critical approaches can bring out some good details but as the only method it is absolutely barren.

 

[Daniel9v9]

In my opinion, there are a lot of serious problems with higher criticism. Their goal of discovering the supposed true way of reading Scripture and receiving its supposed true meaning has failed miserably. This is proven by its countless inconsistencies, frequent anachronisms, and historical evidence. The movement has brought about some good techniques for exegesis, but at heart, it's a faulty way of reading God's Word in that the reader elevates himself above the Scriptures instead of letting the text interpret itself. The best exegesis, in my estimation, is using all the tools and techniques we have available but with humility, letting our reason be governed by God's Word.

Let me give you a practical example of what I mean: A couple of years ago, I heard a Priest say the church's job is to separate God's Word from Satan's word in the Bible. This is a nonsensical starting point for it already betrays a compromised theological framework. But more than that, if we don't have a clear objective standard for what is good and evil, it becomes impossible to judge what is God's Word and what is supposedly the devil's word. What usually happens is that what is seen as good is conveniently aligned with contemporary western culture, and from this, not a long way from Universalism.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Let me give you a practical example of what I mean: A couple of years ago, I heard a Priest say the church's job is to separate God's Word from Satan's word in the Bible. This is a nonsensical starting point for it already betrays a compromised theological framework.

Agreed, it is a mistake that colours interpretation.

How do you interpret the scriptures.

 

[bling]

The main way we know we are true Christians is by having the indwelling Holy Spirit, which was given as our guarantee of God’s promises.

The indwelling Holy Spirit is totally trust worthy, knows our inter thoughts, and knows everything, but we still have free will so, He can be quenched by us and we may not realized it at the time.

The Holy Spirit is totally consistent with scripture (he authored), so His message to us cannot contradict scripture, which is one way of knowing the interpretation of the message is from Him.

A key to finding truth, allowing the Spirit to help us, and understanding scripture is our personal motive for knowing. Almost any doctrine, we thought up, can be supported by the misuse and abuse of scripture. Lots of times we look at scripture to find support for our conclusions and not the other way around, so the Spirit is not going to be helping us.

So, why do you want to know what this scripture is saying? Are you using the verse to win an argument and make yourself look good? Are you writing a commentary on the scripture to sell a book and make money, build a following, receive praise for yourself? Are you just wanting to know for academic reasons?

I have no problem understanding scripture, if I do the following: really question my motive for knowing and have an excellent positive reason for knowing (changing my own life to be more selfless and helping with the positive change in other people’s lives), pray extensively for help to know what the verse says and my reason for knowing, patiently allow, through meditation, the Spirit to provide wisdom to me, read extensively scripture to understand the context, read other verses which might help me understand, fast for as long as it might take, present my ideas to other like minded Christians, who will pray and study with me.

One of the promises we have in this life is: we can obtain wisdom, by praying for it know we will get it, but that assumes we have a strong pray life (getting what we pray for).

 

[Daniel9v9]

Agreed, it is a mistake that colours interpretation.

How do interpret the scriptures.

Well, this may be obvious and self-explanatory for the most part, but perhaps some fair guidelines for proper reading could be:

1. A passage of Scripture is always to be taken in its plain, natural and literal sense, unless there is something in the text itself, or in the context, that clearly indicates that it's meant to be figurative.

2. A passage is never to be torn from its connection, but it's to be studied in connection with what goes before and follows after.

3. Scripture is to be interpreted by Scripture, the dark passages are to be compared with the more clear, bearing on the same subject. For example, when Jesus says "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple", it has to be understood in light of everything else our Lord says.

4. We can never be fully certain that a doctrine is Scriptural until we have examined and compared all that the Word says on the subject.

5. We have to respect that God speaks primarily in two voices: On one hand, He calls sinners to repentance, and on the other, He consoles repentant sinners with the Gospel of Jesus. We should therefore not confuse nor separate God's commands with the salvation won for us by our Lord Jesus Christ. This is the sum and substance of Paul's argument to the Galatians.

6. The Old Testament is the foundation of the New Testament, and the New Testament must be used to rightly understand the Old Testament. For example, we won't properly understand the significance of the Eucharist if we don't appreciate the significance of the Passover, and vice versa, in that Jesus is the true Lamb of God given to us.

7. The Bible should be read Christologically! All of Scripture ultimately points to or culminates in Christ, and through Christ, it applies to us. For example, the story of Jonah is not about me facing my fears or having to overcome something trivial in life. No, it's about God's grace on Nineveh, and ultimately about Jesus' victory over sin, death, and the devil for us.

The main way we know we are true Christians is by having the indwelling Holy Spirit, which was given as our guarantee of God’s promises.

The indwelling Holy Spirit is totally trust worthy, knows our inter thoughts, and knows everything, but we still have free will so, He can be quenched by us and we may not realized it at the time.

The Holy Spirit is totally consistent with scripture (he authored), so His message to us cannot contradict scripture, which is one way of knowing the interpretation of the message is from Him.

A key to finding truth, allowing the Spirit to help us, and understanding scripture is our personal motive for knowing. Almost any doctrine, we thought up, can be supported by the misuse and abuse of scripture. Lots of times we look at scripture to find support for our conclusions and not the other way around, so the Spirit is not going to be helping us.

So, why do you want to know what this scripture is saying? Are you using the verse to win an argument and make yourself look good? Are you writing a commentary on the scripture to sell a book and make money, build a following, receive praise for yourself? Are you just wanting to know for academic reasons?

I have no problem understanding scripture, if I do the following: really question my motive for knowing and have an excellent positive reason for knowing (changing my own life to be more selfless and helping with the positive change in other people’s lives), pray extensively for help to know what the verse says and my reason for knowing, patiently allow, through meditation, the Spirit to provide wisdom to me, read extensively scripture to understand the context, read other verses which might help me understand, fast for as long as it might take, present my ideas to other like minded Christians, who will pray and study with me.

One of the promises we have in this life is: we can obtain wisdom, by praying for it know we will get it, but that assumes we have a strong pray life (getting what we pray for).

Thanks be to God for His gracious gift of the Holy Spirit! The Bible is indeed the words of the Holy Spirit, and the same Spirit indwells all who believe and are baptised in Christ. But this does not guarantee that everyone understands the Bible perfectly. If that was the case, there would be no division in the church. But because of sin, to our shame, there is.

I think a more helpful way to approach the Scriptures is with simplicity: The Holy Spirit has spoken to us through Christ, prophets, apostles, and those words are written down for us. So what this means for us practically is that we really just have to read it. The Holy Spirit's words doesn't have to be "unlocked", so to speak. They are clear if we have the humility to let reason, tradition, and human philosophy be governed by God's Word. The more we let Scripture interpret itself, the more accurately we understand His Word, and this is something we should all strive for, regardless of what church body we're in.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

A passage of Scripture is always to be taken in its plain, natural and literal sense, unless there is something in the text itself, or in the context, that clearly indicates that it's meant to be figurative.

One can argue that many passages, almost every passage, has at least one figurative interpretation as well as the plain sense, and there is also the personal application be it spiritual or otherwise. So three senses at least.

CCC
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."83

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.84
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".85
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.86​

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87​

 

[Daniel9v9]

One can argue that many passages, almost every passage, has at least one figurative interpretation as well as the plain sense, and there is also the personal application be it spiritual or otherwise. So three senses at least.

CCC
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."83

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.84​

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".85​

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.86​

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;​

The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87​

Yes, this can be readily understood from Scripture itself in how things in the OT foreshadow and culminate in Christ. But what I have in mind is more specific. Let me give you an example:

Psalm 50:10 reads: "For every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills."

The word "thousand" in the verse above — Is it literal or symbolic? If this number is a literal 1,000, then that means that the cattle on the 1,001 hill does not belong to the Lord. But that's not right, for that doesn't agree with the rest of Scripture. But we can understand this to be symbolical from the same Psalm for it's poetry in genre.

To take another example: The Bible uses language of God having wings, but that doesn't mean that He has literal wings. We can understand it to be symbolic from the context and everything else God reveals about Himself.

There are many words and expressions in the Bible that either demand a literal or a symbolic understanding, and we can only properly understand them from the context.

 

[BobRyan]

I want to say, first off, that by sacred scripture I mean the 73 canonical books in Catholic Bibles. I do not mean 66 books, or Jewish Tanakh, or a larger number of canonical books according to some other tradition.

That makes no sense at all since the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) and the 66 books of sacred scripture are all part of your one 77 books of the catholic Bible.

When reading sacred scripture there are a number of ways one can approach the text. One is called "historical critical method" and it involves learning the nuances of the languages spoken and written at the time in which particular passages being read were written. It also means learning about the literary forms in use and identifying the form used in the passage under study. Further, it means attempting to discover the intended meaning of the author of the passage.

The historical-grammatical method of biblical interpretation has been preferred by evangelicals and is prefered to the critical and higher criticism methods:

So this is True of the Tanakh
True of the 66 books of Sacred scripture.
And using that same method also applies to the Apocryphal books as well. (Those that Jerome said are not part of the canon of scripture)

There is a great deal to be gained from this approach. Some may see it as "the right way" to read the sacred scriptures

Agreed in the case of the historical-grammatical method of biblical interpretation. IT is a good way to read a historic document in general

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That makes no sense at all since the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) and the 66 books of sacred scripture are all part of your one 77 books of the catholic Bible.

That is not quite correct; two books in a Protestant bible (Esther and Daniel) have reduced content compared to their counterparts in a Catholic bible. And a Tanakh has only the books that a Protestant Old Testament contains. A Catholic Bible has 73, not 77, books.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I think a more helpful way to approach the Scriptures is with simplicity: The Holy Spirit has spoken to us through Christ, prophets, apostles, and those words are written down for us. So what this means for us practically is that we really just have to read it. The Holy Spirit's words doesn't have to be "unlocked", so to speak. They are clear if we have the humility to let reason, tradition, and human philosophy be governed by God's Word. The more we let Scripture interpret itself, the more accurately we understand His Word, and this is something we should all strive for, regardless of what church body we're in.

I'd buy this except for the Biblical counter-example of the Ethiopian eunuch who was going along in his carriage, with obvious humility and likely some prayer. The Holy Spirit up and sends somebody, the apostle Philip, to help him understand the texts he didn't otherwise understand. How could he have otherwise understood what he was reading.

 

[Daniel9v9]

I'd buy this except for the Biblical counter-example of the Ethiopian eunuch who was going along in his carriage, with obvious humility and likely some prayer. The Holy Spirit up and sends somebody, the apostle Philip, to help him understand the texts he didn't otherwise understand. How could he have otherwise understood what he was reading.

Yeah, this would be an example of how the OT needs to be understood in light of the NT. And also, what I said above is not meant to exclude or minimise the pastoral office. Clearly there are some who are called by the Church to preach the Word because not everyone can study the Scriptures in the same capacity.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Yeah, this would be an example of how the OT needs to be understood in light of the NT. And also, what I said above is not meant to exclude or minimise the pastoral office. Clearly there are some who are called by the Church to preach the Word because not everyone can study the Scriptures in the same capacity.

If one reads the Old Testament through the lens of the New Testament does that imply that both testaments ought to be read through the lens of sound theology?

 

[BobRyan]

I want to say, first off, that by sacred scripture I mean the 73 canonical books in Catholic Bibles. I do not mean 66 books, or Jewish Tanakh, or a larger number of canonical books according to some other tradition.

That makes no sense at all since the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) and the 66 books of sacred scripture are all part of your one 77 books of the catholic Bible.

That is not quite correct; two books in a Protestant bible (Esther and Daniel) have reduced content compared to their counterparts in a Catholic bible.

So then the Protestant and the Hebrew Bibles agree on the content for the OT - but in some cases you are saying that there are other things added in the Catholic Bible for the OT - which of course - the Catholic church did not write.

My point is that the same rule for reading sacred scripture would apply since this is a case of a subset of the same scripture that you claim is part of the Bible.

Methods for reading the text - still apply.

And a Tanakh has only the books that a Protestant Old Testament contains.

The Hebrew Bible has the same content as the Protestant Old Testament - and it is not because the Jews were Protestant.

A Catholic Bible has 73, not 77, books.

It is possible that there is some confusion on that detail... I probably should have noted it in my prior post.

List Of Books Of The Apocrypha - CHURCHGISTS.COM

The Apocrypha is a collection of ancient Christian books in the Bible. They were not included in the Hebrew canon, but they were considered authoritative by Jews and Christians until the 18th century. A number of them have much shorter texts, or are in English translations only, but all are...

churchgists.com

https://churchgists.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/list-of-books-of-the-apocrypha.jpg

.

 

[Daniel9v9]

If one reads the Old Testament through the lens of the New Testament does that imply that both testaments ought to be read through the lens of sound theology?

Yeah, we call the Bible "canon" for a reason. It implies that it's the rule and norm for all doctrine. So when we study the Scriptures, we need to read the OT through the NT, and read the NT while bearing in mind the OT. This is because, in brief, the OT promises Christ, and in the NT we see the culmination of that OT promise of Christ. So if by a "lens of sound theology" we mean Christologically, then sure!

Let me give you an example to make this less abstract:

If we only had the OT, we would have God's good promise of redemption, even immediately after the fall, recorded as early as in Genesis 3:15, and then throughout all the Law and the Prophets. But it would be in a veiled way. I don't think I would be able to understand the type and shadow of the bronze serpent in Numbers 21. But in the New Testament, we see how this event culminated in the person and works of our Lord Jesus Christ, and He makes it very explicit. In fact, it's written that Jesus opened His disciples' minds to understand the Scriptures, and then sent them to preach His Word. And because the apostolic words have an OT foundation, we need to understand the OT to rightly understand what they say. This is especially true for Matthew, Hebrews, and Revelation which are steeped in OT language. So, simply, we need the OT to help us understand the NT, and we need the NT to help us understand the OT.

 

[PloverWing]

It is possible that there is some confusion on that detail... I probably should have noted it in my prior post.

Part of the 73 vs 77 confusion, I think, is that (using the titles in your chart), "Additions to Esther", "Song of Three", "Susanna", and "Bel and the Dragon" aren't separate books in a Catholic Bible. In a Catholic version of the Bible, the additional Esther material simply appears as part of the book of Esther, and the other three books appear as part of the book of Daniel.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Yeah, we call the Bible "canon" for a reason. It implies that it's the rule and norm for all doctrine.

Historically it doesn't. Canon means "rule" and its intended implication is the list of books which are counted as "worthy to be read in the Churches" rather than "the rule of faith". So, even though sacred scripture is part of the rule of faith the word canonical scripture means that the scripture in question is included in the list of books that the churches receive as sacred.

So when we study the Scriptures, we need to read the OT through the NT, and read the NT while bearing in mind the OT. This is because, in brief, the OT promises Christ, and in the NT we see the culmination of that OT promise of Christ.

While we do in fact read the OT through the lens of the NT and we find background for the NT in the OT we, meaning Catholics, read both testaments in the broader context of sacred Tradition (of which sacred scripture is a proper subset). And sacred Tradition as well as Sacred Scripture are both read with increased clarity as time passes and study allows. This growth in understanding is true both for individuals as they read the scriptures and the Church as she prayerfully receives and digests the teaching of Christ present in Sacred Tradition (inclusive of the scriptures).

If we only had the OT, we would have God's good promise of redemption, even immediately after the fall, recorded as early as in Genesis 3:15, and then throughout all the Law and the Prophets. But it would be in a veiled way. I don't think I would be able to understand the type and shadow of the bronze serpent in Numbers 21. But in the New Testament, we see how this event culminated in the person and works of our Lord Jesus Christ, and He makes it very explicit. In fact, it's written that Jesus opened His disciples' minds to understand the Scriptures, and then sent them to preach His Word. And because the apostolic words have an OT foundation, we need to understand the OT to rightly understand what they say. This is especially true for Matthew, Hebrews, and Revelation which are steeped in OT language. So, simply, we need the OT to help us understand the NT, and we need the NT to help us understand the OT.

The way that the Lord, Jesus Christ, interpreted the Old Testament and the way that the apostles interpret the Old Testament in their writings and in their teaching points to several levels of meaning being present in the sacred scriptures of the Old testament. And history (both individual and for the Church as a whole) point to the same thing as well as the process of maturing in the meanings extracted from the revelation given by God in Sacred Tradition (inclusive of the scriptures). Catholics call this growth and maturation "The Development of Doctrine" meaning that each doctrine of the Church is capable of maturation over time and that what was true in a previous age is seen in clearer insight and greater depth as the Church studies and prays. The old expression of doctrine remains true, and the matured expression is true and deeper.

 

[Daniel9v9]

Historically it doesn't. Canon means "rule" and its intended implication is the list of books which are counted as "worthy to be read in the Churches" rather than "the rule of faith". So, even though sacred scripture is part of the rule of faith the word canonical scripture means that the scripture in question is included in the list of books that the churches receive as sacred.

While we do in fact read the OT through the lens of the NT and we find background for the NT in the OT we, meaning Catholics, read both testaments in the broader context of sacred Tradition (of which sacred scripture is a proper subset). And sacred Tradition as well as Sacred Scripture are both read with increased clarity as time passes and study allows. This growth in understanding is true both for individuals as they read the scriptures and the Church as she prayerfully receives and digests the teaching of Christ present in Sacred Tradition (inclusive of the scriptures).

The way that the Lord, Jesus Christ, interpreted the Old Testament and the way that the apostles interpret the Old Testament in their writings and in their teaching points to several levels of meaning being present in the sacred scriptures of the Old testament. And history (both individual and for the Church as a whole) point to the same thing as well as the process of maturing in the meanings extracted from the revelation given by God in Sacred Tradition (inclusive of the scriptures). Catholics call this growth and maturation "The Development of Doctrine" meaning that each doctrine of the Church is capable of maturation over time and that what was true in a previous age is seen in clearer insight and greater depth as the Church studies and prays. The old expression of doctrine remains true, and the matured expression is true and deeper.

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the Roman Catholic position, and there's a lot here we can talk about, but let me hone in on this:

Different church bodies confess different authority in doctrine. For our friends the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox it's Scripture and Holy Tradition (which is more or less fixed), for Roman Catholics it's the Roman Catholic Church (Scripture, Pope and a Holy Tradition that is not fixed), for Lutherans and Reformed it's Scripture, for Anglicans it's Scripture, lower case "t" tradition, and reason. And then for other daughter bodies, it may be Scripture, or Scripture and reason, or Scripture and modern-day revelation, or Scripture and culture. As a Chaplain, I'm sensitive to this, so what I appeal to is our common ground, which is the Holy Scriptures, which has the certain prophetic and apostolic words recorded for us. In other words, what I'm talking about is how we can best understand the Bible on its own terms. I'm not here to criticise the Roman Catholic doctrinal system or challenge what is understood to be its authority. That would be a different discussion.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

what I'm talking about is how we can best understand the Bible on its own terms.

I acknowledge all that you had to say about other traditions, it is true that various churches and groups see matters differently. But I am not sure that the scriptures (73 book canon) has "it's own terms". Scripture (73 book canon) has its historical and grammatical meaning within the context of genre and cultural context at the time of writing, and one can gain a great deal from interpreting scripture in that way, but the scriptures also have and were always intended to have a greater context which is the Church herself. This is so because it is the Church that gave birth to the written forms we have received as scripture and because the written forms were always intended to be interpreted within the context of the Church (meaning the community of Christians who were in the local churches and the hierarchy of apostle, prophet, bishop, elder/priest, and deacon who served in the churches). So, while some churches and groups eschew sacred Tradition and are reluctant to receive the insights of the Catholic Church, these insights are, nevertheless, necessary for a complete (or as complete as is currently possible) appreciation of the meaning and teaching of Christ.

 

[Daniel9v9]

I acknowledge all that you had to say about other traditions, it is true that various churches and groups see matters differently. But I am not sure that the scriptures (73 book canon) has "it's own terms". Scripture (73 book canon) has its historical and grammatical meaning within the context of genre and cultural context at the time of writing, and one can gain a great deal from interpreting scripture in that way, but the scriptures also have and were always intended to have a greater context which is the Church herself. This is so because it is the Church that gave birth to the written forms we have received as scripture and because the written forms were always intended to be interpreted within the context of the Church (meaning the community of Christians who were in the local churches and the hierarchy of apostle, prophet, bishop, elder/priest, and deacon who served in the churches). So, while some churches and groups eschew sacred Tradition and are reluctant to receive the insights of the Catholic Church, these insights are, nevertheless, necessary for a complete (or as complete as is currently possible) appreciation of the meaning and teaching of Christ.

That certainly would be the Roman Catholic position.