Approaching the Bible
I had a question posed to me as follows:
One thing that I've struggled with is which parts of the bible to take literally, which parts are interpretive, and which are pure allegory for something else?
Is every word from the words of the letters of Paul to be set in stone and unmovable? Are we to take the Book of Kings or the Book of Issiah as clear history?
My response:
OK, let's talk about the basic Catholic approach to interpreting Scripture. It's a bit different than a lot of methods in the Protestant realm(s). The Church interprets Scripture through the 4 Senses of Scripture. So of like the lenses of your glasses to help you to read. If you are looking through the lens of a wrong prescription, your view of the object is distorted or fuzzy.
A
lot of Protestants get sucked into this "It's either literal or
figurative but it can't be both" dichotomy. The way we interpret
Scripture in the Catholic tradition is not an either/or distinction. I
really hate when people try to frame it this way, as if its a game of
poker and you have to go all in on one side or the other. You have to
look at it from the view point of how it would have been interpreted (as
any miraculous story would have been) by the early Hebrews as well as
the early Church, and we have to step away from our modern
post-Newtonian Enlightenment rationalism to do this.
To
antiquity, the universe was a scary place. It was something that seemed
arbitrary and harsh because life was that way. Nature in its purest
form was chaos. This is not just an early iron age Jewish perspective.
Aristotle taught this as well, which is why he believed so strongly in
the idea of the polis, or city. For him, only wild beasts and crazy men
lived "out in nature" because of this. Or, conversely, there were views
if nature was not chaos, then it was governed by spiteful gods whose
passions created and governed the chaos of nature.
Now,
take for instance the classed Creation story. What is the revelation of
the Creation story that God is trying to tell His people? It is not a
fairy tale story about God suspending the laws of known physics to
create something from nothing. God finds the universe to be chaos
(that's the word that is literally used) and brings order to that chaos.
To quote the old King Jimmy Version, "The world was without form and
void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep." The world may seem
like a dark and scary place, but God is above all that and can bring
order and meaning even to the very chaos. God is not the one that
creates the chaos, nor is God one who is cowed by the chaos. Likewise,
neither is God the chaos itself, He is not a sun god nor a moon god nor a
nature/animal god. God is above all that. That is a revelation that
should be taken literally and symbolically.
This
is why I categorically reject this trendy notion in biblical
scholarship that says the creation story contradicts itself. I was fed
this in seminary ad nauseum, and I never bought it.. I think that is
contrary to the Catechism (No. 111) and the Vatican II documents that
say, "But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no
less important principle of correct interpretation, without which
Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and
interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written." To
say that Scripture here is contradictory on its face is to say that the
same Spirit is contradictory, and that defeats the whole revelation I
talked about above. The Spirit is not chaos but brings order to the
chaos.
As
Catholics, we interpret Scripture in more than one sense. There is the
literal, which is where we must start in any reading of Scripture, but
there is also other levels of interpretation. *The literal sense is
different than literalism.* There is the moral (how are we to act on
this reading of Scripture), allegorical (how is Christ seen in this
passage), and anagogical (How can we view this in terms of the eternal,
i.e. how is God using this to bring all things back unto Himself in the
Ages of Ages) senses.
Thus,
to say we can have no literal interpretation of the creation story at
all is nonsense because as Thomas Aquinas says, " All other senses of
Sacred Scripture are based on the literal." You cannot get to a greater
spiritual sense of scripture (i.e. the latter three senses above) if you
don't start with the literal. To completely discount the literal is to
discount every other sense is well. Because, literally, God is bringing
order to the chaos. All that I wrote about God bringing order to chaos
is literal truth, and it is only there that me move on to the other
senses of the moral (not being afraid of nature or thinking God is not
in control), the allegorical (the God here is in the singular plural
(Let us make man in our own image-already Trinitarian, not to mention
that we are LITERALLY made in the likeness and image of God so was can
claim to be children of God), and the anagogical (no matter what kind of
sin comes into the picture in the next chapter, God is leading us
(Greek: anagoge, "leading") back to that created order of being in the
image of God and restoring all things to recreate Eden in the final
chapters of of the Book of Revelation.)
God
starts and ends with that bringing order to the chaos, both natural and
man made (sin). That is the literal beginning and ending of the entire
narrative of salvation found in the whole bible. It begins with the
creation story and ends with the creation story of God recreating Eden
in the New Jerusalem at the very end of the Bible.
So,
to get back to my original premise, The creation story (or any passage
of Scripture for that matter) is not an either/or interpretation of
literal or symbolic. It is a both/and. If there is no literal truth to
any of it, then the whole of the salvation narrative begins to fall
apart. All Scripture is divinely inspired. It's like water. You can wade
in it and splash around, but it's also so deep, you can drown in it if
you don't know how to swim in its waters.
The
Bible is like a file cabinet that contains all the major files of a
business. There might be tax documents, employee records, the original
corporate articles from the founding of the company, minutes from old
executive shareholder meetings, etc. They all in their own way tell the
story of the company, and in isolation, each document from the file
cabinet only gives you a piece of a much greater tale of the company.
There are multiple ways of interpreting those files. It's much more
complicated than a simple either/or. Scripture is like that in that it
is a both/and.
That
may seem like a bit of a cop out, but it's true. There is no simple
equation as to how to interpret any particular passage. You have to look
at it as a whole through the 4 senses or lenses of Scripture. This is
why we don't as Catholics interpret Scripture in isolation as
individuals. As the Bible is a product of Divine inspiration, God is
always speaking to us with it as a community over time. We as the Church
didn't just wake up one day and have a complete annotated Bible.
The
Church has primarily encountered the Bible through the Liturgy as a
corporate whole across many centuries. In this ongoing conversation, God
has sent scholars and leaders through the Magisterium to help guide our
worship and interpretation of the Bible over many centuries. We get
very squeamish when someone comes up with some totally new and novel
approach to interpreting a passage of Scripture. If it is something that
is completely contrary to the way the Church has interpreted a passage
for centuries, it's a red flag because that's to say that somehow all
the conversations God has been having with the Church over the centuries
with Scripture were somehow wrong or God changed His mind on how the
meaning of these passages.
Again,
there is no concrete equation that factors out to zero, but God does
give us guardrails through the teachings of the Church on how to
approach Scripture, interpret it, and apply it to our lives. The Bible
is like a multi-faceted gemstone and not a two dimensional printout of a
picture of gemstone. You look at it from different angles in the
correct lighting and see what it reveals.
Comments