Redeeming the Bible: Can Scripture be a source of unity rather than division?

I have cringed every time—during 45 years of studying and teaching Scripture in Catholic universities and dioceses—I heard Scripture being quoted out of context and used in support of any number of opposing positions. The Bible has been dragged into arguments to justify war and to argue for pacifism, to support slavery and to oppose it, to keep women “in their place” and to insist on their liberation, and most recently to support government programs subsidizing the poor and to eliminate such programs. Is it possible to use the Bible sensibly or must it continue to be a weapon of division in a community whose founder prayed that “they may all be one” (Jn 17:21)? To address this question we must step back to consider what constitutes a sensible use of the Bible; to do that, we must enter the murky and confusing world of biblical interpretation.

Even a precursory look at the history of biblical interpretation reveals a morass of complementary and conflicting approaches to the biblical text. At the risk of oversimplifying, there are those methods focused on discovering the literal sense of the text and those that delve beneath the surface of the text to discover a spiritual sense, a meaning relevant to the people for whom the Bible is sacred text. The literal or plain sense refers to what the text actually says as this can best be determined. The spiritual sense refers to a “deeper” meaning of the text. Though at times there were as many as seven spiritual senses, these eventually coalesced into three: the allegorical sense, which included what is now called typology; the moral sense; and the anagogic sense.

Advertisement

The anagogic sense, which focuses on what the biblical text has to tell us about heaven, has not been prominent in the history of interpretation, possibly because there is so little about the afterlife in the Bible. The moral sense is alive and well. Preachers seeking to make the biblical text relevant to the people in the pews often draw out the moral sense of the text to endorse certain attitudes and behaviors. The allegorical/typological sense involves a search for hidden meanings. It enabled the early church to connect the Old Testament and the New Testament, finding within the Old Testament the foreshadowing of events and persons of the New Testament (typology); it enabled the early church to “redeem” offensive and obscure texts by looking for meaning not in the “letter” of the text but in its “spirit” (allegory).

Meaning Matters

In the long history of Christian interpretation of the Bible, most theologians were comfortable accepting both literal and spiritual interpretations of the biblical text, even if an individual theologian had a preference for one side or the other, but matters began to change with the Reformation and later the Enlightenment. The Reformers, following in the steps of Martin Luther, who had an aversion to allegorical interpretation, stressed the literal sense of the text, but it was a “literal sense” determined in accordance with Protestant theology. Later theologians, influenced by the Enlightenment, were also concerned with the literal sense, but it was the literal sense as it could be determined from within the historical and literary contexts of the text under consideration. The exaltation of reason over faith, the discoveries resulting from improved methods of archaeology, advances in the studies of ancient languages and manuscripts, the increasing rigor of scientific inquiry—all had a part to play in the emergence of the historical critical method, which is not one method but a collection of methods that seek to interpret a text from within its historical, social and literary contexts. Its concern is the literal sense of the text, but the literal sense as understood against the backdrop of the age and author who produced the text.

The Catholic Church, in response to the Protestant Reformation, continued to endorse the multiple senses of Scripture and insisted upon magisterial oversight with respect to issues of interpretation. But even in the Catholic Church a concern for the literal sense began to dominate. St. Thomas Aquinas already had given considerable weight to the literal sense, stating that “all the senses are founded on one—the literal—from which alone can any argument be drawn, and not from those intended in allegory” (Summa Theologiae I, 1, 10, ad. 1). Nearly seven centuries later in 1943, in the encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu,” Pope Pius XII sided with Aquinas on the importance of the literal sense in his exhortation: “Let the Catholic exegete undertake the task, of all those imposed on him the greatest, that namely of discovering and expounding the genuine meaning of the sacred books. In the performance of this task let the interpreters bear in mind that their foremost and greatest endeavor should be to discern and define clearly that sense of the biblical words which is called literal” (No. 23). The encouragement to Catholic biblical scholars to use historical critical method to determine the literal sense of the text was confirmed by the “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation” of the Second Vatican Council (No. 12). The spiritual sense of Scripture, though of historic, theological and liturgical importance, had been set aside: “The allegorical interpretation of Scripture so characteristic of patristic exegesis runs the risk of being something of an embarrassment to people today” (“The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church,” 1993, No. 173).

Interpreting the Bible Today

In some ways the present situation with respect to the interpretation of biblical texts still seesaws between those who prefer the literal sense and those who prefer the spiritual sense, but the situation is more complicated and more polarized today. It is complicated in two ways: by the rise of fundamentalism and by a more nuanced understanding of the role of the reader in the process of interpretation. Fundamentalism arose as a response to historical critical method which called into question the historicity of many of the biblical stories and also challenged some doctrines of the Christian church. Fundamentalism makes claims to be a “literal” interpretation of the biblical text, but it owes more to the ideology of the 19th century than to the biblical text itself. The literal sense from a fundamentalist perspective becomes an insistence on the factual accuracy of the Bible, which it takes to be inerrant in all its claims.

Historical critical biblical scholars insist that they are also concerned with a literal interpretation of the biblical text, but they insist that the meaning of text can best be determined by understanding that text from within its historical and literary context. If they focus on a text by Isaiah, for example, they seek to understand what the author intended and how the audience of the time would have heard Isaiah. They are also sensitive to whether the text is prose or poetry, whether it is history or story or essay, whether the author is using metaphors and speaking figuratively. They recognize that the biblical text contains historical, scientific and even theological errors, for it reflects the knowledge of the people responsible for its production and transmission; the biblical text is from a people who had a different world view and limited historical and scientific knowledge. It is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile these two different ways of understanding the literal sense of a text.

The second complication emerges from a more nuanced understanding of the role of the reader in the process of interpretation. Concern with the spiritual sense of the biblical text arose because this ancient text was believed to be relevant to believers who lived centuries later and for whom that text was now considered sacred text. The gap between the ancient world of the text and the contemporary world of its readers needed to be bridged, and a search for the spiritual sense of the text filled in that gap. Today, instead of speaking of a “spiritual” sense, we recognize that readers bring to bear upon a text under examination their own issues and concerns, their own worldview, and these have an impact on even the most objectively guided search for meaning.

The emphasis on the role of the reader has led to the proliferation of new “isms” in the field of biblical interpretation: liberation criticism, feminist criticism, post-colonialism, the new historicism. These various approaches to the biblical text take into account the role of class, culture, ethnicity and race, gender or politics in the formation of texts and in their interpretation. Many of the practitioners of these “isms” employ historical critical or literary critical methods, but what makes them distinctive is that the text is explicitly read through a particular lens that shapes the meaning “found” in a text. I include here also readers who insist on the importance of a “faith hermeneutics” or theological approach to the interpretation of the Bible, a position best represented by Pope Benedict XVI. This approach privileges faith or theological doctrine as the lens through which to interpret the biblical text. Though these interpretive stances are not the same as the spiritual interpretation of the patristic period, they share with the patristic period a search for meaning that is relevant to the “people in the pew.” The opposition here is between what the text meant (the historical critical meaning) and what the text means (the concern of the people in the pew).

Two questions emerge from this historical summary: How do fundamentalists talk to historical critical interpreters, and how do we negotiate between what the text meant and what the text means? I doubt that fundamentalists and historical critical interpreters will ever agree, for their basic presuppositions stand in opposition; but instead of arguing about whether the creation stories of Genesis are scientific accounts or myths, can we agree that we are creatures dependent upon a Creator and explore what that means? Instead of getting bogged down by debates regarding the historical accuracy of the patriarchal narratives, of the Exodus with its plagues and the crossing of the Red Sea, of the conquest and subsequent history of Israel, can we focus rather on what it means to be called, to be saved, to be a covenanted people (Genesis through Kings)? Can we learn from the prophets the importance of loyalty to God (Hosea, Jeremiah) and of living in justice (Amos, Isaiah, Micah)? Can we learn from Israel how to pray in joy and sorrow, in need and in thanksgiving (Psalms), and how to find God reflected in the world (Israel’s wisdom traditions)? Can we move beyond the simplistic notions of suffering and sin as the author of Job did and as Jesus did in the New Testament? Instead of being bogged down by “Did it happen this way?” can we explore, in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the Gospels, what it means to be human? Can we agree that it means to live in obedience to God and to “lose oneself” in the love of the other as Jesus did? Can we explore what it means that we have been reconciled, that we have been be forgiven, that we have access to God in Christ? Can we talk about what it means to say that “God is love” and what love means and how we as a community of believers mediate God’s self-giving love to this world? Can we explore what resurrection means and its implications for our lives as Christians? As a biblical scholar I find the historical questions of great interest and of great importance, but in the interest of dialogue can we agree to disagree on the contentious issues and focus on what unites us as believers who seek to love God and love our neighbor?

This brings me to my second question: how do we negotiate between what the text meant and what the text means? I find it problematic to draw a dichotomy between what a text meant and what it means. If what a text means is not integrally connected to what a text meant, then we can say anything we want about the meaning of any text. If this is the case, why read one text as opposed to another? We must also recognize that not every text will have meaning for us today because our world is too different. We need to recognize that the Bible speaks with many voices representing various responses to changing historical situations. It says many things about who God is and what God is about. There is no one image of God and no one response on God’s part in the Bible. The Bible says many things about what it is to be human, and it is not always consistent in what it prescribes in the laws and in its wisdom writing. It all too often reflects the limited understanding of its own time and place. We live in a very different time and place. We need to enter into dialogue with these voices of the past, but at the same time we need to take our experiences into account and bring that to bear upon the biblical text as we address the issues of war, patriarchal systems, the economy, social roles, etc. We hear the many voices in the Bible, but as believers our voices also need to be heard. We learn from the Bible what it means to be the people of God, but as believers our experience is also of values to today’s community of believers. We find in the Bible the revelation of God’s love expressed in the Old Testament and most fully in the gift of his Son in the New, but God’s love is also expressed in our world. It is expressed through us as we live in God’s love.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
William Atkinson
3 years 10 months ago
Probably NOT. Yes certain passages do ascertain a union of processes, but most do not, the whole theme through scripture is division, from the Adam/Eve, Cain/Able, Noah, Moses, Davis/Solomon, Jesus, (the Romans/Herod and Jewish fractured religion) it's all about friction, division and the complications of humanity. Look at today, the maze of Christianity in it's thousands if not millions of divisions, Jewish faith and Islam, not to mention the other belief and political systems of the world.
Jack Rakosky
3 years 10 months ago
This is a very fine brief overview of biblical interpretation. However as a social psychologist who has taken a number of graduate scripture courses at ND and elsewhere, I think the social-cultural dimension of Bible study is underemphasized. The Bible has been written, translated, read, and interpreted within communities in various cultural traditions. We have a Hebrew Canon which until recent centuries was mostly read and interpreted within the Jewish community. We have a Greek Canon within which the NT developed and was and continues to be interpreted in Eastern Christianity. For most of the centuries before Protestantism, the Latin Vulgate was interpreted in the West with little contact with the Greek and Hebrew texts other than exceptional people like Jerome. When I study the Bible, I use BibleWorks a computer program that gives me the Hebrew text, the Greek text, the Vulgate and many modern translations of each verse. I start with the Greek text even of the OT. BibleWorks not only has many built in Greek dictionaries, it also has a search program that enables me to see and understand all the occurrences of the same Greek word in all the other books of the Bible. In the case of the OT I then look behind the Greek text to the Hebrew text and its modern Jewish translations. I then look at how the Vulgate treated the text, and then English translations old and modern of the Hebrew, Greek and Latin texts. I find this diversity fascinating and enriching. It quickly becomes evident that no one English translation can do justice to all the possible understandings of the texts in all the cultural traditions within which they have evolved. The digital age has opened wonderful opportunities for bible study to unite us in its rich diversity.
MARY PAZDAN
3 years 10 months ago
Pauline, Thanks for the great article. I am going to use it in my DMin course on Biblical Hermeneutics and Preaching. Mary Margaret
Jay Cuasay
3 years 10 months ago
I will share this article with my RCIA group, especially the paragrpahs following the two questions that emerge from this (your) historical summary. Though I don't think I ever got to this point within RCIA preparation, as a comparative literature theorist cum lay ecclesial minister, I've always found the "point" of scripture to be "kerygmatic" in much the same way one could say Catholics are (or ought to be) "sacramental."
Joseph Vagabond
3 years 10 months ago
DO NOT LEAN ON YOUR OWN (puny) UNDERSTANDING, but on the Infinite Wisdom of God! THIS IS EASY!!!! Hehehehe... Anyway, that's the problem with rationalizing Scripture, or the Gospel in fact, it's filled with conflict and contrasting opinions of people whom most say are inspired by God... Well, the secret is taking God's opinion and interpretation of what can be found in Biblical passages... such as, relegating quite a number of passages that are actually of the Devil (since He intends for us to know what the Devil actually tried to say in previous times - remember the word "PREVIOUS"...). That for sure are passages that CANNOT be trusted nor used by anyone because it is the Devil's opinion, i.e., he used scripture to tempt Christ when Jesus was about to complete His 40 days and nights in the desert, get me? Then, we can read the entire context of STORIES, not just MERE VERSES (,ok?) to get down to the nitty gritty of who is truly correct IN GOD'S OPINION as He had most clearly stated in Job (against Zophar, Eliphaz, Bilhah AND ELIHU, mind you the last name HAS BEEN SAID BY PROTESTANT WRITER/PASTORS as "the Christ" in OT... which is definitely wrong, because he and his elders whom he had accompanied to Job's "bashing" was JUDGED TO HAVE SAID WRONG AGAINST HIM (God) WHO DOES ALL THE JUDGING without the REQUIRE JUSTIFICATION... Then, there are the errors of Balaam (should they be mentioned), then the one about the prophets of God during the time of Jehosaphat and Ahab (1 Kings 22:1-39 read all stories COMPLETELY, please!) WITH ITS A PROPHET, ZEDEKIAH son of Kenaanah, SLAPPING THE FACE OF THE MACAIAH WHO WAS ACTUALLY THE ONLY ONE prophet TELLING THE TRUTH (by order of King Ahab who would die in that battle they were asked to prophesy about) BEING "FREE" FROM THE DIRECT INFLUENCE OF THE DECEIVING SPIRIT sent by God... be aware, God allows the same just as He did Job... These are just a few of these verses THAT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS GOD INSPIRED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT FOUND CORRECT... ok? Better yet, just follow St. Peter's, St. Jude's and St. Paul's ADVICE AND "PLEA"; PRAY TO GOD TO SEND HIS HOLY SPIRIT TO GUIDE AND TEACH YOU, so that the Devil would NOT BE ABLE TO TAKE HOLD OF YOUR PUNY MINDS and TWIST THE PASSAGES AROUND to fit his sinister and pernicious agenda... ok?! Yours truly, Fr. James Martin, SJ and FB friends, Joseph theVagabond
Steve Janowski
3 years 10 months ago
Amen!! I am reminded of what St. Augustine once wrote: “In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.”
JOE BLISS
3 years 10 months ago
Your question "can scripture be a source of unity....? is well answered in the last sentence "it is expressed through us as we live in God's love"
Edward Stansfield
3 years 9 months ago
Professor Viviano’s article asks a number of worthwhile and important questions but there are several problems with the article. The first obvious problem is the title: “Redeeming the Bible.” Does the Bible really need to be “redeemed?” Are a bunch of theology professors going to presume to redeem it? Or shouldn’t they look to the Bible for their redemption and not the other way around? Try not to be led astray by a quest for a provocative title. At one point the article appears to allege errors in the bible from which it is to be redeemed. It says, “They [Historical critical biblical scholars] recognize that the biblical text contains historical, scientific and even theological errors.” The trouble with this is that Dei Verbum says that the scripture is “without error.” A logical reading of Dei Verbum indicates that if you are discovering “errors” in the bible than you are simply taking it to mean things that it was not intended to mean. The bible does not have “scientific errors” because it was never intended to convey a scientifically authoritative meaning. The ancient Israelites did not have science in mind when they wrote it and God was not talking about science when he revealed it to them.
Edward Stansfield
3 years 9 months ago
The article goes on in its later paragraphs to claim that there is some great difference between what the Bible was originally intended to mean and what it should mean to the church today. It says, “The opposition here is between what the text meant (the historical critical meaning) and what the text means (the concern of the people in the pew).” The problem with this claim is that the church pronouncements on the subject do not support it at all. Dei Verbum says that the Bible is about salvation. This salvific concern does not change from ancient to modern times. On the contrary, Dei Verbum uses the term “salvation” a total of 17 times, each time referring to the meaning that the scripture was originally intended to convey. A “salvific interpretation” of scripture was not made up and imposed on the scripture at a later time. Therefore if you look around at some of the writings of Catholic biblical scholars and discover that many of them seem largely unrelated to salvation, you must accept the fact that they are simply missing the point of the story. The study of the Bible in the church is supposed to have the understanding of salvation and doctrine as its goal. All the church pronouncements on the subject insist upon this point.
Edward Stansfield
3 years 9 months ago
As it nears its conclusion the article raises the question of how to engage in dialogue with fundamentalists (a worthy and difficult task) but then it alleges that the Bible contains “myths.” If you are having a discussion with a fundamentalist scholar and you claim that the Bible is a myth, you’re obviously getting off on the wrong foot. Calling scriptures, “myths” is not only undiplomatic, but bad theology. In their letters in the New Testament, Saints Peter and Paul both insisted that the things they taught and preached were, “not myths.” They even used the Greek term, “mythos” when doing so. In 1950, Pope Pius XII issued the papal encyclical Humani Generis, in which he said that the things that are written in the Bible are not myths and are not to be considered or treated on a par with myths. Peter and Paul’s rejection of mythology must logically extend to the entire Bible. If you are reading the Bible and you come upon a story that can be logically demonstrated to be non-historical, it could be a parable or an allegory, but it’s not a myth. Unlike myths, allegories use symbolic language to convey a specific meaning. Thus, while there are several colorful allegories in the Bible, there are no myths.
Chris Sullivan
3 years 9 months ago
Pauline asks a good question: "Instead of getting bogged down by debates regarding the historical accuracy of the patriarchal narratives, of the Exodus with its plagues and the crossing of the Red Sea, of the conquest and subsequent history of Israel, can we focus rather on what it means to be called, to be saved, to be a covenanted people (Genesis through Kings)?" One of the problems with doing that, and interpreting the plagues in Egypt literalistically, is that we then read Exodus as teaching that God deliberately kills innocent Egyptian children. That misinterpretation of a God who does infanticide would appear to pose a huge problem "on what it means to be called, to be saved, to be a covenanted people". God Bless
Brian McCarthy
2 years 1 month ago
From my vantage point within Evangelical Protestantism, I see both the great need for the kind of dialogue the article is talking about, and the great difficulty of making it happen. This article is an excellent contribution to the effort.

Advertisement

The latest from america

The act of planting a garden is the easier part: It’s the small daily acts of caring over the long haul that can be a challenge.
Elizabeth Kirkland CahillDecember 15, 2018
So what is it about these cheesy, mass-produced films that make them so irresistible?
Colleen DulleDecember 14, 2018
Last year, 'America' published “An (unconventional) Advent Playlist.” This is my (much more conventional) Advent playlist.
Molly MattinglyDecember 14, 2018
Jeff Daniels in ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ (photo: Julieta Cervantes)
Two starry new Broadway productions have no qualms about speaking their mind.
Rob Weinert-KendtDecember 14, 2018