My posting of June 20 regarding how I read the Bible is too long. I apologize for it. I want to give you here a much shorter version.
I cannot read the Bible as though it had been written for American society in the 21st century because it wasn’t.
Taking the Bible literally—that is, the way it sounds today to modern Americans—is referred to as “biblical fundamentalism”. Instead, each biblical text is rooted in its historical and cultural context and it was written for an audience with specific needs and expectations and by authors with their own preferences and points of view.
Even the venerable Pontifical Biblical Commission, with Cardinal Ratzinger (today’s Pope Benedict XVI) at its head, agrees with me: not accepting the “historical” character of the Bible is the equivalent of rejecting the ultimate consequences of the “Incarnation” (the Son of God became one of us). I hadn’t thought of that initially, but it makes sense. God has truly spoken through man, in the context of our lives and history.
If we accept this principle, getting as close as possible to the original product—the initial rendition of the texts that arrived to us across the millennia—is a worthwhile endeavor. Consequently, I favor the reading of the original Greek version of the New Testament, as well as the original Hebrew version of the Old Testament with the so-called Septuagint, its Greek translation from the 2nd century BC, which is the one quoted in the New Testament.
Of course, it is not enough to read the texts in their original language. The historical character of the Bible demands that we use the scientific tools at our disposal to approximate the initial meaning and intent of each writing, as well as its possible resonance in the community to which it was addressed.
Once we have done all of this, we can ponder what we have discovered in our heart (Lk 2:19).
Let’s make a pause for a moment. If you follow this blog, you will notice that I quote biblical texts to either ground or to clarify my reflections. It is only fair to explain how I read these texts and why I often provide the original expressions in Hebrew or in Greek.
Much is said about biblical interpretation in our society and, if we are attentive observers, we often see the reflection of very personal views—and political preferences—on the part of even those who assert the literal truthfulness of the Bible in “every word”.
Since I am not an exegete (= a professional scholar who systematically uses scientific and other tools to interpret ancient and recent texts), I will refer to others who, you would agree, have some credibility in this matter.
In 1948, long time before the much-decried Second Vatican Council, Pius XII, a Pope that few would consider “liberal” or even “progressive”, wrote that “we ought to explain the original text which, having been written by the inspired author himself, has more authority and greater weight than any even the very best translation, whether ancient or modern” (Divino Aflante Spiritu, 16). He goes on to say that the biblical scholars could be accused of “levity and sloth” if they did not study the original languages of the Bible, to which they must add “a real skill in literary criticism of the same text”.
To those who revert today to the latin traditions of the church and to the authority of the Council of Trent, the Pope says: “if the Tridentine Synod wished ‘that all should use as authentic’ the Vulgate Latin version, this, as all know, applies only to the Latin Church and to the public use of the same Scriptures; nor does it, doubtless, in any way diminish the authority and value of the original texts”. This is so, the Pope adds, because their authenticity is not “specified” by the Council primarily as “critical” but rather as “juridical”(Divino Aflante Spiritu, 21). In other words, it has to do with the discipline of the church, not with the dogma.
But there is more to it than returning to the original languages. In 1994, the current Pope, Benedict XVI, when he was still Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, signed the instruction issued by the Pontifical Biblical Commission regarding the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. In that document, Cardinal Ratzinger addresses the ills of biblical fundamentalism and defines it as the belief that the Bible “should be read and interpreted literally in all its details”, denouncing this approach as “not biblical” because it rejects “any type of critical research”.
The Pontifical Commission and Cardinal Ratzinger bring this reasoning to its final conclusion: fundamentalism makes itself incapable of accepting “the full truth of the incarnation itself” by refusing to take into account the “historical character” of the biblical revelation.
There you have it. You will forgive me if I don’t rely on the way the biblical texts “sound” in English in the 21st century. Using the efforts of many, and my own, I will always try to understand what the sacred writers had in mind when they wrote what they wrote. And, to the best of my ability, I will try to put myself in the position of the audience that these writers were addressing. Frankly, you would be well advised to do the same. It might even be a good idea to take the same precautions with everything that we read and hear, be it from CNN or from FOX, or from this blog.
This said, I don’t read the Bible as any other book either. If it is historically conditioned and linguistically tied to the expressions of its time, as any book is, I take the Bible also as “inspired”, which is to say that beyond what the writers had in mind, I can ask what God wanted to say when these texts were written. At this point, we go from philology, history and critical analysis to that other dimension of ours by which we relate to our Creator.
I will not pretend to be a theologian any more than I am an exegete. Therefore, I will borrow the words of a more credible source, the Second Vatican Council: “In His goodness and wisdom God chose to reveal Himself and to make known to us the hidden purpose of His will” (Dei Verbum, Ch 1, § 2).
This “revelation” takes various forms along history but it finally comes to us through someone known as Jesus of Nazareth, who, being the Eternal Word, was sent to us so that “He might dwell among men and tell them of the innermost being of God” (Dei Verbum, Ch 1, § 4).
But this final revelation also happens in history and we know of him because we have received the testimony of his Apostles (those that he sent) who handed down to us what they had received so that this tradition may develop in the Church “for there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down” (Dei Verbum, Ch 2, § 8). And quoting the Gospel of St. Luke, the Council asserts that this happens “through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts” (Lk 2, 19).
So, let’s treasure these things in our hearts.