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).