|
 |
Differing Opinions on the
Interpretation of the Bible
by Jeffrey ten Grotenhuis, Webmaster/Staff Writer
Many think that the Bible's teachings are beyond present-day
understanding. However, the question of how to interpret the Bible
is not an issue confined to modern times; superimposing one's
meaning onto the Bible's verses, as opposed to drawing truth from
them, has been an issue through the Judeo-Christian-Muslim age.
Interpretation of its meaning is greatly dependent on the subjective
arguments of its readers. Its original meaning is so distant that it
is more fitting to sort through the possible aims of its authors and
to agree on the purpose of its verses, than to try to find an
"ultimate truth." Opposing this point of view are those who argue
that there is only one way to understand the Bible's teachings,
which is corroborated by the Bible in several verses, although these
verses are also subject to debate. Therefore, since these opposing
opinions (and many others) seemed irreconcilable, the authorities on
Christianity expressed their views on the issue.
The Pontifical Biblical Commission issued a document on
April 23, 1993, called The Interpretation of the Bible in the
Church, wherein it explains that there is no one method of
interpreting what the Bible teaches. Instead, it offers five
different ways "for arriving at an interpretation of the Bible as
faithful as possible to its character both human and divine."
The first of these five proper approaches is the
historical-critical method. This is how it works, "As an analytical
method, it studies the biblical text in the same fashion as it would
study any other ancient text and comments upon it." Compared to
other forms of interpretation, this seems to be the most objective.
Cardinal Henri de Lubac praises this method of interpretation for
its thoroughness, "In a word, how much 'archeology'! The task is not
for everyone, obviously, but it is indispensable that it be done and
forever done again." The cardinal regards it as the most accurate of
the methods. However, it is not meant for those who read the Bible
at home because the historical-critical method draws meaning from
the "Oldest and best manuscripts, as well as of papyri." Therefore,
it is strictly for highly trained scholars.
Following the much debated historical-critical method
is the new method of Literary Analysis. The new method of Literary
Analysis. The new methods of literary analysis focuses on grammar,
structure, and language and rhetoric influences, such as Greco-Roman
or Semitic. This method, along with the aforementioned
historical-critical method, is an objective study of the Bible and
for this reason faces strong opposition against its use. Antagonists
of this approach and the historical-critical method argue that it
doesn't sufficiently allow for the divine inspiration of its
authors.
The third approach is an approach based on societal
traditions which believes that the books in the Bible are related to
each other and can be interpreted from a communal viewpoint. For
instance, the Jewish scriptures were finalized four centuries before
Jesus and its analysis should be confined to the Jewish world.
Therefore, the approaches based on tradition would study the
scriptures in their societal context.
Junior Kenny V. (a.k.a. Jimmy Vlahos) wants to find
practical advice, "I look for the moral when I'm reading a parable.
Certain sections in the Old Testament, especially in Deuteronomy and
Numbers were written strictly for the Jews. So I read figuratively
because the symbolism represented is not to be taken as fact, but as
a revelation." Ms. Hawley would agree with Kenny V. since she views
the Scripture's teachings in context. She explains that some parts
of the Bible must be understood in context, such as the fact that
Abraham lived to be 175 years old (Genesis 25:7). "The calendar they
used," she explains, "is different from the calendar we use now."
Ms. Hawley and Kenny V. are flexible on their interpretation of the
Bible, but sometimes becoming too broad in one's interpretation can
be misleading and even dangerous. As mentioned above, false
interpretations can lead to negative distortions. Those who choose
to interpret the Bible in a relaxed way must be careful to check
with a priest or minister before discriminating people based on
assumed renditions of Scripture.
The last two enumerated approaches in The
Interpretation of the Bible in the Church are simple: the contextual
approach is chiefly used to oppose slavery and anti-feminism and the
fundamentalist approach is the strictest of all. The fundamentalist
approach accepts no other methods to understand God's message and
accepts every verse in the Bible as divinely inspired and
unquestionable. Junior Daniel Hayes responds to this view by saying,
"The Bible is a figurative representation of God's true word, which
has been skewed by the written word." The fundamentalists and Daniel
Hayes would definitely battle it out.
In ESHS there seems to be a general consensus on the
ideal method to interpret the Bible, although it doesn't completely
fit into any of the aforementioned categories. By high school
majority, the best method to interpret the Bible is literally, while
also employing its teachings to present daily life. Roberta Allen,
the high school registrar, responded to this issue by saying, "I
take it literally and apply it to my life." Students who agree with
Roberta include senior Melissa Madrid, sophomore Bryant Mendoza, and
Junior John Rivas, a devout Catholic, who commented on his
deep-seated faith, "When I try to interpret it I think of nowadays
so that I can compare it and get a better understanding of it."
The purpose of the document is not to force people to
conform to one of these approaches, but to provide a path for those
who need one. According to this document, "All those who have
acquired a solid formation in this area consider it quite impossible
to return to a preclinical level of interpretation, a level which
they now rightly judge to be quite inadequate." Those who interpret
the Bible individually shouldn't be worried by these authorial
nudges. However, it is useful to know that those who have chosen a
deeper understanding of the Bible believe it to be the best path.
|
