What is the significance of interpretation of sacred scriptures

When the texts studied belong to a historical literary genre or are related to events of history, historical criticism completes literary criticism so as to determine the historical significance of the text in the modern sense of this expression.

It is in this way that one accounts for the various stages that lie behind the biblical revelation in its concrete historical development. Evaluation What value should we accord to the historical-critical method, especially at this present stage of its development? It is a method which, when used in an objective manner, implies of itself no a priori.

If its use is accompanied by a priori principles, that is not something pertaining to the method itself, but to certain hermeneutical choices which govern the interpretation and can be tendentious.

Oriented in its origins toward source criticism and the history of religions, the method has managed to provide fresh access to the Bible. It has shown the Bible to be a collection of writings, which most often, especially in the case of the Old Testament, are not the creation of a single author, but which have had a long prehistory inextricably tied either to the history of Israel or to that of the early church.

Previously, the Jewish or Christian interpretation of the Bible had no clear awareness of the concrete and diverse historical conditions in which the word of God took root among the people; of all this it had only a general and remote awareness. The early confrontation between traditional exegesis and the scientific approach, which initially consciously separated itself from faith and at times even opposed it, was assuredly painful; later however it proved to be salutary: Once the method was freed from external prejudices, it led to a more precise understanding of the truth of sacred Scripture cf.

According to Divino Afflante Spiritu , the search for the literal sense of Scripture is an essential task of exegesis and, in order to fulfill this task, it is necessary to determine the literary genre of texts cf. Enchiridion Biblicum , , something which the historical-critical method helps to achieve. To be sure, the classic use of the historical-critical method reveals its limitations.

It restricts itself to a search for the meaning of the biblical text within the historical circumstances that gave rise to it and is not concerned with other possibilities of meaning which have been revealed at later stages of the biblical revelation and history of the church.

Nonetheless, this method has contributed to the production of works of exegesis and of biblical theology which are of great value. For a long time now scholars have ceased combining the method with a philosophical system. More recently, there has been a tendency among exegetes to move the method in the direction of a greater insistence upon the form of a text, with less attention paid to its content. But this tendency has been corrected through the application of a more diversified semantics the semantics of words, phrases, text and through the study of the demands of the text from the point of view of action and life aspect pragmatique.

With respect to the inclusion in the method of a synchronic analysis of texts, we must recognize that we are dealing here with a legitimate operation, for it is the text in its final stage, rather than in its earlier editions, which is the expression of the word of God. But diachronic study remains indispensable for making known the historical dynamism which animates sacred Scripture and for shedding light upon its rich complexity: For example, the covenant code Ex.

We must take care not to replace the historicizing tendency, for which the older historical-critical exegesis is open to criticism, with the opposite excess, that of neglecting history in favor of an exegesis which would be exclusively synchronic.

To sum up, the goal of the historical-critical method is to determine, particularly in a diachronic manner, the meaning expressed by the biblical authors and editors. Along with other methods and approaches, the historical-critical method opens up to the modern reader a path to the meaning of the biblical text such as we have it today. New Methods of Literary Analysis No scientific method for the study of the Bible is fully adequate to comprehend the biblical texts in all their richness.

For all its overall validity, the historical-critical method cannot claim to be totally sufficient in this respect. It necessarily has to leave aside many aspects of the writings which it studies.

It is not surprising, then, that at the present time other methods and approaches are proposed which serve to explore more profoundly other aspects worthy of attention. In this Section B, we will present certain methods of literary analysis which have been developed recently.

In the following sections C, D, E , we will examine briefly different approaches, some of which relate to the study of the tradition, others to the "human sciences," others still to particular situations of the present time. Finally F , we will consider the fundamentalist reading of the Bible, a reading which does not accept any systematic approach to interpretation.

Taking advantage of the progress made in our day by linguistic and literary studies, biblical exegesis makes use more and more of new methods of literary analysis, in particular rhetorical analysis narrative analysis and semiotic analysis.

Rhetorical Analysis Rhetorical analysis in itself is not, in fact, a new method. What is new is the use of it in a systematic way for the interpretation of the Bible and also the start and development of a "new rhetoric.

The fact that all biblical texts are in some measure persuasive in character means that some knowledge of rhetoric should be part of the normal scholarly equipment of all exegetes. Rhetorical analysis must be carried out in a critical way, since scientific exegesis is an undertaking which necessarily submits itself to the demands of the critical mind. A considerable number of recent studies in the biblical area have devoted considerable attention to the presence of rhetorical features in Scripture.

Three different approaches can be distinguished. The first is based upon classical Greco-Roman rhetoric; the second devotes itself to Semitic procedures of composition; the third takes its inspiration from more recent studies--namely, from what is called the "new rhetoric.

Classical rhetoric distinguished accordingly three factors which contribute to the quality of a discourse as an instrument of persuasion: the authority of the speaker, the force of the argument and the feelings aroused in the audience.

The diversity of situation and of audience largely determines the way of speaking adopted. Classical rhetoric since Aristotle distinguishes three modes of public speaking: the judicial mode adopted in a court of law ; the deliberative mode for the political assembly and the demonstrative mode for celebratory occasions. Recognizing the immense influence of rhetoric in Hellenistic culture, a growing number of exegetes make use of treatises on classical rhetoric as an aid toward analyzing certain aspects of biblical texts, especially those of the New Testament.

Other exegetes concentrate upon the characteristic features of the biblical literary tradition. Rooted in Semitic culture, this displays a distinct preference for symmetrical compositions, through which one can detect relationships between different elements in the text. The study of the multiple forms of parallelism and other procedures characteristic of the Semitic mode of composition allows for a better discernment of the literary structure of texts, which can only lead to a more adequate understanding of their message.

The new rhetoric adopts a more general point of view. It aims to be something more than a simple catalogue of stylistic figures, oratorical stratagems and various kinds of discourse.

It investigates what makes a particular use of language effective and successful in the communication of conviction. It seeks to be "realistic" in the sense of not wanting to limit itself to an analysis that is purely formal.

It takes due account of the actual situation of debate or discussion. It studies style and composition as means of acting upon an audience. To this end, it benefits from contributions made of late in other areas of knowledge such as linguistics, semiotics, anthropology and sociology. Applied to the Bible, the new rhetoric aims to penetrate to the very core of the language of revelation precisely as persuasive religious discourse and to measure the impact of such discourse in the social context of the communication thus begun.

Because of the enrichment it brings to the critical study of texts, such rhetorical analysis is worthy of high regard, above all in view of the greater depth achieved in more recent work. It makes up for a negligence of long standing and can lead to the rediscovery or clarification of original perspectives that had been lost or obscured.

The new rhetoric is surely right in its drawing attention to the capacity of language to persuade and convince. The Bible is not simply a statement of truths. It is a message that carries within itself a function of communication within a particular context, a message which carries with it a certain power of argument and a rhetorical strategy.

Rhetorical analysis does have, however, its limitations. When it remains simply on the level of description, its results often reflect a concern for style only.

Basically synchronic in nature, it cannot claim to be an independent method which would be sufficient by itself. Its application to biblical texts raises several questions.

Did the authors of these texts belong to the more educated levels of society? To what extent did they follow the rules of rhetoric in their work of composition? What kind of rhetoric is relevant for the analysis of any given text: Greco-Roman or Semitic? Is there sometimes the risk of attributing to certain biblical texts a rhetorical structure that is really too sophisticated?

These questions--and there are others--ought not in any way cast doubt upon the use of this kind of analysis; they simply suggest that it is not something to which recourse ought be had without some measure of discernment. Narrative Analysis Narrative exegesis offers a method of understanding and communicating the biblical message which corresponds to the form of story and personal testimony, something characteristic of holy Scripture and, of course, a fundamental modality of communication between human persons.

The Old Testament in fact presents a story of salvation, the powerful recital of which provides the substance of the profession of faith, liturgy and catechesis cf. For its own part, the proclamation of the Christian kerygma amounts in essentials to a sequence telling the story of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, events of which the Gospels offer us a detailed account. Catechesis itself also appears in narrative form cf. With respect to the narrative approach, it helps to distinguish methods of analysis, on the one hand, and theological reflection, on the other.

Many analytic methods are in fact proposed today. Some start from the study of ancient models of narrative. Others base themselves upon present-day "narratology" in one or other of its forms, in which case there can often be points of contact with semiotics.

Particularly attentive to elements in the text which have to do with plot, characterization and the point of view taken by a narrator, narrative analysis studies how a text tells a story in such a way as to engage the reader in its "narrative world" and the system of values contained therein. Several methods introduce a distinction between real author and implied author , real reader and implied reader.

The real author is the person who actually composed the story. By implied author one means the image of the author which the text progressively creates in the course of the reading with his or her own culture, character, inclinations faith, etc. The real reader is any person who has access to the text--from those who first read it or heard it read, right down to those who read or hear it today.

By implied reader one means the reader which the text presupposes and in effect creates, the one who is capable of performing the mental and affective operations necessary for entering into the narrative world of the text and responding to it in the way envisaged by the real author through the instrumentality of the implied author. A text will continue to have an influence in the degree to which real readers e.

One of the major tasks of exegesis is to facilitate this process of identification. Narrative analysis involves a new way of understanding how a text works. While the historical-critical method considers the text as a "window" giving access to one or other period not only to the situation which the story relates but also to that of the community for whom the story is told , narrative analysis insists that the text also functions as a "mirror" in the sense that it projects a certain image--a "narrative world"--which exercises an influence upon readers' perceptions in such a way as to bring them to adopt certain values rather than others.

Connected with this kind of study primarily literary in character, is a certain mode of theological reflection as one considers the implications the "story" and also the "witness" character of Scripture has with respect to the consent of faith and as one derives from this a hermeneutic of a more practical and pastoral nature.

There is here a reaction against the reduction of the inspired text to a series of theological theses, often formulated in nonscriptural categories and language. What is asked of narrative exegesis is that it rehabilitate in new historical contexts the modes of communicating and conveying meaning proper to the biblical account in order to open up more effectively its saving power.

Narrative analysis insists upon the need both to tell the story of salvation the "informative" aspect and to tell the story in view of salvation the "performative" aspect. The biblical account, in effect, whether explicitly or implicitly as the case may be, contains an existential appeal addressed to the reader.

The usefulness of narrative analysis for the exegesis of the Bible is clear. It is well suited to the narrative character which so many biblical texts display. It can facilitate the transition, often so difficult, from the meaning of the text in its historical context the proper object of the historical-critical method to its significance for the reader of today.

On the other hand, the distinction between the real author and the implied author does tend to make problems of interpretation somewhat more complex. When applied to texts of the Bible, narrative analysis cannot rest content with imposing upon them certain preestablished models.

It must strive to adapt itself to their own proper character. The synchronic approach which it brings to texts needs to be supplemented by diachronic studies as well. It must, moreover, beware of a tendency that can arise to exclude any kind of doctrinal elaboration in the content of biblical narratives. In such a case it would find itself out of step with the biblical tradition itself, which practices precisely this kind of elaboration, and also with the tradition of the church, which has continued further along the same way.

Finally, it is worth noting that the existential subjective effectiveness of the impact of the word of God in its narrative transmission cannot be considered to be in itself a sufficient indication that its full truth has been adequately grasped.

Semiotic Analysis Ranged among the methods identified as synchronic, those namely which concentrate on the study of the biblical text as it comes before the reader in its final state, is semiotic analysis. This has experienced a notable development in certain quarters over the last 20 years.

Originally known by the more general term structuralism , this method can claim as forefather the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, who at the beginning of the present century worked out the theory according to which all language is a system of relationships obeying fixed laws.

Several linguists and literary critics have had a notable influence in the development of the method. The majority of biblical scholars who make use of semiotics in the study of the Bible take as their authority Algirdas J. Greimas and the School of Paris, which he founded. Similar approaches and methods, based upon modern linguistics, have developed elsewhere. But it is Greimas' method which we intend to present and analyze briefly here. Semiotics is based upon three main principles or presuppositions: --The principle of immanence: Each text forms a unit of meaning complete in itself; the analysis considers the entire text but only the text it does not look to any date "external" to the text such as the author, the audience, any events it describes or what might have been its process of composition.

The overall content of a text can be analyzed at three different levels. Here one studies in the story the transformations which move the action from the initial to the final state. Within the course of the narrative, the analysis seeks to retrace the different phases, logically bound to each other, which mark the transformation from one state to another.

In each of these phases it establishes the relationships between the "roles" played by the "actants" which determine the various stages of development and bring about transformation. The analysis here consists of three operations: a the fixing and classification of figures, that is to say, the elements of meaning in a text actors, times, places , b the tracking of the course of each figure in the text in order to determine just how the text uses each one; c inquiry into the thematic value of the figures.

This is the so-called deep level. It is also the most abstract. It proceeds from the assumption that certain forms of logic and meaning underlie the narrative and discursive organization of all discourse. The analysis at this level consists in identifying the logic which governs the basic articulations of the narrative and figurative flow of a text.

To achieve this, recourse is often had to an instrument called the "semiotic square" carre semiotique , a figure which makes use of the relationships between two "contrary" terms and two "contradictory" terms for example, black and white; white and non-white; black and not-black.

The exponents of the theory behind the semiotic method continue to produce new developments. Present research centers most particularly upon enunciation and intertextuality. Applied in the first instance to the narrative texts of Scripture, to which it is most readily applicable, the use of the method has been more and more extended to other kinds of biblical discourse as well. The description of semiotics that has been given and above all the formulation of its presuppositions should have already served to make clear the advantages and the limitations of this method.

By directing greater attention to the fact that each biblical text is a coherent whole, obedient to a precise linguistic mechanic of operation, semiotics contributes to our understanding of the Bible as word of God expressed in human language.

Semiotics can be usefully employed in the study of the Bible only insofar as the method is separated from certain assumptions developed in structuralist philosophy, namely the refusal to accept individual personal identity within the text and extratextual reference beyond it. The Bible is a word that bears upon reality, a word which God has spoken in a historical context and which God addresses to us today through the mediation of human authors. The semiotic approach must be open to history: first of all to the history of those who play a part in the texts; then to that of the authors and readers.

The great risk run by those who employ semiotic analysis is that of remaining at the level of a formal study of the content of texts, failing to draw out the message. When it does not become lost in remote and complex language and when its principal elements are taught in simple terms, semiotic analysis can give Christians a taste for studying the biblical text and discovering certain of its dimensions, without their first having to acquire a great deal of instruction in historical matters relating to the production of the text and its sociocultural world.

It can thus prove useful in pastoral practice itself, providing a certain appropriation of Scripture among those who are not specialized in the area. Approaches Based on Tradition The literary methods which we have just reviewed, although they differ from the historical-critical method in that they pay greater attention to the internal unity of the texts studied, remain nonetheless insufficient for the interpretation of the Bible because they consider each of its writings in isolation.

But the Bible is not a compilation of texts unrelated to each other; rather, it is a gathering together of a whole array of witnesses from one great tradition.

To be fully adequate to the object of its study, biblical exegesis must keep this truth firmly in mind. Such in fact is the perspective adopted by a number of approaches which are being developed at present. Canonical Approach The "canonical" approach, which originated in the United States some 20 years ago, proceeds from the perception that the historical-critical method experiences at times considerable difficulty in arriving, in its conclusions, at a truly theological level.

It aims to carry out the theological task of interpretation more successfully by beginning from within an explicit framework of faith: the Bible as a whole. To achieve this, it interprets each biblical text in the light of the canon of Scriptures, that is to say, of the Bible as received as the norm of faith by a community of believers.

It seeks to situate each text within the single plan of God, the goal being to arrive at a presentation of Scripture truly valid for our time. The method does not claim to be a substitute for the historical-critical method; the hope is, rather, to complete it. Two different points of view have been proposed: Brevard S. Childs centers his interest on the final canonical form of the text whether book or collection , the form accepted by the community as an authoritative expression of its faith and rule of life.

James A. Sanders, rather than looking to the final and fixed form of the text, devotes his attention to the "canonical process" or progressive development of the Scriptures which the believing community has accepted as a normative authority. The critical study of this process examines the way in which older traditions have been used again and again in new contexts before finally coming to constitute a whole that is at once stable and yet adaptable, coherent while holding together matter that is diverse--in short, a complete whole in which the faith community can find its identity.

In the course of this process various hermeneutic procedures have been at work, and this continues to be the case even after the fixing of the canon. These procedures are often midrashic in nature, serving to make the biblical text relevant for a later time. They encourage a constant interaction between the community and the Scriptures, calling for an interpretation which ever seeks to bring the tradition up to date.

The canonical approach rightly reacts against placing an exaggerated value upon what is supposed to be original and early, as if this alone were authentic. Inspired Scripture is precisely Scripture in that it has been recognized by the church as the rule of faith.

Hence the significance, in this light, of both the final form in which each of the books of the Bible appears and of the complete whole which all together make up as canon. Each individual book only becomes biblical in the light of the canon as a whole.

It is the believing community that provides a truly adequate context for interpreting canonical texts. In this context faith and the Holy Spirit enrich exegesis; church authority, exercised as a service of the community, must see to it that this interpretation remains faithful to the great tradition which has produced the texts cf. The canonical approach finds itself grappling with more than one problem when it seeks to define the "canonical process.

It seems reasonable to describe it as such from the time that the community attributes to it a normative authority, even if this should be before it has reached its final, definitive form. One can speak of a "canonical" hermeneutic once the repetition of the traditions, which comes about through the taking into account of new aspects of the situation be they religious, cultural or theological , begins to preserve the identity of the message.

But a question arises: Should the interpretive process which led to the formation of the canon be recognized as the guiding principle for the interpretation of Scripture today? This all truthful text as Muslims believe, contains.

Through examining the beliefs derived from the sacred texts of Christianity and Islam, it has become evident that there is a significant relationship between beliefs and the notions of inner and world peace within a religious tradition. World peace is also achieved through the sacred texts and teachings however, it is the ways in which these.

Religion is somewhat a hard task to put a specific definition too. There are many interpretations of what defines a religion, as the world continues to change so does the meaning of religion. The reason why is because it could very well be possible that a definition that may have applied to religions of the past, but no longer seems to be suitable for a religion in the present or even the future. In dictionaries, religion is defined as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power.

The understanding and interpretations of sacred texts have been the basis for many religious discussions and arguments. From each person practicing a certain religion, they have their own opinions and interpretations that may differ from others. With interpretations of sacred texts, there has also been confusion as to what many word or phrases with the intended meaning of words that have many meanings or could have changed. The religions of Islam and Christianity both are classified as one of the Abrahamic religions or faiths, meaning both traces their ancestral history back to Abraham and are sternly monotheistic.

The exhibition looks closely at the role of the Old Testament in book illumination and how images in manuscripts influenced medieval Christian thought and interpretations of the Bible. As religious controversies continue to make headlines, this discussion provides an opportunity to look at commonalities among people of different faiths with a shared history.

Join the discussion on June 13 at p. Williams Auditorium at the Getty Center. The Bible should be read in a spirit of humility, with a desire to become holy and to learn the truths of God and his goodness. When we meditate upon the scriptures we ought to do so as children, docile and with loving hearts, in pureness, entreating our compassionate God to favor us with a greater knowledge of himself and his providence in order that we may understand his will and carry it out. Indeed, we should read from the Scriptures with fervor and love: a sweet, humble love which is joyfully filled with adoration for our God.

This paragraph from the Catechism of the Catholic Church offers fruitful advice:. In order to attain a proper disposition in the reading of Scripture, our will should to be aligned with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Stubborn disobedience and dissent are not fruits of the Holy Spirit. Second, we should read and learn from the Bible as a whole, mindful of the context.

Many a verse taken out of context has been the cause of significant error in the past as well as in the present. John tells us we will be saved if we believe in God, and seems to support sola fide. Yet, on further study, we find other verses teach something more in regards salvation: Christ warns we must keep the commandments to be saved Matt ; St. Context is critical for grasping the proper meaning of Scripture.

Third, as previously mentioned, we must read from Scripture in unity with the Catholic Church. Those who read the Bible and insist on their own personal, supposedly infallible ability to interpret Scripture apart from the Catholic Church open themselves to self-deception. This simply means that those who take Scripture outside of the context of the living tradition of the Church and her Magisterium teaching office , exclude themselves from the totality of divine revelation and the fullness of truth.

If we want to hear the whole Gospel, we need to listen to the threefold oneness of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium. Fourth, we must keep in mind the analogy of faith, which means revealed truths are consistent with one another. Catholics know the Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth cf.

Jn ; ; Lk ; Mt , and that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth 1 Tim Therefore, since the Holy Spirit cannot err, neither can the Church err in her definitive teaching.

Truth cannot contradict truth. What we read in the Bible cannot oppose what the Church teaches. If we have come to an understanding of the scriptures which is in conflict with the teaching of the Catholic Church, it is, then, we who err, not the Church. The Church does not first search Scripture and then build her doctrine. Both the living Tradition of the Church and Scripture coexist as an organic whole that consists of the original deposit of faith transmitted to the Church by Christ and the Holy Spirit through the apostles.

Dear Friends: Please help support Joy In Truth by sharing posts and articles on your social media accounts. The share buttons make doing so fast and easy. Deacon Frederick Bartels is a member of the Catholic clergy who serves the Church in the diocese of Pueblo. He holds an MA in Theology and Educational Ministry and is a Catholic educator, public speaker, and evangelist who strives to infuse culture with the saving principles of the gospel.