Two Questions:

Does sacred scripture mean whatever we personally think and/or feel it should mean?

OR ...

Do we take everything in scripture as being an absolute, total, historical and literal truth?

And how does that whole "inspiration" thing fit in, anyway?

Fundamentalist

• Bible is word of God

• Text is infallible

• Concentrate on text

• Read text prayerfully

• Emphasis is on literal truth

Catholic

• Bible is word of God in human words

• Text is incarnational

• Concentrate on context

• Read text prayerfully

• Emphasis is on religious truth

Secular

• Bible is a human creation only

• Text is equivalent to any other text

• Read text as literature

• Emphasis is on reader’s subjective experience

Keep in mind ... while God is the "author" of scriptures (via

the Holy Spirit), it was written by humans -- using human

emotions, language, perspective, etc.

It's like God gave them the

idea ... ... and they wrote it in their own words.

And, last time I checked (with the exception of Jesus, of course!) humans are not God and therefore

… humans aren't perfect!

CHAPTER III

SACRED SCRIPTURE, ITS INSPIRATION AND DIVINE INTERPRETATION

11. Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been

committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the

belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both

the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because

written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on

as such to the Church herself. In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by

Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they,

as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by

the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully

and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.

Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for

reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be

efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of

Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully

investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by

means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to

"literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical,

prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning

the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using

contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. For the

correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to

the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the

time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their

everyday dealings with one another.

But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, no

less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the

meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church

must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It

is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and

explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment

of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is

subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry

of guarding and interpreting the word of God.

13. In Sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God always remains intact, the

marvelous "condescension" of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, "that we may learn the gentle

kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His

language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature.“ For the words of God, expressed

in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father,

when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men.

We need to look at both the human author’s intent, audience, perspective, experience, and purpose …

AND … We need to also look at the divine author’s intent, audience,

perspective, experience, and purpose.

Come to SHA!

Dear Editor, You’re an idiot!

I miss camp!

•814 girls •IB Program

It means we need to look carefully at how we interpret the

Bible, and take several different factors into account.

This is where the “historical-literary method of Bible

criticism” comes into play … examining both the historical

context and the writings themselves.

It’s important to realize that “criticism” often means more of the idea of a beneficial critique

(careful examination) as opposed to an unkind complaint (badmouthing slam).

What’s the larger

context?

What worldly realities

influenced the writer?

What is the writer actually trying to

say?

How does it fit with the larger

whole/rest of the text?

How does the

audience shape the writings?

What literary

devices are being used

here?

Bet you thought I was gonna be sacrilegious and non-teacherly here, right?

The Literal Sense:

What the words actually mean

The Spiritual Sense:

Viewing events of the Bible as signs

Allegorical Sense ~ prefigures/foreshadows Christ

Moral Sense ~ tells us how to act

Anagogical Sense ~ Greek for “leading”; points to heaven

Source Criticism

Historical Criticism

Form Criticism

Redaction Criticism

Textual Criticism

Where’d they get their information?

Raises the question of the “Synoptic Problem”

Synoptic is Greek for “seen together”

Mark has 661 verses

Matthew has 1,068

Luke has 1,149

Of Mark’s 661 verses…

80% appear in Matthew

(528 vs.)

65% appear in Luke (429 vs.)

Not in Mark,

though

200-235 verses are shared by Matthew and Luke

Best guess:

Mark wrote his gospel first

Matthew and Luke then “borrowed” from Mark

And then …

Perhaps Luke and Matthew shared a source that Mark

didn’t know about

AND …

Luke and Matthew each had their own individual

sources as well.

Q ~ Quelle (German for “source”); collection of Jesus’

sayings used by Matthew and Luke

M ~ sources unique to Matthew

L ~ sources unique to Luke

Mark

Luke L

Matthew

M Q

Temptation in desert Beatitudes Good fruit Parable of lost sheep

Coming of wise men Parable of weeds Peter walking on water Parable of ten virgins

Story of the shepherds Jesus at age twelve Parable of Good Samaritan Zacchaeus story

Q M L

Matthew 16:13-16 Mark 8:27-29 Luke 9:18-20 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

Now Jesus and his disciples set out for the villages of Caesarea Philippi. Along the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” They said in reply, “John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others one of the prophets.” And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter said to him in reply, “You are the Messiah.”

Once when Jesus was praying in solitude, and the disciples were with him, he asked them, “Who do the crowds say that I am?” They said in reply, “John the Baptist; others, Elijah; still others, ‘One of the ancient prophets has arisen.’” Then he said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter said in reply, “The Messiah of God.”

Historical Criticism

LITERAL SENSE ~ what the writer wanted

to say, in light of historical context

(archeology, customs, traditions, language,

etc.)

Probability that Jesus actually did/said what they report

LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS ~ Aramaic good chance

ORIGINALITY/CRITERION OF DISSIMILARITY ~ new, radical good chance; common for Jews inconclusive

CONVERGENCE ~ not same source but similar info

good chance

CONSISTENCY ~ fits with the overall whole of Jesus

good chance

Newspaper

Articles

Entertainment

Reviews

News

Sports Columnist

Culture

Gossip

Satire

Cartoons

Fun

Political

News

Local

National

Need to consider not only the different types of writings

(encyclopedia, newspaper, novel, textbook, etc.), but also

the different styles within each type

PLUS … oral tradition influences writings as well

For example …

Parables are storytime – listen for deeper message

Narratives are “historical” – listen for what happened

Some Overall Types

• Gospel

• Epistle

• History

• Apocalypse ……and others

Some Literary Forms (p. 50)

• Miracle

• Parable

• Riddle

• Pronouncement

• Prayer

• Revelation

• Legends

• Genealogies

The evangelists were not only writers, but also editors.

“Writing”

Arranging

Sorting

Compiling

Each gospel gives a different picture of Jesus, as shaped by

the theology, audience, purpose, etc., of the evangelist

Matthew Jewish/Christian audience

New Moses, fulfill prophecies

Mark suffering church Suffering Servant;

bear our crosses

Luke Gentile/Christian Universal Messiah,

especially for outsiders

John various Roman churches Way, Truth, Life, Word

of God, etc.

In the days before cut&paste, it was parchment, papyrus, and…

Hand-copied texts, though, were not always perfect. Mistakes were made, people changed things, writing wasn’t clear,

different languages and alphabets.

Amazingly enough, however, most

differences were minor.

Codex Vaticanus (c. 350) ~ oldest NT collection Vulgate (383-384) ~ Jerome, into Latin (“common”); Church’s official

translation from the original languages Protestant Translations King James (1611) New Revised Standard Version (1990) Revised English Bible (1989) New International Version (1973-1978)

Catholic Translations Douay-Rheims (1582-1609; 1749-1763) ~ translation of the Vulgate 1943 ~ Pope Pius XII encourages translation from original languages, not just

the Latin Vulgate New American Bible (1952-1970; 1987) ~ used in the liturgy New Jerusalem Bible (1985) ~ from French La Sainte Bible