The Literal Interpretation of the Scriptures: How I Understand It

From: Laurence Gonzaga 

Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007, 1:55:39 PM PST

Subject: The Literal Interpretation of the Scriptures: How I Understand It

The Literal Interpretation of the Scriptures: How I Understand It

By: Laurence Gonzaga

 

I think it is very important, especially in this age, to reflect upon how we read the Sacred Scriptures. I would recommend that the reader abandon their preconceived notions and labels for a few moments as they read further.

 

Personally, I think the word "fundamentalist" is a term popularized by a spirit in the Church which seems to be influenced by the doctrines of Gnosticism (Hidden knowledge) and Modernism (Denial of the Supernatural), which therefore fosters a sense of relativism (Truth is not objective and universal, it is subjective and particular). After all, the "fundamentalist" asserts there is a concrete and exact sense of the Scriptures. I think it's a clever tactic they cooked up, since nobody wants to be labeled a "fundamentalist", since that often calls to mind the approach of certain groups of "fanatical Protestants". The argument goes, that Catholic "fundamentalists" always take the literal interpretation as the only interpretation, and are "closed-minded" to the alternative, or if they really want to be bold, say, the real or spiritual meaning of the text.

 

I think it is important to reclaim the real meaning of literal, and discard the way it has been presented over the years, as a negative thing. What does it mean to take the literal sense, or to interpret the literal sense of a text? First we must define the word "literal".

literal (www.Dictionary.com)

adj

1: being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of something;

2: without interpretation or embellishment;

3: limited to the explicit meaning of a word or text;

4: lacking stylistic embellishment;

5: of the clearest kind; usually used for emphasis;

6: (of a translation) corresponding word for word with the original

Please, read each one of those definitions carefully. If you ask me, it seems that "literal" simply means "truth". What is truth, if not: (1) "reflecting the essential or genuine character of something", and (2) "without interpretation or embellishment", and reflects the (3) "explicit meaning of a word or text" of the author, and this is important for those who think errors might have crept in to the New Testament since it is (4) "lacking stylistic embellishment", and since God is not a God of confusion, and insofar as we read the Scriptures, sentire cum ecclesia (to think with the Church), the literal sense is (5) "of the clearest kind", and as far as Bible translations go, I believe the Douay Rheims is the Catholic's best way to the original languages of the Scriptures since it is (6) "corresponding word for word with the original".

 

So, back to the topic at hand, literal interpretation. Now that we have reclaimed the real meaning of "literal", why must we take the Bible literally? Well, the problem with "spiritualizing" the Scriptures, or in other words, trying to extrapolate a basic message to a passage, is that when a person does that, the Scriptures not surprisingly turns out to mean what the person wants it to mean. It becomes subjective. So then, when that happens, which subjective meaning is one morally responsible to? None, if they don't fully correspond to what the author (God) was trying to convey.

 

Here's what I am proposing. This is not my own innovation, this is simply what the Church has always taught, and still does teach. I would only encourage everyone to simply read what the Church officially teaches about her Sacred books, rather than what dissenting theologians say. An illustration will help.

 

Suppose I write a poem today. Let's say, for the sake of argument, the poem is very good. I keep a notebook of my thoughts throughout the composition of the poem. Suppose that one hundred and fifty years after I die, scholars are trying to interpret my poem. What ends up happening is that there are almost as many interpretations as there are scholars. Who is right? Aren't they all trying to get at the meaning? But in the end, the one who is right is the one whose understanding or interpretation corresponds to the truth of the author's intent (which can be verified by reading the contents of my notebook). This way, by which the Church teaches the Bible-correctly interpreted, is what the literal sense is. The literal sense is the truth, it is Revelation CORRECTLY interpreted.

 

Surely, some wise inquisitor will ask, what about the parables? Well, what about them? We KNOW they are literally parables, and thus, we treat them as such. In other words, remember, the literal sense means we are taking the text at face value. It means what it says it means. And what does it say when Jesus starts a "parable"? It is always introduced as such, which is a statement we take literally:

 

Matthew 13:18 DRB  Hear you therefore the parable of the sower.

 

Just as if I were to say, "I have a joke to tell", that statement is to be taken literally, but with the understanding that what I am about to say after is a "joke", means that the narrative itself is not true, but the meanings of the narrative must be taken literally, otherwise nobody would be able to follow along.

 

I think folks get the idea. "Literal" simply means, what the text means, correctly interpreted. In closing, let us read what the Church has taught on this.

 

Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus (1893):

 

"The commentator...must carefully observe the rule...not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires, a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate."

 

"Moreover, the literal sense itself frequently admits other senses, adapted to illustrate dogma or to confirm morality."

 

Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943):

 

"Being thoroughly prepared by the knowledge of the ancient languages and by the aids afforded by the art of criticism, let the Catholic exegete undertake the task, of all those imposed on him the greatest, that namely of discovering and expounding the genuine meaning of the Sacred Books. In the performance of this task let the interpreters bear in mind that their foremost and greatest endeavor should be to discern and define clearly that sense of the biblical words which is called literal. Aided by the context and by comparison with similar passages, let them therefore by means of their knowledge of languages search out with all diligence the literal meaning of the words; all these helps indeed are wont to be pressed into service in the explanation also of profane writers, so that the mind of the author may be made abundantly clear."

 

Vatican II, Dei Verbum (1965)

 

But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) 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.

 

1994 Catholic Catechism, quoting St. Thomas Aquinas from the Summa Theologica, paragraph 116:

 

"The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and... 'all other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.'"

 

Recommended Readings:

 

1.                  Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus (1893)

2.                 Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943)

3.                 Vatican II, Dei Verbum (1965)

4.                 Robert Sungenis PhD, Not By Scripture Alone (Queenship, www.catholicintl.com)