Interpretation of Scripture

I've taken a month off to gather material for this next post and I also had to get readjusted to the Spring semester this year. In my last series of posts, a question came up about the Interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures. I was asked to address the Fundamentalist view of Scripture being literal in every word. Let me start by saying that I don't really have a problem with their view of Scripture. I just have a problem with hypocrites. Fundamentalists say that every word of Scripture is literally true but they don't even believe that Ex. John 6, Matthew 16. Here is a section of John 6 to illustrate my point:

53
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”

If a Fundamentalist were to take this literally, he would believe in the true presence of the Eucharist, and this isn't the only passage that teaches this. Matthew 16 is another passage that Fundamentalists do not take literally. Here it is:

13

 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”

14

 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”

16

  Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17

Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

18

 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

19

 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

20

 Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.

Once again another instance where Fundamentalists don't take the literal meaning that is right in front of them. Jesus spoke in parables and allegories all the time, but these instances are not examples of that.

Now that I've stated my problem with Fundamentalists, I want to look more closely at a strictly literal interpretation of Scripture. It is true that there is a literal sense of Scripture, but it is not the only sense. Hugh of St. Victor, a medieval author and teacher in the 1100s, in his Didascalicon laid out the three senses of Scripture. They are historical (or literal), allegorical, and tropological. The historical is essentially the meaning that is written on the page. The allegorical sense is that second meaning hidden behind the words, though sometimes it is quite evidently present. The tropological sense is simply anything that moves the morals. Not all of Scripture will contain all three senses. It is most common that it contains one or two of them. For example, Song of Songs does not partake in the historical sense. It is rather an allegory for the divine love God has for the Church. Jesus, once again, also spoke in many parables. These parables were allegories representing the Kingdom of God. These are rather obvious examples of the allegorical sense, but there are others. Revelations is a big one. Sometimes Scripture can be difficult to interpret. That is why we have the Magisterium to help us.

Hugh of St. Victor was a member the Augustinian Canon. This being so also says that he was a proponent of the Augustinian Soul, which I am a proponent of as well. Augustine held that the soul consisted of three parts: reason, understanding, and will. If man sticks to a solely literal interpretation of scripture, he is not using the three parts of his soul. Man must discipline his reason so that he can see that there is more than one sense of Scripture. He must then study these senses so that he may come to an understanding of their meaning. Through understanding, he must then use his freedom of will to accept them.

I must also state that I strongly dislike translations. I believe that they are open to human error creeping into the Scriptures. The Muslims say that if you have never read the Quran in the original text, you have never read the Quran. I believe something can be taken from this. I am not saying that we cannot read the Scriptures in English. I am saying that it would be best if we all had a working knowledge of the original languages. Something is always lost in translation, but some translations are better than others.

In my experience as a Journalism major, I have realized that there is a difference between fact and truth. A fact is that which can be verified. Truth is that which is good and beautiful. It is a fact that many people engage in sex outside of marriage, but these actions are not filled with truth. Certain movies, however inaccurate, may contain truth if they uphold the dignity of man. These same rules can be applied to Scripture.

If anyone has questions, feel free to comment.