Back to MPD home page 
TopFor many, the Bible is an important factor in their religious understanding. Even many who reject much (or all) of what is contained there use it as an orientation point. What I would like to do is to give some description of different approaches or ways of viewing the Old and New Testament. The operating assumptions and understandings of different religious groups can be very important in understanding and discussing different religious issues. There can be a sense that the way that I was exposed to the Bible, or the way that I have learned of understanding it, is the way that the rest of the world views it. That simply isn’t so.
I’m going to have to oversimplify, and some parts of this may seem like wandering, but I’d encourage you to try and see some of the implications of these different ways of looking at Scripture. Again, some of what I’ll say would be violently rejected by some religious groups. Such is life.
I’m going to intentionally not check any reference books in writing this. I think if I did that I’d end up getting sidetracked into unnecessary details and side issues. I’m going to be skipping dates and other references.
First, there is an assumption that the Bible that I pick up when I go down to the local bookstore is the same book that has always been around. That really isn’t true. The Bible as we know it is more like a library, a collection of different small books of different kinds, that has, over time, come to be accepted as "The Bible." There have been a lot of changes over time, some pretty minor, some pretty important.
The Bible, starting with the Old Testament, didn’t even start as a written source at all. The Bible may be called the "record of the revelation of God to His People." The very beginning of Scripture was the stories told by a nomadic people huddled around their campfires. The focus of the Jewish people was "see what God has done for us." Especially the earliest stories and descriptions were part of a special type of narrative.
Most human cultures use a special kind of story that helps to express, and even to form, the unique identity of that particular group. In many, there is even a special, honored person who devotes his life to studying and retelling these special stories. He is called the "storyteller." These stories are told as a way of saying: "This is who we are as a group."
Let’s say these stories are of a group that I’m part of. By saying something about the group, the story also says something about who I am. This type of story is in many ways a summary of my most important dreams, hopes, and loves. It outlines where I have come from and points forward to where my journey will take me. It states what my relationships are with other people, and ultimately with God. It seeks to convey the heart and collective wisdom of the group I belong to, and helps me have a sense of my identity within that group. It is not a dead story, but a living, growing, and developing expression of the human heart. It may reflect the "objective" facts of history (which is a recent development) or it may be totally unconcerned with them. Compared to the meaning of these stories, history is irrelevant. To understand these stories, you must hear them and allow your heart to be touched.
The technical term for these stories is "myth." Sadly, people ended up unfairly simplifying myth to "untrue." In reality myth focuses on questions of meaning rather than time and place. Lest I be misunderstood, a myth can meet all the criteria of "historical truth" or may meet them partially, or not at all. It is not really an issue. Does a poet care much about whether the spelling is "correct?" A poet may intentionally misspell to help speak to a different issue. For example, when I refer to doctors in talks, I often use the term "M. Deity."
Maybe an example will help. I am part Polish. For me, an important story is the description of a battle between the Polish Army and the Germans in World War II. Germany had invaded Poland, and a Polish cavalry unit was faced by a German tank unit. On horseback, with ceremonial lances, the Poles charged the German tanks. Needless to say, they were wiped out. Some would say they died foolishly and uselessly. To them, facing the German tanks, with a sense of duty and honor, knowing that they could not logically win, the Poles had a choice. With what they had available, they could choose to fight for their homes, their families, their country. That was their choice. In one sense it was pretty dumb. In another it was very courageous. It was an expression of the Polish spirit. Historical accuracy is irrelevant compared to what is being said about what it means to be a Pole.
OK, anyway, the first stories of the Jewish people were completely oral. Only later, after hundreds of years, did they begin to be written down. Finally, the process ended up with the first books of the Old Testament, after numerous attempts to collect the stories together, editors rearranging things, some efforts to remove some sections, etc.
The first 5 books of the Old Testament are called "The Pentateuch" (the 5) or the "Torah" (the Law). Those first 5 books were given a special, honored place among the Jewish people. The Torah contains at least 4 distinct threads or traditions that were woven together. Each has its own literary style, ways of saying things, way of describing God, and type of story.
Later came the other books of the Old Testament. Some was direct writing that was later given the honor of being considered one of the books of the Old Testament, such as the Psalms, some was writing that was a reporting of earlier oral tradition, some was of unknown source. Some was close to what we would now call history, some was poetry, some used literary forms that are no longer used.
Moving right along, some of the same process occurred with the books of the New Testament. No one was wandering around with Christ jotting down notes or writing a journal as they went. Later, the letters sent to various churches were generally the first writings to be accepted with the honor given to the writings of the Old Testament. Those letters were written only because the writer was not then present. If he had been, he would have said what he wanted to say.
The Gospel was not written but oral. The "Good News" was proclaimed by the Apostles and there was never an intention of writing things down. There was a general expectation that the Second Coming of Christ would come in a short time, and beyond that, the Good News was meant to be heard, to be taken into the heart and treasured there. It was a living Word, going from believer to believer.
Eventually, though, it began to dawn on the early Christian community that the Apostles were getting pretty old. Out of a concern for preserving their testimony, different people and groups began to write down the "Good News" that had been heard and treasured. The actual author of the different Gospels has been hotly debated, but the authenticity of each was guaranteed not by the person doing the writing, but by the acceptance of the local Churches that in effect said "We accept that this is a true reflection of the Good News that we have heard." They expressed that by honoring those books and giving them the respect that they gave to the books of the Old Testament.
So, then, the various main Churches collected together writings that they considered "of God" and accorded special honor. What is amazing is that even Churches widely separated, without direct contact, came to accept the same writings. There would frequently be other writings, claiming the authorship of an Apostle and validation by a local Church, that would be known and used, but never accorded the honor of the "special books."
In terms of the New Testament, then, the writings were in a real sense the "record of revelation of God to His People."
Whew! We covered a lot of territory, even if briefly. I might note that it was quite a long time afterward that an attempt was formally made to say "What are the books of the Old and New Testament?" What was looked at when that occurred was the manner that the different books were treated by the separate Churches throughout the world. Again, there was surprising clarity in the traditions that had developed about what was to be included as Scripture and what wasn’t.
Having said this, there are a number of ways that different groups may look at the Bible that we know today.
Clearly I’m oversimplifying, and there are many groups that mix together different elements or have a "softened" version of one or more of them. For many, though, there is a sense that there is "power in the Word" and a viewing of the Word of God as the written text. There are some groups that have "endorsed" a particular translation as authoritative and decided that any other translation is to be rejected, ie. the King James Version.
OK then, what do I think about the Bible? How do I understand it and use it? To some extent what I will say represents Catholic theology, but I’m sure that some of this is unique. In Catholic theology there are a number of approaches that are all considered reasonable and in accord with Catholic faith. What I’m going to try to describe is my own viewpoint. I hope it will help sort out things for you.
Ready?
First, the Bible is not "over" the Christian community. The community was there first. There is a living dynamic that exists, and no part of it is superior to any other. First, there is "Tradition" (with a capital "T"). The teaching of the Apostles, the Good News that was and is proclaimed, honored, and reflected upon by the Christian community. Some (but not all) is reflected in Scripture.
Second, there is Scripture, the "record of revelation" that was given to the Christian community to help it to remain true to the faith that has been received.
Third, there is the "sensum fidei," the sense or experience of the faithful as they live out their faith in Christ here and now.
Central issues of theology and faith must remain true to all three. As issues are developed, as reflection on the mysteries of God continues, what is worked on must be "in accord" with those three aspects. As an expression of that idea, if something is proposed as "necessary" for the faith, or truly central, there must be evidence that it has been part of faith, at least indirectly, "always, in the same way, in all places." In other words, someone today can’t say that "this is absolutely necessary to be considered a Christian," unless that was also true in the early Church, generally accepted throughout the Church’s history, and not specific to one culture or group.
There is an equality between the Christian community and Scripture. There is confidence that the Christian community lives and is guided by the presence of the Holy Spirit. There is confidence in the validity of the Scriptures as a gift of God. There is a confidence in the Teaching of the Apostles, the first proclamation of the Good News of Christ.
As a method, it is important to recognize that every part of Scripture, without exception, reflects the People of God in a particular time and place, and reflects the hand of the person who wrote down those words. In addition, any difficulty in understanding the culture, ways of thought, and current understandings at the time of the writing and editing of the various books of Scripture results in misperceptions on our part. Hopefully, those misperceptions may be minor, but at times they are very important misunderstandings. Not only is there a "context" and place that each section of Scripture has within the book that it is part of—there is also the broader human context to consider.
When we read Scripture, we should read it with the sense of respect and honor that is accorded our most respected hopes and dreams. When we study it, it should be with a sense of humility, respect, and curiosity. Our living faith, today, comes into contact with the lived faith of the People of God in another time and place, touched by the breath of the Holy Spirit.
OK, then, do I read the Bible? Yes. When there is something curious, or simply something that I don’t understand, I don’t stop there. What follows is a process of investigating, of checking other parts of Scripture, of checking reference books not only on Scripture but also on theology. There is a process of "connecting" to many different things. In addition, there is also my own faith and experience of God that is part of this whole process. There are people who spend their whole life studying Scripture, learning foreign languages (including some that no one even speaks any more.) There are people who will spend their professional lives studying archeological findings that can help to understand the culture at the time a part of Scripture was written. Most of us can’t be so focused, and so we have to depend on their work to help our understanding. For all, there should be humility in the process, and we should resist oversimplifying the mysteries of faith.
Here’s an example. Most are familiar with the part of the Lord’s Prayer that refers to the "daily bread." That has commonly been thought of as "bread enough each day to supply the needs of the day." Probably a million sermons have been given on the idea of God helping with the needs of today, the avoidance of false security in a bank account, etc.
Well, a few years ago one of those archaeologists was rummaging around in the Jerusalem garbage dump. In an area that could be dated as around the time of Christ, they found a simple scrap of paper. It was a list of items, like a shopping list of things to pick up from the local merchants: "3 eggs, a small jug of wine, 1 loaf of daily bread." The conclusion the scholars arrived at was that this was apparently a common expression, having nothing to do with getting rolls for lunch: "Give us our "daily bread" today, so that we can live without fear, not worrying about what we will eat tomorrow." It’s a very small thing, but it helps understand the meaning of the prayer. At the time it was written, presumably there was a very clear understanding of what was meant. Some of that meaning was lost over time.
Probably the most important rule in using Scripture is that it must be "exegesis" and never "isogesis." What does that mean? "Exegesis" refers to the process of critically examining a section of Scripture, seeking to deepen the understanding of it. "Isogesis" refers to having a conclusion you want to support, taking sections of Scripture and using them to support that stance, even if they must be used shallowly or out of context in order to do it. Sometimes there is a fine line, sometimes the amount of twisting Scripture is scandalous.
Sometimes discussions about religion are complicated because people have different ways of viewing Scripture and think others see things the same way. I hope this helps a bit.
© Fr J Mahoney