Replies

Thank you for supplementing the information already given. Answer? Well, I'd prefer a delineation of the interpretive elements. In the literal/grammatical/historical model, allegorical interpretation is not normal nor acceptable, because it results in inconclusive readings, whereas plain literal language does not.

Also, I find it hard to believe that Christ's words or actions not recorded in Scripture can be adequately transmitted either by fallible men or their surrogates.

What I do believe is that the words and actions which the Holy Ghost has caused to be inscripturated are sufficient and completed for His use to guide (a/the) Spirit-filled human(s) throughout the interval until Christ Himself returns.

Perhaps reading the essay will illuminate an accepted view, as you indicate. I will do my best to scrutinize it.

Respectfully --

I'd prefer a delineation of the interpretive elements. In the literal/grammatical/historical model, allegorical interpretation is not normal nor acceptable, because it results in inconclusive readings, whereas plain literal language does not.

I don't know that there is "one official method" of exegesis that has officially been blessed. Don't get me wrong, flaky methods like "liberation theological" and "feminist" interpretations of the Scripture are not taken seriously outside of their own little circles. But I can't think of any document that says "Thou shalt use the historical-critical method" or the like.

At this time, the "historical-critical" method and the "canonical" method are very popular. Having said that, there has not been a papal mandate specifying those methods as being officially sanctioned. In fact, Benedict XVI, in his three-part work, Jesus of Nazareth, presented a rather scathing response to excesses in the "historical-critical" method to find the "historical" Jesus as opposed to the "theological" Jesus. [NB: Ratzinger wrote this as a theological work and explicitly stated that the trilogy should not be considered as having Magisterial force]

In times past, a far more literal interpretation has been used...and I, personally, see great merit in that technique.

Also, I find it hard to believe that Christ's words or actions not recorded in Scripture can be adequately transmitted either by fallible men or their surrogates.

I can actually appreciate that position. Seriously.

I would ask you to consider the words of John 14:26.

I would also ask you to seriously and as objectively as possible ponder the diversity of Protestant theologies that are out there. You have everything from the Amish & Mennonites to Joel Osteen to Paul and Jan Crouch. Each, if you were to ask them, believe that their beliefs are formed upon Scripture alone. Even the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that they are following Scripture alone. How can all of these people be right?

I'm not trying to attack anybody's beliefs with the above; rather, when I look at it, that, in all honesty, is what I see.

Anyway, for how Catholics regard the Scriptures...and for guidance on how they are interpreted, I would suggest the following:

Second Vatican Council: Dei Verbum, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation
Pontifical Biblical Commission, L'interprétation de la Bible dans l'Église, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (note: the English is not online...you can look at other languages via this link (and can use an auto-translator to, at least, get a sense of what is being written therein)
Benedict XVI, Verbum Domini: Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation on the Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church

Also one other thing you might find interesting is the tool, Biblia Clerus. This tool maps the Scriptures with various other writings. While I wouldn't imagine that the teachings of the Popes on various Scriptures would be of any more than passing interest to you, you might be interested in reading what some of the early Church Fathers (people like Augustine, Basil, Cyril, and so on) wrote about various passages of Scripture. Not to say that they would be authoritative on the subject, but it would be interesting to see what was thought back in the first few centuries of Christianity...as compared to today.