Dei Verbum (On Divine Revelation): 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. (Par. 12)
Paragraph 12 goes on to say that we must also have regard for literary forms. For truth is proposed and expressed in a variety of ways, depending on whether a text is history of one kind or another, or whether its form is that of prophecy, poetry, or some other type of speech. ...due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of perceiving, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the customs men normally followed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.
In other words,• Each author was writing to a particular group of people in a particular time for a particular purpose, which is why we sometimes get several different accounts of the same thing, like two different accounts of the story of creation in Genesis (chapters 1 and 2) or different variations on the life of Jesus from the four gospels.
• That is why it’s important to know the context the book or story or psalm was written in by asking ourselves, What do we need to know in order to “get” this story (or parable or psalm)?
• Some Christians choose to read the Bible literally as if it means exactly what it says. But since the Bible wasn’t written as a history book, a literal interpretation can lead to misinterpreting Scripture and/or applying it to present day situations that it was not meant to address.
• This is why Catholics and many other Christian denominations read and interpret the Bible from a particular context, which means we must understand who wrote it, when, and why.
•
Did anyone read the paper this morning or watch the morning news? What was the headline or the lead story?
How might this story be written if it appeared in another part of the world?
• Or, how might it change if you were writing this for a group of 10 year olds? A group of only women? For someone from a communist country? Or someone who was waking up from a coma after 20 years?
The fact is, that while the central “truth” of the story remains, the details involving how the story is told, and who or what is highlighted will change based on the audience and the current events they are experiencing.
Whether Jesus spoke the beatitudes at the Sermon on the Mount (as in Matthew 5) or as part of the Sermon on the Plain (as in Luke 6), doesn’t change the truth of the words, but it does matter to the audience who it was directed at. Matthew’s gospel was written for a Jewish audience who saw mountains as a sign of closeness with God, so Matthew wanted to portray Jesus on a mountain to show that he was the Son of God.
Luke’s gospel was written to Gentiles (non-Jews) who knew nothing of the symbolism for mountains. Luke wanted his audience to understand that Jesus came for all people, not just the Jews, so he places Jesus preaching on level ground as a sign of being one with them, not separated from them. Different approaches to the same story.
Reading and understanding Scripture from a contextualist view is not the easiest; it requires knowledge and openness to learning new things, but it should not stop us from reading and praying with Scripture on a regular basis. Indeed, one does not need to know everything about Scripture before they start to read it (or we would never start!).