Four Important Things to Consider in Studying the Bible to Understand it Better

 

We often hear people say: “ Just read the Bible and do what it says.” There’s a problem with this mindset. We may read the same Bible but make different conclusions regarding its meaning!

The Bible was initially written for people who lived in a different place with a unique culture and a different period in history. They also spoke different languages. The Bible also contains various types or genres of literature.

In order to have a good exegesis, one must read the text very carefully, understand the details thoroughly and ask the right questions. These processes are important to enable us to interpret the texts correctly. Incorrect interpretation is the result of bad

exegeses.

Here are four tips that can help us understand the Bible further:

1.) DO NOT IGNORE THE SACRED TRADITION

Scriptures are part of a larger apostolic and ecclesial tradition:  the process by which those who believe Jesus is the risen Son of God learned from those who had gone before them - ultimately, from those who knew Jesus - and preached that to the wider world.  Eventually some of that got written down, and some of the letters from the first Christian apostles were circulated to other Churches than just the ones to whom they were first written.  What the Church thinks of as "tradition" is the context in which some works came to be regarded as normative for faith, were read at the Eucharist, and eventually came to be read along with the Jewish Scripture as one story of God's revelation.  But tradition is the bigger, more defining part of the process.  Scripture is simply the normative, written part of tradition.  (See Vatican II, Dei Verbum 7-10)

The Scriptures exist to build up and guide a community, not isolated individuals. Therefore, we should read the Bible with other people, bit off by ourselves. That community of readers includes those who have gone before (the tradition). The Church (people of God) have been having a long conversation about the Scriptures, and we are entering into this conversation in our own time and places, but we still learn about and pay attention to how the conversation has been shaped by past participants. 

2.)  DO NOT SAY THAT HISTORY IS NOT NEEDED IN THE STUDY OF THE SCRIPTURES 

History is the study of human events, culture, persons.  We can't understand what people write and talk about unless we know who they are or were what their world is or was like.  We can't make full sense of any human documents or language without some understanding of their human context.

We need to know history and historical context to understand Scripture as a basic level, just to know the plain sense of what it says, If you read a Victorian novel and read the "he made love to her in the carriage," you would radically misunderstand that happens in the carriage if you do not know something about history and how English usage has changed since the 1800s. Without historical study, we are prone to gross misunderstanding of Scripture and therefore gross misappropriations of its significance for our times and our lives. Similarly, some oracles of Isaiah make no sense at all without an understanding of the Syro-Ephraimitic war and Assyrian westward expansion. 

3.) SPEND TIME TO STUDY ABOUT THE CHURCH FATHERS 

The early writers we call "the church Fathers" are really the most famous and influential of the early authors who wrote about Christian faith:  usually people mean by the term writers on Christian subjects who lived from the time just after the New Testament until the 8th or 9th century a.d. - but there's no formal definition of the term.  They are our main clue to the beginnings of a genuinely Christian tradition.  Without them, we would not know how the Christian community in various parts of the world understood and preserved the beginnings of its tradition of faith:  how they understood Scripture, how they prayed, what the main points of their faith were, how they thought Christians should act, and so on.  They are our main source for what we know about how a distinctively Christian faith began. 

Someone who knows the fathers knows the early stages of the conversation surrounding Scripture, and that is helpful and important knowledge.

St. Polycarp of Smyrna has a reminder in his letter (Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, Chapter 7).

"Whoever interprets according to his own perverse inclinations is the firstborn of Satan."

This passage is urging the community not to be selective in the way they read the Scriptures, or take seriously just what they agree with. So here, in chapter 7, he adds to the phrase i quote another phrase, "and who do not confess the resurrection and the judgment." He has just made the same criticism of those "who do not accept the cross." The point seems to be that you need to accept the whole "package" of apostolic teaching about Jesus.

An in-depth study on the Church Fathers will enhance our knowledge of the Sacred Scriptures.

 

Even the non-Catholic Bible scholars have useful statements in their respective books:

First, Dr. Daniel Wallace said in his book, Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament, on page 28:

"If someone were to destroy all those manuscripts, we would not be left without a witness, because the church fathers wrote commentaries on the NT."

Second, many people know we do not have access to original manuscripts since we only have at hand copies of the ancient Greek manuscripts. However, Geisler and Holden said in their book, The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible, on page 124:

"In fact, one could reconstruct the entire New Testament based solely on the more than 36,200 Scripture quotations of the Fathers - with the exception of a few dozen verses. "

4. )  IT IS IMPORTANT TO SPEND TIME TO STUDY THE ORIGINAL TEXTS OF THE BIBLE (HEBREW AND

GREEK).

Many people say it is not necessary to study the Hebrew and Greek languages inasmuch as the Bible has been translated into many languages that we understand better. It is hard to admit it but studying these two languages is really difficult.  

The study of the Bible's original language is a big help to make us understand the true message in every Bible verse. 

Even Martin Luther, the Father of Protestantism, emphasized the importance of studying Hebrew and Greek because these are the original languages of the Bible. 

“Luther was passionate about Scripture being the authority for the church. Although this belief made Luther work hard to give the people a translation in their everyday language, he also actively promoted the value of knowing Greek and Hebrew. Because Scripture was written in Hebrew and Greek, Luther considered it essential for ministers to know these languages.”

Source: https://www.tms.edu/msj/reformers-original-languages-calvin-luther-importance-greek-hebrew-theology-ministry/

John 10:30 has a long history of interpretation and was cited on both sides of the Trinitarian and Christological controversies of the 4th-5th century. The grammatical gender of “hen” could be interpreted in various ways. What the defenders of the position formulated at Nicaea particularly liked to point out was the fact that the verb “are” is plural while the predicate “one” is singular, which, of course, fits with the One divine nature - Three persons formula.  That fact does come through in translation.

The word "one" in this verse is interpret by some Protestants that Jesus is also the Father. 

In the Greek Bible, we can read this:

"Ego kai ho pater hen esmen"

In Greek, these three:  εἷς (Heis), μία (mia ), and ἕν (hen ) all mean “one.” 

If the masculine heis is used, those who believe that Jesus is also the Father are correct. But since the neuter hen was used, it means the persons of the Father and the Son are different. 

"The word for 'one' is the neuter hen, not the masculine heis: Jesus and his Father are not one person, as the masculine would suggest..." (The Gospel According to John, D.A. Carson, p. 394)

Well knowing the original language is valuable for any language because every translation is a compromise of some sort or another.  Words in Hebrew often have a range of meanings that no single English word can capture.  For example the word "rejoice" in Hebrew can refer to an inner emotional state but it can also refer to concrete acts of celebration such as singing, dancing, eating and drinking.  We could multiply such examples a hundred fold.  Or the word for "ark" in Noah's ark really means something like a "box."  That is significant because it can't be steered by anyone inside - it requires divine assistance to reach its destination.  Also that same word appears in Exodus 2:3 to designate the "basket" that Moses was put int.  As Jon Levenson writes:  "Noah foreshadows Moses, even as Moses, removed from the water, foreshadows the people Israel whom he leads to safety.  The great biblical tale of redemption occurs first in a shorter, universal form, then in a longer particularistic one."  If you did not know Hebrew, you'd never notice this!

Job 42:6 is notoriously difficult. People who know Hebrew can't agree on what it means and how to translate it, but at least they can see an appreciate the possibilities. Some of those possibilities do not appear in translations, like "I repent of dust and ashes."

The reflexive idea "I despise myself" comes from the Niphal stem of the verb "Nacham" means "to repent."

Waltke-O’Connor’s grammar  of biblical Hebrew shows Niphal Stem sometimes indicates a reflexive idea.

A word like hesed might be translated "loving kindness" or "loyalty," but it has a range of meanings and associations that are known only to people who read Hebrew. Similarly, the term paqad has several meanings and writers play with the senses. In Psalm 8, is refers to God's kind and generous attention to small humans, but in Job 7:17, the same term describes God's relentless and aggressive attention to human sin. The word has multiple meanings that no one English word can capture.

There are many passages in which there is a play on words that cannot be easily rendered in translation.  Think, e.g., of Nicodemus and his wonderment about being born ἄνωθεν. The Fourth Gospel has quite a number of such double entendres.  Another theologically important play on words is the use of διαθήκη in Hebrews 8:15, which enables the author to offer a new interpretation of Jeremiah 31:31-34.  The new “covenant” of Jeremiah becomes the “new testament” through which we inherit the promise of divine forgiveness. Or think of the way Jesus is described in Hebrews 12:2 as the ἀρχηγὸς καὶ τελειωτής of faith.

My Review about the New Testament Pinoy Version

We understand that there is no perfect English translation. Yet, adding words which are not in the original texts does not make us different from the scribes who added comments not mentioned by the Bible’s authors. The warning from Revelation 22:18 relates to scribes who committed intentional errors in the manuscripts. 

One of the best New Testament scholars who gave value to this statement is Dr. Bruce Metzger.

Let us read his commentary in his book, Breaking the Code – Understanding the Book of Revelation, on page 106:

“When books were copied by hand, scribes would occasionally add comments of their own or leave out words they thought were unsuitable. John therefore includes at the end of his book a solemn warning (similar to that found in Deut. 4:2; 12:32) declaring that nothing should be added or deleted, for the very good reason that it is a revelation from God (22:18-19).”

Some say, “regardless of the translation, it is important to read the Bible.”

The comment is correct if it was made by serious Bible students. They study scriptures and compare various translations of the Hebrew and Greek Bibles (These contain original Bible texts). Can all people do this? Of course not. You need guidance from the Catholic Church if you are just an ordinary person. If we believe that any translation is all right, we will accept everything like the King James Version which contains many texts and passages not in the ancient manuscripts like:

• Matthew 17:21
• Matthew 18:11
• Matthew 23:14
• Mark 7:16
• Mark 11:26
• Mark 15:28
• Luke 17:36
• John 5:4
• Acts 8:37
• Acts 15:34
• Acts 24:6–8
• Acts 28:29
• Romans 16:24

"..the King James Version, based on the Textus Receptus, have all these extra verses, phrases, and words. Those who read the King James Version (also the New King James Version) are reading a "leavened" version---that is, it is a text with thousand of extra words...In short, the additions were the result of scribal gap-filling wherein scribes added words as they read and copied a text. The sources for the additions came from their own minds, other gospels, other scriptures, and oral traditions" (A Commentary on Textual Additions to the New Testament, Philip W. Comfort, Kregel Academic (December 27, 2017), pp. 7-8)

It’s important to read the Bible. But I would always urge people to read the most accurate available translation.

The NRSV or New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, these do not contain verses mentioned above.

Here are the passages from the New Testament  Pinoy Version with negative reactions from readers:

1.) Galatians 1:6, “SOBRANG NA-SHOCK AKO SA INYO. Ang dali n’yo namang tinalikuran ang Diyos. Imagine, SOBRANG BAIT N’YA at pinadala n’ya si Christ sa atin. Ang Diyos mismo ang pumili sa inyo, tapos ngayon, INE-ENTERTAIN n’yo ang ibang Gospel?”

2.) Galatians 3:3, “MGA BOBO BA TALAGA KAYO? Nasimulan n’yo ngang maranasan ang kapangyarihan ng Holy Spirit sa buhay n’yo, tapos ngayon, aasa kayo sa sarili niyong lakas?!“

3.) Mark 15:18, Tapos, PINAGTRIPAN NILA SI JESUS. Sinaluduhan nila s’ya at sinabi, ‘Mabuhay ang hari ng mga Jews!’ Hinampas nila ng stick ang ulo ni Jesus at dinuraan siya.”

4.) Luke 22:58-59, AFTER ILANG MINUTES, may nakapansin ulit kay Peter at sinabi sa kanya, ‘Isa ka sa mga kasamahan nila.’ Pero sumagot si Peter, “Hindi po ako ‘yun, sir!” After one hour, MAY LALAKING NAG-INSIST, “Sure ako, kasama ni Jesus ang taong ito, kasi taga-Galilea din sya.”

5.) Sumagot si Jesus, "Yung bibigyan ko ng piraso ng tinapay na SINAWSAW KO SA SAUCE, sya yun." So kumuha sya ng kapirasong tinapay, SINAWSAW ITO SA SAUCE at binigay kay Judas na anak ni Simon Iscariot. (John 13:26)

Here are my comments for said passages:

1.)  This is a very colloquial rendition of Galatians 1:6, and breaks up the period into several short sentences.  “Shocked’ renders θαυμάζω, which is more “amazed.” “SOBRANG BAIT N’YA” renders ἐν χάριτι; “handpicked” renders καλέσαντος.  The translation dispenses with some vocabulary familiar to us: He was so good that he sent Christ to us. God handpicked you” translates τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι [Χριστοῦ].  Note the textual problem. Χριστοῦ  is widely attested, but missing in some early witnesses and it sits there awkwardly.  Without it, the phrase would be rendered. “who graciously called us,”  with the ἐν χάριτι phrase, which lacks an article, being construed adverbially. The presence of Χριστοῦ, which might yield the translation “who called you by the grace of Christ” leads the translators to introduce “that he sent Christ to us” in order to explain the “grace” or “goodness” of God.

2.) “BOBO,” is colloquial. The Greek word used in Galatians 3:1 is ἀνόητοι (anoētoi).

There are two meanings according to the Concise GREEK-ENGLISH DICTIONARY of the NEW TESTAMENT. These are “foolish” and “ignorant.”

NRSV uses “foolish.” The Greek word, ἀνόητοι can also be read in Luke 24:25 Jesus used it with his two disciples. καὶ αὐτὸς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς · Ὦ ἀνόητοι καὶ βραδεῖς τῇ καρδίᾳ τοῦ πιστεύειν ἐπὶ πᾶσιν οἷς ἐλάλησαν οἱ προφῆται ·

Now, think about the CONTEXT (not simply the word).

St. Paul describes the Galatians as foolish and asks them rhetorical questions to contemplate on their past and present lives. If they started well with the Spirit (Galatians 3:3) and continue experiencing the Spirit in their lives (Galatians 3:5), they are foolish by believing in another discourse that concludes by subjecting them to the law.

So Foolish is correct. They are doing something they should not be doing. νοος means “mind, thought.” ἀ-νόητος means “no thought, not thinking, not thought-out.”

St. Paul means they’re not thinking. So “foolish” is much better. “Stupid” connotes emotionally exasperated.

3.) “PINAGTRIPAN,” is an incorrect translation. “They began to greet/address him.” I looked at the immediately preceding and following verses, because dynamically equivalent translations sometimes change the sentence order slightly, but I don’t see anything in either vv. 17 or 19 that would explain those words, “PINAGTRIPAN NILA SI JESUS.”

There is nothing in the Greek that supports that. ἤρξαντο ἀσπάζεσθαι αὐτόν is simply “they began to greet (or “salute”) him.

4.) “AFTER ILANG MINUTES,” seems fine to me. The Greek is indefinite, meaning “after a little while” and doesn’t specify a precise length of time. When I hear an expression like “after ilang minutes” I really don’t have any better idea how long a speaker has in mind. I probably don’t imagine it being more than an hour, since the word “minutes” is used. But, in context, it is unlikely that St. Peter’s three accusers spoke with hour-long intervals in between.

“MAY LALAKING NAG-INSIST,” or “A MALE INSISTED”?

The word for man is Anthropos, not Aner, which could be just a generic for person. In American English, we can use “man” virtually as an exclamation: “Man, I am tired,” I could say to my wife Bernaditte without necessarily calling her a man. It’s interesting that the New American Bible (Revised Edition) reads “My friend, I am not.” And I doubt the individual was St. Peter’s friend at all, but that is a somewhat polite form of address, especially when you are about to contradict someone and want to soften the blow a little. The New International Version leaves ἄνθρωπος untranslated, but adds an exclamation mark for the emphasis that ἄνθρωπος would have created. As for ἕτερος that is even vaguer, referring just to “another” person with gender unspecified. It’s interesting that these come in Luke’s version; might it have been that the tradition he inherited from those who passed it on to him did not include enough specificity for him to make the identifications more precisely so he used the generic masculine in each case? At any rate, I wouldn’t use either of those expressions to create a dogmatic case that the questioner had to be male or “lalaki.”

5.) There is no explicit reference to “sauce” here. I assume the translators import the word to make a sensible expression in Tagalog of the somewhat compact Greek phrasing.  The Greek ἀκεῖνος ἐστιν ᾧ ἐγὼ βάξω τὸ ξωμίον καὶ δώσω αὐτῷ is literally “The one to whom I will dip and give the morsel (or piece of bread) is the one.”  A reader might reasonably want to know where the morsel is to be dipped. The same issue is involved in the following phrase. A first-century (or twenty-first century) Jerusalemite would know that it would be dipped in the ground chick peas, the hummus, or in the vegetable mix, the tachina. A note to the translation might explain that.  I suppose the translators assumed that “sauce” would be a reasonable generic description of where the “dipping” would occur.  It would be interesting to know if Tagalog speakers would use their word for “sauce” for something like a hummus paste or a salad mixture.  How does the literal translation sound in Tagalog?

CAN’T THE BIBLE TRANSLATION NOT BE QUESTIONED BECAUSE OF THE IMPRIMATUR?

I consulted Fr. Brian Daley, S.J. ( Catherine F. Huisking professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame) before doing the review if the imprimatur of the bishop ensures that the Bible translation cannot be questioned. 

The Imprimatur (which means: “Let it be printed”) is simply an official grant of permission by a Catholic bishop to a publisher, to publish a book that deals with the Catholic faith. It’s supposed to mean: as far as I can see, this contains nothing opposed to Catholic faith or morals. Every bishop is supposed to have people on his staff who are experts in Scripture, theology, etc., who read through book manuscripts and advise him on whether a new book is worth approving in this way or not.I should have said: no bishop, speaking by himself, is infallible. When all the bishops speak in unity in their role as the maintainers of the Apostolic teaching - say, in an ecumenical council - they speak infallibly.

An imprimatur is supposed to be a certification from a bishop that a published work has no major errors in doctrine, that are at odds with Church teaching. It normally isn’t meant to deal with the question of whether a Bible translation is adequate.

Catholic Church Bible scholars endorse the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition and New American Bible Revised Edition. Both the USA and Canadian Bishop Conferences officially endorsed the NRSVCE as the Catholic Bible and for use in the Liturgy.

Another good translation is the Catholic New American Bible: Revised Edition, the recent (2011) translation by the Catholic Biblical Association of America.