I turned in my next to last assignment: a synthesized journal of principles of Catholic biblical interpretation. It's linked on the sidebar, but you can also read it here.My last assignment is a 7-10 page exegetical exercise on the death scene of Christ in Matthew's Gospel (27:45-50). It promises to be rather interesting in light of the atonement on account of Christ's enigmatic cry from the cross: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
2 comments:
I wonder if you ought to specify "human" authorship in your second sentence. Or is it important to maintain ambiguity between human and divine authorship when discussing the literal sense of Scripture?
I don't think it important to maintain ambiguity on that point, but I also don't think it all that important to make the distinction. Whatever the human author intended to communicate, God also intended to communicate, although God may have intended more than the human author intended. Even here though this does not go beyond the literal sense; it is precisely the fact of divine authorship that allows for a multiplicity within the literal sense itself.
It is interesting, though, in regard to the literal sense, there is a great deal of going back and forth, even in the magisterial documents of the Church, between defining the literal sense in terms of the meaning intended by the author(s) and in terms of the meaning actually conveyed by the words. Sort of an objective / subjective tension.
Post a Comment