Interpreting sacred texts: Sticking to the essentials

“People don’t derive their values from their religion — they bring their values to their religion. Which is why religions like Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, [and] Islam, are experienced in such profound, wide diversity. Two individuals can look at the exact same text and come away with radically different interpretations.” — Reza Aslan

The subject of interpretation of sacred texts can be a contentious one given the range of perspectives that exist on any particular passage of scripture within any specific religion. Issues such as authenticity of authorship, comprehension of ancient languages and dialects, biases of the author, and many more, can make it quite difficult to pinpoint the meaning of a text with any degree of certainty. Thus, today’s attitudes towards sacred texts seem to be vary between hardline dogma that takes a fundamentalist view to complete subjectivity that encourages a “make it up as you go” approach.

Quite understandably then, people are reluctant to have discussions around sacred texts given the challenges that exist around interpretation. Especially when it comes to The Bible.

However, here at Truthscan, we believe that there are many who use the issue of multiple interpretations of sacred texts as an excuse to avoid examining the texts altogether. For them, the profusion of interpretations is like a thick fog that renders any textual analysis impossible. It’s as if the multiplicity of perspectives are evidence that the text no longer has its own voice. Or that the voice has become so distorted over time that it has been rendered meaningless and irrelevant.

So no matter how scrupulous the investigation, no matter how thorough the examination, the standard response they will readily trot out is, “Well, that’s just your interpretation.”

Of course, some ancient religious texts have indeed become distorted over time owing to corruption of manuscripts. However, there is strong evidence that others (like The Bible) have not. And to tar all texts with the same brush of obscurity or impenetrability is manifestly unfair.

So, in an attempt to reign in these evasive responses, we would like to propose 3 questions. The objective of these questions is to determine whether the skeptic has reason to be skeptical of the text being discussed, or whether their biases are preventing them from making an honest assessment.

Here are the questions.

First: Does the text claim to come directly from a divine source?

If no, then there is no need for further investigation. It is indeed safe to assume that the text can be open to various interpretations. After all, if the source is human then there is no obligation to interpret it in a specific manner. A person is as free to interpret Handel’s Messiah as a polemic against capitalism as they are free to interpret Macbeth as a call to arms for Feminism. Sure, the original authors may have intended a certain meaning whilst composing their works, but nobody is under any obligation to comply with that meaning. Everybody is free to make of it what they will; to interpret it however they choose.

If yes, the discussion can proceed to the next question.

Second: Is the text’s claim of direct divine revelation capable of being true?

If no, there’s no possibility of having an honest discussion because the issue of interpretation is really a distraction. After all, the real issue is that there is no way that the claim can be true. In other words, any disagreement, primarily, is not with the legitimacy and cogency of the interpretation. Rather, the disagreement is with the text’s claim that it has divine origins. That is not a matter of personal interpretation. That is a matter of personal belief. So no matter how sound the interpretive method, or how scrupulous the research, the interpretation will never satisfy the individual who’s disagreeing because it has not addressed the core issue of their belief.

(Our experience at Truthscan has been that people who use the excuse of multiple interpretations to avoid dealing with the text usually do so because secretly, they don’t believe that the text is capable of being true. They don’t want to come out and say it either because they’re too polite and don’t want to cause offence. Or they’re just lazy and don’t want to bear the burden of proof. Whatever the case, they don’t help matters because the discussion is unable to progress fruitfully owing to the fact that they have either deliberately or accidentally misstated their point of disagreement.)

If yes, the discussion can proceed to the next question.

Third: Is the text’s claim of direct divine revelation actually true?

If no, bin the text. Tear it up. Burn it. Flush it down the toilet. Because it is making claims of coming from a divine source when actually it isn’t. The principle for throwing it out is simple: If a religious text cannot be trusted to make true statements about its source, how can you trust it to make true statements about anything at all? And if you can’t trust it to make true statements, why waste time discussing interpretations of it?

If yes, the text should be understood in its rightful context and treated with utmost respect. This stands to reason. If a text says it’s from a divine source, and if the text’s claim is true, then what the text is basically a message from God! In other words, the reader is dealing with the words of the One who created them. If their Creator is allowing them the luxury of interpreting His Words however they choose, great! But if the Creator is not leaving the interpretation of His words up to the creature, the creature disobey?

Let’s apply these three principles to a text from the Bible.

The one below is taken from the second letter of the Apostle Peter.

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. — 2 Peter 1:20,21

First: Does the text claim to come directly from a divine source?
Yes, it does.

Second: Is the text’s claim of direct divine revelation capable of being true?
Absolutely. If there is a God, then He is quite capable of speaking directly to people and through them. If God exists, then the verse above is very capable of being true.

However, if someone does not believe God exists, then they will not accept the text’s claim of direct divine revelation. But more often than not, they will not articulate this openly. Instead, they will dismiss the text on grounds that it cannot be understood accurately owing to the multiple interpretations that exist. But since this isn’t the core of their disagreement, any attempt to refute the multiple interpretations argument will always be unfruitful.

Third: Is the text’s claim of direct divine revelation actually true?
This question should only ever best asked once the first two have been answered in the affirmative. In other words, only when both parties to the discussion agree that the sacred text in question is making claims of being from a divine source and that this divine source actually exists, can this question be dealt with honestly.

In the case of the above text, its claim of direct divine revelation is actually true because it is attested to by multiple witnesses. The Apostles Matthew and John attest to the fact that the Apostle Peter received direct revelation from Jesus Christ, who was God in human flesh. Other writers such as Mark and Luke affirm this.

For example, consider what Mathew records:

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” — Matthew 16:15-19

Mark has this to say:

And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. And He was stating the matter plainly. And Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. But turning around and seeing His disciples, He rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind Me, Satan; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.” — Mark 8:31-33

In other words, by looking at other authors within The Bible, we are able to affirm the truth of Peter’s claims. However, it should be noted that this article does not seek to show how one can determine if a sacred text’s claim of direct divine revelation is actually true. That is the subject of another blog post. Instead, the purpose of this article is to determine the underlying beliefs of the individual who is seeking to interpret the sacred text.

Our hope is that by asking these questions, skeptics will be confronted by their own biases and that any dismissal or acceptance of texts will be on legitimate grounds.

Yours truthfully,

Truthscan