Catholic (& Orthodox) Bible study methods

I want to get serious about developing workflows up to Verbum standards (and not requiring the much needed enhancements to Workflows in Verbum.) I want a solid sized grouping that illustrate both Catholic scholarship and Catholic laity. My current list of potential items:

four senses - the traditional four senses of scripture
The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church ( (practical version as from Felix Just)
How to Read the Bible (orthodoxinfo.com)
typology (not sourced yet)
chiasm: Chadwick, Dennis. Both Here and There: Studies in Concentric Parallelism in the Gospel of Luke. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 2018.
OT in NT: Beale, G. K. Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012.
Augustine: Dr. David Naugle's adaptation of St. Augustine of Hippo's concept of "reading with charity" to reading of the Bible or literature. See "Agapic reading: How to read the Bible and other literature to enhance love for God and neighbor" by Dr. David Naugle, October 2-3, 1998 at the Dallas Baptist University SW Conference on Christianity and Literature.
Bishop Barron: Six principles in The Word on Fire Bible
The seven rules of interpretation of Tyconius
Aquinas sermons: Smith, Randall B. Reading the Sermons of Thomas Aquinas (A Beginner’s Guide). Edited by Matthew Levering. Renewal within Tradition. Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Academic, 2016.

I am following up on a lead for something similar for St. John Chrysostom.
visio divina - have not yet chosen from among several options
Coptic verse of the day i.e. Neksoos El Yaum - still researching but nice pairing with Moravian practice
Ignatian style - have not chosen from among several options
ejaculatory prayer/javelin prayer - drawn from the "morning" scripture study
"Inductive Bible Study" reframed as "close reading" as in St. John Chrysostom et. al
A patristic adaptation of "what's bothering Rashi?"
Eastern rites/Orthodox ... several possibilities with different emphases:

Fr. Sebastian Brock - emphasizes Syrian tradition
Fr. Maximos Constas - emphasizes Christological/liturgical interpretation
Fr. Serge Cipko - emphasizes liturgical and church fathers
Fr. John Breck - historical/cultural, literary, patristic, reflection
Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon - canonical, literary, patristic, liturgical

I know very few of you are as fascinated by methodology as I but, please, do you have any suggestions to add to this list? I'm hoping to find about 25 from which I can select the best mix of about a dozen.

Find more posts tagged with

Catholic Products

Comments

Donovan R. Palmer

I was searching the forum for workflows and your post popped up... I can add nothing to your list and in fact found some of your items useful! 👍

Br Damien-Joseph OSB

Here are some great sources for liturgical and patristic interpretation:

I found Scott Hahn's book Letter and Spirit: From Written Text to Living Word in the Liturgy (Doubleday 2005; still not available in Logos) to be an enormous breakthrough for me in understanding the principal distinction behind scriptural interpretation from a Protestant perspective to scriptural interpretation in a Catholic methodology. It comes down to liturgy, and liturgy as primary theology, out of which the scriptures themselves were written. Huge swaths of the Old Testament books were written as liturgical texts for procession, for singing, for reciting, for ceremony, for prayers (largely and predominantly public), in the context of temple life. Therefore, taking the scriptures out of the context of worship is to remove the scriptures from their primary (or principal) context of being understood and received by human beings. This, of course, has a huge impact on how we read and interpret the scriptures. (the very difference between proclaiming the Word and reading it privately underlies the question: is God the God of a community or only my personal God? I think the content of the scriptures speak well to this)

A good patristic approach is Origen's approach, contra Marcion. Marcion's approach was to see the scriptures only literally, and he had to conclude that there were two gods--an angry, vindictive, even evil god of the Old Testament, and a generous, forgiving, and merciful god of the New Testament (this is much the same problem a young Augustine once had). Origen's approach outlined in On First Principles reveals how he reads scripture as Christ himself; that is, Scripture is not something we impose interpretations upon, but is something that interprets us. As Christ will come to judge us, so does scripture here and now judge us. So apparent difficulties in scripture (such as with God's condoning of war, his apparent condemnation of peoples on an ethnic basis, etc.) are meant to confront us and challenge us; we need to wrestle with them until we are slowly and gradually changed. When we face Christ, we are the ones who are contrite and repent, not He, and Marcion shows that a strictly literal approach instead demands Christ, the Incarnate Word, to change. This, of course, has huge implications for how you read and interpret scriptures, but perhaps at its base just points out the fundamental difference between reading scripture as one who believes its deliverances and one who does not.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1257151#Comment_1257151

thank you. This will be very helpful. It especially improves my understanding of Origen.