The Bible: formation, genres and interpretation
The Bible: formation, genres and interpretation
MATSEC tests how the biblical text came to be, how its literary forms shape meaning, and which methods Catholics may legitimately use. Expect questions on source and form criticism, the synoptic problem, canon history, and Dei Verbum's teaching on interpretation.
Formation and canon
- The Pentateuch is analysed through the documentary hypothesis (J, E, D, P) - a scholarly model, not Church dogma.
- The Deuteronomistic History runs Deuteronomy to 2 Kings; the Chronicler writes a distinct, temple-centred account.
- The Synoptic Problem is best explained by the Two-Source Hypothesis: Markan priority plus a sayings source Q, with Matthew's M and Luke's L material.
- The canon emerged gradually: Muratorian Fragment (c. 2nd century), Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter (367), Trent's definitive list (1546) for Catholics.
Genres and methods
- Gunkel's form criticism classifies psalms (lament, thanksgiving, hymn, royal) and identifies the Sitz im Leben.
- Redaction criticism asks what an evangelist's editing reveals theologically.
- Dei Verbum 12 requires attention to literary forms, the unity of Scripture and the living Tradition; the four senses (literal, allegorical, moral, anagogical) rest on the literal sense.
Worked example
Question: 'Why does Matthew write "poor in spirit" where Luke has "you who are poor"?' Reasoning: Luke's version is shorter and more socially concrete; Matthew spiritualises and expands to nine beatitudes, fitting his portrait of Jesus as the new Moses giving Torah from a mountain (Matt 5:1). The difference is redactional theology, not error.
Traps that cost marks
- Treating the Documentary Hypothesis as Church teaching.
- Claiming the canon was fixed at Nicaea - it was not.
- Ignoring genre when reading Genesis 1-2.
- Confusing inspiration with dictation.