THE 611 BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS

THE 611 BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS
Photo Class II: History of Biblical Interpretation © Dr. Esa Autero

History of Biblical Interpretation
1.1 Introduction How did Jesus and the apostles use the Bible? What was their Bible? Are we supposed to interpret the Bible in the same way? How did the OT writers use the Bible? Inner biblical interpretation within the OT How did Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries interpret the Bible? How has the Bible been interpreted in the church history? What interpretative tradition are you part of? How does that influence the way you read the Bible?

Topics of the class: 1) Inner biblical interpretation 2) Jewish interpretation of the Bible 3) NT authors use of the OT 4) Biblical interpretation in church history Church fathers Medieval period Reformation Post-Reformation era 5) Reflecting on hermeneutical models in the past and present Photo:

2.1 Inner biblical interpretation Where can you see biblical interpretation in practice in OT? Interpretative presuppositions & preliminary questions When and how was OT considered authoritative? Formation of OT canon Development, use of sources, composition, and editing of OT books Deut 34 & Josh 24:26 “Book of the Wars of the LORD” (Num 21:14-15) Book of Kings of Judah and Israel (2Chr 22:7; 36:8); Chronicles of David (27:24) Chronicles of Samuel, Nathan, and Gad (29:29); prophecy of Ahijah and the Visions of Iddo the Seer (2Chr 9:29); records of Shemaiah, Jehu, and Isaiah (2Chr 12:15; 20:34; 32:32)

Chronicles’ peculiar view of past history Approximately 50% of the 1-2 Chr found elsewhere in OT Omissions and “changes” of history (cf. 1-2Sam & 1-2Kings) Chronicler “bypasses” Israel’s (north) history almost completely Omission of David’s sins (e.g. Bathseba incident) Readers assumed to know earlier history (e.g. David’s adultery) Careful selection of material for theological purpose Perspective that promotes “theology of hope”  Unique perspective, distinct sources, new situation (post-exilic)  New situation called forth new perspectives of known biblical stories  Beginning of biblical interpretation(?)

Translation as interpretation(?) – HB & LXX* Translation of LXX – legend in Letter of Aristeas (c BC) Miraculous translation – ordered by Ptolemy II (c BC) In reality, LXX to meet the needs of Hellenistic Jewish synagogues What happens when text is translated? Forms of thought & terminology transferred from one culture to another Jewish socio-cultural environment to Greek/Hellenistic Examples in LXX and HB “I am who I am/I shall be who I shall be ” [HB**] (Ex 3:14) “I am the one who exists” [LXX***] (Ex 3:14)  More conceptual and abstract in LXX *This section follows Reventlow 2009: 19-27 **ehje ašer ehje ***egō eimi ho ōn

Further examples Most anthropomorphic depictions of God changed [from LXX] Moses ascended to Mt. of God [LXX] vs. to God [HB] (Ex 19:3) Transcendence of God emphasized HB YHWH tzevaot (LORD of hosts) vs. LXX pantokrator (Almighty) Emphasis on eschatology in LXX “their salvation” [HB] or “their savior” [LXX] is coming (Isa 62:11)  Some may be due to scribal errors in text or variant textual recensions Translations act as interpretations to certain degree Generally LXX maintained successfully terms, concepts, and ideas of HB

2.2 Jewish Biblical Interpretation How did the Jews and early Christian read the Bible? Did they have a specific method of interpretation? Should we follow their method(s)?  What is “the Bible” they interpreted?

History of Biblical Interpre
Boundaries of the OT canon in 1st century AD Torah and Prophets firmly fixed Later discussion on the boundaries of Ketuvim (Writings) Esp. Ecclesiastes and Esther (AD 90, Jamnia) Qumran may have included few additional books (see, CD ; 4Q ) Samaritan’s only accepted the Pentateuch

Some important texts: Ben Sirach’s prologue; Sir 49:8-10, 44-50; 2 Macc 2:13-14; Philo, Vita Cont. 25; Ag. Ap. 1.8; ; 1QS 1.1-3; 4QMMT C10; 4 Ezra Affirmation of authoritative body of writings Law, Prophets, ‘Writings’ (boundary somewhat fluid)

For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life…and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them. Josephus, Against Apion 1:8

OT Textual versions Pre-Exilic writings of OT
Texts to Babylon c. 587 BC Old Palestinian recension, 5th BC? Proto-Sam. recension, 4th BC Proto-MT 4th century BC Proto LXX, 4th BC Samaritan recension, 2nd BC LXX, BC Various recensions used side by side MT, AD Standardization from 100BC- LXX versions, 100BC-200AD Today’s Old Testament based on textual criticism

Jewish Scriptural Interpretation Manifold methods and approaches to sacred Scriptures Combination and blending of methods Main categories (implicit [=text variation] & explicit exegesis) 1) Rewritten Bible A literary genre or textual strategy? To make the text relevant in new situations Often scribal interventions Harmonization, conflation, modification, addition  From few words to creation of new documents

Not to replace the base text  Rewritten Bible and “real Bible” both authoritative Blurring of boundaries b/w text and its rewriting Examples from Qumran texts: Closest to base text (4Q364, 4Q365, 4Q366, 4Q367, 4Q158) Harmonization and minor scribal insertions Furthest from base: Jubilees rewrites Gen 1- Ex 12 to validate community’s practices (solar calendar, priestly line) Divine authority – given to Moses by an angel Other examples of rewritten scripture Temple Scroll; Genesis Apocryphon; Josephus Ant. 1-11; Pseudo-Philo Liber antiquitatum biblicarum  Follows the general order of Scripture – paraphrase, additions, retelling narratives, omissions etc.

Now Abraham greatly loved Isaac, as being his only begotten and given to him at the borders of old age, by the favor of God. The child also endeared himself to his parents still more, by the exercise of every virtue, and adhering to his duty to his parents, and being zealous in the worship of God. Abraham also placed his own happiness in this prospect, that, when he should die, he should leave this his son in a safe and secure condition; which accordingly he obtained by the will of God: who being desirous to make an experiment of Abraham's religious disposition towards himself, appeared to him, and enumerated all the blessings he had bestowed on him; how he had made him superior to his enemies; and that his son Isaac, who was the principal part of his present happiness, was derived from him; and he said that he required this son of his as a sacrifice and holy oblation. Accordingly he commanded him to carry him to the mountain Moriah, and to build an altar, and offer him for a burnt-offering upon it for that this would best manifest his religious disposition towards him, if he preferred what was pleasing to God, before the preservation of his own son Ant 1 Some time afterward, God put Abraham to the test and said to him: Abraham! “Here I am!” he replied. 2 Then God said: Take your son Isaac, your only one, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah. There offer him up as a burnt offering on one of the heights that I will point out to you. 3 Early the next morning Abraham saddled his donkey, took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac, and after cutting the wood for the burnt offering, set out for the place of which God had told him. Gen 22:1-3

2) The Pesharim – Scripture citation + commentary Scripture and commentary separate – in principle Variant readings and word modification (“atomism”) Continuous and thematic pesharim Continuous pesharim – running commentary “This is that…” Thematic pesharim (juxtaposition of quotes w/ similar themes) Application to present-day situation Words/phrases linked to present experience Wordplay; allegory; atomization; catch word linkage Little regard to historical/literary context Photo:

Linking of Scripture and community situation Past, present, future read in light of Scripture Passages may have multiple interpretations 4Q the “lion” in Nah 2:12b = Demetrius; “lion” in Nah 2:13a = Alexander Jannaeus in 4Q , 1.4-8) Inspired [=charismatic] exegesis of the prophetic secrets  To legitimize the theology and existence of the Qumran community  Pesharim not limited to Qumran Biblical text Pesher commentary “I am arousing the Chaldeans that fierce and impetuous nation” (Hab 1:6) “this refers to the Kittim [the Romans], who are indeed swift and mighty in war ” (1QpHab 59-62)

3) Allegorical interpretation – Philo of Alexandria Two-fold meaning: literal and allegorical E.g. many parts of Mosaic Law interpreted literally Only allegorical reveals the true sense Discovered by looking at the minutiae details Allegory particularly important when Something objectionable stated about God (or humans) Does not concord w/ Philo’s Platonic view of Judaism Unusual features in the text “invite” allegorization

(1) "And Cain went out from before the face of God, and dwelt in the land of Nod, opposite to Eden.“ (Quotes Gen 4:16). Now we may raise the question whether we are to take the expressions which occur in the books that have been handed down to us by Moses and to interpret them in a somewhat metaphorical sense, while the ideas which readily present themselves as derived from the names are very deficient in truth. (2) For if the living God has a face, and if he who desires to leave it can with perfect ease rise up and depart to another place, why do we repudiate the impiety of the Epicureans, or the godlessness of the Egyptians, or the mythical suggestions of which life is full? (3) For the face is a portion of an animal; but God is a whole, not a part: so that it becomes necessary to invent for him other parts also, a neck, and a chest, and hands, and moreover a belly, feet, and generative organs, and all the rest of the countless number of internal and external faculties. (4) And the fact of God's having passions like unto those of man follows of necessity from the fact of his having a form like that of man: since all those limbs are not superfluous and mere exuberances, but have been made by nature as assistants of the weakness of those who possess them, and she has adapted them in a manner suitable to and consistent with their natural necessities and offices. But the living God has need of nothing; so that as he does not at all require the assistance to be derived from the parts of the body, he cannot possibly have such parts at all. (Philo, On the Posterity of Cain and His Exile 1-4)

4) Rabbinic Midrash Exegetical practice in the rabbinic writings Midrash – both literature and exegetical technique Literature Halakah (legal) and haggadah (non-legal literature) Exegetical technique Creative explanation through mechanisms based on Etymology, wordplay, catchword, analogy  Not strictly to find “plain” sense Photo:

Middot – hermeneutical principles Seven principles of Hillel (t.Sanh. 7.11)* 1) qal wahomer (lesser to greater) – “how much more” 2) Comparing similar expressions – what applies to one applies to both 3) Same phrase in many verses – what is found in one applies to all 4) Principle established by relating 2 verses together – applies to others 5) A law followed by specific example  only applies to specifics; A specific example followed by a law  applies more generally 6) Difficult text may be resolved by comparing it with a similar text 7) Meaning is established by context  First two principles most important Fixed text & plural meaning(s) Interpretation of Scripture in plain sense (peshat) & symbolically  No fixed “how to” exegesis – rather principles toward good result *Later extended to thirteen (Ishmael) and finally to 32 (Eliezer)

Context – Deut 21:22-23 (man put to death by hanging on a tree) Rabbi Meir says: During the time when one suffers, what expression does the Shekhinah use? As if to say [in human terms] my head is heavy on Me, my arm is heavy on Me. And if God is so grieved over the blood of the wicked that is shed, how much more so over the blood of the righteous! [Referring back to the prohibition of leaving one hanging overnight] not only of this one [a criminal,] did they [the Sages] say it, but anyone who leaves his deceased [unburied] overnight transgresses this prohibition. However, if he left him overnight for the sake of his honor, [such as] to bring him a coffin or shrouds, he does not thereby transgress. mSanh. 6.5

5) Targumim – Aramaic paraphrase Interpretative translation of Hebrew Scriptures Use in synagogue First usage by Ezra? (Neh 8:1-8) “translating* to give sense” Only three pre-AD70 Targumim (4Q156, 11Q10, 4Q157) Mishnah earliest liturgical usage He that reads the Torah may not read less than three verses; he may not read to the translator more than one verse at a time, or three in the case of the reading from the prophets; but if these three form three separate paragraphs they must read them one by one. They may omit in the reading of the Prophet, but they may not omit in the reading of the Torah. And how much may one leave out? Only so much that the translator will not have time to make a pause. (m.Meg. 4.4)  Oral translations became written down * Or explaining

Targumim and Scripture kept separate  Enabled people to understand From literal (Targum Onqelos) to near commentaries (Targum Neofiti)  Clarification of difficulties and application No claim for authority (cf. Rewritten Bible)

Then the Lord said: My spirit shall not remain in human beings forever, because they are only flesh. Their days shall comprise one hundred and twenty years. (Gen 6:3) "Behold, I have granted them a hundred and twenty years in case they might repent, but they failed to do so" (Palestinian Targum, Gen 6:3)  Paraphrase end of Targumim

Did the early Christians use and apply similar hermeneutics? Did they have completely different practices? Did they use grammatico-historical method? Allegory? What version of the OT did they use? Photo:

2.3 NT use of the OT Familiar quotes of OT in the NT? How many quotes/allusions of OT may be found in NT?* 613 (C. H. Toy) 1640 (W. Dittmar) 2500 (UBS, 1966) 4105 (E. Huehn) How can the numbers differ so drastically?** *Kaiser and Silva (2007: 95) **Only Philemon and 2-3 John do not contain any quotations or allusions to OT (Kaiser and Silva 2007: 96) Photo:

How do we determine when and how OT is “used”? Direct quotation (with or without introductory formula) Paraphrase Allusion Images and terminology NT authors were immersed in OT and its concepts and terminology  What exactly constitutes “use” or even as an allusion?

What version of the Bible [OT] did Jesus & early Christians use? LXX used often At times paraphrase of LXX or other Greek versions Independent translation of Hebrew text (Matt 8:17/Isa 53:4) Aramaic Targums (Rom10:5-10/Deut10:5-10) Approximate quotes; free use; paraphrase; deliberate alterations Mark 1:3/Isa40:3  Sometimes difficult to know exactly

What interpretative methods were used? Disputes over classification To what extent original intent/context (of OT) was taken into consideration? Quotations/stringing of OT (1Kgs 2:27; 2Chr 35:12; 1QS 5:15; 8:14; Philo de migr. 118) No chapter or verse divisions until later* Introductory formulas (not always used): “Scripture says…” “Holy Spirit spoke through Isaiah” (Rom 11:2; Mk 12:26; Acts 28:25) “It is written…” (Matt 4:4; Mk 12:26) Scripture compared to rabbinic tradition (Matt 15:1-11; 22:39) *Stephen Langton added chapter divisions in AD 1227 and Robert Stephanus introduced verses to NT in AD 1551

Stringing of passages [to establish “testimony of the two” (Deut 19:15)] Catch word (“stone” “chosen”, 1 Pet 2:6-9) Composite/merged citations Rom (Rom 3:10-18) Commentary pattern (John 12:38-40) Adaptation of scriptural wording:  see also Rom 10:11//Isa 28:16 [Everyone (Gk. pas)/He who believes]* Gen 21:10 Gal 4:30 10 Therefore she said to Abraham, “Drive out this maid and her son, for the son of this maid shall not be an heir with my son Isaac.” (Gen 21:10) 30 But what does the Scripture say? “cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman.” (Gal 4:30) *Also more complex sections 1 Cor 2:9; 2 Cor 6:16-18

Sample passages – NT use of OT 8 I am not speaking these things according to human judgment, am I? Or does not the Law also say these things? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.” God is not concerned about oxen, is He? 10 Or is He speaking altogether (Gk. pantos [altogether/certainly]) for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops. (1 Cor 9:8-10) How is OT used and interpreted? Is this… an allegory qal wahomer application of a principle something else?

17 And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book and found the place where it was written, 18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives, And recovery of sight to the blind, To set free those who are oppressed, 19 To proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.” 20 And He closed the book, gave it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him. 21 And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” (Lk 4:18-21 & Isa 61:1-2 and 58:6) Direct application of the passage as a Christological fulfillment See also Lk 7:21-23 & Isa 35:5-6

15 Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a man’s covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it. 16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed (Gk. sperma; [Hb. zera]). He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ. 17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. 19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. 20 Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one. 21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants (Gk. sperma]), heirs according to promise. (Gal 3:15-29; Gen 13:14-16) **Abraham story assumed – argument against judaizers (Christ=seed) OT context: “seed/offspring” [Hb. zera] collective noun (cf. fish) Gen 13:14-16 – promise only to Abraham’s physical seed/offspring (plural meaning of zera)* Paul ceases on the grammatical possibility/flexibility of the collective noun zera/sperma Christocentric exegesis of Paul similar to Qumran and rabbinic “atomism”***  Supports Paul’s argument against judaizers – Christ is seed, believers offspring in Christ ** See esp. Enns 2008: *Abraham will have more than one offspring ***Similar ideas of double meaning, see “Nazarene” [Gk. Nazoraios//Hb. netzer] (Matt 2:23//Jdg 13:5, 7 LXX; Isa 11:1; 60:21; Ellis 2002: 76)

19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained [prosetethē] through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. (Gal 3:19) 53 you who received the law as ordained [elabete] by angels, and yet did not keep it.” (Acts 7:53; cf. Heb 2:2-3) No mention of angelic mediation of the Law in OT (Ex 31:18; Dt 9:10) Ambiguity and textual versions of Deut 33:2* Paul and Luke may have… Adapted Deut 33:2 (LXX) and/or used current interpretative practices (Jub ) [OR use unknown HB. textual variant or unknown oral tradition of the rabbis] * See esp. Enns 2008:

“The Lord came from Sinai, And dawned on them from Seir; He shone forth from Mount Paran, And He came from the midst of ten thousand holy ones [Hb. qodesh*]; At His right hand there was flashing lightning for them. (Deut 33:2, NASB) The LORD came from Sinai and dawned over us from Seir; he hastened from Mount Paran with myriads of Kadesh on his right hand, angels with him (Deut 33:2, LXX)  Only talks about angels being present at Mt. Sinai [not mediating the Law] * Usual meaning holy, holy thing, holy area (e.g. Temple)

14 So Joseph got up and took the Child and His mother while it was still night, and left for Egypt. 15 He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called My Son.” (Matt 2:14-15 and Hos 11:1) OT reference = Retrospective of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt NT = reference to Jesus escaping to Egypt, coming back as Herod died How did Matthew connect the two? General context of Hosea & fulfillment in Jesus – comparison of two sons [typology] God loved Israel [son] – deliverance – idols & disobedience – forgiven Jesus [Son] came out of Egypt, fully obedience, put to death but brought forgiveness  Jesus perfectly fulfilled the role of the Son [=Israel] that Israel never did  Matthew’s use of OT acceptable to his Jewish audience

Typological interpretation (Gk. typos) Events, persons, institutions in patterns repeated throughout redemptive history (esp. Matthew and Hebrews) Levitical sacrificial system and Christ’s sacrifice Historical correspondence and escalation Type-antitype or foreshadowing (Exodus, flood, plagues) Assumes God’s sovereignty over history and events Matt 2:17 & Jer 31:15 Maternal grief of Rachel** over death of Israel Herod’s bloodshed of killing children  Pattern implies divine hand & Jesus’ Messiahship “speaking of His departure [Gk. exodon]” (Lk 9:31) *Other typological passages: John 19:36//Ex 12:46/Num 9:12; Matt 2:15//Hos 11:1; Rom 9:25-26//Hos 1:10; 2:23 **Rachel, the favored wife of Jacob [=Israel, Gen 35:10] was the matriarch par excellence of Israel. She is depicted in Jer 31:15 as weeping for her children; i.e. she personifies the sorrow over the children of Israel as they are killed and deported to Assyria. In Matthew 2:17 the same text is applied to the murder of innocent children by Herod. The purpose was to destroy baby Jesus. There seems to be a typological correspondence over “maternal weeping” during the violence of Exile and the violence by Herod. In both cases there was a “rescue plan” by God in the midst of/despite sorrow. In Jer 31:15 God rescued/will rescue remnant of Israel and in Matt God rescued Jesus [embodying Israel] from Herod.

Interpretative assumptions of NT writings Jesus as fulfillment of Scripture (John 5:39; 1 Cor 15:3-9) 25 And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures. (Lk 24:25-27) Inaugurated fulfillment (cf. Qumran) New age of fulfillment has been inaugurated BUT not yet fully consummated  Fullness of Messianic age and blessing yet to come

Corporate solidarity – “one in many” In contrast to western individualism In Christ, in Adam (1 Cor 15:22; Rom 5) “baptism into Moses” or Christ “one flesh” marriage (Eph 5:29-32; Matt 19:5)

Typology – divine pattern in history Divine correspondence of past and present Events, persons, institutions Divine patterns to reveal His will Climactic events in Israel’s past as paradigms for future Exodus language and return from Exile (Isa 43:16-19; 40:3-4) Christ-event corresponds to past divine patterns Not an illustration, quotation or prediction (in traditional sense) Divine perspective of history Photo:

Contested patterns, categories, and definitions Can we talk about sensus plenior (deeper meaning) in Scripture? Deeper meaning not intended by human author but intended by God – deeper meaning is discovered only in light of later revelation Meaning revealed to NT authors in light of the God’s foreknowledge Typology – did human author foresee the future pattern (antitype)? Not at all; dimly; clearly Known only by the divine author In what sense is the OT context considered by NT authors? Fully; Christological proof-texting; to some extent Did NT authors use (some/any) Jewish interpretative methods? Rewritten Scripture, pesher, allegory, midrash

Should the apostolic hermeneutics be replicated today? Depends on understanding of interpretative methods 1) NT authors used OT in a way we use (no use of pesher, midrash) NT authors used (more or less) grammatico-historical method 2) NT uniquely inspired to use their methods (pesher, midrash) We cannot replicate same methods, except when literal meaning 3) NT authors used Second Temple Jewish methods We should not replicate them but use ones appropriate presently 4) NT authors used various charismatic and literalist methods Similar approaches used in Pentecostal-charismatic circles

2.4 Biblical Hermeneutics in the Early Church How did biblical interpretation continue after apostles? Hermeneutics of the Early Church Fathers [c. AD ] Important hermeneutical challenges and landmarks Marcion rejected OT and formulated his own canon (2nd century AD) Gnostic-type groups – reinterpretation of OT and apostolic doctrine NT language with different meaning (gnosis, pleroma, sophia, aletheia) Emergence and finalization of the canon (AD )

Early interpreters Main methods – typology, allegory, literal Justin Martyr – allegory/typology and universal logos fulfilled in Christ Epist. Barnabas – OT & allegory; temple/sacrifices mistakes of Judaism Water from the rock – allegory of Christian baptism; red heifer type of Christ Ignatius of Antioch – “it is written” of Christ; more literal approach Irenaeus – literal and allegorical Context, genre, rest of Scripture, regula fidei, unity of the Testaments Good Samaritan – injured man = Adam; inn = Church; Good Sam. = Christ

Alexandrian school [Egypt] – Allegory Influenced by Platonism (idealism) and stoicism (logos) Platonic reality combined with stoic rationality  Hyponoia (thought underneath) and allegorical interpretation Framework to interpret Scripture [per Philo] Clement of Alexandria (AD ) and Origen (AD ) Literal and spiritual (allegorical) meaning different Text was a vehicle for understanding divine reality Message coherent and rational (per Stoic thinking) Photo:

Antiochene school [Antioch, Syria] – literal meaning Influenced by Aristotle – reality discovered by senses Insight – find properties of object by classifying and finding them Theodore of Mopsuestia (AD ); Diodore of Tarsus (330-90)* Literal meaning, grammar, historical context Prophets read in historical context primarily Emphasis on insight (theoria); discover spiritual truth = literal meaning Did not disregard genre and metaphorical language Jews of Antioch not influenced by Philo – more literal approach Antioch – truth from “below” via literal meaning of Scripture Alexandria – truth from “above”; divine reality as starting point  Not all Antiochenes rejected allegory and some Alexandrians used literal method (or chastened versions of allegory) *Founder of Antiochene school (Thiseloton 2009: 109)

Origen on Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem & cleansing of Temple Inconsistences b/w Gospels apparent – look for spiritual meaning Different accounts [deliberately changed] reveal divine purposes (X )* Spiritual exegesis shows the true harmony of the Gospels (X.6.27) Cleansing of the Temple – true meaning = doing away with sacrifices Three senses of the Scripture understood via anthropology Body = literal sense [for simple or immature] Soul = moral meaning [more advanced] Spirit = true divine reality [highest realm]  Exegesis is like a ladder that moves through the stages Importance of Christ’s power to move from literal to spiritual sphere Bible full of mysteries and obscurities High Priest “rent his clothes” – displayed his shame & nakedness of his soul What controls meaning and interpretation? “rule of faith”, rules of allegorical interpretation, spiritual effect on the reader *Origen’s commentary on John

Theodore of Mopsuestia – entry to Jerusalem & Temple cleansing Roots exegesis on literal and historical as much as possible Inconsistencies in Gospel accounts – order of accounts, not chronological John 2:17* not prophecy but characteristic activity of righteous man (=zeal) Scripture explained by its context – in John 2:15-17 suitability (cf. “patience of Job”) Agrees with Origen that Temple cleaning points to ending sacrifice Rationale different – symbolic act or foreshadowing Accepted Christological reading of Ps 2 and 110; typology & restrained allegory Numerous commentaries w/ “introductions” (author, date, structure etc.) Rejected Psalm titles and dated some Psalms to Maccabean period  Strong view of inspiration Condemned of Nestorian heresy – few works survived  Augustine – middle path between Antioch and Alexandria *Ps 69:9

2.5 Biblical Hermeneutics in Medieval era (AD ) Emphasis on allegory without excluding literal sense Monastic-spiritual, technical, and theological-dogmatic approaches Great patristic writers utilized as a guide and model (Origen, Augustine etc.) Four-fold sense of Scripture – from Origen’s three senses “there was one man” (1 Sam 1:1; Venerable Bede AD ) First level = Elkanah (literal) Second level = unity of the elect (allegorical) Third level = man who is not double-tongued (tropological/moral) Fourth level = Christ (anagogical = hope/eschatology) “the outward form of God’s Word…may seem to you like dirt [but merits] learning carefully what it tells you.” (Hugh of St. Victor, On the Script [c. AD ])

Peter Lombard ( ) Historical and literal interpretation of Paul E.g. 1 Cor 14:34-36 & 1 Cor 7:1 contingent on historical situation Criticized for lack of spirituality and being too “scientific” Bonaventura ( ) Theological and doctrinal exposition focusing on Trinity and HS Distinctive functions of Law, Wisdom, and prophetic books Scripture as a river into which many streams flow Thomas of Aquinas ( ) Most important and influential Medieval philosopher and theologian Holy Spirit as author of Bible Importance of literal & linguistic diversity – literal sense foundation Other senses could be used sensibly but not to prove a doctrine “scientific” expositor of Scripture – historical situation, genre etc.

Nicolas of Lyra ( ) Literal meaning of Scripture – verse-by-verse commentaries Knowledge of Hebrew and rabbinic exegesis Priority to literal meaning for doctrine Toward Reformation – John Wycliffe ( ) Sough authority for reforms from Scripture – highest authority Provides test for Church councils and experience Rejected authority of Pope and transubstantiation due to Bible Interpretation needs to follow intention of divine author Scripture sufficient guidance for the church Literal meaning though includes metaphor (Lion of Judah, Rev 5:5) Also moral/allegorical sense Translation of Bible into English and commentaries on biblical book  Paved the way to Reformation

2.6 Reformation and Biblical Hermeneutics Move to literal interpretation of Scripture (from four-fold) “My Conscience is captive to the Word of God” (Luther, 1521) Luther’s experience of grace tied to his study of Scripture Background of rediscovery of classics and classical languages Novum Instrumentum (1516, Erasmus of Rotterdam) Reformation principles of Scripture Sola Scriptura – not authority of Pope, church or councils Tradition not completely rejected – subjected to Scripture Guardrail that bring stability Clarity of Scripture (perspicuitas) – no need for complex systems/Pope Scripture interprets Scripture – no external authority needed Scripture needs to be studied with care and vigor

Ultimate purpose of Bible is salvation – not knowledge Luther, Melanchton, Calvin, Zwingli… German and Swiss reformers parted way Luther wrote commentaries and considered Bible infallible Disliked and criticized Revelation and James (“Epistle of straw”) Reformers rejected four-fold sense and focused on… Grammatico-historical method & authorial intent Clarity*, ordinary, historical sense Christological unity of the Bible Translation of the Bible into vernacular *Luther pointed out that Bible is clear enough for action – but that also commentaries to clarify its meaning (Thiselton 2009: 129)

Luther – gospel centered on “justification by faith” Law-gospel distinction (diminished authority of Law for Christians) J. Calvin focused on God’s sovereignty Covenant theology and importance of Law for Christians Emphasis on the “mind of the author” Theory and practice in Reformation hermeneutics Grammatico-historical method not always applied in practice Luther often resorted to allegory for OT interpretation Anabaptist interpreted more consistently Abandoned infant baptism and state church, and modify church hierarchy  Sola Scriptura and lack of anchor into interpretative tradition were seized by rationalists (overemphasis on reason) and pietists (overemphasis on experience)

2.7 Post-Reformation Biblical Hermeneutics Protestant Scholasticism – when “love grows cold” Theology after Luther and Calvin Tendency toward cold rationality and heated debates Melanchthon ( ) & Calixtus ( ) Doctrinal minimalists under the authority of Scripture Flacius ( ) and Calovius ( ) Compromise one doctrine, compromise all Textus receptus and Masoretes’ vowels divinely inspired  Aristotelian logic to support & exegesis as apologetics Roman Catholics – Vulgate divinely inspired Dogma trumped biblical interpretation until Vatican II (1962) Laity incapable of understanding Scripture w/o clergy guidance

Pietism/Revivalism – reaction to rationalism & dogmatism Revitalization of spiritual and devotional life (17th century) Philip J. Spener ( ) & August H. Francke ( ) John Wesley & Jonathan Edwards Importance of personal faith and conversion Practical, personal Bible study – importance of community* Literalist, “common sense” approach Sometimes historical meaning only “husk” – true Word spiritual** At times neglected exegesis/doctrine & resorted to allegory Typology (esp. J. Edwards) *Thus especially Spener & Francke (Thiselton 2009: 134) **Thus A. Francke (Thiselton 2009: 134)

Rationalism, modernism, and fundamentalism Emergence of rationalism and Enlightenment Rise of modern science and industrial revolution “exodus from self-incurred immaturity, from inability to use one’s own understanding without the tutelage of another person” (I. Kant, 1784)*  Impact on hermeneutics & study of Scripture – God omitted as author of Bible Bernard Spinoza - Tractatus theologico-Politicus (1670) Primacy of reason in interpretation of Scripture Scripture should be studied like any other book God’s intervention – common Jewish way of speaking, not revelation Horace Bishnell ( ) Natural growth of faith in children – decline in revivalism & evangelism All religious terms symbolical and poetical  Not a rationalist in a strict sense *In Thiselton 2009: 138.

Birth of historical-critical approach Precedent in Spinoza & evolutionary developmentalism 1st proponents: R. Simon ( ); J. Astruc ( ) J. Semler* ( ) Exclusively historical understanding of the Bible Scientific “objective” study of history Principles of historical study of the Bible (Ernst Troeltsch, 1898) Principles of criticism, analogy, correlation** “normal, usual, widely attested” Emphasis on historical evolution – “primitive” to “advanced” Focus on historical development, not text itself  source & tradition criticism Value of the Bible ethical, not historical or theological Julius Welhausen (1878) – documentary hypothesis F. C. Baur ( )*** – antagonism b/w Paul and Peter (1831) Gospels/Acts written 2nd century & most Paul’s letter pseudonymous Adolf Harnack (1901) What is Christianity? Fatherhood of God and brotherhood of men – love commandment Detractors of rationalism: J. Wesley; E. W. Hengstenberg ( ) More moderate critics: B. F. Westcott ( ) & J.B. Lightfoot ( ) *Resisted the imposition of dogmatic theology to exegesis **Criticism = methodological skepticism & applying probability judgments to historic events; analogy = for historical event to be considered true or reliable, there must be an analogous event in the present world of experiences (nothing is unique in final sense); correlation = all events are connected with causation (interconnectedness of all events). ***Baur (1853) considered only Rom, 1-2 Cor, and Gal as genuinely Pauline.

Princetonian Orthodoxy and Fundamentalism Response to rationalism and rise of biblical criticism Princetonian orthodoxy B.B. Warfield ( ); C. Hodge; J. G. Machen Defense of revelation and “infallibility of Scripture” Critical of liberalism and revivalism  Paved way to Fundamentalism Fundamentalism – “militant” reaction to liberalism Advances of science viewed as a threat to faith – concern for truth The Fundamentals Dispensationalism: D.L. Moody, R. torrey, C. I. Scofield ( ) Inerrancy as “litmus test” for orthodoxy Bible supernatural revelation, but miracles denied at present Strictly literal interpretation of Scripture  Influenced present-day evangelicalism & Pentecostalism

3.1 Where to go from here? Is there an authoritative biblical hermeneutic for all time? How to determine the correct method? What methods or approaches have… Been used throughout centuries? Have enduring validity? Have been found wanting or are liable to excesses? What historical interpretative tradition has influenced me most in my approach to Scripture?

THE 611 BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "THE 611 BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

THE 611 BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "THE 611 BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback