History of christian interpretaion Essay Example For Students

History of christian interpretaion Essay A Brief History of Christian InterpretationFrom Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, by Klein, Blomberg, and HubbardaPATRISTIC PERIOD (a.d. 100-590)From the death of the Apostle John until Pope Gregory I, 590 a.d. Patristic in that it features the contributions of the so-called Church Fathers. The period in which the N.T. canon was developed, O.T. was still the primary authoritative collection of scriptures. In later years, church tradition began to exercise significant influence on the definition of church doctrine. This period ended when the church councils finally agreed upon the contents of the Christian canon. Three subperiods:1.Apostolic Fathers (a.d. 100-150)A.Select authors: Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas (pseudonym)B.Select writings: Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, Epistle to DiognetiusC.Two purposes:1.To instruct believers in Christian doctrine2.To defend the faith against Jewish argumentsD.Four major approaches:1.Typology e.g. Clement saw the scarlet color of the cloth that Rahab hung in Jericho to signal Joshuas spies as a foreshadowing of the blood of Jesus (1 Clement 12:7). 2.Allegory a.Seeing spiritual significance in every detail of a passage. b. Barnabas saw the seven days of creation as a key to understanding the future six days indicate the world will last six thousand years, seventh day symbolizes the second coming of Christ, followed by the eighth day the beginning of another world (15:3-9) c.Allegory was the most popular way to interpret literature generally in that period. 3.Midrash a complex interpretive approach developed earlier by the Jewish rabbis that found symbolic significance in every word and phrase of the O.T. It followed a carefully devised set of rules which to todays readers appear to be little more than manipulation of the text to suit ones interests. In the originating period, however, the intent of the rabbis was to find the practical significance behind the scriptures so they could be applied to life situations not addressed in the plain sense of a passage. 4.Tradition a.When the Gnostics appeared in the 2nd-3rd centuries, they supported their heresies by appealing to so-called sayings of Jesus that he had taught his disciples in private and that only the most spiritual could comprehend. Given the fact that the complete Christian canon was still in development, many Christian leaders felt disadvantaged in combating Gnostic heresies. Their only recourse to rebut the heresies was to appeal the authority of traditions believed to have been handed down from the apostles. b.This established a new hermeneutical principle of church tradition that dominated until it was challenged centuries later during the Reformation. 2.Alexandria vs. Antioch (a.d. 150-400)A.Two centers of Christian instruction dominated during this time, each of having their distinct approach to hermeneutics, Alexandria in Egypt and Antioch of Syria. B.Alexandria in Egypt1.Promoted the allegorical method among Jews and philosophers through an influential school, continuing the tradition of Philo, a popular Jewish scholar from the intertestamental period. 2.Allegory assigning spiritual significance to every detail of a passage. 3.Clement of Alexandria (a.d. 190-203)a.Taught that every scripture had two meanings, analogous to a human being:1)Literal (like the human body)2)Spiritual or hidden (like the human soul)3)The literal sense is but a pointer to its underlying spiritual truth. b.The classic example is Clements interpretation of the prodigal son: the robe the father gave to the returned prodigal represents immortality; the shoes represent the upward progress of the soul; and the fatted calf represents Christ as the source of spiritual nourishment for Christians. 4.Origen (a.d. 185-254) Clements successora.Origen expanded upon Clement, by saying that just as humans consist of body, soul, and spirit, so Scripture has a threefold meaning. 1)Body literal meaning2)Soul spiritual meaning (Origen refined this into a doctrinal sense, i.e. truths about the nature of the church and the Christians relationship to God)3)Spirit moral meaning (i.e. ethical instructions about the believers relationships to others)b.An example is the sexual relations between Lot and his daughters (Genesis 19:30-38). The literal sense was that it actually happened. The moral meaning is that Lot represents the rational mind, his wife the flesh inclined to pleasures, and the daughters vai nglory and pride. Applying these three yields the spiritual (or doctrinal) meaning: Lot represents the O.T. law, the daughters represent Jerusalem and Samaria, and the wife represents the Israelites who rebelled in the wilderness. c.For those who argued that this approach took liberties with the text, Origen contended that God has inspired the allegorical meaning into his writing. Thus, what Origen considered the deepest meaning of Scripture was already implicit in Scripture, not something invented by the interpreter. 5.This approach sparked a reaction by other church leaders, which led to the founding of another school. C.Antioch of Syria1.Founded in the 4th century a.d., it promoted what we now call the grammatico-historical method of interpretation: that every passage has one plain simple meaning conveyed by its grammar and words. 2.Chief instructorsa.Theodore of Mopsuestia (a.d. 350-428)b.Theodoret (a.d. 393-460)c.John Chrysostom (a.d. 347-407) sermons show the application of this method to preaching. 3.They did not minimize spiritual sense of application of a text, but believed that there was a direct correspondence between a texts historical meaning and its spiritual applications. 4.Example: Song of Solomon was not an allegory symbolizing Christs love for the church of the Christians devotion to Christ, but was a love poem written by Solomon to celebrate his marriage to an Egyptian princess. 5.While these interpreters were more careful to preserve Scriptures historical sense, they sometimes slipped into allegorizing. 3.The Church Councils (a.d. 400-590)A.When the Roman emperor Constantine was converted in 312 a.d., he believed that doctrinal disputes among Christians threatened the empires political stability. So he pressured the church to settle differences and standardize its disputed doctrines. B.This proved difficult, in that both unorthodox and orthodox groups supported their views from Scripture, and even orthodox theologians could not agree on how to interpret Scripture, as the conflict between Alexandria and Antioch demonstrates. C.This led orthodox church leaders, under Constantine, to argue that only they, the apostles successors, were the true interpreters of Scripture since only they had received the apostolic teaching. To implement this principle, they convened a series of church councils to define official church doctrine. D.In effect, it raised the authority of tradition above that of Scripture. E.Augustine (a.d. 397) articulates this method in On Christian Doctrine. 1.According to Augustine, to interpret the Bible correctly, one must find out what the original writer intended to say. In cases where this is not clear, there are three criteria for finding the correct meaning:a.First, consult the rule of faith (what clearer passages of Scripture say on the subject). b.Second, consult the authority of the Church, or the churchs traditional interpretation of the text. c.Third, if conflicting views meet both criteria, consult the context to see which view commends itself best. 2.In other words, plainer passages and church tradition take precedence over the contexts of obscure passages. 3.Thus, the accepted church tradition, not a reasoned study of Scripture, became the ultimate interpreter of the Bible. F.Another event at the end of the patristic period that solidified the grip of tradition on interpretation was Jeromes translation of the O.T., N.T., and the Apocrypha into Latin (a.d. 331-420). 1.This translation from Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, known as the Vulgate (Lat., common), became the official Bible of the church. The study of the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek ceased for all practical purposes. 2.This was unfortunate, because in some instances, the Vulgate was not as accurate in reflecting the original languages (e.g. Luke 1:28, Hail Mary, full of grace, contrast to NIV). 3.Thus, the church moved still another step away from dependence upon the Scripture itself for its teachings. THE MIDDLE AGES (a.d. 590-1500)As the name implies, the Middle Ages is the historical era that falls between two other major periods. It flows out of the Patristic Period, dominated by the church fathers and councils, and flows into the Reformation. Popular impression sees the period as dark and oppressive, which is partly accurate. There was widespread ignorance, and morally bankrupt church leaders stopped at nothing to preserve their ecclesiastical power. 1.Three approaches typify this period:A.Church Tradition 1.Preserved through the written Catena, or chain of interpretations compiled from the commentaries of the Church Fathers. Exegesis was synonymous with tradition, as the good commentator was one who faithfully passed on what he had received. 2.Interpretive Gloss an offspring of the catena, consisted of annotations or commentaries from the Fathers written in the margin or between the lines of the Bible. Eventually, these glosses were collected into the Glossa Ordinaria, the standard medieval commentary on the Bible. B.Allegorical the dominant method1.This method was expanded beyond Origens threefold sense of Scripture to the belief that every Bible text had four meanings:a.Literal (historical)b.Allegorical (doctrinal)c.Moral (or tropological)d.Anagogical (eschatological)2.A popular rhyme from the Middle Ages summarizes them:The letter shows us what God and our fathers did;The allegory shows us where our faith is hid;The moral meaning gives us the rules of daily life;The anagogy shows us where we end our strife. 3.Example: JerusalemLiteral: the ancient Jewish cityAllegorical: the Christian churchMoral: the faithful soulAnagogical: the heavenly cityC.Historical / Scholastic1.This limited its concerns to the literal meaning of the text, the first level of allegory, drawing primarily often on Jewish interpretation and the work of Jerome, who emphasized scriptures literal meaning. 2.Primary figure: Andrew of St. Victor, 12th century3.Scholasticism, a strict historical/literal approach, representing a pre-Renaissance intellectual awakening in Europe that began in monasteries and later spread to universities, emerged during this time. Its main concern was to sort out the relationship between the Christian faith and human reason. 4.During this time, there was the rediscovery of pre-Christian philosophers such as Aristotle. 5.Aristotle was the primary tool of scholastics, with his method of logical analysis and syllogisms. 6.Key figures: a.Anselm, Peter of Abelardb.The most articulate spokesman for scholasticism was the brilliant Christian thinker, Thomas Aquinas. His massive Summa Theologica synthesized the intellectual fruits of three centuries of intense academic discussion. It gave the Christian faith a rational, systematic expression, and eventually became the standard summary of theology in the Roman Catholic Church. Aquinas emphasized the importance of the literal meaning of scripture. For him it represented the basis of which the other senses (allegorical, anagogical, etc.) rested. He argued that the literal sense of Scripture contained everything necessary to faith. In effect, he freed theology from its long historical slavery to the allegorical method. 2.The Middle Ages witnessed the decline of the allegorical approach in the Church. The scholastic emphasis on the use of reason in interpretation underscored the subjectivity of allegory and undermined confidence in its validity. The application of philosophical tools to theology tended to anchor the interpretation of Scripture to more rational, objective moorings. On the other hand, practitioners of allegory still abounded in the church, and dependence upon traditional interpretation remained heavy. Different Forms Of Government EssayC.The rest of the 20th century witnessed a number of developments in biblical study, most of which were an expansion on one of the trends of history. 1.The application of the scientific method to historical research evolved to the point that some conducted little more than academic autopsies on scripture, treating scripture like a cadaver with literary parts for dissecting. Tedious analysis, even to the point of dissecting the origins of syllables in words, was conducted. Various types of criticism emerged, many that still have value if freed from radical rationalistic assumptions. 2.There also were approaches that were not quite as extreme, but which nonetheless discounted the historical reliability of scripture. Scholars such as the Swiss country pastor, Karl Barth, and the German theologian, Rudolf Bultmann, are representatives. a.Barth lambasted many of the mistakes of liberalism and tried to reemphasize the authority of the Word of God. His sermons and writings reflect penetrating biblical interpretation. Yet, he did not believe the miracles and stories were intended to be historical, but were intentional myths that conveyed theological truth in historical dress. God communicated in these myths because it is the only way fallen man could encounter a being so transcendent. The Bible is simply a conduit for a personal encounter with God, the myth being necessary to facilitate the experience. Once a person has the encounter, the Bible becomes the Word of God to that person. The Bible is a tool to be utilized subjectively to deepen the personal encounter, so there is no need to look for a coherent, objective stream of truth. This view is referred to as Neo-orthodoxy. b.Bultmann, believed that the prevailing scientific worldview had undermined the faith of many intelligent Christians. They had trouble believing the Bible because of all its mythological elements. He distinguished between the Jesus of History (the person who actually lived) and the Christ of Faith (the person represented in Christian preaching). By using scientific method, he identified the parts of scripture he thought were myth such as miracle stories, and tried to separate them from the kernels of actual history. This was referred to as demythologizing the text. Once the text was demythologized, one could discover the true message that was couched in the now outmoded myth. He did not believe the Bible contained much objective information, and that the reader could reject anything that was not scientific. The purpose of Bible study is to allow its understanding of human existence to clarify ones own existence. Built upon existential philosophy, which emphasizes the anxiety and hop elessness in human life, Bultmann believed if a person first acknowledges their unauthentic existence, they can go to the Bible to gain subjective insight that makes their lives more authentic. 3.Later efforts, such as the quest for this historical Jesus, and the so-called new hermeneutic built upon Bultmann. Obviously, there are many pitfalls, but the attempt of Bultmann to bring the text into human life has had a lasting impact that continues even today. 4.In reaction to this liberalism, scholars such as C. H. Dodd, T.W. Manson, and Vincent Taylor ably defended the substantial historical reliability of the Gospels and other sections of scripture. Another movement sprang up after World War II, called the Biblical Theology Movement. It sought to utilize scientific method to challenge and overthrow liberalism. Among other things, it emphasized the unity of the Bible as a whole, its historical reliability, and how the Bible surpassed the mentality of its ancient environment (which implied its divine origin). 3.Post-modern Era (CG)A.The post World-War II era is often referred to as Post-Modern. Essentially, it means After Modernism, modernism meaning an era dominated by science and the scientific method, in all of its forms. The atrocities of World War II, the ecological disasters brought on by industrialization, the moral decadence of the 70s, the failures of technology (such as the Challenger disaster), and many other factors have cast doubt on the supremacy of science and the possibilities of human achievement. Modernism has failed, forcing man to acknowledge his imperfection. Recent history has shown that man cannot master his environment, he cannot create the perfect society, and he cannot be trusted to be purely objective in his scientific endeavors. B.The problem is that while postmodernism disparages science, it puts nothing else in its place. It rejects the idea that there is an all-encompassing framework that helps us to understand everything. With modernism, there was a coheren t framework in which everything was to be understood, science. This even carried over to how we interpreted literature. There was the belief that the rational human being, applying scientific method, could stand above any written document and determine its objective meaning, even to the point of rejecting anything that was not scientifically verifiable (e.g. miracles). Postmodernism, however, is much less confident of man and his abilities. C.There is some validity to this. Postmodernism helps us to see the limitations of humanity and her bold experiment with science. Science never was capable of serving as the all-encompassing framework for understanding the universe. But it is equally as dangerous to reject the notion of objectivity and truth altogether. This is what postmodernism has done. Like modernism, it has left man to himself. But unlike modernism, it presents no hope in the possibility that anything else can give life its ultimate meaning. D.One strain of postmodernism in literature is the idea of deconstructionism. Deconstructionism, most often traced back to the French philosopher Derrida, asserts that all things written emerge out of a political bias. Objective, factual stories do not exist. Writers of history, literature, philosophy, etc., perhaps unconsciously, use language to empower their political bias. This language advances those within their system, and marginalizes, and perhaps oppresses, those outside their system. It captures and expresses only part of the story. The task of todays interpreter is, therefore, to deconstruct the story, ridding it of the bias used in its original construction, resulting in a phenomenon called revisionism. Revisionism is where a reader seeks to detect the bias employed by the original author, and then revises the story using a new lens, the bias of the reader. It is not that the original story was untrue, but that it represented one truth, as to where the revision sets forth another truth. This approach has spawned the revisionist theologies of the gay movement, feminists, and liberationists. RESTORATION MOVEMENT (NOT from Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard)1.Began and continues as an attempt to practice a pure New Testament Christianity, acknowledging proper distinctions between O.T. and N.T., disavowing human authority in religion, emphasizing priesthood of all believers, autonomy of the church, and achieving unity through restoration.2.Exists now as three separate movements. Churches of Christ (Non-instrumental) Separated from the above group in the early 1900s over issues such as the musical instrument and missionary societies. -Principle: Whatever is not expressly authorized in scripture is forbidden.-Grammatical-Historical approach to the text, and apply the text to determine church practice by extracting 1) divine command, 2) approved apostolic example, 3) necessary inference. Christian Churches / Churches of Christ (Instrumental) -Principle: Whatever is not expressly forbidden in scripture is authorized.-Same basic approach to the text as Churches of Christ (non-instrumental) above with a greater emphasis on piety, and more embracing of theological diversity on non-essentials.Disciples of Christ Gradual distinction from the Christian Church / Churches of Christ (Instrumental) began in the late 1940s, primarily over the influence of liberal theology in Disciples schools and ministers. EVALUATING THE MAJOR APPROACHESOBSERVATION: The assumptions of t he age tend to overwhelm ones approach to scripture. EVALUATION OF ALLEGORICAL METHOD1.It minimizes or discounts the historical sense of scripture, placing emphasis on hidden, subjective meanings. 2.It ignores many of the clear meanings of the original languages. 3.It destroys any objective basis for understanding truth, and is very speculative and fanciful. 4.It should not be followed unless scripture expressly describes itself as an allegory (e.g. Galatians 4:21-31; Matthew 13:18-23). EVALUATION OF LITERALISM (e.g. School of Antioch)1.Begins admirably as a real attempt to draw from scripture its original meaning. 2.There is the danger of hyper-literalism (commanding to be baptized straightway like the Philippian jailor in Acts 16). 3.Often has an accompanying unwillingness to make application, which may not be the fault of the method itself, but of the intentions of the interpreter. EVALUATION OF SCHOLASTICISM (e.g. Thomas Aquinas)1.Places religion and philosophy side-by-side, and blurs the distinction. 2.Tends to ignore history and the original language meanings in view of integrating ones theology with philosophy. 3.Often becomes little more than an attempt to provide intellectual strength for previously held assumptions. EVALUATION OF PIETISM (e.g. Spener, Wesley, Edwards often called Mysticism)1.Begins as an attempt to rescue the text from dogmatism and heresy-hunting and restore its value as spiritual food. 2.Tends to do less actual interpretation and explanation and overwhelms the text with pious reflection. 3.Often ignores the doctrinal import of many passages. EVALUATION OF RATIONAL-HISTORICAL-CRITICAL (including classical liberalism)1.Provides some excellent means of discovering important features and backgrounds that are important to correct understanding. 2.Easily slips into treating scripture as a cadaver to be dissected rather than the living Word of God to be understood and obeyed. 3.Often begins with the presuppositions of naturalism (i.e. no supernatural, miracles, etc.). 4.Often minimizes the Bible as a human document that evolved over time, denying Gods inspiration and intervention. EVALUATION OF NEO-ORTHODOXY (e.g. Karl Barth)1.Neo-orthodoxy begins the assumptions of liberalism above, so the same criticisms apply. 2.Often produces deep, penetrating interpretations of scripture, but (It is like a mermaid. Too much of a fish to love her as a woman, too much of a woman to eat her as a fish)3.Denies miracles as real but refers to them as if they actually happened. 4.Its view of authority is subjective, based on personal encounter. This is not to say we should be clinical with the text, as if you stand apart from it without it impacting you. But one does need to seek objective truth. EVALUATION OF POSTMODERNISM 1.Helps us to acknowledge that we are influenced by our cultural or ethnic bias in interpreting scripture, and that there are limitations to human attempts at understanding. But 2.Its view of mans rational abilities is too pessimistic, to the point of totally removing any objective basis for understanding scripture. 3.It refuses to distinguish between any system of thinking, choosing to be entirely pluralistic, denying the supremacy of the one God who has spoken clearly through his Word. EVALUATION OF RESTORATION HERMENEUTICS1.Admirable attempts and goals to return to the Bible for all religious authority over against denominational or traditional controls. 2.Often slips into proof-texting, hair-splitting, suspicion, and division.