It is helpful in understanding sound principles of biblical interpretation to know some of the history of the various schools of thought from before the Christian era and through its early development. By gaining some understanding of the principles used in history in interpreting the Scriptures can help us avoid false and spurious principles and discern the true. The alternative is ignorance which may indeed doom us to repeat the mistakes history plainly reveals.The earliest method of interpretation practiced by the Jews of Alexandria was the Allegorical method. An earlier origin of this method can be traced to Greek philosophers who employed this method to clear the logical roadblocks certain philosophers were having with the writings of Homer. In order to satisfy the “modern” Greek philosopher the religious writings of the Greeks were interpreted allegorically to remove the perceived absurdities of a literal interpretation. Likewise, the theophanies and anthropomorphisms of the Hebrew Scriptures were repulsive to the philosophers of ancient Greece. The Alexandrian Jews, such as Philo, turned to the Allegorical method in order to make the stories and descriptions of God acceptable to their culture. In similar fashion, some of the early church fathers, such as Clement of Alexandria, employed the same methods. Clement, for example, interpreted the certain food prohibitions in the Mosaic Law as emblematic of bad virtue such as the raven representing greed. While the Allegorical method sought to maintain a high view of Scripture, it did so at the expense of the normal significance of words and led the interpreters to fanciful conjecture. In the Allegorical school of interpretation the true meaning of the text is limited only by the whims and fancy of the interpreter.
Related to the allegorical method, the Mystical interpretation sought to find hidden meaning in every word of Scripture. Origen, for example, taught that since man’s nature consisted of body, soul, and spirit, the Scriptures consist of literal, moral, and spiritual meaning. The 17th century Christian mystic Emanuel Swedenborg also maintained this three-fold meaning to Scripture. He maintained that Scripture held three senses, the literal, the spiritual, and the celestial. Rather than stopping at the plain meaning of Exodus 20:13 which reads, “Thou shalt not kill” he sought a hidden or deeper meaning than the prohibition of murder to the fanciful idea that it forbids the devil from destroying man’s soul.
Not surprisingly, the Quakers employed a mystical interpretation of the Scriptures which was based on “inward light” called the Pietistic interpretation. Ironically, such internal illuminations claimed by the followers of such a method exhibit contradictory interpretations serving as a just refutation of their principles. Like the Allegorical and Mystical schools, Pietism holds a high view of Scripture but the principles employed in its interpretation are devoid of rational judgment and common sense. A Quaker-Pietist interprets the Scriptures as what seems right in his own eyes.
Perhaps as a reaction to the fanciful Mystic and Allegorical schools of interpretation, the Accommodation Theory rose out of German Rationalism. This destructive theory interpreted all accounts of miracles, the resurrection, angels and demons, heaven and hell, as accommodations to the superstitious beliefs of ancient people. Any supernatural element in Scripture was completely set aside and disregarded on the grounds that those to whom they were written lived in ignorance. This school of thought then assails the integrity of the biblical authors and the Son of God who served only to confirm their hearers in the alleged superstitions rather than deliver them from them. On this ground this school of thought utterly collapses upon itself. Rising out of such rigid rationalistic thinking was the system of Moral Interpretation foisted on the world by Immanuel Kant. Kant proposed to judge the Scriptures according to whether a moral lesson could be reasonably discerned. If no such lesson could be rationally arrived to then the interpreter was at liberty to set aside the literal and historical sense. Similar to the mystical and allegorical methods, the Moral Interpretation leaves the sense and meaning of Scripture subject to the whims and conjecture of the interpreter.
Probably the most damaging method of interpretation is the Naturalistic method. This method proposes that the interpreter should examine the Scriptures according to what is fact and opinion. All supernatural influence upon the biblical authors is rejected. Miracles and other supernatural acts recording in Scripture are rejected a priori and a naturalistic explanation is substituted. For example, this method rejects Jesus walking on water and interprets the passage as meaning He was walking on the shore. Peter didn’t actually walk on water when Jesus bid him to, but rather the boat was near enough to the shore that he would not sink. This method utterly fails on the grounds of normal rules of human speech. Thankfully, this method received no widespread influence or interest.
Not long after the Naturalistic method, David Friedrich Strauss set forth a Mythical theory in his book Life of Jesus published in 1835. Strauss’ theory was logical and self-consistent and received much interest in the Christian world at the time. This theory, based on Hegelian pantheism, denied that Christ established a Church or proclaimed the Gospel according the New Testament. Rather, it proposed that such things were the mystical creation of the Church. Strauss proposed rejecting historical biblical narratives if they could not be reconciled with known scientific laws or theory. He also proposed that if a narrative was inconsistent then it could be regarded as mythical. He felt that if the biblical authors wrote poetically or in a manner beyond their learning, then the narrative was concocted. Furthermore, he alleged that a reported event could be regarded as myth simply because it contained an uncanny agreement with Jewish Messianic ideas or was just simply unbelievable. I suppose that even those newly initiated to the faith of Christ could discern the subjective prejudice inherent in Strauss’ theory. The notion that the Apostles knowingly perpetrated a myth is outside of clear thinking and logic. Myths develop over time long after the actual events and occurrences have passed out of memory. The death and resurrection of Jesus, His miracles and teaching, were recording far too soon from the actual events themselves to be construed as myth.
Other rationalistic methods arose from the likes of F.C. Baur, Renan, Schenkel, and others offering some shade or difference from the ones mentioned before, but all sharing a naturalistic presupposition. Rarely do any of these critics agree with one another to such a degree that they destroy one another. History has already shown since Terry wrote this chapter that given enough time, such nonsense merely implodes upon itself and is swept away as dust in the wind.
Apologetic and Dogmatic methods of interpretation arose out of rationalistic and skeptical assaults on the Scriptures. Apologetics and dogma have a significant and legitimate place in sound exegesis. Terry rejects as dangerous the method to maintain a preconceived hypothesis as dogma and not merely as starting point for investigation. Any dogma of the Scriptures attested to must be defensible from Scripture alone and not on the ground of tradition. The books of the Bible must be defended logically and reasonably showing that their just due is to be regarded as the revelation of God. All facts of Scripture, no matter how difficult they may seem at times to the defender of Holy writ, must be affirmed and acknowledged. What must be rejected is irrational conclusions and false deductions.
The Grammatico-Historical method of interpretation is the most commendable of all schools. All of its principles seek to take from the Scriptures the meaning which the writers meant to convey. This school of interpretation begins with the assumption that the writers of Holy Scripture did not write with the intent of beguile or mislead their readers. It is not denied by this method that the Bible differs from other books being Divinely inspired and containing supernatural revelations, symbols, and unique claims. It does affirm that common sense and reason, as well as education, should aid our interpretation by mastering the language of the writers, understanding the manners and customs in which they wrote, and seek the scope and plan of each book of the Bible. From the moment mankind was able to communicate by language, mankind became interpreters. It is as unreasonable to employ fanciful interpretive methods upon our communications with one another as some have attempted to foist upon the sacred Scriptures.
No comments:
Post a Comment