Historical Perspective of Biblical Interpretation

Historical Perspective of Biblical Interpretation
(Part One)

It has often been said that history informs people of past events from which lessons can be learned and mistakes avoided. The point of this article and a subsequent one (part 2) is not only to survey the mass of accounts of biblical interpretation, but also to trace its practice in Africa. In my attempt to unearth the history of biblical interpretation, I will examine the principles of Jewish interpretation as a starting point. The period of the Church Fathers, the Middle Ages, the Reformation, Confessionalism, and the modern era will also be examined.

The Principles of Jewish Interpretation

The roots of the Christian faith go back to the Jews whom God chose to reveal himself to humanity. From the earliest beginnings of the faith, the Jews have played an important role in the compilation and interpretation of Yahweh’s sacred sayings. I will examine the roots of interpretation in the following categories:

the palestinian jews

This group of Jews considered the scriptures to be the infallible word of God. This perception brought with it the need to be very careful when copying each letter of the Law, Prophets or Writings. They even counted each letter to avoid getting lost in the transcription process.

Louise Berkhof observed that Palestinian Jews placed special emphasis on the interpretation of the Torah (Law) as opposed to the Prophets and the Scriptures. This was because the latter were interpretations of the former. Two types of interpretation arose from his emphasis: the first was legal in nature and dealt with matters of binding law in a strict sense known as halakhah; the second was a more edifying and free-leaning interpretation, encompassing all the non-legal parts of the scriptures. They called this Haggadah.

The Jews of Alexandria

Unlike the Palestinian Jews, the Alexandrian Jews paid more attention to the philosophy of Plato in their interpretation of the Scriptures. They argued that one should not believe anything unworthy of God, thus ignoring the literal meaning of the Scriptures. Philo, the giant leader of Alexandria, advanced the view that all scriptures must be understood allegorically. He held that the literal sense must be excluded when anything declared is of no value to God. On the other hand, the text must be allegorized when expressions are duplicated; when superfluous words are used… when there is something abnormal about the number or the time.

Apart from these two schools of Jewish interpreters, there were also the Karaites who regarded the scriptures as the only authority in matters of faith; the Kabbalists who combined literal and allegorical methods of interpretation; and the Spanish Jews who used the principles of language and exegesis in their interpretation.

Despite the apparent disparity in the Jewish interpretation mentioned above, the Jewish interpreters reached agreement on several common points. First, they believed in the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. Second, they claimed that the Torah contained all of God’s truth for the guidance of mankind. Third, Jewish exegesis considered both the plain or literal meaning and the implied meaning in its interpretation of a given Scripture passage. Finally, they hold that the purpose of all interpretation is to translate God’s word to life, thus making it relevant to people in their own particular situations.

the patristic period

The patristic period beginning with the early church and extending to the compilation of the creeds saw a significant contribution to the history of biblical interpretation. Its history can be traced from three main schools examined below:

The Alexandrian School:

The Egyptian city of Alexandria was in the early third century AD an important center of learning, where the Jewish religion and Greek philosophy met and influenced each other. Still under the influence of Platonic philosophy, the Alexandrian school of catechesis integrated philosophical analysis into biblical interpretation into its curriculum.

Alexandria’s foremost teacher, Titu Flavius ​​Clement, adopted Philo’s allegorical method and established the motto of the Alexandrian school with the words “unless you believe you shall not understand”. Taking a cue from his teacher, Origin expanded on Philo’s allegorical method. to include the triple meaning of writing: the Corporal, the Physical and the Spiritual. Beyond these, Origen held that all biblical texts have a spiritual meaning, but not all of them have a literal meaning. Therefore, if Scripture is to be interpreted, the soul must ascend from the level of the flesh to the realm of the spirit.

The School of Antioch:

In contrast to the Alexandrian school, the Antiochian school placed special emphasis on “Theoria” (see) as the basis for biblical interpretation. The scholars of Antioch, including the two greatest of all, Mopsuestia and Chrysostom, recognized a fine line separating literal, spiritual, historical, and typological methods of interpretation.

The western school:

The Western school advocated by men like Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine was more eclectic in its methods of biblical interpretation. These giants sought to combine the allegorical method of Alexandria and the literal method of Antioch in order to project a balanced combination of the two. They argue that taking only one meaning from Scripture betrays the historical background against which the message came.

The Middle Ages Period

The period of the Middle Ages has been characterized more by the increase of ignorance that affected not only the milk but also the clergy. It was a period that saw little or no contribution to the historical development of biblical interpretation. In an attempt to curb this growing ignorance, the church instituted Augustine’s fourfold method of biblical interpretation (Literal, Typological, Allegorical, and Analogical). In order for the biblical text to be interpreted, it had to be adapted to the tradition and doctrines of the church.

Perhaps the most remembered exponent of the Middle Ages is the Archbishop of Canterbury Stephen Langhan (1150-1228). The impression of it in biblical interpretation was that of the chapter of the Bible in its current form. Although he preferred the spiritual to the literal sense of Scripture, his interpretations were in line with the doctrines of the church.

Another collaborator, Thomas Aquinas, defended the literal sense as the basis for all other senses of Scripture. However, he reasoned that the interpreter must realize that the Bible also has symbolic meanings, since heavenly things cannot be put into earthly terms without using some form of symbolism.

The Reformation Period

The Reformation period could not have received the work and meaning it did had it not been for the work of two men who belonged to the Renaissance period, Reuchlin and Erasmus, who are credited with publishing Hebrew and Greek texts. . These texts provided the basis on which Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, and John Calvin based their theories of interpretation.

Martin Luther (1483-1546), the great reformer, rendered a tremendous service to the German public by translating the Bible into their vernacular. Although he started with the allegorical method, Luther called for the literary analysis of a text in biblical interpretation. Erasmus (1466-1519) rediscovered the priority of the literal sense.

John Calvin (1509-1564), the greatest exegete of the Reformation, developed more than anyone else the tendency to use the grammatical-historical exegetical method as a basis for developing the spiritual message of the text. Because of his emphasis in a fuller sense placed on the Christological meaning of the Scriptures, the Reformers linked themselves with Jesus, the apostles, and the early church.

The effect of the Reformation on Catholic exegesis is noteworthy. Catholicism made no exegetical advances during the Reformation period. Berkhof’s comment is sufficient to describe Catholic opposition to Protestant exegesis:

They did not admit the right to a private trial and

defended against the Protestants, the position

that the Bible must be interpreted in harmony with

tradition.

To make this open opposition to the right of private judgment in the interpretation of Scripture a reality, the Council of Trent was convened and the following resolutions were adopted:

(a) that the authority of ecclesiastical traditions must be upheld
(b) that the ultimate authority was to be attributed to the Vulgate, and
(c) that it is necessary to conform one’s interpretation to the authority
of the church and the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

conclusion

It must be emphasized that a historical perspective on interpretation is a non-negotiable factor in biblical interpretation. Christianity is a Judeo-Christian faith. Since “one cannot understand the Christian faith unless he believes,” the documents of the Christian faith must initially be studied, understood, and considered authoritative before they can be interpreted for the community of faith.