Brief survey of the history of hermeneutics – 4. Excursus

Part 1. Intro.

Part 2. Patristics

Part 3. Patristics

4. EXCURSUS: The Hermeneutical Task of the Second-Century Church

At this point in Dockery’s discussion of second-century hermeneutics, he makes this monumental observation:

In a very basic way, the hermeneutical task facing the second-century church was to show the continuity of the Old Testament with the New Testament or, put another way, how the Old Testament could remain the church’s Bible. Galatians, Colossians, John, 1 John, and 1 Peter especially evidence the struggles of the early Christians. During the second century, and especially in the latter half of that century, the rise of heresies became so wide-spread that they provoked in the church at large a reaction that was to be of enormous significance for the history of Christian thought and Christian hermeneutics.[1]

Dockery claims that a hermeneutical shift took place in order to justify the Old Testament as Christian Scripture. Gerald Bray seems to agree with Dockery, when he says:

Patristic biblical exegesis grew up at a time when the church was faced with a number of crucial problems which it needed to solve, and interpretation of the Bible played a key role in this. The main issues confronting the fathers of the church can be set out as follows.

  1. It was necessary for them to distinguish Christianity from Judaism. The early church had to explain why it rejected Judaism, without abandoning the Jewish Scriptures. At one extreme were people such as Marcion, who wanted to reject the Jewish heritage altogether, but found that this was practically impossible. At the other were people such as Tertullian, for whom Christianity was a more thorough-going legalism than anything the Jews had attempted. The mainline Christian church could accept neither of the positions, but it had to find a viable interpretation of the Old Testament as Christian Scripture. This task was such a top priority throughout this period that the history of exegesis can very largely be written in terms of it alone.[2]

 

As will be seen below, a shift took place in the early church in terms of hermeneutical method and goal. The shift was from a moralistic method (i.e., functional hermeneutic) to an apologetic method centering on how the Old Testament can be viewed as a Christian document. What materialized was a sort of mini-pendulum action. On the one hand, there was a tendency toward allegory (the school of Alexandria and later the Middles ages [see subsequent posts]) and, on the other, a tendency toward typology (the school of Antioch and later the Reformation and, especially, the post-Reformation Reformed orthodox [see subsequent posts]). Both allegory and typology had as their primary purpose the Christianization of the Old Testament, though differing in their method in reaching that end.[3]


[1] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 55.

[2] Gerald Bray, Biblical Interpretation: Past & Present (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 95. Emphases added. This is a claim of mammoth proportions and, I think, helps explain the history of Christian hermeneutics.

[3] Cf. Dennis E. Johnson, Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ from All the Scriptures (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2007), 100ff. for a similar assessment.

An other-planetly hermeneutic?

In one sense, believing the Bible contains its own hermeneutic is other-planetly. It is pre-critical, pre-enlightenment, neither modern nor post-modern. The Endarkenment (:-)) brought with its rationalism a hermeneutical revolution that humanized the Bible and made it like any other book. However, it is not like any other book, at least in one very crucial sense – behind its various human authors is one divine author. So when the Bible interprets the Bible it is doing so infallibly and, as a result, establishing infallible principles of interpretation revealed by God himself! The only infallible interpreter of the Holy Scripture is the Holy Spirit in the Holy Scripture – so said John Owen. When the Bible comments upon itself (which it does in various ways in both testaments), we need to listen and emulate its methods. There is intertextuality occuring in both testaments. There are various allusions throughout Scripture to itself. These things are so because of divine authorship, something an Enlightenement-tainted hermeneutic does not take into account, at least not properly.

MSNBC’s Martin Bashir on The Paul Edwards Program

Listen to Paul Edwards interview Martin Bashir here. I highly recommend it! Bashir is the one who bashed a Bell recently. 🙂

Here are my thoughts. The quotes utilize the dynamic equivalence theory. 🙂

Bashir says the book is evasive, disingenuous, and historically inaccurate. Bell selectively quotes Luther and uses him out of context. He does that repeatedly with historical and biblical texts. Bashir slams Bell’s method.

“Bashir knows more about historic Christianity than Rob Bell,” Paul Edwards. I agree with Paul. 🙂

Bashir is really sharp. He was born into a Muslim family. He says that Christianity will offend any culture it goes to at some point.

The book is “…the psychological out-workings of a young man… and I am sympathetic with that.” “He is a victim of his own experience, as we all are to a point.”

“Any theological position that can’t be questioned is not worth following.” This includes Islam.

He nails the emergent movement as a youth movement away from historic Christian theology and practice. “If the church has been so backwards and out of touch with culture, how has it survived?” Amen!

“If I start rapping and dressing and talking like a 15 year-old as a parent, it won’t work.” Amen!

Bashir says he does attend Keller’s church, married to a Christian woman, and is a committed Christian. Amen!

“My personal faith was entirely irrelevant in that interview.” Well, I’m not so sure of that.

He is very sharp and easy to listen to.

some thoughts on interpreting the Confession

  1. Like the Bible, the Confession is often self-interpreting, latter statements shedding interpretive light on former statements and former statements upon latter.
  2. Unlike the Bible, however, the self-interpreting phenomena of the Confession are not infallible.
  3. Like the Bible, the Confession is progressive in its formulation, latter statements assuming the former and building upon them.
  4. Like the Bible, inner-biblical (inner-confessional) exegesis/intertexuality is present in the Confession and often the key to its proper interpretation.
  5. Like the Bible, the Confession possesses authorial intent.
  6. Unlike the Bible, there is no divine author.
  7. Like the Bible, seeking to understand human authorial intent requires understanding background information, such as symbolic sources, historical-theological context, the theological nomenclature of the era, and the writings of the editor(s) of the Confession.

White/Barcellos Interview: Bonus Footage – bloopers

Here is our first attempt at MCTS bloopers. For some reason, James White looks nervous. Dr. White also talks about his time at MCTS.

PS: One correction – Dr. Haykin will not be lecturing at our January 2012 module. Instead, Dr. Waldron will be on eschatology.

Pin It on Pinterest