Hermeneutics The Science of Interpretation   Hermeneutics is the science of biblical interpretation.   Hermes was the Greek god who served as the messenger for the gods.  Hermes was responsible for interpreting the will of the gods.   Hermeneuein is the Greek verb that means “to express,”  “to explain,”  “to translate,” “to interpret” J. C. Dannhaur used the term first in the 1600’s when he used it in reference to Bible interpretation.   The purpose of hermeneutics is to establish guidelines & rules for interpretation of written documents The goal of Hermeneutics is to discover the thoughts and meaning of the writers when they communicated through the medium of the written document. Any written document is subject to misinterpretation.  This includes the Bible.   The written documents we base our faith on present a special problem for us because they were written between 2,000-3,500 years ago because they were communicated to people in societies, cultures and languages very different from ours.   Hermeneutics in any field should consider:             a)         word definitions             b)         contextual analysis – or, the analysis of the context of the writing             c)         literary types and forms – poetry, parable, historical narrative, dialogue, prophecy, etc.             d)         historical analogy – the comparing of points of recorded history             e)         syntactical distinctives – considering meaning arrangement of the words in a sentence Hermeneutics in the area of scriptural interpretation also must consider:             f)          the doctrine of inspiration             g)         the theological significance of scripture that comes by revelation of God and is found in no other written document.   The books of the Bible are recorded in human speech and so they must be handled in regard to interpretation as any other book. In 1860 Benjamin Jowett wrote in his “Essays and Reviews” “Interpret the Bible like any other book.” His point was towards word meanings, correct text readings, etc. but not meaning there was nothing special about the Holy Scriptures.   In the United States there is a supreme board of hermeneutics called the Supreme Court. They are to interpret the Constitution following the grammatico-historical method. The grammatico-historical method meant to interpret the words in light of what the words meant when  they were used at the formation of the document.         History of Biblical Interpretation Ezra (450 BC) made an early attempt to establish a systematic interpretation of the law.             Ezra emphasized observance of the law that ultimately led away from the meaning of the law.              Ezra founded a Jewish class called scribes who were devoted to the exposition of the scriptures. (Definition:  Exposition – a setting forth of facts, ideas, etc; detailed explanation; writing or speaking that sets forth or explains.  Exposition is not the same and is distinguished from these: description, narration, argumentation.”)  Ezra’s Scribes developed a systematic way of reducing the law to a formula that was both legalistic and fanciful (imaginative). The scribes system of interpretation made it impossible to correctly interpret OT by Jesus day.   1)  Jewish Literalism –             a) OT was dissected into separate words and phrases, which were given meanings  completely void of history, spirit, and context of the material.                           b) Three influential rabbis from first century BC:                         Hillel – born in Babylon and came to Jerusalem for training.  He founded the Talmudic system to organize the mass of regulations that made up the oral law.  He had seven laws of interpretation:             1) Rule of “light and heavy” or “from the lesser to the greater” (Num.12:14) 2) Inferred relation between two subjects from identical expressions. Example: the daily sacrifice must be offered on a Sabbath, then the Passover sacrifice may also be offered on a Sabbath.                         3) The extension from the special to the general.  Example:  Necessary work on a Sabbath accepted also on a holy day.                                     4) The explanation of two passages by a third.                                     5) Drew guidance from a general situation that was applied to a special situation                                     6) The explanation of a passage from the analogy of other passages. (Mt.12:5)                                     7) An application of inferences from passages that were self-evident. These rules allowed the scribes after Hillel to make a multitude of false interpretations.                           Shammai – a rival of Hillel and a formalist in the extreme school of Jewish legalism.                         Their disregard for the purpose of the law led to blind slavery of pointless obedience.                         Shammai made his infant grandson fast nearly to death on the Day of Atonement and  had a booth (for the Feast of Tabernacles) built over his daughter who was in labor.   Gamaliel – Hillel’s grandson (and Paul’s teacher) was broadminded in his  interpretation.  He studied and taught Greek literature and advocated the rights and privileges of the Gentiles.   (Ishmael (150 AD) set forth 13 rules of interpretation. Eliezerben Yose (150 AD) had 32.)   2) Jewish Allegorism – (Definition: Allegory – a story in which people, things, and happenings have another meaning, as in a fable or parable.)   Alexandria, Egypt was the center of Jewish allegorical interpretation.  Aristobulus, the earliest allegorical teacher, taught that the Greek philosophers and poets derived their ideas from an early Greek translation of the OT.    Philo made the major contribution to harmonize the institutions and ideas of Judaism with Greek culture and philosophy.  He taught that all Scripture contained a twofold meaning.  They were the literal and the allegorical meanings, which were like the body and soul.  Did not Psalm 62:11 say, “One thing God has spoken, two things have I heard.”  This was the basis for Philo’s assumptions and allegorical teaching.  Like the soul is more important than the body, likewise the allegorical meaning was more important than the actual literal meaning.   An example:  The four rivers of Genesis 2:10, Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, and Euphrates, were symbols for the four virtues of prudence, temperance, courage, and justice.    Jesus as Interpreter Never had any criticism of the OT as the divine record Jesus was not a rabbi, nor trained in their schools, but he was familiar with their methods Jesus often described them as, “ever hearing but never understanding, . . .ever seeing but never perceiving.” (Mt. 13:14) Jesus credited David’s words to the Holy Spirit (Mark 12:36) Jesus accepted the historical reliability of the scriptures citing stories about Adam, Noah, Abraham, David, Solomon, Jonah, Isaiah, etc. as true and accurate. Jesus interest was in the spiritual values of the OT.  He could see God’s purpose in the scriptures for the human race. There are 36 direct quotes by Jesus of the OT.  He often used OT terminology. When he did use the OT it was to reinforce his own teaching. Jesus appealed to no higher authority when he taught.  He was the source of his own teaching. “He taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law.” (Mk.1:22) Jesus’ interpretation method was completely new as he explained the meaning of the OT. Jesus did not give a new intellectual approach, such as literal or allegorical, but instead was the coming of God into the world to explain his written word, his plan. (Matt.5:17) A change occurred with the coming of Christ because the question was not the true meaning of the text but the relationship of the text with Jesus and his purpose.  “He interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” (Luke 24:27)   Apostle’s Interpretation Even though Jesus stood independent of the rabbi’s approach to scripture and did not use the methods of interpretation used in his day, the writers of the NT did follow their Jewish heritage. The apostles used the methods of their culture but they used these methods to  reinterpreted the OT through the views they learned from their Lord and teacher Jesus. As always, inspiration did not separate the writers of the NT from their own personal culture, background, vocabulary or education. Extreme liberalism of the rabbi’s appears in Gal. 3:16 and Heb.2:11-13. Rabbinic disregard of context and historical background appears in Romans 9:25.  Although Paul disregards the context and historical background here, he did not abuse the intent of the passage to reveal God’s character.  The coming of the Messiah had shed light on these words and opened a new door of application. An example of Rabbi allegorical interpretation is found in Galatians 4:21-31.  Paul does not deny the historical accuracy but does find a parallel in his own life. The apostles looked for Christ in every passage of the OT as can be seen by Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 in Matt. 2:15. POINT:  We can not expect to find 21st century methods of interpretation used in the 1st century, but neither can we justify the radical use of 1st century rabbinical methods of interpretation in modern times.   Peter and Hermeneutics ·        Problems in interpretation were arising even at the point of Peter’s death as is seen in 2 Pt.: o       3:15 – “(Paul’s) letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures.” o       3:4 – “They will say, ‘Where is this coming he promised?  Ever since our fathers died everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.’” o       1:20 – “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation.”            Peter makes the need for proper interpretation clear when he says: o       2 Peter 1:21 – That “Prophecy never had its origin in the will of man but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”  So man can not correctly interpret it with out that same Spirit. o       2 Peter 3:16 – That “ignorant and unstable people distort” the scriptures because the scriptures “contain some things that are hard to understand.” o       1 Peter 1:10 – Even the prophets who originally wrote the scriptures did not fully understand all the revelation and meaning of the words they wrote because, “the prophets who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.”  The prophets who wrote the scripture had to apply hermeneutics as they tried to find the full message.     Early Church Fathers Method of Interpretation             The Epistle of Barnabas (which is not considered part of the canon of scripture): ¨      119 quotes from the OT and 5 from the apocrypha and 21 from the NT. ¨      In this book history is meaningless.  For example, God’s covenant had always been with Christians. ¨      OT only has meaning if understood in terms of the Gospel.  So here we have an extreme method of interpreting Christ into everything for it to have value. ¨      Typology was his basic principle of interpretation.  For example: Abraham’s 318 servants represent the numerical value of the letters TIH.  The “T” stood for the cross and the “IH” (the first two Greek letters for Jesus name) stood for Jesus.  This was the mystery of  Abraham’s servants. ¨      He was the first to base the age of the world on the six days of creation & Psalms 90:4. Marcion The Heretic ¨      He rejected the OT and most of the NT.  The church developed  the canon due to him. ¨      Dualistic view of the OT and NT.  The OT God of justice vs. the NT God of mercy. ¨      To justify the fact that the OT and NT could not be reconciled he insisted on a literal interpretation of the OT. ¨      He kept part of the NT that he agreed with but rejected the parts he did not agree with by saying they had been added later to the original writings. ¨      He read the remains of the NT literally but rejected the continuity of the NT with the OT message.   Irenaeus, Bishop in Gaul (177-197) ¨      Established Christian thought for the next several centuries ¨      Approached scripture exclusively by exposition of the Bible.  ¨      He used no philosophy. ¨      First to quote from almost entire NT and extensively from the OT ¨      Concerning Bible interpretation he is said to have preserved the best that came before him and anticipate nearly all that would follow from Origen and Augustine and even Luther and Calvin. ¨      His method of interpretation was governed by the principle of inspiration.  ¨      He then understood that since scripture was inspired by God then God wrote both the OT and NT.  From this doctrine of the unity of scripture he concluded that scripture must then interpret scripture. ¨      He then urged that obscure passages be clarified by being compared with passages that were understood. ¨      The foundation of interpretation was that Christ was the center of the scripture. ¨      The only way to understand the OT is in light of the Savior’s coming. ¨      He believed every part of scripture had its own place and purpose.   ¨      Some feel that Iranaeus let tradition be the final judge of interpretation, but this can not be demonstrated. Origen (185-254) ¨      The first systematic theologian because he employed the entire Bible as the basis for his teaching.  ¨      His interest in exegesis grew out of his concern for the text.  He did more exegetical work than anyone before the reformation. ¨      His Greek philosophical background led him to express orthodox doctrines in extreme allegories.  (The Greeks had to develop a system of philosophical reasoning to draw the divine truth out of Homer’s writings.  They did this by allegorizing Homer’s works.) ¨      Origen was a student and then the successor to Clement in the Alexandrian Bible School.  From Clement he acquired the theory of the threefold meaning of scripture.  The body = literal meaning, soul = moral teaching, spirit = spiritual meaning. ¨      Origen desired to draw out the more important meaning of scripture by developing the allegorical meaning.  His influence on the future interpretation was great, but both positive and negative. ¨      Medieval allegorists who followed centuries later were influenced by him and the Greek church Basil the Great and Gregory continued his views. ¨      The Exegetical school at Antioch attacked him as did Jerome and Augustine. School of Antioch ¨      Paid close attention to the historical sense of the text.  ¨      Men like Jerome attached supreme importance to the grammatical sense, Augustine (354-430) ¨      Augustine dominated Christian theology in the West for a millennium ¨      Augustine was more of a theologian like Irenaeus and not interested in the means and methods of interpretation like Origen. ¨      Augustine said, “The Bible was a narrative of the past, a prophecy of the future, and a description of the present.” ¨      Augustine’s contribution to hermeneutics was his emphasis upon faith as a necessity for understanding.  Understanding and insight into scripture came as a result of faith. He embraced the teaching that the tradition of the Church interpreted the scripture.  ¨      The scriptures provided a foundation for the creed of the Church.   Medieval Interpretation (from Augustine until the Reformation) Ø        Bible study was restricted almost entirely to monasteries and consisted of recitation of texts and copying manuscripts. Ø        Illiteracy was rampant. Ø        Rome claimed the right to interpret scripture Ø        Any development of Hermeneutics had only one purpose – to strengthen and advance the teachings of the Roman Church. 1)  Bondage to the writings of the Church Fathers Ø        All interpretation had to conform to tradition and that was the writings of the church fathers. Ø        The main writings they used were the Latin and the interpreter’s job was to harmonize all the writings of the Latin-writing Fathers to form a foundation under the Roman Churches traditions. Ø        Like the rabbis of NT times these interpreters were confined to collecting and organizing already written teachings.  Ø        The literal meaning of the Bible was completely insignificant and unstudied. 2)  Scholasticism Ø        Around 1000 AD an intellectual awakening in the church occurred. Ø        The movement depended upon the principles of Greek philosophy produced a deductive religious philosophy (Meaning: Deductive – the act of process of deducing or reasoning form  a known principle to an unknown, from the general to the specific or from a premise to a logical conclusion.) within the confines of traditional teachings of the Roman Church. Ø        Scholasticism depended almost exclusively upon the allegorical method of interpretation, which further perverted the truth of Scripture. Ø        There was no regard for the original languages of Biblical texts. Ø         The interpreters job was to support the teachings of the Roman Church Ø        Thomas Aquinas was a leader in this movement 3)  Mysticism Ø        In reaction to the bondage and scholasticism of the day the hunger for a relationship with God surfaced. Ø        But, since the written revelation was not available to feed and guide people in their pursuit of God extreme mysticism developed. Ø        Mysticism taught that an individual could get all they needed from God by direct communion with him and did not need the traditions or historical revelation (scriptures). Ø        Of course, Devotional study of scripture was emphasized with allegory as the main method of interpretation. Ø        Bernard of Clairvaux was a leader. 4)  Medieval Quadriga Ø        Up until the days of Martin Luther the method of interpretation through the medieval times was the Quadriga. Ø        The Quadriga was a fourfold method of interpretation that had began in the early church (Clement and Origen of Alexandria) and was completely developed by the Middle Ages. Ø        This method examined the text for four meanings: literal, moral, allegorical, anagogical. Ø        Literal – the plain and evident meaning.                  (Jerusalem was the capital of Judea w/ temple) Ø        Moral – instructed people on how to behave       (Jerusalem is the soul of man, his sanctuary) Ø        Allegorical – revealed the doctrinal content            (Jerusalem is the church) Ø        Anagogical – expressed future hope                      (Jerusalem is heaven, the future hope) Ø        For example, Jerusalem could mean four different things.  To go up to Jerusalem could mean: they went to the real earthly city, their souls went to a place of moral excellence, they should be going to church, or they have the hope of heaven in the future. Ø        With this method the biblical exegetes can develop all types of strange discoveries in scripture   5)  Medieval Literal Interpretation Ø        Western Europe cultivated literal interpretation in several cities and monasteries. Ø        This often occurred under the influence of the Rabbis who studied Hebrew in the tradition of Jerome. Ø        Nicolas of Lyra (1100’s AD), a great Christian Hebrew scholar stressed the primacy of the literal sense. Ø        Martin Luther was highly influenced by Nicolas and called him “a fine soul, a good Hebraist and a true Christian.”   Reformation v     A rebellion against the Roman Church’s method of interpretation