2.2 - Methods of Interpretation
December 11, 2004 | Comments: 1Biblical Hermeneutics Part Second Chapter 2
This chapter presents us with an overview of different methods of interpretation that have been employed throughout the history of the church. By understanding these various approaches to interpreting Scripture we will be better able to recognize and avoid erroneous principles, and to adopt and employ valid ones.
Most historical schools of interpretation have serious flaws. The Allegorical method, popularized by Alexandrian Jews, was prevalent among the early church fathers. Though motivated by a high regard for the sacred writings, its tendency is to disregard the plain meaning of the text in favor of hidden figurative meanings. The Mystical method is akin, looking for multiple levels of meaning, e.g. literal, psychical, moral and spiritual. The Pietistic school focuses on subjective inward experience as the guiding principle of interpretation, and is thus inconsistent and unreliable in gaining understanding.
The Rationalistic schools all deny the supernatural. The Accommodation Theory holds that the accounts of miracles were an accommodation to the superstitions of the time. Moral Interpretation, originating with Kant, is the religion of reason in which Scripture must bend to the rational preconceptions of the interpreter. The Naturalistic school seeks to explain all supernatural phenomena with plausible natural events. The Mythical school holds that the Christ of the Gospels is the creation of the Early Church. Against all of these the Apologetic schools seek to dogmatically maintain the credibility of the Scriptures by any means necessary. Though perhaps actuated by better motives than the Rationalistic schools, they similarly impose upon Scripture their preconceptions, rather than allowing Scripture to speak for itself. They defeat their ends since no apology is sound which is built with uncritical methods.
The Grammatico-Historical method, in contrast to all of the above, holds as its fundamental principle that the interpreter’s task is to gather from Scripture the precise meaning intended by the authors. He is to employ the same basic hermeneutical principles that are applied to other literature, and with no pre-condition to prove something either true or false. These sound hermeneutical methods are not inventions, but are rather intrinsic to our nature as intelligent and communicative human beings who seek to be understood and to understand.
Comments
Which of these schools pose the greatest threat to us today? Which of these schools are we most apt to stumble into if we are not checked? How do we help members of the church under our care steer clear of these schools? Nathan.
nathan on December 23, 2004 at 07:55 AM
