7 - Roman Catholic, Jewish and Syrian Literal, Reformed
December 09, 2004 | Comments: 4SYS 501 – Hermeneutics – Lecture 7 – Historical Schools of Interpretation – Roman Catholic, Jewish Literal, Syrian Literal, Reformed
I. Roman Catholic
A. Followed early fathers in use of allegorical methods
B. Acknowledged validity of historical and literal interpretation
C. Basic Principles
1. Latin Vulgate is the only authentic version
2. Officials views of the Church must be accepted
3. No interpretation can contradict official pronouncements
4. Literal and Historical interpretation is the foundation of interpretation
5. Scriptures possess a spiritual or mystical meaning beyond the literal
6. The Church itself is the official interpreter of Scripture
7. Early fathers are a guide to interpretation
a. Binding only on matters of faith and morals
b. Must bear witness to catholic tradition
c. Must have unanimous witness to the interpretation
8. Obscure passages are to be interpreted in light of church tradition
9. Interpretation has developed over time, church has fuller understanding
10. Protestant interpretation is useful, but not of faith or authoritative
II. Jewish Literal
A. Accepted literal meaning, unless indicated otherwise
B. Basic Principles
1. Words must be understood in context of sentence, sentence of passage
2. Scriptures must be compared topically
3. Clear passage prevails over the unclear
4. Must attend to spelling, grammar and figures of speech
5. Logic enables us to apply Scripture to problems not specifically treated
6. Revelation came within a cultural context which must be understood
C. Major Problem -Letterism
1. Actual letters were revered
2. Larger import of texts lost due to attention to literal minutia
III. Syrian Literal
A. First school interpretation which sought to avoid both allegorism and letterism
B. Pre-cursor of reformed school
C. Basic Principles from the school of Antioch
1. Literal and figurative literal texts are obvious
2. Rejected dogmatic interpretation of Romanists
3. Insisted on historical reality of OT events, did not allegorize them
4. Relationship of OT to NT is typological, not allegorical
5. Revelation is progressive, and must be understood accordingly
6. The Bible is Christological
IV. Reformed
A. Rejection of the allegorical interpretation of Rome
B. Adopted many of the principles of the Jewish and Syrian schools
C. Hermeneutical reformation necessarily preceded theological reformation
D. Basic Principles enunciated by Luther
1. Psychological – Interpreter seeks for illumination from the Holy Spirit through meditation and prayer
2. Authority – Bible is supreme and final authority, higher than the church
3. Literal
a. Rejection of allegorical interpretation
b. Use of original texts instead of Vulgate
c. Application of grammar, history, etc. (grammatico-historical)
4. Sufficiency – every devout and competent believer can interpret and understand Scripture
5. Christological – Christ and His Work are the central themes of Scripture
6. Law / Gospel – Abiding validity of the Law
E. Basic Principles enunciated by Calvin
1. Scripture is Christ-centered.
2. Interpreter must be illumined by the Holy Spirit
3. Grammatical / Historical is the valid method
4. Exegesis not Eisegesis
5. Balanced approach to typology, limited to NT antitype
6. Scripture interprets scripture – the analogy of faith
Comments
that Vulgate got me into trouble two Sundays past. Luke writes, “the child matured and strengthened physically; he was filled with wisdom, and God’s favor/grace was upon him.” The Vulgate, and thus the New King’s James group at Evergreen listened to my three point sermon, the first point dedicated to physical maturation and health, with a translation on their laps reading, “and Jesus grew in spirit.”
What do you think is the difference between the Roman Catholic’s early practice of interpreting difficult texts according to Church tradition and our confessional practice in the PCA?
nathan on December 15, 2004 at 07:05 AM
I would think that the major problem with “Jewish Literalism,” is not so much the reverence of the alphabet, but the very first summary statement in your notes: interpret literally unless indicated. This is dicey, for sure. I was taught at Biola that this was the mantra of Dispensational hermeneutics. Indeed it is and it is precisely its pitfall in eschatology. This biggest problem with this little ditty is that it sounds simple and sound when in fact it is impossible to practice. Think about it.
nathan on December 15, 2004 at 07:08 AM
finally, in dry, persevering Calvin, we find some sanity. Praise God! Nathan.
nathan on December 15, 2004 at 07:11 AM
I think the main difference is that in the Roman Catholic tradition there is only one accepted interpretation, without appeal. In a confessing church like the PCA, we acknowledge the text is inspired in the autographs, but you and I may hold different views on the interpretation of a given text without either one of us being anathematized.
Now that doesn’t mean that we might have the tendency to be exegetically lazy, and just fall back on our own traditional interpretation of a difficult text without really grapling with it.
andrew on December 15, 2004 at 10:20 PM
