1 / 52

3. History of Interpretation

Ancient

leroy
Télécharger la présentation

3. History of Interpretation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. 3. History of Interpretation APTS BIB528

    2. Ancient & Medieval Exposition 3.1-3.6 From the Biblical Era to Thomas Aquinas

    3. 3.1 Before Scripture There was not always a Bible.... Thus the time of the Bible was a time when the Bible was not yet there. It is ironic that we use the term biblical studies to designate our work on this period. Biblical faith, the faith of the men of the Bible, was not in its own nature a scriptural religion. [Barr, Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism, 1]

    4. 3.2 Marcions Significance To the heresiologists of later centuries, Marcion was the most formidable heretic of the 2d century CE. His teaching sprang from a radical emphasis upon the discontinuity between Christianity and Judaism. The God of Jesus, he asserted, was not the same as the God of the Hebrew Scriptures. While this ditheism was an important element of Marcionism, theological innovation was not Marcions hallmark. In fact, he was a radical Paulinist who rejected the OT writings and organized a church with strong ascetic tendencies. The scripture of his church comprised one gospel (a version of Luke), ten letters of Paul (not including the Pastorals and Hebrews), and his own work entitled Antitheses - a catalog of contradictions between the teaching of Jesus and that of the OT. Indeed, the first clearly delineated canon in early Christianity was that of Marcion. [Clabeaux, Marcion, ABD CD-Rom Ed.]

    5. 3.2 Marcions Significance 3.2.1 The Christian Canon. While not all scholars agree that Marcion forced the creation of the Christian canon, we cannot deny that his was the first. His influence in this matter is manifest in the composition of the NT canon that was later to emerge. Marcions basic framework of gospel and apostle is seen in the Gospels and Apostles (i.e., Acts and Letters) in the Christian NT. What is new is the addition of an apocalypse, yet even this takes the form of a corpus of letters by a representative of the apostolic age. It should be noted that the primary difference between Marcions canon and the Christian canon is that the former is singular and the latter plural. A conscious step in the direction of diversity was taken by anti-Marcionite Christians of the 2d and 4th centuries. The vociferous insistence of anti-Marcionite Christianity on the validity of the OT within the canon is a point which should not be missed in our time. Since rejection the OT was an essential feature of Marcionism, it is straining the point only a little to say that among Christians today there are many virtual Marcionites.

    6. 3.2 Marcions Significance 3.2.2 NT Textual Criticism. Extensive quotations from Marcions gospel and apostle have been preserved within the writings of his opponents. These provide the text critic with a reflection of the textual tradition of Luke and Paul in early 2d-century Asia Minor. The Marcionite text has been characterized as western. Historically, the Western Text has been termed wild and loose, and relegated to a position of lesser importance in the assessment of textual problems. This situation is changing. The very term western Text is considered by many to be misleading since it suggests reference to a single homogeneous text type. What has been called Western Text is in reality a number of non-Alexandrian text types. As test critics continue to analyze the Western Text and bring into sharper focus the disparate members within it, the testimony of Marcion, as one of the earliest reflections of a text in that group, will realize an even greater significance.

    7. 3.2 Marcions Significance 3.2.3 NT Literary Criticism. The shape of Marcions gospel and Pauline corpus relates to questions about the composition of Luke and the Pauline corpus as a whole. It has been argued that Lukes gospel existed in an earlier form, without the infancy narratives and apart from Acts of the Apostles. Marcions gospel begins with Luke 3.1. The question has been raised: Did Marcion actually remove chapters one and two from Luke, or did he receive that gospel in an earlier form which lacked them? The strength of this argument is diminished by the fact that in Marcions gospel, Luke 4.31 seems to have followed directly on Luke 3.1. This increases the likelihood that Marcion was removing material. Nonetheless, the only known version of the Lukan gospel without the infancy narratives is Marcions. In terms of the Pauline corpus, Marcion attests a ten-letter corpus without the Pastorals. Was this an earlier form of the Pauline corpus than the fourteen-letter form which has come down to us? The earliest papyrus of the Pauline letters (P46) does not include the Pastorals either. In addition. Marcions order of the letters, once thought to be unique, has been found in some non-Marcionite Syrian catalogs. Thus the text of Marcion is an important piece in the puzzle of the development of the Pauline corpus.

    8. 3.2 Marcions Significance 3.2.4 The Earliest Pauline Reform. Perhaps the greatest significance of Marcion and his movement is the witness they provide of the earliest Pauline reform in the history of Christianity. Clearly, the success of Marcions movement was not due to the depth or consistency of his theology. It has been explained here and elsewhere as a result of his skillful and energetic organizing, and the cohesiveness provided by his canon and sharply focused teaching. The powers of the letters of Paul as vehicles for reform must also be considered. The Pauline epistles have often triggered breakthrough insights. The examples of Augustine and Luther come immediately to mind. At several stages of the history of Christianity men and women have been inspired by Pauls willingness to challenge the recognized authorities on matter of principle. His passionate adherence to the truth of the gospel in the face of enormous personal risk is one with his incisive articulation of the central issues of the faith struggle.

    9. 3.3 Typological Exegesis 3.3.1 The Method: The spiritual sense (Rev. 11.8) was discerned especially by recognition of types and allegories (Rom. 5.14, Gal. 4.24). Typology can be said to differ from allegorical interpretation in that it takes seriously the historical setting of an OT law or event; type and antitype identify some correspondence between different stages in a sacred history, whereas allegory elicits timeless truth form beneath the veil of the biblical letter, which may be regarded as having no reference to history. [Horbury, Old Testament Interpretation in the Writings of the Church Fathers, in, Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Van Gorcum, Assen/Maastricht, 1990, pp. 766-767]

    10. 3.3 Typological Exegesis 3.3.2 Irenaeus 1. For every prophecy, before it comes about, is an enigma and a contradiction to men; but when the time comes, and what was prophesied takes place, it receives a most certain exegesis. And therefore when the Law is read by Jews at the present time, it is like a myth; for they do not have explanation of everything, which is the coming of the Son of God as man. But when it is ready by Christians, it is a treasure, hidden in the field but revealed by the cross of Christ.... The true exegesis was taught by the Lord himself after his resurrection. 2. Irenaeus also formulated the principle that obscure passages should be interpreted in the light of clear ones. In taking some early Gnostic Christian heretics to task for focusing on the obscure, he says: If anything is clear in Scripture, it is that there is only one God who created the world through his Word. This is an article of scriptural faith which the Gnostics denied most vehemently.

    11. 3.3 Typological Exegesis 3.3.2 Irenaeus 3. Irenaeus, in his battles against groups on the fringes of Christianity who had perverted its main teachings, also introduced the idea of authoritative exegesis. The true meaning of Scripture is invested in the church, where apostolic authority was preserved. Although part of what he said was true (the church is invested with the knowledge of Scriptures meaning), this began a long tradition of finding authoritative meanings in the early church leaders rather than in careful exegesis of the biblical text itself, which culminated after the Reformation in the Council of Trents affirmations of ecclesiastical infallibility. [McCartney, Dan & Charles Clayton, Let the Reader Understand: A Guide to Interpreting and Applying the Bible, Wheaton, Illinois: Victor Books, 1994, pp. 86-87]

    12. 3.4 Allegorical Exegesis 3.4.1 The Method: The ecclesiastical interpretation of scripture which was to draw on this canon of Old and New Testament and lift from it the biblical witness to truth in service to the church now required a method which would penetrate to this spiritual witness and at the same time effectually bind the biblical literature with the communitys faith. This method lay ready to hand in the shape of the theory of the multiple or, better, multi-dimensional sense of scripture and the so-called allegorical exposition yielding this sense. Allegorical interpretation was shaped since the third century BC in the centers of Hellenistic learning, Alexandria and Pergamum . . . . [Stuhlmacher, 27]

    13. 3.4 Allegorical Exegesis 3.4.1 The Method: The chief goal of allegory is to extract the profound spiritual sense hidden in the wording of a literary production inspired by the Logos, and to lay it open to mans understanding. Hellenistic Judaism, just as Judaism in the Palestinian motherland, set out from the inspiration of its Holy Scriptures, and, as the example of Philo of Alexandria indicates, made expert use of the allegorical method. From that point, the allegorization of texts makes its way to the New Testament, as shown by Galatians 4.21-31 and for example, Hebrews 3.6. It is not surprising, therefore, that allegory was at once taken up in the church and to a degree actually gained the mastery. [Stuhlmacher, pp. 27-28]

    14. 3.4 Allegorical Exegesis 3.4.2 Clement of Alexandria: 1. Criteria. Clement briefly mentions the criteria of interpretation. First, those common to all men should be considered. Then comes the technical criteria acquired by education. Most important, however, are the moral criteria: avoidance of self-conceit, readiness to persevere, and energy of soul to take the canon of truth from the truth itself. 2. Heretics. Surprisingly, perhaps, Clement agrees with Tertullian, not that scripture should be ruled off limits for heretics, but as least that it is barren for them. Heretics wrest scripture to suit their desires. Failing to take the canon of the truth from the truth and falsehood. While using scripture, they come to it with their own systems, picking out ambiguous phrases... plucking out a few scattered utterances, perverting the bare letter as it stands. They attend to the words alone, while they change the meaning, neither understanding them as they are spoken, nor even using in the natural sense such extracts as they adduce.

    15. 3.4 Allegorical Exegesis 3.4.2 Clement of Alexandria: 3. Hermeneutical Rules: 3.1 Nothing is literally true which is unworthy of God. 3.2 No interpretation can be accepted which contradicts the Bible as a whole. 3.3 Literal meaning is meant to excite interest in understanding deeper meaning. [Bromiley, Geoffrey W., Historical Theology: An Introduction, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978, p. 40-41]

    16. 3.4 Allegorical Exegesis 3.4.3 Origen: 1. Assumption 1: Scripture is divinely inspired. Therefore: 1.1 Its legal precepts are superior 1.2 It is powerful in changing lives 1.3 Biblical prophecy comes true 1.4 Like Jesus, the Bible is divine but in human form 1.5 The Bible contains hidden secrets.

    17. 3.4 Allegorical Exegesis 3.4.3 Origen: 2. Assumption 2: Scripture should be interpreted according to its nature. Therefore: 2.1 Not every text has a literal meaning, but every text does have a spiritual meaning. 2.2 The spiritual meaning is not always plain or easily understood 2.3 Scripture has a threefold meaning, a body (literal meaning), a soul (a psychical meaning relating to the will), and a spirit (spiritual meaning which speaks of Christ). 2.4 The problems in Scripture are there to hinder us from being too enamored of the literal meaning.

    18. 3.5 The Literal Sense 3.5.1 Introduction: The importance of types and allegories in second and third-century OT exegesis did not overwhelm more literal interpretation. It appeared negatively in Apelles, but more positively when the laws were viewed as having been mandatory in their times or indeed as still in force; and literal interpretation of the promises was popular. Gen. 1-3 were likewise commonly taken literally, perhaps in rebuttal of gnostic views of the cosmogony as well as in accord with the hope for the last things. A Refutation of the Allegorists by the Egyptian bishop Nepos (about 240) rebutted spiritualization of the millennium (Dan 7.18-27, Rev. 20.3-6), and Denys of Alexandria replied On Promises (Eusebius, History Eccl. 7:24, 1-3). [Horbury, 768]

    19. 3.5 The Literal Sense 3.5.2 Antiochene School & Theodore of Mopsuetia: 1. Unless the NT actually cites the text it is not messianic. Allusion is not sufficient to establish a text as messianic. Even when the NT cites an OT text, it may be only illustrative rather than an indication of a messianic meaning . . . . [McCartney & Clayton, 89-90] 2. NT does give indications of actual literal fulfillment of OT prophecy.

    20. 3.6 Thomas Aquinas 3.6.1 4-Fold Interpretation: 1. Literal 2. Spiritual: allegorical; moral; anagogical 3.6.2 Rule or Interpretation: 1. All Interpretation rests on the Literal 2. We can argue only from the Literal 3. Nothing essential is contained in the spiritual sense a passages which is not clearly expressed in the literal sense of another.

    21. Reformation Exoposition 3.7-3.9 Renaissance, Luther & Calvin

    22. 3.7 Renaissance & Humanism 3.7.1 Renaissance & Humanism in General 3.7.2 Primacy of Scripture: 1. Within the interpretative circle of scripture and church, Reformation exegesis no longer gives decisive weight to the teaching church, equipped with sacramental authority, but to scripture. [Stuhlmacher] 2. Regula Fidei 3.7.3 Priority of Exegesis: Within the horizon of the so-called exclusive particles . . . Solus Christus, sola scriptura, and sola fide which belong

    23. 3.7 Renaissance & Humanism together and cannot be separated, the task of scripture exposition in the Reformation can be unequivocally and clearly fixed: Exposition must be an exegesis applied to the scriptural texts which traces out the gospel and serves its preaching. [Stuhlmacher] 3.7.4 Exegetical Method 1. Rejection of the Allegorical Method 2. Luthers Law and Gospel 3. Calvins Power of the Biblical Word which penetrates the heart solely by the divine working of the Spirit.

    24. 3.7 Renaissance & Humanism 3.7.5 Exegetical Goal: The goal of the exegetical procedure is to facilitate the preaching of the gospel. The exegete no longer ascends from the word of the scripture to eternal rest in God, but traces the incarnate mission of Jesus Christ in human history and comes to a kerygmatic encounter and confrontation of gospel, church, and world. [Stuhlmacher]

    25. 3.8 Luther 3.8.1 Sola Scriptura: 1. Only the historical sense gives the true and sound doctrine. 2. Rejection of traditionalism 3. Scripture is its own interpreter 3.8.2 Sola Fide: 1. True understanding can come only by experiencing the Word. 2. The whole Bible is about Christ 3.8.3 Historical Sense: 1. Literal History 2. Literal Prophetic

    26. 3.8 Luther 3.8.4 Scripture is the Word, therefore Scripture is above all human thinking. 3.8.5 The Role of Reason Our intellect must adjust itself to the Word of God and to Holy Scripture. The more you distrust yourself and your thoughts, the better a theologian and a Christian you will become. 3.8.6 Luthers Criticism: Esther, James, and Jude were unimportant.

    27. 3.9 Calvin 3.9.1 Parallels with Luther: Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide 3.9.2 Out-Luther, Luther: Less Allegory: Calvin engaged in much less allegorizing than Luther. Although Luther railed against allegorism, he continued to indulge in it from time to time. But Calvin, almost in the spirit of Theodore, is very slow to find direct references to Christ (even typologically) in the OT, unless the NT gives specific warrant, or the teaching is clearly in the context of the expectation of the future Messiah. And Calvin avoids even the illustrative or adornment use of allegorical interpretation. [McCartney & Clayton]

    28. 3.9 Calvin 3.9.2 Out-Luther, Luther: Not as Open to Criticism: . . . Calvins adherence to sola scriptura made him less free with his criticism of Scripture. Rather than reject James, Calvin attempted a synthesis of James and Paul. His closer examination of what James was actually saying removed much of the apparent conflict between the two. And instead of focusing on the rather narrow matter of justification by faith, Calvin took the much larger rubric of the glory of God as his interpretive viewpoint and was able to hold together the array of biblical teaching much more easily. [McCartney & Clayton]

    29. 3.9 Calvin 3.9.3 Conviction of the Holy Spirit: The testimony of the Spirit is more excellent than all reason. For as God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word, so also the Word will not find acceptance in mens hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. The same Spirit, therefore, who has spoken through the mouths of the prophets must penetrate into our hearts to persuade us that they faithfully proclaimed what had been divinely commanded. Even if it wins reverence for itself by its own majesty, it seriously affects us only when it is sealed upon our hearts through the Spirit. Therefore, illumined by his power, we believe neither by our own nor by anyone elses judgment that Scripture is from God; but above human judgment we affirm with utter certainty... that it has flowed to us from the very mouth of God by the ministry of men.

    30. Emergence of the Historical-Critical Methodology 3.10-3.13

    31. 3.10 Introduction Keeping chiefly to the development of the hermeneutical problem in Protestantism, great changes occur from the end of the sixteenth century onward, and against the background of profound cultural, political, and social upheavals in all of Europe. We will trace only a few of the critical stages. [Stuhlmacher, Peter, Historical Criticism and Theological Interpretation of Scripture, 36]

    32. 3.11 Pietism . . . Philip Jacob Speners (1635-1705) famed Pia Desideria best illustrates what was cardinal in Pietism. In conscious dependence on Luther, Pietisms intention was to encounter the scriptural word anew, in order from that point to refine and deepen Christian faith and life within the circle of the brotherhood. The orthodox doctrine, honed to a fine point in theological debate and rationally articulated in the grand manner, did not achieve this refinement. Pietisms bold, critical research into the original biblical text; the revival of knowledge of the biblical languages, Hebrew and Greek; and the equally daring move toward scientific discussion of the original meaning of the Old and New Testament writings served-as the examples of August Hermann Francke and Johann Albrecht Bengel indicate-this encounter with scripture in its pure originality, an encounter which revived the insight and missionary courage of faith. [Stuhlmacher, 36-7]

    33. 3.12 Early Non-Clergy 3.12.3. Spinoza (Tractatus Theologico-Politicus): One portion of this discipline must describe for all the prophetic books [i.e., the whole of the Christian Bible] the circumstances of which we have record, the life, character and aims of each books author, who he was, what occasioned his writing, when he wrote, to whom, and in what language. 3.12.4 Jean Astruc: 1. Repeated narratives of the same event 2. The strange distribution of Elohim and Jehovah. 3. Chronological confusion.

    34. 3.12 Early Non-Clergy 3.12.1 Grotius (Annotationes): The right to study, analyze and scrutinize the books of the scripture exactly as one does any other book. 3.12.2 Hobbes (Leviathon): The light therefore that must guide us in this question [i.e., authorship of biblical books] must be that which is held out unto us from the books themselves; and this light, though it shows us not the writer of every book, yet it is not un-useful to give us knowledge of the time wherein they were written.

    35. 3.13 The Rise of OT/NT Criticism 3.13.1 Richard Simon The problem with sola scriptura: . . . Scripture alone was far too uncertain a basis for Christianity, unless there should also exist an authoritative teaching office in the Church. [ONeil, Biblical Criticism, ABD CD-Rom Ed.] 3.13.2 Robert Lowth, De Sacra Poesi Hebraeorum and Von Herder, Vom Geist der Ebraischen Poesie. 3.13.3 Thomas Woolston and Hermann Samuel Reimarus, Wolfenbuttel Fragments (published by Lessing) 3.13.4 Johann Gottfried Eichhorn & Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Witte, et. al.

    36. 3.13 The Rise of OT/NT Criticism 3.13.5 Friedrich Schleiermacher: 1. No text is intended in such a way that its hearers could not possibly have understood it. 2. The understanding of a given statement is always based on preliminary knowledge of the subject. 3.13.6 David Friedrich Strauss (Leben Jesu) 3.13.7 Fredinand Christian Baur 3.13.8 Wellhausen

    37. 3.13 The Rise of OT/NT Criticism 3.13.9 Ernest Troeltsch: 1. Criticism = A systematic skepticism which the historian applies without partiality to all historical traditions. 2. Analogy = the assumption of an intrinsic similarity in all historical occurrences. 3. Correlation = of the coherence and reciprocal action of historical events.

    38. Dialectical Theology 3.14-15 Barth & Bultmann

    39. Dialectical Theology It is highly interesting to note the course of this debate, since Barth in so many words refers to Calvins view of scripture together with his doctrine of the testimonium spiritus sancti internum, intending to give new value to this doctrine. Bultmann, on the other hand, comes from the Lutheran tradition for which the word of God in the true sense is only the oral, preached gospel, and for which the true working of the Spirit must be assigned and granted only to this orally proclaimed kerygma. [Stuhlmacher, Peter, Historical Criticism and Theological Interpretation of Scripture, p. 49]

    40. 3.14 Karl Barth 3.14.1 A Post-Critical Exposition of Scriptures: 3.14.2 More Critical than the Historical Critics: 1. Historical Criticism as the starting point. 2. Penetrating through the text to the mystery which lies concealed within. 3. Returning to the text, to seek to understand it anew, this time in the light of the subject matter.

    41. 3.15 Rudolf Bultmann 3.15.1 Bultmanns Background: Kant, etc. 3.15.2 Bultmanns Greatness: 1. Greek 2. His interest in theology and its application 3.15.3 Historie and Geshchichte 3.15.4 History of Religion: 1. Criterion of Dissimilarity 2. Oral, Form, and History of Tradition 3.15.5 Demythologization 3.15.6 Anthropology as the Center of the NT

    42. Problems with the Historical Critical Method 3.16-

    43. 3.16 Historical-Critical Method 3.16.1 First, the method is used to elucidate the meaning of the text. 3.16.2 Second, the text is evaluated in terms of its historical accuracy.

    44. 3.17 Gerhard Maier, The End of the Historical Critical Method 1. It is impossible to discover any canon within the canon. There exist no criteria to map out certain texts as having authority and other texts as not. 2. One cannot separate divine Scripture from human Scripture. There exist no criteria to distinguish them. 3. Revelation consists in more than simply subject matter. It is personal in nature. The historical-critical method, on the other hand, depersonalizes the text in order to study it as an object. It cannot hear and obey.

    45. 3.17 Gerhard Maier, The End of the Historical Critical Method 4. The conclusions of historical-critical method are established prior to the actual interpretation of texts. Since the method knows in advance what texts are permitted to say and do, the text very often is not permitted to say what it really says. 5. The method is deficient in practicability. It yields exceedingly meager results, and there is hardly any consensus regarding most critical questions. As E. Earle Ellis points out, although it can show certain interpretations to be wrong, it can achieve an agreed interpretation for virtually no biblical passage. Further, the results are almost always useless for the life of the church. We would add that it also removes the Bible from the hands of the ordinary Christian. 6. Historical criticism is inappropriate for a text of the nature of revelation. If the Bible really is revelation, then not critique but obedience is called for.

    46. 3.18 Nation, Historical Criticism and the Current Methodological Crisis 1. Instead of bringing the reader of the Bible into intimate connection with its message, historical criticism rather has a pronounced distancing effect. It renders Scripture into a strange object to be dissected and examined instead of acknowledging it to be a Word that must be heard and obeyed in the present moment. 2. The method arose at a time when it was believed that it was possible to engage in historical research without presuppositions, while in actuality it functioned from the beginning with the assumptions of positivism, which have since shown to be untenable.

    47. 3.18 Nation, Historical Criticism and the Current Methodological Crisis 3. Historical criticism can easily oversimplify the complexities of the ancient period due to the limitations of sources, the difference between ancient and modern consciousness, and the inherent ambiguity of historical data. Exact understanding is therefore difficult, and historical criticism has not always admitted this. 4. The method produces conflicting result on a variety of problems so that the notion of a critical consensus is a figment of the imagination. A vast uncertainty of judgment and open skepticism prevail.

    48. 3.18 Nation, Historical Criticism and the Current Methodological Crisis 5. Contrary to the aim of historical criticism to recover the original meaning and intentions of the biblical text, doubts are sometimes expressed that this is possible or even desirable. On the basis of medieval exegesis the argument has been advanced that Scripture may have an implicit meaning going far beyond the authors original intention that can only be understood by a later audience. 6. Historical criticism is atomistic and disintegrative; it does not produce adequate understanding of documents as literary wholes, since it concentrates on the pre-literary history of the text and tends to ignore its post-history. Thus the tradition is ground up into small pieces which have no meaning within a broader context.

    49. 3.18 Nation, Historical Criticism and the Current Methodological Crisis 7. The results of historical criticism cannot be effectively communicated to non-specialist and consequently can hardly serve the needs of the Christian community for teaching and edification. 8. The criteria by which historical method functions (e.g. the principle of analogy) are inadequate in dealing with historical novelty; in biblical narratives there are numerous events which are without analogy. 9. Historical criticism is largely responsible for the sterility of the academic study of the Bible; it neglects the devotional use of Scripture, strips it of theological meaning and renders it difficult if not impossible to gain exegetical results which are relevant and meaningful for contemporary worship and practice.

    50. 3.18 Nation, Historical Criticism and the Current Methodological Crisis 10. The view of myth often advocated by historic criticism is not only reductionistic and anti-historical but also ignores the power and meaning of myth even for modern humanity. 11. Historical criticism embraces the often unexamined assumption that in the biblical narratives only that which can be proved to have actually happened has any meaning. 12. The study of the direct, genetic or causal relationships of units with each other, involving the prehistory and the post-history of the texts is inadequate for a full understanding. In addition there must also be what could be called their para-history, an investigation of significant parallels, wherever found and from wherever time and on whatever level, an investigation carefully disciplined by structural methodology.

    51. 3.19 Hagner, The New Testament, History, and the Historical-critical Method 1. The historical-critical method must reject the limitations of the positivistic scientific model. 2. The historical-critical method must be open to the transcendent, i.e., to the possibility of divine causation. 3. The historical-critical method must pursue without restriction the explanation that best explains the phenomena under investigation. 4. The historical-critical method must test the reliability of historical witness using the same criteria and having the same resultant confidence whether what is in view involves the natural or the supernatural. Perhaps more attention must be given to the quality, circumstances, character, etc. of the witnesses to a supernatural even than to an ordinary event.

    52. 3.19 Hagner, The New Testament, History, and the Historical-critical Method 5. The historical-critical method must consider the role of the community in the transmission of the tradition not simply as potentially negative but as potentially positive.

More Related