3' History of Interpretation

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. 724, 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.