Inerrancy and disunity

Recall that among committed inerrantists we will find those who believe in "predestination" and "free will," and in "premillennial" and "postmillennial" eschatology, in "infant baptism" and "believer's baptism," in the "elder rule" and "congregational rule." On almost every important interpretive question in every biblical book, we find a wide variety of "inerrantist" readings. So it is clear that inerrancy does not guarantee a correct reading of Scripture, nor does it prevent all sorts of exegetical tomfoolery...Even though evangelicals deny the diversity of Scripture, the theological diversity within evangelicalism is a good and ready indicator of Scripture's truer nature...It is nardly conceivable that evangelicals could assent to so many differing and contradictory viewpoints if the Bible spoke as clearly and univocally as we are wont to suppose.

Kenton Sparks in Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2011), 26.

Interpretive Pluralism

...as the Reformation began to spin out of control (from his point of view) with the spread of Anabaptist and other sectarian groups, Luther had to back away fromt he perspecuity of only one "correct" view and recognize the potential to prove a wide variety of doctrinal positions from scripture, admitting, "I learn now that it is enough to throw many passages together helter-skelter, whether they fit or not. If this be the way, then I can easily prove from Scripture that beer is better than wine." In another, more general  sense, this problem of pervasive interpretive pluralism goes all the way back to teh recognition of the early church fathers Tertullian (155-230) and Vincent of Lerins (early fifth century) about the impossibility of using scripture to persuade heretics of the error of their ways. Vincent wrote, "Owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another, so that it seems capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters." According to Tertullian, scriptural "ambiguity" and the possibility of reading the Bible in different ways means that a "controversy over the Scriptures can clearly produce no other effect than help to upset either the stomach or the brain." Tertullian observed: "Though most skilled in the Scriptures, you will made no progress, when everything which you maintain is denied on the other side, and whatever you deny is (by them) maintained. As for yourself, indeed, you will lose nothing but your breath, and gain nothing but vexation from their blasphemy...Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures."

In Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2011), 21.

John Calvin and Multiple Meanings

Scripture, they say, is fertile and thus bears multiple meanings. I acknowledge that Scripture is the most rich and inexhaustible fount of all wisdom. But I deny that its fertility consists in the various meanings which anyone may fasten to it at his pleasure. Therefore let us know that the true meaning of Scripture is the genuine and simple one [verum sensum scripturae, qui germanus et simplex], and let us embrace and hold it tightly. Let us not merely neglect as doubtful, but boldly set aside as deadly corruptions, those pretended expositions which lead us away from the literal sense.

From his commentary on Galatians in Greene-McCreight, K. (1999). Ad Litteram: How Augustine, Calvin, and Barth Read the "Plain Sense" of Genesis 1-3. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. Pg. 97

Allegory and Martin Luther

Even though he called allegorizers "clerical jugglers performing monkey tricks," Luther himself was known to engage in the occasional allegory.

His interpretation of the Good Samaritan:

the man going down to Jericho = Adam and all humankind
the robbers = devils who robbed and wounded us
the priest = fathers (Noah, Abraham) before Moses
the Levite = priesthood of the Old Testament
the good Samaritan = Lord Jesus Christ
oil = grace

from Robert H. Stein, "The Parables of Jesus in Recent Study," in Word and World 5/3 (1985), 249.

Allegorical/Spiritualistic Summary

Meaning: Beyond the text
Authority: Spirit
Question: Is there a deeper, spiritual meaning that needs to be uncovered?

Allegory of the Fish

The Allegory of 153 Fish, John 21:11 (Compiled by Mark Moore)

The number 153 has had a number of allegorical interpretations attached to it, none of which appear valid:

(1) There were supposedly 153 varieties of fish in the Sea of Galilee. Thus, this is a veiled reference to Mt 13:47-48, showing that all kinds of people will be saved. This estimate comes from Oppian via Jerome. However, Jerome is somewhat "loose" in his counting of Oppian's categories. Besides that, Oppian wrote c. 176-180 and therefore can not adequately account for John's usage of 153.

(2) The total represents the sum of all the numbers from 1-17. 17 = 10 commandments plus the 7 gifts of the Spirit. Or, according to R. Grant, "'One Hundred Fifty-Three Large Fish' (John 21:11)," Harvard Theological Review 42 (1949): 273-75, there are seven Apostles present at the catch and ten who received the Holy Spirit (John 20:24). Thus, 153 functions here as 144,000 does in Revelation 7:4 to represent all God's redeemed.

(3) Peter's name in Hebrew, Simon Iona, numerically is 153.

(4) 153 = 100 (Gentiles) + 50 (Jews) + 3 (Trinity).

(5) The Hebrew word for Mt. Pisgah has a numerical value of 153. This shows how Jn 21 is Jesus farewell adress to the leaders of the New Israel, just like Moses' (cf. Num 11:16-25; 27:17). (O. T. Owens, "One Hundred and Fifty Three Fishes," ExpT 100 (1988): 52-54.)

(6) The Hebrew for "The Children of God" has a numerical value of 153. Hence, Jn 21 is a reference to the new "children of God." (J. A. Romeo, "Gematria and John 21:11--The Children of God," JBL 97/2 (1978): 263-64.)

(7) The 153 fish in the net, plus the one that Jesus had cooked = 154 fish. This matches the numeric value of of the Greek word "day," which was one of the titles for Jesus in the early church. (K. Cardwell, "The Fish on the Fire: Jn 21:9" ExpT 102 (1990): 12-14.)

(8) 153 is gematriacal Atbash. If you reverse the numerical value of the Hebrew Alphabet, then take the numbers 70, 3, and 80, you get the Greek letters "I," "X," and "Th." These are the first three letters of the Greek word "fish" which was, of course, a significant symbol in early Christianity. This word was an accrostic for early Christians which signified: "Jesus Christ, God, Son, Savior." (Cf. N. J. McEleney, "153 Great Fishes [John 21:11]--Gematriacal Atbash," Biblica 58 [1977]: 411-17).

Feminist Hermeneutics

Excerpts from Anne Carter Shelley: "What are we to think of Jezebel?"
A Paper Submitted for Hermeneutics and Biblical Studies
At the 1997 meeting of the Academy of Homiletics

Hermeneutical Method:

“. . . Although it may seem that texts like I Kings 21:1-16 should stand still, should mean one thing only, they don’t. Multitudinous factors influence and keep in motion the reader, the author, and the text. The result is that none of the elements—text, author, reader—remain stationary. None is fixed in meaning. Consequently, we can never uncover completely a text’s original meaning, because the text is on the move and its meaning is a combination of action, imagination and dialogism.”

“. . . My method is feminist and self-critical. As a feminist I do not pretend nor aim to offer the only possible viable reading of I Kings 21:1-16. I engage in conversation with the text, other readers, critical tools, and feminist ideology. I also acknowledge up front that my interpretation is subjective, self-interested, and only one of many which the text may disclose . . . I see part of my function as a feminist hermeneut to direct my reading towards those readers and church members who are often overlooked by other readings. My goal is to be inclusive and attentive to the marginalized and the oppressed . . . Finally, I do not take an absolutist stance towards the text. The way I read remains open-ended and open to future insight, revelation, and correction.”

In Practice:

“. . . But does Jezebel ever really have a chance to speak for herself? Her marriage is a political act not a romantic one. The religion of her childhood is continually criticized and challenged. Her concept of government and kingship has been formed at her father’s palace, not taught to her by the prophet Elijah. Most importantly, her story is told not by herself or her immediate family and friends, but by her enemies: To the authors of the Deuteronomic history, which includes this portion of I Kings, Jezebel is a harlot, a whore, an independent aggressive, domineering woman. She’s a warning to young girls everywhere not to grow up to be emasculating shrews, she-devils, or worst of all, autonomous women . . . We have here a biblical text in which there are three key players: Ahab, Naboth, and Jezebel. It is, as most biblical hermeneuts agree, a story about human injustice and sinfulness and God’s outrage at both. But ironically this text which is about God’s concern for the little guy, the common man Naboth instead has been used as a rationale for the injustice, abuse, subjugation, and denigration of women by men. That’s why feminist biblical scholars find I and II Kings’ treatment of Jezebel so offensive.”

“. . . Ironic, don’t you think? After all, according to her own cultural, political, social and matrimonial custom, wasn’t Jezebel doing what she has been taught that a good wife, and a good Queen should do? She is the first woman we know of to experience a backlash for being the good wife rather than a good feminist . . . Jezebel accepts her husband, admires him, adapts to him, and appreciates him. A woman can technically fit this traditional image of the good wife who accepts her divinely-assigned role as submissive, helpmate to her husband, yet fail to live and be the ideal human being when her life extends no farther than the walls of her husband’s castle because she always puts the welfare of her husband before all other individuals welfare, including her own.”

“. . . All women are not Jezebel’s anymore than all men are King Ahab’s. All women are not Jezebel’s. In fact, Jezebel herself may have not even been the Jezebel she’s portrayed to be. So the good news for us and the good news for Jezebel is that God cares about justice and righteousness for all people, all the time, and in all of our relationships no matter who we are.”

Thomas Aquinas

The multiplicity of these senses does not produce equivocation or any other kind of multiplicity, seeing that these senses are not multiplied because one word signifies several things; but because the things signified by the words can themselves be types of other things. Thus in Holy Writ no confusion results, for all the senses are founded on one – the literal – from which alone can any argument be drawn, and not from those intended in allegory, as Augustine says. Nevertheless, nothing of Holy Scripture perishes on account of this, since nothing necessary to faith is contained under the spiritual sense which is not elsewhere put forward by the Scripture in its literal sense.

Summa Theologica 1.1.10 in McCartney, Let the Reader Understand (Bridge Point, 1994), 92.

Thomas Aquinas

The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify his meaning, not by words only (as man also can do) but by things themselves. So, whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science has the property that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification. Therefore that first signification whereby words signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal. That signification whereby things signified by words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal, and presupposes it. For as the apostle says (Heb. 10:1) the Old Law is a figure of the New Law and [Pseudo-] Dionysius says: “The New Law itself is a figure of future glory.” Again, in the New Law, whatever our Head has done is a type of what we ought to do. Therefore, so far as the things of the Old Law signify the things of the New Law, there is the allegorical sense; so far as the things done in Christ, or so far as the things which signify Christ, are types of what we ought to do, there is the moral sense. But so far as they signify what relates to eternal glory, there is the anagogical sense. Since the literal sense is that which the author intends, and since the author of Holy Writ is God, Who by one act comprehends all things by His intellect, it is not unfitting, as Augustine says (Confessions xii), if, even according to the literal sense, one word in Holy Writ should have several senses.

Summa Theologica 1.1.10 in McCartney, Let the Reader Understand (Bridge Point, 1994), 91.

Medieval Hermeneutics

The Letter shows us what God and our fathers did; the allegory shows us where our faith is hid; the moral meaning gives us rules of daily life; the anagogy shows us where we end our strife.

in Klein, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Dallas: Word, 1993), 38.

Medieval Hermeneutics

The foundation is in the earth and it does not always have smoothly fitted stones. The superstructure rises above the earth, and it demands a smoothly proportioned construction. . . . Even so the Divine Page, in its literal sense, contains many things which seem both to be opposed to each other and, sometimes, to impart something which smacks of the absurd or the impossible. But the spiritual meaning admits no opposition; in it, many things can be different from one another, but none can be opposed. The fact, also that the first course of stones to be laid upon the foundation is placed flush with a tarut cord, and these are the stones upon which the entire weight of the others rests and to which they are fitted - is not without its meaning. For this is like a sort of second foundation and is the basis of the entire superstructure. This foundation both carries what is placed upon it and is itself carried by the first foundation. All things rest upon the first foundation but are not fitted to it in every way. As to the latter foundation, everything both rests upon it and is fitted to it. The first one carries the superstructure and underlies the superstructure. The second one carries the superstructure and is not only under the superstructure but part of it. The foundation which is under the truth as we have said stands for history, and the superstructure which is built upon it we have said suggests allegory.

Hugo of St. Victor, Didascalion VI.4. The Didascalion of Hugh of St. Victor, 2nd edition, trans. Jerome Taylor (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991): 140-141.

Structuralism

This method is unconcerned with the author’s intended meaning and seeks only to uncover the structure behind the writer’s expressed thought, the “common world” of the underlying codes that address us directly. Since appearances do not lead to reality, the interpreter can enter this common world only by uncovering the structures behind the whole rather than behind the parts, the plot development and pluri-signification (many meanings) of the text rather than the past meaning of the surface statements.

Grant Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006), 473.

Principles of Interpretation

1. A close reading of the text cannot be done without a perspective provided by one’s preunderstanding as identified by a “sociology of knowledge” perspective.
2. I must distinguish presupposition from prejudice.
3. We must seek controls that enable us to work with presuppositions (the positive) rather than to be dominated by prejudices (the negative).
a. We must be open to new possibilities.
b. We must understand the dangers of merely assuming our presuppositions.
c. The interpreter must not only address the text but must allow the text to address him or her (the hermeneutical circle).
d. Polyvalent interpretations per se are unnecessary, but a pluralistic or polyvalent attitude is critical.
4. We must all good hermeneutical principles to shape our exegesis and to control our tendency to read our prejudices into the text.
a. Consider the genre or type of literature and interpret each according to the proper rules of their particular language game.
b. The structural development of the passage provides a control against artificial atomistic exegesis.
c. Semantic research further helps the reader to discover the sense and reference of the passage.
d. A judicious use of background information helps us avoid the opposite error, namely, ignoring the historical aspect in favor of the poetic.
e. The implied author and implied reader in the text provide an indispensable perspective for the intended meaning of a text.
f. The question of verification of competing interpretive possibilities is essential for any system. This is a threefold process: inductively, deductively, sociologically.

Grant Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006), 516-519.

Deconstructionism

Since all language is metaphor, and since metaphor is “dead of meaning at its core,” language is characterized by “absence” (the absence of literal meaning and of hermeneutical constraints). Therefore, multiple meaning necessarily results, as the perceiver provides the content for the autonomous and empty metaphor.

Grant Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006), 476.

Augustine

Augustine’s Six Rules: (From Robert Lowery, Lincoln Christian Seminary)
1. The authority of Scripture rests on the authority of the church – authority is given to the ancient text as the church receives it.
2. The obscurities in Scripture have been put there by God, and are to be interpreted on the basis of many plain passages. Also consult traditional interpretation and the context.
3. When Scripture is ambiguous the rule of faith can be used to interpret it (what the church has customarily taught).
4. Figurative passages must not be taken literally; attention must be paid to the literary form of each text.
5. A figure need not always have only one meaning. Meaning may vary with context.
6. Any possible meaning which a text can have is legitimate, whether the author realized it or not. A truth could be apprehended at many different levels, and it was wrong to limit the biblical text to just one meaning.