History of Biblical Interpretation

This article examines the incongruity between most modern translations of Jonah 3:3 and ancient textual and archaeological evidence concerning the size of Nineveh. Every modern solution intended to reconcile a literal rendering of the description in Jonah 3:3 with ancient evidence fails. However, reading Jonah 3:3 as a figure of speech perfectly conveys the author’s intention of representing Nineveh as a very large city.

This chapter examines some of the assumptions that are typically employed when dealing with the development of the Hebrew Bible. The first part of the chapter is a critique of the very term "Jewish Bible." It points out some of the problems with the term and make a plaidoyer against being politically correct. The second part focuses on what it means to explain the "development" of the Hebrew Bible and suggests that diachronic analysis alone cannot fully explain its formation. In this author's view, proper understanding of the development of the Bible requires drawing upon intellectual and literary models more commonly associated with the period of the “reception of scripture” than with conventional composition history.

This essay was published in The Bible and Early Trinitarian Theology, edited by Christopher A. Beeley and Mark E. Weedman, for the CUAP Studies in Early Christianity (Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2018); this is the uncorrected proofs. Exploring the humanity and divinity of Jesus, the Son's relation to the Father, and the agency of the Holy Spirit, it is one of five essays suggesting Johannine contributions to trinitarian discussions in the early church.

Michael Segal, “Interpreting History in Qumran Texts,” in M. Kister, M. Segal, and R. Clements (eds.), The Religious Worldviews Reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature (STDJ 127; Leiden: Brill, 2018), 212–244.

This work is concerned with some basic problems which historical criticism poses to biblical interpretation. The first chapter deals with historical criticism in relation to problems of the text’s historical distance and contemporary significance. Certain key figures from the field of philosophical hermeneutics are briefly introduced (Schleiermacher, Gadamer, Hirsch, Ricoeur), but attention is also paid to the ways how historical criticism was actually practiced (Wellhausen, Mowinckel). It is maintained that historical criticism is a tool in interpretation and does not impede possible appropriation of the text by those who read it with deep affection.

The second chapter faces historical criticism as a theological problem, which has become most apparent in the inerrantist milieu and which was more or less successfully answered by canonical approaches. A special attention is given to the canonical approach of Brevard Childs, which is understood against the backdrop of Barth’s doctrine of the Word of God and Frei’s view of biblical narratives. A special attention is given to distinction between approaches of Brevard Childs and James Sanders. It is maintained that Sanders’ canonical criticism provides better interpretive platform, because it wants to address the needs of contemporary interpretive communities through a self-aware historical critical enterprise.

The third chapter takes up the problem of violence in the book of Joshua and the problem of theological meaning of the exodus story. Biblical theological insights of James Sanders, James Barr, and Walter Brueggemann are applied. An eye is kept also on Pixley-Levenson debate and it is maintained that traditions of the exodus and conquest must be understood together as literary devices which invite communities of faith to freedom. As a result of the present research, historical criticism is presented as a hermeneutical tool which can help to rescue text’s significance for the contemporary communities of believers.

Go here for uncorrected proofs: http://kellenplaxco.weebly.com/uploads/2/6/5/4/26547638/vc_070_04_1277-plaxco.pdf

This article provides an account of Didymus’s subtle attention to theological nuance and invites readers to reconsider his importance for the theological debates of the late fourth century. The polemical shape of Didymus the Blind’s theology of the trinity is underdetermined. This article argues that Didymus responded to Eunomius’s first Apology. The argument takes the shape of a short history of the reception of John 16:14. This verse was used in anti-monarchian tradition to distinguish the Holy Spirit from the Son, but it also led to low pneumatologies that in some cases implied angelomorphic pneumatology. Eunomius’s pneumatology in Apology 25 is a radicalization of this anti-monarchian reading of John 16:14, which Didymus opposed with careful attention to Scripture’s usage of terms for “pouring out.”

Criticism of myth in the Bible is not a modern problem. Its roots go back to the earliest Christian theologians, and before them, to ancient Greek and Jewish thinkers. The dilemma posed by texts that ascribe human characteristics and emotions to the divine is a perennial problem, and we have much to learn from the ancient attempts to address it.

Mark Sheridan provides a theological and historical analysis of the patristic interpretation of Scripture’s anthropomorphic and anthropopathic language for God. Rather than reject the Bible as mere stories, ancient Jewish and Christian theologians read these texts allegorically or theologically in order to discover the truth contained within them. They recognized that an edifying and appropriate interpretation of these stories required that one start from the understanding that "God is not a human being" (Num 23:19). Sheridan brings the patristic tradition into conversation with modern interpreters to show the abiding significance of its theological interpretation for today.

Language for God in Patristic Tradition is a landmark resource for students of ancient Christian theology. Wide-ranging in scope and accessible in its analysis, it demonstrates that those engaged in theological interpretation of Scripture have much to gain from studying their forebears in the faith.

This paper aims at highlighting a methodological flaw in current biblical archaeology, which became apparent as a result of recent research in the Aravah's Iron Age copper production centers. In essence, this flaw, which cuts across all schools of biblical archaeology, is the prevailing, overly simplistic approach applied to the identification and interpretation of nomadic elements in biblical-era societies. These elements have typically been described as representing only one form of social organization, which is simple and almost negligible in historical reconstructions. However, the unique case of the Aravah demonstrates that the role of nomads in shaping the history of the southern Levant has been underestimated and downplayed in the research of the region, and that the total reliance on stone-built archaeological features in the identification of social complexity in the vast majority of recent studies has resulted in skewed historical reconstructions. Recognizing this "architectural bias" and understanding its sources have important implications on core issues in biblical archaeology today, as both "minimalists" and "maximalists" have been using stone-built architectural remains as the key to solving debated issues related to the geneses of Ancient Israel and neighboring polities (e.g., "high" vs. "low" Iron Age chronologies), in which-according to both biblical accounts and external sources-nomadic elements played a major role.

עם התחזקותה של מתודת הפשט בפרשנות המקרא בימי-הביניים עמדה על הפרק שאלת יחסם של הפרשנים למתודה המדרשית, ובפרט למדרשי האגדה. בסוגיית זו דנו חכמים ומלומדים רבים.  במאמרנו נתייחס לפן ספציפי של הדיון הזה – בסתירה לכאורה בין כללי לשון וסגנון המקרא, כפי שנוסחו בימי-הביניים, לפרשנות המדרשית. הפרשנות המדרשית נתנה מענה לרבות מן החריגות הטקסטואליות הקיימות במקרא, והן היוו עבורה נקודת מוצא לחשיפתם של רעיונות, תכנים ופירושים, שגלם המקרא להערכתם, באמצעות החריגה הטקסטואלית. ניסוחם של כללי לשון, סגנון ועריכה, הפך את מרבית החריגות הטקסטואליות לחלק נורמטיבי ובהחלט לא חורג מ'דרך הלשון' ו'מנהג הכתובים'.
מדברינו עולה שיש מספר סימנים לכך שפרשני ימי-הביניים היו מודעים לבעייתיות העולה מניסוחם של כללי השפה והכתיבה המקראית ומתפיסותיהם הפרשניות. עם הבעייתיות הזו התמודדו הפרשנים בכמה דרכים: בדוגמה אחת ראינו כיצד רד"ק הציג סינתזה בין הכלל הלשוני (בנוגע להטעמת גוף הפועל) לבין דברי המדרש; בדוגמאות אחרות העלינו שהפרשנים מצאו נקודות מוצא חדשות למדרשי האגדה ובאופן כזה לא היוו הכללים הפרשניים שנמצאו אבן נגף הממוטטת את מדרשי האגדה; בדוגמה האחרונה עמדנו על דרך נוספת שהשתמשו בה הפרשנים - הפרשן הסביר את מדרש האגדה באופן שונה מן המקובל, ועל-ידי-כך יישב את הסתירה לכאורה בין מדרש האגדה לבין התפיסה הימי-ביניימית.

Philosophers have often described theism as the belief in the existence of a “perfect being”—a being that is said to possess all possible perfections, so that it is all-powerful, all-knowing, immutable, perfectly good, perfectly simple, and necessarily existent, among other qualities. But such a theology is difficult to reconcile with the God we find in the Bible and Talmud. The Question of God’s Perfection brings together leading scholars from the Jewish and Christian traditions to critically examine the theology of perfect being in light of the Hebrew Bible and classical rabbinic sources. Contributors are James A. Diamond, Lenn E. Goodman, Edward C. Halper, Yoram Hazony, Dru Johnson, Brian Leftow, Berel Dov Lerner, Alan L. Mittleman, Heather C. Ohaneson, Randy Ramal, Eleonore Stump, Alex Sztuden, and Joshua I. Weinstein.

The year 538 A.D. became the turning point in the history of the Roman Empire since so many aspects on political, administrative and economical levels were already switched off that when Justinian declared himself to be a theologian from this year and no longer a soldier, he crossed the barrier of his mandate between what is purely civil obligation and what is religious obligation, similarly to Constantine before, and entered in competition with the papal function and this role is evidence of Justinian's ongoing caesaro-papism. The quest for unification of the empire by unification of the church, the fever for church-building projects with his wife Theodora, the persecution of enemies of the church and heretics, his disdain with the Sabbath although his second name was Sabbatini, his support for suppressing any eschatological fever in line with the church fathers and Oecumenius and yet trying to build the 'Kingdom of God' on earth, all this indicate the problem 538 was f...

A critical analysis of the claim that Pietists had a view of the Bible that allowed for errors in historical matters or matters other than for spiritual life and faith. This study focuses on the preeminent Pietist, J. A. Bengel, and his comprehensive commentary, his Gnomon, and finds Bengel's view of the Bible as God's word written, true in all it affirms.

Three commentaries on Ecclesiastes represent renewed academic interest in theological interpretation of Scripture (TIS), as well as the evolving relationship between biblical and contemporary theologies. Despite the focus on Ecclesiastes, this article more broadly illustrates that TIS is not a narrow movement exclusively oriented toward evangelical aims despite its biblical focus. In reality, TIS is inclusive across denominations with varying degrees of comfort or discomfort with traditional systematic theology and pluralistic worldviews. Not surprisingly, integrating the Bible and theology will differ for various Christian traditions depending on one's view of systematic and biblical theology. This article examines how three commentaries on Ecclesiastes, representing theological and biblical scholars, highlight diverse traditions, while offering useful contemporary applications for Christians practicing across the spectrum who identify with common faith.

Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329–390 AD) developed a robustly Trinitarian framework for biblical interpretation. Understanding his pneumatological conception of illumination and deification enables us to understand his distinction between impious and pious (or virtuous) readings of Scripture. This speaks to some of the problems inherent in modern exegesis.

In Amanda W. Benckhuysen’s invaluable work, she introduces women interpreters’ forgotten voices. Benckhuysen unveils the women’s forgotten counter readings of biblical texts that, as traditionally interpreted, had negatively affected women’s lives. As Benckhuysen concludes, “If this history of interpretation on Genesis 1–3 has taught us anything, however, it is that we need both men’s and women’s perspectives to help us gain a deeper understanding of the truth.” This book is especially helpful for readers who are interested in pursuing the many questions about the roles of women and men in the home and society and about why women’s voices, in particular, were often silenced. Benckhuysen’s The Gospel According to Eve is a very informative and educative resource that both women and men will benefit from reading.

The growing dissatisfaction of current scholars with the meagre results produced by the use of modern analytic categories to explain early Christian exegesis calls for developing alternate analyses. Recent studies in ancient philosophy indicate how Origen’s practice of biblical interpretation can be understood to be an essential aspect of the mind’s ascetical training. Rather than evaluating Origen’s conclusions, we are better off situating his interpretive efforts within his overall style of inquiry and engaging with him in the intellectually demanding meditational practices he advocated. Amid the mental, physical, and political impediments that constrain the human mind, Origen’s exegetical enterprise was a daring form of reasoning about the nature of things. By using the words and images of scripture as a material path for its travels, Origen contended that the mind, through various practiced mental inquiries, could be led to what would otherwise be beyond its scope of vision. In this way, for Origen, scriptural interpretation is drawn into prayer’s fundamental itinerary from the world’s material surface, to matters of the soul, and eventually to the Spirit itself.

Available solely from Apple iTunes:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/king-david-and-his-reign-revisited/id741571300?mt=11

Of all the Bible’s personalities, David is the most profoundly human. Courageous, cunning, and complex, he lives life to the hilt. Whatever he does, he does with all his might, exuding both vitality and vulnerability.

But what do we know about the historical David? Why didn't the biblical authors present a more flattering image of him? Why are their stories of his life filled with so many confusing details (about people, places, communities, and so on)? And why do these stories stand at the center of the Bible?

In this groundbreaking study, the award-winning biblical scholar Jacob L. Wright answers these fundamental questions. He shows how the earliest biblical sources knew David as a warlord whose greatest feat is the creation of the kingdom of Judah. Only later did David become known as the one who slew Goliath, won the love of Jonathan and Michal, took the throne of Saul,  and ruled Israel.

This beautifully designed enhanced book reveals the political concerns that prompted later generations to drastically transform David’s identity. As the first work of its kind, King David and His Reign Revisited features a dazzling array of paintings, photographs, and multimedia. Drawing on his research on war commemoration, Wright introduces an exciting new approach to the interpretation of biblical literature.


***Redaction history of much of the Book of Samuel, with extensive chapter on Chronicles. Appealing to findings from NEH-funding research project on "war commemoration," it presents new model of the formation of biblical literature and Israel's ethnogenesis.  Argues that the David narrative was originally fully separate from the Saul narrative, and that the David narrative was solely focused on the Kingdom of Judah (lacking any reference to Israel).***

The purpose of this research paper is to show that literal hermeneutics and inerrancy have an inseparable relationship by demonstrating that while inerrancy is not a hermeneutical tool, sound hermeneutics cannot exist without it. Inerrancy will be shown as the source upon which literal hermeneutics exist as it alone determines the entire structure of hermeneutics leading to exegesis. To accomplish this, the doctrine of inspiration will be looked at together with the doctrine of inerrancy, which naturally demonstrates that God’s inspired words must be understood in a literal, normal way as language is commonly interpreted and understood.

What is the relationship between the Bible and philosophy? Several recent scholarly ventures pursue this question to various ends. The Society of Biblical Literature has a new program unit dedicated to Hebrew Bible and philosophy, which Jaco Gericke and I co-chair. Recent works on the intersection of philosophy and the Bible have prompted a wide response from philosophers and theologians (less so from biblical scholars). Eleonore Stump’s work on theodicy has consistently featured biblical exegesis, including her most recent text Wandering in Darkness. Yoram Hazony’s The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture received in-depth attention in this journal with four separately authored responses (“Symposium,” vol. 2, 2014). In December 2015, a conference was dedicated solely to reconciling theological conceptions of God with Scripture (“The Question of God’s Perfection,” hosted by the Herzl Institute in Jerusalem through John Templeton funding). In line with the recent spate of work at this intersection of Bible and philosophy, this review considers two recent monographs on the topic, emphasizing the methodological distance between them.

John's Logos-hymn reflect a response to the Johannine narrative, functioning with other Christological hymns to pose a Jewish challenge to Empire and its divine-Caesar cult. It is added to the final edition of John as an experientially engaging introduction. Published in Creation Stories in Dialogue: The Bible, Science, and Folk Traditions (Radboud Prestige Lecture Series by Alan Culpepper), eds. R. Alan Culpepper and Jan van der Watt, BINS 139 (Leiden: E.J. Brill 2016)--uncorrected proofs.

This essay is slated to appear in the festschrift for Alan Culpepper in Brill's Biblical Interpretation Series (2018), Anatomies of the Gospels and Beyond, edited by Mikeal Parsons, Elizabeth Stuthers Malbon, and myself. This essay applies Cognitive-Critical Biblical Analysis to the human development of material behind the texts of Paul's writings as a complement to those who have worked on the material in front of biblical texts, as Alan Culpepper has done with Gospel traditions.

Although Habakkuk 2:4b is used within soteriological discussions, there remains a question for modern believers to answer: Does the faithfulness of the believer or the faithfulness of the Lord lead to salvation? There are three classical means of interpreting Habakkuk 2:4b in the life of the believer. The first is that the righteous shall live by maintaining faithfulness to God. The second is that the righteous shall live by the faithfulness of God. The third interpretation is that the righteous shall live by faith in God. At first glance, any of these options seem possible as a proper interpretation. This paper considers all three, and proposes a mediating option.

This study has been limited to the question of how suppositions about the
nature of the text and about language affected interpretation in the ancient world. Other presuppositions and procedures, such as the criteria of «fittingness for God» and «usefulness», have been touched on only in passing.105 The question of ancient versus modern interpretation is not primarily one of differing rules and methods but of ancient presuppositions rendered untenable by advancing historical knowledge. In this sense the portrayal of the history of exegesis as a long struggle for the literal sense is mistaken. It is rather a question of increased appreciation of the very human and historical process through which the texts came into being. Contemporary difficulties in reading the Scriptures as they were read in the past are caused fundamentally not by a lack of faith, as is sometimes suggested, but by an enormous increase in historical knowledge and a greatly expanded historical perspective.