Biblical Hermeneutics: Major Approaches to Scripture Interpretation

Introduction to Biblical Interpretation

Christian and Jewish traditions have always been set apart by a keen interest in the correct ways to interpret the Bible. From the heated debates between the Antiochenes and the Alexandrians during the time of the ancient church to the debates surrounding the use of the Bible during the Reformation period, the proper way of interpreting the Scriptures has been a major source of concern. To biblical scholars in the late 19th and 20th centuries, biblical criticism appeared to have finally matured. However, modern biblical criticism seems much more effective in putting an end to the heated debates. For instance, the second half of the 20th century witnessed a vast display of different interpretive theories, most of which were developed in response to the typical critical approach. Even a casual look at recent publications reveals that the debate on ways to interpret the Bible has not stopped; rather, the discussions have reached a level of intensity and complexity that has never before been seen in the history of biblical study. The modern landscape cannot be easily described; however, a brief overview of the main approaches will help orient the reader to the basic issues (Silva 1994, para. 1–2).

These are just some of the major approaches discussed below, and the list is not an exhaustive one. Many biblical readers are often discouraged by the complex nature of the subject. Exposure to multiple modern theories of interpretation and meaning can be both complex and unsettling, especially given the uncertain nature of human experience. It is, however, important to note that the same biblical scholars who argue against objectivity and determinacy of meaning go about their daily work assuming that interpretation is both possible and critical.

The Traditional and Historical Approaches

The Traditional Approach

The term traditional as used in this paper describes the basic approach employed for biblical interpretation by the Christian Church before the advent of modern scientific thought in the 17th century. With some qualifications, the traditional approach is still used by a considerable number of Bible readers today. This point of view asserts that the Bible is essentially a divine text that sets itself apart through its infallible teaching and perfect unity, and that recognizing this unique and special characteristic is key for proper interpretation. Therefore, any reading of biblical text that involves error or contradiction would appear to be excluded by this approach. Nevertheless, a variety of theories have been utilized within this traditional framework (Silva 1994, para. 3).

The Historical Approach

One of the other major approaches is the historical approach, which developed during the Age of Enlightenment. This approach has dominated biblical scholarship to the present day. Interest in the meaning of the Scriptures in terms of historical context had already been important to many significant theological groups for centuries, and much of the theory that developed during the modern scientific period was compatible with many of the earlier approaches. Nonetheless, the new principle of placing greater emphasis on the role of "criticism" and on the "superiority" of human reason involves treating the Bible like any other book. This principle meant the abandonment of the widely accepted idea of biblical authority by some. As such, the belief in the divine nature of the Scriptures became less relevant to historical criticism, which anchored itself in approaches that were not prejudiced by dogmatic presumptions. Since the Bible, like any other book, was then to be interpreted based on the judgment of human reason, the historical approach obviously assumed the existence of errors and contradictions within it. As this approach progressed in the 19th century, philological and textual analysis evolved rapidly, and consequently the theological significance of the Bible was increasingly receding into the background (Silva 1994, para. 5–6).

Theological, Hermeneutical, and Linguistic Approaches

The Theological Approach

The desire of many to develop a dependably historical approach led many theological students to accept the "history-of-religions" school. However, this approach perceived Christianity as just another religious phenomenon of antiquity and seemingly excluded the notion that the Bible held divine authority or was unique. As a result, biblical interpretation became dominated by efforts to explain the Scriptures strictly on naturalistic grounds. In response to these developments, many theological scholars began to argue in favour of the significance of theological interpretation. The theological approach is primarily associated with Karl Barth (1886–1968). This approach positions itself against the sterility of the historical approach. It seeks to restore confidence in the authority and unity of the Bible without ignoring the developments of historical-critical scholarship — earning it the label neo-orthodox — and it stresses the continuing relevance of the Bible for today (Silva 1994, para. 7–8).

The Hermeneutical Approach

The works of Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834) in the early 19th century gave rise to a fourth major method of interpretation: philosophical or general hermeneutics. This scholarly work introduced the concept of hermeneutics into biblical scholarship, though it did not dominate the field until the second half of the 20th century. The term hermeneutics meant, at least in its initial context, the art or science of interpretation. The term essentially emphasizes the need to develop a broad theory of interpretation applicable to any text; however, achieving this requires the use of philosophical concepts and tools. Almost by its very definition, the hermeneutical approach is strongly interdisciplinary in perspective (Silva 1994, para. 9).

Linguistics and Literary Criticism

Modern linguistics offers a different standpoint — that of the scientific study of language. Linguistics underwent dramatic developments in the 19th century, developments that were subsequently applied to biblical scholarship. Back then, the focus of linguistics was on the manner in which languages evolved and related to each other. During the same period, a parallel development known as linguistic analysis, or analytic philosophy, emerged as a response to the abstract and speculative currents of thought that had dominated recent decades. According to the proponents of this approach, the primary responsibility of philosophy is the clarification of concepts, which necessitates a careful analysis of language. Later advances — for instance, "speech act theory" — within this philosophical tradition greatly influenced modern theological debates. Literary criticism is another discipline with obvious links to biblical interpretation. One of its dominant tendencies is the minimization of the author's significance in order to maximize the independent value of the text itself (Silva 1994, para. 10–12).

The Calvinistic Approach: Calvin as Exegete

The term Calvinistic, which forms part of the title of Chapter 18, contains an intentional ambiguity, since one of the author's aims is to emphasize the close link between systematic theology and biblical interpretation. It would be an overstatement to argue that Calvin's exegetical approach in his commentaries is perfectly identical to his use of the Bible in other writings. However, one must recognize that over the course of twenty years, Calvin's theological thought directed his exegesis, even as his exegesis simultaneously continued to contribute to his theology (Kaiser and Silva 2007, 251).

In making an argument for a Calvinistic approach to the interpretation of the Scriptures, one must first appeal to the biblical commentaries. Numerous biblical scholars, including some who are not inclined toward Calvinism, regard Calvin as an outstanding expositor of the Scriptures. A short summary of commentary on this issue is simply that Calvin was an exegetical genius. His commentaries have been described as unsurpassed in their permanent value, soundness, clarity, originality, and depth. Reuss, himself a biblical scholar and one of the editors of Calvin's works, praises Calvin eloquently, calling him the greatest exegete of the 16th century. Diestel, a historian of exegesis, calls Calvin the creator of genuine exegesis. No commentator is referenced more frequently than Calvin, despite the fact that he lived well before the advent of the modern scientific outlook (Kaiser and Silva 2007, 253).

Conclusion

Acknowledging God's lordship in our lives and in the interpretation of the Scriptures can help instil confidence. Familiarising ourselves with the history of biblical interpretation can at times be a difficult experience. Even today, a brief survey among believers will surface theological controversies that can leave one discouraged. And if we look at ourselves honestly, we detect obstinacy, selfishness, and other obstacles that might seem to wipe out all our hermeneutical hopes. Still, a brief reflection on the sovereignty of God can provide guidance (Kaiser and Silva 2007, 269).

In conclusion, John Calvin's exegetical work, together with the theological system associated with him, is of great importance as we seek to develop methods and principles of interpretation. Calvin's engagement with the doctrine of common grace demonstrates an important appreciation for the positive contribution that unbelievers can make to our understanding of God's truth. Among the doctrines that distinguish Calvinism, none is more important than God's sovereignty. An appreciation of this fact can help enhance our comprehension of scriptural narrative.

References

Kaiser, Walter C., and Moises Silva. 2007. Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Silva, Moises. 1994. "Contemporary Theories of Biblical Interpretation." In New Interpreter's Bible, Vol. 1, 107–124. Nashville: Abingdon.