Biblical Hermeneutics: Historical Criticism and Interpretation

Introduction: The Challenge of Interpretation

Interpretation is problematic — not only because of the restrictions in understanding ancient written languages and the nuances of their cultural contexts, but also with regard to the textual and contextual factors involved in exegesis and hermeneutics. For the bulk of early Christian history, the responsibility for interpreting scripture was assigned to official authorities in the Church. Low literacy rates among the general public enabled the perpetuation of elitist hermeneutics. However, the Reformation and the Enlightenment changed everything. According to Boring (2012), to be a competent and responsible interpreter of scripture does not require membership in the clergy, but instead belief and belonging to the Christian community. Furthermore, Boring (2012) claims that interpretation of the Bible is a dynamic and ongoing act. Hermeneutics and exegesis are not static, but dynamic and discursive engagements with the primary sources that allow scripture to remain relevant regardless of shifts in geography, historical epoch, and culture.

The Enlightenment and the Historical-Critical Method

The Enlightenment dramatically shifted cultural norms and values, creating a space for secularism in society. Reason and scientific inquiry were used to challenge religion, especially as the realms of Church and State grew increasingly separate. Likewise, the Old and New Testaments were subject to intense scrutiny by academics, leading to a new method of interpretation. Whereas scripture had long been taken for granted as authoritative, universal, and eternally relevant, the Enlightenment encouraged a more critical view that took into account factors such as historicity and authenticity.

The historical-critical method, or historical criticism, treats the Bible as a work of literature or historiography rather than as a sacred text. The benefit that came out of Enlightenment scrutiny of the Christian scriptures is that it led to a broader understanding of how to apply biblical truths to changing social and historical circumstances. Historical criticism created a lively and ongoing debate that continues to affect how scripture is read and understood. The historical-critical method also prevents the crystallization of scripture and other problems associated with fundamentalism.

Divino Afflante Spiritu and the Catholic Church's Response

Pope Pius XII and the Divino Afflante Spiritu exemplify the ways in which the Catholic Church integrated the results of historical-critical inquiry into hermeneutics. These advancements in official Church doctrine allow for fluid and broad understandings of contextual variables that enhance the validity and applicability of scripture. Most importantly, the welcoming of historical criticism through Divino Afflante Spiritu and related texts permits an understanding of the historical, political, social, and cultural contexts of the era in which biblical texts were written. It is essential to take into account the historical and cultural context of the source texts for an interpretation to remain valid.

Likewise, the Divino Afflante Spiritu helped reveal the role that literary criticism plays in understanding the source texts. The language used in primary source material cannot be understood in isolation from other texts codified and presented around the same historical period. Although some fundamentalists protested the inclusion of historical criticism into hermeneutics, the shift was generally both welcome and necessary. Both literary criticism and historical criticism take into account the nuances of language — how words might have meant different things in different times and places — as well as the nuances of values, belief systems, and worldviews.

Conclusion

The development of the historical-critical method represents a necessary evolution in biblical interpretation. From the early Church's restrictive hermeneutics to the Enlightenment's critical interventions, and from the Catholic Church's institutional response in Divino Afflante Spiritu to Boring's framework of interpretive stages, scripture has consistently been reengaged as a living document. Responsible interpretation, rather than demanding clerical authority or uncritical acceptance, requires contextual awareness and ongoing dialogue — allowing biblical truths to remain meaningful across shifting historical and cultural contexts.

References

Boring, M. Eugene. An Introduction to the New Testament: History, Literature and Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012.