(The following comprises Part Three of the Saturday series on Secondary Illuminations of Scripture by Deborah J. Shore)
Last week we started discussing Alexandrian hermeneutics. Why would Alexandrians follow Philo so far away from the core of the text as modern minds perceive it?
One might imagine Alexandrians sought to emulate the apostle Paul and other writers of Scripture as they reinterpreted and applied various Old Testament texts in ways never imagined by the original hearers. The writer of Hebrews’ attention to Melchizedek in chapters 5-7 was novel as was Paul’s allegorization of Hagar in Galatians 4. Another notable passage that resists summary is 1 Corinthians 10:1-4:
“For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.” (NASB)
However, theologians like Fee and Stuart remind us that the writers of Scripture were establishing connections between the Old Testament and the gospel that were especially inspired for the purpose of producing the scriptural cannon. Therefore, the function of the illumination of Scripture to us as we read is different than the function of inspiration to them as they wrote. Fee and Stuart might wish that this would stop us in our tracks from finding fuller meanings in the texts. I’d say it should cause us to head down any rabbit trails more slowly, circumspect about making “wild” jumps and humble about our authority and accuracy in the connections we see.
My own perspective lies between the poles of the Alexandrians and the Antiochenes and finds the Antiochene hermeneutic to be the necessary starting point from which to make further (Alexandrian) observations. Antiochene scholars were firmly rooted in historical and literal approaches to the text as the primary and usually sole import. They sometimes allowed typologies of Christ and the Church to be found in Old Testament characters and events but resisted allegory and resisted making the New Testament the main reference for any earlier event. “Even the Hebrew book of the Song of Songs (popularly known as the Song of Solomon) which is often treated as an allegory of Christ’s love for the Church even by modern conservative Protestants, was regarded [only] as a literal love poem by Theodore,” Antioch’s leading commentator (Olson, 203).
Both Alexandrian and Antiochene approaches nourished dangers. Speculative flights of fancy could so spiritualize everything as to cause exegetes to lose their footing or diminish of the humanity of Christ. Cautious historical examinations sometimes minimized the spiritual nature of the text and the divinity of Christ.
In our next installment, the great Augustine will demonstrate by example how problematic an allegorical-spiritual method can become.
You write that Fee and Stuart,
“remind us that the writers of Scripture were establishing connections between the Old Testament and the gospel that were especially inspired for the purpose of producing the scriptural cannon.”
Could you explain this further? It’s been awhile since I read Fee and Stuart and I’m too lazy to get up and get their book, so maybe I’m asking too much here. ha ha! But do you recall how they come to this conclusion? I guess I’m just not entirely sure about the idea that they had these “illuminations” for the (primary?) purpose of “producing the scriptural cannon.”
I think the connection between the Old Testament is certainly there, but I wonder if it’s connected necessarily to the the “gospel” in such a narrow sense (maybe that needs to be fleshed out more?!?!). I see the connections being to something that includes the gospel, but is bigger (think along the lines of exodus motif and the story of Israel’s redemption).
I’m really enjoying these posts as I’m following along. I like how you said, “I’d say it should cause us to head down any rabbit trails more slowly,
circumspect about making “wild” jumps and humble about our authority and
accuracy in the connections we see.” This is where I think your future examples will come in handy to provide insight into the evaluation aspect of secondary illuminations.
I kind of want to ask the question, “what makes something “wild”?”… but maybe I should wait. ha ha ha.
Great post. I’m looking forward to next week’s on Augustine. I love Augustine… and find his exegesis at times to be remarkably scary 🙂
The funny thing about the Augustine post is that reading Kenneth Bailey has helped me to rethink some of what I’ve already written. He allows for layers in the parables and gives at least the main points of the allegorical-spiritual tradition more credence as being in line w/ a theological intent that is understood when you realize what OT passages and contemporary situation Jesus’ parables were meant to call to mind. So he might argue that they actually did not miss the main point of the Good Samaritan parable and might consider the ethical applications of it secondary to the theological. Always something to stir the waters…. So did you not read ahead through the series? I hope I won’t surprise you too badly, lol. And yeah, I’ll need to get cracking on a follow up post that provides an example. I’ve got time though.
I’ll return w/ a Fee and Stuart quote.
Thanks! I haven’t read Augustine for quite a few years… though I have consulted his works here and there. I was assigned (forced) to read him during my theological training though. Fun stuff. I remember Fee and Stuart made much of his allegorical reading of the Good Samaritan parable, as do a lot of other scholars dealing with hermeneutics. It’s kind of the “classic” test case… for bad exegesis. Ha ha!
But maybe not application? Will enjoy reading further.
I didn’t read all of your posts to me because the three or four I did read were great and I wanted to be surprised, so I could take part in the conversation 🙂 ha ha… I trust you 🙂
Haha, thanks. I’m a little concerned about the unfolding b/c you and I do theologically differ a fair amount. But hey, if you’re open to the conversation, so am I. Does it suffice to give you pp. 200-204 of How to Read the Bible for All its Worth? If you really feel their opinion would contribute beyond my summation I could type it out tomorrow.
At this point I haven’t changed anything in next week’s blog to reflect the interesting challenge that Bailey presents. I may or may not. I do need to remove two words though. Oh, and I was just about to remind you to update my bios w/ the ones I sent to you when I saw that you’d attached your own bio by accident to this blog. Haha
Apparently I was asleep today. Forgive me 🙂 ha ha. I fixed it. Phew… there I go taking credit for the good stuff other people write!
I don’t think I ever got the updated bio. Could you resend?
The unfolding is what makes it fun. I’m still waiting for our theological differences to come out so we can have a debate that turns ugly… JK.
When you are ready to take on Calvinism, let me know… ha ha ha ha ha ah ha.
I’ll check Fee tomorrow. Thanks for the page numbers. That’ll save me a ton of time! Appreciate it!
I doubt I’ll take on Calvinism any time soon. I’ve studied enough to more or less understand where I’m positioned but not enough to be a very good interlocutor. I even forget what some of TULIP stands for now and then and have to refresh my memory, lol.
Ha ha! I was kidding… ha ha 🙂
Great work Debz, i haven’t read in a while
Meaning the fathers, i haven’t read for a while