Unveiling Scripture: A Journey from Historical Criticism to Early Christian Interpretation

Nov 14, 2024

Have you ever wondered if the way we read the Bible today is the same as it was in the past? Most people take for granted that our modern methods are the only valid ones, but few realize just how profoundly our approach differs from that of early Christians, or even from Martin Luther, the father of sola scriptura. Over the centuries, the methods and assumptions that guide our approach to scripture have shifted dramatically. Today, the historical-critical method has become the standard, yet its origins and implications are often misunderstood or overlooked.

The Rise of the Historical-Critical Method

The historical-critical method--the current method of interpreting scripture--emerged only in the past two to three hundred years, largely shaped by Enlightenment skepticism and Protestant impulses. This development marked a major departure from earlier interpretive traditions, as scholars, including atheists and Protestant theologians, sought to demystify the Bible and analyze it as a historical document. They emphasized discovering a single human authorial intent fixed within its historical context. If a text appeared to have multiple layers, scholars turned to source criticism to determine how the different sources were redacted into the final version. This approach fundamentally transformed how scripture was studied, preached, and experienced, shifting away from the spiritual and allegorical readings of early Christianity.

Early Christian Interpretive Standards

This shift is rooted in the modern separation of the subject and object—a philosophical concept that emerged during the Enlightenment, emphasizing the division between the perceiving subject (the reader) and the external object (the text). This shift underlined the need to treat scripture as an external artifact to be analyzed objectively, rather than as a living Word that engages the reader personally and spiritually. Such a perspective contrasts sharply with most of Christian history, where the interpretive focus was less about historical accuracy and more about the spiritual transformation of the believer. While having interpretive standards is important, the early Church used markedly different criteria to determine correctness. As Gregory of Nyssa argues in the introduction to his commentary on the Song of Songs, the main standard for determining the validity of an interpretation was whether it was of use or benefit to the hearer. This might sound like a loose or subjective standard by modern standards, but it aligns with the purpose of scripture: to edify the believer, leading them toward love and virtue. If a literal reading does not accomplish this—if it does not bring the reader closer to God—then a spiritual or deeper meaning is necessary. For instance, passages in the Old Testament which speak of genocide are hard to see as edifying unless they are understood as allegories for spiritual warfare. This kind of reading began with Paul himself, who initiated an interpretive tradition that sought deeper, Christ-centered meanings beyond the literal (historia).

Christ as the Interpretive Key

This may sound like an attempt to erase history or overly idealize it, but early Church commentators consistently held that, as Paul argued in 2 Corinthians, "a veil" lies over the scriptures (the Old Testament), which is only lifted by Jesus Christ. This lifting of the veil is like the axis of scripture turning, where the Old Testament is only fully understood through the New, with Christ as the lens that reveals its true meaning and significance. With Christ as the interpretative key, the dissonance between the Old and New Testaments disappears. By looking at the Old Testament through "the prism of the cross," as John Behr puts it, we begin to truly understand its deeper meaning.

The Role of Tradition in Interpretation

However, one might still ask: what distinguishes one interpretation from another, especially if interpretations are influenced by personal subjectivity? This issue arises primarily when scripture is read outside the context of the Church and its tradition. Tradition, as John Anthony McGuckin explains, establishes the imperative to follow a "principle of consonance"—a harmony between our mindset (phronema, which refers to the spiritual attitude or mindset of the Church) and that of Christ. This principle was foundational to the Fathers of the Eastern Orthodox Church for any valid interpretation or understanding of scripture. Origen exposes this truth when he says that it is only by being like the disciple Jesus loved in John’s Gospel—by inclining on Jesus' breast and standing at the foot of the cross—that we are able to understand scripture. To acquire this mindset, we must undergo the process of purifying ourselves of the passions (sin) to undergo deification and enter into union with God. Only in this way are we equipped to interpret the deeper, unveiled, spiritual meaning of scripture.

The Need for Purity in Interpretation

As McGuckin writes in The Path of Christianity: The First Thousand Years:

The principle of consonance… is extensively set out… in the first of the Five Theological Orations by St. Gregory the Theologian, who elsewhere throughout his work describes the biblical commentator as a priest who is allowed entry into a temple, but the deeper the progression into the sacred areas… the more pressing is the need for purity of heart and acumen of mind. Both things, moral and intellectual power, are seen by Gregory to be significant charisms that cannot be neglected, and if they are not present in the manifested works of the interpreter, the priestly act of biblical exegesis will be rendered into sacrilege (773-774).

Gregory the Theologian viewed the interpretation of scripture as something to be undertaken with great timidity and humility, and even then only properly accomplished by those who are holy and intellectually capable. This is why, in the Eastern Orthodox Church, the primary means of understanding scripture for the average person is by consulting the Fathers of the Church and adopting their mindset. Moreover, it is not the surface or literal meaning that Gregory saw as precious, but rather the spiritual meaning.

The Question of Literal Interpretation

The question we are left with, then, is: what do we do with the literal, historical meaning of scripture?

First, it is important to note, as McGuckin points out, that although the Church Fathers saw scripture as inspired, they did not imagine a direct or literal transference of information from God to the human author. Instead, they understood inspiration as a divine energeia (energy) that inspired the charism of "comprehension" of the things of God in a human heart. Such comprehension was seen to be partial—inevitably so, since no human mind could fully comprehend the purposes of God—but was substantively accurate as it represented God's will regarding human salvation (The First Thousand Years, 772-773). This understanding of 'divine energeia' implies that inspiration is not simply dictation but a dynamic process where the divine and human cooperate.

It is because of this understanding of "inspiration" that Origen even saw particular books of the Bible as possessing different levels of inspiration. He considered the Gospel of John and Paul’s letters as the most luminous books of scripture. Even if we do not follow Origen in ranking the scriptures by their degree of inspiration, it is a misunderstanding to think that what they contain is inspired outside of how they represent "the will of God concerning the issues of human salvation”

Do We Have to Accept the Literal Historical Meaning?

But still, the question remains: do we have to accept the literal, historical meaning of the Old Testament?

To respond to this problem, let us turn to St. Gregory of Nyssa, who addresses this issue in Life of Moses when interpreting the meaning of God’s killing of the first-born children of the Egyptians during Passover. After offering a spiritual interpretation that the killing of the firstborn "laid down for us the principle that it is necessary to destroy utterly the first birth of evil" and that "it is impossible to flee the Egyptian life [evil] in any other way," St. Gregory emphasizes the incongruity of a purely historical interpretation with the nature of God:

It does not seem good to me to pass this interpretation by without further contemplation. How would a concept worthy of God be preserved in the description of what happened if one looked only to the history? The Egyptian acts unjustly, and in his place is punished his newborn child, who in his infancy cannot discern what is good and what is not... If such a one now pays the penalty of his father’s wickedness, where is justice? Where is piety? Where is holiness?

He then states outright:

Do not be surprised at all if… the death of the firstborn… did not happen to the Israelites and on that account reject the contemplation we have proposed concerning the destruction of evil as if it were a fabrication without any truth. For now in the difference of names, Israelite and Egyptian, we perceive the difference between Virtue and Evil.

Thus, Gregory of Nyssa, a great defender of Orthodoxy and Father of the Church, was not at all fazed by the idea that the meaning of this passage was not to be found in its historical occurrence, but rather in a proper spiritual interpretation of its typology.

Christ as the Measure of Scripture’s Meaning

But what about the Fathers who did read it more literally?

Some Fathers, such as John Chrysostom, offered a more literal reading of scripture, following the "Antiochian" rather than "Alexandrian" school of interpretation. However, even the 'literal' readings of the Antiochian school were not the same as modern literalism. Chrysostom still approached the Old Testament with the conviction that its full meaning was revealed through the lens of the cross of Christ.

This is exemplified in his reading of the flood in Genesis. When discussing the text, Chrysostom reads into it meanings that are not explicitly found in the plain sense, influenced by his understanding of God's love and mercy as revealed by the cross of Christ. He writes:

The fact, too, that he brought on the deluge for forty days and nights is a further wonderful sign of his loving kindness. His purpose in his great goodness was that at least some of them might come to their senses and escape that utter ruin, having before their eyes the annihilation of their peers and the destruction about to overwhelm them. I mean, the likelihood is that on the first day some proportion were drowned, an additional number on the second day, and likewise on the third day and so on. His reason for extending it for forty days was that he might remove from them any grounds for excuse. You see, had it been his wish and command, he could have submerged everything in one downpour. Instead, out of fidelity to his characteristic love he arranged for a stay of so many days.

Unity of the Old and New Testaments through Christ

So, do we have to accept the literal historical meaning of the text? By this point, it is clear that if by the literal historical meaning of the text we mean that found by the historical critical method of reading scripture, then the answer is definitively no. In fact, such a reading can lead us to lose track of the One who, as Saint Paul tells us, unveils scripture. Moreover, as the second-century Father of the Church, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, argued against the Gnostic heretics: for those who do not read the scriptures through the lens of Christ, the text remains but "myth." In a strong sense, then, the grounding of the Old Testament lies less in the history of Israel itself than in what this history points toward, which is fulfilled and illuminated by Christ.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the evolution of biblical interpretation reveals a profound shift from early Christian practices to modern methodologies. The historical-critical method, while offering valuable insights, often strips away the deeper, spiritual layers that early Church Fathers emphasized. Whether viewed through the allegorical lens of the Alexandrians or the more literal perspective of the Antiochians, it is ultimately Christ who stands as the interpretive key that unifies all scripture. Without Christ as the lens through which we read the Old Testament, its true meaning remains veiled. Thus, the ultimate goal of scriptural interpretation is not merely to understand historical events but to see God's work in history unveiled and understood through the person of Christ. This Christocentric approach ensures that scripture serves its true purpose: leading believers toward love, virtue, and union with God.

Spiritual Pilgrim

Discussion about this post