Introduction
The history and current world of hermeneutics is wrought with much fervor and debate concerning historical criticism and theological hermeneutics. There are strengths and weaknesses with both sides, which I will attempt to equitably discuss. This paper will provide a history of hermeneutics to help us understand the background of the two approaches by learning how the allegorical and literal-historical methods developed from the first centuries of Christianity to the modern times of biblical criticism. After examining the background and arguments, syntheses and integrative methods will be demonstrated to validate the significance of a codependent approach. Out of all methods, Thomas Tops’ method of Nietzsche’s “historical illness” and Kierkegaard’s “properly-lived historicality” will be most preferred. Some issues with his method will also be explained, so Erickson’s postperspectivism will be used to modify Tops’ approach. This paper will argue that historical criticism and theological hermeneutics are weak in themselves and require each other more as codependent than independent roles, notwithstanding seeming discrepancies within their relationship.
Criticisms against Historical Criticism
To properly establish a codependent approach, we must first understand why the two methods are weak in themselves. Usually, the reader might assume that historical criticism would be the most logical approach. After all, by understanding the intentions of the author, the reader will be able to understand the text. Brad explains how this sadly resulted with mostly criticisms against Christianity due to different textual outlooks that claimed an unbiased objective approach that contradicted theological views. [1] This supposed historical objectivity is very idealistic as White argued it still results with multiple contradicting interpretations. [2] Historical critics even admit this, so some claim a descriptive proof beyond reasonable doubt. [3] However, Green and Turner mention that though some agreement over the description is reached, there is still disagreement when it comes to the actual meaning. [4] This leaves us begging the question: what is the actual meaning of the text?
Gadamer, a leading authority on hermeneutics, insists that all interpretations are influenced by cultural or historical traditions we live in. [5] Presuppositions are formed by tradition, which means that all interpretations will have some level of presupposition or bias. White believes it is practically impossible to discover “the one” meaning, so he resorts to a pluralistic interpretation of scripture. [6] Ironically, historical critics even realize that though their methods attempt to find “the one” meaning, the result actually separates meaning from the text. Schneider supports historical criticism, but she reveals how many historical critics are facing a crisis of “cold calculus” interpretations that lack “ideal meaning” to the readers. [7] Perhaps the most convincing point is when De Villiers wrote that one cannot ignore the spiritual meanings and claims of the historical authors when reading their texts. He ultimately concludes that the spiritual nature of the historical texts should be read theologically or spiritually, not just objectively. [8]
Criticisms against Theological Hermeneutics
However, theological hermeneutics has its own serious problems when reading the texts through theological lenses alone. East argues that since the church has spiritually interpreted the Bible throughout history, it would be natural for the church to be a continuing authority. [9] White believes that any individual who lives a spiritual life can interpret, even if there are pluralistic interpretations. [10] This overlooks a simple problem: what about church traditions or pluralistic interpretations that criticize each other? Many examples from the past to present demonstrate the inconsistency and contradictions of theological hermeneutics alone. Cranmer attempted to reconcile sola fide with the sacraments, but the salvation of the seven sacraments still criticizes the wording and idea of sola fide to this day. [11] Brush demonstrates how the history of theological hermeneutics revealed numerous criticisms and new church movements from the Great Schism to the Protestant Reformation to further Protestant splits of denominations. [12] Kunka attempts to mediate the split denominations by strangely proposing an “objective” Mariology through the Immaculate Conception. [13] Yet, this is contradictory in itself since many Protestants strongly criticize the Catholic doctrine of Immaculate Conception.
The most scathing issue with church tradition and theological hermeneutics is when they interpret texts that support their interests, especially since their history glaringly displays how they punished people who disagreed with their views. Aune was disturbed by how texts were manipulated, even if it was unconscious, to give divine authority for certain beliefs that specifically aimed at church interests. [14] Schneider, who is a member of the Catholic Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, admits this existing bias, which is why she argues for historical criticism to keep church traditions in check. [15] Brush demonstrates with several historical examples on how the church changed their theological interpretations when the scientific revolution confronted them on astronomy, geology, and biology. [16] Consequently, theologians are recognizing the need of academics to keep themselves in check. Vall wrote extensive works that attempted to harmonize church tradition with historical criticism and other theological doctrines. [17] Schneider supplements magisterial documents (church tradition) with historical criticism to provide a more complete exegesis of the text. [18]
Literal Historicity and Allegorical Hermeneutics
Knowing the history of biblical hermeneutics would help us see the issues that arise currently with interpreting scriptural texts. De Villiers recognized that the academic “norm” and “common sense observation” for biblical interpretation of a first-century audience was a literal-historical approach. [19] He also mentioned that the Reformers supported the literal approach and criticized allegorical interpretations due to its arbitrary manipulated meanings. [20] From examining hermeneutical history, Louth attributed the allegorical method to church fathers while the Reformers had a literal approach due to their objective interpretation of sola scriptura. [21] De Villiers, Louth, and most scholars historically assimilate the Antiochene fathers, the Reformers, and historical criticism on the historical literal approach and objective interpretation. [22] Pentiuc and Louth explain that church traditions and allegorical methods became dominant during the time of the church fathers to the rise of the Catholic church. This became known as a “patristic allegorical” approach. [23] De Villiers, Louth, and others discuss how the Reformers and historical critics were concerned over manipulation of texts through patristic allegorical interpretations that can support church interests, which is why they referred to an objective look at the scriptures with historical-literal interpretations. [24] Calvin is perhaps the best example of a Reformer who used historical criticism for his approach. He believed in viewing the scriptures literally and reenacting the intention of the authors to better understand their writings. [25]
However, there is a clear difference between the thinking of the historical critics with the Reformers and Antiochene fathers. Though both view the text objectively, one side takes spiritual meaning and develops various theological views from the text while the other does not. Hence, there is a level of theological hermeneutics within the literal-historical approach. It is not just an objective look into the past where one separates spiritual meanings, which historical criticism struggles with. Decock explains that the first-century audience believed the words to be from God speaking to them and spiritually transforming them, not just information being passed down. [26] Louth and Pentiuc historically describe how Jesus, the disciples, first-century Christians, and Antiochene fathers used allegories, types, and images along with their literal-historical interpretations. [27] Even Reformers avoid a literal view of John 6 on eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ.
What is important to understand about any audience from the past to the present is that their interpretations develop within their traditional, cultural, and historical periods. This is what Gadamer taught, which all biblical criticism schools agree with. [28] Pentiuc demonstrates from church history that hermeneutics, whether allegorical or literal, developed within the historical context of the authors and audiences. [29] Lyons reasoned that historical critics not only study the origins of the text, but also the audience reactions to the text throughout history. [30] McMahon argues that one should not reject historical methodologies for the sake of theological hermeneutics since the latter is derived from the historical text itself. [31] Erickson explains that building an adequate theology must start with what the Bible literally says to the audience at that historical time, not by what we think it should say. The analysis of meaning comes afterwards through church traditions and other hermeneutical tools. [32] Evidently, there is a significant relationship between historicity and theological views, but the difficulty is to provide a right method that has the two elements interacting properly.
Syntheses and Integrative Attempts
Because historical criticism and theological hermeneutics have clear weaknesses in their
own methods, many scholars preferring one would at least admit the significance of the other. However, scholars tend to critique the other side, accept only the preferable parts of the other method, and provide their own approaches that makes the other method more complementary than integrative. It is clear from Gadamer that bias prioritizes one method over the other. The difficulty with bias is that it does not specify to how much one method can prioritize over the other without overreaching to a point of error. This leads to the important part of the thesis: what if both methods are actually codependent and need to be used in such a manner to provide proper exegesis? This certainly seems to be the case when realizing the result does not change that both are dependent on each other, even if one were to prefer one method. One inevitably works with the other to provide an interpretation. The biblical text is a part of history, so history cannot be separated. The biblical text teaches theology, so theology cannot be separated. History and theology will have to go together with the text. The Bible says that the scriptures are not some special hermeneutic techniques privately known and restricted within a historical class or a theological class. They are the spiritual words of God known to humans (theology) from historical time periods (historicity) (2 Peter 1:19-20, King James Version). The simplicity of this significant relationship is recognized by different schools of biblical criticism, but in a more complicated way, which is why they proposed various syntheses and integrative solutions.
Recall that De Villiers asserted that when a scholar reads a text from history, it is inevitable that there will be spiritual or religious claims from the authors. He believed in this need that he published an entire paper presenting the historical development and weaknesses of historical criticism and theological hermeneutics. In fact, the title of his thesis includes the phrase, “a Synergy Between Theological and Historical Approaches.” [33] Schnabel showed the relevance of theology and history in Hebrews 1:1-2 since the audience received God’s words throughout various historical time periods. [34] He even argued that biblical theology, which one would assume to support historical criticism, would become ludicrous overall if the numerous and contrary hypotheses of historical critics are left alone without theological hermeneutics. [35] He gave a historical background of biblical theology, demonstrating the developments and weaknesses of both methods by themselves. He insisted on the need of a “comprehensive theology,” in which theological categorizing and historical characterization can determine better exegeses. [36] Gabler, Goldingay, Hahn, Wilckens, Childs, and other biblical theologians have attempted to provide a comprehensive theology that implemented historical and theological approaches. [37] What is more revealing is how scholars promote a synthesis of historical criticism and systematic theology, which historical critics dread of its dogmatical views. The theologian Thomas Tops calls out for the need of systematic and practical theologians to use their expertise and harmonize hermeneutics with historicity. [38] Joseph Gordon uses Bernard Lonergan’s “historical consciousness” to construct a systematic theology that understood how the author’s doctrinal views related with our contemporary ones. [39]
Lyons, who supports a reception-historical method, explains that critics should approach the text like an ethologist would with an animal. [40] Like ethologists study how the animal interacts with the environment, the scholar should study how the text interacts with the audience. The researcher does not determine the identity of the animal or text by what it looked like in the past, but rather by what it is currently doing. Though an ethologist or textual critic would study the given history, it is an integral part of knowing more about the interactions of the animal or text rather than just staying in the past. Such limitations do not help determine the current identity of the animal or text when it is only interested in a past identity. Lyons does not distinguish the reception of a text from the reception history of a text. [41] By looking at how audiences have responded to the text throughout history, the full historicity of the text can be better determined.
Schneider prefers the method of historical criticism, but she sees the integral value of ecclesiastical and theological meanings within the historical approach. As previously mentioned, Schneider believes that a historical approach without meaning is simply inadequate and has no contemporary relevance. She provides a dialectical interpretation method in which one engages in a dialectical interplay with the text and the interpreter. [42] It begins with looking into the authorial intention on the readers. The intention will mean something to the contemporary reader, and it is that moment when the reader starts the play of interpretation. Throughout this process, historical, ecclesiastical, and theological sources are being used. Whether or not something is being prioritized or biased, everything is nevertheless a part of an integrative historical process rather than an immediate historical or theological choice. A dialectical interplay is at work with the textual meaning and the interpreter. The individual starts questioning the meaning until reaching a point of truth that will determine the proper exegesis and theological viewpoint. These syntheses and integrative mechanisms proposed by different schools of biblical criticism demonstrate the significance and need of harmonizing historical criticism and theological hermeneutics. However, Thomas Tops’ method of “historical illness” to “properly lived historicality” is one of the best to specify an actual integrative process of the two functioning more codependently compared to other proposed methods by scholars.
Historical Illness to Properly Lived Historicality
Friedrich Nietzsche and “Historical Illness”
Tops starts his method with Nietzsche’s “historical illness.” [43] The idea behind this term is that historians are trapped with an illness that is fixed to the past. The historian treats a certain figure or event in the past as simply an object of study. The historian thinks that his or her personality has no connection to this figure or event in the past. The historian is silenced while the historical object is focused. Modern historians attempt to study history objectively, but if historical objectivity becomes so strict, then it provides no meaning to their present situation. This is similar to the issues that have been discussed earlier about audience responses, reception history, and spiritual inevitability within texts. When history loses its meaning, the past has no influence on the present. This implies that the historian cannot use the past of history to keep his or her future going. Nietzsche concludes this is why historical objectivism is weak to carry history further. [44] Tops mentioned how Nietzsche provides some solutions to cure historical illness with a synthesis on monumental, antiquarian, and critical historiographies. A critical approach is concentrated with a critical-monumental view and a critical-antiquarian. [45] However, Tops reveals that Nietzsche is unable to satisfactorily explain how to free oneself from the limits of historical horizons. [46] Nietzsche realizes the problem with historical horizons but simply refers to a critical approach for certain historiographies. He does not explain how to create an openness that frees oneself from historical horizons. Tops believes Kierkegaard answers this problem.
Soren Kierkegaard and “Properly Lived Historicality”
Kierkegaard’s “properly lived historicality” limits historical horizons and bias through the historical lenses of recollection and repetition. [47] First, recollection is looking into past history and finding the meaning of other(s) through the concentration of self. Being is distinguished from becoming. Recollection is more of a self-realization process in which the self finds what the actual being is like. By reflecting one’s past, the person comes to realize feelings, thoughts, and parts within the inner self that he or she never knew before. Kierkegaard knew that self realization into the past is insufficient to carry history further. Nietzsche merely gave criticisms of such past or historical objectivity, but Kierkegaard was able to further it through a future objective instead. [48] Kierkegaard supplemented the recollection process with repetition. In this second part, the repetitious look into the self transforms into the other. Being is now becoming. It is a self-actualization process in which the self realizes the actual being and consequently sees other possibilities of what to become. The individual recognizes the negative parts of the being and corrects it with “other(s)” that he or she would prefer to become instead. Becoming results from constant recollection of one’s past in the self. Such repetition gives birth to a new future, a new “other” from the old self. [49]
Gadamer’s Hermeneutics and Asymptotic Process
How Kierkegaard’s method can be implemented for a synthesis of history and hermeneutics is through Gadamer. Tops translates all these Kierkegaardian elements by first explaining how Gadamer sees a beneficial use of prejudice, rather than rejecting it. Gadamer believes that prejudice is necessary to evaluate truth claims when reading texts. [50] Tops incorporates Kierkegaard’s recollection within this phase. There is a realization of self’s prejudices. Historical researchers attempt to act like unbiased witnesses and close the gap between their historical horizons and the historical horizons of their texts. However, Gadamer argued that bias cannot be overcome, so the better option is to not close the gap. The reader should seek to understand all historical horizons, rather than rejecting them. Gadamer posits that other possible interpretations are not actualized, but rather understood. The understanding becomes unique and different from the prejudices of their predecessors due to accumulating all their prejudices with one’s own. This undergoes correction until it becomes a new interpretation, not an old prejudice. Tops compares this to repetition in which the reader constantly recollects the biases of self, which automatically opens to other possibilities. Reception history contributes to this process by constantly understanding one’s own textual interpretation and the textual interpretation of others throughout the past. This repetitious look into the past will create openness to other(s) and constant correction until it gives birth to a new interpretation different from the prejudices of their predecessors. [51]
Though Tops carefully laid out details and steps to synthesize biased hermeneutics and historical texts, his explanations are inadequate to distinguish true and false interpretations. He seems to be open to the possibility of multiple interpretations not much different from White’s extreme pluralism that any spiritual person can interpret without precautionary measures. [52] To be fair however, Top puts more of a limit than White. He reasons Gadamer’s previous “hermeneutical consciousness” can help the reader discern right and wrong prejudices. [53] There is just no specific criteria that exists outwardly since all interpretations are bound in our minds. Gadamer sees his method and use of reception history as more contextual than relativist. [54] Such contextualization will cause a reader to distinguish a prejudice of true understanding from a prejudice of misunderstanding texts. Tops does not see a verified true interpretation, but he believes one can get closer to the truth as it is an asymptotic process. [55] The anticipation of perfection pushes understanding towards the truth. There are four issues with Tops’ view of contextual truth, but I will still explain how his method can be useful.
Criticisms and Agreements
Four Issues with Contextual Truth
First, Tops is either very vague or lacks much thought in distinguishing true and false interpretations. Does he believe a person can loosely provide multiple interpretations as long as they are contextualized? Do multiple interpretations equate with what he described a singular new interpretation different from previous prejudices? Or does this mean that there should be new pluralistic interpretations rather than singular? His thesis focuses so much on describing transformative aspects that he does not take time to think about certain questions that can come up from those who want to properly see how this works. Maybe his answers are indicated, but to me, that would mean his explanations are still vague and need more explanatory power. Secondly, Tops’ method does not really satisfy the concerns of fellow theologians on the nature of doctrine. Erickson argued that doctrine is a conveyor of truth, a cognitive point of view that was dominant in the history of the church. [56] Tops seems to present a very tame level of truth due to a more accepting attitude of other “truths.” If he truly believes in reception history, then Tops should know how the church audience from its past to the contemporary has always held strong cognitive views on what it perceived to be doctrinal truths (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Christians throughout history held a strong faith in some doctrines that they were willing to die for. A tame belief would not help.
Thirdly, Tops’ method does not answer the issue of theological contradictions. As mentioned previously, the problem with bias in academics and the church is that contradictory interpretations are provided, not just pluralistic. Since doctrine is supposed to be a conveyor of truth, a Christian cannot pick a contextual truth of two doctrines that criticize each other (Ephesians 4:14). The doctrine of cessation criticizes the doctrine of healing gifts. The doctrine of the seven sacraments criticizes the doctrine of sola fide. It is very naïve to think that criticisms equate with synthesis. A synthesis can be produced from examining criticisms, but “criticism” does not mean “synthesis.” Lastly, Tops claims an asymptotic process towards truth, but he does not see the truth to be actual. I do agree that one can be biased to claim actual truth, but I also believe that the asymptotic process is towards an actual truth, not just an imagined one. Tops describes contextual truth to be imaginary within the asymptotic process:
“Although this coherence and truthfulness can never be verified or realized, it allows us
to understand asymptotically the topic that the text addresses. This maximal unity and
coherence of the text is never achieved and the imagined object thus does not really
exist.” [57]
There is a clear difference with a researcher who wants to attain an unrealistic truth versus a researcher who wants to attain a real one. I think it is fair to assume that Tops would agree on readers using the Kierkegaard-Gadamer approach would want a genuine truth, not a fake one. How can truth be genuine if it is not actual, but rather imagined? Since Christ identifies Himself with truth, is Christ just an imaginary figure? (John 14:6). I would like to modify Tops’ method of historical illness and properly lived historicality (HIPLH) with Erickson’s postperspectivism and explain how all this can be an asymptotic process towards an objective truth instead.
Revised HIPLH Postperspectivism
Erickson indicates three elements within his post perspective approach that are very similar to Tops’ findings. First, it recognizes all views are biased, [58] which matches with what HIPLH asserts from Gadamer that prejudices exist within texts. The Bible says no one is better than the other, and everyone has an incorrect understanding due to the nature of sin (Romans 3:9 12). Nietzsche’s historical illness also reveals the prideful prejudice and weakness of historical objectivity. It separates the meaning of the past from the current historian, which indicates no meaning for the future. Hence, historical objectivism limited by prejudice will always remain limited. Secondly, Erickson’s post perspectivism enables a transitional process that reduces one’s bias. This is performed by writing an intellectual autobiography that reveals unconscious bias, critiquing one’s own position, and interacting with other perspectives. [59] This is similar to what Tops’ HIPLH described in much detail of his transitional process. It is performed by researching how audiences responded to text throughout history, recollecting self-realization of prejudices, and repeating the process into self-actualization of the other(s) and openness to other textual interpretations. The difference is that Erickson sees this as reducing bias, whereas Tops sees it as transformative. Remember that Tops believes that bias cannot be reduced, but rather accepted. Once this bias is accepted however, it contextualizes other textual perspectives, which transforms self-bias into openness of other views and keeps correcting itself into a new singular interpretation. The Bereans were not biased against Paul, but rather ready in mind to his other views. In a sense, they corrected themselves in a contextual form since they wholistically took his statements and diligently searched everywhere in the scriptural texts for correction (Acts 17:11).
This is where the third element of postperspectivism differentiates with HIPLH yet is similar in practice. Erickson believes in an objective form of truth, unlike Tops with his imagined one. [60] However, the two share in common that perfection is not attainable yet strived for. [61] Even though an individual may not be perfect in truth, at least the same person searching for it will be closer than others who are trapped in self-bias. Paul likewise believed in this striving for perfection without perfectly attaining it (Philippians 3:15-16). Erickson’s approach is therefore the same as Tops’ asymptotic process, but there is a clear difference in the last part regarding the correctional transition. Recall when Tops described the respondent becoming open to other(s) that multiple interpretations will arise. Also, recall that he claimed this openness will transition and keep correcting itself into a new interpretation distinguished from previous prejudices. The frustration is that Tops is vague on whether this new and unique interpretation is singular, multiple, or both. If he believes that a singular interpretation can at least sometimes happen, then post perspectivism should accomplish the same. It would undergo a transformative process that becomes open to other(s) multiple perspectives and will keep correcting and transitioning into a new interpretation that is not the same as previous prejudices. Since this attainment for truth is an objective one, not an imagined one like Tops’, then the correction and transitioning point is more specifically an objective interpretation that is not the same as previous prejudicial errors. Once reaching this asymptotic objective interpretation after such rigorous correction, a Christian can now build an adequate theology, and with some, a strong cognitive view of truth and doctrine.
Gadamer and Tops would disagree as they might view the correctional transition to be more open-minded, but Tops fails to clearly explain from Gadamer their views for what a new interpretation would look like from such open-mindedness. He never clarified if the new interpretation is singular or pluralistic, how a singular would result without correcting other views, and how a pluralistic would work with contradictory views. Erickson’s three elements provide a better explanation in my point of view. It makes more sense to complement Tops’ HLPLH with Erickson’s postperspectivism to strive for the most “perfect” exegesis of a scriptural text. This integrative approach also specifies how historical criticism and theological hermeneutics undergo a codependent process. Whether one is prioritized over the other, the result does not change that both are more codependent than selective in actual practice.
Conclusion
This paper explained how two seemingly discrepant methods, historical criticism and theological hermeneutics, are able to work together in a codependent manner. The methods in themselves consist of many issues and weaknesses. Historical criticism is unable to provide one true meaning through an objective lens since it still results with multiple interpretations influenced by bias. Theological hermeneutics is unable to provide consistent interpretations due to contrary theologies and textual manipulations supporting church interests. The history of hermeneutics reveals how interpretations developed and divided into mainly allegorical and literal-historical views from first-century Christianity to modern biblical criticism. Different schools of biblical criticism realize a significant relationship exists with the two different methods and have promoted syntheses and integrative methods through historical-critical mechanisms, reception histories, and comprehensive and systematic theologies. Thomas Tops probably provided the most detailed integrative method by culminating Gadamer’s hermeneutics with Nietzsche’s historical illness and Kierkegaard’s properly-lived historicality. Erickson’s post perspectivism can supplement Tops’ method to strive for a more cognitive view of doctrinal truth and provide a more objective interpretation when exegeting scriptural texts.
^[1] Brad East, “The Hermeneutics of Theological Interpretation: Holy Scripture, Biblical Scholarship, and Historical Criticism,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 19, no. 1 (January 2017): 45-46, 49-50.
^[2] Jason C. White, “Is It Possible to Discover ‘the One’ Intended Meaning of the Biblical Authors,” Scottish Journal of Theology 67, no. 2 (2014): 186.
^[3] Ibid., 186.
^[4] Joel B. Green and Max Turner, Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), 78-79.
^[5] Merold Westphal, Whose Community? Which Interpretation: Philosophical Hermeneutics for the Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 70-73.
^[6] Jason C. White, “Is It Possible to Discover ‘the One’ Intended Meaning of the Biblical Authors,” Scottish Journal of Theology 67, no. 2 (2014): 189.
^[7] Christopher McMahon, “Sandra Schneiders, Critical Exegesis, and the Theological Interpretation of Scripture,” Horizons 48, no. 1 (April 2021): 15-16.
^[8] Pieter G.R. De Villiers, “The Role of Theology in the Interpretation of the Bible: Towards a Synergy Between Theological and Historical Approaches to Biblical Studies,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 75, no. 1 (2019): 8.
^[9] Brad East, “The Hermeneutics of Theological Interpretation: Holy Scripture, Biblical Scholarship, and Historical Criticism.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 19, no. 1 (January 2017): 36-37.
^[10] Jason C. White, “Is It Possible to Discover ‘the One’ Intended Meaning of the Biblical Authors,” Scottish Journal of Theology 67, no. 2 (2014): 191-194.
^[11] Richard S. Briggs, “The Christian Hermeneutics of Cranmer’s Homilies,” Journal of Anglican Studies 15, no. 2 (June 2017): 178-183.
^[12] Nigel Brush, The Limitations of Theological Truth: Why Christians Have the Same Bible but Different Theologies (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2019), 16-20.
^[13] Slawomir J. Kunka, “Is a Theological Synthesis Still Possible? The Paradigm of Objective Mariology,” Religions 14 (June 2023): 831.
^[14] D.E. Aune, The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 1-2.
^[15] Christopher McMahon, “Sandra Schneiders, Critical Exegesis, and the Theological Interpretation of Scripture,” Horizons 48, no. 1 (April 2021): 20.
^[16] Nigel Brush, The Limitations of Theological Truth: Why Christians Have the Same Bible but Different Theologies (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2019), 56-62.
^[17] Gregory Vall, Ecclesial Exegesis: A Synthesis of Ancient and Modern Approaches to Scripture (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2022), 1-20.
^[18] McMahon, Christopher. “Sandra Schneiders, Critical Exegesis, and the Theological Interpretation of Scripture.” Horizons 48, no. 1 (April 2021): 17-18.
^[19] Pieter G.R. De Villiers, “The Role of Theology in the Interpretation of the Bible: Towards a Synergy Between Theological and Historical Approaches to Biblical Studies,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 75, no. 1 (2019): 1.
^[20] Ibid., 2.
^[21] Andrew, Louth, Discerning the Mystery: An Essay on the Nature of Theology (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1989), 96-131.
^[22] Pieter G.R. De Villiers, “The Role of Theology in the Interpretation of the Bible: Towards a Synergy Between Theological and Historical Approaches to Biblical Studies,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 75, no. 1 (2019): 2; Andrew, Louth, Discerning the Mystery: An Essay on the Nature of Theology (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1989), 98-101.
^[23] Eugen J. Pentiuc, The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in Orthodox Christianity (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2022), 303-319; Andrew, Louth, Discerning the Mystery: An Essay on the Nature of Theology (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1989), 96-131.
^[24] Pieter G.R. De Villiers, “The Role of Theology in the Interpretation of the Bible: Towards a Synergy Between Theological and Historical Approaches to Biblical Studies,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 75, no. 1 (2019): 2; Andrew, Louth, Discerning the Mystery: An Essay on the Nature of Theology (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1989), 98-101.
^[25] Barbara Pitkin, Calvin, the Bible, and History (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2020), 19-22.
^[26] P.B. Decock, “Philo of Alexandria: A Model for Early Christian ‘Spiritual Readings’ of the Scriptures,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 71, no. 1 (2015): 1.
^[27] Eugen J. Pentiuc, The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in Orthodox Christianity (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2022), 303-319; Andrew, Louth, Discerning the Mystery: An Essay on the Nature of Theology (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1989), 96-131.
^[28] Merold Westphal, Whose Community? Which Interpretation: Philosophical Hermeneutics for the Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 70-73.
^[29] Eugen J. Pentiuc, The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in Orthodox Christianity (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2022), 303-319; Andrew, Louth, Discerning the Mystery: An Essay on the Nature of Theology (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1989), 96-131.
^[30] William J. Lyons, “Hope for a Troubled Discipline? Contributions to New Testament Studies from Reception
History,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 33, no. 2 (2010): 213-214.
^[31] Christopher MchMahon, “Sandra Schneiders, Critical Exegesis, and the Theological Interpretation of Scripture,” Horizons 48, no. 1 (April 2021): 11.
^[32] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 56-57.
^[33] Pieter G.R. De Villiers, “The Role of Theology in the Interpretation of the Bible: Towards a Synergy Between Theological and Historical Approaches to Biblical Studies,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 75, no. 1 (2019): 1-9.
^[34] Eckhard J. Schnabel, “Biblical Theology from a New Testament Perspective,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 62, no. 2 (2019): 245-246.
^[35] Ibid., 245.
^[36] Ibid., 245-249.
^[37] Ibid., 245-246.
^[38] Thomas Tops, “Transforming Historical Objectivism into Historical Hermeneutics: From ‘Historical Illness’ to Properly Lived Historicality,” Neue Zeitschrift fur Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 61, no. 4 (2019): 515.
^[39] Christopher MchMahon, “Sandra Schneiders, Critical Exegesis, and the Theological Interpretation of Scripture,” Horizons 48, no. 1 (April 2021): 11-14.
^[40] Thomas Tops, “Transforming Historical Objectivism into Historical Hermeneutics: From ‘Historical Illness’ to Properly Lived Historicality,” Neue Zeitschrift fur Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 61, no. 4 (2019): 497.
^[41] Ibid., 497.
^[42] Christopher MchMahon, “Sandra Schneiders, Critical Exegesis, and the Theological Interpretation of Scripture,” Horizons 48, no. 1 (April 2021): 16-18.
^[43] Thomas Tops, “Transforming Historical Objectivism into Historical Hermeneutics: From ‘Historical Illness’ to Properly Lived Historicality,” Neue Zeitschrift fur Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 61, no. 4 (2019): 501-503.
^[44] Ibid., 502.
^[45] Ibid., 502-503.
^[46] Ibid., 503.
^[47] Ibid., 504-506.
^[48] Georgios Patios, “Kierkegaard’s Concept of History,” Prolegomena 13, no.1 (2014): 105.
^[49] Thomas Tops, “Transforming Historical Objectivism into Historical Hermeneutics: From ‘Historical Illness’ to Properly Lived Historicality,” Neue Zeitschrift fur Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 61, no. 4 (2019): 504-506.
^[50] Ibid., 507.
^[51] Ibid., 507-509.
^[52] Ibid., 511-514.
^[53] Ibid., 513.
^[54] Ibid., 512.
^[55] Ibid., 514.
^[56] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 31-34.
^[57] Thomas Tops, “Transforming Historical Objectivism into Historical Hermeneutics: From ‘Historical Illness’ to Properly Lived Historicality,” Neue Zeitschrift fur Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 61, no. 4 (2019): 514.
^[58] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 36.
^[59] Ibid., 37.
^[60] Ibid., 38.
^[61] Ibid., 38.
Bibliography
- Aune, D.E. The Blackwell Companion to the New Testament. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.
- Briggs, Richard S. “The Christian Hermeneutics of Cranmer’s Homilies.” Journal of Anglican Studies 15, no. 2 (June 2017): 167-187.
- Brush, Nigel. The Limitations of Theological Truth: Why Christians Have the Same Bible but Different Theologies. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2019.
- Decock, P.B. “Philo of Alexandria: A Model for Early Christian ‘Spiritual Readings’ of the Scriptures.” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 71, no. 1 (2015): 1-8.
- De Villiers, Pieter G.R. “The Role of Theology in the Interpretation of the Bible: Towards a Synergy Between Theological and Historical Approaches to Biblical Studies.” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 75, no. 1 (2019): 1-9.
- East, Brad. “The Hermeneutics of Theological Interpretation: Holy Scripture, Biblical Scholarship, and Historical Criticism.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 19, no. 1 (January 2017): 30-52.
- England, Emma, and William J. Lyons. Reception History and Biblical Studies: Theory and Practice. London, UK: T&T Clark, 2015.
- Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013. Green,
- Joel B., and Max Turner. Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009.
- Kunka, Slawomir J. “Is a Theological Synthesis Still Possible? The Paradigm of Objective Mariology.” Religions 14 (June 2023): 831.
- Louth, Andrew. Discerning the Mystery: An Essay on the Nature of Theology. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1989.
- Lyons, William J. “Hope for a Troubled Discipline? Contributions to New Testament Studies from Reception History.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 33, no. 2 (2010): 207-220.
- McMahon, Christopher. “Sandra Schneiders, Critical Exegesis, and the Theological Interpretation of Scripture.” Horizons 48, no. 1 (April 2021): 1-33.
- Patios, Georgios. “Kierkegaard’s Concept of History.” Prolegomena 13, no.1 (2014): 85-106.
- Pentiuc, Eugen J. The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in Orthodox Christianity. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2022.
- Pitkin, Barbara. Calvin, the Bible, and History. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2020.
- Schnabel, Eckhard J. “Biblical Theology from a New Testament Perspective.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 62, no. 2 (2019): 225-249.
- Tops, Thomas. “Transforming Historical Objectivism into Historical Hermeneutics: From ‘Historical Illness’ to Properly Lived Historicality.” Neue Zeitschrift fur Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 61, no. 4 (2019): 490-515.
- Vall, Gregory. Ecclesial Exegesis: A Synthesis of Ancient and Modern Approaches to Scripture. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2022.
- Westphal, Merold. Whose Community? Which Interpretation: Philosophical Hermeneutics for the Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009.
- White, Jason C. “Is It Possible to Discover ‘the One’ Intended Meaning of the Biblical Authors.” Scottish Journal of Theology 67, no. 2 (2014): 178-194.
