RSS

p. 5

The Problem of Interpreting Scripture in the Early Church

Underlying Assumptions

The problem of how to interpret the scriptures was crucial for the early Church. Certain presuppositions about interpretation underlay all the exegetical efforts of these first centuries.
First, contrary to the assumptions of Post-Renaissance exegesis, the early church assumed that the Bible in some ways at least, was unlike any other type of literature.

It was believed not only that every word of Scripture was inspirited by God, but also that every word was the bearer, in some way, of Divine revelation. Consequently, the interpreter required divine assistance usually understood as interior illumination in order to understand the text right.

This led Origen, the early church’s greatest biblical scholar, to insist that the students at his catechetical school in Alexandria lead a quasi-monastic life since the purity of their consciences and the intensity of their prayer were substantively determinative of the quality of their scholarship.

Because the Scriptures were the church’s book, only the believer, working from within the believing community, could rightly interpret the biblical text.

By the sixth century this position had developed into a theory of authoritative ecclesiastical interpretation that effectively brought an end to the creative period of patristic exegesis. But its original purpose was not to control the work of orthodox exegetes; rather it was to dispute the legitimacy and therefore, the validity of the interpretation of the ‘heretics’ – that is, those thinkers and teachers, such as the Gnostics, whose faith was no longer compatible with that of the great church.

Justin, Origen, and the Orthodox Tertullian among others invoked this principle against Jewish, Gnostic, and Marcionite interpretations, particularly in defense of the continued significance of the Old Testament for Christians, the Christological interpretation of the Old Testament, and the defensibility of the Old Testament presentation of God, which some of the heretics regarded as too materialistic and anthropomorphic, if not blatantly immoral.

Nevertheless, even if only the believer could achieve the proper interpretation of the bible, the results of this interpretation were intended to be understood by and convincing to the well-disposed nonbeliever as well as triumphant in the struggle against heretics.

A second presupposition underlying early Christian exegesis was that Jesus himself was the hermeneutical principle par excellence. Not only was He the fulfillment of the Old Testament (see Acts 2:22-36) and therefore the way to its true meaning, but also he was present as supplying during his own lifetime the example of how the Scriptures were to be interpreted.

Jesus made it clear that the Old Testament required an interpretation that was more than mere repetition or literalistic application of the Mosaic law (e.g. Matt 19:3-9). He also showed repeatedly that all parts of Scripture were not of equal weight and that even the most sacred tenets of Torah, such as the observance of the Sabbath, must yield before the demands of the great law of love (see Mark 3:1-6).

Furthermore, Jesus taught as one “having authority” that is without appealing to either the law or the traditional interpretation of the law (see Mark 1:21-28), thus grounding the claim of the church that Jesus inaugurated a truly new covenant, which had become the norm for the interpretation of the old.

A third underlying assumption of early Christian exegesis was that biblical interpretation was simultaneously a work of scholarship demanding the best use of the most advanced methods and a work of faithful contemplation that would never be equal to the mystery of divine revelations.

Related to this was the double obligation of the exegete to scholarly integrity and to the tradition of the church. Each of these two poles was accorded different importance at different times and in different places.

Origen, for example, although deeply convinced that biblical interpretation was an essentially contemplative and ecclesial occupation, tended to place more confidence in the results of research than in the deliverances of tradition, whereas Irenaenus regarded tradition as the ultimate norm of scholarly