Thomas writes that “to signify something by words or merely by the construction of images . . . yields nothing but the literal sense” and “poetic images refer to something other than themselves only so as to signify them; and so a signification of that sort goes no way beyond the . . . . Continue Reading »
Denys Turner notes that the Song of Songs presented challenges to the “minority” of medieval theologians who argued for a more rigorous grounding of spiritual in literal senses. For these, the text speaks literally, referring to specific events; and these events, as Thomas says, . . . . Continue Reading »
Ouch! Schaeffer again, this time on Heidegger’s interpretive methods: “Paraphrase, translation, dismantling of the syntax, making the text autonomous with regard to the concrete subject who utters it, absolute silence regarding the poetic form: to these five characteristics we . . . . Continue Reading »
Michael Hollerich, who has done some superb revisionist work on Eusebius of Caesarea, explains in a 1990 article from Church History that Eusebius employed a “similar situation” form of typology that focuses on similarities rather than differences between type and antitype, and draws . . . . Continue Reading »
My forthcoming book on hermeneutics is available for pre-order at Amazon, Deep Exegesis:The Mystery of Reading Scripture . . . . . Continue Reading »
For the writer to the Hebrews, Christological interpretation is an absolute necessity. Earlier revelation was fragmentary - many parts, many ways - but His new speech is unified in huio - in the (one) Son. Without Jesus, the interpretation of the Hebrew Bible lacks unity. Would the writer to the . . . . Continue Reading »
Fenn again, reflecting on the serpent’s temptation: “The Word of God is ‘solid,’ whereas all other words are slippery at best and may be downright empty or misleading. But one only knows the word as solid if one is in a solid relationship to the author: a relationship of . . . . Continue Reading »
Hamann says that the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation does not, despite its apparent attention to the human author, really honor the author. This is because historical-critical interpretation is “castrated,” removing all passion and kerygmatic intention. Dickson . . . . Continue Reading »
Hamann can repeat this Derridean scandal, quite literally. As Gwen Dickson puts it, “Hamann’s conception of language as speech as a ‘translation’ reveals that at the basis of his thinking there is no language-world dichotomy; language, after all, is part of the world, and . . . . Continue Reading »
Richard Muller points out the essential continuity of Protestant interpretation with patristic and medieval models: “The Reformers and, indeed, the Protestant orthodox all assumed that the living Word addressed the church directly in and from the text. In other words, they advocated a . . . . Continue Reading »
Subscribe
Latest Issue
Support First Things
