Kevin Vanhoozer wisely warns against hermeneutical all-or-nothingism: “Interpretation is not an all-or-nothing affair. We need not choose between a meaning that is wholly determinate and a meaning that is wholly undeterminate. Neither need we choose between a meaning that is fully present and . . . . Continue Reading »
A hypothesis to explore: What is the connection between the postmodern “death of the author” and higher critical methods of biblical interpretation? Did the dissolution of the text in biblical studies contribute to a dissolution of the author in texts generally? To what extent is . . . . Continue Reading »
At times, I’ve felt that my polemics against semi-marcionitism in sacramental theology and hermeneutics finds no actual targets. And then I read something like this. In his book on hermeneutics, Louis Berkhof characterizes the difference between type and antitype: “The one represents . . . . Continue Reading »
In his classic essay on the “Reasonableness of Typology,” GWH Lampe argued that critical scholarship reintroduced history into biblical interpretation: “In place of the unhistorical attitude which saw the Bible as a vast harmonious complex of prophecy and fulfillment, type and . . . . Continue Reading »
Dale Allison notes that Matthew “stipulates that it be interpreted in the context of other texts. This means that it is, in a fundamental sense, an incomplete utterance, a book full of holes. Readers must make present what is absent; they must become actively engaged and bring to the gospel . . . . Continue Reading »
Interpretation is, we’re often told, a matter of explaining what’s in the text. Only eisegetes talk about what’s not already there. Discussing Matthew 1:1, Dale Allison offers this, much more accurate, alternative: “The interpretation of this line can be nothing other than . . . . Continue Reading »
OK, one trouble, a trouble: There are, we are told, “three views” of the function of Matthew 1:1 - it’s the heading for the genealogy, it’s the heading for the whole book, or it’s the heading for the first section of the book (perhaps extending to 4:16). Why has it got . . . . Continue Reading »
Milbank contrasts de Lubac’s advocacy of patristic and medieval hermeneutics, which insists that the allegorical fulfills and completes the literal, with the Yale school, which he sees as living in “the no-man’s land of ‘history-like narrative’ which at once abolishes . . . . Continue Reading »
Elisha’s anger toward Jehoash seems unfair (2 Kings 13). He tells him to shoot arrows, and then pound them on the ground. How was Jehoash to know that pounding on the ground symbolized victory over Aram? Well, for one thing, Elisha told him that the arrow is the arrow of victory over Aram. . . . . Continue Reading »
According to the Westminster Confession of Faith, “The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.” But . . . . Continue Reading »
Subscribe
Latest Issue
Support First Things
