PRINCIPLES OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

OTST 945-001

Seminar in Biblical TheologyCBiblical and Theological Hermeneutics

Spring 2016

by

Richard M. Davidson, Ph.D.

J. N. Andrews Professor of Old Testament Interpretation

Andrews University Theological Seminary

Berrien Springs, MI 49104-1500

Revised, January 2016

 2

PRECIS

God has revealed Himself and His will to His prophets in specific statements of truth, and

through His Spirit He has inspired the biblical writers to record the divine revelation as the

trustworthy and authoritative Word of God. The Spirit also illuminates the minds of those who

seek to understand and interpret the divine revelation.

The need for such interpretation arises not because of the lack of Scripture's perspicuity,

but because of the finitude of humanity in contrast to the infinite God who is revealing Himself,

and because of the darkening of the human mind through sin. Both OT and NT provide

numerous historical examples of, and calls for, careful and faithful biblical interpretation, and the

necessity of the interpretive process is further mandated by our separation in time, distance,

language, and culture from the Scriptural autographs.

The study of the basic principles and procedures for faithfully and accurately interpreting

Scripture is called biblical hermeneutics. The task of this discipline of study is to understand

what the human writers and the divine Author of Scripture intended to communicate and also how

to communicate and apply the biblical message to modern humanity.

There are four foundational principles for biblical interpretation that arise from Scriptural

evidence. The first was the battle cry of the Reformation, sola scriptura, "The Bible and the

Bible Only." This principle affirms that the Bible alone is the final norm of truth, taking

precedence and primacy over every other source of authority, and constituting the all-sufficient
 3

foundation and test and standard for all additional knowledge and experience.

A second principle is the totality of Scripture (tota Scriptura), which affirms that all

Scripture--the entirety of the OT and NT--is inspired by God, literally "God-breathed," and thus

fully authoritative. The Bible is an inseparable union of the divine and the human, and

therefore the Bible in its entirety equals, not just contains, the Word of God.

A third principle is the Analogy of Scripture (analogia Scripturae), which posits a

fundamental unity and harmony among the various parts of Scripture inspired by the same Spirit.

Because of this unity, the Bible is its own expositor, and everything the Bible records regarding a

given topic must be taken into account in studying that topic. The various parts of Scripture are

consistent with and illuminate each other. Their meaning is clear and straightforward, to be

taken in their plain, literal sense unless an obvious figure is intended.

A fourth general principle affirms that "Spiritual Things are Spiritually Discerned"

(Spiritalia spiritaliter examinatur). This means that the interpreter can rightly comprehend

Scripture only through the illumination of the Spirit of God who inspired the Scriptures. It also

implies the necessity for the Spirit's transformation of the interpreter's heart, so that there is

earnest prayer for understanding and willingness to accept by faith and obey what Scripture

says--a reverent "trembling" before God's word.

Building upon the foundational principles of interpretation, a second major section of this

article discusses specific guidelines for interpreting biblical passages that either explicitly or
 4

implicitly arise from Scripture itself and encompass what is generally known as the

grammatico-historical method.

The first and most basic task in interpreting Scripture is to insure that what is studied is

indeed the Holy Scriptures--both in the original languages and in modern translation. This

requires attention to ascertain the original text of the Bible as far as possible and to make sure

that this text is translated into modern languages as faithfully as possible.

The Bible has been carefully and painstakingly preserved down through the centuries to

the present day and the actual amount of variation among the many extant manuscripts is very

small. There are nonetheless, small variations among the many ancient biblical manuscripts,

arising either from scribal errors or intentional changes during the history of textual transmission.

The science (or art) of recovering the original biblical text is termed textual study (sometimes

called "textual criticism," or "lower criticism" to distinguish from the "higher criticism" of the

historical-critical method). The final norm for all textual study must be found within Scripture

itself and must be carried out in the context of the unity of Scripture.

After the original biblical text has been ascertained, its form and content must be

represented accurately and clearly in modern translation. There are many challenges in the

translation process, arising from the structural (grammatical and syntactical) differences between

the languages, lack of exact semantic equivalents, and the gaps of time, distance, culture, etc.

These challenges have led to several different translation types: the formal "word-for-word
 5

equivalency" translations; the dynamic "meaning-for-meaning equivalency" translations; a

combination of formal and dynamic approaches; and the interpretive paraphrases. Each type

has Scriptural precedent and positive and negative features. Special cautions are in order with

regard to translations made by a single denomination or translator, translations into simplified

language, or Bibles annotated with interpretive systems.

A second specific guideline in the interpretive process involves understanding the

historical context of the passage under study. The historical context includes the historical

background, the authorship, date, and life setting of the biblical passage. Following Scriptural

self-testimony, the historical context of biblical accounts is to be accepted at face value as true

and accurate--even more historically reliable than secular history because presented from the

omniscient divine perspective. This is in contradistinction to much critical scholarship which

reconstructs hypothetical life settings that contradict the plain declarations of the biblical text.

The historical background material within Scripture is augmented by the wealth of

illumination provided by the literature of antiquity and archaeological discoveries, and involves

history, chronology, geography, and numerous other aspects of biblical culture and background.

Many apparent historical discrepancies between the biblical record and secular history have

evaporated in light of further study, but the events of Scripture are ultimately accepted because

of a settled faith in the trustworthy Word of God.

Several biblical principles assist the interpreter in coming to grips with apparent
 6

discrepancies in parallel biblical accounts. One must recognize the different purposes of

different Bible writers; different perspectives of the different eye-witness accounts that form a

composite picture; the difference between verbal identity and historical reliability; accepted

conventions of writing history in the first century; different occurrences of some similar sayings

and miracles of Jesus; the possibility of minor transcriptional errors in Scripture; and the

necessity of suspending judgment on some items until further information is available.

A third specific hermeneutical guideline involves the literary context of Scripture,

inasmuch as the Bible is not only a history book but a literary work of art. In studying a given

passage, one must first recognize the delimitations of the passage in terms of paragraphs,

pericopae, or stanzas, so that one can determine how this segment fits into the flow of the larger

thought-unit of which the passage is a part.

It is also necessary to understand what type of literature is being studied. This includes

the more general categories of prose and poetry, and more specific literary types (or genres).

The Bible itself explicitly identifies many of its specific literary types. The poetic sections of

Scripture (some 40% of the OT and scattered sections of the NT) are characterized by the

distinctive features of parallelism ("thought-rhyme"), meter ("measured lines") and other literary

conventions. The prose sections, and in particular biblical narrative, have been the object of

much recent intense study, revealing the intricate artistry involved in relating the narrative.

Each of the specific literary types has specific characteristics, and these characteristics (or added
 7

unique features) are often significant in interpreting the message that is transmitted through the

particular literary type.

Also important in the literary context is the literary structure of a biblical passage, which

often provides a key to the flow of thought or central theological themes. The literary structure

of a prose section of Scripture may sometimes be seen most clearly through outlining the passage

by themes and sub-themes. Two common literary structuring devices in Scripture which build

upon the phenomenon of poetic parallelism are "panel writing" (or "block parallelism") and

chiasm ("reverse parallelism"); these techniques not only structure verses and paragraphs, but

also whole books and blocks of books in Scripture. One must be careful to allow the literary

structure of a passage or larger section of Scripture to emerge from within Scripture and not be

artificially imposed upon the biblical text.

A fourth specific guideline for the interpretation of Scripture is the verse-by-verse

analysis of a biblical passage, with special attention to grammar and syntax (sentence

construction), and word study (meaning of individual words). While a thorough acquaintance

with the original biblical languages is ideal, a number of study tools are now available to

introduce the interpreter to the basic features of the unique grammatical-syntactical features of

Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. A good study Bible following the formal "word-for-word"

translation method also provides a feel for the sentence construction and unusual or difficult

elements of grammar and syntax. It is helpful to diagram or outline the biblical passage to
 8

better grasp its flow of thought. Careful attention must also be paid to crucial individual words,

studying them in their immediate and wider contexts (by means of concordance, lexicons, and

theological wordbooks) to grasp their precise meaning in the biblical passage.

A fifth specific hermeneutical guideline involves the theological context and analysis of a

passage. There are various methods of theological study of the Bible: the book-by-book

approach; the verse-by-verse exposition of a passage; thematic-topical study; investigation from

the perspective of the "grand central theme" of Scripture; and literary-structural study.

Problematic theological passages--especially involving questions of the justice of God (theodicy)

and alleged "faulty" theology in Scripture--may be approached by recognizing several important

biblical principles that arise from within Scripture.

Some parts of Scripture inherently point to a theological fulfillment beyond themselves,

as in prophecy and typology; other parts point to an extended meaning beyond themselves, as in

symbolism and parables. Each of these kinds of theological material in Scripture calls for

special attention, and from within Scripture emerge principles for its interpretation.

A final specific guideline in the interpretation of Scripture relates to the contemporary

application of the biblical materials. From the Scriptural self-testimony it becomes evident that

the contemporary application arises naturally out of its theological interpretation. Scripture is

to be regarded as transcultural and transtemporal, unless Scripture itself gives specific indication

limiting the universal and permanent applicability of the material. While biblical instruction
 9

speaks and is relevant to all cultures and times, it was also addressed to a particular culture and

time, and therefore time and place must be taken into account in its application. But here again

Scripture itself provides the controls as to when it is appropriate to reduce specific instruction to

a general principle.

The final goal of interpreting Scripture is to make practical application of each passage to

one's individual life. The interpreter must seek to understand how each passage applies to

him/her personally. The Scriptures should ultimately be read and accepted as if personally

addressed to the interpreter. They are God's living and active Word to his/her soul.

The third major section of this article moves from foundational principles and specific

guidelines to survey the history of biblical interpretation. Attention is given successively to the

following: the inner-biblical hermeneutic; early Jewish interpretation of Scripture (rabbinic,

Qumran, Philo); early Christian biblical hermeneutics (early church fathers, Alexandrian

allegorical school, and Antiochene literal-historical interpretation); the medieval four-fold sense

of Scripture; the Reformation return to the plain literal sense and the development of the

grammatico-historical method; the Enlightenment hermeneutic rooted in rationalism and the rise

and development of the historical-critical method; the presuppositions and procedures of

historical criticism (and other critical approaches) and comparison/contrast with the

historico-grammatical method; and the Bible-based hermeneutic in the Advent movement.

Final sections of this article provide a selected bibliography of helpful books and articles
 10

on hermeneutics and a selection of quotations from the writings of Ellen White on this subject.

Both of these final sections are arranged in the order and under the headings of the main outline

of this article.
 144

21; Rom 6:3-6; Eph 1:20; 2:6; Heb 4:3, 16; 6:19; 10:19-20; 12:22-24). The Scripture

should ultimately be read, and accepted as if I am the participant in the mighty saving

acts of God--"I am there!"--as if God's messages are personally addressed to me. They

are God's living and active Word to my soul.

IV. The History of Biblical Hermeneutics

A. The Inner-Biblical Hermeneutic

The history of biblical hermeneutics must begin by examining the way the Bible

writers themselves interpreted antecedent Scripture. This has been the focus of much of

this article. We have seen that the later OT writers faithfully called the people of Israel

back to obedience to the standard of God's revelation in the Torah. The NT writers did

not take the OT out of context in their hermeneutic, but following the example of Jesus,

saw OT passages in the light of their larger canonical context. They present a sound

hermeneutical pattern to emulate. (See bibliography for recent studies examining the

NT use of the OT.)

B. Early Jewish Biblical Hermeneutics

1. Scribal Exegesis Before 70 A.D.

The landmark dissertation of David Brewer has analyzed all the extant samples of

what he terms the Palestinian "scribes" (predecessors to the Rabbis before 70 A.D.).

His conclusions are extremely significant: "the predecessors to the rabbis before 70 CE

did not interpret Scripture out of context, did not look for any meaning in Scripture other

than the plain sense, and did not change the text to fit their interpretation, though the later

rabbis did all these things" (Brewer 1992:1). The attitude of this early scribal tradition
 145

toward Scripture may be summarized under five points: (a) Scripture is entirely

consistent with itself; (b) every detail is significant; (c) Scripture must be interpreted

according to its context; (d) there are no secondary meanings in Scripture; and (e) there is

only one valid form of the Hebrew text of Scripture (see Brewer 1992, 165-172).

In order to faithfully interpret Scripture, the early scribal tradition developed rules

of interpretation, which are neatly formulated in the seven hermeneutical rules of Hillel

(died A.D. 9). Brewer discusses each of these rules in detail, with examples from the

scribal literature. A number of these rules can be found utilized in the NT, and we have

stated them (in different words) as part of our discussion of general principles and

specific guidelines (see also Horn 1974, 20-23 and Kaiser 1981, 52-55 for brief

discussion and examples of Hillel's rules).

2. Later Rabbinic Interpretation

The later rabbis, after 70 A.D., continued the pešat or "plain, literal" interpretation

of Scripture, but also began to mix this with a ôd or "secret, allegorical" approach. The

thirteen rules of Rabbi Ishmael (ca. A. D. 60-121) were the impetus to developing the

Midrashic method (from derûš "searched") to expound the Jewish Halachah (civil and

religious law) which included embellishments of the text that departed from its plain

sense, and the thirty-two rules of Rabbi Eliezer (second century A.D.) were employed in

the interpretation of Haggadah (popular homilies). These later rules included techniques

of interpretation that involved embellishing the biblical text and departure from its plain

(pešat) sense. The later Rabbis found multiple meanings in a single text: the plain

meaning, the hint which points to a hidden meaning, the secondary or allegorical
 146

meaning, and a mystical meaning hidden in the letters (see Brewer 1992, 172-174,

Longenecker 1975, 32-45, and Kaiser 1981, 52-53 for further discussion).

3. Non-scribal Traditions: Qumran

Not all pre-70 A.D. Jewish exegesis stayed with the plain meaning of the text. In

the Essene community of Qumran, the community leader, the Teacher of Righteousness,

was the inspired interpreter of the Prophets, and he explained the "mysteries" of the

prophetic passages as they applied to his eschatological community. The characteristic

type of hermeneutic developed was known as raz pešer ("mystery interpretation"). In

the surviving samples of Qumran raz pešer a typical approach would be a quotation of a

biblical passage, followed by the words "This means" or "Its pešer is" and a strict

identification of the present situation of the Essene community with the text of Scripture.

By means of an atomistic interpretation of each phrase, word and even parts of

words in the prophetic writings, all was made to refer to the Qumran community. The

prophets were seen as having written riddles or cryptograms for the time of the

eschatological fulfillment which they thought was already in process (see especially Patte

1975 for further discussion).

4. Non-scribal traditions: Philo of Alexandria

The Jewish scholar Philo (25 B.C.- 40 A.D.) popularized the allegorical approach

toward Scripture, based upon a platonic model of reality in which the inferior transitory

world of the senses is a reflection of the superior world of eternal ideas. In his

allegorical approach to Scripture, wherever there were difficulties in the biblical text (if it

made no sense to him or seemed unworthy of Scripture), then he gave up the literal sense
 147

for an allegorical interpretation. The literal sense was the historical husk which must be

stripped away in order to arrive at the kernel, the hidden spiritual meaning (see Davidson

1981, 21 for literature and sources).

The basic hermeneutical assumption of Philo was that the interpreter is inspired as

well as the biblical author, and thus in the long run the interpreter is the final arbiter of

the allegorical meaning of the text. If the text does not conform to the prevailing

world-view, then it is the interpreter's responsibility to reinterpret the text. The final

authority is not Scripture, but man's subjective inspired imagination.

C. Early Christian Hermeneutics

1. Early Church Fathers

A few of the early church fathers may be briefly mentioned who are noted for

introducing or propounding a specific hermeneutical approach. Marcion the heretic

caused a hermeneutic to be developed during the early second century, as he rejected the

OT as binding Scripture for Christians. The OT was alien to Christian faith. Marcion

developed the law-grace dualism, in which the OT presented a picture of law, vengeance,

hate, and wrath, while the NT represented grace and love. This principle was even

carried into the NT: only Luke was regarded as a true gospel and other portions of the NT

were rejected.

Many of the early church fathers wrote against Marcion's heresy. Tertullian used

typology as the basis of defending the unity of Scripture, although at times his

typological correspondences degenerated into allegory.

Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (ca. 130- 201 A.D.) utilized the principle of analogia
 148

fide "rule of faith" to defend orthodox Christian doctrine. The rule of faith of which

Irenaeus spoke was that as preserved in the churches (i.e., tradition), and thus he became

the father of authoritative exegesis. The final norm was not Scripture alone, but

Scripture as interpreted by the authority of the church.

2. Alexandrian Hermeneutics

In the hermeneutical school of Alexandria, beginning with Clement (died 215

A.D.), the allegorism of Philo "was baptized into Christ." Clement developed 5 senses

of Scripture: the historical, the doctrinal, the prophetic, the philosophical, and the

mystical. Origen of Alexandria (185-254 A.D.) claimed that the text of Scripture has

three meanings patterned after the analogy with the three-fold nature of man: (a) the

bodily, or literal meaning, which is least important; (b) the psychical, or the moral

(ethical) meaning; and (c) the spiritual, or allegorical/mystical, which is most important

and only accessible to the most mature interpreters. This three-fold sense, building

upon platonic/Philonic dualism tended to strip away the historical husk to arrive at the

allegorical kernel.

3. Antiochene Hermeneutics

In contrast and opposition to the Alexandrian allegorical school, the interpreters at

Antioch were concerned to uphold the plain, literal-historical sense of Scripture.

Represented by such exegetes as Theodore of Mopsuestia (died 428 A.D.) and

popularized by the preacher Chrysostom (347-407 A.D.), the Antiochian hermeneutic

was founded upon the same basic presuppositions as we have set forth from Scripture in

this article, and their exegesis followed essentially the same specific guidelines as those
 149

we have found utilized by the biblical writers in their hermeneutic of antecedent Scripture

(see Dockery, 1992, 103-128).

By means of the concept of theoria the Antiochene interpreters were able to uphold

the historical-literal sense of Scripture and at the same time see the deeper typological

focus of many OT passages. Kaiser summarizes the Antiochene perspective: "God gave

the prophets. . . a vision (theoria, from theorein, 'to look at, gaze at') of the future in

which the recipient saw as intimate parts of one meaning the word for his own historical

day with its needs (historia) and that word for the future. Both the literal historical

sense and the fulfillment were conceived as one piece. Both were intimate parts of one

total whole work of God" (Kaiser, 1985, 29).

D. Medieval Hermeneutics

Unfortunately, the Antiochene hermeneutic was overshadowed by, and finally

officially eliminated in favor of, the allegorical approach popularized by the Alexandrian

school. John Cassionus (ca. 425 A.D.) expanded Origen's three-fold sense of Scripture

to four: (a) historical (the literal meaning); (b) tropological (the moral meaning, from

tropos "way of life"); (c) allegorical (or mystical or Christological); and (d) anagogical

(the eschatological or heavenly, from anag "to lead up"). For a 1000 years the

Quadriga (the "four-horse chariot" of the allegorical method) held sway in the Roman

Catholic Church, although there was always a minority that, often despite persecution,

accepted the full and sole authority of the Scriptures in their plain and literal sense.

E. Reformation Hermeneutics and the Historical-Grammatical Method

The Reformation interpreters of the 16th century broke with the allegorical
 150

interpretation of Scripture. Gradually Martin Luther gave up "driving" the Quadriga

through the Bible, and called for understanding its plain sense. In his Table Talk of 1540,

he recalled: "When I was a monk, I was an expert at allegorizing Scripture, but now my

best skill is only to give the literal, simple sense of Scripture, from which comes power,

life, comfort and instruction."

Luther developed four principles of interpreting Scripture. The first is sola

Scriptura "The Bible only," as the final authority over tradition and human philosophy.

As we have seen, Luther did not invent this biblical principle, but powerfully applied it

until it. Sola Scriptura (along with the other two sola's, sola fide "by faith alone" and

sola gratia "by grace alone") became the "battle cry" of the Reformation.

Luther's second hermeneutical principle was "Scripture is its own interpreter,"

scriptura sui ipsius interpres, which we have also seen has solid biblical foundations.

Luther rejected philosophy as the key to interpret Scripture, as well as patristic

interpretation and ecclesiastical teaching authority.

Thirdly, Luther also applied what became known as the Christocentric principle.

His key phrase "what drives to Christ," was zu Christo treibet. What began as a

laudable principle to see how Scripture points, urges, drives to Christ, became a

dangerous one as Luther came to the conclusion that not all of Scripture did indeed drive

to Christ. The principle led to the relegation of some parts of Scripture as less important

than others, i.e., a "canon within a canon."

Accompanying the Christocentric principle was a fourth, a dualism between letter

and spirit (law and gospel, works and grace). Much of the OT was seen as letter and
 151

much of the NT was spirit, although not all in the NT was gospel nor all in the OT was

law.

Both of these last two principles deny the principle of the totality of Scripture (tota

Scriptura) and lead to subjectivism. Who decides what in Scripture drives to Christ,

what is law and what is gospel? The interpreter's own experience ultimately becomes

the final norm.

All the other Reformers accepted the first two principles of Luther, including

Zwingli, Calvin, and the Anabaptist radical reformation. These Reformers consistently

upheld the Bible and the Bible alone as the standard of truth, and sought to utilize

Scripture to interpret Scripture instead of tradition or scholastic philosophy.

The biblical principles of interpretation recovered by the Reformers, coupled with

the advances in textual and historical-grammatical analysis of the Renaissance era

(Erasmus and others), led to a robust Protestant hermeneutic that has carried on through

post-Reformation times till today, and has become known as the

historical-grammatical-literary-theological approach or (for short) the

grammatico-historical method, or again, the historical-biblical method. This method has

had able proponents since Reformation times (Ernst Hengstenberg, Franz Delitzsch et al)

including the 19th century exegetical giants (Ernst Hengstenberg, Franz Delitzsch, et al)

and is currently the approach utilized by conservative Evangelical scholarship.

F. The Enlightenment Hermeneutic and the Historical-Critical Method

1. Historical Development

There is not space to trace all the religious and intellectual movements that led up
 152

to and permeated the Enlightenment of the 18th century. In the 17th century Protestant

interpretation fossilized into a rigid Protestant Orthodoxy with emphasis upon the precise

formulations of right doctrine in creeds, and drove many to seek freedom from the

stifling authoritarianism of the Church. Some followed the path of Pietism with its

emphasis upon the individual spiritual life. But many others, in the wake of the

Copernican Revolution and the struggle between science and religion, decided to throw

off all external authority. Enter empiricism, deism, rationalism.

Richard Simon (1638-1712, a former Protestant who converted to become a

Catholic priest) became the founder of biblical criticism. In his attempt to undermine

Protestantism at its roots, he aimed to destroy the authority of the Bible (in the hope that

then Protestants would turn to the authority of the Catholic Church). Applying the

principles of the Jewish skeptical philosopher Spinoza, Simon criticized the inspiration of

Scripture, rejecting the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch in favor of a long process of

redaction and compilation. His book (1678) was so radical that the Catholic Church

placed it on the Index.

But within a few years, in the wake of the rise of rationalism ("reason the final

criterion for truth") a number of scholars began to view Scripture in the same way as any

other book. The watershed of the Enlightenment came with Johann Semler (1721-1791)

and his four volume German work Treatise on the Free Investigation of the Canon

(1771-1775; he also translated Richard Simon's work 70 years after it was written).

Semler argued for the separation between the Bible and the Word of God: the Bible only

contains, but does not equal God's word. The Bible was viewed from a purely historical
 153

perspective, to be studied like any other ancient document (like Homer). The divine

inspiration was totally rejected.

In the decades that followed, German scholars developed an approach to Scripture

totally "from below," without reference to its divine element. This approach steadily

gained ground throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, and became known as higher

criticism or the historical-critical method. The goal of this method was to verify the

truthfulness and understand the meaning of the biblical data using the principles and

procedures of secular historical science.

2. Presuppositions of Historical Criticism

The basic presuppositions of the historical-critical method--the principles of

criticism, analogy, and correlation-- are articulated in a classic essay by Ernst Troeltsch,

and these are still recognized as constitutive for the method by modern historical critics.

The one principle that is most characteristic of the method, without which it cannot

remain the historical-critical method, is the principle of criticism. The word "criticism"

here is used in its technical sense of Descartes' "methodological doubt," and refers to the

autonomy of the investigator to interrogate and evaluate the Scriptural witness, to judge

as to the truthfulness, adequacy, intelligibility, etc., of the specific declarations of the

text.

In close relation to the principle of criticism is the principle of analogy, which

assumes that present experience is the criterion for evaluating the probability that events

mentioned Scripture actually occurred, inasmuch as all events are in principle similar.

In other words, the interpreter is to judge what happened in biblical times by what is
 154

happening today; and if one does not see a given phenomenon happening today, in all

probability it did not happen then. Since no special creation, no world-wide flood is

occurring now, it most probably did not happen then. The same is true with miracles,

resurrection from the dead, etc,; these must be explained away as non-historical.

The principle of correlation states that history is a closed system of cause and effect

with no room for supernatural intervention. Events are so correlated and interrelated

that a change in any given phenomenon necessitates a change also in its cause and effect.

Historical explanations therefore rests on a chain of natural causes and effects. This is

not to say that all historical critics deny the existence of God or the supernatural; but

methodologically, historical criticism has no room for the supernatural. Scholars using

it are required to bracket out the supernatural and look for natural causes and effects.

3. Procedures of Historical Criticism

The triumph of historical criticism was assured at the end of the nineteenth century

in the influential works of Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918), who popularized an approach

of the historical-critical method known as source criticism. In the 20th century

additional procedures were developed: form criticism, redaction criticism, tradition

history, and most recently, canon criticism. Each of these procedures calls for brief

attention.

Source criticism attempts to reconstruct and analyze the hypothetical literary

sources that underlie the biblical text. Wellhausen popularized the showcase of this
 155

approach for the Pentateuch, which became known as the New Documentary Hypothesis.

The Pentateuch was not viewed as written by Moses, as Scripture explicitly claims, but

rather was seen as a composite of four later documents or sources: (1) the Jahwist (J),

using the divine name Yahweh, written in the Southern Kingdom of Judah about 880

B.C.; (2) the Elohist (E), using the divine name Elohim, written in the Northern Kingdom

of Israel about 770 B.C.; (3) the Deuteronomist (D), written in the time of Josiah, 621

B.C.; and (4) the Priestly (P), which began in the time of the Babylonian exile, and

continued until the time of the final redaction (compiling and editing) about 450 B.C.

This hypothesis brought about a totally reconstructed picture of Israel's history.

Source criticism of the Pentateuch was undergirded by several specific

presuppositions: skepticism of the historicity of the recorded narratives; an

evolutionary model of Israel's development from primitive to advanced forms; the

rejection of supernatural activity in this evolutionary development; and the assumption

that the sources were human products of the life setting (Sitz im Leben) of the

communities which produced them.

Various internal arguments for composite sources in the Pentateuch were employed

by source critics: the use of different divine names, variations in language and style,

alleged contradictions and anachronisms, and supposed doublets and repetitions. All of

these arguments have been analyzed in detail by conservative scholars, and found to be

unconvincing. Even critical scholars today are in disarray over many aspects of the

Documentary Hypothesis, although despite the shaking of its foundations it still has not

been abandoned.
 156

The same presuppositions undergirding Pentateuchal source criticism--plus the

additional assumption denying any real predictive prophecy--have led to the hypothetical

reconstruction of sources elsewhere in Scripture, such as the fragmentation of Isaiah into

three major sources (Isaiah of Jerusalem [1-39], Deutero-Isaiah [40-55], and Trito-Isaiah

[56-66]) and the book of Zechariah into two sections (Zech 1-8 and 9-11). Again,

studies from those accepting the Scripture's own claims for the authorship of these books

have shown how the arguments of source critics are ill-founded.

NT source criticism has focused largely on the "synoptic problem"--the question of

possible sources underlying the first three Gospels, and the interrelationships among

these Gospels. Several modern solutions have been suggested for the synoptic problem.

Developed already in the late 18th century, the Griesbach hypothesis presupposed the

priority of Matthew, with Luke utilizing Matthew as a source and Mark utilizing both

Matthew and Luke. The Lachmann hypothesis, developed by C. Lachmann in 1835,

argued for the priority of Mark, followed by Matthew and then Luke. This hypothesis

was modified a few years later to include two primitive, apostolic sources: Mark and the

Logia (also called the "Q" source [from the German Quelle "source"]).

The two-source hypothesis, with various modifications, is still the most-widely

accepted source-critical theory, although there have been numerous reactions against it in

the latter part of the twentieth century. Further developments include a four-source

hypothesis (B. H. Streeter, 1924,) who adds to Mark and Q an L source [material unique

to Luke] and the M source [material unique to Matthew]), various multiple-source

hypotheses, and Aramaic source hypotheses. Recently Eta Linnemann, eminent

 157

Bultmannian scholar turned evangelical, has forcefully rejected the entire source-critical

endeavor on the Gospels, and argued that there is no synoptic problem after all; none of

the gospels are dependant upon each other, but go back directly to the apostolic

ear-witnesses and eye-witnesses of the words and deeds of Jesus.

In the 1920's another approach of the historical-critical method was developed:

form criticism (German, Formgeschichte, literally "Form history"). This critical

procedure, pioneered by Hermann Gunkel (1832-1932) in the OT and Rudolph Bultmann

in the NT, retained many of the same naturalistic presuppositions used in source

criticism, but focused upon the pre-literary stage of oral traditions behind the written

sources. Form critics assumed that the Biblical material came into existence in much

the same way as conventional folk-literature of modern times, and so adopted the basic

principles of secular form-critics like the Grimm brothers who were studying German

fairy tales.

Building upon the presuppositions of source criticism, form critics assumed that the

sociological forces of the community (in its life setting) shaped the form and content of

the traditions, and that this material developed in a unilinear evolutionary pattern from

short and simple units to longer and more complex traditions. The specific form-critical

task was to analyze the different forms or genres of biblical literature (e.g., the different

literary forms in the Psalms), to dissect them into their conjectured original smaller oral

units, and then hypothetically reconstruct the life setting that brought forth these forms.

In this process of reconstruction the form critic often took little stock in the plain

statements of Scripture regarding the life setting behind the material (for example the
 158

superscriptions of the Psalms), since these were seen as added much later and therefore

not historically reliable.

Neither the early source critics nor form critics of the early twentieth century paid

much attention to the role of the redactors or editors who spliced the pre-existing material

together into the final canonical form; they were viewed as "scissors-and-paste" men,

compilers who left little or none of their own stamp upon the material. But this was to

change by the middle of the 20th century, with the rise of a new procedure in historical

criticism: redaction criticism (German Redaktionsgeschichte, literally, "redaction

history").

Three NT scholars pioneered the approach of redaction criticism in their

examination of the Synoptic Gospels--G. Bornkamm (1948, Matthew), Hans Conzelmann

(1954, Luke), and W. Marxen (1956, Mark)--as they began to focus upon the evangelists

as full-fledged theologians. The aim of the redaction critic was to discover and describe

the unique life settings (the sociological and theological motivations) of the biblical

redactor/writer which caused them to shape, modify, or even create material for the final

product which they wrote. The basic assumption underlying this approach is that each

biblical writer has a unique theology and life setting which differs from, and often

contradicts, his sources and other redactors. The end result of this procedure is to

fracture the unity of Scripture, as it is seen to contain not one, but many (often

contradictory) theologies.

A fourth procedure in historical criticism is called tradition history (German

Traditionsgeschichte). Pioneered by Gerhard von Rad already in the 1930's for the OT,
 159

it built upon source and form criticism, attempting to trace the pre-compositional history

of traditions from stage to stage as passed down by word of mouth from generation to

generation to the final written form. As redaction criticism became popular, tradition

history came to encompass the entire history of the tradition, from oral traditions, to

written sources, to final shaping by the creative redactor. The underlying assumption in

this approach is that each new generation interpretively reshaped the material.

A recent procedure of the historical-critical method, called canon criticism,

represents the logical conclusion to the attempt to hypothetically reconstruct the historical

development of the biblical text. Pioneered by James Sanders in the 1970's and 1980's,

this approach builds upon the others that have gone before, but focuses particularly upon

the life setting (sociological and theological forces) in the synagogue and church that

determined which documents were selected as canonical. As with the other

historical-critical procedures, the assumption in this approach is that human, this-worldly

forces can explain the process--in this case, the process of canonization--without recourse

to mention of guidance by a supernatural Being.

4. Other Critical Approaches

There is a major recent paradigm shift in critical biblical studies toward various

new literary-critical hermeneutical approaches. These critical procedures usually do not

deny the results of historical-criticism, nor abandon the central principle of criticism, but

rather bracket out the historical questions concerning of the historical development of the

biblical text and concentrate upon its final canonical shape.

Many of these literary-critical hermeneutical approaches focus upon the final form
 160

of the biblical text as a literary work of art. These include such (overlapping)

procedures as rhetorical criticism (James Muilenberg), New Literary criticism (Robert

Alter), close reading (Meir Weiss), and narrative criticism. Common to all of these is

the concern for the text as a finished work of art. The literary productions of the Bible

are usually divorced from history and regarded as works of fiction or myth, with their

own "autonomous imaginative universe" and "imitation of reality." Emphasis is placed

upon the various literary conventions utilized (consciously or unconsciously) by the

writer as he crafts the biblical "story" into a literary work of art.

Another recent synchronic approach (i.e., an approach which deals with the final

form of the text) is structuralism. Biblical structuralism builds upon modern linguistic

theory fathered by the French theorist Claude Levi-Strauss, and has been developed in the

USA by such scholars as Daniel Patte. Its main purpose is to "decode" the text to

uncover the subconscious "deep-structures" universally inherent in language that

deterministically impose themselves upon the writer. The divine absolute in this

method is replaced by an absolute from below--the deep structures of language. A

related literary approach is semiotics, or "sign-theory", fathered by Ferdinand de

Saussure and Charles S. Pierce, which focuses upon the linguistic codes that form the

framework within which the message of the text is given (much like the musical staff and

clef in music where the specific notes may be placed). The concern of these approaches

is upon neither the history nor the meaning of the text, but upon the layers of linguistic

structures or sign-systems underlying the message.

In recent decades there have been developed a number of other approaches to

 161

Scripture that retain the critical presuppositions of the historical-critical method, but

focus attention upon other goals than hypothetically reconstructing the historical

development of the biblical text. Some of these modern approaches build upon new

trends that have been mentioned in previous paragraphs. Major examples include the

following: philosophical hermeneutics (the metacritical hermeneutical theory of Gadamer

and the hermeneutic of suspicion and retrieval of Ricoeur); hermeneutics of socio-critical

theory, including sociological criticism (Gottwald), liberation (Guiterez) and feminist

hermeneutic (Trible); reader-response criticism (McKnight), and deconstructionism

(Derrida).

All of these latter approaches tend to have some external norm--be it philosophy,

sociology, Marxist political theory, feminism, or the subjectivism of the reader--which

replaces the sola Scriptura principle and relativizes Scripture. No longer is there a

single objective, normative meaning of Scripture: rather there is a feminist reading, a

black reading, an Asian reading, a Lutheran reading, an Adventist reading, etc. All are

seen to have their own validity as the reader's horizon merges with the horizon of the

biblical text. (See the bibliography for works which discuss in detail the major recent

trends in critical biblical interpretation.)

G. Two Hermeneutical Methods Compared

The two major hermeneutical methods we have introduced--the historical-critical

method and the historico-grammatical (also called the historical-Biblical)--may be

schematically compared by means of the accompanying chart.

 162
A Comparison of the Two Major Modern Hermeneutical Methods
Historical-Critical Method
A. Definition: The attempt to verify the
truthfulness and understand the meaning
of biblical data on the basis of the
principles and procedures of secular
historical science.
B. Objective: To arrive at the correct
meaning of Scripture, which is the human
author's intention as understood by his
contemporaries.
C. Basic Presuppositions:
1. Secular norm: The principles
and procedures of secular historical
science constitute the external norm and
proper method for evaluating the
truthfulness and interpreting the meaning
of biblical data.
2. Principle of criticism
(methodological doubt): the autonomy of
the human investigator to interrogate and
evaluate on his own apart from the
specific declarations of the biblical text.
3. Principle of analogy: present
experience is the criterion of evaluating
the probability of biblical events to have
occurred, since all events are in principle
similar.
4. Principle of correlation (or
causation): a closed system of cause and
effect with no room for the supernatural
intervention of God in history.
5. Disunity of Scripture, since its
Historical-Biblical Method
A. Definition: The attempt to
understand the meaning of biblical data
by means of methodological
considerations arising from Scripture
alone.
B. Objective: To arrive at the correct
meaning of Scripture, which is what God
intended to communicate, whether or not
it is fully known by the human author or
his contemporaries (1 Peter 1:10-12).
C. Basic Presuppositions:
1. Sola Scriptura: The authority
and unity of Scripture are such that
Scripture is the final norm with regard to
content and method of interpretation.
(Isa 8:20)
2. The Bible is the ultimate
authority and is not amenable to the
principle of criticism: biblical data is
accepted at face value and not subjected
to an external norm to determine
truthfulness, adequacy, validity,
intelligibility, etc. (Isa 66:2)
3. Suspension of the compelling
principles of analogy to allow for the
unique activity of God as described in
Scripture and in the process of the
formation of Scripture. (2 Pet 1:19-21)
4. Suspension of the principle of
correlation (or natural cause and effect) to
allow for the divine intervention in history
as described in Scripture. (Heb 1:1-2)
5. Unity of Scripture, since the
 163
prediction involved many human authors
or redactors; Scripture therefore cannot be
compared with Scripture ("proof-texts")
to arrive at a unified biblical teaching.
6. "Time-conditioned" or
"culturally-conditioned" nature of
Scripture; the historical context is
responsible for the production of
Scripture.
7. The human and divine elements
of Scripture must be distinguished and
separated: the Bible contains but does not
equal the Word of God.
D. Basic Hermeneutical Procedures:
1. Literary (source) criticism:
The attempt to hypothetically reconstruct
and understand the process of literary
development leading to the present form
of the text, based on the assumption that
sources are a product of the life setting of
the community which produced them
(often in opposition to specific Scriptural
statements regarding the origin and nature
of the sources.)
2. Form criticism: The attempt to
provide a conjectured reconstruction of
the process of pre-literary (oral)
development behind the various literary
form, based upon the assumption that the
biblical material has an oral pre-history
like conventional folk-literature and like
folk-literature arises on the basis of
traditions which are formed according to
the laws inherent in the development of
folk traditions.
3. Redaction criticism: The
attempt to discover and describe the life
setting, sociological and theological
motivations which determined the basis
many human authors are superintended by
one divine author; therefore Scripture can
be compared with Scripture to arrive at
biblical doctrine. (Luke 24:27; 1 Cor
2:13)
6. Timeless nature of Scripture:
God speaks through the prophet to a
specific culture, yet the message
transcends cultural backgrounds as
timeless truth. (John 10:35)
7. The divine and human elements
in Scripture cannot be distinguished or
separated: the Bible equals the Word of
God. (2 Tim 3:16, 17)
D. Basic Hermeneutical Procedures:
1. Literary analysis: Examination
of the literary characteristics of the
biblical materials in their canonical form,
accepting as a unity those units of
Scripture that are presented as such, and
accepting at face value the specific
Scriptural statements regarding the origins
and nature of the biblical materials.
2. Form analysis: An attempt to
describe and classify the various types of
literature found in (the canonical form of)
Scripture, accepting at face value the life
setting for each form as indicated by the
biblical data.
3. Theological analysis of Biblical
books: A study of the particular
theological emphasis of each Bible writer
(according to his own mind set and
 164

upon which the redactor selected,
modified, reconstructed, edited, altered or
added to traditional materials in order to
make them say what was appropriate
within his new life setting according to
new theological concerns; assumes that
each redactor has a unique theology and
life setting which differs from (and may
contradict) his sources and other
redactors.
4. Tradition history: The attempt
to trace the precompositional history of
traditions from stage to stage as passed
down by word of mouth from generation
to generation to the final written form;
based upon the assumption that each
generation interpretively reshaped the
material.
5. Canon criticism: The attempt to
reconstruct the life setting (sociological
and theological forces) in the synagogue
and the Early Church that determined the
present shape and contents of the biblical
canon; assumes that human forces explain
the canonization process.
capacity to understand), seen within the
larger context of the unity of the whole
Scripture that allows the Bible to be its
own interpreter and the various
theological emphases to be in harmony
with each other.
4. Diachronic (thematic)
analysis: The attempt to trace the
development of various themes and
motives chronologically (through the
Bible in its canonical form); based upon
the Scriptural position that God gives
added (progressive) revelation to later
generations, which, however, is in full
harmony with all previous revelation.
5. History of the canon:
Examination of the process of
canonization of Scripture, assuming that
the criteria for canonicity are inherent in
the biblical materials as inspired by God,
and that the Holy Spirit guided the Jewish
and Christian communities to recognize
these canonical books which preserved
the witness of the OT prophets and the
NT apostles.

Notice the differences in definition, objective, and basic presuppositions. With regard

to the presuppositions of the historical-critical method the first ("secular norm")

represents the basic orientation point of the method: "human reason and the supremacy of

reason as the ultimate criterion of truth" (McKnight 1988, 45). Presuppositions 2-4

indicate the crucial underlying principles of the method (see the classic formulation of

these by Troeltsch 1913); and the last three indicate the method leads to the destruction of
 165

the unity, timeless relevance, and full authority of Scripture.

Note how the historical-biblical approach to hermeneutics rejects each of these

presuppositions based upon biblical evidence. With regard to the principle of criticism

in particular, Gerhard Maier, a noted German scholar who broke with the

historical-critical method, writes (1977:23): "a critical method must fail, because it

represents an inner impossibility. For the correlative or counterpoint to revelation is not

critique, but obedience; it is not correction of the text--not even on the basis of a partially

recognized an applied revelation--but it is a let-me-be-corrected."

As to the basic hermeneutical procedures, note how both methods analyze historical

context, literary features, genre or literary type, theology of the writer, the development

of themes, and the process of canonization. But the historical-biblical approach rejects

the principle of criticism; it analyzes, but refuses to critique the Bible; it accepts the text

of Scripture at face value as true, and refuses to engage in the three-fold process of

dissection, conjecture, and hypothetical reconstruction (often contrary to the claims of the

text) that is at the heart of all historical-critical analysis.

Some evangelical scholars in recent decades have attempted to "rehabilitate" the

historical-critical method by removing its anti-supernatural bias and other objectionable

features and still retain the method. However, this not really possible, because

presuppositions and method are inextricably interwoven. The basis of the historical

critical method is secular historical science, which by its very nature methodologically

excludes the supernatural and instead seeks natural causes for historical events.

The central presupposition of the historical critical method is the principle of

 166

criticism, according to which nothing is accepted at face value but everything must be

verified or corrected by reexamining the evidence. The Bible is always open to

correction and therefore the human interpreter is the final determiner of truth, and his

reason or experience the final test of the authenticity of a passage. As long as this basic

principle is retained even to the slightest degree, the danger of the historical-critical

method has not been averted, even though the supernatural element in theory may be

accepted. And if this principle of criticism is removed, it ceases to be the

historical-critical method. The presence or absence of the fundamental principle of

criticism is really the litmus test of whether or not critical methodology is being

employed.

Those who follow the historical-biblical method apply the same study tools utilized

in historical criticism. There is careful attention given to historical, literary and

linguistic, grammatical-syntactical, and theological details, as we have outlined

throughout this article. But while utilizing the gains brought about by the

historical-critical method in sharpening various study tools for analysis of the biblical

text, there is an consistent intent in historical-biblical study to eliminate the element of

criticism that stands as judge upon the Word.

H. Bible-Based Hermeneutics in the Advent Movement

The Millerite movement had its inception in the preaching of William Miller, and

Miller developed a simple set of 13 rules for interpreting the Bible (see the reprint of

these in Damsteegt 1977:299-300). These hermeneutical principles all build upon the

historico-grammatico method of interpretation maintained by the Reformers, with special

 167

attention to the interpretation of prophecy. The early Adventist pioneers all used these

principles. In 1884 Ellen White could write: "Those who are engaged in proclaiming

the third angel's message are searching the Scriptures upon the same plan that Father

Miller adopted" (RH 11/25/1884). After quoting the first four of these rules, that

summarize basic hermeneutical principles, she adds: "in our study of the Bible we shall

all do well to heed the principles set forth."

Ellen White's writings strongly uphold all the basic presuppositions and specific

guidelines for interpreting Scripture as advocated by the historico-grammatical

(historical-Biblical) method and as set forth in this article. (See the selected quotations

in section V).

White also strongly counsels against the employment of the historical-critical

method, then known as "higher criticism," and demonstrates a keen sensitivity to its

essential constitutive elements and the dangers of its use: "The work of higher criticism,

in dissecting, conjecturing, reconstructing [note the three basic elements of the method,

as seen above] is destroying faith in the Bible as a divine revelation. It is robbing God's

word of power to control, uplift, and inspire human lives" (Acts of the Apostles, p. 474).

George Reid (1991, 69-70) has indicated how prior to 1950 the "traditional"

Adventist hermeneutic was essentially the historico-grammatical (historical-Biblical)

method. Since 1950 some voices within Adventism have advocated a shift toward a

modified historical-critical method that accepts the supernatural but also retains the

principle of criticism. But in 1986 the Annual Council of SDA's voted to accept the

report of the Methods of Bible Study Committee, which rejected the use of the
 168

historical-method. According to the report, "Even a modified use of this method that

retains the principle of criticism which subordinates the Bible to human reason is

unacceptable to Adventists" (Adventist Review, January 22, 1987, p. 18).

The Seventh-day Adventist Church affirms the hermeneutic of the biblical writers,

of Antioch and the Reformation, and rejects the allegorical method of Alexandria and

medieval Catholicism and the historical-critical method of the rationalistic Enlightment

and its later developments.

In so doing, they also maintain the Reformers' historicist hermeneutic of prophecy,

which has been abandoned by virtually all of Christendom today except the SDA church.

Seventh-day Adventists are the hermeneutical heirs of the Reformation. And like the

"radical [back to the roots] reformers" of the 16th century, they continually seek to go

"back to the roots," to base all their presuppositions, their principles of interpretation,

their faith, and practice upon the absolute authority of God's infallible Word.