Unified Exegesis?
In our history we can trace multiple forms of exegetical methods, none of which are the same in its entirety, though some draw from the same well of water, while others created their own well to discern.
There is Ancient Jewish, NT use of the OT, Patristic, Medieval, Reformed, Post-Reformed, and Modern — all melding similar uses cases, but some reaching beyond the well (as mentioned). We’re not going to do an exhaustive discourse on each one, we’re going to attempt to give enough information to continue our main point that even exegetical method needs a ruling authority.
Ezra is most likely the common ground for the start of biblical (oral and written) interpretation. By the Babylonian exile it’s suggested that most of the theology of the Israelites was lost but was being sought after. We read in Nehemiah 8:8 — “They (ezra and Levites) read from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear and giving the meaning so that the people could understand what was being read” (sorry protestants, this theme doesn’t end — see Phillip in Acts).
We see the depths of “inspired word of God” become, not abused, but let’s say extended to a point where they don’t belong through characters like Rabbi Akiba [first century]. Rabbi Akiba believed “every stroke, even the lines” were inspired by God, in such a way that he coined hidden meanings for every text, this excessive focus on the letters carried so far they overlooked the actual intended meaning many times.
At the time of Christ, Jewish exegesis could be classified into four main types: literal, midrashic, pesher, and allegorical. The literal method of interpretation, referred to as peshat, apparently served as the basis for other types of interpretation.
Midrash comes from the Hebrew verb darash meaning to search. Midrash, then, speaks of an inquiry or an exposition. Midrashic interpretation included a variety of hermeneutical devices that had developed considerably by the time of Christ and continued to develop for several centuries thereafter. The primary goal of midrash was to highlight and explain the relevance of scriptural teaching in new and changing circumstances.
Rabbi Hillel, whose life precedes the rise of Christianity by a generation or so, is credited with developing the basic rules of rabbinic exegesis, which emphasized the comparison of ideas, words, or phrases found in more than one text, the relationship of general principles to particular instances, and the importance of context in interpretation.
The shift toward more imaginative and less traditional interpretation of sacred texts continued, leading to an approach that: (1) assigned meaning to words, phrases, and passages without considering their original context; (2) combined passages with similar wording, even if they were not addressing the same topic; and (3) found significance in minor grammatical details. This style of interpretation, known as midrashic exegesis, was extensively documented in the Mishnah—a collection of rabbinic teachings compiled around AD 200—and further expanded upon in the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds, which provided commentary on the Mishnah. One example of this method can be seen in an interpretation of agricultural practices:
“How do we know that a garden bed, six handbreadths square, can hold five different types of seeds—four on the edges and one in the center? Because it is written, For as the earth brings forth its bud, and as the garden causes the seeds sown in it to spring forth (Isaiah 61:11). It does not say ‘its seed,’ but ‘the seeds sown in it.’”
Rabbi Judah explained: “‘The earth brings forth its bud’: ‘brings forth’ counts as one; ‘its bud’ adds another, making two. ‘Seeds sown’ implies at least two more, making four; and ‘causes to spring forth’ adds one more, totaling five.”
This focus on uncovering hidden or symbolic meanings often came at the expense of understanding the text’s straightforward, literal meaning.
Another interpretive approach, called Pesher, was particularly popular among the Qumran community. While it borrowed techniques from midrashic interpretation, Pesher placed a strong emphasis on eschatology, or end-time prophecies. The Qumran community believed that the writings of ancient prophets held hidden, symbolic meanings that were being fulfilled in their time, through their covenant group.
At this point, you should have a brief understanding of the Jewish traditional forms of interpretation (varying in degree, use case, understanding and outcome). Now, I asked myself many years ago a question that I think is relevant here, did Jesus fulfill any form of interpretation? That is to say, did Jesus also fulfill our understanding of the Old Testament scripture rendering much of the interpretation process unified by the time of the Apostles?
We know that on the Road to Emmaus “taught all that was in the Old Testament” of himself to the disciples. However, we see this correlate to the surviving text of the Apostles, the New Testament includes roughly 10% (on the low end) direct quotes, paraphrases, and allusions to the Old Testament. This is why I say that in order to comprehend the NEW you must understand the OLD. This is exactly what Jesus told His disciples at the end of the Gospels.
However, it’s not limited to the scope of understanding what Jesus fulfilled, in fact we get a clearer picture about the Father, the trinity, the Satan, the afterlife, and countless other doctrines that come from under the darkness and into the light of Jesus.
Patristic Exegesis
The School of Alexandria, The Syrian School of Antioch, the Western Schools…
Each of these contain variations in method, nuance, and teaching when it comes to interacting with a text of their time or another. Clement of Alexandria held to a soft view that Scriptures, like Jesus Parables, held their meaning inside and everything must be through the lens of discovering the hidden meaning. This is where you get the highly interpretive ideas of Origen, and even some of Basil — high allegory.
In the Syrian thought, rules of grammar and law of history were the most vital things to diagnosing the meaning of a text. They avoided dogmatic exegesis, asserting that an interpretation be justified by a study of it’s grammatical and historical context.
It wasn’t until Augustine that we can articulate a more formulated approach to the matter.
1. The interpreter must possess a genuine Christian faith.
2. The literal and historical meaning of the text should hold primary importance.
3. Scripture often has more than one meaning, but the historical method is the proper and foundational one.
4. Biblical numbers have significance and should be recognized in interpretation.
5. The Old Testament is a Christian document because it points to Christ throughout.
6. The task of the interpreter is to understand the meaning of the author, not to impose their own meaning onto the text.
7. The interpreter must adhere to orthodox Christian teachings.
8. A verse must always be studied in its context, not in isolation from the surrounding text.
9. If the meaning of a passage is unclear, it cannot be used to define orthodox doctrine.
10. Learning the original languages (Hebrew, Greek) and understanding geography and other subjects is essential; reliance on the Holy Spirit alone is not enough for interpretation.
11. Obscure passages must yield to clear ones in forming doctrine.
12. The interpreter should take into account that God’s revelation is progressive, meaning it unfolds over time.
Augustine held that Scripture had a fourfold sense: historical, etiological, analogical, allegorical. This view overtook the middle ages (for the most part) and yet even in applying these principles, he said “applying the rule of faith” is a must, that is to say, yielding to authority of the Church.
Now we reach the time of Luther… but that’s for another post!