Josiah C’s Reviews > The Letter and Spirit of Biblical Interpretation: From the Early Church to Modern Practice > Status Update

Stanglin gives a very helpful illustration in chapter 7. Modern exegetes examine the Bible like a scientist examines a cadaver, very technically. Pre-modern exegetes examined the Bible like examining a spouse on a honeymoon. Both are examining the same body, i.e., the Bible, but their different methods give them information that is useful in different senses and for different ends.

Stanglin argues that the historical-critical method of interpretation does not even require that one believes the Scriptures are inspired. Stripping the Scriptures of their spiritual/allegorical/mystic sense leaves the work of exegesis to reason rather than to the Spirit.

Strangling argues that while the Reformers do
employ humanist hermeneutical methods and take a step toward the modern historical-critical methods of exegesis, they still have much more in common with medieval and patristic exegetes concerning the use of allegory, the mystic sense of Scripture, etc.

Stanglin argues that the differences between the Alexandrian and Antiochene schools of interpretation were negligible and that they both would find the modern historical-grammatical method of interpretation immature and absurd.

The Church Fathers understood the Christocentric Old Testament hermeneutic of the Apostles to be a model for the church’s hermeneutic, the rule of faith being the guardrails of interpretation. The idea that the Apostles have exclusive authority to interpret the Old Testament Christocentrically is a post-enlightenment modernist idea.

The Church Father’s understood Jesus’ interpretation of the Law as fulfilled and at times spiritualized to be the original intent of the Law. Barnabas believed the Jews misunderstood food laws, and that they were never meant to be obeyed literally but spiritually.