dictionary of biblical criticism and interpretation

Dictionary of Biblical Criticism and Interpretation

Compiling the results from contemporary and exciting areas of research into one single important volume, thisbook stands ahead of its field in providing a comprehensive one-stop handbook reference of biblical interpretation.

Examining a wide range of articles on many of the recognized interpreters including Augustine, Luther, andCalvin, up to the modern figures of Martin Hengel and T.W. Manson, Professor Porter gathers contributorswho expertly combine the study of biblical interpretation with the examination of the theological and philosoph-ical preconceptions that have influenced it, and survey the history of interpretation from different perspectives.

Key perspectives studied include:

the historical dimension: addresses how interpretation has developed at various periods of time, from earlyJewish exegesis to the historical-critical method;

the conceptual approach: looks at the various schools of thought that have generated biblical interpretation,and compares and contrasts competing conceptual models of interpretation;

the personal perspective: addresses the reality of biblical interpretation by individuals who have helped plotthe course of theological development.

With relevant bibliographies as a guide to further reading, the Dictionary will be an extremely important refer-ence tool held for many years, not only by libraries, but also by students, scholars, clergy, and teachers of thisfascinating and high-profile subject.

Stanley E. Porter is an award-winning editor and author. He has edited over forty volumes, including theHandbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period (1997), the Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament (1997)and, with Craig Evans, the Dictionary of New Testament Background (2000). He has also written ten books, includingEarly Christianity and its Sacred Literature (2000), with Lee McDonald, and The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research (2000). He is President, Dean and Professor of New Testament at McMaster Divinity College,Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Dictionary of Biblical Criticism

and Interpretation

edited by Stanley E. Porter

Simultaneously published in the USA and Canadaby Routledge

270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016

First published 2007by Routledge

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor and Francis Group, an informa business

2007 Stanley E. Porter, individual contributors their contributions

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording,

or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication DataDictionary of biblical criticism and interpretation/ed., Stanley E Porter.

p. cm.Includes bibliographical references and index.

1. BibleCriticism, interpretation, etc.Dictionaries. I. Porter, Stanley E Porter., 1956BS440.D496 2006

220.3dc222006034336

British Library Cataloguing in Publication DataA catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN10: 0415201004ISBN13: 9780415201001

This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2006.

To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledgescollection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.

(Print Edition)

ISBN 0-203-96975-8 Master e-book ISBN

Prefacevii

List of entries and contributorsix

Introduction1

Entries AZ5392

Index393

Contents

This dictionary has been a long time in the making.At last it is released to the world far from complete(no dictionary could ever be), but willing to take itsplace as one of the tools in the enterprise of biblicalcriticism and interpretation. The title of the volumereflects its aim. That is, to provide a dictionary-lengthguide to major issues, approaches, and people that have been important in the development of biblicalcriticism and interpretation. Criticism addresses thevariety of methods that have been developed, especiallysince the Enlightenment, to help us as biblical inter-preters to come to terms with the issues surroundingreading the Bible. Interpretation addresses the fact thatall these various methods, and those who have utilizedthem including those preceding modern criticalanalysis have been involved in helping biblical readersto gain understanding. The scope of the dictionaryincludes major time periods of biblical criticism andinterpretation, the range of corpora between the twoTestaments and other texts as well, critical approaches,methods, and mind-sets of significance, and even avariety of individual critics and interpreters. Whereaswe have some confidence that we have covered themajor critical periods and most of the significantmethods and approaches, it was necessary to be highlyselective regarding the individuals included. I apologizehere if you think that your favorite biblical scholar or even you, yourself! should have been included butwas not.

This enterprise began with the idea of RichardStoneman, editor for Routledge. I wish to thank himfor encouraging the development of this project, and for his patience as it took longer than anticipated. My hope is that this dictionary will join the ranks ofthe significant and growing list of Routledge volumesthat have come to be important for understanding the ancient world, of which the Bible is a significantpart.

At the outset of this project, I asked my then col-league Dr. Brook Pearson to be a coeditor with me.He gladly undertook this task and initiated corres-pondence and kept the databases regarding the project.Due to a variety of factors, he has been unable to con-tinue with the project, and I have truly missed his

participation. I wish him the best in his own contin-uing scholarly endeavors. His separation from the projectcorresponded to a time of transition for me from onecontinent to another, which has occasioned the delayin completion and publication.

In his stead, and at the last stages, my teaching andresearch assistant, Andrew Gabriel, joined the project.I wish to thank Andrew for tackling all dimensions ofthe project so avidly, including the databases, the ever-growing stack of manuscripts, and the electronic files.He has also been of great assistance in correspondingwith authors, recruiting last-minute participants, andediting contributions.

My major debt is to the individual contributors. Overthe course of the years, a number have wonderedwhether this project would ever see the black of print.I am pleased to say that that day has finally arrived. Ithank you for your patience, and your faith in believingthat this project was far from dead. This volume bringstogether scholars from several different continents, tosay nothing of many different countries. One of theresults of this has been the ability to benefit from avariety of perspectives reflective of the places in whichthese scholars do their critical work. Along the way,some potential contributors had to withdraw, and othershad to be recruited. Some of these joined at the lastminute. I especially appreciate the willingness withwhich a number of last-minute contributors acceptedinvitations and returned their contributions in a timelyand efficient manner. I am confident that the qualityof their contributions has been equal to the others, and that readers will find a surprisingly high degree ofconsistently fine contributions within this collection.Thank you to each of you for offering your expertiseand for being willing to make a contribution to thisproject.

As a last word, I wish to encourage users and readersof this volume to explore the depths of its riches. AsI reviewed articles, it became clear to me that thetapestry of criticism and interpretation of the Bible iscomplexly woven. The various strands include history,literature, material remains, philosophy, and a varietyof other things. Many of the articles, even though theindividual contributors were unaware of it, were closely

vi i

Preface

intertwined with other contributions because of theircommon task of attempting to help us to understandbiblical criticism and interpretation. My hope is thatthis volume helps you also in your biblical interpretation.

STANLEY E. PORTER

McMaster Divinity CollegeHamilton, Ontario, Canada

PREFACE

vi i i

Abelard, P.Kurt A. Richardson

ActsMikeal C. Parsons

Allegorical InterpretationAnnewies van den Hoek

Anthropology and InterpretationStephen Hunt

The Antiochene SchoolKurt A. Richardson

Apocalyptic LiteratureJ.C. Robinson

ApocryphaLester L. Grabbe

Apocryphal InterpretationJ.K. Elliott

AqibaCraig A. Evans

Aquinas, T.Kurt A. Richardson

Archaeology and the BibleStanley E. Porter

AristotleT.H. Olbricht

Art and InterpretationFelicity Harley

AugustineAnnewies van den Hoek

Authority of ScriptureJohn Goldingay

Barr, J.H.C. Jorgensen

Barth, K.Shirley Martin

Baur, F.C.Horton Harris

Biblical TheologyD.A. Carson

Brown, R.E.Hudson N. Zimba

Brueggemann, W.John D.W. Watts

Bultmann, R.Anthony C. Thiselton

Cadbury, H.J.Mikeal C. Parsons

Calvin, J.Kurt A. Richardson

Canonical Criticism: Childs ApproachMarvin A. Sweeney

Canonical Criticism: Sanders ApproachMarvin A. Sweeney

Canonical DevelopmentRoger T. Beckwith

Chronology (NT)Stanley E. Porter

Chronology (OT)Richard S. Hess

Chrysostom, J.Dallas B.N. Friesen

Commentary (NT)C.K. Barrett

Commentary (OT)Jack N. Lawson

Cullmann, O.James D.G. Dunn

Cultural Relationships in the World of the Old TestamentRichard S. Hess

Cultural Relationships in the World of theNew TestamentDavid A. deSilva

Dead Sea ScrollsGeorge J. Brooke

Deissmann, G.A.G.H.R. Horsley

Derrida, J.J.C. Robinson

Dilthey, W.J.C. Robinson

Dodd, C.H.Malcolm A. Kinnear

Dunn, J.D.G.R. Barry Matlock

Early Church InterpretationRichard N. Longenecker

ix

List of entries and contributors

Ebeling, G.Petr Pokorny

Eichrodt, W.Dennis L. Stamps

Enlightenment PeriodColin Brown

ErasmusAnthony R. Cross

Ethics and InterpretationKurt A. Richardson

EusebiusAnnewiess van den Hoek

Existential HermeneuticsJ.C. Robinson

Feminist InterpretationSean Adams

Film and InterpretationLarry J. Kreitzer

Fitzmyer, J.A.Steven R. Gunderson

Form CriticismKenton L. Sparks

Formalist/New Critical InterpretationJames L. Resseguie

Former ProphetsKenton L. Sparks

Foucault, M.Joyce E. Bellous

Fuchs, E.Petr Pokorny

Gadamer, H.G.J.C. Robinson

General EpistlesPeter H. Davids

GnosticismChristopher Tuckett

Gospel: GenreRichard A. Burridge

Gospels: InterpretationEve-Marie Becker

Goulder, M.D.Cynthia Long Westfall

Greek Grammar and LexicographyStanley E. Porter

Greek LanguageGeoffrey Horrocks

Habermas, J.John Rogerson

Harnack, A. vonHorton Harris

Hebrew and Aramaic Grammar andLexicographyJ.F. Elwolde

Hebrew and Aramaic LanguagesJ.F. Elwolde

Heidegger, M.J.C. Robinson

Hellenistic Moral Philosophy and the NewTestamentGregory Sterling

Hengel, M.Petr Pokorny

Historical ApproachesRichard S. Ascough

Historical JesusBruce D. Chilton

Historiographical LiteratureDarryl Palmer

Holy Spirit and InterpretationJohn Christopher Thomas

Intra-biblical InterpretationRobert W. Wall

IrenaeusAnnewies van den Hoek

IshmaelCraig A. Evans

Islamic InterpretationTim Winter

Israel: History ofRichard S. Hess

Jeremias, J.Steven R. Gunderson

JeromeDallas B.N. Friesen

Jesus as Interpreter of the BibleDennis L. Stamps

Jesus SeminarCraig A. Evans

Jewish Literature: Non-CanonicalJ.C. Robinson

Johannine LiteratureJudith Lieu

JosephusDonna R. Runnalls

Kaiser Jr., W.C.H.C. Jorgensen

Kmmel, W.G.Howard Clark Kee

Ladd, G.E.Ralph P. Martin

Latter ProphetsJoseph Blenkinsopp

LawRichard S. Hess

LettersAndrew K. Gabriel

LIST OF ENTRIES AND CONTRIBUTORS

x

Lexicons (Theological)Stanley E. Porter

Liberation Theological Interpretation (Latin America)David Tombs

Lietzmann, H.Horton Harris

Linguistic CriticismStanley E. Porter

Literary DevicesPaul Buchanan

Literature: Biblical InfluencePaul Buchanan

Liturgical InterpretationWendy J. Porter

Luther, M.Andrew K. Gabriel

MaimonidesJack N. Lawson

Manson, T.W.Greg Anderson

MarcionH.C. Jorgensen

Metzger, B.M.James A. Brooks

Middle AgesC. Mark Steinacher

MidrashAndrew K. Gabriel

MillenarianismCharles E. Hill

Morris, L.L.D.A. Carson

Moule, C.F.D.D.A. Carson

Moulton, J.H.G.H.R. Horsley

Music and InterpretationWendy J. Porter

NarrativeJ.C. Robinson

Narrative CriticismCynthia Long Westfall

NeoplatonismJ.C. Robinson

New Academy, AthensKurt A. Richardson

New HermeneuticE.V. McKnight

New HistoricismJenn Burnett

New Religious Movements and InterpretationStephen Hunt

New RhetoricC. David Donaldson

NumismaticsLarry J. Kreitzer

OrigenAnnewies van den Hoek

Papyrology and EpigraphyStanley E. Porter

ParablesBruce D. Chilton

Patristic InterpretationAllen Brent

Paul as Interpreter of the BibleJames W. Aageson

Pauline LettersDennis L. Stamps

PentateuchJohn Rogerson

Perrin, N.Dennis C. Duling

PesherGeorge J. Brooke

PhiloAnnewies van den Hoek

Philosophical HermeneuticsDonald G. Marshall

PlatoT.H. Olbricht

PoetryWilfred G.E. Watson

Post-Enlightenment CriticismJohn Rogerson

Poststructuralism, DeconstructionErin Runions

Prophetic LiteratureMark J. Boda

Proverb/WisdomJack N. Lawson

PsalmsLeslie C. Allen

Quotation and AllusionMark J. Boda

Rabbinic JudaismBruce D. Chilton

Rabbinic Rules of InterpretationBruce D. Chilton

Rad, G. vonDennis L. Stamps

Ramsay, W.M.H.C. Jorgensen

RashiJack N. Lawson


xi

Reader-Oriented ApproachesJohn A. Darr

Redaction CriticismF. Gerald Downing

Reformations (Sixteenth Century)Anthony R. Cross

Reimarus, H.S.Charles H. Talbert

Rhetorical CriticismT.H. Olbricht

Ricoeur, P.Kevin J. Vanhoozer

Schleiermacher, F.D.E.Anthony C. Thiselton

Schweitzer, A.R. Barry Matlock

Second Temple PeriodLester L. Grabbe

Smith, W.R.John Rogerson

Social-Scientific ApproachesPhilip F. Esler

Source CriticismJohn S. Kloppenborg

Strauss, D.F.Charles H. Talbert

StructuralismJ.T. Robertson

TargumCraig A. Evans

TertullianDallas B.N. Friesen

Testament RelationshipsAndreas J. Kstenberger

Textual Criticism (NT)Stanley E. Porter

Textual Criticism (OT)Richard S. Hess

Thiselton, A.C.Steven R. Gunderson

Tischendorf, C.Cynthia Long Westfall

Torrey, C.C.Steven R. Gunderson

Tradition-Historical InterpretationJames M. Scott

Translations of the Bible (Since the KJV)Stanley E. Porter

Appendix: Liturgical Structure and Translationof the Lords PrayerEugene A. Nida

Translation as InterpretationJohn A. Beck

Twentieth Century InterpretationJames Alfred Loader and Oda Wischmeyer

Westcott, Lightfoot, and HortHorton Harris

Wette, W.M.L. deJohn Rogerson

William of OckhamKurt A. Richardson

Wrede, W.W.R. Telford

WritingsJack N. Lawson


xi i

The field of biblical studies is one of the most complexwithin the humanities disciplines (some would questionwhether it is a humanities discipline, since it avails itself of a variety of social-scientific methods as well;that is part of the point that I make below). This assess-ment has been recognized by a number of scholars whorecently have undertaken to join, or at least to haveconversation with, the field of biblical studies. Few dis-ciplines make such rigorous demands on those whowould call themselves experts in the field. The require-ments include knowledge of the ancient world, ancientlanguages, various ancient literatures, and a history ofwriting, research, and investigation that dates back nearlytwo millennia in its most inclusive form, and at leastto the Enlightenment in its more immediate criticalform. Thus, it qualifies as one of the oldest academicand intellectual disciplines. A number of critical disci-plines geared to studying the ancient biblical world havebeen developed, often called historical criticism, in con-junction with which biblical scholars have been forcedalso to ask theological questions, including addressingsuch topics as canonicity, revelation, and inspiration. Inmore recent times, there has been an influx of moderncritical methods, which have been appropriated fromrelated (and sometimes not so related) disciplines. Theseinclude literary studies, drawing upon work that hasbeen developed in the study of modern literature; clas-sical studies, including but certainly not limited toexploration of the influence of oral culture; social-sci-entific criticism, with its prescriptive and descriptivemodels of various societal patterns; linguistics, with itsoriginal attention to spoken languages being applied tothe written artifacts of past cultures; and others thatcould be mentioned (and probably are somewhere inthis volume). Much of the recent work that has beendone in the discipline could have appeared in anynumber of major modern languages, including, forexample, English, German, or French to be sure, butnow also Spanish, Italian, or Swedish, among others.

No doubt as a result of its complexities, the field ofbiblical criticism and interpretation is one that has beenincreasingly well served in the last several decades. Thisis not to say that previous decades did not have signifi-cant contributions to the field made by a variety of

scholars. Clearly, such contributions were made.However, we currently live in a highly self-consciousand methodologically reflective age. Perhaps that is the inevitable result of the accumulation of history andtradition in any given intellectual enterprise. That is, ata particular time one needs to pause, if only momen-tarily, and critically reflect on what has preceded inorder to impel forward movement into new anddifferent areas of intellectual exploration. Nevertheless,it is only within the last several decades that there hasbeen a multiplication of critical methods within thefield of biblical studies that has forced interpreters tocome to terms with the nature of their discipline. Fewinterpreters today would want to make the claim thatthey uncritically accept and utilize a critical interpre-tive method (there seems to be a contradiction in termsto make such a claim, whether it is inadvertent or not).Instead, most interpreters are forced to scrutinize themethods that they use and to make a conscious effortto defend and buttress the methods that they believelead to critical insight. As a result, there is a significantdifference of opinion among interpreters regarding what the best method is in fact, I know of few whowould be willing to make such a blanket statement,without also offering a number of caveats and quali-fiers. Along with the endorsement of particular methodsis the acknowledgment and respect given to those who have paved the way and continue to develop such methodological perspectives. Only time will tell,whether the apparent critical panoply is genuine, orwhether we are suffering in our critical examinationfrom a critical myopia bred of proximity in time andenvironment.

The consequence of such critical scrutiny is a numberof positive and negative factors. Some of the positivefactors include advancement in critical method, includ-ing the development of new methods of interpreta-tion. The process of self-analysis and critical interactionhas helped to motivate and refine methods of criticalinterpretation. What once, for example, passed as simpleliterary readings of the Bible are now much morecritically aware, and would perhaps differentiate betweenformalist, new critical, new historicist, and reader-oriented methods. Another positive result has been the

1

Introduction to Criticism and Interpretation of the Bible

establishment of bodies of critical interpretation regard-ing these methods. What began as just one or two struc-turalist interpreters, for example, developed into a bodyof critical structuralist interpretation. A third result isthat the more traditional critical methods e.g., the so-called historical-critical method were forced to defendtheir territory if they wished to retain advocates otherthan simply those who were too deeply enshrined intheir inherited tradition to contemplate anything else.Even though at various times throughout the lastcentury some have forecast the death knell of the his-torical-critical method, it appears to have survived intothis new century. In fact, it not only has survived, buthas also expanded its scope of usage, so that it is beingutilized by a number of biblical interpreters who perhapsin a previous generation would not have been its advo-cates. A fourth positive result, and one that followsdirectly from the previous one, is that some of theboundaries that have insulated the discipline of biblicalstudies in various quarters have been broken down, sothat there is much more mingling of methods and inter-pretive models. Even the historical-critical method hashad to make adjustments as it has been forced to appro-priate perceived benefits from other critical methods.Much of its staying power has perhaps been related toits ability to adapt to the demands of the age, and formany of its advocates to adapt along with it.

Whereas there have been a number of positive resultsof the recent critical discussion, these advantageous con-sequences have not come without a price. There havebeen a number of negative results as well. One of theseis the clear fragmentation of the discipline of biblicalstudies that seems to have become a reality. The resultof the development of a greater number of criticalmethodologies has been that it has become increasinglydifficult to expect any given interpreter to be able tounderstand to say nothing of master this range ofapproaches. As a consequence, not only have there con-tinued to be commentaries and monographs that utilizethe mainstream range of critical methods, but there areother series that focus specifically on a single criticalmethod. Related to this is the sometimes unconscious(though sometimes explicit) belief that those criticalmethods that have not been mastered are in some wayinherently inferior to those that have been learned. Theymay be, but not learning about them is not the wayto prove that this is the case. Another disadvantage isthat a sense of the history of interpretation has beenlost. Biblical interpretation used to be a more synchronicenterprise, in which the major thinkers of the past wereviewed as still-relevant interpreters in the present. Thereason for this was probably that the approaches tobiblical interpretation from then to now were similarenough to make past interpretation relevant in thepresent. However, in recent times, with the develop-ment of new and competing models of interpretation,it has become increasingly easy to see past interpreters

as simply artifacts, and their interpretation as antiquatedand irrelevant. I am always pleasantly amused to hearsomeone promote a new interpretation of a biblicaltext, only to find out or realize that the interpretationsuggested was first proposed in the nineteenth centuryor earlier (unfortunately, this sometimes involves anEnglish-language scholar failing to have noted the workof a non-English language scholar). One of the goalsof this volume will have been accomplished if some ofthe major essays that are concerned with individualperiods of biblical interpretation are read and appreci-ated for the relevance of their content, and the realization that earlier interpreters often struggled withthe same issues that we struggle with today. A thirdnegative consequence is the difficulty in arriving at any-thing that resembles definitive or normative interpreta-tions. This of course implies that such are desirable.The critical postmodernist terrain argues at some levelsthat such a goal is not only unattainable but not evendesirable. Such may be true, but it then would seemto imply that communication between competing inter-preters would in many instances not be possible either,since the common ground for discussion of competinginterpretations would be lost. For some, that resultwould lead to little anxiety; in fact, it would be awelcome relief. For others, however, this might bemore distressing. It would make it difficult to evaluateindividual interpretations and even more difficult toknow whether there is any kind of development inlevels of understanding as a result (I will refrain fromusing the idea of progress in interpretation, since manywould object to that characterization as well).

Much more could be said about the positives andnegatives of recent interpretation. However, a volumesuch as this has a contribution to make to this discus-sion in a number of ways. One is in providing a meansof introducing the various kinds of interpretations, bothto those who are simply curious and to those who havenot desired or been willing to invest more than super-ficial interest in them. The articles contained herein arenot meant to be definitive in any absolute or encom-passing sense, but to provide means of access. Thisvolume is designed also to overcome the kind of con-temporary critical introspection that results in failure to contextualize the contemporary within the broadersweep of history. I do not think that some grand meta-narrative can be found that accounts for the history ofinterpretation, but I am not inherently indisposed tofinding some patterns of critical behavior illustrated bypast practitioners. With increased specialization, aidedif not encouraged by the growing demand for instantinterpretation, has come a neglect of some broad andspecialized areas of interpretation by some interpreters.Some of these would be those who have been at thetask for some time and have failed to be able to keepup with recent developments, and much less to be ableto assess where such critical methods fit within the

INTRODUCTION

2

larger stream of biblical interpretation. Others of thesewould be those who have come to the task morerecently, but who have not been exposed to some ofthe older and perhaps (perceived to be) antiquatedmethods. This volume is designed to provide historicaland methodological introductions to such areas. Theinclusion of a number of individual interpreters severalof whom are still alive and writing is designed tobring such critical method to life in terms of the workof individuals who have made significant and whatappear to be lasting contributions to the discipline.

This volume ably and aptly captures the state of playin biblical criticism and interpretation at the turn of thetwentieth to the twenty-first centuries. As a number ofthe articles contained herein make clear, the twentiethcentury was an important one for biblical interpreta-tion. The historical-critical method came into its ownin terms of the major types of criticism (form, source,and redaction), but it also had to fend off and adapt tothe introduction of a number of new methods (literary/narrative criticism, linguistic criticism, social-scientificcriticism). By the same token, a number of new methodswere explored and were able to establish a beachhead,some of them even being able to make serious if notpermanent incursions into the critical continent.

As a result, one might well ask the question of wherethe twenty-first century will take biblical criticism andinterpretation. Of course, such thought is speculative atbest. Nevertheless, a number of patterns emerge thatcould develop into trends and end up shaping the dis-cipline. Perhaps more relevant than speculating on whatwill happen is forecasting a set of desiderata to aidbiblical interpretation in the future. Right now, it seemsto me, biblical interpretation is in a period of somestagnation. A number of new methods have been devel-oped some of which have greatly aided and enhancedtraditional historical criticism and some of which haveestablished themselves as independent approaches butthe results of these interpretive methods have not suf-ficiently filtered through to actual textual interpreta-tion. When one reads and considers exegeses of biblicaltexts, there are numerous places where knowledge of,or use of, one of the newer methods would have greatlyaided interpretation, to the point of helping to avoidcritical misjudgments. One desirable future developmentwould be better utilization and incorporation of anumber of these new methods into actual interpreta-tion of specific passages. A further desired result, whichcould come about as a result of this, would be theability to better evaluate the critical methods on thebasis of the productivity and clarity of their readings. Ido not take the view that the simple test of a method

is its practical payoff. Such a pragmatic and functionalview of interpretation would result in methodologicalstagnation, if not retroversion, if left to its own reac-tionary devices. However, there does come a valid pointwhere critical methods whether old or new, recentor traditional are asked to speak to a text. The resultingreading may not be new in any meaningful sense ofthe word, and certainly not unique, but it shouldprovide some further critical insight into a passage, evenif it is merely to provide a better explanation of a trad-itional interpretation first arrived at through othermeans. To date, much of the development of new crit-ical methods has been by biblical scholars who haveappropriated often in simplified or reduced form methods first developed in other scholarly fields ofinquiry. A further desired goal would be for thecrossover between disciplines to be more genuine andreciprocal. In such a world, biblical scholars would putforth the energy needed truly to master the cognatefield, so that they could be actual practitioners of it.Scholars in these other fields would then be welcometo explore the biblical world, and their readings of thebiblical text would be welcome in the discussion butthey too would then be called upon to acknowledgemany of the critical issues that biblical studies has raised.A final but by no means a last desideratum wouldbe a reintegration of historical and theological disci-plines. In recent years, there has been a tendency tobifurcate and bracket out certain questions, as if theyare not part of biblical criticism. The history of the dis-ciplines and the continuing orientation of many ofits practitioners indicates that theological questionsare still a valuable part of modern biblical studies. Thedevelopment of modern critical methods has not ren-dered questions regarding the divine obsolete. At somepoint in the not too distant future, it will be necessaryto ask the hard questions of how these two worlds of(sometimes in its extreme forms naturalistic and hyper-skeptical) criticism and (sometimes pietistic) theologycan and must talk to each other.

No single volume can hope to accomplish every ide-alized task, or even all of the tasks that it might setitself to do. No doubt this volume will fail in this regardalso. However, there is much within it that, I believe,will be of significance in addressing many of the issuesof current biblical criticism and interpretation. The goalis not a resolution of all of the problems that wouldbring discussion to a close but to provide some his-torical and contemporary perspective on the major issuesand approaches at hand as an aid to the ongoing task.

STANLEY E. PORTER

INTRODUCTION

3

ABELARD, PETER (10791142)

The French theologian Peter Abelard was possibly themost brilliant thinker of the twelfth century. He studiedunder Roscelin (d. c. 1125), the nominalist, who be-lieved all universalia is pure mental conception. Later hestudied under William of Champeaux (c. 10701121),a realist, who believed that universalia is the essence ofall existence. Opposing his teachers to find a middleposition, Abelard saw universalia as a mental conceptexisting not independently from individuals but also notas arbitrary mental concepts.

He taught at the University of Paris from 1108 to1118, where large crowds gathered from around Europeto hear him. In 1122, he wrote Sic et Non (Yes andNo) in which 158 theological questions are consideredby juxtaposing quotations from biblical passages, earlyChurch Fathers, and other authorities without offeringsolution. His goal was not to discredit these authori-ties; rather, he called upon reason to reconcile con-flicting authorities. Abelards approach was to introducedoubt as a method of finding the truth. Accordingly,doubt was not seen as a sin, but rather the beginningof knowledge. Additionally, in his introduction, he notesthe importance of recognizing and accounting for themeaning of some words changing over time.

Incorporating the principles of logic in his study ofthe Bible, he produced treatises of speculative theologyin addition to biblical commentaries. However, he didnot propose that the doctrines of the Christian faith be proved logically by rational arguments. In contrast,rational arguments could be used in counterattacksdirected toward Christian doctrine. Although his com-prehension of Greek and Hebrew appears to be nomore than the consideration of individual biblical terms,he encouraged others to study the original languages.

Abelard is known for his contribution to the doc-trine of the atonement. Contrary to some interpreta-tions, Abelard did not reduce the meaning of the crossto merely a demonstration of Gods love. Abelard usedcommentary on Romans 3:1026 to discuss the doc-trine of the atonement. Abelard is distinctive in that

he emphasized the subjective impact of the cross. Hefollowed the Augustinian notion that the incarnationof Christ was a public demonstration of the vastness ofGods love for the purpose of evoking a humanresponse. However, Abelard questioned the idea thatGod paid a ransom to Satan through Christ, and hewent so far as to question the entire idea of ransom,by looking for a clearer significance of the cross. Abelarddoes not provide an adequate theological foundationfor why Christs death is understood as a demonstra-tion of Gods love. Nevertheless, he highlighted thesubjective impact of the death of Christ, which wasignored or underemphasized by his contemporarywriters such as Anselm of Canterbury.

Abelard was summoned to the Council of Sens in1141 where he expected to debate Bernard of Clairvaux.However, upon arrival the council had met and accusedhim of heresy. Abelard did not defend himself butappealed directly to the pope. The Venerable Petermediated for Abelard and he was allowed to spend therest of his days as a monk in Cluny before dying in1142.

References and further reading

PL 178 and CCCM 1112. Boyer, B.B. and R. Mckean (eds.) (1977) Sic et Non: A

Critical Edition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Grane, L. (1970) Peter Abelard, New York: Harcourt,

Brace and World.Luscombe, D.E. (1969) The School of Peter Abelard: The

Influence of Abelards Thought in the Early ScholasticPeriod, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McCallum, J.R. (1948) Abelards Christian Theology,Oxford: Blackwell.

Marenbon, J. (1997) The Philosophy of Peter Abelard,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Weingart, R.E. (1970) The Logic of Divine Love: ACritical Analysis of the Soteriology of Peter Abelard,London: Clarendon.

KURT A. RICHARDSON

5

A

1 Luke the historian2 Luke the theologian3 Luke the writer4 Conclusion

A storm center (van Unnik 1966). Shifting sands(Talbert 1976). A fruitful field (Gasque 1988). Theseare but a few of the epithets used to describe the schol-arly interpretation of the Acts of the apostles in thetwentieth century. The spate of recent commentariesin English and collected essays suggests continued andsustained interest in Acts (commentaries: Johnson 1992;Polhill 1992; Barrett 1994, 1998; Talbert 1997; Fitzmyer1998; Witherington 1998; collected essays: Tyson 1988;Keathley 1990; Richard 1990; Neyrey 1991; Parsonsand Tyson 1992; Marconi et al. 1993; Witherington1996; Marshall and Peterson 1998; Thompson andPhillips 1998; Moessner 1999; Verheyden 1999).

Since van Unnik, surveyors of the Lukan landscapetypically categorize the scholarship on Acts in terms ofinterest in Luke the historian, Luke the theologian, andmore recently Luke the litterateur. The move from formand source criticism (Dibelius et al.), which focused onLuke as a historian, to redaction criticism (Conzelmannet al.), which focused on Luke as a theologian, to thenewer literary studies, which focus on Luke as a creativewriter (Tannehill et al.), have been well documentedin the surveys of Acts research (see esp. Powell 1991).The attention Acts has generated has not always beenpositive. As a historian, though he had his defenders(see Ramsay, Gasque, Marshall, Hemer), Luke was rou-tinely criticized for his unreliable depictions of variouscharacters (e.g., P. Vielhauer on Paul) and events (e.g.,J. Knox on the Jerusalem conference). As a theologian,Luke was accused, among other things, of advocatinga triumphalistic theology of glory that was inferior toPauls theology of the cross and of replacing the pris-tine eschatology of early Christianity with a three-stagesalvation history an early Catholicism shaped by thedelay of the Parousia that represented a degenerativestep away from the primitive Christian kerygma, pro-claiming the imminent return of Jesus (so Ksemann).Even Lukes abilities as a writer have been called intoquestion from time to time (see Dawsey 1986).

This rubric of Luke as historian, theologian, andwriter remains useful for describing works that haveappeared particularly within the last decade or so of thetwentieth century, albeit with certain new nuances.Given the sea of literature and the already very com-petent surveys of scholarship, this article is focusedmainly (although not exclusively) on book-lengthstudies of Acts or Luke/Acts (but not Luke alone) thathave appeared (including some 1987 publications) sinceGasques 1988 summary or research was written. The

article also overlaps to some limited extent with MarkPowells fine summary of Acts scholarship (see Powell1991).

1 Luke the historian

While the question of the identity of the author of theLukan writings no longer invigorates scholarly discus-sion as it once did, there are still those who give ampleattention to defending or refuting the traditional attri-bution to Luke the physician (see the discussion inFitzmyer 1989, 1998). Others have departed from thetraditional question of authorship to examine the sociallocation of the implied author of Luke/Acts (Robbinsin Neyrey 1991) or, accepting the common author-ship of Luke and Acts, have probed its implications for the study of the genre, literary patterns, and theo-logical themes of the Lukan writings (Parsons and Pervo1993).

Though strictly speaking not an issue pertaining to Luke as a historian, the status of the text of Acts isnonetheless a historical question. Most scholars, andespecially those responsible for the critical editions ofthe Greek New Testament, are still persuaded of the priority of the Alexandrian text over the so-calledWestern text in establishing the original text of Acts. Still, a flurry of activity from a variety of some-times-conflicting perspectives has served to challengethe opinio communis (see Delobel in Verheyden 1999).Among these, the most noteworthy contributions arethose by Boismard and Lamouille (of their manycontributions, see esp. Boismard and Lamouille 1990)and W.A. Strange (Strange 1992). Though there aremany differences in terms of method and argumenta-tion, both works conclude that the Western text reflects a corrupted tradition of a version of Acts earlierthan that represented by the Alexandrian text, thusreviving in part a proposal made over a century agoby F. Blass that the Western text ultimately comes fromthe hand of Luke himself. Though these and otherworks that question the scholarly received tradition havebeen (and no doubt will continue to be) subjected tovigorous critique, they represent the vitality of thedebate over an issue that is far from settled.

Nor can the question of Lukes historical reliabilitybe considered resolved. On the one hand, are thosemany erudite scholars who continue, in the spirit ofWilliam Ramsay, to defend Lukes reliability. In addi-tion to Hemer (Hemer 1990) and Witherington(Witherington 1998), many of the contributors to themultivolume series on The Book of Acts in Its First CenturySetting have as one of their goals the defense of Lukeshistorical accuracy (see Winter 19931998). On theother hand, Gerd Ldemann, in his attempts to separatetradition from redaction in Acts, has claimed that whileLuke preserves individual and isolated facts accurately,much of his chronology and framework is secondary,

ACTS

6

ACTS

and Ldemann rejects out of hand all reports of themiraculous (Ldemann 1989). Such presuppositions onthe part of the interpreter inevitably and profoundlyshape the conclusions drawn about this historicity of anarrative like Acts (see appendix in Talbert 1997).Critical evaluation of the historicity of Acts continueswith the work of the Acts Seminar, a group of scholarsconvened by the late Robert Funk and the WestarInstitute, to evaluate the reliability of early Christianhistory as depicted by Luke, in ways analogous to whatthe Jesus Seminar (sponsored by the same institute)attempted with the historical Jesus.

More recently, some have turned away from ques-tions of history in Acts to the place of Acts in history.In a collection of essays edited by Jerome Neyrey(Neyrey 1991), various contributors examine socio-logical aspects of the Lukan writings, from the role ofritual and ceremony in Acts to the significance of thesocial relations in preindustrial cities or the country-side to the importance of the social values of honor/shame for reading the Lukan writings. Others haveemployed sociological criticism to examine Luke/Actsas a document of political legitimation for the earlyChristian movement (Esler 1987). Still others haveexamined the cultural context of Acts for understandingsuch topics as magic and miracle in Luke/Acts (Garrett1989). These studies have profitably used the narrativeof (Luke and) Acts to open up the sometimes unspokencultural codes, mores, and values that neverthelesspervade the text and shape our reception of it. Finally,others have attempted to situate (Luke/)Acts in its largerliterary and intellectual environment (see e.g., Alexander1993; Squires 1993). Attention to the reception of Actsin subsequent history, especially in the premodernperiod, also fits under this rubric of Acts in history(one eagerly awaits, for example, the contribution onActs in the Ancient Commentary on Scripture series).The relationship between Acts and history is much morebroadly conceived these days than it once was.

2 Luke the theologian

Studies on various aspects of Lukan theology continueto pour out, confirming C. Talberts observation aquarter century ago that H. Conzelmanns theologicalsynthesis no longer held a consensus among scholars(Talbert 1976). Conzelmanns failure has not totally dis-couraged others from making similar attempts to syn-thesize Lukes theology (e.g., Fitzmyer 1989; Jervell1996; Pokorny 1998), although far more prevalent arestudies that deal with specific aspects of Lukes theology(Marshall and Peterson 1998; see the bibliography inVerheyden 1999: 2245). One notes also that thesestudies employ a plethora of methodologies to charac-terize Lukes theology.

The end of the twentieth century has also witnesseda turn in some quarters of biblical scholarship from

theology understood in redaction-critical terms to ide-ology shaped by advocacy criticism. This turn has hadits impact on Acts scholarship. Feminist scholars haveexamined anew the Lukan writings for their perspec-tive on gender. In The Womens Bible Commentary,Jane Schaberg reaches the radical conclusion that Luke(and by extension Acts) is the most dangerous bookin all the Bible (Schaberg in Newsom and Ringe 1992).This view is balanced by more judicious studies ofgender in Luke (in addition to various articles, see thebook-length studies by Seim 1994; Reimer 1996;Arlandson 1997). The question of Lukes anti-Judaismhas been taken up again by Joseph Tyson (Tyson 1999).Though calling Tyson himself an advocacy critic wouldbe a misnomer, he does chronicle the anti-Jewish (bothintentional and inadvertent) attitudes prevalent in muchof the history of Lukan scholarship, though given Lukescharacterization of the Christian movement in Acts asa Jewish sect one might rightly question Tysons asser-tion that Luke himself was anti-Jewish in any modernsense of the term. Again, interest in the theologicalshape of Acts has not diminished, but there is littleagreement on the most appropriate methods fordescribing that theology and for assessing its hermeneu-tical value for contemporary communities.

3 Luke the writer

The explosion of new literary approaches in NewTestament studies that began in the 1980s has certainlyleft its mark on the study of Acts. In the last decadealone, too many narrative and literary-critical studieshave appeared to enumerate (but see especially Tannehill1990; Gowler 1991; Darr 1992; Kurz 1993; Shepherd1994; Brawley 1995; Matson 1996). Despite the widelyacknowledged achievements of these studies in refocus-ing our attention on the narrative as a whole (and theattendant issues of plot, characterization, and inter-textuality, inter alia), the limitations are well known aswell. Drawing its methodology largely from the secularfield of literary criticism, narrative criticism uses ter-minology to describe techniques and literary phenomenathat might be appropriate for nineteenth- and twentieth-century novels, but not necessarily appropriate for first-century narratives. This problem is often acknowledgedbut seldom addressed.

Given this oft-cited criticism of applying moderntheory to ancient narrative, it is surprising, perhaps, tonote the lack of studies that attend to Acts from theperspective of ancient rhetorical criticism. Such studiesare not altogether missing, especially on the speechesin Acts (Soards 1994; Witherington 1998). These studies(as well as numerous articles) have advanced convincingarguments regarding Lukes knowledge of rhetoricalconventions in the speeches. Thus, it would appear thatstudies that read the narrative portions of Acts in lightof ancient rhetoric, and especially in light of ancient

ACTS

7

progymnasmata (elementary rhetorical exercises forspeaking and writing), would hold great promise infurther illuminating Lukes rhetorical strategies em-ployed not only in the composition of the Third Gospel(see, e.g., Robbins in Moessner 1999; and OFearghail1991), but Acts as well.

The study of the author of Acts as a writer con-tinues to include consideration of its genre, althoughno consensus has been reached. In addition to thosewho maintain that Acts represents anything from a suigeneris to a genus mixtum, advocates for (Luke/)Acts asancient biography (see recently Talbert 1988), someform of ancient historiography (Sterling 1992), or a kindof ancient novel (Pervo 1987) can still be found. Finally,while the search for oral and/or written sources in Actshas subsided, the interest in Lukes use of scripture asa key to his hermeneutic and theology has increased(in addition to Brawley 1995 and Moessner 1999 already cited, see Bock 1987; Evans and Sanders 1993).How best to appreciate Lukes literary prowess is noless contested than are issues of history and theology inrelation to the Lukan writings.

4 Conclusion

Long ago W.C. van Unnik rightly warned against thebiblical scholar playing the role of prophet in trying topredict the future shape of Lukan studies (van Unnik1966). Given what transpired in the intervening decadesbetween van Unniks caveat and now, his words seemeven more prudent. Nevertheless, it is safe to say thatwork on Luke as historian, theologian, and writer, withall the mutations noted above, will continue. Studiesthat explore the rhetorical shape of social conventions(e.g., hospitality, friendship, and benefaction) in termsof how they illuminate Lukan theological perspectiveswill be especially welcome.


Alexander, Loveday (1993) The Preface to Lukes Gospel:Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke 1.14and Acts 1.1, SNTSMS 78, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Arlandson, J.M. (1997) Women, Class, and Society inEarly Christianity: Models from Luke-Acts, Peabody,MA: Hendrickson.

Barrett, C.K. (1994, 1998) Acts, ICC, 2 Vols., Edinburgh:T.&T. Clark.

Bock, Darrell L. (1987) Proclamation from Prophecy andPattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology, JSNTSup 12,Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Boismard, M.-. and A. Lamouille (1990) Les Actes desdeux Aptres, 3 Vols., Paris: Gabalda.

Brawley, Robert L. (1995) Text to Text Pours ForthSpeech: Voices of Scripture in Luke-Acts, Bloomington:Indiana University Press.

Darr, John A. (1992) On Character Building: The Readerand the Rhetoric of Characterization in Luke-Acts,Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox.

Dawsey, James (1986) The Lukan Voice, Macon, GA:Mercer University Press.

Esler, Phillip (1987) Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts:The Social and Political Motivations in Lucan Theology,SNTSMS 57, Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Evans, Craig and James A. Sanders (1993) Luke andScripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts,Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. (1989) Luke the Theologian: Aspectsof His Teaching, New York: Paulist Press.

(1998) The Acts of the Apostles, AB 31, New York:Doubleday.

Garrett, Susan R. (1989) The Demise of the Devil: Magicand the Demonic in Lukes Writings, Minneapolis:Fortress Press.

Gasque, W. Ward (1988) A Fruitful Field: RecentStudy of the Acts of the Apostles, Interpretation 42:11731.

Gowler, David B. (1991) Host, Guest, Enemy and Friend:Portraits of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts, ESEC 2,New York: Peter Lang.

Hemer, Colin J. (1990) Book of Acts in the Setting ofHellenistic History, WUNT 49, Winona Lake, IN:Eisenbrauns.

Jervell, Jacob (1996) The Theology of the Acts of theApostles, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, Luke Timothy (1992) Acts, SP 5, Collegeville,MN: Liturgical Press.

Keathley, Naymond H. (ed.) (1990) With SteadfastPurpose: Essays in Honor of Henry Jackson Flanders,Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.

Kurz, William S. (1993) Reading Luke-Acts: Dynamics ofBiblical Narrative, Louisville, KY: Westminster/JohnKnox.

Ldemann, Gerd (1989) Early Christianity according tothe Traditions in Acts: A Commentary, Philadelphia:Fortress Press.

Marconi, Gilberto et al. (eds.) (1993) Luke and Acts,New York: Paulist Press.

Marshall, I. Howard and David Peterson (eds.) (1998)Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts, GrandRapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Matson, David L. (1996) Household Conversion Narrativesin Acts: Pattern and Interpretation, JSNTSup 123,Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Moessner, David P. (ed.) (1999) Jesus and the Heritageof Israel: Lukes Narrative Claim upon Israels Legacy,Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.

Newsom, Carol A. and Sharon Ringe (eds.) (1992) The Womens Bible Commentary, Louisville, KY:Westminster/John Knox.

Neyrey, Jerome (ed.) (1991) The Social World of Luke-Acts, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

ACTS

8

OFearghail, Fearghus (1991) The Introduction to Luke-Acts, A Study of the Role of Lk1.14.44 in theComposition of Lukes Two-Volume Work, AnBib 126,Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.

Parsons, Mikeal C. and Richard I. Pervo (1993)Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts, Minneapolis:Ausburg/Fortress Press.

Parsons, Mikeal C. and Joseph B. Tyson (eds.) (1992)Cadbury, Knox, and Talbert: American Contributions tothe Study of Acts, Atlanta: Scholars Press.

Pervo, Richard I. (1987) Profit with Delight: The LiteraryGenre of the Acts of the Apostles, Philadelphia: FortressPress.

Pokorny, P. (1998) Theologie der Lukanischen Schriften,FRLANT 174, Gttingen: Vadenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Polhill, John B. (1992) Acts, NAC, Nashville: BroadmanPress.

Powell, Mark A. (1991) What Are They Saying AboutActs? New York: Paulist Press.

Reimer, I. Richter (1996) Women in the Acts of theApostles, Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Richard, Earl (ed.) (1990) New Views on Luke and Acts,Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.

Rothschild, Clare K. (2004) Luke-Acts and the Rhetoricof History: An Investigation of Early ChristianHistoriography, WUNT 2.175, Tbingen: MohrSiebeck.

Seim, Turid Karlsen (1994) The Double Message: Patternsof Gender in Luke-Acts, Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Shepherd, William H. Jr. (1994) The Narrative Functionof the Holy Spirit as a Character in Luke-Acts, SBLDS147, Atlanta: Scholars Press.

Soards, Marion L. (1994) The Speeches in Acts: TheirContent, Context, and Concerns, Louisville, KY:Westminster/John Knox.

Squires, John T. (1993) The Plan of God in Luke-Acts,SNTSMS 76, Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Sterling, Gregory L. (1992) Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephos, Luke-Acts and ApologeticHistoriography, NovTSup 64, Leiden: Brill.

Strange, W.A. (1992) The Problem of the Text of Acts,SNTSMS 71, Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Talbert, Charles H. (1976) Shifting Sands: The RecentStudy of the Gospel of Luke, Interpretation 30:38195.

(1988) Once Again: Gospel Genre, Semeia 43:5373.

(1997) Reading Acts: A Literary and TheologicalCommentary on the Acts of the Apostles, New York:Crossroad.

(2003) Reading Luke-Acts in its MediterraneanMilieu, NovTSup 107, Leiden: Brill.

Tannehill, Robert C. (1990) The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, Vol. 2, The Acts of theApostles, Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Thompson, Richard P. and Thomas E. Phillips (eds.)(1998) Literary Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays in Honor ofJoseph B. Tyson, Macon, GA: Mercer University Press.

Tyson, Joseph B. (ed.) (1988) Luke-Acts and the JewishPeople: Eight Critical Perspectives, Minneapolis:Augsburg/Fortress Press.

(1999) Luke, Judaism, and the Scholars: CriticalApproaches to Luke-Acts, Columbia, SC: University ofSouth Carolina Press.

Tuckett, Christopher M. (ed.) (1996) Lukes LiteraryAchievement: Collected Essays, JSNTSup 116, Sheffield:Sheffield Academic Press.

Van Unnik, W.C. (1966) Luke-Acts: A Storm Centerin Contemporary Scholarship, pp. 1532 in Studiesin Luke-Acts, Leander E. Keck and J. Louis Martyn(eds.), Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Verheyden, Jozef (ed.) (1999) The Unity of Luke-Acts,Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters.

Winter, Bruce (ed.) (19931998) The Book of Acts inIts First Century Setting, 6 Vols., Grand Rapids:Eerdmans.

Witherington, Ben (1998) The Acts of the Apostles: ASocio-Rhetorical Commentary, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

(ed.) (1996) History, Literature and Society in theBook of Acts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

MIKEAL C. PARSONS

ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION

Allegory is a Greek word that takes its roots from and (literally): to speak other things; in a tech-nical sense means: to speak or interpretallegorically.

Greek philosophers have used allegorical interpreta-tion to explain and justify troubling passages in Greekpoetry, particularly in the works of Homer and Hesiod.In the classical period other terms, such as (theunderlying meaning or deeper sense), were used toexpress this method of interpretation, and only in theHellenistic period did the terms , ,and related words emerge. Another term is metaphor(), which means literally: a transference (to anew sense). The usual distinction between a metaphorand an allegory is that the allegory represents a sequenceof metaphors or a continuation of metaphoric speech(see Quintilian, Inst. Or. 8.6.44; Clement of Alexandria,Strom. VI 126.14).

Early attempts to allegorize can be found in the worksof the Milesian geographer and history writer Hecataeusand in the writings of Theagenes of Rhegium, bothdating to the end of the sixth century BC. The frag-mentary remains of their works contain allegorical inter-pretations of the battle of the gods () and thestruggle between the gods and the elements (see Dielsand Kranz 19511954). Theagenes interpreted thenames of the gods as the various elements of nature;


9

thus Apollo, Helios, and Hephaistos stand for fire;Poseidon stands for water; and Hera for air. Nature andcosmology continued to be suitable subjects for alle-gorical interpretation also in later times.

A second fruitful domain for allegorical explorationwas the area of ethics. Anaxagoras may have been oneof the first to mention that Homeric poetry was, in fact,about virtue and justice (see Diogenes Laertius 2.3.11).Metrodorus of Lampsakos can be considered the most important philosopher of this early stage of alle-gorical interpretation. He compared the Homeric godswith the foundation of the natural order and the orderlyarrangement of the elements. He also interpreted theTrojan heroes allegorically, so that Agamemnon standsfor the upper regions of the air, Achilles for the sun,Helen for the earth, Paris for the air, and Hector forthe moon (see Diels and Kranz 19511954). Metrodoruscontinued to influence later philosophy, particularly theStoa.

Although Plato did not deny that mythology couldhave a deeper meaning, he did not give allegorical inter-pretation a strong endorsement in his search for thetruth. In the Phaedrus Socrates brings up the story ofOreithyia, who was carried off by Boreas; he prefersto understand the myth in a rational way, just as hewants to give a rational explanation to the Centaurs,the Chimera, the Gorgons, or other extraordinary andstrange creatures. He considers nonrational speculationa rustic sort of wisdom, to which he does not wantto apply his mind (see Phaedrus 229e).

Allegorization takes on an increased significance inthe Stoa. There is once again a tendency to interpretgods and other divine beings in terms of cosmologicalpowers, as seen, for example, in Zeno, who interpretsthe Titans as elements of the cosmos. Not only Hesiodscosmology but also stories of Greek heroes offered fertileground for allegorization; the popular figure of a god-man like Heracles gave ample opportunity to allego-rize, as the fragments of Cleanthes show (von Arnim1964). Chrysippus himself offers an abundance of alle-gorical material, and he often intertwines it with etymol-ogies. He interprets, for example, Rhea as land (),from which the waters stream (). The combina-tion of allegory, etymology, and number speculation ischaracteristic of later forms of allegorical techniques,particularly as they develop in the works of Jewish andearly Christian allegorists, such as Philo, Clement, andOrigen.

Two important sources for our knowledge of alle-gory in antiquity are the works of Cornutus and acertain Heraclitus or Heraclides, who was a grammarian.Cornutus (first century AD) was bilingual, writing bothin Latin and Greek. In his Summary of the Traditionsconcerning Greek Theology, he follows Chrysippus andreflects the principles of Stoic criticism of myths, whichhe explains allegorically.

Following their founder, some of the later Platonistscontinued to reject allegorical interpretation, but othersactively began to engage in it. Although Porphyriusallegorized extensively in his works About the Caveof the Nymphs in the Odyssey and Homeric Inquiries, henevertheless attacked the Christians vigorously for theirway of using allegories. Even in the fifth century, Neo-platonic philosophers, such as Proclos, who had a greatinfluence on later medieval thought, continued to useallegorical techniques.

Even before Philo, Jewish apologists had used theallegorical method on a limited scale. The fragments ofAristobulus and the Letter of Aristeas show influencefrom Stoic allegories, whether in their commentarieson the Pentateuch in general or in discussions of indi-vidual food laws. The pseudepigraphical work SapientiaSalomonis, which may have stemmed from Alexandria,shows similar Stoic influence.

Philo forms an important turning point for the useof allegory, since he represents both the end of onetradition and the beginning of another. Like the Stoics,he uses allegory both for interpretations of creation and cosmogeny and for explorations of ethical issues.While most of the works of his predecessors, mostnotably Aristobulus, are known only in fragmentaryform, the majority of Philos treatises have survived.Philo is also a pioneer in providing a theoretical frame-work for the use of allegory. In his account of a Jewishsect, the Therapeutae, he describes how they inter-preted the underlying or deeper meaning () ofsacred scriptures through allegories. They regarded thewhole law as resembling a living creature, with its literaldisposition as its body and with its invisible meaningstored in its words as its soul. The rational soul startsto contemplate the things that are akin to itself, and bybringing them back to memory, it is able to view theinvisible through the visible (De Vita Contemplativa 78).This passage shows how strongly this way of thinkingwas influenced by Platonic thought.

Although in the above-mentioned passage Philodescribes this process of allegory as coming from theTherapeutae, the system resembles closely his own wayof interpreting scripture. In other parts of his work heexplains this process with different words and differentimages: the literal meanings of the sacred text resembleshadows of bodies, whose meanings represent true real-ities (De Confusione Linguarum 190). Philos interpreta-tions exploited every detail of the biblical text, and inaddition they were linked to a Platonic way of thinkingwith the rational soul at its center. The soul reports itsexperiences to memory, and through memory it startsto recognize and to view the invisible realities. Platonicspeculation may have been a new element in the inter-pretation of scripture, one which distinguishes Philofrom his predecessors.

In addition to Platonic speculation, Philo also used traditional allegorical techniques. One is number


10

speculation, another is etymology, both of which hefully exploits. He may have found some of his ety-mologies elsewhere, since they turn up in independenttraditions, such as rabbinic sources. Philo may havecreated others to solve a specific textual problem or toexplore a certain theme. Yet other etymologies haveto do with translations from Hebrew or Aramaic intoGreek. In his discourse every detail of the biblical textcounted, and Philo used whatever was convenient forhis argument. For this reason it is virtually impossibleto assess where all these materials came from.

Changes of names, such as from Abram to Abraham,were for him indicators of more powerful meanings; asmall letter change could stand for greater things; visiblerealities implied intellectual realities (De MutationeNominum 65). Another favorite subject in Philos alle-gorical treatment was the question of anthropomorphiclanguage in the Bible when referring to God. Philoinherited this theme from his predecessors. He pointedout that the divine nature which presents itself to usas visible and comprehensible was in reality invisibleand incomprehensible (De Confusione Linguarum 138).According to his view, anthropomorphic expressions ofGod had no other meaning than to explain the supremebeing to the human condition, which needs imagesbecause of the limitations of human understanding.

Philos influence did not last in Judaism but was trans-mitted through the Christian Alexandrian authors,Clement and Origen (see below). The allegorical tech-nique was also used by Philos contemporary, Paul, asthe allegory of Hagar and Sarah in his letter to theGalatians shows (Gal. 4:2426), and it was equallycurrent among the rabbis. The most famous amongthem was Rabbi Aqiba, who died about 100 years afterPhilo (AD 135) and wrote about the mystical relation-ship between God and Israel in his interpretation ofthe Song of Songs. The latter remained a favorite subjectfor allegorical interpretation, although not for Philo,who never referred to it. The main focus for his alle-gories was, after all, the Pentateuch.

A number of second-century Christian apologists,such as Aristides, Tatian, and Athenagoras, opposed alle-gorical treatment as it had been practiced by Stoic phil-osophers and rejected the distinction between physicaland ethical allegories. Other authors of that period, suchas Pseudo-Barnabas and Justin Martyr, employed alle-gory in a limited way. The argument of using allegoriesalso became a polemical tool, used both by paganauthors against Christians (see Celsus or Porphyrius) orby Christians against their opponents (Origen, Eusebius,Gregory Nazianzus, and Augustine).

In Valentinian circles the application of allegory wasof prime importance, as is clear not only from theiropponents, such as Irenaeus and Tertullian, but also fromdirect sources, such as Heracleons commentary on theGospel of John. This work was extensively quoted byOrigen and was influential on his own treatment of that

Gospel. As in Philos allegorical commentaries, minutedetails of the biblical text, such as breathing marks,commas, periods, and grammatical case inflections, wereall important springboards for Heracleon to plunge intothe deeper meaning of a text.

Philos legacy continued primarily through Christianauthors. Clement, who flourished 150 years after Philosdeath, is the first known to have quoted him. The alle-gories that he took over from Philo are connected withstories of the LXX, such as Hagar and Sarah or theLife of Moses. In addition, Clements treatment of thethemes of anthropomorphic expressions of God, know-ledge and wisdom, ascent and contemplation and hisallegorizing of biblical scenes in terms of virtuous lifeoften run parallel with Philos allegories, although theyare edited and reworked for new purposes.

Both Clement and Origen are successors of Philo inthe sense that they combine allegorical interpretationwith Platonizing speculation. Origen, however, repre-sents Philos legacy best and brings allegorical techniquesto new heights. Both Philo and Origen present analmost unlimited range of allegorical speculation. Origenincludes by-now traditional elements, such as etymolo-gies, number speculations, and anthropomorphisms. In his commentaries and homilies, he touches on analmost unprecedented number of biblical passages, andallegorical treatment forms an intrinsic part of his explor-ations. In addition, the New Testament stories and para-bles represent new elements, which he used to supportand confirm the allegories on the LXX.

Like his Jewish predecessor, Origen gave hishermeneutics a theoretical basis, which he formulatedin the fourth book of his De Principis. He also distin-guished between the body and soul of the scriptures.The distinction can even be tripartite; the body repre-sents the grammatical, literal, and historical sense, thesoul the moral sense, and the spirit the allegorical andmystical senses of the scriptures. Origen gave these con-cepts a new meaning by putting them in the broadcontext of the history of salvation. His theory is that,just as Christ came concealed in a body, the wholedivine scripture has been embodied (sicut Christus celatusvenit in corpore . . . sic est omnis scriptura divina incorporata).Since Origen, this concept and this terminology havehad a wide diffusion and are inextricably linked to thehistory of the interpretation of scripture. The stages ofscriptural interpretation are for Origen (as for Clementbefore him) related to the various stages of the faithful;the more advanced are more apt by their training,interest, and way of life to grasp the deeper meaningof the truth.

Origen had many followers in Alexandria itself andin the East, although their interpretation of scriptureoften balanced the literal with the spiritual sense morethan Origen himself had done; one can think of authors,such as Methodius of Olympus and the Cappadocians;Gregory of Nyssa in particular used the method in his


11

Commentary on the Canticum. In Alexandria, Cyrilfavored the allegorical method in his interpretation ofthe LXX, and Didymus the Blind usually started hisbiblical commentaries with a literal explanation but sub-sequently went on to allegorical interpretation.

The most strongly opposed to the Alexandrian alle-gorical tradition was the school of exegesis in Antioch,founded in the third century by Lucian of Samosata.Antiochene tradition favored a more historical andgrammatical approach and sometimes targeted themethods of Origen directly, as the works of Eustathiusof Antioch show (see De Engastrimutho). Others in theAntiochene tradition were Ephrem, who founded hisown school in Edessa, and Diodore of Tarsus, theteacher of John Chrysostom. Diodore offered a substi-tute for allegorical interpretation by introducing a typo-logical model, in which the historical sense of theHebrew Bible was brought in line with passages thatspoke about Christ and his kingdom. UnfortunatelyDiodores treatise entitled What is the Difference betweenContemplation and Allegory has been lost. In another lostwork Theodore of Mopsuestia wrote extensively againstthe Allegorists, and Chrysostom was also influencedby this tradition.

In the West literal interpretation of scripture remainedstrong, and Hilary of Poitiers may have been an excep-tion in his use of allegory (see his Commentary onMatthew). Ambrose, who was strongly influenced byPhilo, is another example of someone who applied theallegorical method to exegetical works. Jerome switchedhis preferences according to his changing sympathiesfor Origen and his works. Augustine was not opposedto the allegorical method and even maintained that alle-gory was sometimes the only means by which the realsense could be transmitted (De Doctrina Christiana 3.5.9).In general he applied the historical sense to his biblicalcommentaries, while the allegorical sense was morepresent in his Homilies and the so-called Ennarationes.Later authors, such as Eucherius of Lyon and Gregorythe Great, made extensive use of allegory. A work thatcan be considered pure allegory is the Psychmachia ofPrudentius, which presents Christian asceticism as anallegory of spiritual warfare.


Barr, J. (1966) Typology and Allegory, pp. 10348 inOld and New in Interpretation: A Study of the TwoTestaments, London: SCM Press.

Bloomfield, M.W. (ed.) (1981) Allegory, Myth andSymbol, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Dawson, D. (1992) Allegorical Readers and CulturalRevision in Ancient Alexandria, Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.

Diels, H. and W. Kranz (19511954) Die Fragmente derVorsokratiker, Berlin: Weidmann.

Geffcken, T. (19081927) Allegory, Allegoric Inter-pretation, ERE 1, 32731.

Hanson, R.P.C. (1959) Allegory and Event, London:SCM Press.

Joosen, J.C. and J.H. Waszink (1950) Allegorese,RAC 1, 28393.

Kurtz, G. (1982) Metapher, Allegorie, Symbol, Gttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Lamberton, R. (1986) Homer the Theologian, Berkeley:University of California Press.

Tate, J. (1927) The Beginnings of Greek Allegory,Classical Review 41: 21415.

von Arnim, H.F.A. (1964) Stoicorum vetrum fragmenta,Stuttgart: Teubner.

ANNEWIES VAN DEN HOEK

ANTHROPOLOGY AND INTERPRETATION

If the mid-eighteenth century roughly marked thebeginning of the modern critical study of the Old andNew Testaments, it also brought the attempt by biblicalscholars to use anthropology in a more rigorous andmethodological way than ever before. The German Old Testament scholar J.D. Michaelis, who sponsorednumerous expeditions to the Middle East, epitomizedthe new spirit. Although he had set out to bring acomprehensive categorization of plants, animals, or typesof diseases mentioned in the Old Testament, his remitranged wider in that he sought to understand the signifi-cance of sociocultural conditions behind the scripturesin order to put biblical interpretation on a firm scien-tific footing. If, he argued, the Old Testament providedthe major source for knowledge of ancient Hebrew lawand language, and the society of ancient Hebrew andJewish history in general, then, in turn, an understand-ing of the scriptures could be enriched by a detailedknowledge of its social and historical contexts (Michaelis1762).

The quest of those such as Michaelis marked whatmight be regarded as the first of two revolutions inthe anthropological interpretation of the Bible. It wasa revolution identified by the increasing legitimacy ofanthropology. This proved evident in the employmentof expanding subdisciplines in the field: palaeontology(how populations have evolved), biological anthro-pology, and psychological anthropology among them.All contributed in their own way to a greater under-standing of the Hebrew and Greek texts. However, itwas perhaps cultural and social anthropology whichadvanced the greatest claim to legitimacy. The emphasiswas increasingly upon the study of historical, political,and economic circumstances, of customs, folklore, andbeliefs, art and material culture, and on their symbolicmeaning. The value of the growing discipline was inthe way it could contribute to a greater appreciationof core themes in the Old and New Testaments.


12

It could show, for example, how throughout theirhistory the messianic hope of the Jewish people wasgenerated by particular historical contexts, which hadhelped them to survive under the unique conditions ofthe Middle-Eastern world and greatly enriched theirfolklore with messianic legends and stories.

Another aspect of the sociocultural approach carvedout by those like Michaelis, which increasingly grewin prevalence, was its comparative and cross-culturaldimension. Michaelis had drawn comparisons betweenthe Arabian Bedouin of his time and the Hebrew patri-archs and, likewise, between levirate marriage in ancientsociety and the arrangements of tribes in North America,Greenland, and Mongolia. This comparative endeavorwas to be taken up in earnest by others. The largemajority were nonbiblical scholars with no great theo-logical interest. Rather, their remit was to throw lighton general principles of social organization and to showhow even the most apparently exotic customs acrossthe globe are simply ways of coping with commonhuman problems which provide distinct social func-tions.

It was the Old Testament which initially proved mostcompelling for comparative studies and a wealth ofanthropological work related to certain parts of theHebrew text. Typical was Hubert and Mauss discus-sion of the universal function of sacrifice. They con-cluded that there were clear parallels to be drawnbetween Judaism and Hinduism in the practice of thisritual. In short, both seemed to amount to an attemptat communication with the divine and were a principalbasis through which social laws were given moralauthority (Hubert and Mauss 1899). The implicationwas that religious practices, hitherto unquestionablyaccepted as uniquely divinely inspired, were exposed ashaving a universal purpose. These speculations led toan inevitable backlash from conservative theologicalquarters that feared, above all, that the parallels drawnbetween Judaism and other religions profoundlydevalued the scriptures. Nonetheless, deference to adeveloping discipline grew for the majority of scholarsinvolved in biblical interpretation. Its indispensabilityand legitimacy was symbolized by Rogersons classicwork Anthropology and the Old Testament, which waswritten not by an anthropologist but by a biblical scholarwho admitted to have done a good deal of anthropo-logical reading (1978: 2).

During the early 1970s, the application of anthro-pology to biblical studies emerged with a new vigorand authority. It was the beginning of a second revolu-tion and one which confirmed the increasing appeal ofthe social sciences for biblical scholars. Their apparentpreoccupation with the field since that time has largelyresulted from a general disillusionment with previoushistorical studies, which were seen to be limited inscope or theologically motivated. Hence, over the lastthree decades, the attempts to enhance an understanding

of the social world of the Bible has moved increasinglyfrom the radical fringes of the discipline of biblicalstudies closer to the mainstream. This second revolu-tion has gone further than merely attempting to probethe aspects of the social world which were not men-tioned in the biblical text. Rather, the growing appealof anthropology, as well as sociology and archaeologyfor that matter, has been in focusing upon some of thedeficiencies in the texts as sources for their own socialworld. In short, it is increasingly argued that a theo-logical interpretation of the scriptures must be closelyidentified with understanding the social context inwhich they are produced (Esler 1995).

The pioneering works of George Mendenhall (1962,1973) and Norman Gottwald (1979) on the history ofIsrael were crucial in the early stages of the new move-ment. Typically, they concentrated upon the morerecent anthropological and sociological studies to querynumerous taken-for-granted views which had informedthe long-accepted account of early Israelite history,above all, the nature of social and political organiza-tion and the relationship with Palestine, and the con-nection of nomadism to sedentary and state societies.The enterprise, for these scholars, was to furnish thetools for reconstructing the whole social system ofancient Israel, which thus complemented purely histor-ical studies. The challenge was to establish clear modelsof social organization including the functions, roles,institutions, customs, norms, judicial and religiousorganization, military and political structures, and thematerialist aspects of culture which provided insight intothe scriptures. Similarly, New Testament scholars alsobegan to apply social-scientific approaches in innovatingways to understand the biblical texts. Those such asHolmberg (1990) administered a more challenginganthropological model to the New Testament in orderto expose the meaning of the word in terms of thefirst-century cultural conditions of Palestine and theMediterranean world in which they were originallywritten.

The second revolution also stirred its critics and controversies. The direction of much recent work which concentrated on the social world behind thescriptures tended to draw a sharp distinction betweenhistorical reconstruction and theological understandings.This brought considerable unease in many quarters, with some pleading for a greater dialogue between whatappeared to be the two separating worlds of theologyand anthropology (Arbuckle 1986). Nonetheless, theenterprise found a home particularly with more liberal-minded scholars and provided a critique, as much as an aid to an interpretation. This acceptance, however,has been marred in recent years by a far-ranging set ofcontroversies. Perhaps above all, in keeping with thespirit of the time, a number of profound epistemolog-ical questions have come to plague the anthropologicalquest, and they have threatened to undermine its whole


13

foundation. The key question has been not only howthe scriptures should be interpreted, but also how theanthropological evidence should be approached. Asbiblical studies remain fundamentally historical they have led to interpretations which have frequentlyconstituted ideological approaches, whether feminist,Marxist, or essentially theological. Inspired by thedeconstructionist writings of Derrida (1978), the prin-cipal question became not so much how could scholarsof the scriptures deal with a text that seemed to justifypatriarchy or other expressions of social and politicalpower, but whether interpretation could ever step out-side the social environment in which it was itself located. The enterprise of anthropology was likewisebrought into question could the utilization of anthro-pological evidence be free of value orientations andcultural context? These have not, however, been insur-mountable problems. Despite recent tendencies to bepreoccupied with matters of theory and method, theanthropological endeavor continues to thrive and inspirethe current generation of biblical scholars.


Arbuckle, G.A. (1986) Theology and Anthropology:Time for Dialogue, Theological Studies 47: 42847.

Derrida, J. (1978) Writing and Difference, London:Routledge.

Esler, P. (ed.) (1995) Modelling Early Christianity: Social-scientific Studies of the New Testament in its SocialContext, London: Routledge.

Gottwald, N.K. (1979) The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociologyof the Religion of Liberated Israel, 12501050 BC,London: SCM Press.

Holmberg, B. (1990) Sociology and the New Testament:An Appraisal, Minneapolis: Fortress.

Hubert, H. and M. Mauss (1899) Essai sur la Natureet la Fonction du Sacrifice, Ann. Sociologique 11,London: Cohen & West.

Mendenhall, G.E. (1962) The Hebrew Conquest ofPalestine, Biblical Archaeologist 25: 6687.

(1973) The Tenth Generation: The Origins of theBiblical Traditions, Baltimore: Baltimore Press.

Michaelis, J.D. (1762) Fragen an eine Gesellschaft GelehrterMnner die auf Befehl Ihrer Majestat des Kniges vonDnnemark nach Arabien reisen, Frankfurt.

Rogerson, J.W. (1978) Anthropology and the OldTestament, Oxford: Blackwell.

STEPHEN HUNT

THE ANTIOCHENE SCHOOL

The school of Antioch is often contrasted with theschool of Alexandria. The city of Antioch in ancientSyria (present-day Turkey) was the third largest city inthe Roman Empire and flourished in the late fourth

and fifth centuries. The New Testament states that whenearly Hellenistic Jewish Christians were forced out ofJerusalem they began their Gentile mission in Antioch(Acts 11:1930). The importance of Antioch in the very early church is witnessed by the origination of the title Christian, which began in Antioch. Further-more, early on Antioch attracted many Christianteachers as well as Gnostic teachers.

The school of Antiochene interpretation has oftenbeen characterized as a response to Alexandrian allegory. It is not a uniform interpretive approach but rather expresses a tradition of scriptural exegesis andChristology. Both schools maintained the divine inspira-tion and authority of scripture but differed onapproaches to interpreting scripture. The Alexandrianschool, characterized by Origen (c. 185254), openedup a path for biblical science and criticism, as itattempted to fuse Greek metaphysical thinking withChristian thought. However, the breadth of interpreta-tion was limited to an allegorical reading that appearsat times to be more imposition than exposition. Bycontrast, the Antiochene approach recognized theimportance of salvation history in its interpretation,seeing scripture as rich enough in its grammatical andhistorical sense. With this stress on the literal and his-torical scope of interpretation, it appears the Antiocheneschool is the pioneer of modern historical exegesis,however, that is to some extent misleading since it wasfar from anticipating modern interpretive approaches.

It is difficult to discern the precise influences uponthe Antiochene approach to scriptural exegesis.However, possible influences include AntiocheneJudaism, since Antioch was well known as a center ofrabbinical studies, and the textual interpretation of oneof the most preeminent Neoplatonists of the day,Iamblichus, who expanded Neoplatonist thought toinclude religious themes. Furthermore, there was aninterrelation between the Christology of the Antiocheneschool, which emphasized both Christs humanity anddivinity, and the biblical exegesis of the school.

Some scholars have credited Paul of Samosata andthe martyr, Lucian of Antioch, as possible third-centurypredecessors or founders of the Antiochene school. Paul of Samosata (bishop of Antioch 26072) gaveAntioch a distinct theological character on account ofhis Logos Christology, emphasizing a Christology frombelow, by rejecting the Sons preexistence and descentwhile stressing the ordinary manhood of Jesus. Paul wascondemned in a council in 268 for his Christology. Asa scholar, Lucian (c. 240312) edited the Septuagint,which became the standard Old Testament text in Syria,Asia Minor, and Constantinople, and the New Testa-ment text, which is known as the Textus Receptus.However, both Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia pro-fessed that Lucian was influential in their doctrine, thus Lucian was implicated in the Arian controversy.Not enough is known about either Paul of Samosata

THE ANTIOCHENE SCHOOL

14

or Lucian to warrant the claim that they founded theAntiochene school of interpretation.

Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, was one of the anti-Arians at Nicaea and an early opponent of allegoricalexegesis. In his homily, On the Witch of Endor and AgainstAllegory, based on 1 Samuel 28, he attacked Origensinterpretation because the allegorization was based ontoo literal a reading of the story and it did not seriouslyconsider the context of the story.

By the fourth century, Antioch became active,diverse, and controversial in ecclesiastical and theologicalmatters. Diodore of Tarsus (c. 33094) was a bishop inAntioch who founded a monastery and school that canbe more narrowly described as Antiochene. As one ofthe first representatives of the school, and often regardedas the pioneer of the school, he criticized allegorybecause it made the Bible incomprehensible. Diodorewas known for shaping the thought of two of his students, Theodore of Mopsuestia and JohnChrysostom. Departing from Alexandrian Christology,Diodore insisted that exegesis focus on the narrativemeaning of scripture. For instance, he saw the relationbetween the Old Testament and the New Testamentas more of a typological than a prophetic fulfilment.Diodore also took note of historical events that occurredoutside of the biblical narrative such as the peacefulintermingling of various people groups during the ageof Hellenism and the Augustan peace that was prepara-tory for the success of the later Christian mission.Fragments remain from Diodores commentaries on theEpistles of Paul, while modern scholars have recon-structed his commentary on Psalms.

The most notorious proponent of the Antiochenemethod of literal interpretation was Theodore ofMopsuestia (c. 350428), who supported the Niceneorthodoxy and opposed Arians and Apollinarians. As abishop and discerning biblical commentator and theo-logian, he questioned traditional prophetic and sym-bolic readings of the Old Testament while giving theOld Testament autonomy. He refused to read the Songof Songs as merely an allegory revealing the marriagerelationship between Christ and his bride the church.Furthermore, he sought to find the relationship of theProphets and Psalms with Israels history. He believedthat David foresaw what was to come for Israel. Con-sequently, he interpreted the prophecy in Psalms inrelation to the whole of Israel and opposed interpretingthem as enigmatic foreshadows of the Messiah with theexception of Psalms 2; 8; 45; 110, which he believedwere predictions of Christ. He interpreted the OldTestament with not only a narrative meaning but alsoa spiritual meaning which was typological. These viewscombined with his Christological views were receivedas Nestorian, and Theodore was condemned at thesecond Council of Constantinople in 553. Nevertheless,Theodores exeget

dictionary of biblical criticism and interpretation

Documents