Biblical Hermeneutics in Historical Perspective (review)

Almost all the essays in this volume, dedicated to Karlfried Froehlich, were first presented at a gathering in May, 1990, entitled "Viva vox scripturae: Symposium on the History of Biblical Interpretion." The volume opens with Professor Froehlich's 1977 inaugural address as the Benjamin B. Warfield Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Princeton Theological Seminary. In "Church History and the Bible," Froehlich argued that church history, as a discipline both theological and historical, must deal with the Bible and its interpretation. Moreover, study of the history of exegesis is necessary not only for church history, but also for a complete understanding of the biblical text:

. . . [the] historical "understanding" of a biblical text cannot stop with the elucidation of its prehistory and of its historical Sitz im Leben, with its focus on the intention of the author. Understanding must take into account the text's post-history as the paradigm of the text's own historicity, i.e., as the way in which the text itself can function as a source of human self-interpretation in a variety of contexts, and thus, through its historical interpretations, is participating in the shaping of life.

(9)

Froehlich's perspective, while rarely articulated explicitly, informs many of the articles in this Festschrift.

In "The Text of Mark in the Hands of the Orthodox," Bart Ehrman combines textual criticism and theological acumen to argue that several interesting textual variants in Mark are best explained as attempts by proto-orthodox scribes to render the text less congenial to gnostic and adoptionistic readings. Ehrman's well-argued thesis brings a new perspective to textual criticism and is sure to stimulate debate.

Kathleen McVey carefully guides the reader through Theophilus of Antioch's Hexaemeron, a part of his Ad Autolycum. She argues that while Theophilus accepts as scientific and accurate most Stoic doctrines concerning cosmogony, anthropology, history, geography, etymology and ethics, he is, at the same time, consciously anti-Stoic. Chryssipus and others had claimed that these doctrines could be found in Homer and Hesiod. McVey shows that while Theophilus assumes the validity of these doctrines, he rejects the attempts to ground them in Homer and Hesiod. Rather, they are to be found, Theophilus counters, in the opening chapters of Genesis.

In "The Exegesis of History in John Chrysostom's Homilies on Acts," Amanda Berry Wylie asks how John's understanding of the Acts of the Apostles as history influenced his exegesis. Comparing John to Greek historiographers, Wylie finds that he shares many of their concerns, e.g., the authenticity of the historical work and, more important, its usefulness to the audience. In good Polybian fashion, John stresses the benefit (ophēleia) which his audience can reap from this historical biblical book, especially from its depictions of moral exemplars. John's emphasis on the utility or benefit of history, according to Wylie, is the key to his hermeneutic of history. Since John's understanding of ophēleia is so important to his reading of Acts, it is disappointing that Wylie does not attempt to relate his exegesis and his use of the concept of ophēleia to that of other patristic exegetes. Both Origen and John's contemporary, Gregory of Nyssa (especially in the prologue to his Commentary on the Song of Songs), use the concept of ophēleia in their interpretation, but in ways very different from John. For them, the affirmation that scripture was written for the benefit of human beings provides a mandate for allegorical exegesis, especially when the historical or literal meaning of a biblical text either appears to be of no intrinsic interest to Christians, or presents an example that does not assist Christians in the pursuit of virtue. In stressing the benefit Christians can derive from the history of Acts, might John be subtly arguing against the linking of the notion of ophēleia to allegorical exegesis? Unfortunately, Wylie views John's homilies in relation only to Greek historiography and not to Christian exegesis...