Hermeneutical coincidences

Strange coincidence: Yesterday I turned in a paper on patristic hermeneutics, specifically on the role of history in the interpretive strategies of Origen and Antiochene exegetes. The same day Thomas J. Bridges posted some thoughts on the same topic at An und fuer sich. So this has emboldened me to post my paper here now, which is probably unwise since it hasn't been graded and returned to me yet!

More coincidences. Tomorrow the Theology Discussion Group is going to discuss a few songs, including Crash Test Dummies' God Shuffled His Feet, which I guess is the perfect Antiochene retort to the allegorists: people want answers and all you give them are pretty little stories!

What’s History Got to Do with It? Origenists and Antiochenes on the Interpretation of Scripture

 

            This paper will compare and contrast the hermeneutics of Origen, Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, with special attention to the role and value of history in their interpretive strategies. The paper will close with a glance at the allegorical list found in the Greek Papyrus Inv. 3718, and some speculation on why hermeneutics are the topic of such vigorous, even polemical debate.

            At the opening of Book Four of On First Principles, Origen makes the standard Christian argument that Jesus fulfills the Jewish scriptures. For Origen, this fulfillment is a proof that Christianity is true, and also rules out jettisoning parts or all of the Old Testament as the product of a demiurge (cf. Ptolemy, Letter to Flora VII.1.3-4). For Origen, as for his patristic co-religionists, the prophecy-fulfillment motif serves apologetic and doctrinal concerns.

            What is unique about Origen is that, in his hands, the prophecy-fulfillment motif becomes a hermeneutical principle. That some Old Testament features, such as the tabernacle, can be taken as types for New Testament features, says Origen, is obvious. What is less obvious are the symbolic, non-literal meanings underlying biographical and historical passages (II,2). Origen’s aim is to demonstrate to his readers just how to tease out these deeper meanings, arguing that every text can be interpreted typologically and allegorically, and not always according to its literal, historical sense.

            Like Augustine, Origen discovers the hermeneutical key to the scriptures sitting right there in the lock, in the scriptures themselves. When Jesus castigates the lawyers for taking away the key of knowledge, Origen, always quick to notice what is not there as much as what is there, reasons that there must be a key in the law in order for the lawyers to have taken it away. Proverbs 22:20-21, in which it is written, “write down those things threefold in your counsel and wisdom that you may reply with words of truth,” is a good candidate (II,4). “Threefold” corresponds both to God’s Triune nature and humanity’s constitution as body, soul, and spirit. Therefore, Origen concludes that the scriptures must have three layers of meaning, though he tends to collapse the psychic and the spiritual.

            When should one interpret a given passage of scripture literally, and when should one interpret it spiritually? Origen answers that whenever the reader stumbles upon an absurdity, impossibility or superfluity, the reader should accept this as a sign to dig deeper. Origen asserts that such “falsehoods” litter the Bible, but do not undermine the overall narrative’s fundamental trustworthiness. To the contrary, writes Origen, if these hiccups did not interrupt the text, the “logical coherence and the smooth flow” of history and law would lead readers either to dismiss the scriptures as too prosaic to illumine the Deity, or lead them to settle for mundane truths about history and ethics (II,9).

            The deeper truths that allegorical interpretations yield touch on the origin and destiny of souls that inhabit the heavenly regions, the necessity of the Incarnation and the problem of evil (II,7). The rest of Book Four is Origen’s hermeneutical method in action. Ever keen to seize on what is missing, Origen notes that if Paul writes of an Israel according to the flesh, then that implies the existence of an Israel according to the Spirit. That second Israel resides in the world of intelligibles, and the fleshly Israel is a type for them. The spiritual Israel was permitted to fall into the material world “for the enlightenment of others and the instruction of the human race” (III,12). Likewise, the nations in the biblical narrative are types for other sets of souls. Awareness of this heavenly realm explains a multitude of scriptures and reveals that biblical history is really about a more important drama taking place over our heads, a drama in which we and even those below us in Hades are nevertheless fully caught up.

            Like Origen, Antiochene exegetes admitted to multiple levels of meaning in the scriptures. But the Antiochenes privileged the historical in a way that Origen did not. When Diodore of Tarsus begins to identify various levels of meaning in the Psalms, he does so initially only in terms of past, present and future. The Psalms, though written long ago, have an uncanny ability to speak to the fullness of the human condition in all times and places, thanks to the foresight of the Holy Spirit (Diodore, Commentary on the Psalms, Prologue, Froehlich 82-3). Some texts have equally valid though different meanings for the past and the future. For example, Hezekiah thanks God for healing him from illness by saying, “You have brought up my soul from Hades.” These were fitting words to utter given the time and situation, but Diodore claims that their hyperbolic character also makes them fitting for the general resurrection to come (Diodore, Preface to the Commentary on Psalm 118, Froehlich 92).

            The Antiochenes do admit that symbolic meanings lie in the scriptures. On top of the letter, the authors sometimes construct a second story of meaning, as when Paul exploits the biographical details of Sarah, Hagar, their respective children, and the geographical locations Mount Zion and Mount Sinai to make a point about justification. This “higher vision” the Antiochenes call theōria. In addition, the scriptures contain figurations, such as the vine which represents God’s people in the Psalms and in Isaiah. They also contain parables, whose identifying markers are the words “like” or “as,” though sometimes these are dropped. Some parables can properly be called “enigmas,” such as the riddle Sampson posed to the Philistines, or the peculiar case of the talking serpent in Genesis 3 (Diodore, Preface, Froehlich 88-90).

            Since both camps admit to a multitude of meanings in a given text, one might ask, Is Antiochene versus Origenist a distinction without a difference? To some extent, the difference is a matter of emphasis. For Diodore and Theodore, every text has a valid literal meaning, but not necessarily a “higher” or “deeper” non-literal meaning. For Origen, not every text yields a satisfactory meaning at the literal level, but every text does have a spiritual meaning.

            For instance, while Origen is willing to dismiss the literal truth of the anthropomorphisms in Genesis 1-3 while acknowledging the text’s spiritual sublimity, Diodore insists that the talking snake does not merely symbolize temptation, but that the devil possessed a real snake and through it tempted Adam and Eve (Diodore, Preface, Froehlich 90). Similarly, while Origen believes that answers to the truly profound questions regarding the soul and theodicy lay buried deep beneath the letter of the text, Theodore counters that the answers are there in plain sight, in the history written down in Genesis 1-3 (Commentary on Galatians 4: 22-31, Froehlich 97).

            The Antiochenes were deeply concerned that non-literal interpretations be constructed on the firm foundation of literal, historical interpretations. To dismiss the literal meaning is to construct an air castle. There must be something real to which the interpreter can tether a symbolic interpretation; otherwise one is likely to float away into Never Never Land, rather than penetrate the heights of spiritual mysteries.

            Therefore Theodore is at pains in his Commentary to narrow the scope of Paul’s allegorical interpretation of Sarah and Hagar. Theodore argues that Paul assumes that Sarah and Hagar were real people, and that Jerusalem really exists (Commentary, Froehlich 96). To do otherwise would be absurd. Moreover, “the Jerusalem above,” Theodore asserts, merely refers to the hoped-for resurrection. By no means does the phrase give the reader a warrant to soar into the clouds of allegory wherever the Bible happens to fall open (Commentary, Froehlich 101). Advancing a somewhat strained argument, his ally Diodore even goes so far as to deny that Galatians 4 is an allegory, despite Paul’s use of the term (Preface, Foehlich 88). As we have already seen, Diodore prefers to call it theōria, which he takes to mean a non-literal interpretation of scripture which remains grounded in the literal meaning of the text.

             The differences between the two camps are real. Yet it seems that Origen, who grants that many texts can be profitably interpreted at a literal level, does not seem to deserve the sneering condemnations of the Antiochenes who decry the way that allegorists “twist the senses of the divine scriptures” (Theodore, Commentary, Froehlich 96). Perhaps these Antiochenes had more in mind the allegorizing exemplified by the Papyrus Michigan Inv. 3718. Even Origen may have found fault with these interpretations, for as was pointed out in a colleague’s paper, the texts considered do not appear to contain anything untrue, unreasonable or impossible and can in fact be interpreted profitably at a literal level. Is it really necessary to allegorize a verse like, “All the works of a humble man are manifest before God, but the wicked perish on the evil day?”

            Or maybe they did have Origen in mind. This hermeneutical debate gets to the essence of Christianity—is it a historical or a literary religion? (Thanks are due to the professor for crystallizing the issue in this way!) If it is the former, then to dismiss the historical truth of even one text is to pull on a thread that will wind up unraveling the entire garment. But Origen, calling a spade a spade, and saying that a law prohibiting the eating of vultures is unnecessary, and a talking snake is an absurdity, makes a reasonable, and to this writer, more compelling argument, that it has to be the latter.

Works Cited

Diodore of Tarsus. “Commentary on the Psalms, Prologue.” Biblical Interpretation in the Early

            Church. Ed. Karlfried Froehlich. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.  Pp. 82-86. Print.

                        . “Preface to the Commentary on Psalm 118.” Biblical Interpretation in the Early

            Church. Ed. Karlfried Froehlich. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.  Pp. 87-94. Print.

Origen. “On First Principles:  Book Four.” Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church. Ed.

            Karlfried Froehlich. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.  Pp. 48-78. Print.

“Papyrus Michigan Inv. 3718.” Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church. Ed. Karlfried

            Froehlich. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.  Pp. 79-81. Print.

Ptolemy. “Letter to Flora.” Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church. Ed. Karlfried Froehlich.

            Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.  Pp. 37-43. Print.

Theodore of Mopsuestia. “Commentary on Galatians 4:22-31.” Biblical Interpretation in the

            Early Church. Ed. Karlfried Froehlich. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.  Pp. 95-103.

            Print.