Olivet Nazarene University Digital Commons @ Olivet Wesleyan Holiness Books University Archives 5-1955 A Historical and Semantic Analysis of Methods of Biblical Interpretation as They Relate to Views of Inspiration Mildred Bangs Wynkoop Olivet Nazarene University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.olivet.edu/arch_wesleybk Part of the Christianity Commons, History of Christianity Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Wynkoop, Mildred Bangs, "A Historical and Semantic Analysis of Methods of Biblical Interpretation as They Relate to Views of Inspiration" (1955). Wesleyan Holiness Books. 1. https://digitalcommons.olivet.edu/arch_wesleybk/1 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the University Archives at Digital Commons @ Olivet. It has been accepted for inclusion in Wesleyan Holiness Books by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Olivet. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A HISTORICAL AMD SEMANTIC ANALYSIS Qt METHODS OP BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION AS THEY RELATE TO VIEWS OP INSPIRATION Approv«d bjri A mSTORICAL AND SEMANTIC AMAHSIS CF METHCSJS CF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION AS THET REUTE TO VIENS CF INSPIRATION A Dissertation Pres®nt®d to th® Faeulty of th® Northern Baptist Theological Saminary In Partial Folf11.1 m®n t o f th® Regulresients fo r th® Degre® Doctor of Theology hgr MHDRED BANDS WINKOQP Jfay 19$$ TABLE CF CONTENTS CHAPTER BAOE I . INTRODUCTION .................. X ü . THE REIATION OF INTERPRETATION TO THE s E im n c r e r the bibie for tcdat .................................. 9 Th« Problem of Interpretation .............................. 1 3 I I I « AN KUüGmTIOH CF THE MAJOR POINTS CF TXEtf HEGAHDINQ INSPIRATION AND PRINCIPLES CF I NTERPRETATION ..... 3 7 Pre-Chriatian Palestinian Jevish Interpretation . 3 9 Philo and tha Alaocandrian J mm ............................... kO The Patrletic Period .................. U2 Medieval and Scholaetic Periode •••••..»•• 5 7 The Reformation T ie» of Scripturea ........................ 6U Confessional Period ••••*«••••••••«• 9 1 Ban-Confeaeional Statements o f F a i t h .................. 1 0 6 1 7 . THE RÖLE OF MODERNEM I I THE HISTCRI CF IBIERPHEIATIOH................... 1 1 3 Modemlem and GathoUciem ••••••••••••• 1 1 5 Modemism and Proteetantisa .•.•••«••••• 1 1 7 Modtrniam in Revolt •••••••••......• 1 U3 Modemism «ad Today »a Theology ........... 1 5 6 i T CHA.PTER TkßE Y . SUMMAEX AND AM. US IS CF THE H3ST0BT CF IHrESPHEEATK» ...... ...................................... l£ l 71. AH EXAWHATIOH OF INTERPRETATION........................... 17U Th» P»lfttion of Words to Intorpratatian ...... 177 IntwrprrtÄticai and * Divino-Hunan Bode ••••••• 212 AHAIZTICAL SUMMET AND COSCLCSICN....................................... 232 BIBLIOGRAPH! • • ............................................................................. 21*9 VITA .......................................................................... 259 & GH4.PTER 2 IHTBODÖCnc» CHft-PTER Z INTRODTJCTIQH This study assks to undsrstand ths hlstoric&l and cantsoporary Christian visws of Scrlpturs, particularly in rsgard to ths ralation of thsoriss of Inspiration to ths various asthods of interpretation which hava besn and ara saploysd by th« Church. Thoagh ths queation is n m r directly asksd, ths vhols rsssarch has centsred about ths taclt qusstlon, shat do es msan eben es say that ths Bibis is ths Word of God? Ths thsology of Inspiration is not undsr considsration but only an analysis of ths varlous expressions regarding it. In thia ssnse it is a asaantic approach. Ths study is dirsetsd tosard ths goal of uncovering principles of intsrpratation shich ars hiatorically, philos ophically and ssaantloally soond, shich do justic« to tim uniqus- nsss of ths Bibis and shich will dsaonstrat* ths rolevanes of ths Bibis to ths nssds of todsy. Tb« study is justifisd, in ths writsr'a opinion, for a nunbar of rsasons. (1) Thors ars ssveral visss of inapirstion and conssquent Variation« of amphasis and procsdurs in intsrprstivs asthods sxtant in ths Christlux church. Thia rssults in a failuro to find a cotamon ground for "convsrsation" on aattsrs that should bs of mutual conesm. Thia divsrgsncs of opinion long ago raissd qusstions in ths wrltsr's sind, 2 questions which have assumed demanding proportiona which made a personax decision Imperativs* (2) No published works, to tha writer*s knowladge, axist which attanpt to resolvs tha confusion by me&ns of a sympathatic undarstanding of tha tarn* and eoncapta which hava baan and are uaed and around which tha differenees of oplnion ravolv». A very great deal has baan writtan fron a theological, and Philosophie but always dogaatic point of view. It seems to ba tha proper way to attampt unity of spirit, at least, to uncover and analywe tha variaus pre-suppositions of aach Position so that an objeetiva judgment can ba nada« (3) Zf tha Conserva­ tion with which tha writar idantifias haraalf doas not re-axaada» ita Position, constructivaly, ita ene&daa will do so dastructively with too graat a loaa to theological conservatiam of intellactual prestiga and spiritual leadership* (1») It la hopad, morsawtr, that relevant semantic principles may ba suggaatad which will provida tools fer a further axploration into theological formilations • At laast it should ba a "point of departure" toward this worthy goal« (5) To sunnarise tha m i n concarn it nay ba sald that ona desire ia pararaount in tha author’s sind» naoely, to work toaard a unity of spirit and fAith aoong Christians* Tha study, it is hopad» ia reasonably objective and unbiaaad« Pure objactivity, however, ia not only lnpossible but undasirable. Tha author approachas tha subject matter aa a Christian with all tha personal and moral coramitznants involvad in a living Christian ffcith and ls awars of tha daap assumptions that this coBnitmsnt bring» to tha study* 3 Objectivity, then, «111 msan ft freedam from ft priori conclusions, of » creedal and dcgoatic nature shich would prejudice the study and result in ft merely circular arguaent shich defends rather than explorea the queation« Th* fftct of th« problam is asauaed in vlew of the varlety of opiniona held by equally qualifled Christian scholars. Inspiration is not consldered here to bs ft prdblem bot ths relationship b t t M W theories of Inspiration «ad th« underatanding of the Bible as «r have it, givsß riss to legitimate Problems in ths field of interpre- tation. Do m ths Bibis nssd to bs interpreted? If not» shy are thsrs so aany different understandlngs of its doctrines? Zf it does, «hat ft re ths proper hermeneutical rulss and hos ars thsy determined? Should ths Bibis bs handlsd as any other litsrary work or ars thsrs spscial rulss for Interpretation shich apply uniquely to it? Hosr do ss knos this? Vhat is Interpretation? «hat ars ths prs-suppoeitions involvsd in ths ftet of Interpretation? Vhat ars se doing shen ss Interpret? Hov is Interpretation related to rsvelatian? Vho inter- prsts revelation? Is it an authorised psrson, s certain cburch, a council or synod, or is It ths individual reader? Zf Interpretation is to bs aathoritatlvs» in «hat is that authority groundsd and vhat is ths objectivs sign of ths proper Interpreter? Vhat is authorltative, ths Word of God or ths Interpretation? Vhat is ths relationship bstsssn Interpretation sad authority? Vhsrsin doss ths authority of ths Bibis k consiat? Does it, and ean it rosido in th« Book aa a book? I« authority intrinaic or veated so far aa th« Bibi« ia concamed? V« hall««« that all th«s« ar« proper «jueationa. Thar» ara othars* Uoat Chriatian acholarahip recognisas th« hunan «laaent in Seripture and th« faet of progressiv» ravelation and th« Bibi«*« thoroughly "his- torlcal" involveaent • Ria«« thinga obvioualy nost b« raflactad in th« r u l M of Interpretation. Bo« do«« it do so« and to «hat ertönt? Ihat do«« hiatorioal «ean, and ho« is it ralatad to Inspiration, particularly «han irrtarpratation is basod on this eharactariatic as a modifying eleaent? Th« Bibi« is ostl«d aupamatural, divine, holy, spiritual. It fass human »1— «nt« in it« production and hiatory* It has a phyalcal structure. «hat is th« dlstinction b«t— n all thaa« tenns? Bo« de «ach rvlat« to Interpretation? Thare ar« also, w j y urgent and praetioal problena. «hat is th« Bibi« for? This is a crucial queetion, becaus« th« «a n m r to it must b« on« of tha major criteria for Interpretation. I« it relevant for today? Can it ap«ak to individual and collactive naada and lf so how «an this b« r«alis«d? Only a handful of acholare ar« «bl» to raad th« original BibHohl languagM «Ith «qr dagre« of r«al undsrstanding. Th« r««t of tha «erld ha«« ths Bibis in sens translation. Sens pagan culturaa have no verbal äquivalent for suoh «erds and Idsa« ss "God" and «lov»,« Do thoae «ho must road th« BiKte in iaparfact tranalationa have ths «oed of God or not? If thay do not, ho« doos God apaak to asm, any $ man, today? If the träne lation oan be considered the word of Ood «tot is lt that is ths \ehlcle of thst word? These "diagnoetic* questions lie bshind oweiy inquiry of this study« There an three kinda of qaostloas aaked above, practical ^ 1 Mül a— 1^5{. qussüons. It is inpoeaible to disentangl# these aspects eamplstoly but it is necsssaiy to distin- guish them and in so doing bring to ths sblation a greater neasure of clarity than is ofton the osss« The central question is we*y simplej «hat do the teca» «e m m asan to «st But as sisqpla aas