A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible

by Robert M. Grant, David Tracy

The interpretation of scripture provides a link between contemporary theology and the documents of the church's earliest traditions. This well-known work, once again made available, examines the principal methods which Christians have used to interpret the Bible. Beginning with the interpretation of the, Old Testament by Jesus, the evangelists and Paul, it focusses primarily on those times when significant new developments were taking place. Robert M. Grant pays special attention to early Christian history, then analyses the schools of Alexandria and Antioch, the mediaeval period, the Reformation, the Enlightenment and the Nineteenth Century. David Tracy's contribution shows the relation of earlier ideas to modern Roman Catholic approaches.

Genres: Religion, Theology, History, Church History, Biblical Studies

224 pages, Paperback

First published June 17, 1984

About the author

Robert McQueen Grant was an American academic theologian and professor.


There are more authors with this name in this data base. This one is Robert M.^^Grant. For the strategic management expert go to Robert M. Grant.

Reviews

[Alan Fuller · Rating 2 out of 5]

A modern liberal scholar takes a look at the history of Bible interpretation. It is probably a history that the average Christian doesn't know about. 

The author finds Jesus' interpretation of the OT similar to other rabbis of His day, but with some differences. The sayings in the gospel of John aren't much help though:

"They do not represent so much what Jesus taught as what the church taught in his name." p.12

Paul's teachings are then examined. He finds some similarities to the teachings of Philo the Alexandrian.

"But we can make his suggestion our own, that both Philo and Paul are dependent on the exegetical tradition of the Hellenistic synagogue." p.27

The author's attitude toward the early church fathers can probably be summed up in this statement.

(In regards to Marcion) "In this sense even the typological absurdities of Barnabas are more satisfactory." p.44

About the pantheist Baruch Spinoza he says:

"Spinoza’s method is very much like that followed in modern introductions to the books of the Bible. It is clear and rational. It avoids all the theological questions involved in the interpretation
of scripture; for scripture has no authority over the interpreter’s mind." p.108

And on historical criticism:

"Historical criticism of the Bible was not new; but it had usually been employed either by opponents of Christianity or by minority leaders within the church." p.110

You can skip over the last three chapters unless you're a fan of historical-critical relativism.

[Pishowi · Rating 3 out of 5]

The interpretation of scripture provides a link between contemporary theology and the documents of the church’s earliest traditions. This well-known work, once again made available, examines the principal methods which Christians have used to interpret the Bible. Beginning with the interpretation of the , Old Testament by Jesus, the evangelists and Paul, it focusses primarily on those times when significant new developments were taking place. Robert M. Grant pays special attention to early Christian history, then analyses the schools of Alexandria and Antioch, the mediaeval period, the Reformation, the Enlightenment and the Nineteenth Century. David Tracy’s contribution shows the relation of earlier ideas to modern Roman Catholic approaches.

[Jan · Rating 1 out of 5]

This was a slog. It was hard to read, hard to follow. I managed to persevere until the end of part one, but couldn't bring myself to read Tracy's second part.

[Mike Stanley · Rating 1 out of 5]

didn't like it. It was confusing and seemingly without direction. oh well

[David · Rating 2 out of 5]

If the second section of the book had not existed, I would have considered giving the book three stars. Instead, I am on the verge of giving a one star review. (If you get bored of my words, you can skip to my concluding paragraph).

The "original" part of the book, which is strictly historical, is the only redeeming part of the book, and I use that term loosely. Grant begins with a separation of Jesus, Paul, and the Gospel writers. While this may seem reasonable, I believe it's importance is largely exaggerated. Jesus is delivered inside the New Testament, and to somehow study one without the other is perplexing.

Grant seems to have a general knowledge of interpretive methods and personalities throughout history. I cannot speak to the accuracy of his portrayals of pre-Reformation methods, but he does not properly understand Luther (or he has simply failed to communicate his understanding properly; either way, he has failed with regards to Luther. I will grant that the immense portfolio of writings by Luther makes him easier to misunderstand than most.).

It is also obvious that both authors do not hold a traditional view of scripture. Grant affirms Tracy's belief that the task of an interpreter is not to find the truth communicated by an author and is instead to synthesize truth between the text and the reader. Such a position is functionally, even explicitly, a denial that objective truth exists, can be known, and of its own nature, and not by transformation, is relevant today.

What is not obvious is the purpose of the book. Grant seems to be writing a popular book. The terms used are not overly technical, and much of the text is made of assertions without extensive support (I find this to be an overwhelming transgression, but it would make sense for a popular work). Tracy, on the other hand, has written a confounding conclusion. It seems to be meant for a technical audience. I cannot understand most of it, and I am highly suspicious of what I do understand.

I have not read any other books that attempt to outline the history of interpretation, but I believe that other books must accomplish this task in a better manner. Do not waste your time on this book.

[Jeffrey Thomas · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting (though not fascinating) survey of various approaches to interpretation of the bible. I particularly enjoyed the review of various heretics and standard theologians along the way -- which is the heretic, which is not, and why? The later addition to the book brings a distinctly roman catholic theological voice. Overall the authors promote the notion that our culture and our theology and our history should always be seen as accretive and developing, never in isolation. We stand on the shoulders of giants, as it were. They are distinctly anti-fundamentalist.

[Kendall Davis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Grant's history is somewhat simplistic and one could quibble with several of the chapters (e.g. the reformation one), however I found that Grant's 30k foot view was quite helpful and genuinely illuminating. He helped me to see how the history of interpretation circles around some of the same questions. Tracy's contribution at the end is alright. I have some serious disagreements with him, but I appreciate the opportunity to read his perspective. It makes for a rather odd pairing though with Grant's history. I don't think they actually fit together very well at all.

[Ryan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thought it was ok, it really is short! They didn’t do bad job on the subject but I also rated it a little lower because the binding was so terrible portions of the book fell out during my first read and it became very frustrating to go through. The material itself is good for an overview although it was more helpful having already done study on church history.

[Carolina Stimson · Rating 1 out of 5]

Very difficult to follow. Names and schools of thought are thrown around by name and no further development, leaning on the reader’s foreknowledge. It’s a bunch of words to end up saying that, to correctly interpret the bible, you much use hermeneutics and exegeses. It settles on liberal, open ended opinions and it takes you absolutely nowhere. I am the same as I was before I read this book.

[Ray Hollenbach · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first 2/3 of this book are an excellent history. The final third is theology and theory (and quite boring). Certainly worth it for the first 2/3’s.