What do you think?
Rate this book
Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics
Hardcover with dust jacket. Ink underlining and markings throughout. Dust jacket is edge chipped, torn and scuffed. Boards are edge worn and curled.
365 pages, Hardcover
First published June 13, 1974
15 people are currently reading
266 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
September 8, 2012
This was a striking and important book. Frei's central thesis is that at the turn of the Enlightenment the unity between meaning and history in hermeneutics began to collapse, resulting in the current state of a modern dualism between the pietists on the one hand, and the rationalist on the other. Essentially, he argues, this shift began with Spinoza and separated typology from history, whereas before this point the two were one and the same. The structure and shape of the text were simply assumed to present historical information about how real events took place. With Spinoza, typology (or meaning) and history broke free from one another, so that history no longer had any meaning in itself, and the text, having shape and meaning, couldn't possibly be construed as historical. The whole debate over Biblical history, then, becomes a consequence of Modernity, not a natural reading of the text itself. Frei then traces this dichotemy between typology and history through European hermeneutics in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The book is scholarly, and sometimes quite the slog to get through, but no pastor should go without having worked their way through it. It demonstrates the two types of preaching conducted today, pietist and rationalist, are a false choice, and the real solution is to preach typologically.
June 21, 2025
Honestly tedious to read but important haha
May 27, 2024
Really not my type of book. If I didn't have to read it for school, I probably never would have made it through the slog. Ironically, Frei will often cite another author's long and obscure sentences only to go on and have a 7 or 8 line sentence with little clarity at the end..
That being said, when one finishes it, there's a good survey of two centuries of hermeneutical thought well developed and discussed. I can see why this book is the starting point for hermeneutical conversation and sets the tone. But man am I glad to be done.
That being said, when one finishes it, there's a good survey of two centuries of hermeneutical thought well developed and discussed. I can see why this book is the starting point for hermeneutical conversation and sets the tone. But man am I glad to be done.
June 4, 2014
Frei investigates the breakdown between story and reality, realistic and figural interpretation. His Yale post-liberal presuppositions aid his analysing German liberalism. They do not help him construct a coherent alternative.
A realistic interpretation is a strict correspondence between word and reality. There can only be one meaning: that of the author. This is problematic when one approaches biblical prophecy: were the prophets’ intended meanings the same as that of the New Testament readers? At this point the realistic paradigm breaks down.
A figural reading is close to Reformed typology: the narrated sequence contains its own meaning (Frei 28). While Frei doesn’t draw the explicit conclusion, if typology is true, then one must have a narratival epistemology. One will note this is standard Protestant--especially Reformed covenantal--hermeneutics. So what happened in history, especially in Germany? The blossoming liberal schools quite correctly saw that if typology is true, then the bible has a coherent unity. If the bible has a coherent unity, then it forces a narratival epistemology. If that is true, then dualisms of a Platonic or Kantian sort are ruled out.
“What if Plato were a German Liberal?”
The development of hermeneutics didn’t take place in a vacuum. Scholars were interacting with contemporary philosophical shfits. The liberal schools would not accept a realistic hermeneutics because it was obvious (for them) that miracles and resurrection were not part of “reality.” They could not accept a typological reading because typology is at war with internalized, spiritual pious gush.
Schleiermacher’s comments are appropriate at this point. His denial of the Resurrection and the miraculous is well-known, but perhaps not his reasons why. They are several: if the truth of the story is in the event, then it stands or falls apart from my internalized spiritualization of the text. Further, if the goal of Jesus (on the liberal gloss) is his coming-to-realization of God-conciousness, then the Resurrection makes such reading pointless. Indeed, the cross is an anti-climax.
Lessons to be learned: A Conclusion of sorts
It’s not clear if Frei himself avoids all of the criticisms of liberal theology. His distinction between factuality and factuality-like probably won’t hold up under scrutiny (which is why few liberals adopted it). His understanding of narrative theology is brilliant, but narrative theology only works if the narrative is...well..real. Did it actually happen?
If we do not have eschatology as the corresponding pole to history, as none of the liberals did, then it is hard to avoid Strauss’s criticisms. If the goal of hermeneutics is eternal, timeless truths (ironically shared by both modern Evangelicals and Schleiermacher), then Lessing’s ditch is insurmountable. If truth is Platonic and necessary and eternal, necessary because it is eternal, then why bother with historical contingencies like narratives? If this is the case, Lessing is absolutely correct.
A realistic interpretation is a strict correspondence between word and reality. There can only be one meaning: that of the author. This is problematic when one approaches biblical prophecy: were the prophets’ intended meanings the same as that of the New Testament readers? At this point the realistic paradigm breaks down.
A figural reading is close to Reformed typology: the narrated sequence contains its own meaning (Frei 28). While Frei doesn’t draw the explicit conclusion, if typology is true, then one must have a narratival epistemology. One will note this is standard Protestant--especially Reformed covenantal--hermeneutics. So what happened in history, especially in Germany? The blossoming liberal schools quite correctly saw that if typology is true, then the bible has a coherent unity. If the bible has a coherent unity, then it forces a narratival epistemology. If that is true, then dualisms of a Platonic or Kantian sort are ruled out.
“What if Plato were a German Liberal?”
The development of hermeneutics didn’t take place in a vacuum. Scholars were interacting with contemporary philosophical shfits. The liberal schools would not accept a realistic hermeneutics because it was obvious (for them) that miracles and resurrection were not part of “reality.” They could not accept a typological reading because typology is at war with internalized, spiritual pious gush.
Schleiermacher’s comments are appropriate at this point. His denial of the Resurrection and the miraculous is well-known, but perhaps not his reasons why. They are several: if the truth of the story is in the event, then it stands or falls apart from my internalized spiritualization of the text. Further, if the goal of Jesus (on the liberal gloss) is his coming-to-realization of God-conciousness, then the Resurrection makes such reading pointless. Indeed, the cross is an anti-climax.
Lessons to be learned: A Conclusion of sorts
It’s not clear if Frei himself avoids all of the criticisms of liberal theology. His distinction between factuality and factuality-like probably won’t hold up under scrutiny (which is why few liberals adopted it). His understanding of narrative theology is brilliant, but narrative theology only works if the narrative is...well..real. Did it actually happen?
If we do not have eschatology as the corresponding pole to history, as none of the liberals did, then it is hard to avoid Strauss’s criticisms. If the goal of hermeneutics is eternal, timeless truths (ironically shared by both modern Evangelicals and Schleiermacher), then Lessing’s ditch is insurmountable. If truth is Platonic and necessary and eternal, necessary because it is eternal, then why bother with historical contingencies like narratives? If this is the case, Lessing is absolutely correct.
January 21, 2009
A very important book with a really bad thesis. Argues that the narrative or the biblical story is self-containing. Stay in the story and don't expect it to be a window upon real history. You have to ignore the Bible's own claims about "what our eyes have seen, what our hands have touched," etc. to swallow this. It's important b/c its still in print after all these years and critiques the Bultmaniacs. Every scholary discussion of hermeneutics begins usually begins with this book even though almost every sentence is a convoluted mess. Frei is a German trying to write in English. It still needs a good translation!
June 26, 2024
AN EXCELLENT HISTORICAL SURVEY OF TYPES OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION
Hans Wilhelm Frei (1922-1988) was a biblical scholar and theologian played a major role in the development of Postliberal/Narrative Theology; he taught at Yale Divinity School. He also wrote Types of Christian Theology; The Identity of Jesus Christ; and Theology and Narrative: Selected Essays.
He wrote in the Preface of this 1974 book, “This essay falls into the almost legendary category of analysis of analyses of the Bible in which not a single text is examined, not a single exegesis undertaken. Faced with certain puzzles that demanded historical, philosophical, and theological explanations, I tried to provide them as best I could; but there is no denying the odd result of a book about the Bible in which the Bible itself is never looked at. Nonetheless, I am confident that the essay may have significant implications for the study of the Bible. In making that claim I have to put myself in the awkward position of advertising my own wares…”
He wrote in the Introduction, “Western Christian reading of the Bible in the days before the rise of historical criticism in the eighteenth century was usually strongly realistic, i.e. at once literal and historical, and not only doctrinal or edifying… The preeminence of a literal and historical reading of the most important biblical stories was never wholly lost in western Christendom… if it seemed clear that a biblical story was to be read literally, it followed automatically that it referred to and described actual historical occurrences… if the real historical world described by the several biblical stories is a single world of one temporal sequence, there must in principle be one cumulative story to depict it. Consequently, the several biblical stories narrating sequential segments in time must fit together into one narrative.” (Pg. 1-2)
He continues, “The customary use of figuration was to show that Old Testament persons, events, and prophecies were fulfilled in the New Testament… Far from being in conflict with the literal sense of biblical stories, figuration or typology was a natural extension of literal interpretation… Figuration was at once a literary and historical procedure, an interpretation of stories and their meanings by weaving them together into a common narrative referring to a single history and its patterns of meaning.” (Pg. 2)
He notes, “As the eighteenth century went on, this mode of interpretation and the outlook it represented broke down with increasing rapidity… the direction of interpretation now became the reverse of earlier days. Do the stories and whatever concepts may be drawn from them describe what we apprehend as the real world? Do they fit a more general framework of meaning than that of a general story?” (Pg. 4-5) He adds, “Figural reading, to the degree that it had been an extension of literal interpretation in the older kind of realistic, narrative reading, was now bound to look to historical-critical eyes like a rather preposterous historical argument, and it rapidly lost credibility.” (Pg. 7) And, “that [biblical] authority was bound to be gravely weakened if the Bible was neither reliable nor unitary.” (Pg. 8)
He explains, “This book, then, is about one segment of the history of the theory of biblical interpretation rather than a history of biblical criticism… In particular, its topic is the eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century discussion about the proper rules and principles to guide interpretation of the history-like stories of the Old and New Testaments… To state the thesis: a realistic or history-like … element is a feature, as obvious as it is important, of many of the biblical narratives that went into the making of Christian belief. It is a feature that can be highlighted by the appropriate analytical procedure and by no other, even if it may be difficult to describe the procedure---in contrast to the element itself.” (Pg. 10)
He states, “positivity is the affirmation of a direct or unmediated intervention of the Godhead in the finite realm… positivity did indeed involve the affirmation of the cruciality for human salvation of these historical events as actual transpirings… Thereafter one faced the theological issue of affirming or denying the centrality of positivity for the Christian religion. One chose whether Christianity was a rational-moral, experiential, or historical religion, or a combination of these three.” (Pg. 58-59)
He goes on, “an argument over the meaning and interpretation of biblical narratives has turned into one over the reference of those narratives… A historical criterion has now come to adjudicate the meaning of the history-like narrative biblical texts. The new way of uniting explication with historical reference and analysis served… to make hermeneutics an auxiliary of a procedure which had all the structural ingredients needed to expand it into the historical-critical method… The argument over the fulfillment of prophecy … exhibited more clearly than anything else the drastic change in the reading of biblical narratives… and in the underlying new sensibility of a language-neutral external world which has taken the place of the narratively rendered temporal sequence satisfying the sensibility of an earlier day.” (Pg. 84-85)
He says that theologians of the time “But almost no one… wanted to be in the position of affirming at the same time that Jesus as the unique, indispensable Savior is the explicative sense of the texts, AND that this affirmation is irrelevant or of merely anachronistic interest… This position was universally rejected among theologians and non-theologians. One either claimed that the texts really do mean what they state… or else one said that this, taken literally, would be an insignificant statement and therefore cannot be what the text means… The question is: Why should the possibility be ruled out that this is indeed the meaning of the texts, and that it may well be religiously anachronistic or at least without direct religious consequence for anyone today?” (Pg. 131-132)
He observes, “the new tradition of a LITERARY realism was never applied to the technical task of biblical interpretation… the debate over the factuality of the biblical reports was far too central and crucial… when prime interest is concentrated on the fact issue… the unmarked frontier is no longer merely real. Now it becomes impenetrable; one is either on one side of it or the other, and the decision between them is the crucial issue.” (Pg. 150)
He adds, “Like history and the novel, much biblical narrative in explicative interpretation is not ‘system’ or pure factual description but the cumulative rendering of a temporal framework through realistic depiction and chronological continuity. But this made small impact on either pious use or technical scholarly analysis of the Bible… Such sense of a narrative framework as continued to exist among religious (and not merely scholarly) readers was now no longer chiefly that of providentially governed biblical history… All this had now changed. Such narrative sense as remained … found the connective narrative tissue which served simultaneously as its own effective thread to present experience in the history of the soul’s conversion and perfection.” (Pg. 152)
He points out, “The fateful difference between these two [19th cent.] hermeneutical schools was not simply that the one wanted to confine hermeneutics to grammatical meaning while the other included historical interpretation. It was a broader disagreement…of the understanding of general hermeneutics as extending to the SUBJECT MATTER as distinct from the WORDS of a text… What we have here, then, is a fundamental disagreement over the scope of hermeneutics, i.e., the range of the applicability of general, theologically nonprivileged principles of interpretation.” (Pg. 248)
He concludes, “There is no doubt that biblical hermeneutics underwent a radical transformation between late eighteenth-century subject-matter interpretation and early nineteenth-century hermeneutics of understanding… The earlier scholars had been confident that the text is directly accessible, and therefore a science of interpretation is no more than a codification of principles and rules of procedure. The later commentators stood in the shadow of Kant’s Copernican revolution in philosophy and of his successors… But there was increasing unease that this might not be the case and that there was a gap between the interpreting ‘subject’ and what can be known of the meaning of the text from the past. The endeavor to bridge that gap…became increasingly frequent, complex, and uneasy… The realistic narrative reading of biblical stories, the gospels in particular, went into eclipse throughout the period. Whether anything has changed in this respect since the days of Schleiermacher and Hegel is a question for another day.” (Pg. 323-324)
This is an important work, that will be “must reading” for those studying Neoliberal Theology, the history of Biblical Criticism, or Contemporary Theology in general.
Hans Wilhelm Frei (1922-1988) was a biblical scholar and theologian played a major role in the development of Postliberal/Narrative Theology; he taught at Yale Divinity School. He also wrote Types of Christian Theology; The Identity of Jesus Christ; and Theology and Narrative: Selected Essays.
He wrote in the Preface of this 1974 book, “This essay falls into the almost legendary category of analysis of analyses of the Bible in which not a single text is examined, not a single exegesis undertaken. Faced with certain puzzles that demanded historical, philosophical, and theological explanations, I tried to provide them as best I could; but there is no denying the odd result of a book about the Bible in which the Bible itself is never looked at. Nonetheless, I am confident that the essay may have significant implications for the study of the Bible. In making that claim I have to put myself in the awkward position of advertising my own wares…”
He wrote in the Introduction, “Western Christian reading of the Bible in the days before the rise of historical criticism in the eighteenth century was usually strongly realistic, i.e. at once literal and historical, and not only doctrinal or edifying… The preeminence of a literal and historical reading of the most important biblical stories was never wholly lost in western Christendom… if it seemed clear that a biblical story was to be read literally, it followed automatically that it referred to and described actual historical occurrences… if the real historical world described by the several biblical stories is a single world of one temporal sequence, there must in principle be one cumulative story to depict it. Consequently, the several biblical stories narrating sequential segments in time must fit together into one narrative.” (Pg. 1-2)
He continues, “The customary use of figuration was to show that Old Testament persons, events, and prophecies were fulfilled in the New Testament… Far from being in conflict with the literal sense of biblical stories, figuration or typology was a natural extension of literal interpretation… Figuration was at once a literary and historical procedure, an interpretation of stories and their meanings by weaving them together into a common narrative referring to a single history and its patterns of meaning.” (Pg. 2)
He notes, “As the eighteenth century went on, this mode of interpretation and the outlook it represented broke down with increasing rapidity… the direction of interpretation now became the reverse of earlier days. Do the stories and whatever concepts may be drawn from them describe what we apprehend as the real world? Do they fit a more general framework of meaning than that of a general story?” (Pg. 4-5) He adds, “Figural reading, to the degree that it had been an extension of literal interpretation in the older kind of realistic, narrative reading, was now bound to look to historical-critical eyes like a rather preposterous historical argument, and it rapidly lost credibility.” (Pg. 7) And, “that [biblical] authority was bound to be gravely weakened if the Bible was neither reliable nor unitary.” (Pg. 8)
He explains, “This book, then, is about one segment of the history of the theory of biblical interpretation rather than a history of biblical criticism… In particular, its topic is the eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century discussion about the proper rules and principles to guide interpretation of the history-like stories of the Old and New Testaments… To state the thesis: a realistic or history-like … element is a feature, as obvious as it is important, of many of the biblical narratives that went into the making of Christian belief. It is a feature that can be highlighted by the appropriate analytical procedure and by no other, even if it may be difficult to describe the procedure---in contrast to the element itself.” (Pg. 10)
He states, “positivity is the affirmation of a direct or unmediated intervention of the Godhead in the finite realm… positivity did indeed involve the affirmation of the cruciality for human salvation of these historical events as actual transpirings… Thereafter one faced the theological issue of affirming or denying the centrality of positivity for the Christian religion. One chose whether Christianity was a rational-moral, experiential, or historical religion, or a combination of these three.” (Pg. 58-59)
He goes on, “an argument over the meaning and interpretation of biblical narratives has turned into one over the reference of those narratives… A historical criterion has now come to adjudicate the meaning of the history-like narrative biblical texts. The new way of uniting explication with historical reference and analysis served… to make hermeneutics an auxiliary of a procedure which had all the structural ingredients needed to expand it into the historical-critical method… The argument over the fulfillment of prophecy … exhibited more clearly than anything else the drastic change in the reading of biblical narratives… and in the underlying new sensibility of a language-neutral external world which has taken the place of the narratively rendered temporal sequence satisfying the sensibility of an earlier day.” (Pg. 84-85)
He says that theologians of the time “But almost no one… wanted to be in the position of affirming at the same time that Jesus as the unique, indispensable Savior is the explicative sense of the texts, AND that this affirmation is irrelevant or of merely anachronistic interest… This position was universally rejected among theologians and non-theologians. One either claimed that the texts really do mean what they state… or else one said that this, taken literally, would be an insignificant statement and therefore cannot be what the text means… The question is: Why should the possibility be ruled out that this is indeed the meaning of the texts, and that it may well be religiously anachronistic or at least without direct religious consequence for anyone today?” (Pg. 131-132)
He observes, “the new tradition of a LITERARY realism was never applied to the technical task of biblical interpretation… the debate over the factuality of the biblical reports was far too central and crucial… when prime interest is concentrated on the fact issue… the unmarked frontier is no longer merely real. Now it becomes impenetrable; one is either on one side of it or the other, and the decision between them is the crucial issue.” (Pg. 150)
He adds, “Like history and the novel, much biblical narrative in explicative interpretation is not ‘system’ or pure factual description but the cumulative rendering of a temporal framework through realistic depiction and chronological continuity. But this made small impact on either pious use or technical scholarly analysis of the Bible… Such sense of a narrative framework as continued to exist among religious (and not merely scholarly) readers was now no longer chiefly that of providentially governed biblical history… All this had now changed. Such narrative sense as remained … found the connective narrative tissue which served simultaneously as its own effective thread to present experience in the history of the soul’s conversion and perfection.” (Pg. 152)
He points out, “The fateful difference between these two [19th cent.] hermeneutical schools was not simply that the one wanted to confine hermeneutics to grammatical meaning while the other included historical interpretation. It was a broader disagreement…of the understanding of general hermeneutics as extending to the SUBJECT MATTER as distinct from the WORDS of a text… What we have here, then, is a fundamental disagreement over the scope of hermeneutics, i.e., the range of the applicability of general, theologically nonprivileged principles of interpretation.” (Pg. 248)
He concludes, “There is no doubt that biblical hermeneutics underwent a radical transformation between late eighteenth-century subject-matter interpretation and early nineteenth-century hermeneutics of understanding… The earlier scholars had been confident that the text is directly accessible, and therefore a science of interpretation is no more than a codification of principles and rules of procedure. The later commentators stood in the shadow of Kant’s Copernican revolution in philosophy and of his successors… But there was increasing unease that this might not be the case and that there was a gap between the interpreting ‘subject’ and what can be known of the meaning of the text from the past. The endeavor to bridge that gap…became increasingly frequent, complex, and uneasy… The realistic narrative reading of biblical stories, the gospels in particular, went into eclipse throughout the period. Whether anything has changed in this respect since the days of Schleiermacher and Hegel is a question for another day.” (Pg. 323-324)
This is an important work, that will be “must reading” for those studying Neoliberal Theology, the history of Biblical Criticism, or Contemporary Theology in general.
December 17, 2021
Let me preface my comments by noting that I am aware this book is considered a seminal historical account in the field of hermeneutics. I am sure its contributions are helpful.
However, the book is so thoroughly and consistently opaque as to forfeit most salutary value to even a trained reader. A chief irony to this effect is seen in how Frei at least twice chastens certain authors for their verbosity in block quotes while seven-line sentences in his own text are found on nearly every page. Technical terms are vaguely defined and the prose obscures the line between the author's summary of the thought of others and that of his own conclusions.
Maybe I am just too dense to grasp it, but I don't think so. I recommend reading Thiselton's introduction to hermeneutics before this volume. But either way, strap in.
However, the book is so thoroughly and consistently opaque as to forfeit most salutary value to even a trained reader. A chief irony to this effect is seen in how Frei at least twice chastens certain authors for their verbosity in block quotes while seven-line sentences in his own text are found on nearly every page. Technical terms are vaguely defined and the prose obscures the line between the author's summary of the thought of others and that of his own conclusions.
Maybe I am just too dense to grasp it, but I don't think so. I recommend reading Thiselton's introduction to hermeneutics before this volume. But either way, strap in.
August 18, 2024
“…since the world truly rendered by combining biblical narratives into one was indeed the one and only real world, it must in principle embrace the experience of any present age and reader.”
The world that the Bible renders to its readers is the real world, and it renders this world in its literal sense through patterns across the canon of Scripture that prefigure future acts of God, culminating in the person and work of Christ.
This book has been on my list for a while, primarily because all my favorite theologians and biblical scholars point to Frei’s work as formative and influential for them and for the study of hermeneutics. Overall I loved it, but it was definitely a challenging book to work through. The first 4 chapters or so are worth the read; beyond that, perhaps not so much.
The world that the Bible renders to its readers is the real world, and it renders this world in its literal sense through patterns across the canon of Scripture that prefigure future acts of God, culminating in the person and work of Christ.
This book has been on my list for a while, primarily because all my favorite theologians and biblical scholars point to Frei’s work as formative and influential for them and for the study of hermeneutics. Overall I loved it, but it was definitely a challenging book to work through. The first 4 chapters or so are worth the read; beyond that, perhaps not so much.
February 25, 2019
This is an incredible book. Now I know why it has had such a longstanding impact on the discipline of hermeneutics. However, almost every single conclusion Frei comes to --if and when he does--is dubious for Evangelicals. So, if you read Frei starting with the presupposition that Christ really has acted in history, then Frei will frustrate you. And, BTW, you should start with that presupposition if you are going to understand the NT authors on their terms--not to mention the fact that Christ truly has acted in History and really is the way Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John depict him. That said, Frei was seeking to recover the interpreters right to read the Bible narrativally--and for that he should be commended, read, and read charitably.
May 11, 2023
The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative is a classic in the history of hermeneutics, and certainly very enlightening for understanding the tendencies in biblical interpretation following the Reformation. Frei contends that the Reformers read the Bible as its own continuous narrative world, and found their own place inside that world. This unified canonical world also afforded the possibility of figural interpretation, which for Calvin was a function of the meaning of the texts, not a later framework imposed upon them.
Following the Reformation, however, the situation was reversed. The Bible was placed in the context of history and was forced to make sense within that broader framework by "ostensive reference" (get ready to hear that phrase a lot). Conservatives took the narratives to be referring to the true facts of history, so that Biblical narrative came to be valued primarily as a witness to God's saving acts in history. Those on the other extreme responded to historical criticism by taking the narratives to be myths which referred to the historical consciousness of the ancient authors. Various mediating positions failed to provide a stable basis for interpretation. An overall apologetic attitude toward the value of the Bible for religious truth led to a situation where almost no one wanted to say that the narratives meant what they said, and yet were simply mistaken.
The upshot of all this hermeneutical change is that no major interpreters in the 18th-19th centuries were able to read the Biblical narratives as the realistic narratives that they are. Frei points out that, at least in the British context, this is surprising given the rise of realistic novels during this same time frame.
Overall, Frei's thesis is convincing, and gives insight into the way that scriptural texts are treated even today. While the academy has largely taken Frei's critique into account and developed a reading of the biblical narratives as narratives, popular conservative treatments of the biblical texts still largely take the "ostensive reference" approach. This is why a sermon on the passion can feature speculation on the blood of Passover lambs flowing through a stream outside Jerusalem and the excruciating physiological details of Jesus' crucifixion. These elements are extraneous to the biblical accounts, but if the value of the biblical accounts is merely their witness to historical events, then such reconstructed details are of nearly equal value.
Frei's work is insightful, but rather difficult to read. At times he veers into territory that is somewhat superfluous (e.g. a chapter focusing on all the literature in Germany that was not realistic narrative). His prose can also be difficult, and at times one wishes that he would pause to give more clear definitions for his terms. Yet the book is worth the difficulty for the insight it provides.
Following the Reformation, however, the situation was reversed. The Bible was placed in the context of history and was forced to make sense within that broader framework by "ostensive reference" (get ready to hear that phrase a lot). Conservatives took the narratives to be referring to the true facts of history, so that Biblical narrative came to be valued primarily as a witness to God's saving acts in history. Those on the other extreme responded to historical criticism by taking the narratives to be myths which referred to the historical consciousness of the ancient authors. Various mediating positions failed to provide a stable basis for interpretation. An overall apologetic attitude toward the value of the Bible for religious truth led to a situation where almost no one wanted to say that the narratives meant what they said, and yet were simply mistaken.
The upshot of all this hermeneutical change is that no major interpreters in the 18th-19th centuries were able to read the Biblical narratives as the realistic narratives that they are. Frei points out that, at least in the British context, this is surprising given the rise of realistic novels during this same time frame.
Overall, Frei's thesis is convincing, and gives insight into the way that scriptural texts are treated even today. While the academy has largely taken Frei's critique into account and developed a reading of the biblical narratives as narratives, popular conservative treatments of the biblical texts still largely take the "ostensive reference" approach. This is why a sermon on the passion can feature speculation on the blood of Passover lambs flowing through a stream outside Jerusalem and the excruciating physiological details of Jesus' crucifixion. These elements are extraneous to the biblical accounts, but if the value of the biblical accounts is merely their witness to historical events, then such reconstructed details are of nearly equal value.
Frei's work is insightful, but rather difficult to read. At times he veers into territory that is somewhat superfluous (e.g. a chapter focusing on all the literature in Germany that was not realistic narrative). His prose can also be difficult, and at times one wishes that he would pause to give more clear definitions for his terms. Yet the book is worth the difficulty for the insight it provides.
February 10, 2018
The third time was the charm. I picked up this book to read at least twice in the past but never got far into it before giving it up for something of more immediate interest. Afterall, a study in 18th and 19th-century hermeneutics does not exactly promise to be much of a page-turner. As it turns out, this book is considered something of a classic in terms of the history of biblical hermeneutics. Still, this is a topic for specialists and as such requires a good deal of background understanding to fully appreciate. The author maintains that both liberal and fundamentalist interpreters of scripture have taken something of a wrong turn when they decided no longer to read the Bible as a realistic narrative telling the true story of the whole world. This is the so-called eclipse of the biblical narrative. This new reading of scripture has lead to a number of problems on both the right and the left. The author's analysis of this change in hermeneutics has served as the foundation for what has since come to be known as narrative or post-liberal theology. Great and detailed analysis. Rather hard going.
March 27, 2020
Easily one of my favorite books! Not a history person except when it is history of interpretation, which is this book! All the important thinkers of Western thought in the 18th and 19th century and their views about hermeneutics. Will be reading again before the end of this year.
Read
January 1, 2024Very difficult read, but deeply insightful for explaining the current trends of hermeneutics in light of the field’s recent history. Frei focuses almost exclusively on German thinkers.
September 16, 2023
This was a dense one, to be sure, so unsurprisingly it took me a bit longer to finish. However, so glad that I finally gave this one a read. Covering the metamorphosis of hermeneutics from the time of the Reformers through the turbulent waters of the Enlightenment up to the thought of Schleiermacher and Hegel, this history of the theory, philosophy, and practice of Biblical Studies gave me some terrific insights into the historically dominating questions and movements in the discipline that today inform the current state of affairs. Whether he is addressing the thought of Spinoza, Strauss, Kant, or Schelling, Frei's critique and analysis is poised, balanced, and insightful to the utmost degree. His prose is difficult, considering Frei's German background, and though he wrote it in English, at times it feels like a translation from the German itself. However, Frei's case for why a narratival interpretive approach was completely overlooked in the 18th and 19th centuries is quite convincing, and ultimately, after witnessing the multitudinous interpretive difficulties and gymnastics of previous scholars, Frei's approach begins to look quite appealing if only for its simplicity.
Highest recommendation for HB Scholars.
Highest recommendation for HB Scholars.
August 12, 2011
At this point, I can't comment much more than pointing out Frei's thesis: a realistic reading of the history-like narrative that forms an unbroken continuity between two Testaments in the Bible was passed over in the 18th century for two poles of interpretation: the hyper-literal ostensive reading at one end and the mythophile at the other end. For Frei, this doesn't seem to be a good move in hermenuetics and Biblical interpretation. I tend to agree with him. Unfortunately, Frei doesn't offer much in terms of evaluation here. It is truly a historical study. For the modern practice of a realistic narrative interpretation of the Bible one has to turn to his "The Identity of Jesus Christ" and even there we only get preliminary sketches.
October 18, 2013
This is a poorly written book. Frei uses these long sentences and then adds further thoughts with a comma separating them from the main mini-novel. Its very difficult to follow. I'd hate to have this as a textbook. His book is essentially about what the German Enlightenment did to the Bible and he seemed to not have any interest in the rest of Christian thought at the time, as if the Germans were the only ones talking about the Bible. Still, it might make a good reference work.
Want to read
December 29, 2007the 16 page introduction expresses the overall project pretty well
August 4, 2010
So suggestive and probing. Yet so opaque in composition. If only Frei had had a co-writer. A classic nevertheless.
October 24, 2013
I wish he'd been a tad more constructive and less historical (which is odd coming from a historical theologian).
October 7, 2016
A theological classic in post-liberal theology. A helpful book on my theological journey.
April 17, 2010
Not really a page turner, but if you're looking to reconstruct your worldview....
February 16, 2019
Frei has given the Church an important gift with this volume. His research is thorough and as he says he leaves no interpretative stone left unturned regarding eighteenth and nineteenth century hermeneutics. His thoroughness left portions of the volume feeling tedious, but ultimately if the reader can wade through the technical portions of the book they will be better for it. Many Evangelical readers will find themselves in agreement with Frei’s critiques of the historical-critical method while finding themselves in an uncomfortable spot as Frei reaches his conclusion of a narrative and literary conceptualization of Hermeneutics. This book has been called a “watershed” and “groundbreaking” volume for good reason, it is a vital work in understanding the history of interpretation, regardless if one agrees with the author’s conclusion of not.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews