CHAPTER 6
CHAPTER 6
The New Testament Canon The word canon means a standard, or rule, by which other things are measured. The canon of scripture is therefore the authoritative handbook for the Christian faith and life. It is the standard by which the doctrines and traditions of the Church are measured and evaluated. Historically, there have been two ways to look at scripture as the authority for the Church. One way is to say that what is not prohibited in scripture is allowed in the Church. In general, the early Christians realized that scripture, while inspired, was not exhaustive, and so they took this approach. The other approach assumes that whatever is not commanded by scripture is not allowed in the Church. This approach was tested in some of the rigorist movements of the early Church, but it is mainly a product of certain branches of the Protestant Reformation and is related to the concept of sola scriptura. However, the early Church had no concept of sola scriptura. This is partly because the earliest
Christians had no specifically Christian Bible. The New Testament itself was developed in the early Church and so is a product of the early Church. In fact, as we will see, the Christians of the early centuries would come to the conclusion that sola scriptura non satis est
(scripture alone is not enough)—in other words, they would eventually have to go beyond scripture to interpret scripture.
The Bible of the first Christians was, of course, the Old Testament. This meant the Septuagint, the Old Testament in Greek, which included the deuterocanonical (apocryphal) books. It is often abbreviated LXX because of a tradition that it was translated from Hebrew by seventy Jewish scholars. From the very beginning, however, Christians interpreted the Old Testament differently from their Jewish counterparts, and so it was inevitable that specifically Christian writings would emerge (in part as comlito
Reading the Early Church Fathers mentary on the Hebrew Scriptures) and that some of those writings would become accepted authoritative interpretations of the Old
Testament in light of the life and ministry of Jesus. The production of Christian sacred writings naturally led to their addition to the Christian canon, giving the Church its Bible. But this did not happen overnight. The development of the New 'Testament went through four stages, over a period of almost four centuries.
STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Stage 1: The Writing of the Apostolic Documents The first of the Christian documents to be written were the letters of Paul. In the 50s and 60s of the first century, Paul's ministry included writing letters to the Christians in various cities, many of whom were his own converts and students in churches he himself had founded. It is also possible that the Gospel of Mark was written as early as the 50s, combining oral tradition with the testimony of Peter.' Some of the other apostolic letters may have been written at this time as well, possibly including Hebrews, James, Jude, and 1 Peter.' The two-volume set of Luke and Acts was probably completed by the mid-60s, since Acts ends before the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, though there is significant debate over this.' The author of Luke used Mark's Gospel as his primary resource, incorporating other oral tradition as well as possible apostolic testimony.
By the time 2 Peter was written the author already has begun to think of Paul's letters as inspired scripture (2 Pet 3:14-16).* This indicates that Paul had been martyred by the time 2 Peter was written.
The Gospel of Matthew was probably composed in the 70s or 80s of the first century.' According to tradition, it is based on the eyewitness account of Matthew Levi, the former tax collector and disciple of Jesus, though it obviously also made use of Mark and Luke.° Some, such as Origen, thought that Matthew was first written in Aramaic or Hebrew, though this may be pure speculation based on the fact that it was written for a Jewish Christian audience.' The Johannine literature was probably the last to be written,
The New Testament Canon in the 90s, though it is possible that 2 John and 3 John were written in the early second century.*
Stage 2: The Use of the Apostolic Documents Already in the second half of the first century, apostolic documents were being copied, passed from church to church, and read aloud in worship meetings. The fact that multiple copies of these early documents were made while the originals still existed, combined with the fact that fragments of some very early manuscripts are still extant, lends a confidence of reliability that few other ancient documents share. By the early second century, the letters of Paul (often including Hebrews, the authorship of which was already a matter of debate in the earliest discussions of the canon) were circulating as a collection. One could also obtain a collection of the four gospels, sometimes with the Book of Acts. In fact it is possible that the need to publish these Christian documents was part of the catalyst that led to the development of the codex, or book. Rather than copy documents on scrolls, it became more expedient to cut the scroll into square sections (pages), stack them, and bind them on one side. This made it more convenient to put the material into one package, and it made it easier to find a particular passage in the middle of a document. Rather than unroll a scroll, one only had to turn the pages.
By the middle of the second century, the term gospels (in the plural) is used as a category or literary genre.' Justin Martyr referred to the gospels as the "memoirs of the apostles," in contrast to the "archives" (the Hebrew Scriptures).'® Irenaeus commented that there must be four, and only four, gospels.'' The fact that the documents that would become the New Testament were being read in worship demonstrates that they were already becoming authoritative and coming to be considered inspired scripture on the level of the Hebrew Scriptures."
The first to attempt a standardized list of authoritative Christian documents, as far as we know, was the heretic Marcion. He created a canon, or list of documents that he thought should be included in the Christian scriptures. Since he was a Docetic, however, he edited out anything that made Jesus sound too human, to the point where
12)
Reading the Early Church Fathers his canon was limited to edited versions of the Gospel of Luke and Paul's letters. He rejected the Old Testament entirely. In reality, it is likely that various bishops produced many different canonical lists for the Christians in their sees. The first that we know of to come from the mainstream Church is now called the Muratorian Canon, named after its discoverer, Ludovico Antonio Muratori (1672-1750).
It may have been written by the Roman priest Caius at the turn of the third century. This particular list-did not include some of the writings that are now in our New Testament, specifically Hebrews,
2 Peter, 3 John, and James. Nevertheless, by the end of the second century or the beginning of the third, there was a generally acknowledged group of documents more or less like our New Testament that was considered the scripture of the Church, along with the Old
Testament. Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus had both used the term New Testament by the end of the second century."
Criteria for Inclusion As the Church was debating which documents ought to be included in its New Testament, there were three basic criteria by which the documents were judged. Without a doubt, the most important was authorship. To be considered for inclusion, a document must have been written by an apostle or a close associate of an apostle.'* Apparently, one degree of separation was the maximum allowable distance from those who knew Jesus personally. If the authorship of a document was called into question, the document itself was suspect. If the authorship was deemed pseudonymous, the document was therefore not "genuine" and was rejected." Of course there was some debate and disagreements over the authorship of certain documents, which led to different lists with different documents included. It is important to note, however, that the gnostic documents (such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter) were universally recognized as later pseudonymous/heretical writings and were never considered for inclusion in the canon by the mainstream Church."
The early Christians did understand the issues surrounding the authorship of the first-century (and early second-century?) documents. In fact, the authorship of the Letter to the Hebrews
The New Testament Canon sparked considerable debate in the early Church. Eusebius admitted that the Roman Christians generally did not accept Hebrews as Pauline.' The Greek grammar was thought to be too good (and too different from the other letters) to be from Paul's pen."
However, Eusebius knew of a tradition going back to Clement of Alexandria that claimed that Paul had written Hebrews in Aramaic as an apologetic (or evangelistic) treatise for Jews, and that it was later translated into Greek by Luke." This would explain the different writing style. Paul's name was then presumably left off the document because his fellow Jews were suspicious of him. Eusebius himself believed that the letter was written by some disciple of Paul who wrote it from notes taken while listening to Paul's teaching.
Perhaps this disciple was Luke, perhaps Clement of Rome, perhaps another unknown disciple. In the end, though, Eusebius thinks it would be acceptable to consider the letter Pauline because the content comes from Paul." Eusebius also tells us that the authorship of the Catholic Epistles was disputed." It is interesting to note, however, that no early Church writer ever questioned the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles or Ephesians, or the traditional authorship of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke)."
The second criterion for inclusion in the canon was the ability to stand the test of time and use in worship. As we have seen, the letters of Paul were originally written to be read in the assembly, and the four gospels quickly gained a place in Christian liturgy.
As the apostolic documents were continually read in worship, they took their place alongside the psalms and the prophets as containing a divinely inspired message for the Church. For the most part, if a document was not suitable to be read in worship, it might not be considered acceptable as Christian scripture. But the criterion of apostolic authorship would trump this consideration, so that the Pauline authorship of Philemon and the Johannine authorship of Revelation would keep these documents on the list. In the end, the very fact that these documents were included is a witness to the relatively universal acceptance of their apostolic authorship."
The third criterion was citation by respected theologians.
This is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation, since in order for a document to be quoted by a theologian, it already must have had some measure of authority, or there would be no point in citing it
Reading the Early Church Fathers to support an argument. However the citation of a document by the theologians of the late second and third centuries cemented the authoritative status of the documents that would eventually be our
New Testament. This brings us to stage three.
Stage 3: The Authority of the Apostolic Documents Important and influential theologians such as Irenaeus and Tertullian were determined to support their arguments with scripture. They considered Scripture to be divine revelation, which was more reliable than human reason (that is, philosophy)."* Thus they assumed that the documents they quoted held some weight with their readers. But by quoting them, they gave them even more credibility and authority than they may have already had. The theologians of the late second and third centuries implicitly refined the list of authoritative books by choosing which ones to quote (and not to quote). Irenaeus quoted or referred to every book in our
New 'Testament, except perhaps Philemon and 3 John. Tertullian quoted every book except 2 Peter. By the time of Novatian, these books were included.
Stage 4: Standardization of the Canon Even though there was general agreement on many, if not most, of the apostolic documents as early as the end of the first century, there was no universal consensus on a precise canonical list of New 'Testament documents. In fact, the first extant list of authoritative Christian documents that corresponds exactly with our New
'Testament comes from the year 367 CE. This was Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria's Easter letter of that year. In his letter, he outlined which documents ought to be considered authoritative by the people under his authority. This does not mean that the year 367 saw universal acceptance of Athanasius's list. No doubt it took decades for some measure of standardization to take hold. On the other hand, this also does not mean that the New Testament was born in the fourth century. As we have seen, the process of development goes back to the writing of the documents and includes an assumption of some level of authority from the very beginning. In addition, there may have been lists that match our New Testament
The New Testament Canon from earlier than 367 but are no longer extant. The Codex
Sinaiticus, from the mid-fourth century, contains our whole New Testament, along with Barnabas and The Shepherd by Hermas.
In the end, some of our New Testament books almost didn't make the cut. For reasons of contested authorship, Hebrews,
James, 2 Peter, and 3 John took longer than most to gain acceptance.'> As we have seen, 3 John and then 2 Peter were the last ones to be universally accepted. In the end, however, it was determined that their authorship was genuine." The Book of Revelation was also questioned as to its suitability for inclusion, although not for reasons of authorship, since almost everyone in the early Church believed it was written by John the apostle." The problem with the Book of Revelation was the way that it was being interpreted and used by the Montanists and other millennialists. As we have seen, even Irenaeus and Tertullian fell into this camp. But most interpreters were convinced that such an interpretation was too literal and was missing the symbolic meaning of the text."
There were, of course, other early documents considered for inclusion in the canon that did not ultimately become part of our
Bible. The Didache, 1 Clement, and The Shepherd were all early contenders. Irenaeus apparently considered The Shepherd to be scripture. But in the end the lack of apostolic authorship, along with the other factors already mentioned in chapter 2, led to their exclusion.
PATRISTIC EXEGESIS
Exegesis is the "drawing out" of meaning from a text. When it comes to scripture, it is never enough to know what the text says; one must take the next step and ask what the text means." That meaning includes both the original intended meaning of the author and the relevance for the reader. Such is the task of interpretation."
Therefore, even when the early Christians could agree on which documents were authoritative, that did not mean they always agreed on their meaning or their message for the Church. The ongoing debates of the early Church are obvious evidence of that
Reading the Early Church Fathers fact. However, there were nine assumptions that the early
Christians shared when it came to the interpretation of scripture.
Assumption #1: The Sacred Texts, Including the New Testament, Are Divinely Inspired
As we have seen, the author of 2 Peter referred to the letters of Paul as scripture, on the same level of authority as the Hebrew
Scriptures (2 Pet 3:14-16). Thus the text of scripture was seen as having been inspired by the same Holy Spirit who inspired the prophets (John 14:26).'' In fact, Logos Christology affirmed that the text of scripture was a written record of the voice of the divine
Logos. To the early Christians, the written word was another incarnation of the living Word. Like the body of Jesus, the text of scripture enfleshes the Word of God. And like Jesus Christ, the written word is both divine and human: divinely inspired, yet written down by humans. The two natures of Christ are paralleled in the dual authorship of scripture. The early Christians did take the aspects of human authorship seriously; however, the ultimate author is God, and therefore every word in the text is there for a reason. As we will see, this conviction will lead some to look for spiritual meaning in even the smallest details of a biblical story. Finally, the same Holy
Spirit who inspired the writing of scripture would (with prayer) illuminate its interpretation."
Assumption #2: Revelation Is Progressive In the early Church, the concept of progressive revelation meant that God's intention for the human race gets clearer over time and as the needs of humanity change. Mysteries are revealed with time, so that in the Old Testament God the Father is presented clearly, but God the Son is veiled. In the New Testament, the Son of God is presented clearly, but the Holy Spirit is only partially revealed.
Finally, the experience of the Church reveals the Spirit to us.
Therefore, as Christians consider and debate the meaning to be discerned from scripture, each generation comes to greater clarity on the doctrines of Christology, soteriology, and even ecclesiology." This is not to say, however, that a new interpretation super-
The New Testament Canon sedes an older one. New interpretations can build on and further clarify older ones, but they cannot contradict the conclusions of previous generations. Progressive revelation and apostolic succession were considered interdependent, which meant that the orthodoxy of one's ancestors in the faith was the foundation on which to build the orthodoxy of the present day. Dionysius of Alexandria quoted Deuteronomy 19:14 as relevant on this point.** Just as one is not allowed to move the boundary markers set up by one's ancestors, one also does not contradict the accepted doctrines of the previous generations. These accepted doctrines are the very boundary markers of orthodoxy.
It is important to keep in mind that in the ancient world, that which is older is usually assumed to be better than whatever is newer.*> The older, established interpretation is the tradition, which cannot be changed; it can only be further clarified. The writers of the patristic era would not want to be thought of as innovators. They would not want to be perceived as creating anything new, since what is new.is automatically suspect as somehow disconnected from the tradition. The tradition, on the other hand, comes from those who were closest to the Source (Jesus), and it was of the utmost importance to remain consistent with the witness of the apostles.'
Assumption #3: There Are Multiple Meanings in Any Given 'Text Because the ultimate author of scripture is God, the human author's intended meaning is not the only valid meaning to be gained from a text. Patristic exegesis allows for multiple meanings, and in fact the early Christians believed that God intended multiple meanings so that the scriptures could never be completely mastered or fully understood. The scriptures are a bottomless well, so that no one should think he had drunk his fill of them. Perhaps the best example of this principle would be the way that the gospel writers attribute many of the details of the life of Jesus to the fulfillment of prophecy. It is one thing to say that generally acknowledged messianic prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus. But the apostles went so far as to say that texts in the Hebrew Scriptures that were
Reading the Early Church Fathers never thought of as messianic prophecies (such as Isaiah 53, the "suffering servant") were also fulfilled by Jesus. The early Christians therefore reasoned that even though the human author of an Old Testament text had one meaning in mind, God had another meaning in mind for the future Church." Thus the suffering Messiah, an oxymoron to the Jewish mind, is God's mystery revealed in Jesus Christ.
Assumption #4: Paradox Is to Be Embraced, Not Avoided We have already seen how groups on the fringes of the Church could pick and choose scripture to support their Christologies.** The Ebionites rejected texts that affirmed the divinity of Christ (such as Col 2:9), while the Docetics rejected texts that affirmed his humanity (such as Luke 2:40). What the mainstream Church rejected, however, was the presumption of editing scripture. Assuming divine inspiration, even apparently contradictory texts must be held together as true; one cannot be ignored in favor of the other. Once the decision was made that a particular document was to be considered scripture, the question was not whether the text is true, but ow it is true in light of other biblical texts. The heretics were seen as those who took scripture out of context and "prooftexted" their agendas, while the orthodox were those who accepted mystery and embraced the paradox. No doubt this is an idealistic and oversimplified comparison, but it was nevertheless the claim of the extant mainstream bishops.
Assumption #5: Patristic Exegesis Follows the Lead of Apostolic Exegesis The apologists and theologians of the early Church accepted the methodology of Matthew and Paul when it came to interpreting the Old Testament. Like a Christian midrash (commentary), the New 'Testament interpreted the Old in light of the life and ministry of Jesus. The best interpretation was christocentric. This had the advantage of keeping the Church connected to the Old Testament
(not only against docetism, but also to demonstrate that
The New Testament Canon Christianity is not really something new but the fulfillment of something older than philosophy), even while it allowed the Church to set aside certain aspects of Judaism such as sacrifices and dietary laws."
As we have seen, Logos and kenosis Christology of the second and third centuries affirmed the preincarnation activity of the second person of the Trinity. In other words, Christ appeared in the Old Testament. This was made necessary by the belief that "no one can see God and live" (Exod 33:20), and yet there are times in the Old Testament where people do see a manifestation of the Divine. The early Christians interpreted these theophanies as appearances of the divine Logos in his preexistent state. Hippolytus said that the reason the Messiah is referred to in Daniel 7 as "one like a son of man" is because he was not yet the Son of Man, since he was not yet human." In interpreting the Old Testament christologically, the early Christians were not only doing what the apostles had done, they were doing what Jesus had done (Luke 24,
John 5)."
Assumption #6: Scripture Interprets Scripture Since God is the author of both the Old and New Testaments, there is an assumed consistency of purpose and ultimate meaning across the two testaments.* This is, of course, necessary, not only to affirm that Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, but also for the refutation of Marcionite rejection of the Old
Testament. In practice, it means that obscure texts can be interpreted using other (presumably clearer) texts. There is an internal integrity of scripture, regardless of differences in authorship and historical context, that allows the exegete to combine texts from different biblical documents and look for a harmonized meaning."
Assumption #7: In General, Interpretation of the Old 'Testament Was Nonliteral Since there were two authors behind any text, God and the human author, most passages had at least two meanings. When it came to the interpretation of the Old Testament, the literal (his-
Reading the Early Church Fathers torical) meaning of the human (that is, Jewish) author was seen as secondary to the spiritual meaning that God had in mind for the Church. The early Christians reasoned that if all one had was the literal meaning, then the Old Testament would be irrelevant for the Church. Therefore, the nonliteral meaning(s) would be held up as the higher, or perhaps the deeper, meaning. The most important meaning is not the one on the surface but the one hidden under the surface, since in the Old Testament: Christ is veiled. The true meaning of the Old Testament could not be understood until
Christ was revealed in his incarnation." In fact, to interpret the Old Testament literally would come to be criticized as a "Jewish" way of interpretation." To focus on the literal/historical meaning of an Old Testament passage was to fail to take Christ into account. For example, a literal (Jewish) interpretation of 2 Samuel 7:12 would focus on Solomon as the heir to David's throne and the one who would build the Temple in Jerusalem. A spiritual (Christian) interpretation of that passage would focus on Jesus Christ as the descendant of David and the king of an eternal kingdom.
Technically speaking, there were two types of nonliteral interpretation, typology and allegory. Typology, famously attributed to Irenaeus, really goes back to the apostle Paul and even to Jesus himself (for examples, see Matthew 12:40 and 1 Corinthians
15:44-47)." Using typology, Old Testament concepts and events are seen as foreshadowing or symbolizing details in the life and ministry of Christ. The Old Testament can then be interpreted as not only predicting Christ but pointing to him. As we have seen,
Irenaeus wanted to counteract the Gnostics' rejection of the Old Testament, so he expanded the concept of typology, and the early
Church followed his lead in looking for parallels between Old Testament and New 'Testament elements. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is a type of the cross; Eve is a type of Mary; the crossing of the Red Sea and the water from the rock are types of baptism; the manna in the desert is a type of the Eucharist.* In fact, over time any mention of wood in the Old Testament became a reminder of the cross, and any mention of water became a call to Christian baptism."
Allegory, often attributed to Origen, actually comes from Greek philosophy. In an attempt to maintain the old mythologies
The New Testament Canon in spite of the obvious anthropomorphisms (not to mention immoralities) of the gods, the philosophers advocated interpreting the myths as metaphors that would encourage virtue. In other words, the literal meaning of the myths left one with gods no one should emulate, let alone worship, but the philosophers believed that the myths could be redeemed and reconciled with their own teachings through the use of allegory." Working with Plato's dichotomy between the material and the spiritual, Philo of Alexandria articulated two levels of meaning to be found in a text. The literal meaning was analogous to Plato's material realm, which is not necessarily bad but is certainly inferior to the spiritual. The spiritual meaning was therefore the deeper meaning, more important and indeed truer than the literal.*' And because the spiritual meaning had a divine origin, even the smallest details could be allegorized and interpreted as significant."
With allegorical interpretation, the details of a biblical text can come to represent abstract realities or moral virtues." The point is that in this method of interpretation, the situation of the reader/interpreter is more important than the context of the author of a text. For example, the Church allowed itself to forgo the Hebrew dietary laws by interpreting them allegorically." The unclean animals become metaphors for human vices, so God doesn't really care whether you eat pork, God only cares that you don't act like a pig. The prohibition from eating weasels really means that God does not want us to act like weasels. Weasels are thieves, and so the message from God for the Church is: Don't be a thief. In the restriction to animals with cloven hooves, the two parts of the hoof represent the two testaments." To have one testament only (the Old 'Testament, like the Jews; or the New Testament, like the Marcionites) would not be adequate. True faith requires two testaments, both the Old and the New.
Another kind of allegory is the so-called "vertical" (or anagogical) allegory. This assumes a continuity between what happens on earth and what happens in heaven. Events in the material realm then become lessons about the spiritual realm (for example, see
Luke 11:13).
Allegory might be built into the text, such as in a parable, or it might be used to interpret a text with no inherent allegory. Either
Reading the Early Church Fathers way, the temptation to find meaning in every detail was sometimes too much for the early Christian exegete to resist. Theoretically, the principle of scripture interpreting scripture was supposed to provide some measure of checks and balances, but in actual practice some of the interpretations were so speculative as to be farfetched.*® As we will see, this will result in a backlash against allegorical interpretation in some circles.
In practice, there was not always a clear distinction between typology and allegory. The primary difference between the two is that with typology, there seems to be an acceptance of the historicity of the Old Testament types, because God was at work in human history." With allegory, on the other hand, there is no need for the details to be historical. We can see this in Jesus' parables. It is not necessary for the story of the Good Samaritan to have actually happened for Jesus' point to be made. But when Jesus uses typology and compares the coming tribulation to Old Testament events, he seems to assume the historical reality of those events.
Just as the philosophers saw allegorical interpretation as necessary for holding on to the Greco-Roman myths, the Christians knew that nonliteral interpretation was necessary to redeem the Old Testament from its own anthropomorphisms of God." While the mainstream Christians knew that such anthropomorphisms could not be taken literally, it was precisely the literal interpretation of the Old Testament that led the Docetics and Gnostics to reject it.' Nonliteral interpretation was also necessary to interpret certain Old Testament promises as having been fulfilled in Jesus.
Finally, a nonliteral interpretation was seen as essential if the Church hoped to attract philosophically minded, educated Romans.
The point for the early Christians was that the Old Testament has a spiritual meaning that is deeper and more important than the literal meaning. The literal meaning might be good enough for the uneducated (or for the Jews), but those who are enlightened and who are serious about their Christian faith and the scriptures will not be satisfied with the literal meaning; they will look for the spiritual meaning. When it came to the Old Testament, then, the Church was left with two choices: either interpret it literally and reject it (as the Marcionites and Gnostics did) as the product of an ignorant people or an untrustworthy demigod, or interpret it non-
The New Testament Canon literally and accept it (as the mainstream Church did) as a divine mystery that is only revealed in hindsight after the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Assumption #8: In General, Interpretation of the New Testament Was Literal The Old Testament and the New Testament were considered complimentary, but while the deeper meaning was hidden in the Old 'Testament, spiritual meaning in the New Testament was thought to be closer to the surface. Therefore, one could read most of the New Testament literally, as recent history, and reserve nonliteral methods of interpretation for when it was made necessary by the genre of the text (such as the parables and hyperbole used by Jesus, as well as the apocalyptic sections of the gospels and the Book of Revelation)."
As we have seen, the Gnostics interpreted the Old Testament literally and used that.as a rationale to reject it and claim that the God of the Old Testament was not the God and Father of Jesus
Christ. Ironically, the Gnostics tended to interpret the New 'Testament nonliterally, especially to discount the human nature of Christ.* The mainstream Church and the Gnostics had opposite approaches to scripture. It is no wonder that the Gnostics would eventually separate from the Church and even write their own scriptures. For the mainstream Church, it was not a simple question of literal versus nonliteral; the key was knowing when to use a literal and when to use a nonliteral interpretation.
Assumption #9: Interpretation Is Meant to Be Done in the Context of Prayer Finally, the early Christian authors agreed that the interpretation of scripture is not an academic exercise but part of a devotional life. Most of the early exegetes were pastors—priests and bishops who interpreted scripture for the Church, not in a vacuum but as part of a community (2 Pet 1:20). In fact, it could be said that interpreting scripture was an act of worship and therefore must be accompanied by prayer. The same Holy Spirit who inspired the
Reading the Early Church Fathers writing of the text must be invoked to inspire the reading of the text." As saints Augustine and Anselm came to realize, faith must precede understanding.
THE HISTORY OF PATRISTIC EXEGESIS
While all of the above was true in general, it is difficult to say whether it was all true all at once. Like anything else, the Church's understanding of scripture and its interpretation varied depending on time and place. And just as there were four stages of the development of the canon, there were also four stages of the development of interpretation.
Stage 1: Two Levels of Meaning Irenaeus and 'Tertullian in the second and third centuries exemplify the first stage of patristic exegesis. Even though they claimed to reject philosophy, they were still sufficiently influenced by Platonism to assume that there was a spiritual meaning in scripture that was more important than the literal meaning. Therefore, scripture has two levels of meaning, the literal and the spiritual.
Even in the New Testament, where they would claim that the spiritual meaning is on the surface, the smallest of details in the narrative could be allegorized to find an even deeper meaning. The spiritual meaning could be interpreted using typology or allegory, but the overall concern is that the interpretation be christological.
The basic rule of thumb would be, if the literal interpretation of any text does not lead one to Christ, then one must look for a spiritual meaning.
Stage 2: Three Levels of Meaning The second stage covers the third through the fifth centuries, though after the third century it is most prevalent in the West and Alexandria. This is traditionally said to be the legacy of Clement of Alexandria and Origen, and the catechetical school of Alexandria is often associated with the methodology of allegorical interpretation.
Loo
The New Testament Canon Other notable examples of stage two include Ambrose of Milan and the early careers of Augustine and Jerome.
In this stage the interpretation of scripture was compared to an ancient understanding of the human person, which was thought to have three parts: body, soul, and spirit (or mind). Thus there were three levels of meaning in scripture. The literal meaning was parallel to the body, grounded in the material world and therefore historical, but less valuable than the spiritual. The spiritual meaning was compared to the spirit or mind. While there may be some value in the literal meaning, the most important meaning for the Church is the spiritual meaning, since that is where the Church gets its doctrine. As before, the spiritual meaning can be derived from typological or allegorical interpretation. But this stage adds a third level of meaning, in between the literal and the spiritual.
Corresponding to the soul of the human is the moral meaning of the text. This is the practical relevance for Christian behavior. It is not as important as theology (the spiritual meaning) but it is more important than history (the literal meaning). Therefore, the three levels of meaning can be expressed in this way:
Literal (Historical)—What Jesus did Moral (Ethical)—What we should do Spiritual (Theological)—What we should believe
The three levels of meaning were described using an analogy of an egg. Just as an egg has three layers—shell, white, and yolk— so scripture has three layers that need to be peeled back to reveal its deepest meanings. One has to begin with the shell (the literal meaning), but one cannot stop there. In reality, not every text even has a literal meaning (for example, the highly symbolic Book of Revelation). Because of divine inspiration, however, every text has a spiritual meaning.® The serious student of scripture cannot be satisfied with the surface meaning but must go on to the deeper meanings. For Origen, spiritual maturity meant seeing the spiritual meaning in scripture. Origen even argued that God might purposely insert historical inaccuracies into the text as clues to tell the reader to look beyond the literal to find the deeper meaning." Thus
Reading the Early Church Fathers there may be things in the text that are not historically true but are nevertheless "truthful" in the sense of beneficial."
Stage 3: Reaction against Allegory— Back to Two Levels of Meaning Stage three covers roughly the fourth and fifth centuries, primarily in the East (Antioch and Asia Minor). It is a reaction against allegorical interpretation (perceived as overallegorizing) and a renewed appreciation for the literal meaning. This methodology is traditionally associated with the church in Antioch and contributes to the (often exaggerated) rivalry between Antioch and Alexandria.
It seems to begin officially with Lucian of Antioch (c. 240-312) and his dislike of Origen, though it may go back as far as Theophilus.
In his later career, Jerome would also find affinity with this school of thought. If the Alexandrians were influenced by Plato, the Antiochenes were influenced more by Aristotle." They wanted a more concrete interpretation and feared that the allegorical method would lead to excessive speculation, which, in turn, would ultimately lead to heresy." This was, in fact, one of the primary criticisms of Origen. Opponents of allegory argued that it could be used to make the text say anything the interpreter wants it to say.
The allegorization of every detail in a biblical story was being used, they feared, to draw out messages that were not really there. In a sense, allegory had disengaged the text from its historical context, and like a ship without an anchor, it was left adrift in a sea of speculation."
While this does not mean that interpretation was no longer going to be christological, the Antiochenes recognized the necessity of taking the historical provenance of a text seriously, to the point of advocating study of the Old Testament on its own terms, apart from the New Testament." Therefore they gravitated toward the literal/historical interpretation as primary because they wanted to understand the intended meaning of the author of a text, before attempting to find a meaning for the Church." In other words, to know what a text means, one first has to know what it meant.
Proponents of this reactionary movement advocated using the literal sense of the text whenever possible. If there was a moral
The New Testament Canon meaning to be found, it would probably be found in the plain meaning on the surface somewhere in the Bible. They reasoned that if God wants us to behave a certain way, he will tell us plainly.
Allegorical interpretation was still a possibility, but was to be used only when absolutely necessary. Even then, the spiritual meaning must always be consistent with the literal and must never contradict the plain meaning of the text anywhere in scripture. Thus this stage moved back toward two levels of meaning (literal/historical and spiritual), with a preference for the literal.
Stage 4: The Middle Way— Four Levels of Meaning The final stage of patristic exegesis represents a kind of middle way between extreme allegory and the rejection of allegory.
This stage begins in the late fourth and early fifth centuries and continues into the Middle Ages. Its most famous advocate is
Augustine of Hippo. Augustine would agree with the Antiochenes that the literal meaning of the scriptures is the foundation for all other meaning, and that the spiritual meaning must be grounded in the historical." Interpretation without a sense of tradition would always lead to heresy." On the other hand, Augustine maintained that the historical meaning of the Old Testament was not always adequate for the Church, and that the Old Testament had to be read through the lens of the New. For Augustine, biblical history was not history for its own sake but served the purpose of prophecy." Therefore, if the literal meaning did not point to Christ, a deeper meaning must be sought.
Augustine's interpretive touchstone was the law of love. Any interpretation of scripture that did not lead one to love God and neighbor was incorrect." Therefore, if the literal meaning did not accomplish this goal, one needed to look for other layers of meaning. Even the allegorization of minor details was fair game if it supported the rule of love." Thus Augustine incorporated what he saw as the best elements of the prior stages and brought the art of interpretation to a certain plateau for the Church. As he understood it, there were four levels of meaning in scripture, one literal and three spiritual." The literal meaning includes not only the historical sit-
Reading the Early Church Fathers uation but also the original (human) author's intended meaning.
The three levels of spiritual meaning are the analogical (which included both allegory and typology); the moral (what is expected of us, based on what we believe about Christ); and the anagogical
(vertical allegory):®° Literal (Historical)—What happened Analogical (Theological)—What we should believe
Moral (Ethical)—How we should behave Anagogical (Eschatological)—What we hope for