PHD 2016 Scripture

Adv Historical Theology CGST 1 Feb 2016 L-4: Scripture
Do not copy without written permission 2016 Rev. E. Manges, Ph.D.
Bring:
p. 1
Lecture 4, H ours 25-32
L ECTURE 4 - S CRIPTURE: C ANON AND I NTERPRETATION

Discussion of the readings for Canon
Lecture on Canon
The Four Gospels
Excursus on bodies of literature
The lost gospels
Gospels of Philip and Thomas - survey of contents
Two provokers: Marcion and Montanus
Discussion of the readings for Interpretation
Lecture on Interpretation
Lecture on Authority
DISTRIBUTE PAPER ASSIGNMENT

ANNOUNCE:
- Final to cover only L 1 & 2 (sent to you already)
- L 5 & 6 on Mary. But do the readings for L 6 anyway
See Theology/inhouse/Why cant we just read the Bible? DAC interview
Discussion of the readings for Canon

24 Irenaeus, Four gospels only = Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.11.11 in A new Eusebius:
Documents illustrating the history of the Church to AD 337, J. Stevenson, ed., rev. by W. H. C.
Frend (SPCK, 1987), pp. 117-118 = 2 pages.
This piece from Irenaeus was written in 185.
DS Q: Why does Irenaeus feel the need to present the case for only the four canonical gospels?
DS Q: The modern editor comments at the bottom of p. 118 that we cannot take seriously the
arguments Irenaeus presents for there being only four gospels. If so, what is the significance for us
of this piece?
It is a witness to the four gospels and only those four as canonical at end of 2nd cent.
25 Muratorian fragment = The Scriptures Acknowledged by the Roman Church, c. 190, # 103 in
A new Eusebius: Documents illustrating the history of the Church to AD 337, J. Stevenson, ed.,
rev. by W. H. C. Frend (SPCK, 1987), pp. 123-125 = 3 pages.
DS Q: What is the significance of this piece?
See Allison 42: this list is even earlier than Irenaeus, dating to 170 AD and includes all our
NT except Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John.
p. 2
26 Council of Trent decree on the canon = Council of Trent, Fourth Session, Decree concerning
the canonical scriptures in Canons and decrees of the Council of Trent, H. J. Schroeder, trans.
(Tan Books, 1978), pp. 17-20 = 4 pages.
Note the curses (anathema) for those who do not accept this canon.
DS Q: What did Trent say about the Latin Vulgate ?
DS Q: What does Trent say about interpretation of Scripture?
27 Kruger Canon misconception # 3 = Michael J. Kruger, 10 Misconceptions About the NT

Canon: #3: The NT Authors Did Not Think They Were Writing Scripture = 3 pages, accessed on
13 December 2015 at
http://michaeljkruger.com/10-misconceptions-about-the-nt-canon-3-the-nt-authors-did-not-think-t
hey-were-writing-scripture/
DS Q: Respond to the exegesis he uses in this post. 1Thess 2.13, 1Cor 14.37-38, Lk 1.1-4, Rev
1.1-3, Rev 22.18-19.
[ The readings notes for interpretation are later in these notes ]
Lecture on the Canon:
THE FOUR GOSPELS

Why do we have four gospels and not one? Why only four when perhaps there were many others
to be considered?
A list of the other gospels composed before 175 AD: 1
Following William L. Petersen, The Diatessaron and the Fourfold Gospel in Charles Horton, ed., The
earliest Gospels (T & T Clark, 2004), 51, cited in C. E. Hill, Who chose the Gospels? Probing the great gospel
conspiracy (Oxford University Press, 2010), 8; and Hills glossary, 252-255. Details on Infancy Gospel of James
are from Manges.
p. 3
Gospel of the Ebionites, c 125. Quotes only in Epiphanius of Salamis (late 4th c). Might be same
as G Nazoraeans and G Hebrews.
Gospel of the Egyptians c 125. Nag Hammadi.
Gospel of the Hebrews c 125. Quotes only in Clement, Origen, Jerome. Might be same as G
Nazoraeans and G Ebionites.
Gospel of the Nazoraeans c 125. Might be same as G Hebrews and G Ebionites. Quotes in
Jerome.
Gospel of Thomas c 140-190. 114 so-called sayings of Jesus, mostly dependent on the 4
canonicals, and when it differs it demonstrates Gnostic ideas (cf G.Th 114 on women)
Gospel of Peter c 150. Survives in pieces only, seems to be a reworking of the 4 canonicals.
Unknown gospel c 150. Survives in two tiny fragments, may not be a separate gospel.
Gospel of Judas c 170. Known by Irenaeus but lost until 2006. Sethian gnostic.
Documents labeled as gospel but not really fitting the genre:
Infancy Gospel of James c 170. Some say it should not be labeled a gospel as its subject matter is
Mary, the mother of Jesus, not Jesus himself. Not Gnostic, but certainly docetic.
Gospel of Mary c 175. A dialogue between the risen Jesus and disciples.
Infancy Gospel of Thomas c 175. A collection of stories about the boy Jesus.
Early witnesses to our four canonical gospels:
Justin Martyr says in his First Apology (before 160) that in Christian worship services what is read
is either the OT prophets or the memoirs of the Apostles, meaning the Gospels; thus clearly
setting the Gospels on an equal level of authority with the OT Scriptures.2
Irenaeus, c 185 in AH 3.11. The value of his comments is that he takes it as given that there are
only four Gospels.
C. E. Hill comments:
The problem with Irenaeus is that he simply wrecks the popular paradigm. His
views about the emerging New Testament canon, and about the four Gospels in
particular, are simply too well-developed, too mature, to fit the scheme that many
have invested themselves in today. As a second-century Christian author who
argues that there are, and can only be, four legitimate Gospels because they alone
teach the truth about Jesus and because they alone had been handed down in the
church from the time of the apostles Irenaeus lies like a fallen Redwood in the
path of those who would see the choice of the four Gospels as a late and politically
motivated manoeuvre of the fourth century.3
Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 67, Leslie W. Barnard, trans., Ancient Christian Writers 56 (New York:
Paulist, 1997), 71.
3
Hill, 41.
p. 4
NB: Redwood refers to a species of giant trees in North America which are the largest and
tallest trees in the world.
Hill cites other witnesses near to the time of Irenaeus, all attesting to the four Gospels:
Hippolytus of Rome, c 202 (Commentary on Daniel 1.17
Tertullian of Carthage, c 207-212 (Against Marcion 4.2.2)
Origen of Alexandria, c 226 (Commentary on John 1.6).
Origen knows of other gospels but rejects them. In his Homilies on Luke he says:
The Church has four Gospels. Heretics have very many . . . Many
have tried to write [referring to Lukes wording in Luke 1.1] but
only four Gospels have been approved. Our doctrines about the
Person of our Lord and Savior should be drawn from these
approved Gospels. I know one gospel called According to Thomas,
and another According to Matthias.4
Excursus on labels for bodies of literature

Apocrypha = material written by Jews in the intertestamental period. Sometimes this term refers
to all non-canonical ancient writings.
Deuterocanon = the label preferred by Catholics for the Apocrypha
Pseudepigrapha = Books with a name attached that are not a genuine work of that person. This
was a common practice in the ancient world, usually to gain more readers. Sometimes the author
would ascribe a more famous name to their own work and other times someone other than the
author would do so to a work deemed worthy of a wider audience. The names so employed were
usually famous names from the past. A secular example is the situation with Galen ( c. 130- c.
200), the medical writer who wrote on medicine and philosophy (and made several references to
Christians, among the first from any pagan writer). Galen became the personal physician to the
Emperor Commodus (depicted as the bad guy in the film Gladiators). Galen was so miffed at
those appropriating his name for their own works that he published a list of his authentic writings.5
Examples in Christian literature include the Epistle of Barnabas, the Infancy Gospel of James, etc.
It is obvious from the content these works were not written by the names attached to them.
OT Pseudepigrapha = books written by Jews (mostly Hellenistic) that are identified with a figure of
4
5
Hill 45.
Michael P. McHugh, Galen, and James H. Charlesworth, Pseudepigraphy in Encyclopedia of Early

Christianity, 2nd edn (New York: Garland, 1998).
p. 5
OT history. Some examples (not a complete list):

Epistle of Aristeas c. 200 - 150 BC.
Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs c. 200 - 50 BC. (Only portions, other parts early Christian)
Apocalypse of Enoch (Ethiopic) c. 200 BC - 50 AD.
Martyrdom and ascension of Isaiah c. 100 BC. (First section only, other two early Christian)
Apocryphon of Ezekiel c. 50 - 1 BC.
Testament of Moses c. 1 - 50 AD. (Quoted in Jude 9)
NT Apocrypha = Literature by Gnostics and others written after 150 AD. Eg: Protevangelium
Jacobi (Infancy gospel of James), Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Philip, The Acts of Paul, Acts of
John, etc., Apocalypse of Peter, etc.
Excursus on so-called lost Gospels
(CH L2 2016 CGST)
In addition to the four gospels in our Bibles, there are other ancient documents which claim to be
gospels. Some of these: the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Philip and Gospel of Peter, etc. Most
of these were written by Gnostics.
Four reasons why the four Gospels in our NT are the only true Gospels:
1. The four Gospels were written a century earlier than the Gnostic gospels.
The letters of Paul and the Four Gospels were all written much earlier than any of the so-called
hidden or Gnostic Gospels.
As you can see from the timeline, all of the NT documents were written before 85 AD. This is
within the living memory of the thousands who actually were eye and ear witnesses to the life and
teachings of Jesus, a point made by the Apostle John, in 1 John 1.1-3
That which was from the beginning which we have seen with our eyes, which we have
looked at and our hands have touched this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The
life appeared, we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life which
was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and
heard.
There is no Gnostic document we know of that was written before 150 AD. The earliest parts of
the NT were written almost a century before the earliest Gnostic documents.
A character in the novel The Da Vinci Code claims that there were more than eighty gospels
floating around in the early centuries of the history of the church and that all were suppressed
except for the Four we now have because only those Four fit the political agenda of the church
leaders.
p. 6
There is no evidence whatsoever for such a process. In fact outside of the Four Gospels we find in
our NT, there were only four or five others, and not one of them was ever considered by the
church as Scripture because they were written one or two centuries after the Four Gospels and
their contents, when not directly borrowed from the Four, clearly contradicted them.
2. The Jesus in the Gnostic Gospels is not the true Jesus
The contents of the so-called lost gospels present a picture of Jesus entirely foreign to the
testimony of his disciples found in the NT.
I will cite a couple of examples, though there are many more.
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas attempts to provide details from the childhood of Jesus.
Remember, this document was probably written 150 years after the earthly ministry of Jesus.
Heres a passage from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas 4.1-5.2:6
Later he [the boy Jesus] was going through the village when a boy ran by and
bumped him on the shoulder. Jesus got angry and said to him, You wont
continue your journey. And all of a sudden he fell down dead. Some people saw
what had happened and said, Where has this boy come from? Everything he says
happens instantly!
The parents of the dead boy came to Joseph and blamed him, saying, Because you
have such a boy, you cant live with us in the village, or else teach him to bless and
not curse. Hes killing our children!
So Joseph summoned his child and admonished him in private, saying, Why are
you doing all this? These people are suffering and so they hate us and harass us.
Jesus said, I know that the words I spoke are not my words. Still, Ill keep quiet
for your sake. But those people must take their punishment. There and then his
accusers became blind.
And a second passage later on in the same work, Infancy Gospel of Thomas 14.1-5: 7
When Joseph say the childs aptitude, and his great intelligence for his age, he again
resolved that Jesus should not remain illiterate. So he took him and handed him
over to another teacher. The teacher said to Joseph, First Ill teach him Greek,
then Hebrew. . . . he wrote out the alphabet and instructed him for quite a while,
6
Infancy Gospel of Thomas 4.1 to 5.2, edited and translated by Ronald F. Hock, The Infancy Gospels of
James and Thomas, The Scholars Bible, Vol. 2 (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press, 1995), 109-111.
7
Infancy Gospel of Thomas 14.1-5, in Hock, The Infancy Gospels of James and Thomas, 133.
p. 7
though Jesus was unresponsive.

Then Jesus spoke, If youre really a teacher, and if you know the letters well, tell
me the meaning of the letter alpha, and Ill tell you the meaning of beta.
The teacher became exasperated and hit him on the head. Jesus got angry and
cursed him, and the teacher immediately lost consciousness and fell facedown on
the ground. The child returned to Josephs house. But Joseph was upset and gave
this instruction to his mother, Dont let him go outside, because those who annoy
him end up dead.
Other passages from these so-called lost gospels portray the boy Jesus striking dead a playmate
that annoys him.
It is clear why the orthodox leaders of the early church rejected these writings. A Catholic scholar
has said that the church refused to recognize these writings as Scripture because they were only
the rubbish of the second century.8
A couple of additional points taken from The Da Vinci Code:
A key part of the novels plot is the assertion that the early church promoted the teaching of Jesus
as God and suppressed and persecuted any teaching of Jesus as human.
In reality, it was many of the Gnostics who denied the humanity of Jesus. The orthodox church
leaders were vigorous in defending the idea that Jesus was a real human person. They did so
because the earliest records, the writings of the Apostles, said he was.
Indeed, from the time of the Apostles right up until today, the mainstream of orthodox church
teaching has always been that Jesus is both human and divine. This is vital to our salvation for
while only God could accomplish salvation for us, only a human being could die in our place on the
cross.
Gnostic documents were rejected by the church because they contradicted the eye-witness
accounts on this issue.
3. The Gnostic gospels teach hatred of women, marriage and the physical body.
A second idea presented in Dan Browns book is that the Gnostics were persecuted by the
orthodox church because the Gnostics were pro-women. This deeply offended the all-male church
leaders, who tried to stamp out this early form of feminism.
Raymond Brown in his New York Times review of The Gnostic Gospels, cited by Darrell L. Bock,
Breaking the Da Vinci Code (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2004), 123.
p. 8
Dan Brown took this idea from certain liberal scholars. The most famous of these is Elaine Pagels,
a professor at Princeton, whose book The Gnostic Gospels was a bestseller a few years ago.
Yet again if one actually reads the Gnostic literature we find that it is extremely anti-women.
Listen to the final verse from the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas:
Simon Peter said to them, Make Mary leave us, for females are not worthy of life.
Jesus said, Look, I shall guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a
living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will
enter the Kingdom of Heaven.9
The Gospel of Philip, part of the Nag Hammadi collection, overtly states that sex and marriage are
great evils. It also says the physical human body is contemptible, fit only to be destroyed.10
Views like these are found in nearly every Gnostic writing.
4. Knowing which were the true Gospels was a matter of life and death for the early Christians
You will notice on the timeline that Ive indicated a couple of times of persecution. Between the
years 100 to 312 Christians were sometimes persecuted by the government of the Roman Empire.
Often when Roman soldiers came to the door of a Christian familys home, one of the things they
would ask, at the point of a sword, was if the family had any copies of the Christian Scriptures
inside. We know that many hundreds if not thousands were put to death or tortured because they
refused to reveal the hiding places of their precious Scriptures.
Can you see how important it would be to know precisely what books were Scripture and what
werent? There are no records of Christians dying for refusing to turn over copies of the Gospel of
Thomas. But we have eye witness accounts from this time period which state that our sisters and
brothers did refuse to hand over precious hand-written copies of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John.
A believer facing the point of a Roman sword needed to know which books hidden in his house
were so holy that he would rather be killed than turn them over to be burned.
THE GOSPELS OF PHILIP AND THOMAS

The Gospel of Philip, 29 pgs, Layton 1987. [From 102 HT AGST, diss ch 4, & some new]
In 1945 a cache of scrolls was discovered outside of the Egyptian town of Nag Hammadi. This
Gospel of Thomas 114 in Elaine Pagels, Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (New York:
Random House, 2003), 241-242.
10
Gospel of Philip, trans. by Wesley W. Isenberg, in the Nag Hammadi Library in English, ed. J. M.
Robinson (New York, 1977), (hereafter cited as NHLE), 75.2-3, p. 154. 56.24-26, p. 144 and 82.26-29, p. 158.
p. 9
material turns out to contain over 50 separate works, many of them Gnostic. Among them was the
Gospel of Philip.
The Gospel of Philip, one of the documents found near Nag Hammadi, is of gnostic provenance,
possibly Valentinian.11 It was written sometime in the third century. It is not a life of Jesus, but
rather a loose collection of sayings attributed to him.12 Because it is a collection from various
Gnostic sources, it does not present a coherent system of any single Gnostic school.13
Rejection of the physical world and the body demonstrate the gnostic character of this document.
The world came into being through transgression. The creation of the world is a great sin,
committed by a being that is not incorruptable nor immortal (85, Layton 346). This being is
mentioned in 34 p 336 as Ekhamoth the little wisdom.14
The human body is contemptible, fit only to be destroyed.15 According to this gospel the
existential malady of humanity results from the differentiation of the sexes.16
Another text that depicts a very low view of the physical human body: When Abraham [ . . . ] to
behold what he was going to behold, [he] circumcised the flesh of the foreskin, telling us that it is
fitting to mortify the flesh. (103, Layton 351)
The fall is described as a separation of the original human into male and female:
In the days when Eve was [in] Adam, death did not exist. When she was separated
from him, death came into existence. If he [reenters] and takes it unto himself
death will not exist. (63, Layton 342)
Sexual intercourse between men and women is evil: Every act of sexual intercourse that has
occurred between beings that do not resemble one another is adultery. (36, Layton 336). See
also 52 p 339. Thus we have a spiritualizing of marriage in 102 p 351.
11
The document has both Valentinian and Sethian elements, D. Scholer, Gnosis, Gnosticism, in
Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, ed. R. P. Martin and P. H. Davids (Leicester:
InterVarsity, 1997), 410.
12
G. Filoramo, Nag Hammadi Writings in EEC 570, and Harold W. Attridge, Gospel of Philip EE
Chr. 1.477-478. Despite its title it is a loose compendium of sayings of Jesus, not a proper Gospel, H. Koester,
Ancient Christian Gospels 47.
13
Bentley Layton, Introduction in The Gnostic Scriptures, Anchor Biblical Reference Library
(Doubleday 1987), 31 ff.
14
Bentley Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures: A New Translation with Annotations and Introductions, The
Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1987).
15
Gospel of Philip, trans. by Wesley W. Isenberg, in the Nag Hammadi Library in English, ed. J. M.
Robinson (New York, 1977), (hereafter cited as NHLE), 75.2-3, p. 154. 56.24-26, p. 144 and 82.26-29, p. 158
16
W. Isenberg, Introduction to the Gospel of Philip, NHLE 140.
p. 10
The goal of salvation is to bring the soul back to the higher world. Isenberg notes:
Salvation involves restoration of the soul to the supernal world from which it came.
This was made possible by the coming of Jesus Christ, who ransomed souls held
captive by hostile cosmic forces. The process of restoration is mediated through an
elaborate sacramental system involving baptism, anointing, eucharist, ransom, and
the bridal chamber.5
Instead, each believer must seek spiritual union with his heavenly counterpart. This is done in a
ceremony involving a bridal chamber: Indeed those who have united in the bridal chamber will
no longer be separated. Thus Eve separated from Adam because it was not in the bridal chamber
that she united with him. (70, Layton 343, cf. 63. Layton 342). This is the undefiled marriage
which is a true mystery.6 See also 53 p 340; 68 p 343; 83 p 346; 105 p 352, and the list of five
sacraments in 60 p 341. The eucharist and baptism: 86 p 347.
The bridal chamber is mentioned in the Gospel of Thomas, 75.
Docetism: 23 p 334: Jesus tricked everyone, for he did not appear as he was...
There is a denigration of physical resurrection (21, Layton 333):
Certain persons are afraid that they may arise (from the dead) naked; therefore they
want to arise in the flesh. And they do not know that those who wear the flesh are
the ones who are naked. Those who [ . . . ] to divest themselves are not naked.
Flesh [and blood will not] inherit the kingdom [of God].
The virginal conception of Mary is upheld, but in a curious way. Since in the Valentinian system
the Holy Spirit is female, Mary could not have conceived under the Spirits power. Mary is the
virgin whom no power defiled.(14, Layton 332) Christ was born of a virgin, just as Adam was
born of the virgin earth and spirit. (74, Layton 344)7 Note the commingling of Marys in 28, p 335.
See also 48 p 339. Also, in 74 p 344 the concept of Adam generated from the virgin earth may
have come from Irenaeus: AH 3.18.7; 3.21.10; Dem. 32.
In another passage the virgin (probably Mary) unites with the Father of All. (73, Layton 344).
This may reflect a double conception of Jesus; he has both an earthly and a heavenly mother and
Harold W. Attridge, Gospel of Philip in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Ferguson, ed.
61.10-12, NHLE 146. 69.1-4, NHLE 151 and 70.19-22, NHLE 151-152. 82.5-6, NHLE 158.
55.23-28, NHLE 143; 71.16-21, NHLE 152; 59.5-11, NHLE 145. J. Buckley, The Holy Spirit is a
Double Name: Holy Spirit, Mary, and Sophia in the Gospel of Philip in Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism,
ed. Karen L. King (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 211-227, at 213.
p. 11
father.8 The NT texts are reinterpreted in the light of higher authority specific to Gnosticism.9
The idea of reuniting the disparate parts, usually associated with male and female is evident
throughout the G Philip:
3 p 329: upon conversion we got father and mother
all of section 6, p 330 which teaches a balanced dualism
15 p 332: The Lord having two fathers
Neoplatonic influence:
this world is not the real one 7, p 330
the soul is a precious thing enclosed in a lowly body. 20 p 333
the perfect human being is not able to be seen: 90 p 348.
The flesh is only fit to be mortified: 103 p 351.
Source material from before Edict of Milan: if you claim to be a Christian it is disturbing to others:
42, p. 338.
The Gospel of Thomas, 24 pgs, Layton 1987.

This work existed only in fragments until the Nag Hammadi discovery in 1945 which includes a
complete Coptic version of the G Thomas, probably translated from Greek.
Introduction by Layton:
376: The disconnection to history is noted. Hprl refers to the Thomasite document Hymn of
the Pearl.
377: Date probably c 150. Not before 100. Thus it is later than all four canonical gospels.
Frend notes that the G Thomas reproduces all the Matthean parables of the kingdom but with
new interpretations. This would indicate that the G Thomas is dependent upon Matthew, and thus
later than the canonical gospel. He also notes that the G Thomas addresses individuals rather than
J. Buckley and D. J. Good, Sacramental Language and Verbs of Generating, Creating and Begetting in
the Gospel of Philip JECS 5 (1997), 9, 16-17. This contradiction stems from the composite nature of the
document.
9
E. Segelberg, The Gospel of Philip and the New Testament in The New Testament and Gnosis: Essays
in Honour of Robert McL. Wilson, A. H. B. Logan and A. J. M. Wedderburn, eds (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1983),
204-212.
p. 12
the community of faith.10

1 p 380: Salvation is attaining knowledge, according to the Jesus of the G. Th: Whoever finds the
meaning of these sayings will not taste death.
3, p 380: knowledge of oneself would include understanding that we originate from a higher
world.
9, p 381: the parable of the sower (Mt 13). Also 20, p. 384: parable of the mustard seed, 57, p
390: parable of the wheat and tares, 76, p 393: parable of the pearl, 109 p 398: parable of the
treasure in the field. All these are from Matthew, thus showing dependence on the canonical
Gospel.
11, p 382: The last sentence reflects the Gnostic idea that we humans are incomplete, having been
divided into male and female: On the day that you were one, you made two. And when you are
two, what will you do?
21, p 384: Mary is not identified. There is often confusion in Gnostic documents between Mary
the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
22, p 384: Joining the disparate parts together and eliminating the male / female distinction iis the
way to full salvation - a theme found in many Gnostic writings. G. Th. Jesus says:
When you (plural) make the two one and make the inside like the outside and the
outside like the inside and the above like the below, and that you might make the
male and the female be one and the same, so that the male might not be male nor
the female be female, . . . then you will enter [the kingdom].
37, p 387: the stripping of ones garments: could this be a reference to shedding the physical body
at death? Jesus said, When yo ustrip naked without being ashamed, and take your garments and
put them under your feet like little children and tread upon them, then [you] will see the child of
the living. And you will not be afraid.
56, p 390: The world is a corpse: a dualistic rejection of this world: Jesus said, Whoever has
become acquainted with the world has found a corpse, and the world is not worthy of the one who
has found the corpse. This negative view of the world is repeated in 80 p. 394.
62, p 391: Secret knowledge: Jesus said, It is to those [worthy] of [my] secrets that I am telling
my secrets.
75, p 393: The bridal chamber, a theme also in the Gospel of Philip.
10
W. H. C. Frend, The rise of Christianity (Fortress, 1984), 145, 146.
p. 13
98, p 397: The parable of the assassin this doesnt sound like the Jesus of the canonical gospels:
Jesus said, What the kingdom of the fallen resembles is a man who wanted to
assassinate a member of court. At home, he drew the dagger and stabbed it into the
wall in order to know whether his hand would be firm. Next, he murdered the
member of court.
106, p 398: Making the two into one is salvation. Gnostic thought is dualistic in describing the
present state, but the eschatology of Gnosticism is primarily monistic.
114, p 399: This negates the popular idea that the Gnostics taught and promoted an elevated status
for women. Mary (Magdalene? The virgin Mother?) must become male before entering the
kingdom:
Simon Peter said to them, Mary should leave us, for females are not worthy of
life. Jesus said, See, I am going to attract her to make her male so that she too
might become a living spirit that resembles you males. For every female (element)
that makes itself male will enter the kingdom of heavens.
TWO PROVOKERS: MARCION AND MONTANUS

MARCION (d. c. 154)
(From AGST Survey L 1, 2002)
Around the year 140 Marcion, the son of a bishop of a church in the East, arrived in Rome where
he began to teach some very disturbing things. The church leaders in Rome excommunicated him
in July of 144 because of his false teachings. But this did not stop Marcion, who began his own
separate church, which by the year 150 was known by Christians throughout the Empire.11
Marcions false teaching was closely related to that of the Gnostics, but he developed his own,
separate system of theology. Like many Gnostics, he said the god of the OT was a lower evil
god. This meant that the entire OT was false teaching according to Marcion. Marcion said the
god of the OT could not be good because he commanded the Israelites to attack other nations.
Christ came from the true God, who is much higher then the bad god of the OT. Jesus taught love
and forgiveness, a sign of the truth of the higher God who sent him.
Because Marcion had rejected the OT, then he also rejected anything in the NT that quoted from
the OT or seemed to be connected to the Jewish faith of the OT. So in addition to rejecting the
11
Hendrik F. Stander, Marcion in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Everett Ferguson, ed., 2nd edn
(London: Garland, 1998).
p. 14
OT from Scripture, Marcion also said that most of the NT also was not inspired by the true high
god.
Marcions canon, or list of Scripture in the NT was reduced to a part of the Gospel of Luke and
most of Pauls letters. Marcion said that he had access to secret knowledge that allowed him to
decide what parts of the NT were true Scripture and what parts were not.
Marcion did not invent the idea of a canon for the NT, but he might have been the first to
actually write down a defined canon. However his false and incomplete canon list forced the
orthodox believers to respond by defending those parts of the Bible which Marcion the heretic had
rejected. By explicitly rejecting those parts he did Marcion becomes an unwitting witness to their
authority in the church.
So in that way, the heretic Marcion provoked the true Church to define the canon list of inspired
books in the NT.
Marcion is thoroughly refuted in the extensive work by Tertullian, Against Marcion.
THE ORTHODOX RESPONSE TO MARCION S ATTACK ON THE CANON :

1. The Bible is the property of the Church. Heretics and false teachers should not use the Bible, it
is not theirs. This is the chief argument of the work de praescriptione haereticorum of Tertullian.
Analogy: drugs have a proper use in medicine. They "belong" to doctors. They are abused
by addicts and do not rightly "belong" to them.
2. Only true Christians in the church can properly interpret the Bible.
3. The OT and most of the NT were defended as Scripture against those who questioned parts of
the Bible.
The church only recognized those books which were Scripture. The church did not decide which
books should be Scripture.
Three analogies:
[From Foundations of Theology L4 2016]
The first analogy is the Nobel prizes. When Albert Einstein received the Nobel prize for physics in
1921, did the Swedish Academy thereby make him a genius? No, they merely recognized the
genius that was already present in his work.
A second analogy is a line judge at a foot race. The judge does not decide the winner, he merely
sees who crosses the finish line first and announces the winner. The announcement does not
p. 15
achieve the victory, it merely recognizes it.

A third analogy is the difference between a judge and a jury. The Church is like a jury, weighing
the evidence that is presented. The Church is not like a judge, who can include and exclude
evidence based on his or her own higher authority.12
The Church is not the cause of the Canon, merely the recognizer. The Canon is therefore not a
result from the Church, but the rule over the Church. The origin of the Canon is not the Church
but the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Yet there is a larger point: the NT canon is widely accepted by Christians before there is any
widely recognized central church authority. In other words, the canon is formed before the papacy
or the primacy of Rome.13 Or, we could say, the canon is present before the Roman Catholic
Church appears.
Most church historians do not see a Papacy before Leo 1 (r: 440-461). However, even if we back
that up to the reign of Damasus (366-384), this is still well after the canon has been established.
To just cite three key milestones in witness to the formation of the canon that precede Damasus:
the Muratorian Fragment, at the end of the second century, according to F. F. Bruce; the witness
of Irenaeus about the same time as the Muratorian Fragment; and the list of Eusebius of Caesarea,
around 325.14
The first list that contains the exact same 27 books that are now recognized today as canonical is
found in an annual letter Athanasius of Alexandria wrote on the occasion of Easter in 367. He
concludes his list thus:
These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living
words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no
man add to these, neither let him take ought from these.15
John Webster (1955 -, Univ. of St. Andrews, Scotland) succinctly addresses this issue of the
relationship between the Church and the Bible: Scripture is not the word of the church; the church
is the church of the word.16
12
Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and
Differences (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1995), 173-175.
13
This point suggested to me by a paper by Steven M. Wilkinson (CGST), From Books to Canon: The
Formation of the Authoritative Collection Called the New Testament.
14
F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988), 158, 197 ff.
15
Athanasius, Festal Letter 39.6, NPNF ser. 2, vol. 4.
16
John Webster, Holy scripture: A dogmatic approach (Cambridge University Press 2003), 46, cited in
Allison, Roman Catholic theology and practice, 105.
p. 16
Bruce Metzger defines the canon of Scripture to be a list of authoritative books more than it is
an authoritative list of books.17
MONTANUS
About 170 a controversy arose around a figure named Montanus from Phrygia in Asia Minor. 18
Montanus and his associates claimed to have access to direct revelation from God that would come
to them in ecstatic spells. Their main message was that a new age of the Spirit had come and with
it more stringent requirements of moral behavior for believers because the end of times is near.
Tertullian again plays a role in this, but now as one sympathetic to the fringe group of Montanists,
if not a full convert. However, his Montanist period shows that he argued much more from
Scripture than he did from prophetic utterances, citing them maybe half a dozen times. Most
scholars agree that early Montanism was not outside the bounds of orthodoxy: The New
Prophecy was fanatical rather than heretical. observes David F. Wright.19
Other church figures, however, were not as accepting as Tertullian. The catholic side, I suggest,
did suspect that there was jeopardy to the growing pre-eminence (canonisation) of writings.20
Some scholars cite Montanism as another stimulus to the church to clearly define the canon.21
Even if the Montanists never claimed their prophecies to be equal to Scripture (and Montanist
expert Christine Trevett says they never did so)22, their teachings presented a challenge to the
authority of the church and part of its reaction was to move towards a clear and limited list of
inspired writings.
Montanism continued to be an active movement - it is mentioned by both Augustine and Jerome.
It also changed over time, moving towards a more heretical stance. The history of Montanism
after the mid fourth century is largely the history of attempts to wipe it out as a heresy.23
17
Lee Strobel, in his interview with Dr. Metzger in The Case for Christ: A Journalists Personal
Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 69.
18
This section on Montanism follows Christine Trevett, Montanism: Gender, authority and the New
Prophecy (Cambridge University Press, 1996).
19
David F. Wright, Why were the Montanists condemned? Themelios 2 (1970), 16.
20
Trevett 135.
21
Hans von Campenhausen, Formation of the Christian Bible (1972), 220 as cited by Trevett 137.
22
Trevett 138.
23
Trevett, 214-5.
p. 17
Disputed books:
There was some dispute in the early Church about the canonical status of some books which
eventually were recognized as canonical.
Even as late as the sixth century some challenged the inclusion of Revelation, 2 Peter, Jude and
Hebrews. Meanwhile the Epistle of Barnabas, Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache and
even 1 Clement were included in more than one ancient codex of Scripture.24
Irenaeus, around 185, in his fifth book of Against Heresies, comments on the number 666 found in
Revelation: This number is found in all the most approved and ancient copies of the Apocalypse,
and those who saw John face to face bear their testimony to it. 25 This comment indicates that by
this date (185) multiple copies of Revelation exist and are evaluated according to age and
reliability (connection to the original words of John).
Discussion of the readings on interpretation:
28 Allison HT Ch 8 Interpretation = Gregg Allison, The interpretation of Scripture, ch 8 of

Historical theology: An introduction to Christian doctrine, pp. 162-184 = 23 pages.
DS Q: Is there a difference between typology and allegory, and if so, what is it? (p 163)
The main difference between allegory and typology is that the latter references a historical
reality while the former merely reads the text in a figurative manner without any reference
outside of the text itself. Hanson differentiates typology from allegory in that the former
sees a connection between the antitype and the type is one of fulfillment while with allegory
there is no natural connection at all.26
There are examples of both in the NT, though typology is much more common. Examples
of possible allegorical interpretation in the NT:
The term is used by Paul in Gal. 4.24 in his example of Hagar and Sarah. (The word is
allegoroumena, which the ESV translates allegorically while the NIV 2011 has
24
McDonald, Canon.
25
Irenaeus on the Christian faith: A condensation of Against Heresies, James R. Payton, ed. (Pickwick,
2011), 187.
26
R. P. C. Hanson, Allegory and event (SCM 1959), 7, 67, contra Frances Young, Alexandrian and
Antiochene exegesis in A history of biblical interpretation, Vol 1: The ancient period, Alan J. Hauser and Duane
F. Watson, eds (Eerdmans, 2003), 337, who asserts that there is no real difference between patristic allegory and
patristic typology.
p. 18
figuratively). However this is not the only possible example of allegory in the NT. See:
- John 3.14, cf Num 21.9: Moses lifting up the bronze serpent.
- John 8.17-18, cf Deut 19.15: The two witnesses.
- 1Cor 5.6-8, cf Ex 12.15: Ridding of the leaven in the Passover.
- 1Cor 9.8-14, cf Deut 25.4: Muzzle not the ox.
- 1Cor 10.1-5, cf Ex 32: Crossing the Red Sea as baptism, manna as Eucharist.
- Heb 8-10, cf Leviticus: The Tabernacle.
However all these could be taken as typology since there is a connection to an OT event,
person, or command.
DS Q: What is the difference between the schools of Alexandria and Antioch?
Patristic exegesis is often categorized into two camps: the school of Alexandria, which is
thought to be wholly committed to an allegorical approach to the Bible, and the school of
Antioch, which is thought to employ an early version of the grammatical - historical
method. While there is some truth to that broad characterization, the reality was much
more complex and the differences between the two schools was not as great as many today
think.
163-4 (See excursus on Origen below)
166 Tyconius was a contemporary of Augustine and influenced Augustines interpretation
method. Ty. was a mild Donatist. The Donatists were a group that objected to what they saw as
lenient discipline for those who handed over Scriptures during the Great Persecution initiated in
303 by Diocletian. When the persecution ended with the ascent of Constantine to the Imperial
throne, one who had surrendered the Scriptures was made a bishop (Felix of Aptunga). He in turn
ordained one Caecilian as a bishop. A group broke away in N. Africa as they felt Caecilians
ordination as bishop was invalid because of the betrayal of Felix. The Donatists insisted upon a
pure church. Augustine cited the parable of the wheat and tares (Mt 13) to say the church in this
age cannot be pure, inside the church we find both saints and sinners.
DS Q: Your response to Augustines interpretation of the Parable of the good Samaritan. 168
169 - John Cassians rhyme is reproduced in the 1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church which
explains the four-fold sense in detail27 (paragraph 118):
Lettera gesta docet, quid credas allegoria,
moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia.
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.
27
Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 115-119.
p. 19
Therefore when we encounter some astonishing readings of Scripture texts in Catholic writings,
they can be defended by the RCC teachers through reference to the four fold sense of Scripture or
to the traditions of the Apostles, handed down inside the RC hierarchy, unwritten.
Excursus on Peter Lombard: ( d. 1160).

He collected short sayings on doctrine from Bible and from early Church Fathers (eg, Augustine)
and organized them according to theological topics such as God, Creatures, Incarnation,
Redemption, Sacraments, Last things. This book was called the Sentences and it became the
standard theology textbook for the next few centuries (Luther studied from it as a priest in
training). Students of theology were given the task of attempting to reconcile these quotations
into an organized system of thought. Some even wrote commentaries on the Sentences (rather
than on Scripture).
Note that his approach was to cite from both the Bible and from church tradition (the Fathers).
This approach is later formalized as the doctrine of the infallibility of church tradition as a second
stream, parallel to Scripture in Catholic theology. Note also that his approach of collecting
quotations tended to downplay if not ignore the context from which the citations were taken (sort
of a Naves Topical Bible approach to theology).
172, fn 45: Comment on the distinction between the exegesis of scholars and that of the Church.
DS Q: What does Luther mean by law and gospel and how does that impact interpretation? 174
DS Q: What does Calvin mean by the analogy of faith, and is this applicable today? 176
DS Q: Comment on Luther and Calvins principle of reading all of Scripture christologically. 175
DS Q: What did the Council of Trent decide concerning Bible interpretation? 177
- Latin Vulgate is the official version, not original texts
- Only the RCC has the ability to properly interpret the Bible.
NB: in effect this sets the magisterium of the RCC above Scripture.
In the aftermath of the Reformation some Catholic apologists emphasized Bible difficulties in order
to demonstrate that one needed the RCC to understand Scripture. This backfired in a sense as
those criticisms laid the foundation for the beginnings of higher critical views of the Bible.
(Richard Simon ??)
DS Q: How does Hirsch distinguish between meaning and significance? 181
Meaning: authorial intent. Significance: how that authorial intent applies to us.
29 Irenaeus How heretics misuse scripture = Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.8.1, in The Ante-Nicene
p. 20
fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers - Justin Martyr - Irenaeus, Alexander Roberst and James
Donaldson, eds. (Eerdmans, 1979), p. 326 = 1 page.
DS Q: What is Irenaeuss point about the image of a king? Does this have application today?
The mosaic illustration of Irenaeus.
30 Irenaeus selections on interpretation = # 93-96 in A new Eusebius: Documents illustrating the

history of the Church to AD 337, J. Stevenson, ed., rev. by W. H. C. Frend (SPCK, 1987), pp.
111-117 = 7 pages.
DS Q: What is the rule of faith according to Irenaeus?
31 Origen on interpretation of Scripture = # 181 and 182 in A new Eusebius: Documents

illustrating the history of the Church to AD 337, J. Stevenson, ed., rev. by W. H. C. Frend (SPCK,
1987), pp. 205-206 = 2 pages.
DS Q: Summarize Origens approach to interpretation.
DS Q: In section 182, what is Origens point about the first three days of creation in Genesis?
32 Basil On the Holy Spirit = St. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, David Anderson, trans. (St
Vladimirs Seminary Press, 1980), Ch. 27 (65-67), pp. 98-102 = 5 pages.
DS Q: In section 66 (pp 98-99) what does Basil say about Scripture?
It is only part of apostolic teachings. There is a second source.
DS Q: Why is some unwritten?
Kept as secrets: p. 100: We have unwritten tradition so that the knowledge of dogma
might not become neglected and scorned through familiarity.
NB: There was a practice widely observed in the ancient Church to keep certain doctrines and rites
secret from those not yet baptized.
Basils innovation concerning unwritten tradition
In the mid-fourth century one of the Cappadocian Fathers, known as Basil of Caesarea (330-379),
also known as Basil the Great, added a second authority to stand alongside Scripture. In his
work On the Holy Spirit (circa 370), he says:
Concerning the teachings of the Church, whether publicly proclaimed (kerygma) or
reserved to members of the household of faith (dogmata), we have received some
p. 21
from written sources, while others have been given to us secretly, through apostolic
tradition. Both sources have equal force in true religion.28
Some examples of practice that come from unwritten tradition are using the sign of the Cross with
new catechumens, praying facing East, the words of invocation for the Eucharist. He calls this
secret and mystical tradition which are unpublished and unwritten teachings, which our fathers
guarded in silence, safe from meddling and petty curiosity.29
Modern historian Heiko Oberman comments:
We find here for the first time explicitly the idea that the Christian owes equal
respect and obedience to written and unwritten ecclesiastical traditions, whether
contained in canonical writings or in a secret oral tradition handed down by the
Apostles through their successors.30
33 Bernard of Clairvaux on Song of Songs = Sermons 1-4 on the Song of Songs in Bernard of
Clairvaux Selected Works, G. R. Evans, trans. (Paulist Press, 1987), pp. 210-226 = 17 pages.
Intro to Bernard:
The twelfth century was the century of love. Aristocratic culture embraced courtly
love, wherein a knight devoted himself to an often unattainable lady. Religiously,
western Europe was rocked by the rise of the Cistercians, committed to refocusing
monasticism on community life characterized by love. Cistercian leader Bernard of
Clairvaux (10901153), a French nobleman, made Clairvaux one of the most
famous monasteries in Europe, advised popes and kings, promoted the Second
Crusade, and opposed controversial theologies of the day. But today we remember
most his writings describing the Christian journey to deeper love of God.
Bernard delivered sermons on the Song of Songs to his monks beginning in
1136bold and passionate ones, especially for an audience of celibate men. One
describes the spiritual life as a progression from the kiss of the feet
(acknowledging our sinfulness), to the kiss of the hand (Christs grace enabling us
to live the moral life), to the kiss of the mouth (spiritual intimacy, not with an
28
St Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, David Anderson, trans. (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimirs
Seminary Press, 1980, 2001), chapter 27 (66), p. 98.
29
30
On the Holy Spirit, chapter 27 (66), p. 99.
Heiko Oberman, The harvest of medieval theology, rev. edn (Eerdmans 1967), 369, cited in Stanley J.
Grenz and John R. Franke, Theological heritage as hermeneutical trajectory: Toward a nonfoundationalist
understanding of the role of tradition in Ancient and postmodern Christianity: Paleo-orthodoxy in the 21st
century. Essays in honor of Thomas C. Oden. Kenneth Tanner and Christopher A. Hall, eds. (InterVarsity,
2002), 218.
p. 22
unattainable lady, but with the attainable Christ). 31

DS Q: Respond to his assertion (p. 213, parag # 8) that Solomon is speaking of Christ and the
Church.
p. 215, parag VI.12 - This book is only for the mature.
DS Q: Respond to his exegesis on p. 216, parag II.2 and II.3. Also on p. 220, parag IV.9.
The kiss is a figure of our intimate communion with Jesus.
The spiritual kiss of Christs mouth (p. 221, first parag).
DS Q: What is his point on p. 222, parag II.3 and II.4 (and p. 223, parag III.5) ?
We proceed from kissing Christs feet, hand, mouth. Concept of spiritual ascent.
Dont try to ascend to levels for which you are not yet ready (II.4, p. 223 top).
This concept found earlier in Origen.
34 Gener, T Every Filipino Christian a theologian = Timoteo D. Gener, Every Filipino Christian a
theologian: A Way of Advancing Local Theology for the 21st Century, in Doing theology in the
Philippines, John Suk, ed. (Asian Theological Seminary, 2005), pp. 3-23 = 21 pages.
DS Q: Gener, citing Bautista, asserts that Filipinos are unduly attracted to American theology. Do
you agree or not? Why? 5
DS Q: Discuss My basic presupposition is this: Filipinos should not simply receive theology from
elsewhere; they must actively participate in its development here. 7
DS Q: Discuss Geners alternative terms for theology on p. 13.
DS Q: Discuss Geners views on the use of language in constructing theology. 17
DS Q: Respond to the idea of power encounter. 20
Lecture on Interpretation
For patristic overview, see scanned Graves sel (in prep folder) Then use McKim scans for key
31
Edwin Woodruff Tait, consulting editor, Church History, accessed 28 Dec. 2015 at
https://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/others-we-love-part-2/
p. 23
figures of interpretation.
ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA (d. 254).

Since Allison spends some time discussing Origen, we will take a closer look at him.
He is the first to systematically write commentaries for much of the Bible. Our entire tradition of
commentaries of Scripture rests in no small part on the pioneering work of Origen, much of it in
the OT. B. F. Westcott observes that one of his most significant gifts to the church, accomplished
by the sheer weight and force of his exegesis, was to establish the Old Testament as a properly
Christian set of texts.32
Despite being known more as a theologian, Origens own view of his work was that he was first
and foremost a Biblical exegete and preacher. By the end of his life he had written commentaries
on nearly every book of the Bible. Most of this work now only exists in magnificent wreckage.
But even what has survived is enough to inspire awe. Jerome knows of some 2,000 different
works authored by Origen.
Among those works now lost is the complex work on the text of the OT, the Hexapla. This work
is the first serious study of Biblical textual criticism. It had six parallel columns (as its name
implies): the Hebrew text, a transliteration of the Hebrew into Greek, the Septuagint, and three
other translations of the OT into Greek. Origens intention in compiling this massive work was to
show that the Christians were justified in using the Septuagint as the proper OT text rather than
the Hebrew. This stemmed from charges made by Jewish scholars that any Christian use of the
LXX was invalid.33 Only small fragments of this work has survived, probably because it was never
copied, being the equivalent of about 6,500 pages.34
There are some 300 homilies which have survived and which are a vital witness to the homeletical
thought of the early church. We have large portions of his commentaries on the Song of Songs,
John, Matthew and Romans, although much of this only in Latin translations. His are the earliest
surviving commentaries on Scripture.35
32
B. F. Westcott, Origenes in A Dictionary of Christian Biography, 4 vols, ed. by W. Smith and H.

Wace, (London: John Murray, 1887), 4.133.
33
Claude Cox, Hexapla in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Everett Ferguson, ed., 2nd edn (London:
Garland, 1998).
34
M. F. Wiles, Origen as Biblical Scholar in The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1: From the
Beginnings to Jerome, P. Ackroyd and C. Evans, eds (Cambridge: University Press, 1970), 458.
35
Heracleons Commentary on John has not survived and the Commentary on Daniel by Hippolytus did
not treat the entire book: M. Simonetti, Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church (Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
1994), 40; cf. Quasten, Patrology 2.171-176.
p. 24
For Origen, his study of Scriptures is at the heart of all his thought. He is interested in the finest
details of the Biblical text and is a bold pioneer in applying to those texts the most advanced
techniques of the grammarians.36 He is the first scientific exegete of the Catholic Church.37 We
must follow de Lubacs advice to observe Origen at work not only to understand his exegesis,
but also his theology.38
Many know Origen as the allegorist par excellence. Yet we find in Origen an attention to most
minute details of the text as is most vividly demonstrated by his Hexapla, in which his labor to
establish the correct Biblical text is entirely consistent with his view that inspiration extends to
each letter of each word.39
However, we must not ascribe to Origen a modern view of inerrancy. Only the spiritual sense of
Scripture enjoys this level of infallibility.40
To dismiss him as merely an allegorist is to ignore his deep conviction of the real presence of the
Logos in the very words of Scripture: The wisdom of God has permeated the whole of Scripture
even to the individual letter.41
Since the earthly is a reflection of heavenly reality every historical event in Scripture has a higher
meaning which must be uncovered. The literal reading on its own will only confuse, it is necessary
to dig for the hidden moral or spiritual meanings in the text.42 He proposes that there are three
36
Danilou, Origen 135: The obelus and the asterisk were the critical signs used by the grammarians at
Alexandria in their editions of Homer. Origen was thus taking the bold step of subjecting the text of Scripture to
the critical method of the day.
37
Quasten, Patrology 2.45
38
H. de Lubac, Historie et Esprit, (Paris, 1950), 34, cited by J. T. Lienhard, Origen as Homilist in
Preaching in the Patristic Age ed. by D. G. Hunter (New York: Paulist, 1989), 41.
39
sel. Ps. in Philoc. 2.4. The reader is likened to a spiritual botanist culling each detail from the text,
frag. hom. Ier. 39, Philoc. 10.
40
The minutest detail is important, but it is the detail spiritually understood that counts: Wiles, Origen
as Biblical Scholar, 475. Holmes cautions us to not ascribe to Origen a modern view of inerrancy, which he
would only extend to the spiritual sense of Scripture: Origen and the Inerrancy of Scripture Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society, 24 (1981), 221-231.
41
com. Ps. 1-25, Preface, 4, trans. J. W. Trigg, Origen, The Early Church Fathers (London: Routledge,
1998), 71. com. Matt. 15.3: the Word is as it were incarnate in the Bible, cited in R. P. C. Hanson, Allegory and
Event (London: SCM, 1959), 194. Origen works to uncover the authors intention in Paul, Cels. 3.19.
42
arch. 4.2.4, also hom. Lev. 5.5.3. frag. com. Iose in Philoc. 8.1. Origens understanding of human
nature as tripartite points to three levels of meaning in Scripture: the literal, the moral and the spiritual. Origen
eschews harmonization or emendation in favor of seeking a deeper meaning when the text is suspect. This
demonstrates at the same time both his respect for the letter and his allegorical solution to difficulties encountered
at the literal level. These three levels were not drawn from Philo according to Hanson, Allegory and Event 236,
p. 25
levels of understanding any Scripture text: the literal, the moral and the spiritual. However in
actual practice he rarely employs more than two levels: the literal and the spiritual.43 And always
his goal is spiritual growth in the reader. He says we must ascend from an accurate reading of
Scripture to Jesus himself. 44
At the literal level Scripture is often difficult to understand or to harmonize with other texts,
according to Origen. Scriptures literal level is valid but incomplete.45 Thus there is danger in
reading the Bible with a rigid adherence to the letter alone.46 So in a homily on Leviticus he says,
Unless we take all these words in a sense other than the literal text shows, as we
already said often, when they are read in the Church, they will present more an
obstacle and ruin of the Christian religion than an exhortation and edification.47
In the OT the polygamy and other actions which seem improper to a patriarch of the faith must be
read spiritually.48
contra Danilou, Origen 188-189.

43
com. Io. 13.30, 37. He typically deals with two levels only, but is not consistent in his names for them,
Lienhard, Origen as Homilist 47 and R. E. Heine, Introduction in Commentary on the Gospel according to
John, Books 1-10, FC 80 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1989), 11.
44
He does not deny the historicity of the Bible, but does relegate considerations of history to the initial
stages of determining the meaning and application of the text for his fellow believers. See the chapter on
Historicity in Hanson, Allegory and Event 259-288, affirmed by A. Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition
1.168. Also Holmes, Origen and Inerrancy 227-231.
45
hom. Ezk. 1.3, trans. J. W. Trigg, in Ascetic Behavior in Greco-Roman Antiquity: A Sourcebook, ed.
by V. L. Wimbush (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 52. Sometimes even the history is not certain, Cels. 1.42.
Crouzel carefully notes that the literal content for Origen is the raw matter of the words, not authorial intent:
Origen 62.
46
R. Daly notes three groups which have erred this way: Jews, Gnostics and the simple faithful: Origen,
Treatise on the Passover, ACW 54 (New York: Paulist, 1992), 90, n. 49. See also euch. 29.10; com. Cant. 3.9;
and hom. Lev. 1.1.3. At times the literal reading seems to promote immorality, as in the case of various OT figures
but even with some actions of Jesus, Cels. 4.44; hom. Gen. 6.1 and 6.3; hom. Reg. 28.2.1; Cels. 7.22. King
Davids sins must be spiritualized: frag. com. Ps. 50 in Philoc. 1.29.
47
48
hom. Lev. 5.1.2, FC 83.88. Also 7.5.5, FC 83.146.
Cels. 4.44; hom. Gen. 6.1 and 6.3; hom. Reg. 28.2.1; Cels. 7.22. King Davids sins must be
spiritualized: frag. com. Ps. 50 in Philoc. 1.29.
p. 26
INTERPRETATION IN THE MIDDLE AGES 49

Some manuscripts of Scripture were given wide margins so commentary, quotes from Church
Fathers, and other material could be added. These are what is known as glossed Bibles (from the
Greek glossa language) the glosses are notes, usually in margins, explaining the main text. This
practice seems to have begun in the late eighth century.
Many of these glosses were collected into a work assembled by Peter Comestor, an instructor at
the University of Paris, who produced the Historia Scholastica, the first comprehensive and fairly
coherent treatment of the Bible in Europe and one of the most widely used exegetical works of the
later Middle Ages.50
A view arose in the ancient Church that each text of Scripture could be read at multiple levels of
meaning. Origen (d. 254) proposed three levels while Augustine (d. 430) had two.51
The standard structure of four senses was developed in the Middle Ages along these lines:52
- Literal - what the text says
- Allegorical - a deeper sense, especially useful if the literal level contained unacceptable
items such as the polygamy of the Patriarchs
- Moral - ethical emphasis
- Anagogical - prophetic
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1997) not only explains the four-fold sense in detail53, but
provides a couplet from the Middle Ages for the faithful to memorize (paragraph 118):
Lettera gesta docet, quid credas allegoria,
moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia.
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.54
49
Following Historical handbook of major biblical interpreters, Donald K. McKim, ed. (InterVarsity
50
McKim 77, cf. Smalley 1964, 179; Chatillon 195.
1998).
51
Origen proposed three levels of meaning: literal, moral and spiritual, see arch. 4.2.4, hom. Lev. 5.5.3,
but usually he employed only two: the historical/ literal and the spiritual, see com. Io. 13.30 and 37. See J. T.
Lienhard, Origen as Homilist in Preaching in the Patristic Age, ed. by D. G. Hunter (New York: Paulist, 1989),
47. Augustine proposed two levels, Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 2nd edn (Oxford:
Blackwell, 1997), 206.
52
Summarized from McGrath, Christian Theology, 207-209.
53
Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 115-119.
54
Cited in CCC, paragraph 119.
p. 27
Allegorical interpretation is seen in this example from Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) on the
Song of Songs. He presents an allegorical interpretation because to take the text at face value was
considered inappropriate. In other words, God could not mean to have included in the Bible a
book devoted to the topic of physical love, so the work must be reinterpreted to make it
acceptable for the faithful.
So the phrase the beams of our house are of cedar, and our panels are of cypress (Song 8.9) is
taken to read this way:
the houses are the people of the church
the beams are the rulers of both church and state which hold society together
the panels are the clergy who adorn the structure.
Interpretation in the Reformation Age

Luthers debate with Eck
[CH L9]
In July of 1519 Martin Luther was asked to defend his theology before professor John Eck, at the
University of Leipzig. Luther in this debate stated that Scripture was the only true authority. The
Pope, councils of the Church, the ancient Fathers, and traditions were correct and had authority
only as long as they did not contradict the Bible.
Luther used a historical-grammatical approach to the Bible. This approach is interested in finding
out the intention, or the thinking of each Biblical author as they wrote. It studies the grammar of
the passage, and learns the historical background of the passage.
It is interesting to compare the exegetical methods of these two men. Eck was more interested in
using the Bible to prove his points. Luther was interested in what the Bible meant to say. He laid
out his method of interpretation: I want the words of this man Paul to mean exactly what they
mean in their original context. 55
Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) began to preach in Zurich in 1519. People said, "Such preaching was
never heard before," and "This is a genuine preacher of the truth, a Moses who will deliver the
people from bondage."56 Why did the people respond so well to his preaching? Because he was
preaching expository sermons, something that was not the practice in Catholic services.
55
Luther, Answer to Latomus, in Luther: Early Theological Works, James Atkinson, ed. and trans.,
Library of Christian Classics, 16 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), 357. This is a document written in 1521 in
response to an attack by Jacobus Latomus, of the University of Louvain, who criticized Luthers views as expressed
in the debate at Leipzig.
56
Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 8 vols, 3rd edn (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985
repr of 1910 edn), 8.41.
p. 28
In response to the challenges of the Reformers, the Catholic Church called the Council of Trent
(1545-1563). One of the chief declarations of that Council concerned interpretation of Scripture.
A creed based on Trent declared:
I acknowledge the sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy Mother
Church has held and holds, to whom it belongs to decide upon the true sense and
interpretation of the holy Scriptures, nor will I ever receive and interpret the
Scripture except according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.57
Some modern interpretive views (a sample only)
BERNARD RAMM
(1916-1992)
Bernard Ramm58 showed an interest in science early on. The summer before he entered the
University of Washington he came to faith in Christ. His seminary training he took from Eastern
Baptist Theological Seminary then earned an M.A. in philosophy from the University of Southern
California in 1947 and in 1950 his Ph.D. His doctoral dissertation is evidence of his continued
interest in the intersection between science and faith. It was entitled, An Investigation of Some
Recent Efforts to Justify Metaphysical Statements from Science with Special Reference to
Physics.
Meanwhile, he served as a Baptist pastor in Glendale, California and as a professor of biblical
languages at the Los Angeles Baptist Theological Seminary from 1944-1945. He became the head
of the department of Philosophy and Apologetics at the Bible Institute of Los Angeles from 19451951. He taught at several other schools, including Bethel College and Seminary, St. Paul (19511954) and his alma mater, Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary (1974-1977), finally retiring in
1986 from American Baptist Theological Seminary of the West.
Going against the theological tide, Ramm sought to find connections between the secular world of
philosophy, psychology and physics with the Bible. In doing so, he was deeply influenced by two
men, Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920), founder of the Free University of Amsterdam and a life-long
advocate of social and political engagement by conservative Christians (he was prime minister of
the Netherlands for a short time) and Karl Barth. He spent a year in Basel studying under Barth
(1957-1958). He gained an appreciation for historical theology and the usefulness of biblical
criticism during his time with Barth, themes that he continued to explore throughout his career,
57
Tridentine Profession of Faith, 1564, included in the Bull of Pius 4, Injunctum nobis, November 1564,
cited in Documents of the Christian Church, Henry Bettenson, ed., 2nd edn (London: Oxford University Press,
1963), 267.
58
This summary of Ramms life is drawn from Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Bernard Ramm in Handbook of
Evangelical Theologians, W. A. Elwell, ed. (Baker, 1993) and the article on Ramm by W. A. Elwell in the
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology.
p. 29
culminating in the 1983 work, After Fundamentalism in which he encouraged evangelicals to

adopt some of Barths theological methodology.
Vanhoozer considers Ramm to be one of the foremost American evangelical theologians of the
twentieth century. He notes that in little over a decade (1949-1961) he wrote eight very
significant works.59 His 1950 Protestant Biblical Interpretation became a standard text that was
still in use in the early 1980's when I did seminary studies.
His interest in science aided his work in apologetics: Protestant Christian Evidences (1953), and
The Christian View of Science and Scripture (1954), from which your reading was taken. In this
work Ramm cautions Christians to not chain their use of science to any one particular philosophy
of the natural world.
Ramm urged Christians to fit the findings of scientists like Darwin into a theistic philosophy rather
than rejecting them altogether. He favored a progressive creationist view, which could take in
various evolutionary processes as secondary causes, but not the primary cause of the origin of
life.60 The book was controversial because it asserted that the Bible was not a science textbook
and therefore expressed itself in the culture in which it was written, which would not view the
universe exactly the way we do in the age of science.61
Fundamentalism fails because it does not move beyond mere inspiration to consider the entire
doctrine of revelation. Ramm felt that a corrective was to bring in the concept of the testimony of
the Spirit. Without this, fundamentalism ended up with a sacramental view of Sacred Scripture, a
kind of ex opere operato of the printed word. He proposed that there are three elements to
authority: the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit who inspired them, and Christ, the Word of God to whom
both of the other elements always point (following Barths formula: God sends His Word and then
sends His Spirit to be a witness to His Word and to apply it to us).62 He set forth these views in
his three books: The Pattern of Religious Authority (1957), The Witness of the Spirit (1959) and
Special Revelation and the Word of God (1961).
GUSTAVO GUTIRREZ
59
60
(1928 - )
Vanhoozer, Bernard Ramm in Handbook of Evangelical Theologians, 292-293.

Vanhoozer, 296.
Stanley J. Grenz and Roger E. Olson, 20th Century Theology: God and the World in a Transitional Age
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), 305.
61
62
Vanhoozer, 297-8, citing Ramm, The Witness of the Spirit (1959), 125.
p. 30
Gustavo Gutirrez 63 was born in Lima, Peru where he studied medicine, philosophy, psychology
and theology. He also studied at the University of Louvain and received his Ph.D. in theology
from the University of Lyons in 1959. He was ordained in Rome the same year.
In 1960 he took a teaching post at the University of Lima as well as serving in a parish.
In 1968 he was a theological advisor to the Second General Conference of Latin American Bishops
(CELAM 2) in Medelln, Columbia. A scholar of Liberation Theology says "Medelln officially
opened the door to the theology of liberation."64
But an even more important milestone came in 1971 with the book by Gutirrez, Teologa de la
liberacin, Perspectivas, which is widely hailed as the main founding document of Liberation
Theology. It was published in English translation in 1973 by Orbis as A Theology of Liberation:
History, Politics and Salvation.
In this work Gutirrez presented Christ as the liberator for those oppressed by political, social and
economic structures of the elite.
In later work he stressed the identification of Christ with the poor in their suffering and how he
brings to them grace.
Gutirrez defines LT this way: It is a theological reflection born of the experience of shared
efforts to abolish the current unjust situation and to build a different society, freer and more
human. 65
A favorite Biblical text for LT is the story of the Exodus where Moses is portrayed as a political
liberator, overthrowing the oppressive regime of the Egyptians. The problem with this is that the
narrative clearly depicts God, not Moses or a political action group, as orchestrating the freedom
for the children of Israel.
However Gutirrez insists that the Exodus began as a purely human movement. He says any
spiritual element in the Exodus arises from the human act of revolution. Political freedom comes
before freedom from sin. Yahweh liberates the Jewish people politically in order to make them a
holy nation. He goes on to say that lesson of Exodus [is] . . . the self-generation of man in the
63
Chief sources for this summation of the life of Gutirrez from articles in The Blackwell Encyclopedia of
Modern Christian Thought, A. McGrath, ed. (Blackwell, 1993), C. D. McConnell in Evangelical Dictionary of
Theology, W. Elwell, ed., 2nd edn (Baker, 2001) and S. J. Grenz and R. E. Olson, 20th Century Theology: God &
the World in a Transitional Age (Intervarsity, 1992), 213-224. Surprisingly, no article appears on him in the
ODCC 3rd edn.
64
Emilio A. Nuez C., Liberation Theology, translated by Paul E. Sywulka (Chicago: Moody Press,
1985), 100.
65
Gutirrez, A Theology of Liberation, ix.
p. 31
historical political struggle. He is critical here of Moltmann for not giving enough credit to man's
efforts. 66
LT also pictures Jesus as a radical revolutionary who was executed by the Roman government
because of his political activities. Gutierrez however rejects the image of Jesus as a political
militant, because that would restrict his message and life to the first-century Jewish situation. He
is Christ the Liberator because he brings personal as well as social liberation to all eras of
history.67
Gutirrez recognizes the personal dimension of sin, but stresses the social: Sin is regarded as a
social, historical fact, the absence of brotherhood and love in relationships among men . . . This
in turn directly affects his conception of salvation: Sin demands a radical liberation, which in turn
necessarily implies a political liberation.68
LT says sin is structural, embedded in large systems like capitalism, which by their nature are sinful
and oppressive.
Some LT theologians sound almost like mainstream Marxists. In fact some have drawn from
Marxist thinking to develop their theology, though not all.
LT has proposed a new approach to theological method:
1) We must begin with an analysis of our current situation.
2) Then comes action to change the situation. (praxis)
3) Thirdly comes theology.
Hugo Assmann of Brazil says Our text is the social context.69
The leadership of the RCC and many conservative Catholics are very suspicious of LT.
However the Vatican II documents have parts that are quite critical of the excesses of capitalism
and how it has at times been the means of oppression and deprivation. The present Pope has
criticized an economic system where children starve in a world of plenty.
An interesting critique of Liberation Theology written by an expatriate evangelical living in Manila
is James R. Whelchel, The Path to Liberation: Theology of Struggle in the Philippines (Quezon
City: New Day, 1995).
66
Gutirrez, A Theology of Liberation, 157 and 182. For criticism of Moltmann, see 182, note 41.
67
Gutirrez, A Theology of Liberation, 226-228, 149 and 175.
68
Gutirrez, A Theology of Liberation, 175, 176.
69
W.D. Taylor and Emilio A. Nuez C., Lecturers, ME875 class notes, Trinity Evangelical Divinity
School, Deerfield, Illinois, Nov. 1983.
p. 32
Also very valuable is the work written by Emilio A. Nez C. of El Salvador, Liberation Theology
(Chicago: Moody, 1985). I had the privilege of attending lectures by Dr. Nez on the issue of
Liberation Theology during my days as a student at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
ROSEMARY RADFORD RUETHER
(1936 - )
Rosemary Radford Ruether 70 was born of a Catholic mother and an Episcopalian father. After her
fathers death the family moved to California where she completed her education. She did her
doctorate on Gregory Nazianzus, earning a Ph.D. from Claremont Graduate School in 1965.
She became involved in the civil-rights movement in the southern states and then in Washington,
D.C. She taught for ten years at a seminary where the student body and faculty were almost all
African-American, Howard University School of Religion (1966-1976). However as she began to
critique some sexist tendencies at Howard, she was accused of racism (she is white) and came to
realize that it would take African-American women to challenge the sexism in that subculture.
She took a teaching post at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary, a theological faculty
associated with the United Methodist Church and located on the edge of the campus of
Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. She retired from Garrett in 2002 and transferred to
teach at the Pacific School of Religion, which is associated with the Graduate Theological Union.
Her scholarly career began with a critique of classic Christology as inherently anti-Jewish, but soon
expanded to include feminism and concern for the environment. Her 1983 book Sexism and GodTalk: Toward a Feminist Theology was the first, if not still the only attempt at a systematic
theology written from a feminist viewpoint.
She argues for the need to add to the male metaphors about God abundant in Scripture
corresponding female images. She advocates the usage of terms such as primal Matrix and
God/ess (We will see this again in Spretnak, below).
Unlike Mary Daly, Ruether has retained an intentional identification with Christianity and the
church. She believes there are elements of inclusive theology that have been hidden or obscured in
the history of Christian tradition but that these can and should be uncovered.
70
Chief sources for this summation of the life and thought of Ruether from Robert A. Peterson in
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, W. Elwell, ed., 2nd edn (Baker, 2001), and R. R. Ruether, Feminist
Theology in The New Dictionary of Theology, J. A. Komonchak, M. Collins, D. A. Lane, eds (Pasay City:
Daughters of St. Paul, 1991 reprint of 1987 edn by Michael Glazier), Anne Carr, Feminist Theology in The
Blackwell Encyclopedia of Modern Christian Thought, A. McGrath, ed. (Blackwell, 1993), S. J. Grenz and R. E.
Olson, 20th Century Theology: God & the World in a Transitional Age (Intervarsity, 1992), 224-236, and Grant D.
Miller Francisco Rosemary Radford Ruether downloaded 13 Feb 2005 from
http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/mwt/dictionary/mwt_themes_908_ruether.htm
p. 33
Ruether herself says that in uncovering womens part in Christian tradition may require
discounting the lines between what the dominant tradition has declared orthodox
or heretical. Reexamination of marginalized early christian groups, such as
gnostics and Montanists, or new study of popular christian texts, such as the
apocryphal gospels, may expand th reading of christian tradition to include
traditions more affirmative of womens participation. 71
Lecture on authority
Some say inerrancy was created by a group of 19th century theologians associated with Princeton
University who were deeply influenced by modernist thinking coming out of the Enlightenment,
especially a philosophical approach known as Scottish Common Sense Philosophy. These
Princetonians were: Archibald Alexander(1772-1851), Charles Hodge (1797-1878), A. A. Hodge
(1823-1886), and B. B. Warfield (1851-1921). 72
It is true that the term inerrancy is modern. However just as in the case of the doctrine of the
Trinity, we cannot assume absence of the term to require absence of the concept (recall Carl
Truemans fallacy of confusing the term with the underlying concept). John Woodbridge has
assembled an impressive list of texts demonstrating that the idea of Scripture as without error has
been taught in the Church from the earliest times until now.73
96 AD: 1 Clement 45 (Early Christian Fathers, C. Richardson, ed., 1970, 64):
You have studied Scripture [OT] which contains the truth and is inspired by the
Holy Spirit. You realize that there is nothing wrong or misleading in it.
c. 150: Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 65 (Ante-Nicene Fathers 1.230):
. . . but if (you have done so) because you imagined that you could throw doubt on
the passage, in order that I might say the Scriptures contradicted each other, you
have erred. But I shall not venture to suppose or to say such a thing; and if a
Scripture which appears to be of such a kind be brought forward, and if there be a
pretext (for saying) that it is contrary (to some other), since I am entirely convinced
that no Scripture contradicts another, I shall admit rather that I do not understand
what is recorded, and shall strive to persuade those who imagine that the Scriptures
are contradictory, to be rather of the same opinion as myself.
71
R. R. Ruether, Feminist Theology in The New Dictionary of Theology.
72
Jack B. Rogers and Donald K. McKim, Authority and interpretation of the Bible: An historical
approach (Harpercollins, 1980).
73
32-44
John D. Woodbridge, Biblical authority: A critique of the Rogers/McKim proposal (Zondervan, 1982),
p. 34
185: Irenaeus of Lyons, Against heresies 3.14.3-4 (Ante-Nicene Fathers 1.438-9):

Now if any man set Luke aside, as one who did not know the truth, he will (by so
acting), manifestly reject that Gospel of which he claims to be a disciple. . . . It
follows then, as of course, that these men must either receive the rest of his
narrative, or else reject these parts also. For no person of common sense can
permit them to receive some things recounted by Luke as being true, and to set
others aside, as if he had not known the truth.
c. 180: Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus 3.17 (Ante-Nicene Fathers 2.116):
Moreover, it is said that among your writers there were prophets and
prognosticators, and that those wrote accurately who were informed by them. How
much more, then, shall we know the truth who are instructed by the holy prophets,
who were possessed by the Holy Spirit of God! On this account all of the prophets
spoke harmoniously and in agreement with one another, and foretold the things that
would come to pass in all the world. For the very accomplishment of predicted and
already consummated events should demonstrate to those who are fond of
information, yea rather, who are lovers of truth, that those things are really true
which they declared concerning the epochs and eras before the deluge: to wit, how
the years have run on since the world was created until now, so as to manifest the
ridiculous mendacity [deception] of your authors, and show that their statements
are not true.
394 or 395: Augustine, Letter 28.3 to Jerome:
For it seems to me that the most disastrous consequences must follow upon our
believing that anything false is found in the sacred books. . . . For if you once admit
into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement, as made in the way of
duty, there will not be left a single sentence of these books which, if appearing to
any one difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be
explained away, as a statement in which, intentionally, and under a sense of duty,
the author declared what was not true
425: Augustine, City of God 21.6.1
Therefore everything written in Scripture must be believed absolutely.
405: Augustine, Letter 82 to Jerome:
I have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of
Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely
free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears
to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the MS. is faulty, or
the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed
to understand it.
Note carefully what Augustine asserts here:
1) Scripture has a unique status over all other literature
p. 35
2) This is limited to the canonical books - those recognized by the Church

3) Scripture is completely free from error
4) When Scripture seems to contradict outside facts the benefit of the doubt is granted to
Scripture
5) Bible problems are assumed to originate in the textual history or the translation or in
ones own limited understanding.
Some other patristic quotes:
From one of Augustines sermons:
The Scriptures are holy, they are truthful, they are blameless. . . So we have no
grounds at all for blaming Scripture if we happen to deviate in any way, because we
havent understood it. When we do understand it, we are right. But when we are
wrong because we havent understood it, we leave it in the right. When we have
gone wrong, we dont make out Scripture to be wrong but it continues to stand up
straight and right, so that we may return to it for correction. (Sermons 23.3). 74
Gregory of Nyssa (d. c. 395): Gregory is one of the three Cappadocian Fathers, whose
theological influence is found in many places in our theology today, not the least in our
understanding of Christology. On Scripture he says:
The Scripture is given by inspiration of God, as the apostle says. The Scripture is
of the Holy Spirit, and its intention is the profit of men. For every Scripture, he
says, is given by inspiration of God and is profitable. (Against Eunomius 3.7.1).75
John Chrysostom (d. 407): He was given the title Chrysostom after his death - it means golden
mouth, due to the excellence of his preaching. He said
By Scripture we may disprove what is false, be corrected, be brought to a right
understanding, and be comforted and consoled. (Homilies on 2 Timothy 9).76
The Reformers of the 16th century signaled a dramatic return to the consideration of Scripture and
its authority. They are unanimous in their teaching that Scripture and Scripture alone is of the
highest authority - using the motto sola scriptura as a summary of that teaching.
Martin Luther (d. 1546) in October of 1518 had a debate with Cardinal Cajetan. One of the main
themes of this debate was authority: would the final authority for Christians be the Church or the
Bible? Luther boldly says:
74
ACCS NT, Vol IX, 269.
75
Cited in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture [ACCS], Vol. IX New Testament: Collossians, 1-2
Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Peter Gorday, ed. (Inter Varsity, 2000), 269.
76
ACCS, NT, Vol IX, 269.
p. 36
Concerning the authority of the Pope, His holiness abuses Scripture. I deny that
he is above Scripture. He adds that if we put the pope above Scripture and say
that he cannot err, in that case Scripture perishes, and nothing is left in the Church
save [except] the word of man. 77
The Reformers also taught the clarity of Scripture that there was no need for a believer to submit
to the official interpretation of the RCC, each person could read and understand the Scripture for
himself in vernacular translations.
Ulrich Zwingli said the Word of God, as light, needs no official interpretation issued by the
magisterium. In his work The Clarity and Certainty of the Word of God, 1522, he says: God
reveals himself by his own Spirit. He will enlighten all who seek with humility.78
Zwingli says the clarity of Scripture had been obscured by many years of allegorical and scholastic
interpretation that failed to uncover the original intent of the biblical authors for the faithful. He
proposed 79
1) Returning to the source, Scripture, in the original if possible.
2) Approach the Bible with humility, open to learn from Scripture itself.
3) Ask God for light for it is Gods will that he alone should be our teacher.
4) Avoid sitting in judgment of Scripture which is God-breathed.
5) Trust the Word of God above all other words for it will never leave us in darkness, . . . it
irradates the soul of man with full salvation and grace, . . . it gives the soul sure comfort in God.
77
Cited by Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (New York: New American Library,
1950), 73 and 75.
78
Zwingli, Of the clarity and certainty of the Word of God, Library of Christian Classics, vol. 24, p. 79,
cited in Geoffrey Bromiley, Historical theology (Eerdmans 1978), 216.
79
Zwingli, 91-92, in Bromiley, 216.

PHD 2016 Scripture

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

PHD 2016 Scripture

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Adv Historical Theology CGST 1 Feb 2016 L-4: Scripture

Do not copy without written permission 2016 Rev. E. Manges, Ph.D.

Lecture 4, H ours 25-32

L ECTURE 4 - S CRIPTURE: C ANON AND I NTERPRETATION

DISTRIBUTE PAPER ASSIGNMENT

Discussion of the readings for Canon

Adv Historical Theology CGST 1 Feb 2016 L-4: Scripture

Do not copy without written permission 2016 Rev. E. Manges, Ph.D.

27 Kruger Canon misconception # 3 = Michael J. Kruger, 10 Misconceptions About the NT

[ The readings notes for interpretation are later in these notes ]

Lecture on the Canon:

THE FOUR GOSPELS

Adv Historical Theology CGST 1 Feb 2016 L-4: Scripture

Do not copy without written permission 2016 Rev. E. Manges, Ph.D.

Adv Historical Theology CGST 1 Feb 2016 L-4: Scripture

Do not copy without written permission 2016 Rev. E. Manges, Ph.D.

Excursus on labels for bodies of literature

Michael P. McHugh, Galen, and James H. Charlesworth, Pseudepigraphy in Encyclopedia of Early

Adv Historical Theology CGST 1 Feb 2016 L-4: Scripture

Do not copy without written permission 2016 Rev. E. Manges, Ph.D.

OT history. Some examples (not a complete list):

Excursus on so-called lost Gospels

(CH L2 2016 CGST)

Adv Historical Theology CGST 1 Feb 2016 L-4: Scripture

Do not copy without written permission 2016 Rev. E. Manges, Ph.D.

Adv Historical Theology CGST 1 Feb 2016 L-4: Scripture

Do not copy without written permission 2016 Rev. E. Manges, Ph.D.

though Jesus was unresponsive.

Adv Historical Theology CGST 1 Feb 2016 L-4: Scripture

Do not copy without written permission 2016 Rev. E. Manges, Ph.D.

THE GOSPELS OF PHILIP AND THOMAS

Adv Historical Theology CGST 1 Feb 2016 L-4: Scripture

Do not copy without written permission 2016 Rev. E. Manges, Ph.D.

W. Isenberg, Introduction to the Gospel of Philip, NHLE 140.

Adv Historical Theology CGST 1 Feb 2016 L-4: Scripture

Do not copy without written permission 2016 Rev. E. Manges, Ph.D.

Harold W. Attridge, Gospel of Philip in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, Ferguson, ed.

Adv Historical Theology CGST 1 Feb 2016 L-4: Scripture

Do not copy without written permission 2016 Rev. E. Manges, Ph.D.

The Gospel of Thomas, 24 pgs, Layton 1987.

Adv Historical Theology CGST 1 Feb 2016 L-4: Scripture

Do not copy without written permission 2016 Rev. E. Manges, Ph.D.

the community of faith.10

W. H. C. Frend, The rise of Christianity (Fortress, 1984), 145, 146.

Adv Historical Theology CGST 1 Feb 2016 L-4: Scripture

Do not copy without written permission 2016 Rev. E. Manges, Ph.D.

TWO PROVOKERS: MARCION AND MONTANUS

(From AGST Survey L 1, 2002)

Adv Historical Theology CGST 1 Feb 2016 L-4: Scripture

Do not copy without written permission 2016 Rev. E. Manges, Ph.D.

THE ORTHODOX RESPONSE TO MARCION S ATTACK ON THE CANON :

[From Foundations of Theology L4 2016]

Adv Historical Theology CGST 1 Feb 2016 L-4: Scripture

Do not copy without written permission 2016 Rev. E. Manges, Ph.D.

achieve the victory, it merely recognizes it.

Athanasius, Festal Letter 39.6, NPNF ser. 2, vol. 4.

Adv Historical Theology CGST 1 Feb 2016 L-4: Scripture

Do not copy without written permission 2016 Rev. E. Manges, Ph.D.

Adv Historical Theology CGST 1 Feb 2016 L-4: Scripture

Do not copy without written permission 2016 Rev. E. Manges, Ph.D.

Discussion of the readings on interpretation:

28 Allison HT Ch 8 Interpretation = Gregg Allison, The interpretation of Scripture, ch 8 of

Adv Historical Theology CGST 1 Feb 2016 L-4: Scripture