The Relationship between History of Interpretation and Exegetical Method

Introduction

The study of Scripture is never carried out in a vacuum. Every interpreter is both the heir of a tradition and the shaper of new trajectories within that tradition. For doctoral-level students of Biblical Studies, understanding the relationship between the history of interpretation and exegetical method is essential. This relationship is not merely chronological—how one era followed another—but methodological, in that each historical context produced characteristic ways of reading the Bible, and those methods continue to influence, challenge, or enrich our own.

In this lesson, we will explore how the history of biblical interpretation is inseparable from exegetical method. We will trace how earlier methods arose from specific cultural and theological contexts, how they set trajectories for later scholarship, and how modern exegetes must learn to engage them critically. We will examine case studies from major eras, reflect on biblical examples of re-interpretation, and consider the theological significance of historiography for method.

History of Interpretation as the Soil of Method

Interpretation as Historically Situated

No exegetical method arises ex nihilo. Allegory, typology, historical criticism, narrative criticism, and postcolonial hermeneutics all developed within particular intellectual, cultural, and theological contexts. The history of interpretation thus functions like soil: methods grow out of it, shaped by its nutrients and limits.

For example, patristic allegory did not appear because Origen “liked symbols,” but because early Christians were immersed in both Greco-Roman philosophical traditions (especially Platonism) and Jewish interpretive traditions that already read Scripture typologically. Similarly, the historical-critical method did not emerge because the Bible suddenly “became historical” in the 18th century, but because Enlightenment rationalism redefined what counted as knowledge.

Methods as Historiographical Narratives

Exegetical methods are themselves historiographical. When Luther advanced the grammatical-historical method, he not only offered a new reading strategy but also rewrote the history of interpretation—portraying allegory as distortion and “returning” to the literal Word. Every method makes implicit claims about what earlier interpretations got right or wrong, creating a historiographical framework that justifies its existence.

The Dynamic of Influence

Early Jewish and Patristic Eras

Second Temple Judaism provided a rich interpretive backdrop. The Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit pesher interpretation, linking biblical prophecies to the community’s own life. Philo of Alexandria blended Scripture with Platonic philosophy, developing allegorical exegesis. Early Christians inherited these models, with the church fathers using typology to see Christ prefigured in Israel’s Scriptures.

Patristic exegesis demonstrates how method grows out of context: allegory was a way to reconcile Scripture with philosophical ideals of truth, while typology was a way to assert continuity between Israel and the Church.

Medieval to Reformation

The medieval “fourfold sense” of Scripture reflected scholastic synthesis, holding together literal, moral, allegorical, and anagogical readings. When Reformers emphasized sola scriptura and the grammatical-historical method, they did so by rejecting this complex system and reframing history: the church had lost its way in allegory, and they were restoring purity of meaning. This was not simply method but historiography: narrating medieval exegesis as decline in order to justify reform.

Enlightenment to Modern Criticism

The Enlightenment’s historiography cast pre-critical interpretation as superstition. The rise of historical criticism created a powerful narrative of progress: the Bible could now be studied “scientifically.” But this historiography also shaped method, privileging rational reconstruction of origins over theological readings. Later movements, such as canonical criticism (Brevard Childs) or reception history (Hans-Georg Gadamer, Hans Robert Jauss), have challenged this progress narrative, insisting that earlier interpretations be reconsidered within their historical contexts.

Case Studies

Case Study 1: Origen and Allegory

Origen’s allegorical method cannot be divorced from the history of interpretation he inherited. Reading Scripture as multilayered allowed him to harmonize troubling passages (e.g., divine violence) with his theological convictions. Allegory was both method and historiography: a way of saying that literal readings alone miss the deeper truths Scripture has always intended.

Case Study 2: Luther and the Reformation

Luther’s rejection of allegory was not merely methodological but historiographical. By casting allegory as a corruption, he created a historical narrative that legitimized the grammatical-historical method. His method arose from his historical judgment about the medieval past.

Case Study 3: Bultmann and Demythologization

Bultmann interpreted the New Testament through existential categories, dismissing mythical elements as obstacles to faith. His method was shaped by his historiography: he framed myth as a relic of a pre-scientific age, requiring reinterpretation for the modern world. His demythologization shows how historical judgments about cultural shifts shape method.

Biblical Reflections

The Bible itself models how the history of interpretation shapes method.

• Chronicles reinterprets Samuel–Kings, methodologically selecting and reshaping history to emphasize temple and priesthood.

• Matthew interprets the Hebrew Scriptures through the lens of fulfillment in Christ, deploying typology as method.

• Hebrews 11 re-reads Israel’s history as a narrative of faith, highlighting continuity with Christian hope.

These examples show that method is always bound to historiographical re-framing of earlier interpretations.

Implications for Doctoral Exegesis

1. Critical Awareness: Doctoral students must not only master methods but also grasp the historical judgments that birthed them.

2. Methodological Humility: Recognizing that our methods are products of history tempers claims of universality.

3. Creative Integration: Historiographical awareness allows exegetes to adapt methods judiciously, combining insights across eras.

4. Theological Responsibility: Since methods carry implicit historiographical judgments, we must steward them carefully in service of both scholarship and the church.

Assignments

1. Historiographical Timeline (3,000 words): Construct a timeline of one biblical text’s interpretation (e.g., Genesis 1, Isaiah 53, Romans 9), showing how method and historiography intertwine in each era. Include analysis of how interpretive judgments were shaped by cultural contexts.

2. Comparative Essay (2,500 words): Compare Luther’s historiographical narrative of medieval allegory with Bultmann’s historiographical narrative of myth. How did their historical judgments generate new exegetical methods?

3. Methodological Reflection (2,000 words): Write a personal reflection on how awareness of the history of interpretation influences your methodological choices in exegesis. Which historiographical narratives do you find compelling, and which do you resist?

Conclusion

The relationship between the history of interpretation and exegetical method is reciprocal and inseparable. Every method arises from a historiographical judgment about the past, and every historical narrative about interpretation implies methodological commitments. For doctoral students, this awareness is essential: exegesis is not only about mastering tools but also about critically situating those tools within the story of interpretation. By tracing the interplay between history and method, students can construct robust, historically aware, and theologically responsible frameworks for their own exegetical work.

References

Bultmann, R. (1984). New Testament and mythology and other basic writings (S. Ogden, Ed.). Fortress Press.

Childs, B. S. (1979). Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Fortress Press.

De Lubac, H. (2000). Medieval exegesis: The four senses of Scripture (Vol. 1). Eerdmans.

Grant, R. M., & Tracy, D. (1984). A short history of the interpretation of the Bible (2nd ed.). Fortress Press.

Jauss, H. R. (1982). Toward an aesthetic of reception (T. Bahti, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press.

Luther, M. (1960). Luther’s works, vol. 32: Career of the Reformer II. Fortress Press.

McGrath, A. E. (2017). Christian theology: An introduction (6th ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.

Pelikan, J. (1993). The Christian tradition: A history of the development of doctrine (Vol. 1). University of Chicago Press.

Soulen, R. K., & Soulen, R. N. (2011). Handbook of biblical criticism (4th ed.). Westminster John Knox.