On Patristic Interpretation

The Tenth Sunday after Trinity

LET thy merciful ears, O Lord, be open to the prayers of thy humble servants; and that they may obtain their petitions make them to ask such things as shall please thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Perhaps the most enduring legacy of the Fathers of the Church is their grounding of the fundamental tools of Christian exegesis. Exegesis comes from Greek and means to draw out the meaning of a passage, therefore the means by which the deeper meanings of a particular passage are explained.

In ancient times, the interpretation of Scripture was heavily influenced by the philosophy of the day, which saw the literal or historical sense of a passage as the lowest possible sense of meaning. There was a two-fold reason behind this. First, physical things (and thus literal descriptions of history) were viewed as being far more base or corrupt than spiritual things. The second and related reason for this was the Greek influence. Greek mythology is replete with stories that even the Greeks found somewhat embarrassing. They had developed extremely sophisticated philosophies and overall learning, yet had these narratives of gods acting capriciously, ridiculously and governed by base passions.

In order to explain that, the Greeks interpreted their mythology to explain a deeper spiritual meaning through analogy. This practice was used and expanded upon by the Fathers, who sought to discern the deeper meanings of scripture. For example, in his homilies on Genesis, St John Chrysostom explains the story of Noah’s drunkenness from Gen 9. 18-26 by pointing out that while the moral sense was not to shame our fellow Christians for their sins and faults, but rather to privately exhort them to repent and return to righteousness, in the way that Shem and Japheth cloaked Noah without looking at him, in contrast with Ham.

Over time, there came to be an understanding that every passage had at least three or four possible levels of interpretation. The literal interpretation described the historical sense of the passage and the events it was depicting. The allegorical sense gave the deeper spiritual meaning, that informed us of the nature of God. The Tropological or moral sense described the way in which the passage provides us with instruction on how we, as Christians, are to live our lives. Finally, the Anagogical sense speaks in particular to what our life in the Kingdom of Heaven will look like when we are reunited with Christ. Ss. John Cassian, Augustine of Hippo and Pope Gregory the Great were all Fathers who supported this four-fold interpretation.

To discover these different levels of meanings, the Fathers employed a number of different exegetical techniques. There are no uniformly accepted names for different techniques and different Fathers and Biblical scholars have called the same techniques by different names or used the same word to refer to different techniques. The terms used here may therefore not always line up with the way they are used by other authors.

There were a number of general techniques used that could be applied to most any level of Scripture. These techniques might be used to better understand the literal meaning, the allegorical interpretation, the moral interpretation or anagogical interpretation, and sometimes more than one sense of scripture might be discussed using the same exegetical technique.

The technique of redaction criticism was used to explore the context in which a passage occurs, be it the historical context in which the passage was written or the literary context in which the passage appears within a particular chapter or verse. Analysis of the skopos of a passage was used by many of the fathers in their exegetical homilies. Skopos is Greek for the goal or aim, and the analysis could either be widely or narrowly drawn, focused on the goal of a passage within a verse or chapter, or the skopos of the entire book might be examined to provide that context for the particular passage being examined. These forms of contextual interpretation were among the most widely used and important for setting the tone of interpretation whether it be the literal and historical meaning of the passage or the moral or spiritual sense.

Another of the types of analysis that was applied at multiple levels was a literary analysis. Diction would be examined. Grammar, the use of hyperbole or metaphors would be reviewed. Rhetoric and other elements of style would be used to explore an allegorical interpretation or reinforce the understanding of the context for the literal meaning. Similar to this was the technique of akoloutheia which explored the sequence of arguments in a passage, along with the structure of those arguments, to uncover its meaning.

Another technique used was to use more clearly understandable passages to interpret more obscure or dense passages. Dependent upon the idea that the Holy Scriptures are an inspired, unified and consistent whole, this technique would be used to show how passages can and must be interpreted in the context of all of Scripture together. Similar to this technique was the use of word association in which the Father would look for the use of a particular word in other parts of Scripture and build a link between the passages. In this sense, the Father is not doing a word study where the use of a word is explored in multiple contexts, but rather the specific word is used to build a linked meaning between the two passages in which it is used.

As mentioned, the use of allegory (allegoria) was one of the most popular forms of Scriptural exegesis because it provided a deeper and spiritual meaning. The problem with allegory, however, is that there was no need to justify or link the allegorical interpretation with the original passage. This left allegory wide open to eisegesis, the process of reading in an interpretation to a passage which was not intended. Origen was a champion of this method, and as he would become the head of the School of Alexandria, it would become associated with the allegorical method. In contrast to this, the School of Antioch would promote the use of theoria, a method of allegorical interpretation in which the allegory was more closely linked to the literal meaning of the passage being interpreted.

A number of different subsets of allegorical interpretation existed, that provided for allegorical interpretations hinging on particular points. A prominent form of this was typology (typos) which  would create an analogy showing how a particular Old Testament person or event had prefigured Christ in some way. In number symbolism, numbers mentioned in the Bible are used to provide a mystical or allegorical meaning. Similarly, the Fathers might use philogoy or the etymology of a word as the starting point and basis for an allegorical interpretation of a passage. This was especially used for the names of people and places, perhaps most notably in Origen’s analysis of the place names in the Book of Numbers.

An example of this can be found in St John Chrysostom’s homilies on Genesis 22. In the story of Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac, Chrysostom explores the history behind what actually happened, and then to provide one level of spiritual interpretation he uses typology, describing how in this passage Abraham is a type of God the Father, while his only son Isaac is a type, prefiguring, Christ. Abraham is willing to sacrifice his only son, and Isaac realises that he is to be sacrificed, and goes willingly.

These types of interpretive techniques helped to open the Scriptures to people around the world, as well as forming the basis of continued exegetical interpretation to this day.