Ioannis D.
Karavidopoulos
From
Jesus Christus als die Mitte der Schrift. Studien zur Hermeneutik des
Evangeliums. Herausgegeben von Christof Landmesser, Hans-Joachim Eckstein
und Hermann Lichtenberger, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin-New York, 1997
I. Μain features of Orthodox interpretation of the
Holy Scriptures
For a better understanding of the interpretive work of
the Church, we must have in mind the following three basic presuppositions.
1. Orthodox theology makes a distinction between the
Truth as that which is God Himself, as it was revealed in Christ and "dwelt
among us" (John 1,14) and the record of the saving truth in the books of the
Holy Scriptures. This distinction between record and truth carries,
according to Τ. Stylianopoulos, the following important implications:
"First, it safeguards the mystery of God from being identified with the
letter of Scripture. Secondly, it permits the freedom to see in the Bible
the experiences of many persons in their relationship with God written in
their own language, their own time and circumstances, their own symbols and
images, and their own ideas about the world. It permits, in other words, a
dynamic relationship between the Word of God contained in Scripture which
consists of the truth of the Bible, and the words of men, the human forms in
which God's Word is communicated. Thirdly, it presupposes that the Orthodox
Church highly esteems also other records of the experience of God, such as
the writings of the Church Fathers, the liturgical forms and texts, and the
decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. It rescues the Church from an
exclusive focus on the Bible. Finally, the acknowledgment of a dynamic
relationship between letter and spirit destroys doctrinaire biblical
fundamentalism as a theological posture (that is to say the idea that God
dictated propositions which were then written down word for word by the
sacred authors) and thus guards Orthodox Christian life from the error of
idololatrous veneration of the text of Scripture (bibliolatry). What the
distinction between record and truth does not intend, however, is to
minimize the importance of the Bible. If the Orthodox Church also esteems
other records of the experience of God, the Bible still remains the primary
record in the theological tradition and the worship of the Church"1.
2. What we call Tradition in the Orthodox Church -in a
sense which is utterly misunderstood and misrepresented by non-Orthodox
theologians2- is nothing else but the life experience of the Holy
Scriptures by the Church within its age-long history. Since tradition is
life, namely the act of receiving and handing down the treasure of faith, it
is not in any way a static and emaciated affair but has the essential
features of a living organism: movement, progress, assimilation of the
environment, its transformation and, finally, elimination or rejection of
particular elements which have lost their organic relation to the living
body of Christ.
3. The interpretation of the Holy Scriptures has been
a task of the body of Christ in the historical process of the Orthodox
Church. That means that the interpretation of the books of the Old and the
New Testaments cannot be the task of a particular individual working by
himself, no matter how many academic titles he might have, but a task of the
Church and a function which is fed by the Holy Spirit. Therefore in the
final analysis, it is a charisma of the Holy Spirit. The individua1
interpretative attempts of theologians, past or present, have merit once
they are found, on the basic points, within the consensus of the
ecclesiastical consciousness even if they express this in a thoroughly
original and personal fashion.
And now a remark that applies to these three basic
presuppositions. If some theologians identified truth with the letter of the
Bible (that is, they became in some sense idolaters of the biblical letter);
or if they did not look upon Tradition as a life experience of the Holy
Scriptures but as an inhibitive factor of real life; or if they interpreted
the Holy Scriptures not as conscientious members of the body of Christ; if,
then, these three deviations occurred -the pathological form of the three
above-mentioned presuppositions- then Orthodoxy and most of all its image in
the non-Orthodox world was directly affected. However, even if the
representation of truth is humanly weak, the power of the truth is still
derived from God Himself.
With these presuppositions in mind, we may now specify
the main features of Orthodox interpretation of the Holy Scriptures:
1. Christianity as the revelation of God in history
has an explicit historical character. Theology, and especially
biblical interpretation, may not avoid taking into serious consideration the
historical conditions that the books of the Old and the New Testaments
presuppose, if it does not wish to deviate towards a type of Gnosticism. The
Church of the first centuries fought desperately against the Gnostic
heresies which, within a dualistic Hellenistic spirit, weakened the
historical ground and led people to the intangible and immaterial. The
Church did not oppose that deviation with Christian metaphysics but with the
"scandal" of the historical event of the crucifixion, which is the apex of
the whole history of God's economy, the Heilsgeschichte, or even
better the "mystery of God's economy". The Logos of God "was made flesh and
dwelt among us" (John 1,14), in order to redeem humanity and to transform
the world not merely eschatologically but historically as well, in the
present.
The first theologian of the Church who stressed the
historical character of the mystery of God's redeeming economy was Irenaeus,
bishop of Lyon, who, towards the end of the 2nd century AD, presented, in
his anti-heretical writings, the history of the Holy Scriptures as a drama
in which God and man are the protagonists or stars set against the scenery
of the concrete conditions that exist at each particular time. Within these
concrete historical conditions, one of the two protagonists seeks the other,
but especially the first one (God) seeks the second (man) who constantly
slips away until they finally end up meeting each other in reconciliation,
in Christ's "recapitulation" of everything, according to this Pauline term,
a favourite of Irenaeus.
The whole patristic interpretive tradition is found on
this line of the historical character of redemption, although with different
conditions each time, as are determined by the situations and needs of each
interpreter. Let us mention here that patristic interpretation of history is
always carried out under the biblical prism and not with abstract
philosophical presuppositions. At the same time it underlines the paradox of
history, a paradox which is due to the fact that the fathers accept: a) the
supreme might of God but at the same time the freedom of human beings, b)
holy grace but at the same time the role of human sin within history and c)
the historical and at the same time supra-historical character of the end.
2. A second main feature of Orthodox Biblical
interpretation is its ecclesiological character, its property as an
ecclesiological function derived from the eucharistic experience of the
interpreter and his or her illumination by the Spirit of God. The fact that
Jesus Christ lived in a particular historical era, in a concrete space on
earth, that he taught, performed miracles and was finally crucified at the
time of Pontius Pilate may be ascertained through familiar historical
methods. However, the fact that Jesus is the Risen Lord who can act
dynamically in the life of each person can be accepted only by living "in
the Holy Spirit" (1Cor 12,3). In other words, this means that history -
without ceasing to be the solid ground of the interpreter- is transmuted and
transformed into theology since that which interests us most, finally, is
not only the historical event in itself but mainly its value for people of
its times and of our times, that is, its existential message. A proper
understanding of the Holy Scriptures is a movement that goes both ways: one
is directed towards the time of the text; it is the exegesis of the text
(which we have already mentioned in presenting the first feature of Orthodox
Biblical interpretation, that is, its historical character). The other is
directed towards our own times and is the main interpretation of the text,
the message of the text. It is what the church always did with its
interpreting -both among the Fathers and today- whenever and by whomever
this is done.
3. The patristic character of interpretation
gives a special stamp to Orthodox interpretation. This main feature, when
properly understood, denotes a creative continuation of the spirit of the
Fathers, that is, not an uncritical reproduction of their interpretations
within our own changed historical, social and academic conditions, but
fidelity to the living manner in which they theologically transubstantiated
the meaning of the evangelical history into a sermon of life, into an
existential call. It goes without saying that this fidelity is a fruit of
participation in the tradition of interpretation and in the life of the
Church.
In our days many intentional and unintentional
misunderstandings , have arisen over the question of the relation between
the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers. It is true that biblical history, the
events of holy revelation, extend into the life of the Church. It is also
true that the Holy Bible for Orthodox consciousness is understood and
experienced through a concrete ecclesiastical prism which makes the Old
Testament a mirror through which Christ himself and his Church are depicted
and makes the New Testament the book of the Church, which transforms the
book into life experience through the eucharist. None of these points
however, can justify a museum-like inflexibility. The Spirit of God which
set up and guides the Church is a spirit of freedom and not of slavery. In
the name of this spirit of freedom in Christ, we should consider the
persistent attempt to preserve the letter, rather than the spirit of
patristic interpretation as offering poor service to the people of God. What
we need today is not the unthinking survival of the fathers but
their creative revival within the framework
of modern conditions.
It would help considerably in understanding the things
said here, if we consider more analytically some of the aspects of the
patristic approach to the Scriptures.
a) Interpretation for the Fathers of the Church is not
an academic procedure or a scholastic occupation with the Holy Bible inside
libraries but a sermon in the gathering of the people of God. Therefore, it
is direct and vivid and addresses not only the mind but the heart of the
listener as well, as it does not intend to fill their minds with knowledge
from the Holy Bible or about the Holy Scriptures, but to guide them to
deeds, to taking a stand, or renewing their stand ("repentance") to- wards
the cross and the resurrection of Christ which is the core especially of the
New Testament message. In this way, the Fathers, as preachers of the word of
God, link closely this life-giving word with their times in a profitable
manner for their listeners or later readers; they link it with the concrete
problems of the Christians of their times, so that they might provide
feasible solutions, so that they might protect and educate them. They do not
hesitate, for instance, to analyze the parable of the sower and to pin-point
familiar contemporary heretics as the stony and thorny ground or to identify
the grading of the good soil as categories of Christians of their times (a
typical example is the speech attributed to St. Chrysostom, "On the sower
who went out to sow ...", PG 61, 774f.).
The interest of the Fathers is focused clearly on the
people of their times, and it is for this reason that the procedure of their
interpretation is from Christ and the apostles to their own times, in
contrast to modern research, especially in the West, where the ipsissima vox
Jesu is sought behind the texts as well as the initial group of listeners
whom He addresses. The retroactive process towards the initial aim and the
initial group of listeners of Jesus has, of course, its academic merit; the
reverse process, however, from the initial group of listeners to the later
listener or reader has an additional catechetical value as well. And this
second one is what attracts the favour of the Fathers who are mainly and
most of all preachers and teachers of the congregation of the Church.
b) In addition to the organic linkage of the biblical
text with its times, the interpreting Fathers employed the scientific
knowledge of their times for the service of understanding the Scriptures,
something underlined particularly by the Cappadocian Fathers of the 4th
century, such as in the consistently brilliant annotations of St.Basil on
the "Hexaemeron", which, to recall the previous patristic feature, consists
of a series of morning and evening sermons delivered in Caesaria of
Cappadocia during Lent in the year 370. This patristic tactic of using
scientific knowledge for the better understanding of the word of God has
particular significance for our times, on one hand because the multitude of
scientific and technological developments might with their proper use aid
the interpretation of the word of God within the concrete framework of our
times, and on the other it shows just how alien to the Orthodox Tradition is
the stand of certain pious circles for whom knowledge -even theological!- is
unneccessary and often deemed contrary to faith. This stand is in utter
contrast to the patristic interpretive method.
c) The interest of the interpreting Fathers in
correlating biblical work with the problems of their times, as well as their
constant use of the scientific knowledge of their times for its broader
understanding, led them in a natural way to an existential interpretation of
the biblical message. In exactly the same way that the focal point of the
writers of the Holy Scriptures is humanity, in the sense that God's economy
of redemption in Christ, announced in advance in the Old Testament and
realized in the New Testament, concerns humanity and its redemption, so in
patristic thought and theology, and therefore in their biblical
interpretation, humanity with its tormenting existential problems is the
inevitable focal point.
As a typical example of such existential or
anthropological interpretation, we may mention the interpretation of the
parables of the last judgment. Without in any way overlooking the
eschatological perspective of these parables, the Fathers focus their
thought, from an anthropological point of view, on the existential fact of
each person's biological end of life and underline the claim of constant
spiritual awareness in view of this end, so that humanity and most of all
the faithful are not caught unaware. A typical example is St. Chrysostom's
interpretation of the parable of the alert householder (Matth 24,42-44), in
which the sudden appearance of the Son of Μan is interpreted as denoting the
sudden coming of the end of life to each person (see PG 58, 705;
Theophylactos PG 123, 420 and Euthymios Zigavinos PG 129, 628 and others,
interpret this passage in a similar manner).
d) One can often find a great variety of interpretive
aspects, sometimes even in the same Father or even in the same work. This
variety demonstrates the wealth of the patristic interpretive tradition.
Furthermore, the interpretive patristic polyphony is developed around one
common theme which is the Church's faith in the central event of the cross
and the resurrection of Christ and the redeeming consequences which each one
of the faithful experiences in the Church. On that, no interpretive
polyphony is conceivable. However, in the various individual biblical
themes, the interpretive variety is not only permissible but indeed
obligatory, given the rich mine of the Scriptures.
The above mentioned facts do not exhaust the breadth
of the patristic interpretation of the Bible, but merely show four typical
aspects of it which are worth studying as points of reference, not in the
sense of their precise repetition today, but in the sense that the modern
interpreter should stand within the framework of the concrete problems of
our times.
4. From the previous features of the Orthodox
interpretation of the Bible, there springs as well the following consequence
for the interpretive function of the Church: paving the way towards anything
positive that God's visible creation has to offer, creation and history,
that is, the embracing of anything that is true, honest, just, pure,
lovely, of good report, virtuous and praiseworthy, according to the
exhortation of St. Pau1 in Philippians 4,8. In the name of this act of
embracing the whole of created reality, the Church, throughout the ages, has
incorporated, without any fear or hesitation, "whatever was well said by
anybody", according to the phrase of St. Justin.
An example of such creative incorporation is the
paving of the way of the Fathers through the scholarly thought of their
times which serves as an explicit guide for today as well. The Church did
not have any hesitation in its history to consider as its own anything
within the arts or literature which expressed Christian truths. In this way,
e.g. the phrase of the Greek poet Menander (4th century B.C.) έστι δίκης
οφθαλμός, oς τά πάvθ' ορα (= There is an eye of justice which watches
everything)3 which expressed the omnipresence and the good
judgement of God entered without any problem the iconostasis of many Greek
Orthodox churches.
By extension, today one might support that paving the
way of interpretation in the modern discipline may only bring profit to the
Church rather than any harm. Modern physics, molecular biology, sociological
research, technological achievements may serve the better understanding of
the word of God in our times. The example of St. Basil is consequently very
instructive: "Το γαρ μη παρέργως ακούειν των θεολογικών φωνών. Αλλά
πειράσθαι τον εν εκάστη λέξει και εν εκάστη συλλαβή κεκρυμμένον νουν
εξιχνεύειν, ουκ αργών εις ευσέβειαν, αλλά γνωριζόντων τον σκοπόν της κλήσεως
ημών· ότι πρόκειται ημίν ομοιωθήναι Θεώ, κατά το δυνατόν άνθρωπου φύσει.
Oμοίωσις δέ ουκ άνευ γνώσεως· η δε γνώσις ουκ εκτός διδαγμάτων ... επειδή
δυσθήρατος η αλήθεια, πανταχόθεν ημιν εξιχνευτέα.» (= "To count the terms
used in theology as of primary importance, and to endeavor to trace out the
hidden meaning in every phrase and in every syllable, is a characteristic
wanting in those who are idle in the pursuit of true religion, but
distinguishing all who get knowledge of ‘the mark’of our ‘calling’; for what
is set before us is, so far as is possible with human nature, to be made
like unto God. Now without knowledge there can be no making like; and
knowledge is not gotten without lessons. ... Truth is always a quarry hard
to hunt, and therefore we must look everywhere for its tracks")4.
The expression of St. Basil πανταχόθεν (everywhere, in every direction),
might, in a versatile and resourceful way, be applied in our modern times
and in its multiple potentialities. His scholarly interpretation of the word
of God cannot be exercised within tight compartments, without the living
contact with areas of knowledge which are occupied with other spaces of the
divine creation.
5. Within the heart of Orthodoxy, there emerges the
principle of the priority of the text in relation to the interpreter.
The awareness that the biblical text preceded its modern interpreter by many
centuries and -most significantly- that between the text and the interpreter
are interposed the life of the Church and the Tradition, makes the
interpreter have a humble spirit and an awareness of his or her weakness.
Egocentric self-confidence and uncontrolled fanaticism are alien to Orthodox
interpretation and to the Orthodox interpreter. The interpreter serves the
truth and endeavours in the Holy Spirit to interpret the text in his own
times; he offers service to the body of Christ with the awareness that the
truth is found above him. Conversely, when, instead of serving the truth, he
puts it to his own service, to serve his own aims, then he does not serve
the body of Christ but himself. In the first case, he might even sacrifice
himself for the truth, if necessary, -something which in fact took place
during the centuries-long life of the Church. In the second case, he
sacrifices the truth. However, this is something pathological manifested by
fanaticism and bigotry, phenomena which occurred in the past and occur today
as well.
Προηγούμενη /
Επόμενη σελίδα
_______________________________
NOTES
1 Τ. Stylianopoulos, Bread for life. Reading the
Bible, 1980, 13f.
2 The author of this study is happy to participate in
this volume in honour of Professor Otfried Hofius who has very profound
knowledge of the Orthodox tradition as well as of contemporary
Orthodox interpretation of the Holy Scripture.
3 Menandri Sententiae, ed. S. Jaekel, Leipzig, 1964,
45
4 St. Basil the Great, Liber de Spiritu Sancto 1,2,
in: PG 32, 67-218: 69; Engl. transl. by the Rev. Blomfield Jackson, A Select
Library of Nicene and post- Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, vol. 8,
1968, 2.
ΘΗΣΑΥΡΟΣ ΤΗΣ ΚΑΙΝΗΣ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗΣ
