Abstract
The inadequacy of ambiguous theories of interpretation left the door open for arbitrary interpretations of a text. During the Reformation, hermeneutics became a vital topic for theology. Varying and conflicting interpretations of Scripture were offered by Protestants and Catholics, leading to attempts to provide an account of the principles behind interpretation. In this chapter, Shpet traces these attempts through Flacius and in the Renaissance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Blass 1892: 162ff.
- 2.
Citing from the Basel edition of 1617. [See Flacius 1617.]
- 3.
On the significance of Flacius and his Clavis, see Dilthey 1914a: 113ff. Dilthey testifies to the great scholarship of Flacius with the following words: “Thus, this book, in fact, is a summing up of all preceding exegesis.” Dilthey 1914a: 120. Dilthey here (Dilthey 1914a: 127) examines and evaluates other representatives of Protestant hermeneutics, in particular those who comprise together with Flacius the “hermeneutic triumvirate,” namely Frantze and Glasius. See Frantze 1619 and Glasius 1623. A general examination of Flacius’ intellectual development is sufficient for our purposes.
- 4.
Flacius also recognizes the obscurity of Holy Scripture and diligently enumerates the reasons (51 of them) for this. See Flacius 1617: vol. 2, 1–6.
- 5.
Flacius 1617: vol. 1, preface: “…not one of them has interpreted the text itself and the words of the Scriptures with utmost care. Even when, it would seem, that they wish to interpret some sacred book, they often digress in explaining the content, followed then by allegory and exercises in eloquence. Citing examples from Scripture in their true sense, they are more likely to pay attention to elegant and well-chosen phrases than to the integrity of the narrative’s fabric. Is this not unlike a person, who, plucking little flowers from a field to suit one’s fancy, would fashion wreaths and garlands; or like one who, expressing his own thought in the words of another, would stitch together a kind of patchwork quilt.”
- 6.
Flacius 1617: vol. 1, preface: “It follows from this that the true sense of Scripture could never be grasped when the text was separated into parts like the straws of untied brooms. The fact is that the true sense of the Holy Scriptures, as well as of all other writings, surely depends in the majority of cases on the context, the aim of what was written, and the correlation and congruence of its parts and, so to speak, of its members. As is the case everywhere else too, the individual parts of some whole are best understood by taking into account the undivided whole as well as the other parts and the harmony of the whole.”
- 7.
Flacius 1617: vol. 2, 26.
- 8.
Likewise, Flacius distinguishes 17 meanings of the word “Spiritus” in Holy Scripture and gives an ingenious classification of the nine meanings of the word “Gratia,” a classification of the meanings of the word “benedicere,” and a very original classification of the word “peccatum” (“sin”), etc. See Flacius 1617: vol. 2, 1159–1166; Flacius 1617: vol. 2, 377; Flacius 1617: vol. 2, 859.
- 9.
Flacius 1617: vol. 1, preface: “Here is why, having discussed in the first part the meaning of individual terms, particularly difficult ones, and of expressions arising from them, I have now in this new part, following a synthetic order, discussed various Hebraisms, paying attention to various rules and even whole treatises arranged according to parts of speech, tropes, and figures, and finally according to whole sentences.” Of the seven treatises of the second part, two of them (IV and V) are concerned with rhetoric and one with grammar, while the first two deal directly with hermeneutics. The content of the second of these treatises is adequately expressed by its title: Sententiae ac regulae patrum de ratione discendi Sacras Literas. (By the way, it also contains a treatise on hermeneutics by the African Bishop Junilius, pp. 201ff.) Consequently, it is the first treatise – De ratione cognoscendi Sacras Literas – that attracts our greatest attention. [The editor has been unable to confirm Shpet’s remark concerning Junilius. However, see another work: Flacius 1624: 651–657.]
- 10.
[Flacius 1617: vol. 2, 1.]
- 11.
Dilthey 1914a: 119.
- 12.
“As one distinguished Church Father wrote, Origen replaced Divine mysteries with a game of his mind.” Flacius 1617: vol. 2, 64. [The Russian text incorrectly gives the reference as vol. 1.]
- 13.
Cf. Augustine 2002: 116.
- 14.
[Rendered in comformity with the German translation. The Russian text gives the name as “Hinerius.” Andreas Gerhard Hyperius (1511–1564), real name Andreas Gheeraerdts, was a Flemish Protestant theologian. Flacius mentions him in his text.]
- 15.
[Flacius 1617: vol. 2, 65.] Cf. “However, we will remember that a single, precise, and simple sense ultimately should be sought everywhere according to the teachings of grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric. For speech that does not have an unambiguous, simple sense conveys nothing definite. If figures of speech are encountered in the narrative, they must not generate ambiguities, but, on the contrary, in conformity with the usual principles of speech, give a single sense that conforms with everything that is being presented. Here, however, someone may ask whether there is nowhere a place for other senses. To this I answer that if we begin arbitrarily to ascribe various shades of sense to everything, there would be nothing definite in Scripture. Thus, Origen is surely refuted, since he transforms everything, however simply it was said, into allegory.” Flacius 1617: vol. 2, 66–67.
- 16.
This wavering was the basis of Dilthey’s evaluation of Flacius’ views as less than they are worth. Further on I will offer grounds for my own higher estimation. Dilthey 1914a: 124.
- 17.
The question concerning what constitutes the meaning of a word or concept is until now still not properly resolved. The fluctuation in the concept of “sense” arises not only from this status of the question, but also from the substitution of such a solution by the vulgar opinion that the “meaning” of a word is a “representation.” However, in the most elementary formulation of the question it also arises simply from the unfulfilled requirement of at least a conditional distinction between “meaning” and “sense.” In order to make it easier for the reader to follow the development of my ideas, I propose, in a preliminary way, prior to a more precise analysis, that the following distinction be kept in mind. The meaning of a word or a concept – for a concept is a word viewed in its logical function – is that part of the corresponding object’s content that we connect with the word as long as we consider the word independently of the context in which we use it. Thus, for example, we find the meaning of foreign words in dictionaries of the appropriate languages. When we examine words or concepts in the context in which they are concretely given, which of course is always unique, we are looking for their sense.
- 18.
See above. Dilthey himself stresses the sense of this formulation of the question, calling it “Schleiermacherian” and even (possibly to the detriment of Melanchthon’s claim to priority) calls this formulation Flacius’ “discovery” (Dilthey 1914a: 122).
- 19.
Flacius 1617: vol. 2, 69. [Shpet added the emphasis here to the Latin text.]
- 20.
Dilthey once again simplifies Flacius’ point of view. See Dilthey 1914a: 121, 123.
- 21.
Flacius 1617: vol. 2, 82.
- 22.
[Flacius 1617: vol. 2, 82.]
- 23.
[Flacius 1617: vol. 2, 83.]
- 24.
Flacius 1617: vol. 2, 66.
- 25.
- 26.
Flacius 1617: vol. 1, 464–65: “In the Church, there is a dispute about the interpretation of Scripture: Who has this power? The true answer is that every devout person, especially a rational person or one endowed with such a gift, has the right to interpret Scripture, but certainly after comparing Scriptural passages, considering the context and subject matter, and praying reverently to God that the entire interpretation may be compatible with faith. Above all, however, it should be known that by no means must the Church admit that kind of juridical and bureaucratic interpretation which the Pontiff and his Councils now usurp so as, at their own pleasure, to attribute some specific meaning to Scriptural passages on the basis of their authority or even of their plenary power, a sense from which no one, no matter how much better his own perceptions, can or should presume to, depart. Indeed, the following rule should always be unwaveringly observed. No one – not even an angel – can change the meaning of Holy Scripture, since the word of God must be seen in no other way than that proven with obvious clarity.”
- 27.
[See the work Baur 1824–25. Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792–1860), who taught at Tübingen University, was a pioneer in historical theology. His methodology was strongly influenced by Hegelian philosophy of history.]
- 28.
On the one hand, “The Rules for Understanding Holy Scripture drawn from Scripture itself” (Flacius 1617: vol. 2, 7) are based, that is to say, on certain information in Holy Scripture itself and on a rigorous theological elaboration of it. On the other hand, “The Precepts for a Proper Reading of Holy Scripture collected or thought by our own judgment” (Flacius 1617: vol. 2, 21), i.e., what I characterize as “common sense.”
- 29.
[Flacius 1617: vol. 2, 9.]
- 30.
[Flacius 1617: vol. 2, 9.]
- 31.
See the table [Declaratio Tabulae] on Flacius 1617: vol. 2, 53.
- 32.
[We should recall here that Philipp Melanchthon’s chief work was entitled Loci communes rerum theologicarum seu hypotyposes theologicae.]
- 33.
Flacius 1617: vol. 2, 22. Praecepta 9.
- 34.
[Flacius 1617: vol. 2, 22. Praecepta 10.]
- 35.
[Flacius 1617: vol. 2, 22, Praecepta 11.]
- 36.
[Flacius 1617: vol. 2, 22, Praecepta 12.]
Bibliography
Augustine, St. 2002. On Genesis, ed. John E. Rotelle. Hyde Park: New City Press.
Baur, Ferdinand Christian. 1824–5. Symbolik und Mythologie oder die Naturreligion des Alterthums. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler.
Blass, Friedrich. 1892. Hermeneutik und Kritik. In Müller 1892: 147–295.
Dilthey, Wilhelm. 1914a. Das natürliche System der Geisteswissenschaften im 17. Jahrhunderte. In Gesammelte Schriften. II Band: Weltanschauungen und Analyse des Menschen seit Renaissance und Reformation. Leipzig und Berlin: B. G. Teubner. 90-245.
Flacius, Matthius. 1617. Clavis scripturae S. seu de sermone sacrarum literarum. Basiliae [Basil]: Sebastium Henricpetri.
———. 1624. Historiae ecclesiasticae. Vol. 2. Basil: Ludovici Regis.
Frantze, Wolfgang. 1619. Tractatus theologicus novus et perspicuus de interpretatione sacrarum scripturarum maxime legitima. Wittenberg: Matthaeus Seelfisch.
Glasius, Salomo. 1623. Philologiae sacrae, qua totius sacrosanctae veteri et novi testamenti scripturae, tum stylus et literatura, tum sensus et genuinae interpretationis ratio expenditur. Jena: Steinmann.
Melanchthon, Philipp. 1900. Die Loci communes Philipp Melanchthons in ihrer Urgestalt. Leipzig: Deichert.
———. 2007. The Loci communes of Philipp Melanchthon. Eugene: Wipf and Stock.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Shpet, G., Nemeth, T. (2019). Flacius [and Biblical Hermeneutics in the Renaissance]. In: Nemeth, T. (eds) Hermeneutics and Its Problems. Contributions To Phenomenology, vol 98. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98941-9_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98941-9_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98940-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-98941-9
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)