There appears to be great confusion about hermeneutics on the BB, especially among preterists, and amil advocates. Hopefully this thread can clear up some things about hermeneutics--but I'm not holding my breath. Caveat: I'm going to have to simplify some things. There is no way a BB thread can even begin to deal adequately with this subject. So my goal is mainly to inform about the OP.
For the record, my method is grammatical-historical, and I think much of modern linguistics helps that method. In particular, advances in semantics (the study of meaning) help Biblical exegesis. Great sources on this are Mouses Silva (Biblical Words and Their Meaning) and David Alan Black (Linguistics for Students of NT Greek).
First of all, all scholars agree that the basic method of interpretation of the early church was grammatical-historical. Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard (Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 1993, p. 30) speak of literal-contextual interpretation as an apostolic method.
The first genuine school of hermeneutics developed in Antioch of Syria. When Origen and his allegorical method came along, "The Syrian school fought Origen in particular as the inventor of the allegorical method, and maintained the primacy of the iteral and historical interpretation of the Scripture" (Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical interpretation, p. 49). "The literal method of interpreting the Bible is to accept as basic the literal rendering of the sentences unless by virtue of the nature of the sentence or phrase or clause within the sentence this is not possible" (ibid, 45).
Ah, yes, Origen (185-254). There were other allegorists (Clement of Alexandria, for one), but he took the Jewish method of Philo and applied it to the NT, popularizing it in the process. Origen taught different levels of interpretation: the literal (the least important), only for laymen. He taught that the spiritual interpretation was the true interpretation, something foreign to the grammatical-historical method, and something that allows every interpreter to interpret differently.
So, for you preterists on the BB: "Spiritual" and "allegorical" are synonyms for the same method. When you interpret other than literally you are interpreting "spiritually" or "allegorically." Thus you are not interpreting according to natural, God given (cf universal grammar), normal hermeneutics. You are using a method that can mean anything--thus the very wide variety of preterist positions. Simply admit that you do not interpret prophecy literally (however you may interpret the Sermon on the Mount and other important Scripture), and go on from there.
For the record, my method is grammatical-historical, and I think much of modern linguistics helps that method. In particular, advances in semantics (the study of meaning) help Biblical exegesis. Great sources on this are Mouses Silva (Biblical Words and Their Meaning) and David Alan Black (Linguistics for Students of NT Greek).
First of all, all scholars agree that the basic method of interpretation of the early church was grammatical-historical. Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard (Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 1993, p. 30) speak of literal-contextual interpretation as an apostolic method.
The first genuine school of hermeneutics developed in Antioch of Syria. When Origen and his allegorical method came along, "The Syrian school fought Origen in particular as the inventor of the allegorical method, and maintained the primacy of the iteral and historical interpretation of the Scripture" (Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical interpretation, p. 49). "The literal method of interpreting the Bible is to accept as basic the literal rendering of the sentences unless by virtue of the nature of the sentence or phrase or clause within the sentence this is not possible" (ibid, 45).
Ah, yes, Origen (185-254). There were other allegorists (Clement of Alexandria, for one), but he took the Jewish method of Philo and applied it to the NT, popularizing it in the process. Origen taught different levels of interpretation: the literal (the least important), only for laymen. He taught that the spiritual interpretation was the true interpretation, something foreign to the grammatical-historical method, and something that allows every interpreter to interpret differently.
So, for you preterists on the BB: "Spiritual" and "allegorical" are synonyms for the same method. When you interpret other than literally you are interpreting "spiritually" or "allegorically." Thus you are not interpreting according to natural, God given (cf universal grammar), normal hermeneutics. You are using a method that can mean anything--thus the very wide variety of preterist positions. Simply admit that you do not interpret prophecy literally (however you may interpret the Sermon on the Mount and other important Scripture), and go on from there.
