Maybe so. I was surprised at what I thought you said.Perhaps we were speaking past each other. (I stepped out because I though this was the case).
This is pretty much what I think.Here's my blow by blow...
Let me attempt to state your position as I understood it.
ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως, translated “private interpretation” or “(someone's) own interpretation”
= not a literal interpretation (or an idiosyncratic interpretation)
Therefore meaning is found only in a literal interpretation of Scripture.
Keep talking.COMMENT:
In the constitution of the church I attend we have a sentence in our statement of beliefs that relates to this verse in the way you’ve stated: “The Bible is to be interpreted in a normal literal way and is understandable because of the ministry of the Holy Spirit.”
I’m mildly troubled by this statement in a similar way as I am with the way you interpret 2 Peter 1:20. I don’t think a particular hermeneutical method is sanctified here (or anywhere).
Don’t get me wrong, I've no problem with the grammatical-historical method of interpretation,
- however even it can be misapplied.
I will clarify, and make the points that:My problem lies in the impression that there is a God-ordained method of interpretation.
The bible just uses too many varying methods of interpretation for me to be comfortable saying “this way and no other.” ...do it this way and you won't interpret it wrong...
(1) God invented language, and even uses language to communicate within the trinity (following the excellent book by Poythress on language.
(2) Language is meant to be understood communication, not hidden meanings. Therefore, any form of interpretation that suggests an idiosyncratic interpretation is dead wrong. God means everyone to language the same way.
(3) Therefore the common method of allegorizing Scripture ala Origen is mistaken. Therefore, I am a premillennialist.
Whatever the actual interpretation (I don't say my interpretation must be correct), the application can still be that we don't have the right to interpret Scripture (I do not say apply) in an idiosyncratic way.A number of varying interpretations are common with this passage.
Granted.At least two of them represented by comparing versions.
2 Peter 1:20–21
knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. (NKJV)
knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
(ESV)
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
(NASB95)
Above all, you know this: No prophecy of Scripture comes from the prophet’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the will of man; instead, men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (CSB)
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (NIV)
Granted some of these quotes are relevant, but I don's see epilusis in there anywhere.The prominence of the prophets view is intensified by a review of extra-biblical literature pertaining to the biblical hapax legomenon, interpretation.
Philo, Quis. Her. 259: “For a prophet utters (ἀποφθέγγεται) nothing that is his own (ἵδιον οὐδέν), but everything he utters belongs to another (ἀλλότρια), since another is prompting him (ὑπηχοῦντος ἑτέρου).” (Abbott, Exp 2/3 [1882] 54–55, thinks 2 Peter is actually dependent on this passage.)
Philo, Spec. Leg. 4.49: “A prophet declares nothing at all that is his own (οὐδὲν ἵδιον ἀποφαίνεται τὸ παράπαν), but is a spokesman (ἐρμηνεύς) of another who suggests (ὑποβάλλοντος ἑτέρου) everything he utters.”
Philo, Qu. Gen. 3.10 “The prophet seems to say something, but he does not give his own oracle but is the interpreter [i.e. ἐρμηνεύς, “spokesman”] of another, who puts things into his mind” (Loeb tr. from the Armenian).
Hippolytus, Antichr. 2: “For they [the prophets] did not speak from their own power (ἐξ ἴδιας δυνάμεως ἐφθεγγοντο) … nor did they proclaim what they wished, but first they were endowed with true wisdom through the Word, and then they were correctly taught about the future through visions.”
Pseudo-Justin, Cohortatio 8: The prophets “taught us nothing from their own imagination (μηδὲν ἀπὸ τῆς ἰδίας αὐτῶν φαντασίας) … [but] they received from God the knowledge which they also taught us.… For neither by nature nor by human thought (ἐννοίᾳ) is it possible for men to know such great and divine things.”
Jer 23:16 LXX: The false prophets “speak from their own heart (ἀπὸ καρδίας αὐτῶν) and not from the mouth of the Lord.”
Ezek 13:3 LXX: The false prophets “prophesy from their own heart (ἀπὸ καρδίας αὐτῶν).”
Josephus, Ant. 4.121: Balaam says, “For once he [God] has entered, nothing within us is any longer our own (ἡμετερον)”
Philo, Spec. Leg. 1.65: The prophet “will say nothing that is his own (οἰκεῖον οὐδέν).”
Richard J. Bauckham, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 50, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 229–230.
Rob