from Biblical Interpretation in the Russian Orthodox Church: An historical and hermeneutical perspective by A. Negrov (University of Pretoria). The entire article is worth reading. Note this is partial setup for a tip on dogmatic interpretation.
[quote]
2 A HERMENEUTICAL PERSPECTIVE
With the historical overview in mind, we may now specify the main features of "Russian Orthodox Hermeneutics".
2.1 The Patristic Feature
Without doubt, the nature and characteristic of Russian Orthodox biblical interpretation and exegesis is deeply influenced by patristic exegesis.The patristic concept of interpretation is assigned to be "the first and the most important principle" of the Russian Orthodox biblical interpretation (Men' 1987:272).
This orientation is dictated by the following factors. First, the patristic writings and interpretative methodology indisputably support the authority and significance of the Bible as the communicated Word of God for the church and society (see Sol'skii 1866). Second, the Church Fathers' works, pertaining to biblical exposition and interpretation, establish and maintain the most important issues for the Orthodox tradition, teaching and dogma. Third, the patristic approaches to Scripture, and the practice of "typological", "allegorical" and "spiritual" exegesis is appealing to the Russian Orthodox exegetes. Fourth, the Church Fathers established
a pattern of Bible interpretation, in which a Christocentric emphasis for interpreting the Word of God" (1875: 188). It means that the Russian Orthodox interpretation of the Bible is ecclesiastical. Assuming that the
church is always right, sinless and significant (cf. Antonii 1862:12), Vladimir Ribinckii (1902:382) stresses that "the Church is the best interpreter of the spirit and meaning of the Bible". In this mode of thought, the
church becomes the highest reality prior to Scripture and it is a final authority of Bible interpretation. The notion that a true understanding of the Bible is stored in the church implies a hermeneutical feature of "the faithfulness to the spirit of the Church" (Mikhail 1889: 125). All the inquiries of a scientific or exegetical kind, then, presuppose that Scripture and church could not be separated or be opposed to each other. The church is a priori in reading the Bible, because many books of the Bible (the entire New Testament) "were authored for an already existing Church" (Illarion 1914: 16-18). For this reason it is understood that Scripture was given to the church as to its interpretative community. The church is not an external authority, which has to judge over the Scripture. Rather, she is the keeper and guardian of that Divine truth which was stored and deposited in the Bible. It is assumed that only in the Russian Church, within the community of a rightful Orthodox faith, could the Scriptures be adequately understood and interpreted correctly. Archbishop Illarion (Troizkii, d. 1929) underscores this point: "only for a man who belongs to the Church is it conceivable to receive an accurate message of the Holy Scriptures" (Illarion 1914: 17). An entire dogmatic premise is a quintessential criterion for the interpreter to bring forward unanimity of a scientific investigation of the Bible and faithfulness of the church. Whatever is opposed to the dogmatic truths of the church - the whole pronema ekklesias (the mind of the church) must be set aside. In the words of Fr. Serguis Bulgakov (1871-1944), an ecclesiastic principle of the interpretation establishes the exegesis as being dogmatically pre-conditioned (1965:59). and the idea of an unbroken and organic unity between the Old and New Testaments are interrelated.
The faithfulness to patristic hermeneutics, argues the Orthodox theologian and historian Lev Karsavin (1882-1952), does not limit free investigation of the Bible; it is rather a source of inspiration of the biblical interpretation (Karsavin 1926).
2.2 The relationships between Scripture, Church and Dogma
In the determinations of the Russian Orthodox Church, the principle of the authority of ecclesiastical understanding is an important key to unlocking the meaning of biblical texts. Nikol'skii speaks for everyone: "In our Church we have, like in the treasury, all the authentic foundations for interpreting the Word of God" (1875: 188). It means that the Russian Orthodox interpretation of the Bible is ecclesiastical. Assuming that the church is always right, sinless and significant (cf. Antonii 1862:12), Vladimir Ribinckii (1902:382) stresses that "the Church is the best interpreter of the spirit and meaning of the Bible". In this mode of thought, the church becomes the highest reality prior to Scripture and it is a final authority of Bible interpretation. The notion that a true understanding of the Bible is stored in the church implies a hermeneutical feature of "the faithfulness to the spirit of the Church" (Mikhail 1889: 125). All the inquiries of a scientific or exegetical kind, then, presuppose that Scripture and church could not be separated or be opposed to each other.
The church is a priori in reading the Bible, because many books of the Bible (the entire New Testament) "were authored for an already existing Church" (Illarion 1914: 16-18). For this reason it is understood that Scripture was given to the church as to its interpretative community. The church is not an external authority, which has to judge over the Scripture. Rather, she is the keeper and guardian of that Divine truth which was stored and deposited in the Bible. It is assumed that only in the Russian Church, within the community of a rightful Orthodox faith, could the Scriptures be adequately understood and interpreted correctly. Archbishop Illarion (Troizkii, d. 1929) underscores this point: "only for a man who belongs to the Church is it conceivable to receive an accurate message of the Holy Scriptures" (Illarion 1914: 17).
An entire dogmatic premise is a quintessential criterion for the interpreter to bring forward unanimity of a scientific investigation of the Bible and faithfulness of the church. Whatever is opposed to the dogmatic truths of the church - the whole pronema ekklesias (the mind of the church) must be set aside. In the words of Fr. Serguis Bulgakov (1871-1944), an ecclesiastic principle of the interpretation establishes the exegesis as being dogmatically pre-conditioned (1965:59).
from the blog: Rightinhissight
[quote]
Hermeneutics 7 – Dogmatic Interpretation
November 8, 2012
I will not spend a lot of time defining this approach to interpretation, but will spend more time discussing the ease with which we can be guilty of it.
Dogmatic Interpretation’s starting point is a certain theological framework. It is best seen in the development of the Roman Catholic Church, however we will see that this approach rears its head in modern Protestantism as well. The Roman Church thought that their beliefs were the lens through which all interpretations of Scripture must bend. They denounced any interpretation of Scripture that did not accord with what they confessed. There are other details we could discuss about the Romanist approach the Scripture and truth, however the important point for this post is that they thought the Bible must always say what they already believed to be true.
Immediately I assume that most people reading this blog will protest and denounce this method of interpretation. On the surface, all of us reject that what we currently believe should be the basis for the interpretation of the Bible. However, I must ask you to consider, why is it then that we have so many denominations and traditions in the Christian church which all claim that their distinctive beliefs are the right ones? Of course there are other factors to weigh in to why this occurs, (i.e. a lack belief in the infallibility of Scripture, a poor understanding of how to read the Bible) but the fact is we all tend to think that any interpretation of the Bible that is different from what we have believed must be wrong.
Think for a moment about some of the more “controversial” issues to see if this is true. What do you currently believe to be true about infant baptism versus believers baptism? What do you currently believe about the various issues related to election and free will? What do you currently believe about the second coming of Christ? Now ask yourself this all important question; how do you respond when someone shares with you a view that differs from yours? Don’t we normally immediately jump on the defensive and protect the way we have thought about the issue for so long? In essence, we can tend to think, “I have believed X for so long, there is no way I could be wrong.”
Let me say that I am not saying that we are all wrong about every issue and should immediately start to believe opposite views because we are all guilty of dogmatic interpretation. What I am advocating is that we recognize how easy it is to make our beliefs that lens through which all Scripture must bend. I am advocating that we be cautious about differing view points, aware of the fact that we could very easily be imposing our own tradition on the Bible unknowingly. We should not be hasty to develop convictions and must be open to the possibility that we have not be thinking accurately about one view or another.
To assume that our current beliefs about God and the Bible are all accurate simply because we believe them is prideful and irresponsible. We are called to a higher level of holiness. If we must worship God in truth, we must be diligent, careful and passionate about knowing God for who He is. We must pray with earnestness, read with vigor, and study with diligence that our minds be conformed to the Word of God. We must protect against making the Word of God conform to our already held beliefs.
I will continue on historic approaches to interpretation on Monday.
from The Hermeneutic of Dogma by Thomas B. Ommen (Marquette University):
[quote]
A reliance on the prejudgments granted by traditions becomes distortive only when prejudgments harden to the point where they are not open to reformulation, criticism, and possible rejection in the act of interpretation itself. Eisegesis results when prejudgments determine the results of interpretation from the outset and when the interpreter proceeds without noting either the distinctiveness and otherness of the text or the changed situation of interpretation. One might expect that such an openness of interpretation might be particularly difficult to realize in the interpretation of dogma. The emphasis on the permanent, unchanging meaning of dogma has in fact carried the risk of freezing the meaning of dogmatic texts in one mold, no longer open to reformulation in light either of the renewed historical encounter with the past or of the changed understanding of reality in a given age. The corrective to such a hardening of prejudgments lies particularly at two levels. The first is a critical and honest process of interpretation of the past meaning of dogma. Such interpretation can point to meanings previously overlooked or read in an incorrect light. The time difference between text and interpreter has a positive significance, because it makes possible an appreciation of the distinctive character of the meaning of a text in its own horizon, an awareness which can alter the presuppositions of the interpreter. The lively discussion of the relationship of Scripture and tradition in recent Catholic theology, for example, emerged in large part because of a reinterpretation of the decrees of the Council of Trent. Following Geiselmann's investigations, it was no longer self-evident that Trent had recognized tradition as an independent expression of the apostolic witness alongside the text of Scripture. As Geiselmann reconstructed the Fathers' intention, theTridentine decree on the relationship of Scripture and tradition seemed instead to be much closer to the Protestant principle of sola scriptura tradition is properly conceived as a means of interpreting and explicating Scripture.
