I am adding these posts to the previous tip list L/V 10 Tip of the Day
QUESTION: In Biblical studies How do I judge the validity of a proposed acronymic interpretation of a name?
Skill: Evaluate suggested acronym
ANSWER: From Perplexity:
To judge the validity of a proposed acronymic interpretation of a name in biblical studies, consider the following criteria:
1. Historical and Cultural Context: Determine if the acronymic interpretation aligns with historical and cultural contexts of the time. Acronymic interpretations are particularly prevalent in Jewish mystical traditions and rabbinic literature, where they are used to derive deeper meanings about biblical figures or concepts.
2. Source Credibility: Check the credibility and authority of the sources proposing the interpretation. Valid interpretations often come from well-respected religious texts or scholars. For example, interpretations found in Midrash Tanchuma or Shemot Rabbah are considered credible within Jewish tradition.
3. Consistency with Scriptural Themes: Evaluate whether the interpretation is consistent with broader scriptural themes and teachings. An interpretation should not contradict established theological principles or narratives.
4. Linguistic Plausibility: Assess whether the acronym makes linguistic sense in the original language of the text (Hebrew, Greek, etc.). The words or phrases derived from each letter should be meaningful and relevant to the context.
5. Purpose and Relevance: Consider the purpose of the acronymic interpretation. It should aim to reveal deeper insights or spiritual qualities associated with the name, rather than being arbitrary or forced.
6. Scholarly Consensus: Look for scholarly consensus or debate regarding the interpretation. If multiple scholars support or discuss an interpretation, it may have more validity.
By applying these criteria, you can critically assess whether an acronymic interpretation of a biblical name is valid and meaningful within its religious and historical context.1
1 and https://jesusalive.cc/christian-acronyms/ and
https://community.logos.com/forums/t/225920.aspx
https://sammm1777.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/christian-acronymsacrostics/
QUESTION: In Biblical studies How do I judge the validity of a proposed allegorical interpretation of a name?
Skill: Evaluate suggested acrostic
ANSWER: From Perplexity:
To evaluate the validity of a proposed allegorical interpretation of a name in biblical studies, consider the following guidelines:
1. Historical and Theological Context: Assess whether the allegorical interpretation aligns with the historical and theological context of the biblical text. Allegorical interpretations should not contradict established doctrines or historical understandings of the scripture.
2. Scriptural Consistency: Ensure that the interpretation is consistent with other parts of scripture. Allegorical interpretations should not create contradictions within the biblical narrative. Use the principle of "Scripture interpreting Scripture" to check for consistency.
3. Linguistic and Cultural Plausibility: Evaluate whether the allegory makes sense linguistically and culturally. The interpretation should respect the original language and cultural context of the text, avoiding anachronisms or forced meanings.
4. Purpose and Relevance: Consider whether the allegory serves a meaningful purpose, such as providing spiritual insight or moral teaching, rather than being arbitrary or speculative.
5. Scholarly Support: Look for support from credible biblical scholars or historical interpretations. Allegorical interpretations that have been recognized or debated by respected theologians may carry more weight.
6. Avoidance of Subjectivity: Be cautious of interpretations that rely heavily on subjective imagination without objective grounding in the text. Allegorical interpretations should not be so flexible that they can mean anything to anyone.
By applying these criteria, you can critically assess whether an allegorical interpretation of a name is valid and meaningful within its religious and historical context.1
QUESTION: What contemporary commentators use allegory in name interpretation?
SOFTWARE: Using the Logos/Verbum book search against type:Bible Commentary with the search argument “name NEAR interpretation NEAR allegorical’ produced these results:
ANSWER: from Hoyt, JoAnna M. Amos, Jonah, & Micah. Evangelical Exegetical Commentary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018.
Several allegorical interpretations are attributed to the book of Jonah. One common interpretation begins with Jonah’s name, which means “dove.” The meaning of this “hidden” element is then compared to other Scriptures in order to interpret it. One allegorical approach to Jonah’s name connects it with Hos 11:11: “They will come trembling like birds from Egypt and like doves from the land of Assyria; And I will settle them in their houses, declares the Lord.” Jonah represents the doves in Hos 11:11, which represent all of Israel; and Nineveh, where Jonah is forced to go, represents Assyria, and later Babylon. Thus the book of Jonah is a picture of how Israel will be swallowed up by Babylon, which corresponds to other passages that talk about the exile, such as Jer 51:34, 44.115 The didactic point of this allegorical interpretation is then that Israel is supposed to use the exile as an opportunity to share Yahweh with the nations, just as Jonah does with the sailors and the Ninevites (Wolff, 141).
There is a second allegorical interpretation based off Jonah’s name meaning “dove.” Frolov connects the dove meaning with the doves used in sacrifices.
For the ancient Israelites, yônâ was first and foremost a sacrificial species: it is mentioned as such in Leviticus (1:14; 5:7, 11; 12:8; 14:22, 30; 15:14, 29) and in Numbers (6:10). Moreover, it is consistently recognized as a valid guilt offering (in Lev. 5:8; 12:8; 14:22; 15:15, 30; Num. 6:11). It means that for the author and his/her intended audience the meaning encoded in Jonah’s name was not “a fickle, capricious and timid winged creature that moans and laments when in distress” (as suggested by many scholars), but rather “a suitable animal for the atonement of sin.” All this convinces me that it is possible to read the book of Jonah as a story of the sacrifice of its main protagonist. Accordingly, Jonah’s behavior may also be seen in a new light. Picked as a guilt offering and dealt with as such, he is ready to do everything, even to die, in order to defend his dignity and to prove that he is not to be treated as a sacrificial turtle-dove.116
Another similar allegorical approach finds a hidden meaning behind Jonah’s full name; Jonah ben Amittai means “dove, son of faithfulness.” From the very start the “son of faithfulness” displays unfaithfulness, eventually following through only under extreme duress. Similarly, Ephros interprets the story as an allegory in which Jonah represents the Israelites who disobey Yahweh and flee/forsake him (cf. Isa 1:2, 4). Israel is Yahweh’s servant just as Jonah was (2 Kgs 14:25), and the prophet status of Jonah in the story identifies Israel’s unique relationship with God. In this interpretation Jonah’s prayer and promise of sacrifices in chap. 2 is an empty ritual, an attempt to manipulate Yahweh, just as Israel was guilty of many times in her history. Both Jonah and the Israelites are guilty of “rebellious obstinacy” (cf. Exod 32:9, Jer 7:26; Neh 9:16, 17). Nineveh, then, represents the entirety of the pagan world. Where Israel is rebellious, the non-Israelite world is ready to respond to Yahweh, and Yahweh stands ready to respond with mercy to all who are penitent (cf. Isa 2:1–4; Mic 4:1–5). “The terribly flawed behavior of Jonah as opposed to the seemingly naive idealization of the people of Nineveh leads one to believe that there is an allegorical level of meaning in the book, conveying an implicit message.”[2]
From Nichol, Francis D., ed. The Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary. Vol. 3. Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1977.
Agur’s confession of his faith. 7 The two points of his prayer. 10 The meanest are not to be wronged. 11 Four wicked generations. 15 Four things insatiable. 17 Parents are not to be despised. 18 Four things hard to be known. 21 Four things intolerable. 24 Four things exceeding wise. 29 Four things stately. 32 Wrath is to be prevented.
1. The words of Agur. The interpretation of this verse has occasioned much discussion. Nowhere else in the Bible do we read of Agur or Jakeh or Ucal. The name Ithiel is found in Neh. 11:7 as belonging to a descendant of Benjamin. Some Jewish interpreters believe that “Agur” was an allegorical name for Solomon. They render the opening phrase, “The words of the gatherer the son of the Pious [or Obedient],” referring the designation “Pious” to David. The Vulgate follows a similar idea, rendering the phrase, “The words of the Collector, son of the Utterer.”[3]
From Martin, Ralph P. James. Vol. 48. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1988.
Modern criticism of this NT document has produced a variety of interpretations that bear upon the question of its status within the NT canon. At one extreme is the eccentric hypothesis put out by A. Meyer in 1930 that the solution to the “riddle of James’ letter” was to be found in seeing in it a fundamentally Jewish document. In this proposal Meyer was building on the earlier works of Massebieau and Spitta (see Bibliography) but adding a novel idea regarding the composition of James’ letter. It was said to be written pseudonymously to the twelve tribes by an author who used the name of patriarch Jacob representing the tribes as an onomastikon to supply an allegorical interpretation based on their names in Gen 49. For instance, 1:18 depends on the wording of the ascription to Reuben (Gen 49:3) as the firstborn (Meyer, 268–69). The names of Jesus Christ in 1:1; 2:1 are held to be interpolations by a later hand (Meyer, 118–20). While few have followed Meyer in turning the epistle into a Jewish writing (though Windisch shows some interest in this idea on formal grounds, and Sigal, “The Halakhah of James,” views the letter as standing entirely in the Jewish tradition, albeit as a Palestinian Christian document), his work was influential in establishing a trend.[4]
1 and https://drmsh.com/allegorical-interpretation-names-genesis-5/ and and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretation_of_the_Bible and
115 Hayes, Hebrew Bible: History of Interpretation, 275.
116 S. Frolov, “Returning the Ticket,” JSOT 86 (1999): 97.
[2] JoAnna M. Hoyt, Amos, Jonah, & Micah, Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018), 369–370.
[3] Francis D. Nichol, ed., The Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 3 (Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1977), 1048–1049.
[4] Ralph P. Martin, James, vol. 48, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1988), cv–cvi.
https://nelson.ink/allegorical-interpretation-of-the-bible/
https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/Moral-interpretation
https://alwaysbeready.com/hermeneutics-rules-and-guidelines/
