Hearing the Scriptures

This book explores a specific area of “reception history”: Byzantine hymnography’s use and interpretation of Scriptures, primarily the Old Testament (Septuagint), as part of Orthodox tradition. Lexical-biblical-theological analyses of selected Holy Week hymns show the distinctiveness of “liturgical exegesis” (hymnographic biblical interpretation) and its complementarity to “patristic exegesis.” Even though patristic exegesis and liturgical exegesis are closely interrelated in terms of authorship and basic methodology, this volume seeks to show the main dissimilarities between patristic (i.e., discursive) and liturgical (i.e., imagistic or intuitive) modes of biblical interpretation. The book aims to demonstrate the creativeness of “pre-critical” interpreters of the Bible, i.e., the Byzantine hymnographers. The volume’s introduction sums up the most important moments in the emergence of Byzantine Orthodox Holy Week, as well as the current structure of this liturgical cycle, with an emphasis on Byzantine hymnography. Part I of the book is a collection of lexical-biblical-theological analyses of selected Holy Week hymns spread over six days (and six chapters). The Holy Week hymnography was chosen as a case study for the rich and vast Byzantine hymnography. The analyses show different ways the Byzantine liturgists (i.e., hymnographers) incorporated and interpreted scriptural material, primarily Old Testament, in their hymns. Part II deals with liturgical exegesis and its key features and hermeneutical procedures. It also seeks to underline the differences between patristic biblical commentaries and Byzantine hymns, while advancing an analogy between liturgical exegesis and cubist art.

“Jonah’s gourd” and its early Byzantine interpretations

Many modern scholars consider the Old Testament book of Jonah being written in a boldly parodic manner. The narrative engages many details that sound humorous for a modern reader. However, from the standpoint of late Antique and early Medieval patristic exegesis, it is often unclear whether Byzantine interpreters perceived such passages laughable or at least inappropriate for a prophetic writing. This study presents a few examples of early Byzantine commentaries to the episode with Jonah and a gourd (Jonah 4:6–11). None of the commentaries expresses any explicit amusement caused by the discussed text. However, the style, method, or context of each commentary appears to be passing the traditional bounds of Bible interpretation. The earlier interpreters adhere to the most expected moral reading of Jonah 4, but they use epithets, metaphors, or omissions, which produce the effect of paradox comparable to the biblical wording itself. The later commentaries tend to involve unexpected and even provocative senses. In such interpretations, God can be thought of as being able to play with a human or even to fool and deceive. What seems us humorous in the Bible, Byzantine commentators take primarily as a paradox, which they did not explain or remove but elaborate further paradoxically. The later an interpreter is, the bolder his paradoxical approach appears. The results of the study provide some clues to understanding how the interpretation of humorous, parodic, or ironical passages were developing in the history of Byzantine intellectual culture.

Hermeneutic Applications from the Patristic Exegetes

This paper examines modern hermeneutic approaches and how patristic exegetes can complement interpretative methods. Modern hermeneutics apply different procedures depending on the genre. Kannengiesser’s Handbook of Patristic Exegesis is used to summarize patristic views by specific book and genre, while Russell’s Playing with Fire, Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard’s Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, and Kaiser and Silva’s, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics frame the range of modern hermeneutic approaches. Perspectives on spiritual formation are addressed per genre since it is important for biblical interrelation and application and was valued by patristic exegetes like Augustine. The paper shows how patristic exegetes focused on the spiritual and seeking the Bible’s deeper meaning. It demonstrates how Russell’s spiritual formation emphasis aligns with Augustine’s spiritual burning that transformed his life and how this emphasis aligns with the patristic exegetes’ desire to seek deeper spiritual meaning in scripture.

A Classification of a Liturgy’s Use of Scripture: A Proposal

The relationship between scripture and Christian liturgy is one that was discussed and assumed in much of the liturgical and ecumenical literature in the twentieth century. The majority of that work focused on the use of the Bible within liturgical rites in general and not within the text of specific liturgical rites. This article is a constructive proposal of a comprehensive taxonomy to describe all the possible ways that a liturgical text can appropriate scripture as a source. Such attention to the ways biblical texts and exegesis are reflected in euchological texts not only has the potential to provide clarity on how the early Christians related to the Bible in general and within their liturgical rites. It may also provide an additional source for answering questions about the dating and provenance of particular rites by identifying the overlap with strains of patristic exegesis, for which we possess significant evidence.

Patristic Exegesis: The Myth of the Alexandrian-Antiochene Schools of Interpretation

The notion that there existed a distinction between so-called “Alexandrian” and “Antiochene” exegesis in the ancient church has become a common assumption among theologians. The typical belief is that Alexandria promoted an allegorical reading of Scripture, whereas Antioch endorsed a literal approach. However, church historians have long since recognized that this distinction is neither wholly accurate nor helpful to understanding ancient Christian hermeneutics. Indeed, neither school of interpretation sanctioned the practice of just one exegetical method. Rather, both Alexandrian and Antiochene theologians were expedient hermeneuts, meaning they utilized whichever exegetical practice (allegory, typology, literal, historical) that would supply them with their desired theology or interpretive conclusion. The difference between Alexandria and Antioch was not exegetical; it was theological. In other words, it was their respective theological paradigms that dictated their exegetical practices, allowing them to utilize whichever hermeneutical method was most expedient for their theological purposes. Ultimately, neither Alexandrian nor Antiochene exegetes possessed a greater respect for the biblical text over the other, nor did they adhere to modern-day historical-grammatical hermeneutics as theologians would like to believe.