Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

FAITH AND THE HISTORICAL JESUS §3.2
tial of all was John Calvin's emphasis on the plain meaning of the text, with his
sequence of biblical commentaries providing classic examples of philologicalhistorical
interpretation. 17
In what was in effect the first really serious clash between faith (as traditionally
conceived) and history (as newly reconceived in Renaissance scholarship)
we thus see the first conscious attempt to formulate a hermeneutical principle
which reconciles the two. This in effect second principle and model for
scholarly interpretation of the NT to emerge in the modern period, therefore, was
a refinement of the first — the primacy of the plain meaning of the text n — always
bearing in mind that the 'plain meaning' may include allegory or symbolism
when the particular text is 'plainly' allegorical or symbolical. 19 A corollary
to this principle was the Reformation conviction regarding the perspicacity of the
NT, that is, the sufficiency of the NT to indicate its own interpretation when read
in accord with its plain meaning — Scripture as sui ipsius interpres (self-
Pickering, 1992) 179-84, who also points out that Luther preferred the term 'plain' (or 'natural')
meaning, though he did use the term 'literal' (184). In private correspondence (9.10.2000)
Thiselton observes: 'Although it is true that he [Luther] dismissed mediaeval allegorising, . . .
in his earlier work he was not above such "mediaeval allegorising" himself, and it was part of
his developmental process of insight that as his work progressed he came to realise increasingly
that such allegorising carried epistemological consequences which were unhelpful for a view of
revelation'.
17. 'Calvin is even less tolerant of allegorical interpretation than Luther' (Thiselton,
New Horizons 185). In the dedication of his commentary on Romans, Calvin explained his understanding
of the work of an interpreter. 'Since it is almost his only task to unfold the mind of
the writer whom he has undertaken to expound, he misses his mark, or at least strays outside his
limits, by the extent to which he leads his readers away from the meaning of his author' {Epistles
of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians [Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd,
1961] 1). 'Let us know, then, that the true meaning of Scripture is the natural and simple one,
and let us embrace and hold it resolutely. Let us not merely neglect as doubtful, but boldly set
aside as deadly corruptions, those pretended expositions which lead us away from the literal
sense' (The Epistles of Paul to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians [Edinburgh:
Oliver and Boyd, 1965] 85). But see also the careful study of K. E. Greene-McCreight,
Ad Litteram: How Augustine, Calvin, and Barth Read the "Plain Sense" of Genesis 1-3 (New
York: Lang, 1999) ch. 3.
18.1 have been using 'literal' in the still recognisable sense, 'Taking words in their usual
or primary sense and employing the ordinary rules of grammar, without mysticism or allegory
or metaphor' (COD). But since in today's usage 'literal' often has a slightly pejorative overtone
('merely literal', 'literalist'), it may help avoid some confusion if we stick with the term 'plain'
as a synonym.
19. This qualification, if that is what it is, was familiar from the early Patristic debates:
'The "literal" may include the use of metaphor or other figures of speech, if this is the meaning
which the purpose of the author and the linguistic context suggest' (Thiselton, New Horizons
173, citing John Chrysostom; also 183). With regard to Calvin see further Greene-McCreight,
Ad Litteram 96 and n. 8 (citing T. H. L. Parker), and the rest of that section (99-106).
22