Stephen Jones — Bibliologie

b1 — Creation’s Jubilee

Hermeneutiek: Hebreeuws vs. Alexandrijns-Grieks uitlegmodel

Citaat: “Far from discarding Scripture altogether, this only affected their interpretation of Scripture, or rather their method of interpretation, which shifted from spiritual to allegorical almost imperceptibly. In that day this shift was designed to win the Greeks by arguing Scripture on their own stage.” — Jones, Creation’s Jubilee, Hoofdstuk 1
Citaat: “In my view, we ought to discard the Greek need to allegorize everything, and get back to the thoughts, words, and intent of the Hebrew prophets, as interpreted by the New Testament writers, who were all Hebrews except for Luke.” — Jones, Creation’s Jubilee, Hoofdstuk 1
Citaat: “The Millennial teaching came out of Hebrew thought patterns, based upon the historicity of the Old Testament. For this reason, the Epistle of Barnabas was attacked later by those who preferred the Greek (Alexandrian) method of biblical interpretation.” — Jones, Creation’s Jubilee, Hoofdstuk 1
Interpretatie: Jones plaatst een scherp normatief onderscheid tussen de Hebreeuwse uitlegmethode (historisch gegrond, gevolgd door de nieuwtestamentische schrijvers) en de Alexandrijnse/Griekse allegoriserende methode. De Hebreeuwse methode wordt als de juiste standaard aangehouden.

Citaat: “Thus, we see that the spiritual-allegorical interpretation of Scripture, coming from Alexandria, was popularized by Origen. He often tortured the Old Testament to speak allegorically. The Alexandrian view had little use for history as viewed by the Hebrews.” — Jones, Creation’s Jubilee, Hoofdstuk 1
Citaat: “The most powerful adversary of millenarianism was Origen of Alexandria. In view of the Neo-Platonism on which his doctrines were founded and of his spiritual-allegorical method of explaining the Holy Scriptures, he could not side with the millenarians.” — Jones, Creation’s Jubilee, Hoofdstuk 1 (citaat uit Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. X, 1911, artikel “Millennium”)
Citaat: “Greek religion was based largely upon myths, which were stories that were allegories, rather than history. Thus, when trying to convert Greeks to Christianity, some teachers adapted the Greek allegorical mindset in order to make it more palatable to them.” — Jones, Creation’s Jubilee, Hoofdstuk 1
Interpretatie: Jones beschrijft de allegorische methode als historisch ingevoerd via Grieks-heidense cultuuroverdracht, niet als een Schriftuurlijk beginsel. Hij typeert Origenes’ gebruik van allegorie als geweld doen aan de Schrift (“tortured the Old Testament”).

Citaat: “The Hebrews used allegories and parables, but the truth of Scripture was rooted in history. Adam and Eve were real people. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were real, and their stories are not mere allegories. In fact, their stories are historical allegories. Their histories had prophetic meaning.” — Jones, Creation’s Jubilee, Hoofdstuk 1
Citaat: “The primary difference between the Greek and Hebrew views is that the Greeks saw no need for any of the biblical stories to be rooted in history, as long as the stories had an allegorical meaning. The Hebrew view saw all things rooted in history, but also saw that history has meaning and often sets patterns for future prophetic fulfillment.” — Jones, Creation’s Jubilee, Hoofdstuk 1
Citaat: “Abraham really did have two wives: Hagar and Sarah. They were allegories of the Old and New Covenants, as Paul says in Gal. 4:22-31, but they really did live as historical characters on earth.” — Jones, Creation’s Jubilee, Hoofdstuk 1
Interpretatie: Jones onderscheidt ‘historische allegorie’ (Hebreeuws model: geschiedenis is reëel én profetisch patroon) van ‘pure allegorie’ (Grieks model: verhalen hoeven niet historisch te zijn). Dit is zijn centrale hermeneutische categorie.

Citaat: “The types and shadows of Scripture seem to indicate that the Pentecostal Age was meant to last for about 40 Jubilee cycles, or 1960 years (49 x 40).” — Jones, Creation’s Jubilee, Hoofdstuk 1
Citaat: “It is ironic that the Roman Church repudiated Origen of Alexandria in the year 400 A.D. for his teachings on universal reconciliation, but they adopted his method of interpreting Scripture. This was how the teaching of the Sabbath Millennium was lost.” — Jones, Creation’s Jubilee, Hoofdstuk 1
Interpretatie: Jones past typologische interpretatie toe op de feestdagencyclus (Pinksterleeftijd, Loofhuttenfeest) en op tijdscycli. Het verwerpen van de typologische/Hebreeuwse methode ten gunste van de Alexandrijnse allegorie heeft zijns inziens specifieke theologische leerstellingen doen verdwijnen.

Citaat: “No doubt he had argued with the Sadducees many times over the issue of a literal, physical resurrection. Job 19:25, 26 says […] Daniel 12:2 says […] These verses shaped Hebrew-Pharisee doctrine, in which Paul was trained.” — Jones, Creation’s Jubilee, Hoofdstuk 1
Interpretatie: Jones verbindt letterlijke (lichamelijke) opstanding expliciet met de Hebreeuwse/Farizeeuwse traditie, als contrast met de Sadduceeën en de latere spiritueel-allegorische hermeneutiek.

Citaat: “I do not dispute Paul’s inspired writings, of course.” — Jones, Creation’s Jubilee, Hoofdstuk 12
Interpretatie: Jones erkent impliciet de geïnspireerdheid van de Paulinische brieven, maar behandelt inspiratieleer niet systematisch in de gescande hoofdstukken.