I haven't read Augustine on this, but from what I have picked up about the quadriga, it's a perfectly sane way of drawing out the basic categories of meaning in the text.
I don't see why he would, since it provides a helpful process for interpreting the Scriptures in away that harmonizes with Bnonn's points in this post.
Here's a hopeful video that Theopolis put out regarding medieval exegesis:
This was great, definitely made me think of the usefulness of the Quadriga. Peter Leithart has some good stuff on the Quadriga. When I preach, that is the hermeneutic I use.
Amen. 'Deep Exegesis' by Peter Leithart is an excellent, short book on this topic. It took the scales off my eyes after having the LGH method drilled into me for several years in seminary.
Lovely stuff. Thank you. How far is too far? Good question. For me, too far is when it essentially reverses or distorts the plain reading so that it feels like a secret code. There’s something in the perspicuity of scripture. There’s a point where typology can teeter over into opacity, but most of us are a long way from falling into that ditch. As long as you’re using scripture to interpret scripture, you’re probably fine. The other danger is that we marvel at the text and the stunning artistry for so long we forget to do what it says.
This is the elephant in the room that I didn't address in my post. Reading the text imaginatively gives us a "sacramental assassination"...so what? That's a question we need to answer.
It's odd, I have not found Deep Exegesis short. It starts well, but it gets bogged down in the weeds when he starts talking about Greek plays. I still haven't gotten around to finishing it.
Do you have any qualms with Augustine’s fourfold interpretive method? (Literal, allegorical, moral, anagogical)?
I haven't read Augustine on this, but from what I have picked up about the quadriga, it's a perfectly sane way of drawing out the basic categories of meaning in the text.
I don't see why he would, since it provides a helpful process for interpreting the Scriptures in away that harmonizes with Bnonn's points in this post.
Here's a hopeful video that Theopolis put out regarding medieval exegesis:
https://youtu.be/V6puW8aebrs?si=Hz2j5LUPp-saidc6
This was great, definitely made me think of the usefulness of the Quadriga. Peter Leithart has some good stuff on the Quadriga. When I preach, that is the hermeneutic I use.
Amen. 'Deep Exegesis' by Peter Leithart is an excellent, short book on this topic. It took the scales off my eyes after having the LGH method drilled into me for several years in seminary.
Lovely stuff. Thank you. How far is too far? Good question. For me, too far is when it essentially reverses or distorts the plain reading so that it feels like a secret code. There’s something in the perspicuity of scripture. There’s a point where typology can teeter over into opacity, but most of us are a long way from falling into that ditch. As long as you’re using scripture to interpret scripture, you’re probably fine. The other danger is that we marvel at the text and the stunning artistry for so long we forget to do what it says.
This is the elephant in the room that I didn't address in my post. Reading the text imaginatively gives us a "sacramental assassination"...so what? That's a question we need to answer.
It's odd, I have not found Deep Exegesis short. It starts well, but it gets bogged down in the weeds when he starts talking about Greek plays. I still haven't gotten around to finishing it.
That doesn't last long. Worth pushing through to the end in my opinion, as he continues to revisit John 9 with different perspectives.
Plus there James Jordan’s Through New Eyes.