Menno Simons and martin luther’s interpretative approaches in the protestant hermeneutical horizon

У статті порівнюються герменевтичні стратегії радикального і магістерського напрямів Реформації. Автор виявляє особливості герменевтичних принципів і прийомів розуміння біблійного тексту, запропонованих Менно Симонсом, визнаним лідером анабаптистів, і порівнює їх із аналогічними принципами і прийомами, які практикувалися Лютером і іншими діячами класичної Реформації. Хоча представники радикальної реформації не створили цілісного богослов'я, герменевтика цього напряму досить важлива для розуміння феномену «протестантської герменевтики».

Інтерпретаційна система Менно Сімонса слабо висвітлена в сучасному історико-філософському й богословському дискурсах. Автор статті демонструє, що причиною цього є панування однобічних стереотипів: переважна більшість дослідників цієї області, говорячи про протестантську герменевтику, звужують і збіднюють цю область знання, зводячи її лише до лютерівсько-кальвінівської герменевтики.

У статті доведено, що Менно Симонс розвивав аплікативну стратегію інтерпретації, узяту ним з євангельських прикладів. Ця герменевтична система будувалася на теоцентричній ідеї особистого Одкровення й живого Присутності, а тому неминуче приводила до (1) принципу самоінтерпретовності біблійного тексту і (2) пошуку «ясного сенсу Письма», який міг бути мало схожим на початковий. Так сформувалася інтерпретаційна модель, заснована на (а) цілісному підході, (б) аплікативній герменевтиці, (в) корпоративній герменевтиці, (г) герменевтиці послуху. Таким чином, мова йде про самостійний підхід, що посідає важливе місце в загальній історії протестантської герменевтики. Сергій Санніков. Інтерпретативні підходи Менно Симонса і Мартина Лютера в горизонті протестантської герменевтики статті порівнюються герменевтичні стратегії радикального і магістерського напрямів Реформації. Автор виявляє особливості герменевтичних принципів і прийомів розуміння біблійного тексту, запропонованих Менно Симонсом, визнаним лідером анабаптистів, і порівнює їх із аналогічними принципами і прийомами, які практикувалися Лютером і іншими діячами класичної Реформації. Хоча представники радикальної реформації не створили цілісного богослов'я, герменевтика цього напряму досить важлива для розуміння феномену «протестантської герменевтики».

Інтерпретаційна система Менно Сімонса слабо висвітлена в сучасному історико-філософському й богословському дискурсах. Автор статті демонструє, що причиною цього є панування однобічних стереотипів: переважна більшість дослідників цієї області, говорячи про протестантську герменевтику, звужують і збіднюють цю область знання, зводячи її лише до лютерівсько-кальвінівської герменевтики.

У статті доведено, що Менно Симонс розвивав аплікативну стратегію інтерпретації, узяту ним з євангельських прикладів. Ця герменевтична система будувалася на теоцентричній ідеї особистого Одкровення й живого Присутності, а тому неминуче приводила до (1) принципу самоінтерпретовності біблійного тексту і (2) пошуку «ясного сенсу Письма», який міг бути мало схожим на початковий. Так сформувалася інтерпретаційна модель, заснована на (а) цілісному підході, (б) аплікативній герменевтиці, (в) корпоративній герменевтиці, (г) герменевтиці послуху. Таким чином, мова йде про самостійний підхід, що посідає важливе місце в загальній історії протестантської герменевтики.

Sergii Sannikov, PhD in Philosophy, Senior Research Fellow at The Center for the Study of Religions, National Pedagogical Dragomanov University, Ukraine.

Hermeneutically oriented teachings constitute some of the most promising subjects of historical and philosophical research. Those teachings allow one to depart from a one-dimensional understanding of the ontological hierarchy reflected in the subjective horizon; this is done by turning attention to the connection between three constituents: the object of knowledge; the cultural, social, psychological and other contexts of the knower; and the subjective perception of knowing. In this respect, interpretational systems of the radical Reformation and Menno Simons' interpretative approach in particular seem to be of special interest.

H.G. Gadamer demonstrated that the first steps taken by hermeneutics as an independent discipline, associated with Schleiermacher, were quite limited because they aimed at reconstructing the past. Gadamer wrote,

According to Schleiermacher, historical knowledge opens the possibility of replacing what is lost and reconstructing tradition, inasmuch as it restores the original occasion and circumstance... life. Reconstructing the original circumstances, like all restoration, is a futile undertaking in view of the historicity of our being. What is reconstructed, a life brought back from the lost past, is not the original [Gadamer 2004: 159].

Menno's hermeneutical model was characterized by innovation chiefly because he did not try to reproduce the past in which the biblical text was written, but considered the dialectical relationship between the past and the present. At the same time, this model considered the Bible as a whole unit. Gadamer, following Dilthey, saw it as a faulty, dogmatically based presupposition. Later on, as Gadamer points out, biblical criticism split the text as a whole into a collection of literary sources that

had to be subjected not only to grammatical but also to historical interpretation.... And since there is no longer any difference between interpreting sacred or secular writings, and since there is therefore only one hermeneutics this hermeneutics has ultimately not only the propaedeutic function of all historical research - as the art of the correct interpretation of literary sources - but involves the whole business of the historical research itself [Gadamer 2004: 177].

Speaking of understanding the text rather than discerning its meaning, Gadamer was thus turning a biblical hermeneutics into a philosophical one, yet in doing so he assumed Luther's hermeneutics (to the exclusion of all others), calling it “Protestant.” At the same time, the example of a radical hermeneutics shows that understanding of the text can be seen not as a logical act, but rather as a mode of human existence. This way, the concept of the interpreter's obedience, i.e., his/her experience of the Christian life, is introduced into hermeneutics.

Reformation hermeneutics, just as the phenomenon of the Reformation itself, has recently become an object of serious study; yet in academic circles, Reformation hermeneutics is often seen as mostly Lutheran (and only sometimes as Lutheran and Calvinist), which results in simplifying and even oversimplifying the diversity and wholeness of the philosophical and theological thought of the 16^th century. The methods and principles of interpretation used by radical reformers are hardly ever discussed in the works of the Eastern European authors who study the history of hermeneutics. For example, in A. Bogachev's monograph, Experience and Sense [Bogachev 2011], an excellent historical overview of interpretative systems is given. A relatively large amount (about 25 pages) of that overview deals with Protestant hermeneutics, but it is discussed only from the point of view of the classical Lutheran approach to the biblical text. A similar approach to the history of hermeneutics in the 16^th to 18^th centuries is used in the articles by A. Bogachov: “The modern rationalistic hermeneutics. Towards the origins of semiotics and criticism,” Sen- tentiae, no. 2 (2011): 27-41; “The Beginning of the Modern Hermeneutics,” Doxa, no. 2 (2015): 134-45. A similar perspective is presented in Z. Lanovik's doctoral thesis on biblical hermeneutics [Lanovik 2006a] and in her articles on the same theme [Lanovik 2006b]. Likewise, lack of attention to Anabaptist hermeneutics is characteristic for the works of Russia's leading scholar in this area, A. Arapov, who defended a doctoral dissertation on The Hermeneutics of the Sacred Text. In one of his articles [Arapov 2005], he gives a thorough review of biblical hermeneutics, but the Reformation period is represented only by Lutheran and Calvinist hermeneutics. All this contributes to shaping a one-sided and somewhat limited (in terms of content) view of the historical-philosophical and theological discourse in the studies of the hermeneutical systems of the 16^th and 17^th centuries.

In the academic circles of Western Europe much more attention is given to the hermeneutics of the radicals, especially in comparison with its classical Lutheran/Calvinist counterpart. This subject is discussed in some monographs and dissertations. For example, in the three-volume work A History of Biblical Interpretation by Hauser [Hauser 2009], there is a large section analyzing the hermeneutical systems of both magisterial and radical reformers. Oyer compares these two hermeneutical approaches [Oyer 1964], although he does it from a confessional, Lutheran perspective. One should also mention the Ph.D. dissertations by Shelton [Shelton 1974] and Torrance [Torrance 1997], and the works of Packull [Packull 1996]. At the same time, such academic publications as A Companion to the Reformation World, edited by R. Po-chia Hsia [Goertz 2004], and The Cambridge Companion to Reformation Theology [Bagchi 2004] describe only the historical events and the general theological views of the Reformers, whereas the characteristic features of their hermeneutical programs are only briefly mentioned. This leads to simplified representations of Protestant hermeneutics, something this article seeks to address.

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the philosophical and theological differences between the two almost opposite interpretative systems used in the radical and magisterial branches of the 16^th-century Reformation. Those two systems can be treated as nearly the exact opposites of each other. Doing comparative studies between those systems, we can see not only the differences but also the strengths and weaknesses of each. This result can be achieved, in particular, by comparing the hermeneutical system of one of the leaders of the Anabaptist movement, Menno Simons (1496-1561), with that of the leading thinker of the Magisterial Reformation, Martin Luther (1483-1546).

The academic novelty of this article consists of the comparison and critical analysis of the respective influence the Lutheran-Calvinist and the Anabaptist approaches had on the interpretation of Scripture. Their interpretative strategies and methods have not been studied until now, resulting in less than complete descriptions of the Reformation era. A similar attempt to widen and specify the philosophical and theological thought of the Enlightenment period (that followed the Reformation) can be found in the works of S. G. Sekundant. He argues that reducing the critical German philosophy to Kantianism is an oversimplification that does not do justice to the complexity of the subject. The excessive emphasis on Kant typical for Reinhold, Fichte, and others who popularized Kant's thought resulted in neglecting the philosophy of Leibnitz, Wolff, and others. Such an approach to the history of intellectual development is unbalanced. In his study of Leibnitz's basic epistemology, Sekundant gives a more inclusive description of that period - something modern scholars can benefit from. He writes,

Without a detailed analysis of Leibnitz' epistemological ideas and discerning their critical foundations, it is, in our opinion, impossible to give definite answers to the question about who was right in the debate on the correspondence between logic (theory of knowledge) and metaphysics in Leibnitz' work and to the question about to what extent Kantian critique of Leibnitz' philosophy was justified [Sekundant, 2013: 33].

Studying Anabaptist hermeneutics also deepens our understanding of the Protestant Reformation and contributes to a deeper and multidimensional understanding of Protestant hermeneutics, which is important from the historical and philosophical points of view.

Core Assumptions

The radical Reformation The term “radical Reformation” has become well-established in contemporary research. A. McGrath [McGrath 2008] uses it to describe this religious group. G. H. Williams [Williams 2000] explains why this term is to be preferred. has a unique place among the reformist movements. Not only was it always persecuted and despised in the Catholic regions, but it also was labeled as heretical and rejected by the magisterial reformist churches. The radicals were executed and tortured by the “enlightened” reformers just as much as by the implacable Catholics. It is well known that Luther called the radicals “Schwдrmer” (“fanatic enthusiasts”) [Oyer 1964] and regarded them as sectarian heretics. Perhaps reacting to this attitude some of the members of contemporary so-called “free evangelical churches,” while being heirs of the ideas of the radical Reformation, deny their involvement in the Reformation movement [Prokhorov 2004]. Yet it was the adherents of the radical tradition (expressed in various evangelical movements) who played a decisive role in forming many fundamental democratic principles - above all the concepts of the freedom of conscience and religious tolerance. Also, they offered some original approaches to understanding biblical texts, approaches considerably different from the traditional ones. H. Bender in his classical work The Anabaptist Vision wrote,

There can be no question but that the great principles of freedom of conscience, separation of church and state, and voluntarism in religion, so basic in American Protestantism and so essential to democracy, ultimately are derived from the Anabaptists of the Reformation period, who for the first time clearly enunciated them and challenged the Christian world to follow them in practice [Bender 1944: 4].

The radical Reformation represents a broad movement that originated in the context of the general radicalization of European society in the 15^th and 16^th centuries. A. McGrath showed that such movements and figures as humanism, anticlericalism, popular pamphlet authors, peasant revolts, the monastic reform movement, Devotio Moderna, the pre-Reformation reformers (J. Wycliffe, J. Hus, G. Savonarola) and others created fertile soil for the reformers' ideas and agenda [McGrath 2008]. From the beginning of the Reformation, the mainstream of this movement consisted of the churches of the magisterial direction (Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism, etc.), yet the “left,” radical branches within the Reformation were also very active, although extremely heterogeneous. Among them, one can single out the mystical wing, fascinated by prophecies, millennialism, and revolutionary transformation (T. Muntzer, the Zwickau prophets, the Mьnster community of 1536), and the opposite, rationalist wing that followed literalist exegesis and anticipated the historical-critical method in hermeneutics (M. Servetus, F. Sozzini). But historically, the most stable was the group of biblical Anabaptists (The Swiss Brethren) and their followers, Mennonites, as well as later evangelicals.

Menno Simons, after whom one of the largest and most influential centrist groups of the radical Reformation is named, was not a pioneer in the hermeneutical field of that movement. Neither was he a founder of that kind of Anabaptism that began in Zurich in 1525. He was a Catholic priest in the small village of Pingjum and later in Witmarsum in Friesland. He joined the Anabaptists after the Mьnster tragedy of 1536. His main contribution was in gathering the scattered Anabaptist groups and beginning their institutionalization. He organized them as churches with some hierarchy, discipline, and, what is especially important for our study, with a relatively stable theological foundation shaped by a certain hermeneutical system of understanding the Bible. He did not personally form Anabaptist theology, but as he heard it from the adherents of such views in the communities of “the brethren” (as they called themselves), he interpolated it onto his understanding of the Bible and then returned it to the congregations in the form of books and other written texts. In his “Reply to a Publication of Gellius Faber,” Menno describes his conversion:

Afterwards it happened, before I had ever heard of the existence of brethren, that a Godfearing, pious hero named Sicke Snijder was beheaded at Leeuwarden for being rebaptized. It sounded very strange to me to hear of a second baptism. I examined the Scriptures diligently and pondered them earnestly, but could find no report of infant baptism. After I had noticed this I discussed it with my pastor and after much talk he had to admit that there was no basis for infant baptism in Scripture. Still I dared not trust my own understanding but consulted several ancient authors. They taught me that children are by baptism cleansed from their original sin. I compared this idea with the Scriptures and found that it did violence to the blood of Christ [Simons 1956: 669].

In this narrative the upward movement along the hermeneutical spiral is represented in a clear and most unequivocal way: Menno, having some prior understanding (based on the Catholic tradition and his reading of the Bible), was introduced to the Anabaptist interpretation of the Bible. He also read books written by the recognized leaders of the Reformation. Thus, critically evaluating this heritage and comparing it with the biblical standard, he wrote his works, which later were published and circulated among the radicals, correcting and affirming their congregational understanding of Scripture.

The radicals' hermeneutics, compared with the interpretative system of the classical reformers, was characterized by several important factors.

First, the leaders of the Magisterial Reformation were much better educated and more sophisticated culturally. Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Oecolampadius, Melanchthon, and others were highly educated humanists, experts in ancient languages. Their reformist views were developed in the academic environment under the influence of scholasticism, which they critically evaluated. The Anabaptist theologians did not have any serious education and relied on peasant common sense and conventional wisdom. Menno Simons was just a priest from a rural area; another leading theologian, Dirk Philips, was a simple Franciscan monk; Melchior Hoffman was a furrier. Naturally, they did not follow the scholastic analysis and could not develop a critical approach to the biblical text the way the magisterial reformers did. Instead of that, they began to form their own, in many ways unique, direction. It was built without the humanistic tools that were so popular among the classical reformers (Luther, Bucer, Zwingli). The radical hermeneutical system was born in the congregations, not within university walls, and that makes the researchers consider the Scripture-interpreting practices of the 1^st and 2^nd century Christians and the very process of creating the biblical text that appeared in the communities of faith as a written expression of the apostolic tradition. The biblical canon, formed within the church, must certainly be interpreted in the church, not in the university; that is how the radicals understood hermeneutics.

Secondly, their hermeneutics was not limited by the political interests of the powerful elites. Free from state control, it was different from the political hermeneutics interpreting the New Testament from the standpoint of Christ's victory and his dominance in society, which implied the power of the church. Unlike the Anabaptist approach, the hermeneutics of the classical reformers was in many ways dependent on societal structures. They understood the church as inseparably connected with the state (and de facto merged with society). A good example is Zwingli's decision to make the city council of Zurich the highest authority in the dispute about the mass (October 1523). His radical followers (Conrad Grebel and Simon Stumpf) considered it a betrayal of the Reformation cause and a political compromise.

Indeed, the reformers always had to take into account their patrons' interests, and that was bound to cause some influence, perhaps subconsciously, on their hermeneutics. It is especially clearly seen in their debates on infant baptism and in the interpretation of all texts related to that matter. Rejection of infant baptism unavoidably led to the idea of the church as a committed minority rather than to Christianizing the whole society. The reformers, no doubt driven by political ambitions, concluded that creating a New Testament church of true Christians was impractical. A much more practical approach was to bring the whole society into the church and influence society with the Word of God. Such a missionary paradigm was gladly supported by city authorities, who through the church gained spiritual and ideological control over all of society. Hence they agreed with the reformers, who in turn received their political support.

The radicals insisted that the church is a community of saints separated from the world. Their ecclesiological principle was separatism - escape from the sin-stricken society and from the state as an institution that used violence against the individual. While the classical reformers had to interpret Scripture in such a way as to keep the society stable and support the existing order of the government, the radicals read Scripture in a free, sometimes revolutionary way - without a need for diplomacy and fear of losing government support. The Anabaptists, no doubt, went to the opposite extreme, developing the hermeneutics of suffering and practicing sectarian isolation, which became the other hermeneutical horizon defining their understanding of the Scriptures.

Thirdly, one needs to remember that the principles of interpreting Scripture characteristic for the radicals in the periods of the emergence and development of the movement in the 16^th century did not exist as a set of formulas. Contemporary scholars reconstruct radical hermeneutics using the confessions of faith, court testimonies of arrested Anabaptists, and a limited number of written sources. The reason had to do not only with the lack of educated and influential leaders in this movement but also with some disdain for education and learning as an attempt to regain the early Christians' simplicity. It is this fundamental theological intention that was a defining characteristic of the radicals' interpretative system. The ideal of Christianity for them was not in the future, but in the past, and that is definitely a major weakness of this movement.

Lack of a consolidated hermeneutical system also had to do with the lack of coherence within the radical Reformation. It was mostly heterogeneous and did not have a holistic theology. It has always been fragmentary. Different groups, including even those that were cared for by Menno Simons, had different theological views. It might seem that in such a situation one cannot even speak about the hermeneutics of the radical Reformation in the same sense one speaks about the theology of the Reformed or Lutheran churches: their theology is defined so precisely that it practically excludes any development per se. A heterogeneous and incomplete hermeneutical system of the radicals creates considerable difficulties for researchers but also leads to remarkable opportunities for hearing new, unexpected, in many cases highly original interpretations, discovering new hermeneutical horizons. Such an open dynamic system, reluctant to accept fixed confessional formulas, has considerable potential for development and enrichment. Yet, in spite of such variety, Anabaptist hermeneutics does have a discernible framework of orthodoxy accepted by all the groups. In other words, there is an area of indisputable theological doctrines and of universally accepted biblical understanding in all Anabaptist groups that makes it possible to speak of Anabaptist hermeneutics as a system of views.

Studies in Anabaptist hermeneutics began to develop rapidly in the latter half of the 20^th century. A widely recognized authority in this area is Dr. Stuart Murray, Director of the Centre for Anabaptist Studies (Bristol Baptist College and Chair of the Anabaptist Network in the U.K.). In his works [Murray 2000; 2009; 2015] he gives the following description of Anabaptist principles:

1. The Bible as self-interpretive (it explains itself).

2. Christ-centricity (Christ as the center of the biblical narrative).

3. The New T estament interprets the Old T estament.

4. Pneumatology (only the Holy Spirit may interpret the letter of the Scripture).

5. Congregational or community-based hermeneutics (extraction of correct meaning is possible only in corrective interaction with the community).

6. The hermeneutics of obedience (the true sense of Scripture may be understood only in obedience to it).

Another very influential researcher of the Anabaptist tradition, H. Bender, in his major study The Anabaptist Vision [Bender 1944] singles out three basic principles characterizing the Anabaptist views:

1. Christianity as discipleship. That is, a true understanding of the Bible is to be confirmed by the godly life of the interpreter. Bender writes,

The Anabaptists could not understand a Christianity which made regeneration, holiness, and love primarily a matter of intellect, of doctrinal belief, or of subjective “experience,” rather than one of the transformation of life. They demanded an outward expression of the inner experience. Repentance must be “evidenced” by newness of behavior. “In evidence”' is the keynote which rings through the testimonies and challenges of the early Swiss Brethren when they are called to give an account of themselves [Bender 1944: 20].

2. Church as a brotherhood. A literal understanding of biblical instructions led the adherents of this movement to the idea of separation from society (the German word “Absonderung” means something similar to “segregation”), to the concept of “suffering church,” and to the demands for true sacrificial brotherly love among the members of the community.

3. Love and nonresistance. This principle was understood as the rejection of all kinds of violence. It was inferred from the priority of the New Testament narrative over the Old Testament one and from the understanding of Christ and his commandments as the decisive focus in interpreting the whole Bible.

Luther's hermeneutical system was based on other principles; it stemmed, first of all, from the historical-grammatical analysis and historical context and it sought to avoid, when possible, allegorizing and all kinds of “spiritual” interpretation. Larry Shelton in his dissertation on this subject gives the following description of Luther's hermeneutics:

His procedure is first of all to gain an understanding of the general “scope” (scopus) of the text. He attempts to determine what the writer generally wishes to communicate. In this process he deals with history and geography as they relate to and illuminate the text and the relationship of God to man. Secondly, he attempts to elucidate the grammatico-philological meaning of a particular passage. In doing so, he conscientiously seeks the exact meaning of the words and warns against construing meanings to fit one's own theological presuppositions. Thirdly, he searches for the primary thought contained in the text, and attempts to reproduce in his own soul the religious atmosphere and experience of the writer [Shelton 1974: 218].

Menno's hermeneutics compared to Luther's

If we compare the way Menno Simons commented upon and understood the biblical text with Luther and even with other Anabaptist leaders, such as Melchior Hoffman's reflections on the sacral text, we find that Simons' interpretation includes basic Anabaptist principles on the one hand, but on the other hand enhances them, filling them with a new meaning.

Christ-centeredness and typology. This feature is noticed by nearly all researchers since Christ-centered interpretation is evident in all the works by Simons. Klassen remarks: “Every book and pamphlet that Menno Simons wrote began with his motto `For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ' (1 Cor. 3:11). He saw Christ to be the focal point of all biblical revelation” [Klassen 1973: 38].

In this particular respect, Simons was not very different from Luther and other reformers. As A. Arapov points out,

Christ-centeredness of Luther's hermeneutics is its characteristic feature, which makes it different both from Erasmus' hermeneutics and from the scholastic hermeneutics. Every passage of the Holy Scripture points to Christ. Luther affirmed that the primary purpose of the Scripture is transmitting revelation about Christ. He expressed this idea in the formula: “Christus Regnum Scriptura” - “Christ is the King of the Scripture” [Arapov 2013: 17].

For Menno, the whole Scripture is read through the Christ-centered lens. He asks rhetorical questions: “Does not the whole Scripture direct us to Christ? Are we not baptized in His name that we should hear His voice, and be obedient to His Word? Do you not boast to be the apostolic church?” [Simons 1956: 127]. Arguing with Micron, Simons points out: “I will read the Scriptures of the New Testament to you which testify that the whole Christ Jesus inside and out, from head to foot, visible and invisible, is God's only-begotten and first- begotten true Son” [Simons 1956: 857].

Menno's Christ-centeredness, however, did not only mean that the whole Bible speaks about Christ. He also insisted that Christ was the most faithful interpreter of the whole Scripture; thus one should listen only to him and in all things imitate him alone. The classical reformers paid little attention to this aspect of Christ-centeredness. Menno writes,

Tell me, dear friends, what do you do with the revealed and infallible Word and testimony of the Almighty Father, which He Himself has testified of His Son, and said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him? Matt. 17:5. Get this, Hear ye him! But you reject His Spirit, Word, and example, and follow and listen to those who with their spirit, doctrine, and conduct are from the bottomless pit, yes, patent antichrists and false prophets [Simons 1956: 216].

That is, one should not only see Christ in Scripture but also listen to him and him alone rather than Moses or any other teachers. For Menno and his followers it meant that in order to understand the Scriptures one should use not the historical-critical method, but rather an interpretive methodology that Christ demonstrated as he applied it to the Old Testament. For this reason, in Anabaptist practice typological, and often even allegorical, methods of interpretation were used: Christ and his works were being found in the most unexpected plots. The motivation was provided by the hermeneutical example of Jesus and the apostles - as the Anabaptists understood it.

For example, Christ pointed out that the three days and three nights Jonah spent in the belly of the whale are a prophetic indication of his death, burial, and resurrection (Mt. 12:40). One can hardly come to this conclusion studying the Book of Jonah with the classical hermeneutical methods. John in his Gospel quotes the words of the prophet Isaiah (Jn. 12:40) and interprets them: “Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him” (Jn. 12:41, ESV). None of the rabbinical scholars (and not even Isaiah himself) could have interpreted the prophetic text of Isaiah 6:9-10 in such a way that it would point to Christ and his glory. One could be confident that none of the commentators in the Reformed tradition using the scholarly-critical method would have given such an interpretation to the Old Testament text if John had not pointed it out.

Unlike Luther, who despised the allegorical method of interpretation, Simons was quite free in dealing with the Old Testament images; he did not consider their context and sometimes even their literal meaning. For example, he writes,

The whole earth perished in the waters of the flood, because the sons of God looked upon the daughters of men that they were fair, and took to themselves wives of all which they chose, and also because they would not be reproved by the Spirit of God, for every imagination and thought of their hearts was evil continually [Simons 1956: 113].

From the historical-critical perspective, in the text Simons refers to (Gen. 6:2-3) nothing is said about God's Spirit confronting the people living before the Flood; neither are the marriages between sons of God and the daughters of men mentioned as the reason for the Flood. But for Menno, the correct exegesis is not so important as the spiritual edification and the didactic conclusion. This is why he goes on to say, “Reflect upon the lusts with which the marriages of the world at the present time are begun, yes, how men blaspheming and grieving the Holy Ghost are become like unto the horse and mule; how they all walk in the sinful way, the end of which is hell, eternal damnation, and death” [Simons 1956: 114]. He takes this kind of liberty in handling another Old Testament text: “Precious in the sight of the Lord, David says, is the death of His saints. It is Jesus of Nazareth whom ye persecute and not us. Therefore awake, desist, fear God and His Word” [Simons 1956:118]. The words of Psalm 116 (116:15) that he ascribes to David (although the author of the psalm is unknown) are, in Menno's opinion, addressed to the noble lords and princes who persecuted the Anabaptists. There is an analogy for it: Christ applied to his contemporaries, Sadducees, words that were addressed once to a totally different person in a completely different context: “And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: `I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but of the living” (Mt. 22:31-32, ESV; italics added). Of course, Jesus knew that this text from the Book of Exodus was directed personally to Moses, not to his interlocutors, but he believed that typological redirecting was possible and he emphasized: “what was said to you.” Simons often did the same.

Menno's Christ-centeredness was also reflected in the fact that the words of Christ and his example to him were much more important than all the other biblical passages. It is this understanding of Christ-centeredness that serves as a basis for the demand to imitate Christ in pacifism and not to use violent methods for resisting evil. Luther's Christ-centeredness has to do only with salvation - salvation through faith alone - but not with the practical life.

On relatively rare occasions Menno uses examples and illustrations from daily life. For example, explaining the dual (divine and human) nature of Christ, he uses a comparison with a King - Charles V:

Charles V is a son of Austria; he is also a son of Spain; not that he is, therefore, one son out of two sons but he is an only and undivided son. On the side of the father he is a son of Austria, and on the side of the mother he is a son of Spain. Thus, also, is Christ Jesus a Son of God and a son of man; the Son of God on the side of His Father, and the son of man on the side of His mother. Not one son out of two sons but an only and undivided Son, the Son of God and of Mary, as has been shown [Simons 1956: 808].

From the theological point of view, this is a questionable analogy that underlines a role- based relationship in the Trinity rather than a hypostatical, perichoresis-based relationship of the Persons of the Trinity, but it does demonstrate Menno's approach. He used the allegorical method much more rarely, although he did give an allegorical interpretation to the Song of Solomon: he interpreted the bride as an image of the church of Christ. In other words, Menno Simons does not accept the historical-critical approach to the interpretation of the biblical text, but he always easily combines a literal (sometimes even literalist) reading of the Bible with the typological (sometimes even allegorical) method.

This Christ-centered emphasis led the Anabaptists to give radical preference to the New Testament; they believed it had a higher priority than the Old. In a collection of articles commemorating the 400^th anniversary of Menno Simons' death, Mast points out that Menno quoted the New Testament three and a half times more often than the Old; and 40 percent of the New Testament quotes are from the Gospels [Mast 1962: 37].

The Christ-centeredness of the reformers' hermeneutics was formally defined by the words of Christ, “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me” (Jn. 5:39, KJV), and by the apostolic practice of the Old Testament interpretation shown in the New Testament texts. Yet, from the general methodological point of view, it is clear that Menno and other reformers had a prior understanding of how the Bible was to be interpreted - they had something that can be called “prejudice” in the positive sense of the word. In Menno's case, such prior understanding is based, above all, on existential revelation rather than culture or some broader tradition, i.e., not on prior understanding (such as the prior tradition or general worldview). Of course, a general prior understanding played a certain role in Menno's thinking, but his Christ-centeredness was based primarily on his conversion to radical Christianity. He writes about it in his reflections on Psalm 25: Thus did I, miserable sinner, spend my days and did not, O God of grace, acknowledge Thee as my God, Creator, and Redeemer, till Thy Holy Spirit taught me through Thy Word and made known to me Thy will, and led somewhat into Thy mysteries [Simons 1956: 77].

It is hard to evaluate the veracity of such testimony from a purely academic point of view, but this experience resulted in a qualitative change in Menno's hermeneutical horizon.

One should point out another very important reason for the Christ-centeredness of the Anabaptist hermeneutics - something largely ignored by many researchers. It was formed in opposition to the Mьnster movement of Melchior Hoffman, John of Leiden, Jan Matthys, and other mystics: they made the prophetic and apocalyptic parts of the Bible the center of their teaching and used some Old Testament practices, which was detrimental to the reputation of the entire Anabaptist movement. While for the mystics who were building the Kingdom of God on earth by the power of the sword, the central guiding idea was that of a millennium, as it was combined with personal revelations, biblical Anabaptists had to find another foundation in order to separate themselves from the mystics and emphasize that they had nothing to do with the chiliastic revolutionaries. This foundation was provided by such interconnected elements as their Christ-centeredness, by rejecting violence, and by peacekeeping. Pacifism was a hallmark of that movement; it was through the prism of pacifism that Menno and his followers read the entire biblical text. For them, God was above all the God of peace, and in Jesus Christ he gave the message of non-violence to his followers.

Self-interpretive nature of the Bible and eisegesis. As nearly all scholars acknowledge, the idea that the Bible interprets itself (Scriptura Sui Ipsius Interpres) is typical for all reformers. But Simons understood the self-interpretive nature of the Bible in a way different from Luther, for whom this idea meant the supreme authority of Scripture. According to well-known Lutheran theologian G. Forde, the Bible is above the authority of the reader because it is the justifying, saving, and redeeming Word - Sui Ipsius Interpres. Forde sees it as simply a hermeneutical factor correlating with justification through faith alone [Forde 2004: 72]. For Luther, the claim that the Bible interprets itself means that the authority of the Bible is higher than that of the interpreter. For Simons, this concept has an entirely different meaning, and we believe it is important to demonstrate that difference. Menno believed that an obscure biblical passage is to be interpreted by a clearer one.

This understanding stems from the radicals' view of the clarity and accessibility of Scripture. With childlike naпvetй and simplicity, the radicals believed that the Author of Holy Scripture intends to reveal himself to people and to show them the way of salvation and the Kingdom of Heaven. From this belief it followed that he would give everything he wanted to give in the most accessible and multifaceted way, the guiding principle being, to use a modern term, “redundancy of information,” so that different people living in different times and cultures might not lose their way to Heaven. If one agrees with the radicals that the Bible, as a written record of the apostolic tradition, is the most precise and sufficient revelation of God, then indeed the idea that Scripture is clear and self-interpreting logically follows. Menno writes about infant baptism, Is there one under heaven who can attest by divine truth that Jesus Christ, Son of the Almighty God, the Eternal Wisdom and Truth, whom alone we acknowledge as the Lawgiver and Teacher of the New Testament, has in a single letter commanded that children should be baptized, or that His holy apostles taught it or practiced it? If so, there is no further need to force us with tyranny and punishment. Only show us the Word of God, and the matter is settled [Simons 1956: 129].

For Simons, the biblical text itself contains both specific instruction and the ultimate proof of its truthfulness. In the 16^th century, the idea of the clarity and sufficiency of Scripture was liberating for many thousands of simple believers. It gave inspiration and powerful motivation for the personal study of Scripture, yet it is precisely at this point that the radicals had serious disagreements with the Lutherans and Calvinists.

Murray notes that the Anabaptists disagreed with the classical reformers, who insisted that uneducated people could not interpret Scripture. The Anabaptists believed that scholarly learning brought more damage than help: it obscured the Scripture rather than elucidating it. Also, they were correct in pointing out that the doctrinal emphasis narrows the scope of the study of the Bible and excludes fresh revelations [Murray 2000: 42-50]. Yet the radicals themselves held their own, although different, doctrinal assumptions - perhaps without realizing their influence on the interpretation of the biblical text. This allowed the classical reformers to bring their accusations: the radicals, having no education, simply do not see the interpretative difficulties that are impossible to resolve without sufficient knowledge of linguistics, ancient languages, history of culture, etc. What the radicals call “clear meaning of the Scripture” may turn out to have very little in common with what the authors of the biblical texts intended or implied. For Luther's hermeneutics, the main task was to search for the original meaning of Scripture. Therefore, as Bogachev emphasizes, in the Magisterial Reformation, philosophical and philological hermeneutics were combined: Misunder standing was viewed as the loss of the original meaning, and hermeneutical reconstruction of this meaning was required” [Bogachev 2006: 50].

The radicals, however, had very different assumptions. If it is recognized that the Divine Author provided the meaning of the sacred text in order to influence the reader and not just to describe some ideas or events, then from it follows that the meaning of the text itself expects the reader to be more actively involved, to extract from the text certain lessons and instructions for his or her time and culture, as was demonstrated by the hermeneutics of Christ. In other words, if it is understood that the text was created not as descriptive, but as didactic and prescriptive, then the reader is to become, in some sense, a co-creator of the contextual understanding. From the radicals' point of view, the Divine Author originally gave the abundance of meaning, which is to be realized as the text is appropriated in the reader's existential horizon. It bears pointing out here that sacred texts are always read in a biased kind of way. Both faithful followers of these narratives and their ardent adversaries have always brought into the texts their expectations and prior understanding. In doing so, they also create a new, not always correct meaning, which has a negative role in understanding the text.

From this point of view, it is quite easy to explain why certain ideas of Simons, for example, “separation” in family life, were brought into his interpretation of the biblical text and came from his existential experience rather than from the holistic reading of the Bible.

Such an approach is often called eisegetical: a certain meaning, not necessarily corresponding to the original, is brought into the text. This is different from the exegetical approach that seeks to extract the original meaning from the text. Eisegesis is usually criticized, especially by Protestant theologians, who take it as an axiom that the only true meaning is that communicated to the original addressee. But as A. Desnitzky explains, “exegesis asks the question, `What does this text really mean?' and eisegesis asks, `What can we think about in relation to this text?' Eisegesis is not only superficial interpretation (although that happens often), but any rethinking of the text” [Desnitzky 2011: 23].

The pneumatological perspective in interpreting Scripture led Menno and other radical Anabaptists to adopt an approach that was eisegetical rather than exegetical. This practice is based on the understanding that the Holy Spirit not only inspired and led the authors who wrote down the biblical text, but the same Spirit as a living Person participates in the process of explaining and assimilating the text. Menno wrote about it, “It is that wisdom which is not to be brought from afar nor taught in colleges. It must be given from above and be learned through the Holy Ghost” [Simons 1956: 107]. He also said, “Faith accepts this Gospel through the Holy Ghost” [Simons 1956: 115]. It is the work of the Holy Spirit that makes the Scripture clear and self-interpreting for faithful followers of Christ.

The classic reformers could agree that the Bible is clear and self-interpreting in doctrinal matters, but not on the issues of ethics, church structure, etc. Besides, they introduced two levels of understanding the Scripture: the external level accessible to any reader and the internal, spiritual that is attained through illumination by the Holy Spirit. Such division opened the way for biblical criticism that treated the Bible as a regular literary work and applied to it all the scholarly methods. The divine, spiritual constituency was separated from the text itself, relegated to a different dimension, to the experience of faith. In that case, the pneumatological aspect of hermeneutics, although allowed, was treated as an expression of fideism rather than an aspect of the scholarly method.

The holistic canonical approach. One of the most remarkable features of Menno's hermeneutics is his canonical approach, which he considered the most effective tool for the correct understanding of the Bible, and failure to use such an approach was, in his opinion, the main reason for all kinds of heresies and errors. This aspect of Anabaptist hermeneutics is often left underappreciated in contemporary studies. Menno writes about the ancient traditions and the teaching of the Fathers: “Test it first and examine it well in the light of the Word, Spirit, life, and example of Christ and His holy apostles, to see if it is not the true content, intention, doctrine, and sense of the whole Scriptures” [Simons 1956: 404; italics added].

“Whole Scriptures” - Menno repeats this phrase very often; it belongs to the core of his theological position. That position is holistic: he tries to bring together what at first may seem like two very different hermeneutical horizons. He joins the horizon of the literal understanding of the Scripture (Word) with that of the spiritual interpretation (Spirit) and tests it by the example of Christ and the apostles. The result, in his opinion, has to conform to the meaning of the whole Scripture, not just a part of it. One can agree with Aaron Schubert's conclusion [Schubert 2017]: the Anabaptists read the biblical text through the dichotomy of literal and spiritual interpretation, and unity was reached through Christ-centeredness and church-centeredness.

Menno's holism was seen not only in merging Scripture with life (which made him different from the classical reformers), but also in the attention given to the entire canon of Scripture. The term “whole Scripture” is used throughout the works of Menno: “Read and search the whole Scriptures, the true doctrine and testimony of the holy prophets, evangelists, and apostles, and you will discover most clearly that this godly repentance is to be earnestly received and practiced, and that without it no one can receive grace, enter into the kingdom of heaven, nor have any hope forever” [Simons 1956: 112]. He makes similar comments about nearly every doctrine. So what does Menno mean when he says “whole Scriptures”? He means above all that interpretation of every part of the text has to be done in the context of the whole, and none of its parts must contradict any other, but only supplement each other.