In light of the fact that extreme fundamentalists often distort the Biblical text beyond recognition, thus demonstrating that hermeneutics is a problem, I thought that I would point our readers to a post on my other blog.
I hope that we can add more posts related to hermeneutics in the future.
Advertisement
Erik
April 5, 2010
Interesting. Not sure I would agree, but a good effort nonetheless.
JasonS
April 5, 2010
In what way would you disagree?
Erik
April 5, 2010
I can see where the Gospel writers did not follow ‘literal interpretation’ in their use of the Hebrew Scriptures when speaking of Christ.
No matter how you slice it, Matthew’s quote of Isaiah 7 does not fit the original context. Ditto for his use of Micah 5 and Hosea 11.
It was only with hindsight that they applied their christo-centric perspective, and while I agree with them that these are indeed prophecies of Christ, I do not see how the original audience could have seen it.
JasonS
April 5, 2010
Erik,
I don’t know if I would call it literal either. At the same time, I am convinced that their usage of the OT texts was consistent with the understanding that the Jews had of the OT expectation of Christ. When Saul was converted, the first thing that he did was show that Jesus was the Christ using the OT. Did he suddenly have a new hermeneutic? Doubtfully. He simply had found the One person to whom it all pointed and recognized that he had done so.
I think that I demonstrated a pretty plausible explanation for Hos 11, though it is no doubt not the strongest you’ll ever read. Mic 5:2 was not Matthew’s understanding, but the understanding of the Jews in Jerusalem at the time of the birth of Christ, which actually supports my contention that the people had a Christological expectation that was pretty well developed and nuanced. It’s that understanding that the NT writers incorporated into their writings. They did not develop a new hermeneutic; they were mostly Jews who were simply putting the Scriptures to their rightful use. Jesus, Himself stated that the Scriptures pointed to Him (Jn 5:39) and expected the people to readily see that.
As far as Isa 7:14, I would think that Matthews’ use relates to the name “Emmanuel”. How it fits the rest of the context, I don’t know.
Sailhamer’s “Meaning of The Pentateuch” deals with much of the Christological focus, not only of the Pentateuch, but of the whole OT. It’s a worthwhile read.
Erik
April 5, 2010
The problem is that our christo-centric interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures may be retrodiction. We see it so prevalently precisely because we believe we should see it.
Retrodiction is when something we see something we know to be true in texts that predate the subject of knowledge. An extreme, written case might be the inclusion of the Johannine Comma – which more than likely was a marginal note. But it fit with the understanding of the triune God, so it was assumed it belonged and before too long, it was not even acknowledged that it might not belong.
By the same token, because we ARE Christian in the west, even if nominally so, means that we tend to see Jesus everywhere. Our cultural and epistemological matrix is one in which Jesus is present in all of Scripture. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I am saying that it is possible that we are so deep in our matrix that we cannot truly see the original matrix.
The Christian church did in fact introduce a new hermeneutic – a radically new one that involved not only a Messiah but a Messiah who 1) was crucified, 2) resurrected and 3) God himself. I am quite convinced that these concepts would have been completely foreign to the original audience of the Hebrew Scriptures prior to the return from the Exile. And the idea that Jesus was God took them quite awhile to sort out.
I see too many questions to be able to say that the original audience would have employed a definitively Christological hermeneutic when they received and studied the Hebrew Scriptures.
Erik
April 5, 2010
Second paragraph should begin: Retrodiction is when we see something we know to be true…
JasonS
April 6, 2010
If you read Sailhamer you will find that his point is that we should NOT read NT back into OT, but recognize the development of Christological expectation throughout the OT. As I said, you would do well to read the whole 600+ pages of his book. I have a feeling that you would find his argument convincing.
What I cannot understand is why you hold to this. You see, Jesus stated that the OT spoke of Him. He expected the people to recognize that. In Lk24 He upbraided those disciples for being fools because they did not recognize the OT texts that pointed to him. I’m left wondering what causes you to see it as you do. Jesus’ contention with the disciples seems to point to a relatively easily understood Christology in the OT. Help me understand why you are where you are on this issue.
Erik
April 6, 2010
Luke 24 is post resurrection, and it clearly demonstrates exactly the opposite of what you’re trying to say. The disciples, being children of their age were not able to interpret the Scriptures the way Jesus saw them. He has to interpret it for them. Particularly, Luke uses the word διερμηνεύω – ‘through-interpret’ or perhaps better ‘translate’ as it is used in Acts 9:36, and several times in 1 Corinthians in relationship to tongues. 9In fact, the very word we get hermeneutics from, ερμηνεύω is related to translation of languages more than it is to doctrinal interpretation.)
Don’t you think that is a pretty telling word usage? Clearly, he had to ‘translate’ things for them. In their context, they did not understand it until he translated it for them. In their world, the Messiah might have been hoped for (v 21) but the whole idea the way Jesus actually did it was completely foreign to them.
I arrive at the position I am at, which is not by any stretch of the imagination dogmatic, because there is enough reasonable doubt to not be dogmatic about the position you take. I’m not trying to disprove what you’re saying; I’m simply suggesting that it is not as cut and dry as we tend to make it.
Erik
April 6, 2010
I should also point out that my own view of the development of Hebrew Scriptures is probably very different from your own, so my take on the ways the TANACH was meant to be read is different. While not adhering to the JDP theory (which I find a very flawed idea), I do believe that there are editorial works and redactions throughout the Hebrew Scriptures and that older documents were often retrofitted. I have no problem with the same thing happening in the Gospels, which probably makes me a liberal but I’m ok with it. I believe inspiration is big enough to not be punctilinear.
JasonS
April 6, 2010
Erik,
Sailhamer, too, posits a redaction of the Pentateuch about the time of Ezra, but not the JDP type. The essence of his book is that the meaning of the Pentateuch is Christ.
Looking at LK 24, you must remember that my point is that Jesus rebuked them for not understanding the OT texts. Sure, He interpreted them, yet His expectation was that they should have known them already. I don’t think that negates my point.
Never the less, I respect your opinion. I know that you have studied much more than I, or at least much more widely than I.
I’d like to learn more about your idea of the Gospels sometime.
Erik
April 6, 2010
A little more insight into didactic retrodiction from my blog – http://pastorerik.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/a-new-word-didactic-retrodiction/
JasonS
April 6, 2010
You do know, of course, that it doesn’t apply in this situation
Good thoughts, Erik. I appreciate the dialogue.
JasonS
April 5, 2010
Erik,
Check out Bob’s post on Sailhamer.
http://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/2010/04/05/the-christological-shape-of-the-old-testament/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+fundyreformed+%28Fundamentally+Reformed%29&utm_content=Bloglines