Apostolic Exegesis

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stratiotes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Stratiotes

Guest
I have a friend who asked a question touching on the NT writers’ use of particular OT passages and it led me on a study of how the hermeneutic of the apostles differs from our own. I ran across a book by Richard Longenecker on the topic titled, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, ISBN 0802843018. Though produced by a traditionally-protestant publisher, it does look quite good. Has anyone else had similar questions and recommend some additional books on the topic?
 
I have not heard of the book, but it does sound like a very interesting topic! I have examined numerous OT citiations from the NT authors, as well as OT exegesis from the Apostolic Fathers, and it does show that Scripture was not meant to be interpreted only literally, which is in the same spirit of a traditional minded Catholic interpreter. As a matter of fact I see a similar approach found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and its use of Scripture passages.
 
Follow this link to an EWTN document library article by the Pontifical Biblical Commssion, with introduction by His Holiness Benedict XVI.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCJWSCR.HTM

You can download that article for study.

It covers the subject of this thread but only briefly.

The early Church accepted the Jewish scriptures as inspired. The apostolic exegesis was at least two pronged, as the article leads me to believe: 1) they looked at scripture in much the same way that the Jews did, but 2) they were also inspired by the exegesis that Jesus offered them – that the scriptures were pointing to Him.

And, Jesus was one who taught “with wisdom” that the scholars in the Temple had not known, teaching with “authority.” Now, I think a third prong of their exegesis was that they looked at things as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Now, this article also talks about Greek ideas influencing apostolic exegesis, specifically NT exegesis. There may have been other influences as well.
 
Fr. Jose Granados situates the paschal mystery in relation to the historical faith of Israel and in relation to the human experience of time and matter. In the resurrection the history of Jesus, which includes in itself the history of humanity, is totally subsumed in the current of love that unites Father and Son: “Easter inaugurates the time of Jesus’ promise, which holds days, years and centuries together.”

This essay touches upon Apostolic Exegesis, particularly how the early Church Fathers looked to Ezekiel’s parable of the dry bones that come back to life (Ezekiel 37:1-14) how it served without contradiction as an image both of the People that return to Jerusalem after the exile, and of the final resurrection of the dead.

The essay is here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/08/02/the-easter-faith-and-its-meaning-in-history/

I found myself thinking of it throughout the day and found a book review that seemed to answer even more questions about the nature of theological exegesis.

RR Reno introduced this syllogism:

The true Church of Christ teaches the gospel.
The Bible is the sacred and canonical witness to the gospel.
Therefore, the teachings of the Church accord with the teachings of the Bible.

That post is here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/08/03/the-teachings-of-the-church-the-teachings-of-the-bible/

dj
 
What got me into this subject is when a friend who had converted to Judaism started challenging me to look at “misquotes” of the apostles such as Matthew’s use of “virgin” when it does not appear in the Is. 7:14 passage he was “quoting.” And the common belief that it came from the Septuagint has problems as well since there is evidence that Is. had not yet been translated into the Septuagint in the 1st century. But the real problem is, I think, that it is applying a grammatical-historical criticism to a typological interpretation - I don’t think Matthew was proof-texting, I think he was making another form of typological comparison - reading into the text what the church was already teaching. It is a grammatical-historical no-no but if Matthew was not using the grammatical-historical method then it is an anachronistic criticism.

BTW. that is a great article in the EWTN archives.
 
There’s always this controversy about Is 7:14 and “young woman” vs “virgin.”

In the context of Is 7:14, what kind of “sign” would it have been for a “young woman” to have a baby? This is a good verse to discuss, no doubt. But, in the context of that verse, what is the “sign” that it is referring to? And, if that was a prophecy in Isaiah, then what else was it referring to? Why should we be satisfied that it simply refers to some baby of no account who was born in OT times? Maybe I’m wrong, but I’d like more than a shoot-from-the-hip snipe about “virgin.”
 
Regarding Isaiah 7:14, the Hebrew text translated to “young maiden”. This translates more accurately in Greek to “virgin” even though there was a Greek term for “young maiden”.

The problem is, the Jews considered a young maiden to be a virgin. With the Greek text, this is not implied, hence the need to use “virgin”.

At least that’s the best explanation that I’ve heard.
 
These kinds of debates tend to degenerate into proof-texting or quibbling over the emphasis each side places on particular words. I agree with your question about what kind of “sign” but I suspect going that route just buys into the terms of the usual tendencies that an over-reliance on grammatical-historical methods brings. To me, the obvious shortcoming of g-h is that it tends to reduce scripture to essentially the same as any other document - the same method could be (and is) used to interpret Shakespeare. But scripture is not simply an ancient document in the same class as any other document. G-h does not assume God is an active player in the story – quite the contrary. The typological approach, on the other hand, does provide a place for God as an active player in the story – indeed it assumes God is the active player. The two methods each have their strengths and weaknesses.

G-H is a handy tool but the problem is that if we treat it as the only or even the most important tool, it leads to debates over “most important verses” or “most important words in this verse.” And then it’s your subjective feelings against another person’s subjective feelings about a text. So I’m hoping to avoid it going to that direction by emphasizing we have to interpret Isaiah 7:14 with Matthew’s methods (as opposed to our own) in order to understand Matthew’s use of that text.
 
My reading for some time has dabbled into the area of Jewish commentaries. I read a library copy of Cohen’s Everyman’s Talmud which has something to say about the Jewish frame of mind at the time of Christ – if we accept what he says as non-revisionist.

Judaism cites the prophet Ezra as starting the modern era of Jewish scripture studies. Ezra is attributed with the idea that the guidelines for all aspects of life can be found in scripture. Hence, the Jews are “people of the book.” At the time of Christ, Judaism was about two hundred years into the formation of what was or was to be later called the Talmud (Study; Talmud Torah, Study of the Directions).

According to Cohen, the Talmud was eventually redacted, so that all subjects are discussed from a similar point of view and are discussed with one familiar voice. It’s not that the Talmud answered every question, but it teaches Jews how to approach questions, issues that it already covers and issues that it did not. So, tradition comes into play quite a lot, the Jewish tradition.

As much as it was and is every Jew’s obligation to study the Torah, it is interesting to see Jesus get involved in those discussions with the Pharisees, the Scribes, and the Saducees. Cohen describes the positions these groups took within Judaism. The Saducees were the strict interpreters, not wanting to extend or expand the scope of the Torah.

The Pharisees were the liberal interpreters – perhaps not an idea you’d have, reading the gospels. If I have this correctly, it’s like this. What God gave the Isrealites on the stone tablets at Sinai was the written Torah. Everything else you read in Exodus was the Oral Torah – Torah for sure – but the oral Torah, to be sure. So, the Talmud is the extension of the oral Torah.

In its broadest sense, the “Torah” includes the oral and written Torah, the talmud and other Jewish writings – the prophets and the writings that we call scripture – and everything that up to today defines Judaism.

So, me, lacking any formal introduction to all this, I see the apostles heading in a new direction but with this heritage under their belts. They were touched by the pathos of the Babylonian exile and the reture, the rebuilding of the Temple, etc. but with the realization of the fulfillment of the Torah in Christ.

I’d love to know if the experts think along these lines or not.
 
For anyone interested, I think the most vehement Jewish anti-Christian apologist I have found is Rabbi Singer at the Outreach Judaism website. I think his concern is that Jews leave their faith because they do not really understand it and they fall for Christian misquotes and twistings of the words of the OT. You can find a lot of his stuff easily enough - for instance, just google “rabbi singer isaiah 7:14” for several common responses from him on the topic. And he makes such claims as in one of his tracts:
“The stakes are high for Christendom, because if the Hebrew word alma does not mean virgin, Matthew is misquoting the prophet Isaiah, and both a key tenet of Christianity and the credibility of the first Gospel collapses.”

What intrigues me is that a lot of his “concerns” about the way the apostles interpreted scripture were things that aided my conversion from protestant to catholic. I think many protestant camps rely so heavily on the g-h method that they are ripe for the picking to this sort of apologetics approach. My friend, for instance, became disillusioned with the apostles because they so often “misquoted” scripture or practiced what he saw as eisegesis as opposed to exegesis. I think it is the elephant in the middle of the room for many Christian circles and they would rather not talk about it than try to understand or discuss it.

It is an interesting topic indeed. There are a couple of responses, I think, when you realize the apostles did not practice our hermeneutic:
  1. Conclude that they were mistaken in doing it and decide not to join them…perhaps just ignore it and hope nobody brings it up again
  2. Conclude that they were right to do it and so should we.
  3. Conclude that they were right to do it because, well, they’re apostles and whatever they did was right - but it would be wrong for us to follow their lead
There are variations on those responses but I think most fall into one of those categories. When I was a protestant, I think I tried to ignore it as in option 1. Now I’m leaning toward 2…though not to the exclusion of g-h entirely.
 
We have to read Christological stuff into the OT. Christ told us to do it, along the road to Emmaus; and He did it Himself in many places, before and after and during the Crucifixion.

I have to say that the Psalms are a lot richer if you read them as being prophecies of Christ and of Christ’s prayers for us, as Son of Man and Son of God. The early Church uniformly read them that way (while not excluding the other interpretations, but taking them all at once).
 
Just as a followup on this. Since I started the thread I’ve had a chance to read a couple of the books and links mentioned here as well as a few others. Some recommendations on all of it - and these I found through inter-library loan so they are easily obtained:
  1. The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Truth Behind the Mystique by Prof. Schiffman is outstanding. With particular relevance to this thread is the lecture on interpretation at Qumram. In addition, I’ve read a parts of Prof Schiffman’s books and they are quite good as well.
  2. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period by Prof. Longenecker turned out to be a treasure trove of information. Read it straight through on a short interlibrary loan and had to order it so I can read it again with time to make some notes.
  3. Letter and Spirit, Vol 5. from Prof. Hahn - Although not directly related, historiography affects interpretation greatly and this is a brilliant collection of essays/commentaries that touch on that subject.
  4. Ancient and Modern Scriptural Historiography G. J. Brooke editor. This one is pretty deep and I have it on a one week loan so I’m rather quickly skimming it. Some of it probably doesn’t pass as very orthodox but there is some good solid thought-provoking info in it still.
More on the to-read list. I’ll try to remember to come back and add as I remember.
 
Stratiotes said:
I have a friend who asked a question touching on the NT writers’ use of particular OT passages and it led me on a study of how the hermeneutic of the apostles differs from our own.
Click to expand...
This is the express purpose of sensusplenior.net/?page_id=2

I believe that the methods of sensus plenior replicate the methodology of the Apostles and Jesus. It too discovers four layers of meaning. The Quadriga speaks of four layers of application meanings, where sensus plenior speaks of four layers of source meaning.

I have been sharing results of it in other threads. So a search on sensus plenior in this forum will also produce many examples.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top