SUGGESTION: "The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers" by Abner Chou

Page 1 of 1 (8 items)
This post has 7 Replies | 0 Followers

Posts 4960
David Paul | Forum Activity | Posted: Sun, Aug 30 2020 8:34 PM

Logos should add this title. Chou's other book is already in Logos.

Posts 4960
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Sep 8 2020 6:21 PM

Less than 100 pages in and I'm going to re-up my advocacy of this title. Shocked and disappointed this hasn't picked up any additional support here. It's pretty rare (probably because I read many Tanakh-focused scholars who are poisoned with slavish source/redaction & form criticism perspectives) that I read something within which I find constant points of agreement. There are a few points of significant disagreement, but those areas of divergence are essentially inevitable so I don't put too much stress on that. I'm just very glad to have a resource which I can use to buttress arguments I was expecting to have to make in isolation. I've gotten grief for saying the entire Bible is prophetic because the "language" YHWH uses to communicate His will is prophecy, and, as such, the Bible is written in the language of prophecy. Although he doesn't use my specific phraseology, Chou makes a profoundly strong case to support the idea that only a prophetic hermeneutic can rightly explain the (to some minds) "odd" and "irregular" ways the apostles and other NT writers apply the OT to explain what YHWH is doing through Yeishuua`.

FL...GET THIS BOOK.

Fwiw, the publisher is Kregel Academic.

Posts 11194
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Sep 8 2020 6:42 PM

David Paul:
Shocked and disappointed this hasn't picked up any additional support here.

No offense, and happy you like it.

My silence (but not as a lamb) is the overlay of 3,000 (4,000?) years later, of speculative description. Safer with 1,000-2000 year-old opinions (2nd Temple).

"God will save his fallen angels and their broken wings He'll mend."

Posts 4960
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Sep 9 2020 1:06 AM

Denise:
My silence (but not as a lamb) is the overlay of 3,000 (4,000?) years later, of speculative description. Safer with 1,000-2000 year-old opinions (2nd Temple).

The whole point of the book is establishing that the so-called "mistaken" interpretations of the OT via the NT (Hos. 11:1 per Mt. 2:15, for example) are not in fact erroneous exegesis inserted by disciples run amok, but are instead a well-founded and broadly-established hermeneutic formulations extracted and written into the text from themes found throughout TaNaKh. Chou isn't inventing anything; he's drawing attention to patterns deliberately found and developed by the human authors of Scripture, in many cases predating the Second Temple.

Posts 11194
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Sep 9 2020 6:01 AM

David Paul:
The whole point of the book is establishing that the so-called "mistaken" interpretations of the OT via the NT (Hos. 11:1 per Mt. 2:15, for example) are not in fact erroneous exegesis inserted by disciples run amok, but are instead a well-founded and broadly-established hermeneutic formulations extracted and written into the text from themes found throughout TaNaKh.

We're probably not disagreeing per se. As I've opined before, the NT is unnecessary, beyond being a convenience ... the early Christians seemed to do well without 'the 27', instead embracing the basic message. And early fathers (eg Clement) seemed to be unaware of a NT, and also contributed to the successful growth of a major church.  

So, maybe we're on parallel tracks, and Chou is discussing the convenience of the disciples pointing out the OT.

"God will save his fallen angels and their broken wings He'll mend."

Posts 3474
Milkman | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Sep 9 2020 6:30 AM

Looks good. I'd probably buy it.

mm.

David Paul:

Logos should add this title. Chou's other book is already in Logos.

mm.

Posts 4960
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Sep 10 2020 9:51 PM

Denise:
As I've opined before, the NT is unnecessary, beyond being a convenience

I missed this opiniation of yours, but chalk up another point of (near) agreement. Tanakh is unquestionably the more important of the two...if you could only take one with you into the future, "OT" wins out over NT every time--not even a contest. Those street preacher pocket NTs (even w/ Psalms) are effectively worthless--YHWH's will is not sufficiently and adequately explicated in them. Of course, we don't have to choose one over the other, and the NT provides helpful clarification, some profound fulfillments, and a healthy smattering of additional prophecies for consideration. I'd say needful but not superior.

The main divergence I have with Chou so far is that I think (in his attempt to correct the common scholarly "prophets were fixated on contemporary concerns" perspective) he gives too much wisdom (more than is textually necessary) to the prophets. YHWH, not the prophets (and not any imagined collective of redactors) is the Author of the entire Book, and His is an inherently synchronic perspective. The prophets may have been "world-class" exegetes and theologians with rearward- and forward-looking perspectives, which is Chou's argument, but that alone cannot and does not account for the fullness of their texts. Ultimately, YHWH penned the Book's prophetic intertextuality, with an inhuman non-historical scope that allows Revelation to requisitely inform and enlighten Genesis.

Were the prophets aware of the long game? Yes, unquestionably and with some insight. Did they see the whole playing field? No, not at all, and many contributors (Jeremiah, Daniel, and Mark come immediately to mind) explicitly said so. Jeremiah felt deceived by YHWH, Daniel declared himself to be just as confused after an angelic tutoring session as he had been at the start, and Mark incessantly paints the disciples as clueless dullards with little to no comprehension of what Yeishuua` was conveying to them. The actual Biblical "penmen" did not need to know nor understand what they were writing...the purpose and prophetic effectiveness was entirely YHWH's and did not rely on them. But, yes, the prophets (and Biblical writers generally) did comprehend much more than most OT scholars and many NT scholars give them credit for. I give Chou credit for steering the argument out of that ditch, even though he seems intent on going into the ditch (giving the penmen too much credit) on the other side of the road.

Posts 30
Shawn Roper | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Sep 11 2020 11:45 AM

David Paul:

Logos should add this title. Chou's other book is already in Logos.

Yes

Page 1 of 1 (8 items) | RSS